content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
The original result by Schoenberg \cite{Schoen} says that the Schur exponentials
$({\rm e} ^{t a_{ij}})_{ij}$, $t \in {\mathbb R} _+$, of a complex $n \times n$-matrix $A = (a_{ij})_{ij}$
are positive semi-definite iff $A$ is conditionally positive
semi-definite, i.e. iff
$A ^* = A$ and
$$
\sum_{i, j = 1} ^n \bar z _i \, z_j \, a_{i j} \geq 0
$$
for all complex numbers
$z_1 , \ldots , z_n $ with
$z_1 + \ldots + z_n = 0$.
There are many other examples of Schoenberg correspondence between
conditional positivity and positive semigroups.
An other elementary example is the correspondence between semigroups $P_t =
{\rm e} ^{tQ}$
of stochastic matrices and their generator $Q$-matrix which has to have
non-negative
off-diagonal entries and row sums equal to 0.
\par
If $X_t : \Omega \to G$, $t \in {\mathbb R} _+$, is a L\'evy process on a
topological group $G$
(that is a $G$-valued stochastic processes with independent
stationary increments) then the distributions $\mu _t$ of $X_t$ form a
convolution semigroup
of probability measures on $G$, i.e.
$
\mu _s \star \mu _t = \mu _{s + t}
$
where the convolution product is defined by
$
(\mu _1 \star \mu _2 ) (f)
= \int _G \int _G f (xy) \mu _1 ({\rm d} x ) \mu _2 ({\rm d} y )
$
for probability measures $\mu$, $\nu$ and bounded continuous functions $f$ on
$G$.
If $\mu _t$ is weakly continuous, one can define the generator of the
convolution
semigroup on an appropriate $*$-algebra of functions on $G$.
This leads to the L\'evy-Khintchine formula in the case of $G = {\mathbb R} ^d$, or,
more generally,
to Hunt's formula if $G$ is a Lie group.
Again the generator $\psi$ is conditionally positve,
in the sense that $\psi$ is hermitian and $\psi (f) \geq 0$ for functions
$f \geq 0$ vanishing at the unit element of $G$; see \cite{Hunt,vW2}.
In the case when $G$ is a locally compact abelian group or a compact group, one
can choose as space of functions on $G$ the $*$-algebra formed by the
coefficient
functions of continuous irreducible representations of $G$.
This coefficient algebra ${\cal B}$ is a Hopf $*$-algebra, and convolution semigroups of
states on $G$ are precisely
given by the conditionally positive linear functionals on the coefficient algebra
where conditionally
positive now means hermitian and
$$
\psi (f) \geq 0 \ \mbox{for} \ f \geq 0 , f \in {\rm kern}\, \delta .
$$
The functional $\delta$ is the counit of the coefficient algebra ${\cal B}$ and convolution of linear functionals
$\phi _1$ and $\phi _2$ on ${\cal B}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{conv1}
\phi _1 \star \phi _2 = (\phi _1 \otimes \phi _2 ) \circ \Delta ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta$ is the comultiplication of ${\cal B}$.
\par
We describe the mechanism of constructing L\'evy processes.
Starting from a conditionally positive linear functional $\psi$ on ${\cal B}$,
we obtain a convolution semigroup $\phi _t$ of linear functionals on ${\cal B}$ as the convolution exponentials
${\rm e} _{\star} ^{t \psi}$ of $\psi$.
Now it is important that Schoenberg correspondence holds which means
that $\phi _t$ are positive so that the convolution semigroup consists of states which again are in
1-1-correspondence to probability measures on $G$.
The convolution semigroup defines a projective system of finite-dimensional distributions which
by Kolmogorov's theorem allows to construct a L\'evy process on $G$ whose convolution semigroup
is given by $\phi _t$.
This establishes, up to stochastic equivalence of stochastic processes,
a 1-1-correspondence between conditionally positive linear functionals
on the coefficient algebra of $G$ and L\'evy processes on $G$.
\par
The Hopf $*$-algebras arising from locally compact abelian or compact groups
are algebras of functions and as such are commutative.
If one generalizes to arbitrary Hopf $*$-algebras (for instance, compact quantum groups),
a notion of noncommutative (quantum) L\'evy processes has been introduced; see \cite{MSchue93}.
These quantum L\'evy processes are again given by conditionally
positive linear functionals, now on the Hopf $*$-algebra ${\cal B}$ where conditionally positive now means hermitian and
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi (b ^* b ) \geq 0 \ \mbox{for} \ b \in {\rm kern}\, \delta .
\end{eqnarray}
The increments of quantum L\'evy processes on Hopf $*$-algebras are independent in the sense of {\it noncommutative tensor independence} where
two sub-algebras are called tensor independent if they commute and if expectations factorize.
\par
The tensor product of linear functionals is closely related to the classical notion of stochastic independence.
Two random variables $X_1 : \Omega \to G_1$, $X_2 : \Omega \to G_2$ are independent if their joint distribution is the tensor product of the marginal distributions that is if
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{indep1}
{\mathbb P} _{(X_1 , X_2 )} = {\mathbb P} _ {X_1} \otimes {\mathbb P} _{X_2} .
\end{eqnarray}
Identify the underlying probability measure ${\mathbb P}$ with its expectation
${\mathbb E} (F) = \int F {\rm d} P$, $F \in {\rm L} ^{\infty}(\Omega )$,
which is a positive normalized linear functional on the $*$-algebra ${\rm L} ^{\infty} (\Omega )$.
If we think of ${\mathbb P} _{X_1}$ and ${\mathbb P} _{X_2}$ as their expectations ${\mathbb E} _{X_1}$ and ${\mathbb E} _{X_2}$ on the $*$-algebras
${\rm L} ^{\infty} (G_1 )$ and
${\rm L} ^{\infty} (G_2 )$ of
bounded measurable functions on $G_1$ and on $G_2$ respectively, and of the joint distribution as the expectation
${\mathbb E} _{(X_1, X_2 )}$ on the tensor product
$
{\rm L} ^{\infty} (G_1 \times G_2 ) = {\rm L} ^{\infty} (G_1 ) \otimes {\rm L} ^{\infty} (G_2 )
$
then (\ref{indep1}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{indep2}
{\mathbb E} _{(X_1, X_2 )} = {\mathbb E} _{X_1} \otimes {\mathbb E} _{X_2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Define the $*$-algebra homomorphisms $j_1 : {\rm L} ^{\infty} (G_1 ) \to {\rm L} ^{\infty}(\Omega ) $ and
$ {\rm L} ^ {\infty}(G_2 ) \to {\rm L} ^{\infty}(\Omega ) $ by $j_1 (f_1 ) = f_1 \circ X_1$
and $j_2 (f_2 ) = f_2 \circ X_2$ and introduce the $*$-algebra homomorphism
$$
j_1 \otimes j_2 : {\rm L} ^{\infty} (G_1 ) \otimes {\rm L} ^{\infty} (G_2 ) \to {\rm L} ^{\infty} (\Omega )
$$
by
$$
(j_1 \otimes j_2 ) (f_1 \otimes f_2 ) = j_1 (f_1 )\, j_2 (f_2 ) .
$$
Then ${\mathbb E} \circ (j_1 \otimes j_2 )$ is the joint distribution of $X_1$
and $X_2$, and (\ref{indep2}) reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{indep3}
{\mathbb E} \circ (j_1 \otimes j_2 ) = ({\mathbb E} \circ j_1 ) \otimes ({\mathbb E} \circ j_2 )
\end{eqnarray}
\par
It is remarkable that in a noncommutative world there is more than one
possibility for a notion of independence.
One of these notions, called tensor independence, as was pointed out above is closely related to classical independence and is the noncommutative independence chosen for L\'evy processes on Hopf $*$-algebras.
In his papers on the broadening of spectral lines \cite{vW1} W. von Waldenfels used another notion of independence, in
some respect the most simple, which now is called {\it Boolean} independence, because Boolean lattices appear when moments are calculated from their cumulants.
\par
A central role is played by {\it free} independence or {\it freeness} which was introduced
by D. Voiculescu \cite{Voi1}.
N. Muraki showed that under certain natural axioms there are exactly five notions of noncommutative independence (\cite{MurN02,MurN03}, see also \cite{Spe,BGhSc02}), namely tensor, Boolean, free and monotonic and anti-monotonic independence.
\par
The joint distribution of two classical random variables lives on the tensor product which is the commutative algebra
\lq freely\rq \ generated by the algebras ${\rm L} ^{\infty} (G_1 )$ and ${\rm L} ^{\infty} (G_2 )$.
In the noncommutative case the tensor product of algebras has to be replaced by the free product of algebras.
The classification result of Muraki classifies the \lq natural\rq \ products of linear functionals which assign to each pair of algebras $({\cal B} _1 , {\cal B} _2 )$ and linear functionals $(\phi _1 , \phi _2 )$, $\phi _1 : {\cal B} _1 \to {\mathbb C}$,
$\phi _2 : {\cal B} _2 \to {\mathbb C}$ a linear functional $\phi _1 \bullet \phi _2 : {\cal B} _1 \sqcup {\cal B} _2 \to {\mathbb C}$.
The product $\bullet$ replaces the tensor product of (\ref{indep2}) of the classical case.
If we understand by a noncommutative (quantum) probability space a $*$-algebra ${\cal A}$ equipped with a state
${\mathbb E} : {\cal A} \to {\mathbb C}$ and by a quantum random variable on a $*$-algebra ${\cal B}$ over a
quantum probability space $({\cal A} , {\mathbb E} )$ a homomorphism $j: {\cal B} \to {\cal A}$ of $*$-algebras, two random variables
$j_1 : {\cal B} _1 \to {\cal A}$ and $j_2 : {\cal B} _2 \to {\cal A}$ are called independent
(with respect to an independence given by a Muraki natural product $\bullet$) if
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{indep4}
{\mathbb E} \circ (j_1 \sqcup j_2 ) = ({\mathbb E} \circ j_1 ) \bullet ({\mathbb E} \circ j_ 2)
\end{eqnarray}
which precisely is the noncommutative version of (\ref{indep3}).
\par
In this paper, general quantum L\'evy processes are considered, the independence of increments coming from one of the five notions of independence of Muraki's classification.
To treat the general independence case, Hopf $*$-algebras have to be replaced by their
\lq free\rq \ counterparts where tensor products of algebras are replaced by free products of algebras.
Such objects appeared already in work of D. Voiculescu \cite{Voi87} and had been called \lq dual groups\rq .
We will call \lq dual semigroup\rq \ a $*$-algebra ${\cal B}$ equipped with a comultiplication $\Delta$ which is
a $*$-algebra homomorphism from ${\cal B}$ to the free product ${\cal B} \sqcup {\cal B}$ of ${\cal B}$ with itself such that
coassociativity and the counit property hold.
If there is also an antipode we will speak of (algebraic) dual groups.
\par
Suppose that $({\cal B}, \Delta )$ is a dual semigroup.
In addition let there be given a (fixed) natural product $\bullet$ with its associated
notion of noncommutative independence; see \cite{MurN03,BGhSc02}.
We define the convolution product of two linear functionals
$\phi _1$, $\phi _2$ on ${\cal B}$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{conv2}
\phi _1 \star \phi _2 = (\phi _1 \bullet \phi _2 ) \circ \Delta
\end{equation}
in complete analogy to the tensor case (\ref{conv1}).
Quantum L\'evy processes on the dual semigroup ${\cal B}$ are again determined by convolution semigroups
of states on ${\cal B}$.
Convolution exponentials ${\rm e} _{\star} ^{ \psi }$ of linear functionals $\psi$ on ${\cal B}$ can be defined as before (see Section \ref{sec:schoen}).
Schoenberg correspondence (Theorem \ref{theorem}) says that the (point-wise) continuous convolution semigroups
$\phi _t$ of states on ${\cal B}$ are precisely given by $\phi _t = {\rm e} _{\star} ^{t \psi}$ with
$\psi$ the (point-wise) derivative of $\phi _t$ and $\psi$ conditionally positive.
\par
In Section \ref{sec:levy} we start from a conditionally positive linear functional $\psi$ on
a dual semigroup ${\cal B}$.
Using Schoenberg correspondence, we associate with it a convolution semigroup of states on ${\cal B}$.
By an inductive limit procedure we then construct a quantum L\'evy process on ${\cal B}$ with
convolution semigroup given by $\phi _t = {\rm e} _{\star} ^{t \psi}$.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:pre}
Algebras will be over the complex numbers and will assumed to be associative.
A $*$-algebra is an algebra ${\cal A}$ with an involution $*$, i.e. an anti-linear map
$a \mapsto a ^{*}$ on ${\cal A}$ such that $(ab) ^{*} = b ^* a ^*$ and $(a ^* )^* = a$.
A unital algebra is an algebra such that there exists an element ${\bf 1 }$ (called the unit element) in ${\cal A}$ with
$a \, {\bf 1 } = a = {\bf 1 } \, a$.
A (counital) coalgebra is a triplet $({\cal C} , \Delta , \delta )$ consisting of a (complex) vector space
${\cal C}$ and linear mappings $\Delta : {\cal C} \to {\cal C} \otimes {\cal C}$ and $\delta : {\cal C} \to {\mathbb C}$ such that
$(\Delta \otimes {\rm id}) \circ \Delta = ({\rm id} \otimes \Delta ) \circ \Delta$ and
$(\delta \otimes {\rm id} ) \circ \Delta = {\rm id} = ({\rm id} \otimes \delta ) \circ \Delta$
where for vector spaces ${\cal V}$ and ${\cal W}$ we write ${\cal V} \otimes {\cal W}$ for the vector space tensor product.
Either ${\cal C}$ is the trivial vector space or there exists an element $e \in {\cal C}$ with
$\delta e = 1$. In the latter case ${\cal C} = {\mathbb C} e \oplus {\cal C}_0$ with ${\cal C} _0 = {\rm kern}\, \delta$, and for
$c \in {\cal C}$, $c _0 = c - \delta (c) e$, we have
$\Delta c - (\delta (c) e \otimes e + e \otimes c _0 + c _0 \otimes e ) \in {\cal C} _0 \otimes {\cal C} _0$.
In particular, $\Delta e = e \otimes e + B$, $B \in {\cal C} _0 \otimes {\cal C} _0$, and $\Delta c = e \otimes c + c \otimes e + B$, $B \in {\cal C} _0 \otimes {\cal C} _0$, for $c \in {\cal C} _0$.
\par
A bialgebra is a coalgebra $(\widetilde{\SB} , \widetilde{\GD} , \delta )$ where $\widetilde{\SB}$
is a unital algebra such that $\widetilde{\GD}$, $\delta$ are algebra homomorphisms.
If we put ${\cal B} = {\rm kern}\, \delta$, then
$\widetilde{\GD} {\cal B} \subset {\cal B} \oplus {\cal B} \oplus ({\cal B} \otimes {\cal B} ) = : {\cal B} \otimes _0 {\cal B}$, and the pair $({\cal B} , \Delta )$, $\Delta = \widetilde{\GD} \lceil {\cal B} : {\cal B} \to {\cal B} \otimes _0 {\cal B}$ consists of an algebra ${\cal B}$ and a \lq comultiplication\rq \ $\Delta$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{coass0}
(\Delta \otimes _0 {\rm id} ) \circ \Delta = ({\rm id} \otimes _0 \Delta ) \circ \Delta
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{counit0}
(0 \otimes _0 {\rm id} ) \circ \Delta = {\rm id} = ({\rm id} \otimes _0 0 ) \circ \Delta .
\end{equation}
This shows that a bialgebra equivalently can be defined to be a pair $({\cal B} , \Delta )$ consisting of an algebra ${\cal B}$ and an algebra homomorphism $\Delta : {\cal B} \to {\cal B} \otimes _0 {\cal B}$ such that \eqref{coass0} and \eqref{counit0} hold.
\par
For an index set $I \neq \emptyset$, we put
$$
{\mathbb A} (I) =
\{ (\ge _1 , \ldots , \ge _n) \mit n \in {\mathbb N}, \ge _l \in I, l = 1, \ldots , n, \ge _l \neq \ge _{l + 1},
l = 1, \ldots , n - 1 \} .
$$
For a family $({\cal A} _i ) _{i \in I}$ of algebras and $\ge = (\ge _1 , \ldots , \ge _n ) \in {\mathbb A} (I)$ we denote by
${\cal A} _{\ge}$ the algebraic tensor product
${\cal A} _{\ge} = {\cal A} _{\ge _1} \otimes \ldots \otimes {\cal A} _{\ge _n}$ of the algebras
${\cal A} _{\ge _1}, \ldots , {\cal A} _{\ge _n}$.
Define the free product $\bigsqcup _{i \in I} {\cal A} _i$ of the family $({\cal A} _i ) _{i \in I}$
as the vector space direct sum
$$
\bigsqcup _{i \in I} {\cal A} _i = \bigoplus _{\ge \in {\mathbb A} (I)} {\cal A} _{\ge}
$$
with multiplication given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& (a_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes a_n ) \, (b_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes b_m ) \\
&& \qquad = \left\{ \begin{array}{lll}
a_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes a_n \otimes b_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes b_m & \mbox{if} & \ge _n \neq \gamma _m \\
a_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes a_{n - 1} \otimes (a_n b_1 ) \otimes b_2 \otimes \ldots \otimes b_m & \mbox{if} & \ge _n = \gamma _m
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray*}
for $n, m \in {\mathbb N}$, $\ge = (\ge _1 , \ldots , \ge _n ) \in {\mathbb A} (I)$,
$\gg = (\gamma _1 , \ldots , \gamma _m ) \in {\mathbb A} (I)$ and
$a_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes a_n \in {\cal A} _{\ge}$, $b_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes b_m \in {\cal A} _{\gamma}$.
For example, if $I = \{ 1, 2 \}$
$$
{\cal A} _1 \sqcup {\cal A} _2 = {\cal A} _1 \oplus {\cal A} _2 \oplus ({\cal A} _1 \otimes {\cal A} _2) \oplus ({\cal A} _2 \otimes {\cal A} _1) \oplus \ldots
$$
The free product is the co-product in the category of algebras, i.e.
given two algebra homomorphisms $j_1 : {\cal B} _1 \to {\cal A} $ and $j_2 : {\cal B} _2 \to {\cal A}$ with the same target ${\cal A}$, there is a unique algebra homomorphism $j_1 \sqcup j_2 : {\cal B} _1 \sqcup {\cal B} _2 \to {\cal A} $ such that
$j_{1/2} = (j_1 \sqcup j_2 ) \circ i_{1/2}$
where $i_1$, $i_2$ denote the natural embeddings of ${\cal B} _1$, ${\cal B} _2$ into ${\cal B} _1 \sqcup {\cal B} _2$.
We frequently write $j_1 \amalg j_2$ for $(i_1 \circ j_1 ) \sqcup (i_2 \circ j_2 ) : {\cal B} _1 \sqcup {\cal B} _2 \to {\cal A} _1 \sqcup {\cal A} _2$ for algebra homomorphisms $j_{1/2} : {\cal B} _{1/2} \to {\cal A} _{1/2}$.
The free product ${\cal A} _1 \sqcup _{{\bf 1 }} {\cal A} _2$ of unital algebras ${\cal A}_1 , {\cal A} _2$ is obtained from ${\cal A} _1 \sqcup {\cal A} _2$ by dividing by the ideal generated by ${\bf 1 } _{{\cal A} _1} - {\bf 1 } _{{\cal A} _2}$.
Then $\sqcup _{{\bf 1 }}$ is the co-product in the category of unital algebras.
\par
We follow \cite{Fra06} and define (stochastic) independence in the language of category theory.
Let $(\mbox{\bf C} , \square , i )$ be a {\it tensor category with injections}, i.e. $(\mbox{\bf C} , \square )$ is a tensor category such that for each pair $ C_1, C_2 $ of objects there exists a pair $i_{C_1} , i_{C_2}$ of morphisms $i_{C_1} : C_1 \to C_1 \square C_2$, $i_{C_2} : C_2 \to C_1 \square C_2$, such that for any pair $j_1 : C_1 \to D_1 $, $j_2 : C_2 \to D_2$ of morphisms we have
\begin{align*}
(j_1 \square j_2 ) \circ i _{C_1} &= i_{D_1} \circ j_1 , \\
(j_1 \square j_2 ) \circ i _{C_2} &= i_{D_2} \circ j_2 .
\end{align*}
Then two morphisms $j_1 : C_1 \to C$, $j_2 : C_2 \to C$ with the same target are called {\it independent} if there exists a morphism $j: C_1 \square C_2 \to C$ such that $j_1 = j \circ i _{C_1}$ and $j_2 = j \circ i_{C_2}$.
For example, consider the category formed by \lq dual probability spaces\rq \ that is by pairs $(C , \phi )$ with $C$ a commutative von-Neumann algebra and $\phi$ a normal state on $C$.
This is a tensor category with injections if we choose the von-Neumann algebra tensor product with the tensor product of states and the natural injections. The morphisms from $(C, \phi )$ to $(D , \theta )$ are the von-Neumann algebra homomorphisms $j$ with $\phi = j \circ \theta$, that is they are precisely the random variables.
Two random variables are stochastically independent in the classical sense iff they are independent in the above sense of categories with injections.
\par
Since we will stay in an algebraic framework, we consider tensor products in the category formed by pairs $({\cal B} , \phi )$ where ${\cal B}$ is an algebra and $\phi : {\cal B} \to {\mathbb C}$ is a linear functional on ${\cal B}$.
There is a type of tensor product with injections in this category given by
\[
({\cal B} _1 , \phi _1 ) \square ({\cal B} _2 , \phi _2 ) =
({\cal B} _1 \sqcup {\cal B} _2 , \phi _1 \odot \phi _2 )
\]
where $\phi _1 \odot \phi _2$ is a linear functional on the free product ${\cal B} _1 \sqcup {\cal B} _2$ of algebras such that the product $\odot$ satisfies the axioms
\begin{gather*}
(\phi _1 \odot \phi _2 ) \circ i _{1/2 } = \phi _{1/2} \tag{A1}\label{A1}
\\
(\phi _1 \odot \phi _2 ) \odot \phi _3 = \phi _1 \odot (\phi _2 \odot \phi _3 ) \tag{A2}\label{A2}
\\
(\phi _1 \circ j_1 ) \odot (\phi _2 \circ j_2 ) =
(\phi _1 \odot \phi _2 )\circ (j_1 \amalg j_2 ) \tag{A3}\label{A3}
\end{gather*}
Consider the additional axioms
\begin{equation}
(\phi _1 \odot \phi _2 ) (b_1 b_2) = (\phi _1 \odot \phi _2 ) (b_2 b_1) =
\phi _1 (b_1 ) \phi _2 (b_2 )
\tag{A4}\label{A4}
\end{equation}
for all $b_1 \in {\cal B} _1 , b_2 \in {\cal B} _2$, and
\begin{equation}
\phi _1 \odot \phi _2 = \phi _2 \odot \phi _1 . \tag{A5}\label{A5}
\end{equation}
N. Muraki \cite{MurN02,MurN03} showed that there are exactly five products
satisfying \eqref{A1}-\eqref{A4}, the tensor product, the free product \cite{Voi1}, the Boolean product \cite{vW1}, and the monotonic and anti-monotonic products \cite{MurN01,Lu}.
It was shown in \cite{BGhSc02,Spe} that the tensor, the free and the Boolean products are the only three products satisfying \eqref{A1}-\eqref{A5}.
An independence coming from a product with \eqref{A1}-\eqref{A3} will be called a {\it $\odot$-independence}.
\par
A linear functional $\phi$ on a $*$-algebra ${\cal A}$ is called hermitian if $\phi (a ^* ) = \overline{\phi (a)}$ for all $a \in {\cal A}$. We call $\phi$ {\it conditionally positive} if $\phi$ is hermitian and if $\phi (a ^* a ) \geq 0$ for all $a \in {\cal A}$. In this paper, we call $\phi$ a {\it state} if we have $\widetilde{\phi} (a^* a ) \geq 0$ for all $a \in \widetilde{\cal A}$ where $\widetilde{\phi} : \widetilde{\cal A} \to {\mathbb C}$ is the normalized linear extension of $\phi$ to $\widetilde{\cal A} = {\mathbb C} {\bf 1 } \oplus {\cal A}$.
A state is conditionally positive whereas the converse is not always true.
For example, on the $*$-algebra of complex polynomials in one self-adjoint indeterminate $x$, with constant part equal to 0 the linear functional $\psi$ with $\psi (x ^n ) = \delta _{2, n}$ is conditionally positive but not a state.
The point-wise limit of states is a state. If ${\cal I}$ is a two-sided $*$-ideal of the $*$-algebra ${\cal A}$, then for a state $\phi$ on ${\cal A}$ which vanishes on ${\cal I}$ we have that $\hat \phi$, $\hat \phi (a + {\cal I} ) = \phi (a)$, is a state on ${\cal A} /{\cal I}$.
\par
We say that a $\odot$-independence is {\it positive} if for two $*$-algebras ${\cal A} _1$ and ${\cal A} _2$ and states $\phi _1$ and $\phi _2$ on ${\cal A} _1$ and ${\cal A} _2$ respectively, the product $\phi _1 \bullet \phi _2$ is a state.
Another notion of states is the following. Call $\phi$ a strong state if $\min \{ \lambda \in {\mathbb C} \mit \phi _{\lambda} (a ^* a ) \geq 0 \ \forall a \in \widetilde{\cal A} \} = 1$
where $\phi _{\lambda}$ is the extension of $\phi$ to ${\mathbb C} {\bf 1 } \oplus {\cal A}$ with $\phi _{\lambda} ({\bf 1 } ) = \lambda$.
Then a strong state is a state, and the converse is false in general. We say that a $\odot$-independence is strongly positive if the product of two strong states is a strong state.
Then each positive $\odot$-independence is strongly positive.
This holds because $\phi _1$ and $\phi _2$ are the restrictions of $\phi _1 \bullet \phi _2$ to ${\cal A} _1$ and ${\cal A} _2$.
It is well-known that Muraki's five notions of independence are positive.
In fact,
\begin{proposition}
The only positive $\odot$-independences are Muraki's five. In particular,
a $\odot$-independence is strongly positive iff it is positive.
\end{proposition}
\par\noindent
{\it Proof}:
We show that a strongly positive $\odot$-independence must be one of Muraki's five. Take ${\cal B} _1 = {\cal B} _2 = {\mathbb C} [x]$ and $\phi (x^n ) = 1$, $n \in {\mathbb N}$.
Then $\phi$ is a strong state. If $\odot$ is strongly positive $\phi \odot \phi$ must be a state.
It follows from \cite{BGhSc02}, Lemma 2.1, that with
${\mathbb C} [x ] \sqcup {\mathbb C} [x] = {\mathbb C} \langle x, y \rangle$ we must have $(\phi \odot \phi )(xy) = q_1 $ and $\phi \odot \phi (yx) = q_2 $ for some complex constants $q_1$ and $q_2$.
We have
$$
0 \leq (\phi \odot \phi )\bigl( (\lambda {\bf 1 } + \alpha x + \beta y )^* (\lambda {\bf 1 } + \alpha x + \beta y )\bigr)
$$
for all $\lambda, \alpha , \beta \in {\mathbb C}$ and the matrix
$$
\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & q_1 \\
1 & q_2 & 1 \end{array} \right)
$$
must be positive semi-definite which forces
$q_1 = q_2 = 1$. It follows that a strongly positive $\odot$-independence satisfies (A4) so that Muraki's result can be applied.$\square$
\par
A {\it dual semigroup} is a pair $({\cal B} , \Delta )$ consisting of a $*$-algebra ${\cal B}$ and a $*$-algebra homomorphism $\Delta : {\cal B} \to {\cal B} \sqcup {\cal B}$ such that
\[
(\Delta \amalg {\rm id} ) \circ \Delta = ({\rm id} \amalg \Delta ) \circ \Delta
\]
and
\[
(0 \sqcup {\rm id} ) \circ \Delta = {\rm id} = ({\rm id} \sqcup 0 ) \circ \Delta ;
\]
cf. \cite{Zhang,Voi87} and \cite{BGhSc}.
Put $\widetilde{\SB} = {\mathbb C} {\bf 1 } \oplus {\cal B}$, $\widetilde{\GD} : \widetilde{\SB} \to \widetilde{\SB} \sqcup _{{\bf 1 }} \widetilde{\SB}
= {\mathbb C} {\bf 1 } \oplus {\cal B} \sqcup {\cal B}$,
$\widetilde{\GD} \lceil {\cal B} = \Delta$, $\widetilde{\GD} {\bf 1 } = {\bf 1 }$, $\delta : \widetilde{\SB} \to {\mathbb C}$, $\delta \lceil {\cal B} = 0$, $\delta {\bf 1 } = 1$.
Then the triplet $(\widetilde{\SB} , \widetilde{\GD} , \delta )$ satisfies
\begin{align}
\label{coass}
(\widetilde{\GD} \amalg _{{\bf 1 }} {\rm id} ) \circ \widetilde{\GD} &= ({\rm id} \amalg _{{\bf 1 }} \widetilde{\GD} ) \circ \widetilde{\GD}
\\
\label{counit}
(\delta \amalg _{{\bf 1 }} {\rm id} ) \circ \widetilde{\GD} &= {\rm id} = ({\rm id} \amalg _{{\bf 1 }} \delta ) \circ \widetilde{\GD} .
\end{align}
Conversely, given a triplet $(\widetilde{\SB} , \widetilde{\GD} , \delta )$ such that $\widetilde{\SB}$ is a unital $*$-algebra and $\widetilde{\GD} : \widetilde{\SB} \to \widetilde{\SB} \sqcup _{{\bf 1 }} \widetilde{\SB}$, $\delta : \widetilde{\SB} \to {\mathbb C}$ are unital $*$-algebra homomorphisms with \eqref{coass} and \eqref{counit}, it can be shown that the pair $({\rm kern}\, \delta , \widetilde{\GD} \lceil {\rm kern}\, \delta )$ is a dual semigroup; see \cite{BGhSc}.
A dual semigroup is called a {\it dual group} if there is an endomorphism $S$ on ${\cal B}$ such that $(S \sqcup {\rm id} ) \circ \Delta = 0 = ({\rm id} \sqcup S ) \circ \Delta$.
\par
Let $\mbox{\bf C}$ and $\mbox{\bf D}$ be two categories and let $\mbox{\bf F}$ be a functor from $\mbox{\bf C}$ to $\mbox{\bf D}$. For an object $D$ in $\mbox{\bf D}$ a {\it universal pair} or arrow
\cite{MacLane} from $D$ to $\mbox{\bf F}$ is a pair $(C , i )$ with $C$ an object in $\mbox{\bf C}$ and $i$ a morphism $i : D \to \mbox{\bf F} (C )$ such that the following universal property is fulfilled. For each object $A$ in $\mbox{\bf C}$ and morphism $k : D \to \mbox{\bf F} (A)$ there is a unique morphism $j : C \to A$ such that $k = \mbox{\bf F} (j ) \circ i$.
In the case when $\mbox{\bf C}$ is the category of algebras, $\mbox{\bf D}$ is the category of vector spaces, and $\mbox{\bf F}$ is the forgetful functor, a universal pair from a vector space ${\cal V}$ to $\mbox{\bf F}$ can be realized as the tensor algebra over ${\cal V}$ which is the vector space direct sum of the vector space tensor powers ${\cal V} ^{\otimes n}$ of ${\cal V}$. This is an algebra with multiplication $(v_1 \otimes \ldots v_n ) (w_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes w_m ) = v_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes v_n \otimes w_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes w_m$, $v_1, \ldots, v_n , w_1 , \ldots , w_m \in {\cal V}$. The morphism $i_{{\cal V}}$ is given by the natural embedding.
The unique morphism $j$ associated with a morphism $k$ is denoted by ${\rm T} (k)$.
Similarly, the tensor $*$-algebra ${\rm T} ({\cal V} )$ over a $*$-vector space ${\cal V}$, that is a vector space ${\cal V}$ equipped with an anti-linear self-inverse map $v \mapsto v^*$, is the universal pair from ${\cal V}$ to the forgetful functor from the category of $*$-algebras to the category of $*$-vector spaces. The involution of ${\rm T} ({\cal V} )$ is given by $(v_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes v_n ) ^* = v_n ^* \otimes \ldots \otimes v_1 ^*$.
\par
Now let $\mbox{\bf C}$ be the category of {\it commutative} algebras and let $\mbox{\bf D}$ again be the category of vector spaces with the forgetful functor from $\mbox{\bf C}$ to $\mbox{\bf D}$. The universal pair is denoted by $({\rm S} ({\cal V} ) , i_{{\cal V}})$, and a realization of ${\rm S} ({\cal V} )$ is the symmetric tensor algebra over ${\cal V}$ which is the quotient of ${\rm T} ({\cal V} )$ by the ideal generated by $v \otimes w - w \otimes v$, $v, w \in {\cal V}$. We frequently write $v_1 \otimes _s \ldots \otimes _s v_n$ for the equivalence class of $v_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes v_n$.
Of course, there is also the symmetric tensor $*$-algebra over a $*$-vector space ${\cal V}$.
If $\{ v_i \mit i \in I \}$ is a (self-adjoint) vector space basis of ${\cal V}$, then ${\rm S} ({\cal V} )$ can be identified with the polynomial algebra ${\mathbb C} [ x_i ; i \in I ]$.
\par
It follows from \cite{BGhSc02}, Lemma 2.1, that if $\odot$ satisfies \eqref{A3} there are linear maps
\[
\sigma _{{\cal B} _1 , {\cal B} _2} : {\cal B} _1 \sqcup {\cal B} _2 \to
{\rm S} ({\cal B} _1 ) \otimes {\rm S} ({\cal B} _2 ) \cong {\rm S} ({\cal B} _1 \oplus {\cal B} _2 )
\]
such that
\[
\phi _1 \odot \phi _2 = ( {\rm S} (\phi _1 ) \otimes {\rm S} (\phi _2 )) \circ \sigma _{{\cal B} _1 , {\cal B} _2} .
\]
By Theorem 3.4 of \cite{BGhSc}, for a fixed $\odot$-independence and a dual semigroup $({\cal B} , \Delta )$, we can form the commutative $*$-bialgebra $({\rm S} ({\cal B} ), {\rm S} (\sigma \circ \Delta ))$ where we put $\sigma = \sigma _{{\cal B} , {\cal B}}$.
Thus a $\odot$-independence gives rise to a functor from the category of dual semigroups to the category of commutative $*$-bialgebras.
Now put, for a fixed $\odot$-independence,
\begin{equation}
\label{conv}
\phi _1 \star \phi _2 = (\phi _1 \odot \phi _2 ) \circ \Delta
\end{equation}
for linear functionals $\phi _1$ and $\phi _2$ on a dual semigroup ${\cal B}$.
Then (see \cite{BGhSc02})
\begin{equation}
\label{hom}
{\rm S} (\phi _1 \star \phi _2 ) =
{\rm S} (\phi _1 ) \star {\rm S} (\phi _2 )
\end{equation}
where the second convolution product is with respect to the comultiplication ${\rm S} (\sigma \circ \Delta )$.
\section{Schoenberg correspondence}\label{sec:schoen}
The intersection of two coalgebras is again a coalgebra so that the sub-coalgebra generated by a subset of a coalgebra is well-defined. The fundamental theorem of coalgebras (see e.g. \cite{DNR}) says that the sub-coalgebra generated by a single element (and thus by a finite number of elements) is finite-dimensional. It follows that a coalgebra is the inductive limit of its finite-dimensional sub-coalgebras. For a linear functional $\psi$ on a coalgebra ${\cal C}$ define the linear map $T_{\psi} $ on ${\cal C}$ by $T_{\psi} = ({\rm id} \otimes \psi ) \circ \Delta$.
Then $T$ is a unital algebra homomorphism from the convolution algebra formed by linear functionals on ${\cal C}$ to the algebra of linear operators on ${\cal C}$ and $L \mapsto \delta \circ L$ is the left inverse of $T$.
Moreover, $T _{\psi}$ leaves invariant all sub-coalgebras of ${\cal C}$.
Denote by ${\rm e} ^{T _{\psi}}$ the inductive limit of the (matrix) exponentials of the restrictions of $T_{\psi}$ to finite-dimensional sub-colagebras.
Put $\exp _{\star} \psi : = \delta \circ {\rm e} ^{T_{\psi}}$.
It follows that the series
\begin{equation}
\label{convexp}
\sum_{n = 0}^\infty \frac{\psi ^{\star n}}{n !} (c)
\end{equation}
converges for all $c \in {\cal C}$ and that this limit equals $\exp _{\star} \psi$. We have
$$
\exp _{\star} (\psi _1 + \psi _2 ) = (\exp _{\star} \psi _1 ) \star (\exp _{\star} \psi _2 )
$$
if $\psi _1 \star \psi _2 = \psi _2 \star \psi _1$ and
$$
(\exp _{\star} \psi )(c) = \lim_{n \to \infty}
(\delta + \frac{\psi}{n} ) ^{\star n} (c) .
$$
More generally, \cite{ScVo,ScSkVol}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma1}
Let $\psi$ be a linear functional on a coalgebra ${\cal C}$.
Suppose that $R_n$, $n \in {\mathbb N}$, are linear functionals on ${\cal C}$ such that for each $b \in {\cal C}$ there is a constant $C_b \in {\mathbb R}_+$ with
\begin{equation}
\label{inequ}
\vert R_n (b) \vert \leq \frac{1}{n ^2} \, C_b \ \ \forall n \in {\mathbb N} .
\end{equation}
Then
$$
(\delta + \frac{\psi}{n} + R_n ) ^{\star n}
$$
converges to $\exp _{\star} \psi$ point-wise.
\end{lemma}
\par\noindent
{\it Proof}:
By the fundamental theorem of coalgebras we can assume that ${\cal C}$ is finite-dimensional.
Then with some norm $\vert \vert \ \vert \vert$ on ${\cal C}$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\vert \vert T_{R_n} \vert \vert &=& \vert \vert ({\rm id} \otimes R_n ) \circ \Delta \vert \vert \\
&\leq&
\vert \vert {\rm id} \otimes R_n \vert \vert \, \vert \vert \Delta \vert \vert \\
&=& \vert \vert R_n \vert \vert \, \vert \vert \Delta \vert \vert .
\end{eqnarray*}
Choose a vector space basis $\{ b_1 , \ldots , b_k \}$ of
${\cal C}$.
Then for $\alpha _1 , \ldots , \alpha _n \in {\mathbb C}$
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\vert R_n (\alpha _1 b_1 + \ldots + \alpha _k b_k ) \vert \\
&&\qquad \leq \max_{1 \leq j \leq k} \vert R_n (b_j ) \vert \,
(\vert \alpha _1 \vert + \ldots + \vert \alpha _k \vert ) \\
&&\qquad \leq \frac{1}{n^2 } (\max_{1 \leq j \leq k} C_{b_j} )
(\vert \alpha _1 \vert + \ldots + \vert \alpha _k \vert )
\end{eqnarray*}
which implies $\vert \vert T_{R_n} \vert \vert \leq \frac{1}{n^2} \, C$ for some constant $C$. Now
$$
({\rm id} + \frac{T_{\psi}}{n} + T_{R_n} ) ^n \to {\rm e} ^{T_{\psi}}
$$
and thus
$$
(\delta + \frac{\psi}{n} + R_n ) ^{\star n} \to {\rm e} ^{\psi} . \square
$$
A family $(\phi _t )_{t\in {\mathbb R} _+}$ of linear functionals on a coalgebra ${\cal C}$ is called a {\it continuous convolution semigroup} (CCSG) if
$\phi _{s + t} = \phi _s \star \phi _t$, $\phi _0 = \delta$, and
$\phi _t \to \delta$ point-wise for $t \to 0+$.
For a CCSG the operators $T_{\phi _t}$ form a semigroup of linear operators on ${\cal C}$.
Using the fundamental theorem of coalgebras and a well-known result for continuous semigroups of matrices, we obtain that
$\lim_{t \to 0+} \frac1t (\phi _t - \delta )$ exists point-wise and that we have
$\exp _{\star} (t \psi ) = \phi _t$ for the limiting functional $\psi$.
It follows that the CCSGs are exactly given by the convolution exponentials $\exp _{\star} (t \psi )$.
\par
Now let $\psi$ be a linear functional on a dual semigroup ${\cal B}$.
Moreover, fix a $\odot$-independence, and put $D (\psi ) (B) =
\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d} \, t} {\rm S} (t \, \psi )(B) \vert_{t = 0}$ for $B \in {\rm S} ({\cal B} )$.
We define $\exp _{\star} \psi $ point-wise by $(\exp _{\star} D (\psi ) ) \circ i _{{\cal B}}$.
Then $\exp _{\star} (t \psi)$, $t \geq 0$, form a CCSG of linear functionals on ${\cal B}$ with the convolution product now given by \eqref{conv}; see \cite{BGhSc02}.
We have \cite{ScVo}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma2}
Let $\psi$ be a linear functional on a dual semigroup ${\cal B}$.
Suppose that $R_n$, $n \in {\mathbb N}$, are linear functionals on ${\cal B}$ such that for each $b \in {\cal B}$ there is a constant $C_b \in {\mathbb R}_+$ with
$$
\vert R_n (b) \vert \leq \frac{1}{n ^2} \, C_b \ \ \forall n \in {\mathbb N} .
$$
Then
$$
(\frac{\psi}{n} + R_n ) ^{\star n}
$$
converges to $\exp _{\star} \psi$ point-wise.
\end{lemma}
\par\noindent
{\it Proof}:
By \eqref{hom} we have
$$
S(( \frac{\psi}{n} + R_n ) ^{\star n} ) = S (\frac{\psi}{n} + R_n ) ^{\star n}
$$
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\frac{\psi}{n} + R_n ) ^{\star n} &=&
S((\frac{\psi}{n} + R_n ) ^{\star n} ) \lceil {\cal B} \\
&=&
S(\frac{\psi}{n} + R_n ) ^{\star n } \lceil {\cal B} .
\end{eqnarray*}
Moreover, $\exp _{\star} \psi = \exp _{\star} D(\psi ) \lceil {\cal B}$.
We will prove that
\[
S( \frac{\psi}{n} + R_n ) ^{\star n} \to \exp _{\star} D(\psi ).
\]
For $b_1 , \ldots , b_k \in {\cal B}$, $k \geq 1 $,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& S(\frac{\psi}{n} + R_n ) (b_1 \otimes _s \ldots \otimes _s b_k ) \\
&& \qquad = (\frac{\psi}{n} + R_n ) (b_1 ) \ \ldots (\frac{\psi}{n} + R_n ) (b_k ) \\
&& \qquad = \sum_{A \subset \{ 1 , \ldots , k \}} \frac{1}{n^{\# A}} \prod_{j \in A} \psi (b_j ) \prod_{j \notin A} R_n (b_j ) \\
&& \qquad = R_n (b_1 ) \ldots R_n (b_k ) + \frac1n \bigl( \psi (b_1 ) R_n (b_2 ) \ldots R_n (b_k ) \\
&&\qquad \quad + R_n (b_1 ) \psi (b_2 ) R_n (b_3 ) \ldots R_n (b_k ) + \ldots + R_n (b_1 ) \ldots R_n (b_{k - 1} ) \psi (b_k ) \bigr) \\
&& \qquad\qquad + \frac{1}{n^2} T_n (b_1 \otimes _s \ldots \otimes _s b_k )
\end{eqnarray*}
with $\vert T_n (b_1 \otimes _s \ldots \otimes _s b_k ) \vert \leq D_1 $ for all $n \in {\mathbb N}$ for some constant $D_1 \in {\mathbb R} _+$.
Also $\vert R_n (b_1 ) \ldots R_n (b_k ) \vert \leq \frac{1}{n^2} D_2 $ for all $n \in {\mathbb N}$ for some $D_2 \in {\mathbb R} _+ $, and for a suitable constant $D_3$
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \vert \psi (b_1 ) R_n (b_2 ) \ldots R_n (b_k )
+ R_n (b_1 ) \psi (b_2 ) R_n (b_3 ) \ldots R_n (b_k ) + \ldots \\
&& \qquad\qquad + R_n (b_1 ) \ldots R_n (b_{k - 1} ) \psi (b_k ) \vert \leq \frac{1}{n^2} D_3
\end{eqnarray*}
if $k \geq 2$ so that
$$
S(\frac{\psi}{n} + R_n ) (b_1 \otimes_s \ldots \otimes _s b_k ) \leq \frac{1}{n^2} D
$$
if $k \geq 2$ for some $D \in {\mathbb R}_+$.
For $k = 1$ we have
$S(\frac{\psi}{n} + R_n ) (b) = \frac{\psi}{n} (b) + R_n (b)$. Moreover, $S(\frac{\psi}{n} + R_n ) ({\bf 1 } ) = 1$. It follows that
$$
S(\frac{\psi}{n} + R_n ) = S(0) + \frac1n D(\psi ) + \widetilde{R} _n
$$
with $\widetilde{R} _n : S({\cal B} ) \to {\mathbb C}$ linear, $\widetilde{R} _n ({\bf 1 } ) = 0$, and $\vert \widetilde{R} _n (x) \vert \leq \frac{1}{n^2} \widetilde{C} _x$ for all $n \in {\mathbb N}$ for a suitable constant $\widetilde{C} _x$.
By Lemma \ref{lemma1}
$$
S(\frac{\psi}{n} + R_n ) = \bigl( S(0) + \frac1n D(\psi ) + \widetilde{R} _n \bigr) ^{\star n} \longrightarrow \exp _{\star} D(\psi )
$$
point-wise.$\square$
\par
We say that {\it Schoenberg correspondence holds} on a dual semigroup ${\cal B}$ if the convolution exponential
$\exp _{\star} \psi$ is a state for each
conditionally positive linear functional $\psi$ on ${\cal B} $ and for each positive $\odot$-independence.
Then Schoenberg correspondence holds on ${\cal B}$ iff the CCSG of states (with respect to a positive $\odot$-independence) on ${\cal B}$ are exactly given by $\exp _{\star} (t \psi )$ with $\psi$ conditionally positive.
We will show that Schoenberg correspondence holds on \emph{all} dual semigroups (Theorem \ref{theorem}).
\par
Let $({\cal B} , \Delta )$ and $({\cal C} , \Lambda )$ be two dual semigroups and let $\kappa : {\cal C} \to {\cal B}$ be a $*$-algebra homomorphism.
For a linear functional $\psi$ on ${\cal B}$ we put
\begin{align*}
\gg _t &= \exp _{\star} (t \psi ) \\
\phi _t &= \exp _{\star} (t (\psi \circ \kappa ))
\end{align*}
for $t \in {\mathbb R} _+$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{approx}
$$
( \gg _{t/n} \circ \kappa ) ^{\star n} \to \phi _t
$$
point-wise for all $t \in {\mathbb R} _+$.
\end{proposition}
\par\noindent
{\it Proof}:
We can assume that $ t = 1$.
We will show that there are linear functionals $R_n : {\cal C} \to {\cal B}$ and constants $C_b \in {\mathbb R} _+$, $b \in {\cal C}$, such that
$$
(\gg _{1/n} \circ \kappa )(b) = \frac1n (\psi \circ \kappa )(b) + R_n (b)
$$
with
$$
\vert R_n (b) \vert \leq \frac{1}{n^2 } C_b
$$
for all $n \in {\mathbb N}$.
An application of Lemma \ref{lemma2} will then prove the proposition.
\par
We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\gg _{1/n} \circ \kappa )(b) &=& \gg_{1/n} (\kappa (b)) \\
&=& \bigl( \exp _{\star} \frac1n D(\psi ) \bigr) (\kappa (b)) \\
&=& \frac1n D(\psi ) (\kappa (b)) + \frac{1}{2 n^2 } D(\psi ) ^{\star 2} (\kappa (b)) \\
&& \qquad + \frac{1}{3 ! n ^3 } D(\psi ) ^{\star 3}(\kappa (b)) + \ldots \\
&=& \frac1n \psi (\kappa (b)) + \frac{1}{n^2} R_n (b)
\end{eqnarray*}
with $\vert R_n (b) \vert \leq C_b$ for all $n \in {\mathbb N}$ for a suitable constant $C_b$.$\square$
\begin{proposition}
\label{schoenberg}
Suppose that Schoenberg correspondence holds on ${\cal B}$.
Then for a conditionally positive linear functional $\psi$ on ${\cal B}$,
we have that, given a positive $\odot$-independence, $\phi _t = \exp _{\star} (t (\psi \circ \kappa ))$ is a CCSG of states on ${\cal C}$.
\end{proposition}
\par\noindent
{\it Proof}:
We fix a positive $\odot$-independence.
If Schoenberg correspondence holds on ${\cal B}$, then $\gg_{t/n}$ are states on ${\cal B}$. This implies that $\gg _{t/n} \circ \kappa$ are states on ${\cal C}$ which by the positivity of the independence gives that $(\gg _{t/n} \circ \kappa )^{\star n}$ are states on ${\cal C}$.
By Proposition \ref{approx} $\phi _t$ is the point-wise limit of $(\gg _{t/n} \circ \kappa )^{\star n}$.
Since the point-wise limit of states is a state, the proposition follows.$\square$
\par
Let $\psi$ be a conditionally positive linear functional on a $*$-algebra ${\cal A}$. We form the left ideal ${\cal N} _{\psi} = \{ a \in {\cal A} \mit \psi (ba ) = 0 \ \forall b \in {\cal A} \}$.
The quotient space $D = {\cal A} / {\cal N} _{\psi }$ is an inner product space with inner product
$\langle \eta (a) , \eta (b) \rangle = \psi (a ^* b )$ where $\eta : {\cal A} \to D$ denotes the canonical map.
Moreover, $\rho (a) \eta (b) = \eta (ab)$ defines a $*$-representation of ${\cal A}$ on $D$, i.e. a $*$-algebra homomorphism from ${\cal A}$ to the $*$-algebra ${\rm L} (D)$ of adjointable linear operators on $D$; see \cite{Fra06,MSchue93}.
We have
\begin{proposition}
\label{determined}
If $(a_i )_{i \in I}$ is a set of generators of the algebra ${\cal A}$, the maps $\rho$, $\eta$ and $\psi$ are determined by their values on the $a_i$.$\square$
\end{proposition}
Since a $*$-vector space ${\cal V}$ generates the tensor $*$-algebra ${\rm T} ({\cal V} )$, we have that conditionally positive linear functionals are given by an inner product space $D$, a $*$-map $\rho : {\cal V} \to {\rm L} (D)$, a linear map $\eta : {\cal V} \to D$, and a hermitian linear functional $\psi : {\cal V} \to {\mathbb C}$; cf. \cite{additive,Fra06}.
\par
Clearly, a linear functional on a $*$-algebra ${\cal A}$ is a state if it is the expectation of a quantum random variable.
Consider the case of tensor independence.
It is well known that the Gelfand-Naimark-Segal (GNS) representation $\pi$ of $\phi = \exp _{\star} \psi$, $\psi$ a conditionally positive linear functional on ${\rm T} ({\cal V} )$, is given by
$$
\pi (v) = A^* (\eta (v)) + \Lambda (\rho (v)) + A (\eta (v ^* )) + \psi (v) {\rm id}
$$
$v \in {\cal V}$, where $A ^ * , \Lambda , A$ are the creation, preservation and annihilation operators on Bose Fock space over the completion $H$ of the inner product space $D$, i.e.
$$
\phi (v_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes v_n ) = {\mathbb E} ( \pi (v_1 ) \ldots \pi (v_n ) )
$$
where expectation is taken in the vacuum state of the Fock space, see e.g. \cite{additive}.
It follows that $\phi$ is a state.
The analogous result holds in the free case if Bose Fock space is replaced by the full Fock space and $A^* , \Lambda, A$ are the free creation, preservation and annihilation operators; see for example \cite{GlScSp}.
In the remaining three cases of independences we can apply the reduction theory of Franz \cite{Fra06} to realize the GNS of $\phi$ on a Bose Fock space.
We have
\begin{proposition}
\label{additive}
Schoenberg correspondence holds on tensor $*$-algebras.$\square$
\end{proposition}
We will apply Proposition \ref{schoenberg} to the following situation.
The tensor $*$-algebra ${\rm T} ({\cal B} )$ of a dual semigroup ${\cal B}$ (viewed as a $*$-vector space) carries another dual group structure than that given by the primitive comultiplication $b \mapsto i _1 (b) + i _2 (b)$.
The second dual semigroup structure is given by extending the map
$$
(i _{{\cal B} } \sqcup i _{{\cal B} } ) \circ \Delta : {\cal B} \to
{\rm T} ({\cal B} ) \sqcup {\rm T} ({\cal B} ) ,
$$
with $i _{{\cal B}} : {\cal B} \to {\rm T} ({\cal B} )$ the natural embedding, to a homomorphism
$$
{\rm T} (\Delta ): {\rm T} ({\cal B} ) \to {\rm T} ({\cal B} ) \sqcup {\rm T} ({\cal B} ) .
$$
We denote by $M : {\rm T} ({\cal B} ) \to {\cal B}$ the multiplication map ${\rm T} ({\rm id} )$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{alg}
We have for linear functionals $\phi _1$, $\phi _2$, $\psi$ on a dual semigroup ${\cal B}$
\par\noindent
{\rm (a)}
$$
(\phi _ 1 \circ M ) \star _{{\rm T} (\Delta )} (\phi _2 \circ M) = (\phi _1 \star _{\Delta} \phi _2 ) \circ M
$$
{\rm (b)}
$$
\exp _{\star {\rm T} (\Delta )} (\psi \circ M) = (\exp _{\star \Delta} \psi ) \circ M
$$
\par\noindent
{\rm (c) } The linear functional $\exp _{\star {\rm T} (\Delta )} (\psi \circ M)$ vanishes on the two-sided $*$-ideal ${\rm kern}\, M$.
\end{proposition}
\par\noindent
{\it Proof}: From (A1)
$$
(\phi _1 \circ M ) \bullet (\phi _2 \circ M) = (\phi _1 \bullet \phi _2 ) \circ (M \amalg M ) .
$$
Since $(M \amalg M ) \circ {\rm T} (\Delta ) = \Delta \circ M$,
part (a) follows.
(b) is a consequence of (a) and \ref{schoenberg} for $R_n = 0$.
(c) follows from (b).$\square$
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem}
Schoenberg correspondence holds for all dual semigroups.
\end{theorem}
\par\noindent
{\it Proof}:
For a positive $\odot$-independence and a conditionally positive linear functional $\psi$ on a dual semigroup $({\cal E} , \Delta )$ we have that $\psi \circ M$ is conditionally positive on the tensor $*$-algebra ${\rm T} ({\cal E} )$.
Now apply Proposition \ref{schoenberg} to ${\cal C} = ({\rm T} ({\cal E} ), {\rm T} (\Delta ))$,
${\cal B} = {\rm T} ({\cal E} )$ with the primitive comultiplication, and $\kappa = {\rm id}$. By Proposition \ref{additive} Schoenberg correspondence holds on ${\cal B}$.
By Propositon \ref{schoenberg} this means that Schoenberg correspondence holds on ${\cal C}$.
Thus $\exp _{\star} (\psi \circ M)$ is a state on ${\cal C}$.
But, using (c) of Proposition \ref{alg} and the fact that
${\rm T} ({\cal E} ) / \ker M = {\cal E}$, it follows that $\exp _{\star} \psi$ is a state on ${\cal E}$.$\square$
\section{Quantum L\'evy processes}\label{sec:levy}
A {\it quantum L\'evy process} (QLP)
on a dual semigroup with respect to a positive $\odot$-independence (over a quantum probability space $({\cal A} , {\mathbb E} )$) is a family of quantum random variables $j_{st} : {\cal B} \to {\cal A}$, $0 \leq s \leq t$, such that
\begin{align}
\label{QLP1}
&(j_{rs} \sqcup j_{st}) \circ \Delta = j_{rt} \ \mbox{for all} \ 0 \leq r \leq s \leq t \\
\label{QLP2}
&j_{t_1, t_2}, \ldots , j_{t_n , t_{n + 1}} \ \mbox{are independent for all} \ n \in {\mathbb N} , 0 \leq t_1 \leq \ldots \leq t_{n + 1} \\
\label{QLP3}
&{\mathbb E} \circ j_{st} \ \mbox{only depends on} \ t - s \\
\label{QLP4}
&\lim_{t \to 0+} ({\mathbb E} \circ j_{0 t} )(b) = 0 \ \mbox{for all} \ b \in {\cal B}
\end{align}
Property \eqref{QLP1} is the increment property, \eqref{QLP2} expresses the independence of increments with respect to the underlying $\odot$-independence, \eqref{QLP3} reflects the stationarity of increments, and \eqref{QLP4} is a condition of weak continuity.
\par
Let ${\cal I} \subset {\mathbb R} _+$ be a compact interval or equal to ${\mathbb R} _+$.
Denote by $M$ the set
$$
M = \{ \sigma \subset {\cal I} \mit 1 < \# M < \infty \}
$$
of finite subsets of ${\cal I}$ with the inclusion of sets as partial ordering.
We write $\sigma = \{ t_1 < \ldots < t_{n + 1} \}$ for a set
$\sigma = \{ t_1 , \ldots , t_{n + 1} \} \in M$, $t_1 < \ldots < t_{n + 1}$.
Define the $n$-th comultiplication $\Delta : {\cal B} \to {\cal B} ^{\sqcup n} $, $n \in {\mathbb N} _0$, of a dual semigroup $({\cal B} , \Delta )$ recursively by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Delta _0 = 0 ; \ \Delta _{n + 1} = (\Delta \amalg {\rm id}) \circ \Delta _n
\end{eqnarray*}
For $\{ s < t \} \in M$ we denote by ${\cal B} _{st}$ a copy of ${\cal B}$ and by
$\iota _{st} : {\cal B} \to {\cal B} _{st}$ the identification map.
Put ${\cal B} _{\sigma} = \bigsqcup_{l = 1}^{n} {\cal B} _{t_l , t_{l + 1}}$ and let
$$
f_{\{ t_1 , t_{n + 1} \} , \sigma } : {\cal B} _{t_1 , t_{n + 1}} \to {\cal B} _{\sigma}
$$
be the mapping
$$
( \iota _{t_1 , t_2} \amalg \ldots \amalg \iota _{t_n , t_{n + 1}} ) \circ \Delta _n \circ \iota _{t_1 , t_{n + 1}} ^{-1} .
$$
Moreover, for $\sigma = \{ t_1 < \ldots < t_{n + 1} \}$ and $\tau \supset \sigma$,
\begin{align*}
& \tau = \{ t_1 = t_{11} < \ldots < t_{1,m_1} < t_{1,m_1 + 1} = t_2 = t_{21} < \ldots < \ldots t_{2, m_2} < t_{2, m_2 + 1} \\
& \qquad = t_3 < \ldots
< t_{n - 1 ,m_{n - 1} + 1} = t_n = t_{n1} < \ldots < t_{n, m_n} < t_{n, m_n + 1} = t_{n + 1} \} ,
\end{align*}
we define $f_{\sigma \tau} : {\cal B} _{\sigma} \to {\cal B} _{\tau}$ by
\begin{equation*}
f_{\sigma \tau} = f_{\{ t_1 , t_2 \} ,\{ t_{11} , \ldots , t_{1,m_1 + 1} \} } \amalg \ldots \amalg
f_{\{ t_n , t_{n + 1} \} ,\{ t_{n1} , \ldots , t_{n,m_n + 1} \} } .
\end{equation*}
For $\tau = \{ t_1 < \ldots < t_{n + 1} \}$ and $\sigma = \{ t_k < \ldots < t_l \}$, $k , l \in \{ 1, \ldots , n + 1 \}$
we put $f_{\sigma \tau} : {\cal B} _{\sigma} \to {\cal B} _{\tau}$ equal to the natural embedding.
For the general case $\tau \supset \sigma$ when $\sigma = \{ s_1 < \ldots < s_{m + 1} \}$ with $s_1 = t_k$, $s_{m + 1} = t_l$ for
$k , l \in \{ 1, \ldots , n + 1 \}$ we put
$$
f_{\sigma \tau} = f_{\{ t_k < \ldots < t_l \} , \tau } \circ f_{ \sigma , \{ t_k < \ldots < t_l \}} .
$$
Let $\psi$ be conditionally positive on ${\cal B}$.
By Schoenberg correspondence $\phi _t = {\rm e} _{\star} ^{t \psi}$ form a convolution semigroup
of states on ${\cal B}$.
For $\sigma = \{ t_1 < \ldots < t_{n + 1}\} \in M$ we put
$$
\phi _{\sigma} = (\phi _{t_2 - t_1} \bullet \ldots \bullet \phi _{t_{n + 1} - t_n} )
\circ (\iota _{t_1 , t_2} ^{-1} \amalg \ldots \amalg \iota _{t_n , t_{n + 1}} ^{-1} )
$$
to obtain a state on ${\cal B} _{\sigma}$.
The family $({\cal B} _{\sigma}, \phi _{gs}, f _{\sigma \tau} )$ is an inductive system in the category formed by
pairs $({\cal B} , \phi )$ where ${\cal B}$ is a $*$-algebra and $\phi$ a state on ${\cal B}$.
It is not difficult to see that inductive limits exist in this category.
Let $({\cal A} , {\mathbb E} , f_{\sigma })$ be the inductive limit of the above inductive system.
Then ${\cal A}$ is a $*$-algebra, ${\mathbb E}$ a state on ${\cal A}$ and $f_{\sigma } : {\cal B} _{\sigma} \to {\cal A}$ are
$*$-algebra homomorphisms such that ${\mathbb E} \circ f_{\sigma} = \phi _{\sigma}$ and
$f _{\tau} \circ f_{\sigma \tau} = f _{\sigma}$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{kolmogorov}
$$
j_{st} = f_{\{ s , t \} } \circ \iota _{st} : {\cal B} \to {\cal A} , \ s < t
$$
defines a QLP on ${\cal B}$ whose convolution semigroup of states is given by $\phi _t = {\rm e} ^{t \psi } _ {\star}$.
\end{theorem}
\par\noindent
{\it Proof}:
We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
j_{rs} \star j_{st} &=& (j_{rs} \sqcup j_{st} ) \circ \Delta \\
&=& f_{ \{ r, s , t\} } \circ (f_{\{ r , s \} , \{ r, s , t \} } \amalg f_{\{ r, t \} , \{ r, s, t \} } ) \circ \Delta \\
&=& f_{\{ r, s , t \} } \circ f_{\{ r, t \} , \{ r, s , t \} } \\
&=& j_{rt} .
\end{eqnarray*}
Next
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathbb E} ( j_{t_1 , t_2 } \sqcup \ldots \sqcup j_{t_n , t_{n + 1}}) &=& {\mathbb E} \circ j_{\{ t_1 , \ldots , t_{n + 1} \} } \\
&=& \phi _{\{ t_1 , \ldots , t_{n + 1} \} } \\
&=& \phi _{t_2 - t_1} \bullet \ldots \bullet \phi _{t_{ n + 1} - t_n} \\
&=& ({\mathbb E} \circ j_{t_1 , t_2} ) \bullet \ldots \bullet ({\mathbb E} \circ j_{t_n , t_{n + 1}} )
\end{eqnarray*}
which gives the independence of increments.
Since ${\mathbb E} \circ j_{st} = \phi _{t - s}$, stationarity of increments holds, too.
Weak continuity follows from the continuity of $\phi _t$.
We have that $j_{st}$ is a QLP.
Its convolution semigroup clearly is given by $\phi _t$.$\square$
\par \bigskip \par\noindent
{\bf Example 1.}
A classical time-indexed stochastic process on the group ${\cal U} _d$ of unitary $d \times d$-matrices is a process $U_t$, $t \geq 0$, of unitary operators on the Hilbert space ${\mathbb C} ^d \otimes {\rm L} ^2 (\Omega )$.
The process $U_t$ is a L\'evy process if the $*$-algebras ${\cal A} _{st} \subset {\rm L} ^{\infty} (\Omega ) \subset {\cal B} ({\rm L} ^2 (\Omega ))$, $0 \leq s \leq t$, generated by the entries $(U_{st} )_{kl}$, $k, l = 1, \ldots , d$, are independent for disjoint intervals where we write $U_{st}$ for the increment $U_s ^{-1} U_t \in {\cal B} ({\mathbb C} ^ 2 \otimes {\rm L} ^2 (\Omega )) \ \cong
{\rm M} _d ({\cal B} ({\rm L} ^2 (\Omega ))$. This means
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathbb E} (a_1 \cdots a_n ) = {\mathbb E} (a_1 ) \cdots {\mathbb E} (a_n )
\end{eqnarray*}
for $a_i \in {\cal A} _{t_i , t_{i + 1}}$, $i = 1, \ldots , n , t_1 < \ldots < t_{n + 1}$. Here ${\mathbb E} (a) = \int _{\Omega} a \, {\rm d} {\mathbb P} = \langle \xi , a \, \xi \rangle$, $\xi$ the constant finction equal to 1.
Moreover, the expectation restricted to ${\cal A} _{st}$ is only to depends on $t - s$, and $U_t$ coverges to the identity in the sense that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{unitary}
\langle \xi , (U_{st} ^{(*)}) _{k_1 , l_1} \cdots (U_{st} ^{(*)}) _{k_n , l_n} \to \delta _{k_1, l_1 } \cdots \delta _{k_n , l_n}
\end{eqnarray}
for $t \downarrow s$. Since ${\cal A} _{st} \subset {\rm L} ^{\infty} (\Omega )$ for all $0 \leq s \leq t$, the algebras ${\cal A} _{t_i , t_{i + 1}}$ commute.
We pass to the noncommutative case (cf. \cite{vW84}) by considering processes $U_t$ of unitary, on a Hilbert space ${\mathbb C} \otimes {\cal H}$, $H$ a Hilbert space, with expectation given by a unit vector $\xi$ in ${\cal H}$.
The algebras ${\cal A} _{st}$ are defined as before, independence is in the state given by $\xi$ in the sense of a fixed noncommutative independence. Stationarity of increments is still defind by (\ref{unitary}).
\par
Let ${\cal K}[d]$ be the Kre\^ in dual of the compact group ${\cal U} _d$ that is the Hopf $*$-algebra generated by commuting indeterminates $x_{kl}$ and $x_{kl} ^*$ with relations $x ^* x = {\bf 1 }$ in matrix form where $x = (x_{kl})_{kl}$ and $x ^* = (x_{kl} ^* )_{kl}$.
The comultiplication is given by $\Delta x = x \otimes x$, the counit by $\delta x = 1$.
L\' evy processes on ${\cal U} _d$ and QLPs on ${\cal K}[d]$ are in 1-1-correspondence via $j_{st} (x_{kl}) = (U_{st} ) _{kl}$.
Denote by ${\cal K} \langle d \rangle$ the dual group generated by non-commuting indeterminates, again given by the entries of $x$ and $x ^*$ with relations
$x ^* x = {\bf 1 } = x x ^*$ and with comultipication defined in the same manner as in the commutative case.
Notice that now $\Delta$ is a map from ${\cal K} \langle d \rangle$ to ${\cal K} \langle d \rangle \sqcup _{{\bf 1 }} {\cal K} \langle d \rangle$
that is we consider ${\cal K} \langle d \rangle$ as a unital dual group. For example, $\Delta x_{kl} = \sum_{n = 1} ^d \iota _1 (x_{kn}) \iota _2 (x_{nl})$.
The antipode is the $*$-algebra automorphism given by $S x_{kl} = x_{lk} ^*$.
Noncommutative unitary L\'evy processes as described above and QLPs on ${\cal K} \langle d \rangle$ are the same objects, again via $j_{st} (x_{kl}) = (U_{st} ) _{kl}$.
\par
Let $\psi$ be a conditionally positive hermitian linear functional on ${\cal K} \langle d \rangle$ and let $(D, \rho , \eta )$ be as in Section \ref{sec:schoen}. Denote by $H$ the completion of $D$. Since the $x_{kl}$ generate ${\cal K} \langle d \rangle$ as a $*$-algebra, $\rho$ is determined by the unitary operator $W = \rho (x_{kl} )_{kl}$ on ${\mathbb C} ^d \otimes H$.
Moreover,
\begin{eqnarray*}
0 = \eta ( \sum_{n = 1} ^d x_{nk}^* x_{nl} ) =
\sum_{n =1}^d (W^* _{nk} \eta (x_{nl}) + \eta (x_{nk} ) \delta _{nl})
\end{eqnarray*}
and $\eta (x^* _{kl} ) = - \sum_{n =1} ^d W^* _{nl} \eta (x_{nk} )$.
It follows from Proposition \ref{determined} that the QLP with generator $\psi$ is determined by $W$, the matrix $L \in {\rm M} _d ( H)$, $L_{kl} = \eta (x_{kl})$, and the matrix $G \in {\rm M} _d ({\mathbb C} )$, $G_{kl} = \psi (x_{kl} )$.
Conversely, each such triplet $(W, L , G )$ defines a conditionally positive hermitian linear functional $\psi$ on ${\cal K} \langle d \rangle$ by the inductive limit construction of this section.
We described the QLPs on ${\cal K} \langle d \rangle$ by triplets $(W, L, G)$ consisting of a unitary on ${\mathbb C} ^d \otimes H$, a $d \times d$-matrix $L$ with entries in $H$, and a scalar $d \times d$-matrix $G$.
\par \bigskip \par\noindent
{\bf Example 2.}
Let ${\mathbb F} _n$ denote the free group with $n \in {\mathbb N}$ generators $g_1 , \ldots , g_n$.
The group algebra ${\mathbb C}{\mathbb F}_n$ of $\mf _n$ is a dual group with $g ^* = g ^{-1}$, $\Delta : \mc \mf _n \to \mc \mf _n \sqcup _{{\bf 1 }} \mc \mf _n$, $\Delta g_i =
\iota _1 (g_i ) \iota _2 (g_i )$, $\delta g_i = 1$.
A QLP on $\mf _n$ (that is on $\mc \mf _n$) is given by a vector $(U_t ^{(1)}, \ldots \ldots , U_t ^{(n)} )$ of unitary operators $U_t ^{(i)} $, $i = 1, \ldots , n$, $t \in {\mathbb R} _+$, on a Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ such that the $*$-algebras ${\cal A} _{st} \subset {\cal B} ({\cal H} )$ generated by the operators $(U_s ^{(i)} )^{-1} U_t ^{(i)}$ are independent for disjoint intervals in a state on ${\cal B} ({\cal H} )$ given by a unit vector in ${\cal H}$.
Stationarity of increments and continuity are defined as in the case of ${\cal K} \langle d \rangle$. We find that conditionally positive hermitian linear functionals, and thus QLPs, on $\mc \mf _n$ are given by triplets $(W , L , G)$ consisting of a vector $W = (W ^{(1)}, \ldots , W^{(n)} )$ of unitary operators on a Hilbert space $H$, a vector $L = (L^{(1)}, \ldots , L^{(n)} )$ of elements of $H$ and $G \in {\mathbb C} ^n$.
\par \bigskip \par\noindent
\par\noindent
\bibliographystyle{plain
|
\section{Introduction}
In order to prove TxtFex$^*_*$ $\neq$ TxtFext$^*_*$, we explicitly construct a family that is TxtFex$^*_2$-learnable, but not TxtFext$^*_*$-learnable. We diagonalize against every attempt to TxtFext$^*_*$-learn the family by including, for each machine, a subfamily that witnesses the machine's failure to TxtFext$^*_*$-learn the family. Each subfamily is produced by means of an effective construction and the entire family is uniformly computably enumerable ($u.c.e.$).\par
All sets considered are subsets of the natural numbers and all families are collections of such subsets. We will use $\langle x, y\rangle$ to denote a computable pairing function. Given natural numbers $e$ and $s$, $W_{e,s}$ will denote the result of computing the set coded by $e$, up to $s$ stages, using a fixed computable numbering of $c.e.$ sets. By $\{ D_n \}_{n \in \mathbb N}$ we mean a fixed computable enumeration of all finite sets. Lower case Greek letters will typically refer to strings of natural numbers. Enumerations (called texts in learning theory) will be treated either as infinite strings or as functions on the natural numbers, depending on which is most appropriate in the given setting. Initial segments of enumerations will feature throughout this paper and will either be denoted by lowercase Greek letters, as mentioned above, or by initial segments of functions. To switch from finite ordered lists to unordered sets, we say that content$(\sigma) = \{x\in \mathbb N : \exists n ( x = \sigma(n) )\}$; we use the same notation when switching from enumerations to the enumerated set. We write $A =^*B$ when the symmetric difference of $A$ and $B$ is finite. When we wish to specify a bound on the cardinality of the symmetric difference, we write $A=^c B$, meaning that the symmetric difference of $A$ and $B$ has cardinality less than or equal to~$c \in \mathbb N$.\par
Given a fixed computable enumeration of all effective learning machines, functions from $\mathbb N^{<\mathbb N}$ to $\mathbb N$, $M_e$ denotes the learner coded by $e$. In general, learners will be denoted by $M$.
\begin{Definition}[\cite{POV}]
Let $M$ be a learning machine and $i,j \in \mathbb N\cup\{*\}$. The definition of TxtFex$^i_j$-learning is in four parts.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $M$ TxtFex$^i_j$-identifies an enumeration $f$ if and only if there is a finite set $S$ with card$(S)\leq j$ such that $(\forall^{\infty} n) (\forall a \in S) (M(f\upharpoonright n) \in S \wedge W_a =^i \mbox{content}(f))$. If $j = *$, then we place no bound on card$(S)$.
\item $M$ TxtFex$^i_j$-learns a $c.e.$ set $A$ if and only if $M$ TxtFex$^i_j$-identifies every enumeration for $A$.
\item $M$ TxtFex$^i_j$-learns a family of $c.e.$ sets if and only if $M$ TxtFex$^i_j$-learns every member of the family.
\item $\mathcal F$ is TxtFex$^i_j$-learnable (denoted $\mathcal F\in$ TxtFex$^i_j$) if and only if there is a machine $M$ that TxtFex$^i_j$-learns $\mathcal F$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Definition}
\begin{Definition}[\cite{STL}]
Let $M$ be a learning machine and $i,j \in \mathbb N\cup\{*\}$. The definition of TxtFext$^i_j$-learning is analogous to that of TxtFex$^i_j$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $M$ TxtFext$^i_j$-identifies an enumeration $f$ if and only if there is a finite set $S$ with card$(S)\leq j$ such that $(\forall^{\infty} n) (\forall a, b \in S)(M(f\upharpoonright n) \in S \wedge W_a = W_b =^i \mbox{content}(f))$. If $j = *$, then we place no bound on card$(S)$.
\item $M$ TxtFext$^i_j$-learns a $c.e.$ set $A$ if and only if $M$ TxtFext$^i_j$-identifies every enumeration for $A$.
\item $M$ TxtFext$^i_j$-learns a family of $c.e.$ sets if and only if $M$ TxtFext$^i_j$-learns every member of the family.
\item $\mathcal F$ is TxtFext$^i_j$-learnable (denoted $\mathcal F\in$ TxtFext$^i_j$) if and only if there is a machine $M$ that TxtFext$^i_j$-learns $\mathcal F$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Definition}
Inspection of the definitions reveals that TxtFext$^i_j$ is a weaker learning criterion than TxtFex$^i_j$ in the sense that every TxtFext$^i_j$-learnable family is also TxtFex$^i_j$-learnable, i.e. TxtFext$^i_j \subseteq \mbox{TxtFex}^i_j$. \par
The following two theorems tantalizingly hinted that TxtFext$^*_*$ might be equivalent to TxtFex$^*_*$. As we shall see, this is not the case.
\begin{Theorem}[Fulk, Jain, Osherson]
$(\forall i,j \in \mathbb N)(\mbox{TxtFex}^i_j \subseteq \mbox{TxtFext}^{ci}_j)$, where $c$ depends only on $j$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{Theorem}[Fulk, Jain, Osherson]\label{fulketal}
$(\forall i \in \mathbb N)(\mbox{TxtFex}^i_* \subseteq \mbox{TxtFext}^*_*)$.
\end{Theorem}
For proofs of these theorems, see ~\cite{OP}.\par
In our concluding remarks, we shall make use of Theorem \ref{fulketal} together with our own result to describe an interesting relationship between the two notions of anomalous vacillatory learning.
\section{TxtFex$^*_2$ $\neq$ TxtFext$^*_*$}
We begin with a heuristic overview of the diagonalization process. Intuitively, we are searching for a string, $\sigma$, on which the learner commits to hypothesizing a finite number of different codes for the same set on all extensions of $\sigma$. Such a string may not exist, but the construction will be such that if no string can be found, then the family under construction will include a set, on some enumeration of which, the machine never commits to output only hypotheses that code a single set. On the other hand, if $\sigma$ does exist, the construction will produce two sets in the family that contain content$(\sigma)$ and have infinite symmetric difference.\par
We treat each step of the diagonalization as indexed by $e$ and consider the learner, $M_e$. That step of the diagonalization will produce a family, $\mathcal L_e$, that $M_e$ cannot TxtFext$^*_*$-learn.
\begin{Theorem}\label{main}
There is a $u.c.e.$ family, $\mathcal L$, that is TxtFex$^*_2$-learnable, but is not TxtFext$^*_*$-learnable.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
Fix a learner, $M_e$. We begin by describing what is needed to prevent $M_e$ from TxtFext$^*_*$-learning. The result of this step will be a family, $\mathcal L_e$. Let $L_e = \{e, e+1, \ldots\}$. Depending on the course of the construction, $L_e$ may or may not be included in $\mathcal L_e$. Motivated by our interest in strings on which $M_e$ has committed to a finite collection of hypotheses, we make the following definition.
\begin{Definition}\label{stab}
A string $\sigma$ is said to be an $(e,k)$-stabilizing sequence if and only if the following conditions are met for all $\tau \succeq \sigma$ such that content$(\tau) \subseteq L_e$ and $t\in \mathbb N$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item$\{e, e+1, \ldots, e+k\} \subseteq \mbox{content} (\sigma)$
\item$M_e(\tau) \leq |\sigma|$
\item$W_{M_e(\sigma),|\sigma|+t}\cap [0,k) = W_{M_e(\tau),|\sigma|+t}\cap [0,k)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Definition}
In essence, Definition \ref{stab} describes strings that adhere to a certain form, that define cones in $\{ \tau : \mbox{content}(\tau)\subseteq L_e \}$ on which $M_e$ outputs no new hypotheses, and on extensions of which $M_e$ outputs hypotheses for sets that are equal. Since this last claim cannot be verified in the limit (it is a $\Pi_2^0$ predicate), the above definition describes a finite approximation.\par
The predicate ``$\sigma$ is not an $(e,k)$-stabilizing sequence" is $\Sigma^0_1$ as it requires only a witnessing string and natural number to verify. Thus, we may define a sequence of strings that converges in the limit to an $(e,0)$-stabilizing sequence, $\sigma_{e,0}$, if such a string exists. Extending this strategy, we will construct $\sigma_{e,n,s}$ for all $n,s \in \mathbb N$, such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\sigma_{e,n,s} \preceq \sigma_{e,n+1,s}$ for all $n,s\in \mathbb N$, if both strings are defined.
\item $\sigma_{e,0,0}, \sigma_{e,0,1}, \ldots$ converges to an $(e,0)$-stabilizing sequence, if one exists.
\item If $\sigma_{e,k,0}, \sigma_{e,k,1}, \ldots$ converges to a string $\sigma_{e,k}$ for all $k<n$, then \newline $\sigma_{e,n,0},\sigma_{e,n,1},\ldots$ converges to an $(e,n)$-stabilizing sequence, $\sigma_{e,n}$, that extends $\sigma_{e,k}$ for all $k<n$, if such a $\sigma_{e,n}$ exists.
\end{itemize}
Before constructing $\sigma_{e,n,s}$, we introduce some notation. First, define the following finite set of strings.
$$A(\sigma, s) = \{\tau : (\mbox{content}(\tau)\subseteq L_e) \wedge (\max(\mbox{content}(\tau))\leq s) \wedge (|\tau| \leq s) \wedge (\tau \succeq \sigma)\}$$
Next, let $Q(e,n,\sigma,s)$ be the computable predicate ``there is no string in $A(\sigma,s)$ and natural number less than or equal to $s$ witnessing that $\sigma$ is not an $(e,n)$-stabilizing sequence". Last, fix a symbol, ?, which will be used to indicate that a string is undefined. We now give an effective algorithm for computing $\sigma_{e,n,s}$.\par
\medskip
\textbf{Stage 0:} At this stage, no strings have yet been defined. We set $\sigma_{e,0,0}$ to be the empty string.\par
\textbf{Stage s+1:} We set $\sigma_{e,s+1,i} =~?$ for $i \leq s$. We perform the following actions for each $n$, starting with $n = 0$, up to $n = s$.\par
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\sigma_{e,n,s} \neq~?$, $\sigma_{e,i,s+1} \neq~?$ for all $i < n$, and $Q(e,n,\sigma_{e,n,s},s+1)$, then we set $\sigma_{e,n,s+1} = \sigma_{e,n,s}$.
\item Otherwise, we consider two possibilities.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\sigma_{e,i,s+1} \neq~?$ for all $i < n$ and there exists $\tau \in A(\sigma_{e,n-1,s+1},s+1)$ (where we replace $\sigma_{e,n-1,s+1}$ with the empty string if $n=0$) such that $Q(e,n,\tau,s+1)$, then we set $\sigma_{e,n,s+1}$ to be the least such $\tau$.
\item Otherwise, we set $\sigma_{e,n,s+1} =~?$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
Once the process above terminates, we end the stage of the construction.\par
\medskip
Observe that $\{ \sigma_{e,n,s} \}_{s\in \mathbb N}$ converges if and only if $\{ \sigma_{e,k,s} \}_{s\in \mathbb N}$ converges for $k < n$ and there is an $(e,n)$-stabilizing sequence extending the string to which $\{ \sigma_{e,n-1,s} \}_{s\in \mathbb N}$ converges. Furthermore, if $\{ \sigma_{e,n,s} \}_{s\in \mathbb N}$ converges, it converges to such an $(e,n)$-stabilizing sequence.\par
Define $a_{e,\ell}$ to be the least even number greater than $e+\ell+1$ such that $\sigma_{e,h,s} = \sigma_{e,h,s+1} \neq~?$ for all $h \leq \ell$ and $s \geq a_{e,\ell}$, if it exists. Let $b_{e,\ell} = a_{e,\ell} + 1$. These numbers will allow us to monitor the convergence of the sequences, $\{ \sigma_{e,\ell,s} \}_{s\in \mathbb N}$, and control the construction as appropriate. If $\{ \sigma_{e,k,s} \}_{s\in \mathbb N}$ does not converge for some $k \in \mathbb N$, then $a_{e,\ell}$ will be undefined for $\ell \geq k$.\par
Define two sets
\begin{align*}
R_e &= \{x \in L_e : \forall \ell (x \neq a_{e,\ell})\} \\
\hat{R}_e &= \{x \in L_e : \forall \ell (x \neq b_{e,\ell})\}.
\end{align*}
Observe that $R_e$ is $c.e.$ Because $a_{e,0} < a_{e,1} < \ldots$ and $a_{e,\ell} \geq \ell$, we see that $x \in R_e$ if and only if $x \neq a_{e,\ell}$ for all $\ell \leq x$. Although $a_{e,\ell}$ is not computable, $x \neq a_{e,\ell}$ is $\Sigma_1^0$.
$$x \neq a_{e,\ell} \leftrightarrow (\sigma_{e,\ell,x} =~?) \vee (\sigma_{e,\ell,x-1} = \sigma_{e,\ell,x}) \vee (\exists s\geq x) (\sigma_{e,\ell,s} \neq \sigma_{e,\ell,x})$$
Thus, $x \in R_e$ is a finite conjunction of $\Sigma_1^0$ statements. Similarly, substituting $b_{e,\ell}$ for $a_{e,\ell}$, we see that $\hat{R}_e$ is also $c.e.$ We are now in a position to define $\mathcal L_e$. Recall that $D_0, D_1,\ldots$ enumerates all finite sets.
$$\mathcal L_e = \{R_e \cup (D_n \cap [e, \infty) ): n \in \mathbb N\} \cup \{\hat{R}_e \cup (D_n \cap [e, \infty) ): n \in \mathbb N\}$$
We now return to $M_e$, the learner against which we are currently diagonalizing. We must prove that $M_e$ is incapable of TxtFext$^*_*$-learning $\mathcal L_e$.\par
\smallskip
\textbf{Case 1:} Suppose there is a minimal $\ell \neq 0$ such that $\sigma_{e,\ell}$ is undefined. By definition, this implies there is no $\sigma$ extending $\sigma_{e,\ell-1}$ such that $e+\ell \in \mbox{content}(\sigma) \subset L_e$ and $W_{M_e(\sigma),|\sigma|+s}\cap [0,\ell) = W_{M_e(\tau),|\sigma|+s}\cap [0,\ell)$, for all $\tau$ such that $\sigma\prec \tau$ with $\mbox{content}(\tau) \subset L_e$. Furthermore, since $\sigma_{e,\ell}$ is undefined, $\sigma_{e,i}$ is undefined for all $i \geq \ell$. Consequently, $a_{e,i}$ is undefined for all $i \geq \ell$ and both $R_e$ and $\hat{R}_e$ are cofinite subsets of $L_e$. For a suitable finite set, $D_n$, we have $R_e \cup D_n = L_e$, and hence, $L_e \in \mathcal L_e$. By repeatedly selecting extensions on which $M_e$ outputs hypotheses coding distinct sets, we can inductively build an enumeration of $L_e$ on which $M_e$ infinitely often outputs codes for at least two sets that are not equal. If $\ell = 0$, there is the additional possibility that $M_e$ cannot be made to select a finite collection of hypotheses and restrict its output to that finite list. The machine has failed to TxtFext$^*_*$-learn $\mathcal L_e$.\par
\smallskip
\textbf{Case 2:} Suppose that $\sigma_{e,\ell}$ is defined for all $\ell$. Both $R_e$ and $\hat{R}_e$ are coinfinite sets and have infinite symmetric difference. By the definition of $\sigma_{e,0}$, for any $\tau$ such that $\sigma_{e,o}\prec \tau$ and content$(\tau) \subset L_e$, $M_e(\tau) \leq |\sigma_{e,0}|$. We may therefore define a finite list, $h_0, h_1, \ldots, h_n$, of all distinct hypotheses that $M_e$ outputs on extensions of $\sigma_{e,0}$. Pick $\ell$ sufficiently large so that, for each $i,j \leq n$ for which $W_{h_i} \neq W_{h_j}$, there is an $x \in W_{h_i} \triangle W_{h_j}$ such that $x < \ell$.\par
All hypotheses made by $M_e$ on extensions of $\sigma_{e,\ell}$ contained in $L_e$ must have the same intersection with $[0,\ell-1]$ as $W_{M_e(\sigma_{e,\ell})}$. By the choice of $\ell$, all such hypotheses must code the same set, yet $\mathcal L_e$ contains two sets that extend $\sigma_{e,\ell}$ and have infinite symmetric difference: content$(\sigma_{e,\ell}) \cup R_e$ and content$(\sigma_{e,\ell}) \cup \hat{R}_e$. Again, we witness failure by $M_e$ to TxtFext$^*_*$-learn $\mathcal L_e$.\par
\bigskip
For each $e \in \mathbb N$, we have shown that $\mathcal L_e$ is not TxtFext$^*_*$-learnable by $M_e$. Consequently, $\mathcal L = \bigcup_{e \in \mathbb N} \mathcal L_e$ is not TxtFext$^*_*$-learnable. We must now verify that $\mathcal L$ is indeed TxtFex$^*_2$-learnable.\par
Every set in $\mathcal L$ is a finite variant of $R_e$ or $\hat{R}_e$ for some $e \in \mathbb N$. Therefore, a learner need only identify the appropriate $e$ and determine to which of $R_e$ and $\hat{R}_e$ the input enumeration is most similar. Since $R_e$ is co-even and $\hat{R}_e$ is co-odd, they are identifiable by the numbers not in them. Let $x_e$ and $\hat{x}_e$ be codes for $R_e$ and $\hat{R}_e$, respectively. For notational ease, let $m_{\sigma} = $ min(content$(\sigma)$) and $n_{\sigma} = \mbox{min}(\{y > m_{\sigma} : y \notin \mbox{content}(\sigma)\})$. Given $\sigma$, an intial segment of an enumeration for a set in $\mathcal L$, $m_{\sigma}$ is the current guess at the least member of the set (hence the $e$ for which the set is in $\mathcal L_e$) and $n_{\sigma}$ is the current guess at the least element of $L_e$ not in the set. Define a machine $M$ as follows:\par
$$M(\sigma) = \begin{cases}
x_e & \mbox{if }e = m_{\sigma} \wedge (n_{\sigma} \mbox{ is even}),\\
\hat{x}_e & \mbox{if }e = m_{\sigma} \wedge (n_{\sigma} \mbox{ is odd}),\\
0 & \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
Suppose that $M$ is receiving an enumeration for $L \in \mathcal L$. Every set in $\mathcal L$ is either of the form $R_e \cup D_n$ or $\hat{R}_e \cup D_n$, for some $e,n\in \mathbb N$. By the symmetric relationship between $R_e$ and $\hat{R}_e$, we may assume that $L = R_e \cup D_n$ for some specific $e$ and $n$. We must consider two cases: $R_e$ is either cofinite or coinfinite.\par
If $R_e$ is cofinite, $\hat{R}_e$ is also cofinite. As a consequence, $R_e =^* \hat{R}_e$. Eventually, the enumeration will exhibit the least element of the set being enumerated. After that stage, $M$ will either output $x_e$ or $\hat{x}_e$. Given the model of learning, both are correct hypotheses. If $R_e$ is coinfinite, then $L_e \setminus R_e$ is an unbounded set of even numbers. The target set is a finite variant of $R_e$. Hence, the least element not in content$(\sigma)$ and greater than $e$ will be even for cofinitely many initial segments of any enumeration. In other words, for cofinitely many initial segments, $\sigma$, of any enumeration of $L$, $n_{\sigma}$ is even and $M(\sigma) = x_e$, a code for a finite variant of the enumerated set.\par
We have constructed a family $\mathcal L$ such that, for each computable machine, $\mathcal L$ contains a subfamily that the machine cannot TxtFext$_*^*$-learn, and we have exhibited a specific machine that TxtFex$_2^*$-learns the whole family. This completes the proof.\par
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusion}
Recall the statement of Theorem \ref{fulketal} from the introduction:
$$(\forall j)(\mbox{TxtFex}^j_* \subseteq \mbox{TxtFext}^*_*).$$
\medskip
\smallskip
Combining this with Theorem \ref{main}, we observe the following intriguing relationship between the anomalous versions of the two learning criteria
$$(\forall j)(\mbox{TxtFex}^j_* \subseteq \mbox{TxtFext}^*_* \subsetneq \mbox{TxtFex}^*_*).$$
\medskip
\smallskip
A great number of other results about vacillatory learning are already known. Many of the results can be found in a paper of Case's ~\cite{POV} or in Osherson, Stob and Weinstein's book ~\cite{STL}.\par
$ $\par
\textbf{Acknowledgements.} We would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for important comments and useful feedback on this paper.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Introduction}
A substantial part of the energy carried by the solar wind can be transfered into the terrestrial magnetosphere and it is associated with the passage of southward directed interplanetary magnetic fields, Bs, by the Earth for sufficiently long intervals of time.
\Citet{Gonzalezetal:1994} discussed the energy transfer process as a conversion of the directed mechanical energy from the solar wind into magnetic energy stored in the magnetotail of Earth's magnetosphere and its reconversion into thermal mechanical energy in the plasma sheet, auroral particles, ring current, and Joule heating of the ionosphere.
The increase on the solar wind pressure is responsible for the energy injections and induces global effects in the magnetosphere called geomagnetic storms.
The characteristic signature of geomagnetic storms can be described as a depression on the horizontal component of the Earth's magnetic field measured at low and middle latitude ground stations.
The decrease in the magnetic horizontal field component is due to an enhancement of the trapped magnetospheric particle population, consequently an enhanced ring of current.
This perturbation of the H-component could last from several hours to several days \cite[as described by][]{Kamideetal:1998}.
The geomagnetic storms can consist of four phases: sudden commencement, initial phase, main phase and recovery phase.
The sudden commencement when it exists, corresponds to the moment when the initial impact of the increased solar wind pressure over the magnetopause occurs.
The initial phase at ground appears as a rapid increase on the H-component over less than 1 h almost simultaneously worldwide.
The main phase of the geomagnetic storm lasts a few hours and is characterized by a decrease in the H-component.
The recovery time corresponds to the gradual increase of the H-component value to its average level.
A detailed description of the morphology of magnetic storms is, for instance, in \cite{Gonzalezetal:1994}.
The intensity of the geomagnetic disturbance in each day is described by indices.
The indices are very useful to provide the global diagnostic of the degree of disturbance level.
There are different indices that can be used depending on the character and the latitude influences in focus.
Considering only the main latitudinal contributions, the ring current dominates at low and middle latitudes and an auroral ionospheric current systems dominates at higher latitudes \citep{Mendesetal:2005}.
Kp, AE and Dst and their derivations are the most used geomagnetic indices.
The Kp index is obtained from the H-component and it is divided in ten levels from 0 to 9 corresponding to the mean value of the disturbance levels within 3-h intervals observed at 13 subauroral magnetic stations \cite[see][]{Bartels1957}.
However, the K index is the most difficult to be physically interpreted due to its variations be caused by any geophysical current system including magnetopause currents, field-aligned currents, and the auroral electrojets \citep{Gonzalezetal:1994}.
The minutely AE index (sometimes $2.5$ minute interval) is also obtained by the H-component measured from magnetic stations (5 to 11 in number) located at auroral zones and widely distributed in longitude.
The AE index provides a measure of the overall horizontal auroral oval current strength.
The index most used in low and mid-latitudes is the Dst index.
It represents the variations of the H-component due to changes of the ring current and is calculated every hour.
The Dst index is described as a measure of the worldwide derivation of the H-component at mid-latitude ground stations from their quiet days values.
At mid-latitude, the H-component is a function of the magnetopause currents, the ring current and tail currents.
\cite{Burtonetal1975} calculated the Dst index as a average of the records from $N$ mid-latitude magnetic stations following,
\begin{equation}
Dst=\frac{1}{N} \sum^{N}_{i=1}{H_{disturbed}-H_{quiet}}=\overline{\Delta H}
\end{equation}
where $\overline{\Delta H}$ is a local time H average, $H_{disturbed}$ is the H-component measured at disturbed days and $H_{quiet}$, on quiet days.
Other contributions beyond the ring current could be extracted or eliminated with the idea presented by \cite{Burtonetal1975}.
Those authors described the evolution of the ring current by a simple first order differential equation,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\,Dst^*}{d\,t}=Q(t)-a\,Dst^*,
\end{equation}
where $Dst^*= Dst-b\,Pdyn^{\frac{1}{2}}+c$. The contribution of the magnetopause currents to $H$ is proportional to the square root of the solar wind dynamic pressure ($Pdyn$), $Q$ represents the injection of particles to the ring current, $a\,Dst^*$ represents the loss of particles with an e-folding time $\frac{1}{a}$ and the constant terms $a$, $b$ and $c$ are determine by the quiet days values of the magnetopause and ring currents.
The Dst index is available on the Kyoto World Data Center at http:// wdc.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dstdir/index.html.
It is traditionally calculated from four magnetic observatories: Hermanus, Kakioka, Honolulu, and San Juan.
These observatories are located at latitudes below $40^o$ which are sufficiently distant from the auroral electrojets.
The derivation of the Dst index corresponds to three main steps: the removal of the secular variation, the elimination of the Sq variation and the calculation of the hourly equatorial Dst Index (see http://wdc.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dstdir/dst2/onDstindex.html).
The traditional method of calculating the baseline for the quiet day variations uses the five quietest day for each month for each magnetic observatory.
In this work, we propose a way to deal with Sq variations by suggesting a method using Principal Component with the wavelet correlation matrix.
This method eliminates the disturbed days using a multiscale process.
Also, we developed an algorithm for extracting the solar quiet variations recorded in the magnetic stations time series, in order words, a way of estimation of the quiet-time baseline.
To accomplish this task, we separate the solar diurnal variations using hourly data of the H-component using the technique \cite[described in][]{Klausner2011}.
Afterward we applied the principal component wavelet analysis to identify the global patterns in the solar diurnal variations.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows:
Section~\ref{The Dst index calculation procedure} is devoted to explain the main issues of the Dst index calculation procedure.
In Section~\ref{Magnetic Data} the analyzed period and data are presented.
Section~\ref{Methodology} describes the principal component analysis and it is devoted to introduce the suggested method of principal component analysis (PCA) using gapped wavelet transform and wavelet correlation.
It also establishes the identification of the disturbed days.
The results are discussed in Section~\ref{Results and Discussion}, and finally,
Section \ref{Summary} brings the conclusions of this work.
\section{The Dst index calculation procedure}
\label{The Dst index calculation procedure}
Recently, reconstructing the Dst and removing the quiet-time baseline have been a motivation of several works \citep{KarinenMursula:2005,Mendesetal:2005,KarinenMursula:2006,Mursulaetal:2008,LoveGannon:2009,Klausner2011}.
Despite of these disagreements in the Dst constrution, today, the Dst index remains an important tool in the space weather analysis.
\Citet{KarinenMursula:2005} reconstructed the Dst index (Dxt) following the original formula presented at http://wdc.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp /dstdir/dst2/onDstindex.html.
However, they encountered a few issues as: the availability and the data quality , some shifts in the baseline level of the H-component, erroneous data points and some data gaps at all/some magnetic observatories.
The Dst could not be fully reproduced using the original formula because the inadequate information above effects the treatment of the related issues and therefore remains partly unscientific as described by \Citet{KarinenMursula:2005}.
A new corrected and extended version (Dcx) of the Dxt index was proposed by \Citet{KarinenMursula:2006}.
They corrected the Dst index for the excessive seasonal varying quiet-time level which was unrelated to magnetic storms as previously discussed in \Citet{KarinenMursula:2005}.
They also showed that the considerable amount of quiet-time variation is included in the Dxt index but none in the Dcx index.
Another issue related to the derivation of the Dst index is that no treatment is made to normalize the different latitudinal location of the magnetic observatories.
\Citet{Mursulaetal:2008} suggested the normalization of the magnetic disturbances at the four Dst stations with different latitudes by the cosine of the geomagnetic latitude of the respective station.
If no correction is made, they showed for the lowest geomagnetic station, Honolulu, the largest deviations and for the highest station, Hermanus, the lowest deviations of the four station.
The standard deviations reflect the annually averaged effect of the (mainly ring current related) disturbances at each station, \cite[see][for more details]{Mursulaetal:2008}.
\Citet{Mendesetal:2005} evaluated the effect of using more than four magnetic stations and shorter time intervals to calculate the Dst index.
The obtained Dst index profiles using 12, 6 or 4 magnetic station did not show significant discrepancies and the best agreement with the standart Dst was obtained using magnetic stations located at latitudes lower than $35^o$ in both hemispheres.
Although, the increase of symmetrically world-wide distributed magnetic stations did not effect significantly the Dst index, the longitudinal asymmetries of the ring current contributes for the average disturbances of the Four Dst stations be systematically different.
\Citet{Mursulaetal:2010} using an extended network of 17 stations, demonstrated that the local disturbances are ordered according to the station's geographic longitude, where the westernmost station (Honolulu) presented the largest disturbances and contributions to Dst index and the easternmost (Kakioka) the smallest.
\Citet{Klausner2011} studied the characteristics of the Sq variations at a Brazilian station and compared to the features from other magnetic stations to better understand the dynamics of the diurnal variations involved in the monitoring of the Earth's magnetic field.
They used gapped wavelet analysis and the wavelet cross-correlation technique to verify the latitudinal and longitudinal dependence of the diurnal variations.
As previously mentioned by \Citet{Mursulaetal:2010}, \Citet{Klausner2011} also verified that magnetic stations located at lower latitudes and westernmost (Honolulu and San Juan) presented larger correlation to Vassouras than the easternmost stations (as Kakioka).
Some important aspects for the construction of the Dst index as described by \Citet{LoveGannon:2009} are: the utilization of the original data, the inspection in time and frequency domains (removal of diurnal variation) and the consideration of the distinction between stationary and non-stationary time series ingredients which applies to the secular variation.
Also as mentioned by \Citet{LoveGannon:2009}, some patterns of the global magnetic disturbance field are well understood and some are not which means that there is still a lot to learn about the magnetosphere, magnetic storm and Earth-Sun relationship.
\section{Magnetic Data}
\label{Magnetic Data}
In this paper, we use ground magnetic measurements to estimate the quiet-time baseline.
We select the four magnetic observatories used to calculate the Dst index: Hermanus (HER), Kakioka (KAK), Honolulu (HON), and San Juan (SJG), plus other $9$
different magnetic observatories reasonably homogeneously distributed world wide.
One of these nine chosen stations is Vassouras (VSS) located under the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (minimum of the geomagnetic field intensity).
The geomagnetic data use in this work relied on data collections provided by the INTERMAGNET programme (http://www.intermagnet.org).
The distribution of the magnetic stations, with their IAGA codes, is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:MapStations}.
The corresponding codes and locations are given in Table~\ref{table:ABBcode}.
These selection of magnetic stations correspond to the same selection used in a previous work o\citep{Klausner2011} for the same reasons (exclusion of the major influence of the auroral and equatorial electrojets).
In this work, we only use the data interval corresponding to the year 2007.
We also apply the same methodology to identify geomagnetically quiet days used by \Citet{Klausner2011}.
We consider quiet days, only those days in which the Kp index is not higher than 3+.
As at low latitudes the horizontal component (H) is mostly affected by the intensity of the ring current, we decided to use only the hourly mean value series of this component.
The magnetic stations present available data in Cartesian components (XYZ system).
The Conversion to horizontal-polar components (HDZ system) is very simple \citep[see][for more details]{Campbell1997}.
The system's conversion was performed in all the chosen magnetic stations.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{MapStations.eps}
\caption{Geographical localization of the stations used in this work and their respective IAGA code.}
\label{fig:MapStations}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{INTERMAGNET network of geomagnetic stations used in this study.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c }
\hline
Station & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Geographic coord.} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Geomagnetic coord.}\\
\cline{2-5}
& Lat.($^o$) & Long.($^o$) & Lat.($^o$) & Long.($^o$) \\[0.5ex]
\hline
AMS &-37.83 &77.56 &-46.07 &144.94 \\
ASP &-23.76 &133.88 &-32.50 &-151.45 \\
BEL &51.83 &20.80 &50.05 &105.18 \\
BMT &40.30 &116.20 &30.22 &-172.55 \\
BOU & 40.13 & -105.23 & 48.05 &-38.67 \\
CLF &48.02 &2.26 &49.56 &85.72 \\
CMO &64.87 &-147.86 &65.36 &-97.23 \\
EYR &-43.42 &172.35 &-46.79 &-106.06 \\
HER &-34.41 &19.23 &-33.89 &84.68 \\
HON &21.32 &-158.00 &21.59 &-89.70 \\
KAK & 36.23 & 140.18 & 27.46 &-150.78\\
SJG &18.12 &-66.15 &27.93 &6.53 \\
VSS & -22.40 & -43.65 &-13.43 &27.06 \\[1ex]
\hline
\end{tabular}
\\Source: http://wdc.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/igrf/gggm/index.html (2010)
\label{table:ABBcode}
\end{table}
\section{Methodology}
\label{Methodology}
The method used in this study is based on the principal component analysis (PCA) using gapped wavelet transform and wavelet correlation to characterize the global diurnal variation behavior.
To identify periods of magnetic disturbance, we use the discrete wavelet transform.
This technique is employed to analyze the removal of disturbed days from the magnetograms, and consequently, from the reconstructed Sq signal.
Also in this section, a combined methodology using the PCA and gapped wavelet transform is briefly described.
Following, we present an identification method to distinguish the disturbed days using discrete wavelet coefficients.
\subsection*{Global geomagnetic behavior analysis}
Among the several available methods of analysis, PCA is a particularly useful tool in studying large quantities of multi-variate data.
PCA is used to decompose a time-series into its orthogonal component modes, the first of which can be used to describe the dominant patterns of variance in the time series \cite{Murray1984}.
The PCA is able also to reduce the original data set of two or more observed variables by identifying the significant information from the data.
Principal Components (PCs) are derived as the eigenvectors of the correlation matrix between the variables.
Their forms depend directly on the interrelationships existing within the data itself.
The first PC is a linear combination of the original variables, which when used as a linear predictor of these variables, explains the largest fraction of the total variance. The second, third PC, etc., explain the largest parts of the remaining variance \cite{Murray1984}.
As explained by \Citet{Yamada2002}, the interpretation of the eigenvectors and the eigenvalues can be described as follow, the eigenvectors are the normalized orthogonal basis in phase space, and also, the set of vectors of the new coordinate system in the space, different from the coordinate system of the original variables; the eigenvalues are the corresponding variance of the distribution of the projections in the new basis.
In order to isolate the global contributions of each PCs mode, we applied PCA using the wavelet correlation matrix computed by gapped wavelet transform.
This wavelet correlation matrix was introduced in \cite{Nesme-Ribesetall1995}.
We joined the properties of the PCA, which are the compression of large databases and the simplification by the PCs modes, and properties of the wavelet correlation matrix, which is the correlation at a given scale, $a$, in this case, the scale corresponded to the pseudo-period of $24$ hours.
\subsection*{Identification of magnetic disturbance}
The wavelet analysis has the following propriety: the larger amplitudes of the wavelet coefficients are associated with locally abrupt signal changes or ``details'' of higher frequency.
In the work of \Citet{MendesMag2005} and the following work of \cite{MendesdaCostaetal:2011}, a method for the detection of the transition region and the exactly location of this discontinuities due to geomagnetic storms was implemented.
In these cases, the highest amplitudes of the wavelet coefficients indicate the singularities on the geomagnetic signal in association with the disturbed periods.
On the other hand, when the magnetosphere is under quiet conditions for the geomagnetic signal, the wavelet coefficients show very small amplitudes.
In this work, we applied this methodology with Daubechies orthogonal wavelet function of order 2 on the one minute time resolution with the pseudo-periods of the first three levels of 3, 6 and 12 minutes.
\section{Results and Discussion}
\label{Results and Discussion}
In this section, we will present the results of reconstructed baseline for the global quiet days variation using PCA technique implemented with gapped wavelet transform and wavelet correlation.
Also, we will apply DWT to evaluate the day-by-day level of geomagnetic disturbance using KAK magnetic station as reference.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{Jun07novo.eps}\\
\caption{The GWT analysis of KAK magnetogram. At top, it shows the H-component of KAK at June, 2007 used
for the wavelet analysis, at bottom left, the scalogram using Morlet wavelet, logarithmic scaled
representing $\log2{(|W(a,b)|)}$, and at bottom right, the global wavelet spectrum.}
\label{fig:KAKescalogram}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:KAKescalogram} shows an example of the geomagnetic behavior presented at the June, 2007 magnetogram of Kakioka using continuous gapped wavelet transform (GWT).
The GWT can be used in the analysis of non-stationary signal to obtain information on the frequency or scale variations and to detect its structures localization in time and/or in space \citep[see][for more details]{Klausner2011}.
It is possible to analyze a signal in a time-scale plane, called so the wavelet scalogram.
In analogy with the Fourier analysis, the square modulus of the wavelet coefficient, $|W(a,b)|^2$, is used to provide the energy distribution in the time-scale plane.
In the GWT analysis, we can also explore the central frequencies of the time series through the global wavelet spectrum which is the variance average at each scale over the whole time series, to compare the spectral power at different scales.
This figure shows the H-component (top), the wavelet square modulus (bottom left) and the global wavelet spectrum (total energy in each scale -- bottom right).
In the scalogram, areas of stronger wavelet power are shown in dark red on a plot of time (horizontally) and time scale (vertically).
The areas of low wavelet power are shown in dark blue.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:KAKescalogram}, it is possible to notice peaks of wavelet power on the scalogram at the time scale corresponding to $8$ to $16$ minutes of period.
This periods are associated to PC5 pulsations during disturbed periods.
Also, it is possible to notice a maximum of wavelet power at the time scale corresponding to harmonic periods of the 24 hours such as 6, 8, 12 hours.
Those periods are related to the diurnal variations.
The GWT technique is able to analyze all the informations present on the magnetograms.
It is an auxiliary tool to localize on time/space the PC1--PC5 pulsations \citep{Saito1969}.
However, the scalogram provides a very redundancy information which difficult the analysis of each decoupling phenomenum.
For that reason, we preferred to use DWT to evaluate the day-by-day level of geomagnetic disturbance.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{novaSum.eps}\\
\caption{The amplitude variation of the reconstructed Sq signal with the highlighted $10$ geomagnetically quietest days (blue) and $5$ most disturbed days (red), the H-component average variation for KAK obtained at June, 2007 and the square root wavelet coefficients amplitudes $d1$, $d2$ and $d3$ with the pseudo-periods of 3, 6 and 12 minutes.}
\label{fig:SqJun}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:SqJun} is composed of two graphs, the first one presents the reconstructed line of the Sq variation where the first $10$ geomagnetically quietest days of each month are highlighted in blue and the $5$ most disturbed days in red and the second one presents the discrete wavelet analysis of the geomagnetic horizontal component obtained at Kakioka station, Japan.
Using our criteria of removing disturbed days, we consider as gaps of 3rd, 14th, 21th and 29th day.
In our case, the gapped wavelet technique is very helpful because it reduces two effects: the presence of gaps and the boundary effects due to the finite length of the data, for more details see \Citet{Klausner2011}.
The first graph shows the amplitude range between $-5$ and $5$ nT and presents a complex pattern.
It is possible to notice that the larger amplitudes of the reconstructed Sq signal correspond to the periods between the days 8--10, 13--15, 21--23 and 29--30.
These periods correspond to the disturbed days.
Table~\ref{table:Sq10calmos} shows these $10$ quietest days and $5$ most disturbed days of each month set by the \textit{GeoForschungsZentrum (GFZ) Potsdam} through the analysis of the Kp index that are highlighted on the second graph.
The year of $2007$ is a representative year of minimum solar activity and it is used in this analysis due to have less disturbed periods (see our considerations in Section~\ref{Magnetic Data}).
By analyzing these highlighted days, we expect to find out if there is a correlation between the days classified as quiet days and a small Sq amplitude variation.
\begin{table}[ht]
\scriptsize{
\caption{The first $10$ geomagnetically quietest days and first $5$ most disturbed days set by the \textit{GeoForschungsZentrum (GFZ) Potsdam}}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c }
\hline
Month/year & \multicolumn{10}{c}{$10$ quietest days}& \multicolumn{5}{c}{$5$ most disturbed days}\\
\cline{1-16} & q1 & q2 & q3 & q4 & q5 & q6 & q7 & q8 & q9 & q10 & d1 & d2 & d3 & d4 & d5 \\
\hline
Mar & 20 & 21 & 3 & 19 & 9 & 29 & 22 & 18 & 31 & 4 & 13 & 24 & 6 & 7 & 14 \\
Jun & 5 & 12 & 6 & 7 & 11 & 26 & 25 & 20 & 30 & 28 & 14 & 21 & 22 & 3 & 29 \\
Sep & 13 & 9 & 10 & 11 & 12 & 16 & 17 & 19 & 26 & 15 & 29 & 2 & 28 & 23 & 27 \\
Dec & 3 & 8 & 4 & 25 & 7 & 26 & 2 & 29 & 15 & 6 & 18 & 17 & 11 & 20 & 21 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
SOURCE: http://wdc.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/qddays/index.html.\\
}
\label{table:Sq10calmos}
\end{table}
The second graph shows the discrete wavelet analysis applied to geomagnetic minutely signal from KAK using Daubechies orthogonal wavelet family 2.
From top to bottom in this graph, the H-component of the geomagnetic field and the first three levels of the square wavelet coefficients denoted by d1, d2 and d3.
This analysis uses the methodology developed by \Citet{MendesMag2005}, and posteriorly applied by \citet{MendesdaCostaetal:2011} and \Citet{Klausner2011b}.
In order to facilitate the evaluation of the quiet periods obtained by the discrete wavelet analysis applied to geomagnetic signal from KAK, we also developed a methodology (effectiveness wavelet coefficients (EWC)) to interpret the results shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:SUMSqJun}.
The EWC corresponds to the weighted geometric mean of the square wavelet coefficients per hour.
It is accomplished by weighting the square wavelet coefficients means in each level of decomposition as following
\begin{equation}
EWC=\frac{4\,\sum_{i=1}^{N}d1+2\,\sum_{i=1}^{N}d2+\sum_{i=1}^{N}d3}{7},
\end{equation}
where $N$ is equal to $60$ because our time series has one minute resolution.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\psfrag{Sum Coeff. Wav.}[c][][0.8]{$\;\;EWC$}
\psfrag{Time (days)}[c][][0.8]{$Time\;(days)$}
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{FigSq062007sum.eps}\\
\caption{The comparative of the global Sq behavior and the effectiveness wavelet coefficients for the month of June, 2007.}
\label{fig:SUMSqJun}
\end{figure}
Through Fig.~\ref{fig:SUMSqJun}, it is possible to compare the global Sq behavior (top graph) with the analysis of quiet and disturbed days obtained by one representative magnetic station of medium/low latitudes (KAK -- bottom graph) in order to verify situations in which the global Sq behavior presents less or more variability.
This analysis allows us to validate the quietest days, and evaluate the most disturbed days in order to establish a reliable method of global Sq analysis obtained from medium/low latitude magnetic stations influenced only by the ionosphere.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:SUMSqJun}, the global Sq behavior (top graph) shows larger amplitudes during the periods between the days 8--10, 12--16, 22--23 and 29--30.
Most of these periods correspond to the days where the EWCs have an increase of their values as shown KAK analysis (bottom graph).
The increase of the EWCs values occurs during the periods between the days 1--4, 8--10, 13--18, 21--24 and 29--30.
The EWCs can help us also to interpret the results obtained in each day, and can help us to evaluate the quietest and most disturbed days measure by the selected magnetic station of medium/low latitudes, KAK, as shown in Table~\ref{table:Sq10calmosDWT}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\scriptsize{
\caption{The $10$ geomagnetically quietest days and $5$ most disturbed days obtained by the discrete wavelet analysis}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c }
\hline
Month/year & \multicolumn{10}{c}{$10$ quietest days}& \multicolumn{5}{c}{$5$ most disturbed days}\\
\cline{1-16} & q1 & q2 & q3 & q4 & q5 & q6 & q7 & q8 & q9 & q10 & d1 & d2 & d3 & d4 & d5 \\
\hline
Mar & 3 & 10 & 20 & 9 & 21 & 8 & 2 & 19 & 22 & 4 & 13 & 25 & 12 & 15 & 24 \\
Jun & 11 & 12 & 6 & 25 & 5 & 26 & 7 & 28 & 19 & 27 & 21 & 2 & 14 & 22 & 29 \\
Sep & 12 & 11 & 10 & 9 & 17 & 18 & 16 & 13 & 26 & 19 & 27 & 22 & 29 & 2 & 20 \\
Dec & 25 & 7 & 3 & 8 & 1 & 24 & 4 & 6 & 16 & 28 & 17 & 18 & 11 & 20 & 10 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{table:Sq10calmosDWT}
\end{table}
The same methodology and analysis comparing the global Sq behavior and the EWCs from KAK is done for the month of March, September and December,2007.
Fig.~\ref{fig:SUMSqMar} shows the comparative of the global Sq behavior and the EWCs from KAK for the month of March, 2007.
The amplitude range of global Sq signal is between $-15$ and $15$ nT, and, it also shows a complex pattern.
It is possible to notice that the larger amplitudes of the reconstructed Sq signal correspond to the periods between the days 6--7, 11--17 and 23--28.
Once more, these periods correspond to the disturbed days.
The increase of the EWCs values occurs during the periods between the days 1, 6--7, 11--17, 23--28 and 30--31.
We can notice that the increase of the amplitude of the reconstructed Sq signal correspond to the increase of the EWCs magnitude.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\psfrag{Sum Coeff. Wav.}[c][][0.8]{$\;\;EWC$}
\psfrag{Time (days)}[c][][0.8]{$Time\;(days)$}
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{FigSq032007sum.eps}\\
\caption{The comparative of the global Sq behavior and the effectiveness wavelet coefficients for the month of March, 2007}
\label{fig:SUMSqMar}
\end{figure}
The amplitude range for September, 2007, is between $-15$ and $15$ nT and the larger amplitudes of the reconstructed Sq signal correspond to the periods between the days 1--7, 19--23 and 26--30, see Fig,~\ref{fig:SUMSqSet}.
The increase of the EWCs values occurs during the periods between the days 1--3, 20--24 and 27--30.
Comparing these two analysis, the global and the EWCs, we verify that the KAK magnetic behavior represents well the increase of global Sq oscillations.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\psfrag{Sum Coeff. Wav.}[c][][0.8]{$\;\;EWC$}
\psfrag{Time (days)}[c][][0.8]{$Time\;(days)$}
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{FigSq092007sum.eps}\\
\caption{The comparative of the global Sq behavior and the effectiveness wavelet coefficients for the month of September, 2007}
\label{fig:SUMSqSet}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:SUMSqDec}, the amplitude range is between $-10$ and $10$ nT and the larger amplitudes correspond to the periods between the days 15--23.
Also, the increase of the EWCs values occur during the periods between the days 10--11 and 17--21.
Once more, when we compare these two analysis, the global and the EWCs, we verify that the KAK magnetic behavior represents well the increase of global Sq oscillations.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\psfrag{Sum Coeff. Wav.}[c][][0.8]{$\;\;EWC$}
\psfrag{Time (days)}[c][][0.8]{$Time\;(days)$}
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{FigSq122007sum.eps}\\
\caption{The comparative of the global Sq behavior and the effectiveness wavelet coefficients for the month of December, 2007}
\label{fig:SUMSqDec}
\end{figure}
We observe in Figs.~\ref{fig:SUMSqJun}, \ref{fig:SUMSqMar}, \ref{fig:SUMSqSet} and \ref{fig:SUMSqDec}, in most of the cases, the major amplitude fluctuations of the reconstructed Sq signal correspond to the most disturbed days and minor fluctuations, to the quietest days.
However, the diurnal global variability shows a complexity on the amplitude variation pattern even during geomagnetically quiet periods.
Through this study we compare the amplitude variation of the reconstructed Sq signal to effectiveness wavelet coefficients obtained at KAK with the purpose of understanding the complexity of the diurnal global variability.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{Summary}
In this work, we suggest an alternative approach for the calculation of the Sq baseline using wavelet and PCA techniques.
This new approach address some issues, such as, the availability and the quality of data, abrupt changes in the level of the H-component, erroneous points in the database and the presence of gaps in almost all the magnetic observatories.
To fulfill this purpose, we reconstruct the Sq baseline using the wavelet correlation matrix with scale of $24$ hours (pseudo-period).
The PCA/wavelet method uses the global variation of first PCA mode that also corresponds to phenomena with periods of $24$ hours.
This study shows that the largest amplitude oscillation of the reconstructed signal (Sq baseline) corresponded to the most disturbed days and the smaller oscillations to the quietest days.
This result is consistent with the expected Sq variations.
\section{Acknowledgments}
V. Klausner wishes to thanks CAPES for the financial support of her PhD (CAPES -- grants 465/2008) and her Postdoctoral research (FAPESP -- 2011/20588-7).
This work was supported by CNPq (grants 309017/2007-6, 486165/2006-0, 308680/2007-3, 478707/2003, 477819/2003-6, 382465/01-6), FAPESP (grants
2007/07723-7) and CAPES (grants 86/2010-29, 0880/08-6, 86/2010-29, 551006/2011-0, 17002/2012-8).
Also, the authors would like to thank the INTERMAGNET programme for the datasets used in this work.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
The last decades have seen an increasing interest in galaxy surveys
as a means of studying the late-time evolution of the Universe.
Forthcoming galaxy surveys, such as DES \citep{DES}, BigBOSS
\citep{sch} or Euclid \citep{lau}, will map large regions of the
sky ($\mathcal{O}(10^{3-4})$ sq-deg) to redshifts $z>1$ yielding
catalogs containing hundreds of millions of objects.
The spatial distribution of these objects on different scales
contains invaluable information that could help clarify many open
problems in cosmology and astrophysics, such as the nature of dark
matter and dark energy or the presence of primordial
non-Gaussianities in the density field. One of the simplest
observables that can be estimated to quantify the clustering of
matter on different scales is the two-point correlation function
(2PCF hereon, see section \ref{sec:2pcf}). Its estimation is based
on counting pairs of objects separated by a given distance measure,
and therefore its computational time grows with the square of the
number of objects in the catalog. Hence, when
$\mathcal{O}(10^{14-16})$ pairs must be considered, a simplistic
serial approach is too slow for the full-scale problem, and, besides
using some simplifying approximation, the only viable solution
becomes parallelising the calculation. In this sense modern
graphical processing units (GPUs) provide the means to perform many
operations in parallel on a large number (hundreds) of cores with a
moderate clock frequency for a comparatively cheap price. Another
approach is using a relatively smaller number of high-frequency CPU
cores both in shared or distributed memory machines.
Here we present a {\tt CUTE} (Correlation Utilities and Two-point
Estimation), a free open-source code that estimates different kinds
of two-point correlations from discrete cosmological catalogs
using various speed-up techniques.
\section{The two-point correlation function(s)} \label{sec:2pcf}
The three-dimensional 2PCF $\xi({\bf r})$ of a set of discrete
points in $\mathbb{R}^3$ represents the excess probability of
finding two of them inside two small volumes $dV_1$ and $dV_2$
separated by ${\bf r}$ \citep{pe}:
\begin{equation}
\langle dP\rangle=\bar{n}[1+\xi({\bf r})]\,dV_1\,dV_2.
\end{equation}
When this point distribution comes from a Poisson process based on
an underlying random density field $\delta({\bf x})$, the field's
2PCF $\xi_{\delta}({\bf r})\equiv\langle\delta({\bf x})
\delta({\bf x}+{\bf r})\rangle$ is directly related to that of the
point distribution \citep{mar_saa}. Note that even though, in
principle, the two-point correlation should depend on the
positions of both points, ${\bf r}_1$ and ${\bf r}_2$, for
homogeneous fields the only dependence is on the separation
between them ${\bf r}\equiv{\bf r}_1-{\bf r}_2$.
\subsection{Types of correlation functions}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textheight]{coords.pdf}
\caption{Definition of the different coordinate conventions used.}
\label{fig:coords}
\end{figure}
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf The 3-D correlation function $\xi(r,\mu)$ and
$\xi(\sigma,\pi)$.} Different observational effects, such as
redshift-space distortions or errors in the observed redshifts,
transform what would otherwise be an isotropic 2PCF into a
function that behaves differently along the line of sight and
in the transverse direction. Two coordinate systems are widely
used in the literature: the $\sigma - \pi$ and $r - \mu$ schemes
(see fig. \ref{fig:coords}), the relation between both being
\begin{equation}
\pi=r\,\mu,\,\,\,\,\,\sigma=\sqrt{r^2-\pi^2}.
\end{equation}
The $r - \mu$ scheme has the advantage that the usual multipole
expansion is directly written in terms of these variables:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:multip_exp}
\xi(r,\mu)=\sum_l\xi_l(r)\,P_l(\mu),
\end{equation}
where $P_l$ are the Legendre polynomials. Note that at the linear
level and in the plane-parallel approximation (i.e. the Kaiser
formula \citep{kai}) only the first three even multipoles ($l=0,
\,2,\,4$) contribute.
\item {\bf The monopole $\xi_0(r)$.}
The first element ($l=0$) in the expansion above is the
angle-averaged correlation function or ``monopole'':
\begin{equation}
\xi_0(r)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{-1}^1d\mu\,\xi(r,\mu)
\end{equation}
This is the only non-zero contribution in the absence of redshift
distortions.
\item {\bf The radial correlation function
$\xi_r(\bar{z},\Delta z)$.} Correlating only pairs of galaxies
aligned with the line of sight, one computes the so-called radial
correlation function, which can be made to depend locally only on
the redshift difference $\Delta z$ between each pair of galaxies.
This quantity is related to the three-dimensional 2PCF through
\begin{equation}
\xi_r(\bar{z},\Delta z)=\xi(\pi(\bar{z},\Delta z),\sigma=0),
\end{equation}
whith
\begin{equation}
\pi(\bar{z},\Delta z)\simeq \frac{c\,\Delta z}{H(\bar{z})},
\end{equation}
where $\chi(z)$ is the radial comoving distance to redshift $z$.
\item {\bf The angular correlation function $w(\theta)$.}
The angular correlation function is the 2PCF of the density contrast field projected on
the sphere
\begin{align}
&w(\theta)\equiv\langle\delta_s(\hat{\bf n}_1)\delta_s(\hat{\bf n}_2)\rangle,
\,\,\,\,\cos\theta\equiv\hat{\bf n}_1\cdot\hat{\bf n}_2,\\
&\delta_s(\hat{\bf n})\equiv \int\,dz\, \phi(z)\,\delta(r(z)\,\hat{\bf n}),
\end{align}
where $\phi(z)$ is the redshift selection function. The angular correlation function is
related to $\xi(r,\mu)$ by
\begin{align}\label{eq:w_theta}
& w(\theta)=\int\,dz_1\,\phi(z_1)\int\,dz_2\,\phi(z_2)\,\xi(r(z_1,z_2,\theta),
\mu(z_1,z_2,\theta)) \\ \nonumber
& r(z_1,z_2,\theta)=\sqrt{\chi^2(z_1)+\chi^2(z_2)-2\,\chi(z_1)\,\chi(z_2)\,\cos\theta},
\\\nonumber
& \mu(z_1,z_2,\theta)=\frac{|\chi^2(z_1)-\chi^2(z_2)|}{\sqrt{(\chi^2(z_1)+
\chi^2(z_2))^2-4\,\chi^2(z_1)\chi^2(z_2)\cos^2(\theta) }}
\end{align}
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Estimating the 2PCF from discrete data}
As we have said, the two-point correlation function can be understood as the excess probability
of finding two objects separated by a given distance with respect to a random distribution, and
therefore:
\begin{equation}
1+\xi = \frac{N_p^d(r)\,dr}{N_p^r(r)\,dr}
\end{equation}
where $N_p^d\,dr$ is the number of pairs separated by $r\pm dr/2$ in the data, and $N_p^r(r)\,dr$
is the number of pairs that one would expect for a random distribution. The numerator can be
easily calculated as
\begin{equation}
N_p^d(r)\,dr = \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j\neq i} \Theta(r-dr/2<|{\bf x}_i-{\bf x}_j|<r+dr/2),
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the total number of objects, $\Theta$ is 1 whenever its argument is true and 0
otherwise, and we have explicitly avoided counting self-pairs. If the catalog had no boundaries,
the number of random pairs could easily be estimated as
\begin{equation}
N_p^r(r) = \frac{N^2}{V}v(r),
\end{equation}
where $v(r)\simeq 4\pi\,r^2\,dr$ is the volume of a spherical shell of radius $r$ and thickness
$dr$.
As we have said, this is can only be done if the catalog has no boundaries. Effectively this
true in the case of an N-body simulation, where a sphere that lies partly ouside the simulation
box can be ``wrapped around'' due to the periodic boundary conditions. Thus, in this case a
possible estimator is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:estim_box}
1+\xi(r)\equiv\frac{V}{N^2v(r)}\sum_{i,j\neq i} \Theta(r-dr/2<|{\bf x}_i-{\bf x}_j|<r+dr/2),
\end{equation}
However, when calculating the correlation function from a point distribution with complicated
boundaries, as is usually the case in a galaxy survey, several observational dificulties arise:
e.g. different parts of the sky may have been mapped to different depths and the radial
distribution of objects (selection function) is never uniform. The most usual technique to deal with
these issues is to compare the data catalog with catalogs made of randomly distributed objects
that also contain these artificial effects. In this case the 2PCF can be naively estimated as
\begin{equation}
\xi_N=\frac{N_r(N_r-1)}{N_d(N_d-1)}\frac{DD}{RR}-1
\end{equation}
where $N_d$ and $N_r$ are the number of points in the data and random catalogs respectively and
$DD$ and $RR$ are histograms containing the counts of pairs of objects found separated by a given
distance in each catalog. It has been shown \citep{lan_sza} that the variance of this estimator can
be minimized, and its ability to cope with boundary conditions can be enhanced, by making use of
the cross-correlation of random and data objects, $DR$. The most widely used estimator is the one
proposed by Landy \& Szalay \citep{lan_sza}:
\begin{equation}
\xi_{LS}=\frac{\frac{N_r(N_r-1)}{N_d(N_d-1)}DD-\frac{N_r-1}{N_d}DR+RR}{RR}.
\end{equation}
See \citep{ker} for a thorough comparison of different estimators.
The most delicate part of the estimation is in fact being able to generate the random catalogs
correctly: the background spatial distribution, both in angles and redshift (i.e. the one-point
function), of random objects must be exactly the same as in the data. Hence, all observational
effects that affect the spatial distribution must be correctly reproduced by the random catalogs.
Also, in order to minimize Poisson errors in $DR$ and $RR$, random catalogs should be generated
with more particles than the data.
\section{CUTE}
{\tt CUTE} (Correlation Utilities and Two-point Estimation) is a free and open-source code for
cosmological 2PCF estimation. {\tt CUTE} is written in C and, in the current public version, comes with
two implementations: one parallelized for shared-memory machines using OpenMP and one ({\tt CU\_CUTE})
that performs the correlations in a GPU using NVidia's CUDA architecture. {\tt CUTE} calculates 4
different correlation functions (3-D, monopole, angular and radial) with different binning schemes
and speed-up techniques. Here we will explain the parallelization strategies followed by {\tt CUTE} and
some details specific to each type of 2PCF. We refer the reader to the README file accompanying
the latest public version of {\tt CUTE} for the operational options and compilation instructions of the
code. In this section we assume some basic knowledge of parallel computing with OpenMP and CUDA by the
reader.
It must be noted that there exist two other codes \citep{pon,bar}, recently made public,
designed to compute angular correlation functions with GPUs. As in the case of {\tt CUTE} the speed-up
factor (about $10^2$) gained by these codes through the use of graphical devices for
parallelization clearly makes it worth the effort of adapting CPU algorithms to run on GPUs.
\subsection{Serial approach}
Once the random catalog has been produced, $DD$, $DR$ and $RR$ are computed by autocorrelating or
crosscorrelating each pair of catalogs. In a serial code this algorithm is extremely simple,
involving one loop over each catalog and performing 3 operations in each iteration: calculating
the distance between each pair of objects, determining the bin corresponding to that distance and
increasing the histogram count on that bin. The corresponding C-code would be:
\begin{lstlisting}
int histogram[nbins];
for(i=0;i<np1;i++) {
for(j=0;j<np2;j++) {
//Calculate distance between two objects
double dist=get_dist(x1[i],y1[i],z1[i],
x2[j],y2[j],z2[j]);
//Calculate bin number
int ibin=bin_dist(dist);
//Increase histogram count
histogram[ibin]++;
}
}
\end{lstlisting}
As we said before, these two nested loops make this an $N^2$ problem (to be precise, an
{\tt n1*n2} problem), whose computational time will grow very fast as we increase the size of the
catalogs. At this point parallelization or/and some kind of fast approximate method are desirable,
if not compulsory. In section \ref{ssec:paral} we will describe the parallelization strategies used
by CUTE, which complicate this simple algorithm. Other speed-up techniques used by the code are
explained in section \ref{ssec:neigh}, and some especific details of each type of 2PCF are given in
section \ref{ssec:2pcfs}.
\subsection{Parallelization with CUDA and OpenMP}\label{ssec:paral}
\subsubsection{Multicore shared-memory machines and OpenMP}
OpenMP \footnote{\url{http://www.openmp.org}} is an API that gives support for parallel programming in
shared-memory platforms. Once a parallel execution block is opened, the programmer can define private
(one independent copy per core) or shared (common) variables and easily divide {\tt for} loops
between all available cores. For a thorough review of the different features of OpenMP see
\citep{cha}. The serial code above takes the following form when parallelized with OpenMP:
\begin{lstlisting}
int histogram[nbins];
int histo_thread[nbins];
#pragma omp parallel default(none) \
private(hthread) shared(...) {
//Initialize private histograms
for(i=0;i<nbins;i++)
histo_thread[nbins]=0;
#pragma omp for //Parallelize loop
for(i=0;i<np1;i++) {
for(j=0;j<np2;j++) {
//Calculate distance between two objects
double dist=get_dist(x1[i],y1[i],z1[i],
x2[j],y2[j],z2[j]);
//Calculate bin number
int ibin=bin_dist(dist);
//Increase histogram count
histo_thread[ibin]++;
}
}
#pragma omp critical {
//Add private histograms
for(i=0;i<nbins;i++)
histogram[i]+=histo_thread[i]
}
}
\end{lstlisting}
The strategy in this case to is to declare one private histogram per execution thread that will
store that thread's pair counts. The first loop is then divided between all available threads and
finally all partial histograms are added, avoiding read/write collisions, into the final shared
one. As can be seen, parallelization with OpenMP is effortless, only requiring a few extra lines
of code.
\subsubsection{Graphics cards and CUDA}\label{sec:CUDA}
A GPU (Graphical Processing Unit) is a specialized piece of hardware designed for fast massively
parallel manipulation of memory addresses. As their name suggests, GPUs are mainly intended for
image building and processing, however their highly parallel structure makes them ideal for
intensive numerical computation, providing a relatively cheap flop/s (floating-point operations
per second). Hence in the last years GPUs have found their way into different branches of
scientific research, computational cosmology being one of them \citep{bed,nak}
Initially the main difficulty when trying to use GPUs for scientific computing was
the programming of the numerical algorithm, since using the standard APIs meant that data had to
be disguised as pixel colors and some mathematical operations had to be encoded as graphics
rendering. However lately a few programming models for GPUs have seen the light of day
\footnote{\url{http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda\_home.html}} \footnote{\url{http://www.khronos.org/opencl/}}
that make general purpose computing on GPUs (GPGPU) a lot easier. Of these we have
chosen Nvidia's CUDA \citep{nic} for its syntactic simplicity.
Two main complications arise when one tries to adapt a code to execute on a GPU. First, in a
massively parallel environment one must take great care to avoid race conditions due to
simultaneous memory read/write processes by different threads. Second, unlike in a multi-CPU
machine, the amount of memory ``per thread'' available in a GPU is very limited, presently of the
order of a few GB for hundreds of processors. Besides these, there are other more subtle concerns,
such as intra-warp communication or the presence of different types of cached and uncached
memory in the GPU, the correct use of which may enhance dramatically the code's performance. In
summary, correctly parallelising a code with CUDA is not as straightforward as it is with OpenMP,
and in some cases it may not be worth the effort. For an introduction to CUDA and its many
features see \citep{san_kan}.
Implementing the serial algorithm above in CUDA would involve executing the following
{\tt \_\_device\_\_} function in every thread in parallel:
\begin{lstlisting}
__shared__ int histo_thread[nbins];
int stride=blockDim.x*gridDim.x;
//Initialize shared histogram
histo_thread[threadId.x]=0;
__syncthreads();
//Correlate
for(i=0;i<np1;i++) {
int j=threadIdx.x+blockIdx.x*blockDim.x;
while(j<np2) {
//Calculate distance between two objects
double dist=get_dist(x1[i],y1[i],z1[i],
x2[j],y2[j],z2[j]);
//Calculate bin number
int ibin=bin_dist(dist);
//Increase histogram count
atomicAdd(&(histo_thread[ibin]),1);
//Increase second index by stride
j+=stride;
}
}
//Add block histograms
__syncthreads();
atomicAdd(&(histogram[threadIdx.x]),
histo_thread[threadIdx.x]);
\end{lstlisting}
As before, we have divided one of the loops (this time the second one) among all the execution
threads. The first difference with respect to OpenMP that we can see inmediately is that, due to
the limited amount of memory of the GPU, we can only declare one partial histogram per block, and
not per thread. To do this we declare it as a variable in shared memory, which also has the
advantage of having a lower latency than global memory. This introduces a new complication, since
now all threads in a block will try to add their pair counts to the same histogram. This has to
be done avoiding race conditions by using the CUDA {\tt atomicAdd()} function. This is in fact
the bottleneck of any algorithm involving histograms in CUDA (especially if the distribution
under study is very degenerate), since many threads may have to remain idle while waiting for
other threads to update their histogram entries. The best way to palliate this problem is to use
at most as many threads per block as histogram bins (in fact, note that the algorithm above will
only work when using as many threads as histogram bins, however it can be easily extended to more
general cases). Finally all the partial block histograms are summed up into the global histogram
in an ordered manner using again {\tt atomicAdd()}. The fact that {\tt CUTE} uses CUDA atomic functions
such as {\tt atomicAdd()} means that it will only run on GPUs that support atomic operations
(namely compute capability 2.0 or higher). There exist general algorithms for histograms that work
on any CUDA-enabled device \citep{pod,sha_ken}, however no performance improvement was observed
with respect to using {\tt atomicAdd()}. Furthermore, the method above reduces the use of shared
memory for histograms to a minimum, allowing its use for other purposes.
\subsection{Neighbor searching}\label{ssec:neigh}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{neighbors}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{sphere.png}
\caption{Illustration of the main neighbor-searching technique used by {\tt CUTE}. In the
three-dimensional case (top panel), the catalog is covered by cubical cells. Around
each cell $C_i$ (blue), a larger cube is drawn (gray), that safely contains all
spheres of radius $R_{\rm max}$ centered within $C_i$ (red). Neighbors of the objects
within $C_i$ are only searched for in the gray region. The bottom panel shows the similar
neighbor-searching regions used on the sphere for the calculation of the angular
2PCF. In this case the shape of the region is different depending on the position of
the central pixel.}
\label{fig:neighbors}
\end{figure}
Often the maximum scale to which we want to calculate the 2PCF is significantly smaller than the
size of our data. In this case, calculating the relative distance between particles that are
further away than this maximum scale is useless, and therefore should be avoided. However, how
can we determine which pairs to avoid without actually calculating their distances? {\tt CUTE} makes
use of different approaches to minimize the amount of useless pair counts in an efficient way.
The main strategy described here is very similar in the three-dimensional case (for the 3-D
and monopole 2PCFs) and on the sphere (for the angular correlation), however they differ slightly
in the details.
In the three-dimensional case, a box encompassing the whole catalog is first determined and
divided into cubical cells. To each cell we associate the positions of all the objects that fall
inside it. Assuming that the maximum distance we are interested in is $R_{\rm max}$ and that
the cell size is $a$, we draw a cube of $2\,\lfloor R_{\rm max}/a\rfloor+1$ cells per side around
each cell $C_i$ (here $\lfloor b\rfloor$ denotes the integer part of $b$). This guarantees that
we can draw spheres of radius $R_{\rm max}$ around any point in $C_i$ and that these spheres will
all lie inside the cube (see the top panel in figure \ref{fig:neighbors}) . Thus we can correlate
all the objects inside $C_i$ with the objects in all the other cells inside the cube and safely
ignore all other objects. The efficiency of this method depends largely on the number density of
the catalog, the range of scales of interest, and the number of cubical cells used.
In the spherical case a similar approach is used. Let us define a spherical cube as a region
of the sphere with constant limits in spherical coordinates, i.e. a region with
$\phi_0<\phi<\phi_f$ and $\cos\theta_f<\cos\theta<\cos\theta_0$. It is easy to prove
that the spherical cube containing a spherical cap of radius $\theta_{\rm max}$
centered at the point $(\theta,\phi)$ in spherical coordinates has sides of length:
\begin{align}\nonumber
&\Delta(\cos\theta) = \cos(\theta-\theta_{\rm max})-\cos(\theta+\theta_{\rm max}),\\
&\Delta(\phi) = \frac{\sqrt{\cos^2\theta_{\rm max}-\cos^2\theta}}{\sin\theta}.
\end{align}
Now, in the spherical case we can use pixels defined as small spherical cubes instead of the
cubical cells of the three-dimensional case. Then the result we have just quoted can be used
to define a spherical cube of pixels centered at a given one that safely contains all particles
within an angular distance $\theta_{\rm max}$ of any particle in the central pixel (see the
bottom panel in figure \ref{fig:neighbors}). Once this is done, the same procedure is followed
as in the three-dimensional case.
Another more sophisticated and very popular technique to discard unnecessary correlations is
the so-called $k$-Tree method. For a thorough description of this method, see \cite{moore}.
\subsection{Specifics of the 2PCFs}\label{ssec:2pcfs}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{corr_3d.png}
\caption{Illustration of the method used to calculate the 3-D correlation function in CUDA.
Since the whole 2-dimensional $128\times128$ bin histogram cannot be fit inside the
device's shared memory, it is split into smaller ones, which are filled separately.
Although the catalogs have to be correlated more than once, the bottleneck caused by
atomic operations is largely mitigated by the higher number of histogram bins.}
\label{fig:3d_method}
\end{figure}
In the previous section we have described the general strategy followed to parallelize the
calculation of any 2PCF with OpenMP and CUDA. However each of the 2PCFs detailed in
section \ref{sec:2pcf} requires a different treatment of the data and maybe allows for different,
more optimal, approaches. We give the details specific to each of these types here.
\subsubsection{Radial correlation function}
As was said in section \ref{sec:2pcf} the radial 2PCF is calculated by correlating pairs of
aligned objects and binning them according to their relative redshift difference $\Delta z$.
Spherical cubes are used by {\tt CUTE} to quickly find pairs of galaxies subtending an angle
smaller than some maximum aperture, which defines aligned pairs. For reasonable apertures
($\lesssim1^o$) the number of pairs to correlate is relatively small. Hence, since the
computational time in this case is not an issue, there is no need for massive parallelization,
and radial correlation functions are only supported by {\tt CUTE} in its OpenMP version.
\subsubsection{Angular correlation function}\label{sec:ang_corr}
For the calculation of angular 2PCFs {\tt CUTE} projects all objects in the catalog into the unit
sphere and correlates pairs of objects according to their angular separation $\theta$ (see
figure \ref{fig:coords}), which is used as a distance measure. Two complementary speed-up
techniques can be used by {\tt CUTE} in this case: if one is not interested in extremely small
angular scales one can create a pixel map from the catalog and then correlate the pixels
(weighting each of them by the number of objects that fall inside it). This may effectively
reduce the number of objects that must be correlated by an order of magnitude and therefore
reduce the computational time by a factor of 100. Also, in the calculation of the angular
separation, the arc-cosine of the scalar product of two position vectors must be estimated.
Calculating the arc-cosine is a very time-consuming operation, and, if one is not interested in
very large angular scales, the following approximation can be used,
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\arccos(1-x)\sim\sqrt{2\,x+\frac{1}{3}x^2+\frac{4}{45}x^3}
\end{equation}
which is precise to 1 part in $10^{-4}$ for angles below 40$^o$ and reduces the computational
time by a factor $\sim 2$. Both these time-saving techniques can be swiched on or off in {\tt CUTE}
by the user.
\subsubsection{3-D correlation function}
The main difference in the calculation of the 3-D correlation function with respect to the other
2PCFs is that pairs are binned in 2-dimensional histograms, according to their $(r,\mu)$ or
$(\pi,\sigma)$ separations. This does not introduce any relevant changes in the OpenMP
implementation, as long as the the amount of shared memory is large enough to accomodate one
private 2-D histogram per thread, however it does matter when adapting the code to CUDA. The
reason is that currently the amount of shared memory per block in GPUs is limited to 48 kB, which
is too little to allocate, for example, a $128\times128$ array of long integers. The solution to
this problem chosen for {\tt CUTE} is explained in fig. \ref{fig:3d_method}: the catalogs are
correlated several times, each time binning only pairs whose separation in one of the two
coordinates is within a given range, until the whole histogram is filled. Thus we can declare
smaller 2-D histograms in shared memory, and even though the catalogs must be correlated several
times, the histogram-filling bottleneck mentioned in section \ref{sec:CUDA} is largely alleviated
by the higher number of histogram entries, thus conserving a reasonable computational time (see
section \ref{sec:speed}).
\subsubsection{The monopole in a box}
In its current public version, {\tt CUTE} has a companion program, {\tt CUTE\_box}
that calculates the correlation function from data inside a cubical box with periodic
boundary conditions. In this case only the calculation of the isotropic 2PCF (the monopole)
is supported, using two different types of algorithms:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Particle-based algorithms}. In this case {\tt CUTE} calculates the 2PCF
from the pair counts using the estimator in equation \ref{eq:estim_box}. As we have
discussed, no random catalog is needed because of the periodic boundary conditions. Two
different types of neighbor-searching algorithms are supported: cubical cells and
$k$-Trees.
\item {\bf Density grid}. This algorithm is similar to the use of pixels to accelerate
the calculation of the angular correlation function. In this case the particle content
of the catalog is first interpolated to a grid and the overdensity field $\delta$ is
estimated at every grid point using a TSC algorithm. Then pairs of grid points are
correlated, and a weight $\delta_i\,\delta_j$ is given to each pair. The correlation
function is estimated as
\begin{equation}
\hat{\xi}(r)=\langle \delta({\bf x})\delta({\bf x}+{\bf r})\rangle,
\end{equation}
where the average is taken over all pairs of grid points separated by a distance $r$.
Due to the simplicity of a regular grid, it is trivial to search for the neighboring
grid points, and since the relative distances between neighboring points are the same
everywhere, these relative distances only have to be calculated once. As a result of
this, this method is usually the fastest, however it will only yield reliable results
down to the scale of the grid.
\end{itemize}
\section{Performance}\label{sec:speed}
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& Name & Description & \#cores \\
\hline
& Sequential & Intel Core i7-2620M & 1 core ($\equiv1$ thread) \\
CPUs & Laptop-MP & Intel Core i7-2620M & 2 cores ($\equiv4$ threads) \\
& Server-MP & Intel MP NEHALEM-EX ($\times8$) & 80 cores ($\equiv160$ threads) \\
\hline
GPUs & Laptop-GPU & NVIDIA NVS 4200M & 48 CUDA cores \\
& Server-GPU & NVIDIA TESLA C2070 FERMI & 448 CUDA cores \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Different devices in which {\tt CUTE} has been tested: a single CPU core, a dual core,
a multi-core shared-memory machine (160 threads), an ordinary graphics card and
a high-end GPU.}\label{tab:devices}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Platform & $T(\xi(r))$ & $T(\xi_{\rm log}(r))$ & $T(w(\theta))$ & $T(w_{\rm pix}(\theta))$ & $\xi(\sigma,\pi)$ \\
\hline
Sequential & 877 & 5230 & 1374 & 21 & 2238 \\
Laptop-MP & 389 & 2676 & 628 & 5.3 & 1064 \\
Laptop-GPU & 113 & 185 & 283 & 6.2 & 297 \\
Server-MP & 25 & 52 & 32 & 0.51 & 50 \\
Server-GPU & 13 & 20 & 22 & 0.46 & 27 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Computational times ellapsed, for each of the 5 platforms listed in table \ref{tab:devices},
during the calculation of 5 different 2PCFs: monopole ($\xi(r)$), monopole with logarithmic
binning ($\xi_{\rm log}(r)$), angular ($w(\theta)$), angular with pixels of resolution
$\Delta\Omega\equiv5\times10^{-3}$ sq-deg ($w_{\rm pix}(\theta)$) and 3-D ($\xi(\sigma,\pi)$).
Times are in seconds and correspond to the calculation of the $DR$ histogram (the full
calculation of the 2PCF should take 2-3 times longer).}\label{tab:times}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{timings.pdf}
\caption{Computational times employed by different devices to compute the monopole 2PCF of
catalogs of different sizes. A speed-up factor of $\mathcal{O}(100)$ can be gained by
using a high-end GPU with respect to a sequential approach on a high-end CPU. Even
with a regular gaming GPU the increase in speed is substantial ($\mathcal{O}(10)$).
The different devices are described in table \ref{tab:devices}.}
\label{fig:timings}
\end{figure}
We have tested {\tt CUTE}'s performance in terms of computational time by running it on platforms
with different capabilities, listed in table \ref{tab:devices}. The serial version was tested by
running {\tt CUTE} on a single CPU core. We also tested the OpenMP version on a dual-core laptop
and on a large shared-memory machine with 80 cores. The CUDA version has been tried on a regular
graphics card in a laptop and on a high-end GPU. All the computational times quoted in this
section correspond to tests performed without any of the neighbor-searching techniques described
in section \ref{ssec:neigh} in order to provide a clearer comparison between platforms, and
they should therefore be understood as the worst-case scenario. As we have noted, the use of
these strategies may improve the computational time significantly with respect to a more naive
approach (even by orders of magnitude). However, this improvement depends largely on the number
density of the data and the scales of interest.
For this test the monopole 2PCF was calculated for catalogs of different sizes in the range
$10^3-10^7$. The computational times for one single correlation (i.e. just calculating, for
example, $DR$) in the 5 different platforms are plotted in figure \ref{fig:timings}. As
expected, using GPUs or parallelising the computation on several CPU cores improves the
code's speed by a factor 10 - 100, even using a regular video-game graphics card. The
ellapsed times were measured using OpenMP and CUDA timing functions, since these give
the most accurate estimate of the time spent doing the actual correlation.
For completeness we have also listed in table \ref{tab:times}
the computational times taken by the 5 different devices to calculate different correlation
functions. The dataset used for this exercise is a subset of one of the mock catalogs
provided by the MICE project \footnote{\url{http://maia.ice.cat/mice/}} \citep{fos},
with $0^o<{\rm dec}<18^o$, $0^o<{\rm R.A.}<18^o$, $0.5<z<0.6$, containing $\sim 3\times10^5$
particles. The 5 different correlation functions are:
\begin{itemize}
\item Monopole correlation function: linear binning for $r<100\,{\rm Mpc}/h$ and 256 bins.
\item Monopole correlation function: logarithmic binning for $r<100\,{\rm Mpc}/h$ using 256 bins
and 50 bins per decade.
\item Angular correlation function: linear binning for $\theta<30^o$ and 256 bins. Calculated
by brute-force.
\item Angular correlation function: linear binning for $\theta<30^o$ and 256 bins. Calculated
using pixels with resolution $\Delta\Omega\equiv5\times10^{-3}$ sq-deg.
\item 3-D correlation function: binning in $(\pi,\sigma)$ on a $64\times64$-bin histogram.
\end{itemize}
Figures \ref{fig:corrs1} and \ref{fig:corrs2} show the output produced by CUTE for different kinds
of correlation functions.
\section{Summary}
We have presented {\tt CUTE}, a parallel code for computing two-point correlation functions from
cosmological catalogs. {\tt CUTE} has been optimized to run on shared-memory machines as well as
graphical processing units. It can estimate the 3-D, monopole, radial and angular correlation
functions from a set of data using different speed-up techniques and binning schemes. We
have shown that great benefits in terms of computational speed can be gained by parallelising the
algorithm on GPUs.
The code is publicly available through our website \footnote{\url{http://members.ift.uam-csic.es/dmonge/CUTE.html}}.
{\tt CUTE} is released under the GNU Public License (GPL).
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The author would like to thank Ignacio Sevilla, Miguel C\'ardenas and Rafael Ponce for their
invaluable input and Alexander Knebe for useful suggestions and beta-testing. CUTE was initially tested
on mock data kindly provided by the MICE collaboration. DA acknowledges
support from a JAE-Predoc contract.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{monopole_cmass_werr_total_r2.pdf}
\caption{Monopole correlation function calculated from the PTHalo mock catalogs used in the analysis of the SDSS Ninth
Data Release \cite{manera}. The solid red line shows the average correlation function, and the shaded area shows the
1-$\sigma$ region around it, calculated as the r.m.s. over the 600 mocks. The monopole was calculated for
the 600 mock catalogs in about 2 hours by running CUTE on the platform Server-MP (see table
\ref{tab:devices}).}
\label{fig:corrs1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{xi3D_lognormal}
\caption{3-D correlation function calculated from a log-normal mock catalog. The catalog contained $\sim4.3\times10^7$
objects in one octant of the sky between redshifts 0.45 and 0.75. The brute-force calculation took $\sim 10$
hours on the platform Server-GPU (see table \ref{tab:devices}). Redshift-space distortions produce a squashing
of the correlation function along the transverse direction and create a region of negative correlation along
the line of sight. This was first noted in \cite{gaztacabre}.}
\label{fig:corrs2}
\end{figure*}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{introduction}
In most practical situations, the behavior and evolution of complex systems are known only with limited certainty. This is mainly due to the lack of knowledge about the governing physical laws or limited information regarding their operating conditions and input parameters, e.g., fuel or material properties. A reliable computer simulation of such systems, therefore, requires a systematic representation of uncertainties and quantification of their impact on quantities of interest.
In the probabilistic framework, uncertainties are represented using random variables and processes characterized by, for instance, the available experimental data or expert opinion. A major task is then to quantify the dependence of quantities of interest -- also random variables or processes -- on these random inputs. Development of efficient numerical tools for the computation of such mappings has been a research subject over the past few decades and has become an emerging field of study more recently.
Statistical tools such as Monte Carlo sampling and its variations have been widely used for this purpose. To address the low convergence rate of these methods, stochastic basis expansions, for instance, in chaos polynomials \cite{Ghanem03,Ghanem99b,Xiu02} and multivariate numerical integration/interpolation, such as those based on the sparse grid collocation \cite{Tatang95,Mathelin03,Xiu05a}, have been recently proposed. While proven efficient both numerically and analytically on numerous problems in engineering and science, these techniques may face difficulties when input uncertainties are characterized by a large number of independent random variables (i.e., high-dimensional random inputs) \cite{Xiu05a,Xiu10a}. Specifically, the computational complexity of these methods, in their original forms, grows exponentially fast with respect to the number of input random variables: an issue known as the {\it curse-of-dimensionality.} The reason for such a fast growth is the tensor product construction of multi-dimensional bases (in polynomial chaos methods) or quadrature rules (in sparse grid collocation approaches) from one-dimensional bases or quadrature rules, respectively. Such tensorizations, therefore, impose an explicit dependence on the input dimensionality. Instead, a number of recent techniques have been proposed that exploit, for instance, {\it low-rank} or {\it sparsity} structures of quantities of interest in order to reduce this exponential complexity growth, see, e.g., \cite{Doostan07,Todor07a,Nobile08b,Bieri09a,Ma09a,Bieri09b,Blatman10,Doostan11a,Nouy07,Doostan09}. However, effective treatment of the curse-of-dimensionality still remains an open problem.
Alternatively, in the present study, we propose an approach that constructs a {\it separated representation} of the solution of interest. Specifically, let $u(\bm y)$ with $\bm{y}(\omega)=\left(y_1(\omega),\ldots, y_d(\omega)\right):\Omega\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{d}$, $\omega\in\Omega$ and $d\in\mathbb{N}$, be a stochastic function defined on a suitable probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathcal{P})$. Then $u(\bm y)$ admits a separated representation if, for some (small) $r\in\mathbb{N}$ and accuracy $\epsilon\ge 0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sep_rep_intro}
u(\bm y)=\sum_{l=1}^{r}s_{l}u_{1}^{l}(y_1)\cdots u_d^{l}(y_d)+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon),
\end{equation}
where the univariate functions $\{u_k^l(y_k)\}_{k=1}^d$, $l=1,\dots,r$, are unknown and $\{s_l\}$, $l=1,\dots,r$, are some normalization constants. When the {\it separation rank} $r$ is independent of $d$, the approximation (\ref{eq:sep_rep_intro}) may be obtained with a computational complexity that is linear in $d$, \cite{Beylkin02,Beylkin05,Beylkin08,Doostan09}, hence drastically reducing the curse-of-dimensionality. When the approximation (\ref{eq:sep_rep_intro}) is achieved by a small $r$, then $u(\bm y)$ is said to admit a {\it low-rank separated representation}.
Separated representations, also known as canonical decompositions (CANDECOMP) or parallel factor analysis (PARAFAC), have been first introduced by Hitchcock \cite{Hitchcock} to represent a multi-way tensor as a finite sum of rank-one tensors. Consequently, they have been extensively applied to several areas including image compression and classification \cite{Shashua01,Furukawa02}, telecommunication \cite{Sidiropoulos00,Sidiropoulos02,Lathauwer07}, neuroscience \cite{Mocks1988,Field1991,Andersen04}, chemometrics \cite{Bro97a}, and data mining \cite{Beylkin02,Beylkin05,Kroonenberg80,Kolda01,Tyrtyshnikov04,Hackbusch04,Acar05,Beylkin08,Kolda09a,Kolda09b}.
Separated representations have been recently used for the reduced order solution of deterministic PDEs in solid and fluid mechanics, where they are often called proper generalized decompositions (PGDs), see, e.g., \cite{Ladeveze89,Ladeveze99,Ammar06,Ammar07,Chinesta10a,Neron10,Chinesta10b,Ladeveze11a,Chinesta11a,Chinesta11b} and the references therein.
In the context of stochastic problems, an expansion based on the separation of spatial and random variables has been proposed in \cite{Nouy07,Nouy08}. While this approach significantly reduces the computational complexity of full-order polynomial chaos (PC) approximations, it suffers from the curse-of-dimensionality for high-dimensional random inputs. A separated representation of the form (\ref{eq:sep_rep_intro}) for the solution of PDEs and ODEs with high-dimensional random inputs has been first studied in \cite{Doostan07b,Doostan08b,Doostan09}. Similar representations, although with different solution strategies, have been later investigated in \cite{Nouy10,Khoromskij10,Falco11}.
The current separated approximation of models with high-dimensional random inputs are {\it intrusive}, that is, one has to rewrite deterministic solvers in order to propagate the uncertainty. However, for many large-scale complex systems, it is desirable to develop {\it non-intrusive} solvers, where deterministic codes are treated as black box. Such a construction is the purpose of the present study. Specifically, we here extend the alternating least-squares regression approach of \cite{Beylkin08} to problems with high-dimensional random inputs. To enhance the stability and accuracy of this technique, we propose a Tikhonov regularization of the regression problem along with an error indicator for the selection of two main parameters of the separated representation. Under some conditions to be discussed in Section \ref{sec:cost}, the number of random realizations of the solution, required for a successful approximation, grows linearly with respect to $d$. Furthermore, the computational complexity of the alternating least-squares regression approach is quadratic in $d$.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. In Section \ref{problem_setup}, we introduce the problem of interest in an abstract form. Following that, in Section \ref{sec:Separated Representation}, we discuss the separated representations in more details and describe their non-intrusive construction using an alternating least-squares regression. Additionally, we discuss the computational complexity of this non-intrusive method. In Section \ref{sec:overfitting}, we propose a regularization approach together with an error indicator to derive a stopping criterion and, hence, avoid over-fitting the solution realizations. Finally, in Section \ref{sec:num_exp}, we demonstrate the performance and efficiency of the proposed approach on a manufactured function as well as two ODE problems with high-dimensional random inputs. The first ODE problem is a linear elliptic equation with random diffusion coefficient. The second one is concerned with a hydrogen oxidation problem where reaction rate constants and species thermodynamics are uncertain.
\section{Problem setup}
\label{problem_setup}
Let $\left( \Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathcal{P} \right)$ be a complete probability space on which the random inputs are defined. Here $\Omega$ is the set of elementary events, $\mathcal{F}\subset 2^{\Omega}$ is the $\sigma$-algebra of events, and $\mathcal{P}:\mathcal{F}\rightarrow [0,1]$ is a probability measure function defined on $\mathcal{F}$. For the sake of demonstration, we consider a generic stochastic ordinary differential equation (ODE)
\begin{equation} \label{eq:system of ODE}
\mathcal{A} \left(t,\bm{y}(\omega) ;u \right)=0,\ \ \left(t, \omega\right) \in \left[0,T\right]\times\Omega,
\end{equation}
that holds $\mathcal{P}$-{\it a.s.} for $\omega\in\Omega$. Appropriate initial condition and forcing function are also considered. Here, $\mathcal{A}$ denotes the ordinary differential operator, $t\in[0,T],\; T>0$, is the time variable, and $\bm{y}(\omega)=\left(y_1(\omega),\ldots, y_d(\omega)\right):\Omega\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{d}$, $d\in\mathbb{N}$, represents the vector of random variables defining the input uncertainty. We further assume that the components of the random vector $\bm{y}(\omega)$ are statistically independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) according to a probability density function $\rho(y_k):\Gamma\subseteq\mathbb{R} \rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$, $k=1,\dots,d$.
Our goal is to estimate the possibly non-linear solution
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:solution}
u(t,\bm y):=u(t,\bm y(\omega)) = u(t,y_1(\omega),\dots,y_d(\omega)): \left[0,T\right]\times \Gamma^d\rightarrow \mathbb{R}
\end{equation}
of (\ref{eq:system of ODE}) in a non-intrusive fashion, i.e., with the assumption that the deterministic solver of (\ref{eq:system of ODE}) is a black box. This entails the evaluation of $u(t,\bm y)$ at a set of random or deterministic realizations of $\bm y$ and subsequently the construction of an approximation $\hat{u}(t,\bm y)$ based on an interpolation, a regression, or a discrete projection scheme.
In the present study, we consider the random sampling of $\bm y$, similar to the standard Monte Carlo simulation. We denote by $D$ a set of $N$ independent realizations $\bm y^{(j)}$, $j=1,\dots,N$, drawn according to the probability density function $\rho(\bm{y})=\prod_{k=1}^{d}\rho(y_k)$, and the corresponding solution realizations $u(t,\bm y^{(j)})$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:set of scattered data}
D=\left\lbrace\left( \bm{y}^{(j)}; u(t,\bm{y}^{(j)}) \right)\right\rbrace_{j=1}^N.
\end{equation}
Using the {\it data} set $D$, we then extend the regression approach of \cite{Beylkin08} to stably construct $\hat{u}(t,\bm y)$ in the separated form (\ref{eq:sep_rep_intro}).
For the interest of description and without loss of generality, we henceforth restrict our analyses to a fixed instance of $t$ and adopt the short notation $u(\bm y)$ for the solution of interest. We next introduce the separated representation (\ref{eq:sep_rep_intro}) in more details and subsequently discuss our non-intrusive approach to construct and regularize such an approximation.
\section{Separated representations
\label{sec:Separated Representation}
To motivate the separated representation of $u(\bm y)$, we first briefly describe the standard multivariate approximation of $u(\bm y)$ using polynomial chaos (PC) expansions \cite{Ghanem03,Xiu02}.
Let $\{\psi_{\alpha_k}(y_k)\}_{k=1}^d$ be the set of univariate spectral polynomials of degree $\alpha_k\in\mathbb{N}_0:=\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}$ orthonormal with respect to the probability density function $\rho(y_k)$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pce_uni}
\int_{\Gamma} \psi_{\alpha_k}(y_k) \psi_{\beta_k}(y_k) \rho(y_k) d y_k = \delta_{\alpha_k\beta_k}.\nonumber
\end{equation}
A tensorization of the univariate basis $\{\psi_{\alpha_k}(y_k)\}_{k=1}^d$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:multi_pc_basis}
\psi_{\bm\alpha}(\bm y) = \psi_{\alpha_1}(y_1)\psi_{\alpha_2}(y_2)\dots\psi_{\alpha_d}(y_d),\quad \bm\alpha\in\mathbb{N}_0^d,
\end{equation}
with $\mathbb{N}_0^d=\{(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_d):\;\;\alpha_k\in\mathbb{N}_0\}$, forms an orthonormal basis in $L_2(\Gamma^d,\mathcal{P})$. Then, for $u(\bm y)\in L_2(\Gamma^d,\mathcal{P})$, the infinite series
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pce_multi}
u(\bm y)= \sum_{\bm\alpha\in\mathbb{N}_0^d} s_{\bm \alpha} \psi_{\bm\alpha}(\bm y)
\end{equation}
with coefficients
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pce_coef}
s_{\bm\alpha}= \int_{\Gamma^d} u(\bm y) \psi_{\bm\alpha}(\bm y)\rho(\bm y)d\bm y
\end{equation}
converges in the mean-squares sense. The series (\ref{eq:pce_multi}) is referred to as the polynomial chaos (PC) expansion.
We highlight a number of properties of the PC representation in (\ref{eq:pce_multi}). Firstly, as observed in (\ref{eq:multi_pc_basis}), the multivariate basis functions $\psi_{\bm\alpha}(\bm y)$ are of separated form with respect to random inputs $y_k$. Secondly, the basis functions $\psi_{\bm\alpha}(\bm y)$ are {\it a priori} selected based on the probability density function $\rho(y_k)$ of $y_k$. Therefore, the PC expansion (\ref{eq:pce_multi}) has a linear structure with respect to the coefficients $s_{\bm\alpha}$. Thirdly, due to the particular tensor product construction (\ref{eq:multi_pc_basis}) of $\psi_{\bm\alpha}(\bm y)$, the cardinality of a finite degree basis $\{\psi_{\bm\alpha}(\bm y)\}$ with, for instance, $\bm\alpha\in\mathbb{N}_0^{d,p}=\{\bm{\alpha}\in\mathbb{N}_0^d:\;\; \Vert\bm\alpha\Vert_1\le p,\ p\in\mathbb{N}_0\}$ grows exponentially with $d$. This fast growth leads to the issue of curse-of-dimensionality as the computational complexity of estimating the coefficients $s_{\bm\alpha}$ grows exponentially fast.
Alternatively, the separated representation of a function $u(\bm y)$ is a decomposition of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:separated_intro}
u(\bm y)=\sum_{l=1}^{r}s_{l}u_{1}^{l}(y_1)\cdots u_d^{l}(y_d)+\varepsilon(\bm y).
\end{equation}
Here, the {\it separation rank} $r$ and univariate {\it factors}/functions $\{u_{k}^{l}(y_k)\}_{k=1}^{d}$, $l=1,\dots,r$, are not fixed {\it a priori} and are outcomes of the approximation such that a prescribed accuracy $\Vert \varepsilon\Vert\le \epsilon$ is achieved. The scalars $\{s_l\}$, $l=1,\dots,r$, may be viewed as some positive normalization constants which we will specify later. We note that, by construction, the separated representation (\ref{eq:separated_intro}) is a non-linear expansion and when $u$ admits a low separation rank $r$, a fast decay of the error with respect to $r$ may be achieved. Due to its separated form with respect to the variables $y_k$, the non-linear approximation (\ref{eq:separated_intro}) may be computed using multi-linear approaches such as the alternating least-squares (ALS) scheme described in Section \ref{sec:als}. As we shall see in Section \ref{sec:cost}, for situations where $r$ is independent of $d$, the separated representation (\ref{eq:separated_intro}) may be obtained with a number of samples $N$ and computational cost that are, respectively, {\it linear} and {\it quadratic} in $d$. In practice, however, if $r$ weakly depends on $d$, e.g., $r\sim \mathcal{O}(\log d)$, the above dependencies will be near-linear and near-quadratic, respectively.
\begin{rem}[Connection with sparse PC expansions] Due to the tensor product construction of PC basis functions $\psi_{\bm\alpha}(\bm y)$ in (\ref{eq:multi_pc_basis}), a {\it sparse} PC expansion is of a low-rank separated form. By sparse PC expansions, we mean representations of the form (\ref{eq:pce_multi}) in which many of the coefficients $s_{\bm\alpha}$, $\bm\alpha\in\mathbb{N}_0^{p,d}$, are negligible. The relevance of the sparse PC approximation of PDEs with random inputs has been discussed in several work including \cite{Bieri09a,Cohen10a,Doostan11a}.
\end{rem}
\subsection{A non-intrusive construction
\label{sec:non-intrusive}
Given the realizations $\{\bm y^{(j)}\}$ in $D$, we formulate a discrete (pseudo) inner product between $u(\bm y),v(\bm y):\Gamma^d\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:inner product}
\left\langle u,v\right\rangle_D = \left\langle \lbrace \bm{y}^{(j)},u(\bm{y}^{(j)}) \rbrace_{j=1}^N, \lbrace \bm{y}^{(j)},v(\bm{y}^{(j)}) \rbrace_{j=1}^N \right\rangle_D = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N u(\bm{y}^{(j)}) v(\bm{y}^{(j)}),\nonumber
\end{equation}
which induces the (pseudo) norm
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:psuedo_norm}
\Vert u \Vert_D = \left\langle u,u\right\rangle_D^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
Let
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:separated_space}
\mathcal{U}_r= \left\{\sum_{l=1}^{r}s_{l}u_{1}^{l}(y_1)\cdots u_d^{l}(y_d):\; u_k^{l}(y_k):\Gamma\rightarrow\mathbb{R}, s_l\in \mathbb{R}_{>0}, \ \begin{array}{c}k=1,\dots,d \\l=1,\dots,r\end{array}\right\} \nonumber
\end{equation}
be the space of separated real functions in $d$ dimensions and with separation rank $r$. The non-intrusive separated approximation of $u(\bm y)$ may then be cast into a least-squares regression problem of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:low-rank_regression}
u_r = \arg\min_{\hat{u}_r\in\mathcal{U}_r}\ \Vert u - \hat{u}_r\Vert_D^2.
\end{equation}
Due to the tensor product structure of $\mathcal{U}_r$, the optimization problem (\ref{eq:low-rank_regression}) is non-linear. Furthermore, the separation rank $r$ is not known {\it a priori} and has to be estimated. A discrete formulation of (\ref{eq:low-rank_regression}), as we shall describe in Section \ref{sec:als}, may be solved using non-linear programming techniques such as the damped Gauss-Newton, see, e.g., \cite{Paatero1997}. These non-linear schemes, however, suffer from the curse-of-dimensionality and their current use is thus limited to only low-dimensional problems. Alternatively, we here adopt a multi-linear optimization technique known as the alternating least-squares (ALS) to solve (\ref{eq:low-rank_regression}).
We next describe the details of such an approach.
\subsection{Alternating least-squares (ALS) approach}
\label{sec:als}
In the ALS method, we construct a sequence of one-dimensional least-squares regression problems to solve for the univariate functions $\{u_k^{l}(y_k)\}$, $l=1,\dots,r$, along a direction $k$. In doing so, we freeze variables along all other directions at their current approximation. We then alternate over all directions and repeat the regression process. Once the algorithm converges after a number of directional sweeps is performed, the separation rank $r$ is increased if the residual norm $\Vert u-u_r\Vert_{D}$ is above a prescribed accuracy $\epsilon$. The ALS approach can be thought of as a non-linear generalization of the block Gauss-Seidel method as we solve for one set of variables at a time while fixing all the others. We note that such a multi-linear approximation is possible, particularly, due to the separated form of $u_r$ with respect to $y_k$'s.\\
\noindent {\it Linear least-squares regression along $y_k$.} For a given $k\in\{1,\dots,d\}$ and some $r\ge 1$, assume that scalars $\{s_l\}$ and functions $\{u_i^{l}(y_i)\}$, $i\ne k$, $l=1,\dots,r$, are given and fixed. We then seek the unknown univariate functions $\{u_k^{l}(y_k)\}$, $l=1,\dots,r$, from the restriction of (\ref{eq:low-rank_regression}) to the direction $k$. That is,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:1d_opt}
\{u_k^{l}(y_k)\}
&=& \arg\min_{\{\hat{u}_k^{l}(y_k)\} }\Vert u-\hat{u}_r \Vert_{D}^2\\
&=&\arg\min_{\{\hat{u}_k^{l}(y_k)\} }\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N \left(u(\bm{y}^{(j)})-\sum_{l=1}^r \hat{u}_k^l (y_k^{(j)}) s_l \prod_{i\ne k} u_i^l (y_i^{(j)} )\right)^2,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
$l=1,\dots,r$, which is in the form of a standard one-dimensional regression of scattered data.
A discrete formulation of (\ref{eq:1d_opt}) can then be obtained by expanding each (unknown) univariate function $u_k^{l}(y_k)$ (or $\hat{u}_k^{l}(y_k)$) into some finite-dimensional basis of $L_{2}(\Gamma,\mathcal{P})$. In the present study, we choose spectral polynomials orthogonal with respect to $\rho(y_k)$ -- the probability density function of $y_k$ -- for this purpose. We note that implicit in such a selection is the assumption that each factor $u_k^{l}(y_k)$ depends smoothly on $y_k$.\\[-.3cm]
\noindent {\it Spectral polynomial expansion of univariate factors $u_k^l(y_k)$.} Let $\{\psi_{\alpha_k}(y_k)\}$ be the set of spectral polynomials of degree $\alpha_k\le M\in \mathbb{N}_0$ associated with $\rho(y_k)$ as introduced in Section \ref{sec:Separated Representation}. We then approximate
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:factor_expansion}
u_k^l(y_k)\approx \sum_{\alpha_k=0}^{M}c_{\alpha_k}^{l}\psi_{\alpha_k}(y_k), \qquad l=1,\dots,r,
\end{equation}
in which, for the interest of simplicity, we assumed the maximum degree of polynomial expansion, $M$, is the same for all separation terms and in all directions $k$. However, this assumption may be relaxed with no technical difficulty. In fact, for situations where the relative importance of the random inputs $y_k$ is available, an anisotropic selection of $M$ may considerably improve the convergence of the approach.
Given the finite-dimensional approximation of $u_k^l(y_k)$ in (\ref{eq:factor_expansion}), the problem (\ref{eq:1d_opt}) reduces to the discrete least-squares optimization
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:1d_opt_dicrete}
\bm{c}_{k}
&=& \arg\min_{\hat{\bm c}_{k}}\Vert u-\hat{u}_r \Vert_{D}^2\\
&=&\arg\min_{\hat{\bm c}_{k}}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N \left(u(\bm{y}^{(j)})-\sum_{l=1}^r \left(\sum_{\alpha_k=0}^{M}\hat{c}_{\alpha_k}^{l}\psi_{\alpha_k}(y_k^{(j)})\right) s_l \prod_{i\ne k} u_i^l (y_i^{(j)} )\right)^2\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
to compute the expansion coefficients $\bm{c}_{k} := (c_0^1,\cdots,c_M^{1},\cdots,c_0^r,\cdots,c_M^{r})^{T}\in\mathbb{R}^{r(M+1)}$ along direction $k$. Setting the derivative of $\Vert u-\hat{u}_r \Vert_{D}^2$ with respect to $\bm{c}_{k}$ to zero, we arrive at the normal equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:normal}
\bm{A}_k^T \bm{A}_k \bm{c}_k= \bm{A}_k^T \bm{u},
\end{equation}
to solve for $\bm{c}_{k}$. Here, the matrix $\bm{A}_k \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times r (M+1)}$ has a column block-structure $\bm{A}_k = \left[\bm{A}_k^{1}\ \dots\ \bm{A}_k^{r}\right]$, where each column-block $\bm{A}_k^{l}\in \mathbb{R}^{N\times (M +1)}$, $l=1,\dots,r$, is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mat_A}
\bm{A}_k^{l}(j,\alpha_k+1) = s_l \psi_{\alpha_k}(y_k^{(j)}) \prod_{i\ne k} u_i^l (y_i^{(j)}),
\end{equation}
for $j=1,\dots,N$ and $\alpha_k=0,\dots,M$. Moreover, the data vector $\bm u\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$ contains realizations of $u(\bm y)$, i.e., $\bm{u}(j)=u(\bm{y}^{(j)})$, $j=1,\dots,N$.
Having $\bm c_k$ computed from (\ref{eq:normal}), we then update each $s_l$ such that $s_l\leftarrow s_l\Vert u_k^{l}\Vert_D$ and accordingly set $\bm c_k \leftarrow \bm c_k / \Vert u_k^{l}\Vert_D$. We do so to conveniently compare the relative contribution of each separation term. Additionally, as described in \cite{Beylkin02,Beylkin05}, such a normalization of $\bm{c}_k$ may be used to control the loss of significant digits in the evaluation of the separated representation. \\[-.3cm]
\noindent {\it The alternation to $y_{k+1}$ and separation rank increase.} Once the factors $\{u_k^l(y_k)\}$, $l=1,\dots,r$, are computed based on $\bm c_k$, as discussed above, the algorithm alternates to direction $k+1$ in order to compute $\{u_{k+1}^l(y_{k+1})\}$, $l=1,\dots,r$, using recent estimates of $\{u_i^l(y_i)\}_{i=1}^k$, $l=1,\dots,r$. The process will continue until all factors $\{u_k^l(y_k)\}_{k=1}^d$, $l=1,\dots,r$, are updated. In practice, we initialize the the factors $\{u_k^l(y_k)\}_{k=1}^d$, $l=1,\dots,r$, randomly (or according to some other guess); therefore, the sweeps through directions $k$ must be performed multiple times until the residual norm $\Vert u-u_r \Vert_{D}$ does not decrease further. Notice that, by the ALS construction, $\Vert u-u_r \Vert_{D}$ monotonically decreases or remains constant throughout the iterations. For a given separation rank $r$, if the residual norm $\Vert u-u_r \Vert_{D}$ at the end of the ALS updates is not smaller than a target accuracy $\epsilon$, then $r$ is increased to $r+1$ and the algorithm is repeated. The overall non-intrusive ALS procedure is summarized in Algorithm \ref{Algorithm:ALS}.\\
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\SetKwData{Left}{left}
\SetKwData{This}{this}
\SetKwData{Up}{up}
\SetKwFunction{Union}{Union}
\SetKwFunction{FindCompress}{FindCompress}
\SetKwInOut{Input}{ Input}
\SetKwInOut{Output}{ Output}
$\bullet$\Input{Data set $D=\left\lbrace\left( \bm{y}^{(j)}; u(\bm{y}^{(j)})\right)\right\rbrace_{j=1}^N$, polynomial orders $M$, and accuracy $\epsilon$}
\BlankLine
$\bullet$\Output{$r$, $\{c_{\alpha_k}^l\}_{k=1}^d$, and $s_l$ for $\alpha_k=0,\dots,M$ and $l=1,\dots,r$}
\BlankLine
$\bullet$ Set $r = 1$; (randomly) initialize $\{c_{\alpha_k}^r\}$ (or equivalently $\{u_k^r(y_k)\}$)
\BlankLine
\While{$\Vert u-u_r\Vert_D > \epsilon$}{
\BlankLine
\While{$\Vert u-u_r\Vert_D$ decreases much}{
\BlankLine
\For{$k\leftarrow 1$ \KwTo $d$}{
\BlankLine
$\bullet$ Fix $\lbrace c_{\alpha_i}^l \rbrace$, $i\ne k$, and solve for $\lbrace c_{\alpha_k}^l\rbrace$ using (\ref{eq:normal})\\
\BlankLine
$\bullet$ Update $s_l\leftarrow s_l\ \Vert u_k^l\Vert_D$ and $c_{\alpha_k}^{l}\leftarrow c_{\alpha_k}^{l}/ \Vert u_k^l\Vert_D
\BlankLine
}
\BlankLine
}
\BlankLine
$\bullet$ Set $r = r+1$; (randomly) initialize $\{c_{\alpha_k}^{r}\}$ (or equivalently $\{u_k^r(y_k)\}$) and, thus, $s_r$ for $k=1,\dots,d$
\BlankLine
}
\label{Algorithm:ALS}
\caption{Summary of the ALS method for the non-intrusive construction of separated representations.}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{rem}
While in the preceding descriptions and in Algorithm \ref{Algorithm:ALS} we require $\epsilon$ as an input to our construction, in practice $\epsilon$ may not be known {\it a priori} and a rough estimate of $\epsilon$ may lead to under-fitting or over-fitting. We address this issue in Section \ref{sec:overfitting}, where we instead select an ``optimal'' value of $r$ (and $M$) based on an error indicator. Therefore, no stopping criterion $\epsilon$ (per se) is required.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
For each $k$, as the coefficients $\{c_{\alpha_k}^{l}\}$ corresponding to different values of $l$ are coupled in the linear systems (\ref{eq:normal}), the factors $\{u_k^l(y_k)\}$, $l=1,\dots,r$, may change upon the introduction of the new separation term (to increase $r$). Alternatively, following the work in \cite{Ammar06,LeBris09}, a greedy approach may be applied to perform updates only on the new separation term while freezing all the previous ones. The investigation of this approach is, however, beyond the scope of the present study.
\end{rem}
\noindent{\it Notation Alert.} For a simpler presentation, unless required, we hereafter eliminate the subscripts $k$ from the linear systems in (\ref{eq:normal}) and their extensions.
\subsection{Solution statistics}
\label{sec:rs}
Given the spectral coefficients $\{c_{\alpha_k}^{l}\}$, one can estimate the statistics of $u$ by integrating $u_r$ analytically, e.g., for the mean and variance, numerically via quadrature integration, e.g., for the kurtosis, or via random sampling, e.g., for the probability density function. Specifically, the integral-form statistics, e.g., moments of $u$, can be obtained as a sequence of one-dimensional integrals, thanks to the separated form of $u_r$. For instance, the estimate of the mean and second moment of $u$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:mean}
\mathbb{E}\left[u_r\right]&=&\int_{\Gamma^d} u_r(\bm y)\rho(\bm y)d\bm y = \sum_{l=1}^{r}s_{l}\prod_{k=1}^{d}\left(\int_{\Gamma}u_{k}^{l}(y_{k})\rho_{k}(y_k)dy_{k}\right)\nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{l=1}^{r}s_{l}\prod_{k=1}^{d} c_{0}^{l}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:2nd}
\mathbb{E}\left[u_r^2\right]&=&\int_{\Gamma^d} u_r^2(\bm y)\rho(\bm y)d\bm y = \sum_{l=1}^{r}\sum_{l'=1}^{r}s_{l}s_{l'}\prod_{k=1}^{d}\left(\int_{\Gamma}u_{k}^{l}(y_{k})u_{k}^{l'}(y_{k})\rho_{k}(y_k)dy_{k}\right)\nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{l=1}^{r}\sum_{l'=1}^{r}s_{l}s_{l'}\prod_{k=1}^{d}\left(\sum_{\alpha_k = 0}^M c_{\alpha_k}^{l}c_{\alpha_k}^{l'}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
respectively, where we used the orthonormality of the spectral basis $\{\psi_{\alpha_k}(y_k)\}$. In general, the $m$-th moments of $u_r$ can be similarly computed based on the expectations of the product of $m$ spectral polynomials $\{\psi_{\alpha_k}(y_k)\}$, which may be computed exactly using Gaussian quadrature integration.
Alternatively, one may randomly draw independent realizations $\{u_r(\bm y^{(j)})\}$ of $u_r$ to generate Monte Carlo estimates of the statistics of $u_r$.
\subsection{Computational cost of ALS and dependence of $N$ on $d$}
\label{sec:cost}
Here we elaborate on the computational complexity of a full sweep of the ALS and quantify its dependence on $d$ and $N$. For this purpose, we consider the asymptotic (but relevant) case of $N\gg rM$. Each factor $u_k^l(y_k)$ can be evaluated with complexity $\mathcal{O}(M)$ for a given $y_k^{(j)}$. Therefore, the matrices $\bm{A}$ in (\ref{eq:normal}) are generated with a cost of $\mathcal{O}(rdMN)$. Each normal equation (\ref{eq:normal}) may be solved using the Cholesky or LU decomposition of $\bm{A}^T \bm{A}$ with an asymptotic complexity $\mathcal{O}(r^2M^2N)$ that includes forming the normal matrix $\bm{A}^T \bm{A}$ and the right-hand-side vector $\bm{A}^T \bm{u}$ as well as computing the solution $\bm{c}$. We here assumed that $r^3M^3\ll r^2M^2 N$.
Following \cite{Beylkin08}, to alternate from direction $k$ to $k+1$, the $\bm{A}_{k+1}$ matrices may be updated from $\bm{A}_k$ by multiplying products $\prod_{i\ne k} u_i^l (y_i^{(j)})$ in (\ref{eq:mat_A}) by $u_k ^l(y_k^{(j)})/u_{k+1}^l(y_{k+1}^{(j)})$. This requires $\mathcal{O}(rdMN)$ cost for a full sweep instead of $\mathcal{O}(rd^2MN)$ if $\bm{A}_{k+1}$ was set directly. Adding up the complexities of forming and solving the normal equations (\ref{eq:normal}) for all directions $k=1,\dots,d$, we arrive at
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:full_complexity}
\mathcal{O}(r^2dM^2N)
\end{equation}
for the cost of a full sweep of the ALS iteration. Given that the number $N$ of solution realizations generally depends on $d$, the estimate in (\ref{eq:full_complexity}) is in fact super-linear in $d$. We next discuss the dependence of $N$ on $d$. \\[-.3cm]
\noindent {\it Dependence of $N$ on $d$.} As opposed to the PC expansions (\ref{eq:pce_multi}) where the number of unknown coefficients $s_{\bm\alpha}$ grows exponentially with $d$, the total number of unknown coefficients in the separated representation (\ref{eq:separated_intro}) is $rd(M+1)$, which depends linearly on $d$, assuming that the separation rank $r$ is independent of $d$. We, therefore, expect a linear dependence of $N$ on $d$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:order_samples}
N\sim \mathcal{O}(rdM),
\end{equation}
for a successful separated approximation. Plugging (\ref{eqn:order_samples}) in (\ref{eq:full_complexity}) leads to an overall computational complexity
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:full_complexity_with_samples}
\mathcal{O}(r^3d^2M^3) \nonumber
\end{equation}
for a full sweep of the ALS iteration, which is quadratic in $d$. We highlight that for situations where evaluating the solution of the forward model is significantly expensive this overall cost is reasonable.
\begin{rem}
The estimate provided in (\ref{eqn:order_samples}) is based on the rule-of thumb that a successful regression problem requires a number of data points that is multiple of the number of unknowns. However, a more precise estimate of this dependence may be needed. In particular, the number of unknown coefficients in the one-dimensional regression problems (\ref{eq:1d_opt_dicrete}) is $r(M+1)$, hence independent of $d$. Moreover, the same samples used to compute the coefficients $\bm{c}_{k}$ in (\ref{eq:normal}) are also utilized to compute $\bm{c}_{k+1}$, and so on. Therefore, the linear dependence of $N$ on $d$ may be relaxed. On the other hand, in the absence of the regularization approach of Section \ref{sec:Tikhonov}, $N$ may need to grow like $\mathcal{O}(r^\zeta M^\zeta)$, $\zeta > 1$, to keep the condition number of the matrices $\bm A_{k}$ small; therefore, the linear dependence of $N$ on $r$ and $M$ in (\ref{eqn:order_samples}) may be optimistic.
\end{rem}
\section{Preventing over-fitting: regularization and selection of $r$ and $M$}
\label{sec:overfitting}
Similar to other regression methods, the non-intrusive separated representation (\ref{eq:separated_intro}) may over-fit the data, especially when the number of solution samples, $N$, is small. By the ALS construction, the residual norm $\Vert u - u_r\Vert_D$ decreases or remains unchanged throughout the one-dimensional updates as well as when the separation rank $r$ is increased. As $u$ is not exactly separable or may be noisy, excessive reduction of $\Vert u - u_r\Vert_D$ results in over-fitting which may be accompanied by poor approximations of $u$ where data is not available. Additionally, an unnecessarily large degree $M$ of the spectral approximation of factors $\{u_k^l(y_k)\}$ may also lead to over-fitting in the one-dimensional regression problems (\ref{eq:1d_opt_dicrete}). Numerically, these two over-fitting scenarios give rise to ill-conditioned matrices $\bm{A}$ in (\ref{eq:normal}), hence, inaccurate solutions $\bm{c}$ and subsequent ALS updates.
The naive approach to reduce, or even prevent, over-fitting is to choose {\it small} values for $r$ and $M$. However, this may lead to inaccurate (under-fitted) solution $u_r$. A more formal strategy is based on the concept of regularization, where additional smoothness constraints are enforced on $u_r$ while allowing for moderate values of $r$ and $M$.
In the present study, we examine a Tikhonov regularization approach to reduce the over-fitting for given choices of $r$ and $M$. Subsequently, in Section \ref{sec:Perturbation_based_error}, we develop a perturbation-based error indicator based on the regularized version of problem (\ref{eq:normal}) in order to identify the values of $r$ and $M$ leading to stable and, at the same time, accurate solutions.
\subsection{Tikhonov regularization}
\label{sec:Tikhonov}
One classical way to regularize the solution of regression -- or more generally inverse -- problems is through the use of {\it Tikhonov} regularization, where a smoothness promoting penalty term is added to the regression cost function, e.g., see \cite{Hansen98b}. While the non-intrusive construction of the separated representation is originally a non-linear problem, due to the multi-linear attribute of the ALS, the Tikhonov regularization can be naturally applied to the linear regression problems (\ref{eq:1d_opt_dicrete}). Specifically, consider the matrix formulation of (\ref{eq:1d_opt_dicrete}), i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:1d_opt_dicrete_matrix}
\bm{c} = \arg\min_{\hat{\bm c}}\; \frac{1}{N}\left\Vert \bm{A} \hat{\bm{c}}- \bm{u} \right\Vert_2^2.
\end{equation}
In Tikhonov regularization, a smoothness penalty of the form $\Vert \bm{L}{\bm c}\Vert_2^2$, $\bm{L}\in\mathbb{R}^{r(M+1)\times r(M+1)}$, is enforced on the solution $\bm c$ using the method of Lagrange multipliers, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Tikhonov regularization}
\bm{c}_\lambda = \arg\min_{\hat{\bm c}}\; \frac{1}{N}\left\Vert \bm{A} \hat{\bm{c}}- \bm{u} \right\Vert_2^2+\lambda^2 \Vert \bm{L}\hat{\bm c}\Vert_2^2.
\end{equation}
Here, $\bm{L}$ and $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$ are called the {\it Tikhonov matrix} and {\it regularization parameter}, respectively. The regularization parameter $\lambda$ balances the relative contributions of the mismatch function $\frac{1}{N}\left\Vert \bm{A} {\bm{c}}- \bm{u} \right\Vert_2^2$ and the penalty term $\Vert \bm{L}{\bm c}\Vert_2^2$.
It is straightforward to show that the solution to the Tikhonov-regularized problem (\ref{eq:Tikhonov regularization}) can be computed from the modified normal equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:normal_tikh}
\left(\bm{A}^T \bm{A}+\lambda^2 \bm{L}^T \bm{L}\right) \bm{c}_\lambda= \bm{A}^T \bm{u}.
\end{equation}
The effectiveness of the Tikhonov regularization depends on the choices of $\bm L$ and $\lambda$. We next describe the approaches we followed in this study for the selection of these quantities.
\subsubsection{Choice of Tikhonov matrix $\bm L$}
\label{sec:tikh_matrix}
The standard form of the Tikhonov matrix is when $\bm L=\bm I$, the identity matrix. For linear regression problems with orthonormal basis, $\Vert \bm{I}{\bm c}\Vert_2^2$ is essentially the second moment of the approximate solution. Therefore, large deviations in regions where data is highly sparse or not available will be penalized in the reconstruction. However, as demonstrated in the numerical example of Section \ref{sec:Hydrogen Oxidation Problem}, the choice of $\bm L=\bm I$, or more precisely $\bm{L} = \bm{I}_{M+1}\otimes diag(s_1,\dots,s_r)$ to account for the normalization of $\bm c$, may lead to an inadequate regularization of (\ref{eq:1d_opt_dicrete_matrix}). Here $\bm{I}_{M+1}$ and $\otimes$ denote the identity matrix of size $M+1$ and the Kronecker product, respectively. The reason for this inadequacy is because no orthogonality condition among the separation terms is enforced and $\Vert (\bm{I}_{M+1}\otimes diag(s_1,\dots,s_r)){\bm c}_k\Vert_2^2 = \sum_{l=1}^{r}s_l^2\mathbb{E}[(u_k^l)^2]\ne \mathbb{E}[u_r^2]$ ignores the contributions of factors along directions $i\ne k$. Therefore, in the present study, we derive the regularization matrix $\bm L$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:2nd_moment_reg}
\Vert \bm{L} \bm{c} \Vert_2^2 = \mathbb{E}[u_r^2],
\end{equation}
where, here, $u_r$ refers to the separated approximation of $u$ at the iteration in which the regularization is performed. Following (\ref{eqn:2nd}), it is straightforward that $\mathbb{E}[u_r^2] = \bm c^{T}\bm{B}\bm {c}$, where the $(l,l')$-th block of the symmetric, positive-definite matrix $\bm B\in\mathbb{R}^{r(M+1)\times r(M+1)}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:block of B matrix}
\bm{B}{(l,l')}= s_l s_{l'} \prod_{i\ne k} \left( \sum_{\alpha_i=0}^M c_{\alpha_i}^{l} c_{\alpha_i}^{l'} \right) \bm{I}_{M+1}, \quad l,l'=1,\dots,r.\nonumber
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{eq:2nd_moment_reg}) and assuming that $\mathbb{E}[u_r^2]>0$, the Tikhonov matrix $\bm L$ can be set from the Cholesky decomposition of $\bm B$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:our_L}
\bm B = \bm L^T\bm L.
\end{equation}
While we here choose $\bm L$ according to the condition (\ref{eq:2nd_moment_reg}), other constructions, for instance, based on the gradient of $u_r$ with respect to $\bm y$ may also be effective in promoting smoothness, see, e.g., \cite{dAvezac11}.
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:L_pos}
Assuming that $\mathbb{E}[u_r^2]>0$, the Tikhonov matrix $\bm L$ in (\ref{eq:our_L}) is invertible. This property will be exploited in the analysis of Section \ref{sec:Perturbation_based_error}.
\end{rem}
\subsubsection{Selection of regularization parameter $\lambda$: Generalized Cross Validation (GCV)}
\label{sec:GCV}
Selecting a {\it suitable} value for the regularization parameter $\lambda$ is essential to the success of the Tikhonov regularization. A substantially underestimated $\lambda$ results in non-smooth solutions due to the over-fitting. On the other hand, a significantly overestimated $\lambda$ leads to highly biased and smooth solutions. In both cases, the approximation of $u_r$ may be inaccurate. Several statistical methods including Unbiased Predictive Risk Estimator, \cite{Mallows73,Craven79}, Morozov's Discrepancy Principle, \cite{Morozov84}, L-curve, \cite{Hansen92,Hansen93}, and Generalized Cross Validation (GCV), \cite{Wahba77,Golub79}, have been proposed to estimate $\lambda$. Assuming the samples $\bm u$ are noise-free, the first two approaches require an accurate knowledge of the second moment of the mismatch $u-u_r$. Such information is not generally available, especially that the second moment of $u-u_r$ depends on $r$ and $M$ and varies throughout the ALS iterations. The last two methods above, however, do not require such information and may be applied.
In the present study, we employ the GCV technique to select $\lambda$. GCV is a modification of the classical {\it leave-one-out} Cross Validation (CV) where, for a fixed $\lambda$, the regression is performed using $N-1$ sample points and the resulting approximation is tested -- or {\it validated} -- against the remaining one. Such calibration and validation are performed on the $N$ possible leave-one-out scenarios and the validation error is averaged. The process is then repeated for several values of $\lambda$ and the CV selection of $\lambda$ is the one associated with the smallest average validation error. Specifically, let
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gcv_orig}
\bm{c}_{\lambda}^{[j]} = \arg\min_{\hat{\bm c}}\; \frac{1}{N-1}\left\Vert \bm{A}^{[j]} \hat{\bm{c}}- \bm{u}^{[j]} \right\Vert_2^2+\lambda^2 \Vert \bm{L}\hat{\bm c}\Vert_2^2
\end{equation}
be the solution of the Tikhonov-regularized problem (\ref{eq:1d_opt_dicrete_matrix}) for some value of $\lambda$ and when the realization $\bm{u}(j)$ is excluded from the dataset $D$. Then the CV choice of $\lambda$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gcv_fun_orig}
\lambda = \arg\min_{\hat\lambda}\; CV(\hat\lambda) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^{N} \left((\bm{A}\bm{c}_{\hat\lambda}^{[j]})(j) - \bm{u}(j)\right)^2,
\end{equation}
which is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:GCV_fun_mod}
\lambda = \arg\min_{\hat\lambda}\; CV(\hat\lambda)= \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N\left(\frac{(\bm{A}\bm{c})(j) - \bm{u}(j)}{1-\bm{H}_{\hat\lambda}(j,j)} \right)^2,
\end{equation}
see, e.g., \cite{Wahba77}. Here, the \textit{hat matrix} $\bm{H}_{\lambda}=\bm{A}(\bm{A}^T \bm{A}+\lambda^2 \bm{L}^T \bm{L} )^{-1} \bm{A}^T$ maps the vector of the realizations $\bm u$ to their predicted values based on the separated representation. Notice that the evaluation of the $CV$ function in (\ref{eq:GCV_fun_mod}) is easier than that of the (\ref{eq:gcv_fun_orig}) as, for each $\lambda$, only one calibration is performed in (\ref{eq:GCV_fun_mod}). The diagonal entries $\bm{H}_\lambda(j,j)$ depend on the ordering of the rows in $\bm{A}$, hence the ordering of realizations $\{\bm y ^{(j)}\}$. To address this drawback, Generalized Cross Validation (GCV) was introduced in \cite{Wahba77,Golub79}, where $\bm{H}_\lambda(j,j)$ is approximated by the average of the trace of $\bm H_\lambda$, that is $\bm{H}_{\lambda}(j,j)\approx \frac{1}{N}tr(\bm H_\lambda)$. Therefore, in GCV the selection of $\lambda$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:GCV_approx}
\lambda = \arg\min_{\hat\lambda}\; GCV(\hat\lambda)=\frac{ N\left\Vert \bm{A} \bm{c}- \bm{u} \right\Vert_2^2}{ \left( N-tr(\bm{H}_{\hat\lambda}) \right)^2 }.
\end{equation}
\begin{rem}
We note that the range of $\lambda$ for which the GCV (or CV) function is evaluated to find the minimum can be set based on the (generalized) singular values of $\bm A$. For further information on the selection of this range as well as the details on how GCV is efficiently evaluated in practice, we refer to \cite{Hansen92,Vogel02, Hansen10}.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Perturbation-based error indicator for selection of $r$ and $M$}
\label{sec:Perturbation_based_error}
By construction, the ALS approach monotonically decreases the residual norm $\Vert u - u_r\Vert_D$ throughout the iterations with both fixed separation rank $r$ and when $r$ is increased. However, due to the over-fitting issue discussed at the beginning of Section \ref{sec:overfitting}, a large $r$ may result in a solution $u_r$ that is far from $u$ where samples are not available. The regularization approach of Section \ref{sec:Tikhonov} mitigates this issue to a great extent, however, it does not provide a stopping criterion for the separation rank increase. Similarly, given a fixed number $N$ of solution realizations, there is the need to identify a value for $M$, the degree of spectral basis, which does not lead to a highly under-fitted or over-fitted approximation.
To this end, we propose the selection of $r$ and $M$ using a {\it perturbation} bound on the sensitivity of the regularized solution of (\ref{eq:normal_tikh}) to the mismatch between $u$ and $u_r$ in (\ref{eq:separated_intro}). In particular, for a given $M$, the separation rank $r$ is increased until the sensitivity of the solution to (\ref{eq:normal_tikh}) across all directions $k$ increases. This process is repeated for different values of $M$ and the pair $(r,M)$ is chosen such that the sensitivities of the associated regularized solutions (largest across directions $k=1,\dots,d$) is the minimum among other pairs $(r,M)$.
More precisely, let
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:error_samp}
\varepsilon({\bm{y}^{(j)}}) = u(\bm y^{(j)}) - u_r(\bm y^{(j)}),\quad j=1,\dots,N,
\end{equation}
be the realization of the separated representation error $\varepsilon$ in (\ref{eq:separated_intro}) where $u_r$ is the separated representation of $u$ obtained with a fixed separation rank $r$, spectral polynomial degree $M$, but with a sufficiently large number of samples $N_{e}\gg N$. For a moment assume that the vector of separated representation errors $\bm\varepsilon\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$ with $\bm{\varepsilon}(j)=\varepsilon({\bm{y}^{(j)}})$, $j=1,\dots,N$, is known. Then the sensitivity of the Tikhonov solution $\bm c_\lambda$ of (\ref{eq:normal_tikh}) under this error, or perturbation of the realizations of $u_r$, may be bounded as follows.
\begin{prop}[Perturbation bound]
Let $\bm c_{\lambda}$ and $\tilde{\bm c}_{\lambda}$ be solutions to the problem (\ref{eq:Tikhonov regularization}) associated with data vectors $\bm u$ and $\bm u - \bm{\varepsilon}$, respectively, where the perturbation vector $\bm\varepsilon\in\mathbb{R}^N$ with $\bm{\varepsilon}(j)=\varepsilon({\bm{y}^{(j)}})$, $j=1,\dots,N$, is given in (\ref{eqn:error_samp}). Then,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:perturb_bound}
\frac{\Vert \bm{c}_{\lambda}-\tilde{\bm{c}}_{\lambda}\Vert_2}{\Vert \bm{c}_{\lambda}\Vert_2}\leq \frac{\lambda^{-1} \Vert \bm{L}^{-1} \Vert_2\ \Vert\bm\varepsilon\Vert_2}{\Vert \bm{c}_{\lambda}\Vert_2}.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\noindent{\it Proof.} The proof is a straightforward simplification of Theorem $5.5.1$ in \cite{Hansen98b}. We only remind that, according to Remark \ref{rem:L_pos}, $\bm L^{-1}$ exists. $\square$ \\[-.3cm]
Notice that the bound in (\ref{eqn:perturb_bound}) depends on $\Vert\bm\varepsilon\Vert_2$ which is not readily available in practice. However, under some assumptions, the expected value of $\Vert\bm\varepsilon\Vert_2^2$ may be estimated. In particular, we assume that $\varepsilon({\bm{y}^{(j)}})$, $j=1,\dots, N$, can be approximated by realizations of some uncorrelated random variables with zero mean and variance $\sigma^2$. Then, following \cite{Green94}, $\sigma^2$ may be estimated by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:variance estimator}
\widehat{\sigma}_\lambda^2\ = \frac{\left\Vert \bm{A} \bm{c}_\lambda - \bm{u} \right\Vert_2^2}{ \left( N-tr(\bm{H}_\lambda) \right) }.
\end{equation}
Consequently, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:mean_est}
\mathbb{E}\left[\Vert \bm\varepsilon\Vert_2^2\right] = N\widehat{\sigma}_\lambda^2.
\end{equation}
We then define an {\it error indicator} of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:ei}
EI = \frac{N^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda^{-1} \Vert \bm{L}^{-1} \Vert_2\ \widehat{\sigma}_\lambda}{\Vert \bm{c}_{\lambda}\Vert_2},
\end{equation}
which is similar to the perturbation bound in (\ref{eqn:perturb_bound}), except that we replaced $\Vert\bm\varepsilon\Vert_2^2$ with its expected value $N\widehat{\sigma}_\lambda^2$.
In the numerical examples of Section \ref{sec:num_exp}, we use the error indicator $EI$ in (\ref{eqn:perturb_bound}) to estimate a pair $(r,M)$ that does not lead to over-fitting or under-fitting. Specifically, for a fixed $M$, we monitor $EI$ throughout the last $d$ iterations of the ALS updates immediately before $r$ is increased. We then take $EI_{\max}^{r,M}$ as the largest $EI$ among these $d$ indicators. Our selection of the separation rank $r$ and polynomial degree $M$, hence the stopping criterion of the separated representation, is the pair $(r,M)$ corresponding to the smallest $EI_{\max}^{r,M}$. Notice that the $EI$ in (\ref{eqn:ei}) implicitly depends on $r$ through $\lambda^{-1}$, $\Vert \bm{L}^{-1} \Vert_2$, $\widehat{\sigma}_\lambda$, and $\Vert \bm{c}_{\lambda}\Vert_2$. Roughly speaking, when $r$ is too small or unnecessarily large, $EI$ is large due to $\widehat{\sigma}_\lambda$ or $\Vert \bm L^{-1}\Vert_2$ being large, respectively. For values of $r$ close to the {\it optimal} separation rank (e.g., one resulting in minimum mean-squares error), however, these latter quantities are moderate. This is why the pair $(r,M)$ obtained via $EI$ may avoid under-fitting and over-fitting in the separated approximation.
\begin{rem}
We call the quantity in (\ref{eqn:ei}) an error {\it indicator} as opposed to an error {\it estimator} as (\ref{eqn:ei}) does not account for the bias introduced in the estimation of $\bm c$ due to the Tikhonov regularization. Additionally, due to the iterative construction of ALS, the matrices $\bm A$ are affected by the errors in the estimation of $\bm c$ coefficients from the previous iterations. While the effect of such errors may be modeled in the form of perturbations of $\bm A$, we ignore this effect in the present study. Even so, as we shall see in numerical results of Section \ref{sec:num_exp}, the error indicator in (\ref{eqn:ei}) successfully identifies the pair $(r,M)$ that avoids over-fitting and at the same time leads to accurate separated representation.
\end{rem}
We next investigate the performance of the non-intrusive separated representation together with the proposed regularization strategy on a manufactured function and two ODE models subject to high-dimensional random inputs.
\section{Numerical Experiments}
\label{sec:num_exp}
\subsection{A manufactured function}
\label{sec:manufactured problem}
Here we consider the separated representation of the function
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:manufactured function}
u(y_1,\dots,y_{10})= s_0+ s_1\psi_3(y_1)\psi_3(y_2) + s_2\psi_2(y_3) + s_3 \psi_2(y_8) + s_4\psi_3(y_9) + \varepsilon,
\end{equation}
where $\{y_k\}_{k=1}^{10}$ are i.i.d standard Gaussian random variables and $\psi_i(\cdot)$ is the Hermite polynomial of degree $i$, normalized to have variance one. The noise $\varepsilon$ is a zero mean Gaussian random variable with standard deviation $0.0005$ and is independent from $\{y_k\}_{k=1}^{10}$. The coefficients $\{s_i\}_{i=1}^{4}$ are set to $s_0=0.55$, $s_1=\sqrt{2}/2$, $s_2=-\sqrt{2}/4$, $s_3=-\sqrt{2}/4$, and $s_4=-1/10$. This setting leads to $\mathbb{E}[u]=0.55$ and $\mathrm{Var}[u] = 0.76$ for the noise-free $u$.
The purpose of this test case is to verify the selection of the separation rank $r$ and spectral polynomial degree $M$ via the error indicator of Section \ref{sec:Perturbation_based_error}. In particular, we expect that $r\le 5$ as the the separated representation compresses the noise-free $u$ with a separation rank that cannot exceed the number of orthogonal terms in (\ref{eq:manufactured function}), i.e., 5. This is due to the construction of separated representations where no orthogonality condition among the separated terms is assumed. Additionally, an accurate separated approximation of $u$ requires an order $M\ge 3$ for the spectral expansion of the factors in (\ref{eq:separated_intro}).
Figures \ref{fig:Manufactired_Optimum_rM}(a) and \ref{fig:Manufactired_Optimum_rM}(b) depict the selection of $(r,M)$ based on the error indicator of Section \ref{sec:Perturbation_based_error} and by minimizing the standard deviation error, respectively. In most cases the error indicator selects the reasonable values $r=3$ and $M=3$. As is observed from Figs. \ref{fig:Manufactired_Optimum_rM}(c) and \ref{fig:Manufactired_Optimum_rM}(d), except for the small sample size of $N=200$, the solution computed based on the error indicator leads to accuracies that are close to those generated based on minimizing the standard deviation error.
\begin{figure
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hspace{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=2.8in]{r_M_number_erind_Synthetic.eps}
&
\includegraphics[width=2.8in]{r_M_number_reference_Synthetic.eps}
\\
(a) & (b)
\\
\includegraphics[width=2.8in]{mean_error_number_ref_erind_Synthetic.eps}
&
\includegraphics[width=2.8in]{std_error_number_ref_erind_Synthetic.eps}
\\
(c) & (d)
\end{tabular}
\caption{Evaluating the performance of the error indicator of Section \ref{sec:Perturbation_based_error} in estimating the separation rank $r$ and polynomial degree $M$. (a) $(r,M)$ estimated based on the error indicator of Section \ref{sec:Perturbation_based_error}; (b) $(r,M)$ that minimize the standard deviation error (computed based on the reference solution); (c) and (d) Mean and standard deviation error, respectively, when $r$ and $M$ are estimated using the error indicator and based on the minimum standard deviation error. (Separation rank $r$ ({\scriptsize $\square$}); Polynomial degree $M$ ($\diamond$); $(r,M)$ estimated based on the error indicator ({\scriptsize$\;\;\;\; \square$} $\hspace{-.73cm} ---$); $r$ and $M$ that minimize the standard deviation error ($\;\;\;\; \circ $ $\hspace{-.69cm} ---$)).}
\label{fig:Manufactired_Optimum_rM}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Linear elliptic stochastic equation}
\label{sec:Elliptic}
We consider the elliptic stochastic equation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:1D elliptic}
-\frac{d}{dx} \left( a(x,\bm y) \frac{d u(x,\bm y)}{dx} \right) &=& 1, \ \ \ \ x\in \mathcal{D}=\left(0,1\right),\\
u(0,\bm y) &=& u(1,\bm y)=0,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $a(x,\bm y)$ is the stochastic diffusion coefficient given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:diffusion coefficient}
a(x,\bm y)=\bar{a}(x)+\sigma_a \sum_{k=1}^{d} \sqrt{\gamma_k} \phi_k(x)y_k. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Here, $\bar{a}(x)$ is the mean of $a(x,\bm y)$ and $\sigma_a$ is a coefficient to control the variability of $a(x,\bm y)$. The random variables $\{y_k\}_{k=1}^d$ are assumed to be independent and uniformly distributed on $[-1,1]$. Additionally, $\{\gamma_i\}_{k=1}^{d}$ and $\{\phi_k(x)\}_{k=1}^{d}$ are, respectively, $d$ largest eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenfunctions of the covariance function
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Gaussian correlation}
C_{aa}\left(x_1,x_2 \right)=\exp \left[-\frac{\left(x_1-x_2\right)^2}{l_c^2} \right],\quad x_1,x_2\in \mathcal{D},\nonumber
\end{equation}
where $l_c$ is the correlation length of $a(x,\bm y)$ and is set to $l_c=1/14$. This will lead to $d=40$ dominant eigenvalues in the spectrum of $C_{aa}$. Furthermore, we consider $\overline{a}=0.1$ and choose $\sigma_a=0.021$ to guarantee the positivity of $a(x,\bm y)$ over $\mathcal{D}$. The realization of $u$ in (\ref{eq:1D elliptic}) are obtained by a Finite Element solver with quadratic elements. The mean and standard deviation of the solution at $x=0.5$ are the quantities of interest. The accuracy of the non-intrusive separated representation is compared against those of the Monte Carlo simulation and sparse grid stochastic collocation techniques. To obtain a reference solution, we compute the $3$rd order PC expansion of solution at $x=0.5$ using level $l=5$ stochastic collocation with the Clenshaw-Curtis rule (see, e.g., \cite{Xiu05a} for more information on the stochastic collocation approach and the Clenshaw-Curtis rule).
Given the uniform distribution of $y_k$, we expand the univariate factors $\{u_k^l(y_k)\}$ in a Legendre polynomial basis. Figure \ref{fig:Elliptic Optimum rM yy}(a) displays the estimates of the separation rank $r$ and polynomial degree $M$ obtained for sample sizes $N \in\{ 80,200,300,400,600,800,1000,1500 \}$ using the error indicator $EI$ discussed in Section \ref{sec:Perturbation_based_error}. As can be observed from this figure, $r=1$ is selected for different values of $N$, thus confirming that $u(0.5,\bm y)$ admits a low-rank separated representation. However, the estimates of the polynomial degree $M$ depend on $N$. In Fig. \ref{fig:Elliptic Optimum rM yy}(b), for each $N$, we obtain the pair $(r,M)$ such that the resulting error in the standard deviation of the solution is minimum. Notice that such a selection of $(r,M)$ requires the availability of the reference solution. Figures \ref{fig:Elliptic Optimum rM yy}(c) and \ref{fig:Elliptic Optimum rM yy}(d) illustrate the convergence of the solution mean and standard deviation corresponding to $(r,M)$ selected according to the above two strategies. While the estimates of $(r,M)$ based on the error indicator are not precisely the same as those minimizing the standard deviation error, the resulting accuracies in Figs. \ref{fig:Elliptic Optimum rM yy}(c) and \ref{fig:Elliptic Optimum rM yy}(d) are comparable. Moreover, the $EI$-based selection of $(r,M)$ leads to stable separated representations of the solution.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hspace{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=2.8in]{r_M_number_elliptic_elliptic.eps}
&
\includegraphics[width=2.8in]{r_M_number_minstd_elliptic.eps}
\\
(a) & (b)
\\
\includegraphics[width=2.8in]{mean_error_number_ref_erind_elliptic.eps}
&
\includegraphics[width=2.8in]{std_error_number_ref_erind_elliptic.eps}
\\
(c) & (d)
\end{tabular}
\caption{Evaluating the performance of the error indicator of Section \ref{sec:Perturbation_based_error} in estimating the separation rank $r$ and polynomial degree $M$. (a) $(r,M)$ estimated based on the error indicator of Section \ref{sec:Perturbation_based_error}; (b) $r$ and $M$ that minimize the standard deviation error (computed based on the reference solution); (c) and (d) Mean and standard deviation error, respectively, when $r$ and $M$ are estimated using the error indicator and based on the minimum standard deviation error. (Separation rank $r$ ({\scriptsize $\square$}); Polynomial degree $M$ ($\diamond$); $(r,M)$ estimated based on the error indicator ({\scriptsize$\;\;\;\; \square$} $\hspace{-.73cm} ---$); $(r,M)$ that minimize the standard deviation error ($\;\;\;\; \circ $ $\hspace{-.69cm} ---$)).}
\label{fig:Elliptic Optimum rM yy}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{fig:elliptic_error}(a) and \ref{fig:elliptic_error}(b) compare the convergence of the mean and standard deviation of $u(0.5,\bm y)$ obtained by the separated representation, the standard Monte Carlo simulation, as well as the (isotropic) sparse grid stochastic collocation with the Clenshaw-Curtis abscissas. As the estimates obtained by the separated representation and the Monte Carlo simulation are sample dependent, two sets of independent realizations are considered.
Figure \ref{fig:elliptic_error}(b), in particular, demonstrates a faster convergence and more accurate estimates of the solution standard deviation achieved by the separated representation approach. Additionally, as the construction of the non-intrusive separated representation is based on random sampling of the solution, the approximation refinement may be achieved by incorporating as many additional samples as can be afforded. In the sparse grid stochastic collocation with nested abscissas, however, the number of additional solution samples is dictated by the underlying quadrature rule.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
\hspace{-0.3cm}
\includegraphics[width=2.9in]{mean_error_number_elliptic.eps}
\hspace{-.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=2.9in]{std_error_number_elliptic.eps}
\\
\put(85,0){\footnotesize(a)}
\put(300,0){\footnotesize(b)}
\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of relative mean and standard deviation errors of the solution at $x=0.5$ for the separated representation, Monte Carlo simulation, and sparse grid stochastic collocation with Clenshaw-Curtis abscissas (First set: solid line; Second set: dashed line). (a) Relative error in mean and (b) Relative error in standard deviation. (Monte Carlo simulation ($\diamond$); Stochastic collocation ({\scriptsize $\square$}); Separated representation($\circ$); $1/\sqrt{N}$ decay rate (Thin continuous line \line(1,0){15})).}
\label{fig:elliptic_error}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The hydrogen oxidation problem}
\label{sec:Hydrogen Oxidation Problem}
As a third test case, we study the problem of hydrogen oxidation under the SuperCritical Water (SCW) condition. SCW condition provides a means for fast and complete oxidation of organics without toxic formation. The chemical mechanism associated with the hydrogen oxidation may involve numerous uncertain parameters such as coefficients describing elementary reactions and thermodynamic properties of species, and has been the subject of several numerical studies in the area of uncertainty quantification \cite{Phenix98,Reagan03,Reagan04,Reagan05,LeMaitre07b,Mathelin10,Alexanderian11}.
In the present work, we focus on the reduced mechanism of \cite{Phenix98} consisting of $8$ reversible elementary reactions and $7$ species: $OH$, $H$, $H_2 O$, $H_2 $, $O_2 $, $HO_2 $, and $H_2 O_2$. We assume that forward reaction rate constants $k_{f,j}$ and species enthalpies of formation $\Delta H^{0}_{f,i}$ (associated with $OH$, $H$, $H_2 O$, $HO_2 $, and $H_2 O_2$) are independent uncertain parameters, thus giving rise to an uncertainty space of dimensionality $d=13$. In particular, following \cite{Phenix98,Reagan03,Reagan04}, we model $k_{f,j}$ as independent lognormal random variables with prescribed medians $\tilde k_{f,j}$ and such that $Prob\ [\tilde k_{f,j}/\zeta_j\le k_{f,j} \le \tilde k_{f,j} \zeta_j ] = 1 - \theta$. The so-called {\it uncertainty factors} $\zeta_j$ are given in Table \ref{table:mechanism}, and we here set $\theta = 0.004$. The medians $\tilde k_{f,j}$ are modeled by the Arrhenius equation $\tilde k_{f,j}=A_jT^{n_j} e^{-E_{a,j}/RT}$, where $R$ is the universal gas constant, $T$ is the temperature, and parameters $A_j$, $E_{a,j}$, and $n_j$ are derived from experimental data, see Table \ref{table:mechanism}. The realizations of $k_{f,j}$ with the above descriptions may be obtained from
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:forward_enth}
k_{f,j} = \tilde k_{f,j}\ \exp\left(\frac{\log \zeta_j}{\Phi^{-1}(1-\frac{\theta}{2})}\ y_{j}\right)\ , \quad j=1,\dots,8,\nonumber
\end{equation}
in which $\{y_{j}\}_{j=1}^8$ are independent standard Gaussian random variables with cumulative distribution function (CDF) $\Phi$. Moreover, we characterize the uncertainty in the species enthalpies of formation $\Delta H^{0}_{f,i}$ as independent Gaussian random variables with experimental mean values and standard deviations reported in Table \ref{table:musigma}. Other model parameters including entropies, internal energy, and initial conditions are considered to be deterministic. \\[-.3cm]
\begin{table}[h
\caption{Reduced mechanism of hydrogen oxidation \cite{Phenix98}. $A_j$: Pre-exponential coefficient, $n_j$: Temperature exponent, $E_{a,j}/R$: Activation energy over universal gas constant, $\zeta_j$: Uncertainty factor.
}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c }
\hline
$j$ & Elementary reaction & $A_j$ & $n_j$ & $E_{a,j}/R$ & $\zeta_j$ \\
\hline\hline
1 & $OH$ + $H$ $\longleftrightarrow$ $H_2O$ & $1.620E^{+14}$ & 0 & 75 & 3.16 \\
2 & $H_2$ + $OH$ $\longleftrightarrow$ $H_2O$ + $H$ & $1.024E^{+8}$ & 1.6 & 1660 & 1.26 \\
3 & $H$ + $O_2$ $\longleftrightarrow$ $HO_2$ & $1.481E^{+12}$ & 0.6 & 0 & 1.58 \\
4 & $HO_2$ + $HO_2$ $\longleftrightarrow$ $H_2O_2$ + $O_2$ & $1.620E^{+12}$ & 0 & 775 & 1.41 \\
5 & $H_2O_2$ + $OH$ $\longleftrightarrow$ $H_2O$ + $HO_2$ & $1.789E^{+12}$ & 0 & 670 & 1.58 \\
6 & $H_2O_2$ + $H$ $\longleftrightarrow$ $HO_2$ + $H_2$ & $1.686E^{+12}$ & 0 & 1890 & 2.00 \\
7 & $H_2O_2$ $\longleftrightarrow$ $OH$ + $OH$ & $3.000E^{+14}$ & 0 & 24400 & 3.16 \\
8 & $OH$ + $H_2O$ $\longleftrightarrow$ $H_2O$ + $O_2$ & $2.891E^{+13}$ & 0 & -250 & 3.16 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:mechanism}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Means and standard deviations of the species enthalpies of formation $\Delta H^{0}_{f,i}$ \cite{Phenix98}.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c }
Species & $H$ & $OH$ & $H_2O$ & $H_2O_2$ & $HO_2$ \\
\hline\hline
index ($i$) & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5\\
$\mu_i$ & 52.10 & 9.3 & -57.80 & -32.53 & 3.00 \\
$2\sigma_i$ & 0.01 & 0.2 & 0.01 & 0.07 & 0.5 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\\
\label{table:musigma}
\end{table}
\noindent{\it Perfectly stirred reactor (PSR).} We process the oxidation in a perfectly stirred reactor (PSR), where the combustion is assumed to be spatially homogeneous as a consequence of high diffusion rates and forced turbulent mixing. The PSR (isochoric here) is modeled by the conservation of mass, energy, and species, and we here use the CHEMKIN code \cite{Kee93} to solve the governing equations over a $10\ sec$ time interval. The deterministic initial thermodynamic conditions are $T=823\ kelvin$ and $P=246\ bar$, with initial species concentration $C_{H_2 }=0.481\times10^{-3}\ \frac{mol}{cm^3}$, $C_{O_2 }=0.243\times 10^{-3}\ \frac{mol}{cm^3}$ , and $C_{H_2O }=0.99\times 10^{-3}\ \frac{mol}{cm^3}$. For further information about the details of this problem, we refer the interested reader to \cite{Phenix98}.
\subsubsection{Uncertainty quantification of $OH$ concentration}
\label{sec:Results of Hydrogen Oxidation}
We apply the proposed non-intrusive separated approximation to compute the $OH$ concentration as well as its mean and standard deviation. In order to assess the quality of our approximations, we generate an order $p=4$ Hermite PC reference solution whose coefficients are obtained using least-squares regression with $N=100,000$ realizations of $OH$ concentration. In particular, we investigate the effect of two choices of $\bm L$ as well as the performance of the proposed error indicator for the selection of separation rank $r$ and the Hermite polynomial degrees $M$. Additionally, we compare the accuracy of the solutions obtained using separated representation and the regression-based PC for small values of $N$.
Figure \ref{fig:regularization effects} compares the relative error in estimating the standard deviation of $OH$ concentration at $t=2.2\ sec$ with and without the Tikhonov regularization. For the regularized case, the Tikhonov matrix $\bm L$ of Section \ref{sec:tikh_matrix} as well as $\bm L = \bm{I}_{M+1}\otimes diag(s_1,\dots,s_r)$ were used. As can be observed from Fig. \ref{fig:regularization effects}, for large separation ranks $r$, the method over-fits the data. More importantly, the regularized approximation with the Tikhonov matrix $\bm L$ of Section \ref{sec:tikh_matrix} considerably reduces the over-fitting, as a result of which higher accuracies are achieved compared to a non-regularized case or when $\bm L = \bm{I}_{M+1}\otimes diag(s_1,\dots,s_r)$ is applied. We refer to Section \ref{sec:tikh_matrix} for an explanation of this observation.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
\hspace{-0.5cm}
\begin{tiny}
\end{tiny}
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{std_error_rank_OH.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{ Regularized and non-regularized estimation of solution standard deviation as a function of the relative residual $\Vert u - u_r\Vert_D/\Vert u\Vert_D$ ($N=200$, $t=2.2\ sec$, and $M=2$).
For separation ranks $r>2$ where over-fitting occurs, the Tikhonov matrix of Section \ref{sec:tikh_matrix} is considerably more effective than regularizing with $\bm L = \bm{I}_{M+1}\otimes diag(s_1,\dots,s_r)$. (Regularized with $\bm L$ defined in Section \ref{sec:tikh_matrix} ({\scriptsize $\square$}); Regularized with $\bm L = \bm{I}_{M+1}\otimes diag(s_1,\dots,s_r)$ ($\diamond$); Non-regularized case($\circ$)).}
\label{fig:regularization effects}
\end{figure}
The performance of the error indicator of Section \ref{sec:Perturbation_based_error} in estimating the optimal $r$ and $M$ is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:Error Indicator} for the case of $N=200$ and $t=2.2\ sec$. Here, optimal $r$ and $M$ refer to those that correspond to smallest standard deviation error. In Fig. \ref{fig:Error Indicator}(a), we show the error indicator values as a function of $r$ while fixing $M=2$. In this case, the error indicator achieves its minimum at $r=2$, which happens to be the separation rank corresponding to the minimum standard deviation error. We stress that the standard deviation errors were generated based on the reference values, while the error indicator does not require the knowledge of the reference solution. In Fig. \ref{fig:Error Indicator}(b), we show a similar analysis except that we fix $r=2$ and let $M$ vary.
Figure \ref{fig:Optimum r M} depicts the error indicator-based estimates of $r$ and $M$ for separated representation of $OH$ concentration as a function of time. We observe that for most time instances these estimates are $r=1$ and $M=2$, respectively. Notice that these values depend on the number $N$ and particular sets of realizations used to reconstruct the solution.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
\hspace{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=2.8in]{error_estimator_std_rank_OH.eps}
\hspace{.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=2.8in]{error_estimator_polynomialdegree_OH.eps}
\\
\put(85,0){\footnotesize(a)}
\put(300,0){\footnotesize(b)}
\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Selection of the separation rank $r$ and spectral polynomial degree $M$ ($N=200$, $t=2.2\ sec$) using the error indicator of Section \ref{sec:Perturbation_based_error}. (a) Standard deviation error and the error indicator vs. $r$ for $M= 2$ and (b) Standard deviation error and the error indicator vs. $M$ for $ r= 2$. Here optimal $r$ and $M$ refer to those that correspond to smallest standard deviation error. (Standard deviation error ({\scriptsize $\square$}); Error indicator ($\diamond$)).}
\label{fig:Error Indicator}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
\hspace{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{optimum_r_polynomial_OH.eps}
\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Values of separation rank $r$ and spectral polynomial degree $M$ ($N=200$) obtained from the error indicator of Section \ref{sec:Perturbation_based_error}. ($r$ ({\scriptsize $\square$}); $M$ ($\diamond$)).}
\label{fig:Optimum r M}
\end{figure}
We next compare the accuracy of the separated representation and the regression-based PC expansion in estimating the mean and standard deviation of $OH$ concentration, see Figs. \ref{fig: OH profile} and \ref{fig: compare errors for N=200 and N=300 to regression}. To achieve a stable approximation, the latter approach requires about $N=650$ realizations of $OH$ concentration for a total degree $p=3$ Hermite PC expansion. The accuracy of the $p=2$ PC expansion was found to be significantly below those of the separated representation; therefore, that case was not considered further. As can be observed from Fig. \ref{fig: compare errors for N=200 and N=300 to regression}, the two approaches achieve similar accuracies, in terms of maximum relative errors over the analysis time interval, while the separated representation requires only about half as many number of realizations of $OH$ concentration.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
\hspace{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{mean_std_reg_regression_OH.eps}
\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{ The $OH$ concentration as a function of time. (PC-based reference solution constructed with $N=100,000$ ($---$); PC regression with $N=650$ ($\bullet$); Separated representation with $N=300$ ({\scriptsize $\square$})).}
\label{fig: OH profile}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
\hspace{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=2.9in]{mean_err_reg_regression_OH.eps}
\hspace{-.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=2.9in]{std_err_reg_regression_OH.eps}
\\
\put(100,0){\footnotesize(a)}
\put(300,0){\footnotesize(b)}
\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of separated representation and PC regression in estimation of mean and standard deviation of $OH$ concentration. (a) Relative error in mean and (b) Relative error in standard deviation. Separated representation with $N=300$ achieves a similar maximum error (over time $t$) as that of the PC regression. (PC regression with $N=650$ ($\diamond$); Separated representation with $N=300$ ({\scriptsize $\square$}); Separated representation with $N=200$ ($\circ$)).}
\label{fig: compare errors for N=200 and N=300 to regression}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
This work introduced a non-intrusive algorithm based on separated representations to approximate model solutions with high-dimensional random inputs. Separated representations may be thought of as generalizations of matrix Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) to higher order tensors and multivariate functions. In particular, a multivariate function is decomposed into a linear sum of unknown functions that are separated with respect to the inputs. In this study, a regression approach was presented to stably compute the separated representation of high-dimensional stochastic functions using their randomly generated realizations. When the number of separated functions in the representation (known as the separation rank) is independent of the number $d$ of random inputs, a successful approximation may be achieved with a number of solution realizations that depends linearly on $d$. The computational complexity of such an approximation grows quadratically in $d$. Therefore, the proposed framework may drastically reduce the issue of curse-of-dimensionality, a bottleneck for uncertainty quantification of systems with high-dimensional random inputs. One of the challenges for regression-based techniques is the issue of over-fitting, which may lead to numerical instabilies and inaccurate approximations. To tackle this issue for our construction, we adopted a Tikhonov regularization approach in which the Tikhonov matrix was designed to penalize large values of the second moment of the approximate solution. The regularization parameter was estimated using the Generalized Cross Validation (GCV) approach. Furthermore, a perturbation-based error indicator was derived to select the parameters of the separated representation to further prevent over-fitting (as well as under-fitting).
The performance of the proposed method was explored through its application to the reconstruction of a manufactured function as well as the numerical solution of two ODE problems with high-dimensional random inputs. The first ODE problem discussed an elliptic differential equation in which the diffusion coefficient was a function of $d=40$ random variables. It was demonstrated, numerically, that the proposed non-intrusive approach outperformed the standard sparse grid stochastic collocation, a widely used technique for approximating high-dimensional functions. The second ODE example focused on quantifying the effect of parametric uncertainties in a hydrogen oxidation problem. The advantage of the proposed approach compared to the regression-based polynomial chaos expansion was observed numerically.
The present construction of separated representation was for scalar-valued stochastic functions. Extensions to vector-valued cases is the subject of an ongoing work. Such an extension is envisioned to exploit the low-rank structure of solution (if exists) in the physical/temporal variables to further reduce the number of required solution realizations.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to gratefully thank Prof. Gregory Beylkin (CU Boulder) and Prof. Luis Tenorio (Colorado School of Mines) for their valuable suggestions regarding separated representations and regularization of inverse problems.
The work of AD and AV was partially supported by the Department of Energy under Advanced Scientific Computing Research Early Career Research Award DE- SC0006402 and the Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program (PSAAP) at Stanford University. GI gratefully acknowledges financial support from KAUST under award AEA 48803.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Front propagation in turbulent combustion is a nonlinear multiscale dynamical process \cite{P00,X00,X09}.
In gasoline engine, the burning velocity determines the engine efficiency and the combustion cycle.
Hence to measure and study the flame propagation speed is a fundamental issue in combustion experiments
and theory. The comprehensive governing equations for flame propagation involve
Navier-Stokes equations coupled with transport equations,
which express laws of the fluid dynamics and the chemical reactions respectively.
Simplified geometric models, such as the level set G-equations \cite{W85,P00},
are often more efficient in improving our understanding of such complex phenomenon.
In level set approach \cite{OF02}, the so-called G-equation in turbulent combustion is:
\begin{equation}\label{Gi}
G_t+{\mathrm {\bf V}}({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)\!\cdot\! DG+s_L|DG|=0,
\end{equation}
which describes the motion of the flame front at a prescribed flow velocity $V({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)$ and
a constant speed $s_L$ along the normal direction of the flame front called the "laminar flame speed".
When the flame front is planar and the flow velocity is at rest, the front propagates at the speed $s_L$.
If the flow is in motion, the front is wrinkled in time and eventually propagates at an
asymptotic speed $s_T$ in each specified direction, which is called the "turbulent flame speed".
Through the framework of homogenization theory, the existence of the turbulent flame speed of (\ref{Gi})
has been rigorously established for periodic flows \cite{XY10,CNS11} and random flows \cite{NN11,CS12}.
As fluid turbulence is known to cause corrugations of flames, additional modeling terms are often
incorporated into the basic G-equation (\ref{Gi}) on physical grounds \cite{P00}.
We shall study turbulent flame speeds characterized by
such extended G-equation models involving curvature, diffusion or strain effects.
The curvature G-equation is:
\begin{equation}\label{Gc}
G_t+{\mathrm {\bf V}}({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)\!\cdot\! DG+s_L|DG|=d|DG|\mathrm{div}\left({DG\over|DG|}\right),
\end{equation}
which comes from adding mean curvature term to the basic motion law. If the curvature terms is linearized, we arrive at the viscous G-equation:
\begin{equation}\label{Gv}
G_t+{\mathrm {\bf V}}({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)\!\cdot\! DG+s_L|DG|=d\Delta G,
\end{equation}
which is also a model for understanding the numerical diffusion \cite{OF02}. The strain G-equation is:
\begin{equation}\label{Gs}
G_t+{\mathrm {\bf V}}({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)\!\cdot\! DG+\left(s_L\!+\!d{DG\!\cdot\! DV\!\cdot\! DG\over|DG^2|}\right)|DG|=d|DG|\mathrm{div}\left({DG\over|DG|}\right)\!.
\end{equation}
The strain term $n\!\cdot\! DV\!\cdot\! n$ comes from the flame surface stretching rate.
We will give a brief derivation of all G-equation models later.
Our goal is to study turbulent flame speed $s_T$ and its dependence on the velocity field $V({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)$.
Cellular flows are two dimensional vortical flows with nontrivial geometric streamline
structures, hence often adopted for mathematical and computational study of $s_T$.
Let us first consider the steady cellular flow:
$$
{\mathrm {\bf V}}({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)=A\!\cdot\!(-\sin(2\pi x)\cos(2\pi y),
\cos(2\pi x)\sin(2\pi y)).
$$
which is a two dimensional periodic incompressible flow with parameter $A$ as the flow intensity.
The streamline of the cellular flow consist of a periodic array of hyperbolic
(saddle points, separatrices) and elliptic (vortical) regions.
For inviscid G-equation, \cite{O01,ACVV02} showed that $s_T$ is enhanced by
the cellular flow with growth rate $s_T=O(A/\log A)$.
For viscous G-equation, it is proved in \cite{LXY11} that the diffusion term
causes strong front speed bending (saturation), and the growth of $s_T$ slows down to uniform bound: $s_T=O(1)$.
For curvature and strain G-equations, although the analytical justifications are still lacking,
numerical results \cite{LXY12} showed that the curvature term causes weaker front
speed bending than the regular diffusion term. Also the strain rate term causes flame quenching, that is,
$s_T$ starts to decrease for larger $A$ and eventually drops to zero.
Next, we consider the unsteady (time dependent) cellular flow.
For inviscid G-equation (\ref{Gi}) and time periodic cellular flow,
it is observed in \cite{CTVV03} that the front propagation
may be synchronized by the spatial and temporal periodicity, and $s_T$ is approximately
frequency times a rational number. Such phenomenon is called "frequency locking".
The time periodic and random cellular flows are also considered in \cite{NX08} within
a reaction-diffusion-advection (RDA)
equation model where temporally stochastic perturbations of the cellular flow
also cause strong resonance (although the number of
resonance peaks reduces to one).
In this paper, we study turbulent flame speeds in unsteady cellular flows
for extended G-equation models (\ref{Gc}),(\ref{Gv}),(\ref{Gs}). The organization is as follows.
In section 2, we give an overview of G-equation models and refer the associated numerical
schemes based on monotone finite difference methods to \cite{LXY12}. In section 3, we show numerical
findings. For time periodically shifted cellular flows, we found that frequency locking of the front propagation
persists in curvature and strain G-equations, and the locking phenomenon is robust
with respect to the coefficient $d$ of the curvature or strain term.
On the other hand, it disappears in the viscous G-equation (\ref{Gv}), and in time
random cellular flows where $s_T$ decreases in the
oscillation ``frequency'' (the reciprocal of correlation length).
For time periodically amplified cellular flows, all results are similar except that
if the amplitude oscillation frequency is too high then the front becomes insensitive to the cellular flow.
We end with concluding remarks in section 4, and acknowledgements in section 5.
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{G-equation Models}
In the thin reaction zone regime and the corrugated flamelet regime of premixed turbulent combustion \cite{P00}, the flame front is modeled by a level set function $\{G({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)=0\}$, which is the interface between the unburned fuel $\{G<0\}$ and burned fuel $\{G>0\}$. The trajectory of a particle ${\mathrm {\bf x}}(t)$ on the interface is given by a velocity field and a laminar speed:
\begin{equation}\label{Law}
{{\mathrm d} {\mathrm {\bf x}}\over{\mathrm d} t}={\mathrm {\bf V}}({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)+s_Ln,
\end{equation}
where the positive constant $s_L$ is called the laminar flame speed and $n=DG/|DG|$ is the
normal velocity ($D$: spatial gradient). In terms of $G$, the motion law (\ref{Law}) gives the inviscid G-equation (\ref{Gi}). To take account of the effect of flame stretching, the surface stretch rate may be added as a first order correction term on laminar flame speed:
$$\begin{array}{c}
\hat{s}_L=s_L-d(\kappa+{\mathcal S}),\medskip\\
\kappa=\mathrm{div}(n),
\ \mathcal S=-n\!\cdot\! DV\!\cdot\! n.
\end{array}$$
Here $d$ is called the Markstein diffusive number, $\kappa$ is the mean curvature and $\mathcal S$ is called the strain rate. Replacing $s_L$ by $\hat{s}_L$ in the motion law (\ref{Law}), we obtain the strain G-equation (\ref{Gs}).
If we include the motion by curvature only, we have the curvature G-equation (\ref{Gc}). If the curvature term is further linearized, we arrive at the viscous G-equation (\ref{Gv}).
Suppose the flame front propagates in $x$-direction in two dimensional space (${\mathrm {\bf x}}=(x,y)$). Consider the stripe domain ${\mathbb R}\times[0,1]$, and the burned region at time $t$ is $\{{\mathrm {\bf x}}\in{\mathbb R}\times[0,1]:G({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)<0\}$. Denote ${\mathcal A}(t)$ the area that the burned region has invaded during time interval $(0,t)$:
$$
{\mathcal A}(t)=\int_{{\mathbb R}\times[0,1]}\chi_{\{G({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)<0\}} -\chi_{\{G({\mathrm {\bf x}},0)<0\}}{\mathrm d}{\mathrm {\bf x}}.
$$
($\chi$: indicator function.) We refer ${\mathcal A}\rq{}(t)$ as the instantaneous burning velocity. Then turbulent flame speed is the large time linear growth rate of ${\mathcal A}(t)$ or the average of ${\mathcal A}\rq{}(t)$:
\begin{equation}\label{St}
s_T=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}{{\mathcal A}(t)\over t}=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}{1\over t}\int_0^t{\mathcal A}'(t)dt.
\end{equation}
In numerical simulation, consider G-equation with initial data $G({\mathrm {\bf x}},0)=x$. If ${\mathrm {\bf V}}({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)$ is spatially periodic, we can reduce the computational domain to $[0,1]^2$ by imposing the affine periodic condition:
\begin{equation}\label{IVP}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
G_t+{\mathrm {\bf V}}({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)\!\cdot\! DG+s_L|DG|=0 & \mbox{in}\ {\mathbb T}^2\times (0,\infty)
\\
G({\mathrm {\bf x}},0)=x& \mbox{on}\ {\mathbb T}^2\times \{t=0\}
\\
G({\mathrm {\bf x}}+k{\bf e}_1,t)=G({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)+k& {\mathrm {\bf x}}\in [0,1]^2, \ k\in{\mathbb Z}
\end{array}\right..
\end{equation}
Based on the framework of finite difference computation of Hamilton-Jacobi equations \cite{OF02}, the first order derivatives (flow velocity, laminar speed and strain terms) are discretized as monotone numerical Hamiltonian and approximated by weighted essentially nonoscillatory (WENO) scheme. The second order derivatives (curvature and diffusion terms) are approximated by central differencing. For the explicit time step discretization, total variation diminishing Runge-Kutta (TVD RK) scheme is used, and the time step size restriction is given by the CFL condition. See \cite{LXY12} for details of the numerical schemes. We compute (\ref{IVP}) with spatial grid size $200\times200$.
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Numerical Results}
Our first set of numerical results is on the time periodically shifted cellular flow:
$$
{\mathrm {\bf V}}({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)=A\!\cdot\!(-\sin(2\pi x+B\sin(2\pi\omega t))\cos(2\pi y),
\cos(2\pi x+B\sin(2\pi\omega t))\sin(2\pi y)).
$$
The flow oscillates temporally in the $x$-direction with amplitude $B$ and frequency $\omega$.
We fix $s_L=1$, $A=4$, $B=1$ and choose different values for $d$ to see the effect of the curvature,
diffusion and strain terms. Note that if $d=0$ then all G-equations are identical to inviscid G-equation,
and we choose $d$ small enough to avoid the strain term overpowering $s_L$.
Figure \ref{A(t)} shows the plot of ${\mathcal A}\rq{}(t)$ for inviscid G-equation.
For $\omega=2.8$, ${\mathcal A}\rq{}(t)$ evolves into a periodic function after a transient time.
In this case frequency locking occurs, and we can simply compute $s_T$ by taking the average of ${\mathcal A}\rq{}(t)$ over a few periodic intervals. For $\omega=3.2$, ${\mathcal A}'(t)$ remains chaotic over time, and $s_T$ is evaluated by taking average of ${\mathcal A}'(t)$ over a large time interval as (\ref{St}).
\begin{figure}\center
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{HShiInvCurA4B1W28.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{HShiInvCurA4B1W32.jpg}
\caption{Plots of ${\mathcal A}\rq{}(t)$ for inviscid G-equation with time periodically shifted
cellular flow, $s_L=1$, $A=4$, $B=1$. Right: $\omega=2.8$. Left: $\omega=3.2$.}
\label{A(t)}
\end{figure}
The frequency locking effect can be understood as follows. In the transient time, the front propagation structure is synchronized with the temporal and spatial periodicity of the cellular flow and evolves into a periodic steady state. During a multiple of the oscillatory period $\Delta t=M\cdot 1/\omega$, the flame front translates through a multiple of the cell $\Delta{\mathcal A}(t)=N$. ($N,M$: integers.)
Then the turbulent flame speed is:
\begin{equation}\label{Lock}
s_T={\Delta{\mathcal A}(t)\over \Delta t}={N\over M}\!\cdot\!\omega.
\end{equation}
Figure \ref{Shift} shows the plot of turbulent flame speed as a function of
the oscillatory frequency $s_T=s_T(\omega)$ for all G-equation models with various $d$. For inviscid,
curvature and strain G-equations (\ref{Gi}),(\ref{Gc}),(\ref{Gs}), frequency locking is observed.
Here $s_T(\omega)$ is piecewise linear with
rational slopes $r=s_T/\omega$. In each linear segment
the front propagation locks into the same periodicity pattern,
that is, the same $N,M$ in (\ref{Lock}) and hence same $r$.
Between the linear segments, the locking effect loses stability and $s_T(\omega)$ decreases.
Notice that frequency locking phenomenon is also robust with respect to $d$,
that is, $s_T$ may be the same even as $d$ varies (different curves may coalesce on bold line segments of
top and middle panels of Figure \ref{Shift}).
This is different from that in steady cellular flow where
$s_T$ is strictly decreasing as $d$ increases \cite{LXY12}.
For viscous G-equation, however, no frequency locking appears.
Instead the dissipation effect causes the level set function to converge to the stationary solution:
$$G({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)=-s_Tt+x+u({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)$$
with $u({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)$ a periodic function in $[0,1]^2\times[0,1/\omega]$. In the plot of $s_T(\omega)$, we
see two resonant peaks for smaller $d$, then the peaks start to merge and disappear for larger $d$.
\begin{figure}\center
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{HplotShiInvCurA4B1.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{HplotShiInvStrA4B1.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{HplotShiInvVisA4B1.jpg}
\caption{Turbulent flame speeds of G-equation models with time periodically shifted cellular flow.
Above: inviscid/curvature G-equations. Middle: inviscid/strain G-equations. Below: inviscid/viscous G-equations.
The bold lines indicate the frequency locking pattern $r=s_T/\omega$.}
\label{Shift}
\end{figure}
Our second set of numerical results is when ${\mathrm {\bf V}}$ is the time periodically amplified cellular flow:
$${\mathrm {\bf V}}({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)=A\sin(2\pi\omega t)\cdot(-\sin(2\pi x)\cos(2\pi y),\cos(2\pi x)\sin(2\pi y)).
$$
Figure \ref{Amp} is the plot $s_T=s_T(\omega)$ for all G-equation models and
various $d$. When $\omega$ is small, all results are similar to the
time periodically shifted cellular flow. When $\omega$ is larger, however,
the direction of the flow changes so fast in time that the flame front cannot be
really wrinkled, and so remains almost planar. Hence $s_T(\omega)$ is not much
responsive to the cellular flow patterns, and decreases to $s_L$ as $\omega\rightarrow+\infty$ in all the G-equations.
\begin{figure}\center
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{HplotAmpInvCurA4.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{HplotAmpInvStrA4.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{HplotAmpInvVisA4.jpg}
\caption{Turbulent flame speeds of G-equation models with time periodically amplified cellular flow.
Above: inviscid/curvature G-equations. Middle: inviscid/strain G-equations. Below: inviscid/viscous G-equations. The bold lines indicate the frequency locking pattern $r=s_T/\omega$.}
\label{Amp}
\end{figure}
Finally we consider the time stochastically shifted cellular flow:
$$
{\mathrm {\bf V}}({\mathrm {\bf x}},t)=A\!\cdot\!(-\sin(2\pi x+\mbox{$\gamma$}(t))\cos(2\pi y),
\cos(2\pi x+\mbox{$\gamma$}(t))\sin(2\pi y)).
$$
Here $\mbox{$\gamma$}(t)$ is the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process defined by the Ito equation:
$$
{\mathrm d}\mbox{$\gamma$}(t)=-\mbox{$\alpha$}\mbox{$\gamma$}(t){\mathrm d} t+\beta{\mathrm d} W(t),
$$
where $W(t)$ is the Wiener process, $\mbox{$\alpha$}$ and $\beta$ are positive constants.
We choose $\beta=\sqrt{2}\mbox{$\alpha$}^{3/4}$ so that the power spectrum is invariant in $\mbox{$\alpha$}$,
the reciprocal of the correlation length of $\mbox{$\gamma$} (t)$.
Figure \ref{OU} shows the plot $s_T(\mbox{$\alpha$})$ for inviscid G-equation.
We see that $s_T$ always decreases as $\mbox{$\alpha$}$ increases, stochasticity in time
kills the resonance phenomenon. This is different to that in RDA equation model where one wider resonance peak
still remains under time stochastic perturbation of cellular flows \cite{NX08}.
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Concluding Remarks}
We have studied numerically the basic and the curvature-strain dependent G-equation models
and their corresponding turbulent
flame speeds in various unsteady cellular flows. Numerical results indicate that the
frequency locking phenomenon occurs in inviscid, curvature and strain G-equations
but not in viscous G-equations. It also disappears in time stochastically shifted cellular flows.
In the future, we plan to study more general unsteady (time periodic or random) flows, including three
dimensional flows for G-equation models.
\begin{figure}\center
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{HplotShiInvVisOU.jpg}
\caption{Turbulent flame speeds of inviscid G-equation with Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process being
time oscillatory shift in cellular flow, as a function of $\mbox{$\alpha$} $, the
reciprocal of the correlation length, or ``oscillation frequency''.}
\label{OU}
\end{figure}
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The work was partially supported by National Science Counsel grants (YL) of Taiwan,
NSF grants DMS-0911277, DMS-1211179 (JX); DMS-0901460, CAREER award DMS-1151919 (YY) of USA.
|
\section*{This is an unnumbered first-level section head}
\setlength{\parskip}{0.8ex}
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
In this paper we study the periodic Benjamin-Ono equation\begin{equation}\label{bo}u_{t}+Hu_{xx}=uu_{x},\,\,\,\,\,\,(t,x)\in I\times\mathbb{T},\end{equation} where $I$ is a time interval, and $\mathbb{T}=\mathbb{R}/2\pi\mathbb{Z}$. Also the Hilbert transform $H$ is defined by $\widehat{Hu}(n)=-\mathrm{i}\cdot\mathrm{sgn}(n)\widehat{u}(n)$, where we understand that $\mathrm{sgn}(0)=0$. Since equation (\ref{bo}), as well as the truncated version to be introduced below, preserves both the reality and the mean value of $u$, we shall assume throughout this paper that $u$ is real-valued and has mean zero. Under this restriction, (\ref{bo}) is a Hamiltonian PDE with conserved energy\begin{equation}\label{hamiltonian}E[u]=\int_{\mathbb{T}}\frac{1}{2}|\partial_{x}^{1/2}u|^{2}-\frac{1}{6}u^{3}.\end{equation} Being completely integrable, it also has an infinite number of conserved quantities at the level of $H^{\frac{\sigma}{2}}$ for $0\leq \sigma\in \mathbb{Z}$, including the $L^{2}$ mass.
We briefly summarize the relevant previous study of (\ref{bo}) as follows. First, the classical energy method yields local well-posedness in $H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{T})$ for $\sigma>3/2$, see \cite{Io86}. By conservation laws, this implies global well-posedness in (say) $H^{2}$. In \cite{Ta04}, Tao introduces a gauge transform to prove the well-posedness result in $H^{1}$ for the Euclidean counterpart of (\ref{bo}). This approach is then adapted by Molinet-Ribaud \cite{MR09} to prove the $H^{1}$ well-posedness in the periodic case. Then Molinet in \cite{Mo07}, \cite{Mo08} further improves this result to $H^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and then $L^{2}$. For the Euclidean version we now also have well-posedness in $L^{2}$, see Burq-Planchon \cite{BP} and Ionescu-Kenig \cite{IK07}.
Starting from the pioneering work of Lebowitz-Rose-Speer \cite{LRS89} and Bourgain \cite{Bo94}, there has been considerable interest in constructing Gibbs measures for Hamiltonian PDEs and proving their invariance. From the dynamical system point of view, this provides the natural invariant measure for the system (which is the first step in studying this system's long time behavior); from the PDE aspect this is also important since it tells us exactly how rough a space can be so that we still have \emph{strong} solutions for \emph{generic} initial data. In this regard, such results can be viewed as variations on the theme of classical low-regularity well-posedness\footnote[1]{See \cite{BT11} for a general discussion about the notion of well-posedness in probabilistic sense.}. Among the important results in this field we only mention a few: Bourgain \cite{Bo94}, \cite{Bo96}, Burq-Tzvetkov \cite{BT08}, \cite{BT08ii}, Colliander-Oh \cite{CO12}, Nahmod-Oh-Bellet-Staffilani \cite{NORS10}.
The study of (\ref{bo}) along this line is initiated in Tzvetkov \cite{Tz10} where the Gibbs measure is rigorously constructed (see \cite{Tz10} for details; this construction is also reviewed in Section \ref{probab} below). In order to to prove its invariance, one has to construct global flow on its support; since this measure is supported in spaces rougher than $L^{2}$ (namely $L^{2}(\mathbb{T})$ has measure zero), the well-posedness result of Molinet \cite{Mo08} will not apply. Nevertheless, in Section 5 of \cite{Tz10}, the author makes several important observations regarding the behavior of the gauge transform and second Picard iteration for random data, which suggest that global well-posedness and measure invariance may still hold despite the low regularity.
In the current paper we will solve this problem by establishing the invariance of the Gibbs measure. To be precise, we will construct an almost-surely defined (and unique) global flow for (\ref{bo}) in some Besov-type space $Z_{1}$ rougher than $L^{2}$, and prove that the Gibbs measure is kept invariant by this flow.
\begin{remark}Very recently, Tzvetkov-Visciglia \cite{TV11}, \cite{TV12} have constructed (and proved the invariance of) weighted Gaussian measures associated to the conserved quantities of (\ref{bo}) at the level of $H^{\frac{\sigma}{2}}$ for even $\sigma\geq 6$. From this point of view, the remaining cases are $\sigma\in\{2,4\}$ and $\sigma\geq 3$ odd (since the Gibbs measure corresponds to $\sigma=1$, and we do not expect a positive result for $\sigma=0$). We believe that these cases are easier than the $\sigma=1$ case and can be solved by combining the low regularity analysis here and the probabilistic arguments in \cite{TV11}, \cite{TV12}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Notations and preliminaries}\label{parameters}
Throughout this paper, the standard notations, such as $\lesssim$, $\gtrsim$ and $O(*)$, will always be used in terms of absolute values. The Japanese bracket $\langle x \rangle$ will be $(1+|x|^{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and $\mathbb{N}$ will denote the set of nonnegative integers; the characteristic function of a set $E$ is denoted by $\mathbf{1}_{E}$ and if $E$ is finite, its cardinality is denoted by $\#E$. We will use $\mathbb{P}_{*}$ to denote (spatial) frequency projections; for example $\mathbb{P}_{+}$ (or $\mathbb{P}_{\leq 0}$) will be the projection onto strictly positive (or non-positive) frequencies and $\mathbb{P}_{\gtrsim\lambda}$ will be the projection onto frequencies with absolute value $\gtrsim\lambda$. We may use the same (latin or greek) letter in different places, but its meaning will be clear from the context.
Define $\mathcal{V}$ to be the space of distributions on $\mathbb{T}$ that are real-valued and have mean zero; in other words $f\in\mathcal{V}$ if and only if $\widehat{f}(-n)=\overline{\widehat{f}(n)}$ and $\widehat{f}(0)=0$. Let $\mathcal{V}_{N}$ be the subspace of $\mathcal{V}$ containing functions of frequency not exceeding $N$ (so that $\mathcal{V}_{N}$ is identified with $\mathbb{R}^{2N}$), and $\mathcal{V}_{N}^{\perp}$ be its orthogonal complement. Let $\Pi_{N}$ and $\Pi_{N}^{\perp}$ be the projection to the corresponding spaces, we actually have $\Pi_{N}=\mathbb{P}_{\leq N}$ and $\Pi_{N}^{\perp}=\mathbb{P}_{>N}$.
We use a parameter $s>0$ that will be chosen sufficiently small. The large constants $C$ and small constants $c$ may depend on $s$; Any situation in which they are independent of $s$ will be easily recognized. We choose a few other parameters, namely $(p,r,b,\tau,q,\kappa,\gamma, \epsilon)$, as follows:\begin{eqnarray}&&p=\frac{2}{1-2s}+s^{2}, \,\,r=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p},\,\,b=\frac{1}{2}-s^{\frac{15}{8}},\tau=8-s^{\frac{13}{8}},\nonumber\\
&&q=1+s^{\frac{3}{2}},\,\,\kappa=1-s^{\frac{5}{4}},\,\,\gamma=2-s^{2.5},\,\,\epsilon=s^{\frac{7}{4}}.\nonumber\end{eqnarray} When $s$ is small enough, we have the following hierarchy of smallness factors:\begin{eqnarray}\label{hierarchy}s^{3}&\ll&2-\gamma\ll r-s=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}-s\ll \frac{1}{2}-b\ll\\&\ll &\epsilon\ll 8-\tau\ll q-1\ll 1-\kappa\ll s\ll s^{\frac{1}{2}}.\nonumber\end{eqnarray} In (\ref{hierarchy}) each $\ll$ symbol connects two numbers that actually differ in scale by a power of $s$. We will also use $0+$ to denote some small positive number (whether it depends on $s$ will be clear from the context); the meanings of $0-$, and $a+$, $a-$ are then obvious. Finally, using these parameters, we can define the space $Z_{1}$ by\footnote[1]{Here when we write $n\sim 2^{d}$, we are actually including $n=0$ when $d=0$; we will neglect this issue in later discussions.}\begin{equation}\|f\|_{Z_{1}}=\sup_{d\geq 0}\bigg(\sum_{n\sim 2^{d}}2^{rpd}|\widehat{f}(n)|^{p}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{p}}.\end{equation}
In addition to (\ref{bo}), we will introduce finite dimensional truncations of it. Fix a smooth, even cutoff function $\psi$ on $\mathbb{R}$ which equals $1$ on $[-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]$ and vanishes outside $[-\frac{3}{4},\frac{3}{4}]$. We also need another function $\psi_{1}$ with the same properties, and let $\psi_{2}=1-\psi_{1}$. For a positive integer $N$, we define the multiplier $S_{N}$ by \begin{equation}\label{truncation}\widehat{S_{N}f}(n)=\psi\bigg(\frac{n}{N}\bigg)\widehat{f}(n).\end{equation} We also allow $N=\infty$, in which case $S_{\infty}=1$. The truncated equations are then\begin{equation}\label{smoothtrunc}u_{t}+Hu_{xx}=S_{N}(S_{N}u\cdot S_{N}u_{x}).\end{equation} Notice that (\ref{smoothtrunc}) conserves the $L^{2}$ mass of $u$; also, if $u$ is a solution of (\ref{smoothtrunc}) whose spatial Fourier transform $\widehat{u}(n)$ is supported in $|n|\leq N$ for one time $t$, then this automatically holds for all time.
\subsection{The main results, and major difficulties} With these preparations, we can now state our main results. The most precise and detailed versions are somewhat technical, and will be postponed to Section \ref{lwp}.
\begin{theorem}[Local well-posedness]\label{main} For any $A>0$, let $T=T(A)=C^{-1}e^{-CA}$; then for the metric space $\mathcal{BO}^{T}$ in Definition \ref{bott} which contains $C^{0}([-T,T]\to Z_{1})$ as a \emph{subset}, we have the following. For any $f$ with $\|f\|_{Z_{1}}\leq A$, there exists a unique function $u\in\mathcal{BO}^{T}$, such that $u(0)=f$, and $u$ verifies (\ref{bo}) on $[-T,T]$ in the sense of distributions (we may define $uu_{x}$ as a distribution for all $u\in\mathcal{BO}^{T}$; for details see Remark \ref{rmk00}). Moreover, if we write $u=\Phi f$, then the map $\Phi$, from the ball $\{f:\|f\|_{Z_{1}}\leq A\}$ to the metric space $\mathcal{BO}^{T}$, will be a Lipschitz extension of the classical solution map for regular data, and its image is bounded away from the zero element in $\mathcal{BO}^{T}$ by $Ce^{CA}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}[Measure invariance]\label{main2} Recall the Gibbs measure $\nu$ on $\mathcal{V}$ defined in \cite{Tz10}, which is absolutely continuous with respect to a Wiener measure $\rho$ (see Section \ref{gibbs} for details). There exists a subset $\Sigma$ of $\mathcal{V}$ with full $\rho$ measure such that for each $f\in \Sigma$, the equation (\ref{bo}) has a unique solution $u\in\cap_{T>0}\mathcal{BO}^{T}$ (in the sense described in Remark \ref{rmk00}) with initial data $f$. If we denote $u=\Phi f=(\Phi_{t}f)_{t}$, then for each $t\in\mathbb{R}$ we get a map $f\mapsto \Phi_{t}f$ from $\Sigma$ to itself. These maps form a one parameter group, and each of them keeps invariant the Gibbs measure $\nu$.
\end{theorem}
The analysis of (\ref{bo}) below $L^{2}$ is extremely subtle, even compared to the $L^{2}$ theory. The first step is to use the gauge transform to obtain a more favorable nonlinearity; this already becomes problematic with infinite $L^{2}$ mass. In fact, when we use the gauge $w=\mathbb{P}_{+}\big(ue^{-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\partial_{x}^{-1}u}\big)$ as in \cite{Mo08}, the evolution equation satisfied by $w$ would be
\begin{equation}\label{transgen}(\partial_{t}-\mathrm{i}\partial_{xx})w=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\partial_{x}\mathbb{P}_{+}\big(\partial_{x}^{-1}w\cdot\partial_{x}\mathbb{P}_{-}(\overline{w}\partial_{x}^{-1}w)\big)+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{4}\mathbb{P}_{0}(u^{2})w+GT,\end{equation} where $GT$ represents good terms. Here one can recognize the term $\mathbb{P}_{0}(u^{2})w$ that can be infinite for $u\in Z_{1}$. However, when we further analyze the cubic term above, we find another contribution, namely the ``resonant'' one, which is basically some constant multiple of $\mathbb{P}_{0}(|w|^{2})w$. It then turns out that the coefficients match exactly to give a multiple of $\|w\|_{L^{2}}^{2}-\|\mathbb{P}_{+}u\|_{L^{2}}^{2}$. Since (at least heuristically)\begin{equation}w=\mathbb{P}_{+}\big(ue^{-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\partial_{x}^{-1}u}\big)=\mathbb{P}_{+}u\cdot e^{-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\partial_{x}^{-1}u}+GT,\end{equation} this expression will be finite even if $u$ is only in $Z_{1}$.
The next obstacle to local theory is the failure of standard multilinear $X^{s,b}$ estimates, which play a crucial role in \cite{Mo08}. Recall from (\ref{transgen}) that a typical nonlinearity of the transformed equation looks like \begin{equation}\partial_{x}\mathbb{P}_{+}\big(\partial_{x}^{-1}w\cdot\partial_{x}\mathbb{P}_{-}(\overline{w}\partial_{x}^{-1}w)\big).\end{equation} If the frequency of $\partial_{x}^{-1}w$ appearing in $\overline{w}\partial_{x}^{-1}w$ is low, we may pretend this frequency is zero, obtaining a quadratic nonlinearity which is similar to the KdV equation. In fact, there is a similar failure of bilinear estimates for the KdV equation below $H^{-\frac{1}{2}}$, which is necessary in proving the invariance of white noise. This problem is solved in \cite{Oh10} by considering the second iteration, a strategy already used in \cite{Bo97}. We will use the same method, though the fact that our nonlinearity is only quadratic ``to the first order'' makes the argument a little more involved.
There is also a special cubic term, omitted in (\ref{transgen}), which involves the function $z=\mathbb{P}_{-}\big(ue^{-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\partial_{x}^{-1}u}\big)$. Recall that it is $w$, not $z$, that satisfies a good evolution equation; therefore $z$ is not supposed to be bounded in any $X^{s,b}$ space where $s$ is close to $0$ and $b$ close to $\frac{1}{2}$ (note $z$ is basically $w$ multiplied by a smoother function, but $X^{s,b}$ spaces are not closed under such multiplications). In \cite{Mo08}, Molinet introduces the space $X^{-1,\frac{7}{8}}$ to accommodate $z$ (he actually considers $u$, but the estimates for $z$ will be the same). In our case, not only do we need (a slightly different version of) this space, but we also have to introduce an atomic space characterizing, roughly speaking, how $z$ is ``shifted'' from $w$; see Section \ref{another} for details.
Passing from local theory to global well-posedness and measure invariance is another challenge. The only known method is to produce finite dimensional truncations such as (\ref{truncation}), exploit the invariance of the (finite dimensional) truncated Gibbs measures, and use a limiting procedure to pass to the original equation. This requires, among other things, uniform estimates for solutions to (\ref{smoothtrunc}). The major difficulty here is that the gauge transform in \cite{Mo08} is now inadequate for eliminating all the bad interactions. To see this, recall that when $v=Mu$ with some function $M$, then
\begin{eqnarray}(\partial_{t}-\mathrm{i}\partial_{xx})v&=&M(\partial_{t}-\mathrm{i}\partial_{xx})u-2\mathrm{i}\partial_{x}M\partial_{x}u+GT\nonumber\\
&=&M\cdot S(Su\cdot Su_{x})-2\mathrm{i}M_{x}u_{x}+GT,\nonumber\end{eqnarray} where we assume $u$ verifies (\ref{smoothtrunc}) with $S=S_{N}$. If $S=1$, then this worst term can be made zero by choosing $M=e^{-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\partial_{x}^{-1}u}$; but it is impossible when $S=S_{N}$ with $N$ finite but large. However, note that we only need to eliminate the ``high-low'' interactions where the factor $Su$ contributes very low frequency and $Su_{x}$ contributes high frequency, and this is indeed possible if we replace multiplication by $M$ with some carefully chosen operator defined from a combination of $S$ (which is a Fourier multiplier) and suitable multiplication operators. See Section \ref{pass} for details.
Finally, in order for the limiting procedure to work out, we must compare a solution to (\ref{smoothtrunc}) with a solution to (\ref{bo}). Since $\psi(n/N)$ equals $1$ only for $|n|\leq N/2$, the difference will contain some term involving factors like $\mathbb{P}_{\gtrsim N}u$, which does not decay for large $N$ due to the $l^{\infty}$ nature of our norm $Z_{1}$. Nevertheless, these bad terms eventually add up to zero, at least to first order, which is enough for our analysis. Note that the bad terms involve $\psi$ factors which are unique to (\ref{smoothtrunc}) and are not found in (\ref{bo}), this cancellation is really something of a miracle. See Section \ref{gaugetransform2} for details.
\subsection{Plan of this paper} In Section \ref{notation} and Section \ref{linear} we will define the spacetime norms needed in the proof, and prove some linear estimates as well as auxiliary results. In Section \ref{probab} we provide the basic probabilistic arguments. We next introduce the gauge transform for (\ref{smoothtrunc}) and derive the new equations; these will occupy Sections \ref{gaugetransform}-\ref{gaugetransform3}. From Section \ref{begin} to Section \ref{end}, we will prove our main \emph{a priori} estimates. Finally, combing these estimates with the standard probabilistic arguments, we will prove in Section \ref{lwp} (local and almost sure global) well-posedness for (\ref{bo}) and the invariance of the Gibbs measure.
\subsection{Acknowledgements} The author would like to thank Alexandru Ionescu for his encouragement and constructive suggestions regarding the gauge transform; he would also like to thank Tadahiro Oh for introducing the problem and suggesting the treatment used in \cite{Bo97}, and Xuecheng Wang for helpful discussions about the proof of Proposition \ref{initialboot}.
\section{Spacetime norms}\label{notation}
\subsection{The easier norms}\label{spaces}For a function $u$ defined on $\mathbb{T}\times\mathbb{R}$, we define its spacetime Fourier transform $\widehat{u}_{n,\widetilde{\xi}}$ by\begin{equation}u(x,t)=\sum_{n}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\widehat{u}_{n,\widetilde{\xi}}\times e^{\mathrm{i}(nx+\widetilde{\xi}t)}\,\mathrm{d}\widetilde{\xi},\nonumber\end{equation} and denote $\widetilde{u}_{n,\xi}=\widehat{u}_{n,\widetilde{\xi}}:=\widehat{u}_{n,\xi-|n|n}$. Thus we have three ways to represent $u$: $u(t,x)$ as a function of $t$ and $x$, $\widehat{u}_{n,\widetilde{\xi}}$ as a function of $n$ and $\widetilde{\xi}$, and $\widetilde{u}_{n,\xi}$ as a function of $n$ and $\xi$, where the $\xi$ and $\widetilde{\xi}$ are always related by $\widetilde{\xi}=\xi-|n|n$. Since we will be dealing with more than one function, $n$ and $\xi$ may be replaced with other letters possibly with subscipts, say $m_{1}$ or $\beta_{2}$. To simplify the notation, when there is no confusion, we will omit the ``hat'' and ``tilde'' symbols; for example, if we talk about an expression involving $u_{m,\widetilde{\alpha}}$, it will actually mean $\widehat{u}_{m,\widetilde{\alpha}}$. The appearance of functions $f$ defined on $\mathbb{T}$ will not be too frequent, but when they do appear, we will adopt the same convention and write for example $f_{n}$ instead of $\widehat{f}(n)$.
We will need a number of norms in our proof. As a general convention, when we write a norm as $l^{2}L^{1}$, this will mean the $l_{n}^{2}L_{\xi}^{1}$ norm for some $\widetilde{u}$ (which equals the $l_{n}^{2}L_{\widetilde{\xi}}^{1}$ norm for $\widehat{u}$); the meaning of $L^{1}l^{2}$ will thus be clear. The space-time Lebesgue norms will be denoted by $L^{6}L^{6}$ etc. For example, in this notation system the expression $\|u\|_{l_{d\geq 0}^{\infty}l_{\sim 2^{d}}^{p}L^{1}}\nonumber$ actually means\begin{equation}\sup_{d\geq 0}\bigg(\sum_{n\sim 2^{d}}\|\widetilde{u}_{n,\xi}\|_{L_{\xi}^{1}}^{p}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{p}}.\nonumber\end{equation}
Next, observe that up to a constant,\begin{equation}\label{observe}\|u\|_{L^{6}L^{6}}^{6}=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\bigg|\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}=n}\int_{\widetilde{\xi_{1}}+\widetilde{\xi_{2}}+\widetilde{\xi_{3}}=\widetilde{\xi}}\prod_{i=1}^{3}u_{n_{i},\widetilde{\xi_{i}}}\bigg|^{2}\,\mathrm{d}\widetilde{\xi}.\end{equation}If follows that if $|u_{n,\xi}|\leq v_{n,\xi}$, then $\|u\|_{L^{6}L^{6}}\lesssim\|v\|_{L^{6}L^{6}}$. For any function $u$ we define $\mathfrak{N}u$ by $(\mathfrak{N}u)_{n,\xi}=|u_{n,\xi}|$, then $\|\mathfrak{N}u\|_{L^{6}L^{6}}$ is a norm of $u$. Now we list the norms we will use:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{norm0001}\|u\|_{X_{1}}&=&\big\|\langle n\rangle^{s}\langle\xi\rangle^{b}u\big\|_{l^{p}L^{2}};\\\label{norm0003}\|u\|_{X_{2}}&=&\|\langle n\rangle^{r}u\|_{l_{d\geq 0}^{\infty}l_{\sim 2^{d}}^{p}L^{1}};\\\label{modified}\|u\|_{X_{3}}&=&\|\langle n\rangle^{-\epsilon}\mathfrak{N}u\|_{L^{6}L^{6}};\\\label{norm0004}
\|u\|_{X_{4}}&=&\|\langle n\rangle^{-1}\langle\xi\rangle^{\kappa}u\|_{l^{\gamma}L^{2}};\\\label{norm0005}
\|u\|_{X_{5}}&=&\|u\|_{l_{d\geq 0}^{\infty}L^{q}l_{\sim 2^{d}}^{2}};\\\label{norm0006}
\|u\|_{X_{6}}&=&\|\langle n\rangle^{r}\langle \xi\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+s^{2}}u\|_{l^{2}L^{2}};\\\label{norm0007}
\|u\|_{X_{7}}&=&\|\langle n\rangle^{r}\langle \xi\rangle^{\frac{1}{8}}u\|_{l_{d\geq 0}^{\infty}l_{\sim 2^{d}}^{p}L^{2}}.\end{eqnarray}
We also recall the norm $Z_{1}$ defined in Section \ref{parameters}, and rewrite it as\begin{equation}\|f\|_{Z_{1}}=\|\langle n\rangle^{r}f\|_{l_{d\geq 0}^{\infty}l_{\sim 2^{d}}^{p}}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{The Another norm}\label{another}
We will need \emph{another} spacetime norm, denoted by $X_{8}$, which is a little tricky to define.
Consider the space of functions $u$ of $(n,\xi)\in\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{R}$, normed by \begin{equation}\|u\|_{\Phi}=\|u\|_{L^{q}l^{2}}.\end{equation} The additive group $\mathbb{Z}$ acts on this space by\begin{equation}(\pi_{n_{0}}u)(n,\xi)=u(n+n_{0},\xi+|n+n_{0}|(n+n_{0})-|n|n).\end{equation} If we write\begin{equation}\mathcal{S}:\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{R},\,\,(n,\widetilde{\xi})\mapsto(n,\xi)=(n,\widetilde{\xi}+|n|n),\end{equation} then we would have\begin{equation}\pi_{n_{0}}u=u\circ \mathcal{S}\circ T_{n_{0}}\circ \mathcal{S}^{-1},\end{equation} where $T_{n_{0}}:\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{R}$ is the translation $(n,\widetilde{\xi})\mapsto(n+n_{0},\widetilde{\xi})$. We then define the atomic $\mathcal{Y}$ norm by\begin{equation}\label{definition}\|u\|_{\mathcal{Y}}=\inf\bigg\{\sum_{i}\langle n_{i}\rangle^{s^{1/2}}|\alpha_{i}|:u=\sum_{i}\alpha_{i}u_{i},\|\pi_{n_{i}}u_{i}\|_{\Phi}\leq 1\bigg\}.\end{equation} The $X_{8}$ norm is thus defined by\begin{equation}\|u\|_{X_{8}}=\sup_{d\geq 0}\|\mathbb{P}_{\sim 2^{d}}u\|_{\mathcal{Y}}:=\sup_{d\geq 0}\|\mathbb{P}_{\sim 2^{d}}\widetilde{u}\|_{\mathcal{Y}},\end{equation} where the last inequality is due to our convention.
\begin{remark}In (\ref{definition}), the convergence takes place in a suitable weighted $L_{n,\xi}^{1}$ space. Therefore, when $v$ is rapidly decaying in $n$ and $\xi$ (for example, $|v|\lesssim (|n|+|\xi|+1)^{-100}$ will suffice), the sum $\sum_{i}\alpha_{i}(u_{i},v)$ will converge absolutely to $(u,v)$, provided the $\sum_{i}\langle n_{i}\rangle^{s^{1/2}}|\alpha_{i}|$ is finite, where $(u,v)$ denotes (up to constant) the standard pairing\begin{equation}\label{pairing}(u,v)=\int_{\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{T}}u(t,x)\overline{v(t,x)}\,\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}x=\sum_{n}\int_{\mathbb{R}}u_{n,\xi}\overline{v_{n,\xi}}\,\mathrm{d}\xi.\end{equation}
\end{remark}
\subsection{The space in which we work}\label{mainspace}
Define \begin{eqnarray}\|u\|_{Y_{1}}&=&\|u\|_{X_{1}}+\|u\|_{X_{2}}+\|u\|_{X_{4}}+\|u\|_{X_{5}}+\|u\|_{X_{7}};\\\|u\|_{Y_{2}}&=&\|u\|_{X_{2}}+\|u\|_{X_{3}}+\|u\|_{X_{4}}+\|u\|_{X_{8}}.\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, for each space $\mathcal{Z}$ (which can be $Y_{1}$, $Y_{2}$ or any other space) we define\footnote[1]{Note that any function in our space $\mathcal{Z}$ will actually be a bounded continuous function of $t$ with value in (say) $H^{-90}(\mathbb{T})$.} \begin{equation}\|u\|_{\mathcal{Z}^{T}}=\inf\big\{\|v\|_{\mathcal{Z}}:v|_{[-T,T]}=u|_{[-T,T]}\big\}.\end{equation} This $[-T,T]$ may also be replaced by any interval $I$.
The main spacetime norms we shall use in the whole bootstrap argument are $Y_{1}^{T}$ and $Y_{2}^{T}$, while other norms may be introduced whenever necessary.
\section{Linear estimates, and more}\label{linear}
Here we shall prove our main linear estimates, as well as some auxiliary results.
\begin{proposition}[Strichartz estimates]\label{stri} For any function $u$, we have \begin{equation}\label{strichartz}\|u\|_{L^{k}L^{k}}\lesssim\|\langle n\rangle^{\sigma}\langle\xi\rangle^{\beta}u\|_{l^{2}L^{2}},\end{equation} provided that the parameters are set as\begin{equation}(k,\sigma,\beta)\in\big\{(2,0,0),\big(4,0,\frac{3}{8}\big),\big(6,s^{5},\frac{1}{2}+s^{5}\big),\big(\infty,\frac{1}{2}+s^{5},\frac{1}{2}+s^{5}\big)\big\}.\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} When $(k,\sigma,\beta)=(2,0,0)$, the inequality (\ref{strichartz}) is simply Plancherel; when $(k,\sigma,\beta)=(\infty,\frac{1}{2}+s^{5},\frac{1}{2}+s^{5})$, this can also be easily proved by combining Hausdorff-Young and H\"{o}lder. When $(k,\sigma,\beta)=(4,0,\frac{3}{8})$, the inequality reduces, after separating positive and negative frequencies and using time inversion, to the $L^{4}$ Strichartz estimate for the linear Schr\"{o}dinger equation on $\mathbb{T}$ which is well-known; see for example \cite{Ta06}, Proposition 2.13.
Now we assume $k=6$, $\sigma=s^{5}$ and $\beta=\frac{1}{2}+s^{5}$. Again by separating positive and negative frequencies and using time inversion, we only need to consider the case for the Schr\"{o}dinger semigroup, thus \emph{in this proof} our convention will change to $\xi=\widetilde{\xi}+n^{2}$. Now for any function $u$ with the right hand side of (\ref{strichartz}) not exceeding $1$, we write $v_{n,\xi}=\langle n\rangle^{s^{5}}\langle\xi\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+s^{5}}u_{n,\xi}$ using our (different) convention, and compute up to a constant that
\begin{equation}(u^{3})_{n, \widetilde{\xi}}=\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}=n}\prod_{i=1}^{3}\langle n_{i}\rangle^{-s^{5}}(f_{n_{1}}\ast f_{n_{2}}\ast f_{n_{3}})_{\widetilde{\xi}+n_{1}^{2}+n_{2}^{2}+n_{3}^{2}},
\end{equation} where\begin{equation}(f_{n})_{\xi}=\langle\xi\rangle^{-\frac{1}{2}-s^{5}}v_{n,\xi}.\end{equation} By our assumption we have $\|\langle\xi\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+s^{5}}f_{n_{i}}\|_{L^{2}}\lesssim A_{n_{i}}$, where $\{A_{n}\}$ is some sequence satisfying $\|A\|_{l^{2}}\lesssim 1$. By (the Fourier version of) the product estimate for $H^{\sigma}(\mathbb{R})$ spaces, we deduce that \begin{equation}(f_{n_{1}}*f_{n_{2}}*f_{n_{3}})_{\eta}=\langle\eta\rangle^{-\frac{1}{2}-s^{5}}(g_{n_{1}n_{2}n_{3}})_{\eta};\,\,\,\,\,\,\|g_{n_{1}n_{2}n_{3}}\|_{L^{2}}\lesssim A_{n_{1}}A_{n_{2}}A_{n_{3}}.\end{equation} Therefore we can estimate
\begin{eqnarray}|(u^{3})_{n, \widetilde{\xi}}|^{2}&\lesssim &\bigg(\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}=n}\prod_{i=1}^{3}\langle n_{i}\rangle^{-2s^{5}}\cdot\langle\widetilde{\xi}+n_{1}^{2}+n_{2}^{2}+n_{3}^{2}\rangle^{-1-2s^{5}}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\bigg(\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}=n}|(g_{n_{1}n_{2}n_{3}})_{\widetilde{\xi}+n_{1}^{2}+n_{2}^{2}+n_{3}^{2}}|^{2}\bigg).\nonumber\end{eqnarray} Now to finish the proof if will suffice to show\begin{equation}\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}=n}\prod_{i=1}^{3}\langle n_{i}\rangle^{-2s^{5}}\langle\widetilde{\xi}+n_{1}^{2}+n_{2}^{2}+n_{3}^{2}\rangle^{-1-2s^{5}}\leq C,\end{equation} when $n$ and $\widetilde{\xi}$ are fixed. Now suppose the maximum (in absolute value) of $n_{i}$ and $\Xi=\widetilde{\xi}+n_{1}^{2}+n_{2}^{2}+n_{3}^{2}$ be comparable to $2^{d}$, and $\Xi\sim 2^{d'}$, then the summand is at most $2^{-d'-s^{6}(d+d')}$, so it will suffice to show that there are at most $2^{d'+s^{7}d}$ choices for $(n_{1},n_{2},n_{3})$. Since their can be at most $2^{d'}$ possibilities for $n_{1}^{2}+n_{2}^{2}+n_{3}^{2}$, we only need to show that there are at most $2^{s^{7}d}$ choices for $(n_{1},n_{2},n_{3})$ if we require $|n_{i}|\lesssim 2^{d}$, and fix $n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}=n$ and $n_{1}^{2}+n_{2}^{2}+n_{3}^{2}$. But then $m_{i}=3n_{i}-n$ will be integers for $i\in\{1,2\}$, and $m_{1}^{2}+m_{1}m_{2}+m_{2}^{2}$ will be a fixed integer not exceeding $C2^{5d}$. The result then follows from the divisor estimate for the ring $\mathbb{Z}\big[e^{\frac{2\pi\mathrm{i}}{3}}\big]$.
\end{proof}
By Proposition \ref{stri} and interpolation, we get a series of $L^{k}L^{k}$ Strichartz estimates for all $2\leq k\leq\infty$. It is these that we will actually use in the proof; we will not care too much about the exact numerology because there will be enough room whenever we use these estimates.
\begin{proposition}[Relations between norms]\label{relattt} We have the following inequalities:
\begin{equation}\label{relation1}\|u\|_{X_{3}}\lesssim\|u\|_{X_{1}}+\|u\|_{X_{4}},\,\,\|u\|_{X_{8}}\lesssim\|u\|_{X_{5}};\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{relation2}\|u\|_{X_{1}}+\|u\|_{X_{2}}+\|u\|_{X_{5}}+\|u\|_{X_{7}}\lesssim\|u\|_{X_{6}}.\end{equation} Note that this in particular implies $\|u\|_{X_{j}}\lesssim \|u\|_{Y_{1}}$ if $1\leq j\leq 8$ and $j\neq 6$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} By Proposition \ref{stri} and hierarchy (\ref{hierarchy}) we know that\begin{equation}\label{loose}\|u\|_{X_{3}}\lesssim\|\langle n\rangle^{-\frac{\epsilon}{2}}\langle\xi\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+s^{5}}u\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}.\end{equation} Comparing this with the definition of $X_{1}$ and $X_{4}$, noticing that $\gamma<2$ and by (\ref{hierarchy}) and H\"{o}lder,\begin{equation}\|u\|_{X_{1}}\gtrsim\|\langle n\rangle^{-\frac{\epsilon}{4}}\langle \xi\rangle^{b}\|_{l^{2}L^{2}},\nonumber\end{equation} we will be able to prove the first inequality in (\ref{relation1}) provided we can show\begin{equation}\langle n\rangle^{-\frac{\epsilon}{2}}\langle\xi\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+s^{5}}\lesssim\langle n\rangle^{-1}\langle\xi\rangle^{\kappa}+\langle n\rangle^{-\frac{\epsilon}{4}}\langle\xi\rangle^{b}.\end{equation} But this is clear since by (\ref{hierarchy}), the left hand side is controlled by the first term on the right hand side if $\langle\xi\rangle\geq\langle n\rangle^{100}$, and by the second term if $\langle\xi\rangle<\langle n\rangle^{100}$. The second inequality in (\ref{relation1}) is also easy, since we only need to prove $\|u\|_{\mathcal{Y}}\lesssim\|u\|_{L^{q}l^{2}}$, which is a direct consequence of the definition (\ref{definition}), if we choose to have only one term (with the corresponding $n_{i}=0$) in the proposed atomic decomposition.
Now let us prove (\ref{relation2}). The $X_{1}$ norm is controlled by $X_{6}$ norm because $s<r$, $b<\frac{1}{2}+s^{2}$, and $2<p$. For basically the same reason we can use H\"{o}lder to show $\|u\|_{X_{2}}+\|u\|_{X_{7}}\lesssim\|u\|_{X_{6}}$. Finally, to prove $\|u\|_{X_{5}}\lesssim\|u\|_{X_{6}}$, we only need to show that $\|g_{\xi}\|_{L^{q}}\lesssim\|\langle\xi\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+s^{2}}g_{\xi}\|_{L^{2}}$, but this again follows from H\"{o}lder since $q>1$.
\end{proof}
Next, we introduce the (cut-off) Duhamel operator $\mathcal{E}$ defined by \begin{equation}\label{duhamel}\mathcal{E}u(t,x)=\chi(t)\int_{0}^{t}\chi(t')(e^{-(t-t')H\partial_{xx}}u(t'))(x)\,\mathrm{d}t',\end{equation} where $\chi(t)$ is a cutoff function (compactly supported and equals $1$ in a neighborhood of $0$) in $t$. Here and below we shall use many such functions, but unless really necessary, we will not distinguish them and will denote them all by $\chi$ (for example, we write $\chi^{2}=\chi$). We shall summarize the required linear estimates for $\mathcal{E}$ in Proposition \ref{linearestimate2} below, but before doing so, we need to introduce two more norms, namely:
\begin{eqnarray}\|u\|_{X_{9}}&=&\|\langle n\rangle^{r}u\|_{l_{d\geq 0}^{\infty}L^{q'}l_{\sim 2^{d}}^{p}},\\
\|u\|_{X_{10}}&=&\|\langle n\rangle^{r}\langle \xi\rangle^{-\frac{1}{8}}u\|_{l_{d\geq 0}^{\infty}L^{\tau}l_{\sim 2^{d}}^{p}}.\end{eqnarray}
\begin{lemma}\label{linearestimate}
Suppose $v(t,x)=\mathcal{E}u(t,x)$, then with constants $c_{j}$,\begin{equation}\label{computation}v_{n,\xi}=c_{1}\big(\widehat{\chi}*(\eta^{-1}(\widehat{\chi}*u_{n,*})_{\eta})\big)_{\xi}+c_{2}\bigg(\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{(\widehat{\chi}*u_{n,*})_{\eta}}{\eta}\,\mathrm{d}\eta\bigg)\cdot\widehat{\chi}_{\xi}.\end{equation} Here the $\frac{1}{\eta}$ is to be understood as the principal value distribution. This operator obeys the following basic estimates, valid for all $\sigma,\beta\in\mathbb{R}$ and $1\leq h,k\leq\infty$:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{001}\|\langle n\rangle^{\sigma}\langle\xi\rangle^{\beta}\mathcal{E}u\|_{L^{h}l^{k}}&\lesssim&\|\langle n\rangle^{\sigma}\langle\xi\rangle^{\beta-1}u\|_{L^{h}l^{k}}+\|\langle n\rangle^{\sigma}\langle\xi\rangle^{-1}u\|_{l^{k}L^{1}};\\
\label{002}\|\langle n\rangle^{\sigma}\langle \xi\rangle^{\beta}\mathcal{E}u\|_{l^{k}L^{h}}&\lesssim &\|\langle n\rangle^{\sigma}\langle\xi\rangle^{\beta-1}u\|_{l^{k}L^{h}}+\|\langle n\rangle^{\sigma}\langle\xi\rangle^{-1}u\|_{l^{k}L^{1}}.\end{eqnarray} Note the reversed order of norms in the second term on the right hand side of (\ref{001}). If moreover $\beta>1-\frac{1}{h}$, we can remove the $l^{k}L^{1}$ norms. Finally, by commuting with $\mathbb{P}$ projections, we get similar estimates for norms like $X_{2}$ and $X_{5}$.
\end{lemma}\begin{proof}The computation (\ref{computation}) is basically done in \cite{Bo97}. In our case, noticing that multiplication by $\chi(t)$ corresponds to convolution by $\widehat{\chi}$ on the ``tilde'' side, we only need to express the Fourier transform of $\int_{0}^{t}u(t')\mathrm{d}t'$ (which is exactly the Duhamel operator on the ``tilde'' side) in terms of $u(t)$. We compute\begin{equation}\int_{0}^{t}u(t')\,\mathrm{d}t'=\frac{1}{2}u\ast\mathrm{sgn}(t)+\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}}u(t')\mathrm{sgn}(t')\,\mathrm{d}t'.\end{equation} On the Fourier side, these two terms gives exactly the two terms in (\ref{computation}) after another convolution with $\widehat{\chi}$.
We will only prove (\ref{001}), since the proof of (\ref{002}) will be basically the same; also notice that if $\beta>1-\frac{1}{h}$, then \begin{equation}\|w\|_{l^{k}L^{1}}\lesssim\|w\|_{L^{1}l^{k}}\lesssim\min\big\{\|\langle\xi\rangle^{\beta}w\|_{l^{k}L^{h}},\|\langle\xi\rangle^{\beta}w\|_{L^{h}l^{k}}\big\}\nonumber\end{equation} for $w_{n,\xi}=\langle n\rangle^{\sigma}\langle\xi\rangle^{-1}u_{n,\xi}$, by H\"{o}lder. Now to prove (\ref{001}), we first consider the second term of (\ref{computation}). Due to its structure, we only need to prove for any function $z=z_{\xi}$ that\begin{equation}\bigg|\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{(z*\widehat{\chi})_{\eta}}{\eta}\,\mathrm{d}\eta\bigg|\lesssim\|\langle\xi\rangle^{-1}z\|_{L^{1}}.\end{equation} By considering $|\eta|\gtrsim1$ and $|\eta|\lesssim 1$ separately and using the cancelation coming from the $\frac{1}{\eta}$ factor, we can control the left hand side by $\|\langle\eta\rangle^{-1}(z*\widehat{\chi})_{\eta}\|_{L^{1}}$ (which is easily bounded by the right hand side of (\ref{001})), plus another term bounded by $\|\langle\eta\rangle^{-1}\partial_{\eta}(z*\widehat{\chi})\|_{L^{\infty}}$. If we shift the derivative to $\widehat{\chi}$ to get rid of it, we can again bound this expression by the right hand side of (\ref{001}).
Next, we consider the first term of (\ref{computation}). Again we consider the terms with $|\eta|\gtrsim 1$ and $|\eta|\lesssim1$ separately (by introducing a smooth, even cutoff $\phi_{\eta}$, say). The part where $|\eta|\gtrsim 1$ is easy, since convolution by $\widehat{\chi}_{\xi}$ is bounded on any weighted mixed norm Lebesgue space we have here, and $\frac{1}{\eta}$ is comparable to $\langle\eta\rangle^{-1}$ when restricted to the region $|\eta|\gtrsim 1$. Now for the region $|\eta|\lesssim 1$, we can actually prove for $y=y_{\xi}$ and arbitrary $K>0$ that\begin{equation}\bigg|\bigg(\widehat{\chi}*\bigg(\frac{\phi_{\eta}}{\eta}(\widehat{\chi}*y)_{\eta}\bigg)\bigg)_{\tau}\bigg|\lesssim\langle\tau\rangle^{-K}\|\langle\xi\rangle^{-K}y\|_{L^{1}},\end{equation} which easily implies our inequality. To prove this, let $\widehat{\chi}*y=z$, and compute\begin{eqnarray}\bigg(\widehat{\chi}*\bigg(\frac{\phi(\eta)}{\eta}z_{\eta}\bigg)\bigg)_{\tau}&=&\int_{|\eta|\lesssim 1}\widehat{\chi}_{\tau}\frac{\phi_{\eta}z_{\eta}-z_{0}}{\eta}\,\mathrm{d}\eta\nonumber\\
&+&\int_{|\eta|\lesssim 1}\frac{\widehat{\chi}_{\tau-\eta}-\widehat{\chi}_{\tau}}{\eta}\phi_{\eta}z_{\eta}\,\mathrm{d}\eta.\nonumber\end{eqnarray} From this we can readily recognize a decay of $\langle\tau\rangle^{-K}$, and it will suffice to prove that $\sup_{|\eta|\lesssim 1}|z_{\eta}|\lesssim \|\langle\xi\rangle^{-K}y\|_{L^{1}}$, but this will be clear from the definition of $z$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{linearestimate2}
We have the following estimates:
\begin{equation}\label{linnn1}\|\mathcal{E}u\|_{X_{6}}\lesssim\|\langle \xi\rangle^{-1}u\|_{X_{6}},\|\mathcal{E}u\|_{X_{4}}\lesssim\|\langle \xi\rangle^{-1} u\|_{X_{4}};\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{linnn2}\|\mathcal{E}u\|_{X_{1}}+\|\mathcal{E}u\|_{X_{2}}\lesssim\|\langle \xi\rangle ^{-1}u\|_{X_{1}}+\|\langle \xi\rangle ^{-1}u\|_{X_{2}}\lesssim\|u\|_{X_{10}};\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{linnn3}
\|\mathcal{E}u\|_{X_{7}}\lesssim\|u\|_{X_{10}}\lesssim\|u\|_{X_{9}},\|\mathcal{E}u\|_{X_{5}}\lesssim\|u\|_{X_{10}}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, suppose $u$ is such that $u_{n,\xi}$ is supported in $\{(n,\xi):n\sim 2^{d}, \xi\gtrsim 2^{d}\}$ for some $d$, then \begin{equation}\label{linnn4}\|\mathcal{E}u\|_{X_{5}}+\|\mathcal{E}u\|_{X_{7}}\lesssim\|\langle \xi\rangle ^{-1}u\|_{X_{1}}+\|\langle \xi\rangle ^{-1}u\|_{X_{2}}.\end{equation}
Finally notice that all these estimates naturally imply the dual versions about the boundedness of $\mathcal{E}'$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By checking the numerology, we see that (\ref{linnn1}) is a direct consequence of Lemma \ref{linearestimate}. To prove the first inequality in (\ref{linnn2}), we use Lemma \ref{linearestimate} to conclude
\begin{equation}\|\mathcal{E}u\|_{X_{1}}+\|\mathcal{E}u\|_{X_{2}}\lesssim\|\langle \xi\rangle^{-1} u\|_{X_{1}}+\|\langle \xi\rangle^{-1} u\|_{X_{2}}+\|\langle n\rangle^{s}\langle \xi\rangle^{-1}u\|_{l^{p}L^{1}},\end{equation} and note that the last term can be controlled by $\|\langle \xi\rangle^{-1} u\|_{X_{2}}$ also. To prove that $\|\langle \xi\rangle^{-1} u\|_{X_{2}}\lesssim\|u\|_{X_{10}}$, one first commute with $\mathbb{P}_{\sim 2^{d}}$, then control the $l^{p}L^{1}$ norm by the $L^{1}l^{p}$ norm, then use H\"{o}lder (note the hierarchy (\ref{hierarchy})). To prove that $\|\langle \xi\rangle^{-1} u\|_{X_{1}}\lesssim\|u\|_{X_{10}}$, one first replace the $\|\langle n\rangle^{s}*\|_{l^{p}}$ norm by the larger $\|\langle n\rangle^{r}*\|_{l_{d\geq 0}l_{n\sim 2^{d}}^{p}}$ norm, then commute with $\mathbb{P}_{\sim 2^{d}}$, and control the $l^{p}L^{2}$ norm by the $L^{2}l^{p}$ norm and use H\"{o}lder again. Along the same lines, we have
\begin{equation}\label{x7norm}\|\mathcal{E}u\|_{X_{7}}\lesssim\|\langle \xi\rangle^{-1} u\|_{X_{2}}+\|\langle \xi\rangle^{-1} u\|_{X_{7}}\end{equation} as well as \begin{equation}\label{x5norm}\|\mathcal{E}u\|_{X_{5}}\lesssim\|\langle\xi\rangle^{-1}u\|_{l_{d\geq 0}^{\infty}l_{\sim 2^{d}}^{2}L^{1}}+\|\langle\xi\rangle^{-1}u\|_{X_{5}},\end{equation}where the first term on the right hand side of (\ref{x5norm}) is bounded by $\|\langle \xi\rangle^{-1} u\|_{X_{2}}$, and the second terms on the right hand side of both (\ref{x7norm}) and (\ref{x5norm}) are bounded by the $X_{10}$ norm, by controlling the $l^{p}L^{2}$ norm by the $L^{2}l^{p}$ norm and using H\"{o}lder. Also we have $\|u\|_{X_{10}}\lesssim\|u\|_{X_{9}}$ by H\"{o}lder. This proves (\ref{linnn3}).
Let us now prove (\ref{linnn4}). For the $X_{7}$ norm we use (\ref{x7norm}), and the support condition will easily allow us to control the second term on the right hand side of (\ref{x7norm}) by $\|\langle \xi\rangle^{-1} u\|_{X_{1}}$. For the $X_{5}$ norm, we only need to bound the second term on the right hand side of (\ref{x5norm}) by $\|\langle \xi\rangle^{-1} u\|_{X_{1}}$. Since we can restrict to $|n|\sim 2^{d}$ and $|\xi|\gtrsim 2^{d}$, we can bound this term by
\begin{eqnarray}\|\langle\xi\rangle^{-1}u\|_{L^{q}l^{2}}&\lesssim &\|\langle\xi\rangle^{\sigma}u\|_{L^{2}l^{2}}=\|\langle\xi\rangle^{\sigma}u\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &2^{(\sigma-b+1)d}\|\langle\xi\rangle^{b-1}u\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\lesssim 2^{(\sigma+\sigma'-b+1)d}\|\langle \xi\rangle^{-1} u\|_{X_{1}},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where $\sigma'=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}-s>0$, $\sigma=-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2q'}$ so that $\sigma+\sigma'-b+1<0$ by (\ref{hierarchy}).
\end{proof}
Next we will prove two auxiliary results about our norms $Y_{j}$ and $Y_{j}^{T}$, which are defined in Section \ref{mainspace}. They will be used to validate our main bootstrap argument.
\begin{proposition}\label{auxi}Suppose $j\in\{1,2\}$, and $u=u(t,x)\in Y_{j}$ is a function that vanishes at $t=0$, then with a time cutoff $\chi$ (recall our convention about such functions) we have, uniformly in $T\lesssim 1$, that \begin{equation}\label{boundd}\|\chi(T^{-1}t)u\|_{Y_{j}}\lesssim \|u\|_{Y_{j}}.\end{equation} If $u$ is smooth, then we also have \begin{equation}\label{limit}\lim_{T\to 0}\|\chi(T^{-1}t)u\|_{Y_{j}}=0.\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}We first assume $u\in Y_{j}$ and $u(0)=0$. We may also assume that $u$ is supported in $|t|\lesssim 1$. Since on the ``hat'' or ``tilde'' side multiplication by $\chi(T^{-1}t)$ is just convolution by $T\widehat{\chi}_{T\xi}$, we need to prove the uniform boundedness of these operators on spaces involved in the definition of $Y_{j}$, as well as the corresponding limit result when $u$ is smooth. The bound in $X_{3}$ is obtained by decomposing this convolution into translations (which preserve the $X_{3}$ norm) and integrating them using the boundedness of $L^{1}$ norm of $T\widehat{\chi}_{T\xi}$. The bound in $X_{8}$ follows from the bound in $\mathcal{Y}$, which is valid because this convolution does not increase the $\Phi$ (or $L^{q}l^{2}$) norm, and commutes with the action described in Section \ref{another}; the bound in $X_{2}$ and $X_{5}$ are shown in the same way. The remaining bounds will follow if we can bound this convolution in weighted norms $\|\langle\xi\rangle^{\sigma}y\|_{L^{2}}$, where $0\leq\sigma<1$, for complex valued functions $y_{\xi}$ such that $\int_{\mathbb{R}}y_{\xi}\mathrm{d}\xi=0$. Namely, we need to prove \begin{equation}\label{more2}\|\langle\eta\rangle^{\sigma}(y*T\widehat{\chi}_{T\xi})_{\eta}\|_{L^{2}}\lesssim\|\langle\xi\rangle^{\sigma}y_{\xi}\|_{L^{2}}.\end{equation} Also, by Proposition \ref{relattt} we can control $Y_{1}$ and $Y_{2}$ norms by $X_{4}$ and $X_{6}$. Thus in order to prove (\ref{limit}), we only need to prove that the left hand side of (\ref{more2}) actually tends to zero when $T\to 0$, for any fixed Schwartz $y$ with integral zero. By taking inverse Fourier transform, the problem an be reduced to proving \begin{equation}\|\chi(T^{-1}t)u\|_{H^{\sigma}}\lesssim\|u\|_{H^{\sigma}},\end{equation} and the limit\begin{equation}\lim_{T\to 0}\|\chi(T^{-1}t)u(t)\|_{H^{\sigma}}=0,\end{equation}for $T\lesssim 1$ and $u\in C_{c}^{\infty}$ such that $u(0)=0$. But these are proved, in a slightly different but equivalent setting, in \cite{De10}, Lemma 2.8.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{initialboot}Suppose $u=u(t,x)$ is a smooth function defined on $\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{T}$, then for $j\in\{1,2\}$, the function $T>0\mapsto \mathcal{M}(T)=\|u\|_{Y_{j}^{T}}$ satisfies $\mathcal{M}(T+0)\leq C\mathcal{M}(T-0)$ for all $0<T\lesssim 1$, and also $\mathcal{M}(0+)\leq C\|u(0)\|_{Z_{1}}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}First we prove the estimate about $\mathcal{M}(0+)$. Let $u(0)=f$ and $v(t,x)=u(t,x)-e^{-tH\partial_{xx}}f(x)$. Since $v$ is smooth and $v(0)=0$, we have by Proposition \ref{auxi} that $\lim_{T\to 0}\|v\|_{Y_{j}^{T}}=0$. It then suffices to prove that for some cutoff $\chi(t)$, we have $\|\chi(t)e^{-tH\partial_{xx}f}\|_{Y_{j}}\lesssim \|f\|_{Z_{1}}$. Note that on the ``tilde'' side, the function $\chi(t)e^{-tH\partial_{xx}f}$ simply becomes $\widehat{\chi}_{\xi}f_{n}$; thus this inequality is basically trivial if we take into account that the $Z_{1}$ norm is stronger than the norm $\|\langle n\rangle^{-1}f\|_{L^{\gamma}}$, and the norm $\|f\|_{l_{d\geq 0}^{\infty}l_{\sim 2^{d}}^{2}}$.
Next, we shall prove that $\mathcal{M}(T+0)\lesssim \mathcal{M}(T)$ for $0<T\lesssim 1$. Namely, suppose $u$ is a smooth function, $0<T\lesssim 1$ is such that $\|u\|_{Y_{j}^{T}}\leq 1$, we want to prove for some $T'>T$ that $\|u\|_{Y_{j}^{T'}}\lesssim 1$. Actually we only need to prove $\|u\|_{Y_{j}^{[-T,T']}}\lesssim 1$, since we can use the same argument to move the left point also. Now, due to the presence of $X_{2}$ norm in the definitions of both $Y_{j}$, our assumption implies $\|u(T)\|_{Z_{1}}\lesssim 1$, therefore by what we just proved, $u_{1}=e^{-(t-T)H\partial_{xx}}u(T)$ verifies the estimate $\|u_{1}\|_{Y_{j}^{T'}}\lesssim 1$ for all $T<T'\lesssim 1$. Thus we only need to bound $\|u_{2}\|_{Y_{j}^{[-T,T']}}$ for some $T'>T$ and $u_{2}=u-u_{1}$. Note $u_{2}(T)=0$, by choosing $\delta$ small enough we can produce a function $v$ coinciding with $u_{2}$ on $[T-10\delta,T+10\delta]$ such that $\|v\|_{Y_{j}}\lesssim 1$ by Proposition \ref{auxi}. Also since $\|u_{2}\|_{Y_{j}^{T}}\lesssim 1$, we may choose a function $w$ coinciding with $u_{2}$ on $[-T,T]$ such that $\|w\|_{Y_{j}}\lesssim 1$. Note $v(T)=w(T)=0$. Next, choose a function $\psi_{3}\in C^{\infty}$ supported on $[-9,10]$ that equals $1$ on $[-1,9]$. Define \begin{equation}u_{3}(t)=(1-\psi_{3}(\delta^{-1}(t-T)))w(t)+\psi_{3}(\delta^{-1}(t-T))v(t).\end{equation} Then we can verify that $u_{3}=u_{2}$ on $[-T,T']$ with $T'=T+9\delta$, and by Proposition \ref{auxi} we have $\|u_{3}\|_{Y_{j}}\lesssim 1$, as desired.
Finally let us prove that $\mathcal{M}(T)\lesssim \mathcal{M}(T-0)$ for all $0<T\lesssim 1$. Suppose $T_{k}\uparrow T$, and we can find $u^{k}$ coinciding with $u$ on $[-T_{k},T_{k}]$ such that $\|u^{k}\|_{Y_{j}}\leq 1$. Since $T\lesssim 1$, we may assume $u^{k}$ are supported in $|t|\lesssim 1$. By the uniform boundedness in $X_{4}$ norm, and the fact that on the ``tilde'' side each $u^{k}$ equals itself convolved with some $\widehat{\chi}_{\xi}$, we conclude that $(u^{k})_{n,\xi}$ has second order $\xi$-derivatives bounded by (say) $\langle n\rangle^{10}$. We therefore extract a subsequence so that $\{u^{k}\}$, viewed as a sequence of maps from $\mathbb{R}_{\xi}$ to some weighted $l_{n}^{2}$ space, converges uniformly in any $|\xi|\leq R$. In particular this implies the convergence as spacetime distributions; thus the limit, denoted by $u^{*}$, must coincide with $u$ on $[-T,T]$. It therefore suffices to prove $\|u^{*}\|_{Y_{j}}\lesssim 1$. The bounds for $X_{1}$, $X_{2}$, $X_{4}$ and $X_{7}$ norms immediately follows from distributional convergence; for $X_{3}$, note that the $|(u^{k})_{n,\xi}|$ also converge uniformly to $|u_{n,\xi}|$ in any $|\xi|\leq R$ for any fixed $n$, thus $\mathfrak{N}u^{k}$ (recall Section \ref{spaces} for definition) will converge to $\mathfrak{N}u^{*}$ as spacetime distributions, therefore the $X_{3}$ norm of $u^{*}$ will also be bounded by $O(1)$.
It remains to prove the bound of $X_{8}$ norm for $u^{*}$. By commuting with $\mathbb{P}_{\sim 2^{d}}$, we may assume that $\|u^{k}\|_{\mathcal{Y}}\leq 1$. For any bounded function $v=v_{n,\xi}$ with compact $(n,\xi)$-support, we have $(u^{k},v)\to (u^{*},v)$ with the standard pairing $(u,v)$ as in (\ref{pairing}). By the definition of the $\mathcal{Y}$ norm we can easily see that\begin{equation}|(u^{k},v)|\leq\|u^{k}\|_{\mathcal{Y}}\cdot\sup_{n_{0}\in\mathbb{Z}}\langle n_{0}\rangle^{-s^{2}}\|\pi_{n_{0}}v\|_{L^{q'}l^{2}}\leq\sup_{n_{0}\in\mathbb{Z}}\langle n_{0}\rangle^{-s^{2}}\|\pi_{n_{0}}v\|_{L^{q'}l^{2}}.\end{equation} If we denote the right hand side by $\|v\|_{\mathcal{Z}}$, we then have $|(u^{*},v)|\leq\|v\|_{\mathcal{Z}}$ for $v$ with compact $(n,\xi)$-support. Now consider any $v$ with $\|v\|_{\mathcal{Z}}\leq 1$ (so in particular $v\in L^{q'}l^{2}$). We produce a sequence $v^{R}=v\cdot\mathbf{1}_{\{|v|+|n|+|\xi|\leq R\}}$ so that $\|v^{R}\|_{\mathcal{Z}}\leq1$, and $v^{R}\to v$ in $L^{q'}l^{2}$, thus $(u^{*},v^{R})\to (u^{*},v)$ (notice that $u^{*}\in X_{4}$ and is supported in some $|n|\sim 2^{d}$, thus we have $u^{*}\in L^{q}l^{2}$). This implies $|(u^{*},v)|\leq 1$ for all $v$ such that $\|v\|_{\mathcal{Z}}\leq 1$. Since \emph{a priori} we have $u^{*}\in L^{q}l^{2}\subset\mathcal{Y}$, and it is easily checked that $\mathcal{Y}$ is a Banach space, we may then invoke the Hahn-Banach theorem to conclude $\|u^{*}\|_{\mathcal{Y}}\leq 1$, provided that we can identify the dual space of $\mathcal{Y}$ with $\mathcal{Z}$. Now clearly each element in $\mathcal{Z}$ gives a linear functional on $\mathcal{Y}$ whose norm equals the $\mathcal{Z}$ norm; on the other hand, if we have a (bounded) linear functional on $\mathcal{Y}$, it must be bounded on $L^{q}l^{2}$, thus it is given by pairing with an element of $L^{q'}l^{2}$, and then by considering the action of $\mathbb{Z}$ on this function, we conclude that it is actually in $\mathcal{Z}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Relevant probabilistic results}\label{probab}
\subsection{Review of the construction of Gibbs measure}\label{gibbs}In this section we briefly review the construction of the Gibbs measure $\nu$ as done in \cite{Tz10}. This measure is defined by adding a weight to some Wiener measure $\rho$, so we first describe the relevant Wiener measure.
Consider a sequence of independent complex Gaussian random variables $\{g_{n}\}_{n>0}$ living on some ambient probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{B},\mathbb{P})$ which are normalized so that $\mathbb{E}(|g_{n}|^{2})=1$. By excluding a null set, we also assume\footnote[1]{This assumption is just in order to define the map $\mathbf{f}$ and is irrelevant otherwise.} that $|g_{n}|=O(\langle n\rangle^{10})$ holds everywhere on $\Omega$. Letting $g_{-n}=\overline{g_{n}}$, we define the random series \begin{equation}\mathbf{f}:\Omega\ni\omega\mapsto\sum_{n\neq 0}\frac{g_{n}(\omega)}{2\sqrt{\pi|n|}}e^{\mathrm{i}nx}\in\mathcal{V}\end{equation} as a map from $\Omega$ to $\mathcal{V}$ (recall that $\mathcal{V}$ is the subset of $\mathcal{D}'(\mathbb{T})$ containing real-valued distributions with vanishing mean). This then defines the Wiener measure $\rho$ on $\mathcal{V}$ by $\rho(E)=\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{f}^{-1}(E))$. For each positive integer $N$, if we identify $\mathcal{V}$ with $\mathcal{V}_{N}\times\mathcal{V}_{N}^{\perp}$, then the measure $\mathrm{d}\rho$ is identified with $\mathrm{d}\rho_{N}\times\mathrm{d}\rho_{N}^{\perp}$, with the latter two measures defined by \begin{equation}\rho_{N}(E)=\mathbb{P}((\Pi_{N}\mathbf{f})^{-1}(E)),\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\rho_{N}^{\perp}(E)=\mathbb{P}((\Pi_{N}^{\perp}\mathbf{f})^{-1}(E)).\nonumber\end{equation}
Fix a compactly supported smooth cutoff $\zeta$, $0\leq\zeta\leq 1$, which equals $1$ on some neighborhood of $0$. Consider for each $N$ the functions \begin{equation}\theta_{N}(f)=\zeta\big(\|\Pi_{N}f\|_{L^{2}}^{2}-\alpha_{N}\big)e^{\frac{1}{3}\int_{\mathbb{T}}(S_{N}f)^{3}};\end{equation} \begin{equation}\theta_{N}^{\sharp}(f)=\zeta\big(\|\Pi_{N}f\|_{L^{2}}^{2}-\alpha_{N}\big)e^{\frac{1}{3}\int_{\mathbb{T}}(\Pi_{N}f)^{3}},\end{equation}where we recall $\Pi_{N}=\mathbb{P}_{\leq N}$ as in Section \ref{notation}, $S_{N}$ as in (\ref{truncation}), and \begin{equation}\alpha_{N}=\sum_{n=1}^{N}\frac{1}{n}=\mathbb{E}\big(\|\Pi_{N}\mathbf{f}\|_{L^{2}}^{2}\big).\nonumber\end{equation} Clearly $\theta_{N}$ and $\theta_{N}^{\sharp}$ only depend on $\Pi_{N}f$, thus they can also be understood as functions on $\mathcal{V}_{N}$. Define the measures \begin{equation}\mathrm{d}\nu_{N}=\theta_{N}\mathrm{d}\rho,\,\,\,\,\,\mathrm{d}\nu_{N}^{\circ}=\theta_{N}\mathrm{d}\rho_{N};\,\,\,\,\,\mathrm{d}\nu_{N}^{\sharp}=\theta_{N}^{\sharp}\mathrm{d}\rho,\,\,\,\,\,\mathrm{d}\nu_{N}^{\o}=\theta_{N}^{\sharp}\mathrm{d}\rho_{N}.\nonumber\end{equation} Then we could identify $\mathrm{d}\nu_{N}$ and $\mathrm{d}\nu_{N}^{\sharp}$ with $\mathrm{d}\nu_{N}^{\circ}\times\mathrm{d}\rho_{N}^{\perp}$ and $\mathrm{d}\nu_{N}^{\o}\times\mathrm{d}\rho_{N}^{\perp}$, respectively. Moreover, if we identify $\mathcal{V}_{N}$ with $\mathbb{R}^{2N}$ and thus denote the measure on $\mathcal{V}_{N}$ corresponding to the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^{2N}$ by $\mathcal{L}_{N}$, then with some constant $C_{N}$
\begin{equation}\mathrm{d}\nu_{N}^{\circ}=C_{N}\zeta\big(\|f\|_{L^{2}}^{2}-\alpha_{N}\big)e^{-2E_{N}[f]}\mathrm{d}\mathcal{L}_{N};
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\mathrm{d}\nu_{N}^{\o}=C_{N}\zeta\big(\|f\|_{L^{2}}^{2}-\alpha_{N}\big)e^{-2E[f]}\mathrm{d}\mathcal{L}_{N},
\end{equation} with the $f$ here denoting some element of $\mathcal{V}_{N}$, the Hamiltonian $E$ as in (\ref{hamiltonian}), and the truncated version $E_{N}$ being
\begin{equation}E_{N}[f]=\int_{\mathbb{T}}\frac{1}{2}|\partial_{x}^{1/2}f|^{2}-\frac{1}{6}(S_{N}f)^{3}.
\end{equation}
The main result of \cite{Tz10} now reads as follows.
\begin{proposition}[\cite{Tz10}, Theorem 1]\label{convergence} The sequence $\theta_{N}^{\sharp}$ converges in $L^{r}(\mathrm{d}\rho)$ to some function $\theta$ for all $1\leq r<\infty$, and if we define $\nu$ by $\mathrm{d}\nu=\theta\mathrm{d}\rho$, then $\nu_{N}^{\sharp}$ converges strongly to $\nu$ in the sense that the total variation of their difference tends to zero. This $\nu$ is defined to be the Gibbs measure for (\ref{bo}).
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}Only weak convergence is claimed in \cite{Tz10}, but an easy elaboration of the arguments there actually gives a much stronger convergence as stated in Proposition \ref{convergence} above.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk4.3}We note that the measure $\nu$ depends on the choice of $\zeta$. In this regard we have the following easy observation: there exists a countable collection $\{\zeta^{R}\}_{R\in\mathbb{N}}$ with corresponding $\theta^{R}$ such that the union of $\mathcal{A}^{R}=\{f:\theta^{R}(f)>0\}$ has\footnote[1]{Note that $\mathcal{A}^{R}$ is the largest set on which $\rho$ and $\nu^{R}$ are mutually absolutely continuous.} full $\rho$ measure.
\end{remark}
The finite dimensional approximations we will actually use are $\nu_{N}$ instead of $\nu_{N}^{\sharp}$, thus we still need to prove the convergence of $\nu_{N}$. However, the proof is essentially the same as the proof of Proposition \ref{convergence}, so we shall omit it here and only state the result.
\begin{proposition}\label{convergence2}The sequence $\theta_{N}$ converges in $L^{r}(\mathrm{d}\rho)$ to the $\theta$ defined in Proposition \ref{convergence} for all $1\leq r<\infty$, and $\nu_{N}$ converges strongly to the $\nu$ defined in Proposition \ref{convergence} in the sense that the total variation of their difference tends to zero.
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Compatibility with the Besov space} By elementary probabilistic arguments we can see that\begin{equation}\rho\big(f\in\mathcal{V}:\|f\|_{L^{2}}<\infty\big)=0;\end{equation}\begin{equation}\rho\big(f\in\mathcal{V}:\|f\|_{H^{-\delta}}<\infty\big)=1,\end{equation} for all $\delta>0$. Namely, the Wiener measure $\mathrm{d}\rho$ (and hence the Gibbs measure $\mathrm{d}\nu$) is compatible with $H^{-\delta}$ but not $L^{2}$, which is the essential difficulty in establishing the invariance result. In this section we show that this difficulty may be resolved by using the Besov space $Z_{1}$ defined in Section \ref{parameters}. First we prove a lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{besov} Suppose that $g_{j}(1\leq j\leq N)$ are independent normalized complex Gaussian random variables. Then we have\begin{equation}\label{form}\mathbb{P}\bigg(\sum_{j=1}^{N}|g_{j}|^{4}\geq \alpha N\bigg)\leq 4e^{-\frac{1}{120}\sqrt{\alpha N}},\end{equation} for all $\alpha>1600$ and positive integer $N$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $X=\sum_{j=1}^{N}|g_{j}|^{4}$. Since $\mathbb{E}(|g_{j}|^{4m})=(2m)!$, we can estimate, for each integer $k\geq 1$, the $k$-th moment of $X$ by \begin{eqnarray}\mathbb{E}(X^{k})&=&\sum_{m_{1}+\cdots+m_{N}=k}\frac{k!}{m_{1}!\cdots m_{N}!}\times\mathbb{E}\big(|g_{1}|^{4m_{1}}\cdots |g_{N}|^{4m_{N}}\big)\nonumber\\ &\leq& k!\sum_{m_{1}+\cdots+m_{N}=k}\prod_{j=1}^{N}\frac{(2m_{j})!}{m_{j}!}\nonumber\\&\leq &k!4^{k}\sum_{m_{1}+\cdots+m_{N}=k}\prod_{j=1}^{N}m_{j}!,\nonumber\end{eqnarray} since ${2m \choose m}\leq 4^{m}$. From this, we have that (for $\epsilon>0$)\begin{equation}\mathbb{E}\big(e^{\sqrt{\epsilon X}}\big)\leq 2\mathbb{E}(\cosh\sqrt{\epsilon X})\leq 2+2\sum_{k\geq 1}\frac{\epsilon^{k}}{(2k)!}\mathbb{E}(X^{k})\leq 2+\sum_{k\geq 1}\frac{(8\epsilon)^{k}}{k!}S_{N,k},\nonumber\end{equation} where \begin{equation}S_{N,k}=\sum_{m_{1}+\cdots+m_{N}=k}\prod_{j=1}^{N}m_{j}!,\end{equation} which we shall now estimate. By identifying the nonzero terms in $(m_{1},\cdots,m_{N})$, we can rewrite $S_{N,k}$ as \begin{equation} S_{N,k}=\sum_{1\leq r\leq \min\{N,k\}} {N\choose r}S'_{k,r},\end{equation} where \begin{equation}S'_{k,r}=\sum_{m_{1}+\cdots +m_{r}=k,m_{j}\geq 1}\prod_{j=1}^{r}m_{j}!.\nonumber\end{equation} Clearly the number of choices of $(m_{1},\cdots,m_{r})$ is at most ${k-1\choose r-1}\leq 2^{k}$, and for each choice of $(m_{1},\cdots,m_{r})$, we have\begin{eqnarray}\prod_{j=1}^{r}m_{j}! &\leq &m_{1}\cdots m_{r}\times\prod_{j=1}^{r}(m_{j}-1)!\nonumber\\
&\leq & (k/r)^{r}\bigg(\sum_{j=1}^{r}(m_{j}-1)\bigg)!\nonumber\\
&\leq & e^{r\frac{k}{r}}(k-r)!
\leq 3^{k}(k-r)!\nonumber.\end{eqnarray} Therefore we know that $S'_{k,r}\leq 6^{k}(k-r)!$. Next, notice that there are at most $k\leq 2^{k}$ choices of $r$, and that ${N\choose r}\leq N^{r}/r!$, we have\begin{equation}\label{est2}S_{N,k}\leq 12^{k}\max_{1\leq r\leq k}\frac{N^{r}(k-r)!}{r!}.\end{equation}
If the maximum in (\ref{est2}) is attained at $r=k$, it will be bounded by $\frac{N^{k}}{k!}$; otherwise it is attained at some $r<k$, from which we know $N\leq (r+1)(k-r)\leq 2r(k-r)$. Therefore the maximum in this case is bounded by\begin{equation}\frac{N^{r}(k-r)!}{r!}\leq\frac{2^{k}r^{r}(k-r)^{r}(k-r)^{k-r}}{r!}\leq (6k)^{k}\leq 18^{k}k!.\nonumber\end{equation} Altogether we have\begin{equation}S_{N,k}\leq216^{k}k!+\frac{(12N)^{k}}{k!},\nonumber\end{equation} and hence\begin{equation}\mathbb{E}\big(e^{\sqrt{\epsilon X}}\big)\leq 2+\sum_{k\geq 1}(1728\epsilon)^{k}+\sum_{k\geq 1}\frac{(384\epsilon N)^{k}}{(2k)!},\end{equation} which is clearly bounded by $4e^{20\sqrt{\epsilon N}}$ if we choose $\epsilon=\frac{1}{3456}$. Now if $\alpha>1600$, we will have\begin{equation}\mathbb{P}(X\geq\alpha N)\leq e^{-\sqrt{\epsilon\alpha N}}\mathbb{E}\big(e^{\sqrt{\epsilon X}}\big)\leq 4e^{-\frac{1}{120}\sqrt{\alpha N}},\nonumber\end{equation} as desired.
\end{proof}
Now we can prove that the Wiener measure $\mathrm{d}\rho$ is compatible with our Besov space $Z_{1}$. Namely, we have
\begin{proposition}\label{compat}With the measure $\rho$ defined in Section \ref{gibbs}, we have $\rho(Z_{1})=1$; more precisely we have\begin{equation}\label{largedeviation}\rho\big(\{f\in\mathcal{V}:\|f\|_{Z_{1}}\leq K\}\big)\geq 1-Ce^{-C^{-1}K^{2}}\end{equation} for all $K>0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} We only need to prove (\ref{largedeviation}). Setting $C$ large, this inequality will be trivial when $K\leq 100$. When $K>100$, we get from the definition that\begin{equation}\rho\big(\{f\in\mathcal{V}:\|f\|_{Z_{1}}>100K\}\big)\leq\sum_{j\geq 0}\mathbb{P}\bigg(\sum_{0<n\sim 2^{j}}|g_{n}|^{p}\geq K^{p}2^{j}\bigg).\end{equation} By H\"{o}lder, \begin{equation}\sum_{0<n\sim 2^{j}}|g_{n}|^{p}\geq K^{p}2^{j}\nonumber\end{equation} implies \begin{equation}\sum_{0<n\sim 2^{j}}|g_{n}|^{4}\geq K^{4}2^{j}.\nonumber\end{equation} By lemma \ref{besov}, this has probability not exceeding $Ce^{-C^{-1}K^{2}2^{j/2}}$ provided $K>100$. Summing up over $j$, we see that \begin{equation}\rho\big(\{f\in\mathcal{V}:\|f\|_{Z_{1}}>K\}\big)\leq\sum_{j\geq 0}Ce^{-C^{-1}K^{2}2^{j/2}}\leq Ce^{-C^{-1}K^{2}}.\nonumber\end{equation} This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{The gauge transform I: Beating the derivative loss}\label{gaugetransform}
From this section to Section \ref{gaugetransform3}, we will introduce the gauge transform for (\ref{smoothtrunc}), and use it to derive the new equations. We will fix a large positive integer $N$ throughout, and drop the subscript $N$ in $S_{N}$ (we are allowing $N=\infty$, in which case the arguments should be modified slightly but no essential difference occurs). We also fix a smooth solution $u$ to (\ref{smoothtrunc}); note that smooth solutions are automatically global. When $N$ is finite, we also assume that $\widehat{u}$ is supported in $|n|\leq N$ for all time.
The gauge transform we use is defined as a power series, thus in many occasions we will have to deal with summations over sequences of the form $(m_{1},\cdots,m_{\mu})$. To simplify the notation we will define, for such a sequence, the partial sums\begin{equation}m_{ij}=m_{i}+\cdots+m_{j}.\nonumber\end{equation} This notation will also be used for other sequences, say $\mu_{i}$, which will always be nonnegative integers.
\subsection{The definition of $w$}\label{pass}
Let $F$ be the unique mean-zero antiderivative of $u$, namely $F_{n}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}n}u_{n}$ for $n\neq 0$ and $F_{0}=0$. Define the operators $Q_{0}:\phi\mapsto (Su)\cdot\phi$ and $P_{0}:\phi\mapsto (SF)\cdot\phi$, as well as $Q=SQ_{0}S$ and $P=SP_{0}S$. Further, define the operator \begin{equation}\label{expo}M=e^{-\frac{\mathrm{i}P}{2}}=\sum_{\mu\geq0}\frac{1}{\mu!}\bigg(-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\bigg)^{\mu}P^{\mu}.\end{equation} The function $w$ will be defined by\begin{equation}w=\mathbb{P}_{+}(Mu).\end{equation} We also define $v=Mu$, so that $w_{n}=v_{n}$ when $n>0$, and $w_{n}=0$ otherwise. The evolution equation satisfied by $w$ can be computed as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
(\partial_{t}-\mathrm{i}\partial_{xx})w&=&\mathbb{P}_{+}M(\partial_{t}-\mathrm{i}\partial_{xx})u+\mathbb{P}_{+}[\partial_{t},M]u-\mathrm{i}\mathbb{P}_{+}[\partial_{xx},M]u\nonumber\\
&=&-2\mathrm{i}\mathbb{P}_{+}(M\mathbb{P}_{-}u_{xx})+\mathbb{P}_{+}\big([\partial_{t},M]u-\mathrm{i}\big[\partial_{x},[\partial_{x},M]\big]u\big)\nonumber\\
&+&\mathbb{P}_{+}(MS(Su\cdot Su_{x})-2\mathrm{i}[\partial_{x},M]u_{x})\nonumber\\
\label{line1}&=&-2\mathrm{i}\mathbb{P}_{+}\partial_{x}(M\mathbb{P}_{-}u_{x})\\
\label{line2}&-&2\mathrm{i}\mathbb{P}_{+}([\partial_{x},M]+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}MQ)u_{x}\\
\label{line3}&+&2\mathrm{i}\mathbb{P}_{+}[\partial_{x},M]\mathbb{P}_{-}u_{x}+\mathbb{P}_{+}\big([\partial_{t},M]-\mathrm{i}\big[\partial_{x},[\partial_{x},M]\big]\big)u.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{The term in (\ref{line1})}\label{term1} By expanding $M$ using (\ref{expo}), we can write the term in (\ref{line1}) as\begin{equation}(\ref{line1})=\sum_{\mu_{1}}\frac{(-1)^{\mu_{1}}}{2^{\mu_{1}}\mu_{1}!}\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}}^{1},\end{equation} where in Fourier space \begin{equation}\label{k1}(\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}}^{1})_{n_{0}}=2\mathrm{i}\sum_{\mathbf{v}\in S_{n_{0},\mu_{1}}^{1}}\Lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{1\mu_{1}}(u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{1}}})u_{n_{1}}.\end{equation} Here in (\ref{k1}), the spatial frequency set is defined to be
\begin{eqnarray}S_{n_{0},\mu_{1}}^{1}&=&\big\{\mathbf{v}=(m_{1},\cdots,m_{\mu_{1}},n_{1})\in\mathbb{Z}^{\mu_{1}+1}:\nonumber\\
&&m_{i}\neq 0,n_{0}>0,n_{1}<0;
m_{1,\mu_{1}}+n_{1}=n_{0}\big\},\nonumber\end{eqnarray} and the weight is
\begin{eqnarray}
\Lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{1\mu_{1}}&=&\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{1}}\frac{1}{m_{i}}\psi\bigg(\frac{m_{i}}{N}\bigg)\times\prod_{i=2}^{\mu_{1}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{m_{i,\mu_{1}}+n_{1}}{N}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
&\times& n_{0}n_{1}\psi\bigg(\frac{n_{0}}{N}\bigg)\psi\bigg(\frac{n_{1}}{N}\bigg).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} As the next step, we rewrite part of the weight as\begin{equation}\label{junior}\frac{1}{m_{1}\cdots m_{\mu_{1}}}=\frac{1}{n_{0}-n_{1}}\sum_{i=1}^{\mu_{1}}\frac{1}{m_{1}\cdots m_{i-1}m_{i+1}\cdots m_{\mu_{1}}}.\end{equation} By renaming the variables, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{k1.1}(\ref{line1})=\sum_{\mu_{1}\geq 1}\sum_{i=1}^{\mu_{1}}\frac{(-1)^{\mu_{1}}}{2^{\mu_{1}-1}\mu_{1}!}\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}i}^{1},\end{equation} where in Fourier space\begin{equation}\label{k1.2}(\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}i}^{1})_{n_{0}}=\mathrm{i}\sum_{\mathbf{v}\in S_{n_{0},\mu_{1}}^{1.1}}\Lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{1\mu_{1}i}(u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{1}-1}})u_{n_{1}}u_{n_{2}}.\end{equation} The frequency set here is\begin{eqnarray}\label{1-2}S_{n_{0},\mu_{1}}^{1.1}&=&\big\{\mathbf{v}=(m_{1},\cdots,m_{\mu_{1}-1},n_{1},n_{2}):\\
&&\mathbf{v}\in\mathbb{Z}^{\mu_{1}+1},m_{j}\neq 0,n_{0}>0;\nonumber\\&&
n_{1}<0,m_{1,\mu_{1}-1}+n_{1}+n_{2}=n_{0}\big\},\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
and the weight is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{1-3}
\Lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{1\mu_{1}i}&=&
\prod_{j=1}^{\mu_{1}-1}\frac{1}{m_{j}}\psi\bigg(\frac{m_{j}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{j=i+1}^{\mu_{1}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{m_{j-1,\mu_{1}-1}+n_{1}}{N}\bigg)\times\\
&\times&\prod_{j=2}^{i}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{m_{j,\mu_{1}-1}+n_{1}+n_{2}}{N}\bigg)\frac{n_{0}n_{1}}{|n_{0}|+|n_{1}|}\prod_{j=0}^{2}\psi\bigg(\frac{n_{j}}{N}\bigg).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{The term in (\ref{line2})}\label{term2}Since\begin{equation}[\partial_{x},P]=Q,\end{equation} we may compute
\begin{eqnarray}
[\partial_{x},M]&=&\sum_{\mu_{1}}\frac{1}{\mu_{1}!}\bigg(-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\bigg)^{\mu_{1}}[\partial_{x},P^{\mu_{1}}]\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}}\frac{1}{(\mu_{12}+1)!}\bigg(-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\bigg)^{\mu_{12}+1}P^{\mu_{1}}QP^{\mu_{2}}\nonumber\\
\label{line4}&=&-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}MQ-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\sum_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}}\frac{1}{(\mu_{12}+1)!}\bigg(-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\bigg)^{\mu_{12}}P^{\mu_{1}}[Q,P^{\mu_{2}}].
\end{eqnarray} By expanding the commutator in (\ref{line4}), we can write the term in (\ref{line2}) as
\begin{equation}\label{line5}(\ref{line2})=-\sum_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}}\frac{\mu_{1}+1}{(\mu_{12}+2)!}\bigg(-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\bigg)^{\mu_{12}+1}\mathbb{P}_{+}P^{\mu_{1}}[Q,P]P^{\mu_{2}}u_{x}.\end{equation} Notice that \begin{equation}\label{line6}[Q,P]=S(Q_{0}S^{2}P_{0}-P_{0}S^{2}Q_{0})S,\end{equation} we can thus write\begin{equation}(\ref{line2})=\sum_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}}\frac{(-1)^{\mu_{12}}(\mu_{1}+1)}{2^{\mu_{12}+1}(\mu_{12}+2)!}\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{2},\end{equation} where in the Fourier space \begin{equation}(\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{2})_{n_{0}}=\mathrm{i}\sum_{\mathbf{v}\in S_{n_{0},\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{2}}\lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{2\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}(u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{12}}})u_{n_{1}}u_{n_{2}} u_{n_{3}}.\end{equation} Here the frequency set is\begin{eqnarray}\label{freqset}S_{n_{0},\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{2}&=&\big\{\mathbf{v}=(m_{1},\cdots,m_{\mu_{12}},n_{1},n_{2},n_{3}):\\
&&\mathbf{v}\in(\mathbb{Z}^{*})^{\mu_{12}+3},m_{i}\neq 0,n_{1}n_{2}n_{3}\neq 0,n_{0}>0;\nonumber\\
&&m_{1,\mu_{12}}+n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}=n_{0}\big\},\nonumber\end{eqnarray} and the weight is\begin{eqnarray}\lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{2\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}&=&\frac{n_{3}}{n_{2}}\prod_{i=0}^{3}\psi\bigg(\frac{n_{i}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{12}}\frac{1}{m_{i}}\psi\bigg(\frac{m_{i}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{3}+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
&\times &\prod_{i=2}^{\mu_{1}+1}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}+m_{i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\bigg[\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{2}+n_{3}+m_{\mu_{1}+1,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)-\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+n_{3}+m_{\mu_{1}+1,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\bigg].\nonumber\end{eqnarray}Note that $S_{n_{0},\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{2}$ is symmetric with respect to $n_{1}$ and $n_{3}$, we can swap these two variables and rearrange the terms to obtain \begin{equation}\label{2-1}(\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{2})_{n_{0}}=\mathrm{i}\sum_{\mathbf{v}\in S_{n_{0},\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{2}}\Lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{2\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}(u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{12}}})u_{n_{1}}u_{n_{2}} u_{n_{3}},\end{equation} where the frequency set $S_{n_{0},\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{2}$ is as in (\ref{freqset}), and the weight is \begin{eqnarray}\label{2-3}
\Lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{2\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}&=&\frac{1}{2n_{2}}\prod_{i=0}^{3}\psi\bigg(\frac{n_{i}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{12}}\frac{1}{m_{i}}\psi\bigg(\frac{m_{i}}{N}\bigg)\times\\
&\times&\prod_{i=2}^{\mu_{1}+2}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}+m_{i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\bigg[n_{3}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{2}+n_{3}+m_{\mu_{1}+1,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{3}+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&& -n_{3}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+n_{3}+m_{\mu_{1}+1,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{3}+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&+n_{1}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+n_{2}+m_{\mu_{1}+1,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&-n_{1}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+n_{3}+m_{\mu_{1}+1,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\bigg]\nonumber.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{The term in (\ref{line3})}\label{term3}Clearly we have\begin{equation}\label{line7}[\partial_{t},M]=\sum_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}}\frac{1}{(\mu_{12}+1)!}\bigg(-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\bigg)^{\mu_{12}+1}P^{\mu_{1}}[\partial_{t},P]P^{\mu_{2}},\end{equation} where\begin{equation}\label{line8}[\partial_{t},P]:\psi\mapsto S(SF_{t}\cdot S\psi);\end{equation} also we may compute\begin{eqnarray}\big[\partial_{x},[\partial_{x},M]\big]&=&\sum_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}}\frac{1}{(\mu_{12}+1)!}\bigg(-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\bigg)^{\mu_{12}+1}[\partial_{x},P^{\mu_{1}}QP^{\mu_{2}}]\nonumber\\
\label{line9}&=&\sum_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}}\frac{1}{(\mu_{12}+1)!}\bigg(-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\bigg)^{\mu_{1}+\mu_{2}+1}P^{\mu_{1}}[\partial_{x},Q]P^{\mu_{2}}\nonumber\\
&+&2\sum_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\mu_{3}}\frac{1}{(\mu_{13}+2)!}\bigg(-\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\bigg)^{\mu_{13}+2}\times\nonumber\\
\label{line10}&\times&P^{\mu_{1}}QP^{\mu_{2}}QP^{\mu_{3}}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} Using the fact that\begin{equation}[\partial_{t},P]-\mathrm{i}[\partial_{x},Q]:\psi\mapsto S(SG\cdot S\psi)\end{equation} where\begin{equation}G=F_{t}-\mathrm{i}F_{xx}=-2\mathrm{i}\mathbb{P}_{-}u_{x}+\frac{1}{2}\bigg(S((Su)^{2})-\mathbb{P}_{0}((Su)^{2})\bigg),\end{equation} we may write
\begin{eqnarray}
(\ref{line3})&=&\sum_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}}\frac{(-1)^{\mu_{12}}}{2^{\mu_{12}}(\mu_{12}+1)!}\big(\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{3}+\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{4}\big)\\
&+&\sum_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\mu_{3}}\frac{(-1)^{\mu_{13}+1}}{2^{\mu_{13}+2}(\mu_{13}+2)!}\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}\mu_{3}}^{5}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} Here, $\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{3}$ is defined in the Fourier space as
\begin{equation}(\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{3})_{n_{0}}=\mathrm{i}\sum_{\mathbf{v}\in S_{n_{0},\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{3}}\Lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{3\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}(u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{12}}})u_{n_{1}}u_{n_{2}},\end{equation} with the frequency set
\begin{eqnarray}\label{3-2}S_{n_{0},\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{3} &=&\big\{\mathbf{v}=(m_{1},\cdots,m_{\mu_{12}},n_{1},n_{2}):\\
&&\mathbf{v}\in\mathbb{Z}^{\mu_{12}+2},m_{i}\neq 0, n_{1}\neq 0,n_{0}>0;\nonumber\\
&&n_{2}<0,m_{1,\mu_{12}}+n_{1}+n_{2}=n_{0}\big\}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and the weight
\begin{eqnarray}\Lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{3\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}&=&n_{2}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{12}}\frac{1}{m_{i}}\psi\bigg(\frac{m_{i}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=0}^{2}\psi\bigg(\frac{n_{i}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=2}^{\mu_{1}+1}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+n_{2}+m_{i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\bigg[\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{2}+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)-\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\bigg].\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The term $\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{4}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{4-1}
(\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{4})_{n_{0}}=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{4}\mathbb{P}_{0}((Su)^{2})\sum_{\mathbf{v}\in S_{n_{0},\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{4}}\Lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{4\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}(u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{12}}})u_{n_{1}},
\end{equation} with frequency set
\begin{eqnarray}\label{4-2}
S_{n_{0},\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{4}&=&\big\{\mathbf{v}=(m_{1},\cdots,m_{\mu_{12}},n_{1}):\\
&&\mathbf{v}\in\mathbb{Z}^{\mu_{12}+1},m_{i}\neq 0, n_{1}\neq 0,n_{0}>0;\nonumber\\
&&m_{1,\mu_{12}}+n_{1}=n_{0}\big\};\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} and weight \begin{eqnarray}\label{4-3}
\Lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{4\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}&=&\psi\bigg(\frac{n_{0}}{N}\bigg)\psi\bigg(\frac{n_{1}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{12}}\frac{1}{m_{i}}\psi\bigg(\frac{m_{i}}{N}\bigg)\times\\
&\times&\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+1,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=2}^{\mu_{12}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The term $\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}\mu_{3}}^{5}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{5-1}(\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}\mu_{3}}^{5})_{n_{0}}=\mathrm{i}\sum_{\mathbf{v}\in S_{n_{0},\mu_{1}\mu_{2}\mu_{3}}^{5}}\Lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{5\mu_{1}\mu_{2}\mu_{3}}(u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{13}}})u_{n_{1}}u_{n_{2}}u_{n_{3}},\end{equation} with frequency set
\begin{eqnarray}\label{5-2}S_{n_{0},\mu_{1}\mu_{2}\mu_{3}}^{5}&=&\big\{\mathbf{v}=(m_{1},\cdots,m_{\mu_{13}},n_{1},n_{2},n_{3}):\\
&&\mathbf{v}\in\mathbb{Z}^{\mu_{13}+3},m_{i}\neq 0, n_{1}n_{2}n_{3}\neq 0,n_{0}>0;\nonumber\\
&&m_{1,\mu_{13}}+n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}=n_{0}\big\}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} and weight
\begin{eqnarray}\label{5-3}
\Lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{5\mu_{1}\mu_{2}\mu_{3}}&=&\prod_{i=2}^{\mu_{1}+1}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}+m_{i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\times\\
&\times&\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{13}}\frac{1}{m_{i}}\psi\bigg(\frac{m_{i}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=0}^{3}\psi\bigg(\frac{n_{i}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{3}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{3}+m_{\mu_{12}+i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\bigg[\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+n_{2}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=2}^{\mu_{2}+1}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&+\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+n_{2}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{3}+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&-2\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}+1}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{2}+n_{3}+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\bigg].
\end{eqnarray}
Next, we shall rewrite a part of the weight $\Lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{3\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}$ as \begin{eqnarray}\frac{1}{m_{1}\cdots m_{\mu_{12}}}&=&\frac{1}{m_{1}\cdots m_{12}}\psi_{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}}{|n_{0}|+|n_{2}|}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{1}{|n_{0}|+|n_{2}|-n_{1}}\psi_{1}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}}{|n_{0}|+|n_{2}|}\bigg)\sum_{i=1}^{\mu_{12}}\frac{1}{m_{1}\cdots m_{i-1}m_{i+1}\cdots m_{\mu_{12}}},\nonumber\end{eqnarray} then rename the variables (separating the cases $i\leq \mu_{1}$ and $i>\mu_{1}$) to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}(\ref{line3})&=&\sum_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}}\frac{(-1)^{\mu_{12}}}{2^{\mu_{12}}(\mu_{12}+1)!}\big(\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}0}^{3}+\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{4}\big)\\
&+&\sum_{\mu_{1}+\mu_{2}\geq 1}\sum_{i=1}^{\mu_{12}}\frac{(-1)^{\mu_{12}}}{2^{\mu_{12}}(\mu_{12}+1)!}\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}i}^{3}\nonumber\\
&+&\sum_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\mu_{3}}\frac{(-1)^{\mu_{13}+1}}{2^{\mu_{13}+2}(\mu_{13}+2)!}\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}\mu_{3}}^{5},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}where in the Fourier space
\begin{equation}\label{3-1}(\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}0}^{3})_{n_{0}}=\mathrm{i}\sum_{\mathbf{v}\in S_{n_{0},\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{3}}\Lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{3\mu_{1}\mu_{2}0}(u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{12}}})u_{n_{1}}u_{n_{2}},\end{equation} with frequency set $S_{n_{0},\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{3}$ is as in (\ref{3-2}), and new weight
\begin{eqnarray}\label{3-3}\Lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{3\mu_{1}\mu_{2}0}&=&\prod_{i=2}^{\mu_{1}+1}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+n_{2}+m_{i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\times\\
&\times&n_{2}\psi_{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}}{|n_{0}|+|n_{2}|}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{12}}\frac{1}{m_{i}}\psi\bigg(\frac{m_{i}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=0}^{2}\psi\bigg(\frac{n_{i}}{N}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\bigg[\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{2}+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)-\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\bigg];\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} the other term will be
\begin{equation}\label{3-4}(\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}i}^{3})_{n_{0}}=\mathrm{i}\sum_{\mathbf{v}\in S_{n_{0},\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{3.1}}\Lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{3\mu_{1}\mu_{2}i}(u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{12}-1}})u_{n_{1}}u_{n_{2}}u_{n_{3}},\end{equation} where the new frequency set is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{3-5}
S_{n_{0},\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{3.1}&=&\big\{\mathbf{v}=(m_{1},\cdots,m_{\mu_{12}-1},n_{1},n_{2},n_{3}):\\
&&\mathbf{v}\in\mathbb{Z}^{\mu_{12}+2},m_{i}\neq 0, n_{1}n_{2}\neq 0,n_{0}>0;\nonumber\\
&&n_{3}<0,m_{1,\mu_{12}-1}+n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}=n_{0}\big\};\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} the new weight is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{3-6}\Lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{3\mu_{1}\mu_{2}i}&=&\frac{n_{3}}{|n_{0}|+|n_{3}|-n_{1}}\psi_{1}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}}{|n_{0}|+|n_{3}|}\bigg)\prod_{j=1}^{\mu_{12}-1}\frac{1}{m_{j}}\psi\bigg(\frac{m_{j}}{N}\bigg)\times\\
&\times&\prod_{j=0}^{3}\psi\bigg(\frac{n_{j}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{j=2}^{i}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}+m_{j,\mu_{12}-1}}{N}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\prod_{j=i+1}^{\mu_{1}+1}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+n_{3}+m_{j-1,\mu_{12}-1}}{N}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\bigg[\prod_{j=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{3}+m_{\mu_{1}+j-1,\mu_{12}-1}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&-\prod_{j=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+j-1,\mu_{12}-1}}{N}\bigg)\bigg]\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} for $1\leq i\leq \mu_{1}$, and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{3-62}\Lambda_{\mathbf{v}}^{3\mu_{1}\mu_{2}i}&=&\frac{n_{3}}{|n_{0}|+|n_{3}|-n_{1}}\psi_{1}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}}{|n_{0}|+|n_{3}|}\bigg)\prod_{j=1}^{\mu_{12}-1}\frac{1}{m_{j}}\psi\bigg(\frac{m_{j}}{N}\bigg)\times\\&\times&\prod_{j=0}^{3}\psi\bigg(\frac{n_{j}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{j=2}^{\mu_{1}+1}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}+m_{j,\mu_{12}-1}}{N}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\bigg[\prod_{j=1}^{i-\mu_{1}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{2}+n_{3}+m_{\mu_{1}+j,\mu_{12}-1}}{N}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
&&\times\prod_{j=i-\mu_{1}+1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{3}+m_{\mu_{1}+j-1,\mu_{12}-1}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&-\prod_{j=1}^{i-\mu_{1}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+n_{2}+m_{\mu_{1}+j,\mu_{12}-1}}{N}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
&&\times\prod_{j=i-\mu_{1}+1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+j-1,\mu_{12}-1}}{N}\bigg)\bigg]\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} for $\mu_{1}+1\leq i\leq \mu_{12}$.
\subsection{Summary} Now we have obtained a first version of the equation satisfied by $w$, namely
\begin{eqnarray}\label{000}
(\partial_{t}-\mathrm{i}\partial_{xx})w&=&\sum_{\mu_{1}\geq 1}\sum_{i=1}^{\mu_{1}}\frac{(-1)^{\mu_{1}}}{2^{\mu_{1}-1}\mu_{1}!}\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}i}^{1}\\
&+&\sum_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}}\frac{(-1)^{\mu_{12}}(\mu_{1}+1)}{2^{\mu_{12}+1}(\mu_{12}+2)!}\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{2}\nonumber\\
&+&\sum_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}}\frac{(-1)^{\mu_{12}}}{2^{\mu_{12}}(\mu_{12}+1)!}\big(\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}0}^{3}+\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{4}\big)\nonumber\\
&+&\sum_{\mu_{1}+\mu_{2}\geq 1}\sum_{i=1}^{\mu_{12}}\frac{(-1)^{\mu_{12}}}{2^{\mu_{12}}(\mu_{12}+1)!}\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}i}^{3}\nonumber\\
&+&\sum_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\mu_{3}}\frac{(-1)^{\mu_{13}+1}}{2^{\mu_{13}+2}(\mu_{13}+2)!}\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}\mu_{3}}^{5},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where:
the term $\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}i}^{1}$ is defined in (\ref{k1.2}), (\ref{1-2}) and (\ref{1-3});
the term $\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{2}$ is defined in (\ref{freqset}), (\ref{2-1}), and (\ref{2-3});
the term $\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}0}^{3}$ is defined in (\ref{3-2}), (\ref{3-1}), and (\ref{3-3});
the term $\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}i}^{3}$ is defined in (\ref{3-4}), (\ref{3-5}), (\ref{3-6}), and (\ref{3-62});
the term $\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{4}$ is defined in (\ref{4-1}), (\ref{4-2}), and (\ref{4-3});
the term $\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}\mu_{3}}^{5}$ is defined in (\ref{5-1}), (\ref{5-2}), and (\ref{5-3}).
In the next section we will further examine the structure of these terms.
\section{The gauge transform II: A miraculous cancellation}\label{gaugetransform2}
In this section we identify the bad resonant terms coming from each $\mathcal{K}^{j}$ term in (\ref{000}). Our computation will show that these bad terms will eventually add up to zero, leaving only the better-behaved ones. Throughout this section we will use a variable $k$, and define $\theta=\psi(k/N)$, $\eta=\psi'(k/N)$.
\subsection{The resonant terms in $\mathcal{K}^{1}$} In the expression (\ref{k1.2}), let $n_{1}+n_{2}=0$. Notice that $n_{1}<0$, we get a sum
\begin{equation}
-\mathrm{i}n_{0}\sum_{k>0}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum_{m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu_{1}-1}=n_{0}}\Delta\cdot \frac{u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{1}-1}}}{m_{1}\cdots m_{\mu_{1}-1}},
\end{equation} where we always assume $m_{i}\neq 0$, and the factor
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta&=&\prod_{j=1}^{\mu_{1}-1}\psi\bigg(\frac{m_{j}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{j=i+1}^{\mu_{1}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k-m_{j-1,\mu_{1}-1}}{N}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\prod_{j=2}^{i}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{m_{j,\mu_{1}-1}}{N}\bigg)\frac{k}{|n_{0}|+|k|}\psi\bigg(\frac{n_{0}}{N}\bigg)\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k}{N}\bigg).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} We then replace each variable in this expression, except $k$, by zero\footnote[1]{Strictly speaking, we should replace $n$ by $m_{1,\mu_{1}-1}$ and cancel each $m_{j}$ in the numerator before this process, but the results will be the same and no estimate is affected.}, and get a term which reads \begin{equation}
-\mathrm{i}n_{0}\sum_{k>0}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum_{m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu_{1}-1}=n_{0}}\theta^{2(\mu_{1}-i+1)}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{1}-1}\frac{u_{m_{i}}}{m_{i}}.
\end{equation}Note that the summation over the $m_{i}$'s gives exactly $((\mathrm{i}F)^{\mu_{1}-1})_{n_{0}}$, we can then sum over $\mu_{1}$ and $i$ to get
\begin{eqnarray}(\mathcal{R}^{1})_{n_{0}}&=&-\mathrm{i}\sum_{k>0}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum_{\mu_{1}\geq 1}\frac{(-1)^{\mu_{1}}}{2^{\mu_{1}-1}\mu_{1}!}n_{0}((\mathrm{i}F)^{\mu_{1}-1})_{n_{0}}\sum_{i=1}^{\mu_{1}}\theta^{2(\mu_{1}-i+1)}\\
&=&-\sum_{k>0}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum_{\mu_{1}\geq 1}\frac{(-1)^{\mu_{1}}}{2^{\mu_{1}-1}\mu_{1}!}(\partial_{x}(\mathrm{i}F)^{\mu_{1}-1})_{n_{0}}\sum_{i=1}^{\mu_{1}}\theta^{2(\mu_{1}-i+1)}\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{k>0}\sum_{\mu\geq 0}\frac{\mathrm{i}|u_{k}|^{2}}{(\mu+2)!}\bigg(u\bigg(-\frac{\mathrm{i}F}{2}\bigg)^{\mu}\bigg)_{n_{0}}\cdot \mathcal{C}^{1},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where \begin{equation}\mathcal{C}^{1}=-\frac{\mu+1}{2}\big(\theta^{2}+\theta^{4}+\cdots +\theta^{2\mu+4}\big),\end{equation} and we have dropped the dependence of $\mathcal{C}^{1}$ on $k$ and $\mu$ for simplicity.
\subsection{The resonant terms in $\mathcal{K}^{2}$}
In the expression (\ref{2-1}), let $n_{2}+n_{3}=0$ to obtain a term
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\sum_{k\neq 0}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum_{n_{1}+m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu_{12}}=n_{0}}\Delta\cdot\frac{u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{12}}}}{m_{1}\cdots m_{\mu_{12}}}u_{n_{1}},
\end{equation}where the factor
\begin{eqnarray}\label{factor2.1}
\Delta &=&\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=0}^{1}\psi\bigg(\frac{n_{i}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{12}}\psi\bigg(\frac{m_{i}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=2}^{\mu_{1}+2}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\times\\
&\times&\bigg[-\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{m_{\mu_{1}+1,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&& +\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k+n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+1,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{n_{1}}{k}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+1,\mu_{12}}-k}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{n_{1}}{k}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+1,\mu_{12}}+k}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\bigg]\nonumber.
\end{eqnarray} We then discard the last two summands in the bracket, and in what remains replace each variable except $k$ by zero to get
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\sum_{k\neq 0}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum_{n_{1}+m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu_{12}}=n_{0}}(\theta^{2\mu_{2}+4}-\theta^{2\mu_{2}+2})\cdot\frac{u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{12}}}}{m_{1}\cdots m_{\mu_{12}}}u_{n_{1}}.
\end{equation} Since the summation over $m_{i}$ and $n_{1}$ gives exactly $(u\cdot (iF)^{\mu_{12}})_{n_{0}}$, we can then sum over $\mu_{1}$ and $\mu_{2}$ to obtain an expression which involves a sum over all $k\neq 0$. We may include a factor of $2$ and restrict to $k>0$ (since $\theta$ is even in $k$), and then take into account the symmetry with respect to $n_{1}$ and $n_{3}$ (namely, we are considering also the term where $n_{1}+n_{2}=0$) to include another factor of $2$, and the final expression will be
\begin{eqnarray}(\mathcal{R}^{2.1})_{n_{0}}&=&2\mathrm{i}\sum_{k>0}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum_{\mu\geq 0}\frac{(-1)^{\mu}}{2^{\mu+1}(\mu+2)!}(u(\mathrm{i}F)^{\mu})_{n_{0}}\times\\
&\times&\sum_{\mu_{2}=0}^{\mu}(\mu-\mu_{2}+1)(\theta^{2\mu_{2}+4}-\theta^{2\mu_{2}+2})\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{k>0}\sum_{\mu\geq 0}\frac{\mathrm{i}|u_{k}|^{2}}{(\mu+2)!}\bigg(u\bigg(-\frac{\mathrm{i}F}{2}\bigg)^{\mu}\bigg)_{n_{0}}\cdot \mathcal{C}^{2},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C}^{2}=-(\mu+1)\theta^{2}+(\theta^{4}+\cdots+\theta^{2\mu+4}).
\end{equation}
The other possibility is when $n_{1}+n_{3}=0$. In this case we rename $n_{2}$ by $n_{1}$ and get
\begin{equation}\label{0-2-3}
\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\sum_{k\neq0}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum_{n_{1}+m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu_{12}}=n_{0}}\Delta\cdot \frac{u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{12}}}u_{n_{1}}}{m_{1}\cdots m_{\mu_{1}-1}n_{1}},
\end{equation} where the factor
\begin{eqnarray}\label{1-2-3}
\Delta&=&\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=0}^{1}\psi\bigg(\frac{n_{i}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{12}}\psi\bigg(\frac{m_{i}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=2}^{\mu_{1}+2}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\times\\
&\times&k\bigg[\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k+n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+1,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&& -\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k-n_{1}-m_{\mu_{1}+1,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k-m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&-\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{m_{\mu_{1}+1,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&+\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{m_{\mu_{1}+1,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k-m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\bigg]\nonumber.
\end{eqnarray} Next, we examine the terms in the bracket, which basically can be written, for some $\sigma_{j}$ which are linear combinations of $n_{1}$ and $m_{i}$, as $\prod_{j}\psi^{2}((k+\sigma_{j})/N)-\prod_{j}\psi^{2}((k-\sigma_{j})/N)$. We then replace this expression by $4\theta^{2\mu-1}\eta\sum_{j}\frac{\sigma_{j}}{N}$, where $\mu$ is the number of factors. If we plug into (\ref{1-2-3}) this and the expression of each $\sigma_{j}$, cancel each $n_{1}$ or $m_{i}$ factor with the corresponding denominator in (\ref{0-2-3}), and finally replace each variable other than $k$ by zero, we will get a term which, up to a rearrangement of variables, reads as
\begin{eqnarray}&&2\mathrm{i}\sum_{k\neq 0}\frac{k}{N}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum_{n_{1}+m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu_{12}}=n_{0}}\cdot\frac{u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{12}}}}{m_{1}\cdots m_{\mu_{12}}}u_{n_{1}}\times\\
&\times&\bigg(\frac{(\mu_{2}+1)(\mu_{2}+2)}{2}\theta^{2\mu_{2}+3}\eta-\frac{\mu_{2}(\mu_{2}+1)}{2}\theta^{2\mu_{2}+1}\eta\bigg).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} We may restrict to $k>0$ since $\eta$ is odd, and then sum over $\mu_{1}$ and $\mu_{2}$ to obtain \begin{eqnarray}(\mathcal{R}^{2.2})_{n_{0}}&=&4\mathrm{i}\sum_{k>0}\frac{k\eta}{N}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum_{\mu\geq 0}\sum_{\mu_{2}=0}^{\mu}\frac{(-1)^{\mu}}{2^{\mu+1}(\mu+2)!}\times\\
&\times&(u(\mathrm{i}F)^{\mu})_{n_{0}}(\mu-\mu_{2}+1)\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\bigg(\frac{(\mu_{2}+1)(\mu_{2}+2)}{2}\theta^{2\mu_{2}+3}-\frac{\mu_{2}(\mu_{2}+1)}{2}\theta^{2\mu_{2}+1}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{k>0}\sum_{\mu\geq 0}\frac{\mathrm{i}k\eta|u_{k}|^{2}}{N(\mu+2)!}\bigg(u\bigg(-\frac{\mathrm{i}F}{2}\bigg)^{\mu}\bigg)_{n_{0}}\cdot \mathcal{D}^{2},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{D}^{2}=2\theta^{3}+\cdots+\mu(\mu+1)\theta^{2\mu+1}+(\mu+1)(\mu+2)\theta^{2\mu+3}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{The resonant terms in $\mathcal{K}^{3}$} In the expression (\ref{3-1}), let $n_{1}+n_{2}=0$. Note that $n_{2}<0$, we obtain a term
\begin{equation}\mathrm{i}\sum_{k>0}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum_{m_{1}+\cdots +m_{\mu_{12}}=n_{0}}\Delta\cdot\frac{u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{12}}}}{m_{1}\cdots m_{\mu_{12}}},\end{equation} where the factor
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta &=&-k\psi_{2}\bigg(\frac{k}{|n_{0}|+|k|}\bigg)\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=2}^{\mu_{1}+1}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{m_{i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{12}}\psi\bigg(\frac{m_{i}}{N}\bigg)\times\\
&\times&\psi\bigg(\frac{n_{0}}{N}\bigg)\bigg[\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k-m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)-\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\bigg].\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} Then we replace the term in the bracket by $-4\theta^{2\mu_{2}-1}\eta\sum_{i}(m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}/N)$, cancel the corresponding $m_{j}$ factor in the denominator, and replace all the variables except $k$ by zero to obtain, after a rearrangement of variables, the sum
\begin{equation}4\mathrm{i}\sum_{k>0}\frac{k}{N}|u_{k}|^{2}\frac{\mu_{2}(\mu_{2}+1)}{2}\theta^{2\mu_{2}+1}\eta\sum_{n_{1}+m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu_{12}-1}=n_{0}}\cdot\frac{u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{12}-1}}}{m_{1}\cdots m_{\mu_{12}-1}}u_{n_{1}}.\end{equation} Then we sum over $\mu_{1}$ and $\mu_{2}$ to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}(\mathcal{R}^{3.1})_{n_{0}}&=&4\mathrm{i}\sum_{k>0}\frac{k\eta}{N}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum_{\mu\geq 0}\frac{(-1)^{\mu+1}}{2^{\mu+1}(\mu+2)!}\times\\
&\times&(u(\mathrm{i}F)^{\mu})_{n_{0}}\bigg(\sum_{\mu_{2}=0}^{\mu}\frac{\mu_{2}(\mu_{2}+1)}{2}\theta^{2\mu_{2}+1}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{k>0}\sum_{\mu\geq 0}\frac{\mathrm{i}k\eta|u_{k}|^{2}}{N(\mu+2)!}\bigg(u\bigg(-\frac{\mathrm{i}F}{2}\bigg)^{\mu}\bigg)_{n_{0}}\cdot \mathcal{D}^{3},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{D}^{3}=-\big(2\theta^{3}+\cdots+\mu(\mu+1)\theta^{2\mu+1}+(\mu+1)(\mu+2)\theta^{2\mu+3}\big).
\end{equation}
Next, in the expression (\ref{3-4}), let $n_{2}+n_{3}=0$, note that $n_{3}<0$, we get a term
\begin{equation}\mathrm{i}\sum_{k>0}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum_{n_{1}+m_{1}+\cdots +m_{\mu_{12}-1}=n_{0}}\Delta\cdot\frac{u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{12}-1}}}{m_{1}\cdots m_{\mu_{12}-1}}u_{n_{1}},\end{equation} where the factor
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta &=&\frac{-k}{|k|+|n_{0}|-n_{1}}\psi_{1}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}}{|k|+|n_{0}|}\bigg)\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k}{N}\bigg)\prod_{j=1}^{\mu_{12}-1}\psi\bigg(\frac{m_{j}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{j=0}^{1}\psi\bigg(\frac{n_{j}}{N}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\prod_{j=2}^{i}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{j,\mu_{12}-1}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{j=i+1}^{\mu_{1}+1}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k-n_{1}-m_{j-1,\mu_{12}-1}}{N}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\bigg[\prod_{j=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k-m_{\mu_{1}+j-1,\mu_{12}-1}}{N}\bigg)-\prod_{j=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+j-1,\mu_{12}-1}}{N}\bigg)\bigg]\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} for $1\leq i\leq \mu_{1}$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta &=&\frac{-k}{|k|+|n_{0}|-n_{1}}\psi_{1}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}}{|k|+|n_{0}|}\bigg)\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k}{N}\bigg)\prod_{j=1}^{\mu_{12}-1}\psi\bigg(\frac{m_{j}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{j=2}^{\mu_{1}+1}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{i,\mu_{12}-1}}{N}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
&\times &\prod_{j=0}^{1}\psi\bigg(\frac{n_{j}}{N}\bigg)\bigg[\prod_{j=1}^{i-\mu_{1}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{m_{\mu_{1}+j,\mu_{12}-1}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{j=i-\mu_{1}+1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k-m_{\mu_{1}+j-1,\mu_{12}-1}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&-\prod_{j=1}^{i-\mu_{1}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k+n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+j,\mu_{12}-1}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{j=i-\mu_{1}+1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+j-1,\mu_{12}-1}}{N}\bigg)\bigg]\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} for $\mu_{1}+1\leq i\leq \mu_{1}+\mu_{2}$. Then we replace every variable other than $k$ by zero, and sum over $i$ to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&&-\mathrm{i}\sum_{k>0}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum_{n_{1}+m_{1}+\cdots +m_{\mu_{12}-1}=n_{0}}\frac{u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{12}-1}}}{m_{1}\cdots m_{\mu_{12}-1}}u_{n_{1}}\times\nonumber\\
&\times &\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^{\mu_{1}}(\theta^{2\mu_{12}-2i+4}-\theta^{2\mu_{1}-2i+4})+\sum_{i=\mu_{1}+1}^{\mu_{12}}(\theta^{2\mu_{12}-2i+2}-\theta^{2i-2\mu_{1}+2})\bigg).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} We then sum over $\mu_{1}$ and $\mu_{2}$ to get
\begin{eqnarray}(\mathcal{R}^{3.2})_{n_{0}}&=&-\mathrm{i}\sum_{k>0}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum_{\mu\geq 0}\frac{(-1)^{\mu+1}}{2^{\mu+1}(\mu+2)!}(u(\mathrm{i}F)^{\mu})_{n_{0}}\times\\
&\times& \bigg(\sum_{\mu_{2}=0}^{\mu+1}\sum_{i=1}^{\mu+1-\mu_{2}}(\theta^{2\mu-2i+6}-\theta^{2\mu-2i-2\mu_{2}+6})\nonumber\\
&+&\sum_{\mu_{2}=0}^{\mu+1}\sum_{i=\mu+2-\mu_{2}}^{\mu+1}(\theta^{2\mu-2i+4}-\theta^{2i+2\mu_{2}-2\mu})\bigg)\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{k>0}\sum_{\mu\geq 0}\frac{\mathrm{i}|u_{k}|^{2}}{(\mu+2)!}\bigg(u\bigg(-\frac{\mathrm{i}F}{2}\bigg)^{\mu}\bigg)_{n_{0}}\cdot \mathcal{C}^{3},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C}^{3}=\frac{1}{2}\big((\mu+1)\theta^{2}+(-\mu-1)\theta^{4}+(-\mu+1)\theta^{6}+\cdots +(\mu-1)\theta^{2\mu+4}\big).
\end{equation}
\subsection{The resonant terms in $\mathcal{K}^{4}$} The whole term $\mathcal{K}^{4}$ should be viewed as resonant. Here we simply expand $\mathbb{P}_{0}((Su)^{2})=2\sum_{k>0}\theta^{2}|u_{k}|^{2}$, and replace every variable in (\ref{4-3}) by zero (after extracting the $\prod_{i}m_{i}^{-1}$ factor, as we have done before) to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}(\mathcal{R}^{4})_{n_{0}}&=&\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\sum_{k>0}\theta^{2}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum_{\mu\geq 0}\frac{(-1)^{\mu}}{2^{\mu}(\mu+1)!}(u(\mathrm{i}F)^{\mu})_{n_{0}}\times\sum_{\mu_{2}=0}^{\mu}1\\
&=&\sum_{k>0}\sum_{\mu\geq 0}\frac{\mathrm{i}|u_{k}|^{2}}{(\mu+2)!}\bigg(u\bigg(-\frac{\mathrm{i}F}{2}\bigg)^{\mu}\bigg)_{n_{0}}\cdot \mathcal{C}^{4},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C}^{4}=\frac{(\mu+1)(\mu+2)}{2}\theta^{2}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{The resonant terms in $\mathcal{K}^{5}$} In the expression (\ref{5-1}), consider the contribution where $n_{1}+n_{2}=0$, $n_{2}+n_{3}=0$, or where $n_{1}+n_{3}=0$. For each of these cases, we perform the same operation as in the above sections, and collect all the resulting terms (and rearrange the variables) to obtain
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{i}\sum_{k\neq 0}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum_{m_{1}+\cdots +m_{\mu_{13}}+n_{1}=n_{0}}\Delta\cdot\frac{u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{13}}}}{m_{1}\cdots m_{\mu_{13}}}u_{n_{1}},
\end{equation} where the net factor
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta&=&\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=2}^{\mu_{1}+1}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{13}}\psi\bigg(\frac{m_{i}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=0}^{1}\psi\bigg(\frac{n_{i}}{N}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\bigg[2\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k-n_{1}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{3}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k+m_{\mu_{12}+i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=2}^{\mu_{2}+1}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&+2\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k-n_{1}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{3}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k+m_{\mu_{12}+i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&-2\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{3}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k+m_{\mu_{12}+i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}+1}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&+\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{3}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{\mu_{12}+i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=2}^{\mu_{2}+1}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&+\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{3}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{\mu_{12}+i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&-2\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{3}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n_{1}+m_{\mu_{12}+i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}+1}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k+n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&-2\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{3}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k+m_{\mu_{12}+i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}+1}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{k+n_{1}+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{13}}}{N}\bigg)\bigg].\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} Then we replace each variable other than $k$ by zero, obtaining
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathrm{i}\sum_{k\neq 0}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum_{m_{1}+\cdots +m_{\mu_{13}}+n_{1}=n_{0}}\frac{u_{m_{1}}\cdots u_{m_{\mu_{13}}}}{m_{1}\cdots m_{\mu_{13}}}u_{n_{1}}\times\\
&\times&2\theta^{2}(\theta^{2\mu_{3}+2}-\theta^{2\mu_{2}+2}+1-\theta^{2\mu_{3}}).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} Again we restrict to $k>0$ and sum over $\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\mu_{3}$ to get
\begin{eqnarray}(\mathcal{R}^{5})_{n_{0}}&=&4\mathrm{i}\sum_{k>0}|u_{k}|^{2}\sum_{\mu\geq 0}\frac{(-1)^{\mu+1}}{2^{\mu+2}(\mu+2)!}(u(iF)^{\mu})_{n_{0}}\times\nonumber\\
&\times &\sum_{\mu_{1}+\mu_{2}+\mu_{3}=\mu}(\theta^{2\mu_{3}+4}-\theta^{2\mu_{2}+4}+\theta^{2}-\theta^{2\mu_{3}+2})\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{k>0}\sum_{\mu\geq 0}\frac{\mathrm{i}|u_{k}|^{2}}{(\mu+2)!}\bigg(u\bigg(-\frac{\mathrm{i}F}{2}\bigg)^{\mu}\bigg)_{n_{0}}\cdot \mathcal{C}^{5},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C}^{5}=-\frac{\mu(\mu+1)}{2}\theta^{2}+\mu\theta^{4}+(\mu-1)\theta^{6}+\cdots +2\theta^{2\mu}+\theta^{2\mu+2}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{When put together...} Now we can directly verify from the above computations that
\begin{equation}\mathcal{C}^{1}+\mathcal{C}^{2}+\mathcal{C}^{3}+\mathcal{C}^{4}+\mathcal{C}^{5}=0;\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\mathcal{D}^{2}+\mathcal{D}^{3}=0,\end{equation} which then implies
\begin{equation}\mathcal{R}^{1}+\mathcal{R}^{2.1}+\mathcal{R}^{2.2}+\mathcal{R}^{3.1}+\mathcal{R}^{3.2}+\mathcal{R}^{4}+\mathcal{R}^{5}=0.\end{equation}
\subsection{What remains?} Here we analyze what remains after we subtract from each $\mathcal{K}^{j}$ term the resonant contribution, and deduce a second version of the equation satisfied by $w$. To simplify the argument, we need to introduce a few more notions.
\begin{definition}We say a function $f:\mathbb{Z}\to \mathbb{R}$ is \emph{slowly varying of type $1$}, or $f\in SV_{1}$, if we have $|f(n)|\leq C$ and
\begin{equation}|f(n+1)-f(n)|\leq C\langle n\rangle^{-1}
\end{equation} for some constant $C$. We say $f$ is \emph{slowly varying of type $2$}, or $f\in SV_{2}$, if we have \begin{equation}|f(n+1)-f(n)|\leq C\langle n\rangle^{-1}(|f(n)|+|f(n+1)|)
\end{equation} for some constant $C$. For a function $f:\mathbb{Z}^{\mu}\to \mathbb{R}$, we say it is slowly varying of type $1$ or $2$ if it verifies the above inequalities for each single variable when the other variables are fixed, with uniformly bounded constants.
\begin{proposition}\label{gene} The following functions are in $SV_{1}$:
(1) function of the form $\phi(f_{1},\cdots,f_{k})$, where $f_{j}\in SV_{1}$, $\phi:\mathbb{R}^{k}\to\mathbb{R}$ is Lipschitz;
(2) function of the form $\phi(f_{1},\cdots,f_{k})$, where $f_{j}\in SV_{2}$, $\phi$ is smooth and is constant outside some compact set.
The following functions are in $SV_{2}$:
(3) any monomial (say $n_{1}^{2}$ or $n_{2}n_{3}$), or characteristic function of any set generated by $\{n_{j}>0\}$ and $\{n_{j}<0\}$;
(4) product or reciprocal of functions in $SV_{2}$ (with $1/f$ defined to be $1$ at points where $f=0$); $\max(f,g)$, $\min(f,g)$ or $f+g$ for nonnegative $f,g\in SV_{2}$;
(5) function of the form $|f|$, $\langle f\rangle$ or $(\max(f,0))^{\lambda}$, where $f\in SV_{2}$ and $\lambda>0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Omitted.
\end{proof}
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}\label{propneweqn} We have \begin{equation}\label{neweqn1}(\partial_{t}-\mathrm{i}\partial_{xx})w=\mathcal{H}=\sum_{\mu}C_{\mu}\mathcal{H}_{\mu},\end{equation}where $|C_{\mu}|\leq C^{\mu}/\mu!$ with some absolute constant $C$, and $\mathcal{H}_{\mu}=\mathcal{H}_{\mu}^{2}+\mathcal{H}_{\mu}^{3}+\mathcal{H}_{\mu}^{4}$. The $\mathcal{H}^{j}$ terms can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{neweqn3}(\mathcal{H}_{\mu}^{2})_{n_{0}}=\mathrm{i}\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}+m_{1}+\cdots +m_{\mu}=n_{0}}\min\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{1}\rangle,\langle n_{2}\rangle\}\cdot\Theta_{\mu}^{2}\prod_{l=1}^{2}u_{n_{l}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{u_{m_{i}}}{m_{i}};\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{neweqn4}(\mathcal{H}_{\mu}^{j})_{n_{0}}=\mathrm{i}\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots +n_{j}+m_{1}+\cdots +m_{\mu}=n_{0}}\Theta_{\mu}^{j}\prod_{l=1}^{j}u_{n_{l}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{u_{m_{i}}}{m_{i}},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,j\in\{3,4\},\end{equation}for positive $n_{0}$. For each $(\mu,j)$, the function \begin{equation}\Theta_{\mu}^{j}=\Theta_{\mu}^{j}(n_{0},n_{1},\cdots,n_{j},m_{1},\cdots,m_{\mu}),\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,j\in\{2,3,4\},\nonumber\end{equation} is a linear combination of products $\mathbf{1}_{E}\cdot\Theta$, where $E$ is some set generated by the sets $\{n_{h}+n_{l}=0\}, 1\leq h<l\leq j$, and $\Theta$ is\footnote[1]{Later we may slightly abuse the notation and use the term ``$\Theta$ factor'' or ``$\Theta^{j}$ factor'' to refer to both the $\Theta_{\mu}^{j}$ and the $\Theta$ here. Moreover, in the $SV_{1}$ bound and other estimates (see for example (\ref{neglect}) below) we may pick up factors depending on $\mu$; but they are clearly at most $O(1)^{\mu}$ so can be safely absorbed into the $C_{\mu}$ factor.} \emph{slowly varying of type $1$}; note in particular they are \emph{real valued}. Moreover we have the following:
(i) When $j=2$, $\Theta$ is nonzero only when \begin{equation}\label{neglect}\max_{i}\langle m_{i}\rangle\ll (\mu+1)^{-2}\min\big\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{1}\rangle,\langle n_{2}\rangle\big\}.\end{equation}
(ii) When $j=3$, if $E$ is contained in $\{n_{1}+n_{2}=0\}$ \emph{but not} $\{|n_{1}|=|n_{2}|=|n_{3}|\}$, we must have \begin{equation}|\Theta|\lesssim\min\bigg\{1,\frac{\langle n_{0}\rangle+\langle n_{3}\rangle}{\langle n_{1}\rangle}\bigg\}.\end{equation} The same holds for other permutations of $(1,2,3)$.
(iii) When $j=4$, we have
\begin{equation}|\Theta|\lesssim\big(\max_{0\leq l\leq 4}\langle n_{l}\rangle\big)^{-1}.\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}The estimate on the coefficients $C_{\mu}$, whose choice will be clear from the expressions we have, is elementary based on the factorial decay we have, and the simple observation that
\begin{equation}\frac{(\mu_{1}+\cdots +\mu_{k})!}{\mu_{1}!\cdots \mu_{k}!}\leq k^{\mu_{1}+\cdots +\mu_{k}},\end{equation} where in practice we always have (say) $k\leq30$. Next we shall examine the terms left after the subtraction of resonant ones, and define the $\Theta$ factors. We will first prove the boundedness of $\Theta$ and properties (i), (ii), (iii), and then show that $\Theta\in SV_{1}$.
Before proceeding, let us make one useful observation. If we have a term (temporarily called term of type $R$ for convenience) of type (\ref{neweqn3}) in which the $\Theta$ factor is bounded and is accompanied by some $\mathbf{1}_{E}$ with $E\subset\{n_{1}+n_{2}\neq 0\}$, then we can use a smooth cutoff (similar to $\psi_{1}$ or $\psi_{2}$) to separate the part where (\ref{neglect}) holds, and the part where $\langle m_{i}\rangle\gtrsim(\mu+1)^{-2}\min\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{1}\rangle,\langle n_{2}\rangle\}$ for some $1\leq i\leq \mu$; in the former case we have $\mathcal{H}_{\mu}^{2}$, and in the latter case we promote $m_{i}$ and rename it $n_{3}$ to obtain $\mathcal{H}_{\mu-1}^{3}$ (since here the $\Theta^{3}$ factor is bounded, $n_{1}+n_{2}\neq 0$, and if $n_{l}+n_{3}=0$ for $l\in\{1,2\}$, then the $\Theta^{3}$ factor will have an $n_{3}$ on the denominator, and at most $\langle n_{0}\rangle$ on the numerator). Also we may assume that all the $n_{l}$ and $m_{i}$ variables are nonzero and $\lesssim N$.
The first contribution we need to consider is when none of the equalities we proposed in obtaining the $\mathcal{R}^{j}$ terms hold; these include the contribution from each $\mathcal{K}^{j}$ which we discuss separately.
For the part in $\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}i}^{1}$ we have $n_{1}+n_{2}\neq 0$. If $\langle n_{2}\rangle\gtrsim\langle n_{0}\rangle+\langle n_{1}\rangle$, then we have a term of type $R$ and obtain either $\mathcal{H}_{\mu_{1}-1}^{2}$ or $\mathcal{H}_{\mu_{1}-2}^{3}$. Now if $\langle n_{2}\rangle \ll\langle n_{0}\rangle+\langle n_{1}\rangle$, then $\langle m_{j}\rangle \gtrsim\langle n_{0}\rangle +\langle n_{1}\rangle$ for at least one $j$, so we can promote that $m_{j}$ and rename it $n_{3}$ to obtain $\mathcal{H}_{\mu_{1}-2}^{3}$, due to a similar argument as above and the restriction $n_{1}+n_{2}\neq 0$.
For the part of $\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}^{2}$, no $n_{h}+n_{l}=0$ happens. In the expression (\ref{2-3}), first assume $\langle n_{3}\rangle$ (or, by symmetry, $\langle n_{1}\rangle$) is $\lesssim\min\{\langle n_{0}\rangle ,\langle n_{1}\rangle,\langle n_{3}\rangle\big\} $, then the first two terms in the bracket on the right hand side of (\ref{2-3}) contributes at most $O(\langle n_{3}\rangle)$, so for this term we may relegate $n_{2}$ (rename it by some $m_{i}$) to obtain a term of type $R$. For the last two terms in the bracket, the contribution is at most $N^{-1}\langle n_{1}\rangle(\langle n_{2}\rangle+\langle n_{3}\rangle)$, which is a sum of two terms. One of them is at most $\langle n_{3}\rangle$ and can be treated as above; the other can be cancelled by the $n_{2}^{-1}$ factor and we get $\mathcal{H}_{\mu_{12}}^{3}$ (since we have pre-assumed that no $n_{h}+n_{l}$ can be zero).
Next suppose (say) $\langle n_{0}\rangle\ll\langle n_{3}\rangle\ll\langle n_{1}\rangle$. In this case the first two terms in bracket on the right hand side of (\ref{2-3}) contributes at most $\langle n_{3}\rangle$, and at least one of $\langle m_{j}\rangle$ or $\langle n_{2}\rangle$ must be $\gtrsim\langle n_{1}\rangle$ here, so we get $\mathcal{H}_{\mu_{12}-1}^{3}$ after making appropriate promotion or relegations; the last two terms contribute at most $N^{-1}\langle n_{1}\rangle(\langle n_{2}\rangle+\langle n_{3}\rangle)$, which is bounded either by $\langle n_{3}\rangle$ (which can be treated the same way as above), or $N^{-1}\langle n_{1}\rangle\langle n_{2}\rangle$ (which is cancelled by the $n_{2}^{-1}$ to obtain $\mathcal{H}_{\mu_{12}-1}^{3}$).
The only remaining possibility is $\langle n_{0}\rangle\ll \langle n_{1}\rangle\sim\langle n_{3}\rangle$. we may write
\begin{equation}\tau_{1}(n)=\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{2}}\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n+m_{\mu_{1}+i,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\end{equation} and \begin{equation}\tau_{2}(n)=\psi^{2}\bigg(\frac{n+n_{2}+m_{\mu_{1}+1,\mu_{12}}}{N}\bigg)\tau_{1}(n),\end{equation} so the net contribution in the bracket will be
\begin{equation}(n_{3}\tau_{2}(n_{3})+n_{1}\tau_{2}(n_{1}))-\psi^{2}(n_{3}\tau_{1}(n_{3})+n_{1}\tau_{1}(n_{1}))\nonumber\end{equation} with some factor $\psi$. Since we can write
\begin{equation}\label{n0small}n_{3}\tau_{j}(n_{3})+n_{1}\tau_{j}(n_{1})=(n_{1}+n_{3})\tau_{j}(n_{3})+n_{1}(\tau_{j}(n_{1})-\tau_{j}(n_{3})),\end{equation} and $n_{1}+n_{3}$ is a linear combination of $n_{0}$, $n_{2}$ and $m_{i}$, the first term on the right hand side of (\ref{n0small}) will be bounded either by $\langle n_{0}\rangle$ (in which case we have a term of type $R$),or by $\langle n_{2}\rangle$ (in which case we obtain $\mathcal{H}_{\mu_{12}-1}^{3}$), or by some $\langle m_{j}\rangle$ (in which case we relegate $n_{2}$ and promote $m_{j}$ to obtain $\mathcal{H}_{\mu_{12}-1}^{3}$ under the restriction $\langle n_{1}\rangle\sim\langle n_{3}\rangle$). The contribution of the second term will be bounded by $N^{-1}\langle n_{1}\rangle$ times either $\langle n_{0}\rangle$ (in which case we have a term of type $R$), $\langle n_{2}\rangle$ (in which case we have a part of $\mathcal{H}_{\mu_{12}-1}^{3}$), or some $\langle m_{j}\rangle$ (in which case we relegate $n_{2}$ and promote $m_{j}$ to get $\mathcal{H}_{\mu_{12}-1}^{3}$).
For the part of $\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}0}^{3}$ we have $n_{1}+n_{2}\neq 0$. By the assumptions about this term, if $\langle n_{0}\rangle\gtrsim\langle n_{2}\rangle$, we will have a term of type $R$. Now assume $\langle n_{0}\rangle\ll\langle n_{2}\rangle$, we can extract from the bracket in (\ref{3-3}) a factor of $n_{0}/N$ or $m_{i}/N$. If we have an $n_{0}/N$ factor then the net $\Theta$ factor will be $\lesssim\langle n_{0}\rangle$ and we again have a term of type $R$; if we have an $m_{i}/N$ factor then we may cancel this with the $1/m_{i}$ factor, promote this $m_{i}$ and rename it $n_{3}$, to obtain $\mathcal{H}_{\mu_{12}-2}^{3}$. Notice that in this case the $\Theta$ factor is bounded by $\langle n_{2}\rangle/N\lesssim 1$, $n_{1}+n_{2}\neq 0$, and if $n_{2}+n_{3}=0$, we must have $\langle n_{1}\rangle \gtrsim\langle n_{2}\rangle$.
For the part of $\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}i}^{3}$ we have $n_{2}+n_{3}\neq 0$. We claim that this part is $\mathcal{H}_{\mu_{12}-1}^{3}$. In fact, this will be the case if both $n_{1}+n_{3}$ and $n_{1}+n_{2}$ are nonzero since the $\Theta$ factor is bounded; if $n_{1}+n_{3}=0$, then from the assumptions about the $\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}i}^{3}$ term we have $\langle n_{0}\rangle\gtrsim\langle n_{3}\rangle$, so we also have $\mathcal{H}_{\mu_{12}-1}^{3}$; if $n_{1}+n_{2}=0$, then either $\langle n_{0}\rangle$ or $\langle n_{3}\rangle$ must be $\gtrsim\langle n_{1}\rangle$, so we still have $\mathcal{H}_{\mu_{12}-1}^{3}$.
For the part of $\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}\mu_{3}}^{5}$, no $n_{h}+n_{l}=0$ happens. In this case the $\Theta$ factor is clearly bounded, thus we obtain $\mathcal{H}_{\mu_{13}}^{3}$.
Next, we have the ``error term'' which is some resonant contribution in $\mathcal{K}^{j}$ (for example, the contribution in $\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}i}^{1}$ where $n_{1}+n_{2}=0$) minus the corresponding $\mathcal{R}^{j}$. In this term we may specify some $k$ (for example, in the term corresponding to $\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}i}^{1}$ we will have $n_{1}=-k$ and $n_{2}=k$). From the computations made before, we can see that the corresponding terms may be written in an appropriate form so that the $\Theta$ factor is bounded even without subtracting $\mathcal{R}^{j}$. Note that here we may need to promote some $m_{i}$ so that we can include $m_{i}^{-1}$ in $\Theta$ to cancel certain factors (for example when dealing with $\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}i}^{1}$). Therefore, \emph{before subtracting the $\mathcal{R}^{j}$ terms}, the resonant contributions can be written in the form of (\ref{neweqn4}), with $j=3$, the $\Theta$ factor bounded, and (say) $n_{1}=-k$, $n_{2}=k$. In particular, if $\langle n_{0}\rangle +\langle n_{3}\rangle\gtrsim \langle k\rangle$, we will obtain $\mathcal{H}^{3}$ and subtraction of $\mathcal{R}^{j}$ will not affect this. Now we assume $\langle n_{0}\rangle +\langle n_{3}\rangle\ll \langle k\rangle$.
After the subtraction of the $\mathcal{R}^{j}$ factors, the $\Theta$ will remain bounded; moreover, it can be checked case-by-case that in the remaining term, we gain an additional factor of \begin{equation}\label{factor00}\min\bigg\{1,\frac{1}{\langle k\rangle}\bigg(\langle n_{0}\rangle+\langle n_{3}\rangle+\sum_{i=1}^{\mu}\langle m_{i}\rangle\bigg)\bigg\},\end{equation} if $n_{1}=-k$ and $n_{2}=k$. For example, say we are replacing $\prod_{j}\psi^{2}((k+\sigma_{j})/N)-\prod_{j}\psi^{2}((k-\sigma_{j})/N)$ by $4\theta^{2\mu-1}\eta\sum_{j}\frac{\sigma_{j}}{N}$, then the error term we introduce is at most $O(N^{-2}\langle\sigma_{j}\rangle^{2})$, which is then at most $O(N^{-2}\langle n_{l}\rangle^{2})$ or $O(N^{-2}\langle m_{i}\rangle^{2})$ for some $i$ and $l\in\{0,3\}$. Since this contribution can be cancelled by other factors to produce a bounded $\Theta$ even if we replace the power of $2$ by $1$ (which will be the case if we do not subtract the $\mathcal{R}^{j}$), we will have in the error term an additional factor as in (\ref{factor00}). The other factors are treated in the same way, provided that in some cases we replace the $N$ on the denominator by something larger than $\langle k\rangle$. This guarantees that either we obtain $\mathcal{H}^{3}$, or we may promote some $m_{i}$ to obtain $\mathcal{H}^{4}$.
Next, notice that in obtaining $\mathcal{R}^{2.1}$, we have discarded the last two terms in the bracket on the right hand side of (\ref{factor2.1}). However, they add up to produce a factor of at most $N^{-1}\langle n_{1}\rangle$, thus they can be included in $\mathcal{H}^{3}$. Finally, there are terms where at least \emph{two} of the proposed equalities hold (these term appear due to inclusion-exclusion principle), for example we have the term where $n_{1}+n_{2}=n_{2}+n_{3}=0$ in $\mathcal{K}_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}\mu_{3}}^{5}$, but by the discussion above, the corresponding $\Theta$ factor will be bounded, thus they can also be included in $\mathcal{H}^{3}$.
Now we only need to show $\Theta\in SV_{1}$. This will follow from Proposition \ref{gene}, since it can be checked that all the $\Theta$ factors are formed using rules (1) through (5) in that proposition, with rule (2) used at least once (in particular, all the cut-off factors we introduce will be in $SV_{1}$).
\end{proof}
\section{The gauge transform III: The final substitution}\label{gaugetransform3} Starting from equations (\ref{neweqn1}) and (\ref{neweqn3}), we need to make further substitutions before we can state and prove the main estimates. Here we introduce one more notation, namely when we write $g^{\omega}$ for a function $g$, where $\omega\in\{-1,1\}$, this will mean $g$ if $\omega=-1$, and $\overline{g}$ if $\omega=1$. Also in the following, we will use the letter $\upsilon$ to represent a function that can be either $u$ or $v$.
\subsection{From $u$ to $w$} Recall that $v=Mu$ and $w=\mathbb{P}_{+}v$, we have \begin{equation}u=\sum_{\mu}\frac{(-\mathrm{i})^{\mu}}{2^{\mu}\mu!}P^{\mu}v,\nonumber\end{equation} which then implies, for $n>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{possub}u_{n}=\sum_{\mu}\frac{(-1)^{\mu}}{2^{\mu}\mu!}\sum_{n_{1}+m_{1}+\cdots +m_{\mu}=n}\Psi_{\mu}\cdot v_{n_{1}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{u_{m_{i}}}{m_{i}},\end{equation} where \begin{equation}\Psi_{\mu}=\Psi_{\mu}(n,n_{1},m_{1},\cdots,m_{\mu})\nonumber\end{equation} is a product of $\psi$ factors. When $n<0$, since $u_{n}=\overline{u_{-n}}$, we have instead
\begin{equation}\label{negsub}u_{n}=\sum_{\mu}\frac{1}{2^{\mu}\mu!}\sum_{n_{1}+m_{1}+\cdots +m_{\mu}=n}\Psi_{\mu}\cdot (\overline{v})_{n_{1}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{u_{m_{i}}}{m_{i}},\end{equation} where we note $(\overline{v})_{n}=\overline{v_{-n}}$. By replacing each $u_{n_{l}}$ in (\ref{neweqn3}) with one of the above expressions, we can prove
\begin{proposition}\label{intereqn} We have \begin{equation}\label{intereqn0}(\partial_{t}-\mathrm{i}\partial_{xx})w=\mathcal{J}=\sum_{\mu}C_{\mu}\mathcal{J}_{\mu},\end{equation}where $|C_{\mu}|\lesssim C^{\mu}/\mu!$, the nonlinearity is written as\begin{equation}\mathcal{J}_{\mu}=\sum_{j\in\{2,3,3.5,4,4.5\}}\sum_{\omega\in\{-1,1\}^{[j]}}\mathcal{J}_{\mu}^{\omega j}.\end{equation} The terms are then
\begin{equation}\label{3term}(\mathcal{J}_{\mu}^{\omega j})_{n_{0}}=\mathrm{i}\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots +n_{j}+m_{1}+\cdots +m_{\mu}=n_{0}}\phi_{\mu}^{j}\prod_{l=1}^{j}(w^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{u_{m_{i}}}{m_{i}}\end{equation} for $j\in\{2,3\}$;
\begin{equation}\label{4.5term}(\mathcal{J}_{\mu}^{\omega j})_{n_{0}}=\mathrm{i}\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots+n_{[j]}+m_{1}+\cdots +m_{\mu}=n_{0}}\phi_{\mu}^{j}\prod_{l=1}^{[j]}(\upsilon^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{u_{m_{i}}}{m_{i}}\end{equation}for $j\in\{3.5,4,4.5\}$. Here the real valued weights
\begin{equation}\phi_{\mu}^{j}=\phi_{\mu}^{j}(n_{0},n_{1},\cdots,n_{[j]},m_{1},\cdots,m_{\mu}),
\end{equation} where $j\in\{2,3,3.5,4,4.5\}$, verify the following.
(i) When $j=2$, we have \begin{equation}|\phi_{\mu}^{2}|\lesssim \min\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{1}\rangle,\langle n_{2}\rangle\},\nonumber\end{equation} also $\phi_{\mu}^{2}$ is nonzero only when \begin{equation}\min\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{1}\rangle,\langle n_{2}\rangle\}\gg(\mu+1)^{2}\max_{i}\langle m_{i}\rangle.\nonumber\end{equation}
(ii) When $j=3$, we have $|\phi_{\mu}^{3}|\lesssim 1$; also when $n_{1}+n_{2}=0$, and neither $n_{1}$ or $n_{2}$ is related to $n_{3}$ by $m$ (here and after, we say two $n$ variables are ``related by $m$'', if their sum of difference belongs to some fixed, finite set of linear combinations of the $m$ variables), we will have
\begin{equation}\label{bound3.0}\big|\phi_{\mu}^{3}\big|\lesssim \min\bigg\{1,\frac{\langle n_{0}\rangle+\langle n_{3}\rangle}{\langle n_{1}\rangle}\bigg\},\nonumber\end{equation} and the estimate also holds for other permutations of $(1,2,3)$. Also, when all three of $(n_{1},n_{2},n_{3})$ are related by $m$, we are allowed to have $(\upsilon^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l}}$ instead of $(w^{\upsilon_{l}})_{n_{l}}$ in (\ref{3term}) for $j=3$.
(iii) When $j=3.5$, we have\begin{equation}\label {bound3.5}|\phi_{\mu}^{3.5}|\lesssim\frac{\min\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{1}\rangle,\langle n_{2}+n_{3}\rangle\}}{\max\{\langle n_{2}\rangle,\langle n_{3}\rangle\}}.\end{equation} Moreover, we can replace the $\upsilon$ in $(\upsilon^{\omega_{1}})_{n_{1}}$ in (\ref{4.5term}) for $j=3.5$ by $w$; also, if \begin{equation}(\max_{0\leq l\leq 3}\langle n_{l}\rangle)^{\frac{1}{2}}\ll\min_{0\leq l\leq 3}\langle n_{l}\rangle,\nonumber\end{equation} then $n_{2}$ and $n_{3}$ must have opposite sign.
(iv) When $j=4$, we have \begin{equation}|\phi_{\mu}^{4}|\lesssim \big(\max_{0\leq l\leq 4}\langle n_{l}\rangle^{\frac{1}{20}}+\min_{1\leq l\leq 4}\langle n_{l}\rangle\big)^{-1}.\nonumber\end{equation}
(v) When $j=4.5$, we have $n_{1}+n_{2}\neq 0$, and\begin{equation}|\phi_{\mu}^{4.5}|\lesssim \big(\langle n_{3}\rangle+\langle n_{4}\rangle\big)^{-1},\nonumber\end{equation} and this factor is nonzero only if \begin{equation}\max\{\langle n_{3}\rangle,\langle n_{4}\rangle\}+\max_{i}\langle m_{i}\rangle\ll(\max\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{1}\rangle,\langle n_{2}\rangle\})^{\frac{1}{10}};\nonumber\end{equation} also, whenever \begin{equation}\langle n_{l}\rangle\gtrsim(\max\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{1}\rangle,\langle n_{2}\rangle\})^{\frac{1}{10}}\nonumber\end{equation}for some $l\in\{1,2\}$, we can replace the $\upsilon$ in $(\upsilon^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l}}$ in (\ref{4.5term}) for $j=4.5$ by $w$.
(vi) When $j=3$, suppose $n_{0}=n_{1}=n, -n_{2}=n_{3}=k$, and $\langle k\rangle \ll(\mu+3)^{-11}\langle n\rangle$, then the $\phi_{\mu}^{3}$ factor will be a function of $n$, $k$ and other variables. This function can then be divided into two parts, with the first part satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{ysx}|\phi_{\mu}^{3}(n,k,m_{1},\cdots,m_{\mu})|\lesssim\frac{\min\{\langle n\rangle,\langle k\rangle\}}{\max\{\langle n\rangle,\langle k\rangle\}},\end{equation} and the second part satisfying \begin{equation}\label{sbx}|\phi_{\mu}^{3}(n,k,m_{1},\cdots,m_{\mu})-\phi_{\mu}^{3}(n+1,k,m_{1},\cdots,m_{\mu})|\lesssim\langle n\rangle^{-1}.\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} We will first prove (i) through (v) as well as (\ref{ysx}); the proof of (\ref{sbx}) will be left to the end. Since each $\mathcal{H}^{4}$ term is also a $\mathcal{J}^{4}$ term, we only need to consider the expressions (\ref{neweqn3}) and (\ref{neweqn4}) with $j\in\{2,3\}$. We replace each $u_{n_{l}}$, where $1\leq l\leq j$, by either (\ref{possub}) or (\ref{negsub}), depending on whether $n_{l}$ is positive or negative, to obtain
\begin{equation}\mathcal{H}_{\mu_{0}}^{j}=\sum_{\omega;\mu_{1},\cdots,\mu_{j}}C_{\mu_{0}}\frac{\omega_{1}^{\mu_{1}}\cdots\omega_{j}^{\mu_{j}}}{2^{\mu_{1j}}\mu_{1}!\cdots \mu_{j}!}\mathcal{H}_{\mu_{0}\cdots\mu_{j}}^{\omega j}\end{equation} for all $\mu_{0}$ and $j\in\{2,3\}$, where $\omega=(\omega_{1},\cdots,\omega_{j})\in\{-1,1\}^{j}$, and
\begin{equation}\label{neweqn5}(\mathcal{H}_{\mu_{0}\cdots\mu_{j}}^{\omega j})_{n_{0}}=\sum_{\mathbf{w}\in V_{n_{0},\mu_{0}\cdots\mu_{j}}^{\omega j}}\Theta_{\mathbf{w}}^{\mu_{0}\cdots\mu_{j}j}\prod_{l=1}^{j}(v^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l}'}\prod_{l=0}^{j}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{l}}\frac{u_{(m^{l})_{i}}}{(m^{l})_{i}}.\end{equation} Here the frequency set
\begin{eqnarray}\label{weighttt}
V_{n_{0},\mu_{0}\cdots\mu_{j}}^{\omega j} &=&\big\{\mathbf{w}=\big((n_{l},n_{l}')_{1\leq l \leq j},((m^{l})_{i})_{1\leq i\leq \mu_{l};1\leq l\leq j}\big):\\
&&n_{l}=n_{l}'+(m^{l})_{1\mu_{l}},\omega_{l}n_{l}<0;\nonumber\\
&&n_{1}+\cdots +n_{j}+(m^{0})_{1\mu_{0}}=n_{0}\big\}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} note that the free variables are $n_{l}'$ and $(m^{l})_{i}$, and they satisfy a constraint
\begin{equation}\sum_{l=1}^{j}n_{l}'+\sum_{l=0}^{j}\sum_{i=1}^{\mu_{l}}(m^{l})_{i}=n_{0}\nonumber\end{equation} as well as several inequalities. Also the weight is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{coef}\Theta_{\mathbf{w}}^{\mu_{0}\mu_{1}\mu_{2}2}&=&\Theta_{\mu_{0}}^{2}(n_{0},n_{1},n_{2},(m^{0})_{1},\cdots,(m^{0})_{\mu_{0}})\times\\
&\times&\min_{0\leq l\leq 2}\langle n_{l}\rangle\cdot\prod_{l=1}^{j}\Psi_{\mu_{l}}(n_{l},n_{l}',(m^{l})_{1},\cdots,(m^{l})_{\mu_{l}});\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{coef2}\Theta_{\mathbf{w}}^{\mu_{0}\cdots\mu_{3}3}&=&\Theta_{\mu_{0}}^{3}(n_{0},\cdots,n_{3},(m^{0})_{1},\cdots,(m^{0})_{\mu_{0}})\times\\
&\times&\prod_{l=1}^{j}\Psi_{\mu_{l}}(n_{l},n_{l}',(m^{l})_{1},\cdots,(m^{l})_{\mu_{l}}).\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
Our argument will be an enumerative examination of all the possible terms, and this can be greatly simplified with the following lemma, which we will assume for now, and prove after the proof of this main proposition.
\begin{lemma}\label{onlyclaim}
We say a term has type $A$, if it has the form (\ref{neweqn5}), with some factor $\Theta'$ in place of $\Theta_{\mathbf{w}}^{\mu_{0}\cdots\mu_{j}j}$, which is bounded by \begin{equation}\label{add00}|\Theta'|\lesssim\min_{0\leq j\leq 2}\langle n_{j}\rangle\cdot\min\bigg\{1,\frac{\langle (m^{l})_{i}\rangle}{\langle n_{l}\rangle+\langle n_{l}'\rangle}\bigg\},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,j=2;\end{equation}\begin{equation}\label{add00}|\Theta'|\lesssim\min\bigg\{1,\frac{\langle (m^{l})_{i}\rangle}{\langle n_{l}\rangle+\langle n_{l}'\rangle}\bigg\},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,j=3,\end{equation} for some $l\geq 1$ and $1\leq i\leq \mu_{l}$. Moreover we assume that (1) either there is some $h\neq l$ such that $n_{l}'+n_{h}'=0$, or no $n_{j}'+n_{k}'=0$ regardless whether $j$ or $k$ is equal to $l$; (2) either $(m^{l})_{i}n_{l}'<0$, or the $v$ in $(v^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l}'}$ is replaced by $w$. Then this term will be $\mathcal{J}^{b}$ for some $b\in\{3,3.5,4,4.5\}$.
\end{lemma}
We now start to analyze the sum (\ref{neweqn5}). Note that the $\Theta_{\mu_{0}}^{2}$ in (\ref{coef}) and the $\Theta_{\mu_{0}}^{3}$ in (\ref{coef2}) are fixed linear combinations of products $\mathbf{1}_{E}\cdot\Theta$ (recall Proposition \ref{propneweqn}), so we only need to consider one product of this type.
First, we collect the terms in (\ref{neweqn5}) where for some $1\leq h\neq l\leq j$ we have $n_{h}'+n_{l}'=0$. We fix such pair $(h,l)$ and fix a $k>0$ (the case $k=0$ being trivial) so that $n_{h}'=k$ and $n_{l}'=-k$, then we fix $\omega$ and all the $\mu$'s except for $\mu_{h}$ and $\mu_{l}$, and fix all the variables except for $(m^{h})_{i}$ and $(m^{l})_{i}$. There are then two possibilities.
(1) If $(\omega_{h},\omega_{l})\neq (-1,1)$, say $\omega_{l}=-1$, then from (\ref{weighttt}) we have $(m^{l})_{1\mu_{l}}+k<0$, which implies $\langle k\rangle\lesssim\langle (m^{i})_{i}\rangle$ for some $i$, and we may assume that $(m^{l})_{i}$ has opposite sign with $k$. Therefore we get a term of type $A$ and reduce to Lemma \ref{onlyclaim}.
(2) If $(\omega_{h},\omega_{l})=(-1,1)$, then in particular we may replace the $v$ in $(v^{\omega_{h}})_{n_{h}'}$ and $(v^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l}'}$ by $w$ in (\ref{neweqn5}). Now we make the restriction that $\langle(m^{h})_{i}\rangle\ll (\mu+1)^{-2}\langle k\rangle$ for all $1\leq i\leq \mu_{h}$ and the same for $l$, where $\mu$ is the sum of all $\mu_{j}$, including $\mu_{h}$ and $\mu_{l}$. It is important to notice that this restriction depends only on $\mu_{h}+\mu_{l}$; also, the remaining part is of type $A$ and can be treated using Lemma \ref{onlyclaim}.
Next, assume $\mu_{h}+\mu_{l}>0$; we will replace the $\Psi_{\mu_{h}}$ factor in (\ref{coef}) and (\ref{coef2}) by $\psi^{2\mu_{h}}(n_{h}'/N)$ and the same for $l$; thus the modified version of $\Psi_{\mu_{h}}\Psi_{\mu_{l}}$ will depend only on $\mu_{h}+\mu_{l}$. Also we may replace the $n_{h}$ and $n_{l}$ appearing in $\Theta$ factors in $\Theta_{\mu_{0}}^{j}$ functions, as well as $\min_{0\leq j\leq 2}\langle n_{j}\rangle$, by $n_{h}'(=k)$ and $n_{l}'(=-k)$; note that we are \emph{not} doing this for the $\mathbf{1}_{E}$ factor. Now, since the $\Theta$ factors and the $\Psi$ factors are in $SV_{1}$, $\min_{0\leq j\leq 2}\langle n_{j}\rangle$ is in $SV_{2}$, and we already have $\langle n_{h}\rangle\sim\langle n_{h}'\rangle$ and the same for $l$, we can easily show that the error introduced in this way will be of type $A$.
Now, apart from the $\mathbf{1}_{E}$ factors, we have replaced $\Theta_{\mathbf{w}}^{\mu_{0}\cdots\mu_{j}j}$ with some $\Theta'$ independent of the $(m^{h})_{i}$ and the $(m^{l})_{i}$ variables. Regarding the $\mathbf{1}_{E}$ factor, let us consider the case $E=\{n_{l'}+n_{h'}=0\}$. If $\{l',h'\}=\{l,h\}$, this factor will again be independent of the chosen $m$ variables (since it only depends on $(m^{h})_{1\mu_{h}}+(m^{l})_{1\mu_{l}}$ which is fixed). Therefore, up to an error term which only involves the summation where $j=3$, the weight $\Theta_{\mathbf{w}}^{\mu_{0}\cdots\mu_{3}3}$ factor is bounded, and all three of $(n_{1}',n_{2}',n_{3}')$ are related by $m$ (thus it will be $\mathcal{J}^{3}$), we may assume that $\Theta'$ is completely independent of the $(m^{h})_{i}$ and $(m^{l})_{i}$ variables.
Next, we will fix $\mu_{h}$ and $\mu_{l}$, so that we are summing over $(m^{h})_{i}$ and $(m^{l})_{i}$, the restriction being
\begin{equation}\label{restrict}(m^{h})_{1\mu_{h}}+(m^{l})_{1\mu_{l}}=\mathrm{cst},\,\,\,\,\,\max\{\langle (m^{h})_{i}\rangle,\langle(m^{l})_{i'}\rangle\}\ll (\mu+1)^{-2}\langle k\rangle,\end{equation} where the constant depends on the other fixed variables, and the summand will be
\begin{equation}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{h}}\frac{u_{(m^{h})_{i}}}{(m^{h})_{i}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{l}}\frac{u_{(m^{l})_{i}}}{(m^{l})_{i}}.\end{equation} Note that when each $(m^{h})_{i}$ and $(m^{l})_{i'}$ is small, the restriction
\begin{equation}(m^{h})_{1\mu_{h}}>-k,(m^{l})_{1\mu_{l}}<k,\end{equation} which comes from (\ref{weighttt}), \emph{will be void}. Now we can see that this sum actually depends \emph{only on} $\mu_{h}+\mu_{l}$, thus when we sum over $\mu_{h}$ fixing $\mu_{h}+\mu_{l}$, we will get zero, since
\begin{equation}\sum_{\mu_{1}+\mu_{2}=\mu>0}\frac{(-1)^{\mu_{1}}}{\mu_{1}!\mu_{2}!}=0.\end{equation} Therefore all the terms in this case can be treated using Lemma \ref{onlyclaim}.
We still need to consider when $\mu_{h}=\mu_{l}=0$. In this case we have $n_{h}=k$ and $n_{l}=-k$. Note in particular we must have $j=3$ due to the restriction (i) in proposition \ref{propneweqn}; we may assume $h=1$ and $l=2$, so the $\Theta_{\mathbf{w}}^{\mu_{0}\cdots\mu_{3}3}$ factor is bounded by
\begin{equation}\min\bigg\{1,\frac{\langle n_{0}\rangle +\langle n_{3}\rangle}{\langle k\rangle}\bigg\}\end{equation} provided $n_{3}\neq\pm k$, which we may assume since otherwise all three of $(n_{1}',n_{2}',n_{3}')$ will be related by $m$ and we will get $\mathcal{J}^{3}$. Now if $\langle (m^{3})_{i}\rangle\ll(\mu_{3}+1)^{-2}\langle n_{3}\rangle$ for all $i$, then $\langle n_{3}\rangle\sim\langle n_{3}'\rangle$ and the $v$ in $(v^{\omega_{3}})_{n_{3}'}$ may be replaced by $w$, thus we will have $\mathcal{J}^{3}$; otherwise we may promote some $(m^{3})_{i}$ and rename it $n_{4}$, and it can be easily checked that this part will be $\mathcal{J}^{4}$.
Now we collect the terms where no two $n_{l}'$ add to zero. Among these, we will first take out the part where $\langle (m^{l})_{i}\rangle\gtrsim (\mu_{0l}+1)^{-2}\langle n_{i}\rangle$ for at least one $1\leq l\leq j$ and at least one $1\leq i\leq \mu_{l}$, since this again will be of type $A$. In what remains, we will have $\langle n_{l}'\rangle\sim \langle n_{l}\rangle$, and that $\omega_{l}n_{l}'<0$, and we may replace the $v$ in $(v^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l}'}$ by $w$. Now when $j=3$, we already obtain a part of $\mathcal{J}^{3}$. Finally, when $j=2$ we separate the cases where \begin{equation}\label{finalclass}\max_{l,i}\langle (m^{l})_{i}\rangle\ll (\mu_{0j}+1)^{-2}\min\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{1}\rangle,\langle n_{2}\rangle\}\end{equation} or otherwise, again by inserting smooth cutoffs. If (\ref{finalclass}) holds we get a part of $\mathcal{J}^{2}$; if (\ref{finalclass}) fails, we can promote some $(m^{l})_{i}$ and call it $n_{3}$ so that the new $\Theta$ factor is bounded, and then replace $u_{n_{3}}$ by (\ref{possub}) or (\ref{negsub}), introducing the $n_{3}'$ and $(m^{3})_{i}$ variables. Now, if $\langle (m^{3})_{i}\rangle\ll\langle n_{3}\rangle$ for all $i$, so that $\langle n_{3}'\rangle\sim\langle n_{3}\rangle$ and the $v$ in $(v^{\omega_{3}})_{n_{3}'}$ may be replaced by $w$, so we get $\mathcal{J}^{3}$ due to the same argument as in the proof of Proposition \ref{propneweqn}; otherwise we could promote some $(m^{3})_{i}$ to be $n_{4}$. We then obtain $\mathcal{J}^{4}$ if one of $n_{3}$, $n_{3}'$, $n_{4}$ or the remaining $m$ variables is $\gtrsim(\max\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{1}\rangle,\langle n_{2}\rangle \})^{\frac{1}{10}}$, and obtain a part of $\mathcal{J}^{4.5}$ otherwise.
Finally, to prove part (vi), first notice that in (\ref{sbx}) we may assume each $\langle m_{i}\rangle\ll n$ also, since otherwise we will have $\mathcal{J}^{4}$. It can then be checked that \emph{in this proof}, whenever we have such a term in $\mathcal{J}^{3}$, all the $\Theta$ and $\Psi$ factors involved in the weight will be in $SV_{1}$; there will be another part of $\mathcal{J}^{3}$ coming from type $A$ terms, and we will show below that they verify (\ref{ysx}). The possible $\mathbf{1}_{E}$ is not in $SV_{1}$ but \emph{under our assumptions}, they will not change if we increase or decrease $n$ by $1$. Thus (\ref{sbx}) will be a direct consequence of the definition of $SV_{1}$ and Proposition \ref{gene}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{onlyclaim}]Fix the $l$ and the $i$ in (\ref{add00}), and first suppose $j=2$. We may assume $l=2$ and promote the $(m^{2})_{i}$ by calling it $n_{3}$, then the new $\Theta$ factor will be bounded by\begin{equation}\frac{\min\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{1}\rangle,\langle n_{2}\rangle\}}{\max\{\langle n_{2}\rangle,\langle n_{3}\rangle,\langle n_{2}'\rangle\}}.\nonumber\end{equation} Notice that\begin{equation}\langle n_{1}\rangle\lesssim\langle n_{1}'\rangle+\sum_{i}\langle (m^{1})_{i}\rangle;\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\langle n_{2}\rangle\lesssim\langle n_{2}'+n_{3}\rangle+\sum_{i}\langle (m^{2})_{i}\rangle,\nonumber\end{equation} thus the $\Theta$ factor will be bounded either by
\begin{equation}\label{xxxyyy}\frac{\min\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{1}'\rangle,\langle n_{2}'+n_{3}\rangle\}}{\max\{\langle n_{2}'\rangle,\langle n_{3}\rangle\}}\end{equation} or by some \begin{equation}\min\bigg\{1,\frac{\langle (m^{l})_{i}\rangle}{\max\{\langle n_{2}\rangle,\langle n_{3}\rangle,\langle n_{2}'\rangle\}}\bigg\},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,l\in\{1,2\},1\leq i\leq \mu_{l}.\nonumber\end{equation}
In the former case the bound (\ref{bound3.5}) is already verified, and we will have a part of $\mathcal{J}^{3.5}$ if $\omega_{1}n_{1}'<0$ and $n_{2}'$ has different sign with $n_{3}$. If $\omega_{1}n_{1}'\geq0$, we have for some $1\leq i\leq \mu_{1}$ that $\langle n_{1}\rangle+\langle n_{1}'\rangle\lesssim \langle(m^{1})_{i}\rangle$ and we are reduced to the latter case above. Now in the latter case, we promote the $(m^{l})_{i}$ and call it $n_{4}$, so that we get an expression of the form
\begin{equation}\label{neweqn10}\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots+n_{4}+m_{1}+\cdots +m_{\mu}=n_{0}}\Phi\cdot\prod_{l=1}^{4}(\upsilon^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{u_{m_{i}}}{m_{i}},\end{equation} where we may assume $\omega_{l}(n_{l}+\lambda_{l})<0$, where $\lambda_{l}$ is some linear combination of the $m$ variables, and the $\upsilon$ in $(\upsilon^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l}}$ can be replaced by $v$ for $l\in\{1,2\}$; also the $\Phi$ factor is bounded by $(\langle n_{2}\rangle+\langle n_{3}\rangle+\langle n_{4}\rangle)^{-1}$. Now if one of $n_{l}(2\leq l\leq 4)$ or $m_{i}$ is $\gtrsim \max\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{1}\rangle\}^{\frac{1}{20}}$ we will obtain a part of $\mathcal{J}^{4}$; otherwise we must have $\omega_{1}n_{1}<0$ and thus we are in $\mathcal{J}^{4.5}$.
Now, if we have some term similar to $\mathcal{J}^{3.5}$ (i.e. with $\Theta$ factor bounded by (\ref{xxxyyy})), with $\omega_{1}n_{1}<0$ but $n_{2}$ and $n_{3}$ have the same sign (note the $n_{j}$ here was $n_{j}'$ before we rename it), then from the definition of type $A$ terms, we can replace the $\upsilon$ in $(\upsilon^{\omega_{j}})_{n_{j}'}$ by $w$ for $j\in\{1,2\}$. Next, we replace $u_{n_{3}}$ by (\ref{possub}) or (\ref{negsub}) according to the sign of $n_{3}$, introducing the $n_{3}'$ and $(m^{3})_{i}$ variables. Under the assumption $\langle n_{3}\rangle\gg\max_{0\leq l\leq 3}\langle n_{l}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}}$, we may assume $\langle (m^{3})_{i}\rangle\ll \langle n_{3}\rangle^{\frac{1}{4}}$, otherwise we will have $\mathcal{J}^{4}$. In particular we have $(w^{\omega_{3}})_{n_{3}'}$ and the weight will be bounded by $\frac{\min\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{1}\rangle\}}{\max\{\langle n_{2}\rangle,\langle n_{3}'\rangle\}}$. Since $n_{2}$ will have the same sign with $n_{3}'$, we \emph{cannot} have $n_{0}=n_{1}$ or $n_{2}+n_{3}'=0$; then we can check that this term will be $\mathcal{J}^{3}$, and that it verifies (\ref{ysx}).
Now assume $j=3$. We may assume $l=3$, and by a similar argument we will obtain an expression of form (\ref{neweqn10}), but with $\Phi$ factor bounded only by $(\langle n_{3}\rangle+\langle n_{4}\rangle)^{-1}$. If we can assume that some other $n_{j}$ (say $n_{2}$) are related to $n_{3}+n_{4}$ by $m$, then we can reduce to the case just studied. Otherwise we must have $n_{1}+n_{2}\neq 0$. Now we may assume that $n_{3}$, $n_{4}$ and all the $m$ variables are $\ll\langle (\max\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{1}\rangle,\langle n_{2}\rangle\})^{\frac{1}{20}}$ or we are in $\mathcal{J}^{4}$; also, if for some $l\in\{1,2\}$ we have $\langle n_{l}\rangle\gtrsim(\max\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{1}\rangle,\langle n_{2}\rangle\})^{\frac{1}{10}}$ (we make this restriction by inserting a smooth cutoff), then $\omega_{l}n_{l}<0$ and we can replace $\upsilon$ in $(\upsilon^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l}}$ by $w$. Therefore we will have $\mathcal{J}^{4.5}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{From $w$ to $w^{*}$}
We still need to remove from the right hand side of (\ref{intereqn0}) the part that cannot be controlled directly, by means of a substitution which will be described in the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{finalver}
We can define $w^{*}$, for each fixed time, by
\begin{equation}(w^{*})_{n}=e^{-\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}}w_{n},\end{equation} where the $\Delta$ factors are
\begin{equation}\label{factor0}\Delta_{n}(t)=\int_{0}^{t}\delta_{n}(t')\,\mathrm{d}t',
\end{equation} and the $\delta$ factors are\footnote[1]{Note that we may replace the $w_{k}$ by $(w^{*})_{k}$ in this expression.}
\begin{equation}\label{factor1}\delta_{n}=\sum_{\mu}C_{\mu}\sum_{k>0}\sum_{m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu}=0}\Gamma\cdot|w_{k}|^{2}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{u_{m_{i}}}{m_{i}}
\end{equation} for $n>0$.
Here we have $|C_{\mu}|\leq C^{\mu}/\mu!$, the factor $\Gamma=\Gamma(n,k,m_{1},\cdots,m_{\mu})$ is nonzero only when $\langle k\rangle+\max_{i}\langle m_{i}\rangle\leq (\mu+3)^{-12}\langle n\rangle$, and it verifies the estimates
\begin{equation}\label{factor2}|\Gamma|\lesssim1;\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,|\Gamma(n,k,m_{1},\cdots,m_{\mu})-\Gamma(n+1,k,m_{1},\cdots,m_{\mu})|\lesssim\langle n\rangle^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, we extend $\delta_{n}$ and $\Delta_{n}$ to $n\leq 0$ so that they are odd in $n$, then define $u^{*}$ and $v^{*}$ by
\begin{equation}(\upsilon^{*})_{n}=e^{-\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}}\upsilon_{n},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\upsilon\in\{u,v\}.\nonumber\end{equation} With these definitions, we have
\begin{equation}\label{neweqnfin}(\partial_{t}-\mathrm{i}\partial_{xx})w^{*}=\mathcal{N}^{2}(w^{*},w^{*})+\sum_{j\in\{3,2.5,4,4.5\}}\mathcal{N}^{j},
\end{equation} where $\mathcal{N}^{j}=\sum_{\mu}\sum_{\omega\in\{-1,1\}^{[j]}}C_{\mu}^{\omega j}\mathcal{N}_{\mu}^{\omega j}$ for each $j$ with $|C_{\mu}^{\omega j}|\leq C^{\mu}/\mu!$. The nonlinearities are
\begin{equation}(\mathcal{N}_{\mu}^{\omega2}(f,g))_{n_{0}}=\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}+m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu}=n_{0}}\Phi_{\mu}^{2}\cdot e^{\mathrm{i}(\Delta_{n_{1}}+\Delta_{n_{2}}-\Delta_{n_{0}})}(f^{\omega_{1}})_{n_{1}}(g^{\omega_{2}})_{n_{2}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{u_{m_{i}}}{m_{i}};\nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}(\mathcal{N}_{\mu}^{\omega3}(f,g))_{n_{0}}=\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}+m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu}=n_{0}}\Phi_{\mu}^{3}\cdot e^{-\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n_{0}}}\prod_{l=1}^{3}(w^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{u_{m_{i}}}{m_{i}};\nonumber
\end{equation} and
\begin{equation}(\mathcal{N}_{\mu}^{\omega j})_{n_{0}}=\sum_{n_{1}+\cdots+n_{[j]}+m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu}=n_{0}}\Phi_{\mu}^{j}\cdot e^{-\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n_{0}}}\prod_{l=1}^{[j]}(\upsilon^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{u_{m_{i}}}{m_{i}}\nonumber
\end{equation} for $n_{0}>0$ and $j\in\{3.5,4,4.5\}$. Here $\Phi_{\mu}^{j}=\Phi_{\mu}^{j}(n_{1},\cdots,n_{[j]},m_{1},\cdots,m_{\mu})$, and these factors (and the corresponding terms they come from) satisfy the requirements in parts (i), (iii), (iv), (v) in Proposition \ref{propneweqn} for $j=2,3.5,4,4.5$, respectively.
Finally when $j=3$ and we only consider the case where $\Phi_{\mu}^{3}\neq 0$, we have one of the following: (a) either three of the four variables $(-n_{0},n_{1},n_{2},n_{3})$ are related by $m$ (in which case we are allowed to have $\upsilon$ instead of $w$), or no two of them add up to zero, and $|\Phi_{\mu}^{3}|\lesssim 1$; (b) up to some permutation, $n_{1}+n_{2}=0\neq n_{0}-n_{3}$ and $|\Phi_{\mu}^{3}|\lesssim\min\{1,(\langle n_{0}\rangle+\langle n_{3}\rangle)/\langle n_{1}\rangle\}$; (c) up to some permutation, $n_{0}=n_{1}$, and either $n_{2}+n_{3}\neq 0$ and $|\Phi_{\mu}^{3}|\lesssim 1$, or $n_{2}=-n_{3}$ and $|\Phi_{\mu}^{3}|\lesssim\frac{\min\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{2}\rangle\}}{\max\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{2}\rangle\}}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Note that in $\mathcal{J}^{3}$ we may assume $\langle m_{i}\rangle\ll(\mu+3)^{-13}\max_{0\leq l\leq 3}\langle n_{l}\rangle$, since otherwise we would obtain a part of $\mathcal{J}^{4}$. Now we collect the terms in $\mathcal{J}^{3}$ where $n_{0}=n_{1}$, $n_{2}+n_{3}=0$, $\langle n_{2}\rangle\ll (\mu+3)^{-12}\langle n_{1}\rangle$, as well as the terms corresponding to other permutations, \emph{that satisfy} (\ref{sbx}). It is clear that the sum of these terms can be written in the form of
\begin{equation}\label{subterm}\mathrm{i}\cdot w_{n}\sum_{k>0}\sum_{m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu}=0}\Gamma\cdot|w_{k}|^{2}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{u_{m_{i}}}{m_{i}},
\end{equation} with the $\Gamma$ factor satisfying the requirements (the inequality about the difference is guaranteed by part (vi) of Proposition \ref{intereqn}, since the new factors we introduce will always be in $SV_{1}$). Now if we define the $\delta_{n}$ and $\Delta_{n}$ factors accordingly and make the substitution, we will be able to get rid of the term in (\ref{subterm}). The terms $\mathcal{J}^{j}$ with $j\neq 3$ are transformed into $\mathcal{N}^{j}$ without any change; as for the remaining terms in $\mathcal{J}^{3}$, we can see by an easy enumeration that the coefficient $\Phi_{\mu}^{3}$ will meet our requirements.
\end{proof}
\section{The \emph{a priori} estimate I: The general setting}\label{begin}
In this section we state our main estimate that works for a single solution. Its proof will occupy Sections \ref{mid1}-\ref{mid3}. There will be another version concerning the difference of two solutions, which will be stated and proved in Section \ref{end}.
\subsection{The bootstrap}
Let us fix a smooth solution $u$, defined on $\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{T}$, to the equation (\ref{smoothtrunc}), with the parameter $1\ll N\leq\infty$. In what follows we will assume $N<\infty$, since the case $N=\infty$ will follow from a similar (and simpler) argument. The main estimate can then be stated as follows.
\begin{proposition}\label{uniformest}There exists an absolute constant $C$ such that the following holds. Suppose $\|u(0)\|_{Z_{1}}\leq A$ for some large $A$, then within a short time $T=C^{-1}e^{-CA}$, for the functions $v$ and $w$ defined in Section \ref{gaugetransform}, and the functions $u^{*}$, $v^{*}$ and $w^{*}$ defined in Section \ref{gaugetransform3}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{output}\|w^{*}\|_{Y_{1}^{T}}+\|v^{*}\|_{Y_{2}^{T}}+\|u^{*}\|_{Y_{2}^{T}}\leq Ce^{CA};\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{output2}\|\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}}u\|_{(X_{2}\cap X_{3}\cap X_{4})^{T}}\leq CA.\end{equation} Here the space $X_{2}\cap X_{3}\cap X_{4}$ is normed by $\|\cdot\|_{X_{2}}+\|\cdot\|_{X_{3}}\|+\|\cdot\|_{X_{4}}$, for which we can easily show that Proposition \ref{initialboot} still holds.
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}The constant $C$ will depend on the constants in the inequalities in earlier sections, such as Proposition \ref{initialboot} and Proposition \ref{finalver}. To make this clear, we will now use $C_{0}$ to denote any (large) constant that can be bounded by the constants appearing in those inequalities.
\end{remark}
In the proof of Proposition \ref{uniformest} we will use a bootstrap argument. The starting point is
\begin{proposition}\label{inii}
The estimates (\ref{output}) and (\ref{output2}) are true, with $C$ replaced by $C_{0}$, when $T>0$ is sufficiently small.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Note that $u^{*}(0)=u(0)$ and the same holds for $v^{*}$ and $w^{*}$, and also $w(0)=\mathbb{P}_{+}v(0)$, by invoking Proposition \ref{initialboot}, we only need to prove that $\|u(0)\|_{Z_{1}}\leq C_{0}A$ and $\|v(0)\|_{Z_{1}}\leq C_{0}e^{C_{0}A}$. The first inequality follows from our assumption, so we only need to prove that $\|Mu\|_{Z_{1}}\lesssim C_{0}e^{C_{0}\|u\|_{Z_{1}}}$. By the definition of $M$, we only need to prove that \begin{equation}\label{sep0}\|P^{\mu}u\|_{Z_{1}}\leq C_{0}^{\mu}\|u\|_{Z_{1}}^{\mu+1}\end{equation} for all $\mu$. Now we clearly have
\begin{equation}|(P^{\mu}u)_{n_{0}}|\lesssim\sum_{n_{1}}|u_{n_{1}}|\cdot|z_{n_{0}-n_{1}}|,\end{equation} where \begin{equation}z_{m}=\sum_{m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu}=m}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{|u_{m_{i}}|}{\langle m_{i}\rangle}.\end{equation} Since when $m=m_{1\mu}$ we have $\langle m\rangle\leq C_{0}^{\mu}\langle m_{1}\rangle\cdots \langle m_{\mu}\rangle$, we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{separate}\sum_{m}\langle m\rangle^{\frac{1}{4}}|z_{m}|\lesssim C_{0}^{\mu}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\sum_{m_{i}}\frac{|u_{m_{i}}|}{\langle m_{i}\rangle^{\frac{3}{4}}}\lesssim (C_{0}\|u\|_{Z_{1}})^{\mu},\end{equation} where the last inequality is because
\begin{eqnarray}\sum_{m}\frac{|u_{m}|}{\langle m\rangle^{\frac{3}{4}}}&\lesssim&\sum_{d}2^{-\frac{3d}{4}}\sum_{m\sim 2^{d}}|u_{m}|\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &\sum_{d}2^{(-\frac{3}{4}+1-\frac{1}{p}-r)d}\|\langle m\rangle^{r}u_{m}\|_{l_{m\sim 2^{d}}^{p}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &\sum_{d}2^{-\frac{d}{4}}\|u\|_{Z_{1}}\lesssim \|u\|_{Z_{1}}.\nonumber\end{eqnarray} Now using (\ref{separate}), we will be able to prove (\ref{sep0}) once we can prove
\begin{equation}\|(u_{n+m})_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}\|_{Z_{1}}\lesssim\langle m\rangle^{\frac{1}{4}}\|u\|_{Z_{1}}.\end{equation} To prove this, by definition we need to control $\|\langle n\rangle^{r}u_{n+m}\|_{l_{n\sim 2^{d}}^{p}}$ for each $d$. If $m\ll 2^{d}$ this is easy, since we then have $n+m\sim 2^{d}$ and also $\langle n\rangle^{r}\lesssim\langle m\rangle^{\frac{1}{4}}\langle n+m\rangle^{r}$. Now if $m\sim 2^{d'}\gtrsim 2^{d}$, we can use $\langle n\rangle^{r}\lesssim\langle m\rangle^{\frac{1}{8}}\langle n+m\rangle^{r}$ and
\begin{equation}\|\langle n+m\rangle^{r}u_{n+m}\|_{l_{n\sim 2^{d}}^{p}}\lesssim\|\langle n\rangle^{r}u_{n}\|_{l_{n\lesssim 2^{d'}}^{p}}\lesssim (d'+1)\|u\|_{Z_{1}}\lesssim\langle m\rangle^{\frac{1}{8}}\|u\|_{Z_{1}}\end{equation} to complete the proof.
\end{proof}
Starting from Proposition \ref{inii} and with the help of Proposition \ref{initialboot}, it is easily seen that we only need to prove the following
\begin{proposition}\label{boot} Suppose $C_{j}$ is large enough depending on $C_{j-1}$ for $1\leq j\leq 2$, and $0<T\leq C_{2}^{-1}e^{-C_{2}A}$. Then if the inequalities
\begin{equation}\label{output3}\|w^{*}\|_{Y_{1}^{T}}+\|v^{*}\|_{Y_{2}^{T}}+\|u^{*}\|_{Y_{2}^{T}}\leq C_{1}e^{C_{1}A},\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{output4}\|\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}}u\|_{(X_{2}\cap X_{3}\cap X_{4})^{T}}\leq C_{1}A\end{equation} hold, these inequalities must hold with $C_{1}$ replaced by $C_{0}$.
\end{proposition}
The rest of this section, as well as Sections \ref{mid1} and \ref{mid2}, is devoted to the proof of the estimate for $w^{*}$ in Proposition \ref{boot}; in Section \ref{mid3} we consider the other three functions. During the whole proof, the inequalities (\ref{output3}) and (\ref{output4}) will be assumed.
\subsection{The extensions}\label{theextensions}
By the definition of $Y_{j}^{T}$ norms, we have globally defined functions $u''$, $v''$, $w''$ and $u'''$ which agree with $u^{*}$, $v^{*}$, $w^{*}$ and $u$ on $[-T,T]$ respectively\footnote[1]{Note that all the extensions we construct are in $X_{2}$, thus in particular we can talk about their restrictions to $[-T,T]$.}, and verify the inequalities (\ref{output3}) and (\ref{output4}) with the superscript $T$ in the norms removed. By inserting a time cutoff $\chi(t)$, we may assume that they are all supported in $|t|\leq 1$. We then define the factors $\delta_{n}$ and $\Delta_{n}$ for all time as in (\ref{factor0}) and (\ref{factor1}), with $w^{*}$ and $u$ replaced by $w''$ and $u'''$ respectively. We may also define functions $u'$ by $(u')_{n}=e^{\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}}(u'')_{n}$; the functions $v'$ and $w'$ are defined similarly.
Now we could interpret the bilinear form $\mathcal{N}^{2}$ and terms $\mathcal{N}^{j}$ on the right hand side of (\ref{neweqnfin}), by replacing each $u$ with $u'''$, each $w$ with $w'$, each $\upsilon$ with $\upsilon'$ (note $\upsilon$ is either $u$ or $v$), each $\delta_{n}$ and $\Delta_{n}$ with what we defined above. If we then choose some $0<\mathcal{T}\leq T$ and define the function $z$ by $z(t)=w''(t)$ for $t\in[-\mathcal{T},\mathcal{T}]$ and $(\partial_{t}-\mathrm{i}\partial_{xx})z(t)=0$ on both $(-\infty,-\mathcal{T}]$ and $[\mathcal{T},+\infty)$, then we can check that this function $z$ verifies the equation
\begin{equation}\label{global1}
(\partial_{t}-\mathrm{i}\partial_{xx})z=\mathbf{1}_{[-\mathcal{T},\mathcal{T}]}(t)\mathcal{N}^{2}(z,z)+\mathbf{1}_{[-\mathcal{T},\mathcal{T}]}(t)\sum_{j\in\{3,3.5,4,4.5\}}\mathcal{N}^{j},
\end{equation} with initial data $z(0)=w(0)$. Using the time cutoff $\chi(t)$, we can define $y(t)=\chi(t)z(t)$. From (\ref{global1}) we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{global2}
y=\chi(t)e^{\mathrm{i}t\partial_{xx}}w(0)+\mathcal{E}\big(\mathbf{1}_{[-\mathcal{T},\mathcal{T}]}\cdot\mathcal{N}^{2}(y,y)\big)+\sum_{j\in\{3,3.5,4,4.5\}}\mathcal{E}\big(\mathbf{1}_{[-\mathcal{T},\mathcal{T}]}\cdot\mathcal{N}^{j}\big).
\end{equation}Since $w''$ is smooth on the interval $[-T,T]$, we may conclude that $\mathcal{T}\mapsto y$ is a continuous map from $(0,T]$ to $Y_{1}$; also it is clear that when $\mathcal{T}$ is sufficiently small we have $\|y\|_{Y_{1}}\leq C_{0}e^{C_{0}A}$. Thus in order to prove the estimate for $w^{*}$, we only need to prove the following
\begin{proposition}\label{finalreduct}
Suppose $y\in Y_{1}$ is a function verifying (\ref{global2}) with $0<\mathcal{T}\leq C_{2}^{-1}e^{-C_{2}A}$, and $\|y\|_{Y_{1}}\leq C_{1}e^{C_{1}A}$, then we must have $\|y\|_{Y_{1}}\leq C_{0}e^{C_{0}A}$.
\end{proposition}
In what follows, we will use $T$ instead of $\mathcal{T}$ for simplicity; note that $T\leq C_{2}^{-1}e^{-C_{2}A}$. Before proceeding, let us prove a few results concerning the exponential factors $e^{\pm\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}(t)}$. The first lemma is a general feature.
\begin{lemma}\label{general}Suppose $h_{j}=h_{j}(t)$, $j\in\{0,1\}$ are two functions of $t$, and define $J_{j}(t)=\chi(t)e^{\mathrm{i}H_{j}(t)}$, where $H_{j}(t)=\int_{0}^{t}h_{j}(t')\mathrm{d}t'$, then we have the estimate
\begin{equation}\label{exppp}\|\langle \xi\rangle(J_{1}-J_{0})^{\wedge}(\xi)\|_{L^{k}}\lesssim\|(h_{1}-h_{0})^{\wedge}\|_{L^{1}}(1+\|\widehat{h_{1}}\|_{L^{1}}+\|\widehat{h_{0}}\|_{L^{1}})^{2}\end{equation} for all $1\leq k\leq\infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Recall from Section \ref{linear} that $\chi=\chi(t)$ is some time cutoff that may vary from place to place. Thanks to this factor, we only need to prove (\ref{exppp}) for $k=1$. Next, notice that
\begin{equation}J_{1}-J_{0}=\mathrm{i}\chi\cdot(H_{1}-H_{0})\int_{0}^{1}e^{\mathrm{i}(\theta H_{1}+(1-\theta)H_{0})}\,\mathrm{d}\theta,\end{equation} we only need to prove (\ref{exppp}) for a fixed $\theta$. Let $h=h_{1}-h_{2}$ and $h_{\theta}=\theta h_{1}+(1-\theta)h_{0}$ and $H,H_{\theta}$ defined accordingly, and define $\chi\cdot He^{\mathrm{i}H_{\theta}}=\Phi$. We then have
\begin{equation}\partial_{x}\Phi=(\chi'\cdot H+\chi\cdot h+\mathrm{i}\chi\cdot Hh_{\theta})e^{\mathrm{i}H_{\theta}},
\end{equation}
which then implies
\begin{eqnarray}\|\langle \xi\rangle\widehat{\Phi}(\xi)\|_{L^{1}}&\lesssim & \|\widehat{\Phi}\|_{L^{1}}+\|\widehat{\partial_{x}\Phi}\|_{L^{1}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &\|(\chi\cdot e^{\mathrm{i}H_{\theta}})^{\wedge}\|_{L^{1}}\cdot\big(\|\widehat{\chi h}\|_{L^{1}}+\|\widehat{\chi H}\|_{L^{1}}+\|\widehat{\chi H}\|_{L^{1}}\|\widehat{\chi h_{\theta}}\|_{L^{1}}\big)\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &\|\chi\cdot e^{\mathrm{i}H_{\theta}}\|_{H^{1}}\cdot\big(\|\widehat{h}\|_{L^{1}}+\|\chi H\|_{H^{1}}+\|\chi H\|_{H^{1}}(\|\widehat{h}_{1}\|_{L^{1}}+\|\widehat{h_{0}}\|_{L^{1}})\big)\nonumber\\
&\lesssim&\|\widehat{h}\|_{L^{1}}(1+\|\widehat{h_{0}}\|_{L^{1}}+\|\widehat{h_{1}}\|_{L^{1}})^{2},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where $H^{1}$ is the standard Sobolev norm.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{factt}We have \begin{equation}\label{factt1}\|\widehat{\delta_{n}}\|_{L^{1}}\leq C_{0}C_{1}e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}\log(2+|n|),\end{equation}as well as\begin{equation}\label{factt2}\|(\delta_{n+1}-\delta_{n})^{\wedge}\|_{L^{1}}\leq C_{0}C_{1}e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}\langle n\rangle^{-\frac{1}{2}}.\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}Recall from Proposition \ref{finalver} that
\begin{equation}\delta_{n}=\sum_{\mu}C_{\mu}\sum_{k;m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu}=0}\Gamma\cdot|(w'')_{k}|^{2}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{(u''')_{m_{i}}}{m_{i}},\end{equation} where $|C_{\mu}|\lesssim C_{0}^{\mu}/\mu!$, and the factor $\Gamma$, as in Proposition \ref{finalver}, verifies (\ref{factor2}). Now, using the fact that $\|\widehat{fg}\|_{L^{1}}\leq \|\widehat{f}\|_{L^{1}}\|\widehat{g}\|_{L^{1}}$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\|\widehat{\delta_{n}}\|_{L^{1}}&\lesssim&\sum_{\mu}\frac{C_{0}^{\mu}}{\mu!}\sum_{k\lesssim \langle n\rangle}\|\widehat{(w'')_{k}}\|_{L^{1}}\|\widehat{(\overline{w''})_{-k}}\|_{L^{1}}\cdot\sum_{m_{1},\cdots,m_{\mu}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{1}{\langle m_{i}\rangle}\|\widehat{(u''')_{m_{i}}}\|_{L^{1}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &\sum_{\mu}\frac{C_{0}^{\mu}}{\mu!}\|\langle m\rangle ^{-1}u'''\|_{l^{1}L^{1}}^{\mu}\cdot \|w''\|_{l_{k\lesssim\langle n\rangle}^{2}L^{1}}\|\overline{w''}\|_{l_{k\lesssim\langle n\rangle}^{2}L^{1}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &C_{0}C_{1}e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}\log(2+|n|)\nonumber.
\end{eqnarray} Here we have used the fact that \begin{equation}\|\langle m\rangle^{-1}u'''\|_{l^{1}L^{1}}\lesssim\|\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}}u'''\|_{X_{2}}\leq C_{1}A,\end{equation} as well as
\begin{equation}\|w''\|_{l_{k\lesssim\langle n\rangle}^{2}L^{1}}\lesssim\log(2+|n|)\cdot\|w''\|_{l_{d\geq 0}^{\infty}l_{k\sim 2^{d}}^{2}L^{1}}\lesssim\log(2+|n|)\|w''\|_{X_{2}},\end{equation} and the same estimate for $\overline{w''}$.
The estimate for the difference is proved in the same way, by using the second inequality in (\ref{factor2}). In fact we get a power $\langle n\rangle^{-1}\log(2+|n|)$ which is better than $\langle n\rangle^{-\frac{1}{2}}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}Note that all our norms are invariant under complex conjugation. Occasionally we will make restrictions such as $n_{l}>0$ which breaks this symmetry, but such information is only used in controlling the weights and the non-resonance factors, thus in terms of norm estimates for a single function, we will basically view $w$ and $\overline{w}$ as the same function.
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}\label{weaken} for any function $h$, let $h'$ be defined by $(h')_{n}=\chi(t)e^{\pm\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}}h_{n}$ for each fixed time. We then have \begin{equation}\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}}h'\|_{X_{j}}\leq O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}\|h\|_{X_{j}}\end{equation} for $1\leq j\leq 7$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Apart from $X_{3}$, all the other norms we are considering are (some Besov versions of) $\|\langle n\rangle^{\sigma}\langle\xi\rangle^{\beta}u\|_{l^{k}L^{h}}$ or $\|\langle n\rangle^{\sigma}\langle\xi\rangle^{\beta}u\|_{L^{h}l^{k}}$ with $\beta<1$, and in the latter case we have $\sigma=\beta=0$. Since the map $h\mapsto h'$ commutes with $\mathbb{P}$ projections, we only need to consider these kinds of norms. Notice that on the $\widetilde{u}$ side, this map is just a convolution with the Fourier transform of $\chi(t)e^{\pm\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}(t)}$ for each $\widetilde{u}_{n}$. Thus to prove the result for $l^{k}L^{h}$ norm, we only need to prove that convolution by this function is bounded with respect to the weighted norm $\|\langle \xi\rangle^{\beta}\cdot\|_{L^{h}}$ by $O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}\langle n\rangle^{s^{3}}$. An elementary argument yields that this bound does not exceed the norm \begin{equation}\big\|\langle \xi\rangle(\chi(t)e^{\pm\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}(t)})^{\wedge}(\xi)\big\|_{L^{1}},\nonumber\end{equation} which is bounded by $C_{0}C_{1}^{3}e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}(\log(2+|n|))^{3}$, thanks to Lemma \ref{general} and Proposition \ref{factt}.
Now let us consider the $L^{h}l^{k}$ norm and the $X_{3}$ norm. Let $I_{n}(\xi)$ be the Fourier transform of $\chi(t)e^{\pm\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}(t)}$, then we conclude that
\begin{eqnarray}\|\langle n\rangle^{-s^{3}}(h')_{n,\xi}\|_{L^{h}l^{k}}&\lesssim &\int_{\mathbb{R}}\|\langle n\rangle^{-s^{3}}h_{n,\xi-\eta}I_{n}(\eta)\|_{L^{h}l^{k}}\,\mathrm{d}\eta\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &\int_{\mathbb{R}}\sup_{n}\langle n\rangle^{-s^{3}}|I_{n}(\eta)|\cdot\|h\|_{L^{h}l^{k}}\,\mathrm{d}\eta,
\end{eqnarray} note the same argument also works for $X_{3}$. Therefore we need to bound the expression
\begin{equation}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\sup_{n}\langle n\rangle^{-s^{3}}|I_{n}(\xi)|\,\mathrm{d}\xi\nonumber\end{equation} by $O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}$. By performing a dyadic summation in $n$, we only need to bound \begin{equation}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\max_{n\sim 2^{d}}|I_{n}(\xi)|\,\mathrm{d}\xi\end{equation} by $O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}(d+2)^{O(1)}$. Now suppose $|\xi|\lesssim 2^{10d}$, then we simply use Proposition \ref{factt} as well as the $L^{\infty}$ estimate of Lemma \ref{general} to bound this contribution by $O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}$ times $(d+2)^{O(1)}\int_{|\xi|\lesssim 2^{20d}}\langle \xi\rangle^{-1}\mathrm{d}\xi=(d+2)^{O(1)}$. If $|\xi|\gg 2^{10d}$, we may replace the ``maximum'' in this expression by summation (during which we lose a power $2^{d}$), then use the $L^{1}$ estimate of Lemma \ref{general} and the largeness of $\xi$ to gain a power $2^{10d}$. Thus in any case we obtain the desired estimate.
\end{proof
\section{The \emph{a priori} estimate II: Quadratic and cubic terms}\label{mid1}
We now begin the proof of Proposition \ref{finalreduct}, the starting point being (\ref{global2}). The linear term is clearly bounded in $Y_{1}$ by $C_{0}e^{C_{0}A}$, so we only need to bound the $\mathcal{N}^{j}$ terms. There will be a large number of cases, and they are ordered according to the difficulty level. In this section we will be able to treat every term except $\mathcal{N}^{3.5}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{easiest} For each $j\in\{2,3,3.5,4,4.5\}$, define \begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}^{j}=\mathcal{E}\big(\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}\mathcal{N}^{j}\big),
\end{equation}where we may write $\mathcal{N}^{2}$ or $\mathcal{N}^{2}(y,y)$ depending on the context. We then have \begin{equation}\label{x4est}\|\mathcal{M}^{2}\|_{X_{4}}\leq O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}T^{0+},\end{equation} as well as
\begin{equation}\label{auxest}\sum_{j\in\{3,3.5,4,4.5\}}\|\langle n\rangle^{-\frac{1}{20}}\langle \xi\rangle^{\kappa}(\mathcal{M}^{j})_{n,\xi}\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\leq O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}T^{0+}.\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark} Since we have
\begin{equation}\|\langle n\rangle^{-1}\langle\xi\rangle^{\kappa}u\|_{l^{\gamma}L^{2}}\leq C_{0}\|\langle n\rangle^{-\frac{1}{20}}\langle\xi\rangle^{\kappa}u\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\end{equation} by H\"{o}lder, the inequalities (\ref{x4est}) and (\ref{auxest}) will imply $\|y\|_{X_{4}}\leq C_{0}e^{C_{0}A}$, due to the restriction $T\leq C_{2}^{-1}e^{-C_{2}A}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof} In this proof, as well as the following ones, we will use the $\lesssim$ and $\gtrsim$ symbols, with the convention that all the implicit constants are $\leq O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}$. Note that in the estimate for any possible multilinear term, the total number of appearances of all functions other than $u'''$ is bounded by $10$, thus as long as we only use the norm $\|\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}}u'''\|_{X_{2}\cap X_{3}\cap X_{4}}$ (which is bounded by $C_{1}A$) for the function $u'''$, the implicit constants will be bounded by
\begin{equation}(O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A})^{C_{0}}\sum_{\mu}\frac{C_{0}^{\mu}}{\mu!}(C_{0}C_{1}A)^{\mu}\leq O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}\end{equation} and is thus under control. We also need to be careful with the \emph{sharp} cutoff $\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}$. Denote by $\phi_{\xi}=\frac{e^{\mathrm{i}T\xi}-e^{-\mathrm{i}T\xi}}{\mathrm{i}\xi}$ the Fourier transform of $\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}$; note that $|\phi_{\xi}|\lesssim\min(T,\frac{1}{\langle \xi\rangle})$, and that $\|\phi\|_{L^{1+}(\{|\xi|\geq K\})}\lesssim T^{0+}\langle K\rangle^{0-}$.
First let us prove $\|\mathcal{M}^{2}\|_{X_{4}}\lesssim T^{0+}$. As argued above, we may fix $\mu\geq 0$ and $\omega\in\{-1,1\}^{2}$ (though we will not add any sub- or superscript for simplicity). Choose a function $g$ such that $\|g\|_{X_{4}'}\leq 1$ and define $f=\mathcal{E}'g$. Also define $f'$ by\footnote[1]{Since $f$ has compact time support, we may insert $\chi(t)$ in the definition of $f'$, so that we can use the arguments in the proof of Proposition \ref{weaken}. The same comment applies also for later discussions.} $(f')_{n}=e^{\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}}f_{n}$ and $y'$ similarly; these notations will be standard throughout the proof.
From the bound $\|g\|_{X_{4}'}\leq 1$ we obtain by Proposition \ref{linearestimate2} that \begin{equation}\|\langle n_{0}\rangle\langle \alpha_{0}\rangle^{1-\kappa}f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}\|_{l^{\gamma'}L^{2}}\lesssim 1,\nonumber\end{equation} which then implies, thanks to (H\"{o}lder and) an argument similar to the proof of Proposition \ref{weaken}, that \begin{equation}\label{weaker0}\|\langle n_{0}\rangle^{1-O(s^{2.5})}\langle \alpha_{0}\rangle^{1-\kappa}(f')_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\lesssim 1.\end{equation}
Now we only need to bound the expression\footnote[1]{Here in order to pass from $f$ to $f'$ we have used the identity\begin{equation}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\overline{f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}}\mathcal{N}_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}\,\mathrm{d}\alpha_{0}=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\overline{(e^{\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n_{0}}}f_{n})^{\wedge}(\alpha_{0}-|n_{0}|n_{0})}(e^{\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n_{0}}}\mathcal{N}_{n})^{\wedge}(\alpha_{0}-|n_{0}|n_{0})\,\mathrm{d}\alpha_{0}\nonumber,\end{equation} which is a consequence of Plancherel.}
\begin{eqnarray}\mathcal{S}&=&\sum_{n_{0}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\overline{f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}}\cdot(\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}\mathcal{N}^{2})_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}\,\mathrm{d}\alpha_{0}\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+n_{2}+m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\Phi^{2}\cdot\overline{f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}}\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\bigg(\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}e^{\mathrm{i}(\Delta_{n_{1}}+\Delta_{n_{2}}-\Delta_{n_{0}})}\prod_{l=1}^{2}(y^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{(u''')_{m_{i}}}{m_{i}}\bigg)^{\wedge}(\alpha_{0}-|n_{0}|n_{0})\,\mathrm{d}\alpha_{0}\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+n_{2}+m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\Phi^{2}\cdot\overline{(f')_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}}\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\bigg(\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}\prod_{l=1}^{2}((y')^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{(u''')_{m_{i}}}{m_{i}}\bigg)^{\wedge}(\alpha_{0}-|n_{0}|n_{0})\,\mathrm{d}\alpha_{0}\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+n_{2}+\cdots +m_{\mu}}\int_{(T)}\Phi^{2}\cdot\overline{(f')_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}}\prod_{l=1}^{2}((y')^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l},\alpha_{l}}\cdot\phi_{\alpha_{3}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{(u''')_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}}{m_{i}}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} Here the integration $(T)$ is interpreted as the integration over the set
\begin{equation}
\big\{(\alpha_{0},\cdots,\alpha_{3},\beta_{1},\cdots,\beta_{\mu}):\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{13}+\beta_{1\mu}+\Xi\big\},\nonumber
\end{equation} which is a hyperplane in $\mathbb{R}^{\mu+4}$ (recall the notation that $\alpha_{13}=\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}$), with respect to the standard measure \begin{equation}\prod_{l=1}^{3}\mathrm{d}\alpha_{l}\cdot\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\mathrm{d}\beta_{i},\nonumber\end{equation} where the non-resonance (NR) factor
\begin{equation}\label{nlfac}\Xi=|n_{0}|n_{0}-\sum_{l=1}^{2}|n_{l}|n_{l}-\sum_{i=1}^{\mu}|m_{i}|m_{i}.\end{equation} Note that we are using the convention that $u_{n,\alpha}$ stands for $\widetilde{u}_{n,\alpha}$; also we may always restrict to $n_{0}>0$.
Notice that the $m$ variables are all $\ll \min_{0\leq l\leq 2}\langle n_{l}\rangle$ (again here we may have harmless polynomial factors in $\mu$), we can check from (\ref{nlfac}) that \begin{equation}|\Xi|\sim\min_{0\leq l\leq 2}\langle n_{l}\rangle\cdot\max_{0\leq l\leq 2}\langle n_{l}\rangle.\end{equation} We will first take the summation-integration over the set where $\sum_{l=0}^{2}\langle n_{l}\rangle\sim 2^{d}$, and then sum over $d$. In this case, at least one of the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ variables must be $\gtrsim 2^{d}$. Now, with a loss of $2^{O(s^{2.5})d}$, we can replace the $1-O(s^{2.5})$ exponent in (\ref{weaker0}) by $1$. Also notice that $|\Phi^{2}|\lesssim \langle n_{0}\rangle$, we may further (upon taking absolute values) remove this $\Phi$ factor and the $\langle n\rangle$ factor in (\ref{weaker0}) simultaneously.
With these reductions, we then proceed to the estimate of $\mathcal{S}$. First assume $\langle \alpha_{0}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{d}$, thus we gain from the bound (\ref{weaker0}) a power $2^{(1-\kappa)d}$, while after exploiting this, we still have\footnote[1]{Actually it is the modified version of $f'$ that is bounded in $l^{2}L^{2}$ (namely, the $f''$ is defined by $(f'')_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}=2^{d}\mathbf{1}_{\langle \alpha_{0}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{d}}(f')_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}$). The same comment applies also for every other reduction we make. Our wording, though imprecise, should not cause any confusion.} $\|f'\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\lesssim 1$. In the same way, we can use the $X_{1}$ and $X_{4}$ bounds for $y$ to deduce some bound for $y'$ (see Proposition \ref{weaken}), and strengthen the bound to $\|\langle n_{l}\rangle^{s^{2}}\langle \alpha_{l}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+s^{2}}(y')_{n_{l},\alpha_{l}}\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\lesssim 1$ at a price of at most $2^{O(\frac{1}{2}-b)d}$.
We then fix all the $m$ and $\beta$ variables to get a sub-summation-integration that is bounded by (with $C$ being irrelevant constants)
\begin{eqnarray}\mathcal{S}_{sub}&\lesssim&\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+n_{2}+C}\int_{\widetilde{\alpha_{0}}=\widetilde{\alpha_{1}}+\widetilde{\alpha_{2}}+\widetilde{\alpha_{3}}+C}|(f')_{n_{0},\widetilde{\alpha_{0}}}||\phi_{0,\widetilde{\alpha_{3}}}|\cdot\prod_{l=1}^{2}|((y')^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l},\widetilde{\alpha_{l}}}|\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &\big\|\big|\widehat{\overline{f'}}\big|*\big|\widehat{(y')^{\omega_{1}}}\big|*\big|\widehat{(y')^{\omega_{2}}}\big|*\big|\widehat{\phi}\big|\big\|_{l^{\infty}L^{\infty}}\nonumber\\
\label{crucial}&\lesssim&\|f'\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\|\mathfrak{N}(y')^{\omega_{1}}\|_{L^{6+}L^{6+}}\|\mathfrak{N}(y')^{\omega_{2}}\|_{L^{3}L^{3}}\|\widehat{\phi}\|_{l^{1+}L^{1+}}.
\end{eqnarray} where $\widetilde{\alpha_{l}}=\alpha_{l}-|n_{l}|n_{l}$, and $\phi$ is viewed as a function of $(t,x)$ that is supported at $n=0$ (so that $\widetilde{\alpha_{3}}=\alpha_{3}$); also recall the $\mathfrak{N}$ notation defined in Section \ref{spaces}. The right hand side will be bounded by $T^{0+}$ by our (reduced) assumptions and Strichartz estimates, provided we choose the $6+$ to be $6+cs^{2}$ with some small $c$, and choose $1+$ accordingly.
Now we sum over $m_{i}$ and integrate $\beta_{i}$, exploiting the bound $\|\langle m_{i}\rangle^{-1}u'''\|_{l^{1}L^{1}}\leq C_{1}A$, to bound the whole summation-integration for a single $d$; taking into account the gains and losses from the reductions made before and exploiting (\ref{hierarchy}), we conclude that the part of $\mathcal{S}$ considered above is bounded by $T^{0+}2^{(0-)d}$, which allows us to sum over $d$.
Next, assume that $\langle \alpha_{1}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{d}$ (the case for $\alpha_{2}$ will follow by symmetry). In this case we do not gain from the bound (\ref{weaker0}), so that we still have $\|\langle \xi\rangle^{1-\kappa}f'\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\lesssim 1$, which, via Strichartz, allows us to control $\|\mathfrak{N}f'\|_{L^{2+}L^{2+}}$, where this $2+$ is some $2+c(1-\kappa)$. Instead, we gain from the bound
\begin{equation}\|\langle n_{1}\rangle^{s^{2}}\langle \alpha_{1}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+s^{2}}(y')_{n_{1},\alpha_{1}}\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\lesssim 1\nonumber\end{equation} as above (with a loss of $2^{O(\frac{1}{2}-b)d}$) and change the exponent $\langle\alpha_{1}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+s^{2}}$ to $\langle\alpha_{1}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}-c(1-\kappa)}$ to gain the power $2^{c(1-\kappa)d}$, and the reduced bound will allow us to control $\mathfrak{N}y'$ (in the form of $\mathfrak{N}(y')^{\omega_{1}}$) in $L^{6-}L^{6-}$ with the $6-$ here being $6-c(1-\kappa)$. Choosing the constants $c$ appropriately, we can then proceed as in (\ref{crucial}), with the $f'$ factor estimated in $L^{2+}L^{2+}$, two $y'$ factors estimated in $L^{6+}L^{6+}$ and $L^{3}L^{3}$ respectively and the $\phi$ factor in $l^{1+}L^{1+}$, to get the desired bound. In the same spirit, if $\langle \alpha_{3}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{d}$, we will use the $L^{2+}L^{2+}$ bound for $\mathfrak{N}f'$ (with $2+$ being $2+c(1-\kappa)$), $L^{6+}L^{6+}$ and $L^{3}L^{3}$ bound for $\mathfrak{N}y'$ (with $6+$ being $6+cs^{2}$) and $l^{1+}L^{1+}$ bound for $\phi$ (with $1+$ being $1+c(1-\kappa)$; note that we gain a power $2^{c(1-\kappa)d}$ here due to the largeness of $\alpha_{3}$) to conclude. Again we gain at least $2^{c(1-\kappa)d}$ and lose at most $2^{O(\frac{1}{2}-b)d}$ so we have enough room for summation in $d$.
Next, assume that $\langle \beta_{i}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{d}$ for some $i$. If for this $i$ we also have $\langle m_{i}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{\frac{d}{30}}$, then we would bound $|m_{i}|^{-1}\lesssim 2^{-\frac{d}{90}}\langle m_{i}\rangle^{-\frac{2}{3}}$ to gain a power of $2^{cd}$ and proceed as above, since we still have
\begin{equation}\|\langle m_{i}\rangle^{-\frac{2}{3}}(u''')_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}\|_{l^{1}L^{1}}\lesssim \|\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}}u'''\|_{X_{2}}\leq C_{0}C_{1}A\end{equation} which allows us to sum over $m_{i}$ and integrate over $\beta_{i}$. If instead $\langle m_{i}\rangle\lesssim 2^{\frac{d}{30}}$, we could use the $X_{4}$ bound of $\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}}u'''$ and Proposition \ref{weaken} to bound \begin{equation}\|\langle m_{i}\rangle^{-\frac{3}{2}}\langle \beta_{i}\rangle^{\frac{9}{10}}(y')_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\lesssim 1,\nonumber\end{equation} and exploit the largeness of $\beta_{i}$ to gain a power $2^{\frac{d}{20}}$ and reduce the above bound to $\|\langle m_{i}\rangle^{2}\langle \beta_{i}\rangle^{\frac{3}{5}}(y')_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\lesssim 1$ which would imply $\|y'\|_{l^{1}L^{1}}\lesssim 1$ so that we can still apply the argument above, sum over $m_{i}$ and integrate over $\beta_{i}$. This concludes the proof of (\ref{x4est}).
Now let us prove (\ref{auxest}). Let $g$, $f$ and $f'$ be as before, but with the new bound $\|\langle n_{0}\rangle^{\frac{1}{30}}\langle \alpha_{0}\rangle^{1-\kappa}f'\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\lesssim 1$. Note that the estimate for $f'$ is again easily deduced from the estimate for $g$ and the same type of arguments as in the proof of Propositions \ref{linearestimate} and \ref{weaken}. To bound $\mathcal{M}^{3}$ and $\mathcal{M}^{3.5}$, we need to bound
\begin{eqnarray}\label{s3expre}\mathcal{S}&=&\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}+\cdots +m_{\mu}}\int_{(T)}\Phi^{j}\cdot\overline{(f')_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}}\times\\
&\times&((w')^{\omega_{1}})_{n_{1},\alpha_{1}}\prod_{l=2}^{3}(z^{l})_{n_{l},\alpha_{l}}\cdot\phi_{\alpha_{4}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{(u''')_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}}{m_{i}},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} with the integration $(T)$ interpreted as the integral over the set
\begin{equation}\big\{(\alpha_{0},\cdots,\alpha_{4},\beta_{1},\cdots,\beta_{\mu}):\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{14}+\beta_{1\mu}+\Xi\big\},\end{equation} with respect to the standard measure, where the NR factor
\begin{equation}\label{nlfac2}\Xi=|n_{0}|n_{0}-\sum_{l=1}^{3}|n_{l}|n_{l}-\sum_{i=1}^{\mu}|m_{i}|m_{i}.\end{equation}Here $z^{l}$ or $\overline{z^{l}}$ equals $u'$, $v'$ or $w'$ for each $l$. Again we assume $\sum_{l=0}^{3}\langle n_{l}\rangle\sim 2^{d}$. By losing at most $2^{O(\epsilon)d}$, we may assume that $w'$ verifies the same bound as $y'$ before, and $\mathfrak{N}z^{l}$ is bounded in $X_{4}$ and $L^{6}L^{6}$. Also note that $|\Phi^{j}|\lesssim 1$ in any situation.
If $\langle n_{0}\rangle+\langle \alpha_{0}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$, we may gain a power $2^{c(1-\kappa)d}$ (note our loss is at most $2^{O(\epsilon)d}$) from the bound of $f'$, and reduce this bound to $\|f'\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\lesssim 1$. Then we can first fix the $m_{i}$ and $\beta_{i}$ variables and obtain the $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$, estimate in the same was as in (\ref{crucial}), then sum over $m_{i}$ and integrate over $\beta_{i}$. The only difference with (\ref{crucial}) is that now $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ contains five functions instead of four; however, here we may estimate the $f'$ factor in $L^{2}L^{2}$, the $\mathfrak{N}w'$ factor in $L^{6+}L^{6+}$ with the $6+$ being $6+cs^{2}$, the $\mathfrak{N}z^{l}$ factors in $L^{6}L^{6}$ and the $\phi$ factor in $l^{1+}L^{1+}$ so that we can still close the argument.
If $\langle \alpha_{1}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$, we may perform the same reduction as in the estimate of $\|\mathcal{M}^{2}\|_{X_{4}}$ before, gain a power of $2^{c(1-\kappa)d}$ and use Strichartz and the reduced bound to control $\|\mathfrak{N}w'\|_{L^{6-}L^{6-}}$, where the $6-$ is $6-c(1-\kappa)$. We may now control $\mathfrak{N}f'$ in $L^{2+}L^{2+}$ with the $2+$ being $2+c(1-\kappa)$, then control $\mathfrak{N}z^{l}$ in $L^{6}L^{6}$ and $\phi$ in some $l^{1+}L^{1+}$. The exponents will match if we choose the constants $c$ appropriately.
If $\langle \alpha_{2}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{\frac{d}{4}}$ (the $\alpha_{3}$ case being identical), we have two possibilities. If $j=3$ then $z^{2}$ is also taken from $\{w',\overline{w'}\}$ so that we are in the same situation as above. If $j=3.5$ then either $\langle n_{2}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{\frac{d}{89}}$ and we gain a power $2^{cd}$ from the $\Phi$ factor thanks to (\ref{bound3.5}) and the assumption that $\langle n_{0}\rangle\ll 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$, or $\langle n_{2}\rangle\lesssim 2^{\frac{d}{89}}$ and we can exploit the $X_{4}$ bound of $z^{l}$, gain a power $2^{cd}$, and use the reduced estimate to bound $\|\mathfrak{N}z^{2}\|_{L^{6}L^{6}}$ (again, as we already did in the $X_{4}$ estimate before). In any case we gain a power $2^{c(1-\kappa)d}$, lose at most $2^{O(\epsilon)d}$, and can control the reduced $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ expression.
If $\langle \alpha_{4}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$, we can again control $\mathfrak{N}f'$ in $L^{2+}L^{2+}$ with the $2+$ being $2+c(1-\kappa)$, then control the $\mathfrak{N}w'$ in $L^{6+}L^{6+}$ (with $6+$ being $6+cs^{2}$), $\mathfrak{N}z^{l}$ factors in $L^{6}L^{6}$ and $\phi$ in $l^{1+}L^{1+}$ with the $1+$ being $1+c(1-\kappa)$, with the $c$ chosen appropriately. Note that since $\alpha_{4}$ is large, we will gain a power $2^{c(1-\kappa)d}$ from the $l^{1+}L^{1+}$ bound of $\phi$. Moreover, if $\langle m_{i}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$ for some $i$, we can repeat the argument made before to gain a (small) $2^{cd}$ power from this factor alone while keeping the ability to sum over $m_{i}$ and integrate over $\beta_{i}$, and reduce to the above cases.
Finally, if none of the above holds, we must have $\langle n_{0}\rangle\ll 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$ and $|\Xi|\ll 2^{\frac{d}{4}}$. We may also assume $\langle m_{i}\rangle\ll 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$ or we are reduced to one of the cases above. Thus from (\ref{nlfac2}) we deduce \begin{equation}\label{smallness}\big||n_{1}|n_{1}+|n_{2}|n_{2}+|n_{3}|n_{3}\big|\ll 2^{\frac{d}{4}}.\end{equation} Note that we may assume $j=3$, since when $j=3.5$, one of $\langle n_{2}\rangle$ and $\langle n_{3}\rangle$ must be $\gtrsim 2^{d}$ and we gain a power $2^{cd}$ from the weight $\Phi$ so that we can proceed as above. Now if the minimum of $\langle n_{l}\rangle$ for $1\leq l\leq 3$ is at least $\gtrsim 2^{\frac{d}{9}}$, then we will be in the same situation as in (\ref{nlfac}) and the expression in (\ref{smallness}) has to be $\gtrsim 2^{d}$. Therefore we may further assume $\langle n_{3}\rangle\ll 2^{\frac{d}{9}}$, and it will be clear that the NR factor can be small only if $n_{1}+n_{2}=0$. However, in this case we gain from the factor $\Phi$ a positive power $2^{cd}$, due to parts (b) and (c) in the requirements for $\mathcal{N}^{3}$ in Proposition \ref{finalver}. This allows us to complete the estimate in the same way as above.
Notice that in estimating $\mathcal{M}^{3}$ above, we have ignored the term where three of $(-n_{0},n_{1},n_{2},n_{3})$ are related by $m$ and we are allowed to have $\upsilon$ instead of $w$ (in the discussion here, they will be $\upsilon'$ and $w'$ respectively). To handle this term, simply fix the $m$ and $\beta$ variables and bound the $\Phi$ factor by $1$ (we may assume $\langle m_{i}\rangle\ll2^{\frac{d}{90}}$ or we gain a power $2^{cd}$ and can proceed as above). We can bound the resulting $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ (note that we are restricting to $n_{l}=c_{l}\pm n_{0}\sim 2^{d}$)
\begin{eqnarray}\mathcal{S}_{sub}&\lesssim&\sum_{n_{0}}\int_{\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{1}+\cdots+\alpha_{4}+c_{4}(n_{0})}\big|(f')_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}\big|\cdot\prod_{l=1}^{3}\big|(z^{l})_{c_{l}\pm n_{0},\alpha_{l}}\big|\cdot|\phi_{\alpha_{4}}|\nonumber\\
&\lesssim&T^{0+}\sum_{n_{0}}\big\|\widehat{(f')_{n_{0}}}\big\|_{L^{2}}\prod_{l=1}^{3}\big\|\widehat{(z^{l})_{c_{l}\pm n_{0}}}\big\|_{L^{1}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &T^{0+}\big\|f'\big\|_{l_{\sim 2^{d}}^{4}L^{2}}\prod_{l=1}^{3}\big\|z^{l}\big\|_{l_{\sim 2^{d}}^{4}L^{1}}\lesssim T^{0+}2^{-cd},\nonumber\end{eqnarray} where $c_{j}$ are constants (or functions of $n_{0}$). Thus this term is also acceptable.
Now let us bound $\mathcal{M}^{4}$ and $\mathcal{M}^{4.5}$. The quantity we need to control is now
\begin{eqnarray}\label{s4expre}\mathcal{S}&=&\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+\cdots+n_{4}+\cdots +m_{\mu}}\int_{(T)}\Phi^{j}\cdot\overline{(f')_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}}\times\\
&\times&\prod_{l=1}^{4}(z^{l})_{n_{l},\alpha_{l}}\cdot\phi_{\alpha_{5}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{(u''')_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}}{m_{i}},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} with the integration $(T)$ interpreted as the integral over the set
\begin{equation}\big\{(\alpha_{0},\cdots,\alpha_{5},\beta_{1},\cdots,\beta_{\mu}):\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{15}+\beta_{1\mu}+\Xi\big\},\end{equation} with respect to the standard measure, where the NR factor
\begin{equation}\label{nlfac3}\Xi=|n_{0}|n_{0}-\sum_{l=1}^{4}|n_{l}|n_{l}-\sum_{i=1}^{\mu}|m_{i}|m_{i}.\end{equation}Here $z^{l}$ or $\overline{z^{l}}$ equals $u'$, $v'$ or $w'$ for each $l$. We assume the maximum of the $n$ variables is $\sim 2^{d}$, and with a loss of at most $2^{O(\epsilon)d}$, we may assume that $\mathfrak{N}w'$ verifies the same estimate as appeared before, and $\mathfrak{N}\upsilon'$ is bounded in $X_{4}$ and $L^{6}L^{6}$ (again, it is the modified versions of $w'$ and $\upsilon'$ that verifies the estimates).
If $j=4$ we may assume (up to a permutation) that $|\Phi|\lesssim 2^{-\frac{d}{90}}\langle n_{3}\rangle^{-\frac{2}{3}}$. Due to the presence of the $\langle n_{3}\rangle^{-\frac{2}{3}}$ factor, we may also fix $n_{3}$ and $\alpha_{3}$ when we fix the $m_{i}$ and $\beta_{i}$ variables. Once these variables are fixed, we only need to control the resulting $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$. But since we gain a power $2^{\frac{d}{90}}$ from the $\Phi$ factor, the estimate for $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ will be easy; we simply bound $\mathfrak{N}f'$ in $L^{2+}L^{2+}$, bound $\mathfrak{N}z^{l}$ in $L^{6+}L^{6+}$ for $l\in\{1,2,4\}$, and bound $\phi$ in $l^{1+}L^{1+}$. This proves (\ref{auxest}) for $j=4$.
If $j=4.5$, then all the $m_{i}$ variables, as well as $n_{3}$ and $n_{4}$, are $\ll 2^{\frac{d}{10}}$. This in particular implies that either $\langle n_{0}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{\frac{d}{10}}$ so that we gain from the $\langle n_{0}\rangle^{\frac{1}{30}}$ factor in the bound for $f'$, or the NR factor $|\Xi|\gtrsim 2^{d}$ (note that $n_{1}+n_{2}\neq 0$) so we can gain from one of the $\alpha$ or $\beta$ variables. Note that $|\Phi|\lesssim (\langle n_{3}\rangle+\langle n_{4}\rangle)^{-1}$, thus when we fix the $m_{i}$ and $\beta_{i}$ variables, we always has the choice of also fixing $(n_{3},\alpha_{3})$ or $(n_{4},\alpha_{4})$. This means that though the $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ expression seems to involve six factors, in practice we will always use only five of them. The rest will be basically the same as before. If we gain at least $2^{c(1-\kappa)d}$ from $n_{0}$, $\alpha_{0}$, $\alpha_{3}$ (or similarly $\alpha_{4}$) or some $\beta_{i}$, then we will fix (and then sum and integrate over) $(m_{j},\beta_{j})$ and $(n_{3},\alpha_{3})$ to produce $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$, then control $\mathfrak{N}f'$ in $L^{2+}L^{2+}$, $\mathfrak{N}z^{l}(l\in\{1,2,4\})$ in $L^{6}L^{6}$, $\phi$ in $l^{1+}L^{1+}$ with the $2+$ being $2+c(1-\kappa)$ and $1+$ defined accordingly. If we gain from $\alpha_{l}$ for $l\in\{1,2\}$ (say $l=1$), we will again fix $(m_{j},\beta_{j})$ and $(n_{3},\alpha_{3})$. To estimate $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$, we control $\mathfrak{N}f'$ in $L^{2+}L^{2+}$ with $2+$ being $2+c(1-\kappa)$, $\mathfrak{N}z^{2}$ and $\mathfrak{N}z^{4}$ in $L^{6}L^{6}$, $\phi$ in $l^{1+}L^{1+}$, and $\mathfrak{N}z^{1}$ in $L^{6-}L^{6-}$ with $6-$ being $6-c(1-\kappa)$. Here, if $\langle n_{1}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{\frac{d}{10}}$, $z^{1}$ will be either $w'$ or $\overline{w'}$ so that we can get the $L^{6-}L^{6-}$ bound from the same arguments made before; otherwise $\langle n_{1}\rangle\lesssim 2^{\frac{d}{10}}$, and we can use the $X_{4}$ bound for $\mathfrak{N}z^{1}$ to deduce the $L^{6-}L^{6-}$ bound with a gain of $2^{cd}$. This concludes the proof of Proposition \ref{easiest}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{easier} We have \begin{equation}\label{cubicest}
\sum_{j\in\{3,4,4.5\}}\sum_{j'\in\{1,2,5,7\}}\|\mathcal{M}^{j}\|_{X_{j'}}\lesssim T^{0+}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Note that $\mathcal{M}_{j}$ involves a sum over the $n_{l}$ and $m_{i}$ variables. We shall first prove the bound for the terms where $j=4$, or $j=3$ and $n_{0}\not\in\{n_{1},n_{2},n_{3}\}$, or $j=4.5$ and $n_{0}\not\in\{n_{1},n_{2}\}$. By (\ref{relation2}), we only need to bound this part of $\mathcal{M}^{j}$ in $X_{6}$.
Let the functions $g$ and $f$, $f'$ be as usual, with $\|g\|_{X_{6}'}\leq 1$. This would imply \begin{equation}\|\langle n_{0}\rangle^{-s-O(s^{3})}\langle \alpha_{0}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}-O(s^{2})}(f')_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\lesssim 1\nonumber\end{equation} (we have done this kind of reduction many times before). What we need to control is the same quantity $\mathcal{S}$ with $j\in\{3,4,4.5\}$ as in (\ref{s3expre}) and (\ref{s4expre}), and we assume the maximal $n_{l}$ variable is $\sim 2^{d}$ as usual. With a loss of $2^{O(\epsilon)d}$, we may assume that $w'$ and $\upsilon'$ verifies the good bounds appearing in the proof of Proposition \ref{easiest}. Using Strichartz, we can deduce from the bound for $f'$ as above the $L^{2}L^{2}\cap L^{4}L^{4}$ bound for $\mathfrak{N}f'$ with a loss of $2^{O(s)d}$.
Now we will be able to bound the $\mathcal{S}$ expression in (\ref{s4expre}) easily. In fact, if we gain from anything except $\alpha_{0}$, we can repeat the argument in the proof of (\ref{auxest}), but with the $c(1-\kappa)$ involved in various $2+$ or $6-$ replaced by $c$ (since we now have the $L^{2+c}L^{2+c}$ control for $\mathfrak{N}f'$), and check that in these cases we always gain a power $2^{cd}$, which will be enough to cover the loss $2^{O(s)d}$. If we gain from $\alpha_{0}$, this gain will be $2^{cd}$, with a loss of at most $2^{O(s)d}$, and we can bound the reduced $\mathfrak{N}f'$ factor in $L^{2+c}L^{2+c}$, so this contribution will be acceptable. On the other hand, if we do not gain anything from any of the variables or weights, it must be the case that $j=4.5$ and $|\Xi|\ll2^{\frac{d}{4}}$. Since all the $m$ variables as well as $n_{3}$ and $n_{4}$ are assumed to be $\ll 2^{\frac{d}{10}}$, we then deduce that
\begin{equation}\big||n_{0}|n_{0}-|n_{1}|n_{1}-|n_{2}|n_{2}\big|\ll 2^{\frac{d}{4}}.\nonumber\end{equation} By repeating the argument in the proof of Proposition \ref{easiest}, we see that this can happen only if $n_{1}+n_{2}=0$, or $n_{0}=n_{1}$, or $n_{0}=n_{2}$, but all these possibilities contradict our assumptions.
Next, assume $j=3$. Recall that $\sum_{l=0}^{3}\langle n_{l}\rangle\sim 2^{d}$, and that the $\mathcal{S}$ we need to estimate is bounded b
\begin{eqnarray}|\mathcal{S}|&\lesssim &\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}+m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu}}\int_{(T)}\big|\overline{(f')_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}}\big|\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\prod_{l=1}^{3}\big|((w')^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l},\alpha_{l}}\big|\cdot|\phi_{\alpha_{4}}|\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\bigg|\frac{(u''')_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}}{m_{i}}\bigg|.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} First assume that some of the $\alpha$ or $\beta$ variables is at least $2^{\frac{d}{90}}$. Then, by the same argument we made before (notice that the $n_{l}$ variables for $1\leq l\leq 3$ correspond to the function $w'$ or $\overline{w'}$, which, up to a loss of $2^{O(s)d}$, verifies the estimate $\|\langle n_{l}\rangle^{s^{2}}\langle \alpha_{l}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+s^{2}}w'\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\lesssim 1$), we can gain a power $2^{cd}$ from the corresponding factor, then fix the $m_{i}$ and $\beta_{i}$ variables (and sum and integrate over them afterwards), produce the $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ term, and estimate it by controlling $\mathfrak{N}f'$ in $L^{2+}L^{2+}$, $\mathcal{N}(w')^{\omega_{l}}$ in $L^{6-}L^{6-}$ with $2+$ and $6-$ being $2+c$ and $6-c$ respectively, and finally control $\phi$ in $l^{1+}L^{1+}$.
Now let us assume that all $\alpha$ and $\beta$ variables are $\ll 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$; we may assume that all $m_{i}$ variables are $\ll 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$ also. Thus, the variables $(-n_{0},n_{1},n_{2},n_{3})$ will verify the conditions in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{divisor}Suppose four numbers $n_{0},\cdots,n_{3}$ satisfy
\begin{equation}n_{0}+n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}=K_{1};\,\,\,\,|n_{0}|n_{0}+|n_{1}|n_{1}+|n_{2}|n_{2}+|n_{3}|n_{3}=K_{2},\nonumber\end{equation} where $K_{j}$ are constants such that
\begin{equation}|K_{1}|+|K_{2}|\ll 2^{\frac{d}{40}},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\max_{0\leq l\leq 3}\langle n_{l}\rangle\sim 2^{d},\nonumber\end{equation} then one of the followings must hold.
(i) Up to some permutation, we have $n_{0}+n_{1}=n_{2}+n_{3}=0$. In particular, this can happen only if $K_{1}=K_{2}=0$.
(ii) Up to some permutation, we have $n_{0}+n_{1}=0$, $\langle n_{0}\rangle\sim 2^{d}$, and that $\langle n_{2}\rangle+\langle n_{3}\rangle\ll 2^{\frac{d}{40}}$. Note that it is possible that (say) $n_{1}+n_{2}=0$ and $n_{0},n_{3}$ are small.
(iii) No two of $n_{l}$ add to zero. \emph{Under this restriction} we must have $\langle n_{l}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{0.9d}$ for each $l$; moreover, if we fix $K_{1}$, $K_{2}$ and any single $n_{l}$, there will be at most $\lesssim 2^{s^{3}d}$ choices for the quadruple $(n_{0},n_{1},n_{2},n_{3})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{divisor}] Suppose some $\langle n_{l}\rangle\ll 2^{0.9d}$ (say $l=0$), then one of $\langle n_{l}\rangle$ for $1\leq l\leq 3$ must also be $\ll 2^{0.9d}$, since otherwise we would have \begin{equation}\big||n_{1}|n_{1}+|n_{2}|n_{2}+|n_{3}|n_{3}\big|\gtrsim\max_{1\leq l\leq 3}\langle n_{l}\rangle\cdot\min_{1\leq l\leq 3}\langle n_{l}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{1.9d}\nonumber\end{equation} while $|n_{0}|^{2}\lesssim 2^{1.8d}$, which is impossible. Now assume that $\langle n_{1}\rangle\ll 2^{0.9d}$, then in particular $\langle n_{2}+n_{3}\rangle\ll 2^{d}$, thus $n_{2}n_{3}<0$ as well as $|n_{2}-n_{3}|\sim 2^{d}$. Suppose $n_{0}+n_{1}=k$ and $n_{2}+n_{3}=l$, we will have $|k+l|\leq c2^{\frac{d}{40}}$ and\begin{equation}2^{d}|l|\leq 2^{0.9d}\langle k\rangle+2^{\frac{d}{40}}.\nonumber\end{equation} Now if $l\neq 0$, this inequality cannot hold, since it would require\footnote[1]{Here we may assume that $2^{d}$ is larger than some constant (which is polynomial in $\mu$) such that $2^{0.9d}\ll 2^{d}$, since the summation for small values of $2^{d}$ will be trivial. This comment also applies to some of the arguments below.} $|k|\gg |l|$, which implies $\langle k\rangle\lesssim 2^{\frac{d}{40}}$, so that the right hand side will be at most $2^{(0.9+1/40)d}$ and the left hand side is at least $2^{d}$. Therefore we must have $n_{2}+n_{3}=0$. If also $n_{0}+n_{1}=0$, we will be in case (i); otherwise $k\neq 0$, so that we always have $\big||n_{0}|n_{0}+|n_{1}|n_{1}\big|\gtrsim |n_{0}|+|n_{1}|$, which then implies that $\langle n_{0}\rangle+\langle n_{1}\rangle\ll 2^{\frac{d}{40}}$ and we will be in case (ii).
Now assume that $\langle n_{l}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{0.9d}$ for each $l$. By the discussion above, we cannot have any $n_{h}+n_{l}=0$ (unless we are in case (i)), so we will be in case (iii). Finally, suppose we fix $K_{1}$, $K_{2}$ and $n_{0}$. The requirement $n_{h}+n_{l}\neq 0$ implies that each $\langle n_{l}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{0.9d}$, so without loss of generality we may assume $n_{0}>0>n_{1}$. Now $n_{2}$ and $n_{3}$ cannot have the same sign since $|K_{1}|\lesssim 2^{\frac{d}{40}}$, thus we may assume $n_{2}>0$ and $n_{3}<0$. Therefore we will have
\begin{equation}n_{0}+n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}=K_{1},\,\,\,\,\,\,n_{0}^{2}-n_{1}^{2}+n_{2}^{2}-n_{3}^{2}=K_{2},\nonumber\end{equation} which implies
\begin{equation}(n_{2}+n_{1})(n_{2}+n_{3})=\frac{1}{2}\big(K_{1}^{2}-2K_{1}n_{0}+K_{2}\big).\nonumber\end{equation} By our assumptions, the right hand side is a nonzero constant whose absolute value does not exceed $2^{2d}$. The result now follows from the standard divisor estimate, since knowing $n_{2}+n_{1}$ and $n_{2}+n_{3}$ will allow us to recover the whole quadraple.
\end{proof}Proceeding to the estimate of the $\mathcal{M}^{3}$ term, we can see that the only possibility is case (iii) in Lemma \ref{divisor} (since we have required $n_{0}\not\in\{n_{1},n_{2},n_{3}\}$; also if $n_{1}+n_{2}=0$ and $n_{0},n_{3}$ are small, we will gain a power $2^{cd}$ from the weight $\Phi$ so we can argue as above to close the estimate). In this case we will use a completely different argument.
Recall that up to a loss of $2^{O(s^{3})d}$ we may assume that with small $c$,
\begin{equation}\label{estforf'}\big\|\langle n_{0}\rangle^{-s}\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}-c}f'\big\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\lesssim 1;\end{equation} also by invoking the $X_{1}$ norm of $w$ we obtain the estimate
\begin{equation}\label{estforw'}\big\|\langle n_{l}\rangle^{s}\langle\alpha_{l}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}-c}w'\big\|_{l^{p}L^{2}}\lesssim 1\end{equation} with a loss of at most $2^{O(s^{3})d}$. Since we now have $2^{0.9d}\lesssim n_{l}\lesssim 2^{d}$, we may remove the $\langle n_{0}\rangle^{-s}$ and $\langle n_{l}\rangle^{s}$ factors in (\ref{estforf'}) and (\ref{estforw'}), and through this process we gain at least $2^{1.7sd}$. Therefore, by fixing $m_{i}$ and $\beta_{i}$ first, we will be able to get the desired result if we can prove the following inequality:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{nonsharp}
\mathcal{S}_{sub}&=&\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}+K_{1}}\int_{(T)}\prod_{l=0}^{3}\big|(A^{l})_{n_{l},\alpha_{l}}\big|\cdot\min\bigg\{T,\frac{1}{\langle \alpha_{4}\rangle}\bigg\}\\
&\lesssim &2^{O(s^{3})d}T^{0+}\prod_{l=0}^{3}\big\|\langle \alpha_{l}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}-c}A^{l}\big\|_{l^{2+c}L^{2}},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} provided $c$ is a small absolute constant, where the integral $(T)$ is taken over the set
\begin{equation}\bigg\{(\alpha_{0},\cdots,\alpha_{4}):\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{14}+|n_{0}|n_{0}-\sum_{l=1}^{3}|n_{l}|n_{l}+K_{2}\bigg\},\end{equation} and we restrict to the region where no two of $(-n_{0},n_{1}.n_{2},n_{3})$ add to zero, $\sum_{l}\langle n_{l}\rangle\sim 2^{d}$, the NR factor $\big||n_{0}|n_{0}-\sum_{l=1}^{3}|n_{l}|n_{l}\big|\ll 2^{\frac{d}{40}}$ and $|K_{1}|+|K_{2}|\ll 2^{\frac{d}{40}}$.
We will use an interpolation argument to prove (\ref{nonsharp}); in fact, if will suffice to prove the estimate when we replace the parameter set $(\frac{1}{2}-c,2+c)$ with $(\frac{2}{5},2)$ or $(3,4)$. When we have $(\frac{2}{5},2)$ we will be able to control $\mathfrak{N}A^{l}$ in $L^{4+}L^{4+}$ for each $l$, so that we can control the $\alpha_{4}$ factor in $l^{1+}L^{1+}$, and invoke the argument used many times before to conclude. When we have $(3,4)$, assuming the norm of each $A^{l}$ is one, we will get that
\begin{equation}\big\|\langle\widetilde{\alpha_{l}}+|n_{l}|n_{l}\rangle ((A^{l})_{n_{l}})^{\wedge}(\widetilde{\alpha_{l}})\big\|_{L^{1}}\lesssim\big\|\langle\widetilde{\alpha_{l}}+|n_{l}|n_{l}\rangle^{3} ((A^{l})_{n_{l}})^{\wedge}(\widetilde{\alpha_{l}})\big\|_{L^{2}}:=A_{n_{l}}^{l},\nonumber\end{equation} with \begin{equation}\|A_{n_{l}}^{l}\|_{l^{4}}\lesssim\|\langle\widetilde{\alpha_{l}}+|n_{l}|n_{l}\rangle^{3}A^{l}\|_{l^{4}\widetilde{L}^{2}}\lesssim 1.\end{equation} Therefore when we fix $(n_{0},\cdots,n_{3})$ and integrate over $(\alpha_{0},\cdots,\alpha_{4})$, we get
\begin{eqnarray}\mathcal{S}_{sub}'&\lesssim&T^{0+}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{4}}\bigg\langle\widetilde{\alpha_{0}}-\sum_{l=1}^{3}\widetilde{\alpha_{l}}-K_{2}\bigg\rangle^{-1+s^{3}}\prod_{l=0}^{3}\langle \widetilde{\alpha_{l}}+|n_{l}|n_{l}\rangle^{-1}\times\nonumber\\
&\times& \prod_{l=0}^{3}\langle\widetilde{\alpha_{l}}+|n_{l}|n_{l}\rangle \big|((A^{l})_{n_{l}})^{\wedge}(\widetilde{\alpha_{l}})\big|\cdot\prod_{l=1}^{4}\mathrm{d}\widetilde{\alpha_{l}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &T^{0+}\bigg\langle|n_{0}|n_{0}-\sum_{l=1}^{3}|n_{l}|n_{l}+K_{2}\bigg\rangle^{-1+s^{3}}\prod_{l=0}^{3}A_{n_{l}}^{l}.\nonumber\end{eqnarray} We then sum this over $(n_{l})$; by H\"{o}lder, we only need to bound the sum
\begin{equation}\sum_{(n_{0},\cdots,n_{3})}\bigg\langle|n_{0}|n_{0}-\sum_{l=1}^{3}|n_{l}|n_{l}+K_{2}\bigg\rangle^{-1+s^{4}}(A_{n_{0}}^{0})^{4}.\nonumber\end{equation} If we fix $|n_{0}|n_{0}-\sum_{l=1}^{3}|n_{l}|n_{l}=K_{3}$ with $|K_{3}|\ll 2^{\frac{d}{40}}$, the corresponding sum will be $\lesssim2^{O(s^{3})d}$, since each $n_{0}$ appears at most this many times due to Lemma \ref{divisor}; also the sum over $K_{3}$ will contribute at most $\sum_{|K_{3}|\lesssim 2^{\frac{d}{40}}}\langle K_{3}-K_{2}\rangle^{-1+s^{3}}=2^{O(s^{3})d}$. This completes the proof for $\mathcal{M}^{3}$.
What remains is when $j\in\{3,4.5\}$ and (say) $n_{0}=n_{1}$. Note that the case when three of $n_{l}$ are related by $m$ will be treated at the end of the proof. In both cases we will use the expressions (\ref{s3expre}) and (\ref{s4expre}), but with $f'$ with $f$, and $(w')^{\omega_{1}}$ replaced by $(w'')^{\omega_{1}}$ (if $j=3$), $z^{1}$ replaced by $y^{1}$ (if $j=4.5$). This is easily justified by definition and the fact that $n_{0}=n_{1}$. We will assume $\sum_{l\geq 2}\langle n_{l}\rangle\sim 2^{d'}$, then fix $d$ and $d'$. Here we will use a new bound for $f$. Recall from Proposition \ref{linearestimate2} that $\|g\|_{X_{j}'}\lesssim 1$ for some $j\in\{1,2,5,7\}$ implies $\|f\|_{X_{9}'}\lesssim 1$, or equivalently
\begin{equation}\label{festt}\|f\|_{L^{q}l_{\sim 2^{d}}^{p'}}\lesssim 2^{rd}T_{d},
\end{equation}
where the $T_{d}$ is such that
\begin{equation}\sum_{d\geq 0}T_{d}\lesssim 1.\end{equation}
In the easier case $j=4.5$, we will be able to fix $m_{i}$ and $\beta_{i}$, then estimate $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ by (note we have all the restrictions made above, say $\langle n_{0}\rangle\sim 2^{d}$)
\begin{eqnarray}\mathcal{S}_{sub}&\lesssim&\sum_{n_{0};n_{2}+n_{3}+n_{4}=c_{1}}\big(\langle n_{3}\rangle+\langle n_{4}\rangle\big)^{-1}\int_{(T)}\big|f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}\big|\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\big|(y^{1})_{n_{0},\alpha_{1}}\big|\prod_{l=2}^{4}\big|(z^{l})_{n_{l},\alpha_{l}}\big|\cdot|\phi_{\alpha_{5}}|\nonumber\\
&\lesssim&T^{0+}\sum_{n_{0};n_{2}+n_{3}+n_{4}=c_{1}}\big(\langle n_{3}\rangle+\langle n_{4}\rangle\big)^{-1}\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\big\|\widehat{f_{n_{0}}}\big\|_{L^{q}}\big\|\widehat{(y^{1})_{n_{0}}}\big\|_{L^{1}}\prod_{l=2}^{4}\big\|\widehat{(z^{l})_{n_{l}}}\big\|_{L^{1}}\nonumber\\
\label{luckystar}&\lesssim&T^{0+}2^{rd}T_{d}\cdot 2^{-rd}\cdot\big\|z^{2}\big\|_{l^{3}L^{1}}\prod_{l=3}^{4}\big\|\langle n_{l}\rangle^{-\frac{1}{2}}z^{l}\big\|_{l^{\frac{6}{5}}L^{1}}\\
&\lesssim& T^{0+}2^{-csd'}T_{d},\nonumber\end{eqnarray} using (\ref{festt}) for $f$, $X_{2}$ bound for $y^{1}$, and slightly weaker bounds for $z^{l}$ that follows from Proposition \ref{weaken}. Here $c_{j}$ are constants, and the integral $(T)$ is taken over the set
\begin{equation}\bigg\{(\alpha_{0},\cdots,\alpha_{5}):\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{15}-\sum_{l=2}^{4}|n_{l}|n_{l}+c_{2}\bigg\}.\end{equation} The reason we can gain $2^{csd'}$ is that, in (\ref{luckystar}) we can restrict some $n_{l}$, where $2\leq l\leq 4$, to be $\sim 2^{d'}$ before using the corresponding control for $z^{l}$ (for example, when $n_{2}\sim 2^{d}$ we will have $\|z^{2}\|_{l_{n_{2}\sim 2^{d'}}^{3}L^{1}}\lesssim 2^{-csd'}$). If we then sum over $m_{i}$, integrate over $\beta_{i}$, and sum over $d,d'$, we will get the desired estimate.
In the harder case $j=3$, we will assume $\langle m_{i}\rangle+\langle \beta_{i}\rangle\ll 2^{\frac{d'}{90}}$. In fact, if this does not hold, we will gain a power $2^{cd'}$ from this term and estimate the $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ as above, except that we estimate $(w')^{\omega_{2}}$ and $(w')^{\omega_{3}}$ in $l^{2}L^{1}$ with a loss of $2^{O(s)d'}$ (note in particular we estimate $f$ and $(w'')^{\omega_{1}}$ exactly as above, so we do not gain or lose any power of $2^{d}$), to conclude. In the same way, we may assume $\langle \alpha_{4}\rangle\ll 2^{\frac{d'}{90}}$ in (\ref{s3expre}). Now if $n_{2}+n_{3}=0$, we must have $|\Phi|\lesssim 2^{-|d-d'|}$. Also\footnote[1]{Since $j=3$, we are actually replacing $(w')^{\omega_{l}}$ with $(w'')^{\omega_{l}}$ for $l\in\{2,3\}$; the fact that $z^{l}$ comes from $w''$ will be used later in the estimates.} we may replace $z^{2}$ and $z^{3}$ in (\ref{s3expre}) with $y^{2}$ and $y^{3}$ (in the same way we replace $f'$ and $(w')^{\omega_{1}}$ with $f$ and $(w'')^{\omega_{1}}$; note that we have not made any restrictions for $\alpha_{2}$ and $\alpha_{3}$). Then we may fix $m_{i}$ and $\beta_{i}$ (here the $m$ variables satisfy some linear relation which we ignore) and bound $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{S}_{sub}&\lesssim&2^{-|d-d'|}\sum_{n_{0},n_{2}}\int_{\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{1}+\cdots+\alpha_{4}+c_{2}}\big|f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}\big|\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\big|((w'')^{\omega_{1}})_{n_{0},\alpha_{1}}\big|\cdot\big|(y^{2})_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}\big|\cdot\big|(y^{3})_{-n_{2},\alpha_{3}}\big|\cdot|\phi_{\alpha_{4}}|\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &T^{0+}2^{-|d-d'|}\sum_{n_{0},n_{2}}\big\|\widehat{f_{n_{0}}}\big\|_{L^{q}}\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\big\|(((w^{''})^{\omega_{1}})_{n_{0}})^{\wedge}\big\|_{L^{1}}\big\|\widehat{(y^{2})_{n_{2}}}\big\|_{L^{1}}\big\|\widehat{(y^{3})_{-n_{2}}}\big\|_{L^{1}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim&T^{0+}2^{-|d-d'|}\big\|f\big\|_{l_{\sim 2^{d}}^{p'}L^{q}}\big\|w''\big\|_{l_{\sim 2^{d}}^{p}L^{1}}\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\big\|y^{2}\big\|_{l_{\sim 2^{d'}}^{2}L^{1}}\big\|y^{3}\big\|_{l_{\sim 2^{d'}}^{2}L^{1}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim & T^{0+}2^{-|d-d'|}T_{d},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where $c_{j}$ are constants, and we are restricting to $n_{0}\sim 2^{d}$, $n_{2}\sim 2^{d'}$. Then we may sum and integrate over $(m_{i},\beta_{i})$, and sum over $d,d'$ to bound this part by $T^{0+}$.
Now assume $j=3$, $n_{2}+n_{3}\neq 0$, and all the restrictions made before hold. In particular we have $n_{2}\sim n_{3}\sim 2^{d'}$ and $|\Xi'|\gtrsim 2^{d'}$ where $\Xi'=|n_{2}|n_{2}+|n_{3}|n_{3}$ (again we may assume $2^{d'}$ is large, otherwise we proceed as before). Fixing $m_{i}$ and $\beta_{i}$, we then need to bound
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}_{sub}=\sum_{n_{0},n_{2}}\int_{(T)}\big|f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}\big|\cdot\big|((w'')^{\omega_{1}})_{n_{0},\alpha_{1}}\big|\cdot\big|(z^{2})_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}\big|\cdot\big|(z^{3})_{c_{1}-n_{2},\alpha_{3}}\big|\cdot|\phi_{\alpha_{4}}|,\nonumber
\end{equation} where $c_{1}-n_{2}=n_{3}$, the integral $(T)$ is over the set\begin{equation}\big\{(\alpha_{0},\cdots,\alpha_{4}):\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{14}-\Xi'+c_{2}\big\},\end{equation} and $c_{j}\ll 2^{\frac{d'}{10}}$ are constants. Also each $z^{l}$ \emph{here} is either $w'$ or $\overline{w'}$. Now, by Proposition \ref{linearestimate2}, we can show that $\|g\|_{X_{j}'}\leq 1$ for some $j\in\{1,2,5,7\}$ implies \begin{equation}\|f\|_{X_{10}'}=\big\|\langle n_{0}\rangle^{-r}\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle^{\frac{1}{8}}f\big\|_{l_{d\geq 0}^{1}L^{\tau'}l_{n_{0}\sim 2^{d}}^{p'}}\lesssim 1.\end{equation} For the $w''$ we will use the $X_{7}$ bound, and for $z^{l}$ we will simply use the $X_{1}$ bound. Now, since at least one $\alpha_{l}$ must be $\gtrsim 2^{d'}$, we will gain some $2^{cd'}$ from the $\langle\alpha_{l}\rangle$ weight in one of the above bounds. If $l=0$, we can then estimate $f$ in $l^{p'}L^{\tau'}$ by $2^{rd}T_{d}$, $w''$ in $l^{p}L^{1}$ by $2^{-rd}$ (recall we are restricting to $n_{0}\sim 2^{d}$ and $n_{2}\sim 2^{d'}$), and $z^{2,3}$ in $l^{2}L^{1}$ with a loss of $2^{O(s)d'}$, so that we can use H\"{o}lder to conclude. If $l=1$, we simply replace the $l^{p}L^{1}$ bound by the $l^{p}L^{2}$ bound and argue as in the case $l=0$. If $l\in\{2,3\}$, we may replace the $l^{2}L^{1}$ bound for $z^{l}$ by the $l^{2}L^{2}$ bound and argue as in the case $l=0$. If $l=4$ we simply gain from the $\phi$ factor. This completes the proof for the $n_{0}=n_{1}$ case.
Finally, assume that $j=3$, and three of $n_{l}$ are related by $m$. We may assume that $\langle m_{i}\rangle \ll2^{\frac{d}{90}}$, so that $n_{l}\sim 2^{d}$ for each $l$. Then we fix $m_{i}$ and $\beta_{i}$, so that $n_{l}$ are uniquely determined by $n_{0}$. The corresponding $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ will be bounded by\begin{equation}T^{0+}\|f'\|_{l_{\sim 2^{d}}^{4}L^{q}}\|z^{1}\|_{l_{\sim 2^{d}}^{4}L^{1}}\|z^{2}\|_{l_{\sim 2^{d}}^{4}L^{1}}\|z^{3}\|_{l_{\sim 2^{d}}^{4}L^{1}}\lesssim T^{0+}2^{-sd},\nonumber\end{equation} due to a similar computation as in the proof of Proposition \ref{easiest}.
\end{proof}
Now we start to consider the $\mathcal{M}^{2}$ term. Fixing the functions $g,f,f'$ and the scale $d$ as before, we need to bound the expression
\begin{eqnarray}\label{m2control}\mathcal{S}&=&\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+n_{2}+m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu}}\int_{(T)}\Phi^{2}\cdot\overline{f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}}\prod_{l=1}^{2}(y^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l},\alpha_{l}}\cdot\phi_{\alpha_{3}}\times\\
&\times&\big(\chi e^{\mathrm{i}(\Delta_{n_{1}}+\Delta_{n_{2}}-\Delta_{n_{0}})}\big)^{\wedge}(\alpha_{4})\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{(u''')_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}}{m_{i}}.\nonumber\end{eqnarray} Here the integration $(T)$ is over the set
\begin{equation}\big\{(\alpha_{0},\cdots,\alpha_{4},\beta_{1},\cdots,\beta_{\mu}):\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{14}+\beta_{1\mu}+\Xi\big\},\nonumber\end{equation} where the NR factor
\begin{equation}\label{nrm2}\Xi=|n_{0}|n_{0}-\sum_{l=1}^{2}|n_{l}|n_{l}-\sum_{i=1}^{\mu}|m_{i}|m_{i}.\end{equation} Note that we may insert $\chi$ since $f$ has compact time support. Suppose the minimum of $\langle n_{l}\rangle$ is $\sim 2^{h}$ and also fix $h$, then we have $\langle m_{i}\rangle \ll 2^{h}$, so that $|\Xi|\gtrsim 2^{d+h}$; also we have $h\leq d+O(1)$ and $|\Phi^{2}|\lesssim 2^{h}$. Note that one of $\alpha$ or $\beta$ variables must be $\gtrsim 2^{d+h}$; we first treat the easy cases, which we collect in the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{easter} Let $\mathcal{S}$ be defined in (\ref{m2control}), where all the restrictions made above are assumed. Then if we have $h<0.9d$, or
\begin{equation}\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle+\langle\alpha_{3}\rangle+\langle\alpha_{4}\rangle+\sum_{i=1}^{\mu}\big(\langle m_{i}\rangle+\langle\beta_{i}\rangle\big)\gtrsim 2^{\frac{d}{90}},\end{equation} the corresponding contribution will be bounded by $T^{0+}2^{(0-)d}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First assume $h\geq 0.9d$. If $\beta_{i}\gtrsim 2^{d+h}$ for some $i$, we may use the $X_{4}$ bound for $\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}}u'''$ to gain a power $2^{0.99(d+h)}$ and then estimate this $(u''')_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}$ factor in $L^{2}L^{2}$. Next we may bound
\begin{equation}\label{expcon}\big|\big(\chi e^{\mathrm{i}(\Delta_{n_{1}}+\Delta_{n_{2}}-\Delta_{n_{0}})}\big)^{\wedge}(\alpha_{4})\big|\lesssim 2^{s^{3}d}\langle\alpha_{4}\rangle^{-1}\end{equation} by Lemma \ref{general} and Proposition \ref{factt}, estimate the right hand side (again, viewed as a function of space-time supported at $n=0$) as well as the $\phi_{\alpha_{3}}$ factor in $l^{1+}L^{1+}$. We then fix $(m_{j},\beta_{j})$ for $j\neq i$ to produce an $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ involving $(u''')_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}$, which we estimate by controlling $\mathfrak{N}f$ in $L^{6-}L^{6-}$, $\mathfrak{N}y^{\omega_{l}}$ in $L^{6+}L^{6+}$ (using the $X_{1}$ bound for $y$ and the norm for $f$ deduced from the $X_{6'}$ bound for $g$; here the $6-$ and $6+$ are $6+O(s)$). In this process we lose at most $2^{O(s)d}$, but the gain $2^{0.99(d+h)}$ (even after canceling the $2^{h}$ loss coming from the $\Phi^{2}$ weight) will allow us to cancel the $\Phi^{2}$ factor and still gain $2^{cd}$.
Next, suppose $\langle\alpha_{3}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{d+h}$. By using (\ref{expcon}) and losing a harmless $2^{O(s)d}$ factor, the argument for $\alpha_{4}$ can be done in the same way. Let $c_{j}$ be constants (or functions of $n_{l}$), and recall we are restricting to $\sum_{l}\langle n_{l}\rangle\sim 2^{d}$, we may fix $m_{i}$ and $\beta_{i}$, and bound the $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ term by
\begin{eqnarray}\mathcal{S}_{sub}&\lesssim&T^{0+}\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+n_{2}+c_{1}}\int_{\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{1}+\cdots+\alpha_{4}+c_{2}(n_{0},\cdots,n_{2})}2^{h}\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\big|f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}\big|\cdot\prod_{l=1}^{2}\big|(y^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l},\alpha_{1}}\big|\cdot\frac{\mathbf{1}_{\{\alpha_{3}\gtrsim 2^{d+h}\}}}{\langle\alpha_{3}\rangle^{0.9}\langle\alpha_{4}\rangle}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &T^{0+}\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+n_{2}+c_{1}}2^{-0.62d}\big\|\widehat{f_{n_{0}}}\big\|_{L^{q}}\big\|\widehat{(y^{\omega_{1}})_{n_{1}}}\big\|_{L^{1}}\big\|\widehat{(y^{\omega_{2}})_{n_{2}}}\big\|_{L^{1}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &T^{0+}2^{-cd}\big\|\langle n_{0}\rangle^{-0.2}f\big\|_{l^{\frac{3}{2}}L^{q}}\big\|\langle n_{1}\rangle^{-0.2}y\big\|_{l^{\frac{3}{2}}L^{1}}\big\|\langle n_{2}\rangle^{-0.2}y\big\|_{l^{\frac{3}{2}}L^{1}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim& T^{0+}2^{-cd}.\nonumber\end{eqnarray} Thus this term is also acceptable.
Next, assume that $\langle\alpha_{1}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{d+h}$ (the $\alpha_{2}$ case is proved in the same way), and that one of $\alpha_{0}$, $\alpha_{3}$, $\alpha_{4}$, $m_{i}$ or $\beta_{i}$ is $\gtrsim 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$. We then use (\ref{expcon}) to bound the exponential factor and fix $(m_{i},\beta_{i})$. To estimate the resulting $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$, we use the $\langle\alpha_{1}\rangle^{b}$ factor in the $X_{1}$ bound for $y$ to cancel the $\Phi^{2}$ factor which is at most $2^{h}$ and bound the resulting $y^{\omega_{1}}$ factor in $L^{2}L^{2}$, then bound $\mathfrak{N}f$ and $\mathfrak{N}y^{\omega_{2}}$ in $L^{4+}L^{4+}$, and bound the factors involving $\alpha_{3}$ and $\alpha_{4}$ in $l^{1+}L^{1+}$, where $4+$ some $4+c$. In this process we may lose $2^{O(s)d}$, but since another $\alpha_{l}$ or $(m_{i},\beta_{i})$ is $\gtrsim 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$, we will be able to gain $2^{cd}$ from this factor (since the $L^{4+}L^{4+}$ Strichartz estimate allows for some room), we will find this term acceptable.
The only remaining case is when $\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{d+h}$. By basically the same argument as above, we may assume that the other $\alpha_{l}$ and $(m_{i},\beta_{i})$ are all $\ll 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$. Also recall that two of $n_{l}(0\leq l\leq 2)$ are $\sim 2^{d}$ and the third is $\sim 2^{h}$. Now we may use the bound (\ref{expcon}), then fix $(\alpha_{3},\alpha_{4})$ and all $(m_{i},\beta_{i})$ to produce \begin{equation}
|\mathcal{S}_{sub}|\lesssim2^{(b-s)h-(1-b)d}\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+n_{2}+c_{1}}\int_{\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\Xi'+c_{2}}A_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}B_{n_{1},\alpha_{1}}C_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}},
\end{equation} where $c_{j}\ll 2^{\frac{d}{10}}$ are constants, the factor
\begin{equation}\Xi'=|n_{0}|n_{0}-|n_{1}|n_{1}-|n_{2}|n_{2},\end{equation} and the relevant functions are defined by
\begin{equation}A_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}=\langle n_{0}\rangle^{-s}\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle^{1-b}|f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}|;\nonumber\end{equation}
\begin{equation}B_{n_{1},\alpha_{1}}=\langle n_{1}\rangle^{s}|(y^{\omega_{1}})_{n_{1},\alpha_{1}}|;\,\,\,\,C_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}=\langle n_{2}\rangle^{s}|(y^{\omega_{2}})_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}|.\nonumber\end{equation}Also note that when we sum over $m_{i}$, integrate over $\beta_{i}$ and $(\alpha_{3},\alpha_{4})$, we will gain $T^{0+}$ and lose at most $2^{O(s^{3})d}$.
Now we estimate $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$. If $\|g\|_{X_{m}'}\leq 1$ for some $m\in\{1,2\}$, by using Proposition \ref{linearestimate2}, we may assume\footnote[1]{Note that in proving $\|\mathcal{E}u\|_{X_{1}}\lesssim\|u\|_{W_{1}}+\|u\|_{W_{2}}$ with $\|u\|_{W_{j}}=\|\langle\xi\rangle^{-1}u\|_{X_{j}}$, we actually break $\mathcal{E}$ into two linear operators that are bounded from each $W_{j}$ to $X_{1}$ separately. Therefore, when $g\in X_{1}$, we can write $\mathcal{E}'g=f$ as a sum of two functions, each bounded in one $W_{j}$. The same applies for $X_{2}$, $X_{5}$ and $X_{7}$ norms.} that $\|\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle f\|_{X_{j}'}\lesssim 1$ for some $j\in\{1,2\}$. If $\|g\|_{X_{m}'}\lesssim 1$ for some $m\in\{5,7\}$, since we may insert a $\mathbf{1}_{E}$ factor to $\overline{f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}}$ with $E=\{n_{0}\sim 2^{d'},\alpha_{0}\gtrsim 2^{d'}\}$ with $d'\in\{d,h\}$, we can use (\ref{linnn4}) and again assume $\|\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle f\|_{X_{j}'}\lesssim 1$ for some $j\in\{1,2\}$. Next, notice that $|\alpha_{0}-\Xi'|\lesssim 2^{\frac{d}{10}}$, so $\alpha_{0}$ is also restricted to some set of measure $O(2^{1.1d})$ for each fixed $n_{0}$. Since $\alpha_{0}$ is restricted to be $\gtrsim 2^{1.9d}$ and $n_{0}\lesssim 2^{d}$, we will have
\begin{eqnarray}\|\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle f\|_{X_{1}'}&\lesssim& 2^{O(s)d}\|\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle^{0.6}f\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\lesssim 2^{(O(s)+0.55)d}\|\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle^{0.6}f\|_{l^{2}L^{\infty}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim&2^{(0.6-0.4\times1.9)d}\|\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle f\|_{l^{2}L^{\infty}}\lesssim 2^{-cd}\|\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle f\|_{X_{2}'},\nonumber\end{eqnarray} thus we may furthermore assume $j=1$.
Now, using this bound for $f$ and the $X_{1}$ bound for $y$, we deduce that
\begin{equation}\|A\|_{l^{p'}L^{2}}+\|\langle\alpha_{1}\rangle^{b}B\|_{l^{p}L^{2}}+\|\langle \alpha_{2}\rangle^{b}C\|_{l^{p}L^{2}}\lesssim 2^{O(s^{2})d}.\nonumber\end{equation} Let us define
\begin{equation}\mathbf{B}_{n_{1}}=\big\|\langle\widetilde{\alpha_{1}}+|n_{1}|n_{1}\rangle^{b}\widehat{B_{n_{1}}}(\widetilde{\alpha_{1}})\big\|_{L^{2}}\nonumber\end{equation} and $\mathbf{C}_{n_{3}}$ similarly, so that $\|\mathbf{B}\|_{l^{p}}+\|\mathbf{C}\|_{l^{p}}\lesssim 2^{O(s^{2})d}$, then we will have the estimate
\begin{equation}\big\|\langle\alpha_{0}-\Xi'-c_{2}\rangle^{2b-\frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{B_{n_{1}}}*\widehat{C_{n_{2}}})(\alpha_{0}-|n_{0}|n_{0}-c_{2})\big\|_{L^{2}}\lesssim\mathbf{B}_{n_{1}}\mathbf{C}_{n_{2}},\nonumber\end{equation} which, after taking Fourier transform, follows from the standard one dimensional inequality $\|fg\|_{H^{2b-\frac{1}{2}}}\lesssim\|f\|_{H^{b}}\|g\|_{H^{b}}$. Now we will be able to control $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ by
\begin{equation}\mathcal{S}_{sub} \lesssim2^{\lambda}\bigg(\sum_{n_{0}}\bigg\|\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}=n_{0}-c_{1}}\big(\widehat{B_{n_{1}}}*\widehat{C_{n_{2}}}\big)(\alpha_{0}-|n_{0}|n_{0}-c_{2})\bigg\|_{L_{\alpha_{0}}^{2}}^{p}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{p}},\nonumber
\end{equation} where $\lambda=(b-s)h+(b-1+O(s^{2}))d$, and the square of the inner $L^{2}$ norm is bounded by
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{J}^{2}&=&\int_{\mathbb{R}}\bigg|\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}=n_{0}-c_{1}}\big(\widehat{B_{n_{1}}}*\widehat{C_{n_{2}}}\big)(\alpha_{0}-|n_{0}|n_{0}-c_{2})\bigg|^{2}\,\mathrm{d}\alpha_{0}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim&\int_{\mathbb{R}}\bigg(\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}=n_{0}-c_{1}}\langle \alpha_{0}-\Xi'-c_{2}\rangle^{1-4b}\bigg)\mathrm{d}\alpha_{0}\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\bigg(\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}=n_{0}-c_{1}}\langle \alpha_{0}-\Xi'-c_{2}\rangle^{4b-1}\big|\big(\widehat{B_{n_{1}}}*\widehat{C_{n_{2}}}\big)(\alpha_{0}-|n_{0}|n_{0}-c_{2})\big|^{2}\bigg)\nonumber\\&\lesssim&\sup_{\alpha_{0}}\bigg(\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}=n_{0}-c_{1}}\langle \alpha_{0}-\Xi'-c_{2}\rangle^{1-4b}\bigg)\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}=n_{0}-c_{1}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\langle \alpha_{0}-\Xi'-c_{2}\rangle^{4b-1}\big|\big(\widehat{B_{n_{1}}}*\widehat{C_{n_{2}}}\big)(\alpha_{0}-|n_{0}|n_{0}-c_{2})\big|^{2}\mathrm{d}\alpha_{0}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim&\sup_{\alpha_{0}}\bigg(\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}=n_{0}-c_{1}}\langle \alpha_{0}-\Xi'-c_{2}\rangle^{4b-1}\bigg)\cdot\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}=n_{0}-c_{1}}\mathbf{B}_{n_{1}}^{2}\mathbf{C}_{n_{2}}^{2}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} Next we claim that for fixed $n_{0}$ and $\alpha_{0}$ we have \begin{equation}\label{sparsesum}\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}=n_{0}-c_{1}}\langle \alpha_{0}-\Xi'-c_{2}\rangle^{-\frac{3}{4}}\lesssim 1.\end{equation} In fact, if $n_{1}n_{2}<0$, then $\alpha_{0}-\Xi'-c_{2}$ is a linear expression in $n_{1}$ with leading coefficient $k=\pm(n_{0}-c_{1})/2\gtrsim 2^{0.9d}$ (we assume $d$ is large enough), so any two summands in (\ref{sparsesum}) differ by at least $k$, while there are $\lesssim 2^{d}$ summands. The sum is thus bounded by
\begin{equation}1+\sum_{h=1}^{2^{d}}(kh)^{-\frac{3}{4}}\lesssim 1+k^{-\frac{3}{4}}2^{\frac{d}{4}}\lesssim 1.\end{equation} If $n_{1}n_{2}>0$, then $\alpha_{0}-\Xi'-c_{2}$ equals $\pm\frac{1}{2}(n_{1}-n_{2})^{2}$ plus a constant, so similarly we only need to prove
\begin{equation}\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\langle \alpha- k^{2}\rangle^{-\frac{3}{4}}\lesssim 1\nonumber\end{equation} for each $\alpha$, but this is again easily proved by separating the cases $\langle k\rangle^{2}\lesssim\langle\alpha\rangle$ and otherwise, and applying elementary inequalities.
Now we are able to bound
\begin{eqnarray}\mathcal{S}_{sub}&\lesssim & 2^{\lambda}\bigg(\sum_{n_{0}}\bigg(\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}=n_{0}-c_{1}}\mathbf{B}_{n_{1}}^{2}\mathbf{C}_{n_{2}}^{2}\bigg)^{\frac{p}{2}}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{p}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &2^{\lambda+(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p})d}\bigg(\sum_{n_{0}}\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}=n_{0}-c_{1}}\mathbf{B}_{n_{1}}^{p}\mathbf{C}_{n_{2}}^{p}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{p}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim & 2^{\lambda+(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p})d}\|\mathbf{B}\|_{l^{p}}\|\mathbf{C}\|_{l^{p}},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where we notice that
\begin{eqnarray}\lambda+\bigg(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\bigg)d&=&(b-s)h+\bigg(b-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}+O(s^{2})\bigg)d\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &(2b-1)d+\bigg(\frac{1}{2}-s-\frac{1}{p}+O(s^{2})\bigg)d,\nonumber\end{eqnarray} and this is $\leq-c(1/2-b)d$ by (\ref{hierarchy}). We may then sum and integrate over the previously fixed variables to get a desirable estimate for $\mathcal{S}$.
Finally, suppose $h<0.9d$. Since at least one $\alpha_{l}$ or $\beta_{i}$ will be $\gtrsim 2^{d+h}$, we may repeat the arguments above; using the inequality $2^{b(d+h)}\gtrsim 2^{cd+h}$ that holds for $h<0.9d$, we will be able to gain an additional power of $2^{cd}$ after canceling the $\Phi^{2}$ weight, which will allow us to close the estimate as above. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
What remains to be bounded, denoted by $\mathcal{S}^{E}$, is actually the same summation-integration as $\mathcal{S}$, but restricted to the region $h\geq 0.9d$ and with the additional factor $\mathbf{1}_{E}$, where
\begin{equation}E=\big\{\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle\vee\langle\alpha_{3}\rangle\vee\langle\alpha_{4}\rangle\vee\big\langle m_{i}\rangle\vee\langle\beta_{i}\rangle\ll 2^{\frac{d}{90}},\,\forall i\big\},\nonumber\end{equation} with $a\vee b$ meaning $\max\{a,b\}.$ Now let $E_{l}=\big\{\langle\alpha_{l}\rangle\ll 2^{\frac{d}{90}}\big\}$ for $l\in\{1,2\}$, we have
\begin{equation}\mathbf{1}_{E}=\mathbf{1}_{E\cap E_{1}}+\mathbf{1}_{E\cap E_{2}}+\mathbf{1}_{E-(E_{1}\cup E_{2})}.\end{equation} By symmetry, we need to bound $\mathcal{S}^{E\cap E_{1}}$ and $\mathcal{S}^{E-(E_{1}\cup E_{2})}$ (whose meaning is obvious). In the latter case, we may assume that $\alpha_{1}\gtrsim 2^{d+h}$, and also $\alpha_{2}\gtrsim 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$, so we can estimate this part in the same was as in the proof of Proposition \ref{easter}.
It remains to bound $\mathcal{S}^{E\cap E_{1}}$. Let $E\cap E_{1}=F$, using (\ref{computation}) and (\ref{global2}) we may compute
\begin{eqnarray}(y^{\omega_{2}})_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}&=&\big(\chi(t)e^{-H\partial_{xx}}w^{\omega_{2}}(0)\big)_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}+\big(\mathcal{E}(\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}\cdot\mathcal{N}^{2}(y,y))^{\omega_{2}}\big)_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}\nonumber\\
&+&\sum_{j\in\{3,3.5,4,4.5\}}(\mathcal{E}(\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}\mathcal{N}^{j})^{\omega_{2}})_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}\nonumber\\
\label{secondit}&=&\sum_{j\in\{0,3,3.5,4,4.5\}}((\mathcal{M}^{j})^{\omega_{2}})_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}+(\mathcal{L}^{1})_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}+(\mathcal{L}^{2})_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}.
\end{eqnarray} Here we denote $\mathcal{M}^{0}=\chi(t)e^{\mathrm{i}\partial_{xx}}w(0)$, and
\begin{eqnarray}(\mathcal{L}^{1})_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}&=&c_{1}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\frac{\widehat{\chi}(\alpha_{2}-\gamma_{2})\widehat{\chi}(\gamma_{2}-\gamma_{1})}{\gamma_{2}}\mathcal{I}_{n_{2},\gamma_{1}}\,\mathrm{d}\gamma_{1}\mathrm{d}\gamma_{2};\nonumber\\
(\mathcal{L}^{2})_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}&=&c_{2}\widehat{\chi}(\alpha_{2})\cdot\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\frac{\widehat{\chi}(\gamma_{2}-\gamma_{1})}{\gamma_{2}}\mathcal{I}_{n_{2},\gamma_{1}}\,\mathrm{d}\gamma_{1}\mathrm{d}\gamma_{2},\nonumber\end{eqnarray} where $\mathcal{I}=(\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}\mathcal{N}^{2}(y,y))^{\omega_{2}}$. Interpreting the singular integral as a principal value, we may compute that\begin{equation}\bigg|\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{\widehat{\chi}(\gamma_{2}-\gamma_{1})}{\gamma_{2}}\,\mathrm{d}\gamma_{2}\bigg|\lesssim\frac{1}{\langle\gamma_{1}\rangle};\nonumber\end{equation}\begin{equation}\bigg|\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{\widehat{\chi}(\alpha_{2}-\gamma_{2})\widehat{\chi}(\gamma_{2}-\gamma_{1})}{\gamma_{2}}\,\mathrm{d}\gamma_{2}\bigg|\lesssim\frac{1}{(\langle\alpha_{2}\rangle+\langle\gamma_{1}\rangle)\langle\alpha_{2}-\gamma_{1}\rangle^{\frac{1}{s}}};\nonumber\end{equation}\begin{equation}\bigg|\nabla_{\alpha_{2},\gamma_{1}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{\widehat{\chi}(\alpha_{2}-\gamma_{2})\widehat{\chi}(\gamma_{2}-\gamma_{1})}{\gamma_{2}}\,\mathrm{d}\gamma_{2}\bigg|\lesssim\frac{1}{(\langle\alpha_{2}\rangle+\langle\gamma_{1}\rangle)^{2}\langle\alpha_{2}-\gamma_{1}\rangle^{\frac{1}{s}}},\nonumber\end{equation} where the third inequality can be proved by integrating by parts in $\gamma_{2}$. Now, to treat the first three terms in (\ref{secondit}), we may use Proposition \ref{easiest}, the easy observation that \begin{equation}\big\|\langle n_{2}\rangle^{-\frac{1}{20}}\langle\alpha_{2}\rangle^{\kappa}(\mathcal{M}^{0})_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}\big\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\lesssim\big\|\langle n\rangle^{-\frac{1}{20}}(w(0))_{n}\big\|_{l^{2}}\lesssim 1,\nonumber\end{equation} together with the following
\begin{proposition}If we consider the sum (\ref{m2control}) with the factor $\mathbf{1}_{F}$, and $y^{\omega_{2}}$ replaced by some function $\zeta$ verifying
\begin{equation}\big\|\langle n_{2}\rangle^{-\frac{1}{20}}\langle\alpha_{2}\rangle^{\kappa}\zeta_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}\big\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\lesssim 1,\end{equation} then this contribution can be bounded by $T^{0+}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}Since in $F$ we will have $\langle\alpha_{2}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{d+h}$, we can gain a power $2^{0.999(d+h)}$ from the $\langle\alpha_{2}\rangle^{\kappa}$ factor in the bound for $\zeta$. After exploiting this, we may then estimate $\zeta$ in $L^{2}L^{2}$ with a loss $2^{(\frac{1}{20}+O(s))d}$. Then we fix $(m_{i},\beta_{i})$ as usual, and use the inequality (\ref{expcon}) to bound the factor involving $\alpha_{4}$. To bound the resulting $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ term, we estimate $\zeta$ in $L^{2}L^{2}$, $\mathfrak{N}f$ and $\mathfrak{N}y$ in $L^{4+}L^{4+}$ (where $4+$ equals $4+c$) with a loss of $2^{O(s)d}$, the $\alpha_{3}$ and $\alpha_{4}$ factors in $l^{1+}L^{1+}$. Note that here we will gain a power $T^{0+}$, and the total power of $2^{d}$ we may lose is at most $2^{(1.1+O(s))d}$, which is smaller than the gain $2^{0.999(d+h)}$. Then we sum over $m_{i}$ and integrate over $\beta_{i}$ to conclude.
\end{proof}
Next consider the contribution of $\mathcal{L}^{2}$. Since we are in $F$ (thus $\alpha_{2}\gtrsim 2^{d}$), the gain from $\widehat{\chi}(\alpha_{2})$ will overwhelm any possible loss in terms of $2^{d}$. Therefore we may even fix all the $n$, $m$ and $\beta$ variables and estimate the integral in $\alpha$ variables and $\gamma_{1}$ only; but we can easily estimate this integral by controlling all the factors except $\langle\gamma_{1}\rangle^{-1}|\mathcal{I}_{n_{2},\gamma_{1}}|$ in $L^{1+}$ (since the expression now has a convolution structure in the $\alpha$ variables), and estimate the $\langle\gamma_{1}\rangle^{-1}|\mathcal{I}_{n_{2},\gamma_{1}}|$ factor in $L^{1}$. This last estimate is due to (the proof of) Proposition \ref{easiest}, which implies
\begin{equation}\|\langle\gamma_{1}\rangle^{-1}\mathcal{I}_{n_{2},\gamma_{1}}\|_{L^{1}}\lesssim \|\langle\gamma_{1}\rangle^{\kappa-1}\mathcal{I}_{n_{2},\gamma_{1}}\|_{L^{2}}\lesssim 2^{O(1)d}.\nonumber\end{equation}
It then remains to bound the $\mathcal{L}^{1}$ contribution. After integrating over $\gamma_{2}$, we may rename the variable $\alpha_{2}-\gamma_{1}$ as $\gamma_{2}$, and reduce to estimating (up to a constant)
\begin{eqnarray}\mathcal{S}^{F}&=&\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+n_{2}+m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu}}\int_{(T)}\mathbf{1}_{F}\cdot\Phi^{2}\cdot\overline{f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}}\cdot(y^{\omega_{1}})_{n_{1},\alpha_{1}}\cdot\phi_{\alpha_{3}}\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\big(\chi e^{\mathrm{i}(\Delta_{n_{1}}+\Delta_{n_{2}}-\Delta_{n_{0}})}\big)^{\wedge}(\alpha_{4})\cdot\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{(u''')_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}}{m_{i}}\cdot\eta(\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2})\cdot\mathcal{I}_{n_{2},\gamma_{1}},\nonumber\end{eqnarray} where $\eta$ is some function bounded by\begin{equation}|\eta(\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2})|\lesssim\frac{1}{\langle\gamma_{1}\rangle\langle \gamma_{2}\rangle^{\frac{1}{s}}};\,\,\,\,|\partial_{\gamma_{1}}\eta(\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2})|\lesssim\frac{1}{\langle \gamma_{1}\rangle^{2}\langle\gamma_{2}\rangle^{\frac{1}{s}}}.\nonumber\end{equation} and the integral $(T)$ is taken over the set
\begin{equation}\big\{(\alpha_{0},\alpha_{1},\alpha_{3},\alpha_{4},\beta_{1},\cdots,\beta_{\mu},\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2}):\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{34}+\beta_{1\mu}+\gamma_{12}+\Xi\big\},\nonumber\end{equation} with the NR factor is as in (\ref{nrm2}). Clearly we may also assume $\langle\gamma_{2}\rangle\ll 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$ and add this restriction into $F$ (or we simply gain a large power of $2^{d}$ and proceed as above); after doing this we will have $F\subset\{\langle\gamma_{1}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{d+h}\}$.
Next, note that $\overline{\mathcal{N}^{2}(y,y)}=\overline{\mathcal{N}^{2}}(\overline{y},\overline{y})$, where $\mathcal{N}^{2}$ is another bilinear form that differ from $\mathcal{N}^{2}$ only in the $\Phi^{2}$ weights; moreover, the $\Phi$ weight for $\overline{\mathcal{N}^{2}}$ will verify all the bounds we have for the $\Phi$ weight for $\mathcal{N}^{2}$. Thus we only need to bound the above expression with $\mathcal{I}_{n_{2},\gamma_{1}}$ replaced by $(\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}\mathcal{N}^{2}(y^{\omega_{2}},y^{\omega_{2}}))_{n_{2},\gamma_{1}}$. Clearly we may also fix the parameters $\mu'$ and $\omega'$ in $\mathcal{N}_{\mu'}^{\omega'2}$ and reduce to estimating
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{S}'&=&\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+n_{5}+n_{6}+m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\nu}}\int_{(T)}\Phi^{2}(\Phi^{2})'\cdot \overline{f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}}\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\prod_{l\in\{1,5,6\}}(y^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l},\alpha_{l}}\cdot\phi_{\alpha_{3}}\phi_{\alpha_{7}}\cdot\prod_{i=1}^{\nu}\frac{(u''')_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}}{m_{i}}\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\int_{\alpha_{4}+\alpha_{8}=\alpha_{9}}\mathbf{1}_{F}\eta(\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2})\cdot\big(\chi e^{\mathrm{i}(\Delta_{n_{1}}+\Delta_{n_{2}}-\Delta_{n_{0}})}\big)^{\wedge}(\alpha_{4})\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\big(\chi e^{\mathrm{i}(\Delta_{n_{5}}+\Delta_{n_{6}}-\Delta_{n_{2}})}\big)^{\wedge}(\alpha_{8}),\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where $\nu=\mu+\mu'$, the integral $(T)$ is taken over the set
\begin{eqnarray}&&\big\{(\alpha_{0},\alpha_{1},\alpha_{3},\alpha_{5},\alpha_{6},\alpha_{7},\alpha_{9},\beta_{1},\cdots,\beta_{\nu},\gamma_{2}):\nonumber\\
&&\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{3}+\alpha_{57}+\alpha_{9}+\beta_{1\nu}+\gamma_{2}+\Xi'\big\},\nonumber\end{eqnarray} with the new NR factor
\begin{equation}\Xi'=|n_{0}|n_{0}-|n_{1}|n_{1}-|n_{5}|n_{5}-|n_{6}|n_{6}-\sum_{i=1}^{\nu}|m_{i}|m_{i}.\nonumber\end{equation} The $\Phi^{2}$ and $(\Phi^{2})'$ are functions of the $n$ and $m$ variables that are bounded by $\min_{l\in\{0,1,2\}}\langle n_{l}\rangle$ and $\min_{l\in\{2,5,6\}}\langle n_{l}\rangle$ respectively. The other implicit variables are $n_{2}=n_{5}+n_{6}+m_{\mu+1,\nu}$ and
\begin{equation}\gamma_{1}=\alpha_{0}-\alpha_{1}-\alpha_{34}-\beta_{1\mu}-\gamma_{2}-\Xi=\alpha_{58}+\beta_{\mu+1,\nu}+(\Xi'-\Xi),\nonumber\end{equation} where $\Xi$ is the same as in (\ref{nrm2}). Also recall from the definition of $\mathcal{N}^{2}$ that $n_{0}\neq n_{1}$ and $n_{5}+n_{6}\neq 0$.
Next, let $\max\{\langle n_{2}\rangle,\langle n_{5}\rangle,\langle n_{6}\rangle\}\sim 2^{d'}$ so that $d'\geq h\geq 0.9d$, and fix $d'$ also. In the expression for $\mathcal{S}'$, we may assume
\begin{equation}\label{notona4}\langle m_{i}\rangle+\langle \beta_{i}\rangle+\langle\alpha_{j}\rangle\ll2^{\frac{d'}{70}}\end{equation} for all $\mu+1\leq i\leq \nu$ and $j\in\{5,6,7,9\}$ (note we already have this for $1\leq i\leq \mu$ and $j\in\{0,1,3\}$ due to the factor $\mathbf{1}_{F}$). In fact, if any one of these does not hold, we may bound $|\eta|\lesssim 2^{-(d+h)}\langle\gamma_{2}\rangle^{-10}$ and $|\Phi^{2}(\Phi^{2})'|\lesssim 2^{d+h}$ (so that the weight is cancelled by the part of the $\eta$ factor), then use (\ref{expcon}) to bound the $\alpha_{4}$ and $\alpha_{8}$ factors by $\langle\alpha_{4}\rangle^{-1}$ and $\langle\alpha_{8}\rangle^{-1}$ respectively with a loss $2^{O(s^{3})d'}$. Then we fix $(m_{i},\beta_{i})$ to produce $\mathcal{S}_{sub}'$, and estimate it by bounding the $\gamma_{2}$ and $\alpha_{l}$ factors for $l\in\{3,4,7,8\}$ in $l^{1+}L^{1+}$, and bounding the $\mathfrak{N}f$ and $\mathfrak{N}y$ factors in $L^{4+}L^{4+}$ (with $4+$ being $4+c$). Note that in the whole process we lose at most $2^{O(s)d'}$; but by our assumptions at least one $(m_{i},\beta_{i})$ or $\alpha_{l}$ must be $\gtrsim 2^{\frac{d'}{70}}$, so we will be able to gain some $2^{cd'}$ power from the corresponding factor (again using the room available for $L^{4+}L^{4+}$ Strichartz estimate) to complete the estimate.
Now we may assume all the variables mentioned above are small. This in particular implies that $|\Xi'|\ll 2^{\frac{d'}{70}}$. By Lemma \ref{divisor} (combined with the restrictions made above, such as $h\geq 0.9d$), we can conclude that either (i) $n_{0}=n_{5}$ and $n_{1}+n_{6}=0$ (or with $5$ and $6$ switched); or (ii) no two of $(-n_{0},n_{1},n_{5},n_{6})$ add to zero, and $\langle n_{l}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{0.9d'}$ for $l\in\{0,1,5,6\}$. In case (ii), we have in particular
\begin{equation}\langle n_{1}\rangle^{s}\langle n_{5}\rangle^{s}\langle n_{6}\rangle^{s}\gtrsim 2^{1.5sd}\langle n_{0}\rangle^{r},\end{equation} thus we may gain a power $2^{csd}$ from the $\langle n_{l}\rangle$ weights (after canceling $\Phi^{2}(\Phi^{2})'$ by the $\eta$ factor) if we use the $X_{2}$ bound for $y$ and the bound for $f$ deduced from the $X_{6}'$ bound for $g$. Then we simply bound the $\alpha_{4}$ and $\alpha_{8}$ factors using (\ref{expcon}) with $2^{O(s^{2})d}$ loss, take absolute value of everything, then fix $m_{i}$ and $\beta_{i}$ to produce a term $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ that has basically the same form as the left hand side of (\ref{nonsharp}), with possibly some additional loss of $2^{O(s^{2})d}$, and with the $\min\{T,\langle\alpha_{4}\rangle^{-1}\}$ factor in (\ref{nonsharp}) replaced by $T^{0+}\langle\alpha_{4}\rangle^{-1+s^{4}}$, which is due to the estimate
\begin{equation}\int_{\alpha_{3}+\alpha_{4}+\alpha_{7}+\alpha_{8}+\gamma_{2}=\alpha_{10}}\min\big\{T,\langle\alpha_{3}\rangle^{-1}\big\}\cdot\langle\gamma_{2}\rangle^{-10}\prod_{l\in\{4,7,8\}}\langle\alpha_{l}\rangle^{-1}\lesssim T^{0+}\langle\alpha_{10}\rangle^{-1+s^{4}}.\nonumber\end{equation} We can then repeat the proof of (\ref{nonsharp}) to conclude (notice that every variable is now $\lesssim 2^{O(1)d'}$).
Now we consider case (i), so that $d'=d$. We will first replace the $\eta(\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2})$ factor appearing in the expression of $\mathcal{S}'$ by $\eta(\gamma_{1}',\gamma_{2})$, where $\gamma_{1}'=\gamma_{1}-\alpha_{8}$. Note that $\gamma_{1}'$ depends on $\alpha_{4}$ only through $\alpha_{9}=\alpha_{4}+\alpha_{8}$. When we estimate the difference caused by this substitution, since we still have the restriction $\mathbf{1}_{F}$, we will have $\gamma_{1}\sim 2^{d+h}$, so we will gain a power $2^{2(d+h)-\frac{d'}{70}}$, which is more than enough to cancel $\Phi^{2}(\Phi^{2})'$, thus this part will be acceptable. We also note that the assumption (\ref{notona4}) allows us to insert another characteristic function which depends on $\alpha_{4}$ only through $\alpha_{9}$; the presence of this function (as well as the part of $\mathbf{1}_{F}$ independent of $\alpha_{4}$) will allow us to conclude $\langle\gamma_{1}'\rangle\sim 2^{d+h}$. Therefore, if we \emph{remove} the part in $\mathbf{1}_{F}$ depending on $\alpha_{4}$, the error we create will be a summation-integration of the type $\mathcal{S}'$, but restricted to some set on which we have $|\eta|\lesssim 2^{-(d+h)}\langle \gamma_{2}\rangle^{-10}$ (note that here we already have $\eta(\gamma_{1}',\gamma_{2})$ instead of $\eta(\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2})$), \emph{as well as} $\langle\alpha_{4}\rangle \gtrsim2^{\frac{d'}{90}}$. Then we will be able to take absolute values, cancel $\Phi^{2}(\Phi^{2})'$ by the $\eta$ factor, and gain a power $2^{cd'}$ from the assumption about $\alpha_{4}$, and proceed exactly as above.
After we have made the above substitutions, the integral with respect to $\alpha_{4}$ (or $\alpha_{8}$) will be \emph{exactly}\begin{equation}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\big(\chi e^{\mathrm{i}(\Delta_{n_{1}}+\Delta_{n_{2}}-\Delta_{n_{0}})}\big)^{\wedge}(\alpha_{4})\big(\chi e^{\mathrm{i}(\Delta_{n_{0}}-\Delta_{n_{1}}-\Delta_{n_{2}})}\big)^{\wedge}(\alpha_{9}-\alpha_{4})\,\mathrm{d}\alpha_{4}=\widehat{\chi^{2}}(\alpha_{9}).\nonumber\end{equation} Then we will get rid of this integration, then take absolute values, fix $(m_{i},\beta_{i})$ (again we ignore the restriction that the $m_{i}$ must add to zero) to obtain an expression
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{S}_{sub}&\lesssim&\sum_{n_{0},n_{1}}\int_{(T)}2^{2h}\big|f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}\big|\cdot\prod_{l\in\{1,5,6\}}\big|(y^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l},\alpha_{l}}\big|\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\prod_{l\in\{3,7\}}\min\bigg\{T,\frac{1}{\langle\alpha_{l}\rangle}\bigg\}\cdot 2^{-d-h}\langle \alpha_{9}\rangle^{-10}\langle\gamma_{2}\rangle^{-10}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim& 2^{-|d-h|}T^{0+}\sum_{n_{0},n_{1}}\big\|\widehat{f_{n_{0}}}\big\|_{L^{q}}\prod_{l\in\{1,5,6\}}\big\|\widehat{(y^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l}}}\big\|_{L^{1}}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where $c_{j}$ are constants, $n_{5}=n_{0}$, $n_{6}=-n_{1}$, the summation is restricted to the set
\begin{equation}\big\{(n_{0},n_{1}):\max\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{1}\rangle\sim 2^{d},\,\,\min\{\langle n_{0}\rangle,\langle n_{1}\rangle,\langle n_{0}-n_{1}\rangle\}\sim 2^{h}\big\},\nonumber\end{equation} and the integration $(T)$ is taken over the set
\begin{equation}\big\{(\alpha_{0},\alpha_{1},\alpha_{3},\alpha_{5},\alpha_{6},\alpha_{7},\alpha_{9},\gamma_{2}):\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{3}+\alpha_{57}+\alpha_{9}+\gamma_{2}+c_{2}\big\};\nonumber\end{equation}note that the restriction we make here is enough to guarantee that \begin{equation}|\eta|\lesssim 2^{-(d+h)}\langle\gamma_{2}\rangle^{-10}.\nonumber\end{equation}
Now, if we restrict to $n_{0}\sim 2^{d''}$ and $n_{1}\sim 2^{d'''}$, then up to an additive constant they are between $h$ and $d$, and the restricted $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ is bounded by $2^{-|d-h|}T_{d''}$ due to (\ref{festt}). We may sum over $d$ and $h$ for fixed $d''$ and $d'''$ to obtain a bound $2^{-|d''-d'''|}T_{d''}$, then sum over $d''$ and $d'''$ to conclude.
\section{The \emph{a priori} estimate III: A special term}\label{mid2}
In this section we prove the following proposition, with which we will be able to close the proof of Proposition \ref{finalreduct}.
\begin{proposition}\label{easy} We have
\begin{equation}\label{n3.5est}\sum_{j\in\{1,2,5,7\}}\|\mathcal{M}^{3.5}\|_{X_{j}}\lesssim T^{0+}.\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}Define the functions $g$, $f$ and $f'$, and fix the scale $2^{d}$ as usual. Note in particular that $\|g\|_{X_{6}'}\leq 1$, so that \begin{equation}\label{weakest}\big\|\langle n_{0}\rangle^{-s}\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}-O(s^{2})}f'\big\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}\lesssim 1.\end{equation}Now, according to a computation similar to those did before (for example, in proof of Propositions \ref{easiest} and \ref{easier}), we can write the expression $\mathcal{S}$ we need to bound in two ways\footnote[1]{Note that from the arguments made before, we can switch between these two expressions even if we fix the $n_{l}$, $m_{i}$, $\beta_{i}$ or $\alpha_{4}$ variables. Also we may insert $\chi$ since $f$ has compact time support.}:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{3.5e1}\mathcal{S}&=&\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}+m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu}}\int_{(T)}\Phi^{3.5}\cdot\overline{(f')_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}}\times\\
&\times&((w')^{\omega_{1}})_{n_{1},\alpha_{1}}\prod_{l=2}^{3}(z^{l})_{n_{l},\alpha_{l}}\cdot\phi_{\alpha_{4}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{(u''')_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}}{m_{i}};\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{3.5e2}\mathcal{S}&=&\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}+m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu}}\int_{(T)}\Phi^{3.5}\cdot\overline{f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}}((w'')^{\omega_{1}})_{n_{1},\alpha_{1}}\times\\
&\times&\prod_{l=2}^{3}(y^{l})_{n_{l},\alpha_{l}}\cdot\phi_{\alpha_{4}}\big(\chi e^{\mathrm{i}(\Delta_{n_{1}}+\Delta_{n_{2}}+\Delta_{n_{3}}-\Delta_{n_{0}})}\big)^{\wedge}(\alpha_{5})\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{(u''')_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}}{m_{i}}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} Here the integration $(T)$ in (\ref{3.5e1}) is the integration over the set
\begin{equation}\label{hyperplanee}\big\{(\alpha_{0},\cdots,\alpha_{4},\beta_{1},\cdots,\beta_{\mu}):\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{14}+\beta_{1\mu}+\Xi\big\},\end{equation} while the integration $(T)$ in (\ref{3.5e2}) is over the set
\begin{equation}\label{hyperplanee2}\big\{(\alpha_{0},\cdots,\alpha_{5},\beta_{1},\cdots,\beta_{\mu}):\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{15}+\beta_{1\mu}+\Xi\big\},\end{equation} where the NR factor
\begin{equation}\label{nrfac}\Xi=|n_{0}|n_{0}-\sum_{l=1}^{3}|n_{l}|n_{l}-\sum_{i=1}^{\mu}|m_{i}|m_{i}.\end{equation} Also each $z^{l}$ or $\overline{z^{l}}$ equals $u'$, $v'$ or $w'$, and $y^{l}$ or $\overline{y^{l}}$ equals $u''$, $v''$ or $w''$.
First we treat the case when \begin{equation}\label{notdeviate}\min_{0\leq l\leq 3}\langle n_{l}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{\frac{2d}{3}}.\end{equation}In this situation, $n_{2}$ and $n_{3}$ must have opposite sign (note that here we are again assuming $2^{d}$ is large enough). By symmetry, we may assume $n_{2}>0$ and $n_{3}<0$; also note that $n_{0}>0$.
Next, we may assume that $\langle m_{i}\rangle+\langle\beta_{i}\rangle+\langle\alpha_{4}\rangle\ll 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$ for all $i$, since otherwise we will be able to gain a power $2^{cd}$ from the corresponding factor alone, and estimate the expression (\ref{3.5e1}) by controlling $\mathfrak{N}f'$ in $L^{2+}L^{2+}$, $\mathfrak{N}w'$ in $L^{6+}L^{6+}$, $\mathfrak{N}z^{l}$ in $L^{6}L^{6}$ and $\phi$ in $l^{1+}L^{1+}$ with a loss of at most $2^{(s+O(\epsilon))d}$. Notice that the loss from the $\langle n_{0}\rangle^{-s}$ factor in (\ref{weakest}) is at most $2^{sd}$, while the loss from other places is at most $2^{O(\epsilon)d}$. In the same way, we will also be done if $\langle m_{i}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{1.2sd}$ for some $i$, or when $|\Xi|\gtrsim 2^{(1+1.01s)d}$. In fact, in the former case we invoke the $X_{3}$ norm for $\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}}u'''$ to gain a power of $2^{(1+c)sd}$ to cancel the $2^{sd}$ loss, then fix $m_{j}$ and $\beta_{j}$ for $j\neq i$ to produce $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$, which is estimated by controlling $\mathfrak{N}f'$ in $L^{4}L^{4}$, $\mathfrak{N}w'$, $\mathfrak{N}z^{l}$ and $\mathfrak{N}u'''$ in $L^{6}L^{6}$, $\phi$ in some $l^{1+}L^{1+}$ with a loss of at most $2^{O(\epsilon)d}$. In the latter case at least one of $\alpha_{l}$ must be $\gtrsim 2^{(1+1.01s)d}$. If $l\in\{0,1\}$, we could gain $2^{cd}$ from the corresponding factor and proceed as above (since $2^{cd}$ gain will overwhelm any loss). If $l\in\{2,3\}$ (say $l=2$), we invoke the $X_{4}$ norm for $z^{2}$; notice that $1-\kappa=s^{\frac{5}{4}}$, we will gain at least $2^{1.001sd}$ from $z^{2}$ and estimate the reduced function in $l^{2}L^{2}$. This will cancel the $2^{sd}$ loss from $f'$ and we can fix all $m_{i}$ and $\beta_{i}$, then bound $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$by controlling $\mathfrak{N}f'$ in $L^{6-}L^{6-}$, $\mathfrak{N}w'$ in $L^{6+}L^{6+}$ (where $6-$ and $6+$ differ from $6$ by $cs^{2}$ with appropriately chosen $c$), $\mathfrak{N}z^{2}$ in $L^{2}L^{2}$, $\mathfrak{N}z^{3}$ in $L^{6}L^{6}$, $\phi$ in $l^{1+}L^{1+}$ with a loss of at most $2^{O(\epsilon)d}$.
Now, we have $\langle m_{i}\rangle\ll 2^{1.2sd}$ and $|\Xi|\ll 2^{(1+1.01s)d}$. Since $n_{0},n_{2}>0>n_{3}$ and $\langle n_{1}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{\frac{2d}{3}}$, we can easily see that $n_{1}>0$, which implies
\begin{equation}\label{resss}\big|n_{0}^{2}-n_{1}^{2}-n_{2}^{2}+n_{3}^{2}\big|\ll 2^{(1+1.01s)d}.\end{equation} Note that $|n_{2}+n_{3}|\gg 2^{\frac{d}{2}}$ (otherwise we gain $2^{cd}$ from the weight and everything will again be easy; also this will imply $n_{0}\neq n_{1}$), we write $n_{2}+n_{3}=k$ and $n_{0}-n_{1}=l$ so that $l-k=O(2^{1.2sd})$. We deduce from (\ref{resss}) and elementary algebra that
\begin{equation}\label{resss2}|k|\cdot|n_{0}+n_{1}-n_{2}+n_{3}|\lesssim 2^{(1+1.2s)d},\end{equation} which implies that $\max\{\langle n_{2}\rangle,\langle n_{3}\rangle\}\sim 2^{d}$. Since we will be done we we gain $2^{(1+c)sd}$ from the weight, we may then assume $|n_{2}+n_{3}|\gtrsim 2^{(1-1.01s)d}$.
Next, we claim that we may assume $|n_{0}-n_{2}|+|n_{1}+n_{3}|\ll 2^{1.9sd}$. In fact, the difference between $n_{0}-n_{2}$ and $n_{1}+n_{3}$ is already $O(2^{1.2sd})$, so if one of them is $\gtrsim 2^{1.9sd}$, the factor $n_{0}+n_{1}-n_{2}+n_{3}$ in (\ref{resss2}) will be at least $2^{1.9sd}$ also. This would force $k$ to be $\ll 2^{(1-0.7s)d}$. Note that $\max\{\langle n_{2}\rangle,\langle n_{3}\rangle\}\sim 2^{d}$, we will gain $2^{0.7sd}$ from the weight $\Phi^{3.5}$. Therefore, we will still be able to close the estimate if we can gain more than $2^{0.3sd}$ elsewhere, for example, when $|\Xi|\gtrsim 2^{(1+0.31s)d}$ or when $\langle m_{i}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{0.4sd}$ for some $i$. If we assume further that $|\Xi|\ll 2^{(1+0.31s)d}$ and $\langle m_{i}\rangle\ll 2^{0.4sd}$, then (\ref{resss2}) will hold with the right hand side replaced by $2^{(1+0.4s)d}$. This would then force $|k|\lesssim 2^{(1-1.5s)d}$, which is impossible since we have already had $|k|\gtrsim 2^{(1-1.01s)d}$.
Note that all the restrictions made above concerns only the $n_{l}$, $m_{i}$, $\beta_{i}$ and $\alpha_{4}$ variables, so to this point we still have the freedom of choosing (\ref{3.5e1}) or (\ref{3.5e2}). After making these restrictions, we will now choose (\ref{3.5e2}) and analyze the exponential factor first. Note that
\begin{equation}\|(\delta_{n_{1}}+\delta_{n_{2}}+\delta_{n_{3}}-\delta_{n_{0}})^{\wedge}\|_{L^{1}}\lesssim 2^{-\frac{d}{4}}\end{equation} by Proposition \ref{factt}, we deduce from Lemma \ref{general} that
\begin{equation}\big\|\langle \alpha_{5}\rangle J_{(n)}(\alpha_{5})\big\|_{L^{\mu}}\lesssim 2^{-\frac{d}{8}}\end{equation} for all $1\leq\mu\leq\infty$ with \begin{equation}\label{J(n)}J_{(n)}(\alpha_{5})=\big(\chi(t)\cdot(e^{\mathrm{i}(\Delta_{n_{1}}+\Delta_{n_{2}}+\Delta_{n_{3}}-\Delta_{n_{0}})}-1\big))^{\wedge}(\alpha_{5}).\end{equation} This implies, by a similar argument as in the proof of Proposition \ref{weaken}, we deduce that (where, of course, the supreme is taken over $(n)$ such that $\sum_{l}\langle n_{l}\rangle\sim 2^{d}$)
\begin{equation}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\sup_{n_{0},\cdots,n_{3}}|J_{(n)}(\alpha_{5})|\,\mathrm{d}\alpha_{5}\lesssim 2^{-\frac{d}{9}}.\end{equation}Therefore, if we replace in (\ref{3.5e2}) the exponential factor by $J_{(n)}$, we will be able to first fix $\alpha_{5}$ and then integrate over it, and gain a power $2^{cd}$ from this process. Once $\alpha_{5}$ is fixed and the $J_{(n)}$ factor is removed with a $2^{cd}$ gain, we will be in the same situation as considered before. We can then fix $m_{i}$ and $\beta_{i}$ to produce $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$, and estimate it by controlling $\mathfrak{N}f$ in $L^{2+}L^{2+}$, $\mathfrak{N}w''$ and $\mathfrak{N}y^{l}$ in $L^{6}L^{6}$, $\phi$ in $l^{1+}L^{1+}$ with a loss $2^{O(s)d}$.
Now we may replace the exponential factor in (\ref{3.5e2}) by $\widehat{\chi}(\alpha_{5})$. We can actually get rid of this factor since $f$ and $f'$ is supposed to have compact $t$ support. Therefore, we are reduced to estimate \begin{eqnarray}\label{3.5e3}\mathcal{S}&=&\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}+m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu}}\int_{(T)}|\Phi^{3.5}|\cdot\big|\overline{f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}}\big|\times\\&\times&\big|((w'')^{\omega_{1}})_{n_{1},\alpha_{1}}\big|
\prod_{l=2}^{3}\big|(y^{l})_{n_{l},\alpha_{l}}\big|\cdot|\phi_{\alpha_{4}}|\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\bigg|\frac{(u''')_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}}{m_{i}}\bigg|,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where the integral $(T)$ is taken over the set (\ref{hyperplanee}). Starting from this point we will no longer use the equivalence of (\ref{3.5e1}) and (\ref{3.5e2}), so we will assume here that each $\langle \alpha_{l}\rangle\ll 2^{(1+1.01s)d}$, since otherwise we may proceed as above (note that the bounds for $f$, $w''$ and $y^{l}$ are better than those for $f'$, $w'$ and $z^{l}$). For the same reason, we may assume $\langle \alpha_{0}\rangle+\langle \alpha_{1}\rangle\ll 2^{\frac{d}{900}}$ (otherwise we may gain $2^{cd}$, then control $\mathfrak{N}f'$ in $L^{2+}L^{2+}$, $\mathfrak{N}w''$ in $L^{6-}L^{6-}$, $\mathfrak{N}y^{l}$ in $L^{6}L^{6}$ and $\phi$ in $l^{1+}L^{1+}$ with $2+$ and $6-$ being $2+c$ and $6-c$ respectively).
To estimate (\ref{3.5e3}), we recall the bound (\ref{festt}) in the proof of Proposition \ref{easier}. Suppose that $n_{0}\sim n_{2}\sim 2^{d'}$ and $n_{1}\sim n_{3}\sim 2^{d''}$ (note that $|n_{0}-n_{2}|$ ans $|n_{1}+n_{3}|$ are small), then we have $\max\{d',d''\}=d+O(1)$, as well as \begin{equation}\label{boundphi}|\Phi^{3.5}|\lesssim 2^{-|d'-d''|}.\end{equation} Here, instead of fixing $d$, we will fix all of $d,d',d''$, then sum over $d'$ and $d''$. By (\ref{boundphi}), we may assume \begin{equation}\min\{d',d''\}\geq (1-1.01s)d,\nonumber\end{equation}so in particular $d'\sim d''\sim d$. Once we fix $\langle n_{3}\rangle\sim 2^{d''}$, we can invoke the $X_{8}$ norm of $y^{3}$ to write $y^{3}$ (now restricted to frequency $\sim 2^{d''}$) as a sum \begin{equation}\label{another22}y^{3}=\sum_{j}\gamma_{j}\pi_{k_{j}}y^{(j)},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\sum_{j}\langle k_{j}\rangle^{s^{\frac{1}{2}}}|\gamma_{j}|\lesssim 1,\end{equation} such that $\|y^{(j)}\|_{L^{q}l^{2}}\lesssim 1$ for each $j$. See Section \ref{another}. We only need to consider a single $j$; namely we need to bound $\mathcal{S}$ provided $y^{3}=\langle k\rangle^{-s^{1/2}}\pi_{k}y''$, where $y''$ is some function verifying $\|y''\|_{L^{q}l^{2}}\lesssim 1$. Next, if $\langle k\rangle\gtrsim 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$, we will gain a power $2^{cs^{1/2}d}$ from the coefficient in $y^{3}$; we then fix $m_{i}$ and $\beta_{i}$. To estimate the resulting $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$, we can control $\mathfrak{N}f$ in $L^{6+}L^{6+}$, $\mathfrak{N}w''$ and $\mathfrak{N}y^{2}$ in $L^{6}L^{6}$ and $\phi$ in $l^{1+}L^{1+}$ with a loss of at most $2^{O(s)d}$ (where the $6+$ is $6+cs$ and $1+$ defined accordingly; also note that we have assumed $\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle\lesssim 2^{2d}$, as well as the bound for $f$ deduced from the $X_{6}'$ bound for $g$). We can then close the estimate if we can control $y''$ (and hence $\pi_{k}y''$) in $l^{2}L^{2}$. This can be achieved by inserting a $\chi(t)$ factor to every term in (\ref{another22}), which, while doing nothing to the equality and the $L^{q}l^{2}$ norms, allows us to control the $L^{2}l^{2}$ norm by the $L^{q}l^{2}$ norm. Thus here we also get the desired estimate.
We now assume $\langle k\rangle\ll 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$. We will fix $k$ and each $(m_{i},\beta_{i})$ to obtain some constants $K_{1}\ll 2^{1.2sd}$ and $K_{2}\ll 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$, and produce
\begin{eqnarray}2^{-|d'-d''|}\mathcal{S}_{sub} &=&2^{-|d'-d''|}\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{3}+K_{1}}\int_{(T)}\big|\overline{f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}}\big|\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\big|((w'')^{\omega_{1}})_{n_{1},\alpha_{1}}\big|\cdot\big|(y^{2})_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}\big|\cdot\big|(\pi_{k}y'')_{n_{3},\alpha_{3}}\big|\cdot|\phi_{\alpha_{4}}|,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where the integral $(T)$ is taken over the set
\begin{equation}\bigg\{(\alpha_{0},\cdots,\alpha_{4}):\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{14}+|n_{0}|n_{0}-\sum_{l=1}^{3}|n_{l}|n_{l}+K_{2}\bigg\},\end{equation} with all the restrictions made above taking effect. Now if $n_{0}-n_{2}\in\{0,K_{1}-k\}$, we can bound $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ by
\begin{eqnarray}\mathcal{S}_{sub}&\lesssim &T^{0+}\sum_{n_{0}\sim 2^{d'}}\sum_{n_{1}\sim 2^{d''}}\big\|\widehat{f_{n_{0}}}\big\|_{L^{q}}\big\|(((w'')^{\omega_{1}})_{n_{1}})^{\wedge}\big\|_{L^{1}}\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\big\|((y^{2})_{n_{0}+c_{0}})^{\wedge}\big\|_{L^{1}}\big\|((y'')_{n_{1}+c_{1}})^{\wedge}\big\|_{L^{q}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &T^{0+}T_{d'}\big\|\langle n_{2}\rangle^{r}y^{2}\big\|_{l_{n_{2}\sim 2^{d'}}^{p}L^{1}}\cdot\big\|(w'')^{\omega_{1}}\big\|_{l_{n_{1}\sim 2^{d''}}^{2}L^{1}}\big\|y''\big\|_{l_{n_{1}\sim 2^{d''}}^{2}L^{q}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim& T^{0+}T_{d'},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
using the bound (\ref{festt}) for $f$, the $X_{2}$ bound for $w''$ and $y^{2}$, and the $L^{q}l^{2}$ bound for $y''$, where $c_{j}$ are constants, small compared to $2^{d'}$ and $2^{d''}$, such that $n_{j}\sim n_{0}+c_{j}$ for $j\in\{0,1\}$. If we then sum and integrate over $m_{i}$ and $\beta_{i}$, then multiply by $2^{-|d'-d''|}$ and sum over $d'$ and $d''$, we will get a quantity bounded by $T^{0+}$.
Assume $n_{0}-n_{2}\not\in\{0,K_{1}-k\}$. Let $\lambda=n_{0}-n_{2}$, we can rewrite the expression for $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ as
\begin{eqnarray}\mathcal{S}_{sub}&\lesssim&T^{0+}2^{-0.999sd+O(s)|d'-d''|}\sum_{n_{0},n_{1},\lambda}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{4}}A_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}B_{n_{1},\alpha_{1}}C_{n_{0}-\lambda,\alpha_{2}}\times\nonumber\\
&\times &D_{\lambda-n_{1}+c_{1},\alpha_{3}'}\big\langle\alpha_{0}-\alpha_{1}-\alpha_{2}-\alpha_{3}'-\Xi'+c_{2}\big\rangle^{-1-s^{2}}\prod_{l=0}^{2}\,\mathrm{d}\alpha_{l}\cdot\mathrm{d}\alpha_{3}',\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where $c_{j}\ll 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$ are constants, and the summation-integration is restricted to the subset where all the restrictions made above are satisfied by $(n_{0},\cdots,n_{3},\alpha_{0},\cdots,\alpha_{4})$ which is defined in terms of our new variables (as well as the intermediate variable $n_{3}'$) by
\begin{equation}n_{2}=n_{0}-\lambda,\,\,\,n_{3}=n_{3}'-k,\,\,\,\alpha_{3}=\alpha_{3}'-|n_{3}'|n_{3}'+|n_{3}|n_{3};\nonumber\end{equation}
\begin{equation}n_{3}'=\lambda-n_{1}-K_{1}+k,\,\,\,\alpha_{4}=\alpha_{0}-\alpha_{13}-|n_{0}|n_{0}+\sum_{l=1}^{3}|n_{l}|n_{l}-K_{2}.\nonumber\end{equation} We can check from the assumptions made above that no two of $(-n_{0},n_{1}.n_{2},n_{3}')$ add to zero. Moreover, the $\Xi'$ is defined by
\begin{equation}\Xi'=\Xi'(n_{0},n_{1},\lambda)=|n_{0}|n_{0}-|n_{1}|n_{1}-|n_{2}|n_{2}-|n_{3}'|n_{3}',\nonumber\end{equation} and the relevant functions are defined by
\begin{equation}A_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}=\langle n_{0}\rangle^{-r}\big|f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}\big|,\,\,\,B_{n_{1},\alpha_{1}}=\langle n_{1}\rangle^{r}\big|((w'')^{\omega_{1}})_{n_{1},\alpha_{1}}\big|;\nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
C_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}=\langle n_{2}\rangle^{r}\big|(y^{2})_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}\big|,\,\,\,\,D_{n_{3}',\alpha_{3}'}=\big|(y'')_{n_{3}',\alpha_{3}'}\big|
.\nonumber\end{equation} When restricted to appropriate subsets (for example, we must have $n_{0}\sim n_{2}\sim 2^{d'}$ and $n_{1}\sim n_{3}\sim 2^{d''}$), these functions will verify
\begin{equation}\label{ultimatebound}
\|A\|_{L^{1}l^{p'}}+\|B\|_{L^{1}l^{p}}+\|C\|_{l^{p}L^{1}}+\|D\|_{L^{1}l^{2}}\lesssim 2^{0.002sd}.\end{equation} In fact, due to the restrictions we made, we can bound all the variables by $2^{O(1)d}$; so when we replace $L^{q}$ norm by $L^{1}$ norm we lose (by H\"{o}lder) at most $2^{O(q-1)d}$. Thus the bound for $A$ follows from (\ref{festt}), and the bound for $D$ follows from our assumption about $y''$. The bound for $C$ follows from the $X_{2}$ bound for $y^{2}$, while for $B$ we simply estimate (note that $\langle \alpha_{1}\rangle\ll 2^{\frac{d}{900}}$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\|B\|_{L^{1}l^{p}}&\lesssim & 2^{O(1-q)d}\big\|\langle n_{1}\rangle^{r}\langle \alpha_{1}\rangle^{b}(w'')^{\omega_{1}}\big\|_{L^{2}l^{p}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &2^{O(1-q)d}2^{\frac{sd}{800}}\|\langle n_{1}\rangle^{s}\langle \alpha_{1}\rangle^{b}(w'')^{\omega_{1}}\big\|_{L^{p}l^{p}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &2^{0.002sd},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} using the $X_{1}$ bound for $w''$. Note that by inserting $\chi(t)$ to $w''$, we may control the $l^{p}L^{p}$ norm by the $l^{p}L^{2}$ norm.
Now we need to estimate $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ under the assumption of (\ref{ultimatebound}). First replace the bounds in (\ref{ultimatebound}) by $1$, so that we only need to bound the summation-integration part of $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ by $2^{0.998sd}$. Fix $\alpha_{0}$ and $\alpha_{1}$ which are $\ll 2^{0.02d}$ (then integrate over them), we may assume $A$ and $B$ are functions of $n_{0}$ and $n_{1}$ only, and are bounded in $l^{p'}$ and $l^{p}$ respectively. We then bound (with $c_{j}\ll 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$ being constants)
\begin{eqnarray}\mathcal{S}_{sub}'&=&\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\mathrm{d}\alpha_{2}\mathrm{d}\alpha_{3}'\cdot\sum_{n_{0},n_{1},\lambda}A_{n_{0}}B_{n_{1}}C_{n_{0}-\lambda,\alpha_{2}}\times\nonumber\\
&\times&D_{\lambda-n_{1}+c_{1},\alpha_{3}'}\big\langle\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}'+\Xi'+c_{3}\big\rangle^{-1-s^{2}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim&\sum_{\rho\in\mathbb{Z}}\langle\rho\rangle^{-1-s^{2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\mathrm{d}\alpha_{2}\mathrm{d}\alpha_{3}'\sum_{(n_{0},n_{1},\lambda):\lfloor \Xi''\rfloor=\rho}A_{n_{0}}B_{n_{1}}C_{n_{0}-\lambda,\alpha_{2}}D_{\lambda-n_{1}+c_{1},\alpha_{3}'}\nonumber\\
\label{trilin}&\lesssim&\sup_{\rho}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\mathrm{d}\alpha_{2}\mathrm{d}\alpha_{3}'\cdot\bigg(\sum_{(n_{0},n_{1},\lambda):\lfloor \Xi''\rfloor=\rho}A_{n_{0}}^{2}C_{n_{0}-\lambda,\alpha_{2}}^{2}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{2}}\times\\
&\times&\bigg(\sum_{(n_{0},n_{1},\lambda):\lfloor \Xi''\rfloor=\rho}B_{n_{1}}^{4}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{4}}\bigg(\sum_{(n_{0},n_{1},\lambda):\lfloor \Xi''\rfloor=\rho}D_{\lambda-n_{1}+c_{1},\alpha_{3}'}^{4}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{4}},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where we write $\alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3}'+\Xi'+c_{3}=\Xi''$ for simplicity. Now for any positive function $E_{n_{1}}$ of $n_{1}$, when $\rho$ and $\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3}'$ are fixed, we may bound
\begin{equation}\sum_{(n_{0},n_{1},\lambda):\lfloor \Xi''\rfloor=\rho}E_{n_{1}}\lesssim\sum_{n_{1}}E_{n_{1}}\sum_{(n_{0},\lambda):\Xi'=c''}1
\lesssim2^{O(s^{4})d}\|E\|_{l^{1}}\nonumber\end{equation} (where $c'$ and $c''$ are constants depending on $\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3}'$ and $\rho$), thanks to part (iii) of Lemma \ref{divisor} (or actually, an argument similar to the proof of that part). The same inequality holds if we replace $n_{1}$ by $\lambda-n_{1}+c_{1}$ (which equals $n_{3}'$ plus a constant). Therefore we can bound the second factor in (\ref{trilin}) by $2^{O(s^{4})d}\|B\|_{l^{4}}\lesssim 2^{O(s^{4})d}$, and the third factor by $2^{O(s^{4})d}\|D_{\cdot,\alpha_{3}'}\|_{l^{4}}$. Ignoring the $2^{O(s^{4})d}$ factors, we thus bound (\ref{trilin}) by
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{S}_{sub}'&\lesssim&\sup_{\rho}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\mathrm{d}\alpha_{2}\mathrm{d}\alpha_{3}'\cdot\big\|D_{\cdot,\alpha_{3}'}\big\|_{l^{4}}\cdot\bigg(\sum_{(n_{0},n_{1},\lambda):\lfloor \Xi''\rfloor=\rho}A_{n_{0}}^{2}C_{n_{0}-\lambda,\alpha_{2}}^{2}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &\sup_{\rho,\alpha_{3}'}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\bigg(\sum_{(n_{0},n_{1},\lambda):\lfloor \Xi''\rfloor=\rho}A_{n_{0}}^{2}C_{n_{0}-\lambda,\alpha_{2}}^{2}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{2}}\,\mathrm{d}\alpha_{2}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &\sup_{\rho,\alpha_{3}'}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\,\mathrm{d}\alpha_{2}\cdot\sum_{(n_{0},n_{1},\lambda):\lfloor \Xi''\rfloor=\rho}A_{n_{0}}C_{n_{0}-\lambda,\alpha_{2}}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} Now we fix $\rho$ and $\alpha_{3}'$. Notice $n_{0}-\lambda=n_{2}$, and that
\begin{equation}A_{n_{0}}\leq F_{n_{2}}:=\bigg(\sum_{|m-n_{2}|\lesssim 2^{1.9sd}}A_{m}^{p'}\bigg)^{\frac{1}{p'}}\end{equation} which is because $|n_{0}-n_{2}|\lesssim 2^{1.9sd}$, we proceed to estimate
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{S}_{sub}''&\lesssim &\int_{\mathbb{R}}\,\mathrm{d}\alpha_{2}\cdot\sum_{(n_{1},n_{2},\lambda):\lfloor \Xi''\rfloor=\rho}F_{n_{2}}C_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &2^{O(s^{4})d}\sum_{n_{2}}F_{n_{2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}C_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}\,\mathrm{d}\alpha_{2}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim & 2^{O(s^{4})d}\|F\|_{l^{p'}}\|C\|_{l^{p}L^{1}}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} Here we have again used the divisor estimate as above. Finally, notice that
\begin{equation}\|F\|_{l^{p'}}^{p'}=\sum_{n_{2}}\sum_{|m-n_{2}|\lesssim 2^{1.9sd}}A_{m}^{p'}\lesssim 2^{1.9sd}\|A\|_{l^{p'}}^{p'},\nonumber\end{equation} so we deduce that $\mathcal{S}_{sub}''\lesssim 2^{\frac{1.91sd}{p'}}\lesssim 2^{0.998sd}$, as desired.
It remains to consider the case where $\langle n_{l}\rangle\ll 2^{\frac{2d}{3}}$ for some $l$. Note that if $\langle m_{i}\rangle+\langle\beta_{i}\rangle+\langle\alpha_{4}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$ for some $i$, the weight $|\Phi^{3.5}|\lesssim 2^{-cd}$ or the NR factor (as defined in (\ref{nrfac})) satisfies $|\Xi|\gtrsim 2^{(1+c)d}$, we will be done using the same arguments as before. This in particular includes the cases when (i) three of the $n_{l}$ are $\gtrsim 2^{\frac{3d}{4}}$ and the remaining one is $\ll 2^{\frac{2d}{3}}$; (ii) at least two of the $n_{l}$ are $\ll 2^{\frac{3d}{4}}$, and $\langle n_{2}\rangle+\langle n_{3}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{\frac{4d}{5}}$; (iii) both $n_{2}$ and $n_{3}$ are $\ll 2^{\frac{4d}{5}}$, and $n_{0}n_{1}<0$.
Now we assume that $n_{0}n_{1}>0$, and $\langle n_{2}\rangle+\langle n_{3}\rangle\ll 2^{\frac{4d}{5}}$. Let $n_{0}-n_{1}=k$ and $n_{2}+n_{3}=l$, so that $|k-l|\ll 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$. If $l\lesssim 2^{\frac{d}{80}}$, we must have $\langle n_{2}\rangle+\langle n_{3}\rangle\ll 2^{\frac{d}{70}}$ (or we gain from the $\Phi$ factor). These two variables being small means that we will be able to repeat the argument made before and gain $2^{cd}$ even if $|\Xi|$ is bounded below by $2^{0.99d}$ instead of $2^{(1+c)d}$. But when $|\Xi|\ll 2^{0.99d}$, it is clear that we must have $k=0$. If $l\gg 2^{\frac{d}{80}}$, we will have $k\sim l$, so that \begin{equation}\big||n_{0}|n_{0}-|n_{1}|n_{1}\big|\gtrsim 2^{d}|k|\gg 2^{\frac{4d}{5}}|l|\gg\big||n_{2}|n_{2}+|n_{3}|n_{3}\big|,\nonumber\end{equation} which implies $|\Xi|\gtrsim 2^{\frac{81d}{80}}$, contradicting our assumptions. Thus in any case we deduce that $n_{0}=n_{1}\sim 2^{d}$. Now we may use the expression (\ref{3.5e1}) for $\mathcal{S}$, but with $f'$ and $w'$ replaced with $f$ and $w''$ respectively (see the proof of Proposition \ref{easier}; note that we have made no restrictions for $\alpha_{0}$ or $\alpha_{1}$).
Next, suppose $\langle n_{2}\rangle+\langle n_{3}\rangle\sim 2^{d'}$, we may assume $d'<\frac{d}{10}$, otherwise we will gain a power $2^{cd}$ from the weight $\Phi^{3.5}$ (note that $n_{2}+n_{3}$ equals a linear combination of the $m$ variables since $n_{0}=n_{1}$). We will fix $d$ and $d'$ (then sum over them). If $\langle m_{i}\rangle\ll 2^{\frac{d'}{2}}$ for all $i$, then we gain a power $2^{cd'}$ from the weight $\Phi^{3.5}$; otherwise we have $\langle m_{i}\rangle\gtrsim 2^{\frac{d'}{2}}$ for some $i$, so we may extract a power $2^{cd'}$ from the $\frac{1}{m_{i}}$ factor (without affecting summability in $m_{i}$). In any case, we will be able to fix $m_{i}$ and $\beta_{i}$ and sum over them later, and the $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ term can be bounded by
\begin{eqnarray}\mathcal{S}_{sub}&\lesssim &2^{-cd'}\sum_{n_{0},n_{2}}\int_{(T)}\big|f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}\big|\cdot\big|((w'')^{\omega_{1}})_{n_{0},\alpha_{1}}\big|\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\big|(z^{2})_{n_{2},\alpha_{2}}\big|\cdot\big|(z^{3})_{c_{1}-n_{2},\alpha_{3}}\big|\cdot\min\bigg\{T,\frac{1}{\langle \alpha_{4}\rangle}\bigg\}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &2^{-cd'}T^{0+}\sum_{n_{0},n_{2}}\big\|\widehat{f_{n_{0}}}\big\|_{L^{q}}\big\|(((w'')^{\omega_{1}})_{n_{0}})^{\wedge}\big\|_{L^{1}}\prod_{l=2}^{3}\big\|\langle n_{l}\rangle^{-c}\widehat{(z^{l})_{n_{l}}}\big\|_{L^{1}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &2^{-cd'}T^{0+}\cdot 2^{rd}T_{d}\cdot 2^{-rd}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim& 2^{-cd'}T^{0+}T_{d}\nonumber.
\end{eqnarray} using the bound (\ref{festt}) for $f$ and the $X_{2}$ bound for $w''$, where $c_{j}$ are constants, $n_{3}=c_{1}-n_{2}$, and the integral $(T)$ is over the set
\begin{equation}\big\{(\alpha_{0},\cdots,\alpha_{4}:\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{14}-|n_{2}|n_{2}-|c_{1}-n_{2}|(c_{1}-n_{2})+c_{2})\big\}.\nonumber\end{equation} Now we can (sum over $m_{i}$ and integrate over $\beta_{i}$ and then) sum over $d$ and $d'$ to conclude that $\mathcal{S}$ is bounded by $T^{0+}$. This proves Proposition \ref{easy}.
\end{proof
\section{The \emph{a priori} estimate IV: The remaining estimates}\label{mid3} In this section we will construct appropriate extensions of $u^{*}$, $v^{*}$ and $u$ so that the improved versions of (\ref{output3}) and (\ref{output4}) holds. Note that we have already constructed a function, denoted by $w^{(4)}$, that coincides with $w^{*}$ on $[-T,T]$, and verifies $\|w^{(4)}\|_{Y_{1}}\leq C_{0}e^{C_{0}A}$. We will fix this function in later discussions. In particular, we may (starting from this point) redefine the $\delta_{n}$ and $\Delta_{n}$ factors as in (\ref{factor0}) and (\ref{factor1}) by replacing $w^{*}$ with $w^{(4)}$ (instead of $w''$) and $u$ with $u'''$.
\subsection{The extension of $u$}\label{controllu} Fix a scale $K$ so that $K=C_{1.5}e^{C_{1.5}A}$ where $C_{1.5}$ is large enough depending on $C_{1}$, and the $C_{2}$ defined before is large enough depending on $C_{1.5}$. In order to construct a function $u^{(5)}$ that coincides with $u$ on $[-T,T]$ and satisfies\begin{equation}\label{loosebound}\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}}u^{(5)}\|_{X_{2}}+\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}}u^{(5)}\|_{X_{3}}+\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}}u^{(5)}\|_{X_{4}}\leq C_{0}A,\end{equation} we only need to construct $\mathbb{P}_{>K}u^{(5)}$ and $\mathbb{P}_{\leq K}u^{(5)}$ separately.
To construct $\mathbb{P}_{>K}u^{(5)}$, simply note that $u''$ coincides with $u^{*}$ on $[-T,T]$, and we have $\|u''\|_{Y_{2}}\leq C_{1}e^{C_{1}A}$; thus if we define $(u^{(5)})_{n}=e^{\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}}(u'')_{n}$, where $\Delta_{n}$ is redefined as above, then $\mathbb{P}_{>K}u^{(5)}$ will equal $\mathbb{P}_{>K}u$ on $[-T,T]$, and we have
\begin{equation}\label{bigucontrol}
\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{4}}u^{(5)}\|_{X_{j}}\lesssim O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A},
\end{equation} for $j\in\{2,3,4\}$, thanks to Proposition \ref{weaken}. Here note that the $s^{3}$ exponent in that proposition can actually be replaced by $s^{4}$ (which is clear from the proof), and the current $(\delta_{n},\Delta_{n})$ also verifies Proposition \ref{factt} (in the same way as the $(\delta_{n},\Delta_{n})$ defined in Section \ref{begin} does). Since we are restricting to high frequencies, the inequality (\ref{bigucontrol}) will easily imply
\begin{equation}\|\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}}\mathbb{P}_{>K}u^{(5)}\|_{X_{j}}\leq A\nonumber\end{equation} for $j\in\{2,3,4\}$, which is what we need for $\mathbb{P}_{>K}u^{(5)}$.
Now let us construct $\mathbb{P}_{\leq K}u^{(5)}$. Recall that the function $u$ verifies the equation (\ref{smoothtrunc}), and the $Y_{2}$ norm of $\chi(t)e^{-tH\partial_{xx}}u(0)$ is clearly bounded by $C_{0}A$, we only need to prove
\begin{equation}\label{lowforu}\bigg\|\int_{0}^{t}e^{-(t-t')H\partial_{xx}}\mathbb{P}_{\neq 0}((S_{N}u(t'))^{2})\,\mathrm{d}t'\bigg\|_{(X^{-\frac{1}{s},\kappa})^{T}}\lesssim T^{0+},\end{equation} with the implicit constants bounded by $O_{C_{1.5}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1.5}A}$, where $X^{\sigma,\beta}$ is the standard space normed by $\|\langle n\rangle^{\sigma}\langle\xi\rangle^{\beta}\ast\|_{l^{2}L^{2}}$. Define the function $u^{(7)}$ by equations (\ref{possub}) and (\ref{negsub}), with the $u$ appearing on the right hand side replaced by $u'''$, and $v$ replaced by $\mathbb{P}_{\leq 0}v'''+w'''$ with $v'''$ defined by\footnote[1]{Note that the $\Delta_{n}$ here is different from the $\Delta_{n}$ defined in Section \ref{begin}. Later we will further modify the definition of $\Delta_{n}$, and this will be clearly stated at that time.} $(v''')_{n}=e^{\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}}(v'')_{n}$ and $w'''$ similarly, so that $u^{(7)}$ coincides with $u$ on $[-T,T]$. We claim that
\begin{equation}\label{lowforu2}\big\|\mathcal{E}\big(\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}\mathbb{P}_{\neq 0}((S_{N}u^{(7)})^{2})\big)\big\|_{X^{-\frac{1}{s},\kappa}}\lesssim T^{0+}.\end{equation} This implies (\ref{lowforu}), since the two functions on the left hand side of (\ref{lowforu}) and (\ref{lowforu2}) coincide on $[-T,T]$.
Let $\mathcal{N}=\mathbb{P}_{\neq 0}((S_{N}u^{(7)})^{2})$, we will have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{expansofn}\mathcal{N}_{n_{0}}&=&\sum_{(\omega_{1},\omega_{2})\in\{-1,1\}^{2}}\sum_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}}\frac{\omega_{1}^{\mu_{1}}\omega_{2}^{\mu_{2}}}{2^{\mu_{12}}\mu_{1}!\mu_{2}!}\times\\
&\times&\sum_{n_{1}+n_{2}+m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu_{12}}=n_{0}}\Psi\cdot\prod_{l=1}^{2}(z^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu_{12}}\frac{(u''')_{m_{i}}}{m_{i}},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where $z=\mathbb{P}_{\leq 0}v'''+w'''$, $\Psi$ is the product of some $\psi$ factors and two characteristic functions $\mathbf{1}_{E_{1}}\mathbf{1}_{E_{2}}$, where\begin{equation}E_{1}=\big\{\omega_{1}(n_{1}+m_{1\mu_{1}})<0\big\},\,\,\,\,\,\,E_{2}=\big\{\omega_{2}(n_{2}+m_{\mu_{1}+1,\mu_{12}})<0\big\}.\nonumber\end{equation} Now, by the same argument as in the proof of Proposition \ref{intereqn} (note that $n_{0}\neq 0$), we can rewrite the right hand side of (\ref{expansofn}) as a sum of the same form, but either with $\Psi$ bounded by $1$ and $n_{1}+n_{2}\neq 0$, or with $\Psi$ bounded by $\frac{\langle m_{i}\rangle+\langle n_{0}\rangle}{\langle n_{1}\rangle+\langle m_{i}\rangle+\langle n_{0}\rangle}$ for some $i$.
To prove (\ref{lowforu2}), we will use the function $g$ and $f$ as in the previous sections, and fix the scale $d$ as before; we are then reduced to estimate (with $\mu=\mu_{12}$)\begin{equation}\mathcal{S}=\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+n_{2}+m_{1}+\cdots +m_{\mu}}\int_{(T)}\overline{f_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}}\phi_{\alpha_{3}}\prod_{l=1}^{2}(z^{\omega_{l}})_{n_{l},\alpha_{l}}\cdot\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{(u''')_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}}{m_{i}}\nonumber,\end{equation} where $\phi$ is the Fourier transform of $\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}$, the integration $(T)$ is taken over the set
\begin{equation}\big\{(\alpha_{0},\cdots,\alpha_{3},\beta_{1},\cdots,\beta_{\mu}):\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{13}+\beta_{1\mu}+\Xi\big\},\nonumber\end{equation} where the NR factor \begin{equation}\Xi=|n_{0}|n_{0}-|n_{1}|n_{1}-|n_{2}|n_{2}-\sum_{i=1}^{\mu}|m_{i}|m_{i}.\nonumber\end{equation}We may assume that $\langle n_{0}\rangle$ and $\langle m_{i}\rangle$ are all $\ll 2^{\frac{d}{90}}$; otherwise, since we can gain some small power of $\langle m_{i}\rangle$ and any large power of $\langle n_{0}\rangle$ (because of the $\frac{-1}{s}$ index), we will be able to gain some power $2^{cd}$. Then we simply fix $(m_{i},\beta_{i})$ to produce $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$, then bound $f$ in $L^{2}L^{2}$, $\mathfrak{N}z$ in $L^{6}L^{6}$ and $\phi_{\alpha_{3}}$ in $l^{1+}L^{1+}$ with $2^{O(s)d}$ loss to conclude. Now, since $n_{0}$ and all $m_{i}$ are small, we have either $n_{1}+n_{2}\neq 0$ (which implies $|\Xi|\gtrsim 2^{d}$) or $|\Psi|\lesssim 2^{-cd}$ (so we can proceed as above). In this case at least one of the $\alpha$ or $\beta$ variables must be $\gtrsim 2^{d}$; since we will also have $\omega_{l}n_{l}<0$ and hence $z=w'''$ which is bounded in $Y_{1}$ by $C_{1}e^{C_{1}A}$, we will always gain a power of at least $2^{c(1-\kappa)d}$ from the corresponding factor, then proceed as before to estimate $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ and then $\mathcal{S}$, with a loss of at most $2^{O(\epsilon)d}$. Finally, note that we always gain a power $T^{0+}$ which overwhelms any loss $O_{C_{1.5}}(1)e^{O_{C_{1.5}}(1)A}$, we have already proved (\ref{lowforu2}).
Next, note that $(u^{*})_{n}=e^{-\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}}u_{n}$ on the interval $[-T,T]$, we have
\begin{equation}(\partial_{t}+H\partial_{xx})(u^{*})_{n}=e^{-\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}}(\partial_{t}+H\partial_{xx})u_{n}-\mathrm{i}e^{-\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}}(\delta_{n}u_{n}).\nonumber\end{equation} The first term on the right hand side can be bounded in $X^{-\frac{2}{s},\kappa-1}$ using Proposition \ref{weaken} and what we proved above, while the second term is easily bounded in the stronger space $X^{-10,0}$, by $O_{C_{1.5}}(1)e^{O_{C_{1.5}}(1)A}$. Therefore by the same argument, we can construct an extension of $\mathbb{P}_{\leq K}u^{*}$ that verifies (\ref{output3}).
\subsection{The extensions of $u^{*}$ and $v^{*}$}\label{controllv} Now, in order to construct appropriate extensions of $\mathbb{P}_{>K}u^{*}$ and $v^{*}$, we need the following
\begin{proposition}\label{recoverlemma}Let $\delta_{n}$ and $\Delta_{n}$ be redefined using (\ref{factor0}) and (\ref{factor1}), this time with $w^{*}$ replaced by $w^{(4)}$ and $u$ replaced by $u^{(5)}$, then the new factors will verify Proposition \ref{factt} with the constants being $C_{0}e^{C_{0}A}$ instead of $O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}$.
Now suppose $h$, $k$ and $h'$, $k'$ are four functions, supported in $|t|\lesssim 1$, that are related by $(h')_{n}=e^{\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}}h_{n}$ and $(k')_{n}=e^{\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}}k_{n}$. Assume that
\begin{equation}\label{fu}(h')_{n_{0}}=\sum_{\mu}C_{\mu}\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+m_{1}+\cdots+m_{\mu}}\Psi\cdot(k')_{n_{1}}\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\frac{(u^{(5)})_{m_{i}}}{m_{i}},\end{equation} with $\Psi$ bounded, we will have $\|h\|_{Y_{2}}\lesssim C_{0}e^{C_{0}A}\|k\|_{Y_{2}}$. Moreover, if $\Psi$ is nonzero only when $\langle m_{i}\rangle\gtrsim K$ for some $i$ (again, the constant here may involve polynomial factors of $\mu$), then we have $\|h\|_{Y_{2}}\lesssim K^{0-}\|k\|_{Y_{2}}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}The estimates about $\delta_{n}$ and $\Delta_{n}$ are proved in the same way as in Proposition \ref{factt}; notice that all the relevant norms bounded by $O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}$ there are now bounded by $C_{0}e^{C_{0}A}$ in this updated version, thanks to the construction of $w^{(4)}$ in previous sections and the construction of $u^{(5)}$ above.
Now we need to bound $\|h\|_{X_{j}}$ for $j\in\{2,3,4,8\}$. By fixing and then summing over $\mu$, we may assume that
\begin{equation}\big|h_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}\big|\leq C_{0}\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+m_{1}\cdots+m_{\mu}}\int_{(T)}\big|k_{n_{1},\alpha_{1}}\big|\cdot\big(\chi e^{\mathrm{i}(\Delta_{n_{1}}-\Delta_{n_{0}})}\big)^{\wedge}(\alpha_{2})\prod_{i=1}^{\mu}\bigg|\frac{(u^{(5)})_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}}{m_{i}}\bigg|,\nonumber\end{equation} where the integration is taken over the set
\begin{equation}\big\{(\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta_{1},\cdots,\beta_{\mu}):\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}+\beta_{1\mu}+\Xi\big\},\nonumber\end{equation} and the NR factor is
\begin{equation}\Xi=|n_{0}|n_{0}-|n_{1}|n_{1}-\sum_{i=1}^{\mu}|m_{i}|m_{i}.\nonumber\end{equation} Throughout the proof we will only use the $X_{j'}$ norm for $\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}}u^{(5)}$ for $j'\in\{2,3,4\}$, and it is important to notice that these norms are bounded by $C_{0}A$ instead of $C_{1}A$.
First assume $j=4$. We introduce the function $g$ with $\|g\|_{X_{4}'}\lesssim 1$, so that we only need to estimate $\mathcal{S}:=(g,h)$. This is a summation-integration we have seen many times before; to analyze it, we notice that either $\langle\Xi\rangle$, or one of $\langle\alpha_{l}\rangle$ (where $l\in\{1,2\}$) or $\langle\beta_{i}\rangle$, must be $\gtrsim \langle\alpha_{0}\rangle$.
Suppose $\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle\lesssim\langle\Xi\rangle$. Let the maximum of $\langle n_{0}\rangle$, $\langle n_{1}\rangle$ and all $\langle m_{i}\rangle$ be $\sim 2^{d}$ (and we fix $d$), then $\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle\lesssim 2^{2d}$. If among the variables $n_{0}$ and $m_{i}$, at least two are $\gtrsim 2^{(1-s^{2})d}$, then we will gain a net power $2^{c(1-\kappa)d}$ from the weights in the $X_{4}'$ bound for $g$, or from the $|m_{i}|^{-1}$ weights appearing in $\mathcal{S}$. Then we will be able to bound the $\big(\chi e^{\mathrm{i}(\Delta_{n_{1}}-\Delta_{n_{0}})}\big)^{\wedge}(\alpha_{2})$ factor using some inequality similar to (\ref{expcon}), fix the irrelevant $(m_{j},\beta_{j})$ variables to produce $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$, then estimate it by bounding $\mathfrak{N}g$ in $L^{2+}L^{2+}$, $\mathfrak{N}k$ and the two $\mathfrak{N}u^{(5)}$ factors in $L^{6}L^{6}$ and the $\big(\chi e^{\mathrm{i}(\Delta_{n_{1}}-\Delta_{n_{0}})}\big)^{\wedge}(\alpha_{2})$ factor in $l^{1+}l^{1+}$, where $2+$ is some $2+cs^{2}$, with a further loss of at most $2^{O(\epsilon)d}$. We then sum over the $(m_{j},\beta_{j})$ variables and sum over $d$ to conclude the estimate for $\mathcal{S}$. If instead only one of them can be $\gtrsim 2^{(1-s^{2})d}$ (again, assume $d$ is large enough), then this variable and $n_{1}$ must both be $\sim 2^{d}$. Let the maximum of all the remaining variables be $\sim 2^{d'}$ where $d'\leq (1-s^{2})d$ is also fixed, then we will have $|\alpha_{0}|\lesssim 2^{d+d'}$. Since we will be able to gain a power $2^{c(1-\kappa)(d+d')}$ from the weights, we can proceed in the same way as above.
Next, suppose $\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle\lesssim\langle\alpha_{2}\rangle$. By invoking (\ref{factt2}) we may get an estimate better than (\ref{expcon}) for the $\alpha_{2}$ factor, namely
\begin{equation}\label{betcon}\big\|\langle\alpha_{2}\rangle\big(\chi e^{\mathrm{i}(\Delta_{n_{1}}-\Delta_{n_{0}})}\big)^{\wedge}(\alpha_{2})\big\|_{L^{\sigma}}\lesssim C_{0}e^{C_{0}A}\sum_{i=1}^{\mu}\langle m_{i}\rangle^{s^{5}},\end{equation} for all $1\leq\sigma\leq\infty$; the $\lesssim$ here allows for a polynomial factor in $\mu$. Therefore, by losing a tiny power of some $m_{i}$, we may cancel the $\alpha_{0}$ weight in the $X_{4}'$ bound for $g$ and still bound the $\alpha_{2}$ factor in $L^{2}$, then fix $(m_{i},\beta_{i})$ and produce $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$, and estimate it by
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{S}_{sub}&\lesssim&\sum_{n_{0}}\langle n_{0}\rangle^{-1}\big\|\langle n_{0}\rangle\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle^{-\kappa}g_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}\big\|_{L_{\alpha_{0}}^{2}}\big\|k_{n_{0}+c_{1},\alpha_{1}}\big\|_{L_{\alpha_{1}}^{1}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim &\big\|\langle n_{0}\rangle^{-1}\langle n_{0}\rangle\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle^{-\kappa}g_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}\big\|_{l^{\frac{3}{2}}L^{2}}\cdot\| k_{n_{1},\alpha_{1}}\|_{l^{3}L^{1}}\lesssim 1 \nonumber,
\end{eqnarray} where $c_{j}$ are constants. If instead $\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle\lesssim\langle\alpha_{1}\rangle$, we can invoke the $\alpha_{1}$ weight in $X_{4}$ norm for $k$ to cancel the $\alpha_{0}$ weight, then notice that $\langle n_{1}\rangle\lesssim\langle n_{0}\rangle+\langle m_{i}\rangle$ for some $i$, then bound the $\alpha_{2}$ factor in $L^{1}$ and fix all the other $(m_{j},\beta_{j})$ to produce $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$. If $\langle n_{1}\rangle\lesssim\langle m_{i}\rangle$ we will estimate $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$ by
\begin{eqnarray}\mathcal{S}_{sub}&\lesssim&\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+m_{i}+c_{1}}\frac{\langle n_{1}\rangle}{\langle n_{0}\rangle\langle m_{i}\rangle}\big\|\langle n_{0}\rangle\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle^{-\kappa}g_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}\big\|_{L_{\alpha_{0}}^{2}}\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\big\|\langle n_{1}\rangle^{-1}\langle\alpha_{1}\rangle^{\kappa}k_{n_{1},\alpha_{1}}\big\|_{L_{\alpha_{1}}^{2}}\big\|(u^{(5)})_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}\big\|_{L_{\beta_{i}}^{1}}\nonumber\\&\lesssim&\big\|\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle^{-\kappa}g\big\|_{l^{1}L^{2}}\big\|\langle n_{1}\rangle^{-1}\langle\alpha_{1}\rangle^{\kappa}k\big\|_{l^{\gamma}L^{2}}\cdot\|u^{(5)}\|_{l^{\gamma'}L^{1}}\lesssim1\nonumber,
\end{eqnarray} where $c_{j}$ are constants; note that $\|u^{(5)}\|_{l^{\gamma'}L^{1}}$ can be controlled by the $X_{2}$ norm of $\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-4s^{3}}u^{(5)}$ due to (\ref{hierarchy}). If $\langle n_{1}\rangle\lesssim\langle n_{0}\rangle$ we will instead estimate the $g$ factor above in $l^{\gamma'}L^{2}$, the $k$ factor in $l^{\gamma}L^{2}$, and the $u^{(5)}$ factor with weight $\langle m_{i}\rangle^{-1}$ in $l^{1}L^{1}$. Finally, if $\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle\lesssim\langle\beta_{i}\rangle$ for some $i$, we will cancel the $\langle\alpha_{0}\rangle$ weight by the $\langle\beta_{i}\rangle$ weight, then fix $(m_{j},\beta_{j})$ and again get $\mathcal{S}_{sub}$, which we estimate by
\begin{eqnarray}\mathcal{S}_{sub}&\lesssim &\sum_{n_{0}=n_{1}+m_{i}+c_{1}}\langle c_{1}\rangle^{-s}\langle n_{0}\rangle^{-s}\langle n_{1}\rangle^{-c(2-\gamma)}\big\|\langle n_{0}\rangle^{s}\langle \alpha_{0}\rangle^{-\kappa}g_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}\big\|_{L_{\alpha_{0}}^{2}}\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\big\|\langle n_{1}\rangle^{c(2-\gamma)}k_{n_{1},\alpha_{1}}\big\|_{L_{\alpha_{1}}^{1}}\big\|\langle m_{i}\rangle^{-1}\langle\beta_{i}\rangle^{\kappa}(u^{(5)})_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}\big\|_{L_{\beta_{i}}^{2}}\nonumber\\
&\lesssim&\big\|\langle n_{0}\rangle^{s}\langle \alpha_{0}\rangle^{-\kappa}g\big\|_{l^{1}L^{2}}\|\langle n_{1}\rangle^{c(2-\gamma)}k\|_{l^{\gamma'}L^{1}}\cdot\big\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-4s^{3}}u^{(5)}\big\|_{X_{4}}\lesssim 1,\nonumber\end{eqnarray} where $c_{j}$ are constants, and again note that we can gain any small power of $c_{1}$, since $\pm c_{1}$ is the sum of all $m_{j}$ where $j\neq i$.
Next, let us assume $j\in\{2,3,8\}$. In this case we only use the $l^{1}L^{1}$ norm of $m_{i}^{-1}(u^{(5)})_{m_{i},\beta_{i}}$, so we will be free to lose any power $\langle m_{i}\rangle^{c}$ for small $c$. Therefore we may fix each $(m_{i},\beta_{i})$, invoke (\ref{betcon}) to fix $\alpha_{2}$ also (by an argument similar to the proof of Proposition \ref{weaken}), then reduce to bounding $\|z\|_{X_{j}}$ in terms of $\|k\|_{X_{j}}$, provided \begin{equation}\big|z_{n_{0},\alpha_{0}}\big|\leq\big|k_{n_{0}+c_{1},\alpha_{0}+|n_{0}+c_{1}|(n_{0}+c_{1})-|n_{0}|n_{0}+c_{2}}\big|.\nonumber\end{equation} But since the bound we get is allowed to grow like $\langle c_{1}\rangle^{s^{1/3}}$ (note that $-c_{1}$ is the sum of all $m_{i}$, and we are allowed to lose $\langle m_{i}\rangle^{c}$ for small $c$), this will be easy if we examine $X_{2}$, $X_{3}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ separately (in particular, we will use the definition of the $\mathcal{Y}$ norm). The only thing we need to address is the $\langle n\rangle$ weights in the definition of $X_{2}$ and $X_{3}$, and the step of taking supremum when obtaining $X_{8}$ norm from $\mathcal{Y}$ norm; however, by a standard argument we can show that through these we will lose at most $\langle c_{1}\rangle^{O(s)}$ power, which is acceptable.
Finally, we may check that throughout the above proof, we only need to use the $X_{j}'$ norms of $\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-2s^{3}}u^{(5)}$ instead of $\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}}u^{(5)}$; thus we will gain a power $K^{0+}$ if we make the restriction $m_{i}\gtrsim K$ for some $i$.
\end{proof}
To see how Proposition \ref{recoverlemma} allows us to construct extensions of $\mathbb{P}_{>K}u^{*}$ and $v^{*}$, we first note that $u^{*}$ is real valued, so we only need to construct an extension of $\mathbb{P}_{>+K}u^{*}$ (which is an abbreviation of $\mathbb{P}_{+}\mathbb{P}_{>K}u^{*}$). Now, in Proposition \ref{recoverlemma} we may choose $k$ to be an arbitrary extension of $v^{*}$ and $h$ to be some extension of $u^{*}$ (and choose $h'$ and $k'$ accordingly) so that (\ref{fu}) holds with appropriate coefficients (cf. (\ref{possub}) and (\ref{negsub})).
Exploiting the freedom in the choice of $k$, we will set $\mathbb{P}_{+}k=w^{(4)}$ and $\mathbb{P}_{\leq 0}k=\mathbb{P}_{\leq 0}v''$. The part coming from $\mathbb{P}_{+}k$ is bounded in $Y_{2}$ (before or after the $\mathbb{P}_{>+K}$ projection) by $C_{0}e^{C_{0}A}$ due to Proposition \ref{recoverlemma}, since we already have $\|w^{(4)}\|_{Y_{2}}\lesssim \|w^{(4)}\|_{Y_{1}}\leq C_{0}e^{C_{0}A}$. As for the part coming from $\mathbb{P}_{\leq 0}k$, we must have $n_{0}>K$ and $n_{1}\leq 0$ in (\ref{fu}), so the $\Psi$ factor will be nonzero only when $\langle m_{i}\rangle\gtrsim (\mu+2)^{-2}K$ for some $i$, thus we may again use Proposition \ref{recoverlemma} to bound this part in $Y_{2}$ by $O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}K^{0-}\leq 1$, since we have $\|v''\|_{Y_{2}}\leq C_{1}e^{C_{1}A}$. This completes the construction for the extension of $u^{*}$.
Now, to construct the extension of $v^{*}$, simply set the $k$ in Proposition \ref{recoverlemma} to be $u^{(4)}$ (which is the extension of $u^{*}$ we just constructed) and $h$ to be some extension of $v^{*}$ so that (\ref{fu}) holds with appropriate coefficients. Then this extension will do the job, since we already have $\|u^{(4)}\|_{Y_{2}}\leq C_{0}e^{C_{0}A}$. This finally completes the proof of Proposition \ref{uniformest}.
\section{The \emph{a priori} estimate V: Controlling the difference}\label{end}
The main purpose of this section is to provide necessary estimates for differences of two solutions to (\ref{smoothtrunc}). First we need to introduce some notations, including the definition of the metric space $\mathcal{BO}^{T}$, which will be used also in Section \ref{lwp}.
\subsection{Preparations}
\begin{definition}\label{bott}Suppose $\mathcal{Q}=(u'',v'',w'',u''')$ and $\mathcal{Q}'=(u^{\dagger\dagger},v^{\dagger\dagger},w^{\dagger\dagger},u^{\dagger\dagger\dagger})$ are two quadruples of functions defined on $\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{T}$, we define their distance by
\begin{eqnarray}\mathfrak{D}_{\sigma}(\mathcal{Q},\mathcal{Q}')&=&\big\|\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-\sigma}(w''-w^{\dagger\dagger})\big\|_{Y_{1}}+\big\|\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-\sigma}(v''-v^{\dagger\dagger})\big\|_{Y_{2}}+\nonumber\\
&+&\big\|\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-\sigma}(u''-u^{\dagger\dagger})\big\|_{Y_{2}}+\big\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}-\sigma}(u'''-u^{\dagger\dagger\dagger})\big\|_{X_{2}\cap X_{3}\cap X_{4}},\nonumber\end{eqnarray} for $\sigma\in\{0,s^{5}\}$. In particular, if $\sigma=\mathcal{Q}'=0$, we define the triple norm\begin{eqnarray}
|\!|\!|\mathcal{Q}|\!|\!|:=\mathfrak{D}_{0}(\mathcal{Q},0)&=&\big\|w''\big\|_{Y_{1}}+\big\|v''\big\|_{Y_{2}}+\big\|u''\big\|_{Y_{2}}+\big\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}}u'''\big\|_{X_{2}\cap X_{3}\cap X_{4}}\nonumber.\end{eqnarray} Next, suppose $u$ and $u^{-}$ are functions defined on $I\times\mathbb{T}$ for some interval $I$, we will define\footnote[1]{Note that the definition depends on the choice of the origin in $\Delta_{n}(t)=\int^{t}\delta_{n}(t')\mathrm{d}t'$, but this will not affect the triple norm $|\!|\!|\cdot|\!|\!|$. This does affect estimates for differences, but we need them only when $I=[-T,T]$ or its translation, in which case the choice of origin is canonical.} the functions $(u^{*},v^{*},w^{*})$ corresponding to $u$, and $(u^{+},v^{+},w^{+})$ corresponding to $u^{-}$, as in Sections \ref{gaugetransform} and \ref{gaugetransform3}, and then define
\begin{equation}\mathfrak{D}_{\sigma}^{I}(u,u^{-})=\inf_{\mathcal{Q},\mathcal{Q}'}\mathfrak{D}_{\sigma}(\mathcal{Q},\mathcal{Q}'),\end{equation} where the infimum is taken over all quadruples $\mathcal{Q}$ and $\mathcal{Q}'$ that extends $(u^{*},v^{*},w^{*},u)$ and $(u^{+},v^{+},w^{+},u^{-})$ from $I\times\mathbb{T}$ to $\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{T}$, respectively. We will also define $|\!|\!|u|\!|\!|_{I}=\mathfrak{D}_{0}(u,0)=\inf_{\mathcal{Q}}|\!|\!|\mathcal{Q}|\!|\!|$; these notations can be written in a more familiar way as
\begin{eqnarray}\mathfrak{D}_{\sigma}^{I}(u,u^{-})&=&\big\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-\sigma}(w^{*}-w^{+})\big\|_{Y_{1}^{I}}+\big\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-\sigma}(v^{*}-v^{+})\big\|_{Y_{2}^{I}}+\nonumber\\
&+&\big\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-\sigma}(u^{*}-u^{+})\big\|_{Y_{2}^{I}}+\big\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}-\sigma}(u-u^{-})\big\|_{(X_{2}\cap X_{3}\cap X_{4})^{I}};\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}|\!|\!|u|\!|\!|_{I}&=&\big\|w^{*}\big\|_{Y_{1}^{I}}+\big\|v^{*}\big\|_{Y_{2}^{I}}+\big\|u^{*}\big\|_{Y_{2}^{I}}+\big\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}}u\big\|_{(X_{2}\cap X_{3}\cap X_{4})^{I}}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Now we can define the metric space
\begin{equation}\mathcal{BO}^{I}=\{u:|\!|\!|u|\!|\!|_{I}<\infty\},\end{equation} with the distance function given by $\mathfrak{D}_{0}^{I}$ (we will also use $\mathfrak{D}_{s^{5}}^{I}$, which is also well-defined on $\mathcal{BO}^{I}$). Finally, when $I=[-T,T]$, we may use $T$ in place of $I$ in sub- or superscripts, so this contains the definition of $\mathcal{BO}^{T}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk00} If $u\in\mathcal{BO}^{T}$, we may define $uu_{x}=\frac{1}{2}\partial_{x}(\mathbb{P}_{\neq 0}u^{2})$ as a distribution on $[-T,T]$ through an argument similar to the one in Section \ref{mid3}. More precisely, we may uniquely define the function
\begin{equation}\label{evoo}h(t)=\int_{0}^{t}e^{-(t-t')H\partial_{xx}}\big(u(t')\partial_{x}u(t')\big)\,\mathrm{d}t'\end{equation} as an element of $(X^{-\frac{1}{s},\kappa})^{T}$.
In particular, we may define $u\in \mathcal{BO}^{T}$ to be a solution to (\ref{bo}) on $[-T,T]$, if $u$ verifies the integral version of (\ref{bo}) with the evolution term defined as in (\ref{evoo}). Clearly this definition is independent of the choice of origin, and $[-T,T]$ may be replaced by any interval $I$.
Moreover, since the arguments in Section \ref{mid3} allow for some room, the map sending $u$ to $h$ in (\ref{evoo}) is continuous with respect to the \emph{weak} distance function $\mathfrak{D}_{s^{5}}^{T}$ (or $\mathfrak{D}_{s^{5}}$ if we consider the map sending the quadruple $\mathcal{Q}$ to $h$). This fact will be important in the proof of Theorem \ref{main'}.
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}\label{embed000} Suppose $u$ and $u^{-}$ are two functions defined on $I\times\mathbb{T}$, and choose corresponding extensions $\mathcal{Q}=(u'',v'',w'',u''')$ and $\mathcal{Q}'=(u^{\dagger\dagger},v^{\dagger\dagger},w^{\dagger\dagger},u^{\dagger\dagger\dagger})$. We then have\begin{equation}\label{embed01}\|u\|_{C_{t}^{0}(I\to Z_{1})}\lesssim|\!|\!|\mathcal{Q}|\!|\!|;\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\|u\|_{C_{t}^{0}(I\to Z_{1})}\lesssim|\!|\!|u|\!|\!|_{I}.\end{equation} Concerning differences, we only have the weaker estimate
\begin{equation}\label{embed03}\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{5}}(u-u^{-})\|_{C_{t}^{0}(I\to Z_{1})}\lesssim O_{|\!|\!|\mathcal{Q}|\!|\!|,|\!|\!|\mathcal{Q}'|\!|\!|}(1)\cdot\mathfrak{D}_{s^{5}}(\mathcal{Q},\mathcal{Q}');\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{embed04}\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-\theta}(u-u^{-})\|_{C_{t}^{0}(I\to Z_{1})}\lesssim O_{\theta,|\!|\!|\mathcal{Q}|\!|\!|,|\!|\!|\mathcal{Q}'|\!|\!|}(1)\cdot\mathfrak{D}_{0}(\mathcal{Q},\mathcal{Q}'),\end{equation} for all $\theta>0$, where the constant may also depend on the upper bound of the length of $I$. Note that the $\theta$ in (\ref{embed04}) cannot be removed, thus $C_{t}^{0}([-T,T]\to Z_{1})$ cannot be embedded into $\mathcal{BO}^{T}$ as a \emph{subspace}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} We may assume $I=[-T,T]$ with $T\lesssim 1$. The inequalities in (\ref{embed01}) follow directly from definition (and the fact that $u(t)$ and $u''(t)$ have the same $Z_{1}$ norm for $t\in [-T,T]$); the proof of (\ref{embed03}) and (\ref{embed04}) are similar, so we only prove (\ref{embed03}). Assume $|\!|\!|\mathcal{Q}|\!|\!|+|\!|\!|\mathcal{Q}'|\!|\!|\lesssim 1$ and $\mathfrak{D}_{s^{5}}(\mathcal{Q},\mathcal{Q}')\leq \varepsilon$, we will define $\Delta_{n}$ and $\Delta_{n}^{-}$ corresponding to $\mathcal{Q}$ and $\mathcal{Q}'$ as in (\ref{factor0}) and (\ref{factor1}) using functions $(w'',u''')$ and $(w^{\dagger\dagger},u^{\dagger\dagger\dagger})$ respectively, then set $u'$ and $u^{\dagger}$ be extensions of $u$ and $u^{-}$, defined by $(u')_{n}=\chi(t)e^{\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}}(u'')_{n}$ and similarly for $u^{\dagger}$. Since
\begin{equation}\big\|\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{5}}(u''-u^{\dagger\dagger})(t)\big\|_{Z_{1}}\lesssim\mathfrak{D}_{s^{5}}(\mathcal{Q},\mathcal{Q}')\lesssim\varepsilon,\end{equation}we only need to estimate the function $z$ defined by $z_{n}=(u'')_{n}(e^{\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}}-e^{\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}^{-}})$. Due to the bound $|\!|\!|\mathcal{Q}|\!|\!|\lesssim 1$ which implies the bound the the $Z_{1}$ norm of each $u''(t)$, we only need to prove
\begin{equation}\big|\chi(t)(e^{\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}}-e^{\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}^{-}})(t)\big|\lesssim \varepsilon\langle n\rangle^{s^{5}}\end{equation} for each $n$ and $t$. Using the arguments in Lemma \ref{general}, it suffices to prove the bound for $\delta_{n}-\delta_{n}^{-}$, but if we use (\ref{factor1}), this will be clear from the strong bounds on $w''$ and $w^{\dagger\dagger}$, and the weak bound on their difference.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Statement and proof}
Now suppose $u$ is a smooth function solving (\ref{smoothtrunc}) on $[-T,T]$. The arguments in Sections \ref{begin}-\ref{mid2} actually give us a way to update a given quadruple $\mathcal{Q}=(u'',v'',w'',u''')$ extending $(u^{*},v^{*},w^{*},u)$ to a new quadruple $\mathcal{Q}'=(u^{(4)},v^{(4)},w^{(4)},u^{(5)})$, which remains to be an extension, and verifies better bounds. We will define $\mathfrak{I}$ to be the map from the set of extensions to itself, that sends $\mathcal{Q}$ to $\mathcal{Q}'$. Using the arguments from Sections \ref{begin}-\ref{mid2}, we can prove
\begin{proposition}\label{reform}Let $C_{1}$ be large enough, $C_{2}$ large enough depending on $C_{1}$, and $0<T\leq C_{2}^{-1}e^{C_{2}A}$. Suppose $u$ is a smooth function solving (\ref{smoothtrunc}) on $[-T,T]$, and $\mathcal{Q}$ is an extension satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{singleest}|\!|\!|\mathcal{Q}|\!|\!|\leq C_{1}e^{C_{1}A},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\big\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{3}}u'''\big\|_{X_{2}\cap X_{3}+\cap X_{4}}\leq C_{1}A,\end{equation} then the same estimate will hold if we replace $\mathcal{Q}$ by $\mathfrak{I}\mathcal{Q}$.
\end{proposition}
Now we can state the main proposition in this section, namely
\begin{proposition}\label{difference0}Let $C_{1}$, $C_{2}$ and $T$ be as in Proposition \ref{reform}. Suppose $u$ and $u^{-}$ are two smooth functions solving (\ref{smoothtrunc}) with truncation $S_{N}$ and $S_{M}$ respectively, where $1\ll N\leq M\leq\infty$, $\mathcal{Q}$ and $\mathcal{Q}'$ are two quadruples corresponding to $u$ and $u^{-}$ respectively, such that (\ref{singleest}) holds, and that
\begin{equation}\label{doubleest}\mathfrak{D}_{s^{5}}(\mathcal{Q},\mathcal{Q}')\leq B\end{equation} for some $B>0$, then we have
\begin{equation}\label{doubleest2}\mathfrak{D}_{s^{5}}(\mathfrak{I}\mathcal{Q},\mathfrak{I}\mathcal{Q}')\leq\frac{B}{2}+O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}\big(\big\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{5}}(u(0)-u^{-}(0))\big\|_{Z_{1}}+N^{0-}\big),\end{equation} where $C_{0}$ is any constant appearing in previous sections. In particular, we have
\begin{equation}\label{differencestate}\mathfrak{D}_{s^{5}}^{T}(u,u^{-})\leq O_{C_{2},A}(1)\big(\big\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{5}}(u(0)-u^{-}(0))\big\|_{Z_{1}}+N^{0-}\big),\end{equation}provided $\|u(0)\|_{Z_{1}}+\|u^{-}(0)\|_{Z_{1}}\leq A$ for some large $A$. Moreover, if $M=N$, we may replace the $\mathfrak{D}_{s^{5}}$ distance by the $\mathfrak{D}_{0}$ distance and remove the $N^{0-}$ term on the right hand side of (\ref{differencestate}).
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} When we take differences in the case $M=N$ the right hand side will involve only factors like $u-u^{-}$ and not the ones like $\mathbb{P}_{\geq N}u$, thus we will not have an $N^{0-}$ term on the right hand side. Also, it is easy to see from the proof below that removing the $\langle n\rangle^{-s^{5}}$ weight will only make arguments easier. Thus we will focus on (\ref{differencestate}) now. By an iteration using Proposition \ref{reform}, we only need to prove (\ref{doubleest2}) assuming (\ref{singleest}) and (\ref{doubleest}).
Recall the functions $\delta_{n}$, $\delta_{n}^{-}$, $\Delta_{n}$, $\Delta_{n}^{-}$ and $y$, $y^{-}$ that come from the two quadruples $\mathcal{Q}$ and $\mathcal{Q}'$ in the same way as in Section \ref{theextensions}. The two functions $y$ and $y^{-}$ will verify two equations with the form of (\ref{global2}) separately. Clearly we may also assume all relevant functions are supported in $|t|\lesssim 1$. To bound the first part of $\mathfrak{D}_{s^{5}}(\mathfrak{I}\mathcal{Q},\mathfrak{I}\mathcal{Q}')$ requires to prove
\begin{equation}\label{bound010}\big\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{5}}(y-y^{-})\big\|_{Y_{1}}\leq\frac{B}{10}+O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}(\theta+N^{0-}),\end{equation} where we denote $\|\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{5}}(u(0)-u^{-}(0))\|_{Z_{1}}=\theta$ for simplicity.
By another bootstrap argument, we may assume (\ref{bound010}) holds with right hand side multiplied by $O_{C_{1}}(1)$. Recall the equations
\begin{equation}\label{eqn0001}y=\chi(t)e^{\mathrm{i}t\partial_{xx}}w(0)+\mathcal{E}\big(\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}\mathcal{N}^{2}(y,y)\big)+\sum_{j\in\{3,3.5,4,4.5\}}\mathcal{E}(\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}\mathcal{N}^{j});\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn0002}y^-{}=\chi(t)e^{\mathrm{i}t\partial_{xx}}w^{-}(0)+\mathcal{E}\big(\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}\mathcal{N}^{2-}(y^{-},y^{-})\big)+\sum_{j\in\{3,3.5,4,4.5\}}\mathcal{E}(\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}\mathcal{N}^{j-}),\end{equation} where $\mathcal{N}^{j}$ and $\mathcal{N}^{j-}$ are suitable nonlinearities; to bound $y-y^{-}$, we will first bound
\begin{equation}\sum_{j\in\{0,3,3.5,4,4.5\}}\big\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{5}}(\mathcal{M}^{j}-\mathcal{M}^{j-})\big\|_{Y_{1}},\nonumber\end{equation} where the definitions of $\mathcal{M}^{j}$ and $\mathcal{M}^{j-}$ are clear (the term $j=0$ corresponds to the linear term which can be bounded by $\theta+N^{0-}$, so we will omit this below).
Here it is important to note that \emph{all the bounds in the previous sections are proved directly using multilinear estimates}, thus they will automatically imply the corresponding estimates for differences. In fact, when we try to estimate $\mathcal{M}^{j}-\mathcal{M}^{j-}$ by introducing some $(g,f)$ and forming an $\mathcal{S}$ expression, there are a few possibilities:
(1) Suppose we take the difference $y-y^{-}$, or (for example) some $v''-v^{\dagger\dagger}$ directly. Then one of the $y$ or $v''$ factors appearing in the previous sections will be replaced by this difference. Note that if we estimate this difference in the weakened norm $\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{5}}\cdot\|_{Y_{j}}$ (we use $X_{2}\cap X_{3}\cap X_{4}$ norm for $u'''-u^{\dagger\dagger\dagger}$, but the proof will be the same), we will get a bound $O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}(B+\theta+N^{0-})$ which is what we need; the loss coming from using this weaker norm can be recovered from the fact that we only need to estimate the weaker norm of $\mathcal{M}^{j}-\mathcal{M}^{j-}$. To be precise, for each multilinear estimate we prove in the previous sections, suppose the term we bound in the weaker norm (i.e. the norm involving $\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{5}}$) corresponds to the variable $n_{l}$, then one of the followings must hold: (i) we can gain a power $2^{(0+)d}$ in the estimate, where the $0+$ is at least $cs^{2.5}$, and we also have $\langle n_{l}\rangle\lesssim 2^{d}$. In this case it will suffice to use this weaker norm in all the discussions before, so this part will be acceptable; (ii) we have $\langle n_{0}\rangle\gtrsim\langle n_{l}\rangle$ (for example, when $n_{0}=n_{l}$ and the other variables are small compared to them). In this case, since we only need to estimate the output $y-y^{-}$ in the weaker norm, we will gain a power $\langle n_{0}\rangle^{s^{5}}$ compared to the proof in the previous sections, which is enough to cancel the loss $\langle n_{l}\rangle^{s^{5}}$, thus this part is also acceptable; (iii) we have $\langle n_{0}\rangle\sim 2^{d}$ and $\langle n_{l}\rangle\sim 2^{d'}$, and the expression $\mathcal{S}$ involves the factor $2^{-|d-d'|}$ (this appears, for example, in various ``resonant'' cases in Section \ref{mid1} and Proposition \ref{easy}, and is characterized by the need to use (\ref{festt})). In this case we lose at most $2^{s^{5}|d-d'|}$ from the additional weights compared to the proof in the previous sections, which can be cancelled by the $2^{-|d-d'|}$ factor, so it will still be acceptable. To conclude, we can estimate this part of $y-y^{-}$ in the weaker norm as
\begin{equation}T^{0+}O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}(B+\theta+N^{0-}),\nonumber\end{equation} by repeating the arguments in the previous sections, with minor modifications illustrated above.
(2) Suppose we take the difference of the $\Phi$ weights. The difference will verify the same bounds as the weights themselves; moreover it is nonzero only when some $m$ or $n$ variable is $\gtrsim N$. Therefore we may replace one of the $y$ or $v''$ factors appearing in the previous sections by $\mathbb{P}_{\geq N}y$ or $\mathbb{P}_{\geq N}v''$. We then proceed as in case (1), estimating this particular factor in the weakened norm to gain a power $N^{0-}$, and bound the whole expression in the same way as in case (1).
(3) Suppose we take (for example) the difference $v'-v^{\dagger}$, where $(v')_{n}=e^{\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}}(v'')_{n}$ and $(v^{\dagger})_{n}=e^{\mathrm{i}\Delta_{n}^{-}}(v^{\dagger\dagger})_{n}$; alternatively, suppose we take the difference
\begin{equation}e^{\mathrm{i}(\pm \Delta_{n_{0}}\pm\Delta_{n_{1}}\pm\cdots)}-e^{\mathrm{i}(\pm \Delta_{n_{0}}^{-}\pm\Delta_{n_{1}}^{-}\pm\cdots)}\nonumber.\end{equation} It turns out that whenever we need to estimate these factors, we will always gain (from these factors themselves, or from elsewhere) some power $2^{(0+)d}$ where the $0+$ is at least $cs^{2.5}$, and $2^{d}$ controls every relevant variable (for typical examples, see the estimate of $J_{(n)}(\alpha_{5})$ as defined in (\ref{J(n)}) in the proof of Proposition \ref{easy}, as well as the last part of Section \ref{mid1}). Here we may use Proposition \ref{general} to reduce the estimation of the difference of these exponential factors to the estimation of the differences $\delta_{n}-\delta_{n}^{-}$ themselves. Since we can bound functions like $w''-w^{\dagger\dagger}$ in the weaker norm by $O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}(B+\theta+N^{0-})$, we will be able to obtain estimates similar to the ones in Proposition \ref{factt}, but with the coefficient $C_{0}C_{1}e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}$ on the right hand side replaced by $O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}(B+\theta+N^{0-})$, with a loss of at most $\langle n\rangle^{O(s^{5})}$ which is dwarfed by the power we gain. Finally we may use the $T^{0+}$ gain coming from the evolution to cancel the $O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}$ factor, thus this part is also acceptable.
Next we need to control the difference of the $\mathcal{M}^{2}$ terms. We will follow the proof in Section \ref{mid1}, and the part of the proof where no second iteration is needed can be completed in the same way as above. As for the remaining part, what we do in Section \ref{mid1} is basically rewriting
\begin{equation}\mathcal{N}^{6}(y,y)=\sum_{j\in\{0,3,3.5,4,4.5\}}\mathcal{N}^{6}(y,\mathcal{M}^{j})+\mathcal{N}^{6}(y,\mathcal{E}(\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}\mathcal{N}^{2}(y,y)))\nonumber\end{equation} where $\mathcal{N}^{6}$ is the part of $\mathcal{N}^{2}$ uner consideration; we may also rewrite $\mathcal{N}^{6-}(y^{-},y^{-})$ in the same way. When we take difference, we may control the first term on the right hand side using the bound for $\mathcal{M}^{j}-\mathcal{M}^{j-}$ as in Proposition \ref{easiest} (actually we have a slightly weaker version, but this will suffice); as for the second term, since it is bounded in Section \ref{mid1} via multilinear estimates, we can again treat the difference in the same way as above. This completes the proof for the bound of $w^{*}-w^{+}$.
Next, recall that the other parts of $\mathfrak{I}\mathcal{Q}$ and $\mathfrak{I}\mathcal{Q}'$ such as $u^{(5)}$ and $u^{[5]}$, $u^{(4)}$, $u^{[4]}$, $v^{(4)}$ and $v^{[4]}$ are constructed in the same way as in Section \ref{mid3}, where the scale $K$ is taken to be $K=C_{1.5}e^{C_{1.5}A}$ with $C_{1.5}$ large enough depending on $C_{1}$, but small compared to $C_{2}$. Note that we may redefine $\Delta_{n}$ and $\Delta_{n}^{-}$ when necessary. Now to prove (\ref{doubleest}), we need to bound the differences such as $u^{(4)}-u^{[4]}$ in the weaker norm by $O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}(K^{0-}B+\theta+N^{0-})$. But this can again be achieved by combining the argument above with the proof in Section \ref{mid3}, if we notice two things:
(1) In the proof of Proposition \ref{recoverlemma}, we can always gain some power $\langle m_{i}\rangle^{cs^{2.5}}$ for each $m_{i}$, so we will be able to cover the loss coming from using only the weaker norm if we take the difference of the exponential factors (cf. (\ref{betcon})), of if we take $u^{(5)}-u^{[5]}$. For the same reason, if we lose a power $\langle n_{1}\rangle^{s^{5}}$ we will be able to recover it from the gain $\langle n_{0}\rangle^{s^{5}}$.
(2) From the above we already know that the weaker norm of $w^{(4)}-w^{[4]}$ can be bounded by $O_{C_{1}}(1)e^{C_{0}C_{1}A}(T^{0+}B+\theta+N^{0-})$. We may then prove the same bound (possibly with some $O_{C_{1}}(1)$ factors) for $\mathbb{P}_{>K}(u^{(5)}-u^{[5]})$, $\mathbb{P}_{\leq K}(u^{(5)}-u^{[5]})$, $\mathbb{P}_{\leq K}(u^{(4)}-u^{[4]})$, $\mathbb{P}_{>K}(u^{(4)}-u^{[4]})$ and $v^{(4)}-v^{[4]}$ \emph{in that order}, in the same way as in Section \ref{mid3} (note $T^{-1}$ is assumed to be larger than any power of $K$).
Therefore we will be able to bound all the differences and thus complete the proof of Proposition \ref{difference0}.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of the main results}\label{lwp}With Propositions \ref{uniformest} and \ref{difference0}, it is now easy to prove our main results. Since the argument in this section will be more or less standard, we may present only the most important steps.
\subsection{Local well-posedness and stability}\label{llwp}
\begin{theorem}[Precise version of Theorem \ref{main}]\label{main'} There exists a constant $C$ such that, when we choose any $A>0$ and $0<T\leq C^{-1}e^{-CA}$, the followings will hold.
(1) Existence: for any $f\in\mathcal{V}$ with $\|f\|_{Z_{1}}\leq A$, there exists some $u\in \mathcal{BO}^{T}$ such that $|\!|\!|u|\!|\!|_{T}\leq Ce^{CA}$, and it verifies the equation (\ref{bo}), in the sense described in Remark \ref{rmk00}, with initial data $u(0)=f$.
(2) Continuity: let the solution described in part (1) be $u=\Phi f=(\Phi_{t}f)_{t}$. Suppose $\|f\|_{Z_{1}}\leq A$ and $\|g\|_{Z_{1}}\leq A$, then each $\varepsilon>0$, we have
\begin{equation}\sup_{|t|\leq T}\big\|\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{5}}(\Phi_{t}f-\Phi_{t}g)\big\|_{Z_{1}}+\mathfrak{D}_{s^{5}}^{T}(\Phi f,\Phi g)\leq O_{C,A}(1)\big\|\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{5}}(f-g)\big\|_{Z_{1}};\nonumber\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\sup_{|t|\leq T}\big\|\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-\varepsilon}(\Phi_{t}f-\Phi_{t}g)\big\|_{Z_{1}}+\mathfrak{D}_{0}^{T}(\Phi f,\Phi g)\leq O_{\varepsilon,C,A}(1)\big\|f-g\big\|_{Z_{1}}.\nonumber\end{equation}
(3) Short-time stability: let $u=\Phi f$ as in part (2), and let $\Phi^{N}$ be the solution flow of (\ref{smoothtrunc}) and $u^{N}=\Phi^{N}\Pi_{N}f$. Then we have
\begin{equation}\lim_{N\to\infty}\bigg(\mathfrak{D}_{s^{5}}^{T}(u^{N},u)+\sup_{|t|\leq T}\big\|\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{5}}\big(u^{N}(t)-u(t)\big)\big\|_{Z_{1}}\bigg)=0.\nonumber\end{equation}
(4) Uniqueness: for any \emph{other} time $T'$, suppose $u$ and $u^{-}$ are two elements of $\mathcal{BO}^{T'}$ with the same initial data, and they both solve (\ref{bo}), then we must have $u=u^{-}$ (on $[-T',T']$).
(5) Long-time existence: consider any $f\in Z_{1}$, and define the functions $u^{N}$ as in part (3). Suppose for some \emph{other} time $T'$ and some subsequence $\{N_{k}\}$ that
\begin{equation}\sup_{k}|\!|\!|u^{N_{k}}|\!|\!|_{T'}<\infty,\end{equation} then there exists a solution $u\in\mathcal{BO}^{T'}$ to (\ref{bo}) with initial data $f$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}Suppose $f\in Z_{1}$ and $\|f\|_{Z_{1}}\leq A$, and let $0<T\leq C_{2}^{-1}e^{-C_{2}A}$ with constants as in Propositions \ref{reform} and \ref{difference0}. Consider $u^{N}$ as defined in (3); using Proposition \ref{uniformest}, we may choose for each $N$ some quadruple $\mathcal{Q}_{N}$ corresponding to $u^{N}$ that verifies (\ref{singleest}). We then define
\begin{equation}\mathcal{Q}^{N}=\mathfrak{I}^{N}\mathcal{Q}_{N},\end{equation}
then it will be clear from Propositions \ref{reform} and \ref{difference0} that
\begin{equation}|\!|\!|\mathcal{Q}^{N}|\!|\!|\leq C_{1}e^{C_{1}A};\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\lim_{N,M\to\infty}\mathfrak{D}_{s^{5}}(\mathcal{Q}^{M},\mathcal{Q}^{N})=0.\end{equation} By a simple completeness argument we can then find some $\mathcal{Q}$ so that $\mathfrak{D}_{s^{5}}(\mathcal{Q}^{N},\mathcal{Q})\to 0$ (in particular $\mathcal{Q}$ will have initial data $f$), and by an argument similar to the proof of Proposition \ref{initialboot} we deduce that $|\!|\!|\mathcal{Q}|\!|\!|\leq C_{1}e^{C_{1}A}$. By using Remark \ref{rmk00}, we can now pass to the limit and show that the quadruple $\mathcal{Q}$ gives a solution $u\in\mathcal{BO}^{T}$ of (\ref{bo}) on the interval $[-T,T]$. This proves existence.
Parts (2) and (3) will follow from basically the same argument. In fact, for each $(f,g)$, we may construct $\mathcal{Q}^{N}$ and $\mathcal{Q}^{N-}$ corresponding to $\Phi^{N}\Pi_{N}f$ and $\Phi^{N}\Pi_{N}g$ as above, so that they have uniformly bounded triple norm, and moreover \[\mathfrak{D}_{s^{5}}(\mathcal{Q}^{N},\mathcal{Q}^{N-})\lesssim\|\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{5}}(f-g)\|_{Z_{1}}+N^{0-}.\] Using Proposition \ref{embed000} and passing to the limit, we obtain the result in (2). The result in (3) follows from comparing $\mathcal{Q}^{N}$ with $\mathcal{Q}$ and using Proposition \ref{embed000} also.
As for part (5), we will deduce it merely from the condition that $|\!|\!|u^{N_{k}}|\!|\!|_{T'}\leq A$ and \begin{equation}\label{diffff0}\big\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{5}}(u^{N_{k}}-u)(0)\big\|_{Z_{1}}\to 0,\end{equation} which is clearly satisfied in our setting. Choose some $\tau$ small enough depending on $A$, then $\|u(0)\|_{Z_{1}}\leq C_{0}A$ implies we can solve (\ref{bo}) on $[-\tau,\tau]$, and from (Proposition \ref{difference0} and) what we just proved, we also have
\begin{equation}\label{diffff1}\big\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{5}}(u^{N_{k}}-u)(\pm\tau)\big\|_{Z_{1}}\to 0,\end{equation} and therefore
\begin{equation}\|u(\pm\tau)\|_{Z_{1}}\leq \limsup_{N\to\infty}\|u^{N_{k}}(\pm\tau)\|_{Z_{1}}\leq C_{0}A.\end{equation} This information will allow us to restart from time $\pm\tau$, and thus obtain a solution to (\ref{bo}) on $[-2\tau,2\tau]$. Repeating this, we will finally get a solution on $[-T',T']$, which we can prove to be in $\mathcal{BO}^{T'}$ using partitions of unity. This proves (conditional) global existence.
Finally we need to prove uniqueness. Let $u$ and $u^{-}$ be to solutions to (\ref{bo}) that both belong to $\mathcal{BO}^{T'}$ and have the same initial data. Let their strong norms be bounded by $A$, and choose $\tau$ small enough depending on $A$. To prove that $u=u^{-}$ on $[-\tau,\tau]$, we need to prove the following claim: if for quadruples $\mathcal{Q}$ and $\mathcal{Q}^{'}$ corresponding to $u$ and $u^{-}$ respectively, we have \begin{equation}\label{uniqueness}|\!|\!|\mathcal{Q}|\!|\!|+|\!|\!|\mathcal{Q}'|\!|\!|\leq A,\,\,\,\,\,\,\mathfrak{D}_{s^{5}}(\mathcal{Q},\mathcal{Q}')\leq K,\end{equation} then with $\mathcal{Q}$ replaced by $\mathfrak{I}\mathcal{Q}$ and $\mathcal{Q}'$ by $\mathfrak{I}\mathcal{Q}'$, the inequalities will hold with $A$ unchanged and $K$ replaced by $K/2$. Thus we need to repeat the whole argument from Section \ref{begin} to Section \ref{end} \emph{without} the smoothness assumption. Fortunately, since we have chosen $\tau\leq\tau(A)$, we do not need the bootstrap argument (which requires \emph{a priori} smoothness) in bounding the evolution term; however, we do need this in Section \ref{begin} when we try to obtain a first bound for $\|y\|_{Y_{1}}$.
This difficulty can be overcome as follows: first, we may check every part of Sections \ref{begin}, \ref{mid1} and \ref{mid2} that in order to bound $y$ in $Y_{1}$ using the evolution equation (\ref{global2}), it will suffice to bound $y$ in some weaker space $Y_{1}^{w}$ defined by (cf. Section \ref{mainspace})
\begin{equation}\|u\|_{Y_{1}^{w}}=\|u\|_{X_{1}^{w}}+\|u\|_{X_{2}^{w}}+\|u\|_{X_{4}^{w}}+\|u\|_{X_{5}^{w}}+\|u\|_{X_{7}^{w}}.\end{equation} Here to obtain the $X_{j}^{w}$ norm, we weaken the $X_{j}$ by decreasing the powers $b$ in (\ref{norm0001}), $\kappa$ in (\ref{norm0004}) and $\frac{1}{8}$ in (\ref{norm0007}) by $s^{5}$, and increasing the indices $1$ in (\ref{norm0003}) and $q$ in (\ref{norm0005}) by $s^{5}$. Notice that any power of $n$ and any norm $l^{p}$ remain unchanged. Therefore, we only need to show that the linear map $L$ defining $y$ from $w''$ (see Section \ref{theextensions}) is bounded from $Y_{1}$ to $Y_{1}^{w}$, since this combined with the proof fro Section \ref{begin} to Section \ref{mid2} will give us a stronger bound of $y$ in $Y_{1}$ and close the estimate (note that after the end of Section \ref{mid2}, all the arguments will not depend on smoothness, and we will be able to finish just as Sections \ref{mid3} and \ref{end}).
Now, suppose $\|u\|_{Y_{1}}\leq 1$, we can easily show that $\|Lu\|_{X_{2}^{w}}+\|Lu\|_{X_{5}^{w}}\lesssim 1$ using the decomposition
\begin{eqnarray}\label{decomposition001}Lu&=&u\cdot\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}(t)+\chi(t)\mathbf{1}_{[T,+\infty)}(t)e^{-(t-T)H\partial_{xx}}u(T)\\
&+&\chi(t)\mathbf{1}_{(-\infty,-T]}(t)e^{-(t+T)H\partial_{xx}}u(-T)\nonumber.\end{eqnarray} In fact the last two terms in (\ref{decomposition001}) is bounded in $X_{2}^{w}$ and $X_{5}^{w}$ because $u(\pm T)$ is bounded in $Z_{1}$, and the Fourier transform of $\chi(t)\mathbf{1}_{[T,+\infty)}(t)$ is in $L^{k}$ for $k>1$; the first term is bounded because convolution with the Fourier transform of $\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}$ (which decays like $\langle\xi\rangle^{-1}$ uniformly for $T\lesssim 1$) is bounded from $L_{\xi}^{k}$ to $L_{\xi}^{k'}$ for all $k'>k$. Now to bound $Lu$ in $X_{j}^{w}$ form $j\in\{1,4,7\}$, we only need to bound the operator
\begin{equation}\widetilde{L}:f(t)\mapsto\mathbf{1}_{[-T,T]}(t)f(t)+\chi(t)\mathbf{1}_{[T,+\infty)}f(T)+\chi(t)\mathbf{1}_{(-\infty,-T]}f(-T)\end{equation}from $H_{t}^{h}$ to $H_{t}^{h-\theta}$ for any $\theta>0$. By direct computations we can bound $\widetilde{L}$ from $H^{1}$ to itself, thus (by interpolation) it suffices to bound $\widetilde{L}$ from $H^{1/2+\theta}$ to $H^{1/2-\theta}$. But this result is well-known for the first part of $\widetilde{L}$, and trivial (given the decay for the Fourier transform of $\chi(t)\mathbf{1}_{[T,+\infty)}(t)$) for the last two parts.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The Hamiltonian structure and global well-posedness} In this section we will denote any constant by $C$, since they no longer make any difference. We fix some large time $T$, and recall the energy functional
\begin{equation}E_{N}[f]=\int_{\mathbb{T}}\frac{1}{2}|\partial_{x}^{1/2}f|^{2}-\frac{1}{6}(S_{N}f)^{3}
\end{equation}defined in Section \ref{gibbs}. If we introduce the symplectic form
\begin{equation}\omega(u,v)=\int_{\mathbb{T}}u\cdot (\partial_{x}^{-1}v)\nonumber\end{equation} in the (finite dimensional) space $\mathcal{V}_{N}$, then a simple computation shows that the Hamiltonian equation with respect to the symplectic form $\omega$ and the functional $E_{N}$ is (up to a sign depending on the convention) the truncated equation (\ref{smoothtrunc}). By Liouville's Theorem, the solution flow $\{\Phi_{t}^{N}\}_{t\in\mathbb{R}}$ will preserve the measure $\mathcal{L}_{N}$ which corresponds to the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^{2N}$ (see Section \ref{gibbs}). Since this flow also preserves the $L^{2}$ norm as well as the Hamiltonian $E_{N}$, we see that
\begin{equation}\label{appr.inv}\nu_{N}^{\circ}(E)=\nu_{N}^{\circ}\big(\Phi_{t}^{N}(E)\big)\end{equation} for all time $t$ and all Borel set $E\subset \mathcal{V}_{N}$.
Next, for any $f\in\mathcal{V}$, consider the functions $u^{N}(t)=\Phi_{t}^{N}\Pi_{N}f$, which are the solutions to (\ref{smoothtrunc}) with initial data $u^{N}(0)=\Pi_{N}f$. Thus $f\mapsto u^{N}$ is a map from $\mathcal{V}$ to $\mathcal{BO}^{T}$ depending on $N$, therefore we may denote $|\!|\!|u^{N}|\!|\!|_{T}=J_{N}(f)$.
Choose a large positive integer $M$, a parameter $A$ depending on $M$, and define
\begin{equation}\Omega_{N,A}=\big\{g\in \mathcal{V}_{N}:\|g\|_{Z_{1}}>A\big\},\nonumber\end{equation} then we have that
\begin{equation}\nu_{N}^{\circ}(\Omega_{N,A})=\nu_{N}(\Pi_{N}^{-1}(\Omega_{N,A}))\leq\nu_{N}\big(\big\{f\in\mathcal{V}:\|f\|_{Z_{1}}>A\big\}\big)\leq Ce^{-C^{-1}A^{2}},\end{equation} where the last inequality follows from Proposition \ref{compat}, Cauchy-Schwartz, and the fact that $\|\theta_{N}\|_{L^{2}(\mathrm{d}\rho)}=O(1)$ (which is part of Proposition \ref{convergence2}). Therefore if we introduce
\begin{equation}\Omega_{N,M,A}=\bigcup_{j=-M}^{M}\big(\Phi_{\frac{jT}{M}}^{N}\big)^{-1}(\Omega_{N,A}),\nonumber\end{equation} we will have
\begin{equation}\label{partition}\nu_{N}^{\circ}(\Omega_{N,M,A})\leq CMe^{-C^{-1}A^{2}}.\end{equation} If we choose $A=A(M)=C'\sqrt{\log M}$ with some sufficiently large $C'$, then the inequality (\ref{partition}) will imply $\nu_{N}^{\circ}(\Omega_{N,M,A})\leq CM^{-3}$. Now if $g\not\in \Omega_{N,M,A}$, we must have
\begin{equation}\Phi_{\frac{jT}{M}}^{N}(g)\not\in\Omega_{N,A(M)},\nonumber\end{equation} for all $|j|\leq M$. By Proposition \ref{uniformest}, this implies
\begin{equation}\label{totalll}\max_{|j|\leq M}|\!|\!|(\Phi_{t}^{N}g)_{t}|\!|\!|_{[\frac{(j-1)T}{M},\frac{(j+1)T}{M}]}\leq Ce^{CC'\sqrt{\log M}},\end{equation} provided $T/M\leq C^{-1}e^{-CA(M)}$, which is clearly true when $M$ is large enough depending on $T$. Using partitions of unity, we easily see that (\ref{totalll}) implies
\begin{equation}|\!|\!|(\Phi_{t}^{N}g)_{t}|\!|\!|_{T}\leq CM^{C},\nonumber\end{equation} again when $M$ is large enough depending on $T$. Therefore we have proved\begin{equation}\nu_{N}\big(\big\{f\in\mathcal{V}:J_{N}(f)>CM^{C}\big\}\big)\leq CM^{-3}\end{equation} for all $M>M(T)$, and hence (recall Section \ref{gibbs} for the definition of $\theta_{N}$)
\begin{equation}\sup_{N}\int_{\mathcal{V}}\log(J_{N}(f)+2)\theta_{N}(f)\,\mathrm{d}\rho(f)<\infty.\end{equation} Since $\theta_{N}(f)$ converges to $\theta(f)$ almost surely after passing to a subsequence, we may use Fatou's Lemma to conclude that except for a set with zero $\rho$ measure, for each $f$ with $\theta(f)>0$, there exists a sequence $N_{k}\uparrow\infty$ so that $J_{N_{k}}(f)\leq C$ for some $C$. By part (5) of Theorem \ref{main'}, this would imply the existence of a solution $u\in \mathcal{BO}^{T}$ to (\ref{bo}) on $[-T,T]$ with initial data $f$. Finally, by Remark \ref{rmk4.3} we may choose a sequence of Gibbs measures $\{\theta^{R}\}$ so that for almost every $f\in\mathcal{V}$ we have at least one $\theta^{R}(f)>0$ ; then we take another countable intersection with respect to $T$, to arrive at the following
\begin{proposition}\label{finalprop}
For almost every $f\in\mathcal{V}$ with respect to the Wiener measure $\rho$, there exists a unique global solution $u$ to (\ref{bo}) with initial data $f$, such that $u\in\mathcal{BO}^{T}$ for each $T>0$.
\end{proposition}
\subsection{The global flow and invariance of Gibbs measure}
In this section we will restate and prove Theorem \ref{main2}.
\begin{theorem}[Restatement of Theorem \ref{main2}]\label{main2'} Let the Wiener measure $\rho$ be defined as in Section \ref{gibbs}. There exists a subset $\Sigma\subset \mathcal{V}$ such that $\rho(\mathcal{V}-\Sigma)=0$, and the following holds: for any $f\in\Sigma$ there exists a unique global solution $u$ to (\ref{bo}) with initial data $f$ such that $u\in\mathcal{BO}^{T}$ for all $T>0$. Moreover, let $u=\Phi f=(\Phi_{t}f)_{t}$, then these $\Phi_{t}$ form a measurable transformation group from $\Sigma$ to itself. Finally, suppose the Gibbs measure $\nu$ is defined as in Section \ref{gibbs} (using some cutoff function $\zeta$), then each $\Phi_{t}$ keeps $\nu$ invariant.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} We define $\Sigma$ to be the set of all $f\in \mathcal{V}$ such that there exists a solution $u$ to (\ref{bo}) with initial data $f$ that belongs to $\mathcal{BO}^{T}$ for all $T>0$. Proposition \ref{finalprop} guarantees that $\rho(\mathcal{V}-\Sigma)=0$; also the map $\Phi$ is well-defined on $\Sigma$, and each $\Phi_{t}$ maps $\Sigma$ to itself. Note that from part (4) of Theorem \ref{main'}, any two solutions to (\ref{bo}) that belong to $\mathcal{BO}^{T}$ and agree at one time must coincide, thus $u$ will be unique for each fixed $f\in\Sigma$. Now fix a Gibbs measure $\nu$; to prove the invariance of $\nu$, we only need to show that
\begin{equation}\label{oneside}\nu(\Phi_{t}(E))\geq\nu(E)\end{equation} for each Borel subset $E$ and each $|t|\leq 1$, since the rest can be done by iteration.
Define the set
\begin{equation}\Sigma_{A}=\big\{f\in\Sigma:\sup_{|t|\leq 2}\|\Phi_{t}f\|_{Z_{1}}\leq A\big\}\nonumber\end{equation} for each $A$, we then have $\Sigma=\cup_{A}\Sigma_{A}$, so we only need to prove (\ref{oneside}) assuming $E\subset \Sigma_{A}$ for some $A$. By iteration, it then suffices to prove (\ref{oneside}) under the assumption that $E\subset\{f:\|f\|_{Z_{1}}\leq A\}$ and $|t|\leq t(A)$. Next, we introduce on the set $\{f:\|f\|_{Z_{1}}\leq A\}$ the metric
\begin{equation}d(f,g)=\big\|\langle n\rangle^{-s^{6}+r}(f-g)\big\|_{l^{p}},\nonumber\end{equation}making it a complete separable metric space. By a well-known theorem in measure theory, the restriction of $\nu$ to this set is a finite Borel measure on this metric space, and thus is regular (meaning every Borel set can be approximated from inside by compact sets). Therefore we may further assume $E$ is compact with respect to the metric $d$. Recall the solution flow $\{\Phi_{t}^{N}\}$ for (\ref{smoothtrunc}); for each $N$ we have
\begin{equation}\nu_{N}\big(\big\{g:\Pi_{N}g=\Phi_{t}^{N}(\Pi_{N}h),\,\,h\in E\big\}\big)\geq \nu_{N}(E)\end{equation} by the invariance of $\nu_{N}^{\circ}$ under the flow $\Phi_{t}^{N}$. To prove (\ref{oneside}) it thus suffices to show\begin{equation}\limsup_{N\to\infty}\big\{g:\Pi_{N}g=\Phi_{t}^{N}(\Pi_{N}h),\,\,h\in E\big\}\subset\Phi_{t}(E),\end{equation} since we already know that the total variation of $\nu_{N}-\nu$ tends to zero.
Now suppose for some $g\in\mathcal{V}$ we have a subsequence $N_{k}\uparrow\infty$ and $h^{N_{k}}\in E$ such that $\Pi_{N_{k}}g=\Phi_{t}^{N_{k}}(\Pi_{N_{k}}h^{N_{k}})$ for each $k$. By compactness we may assume $h^{N_{k}}\to h$ with respect to the metric $d$ for some $h\in E$. Since every function involved here is bounded in $Z_{1}$ norm by $O_{A}(1)$, and we are assuming $|t|\leq t(A)$, we may use Propositions \ref{difference0} and \ref{main'}, as well as the limit
\begin{equation}\big\|\langle \partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{5}}(h^{N_{k}}-h)\big\|_{Z_{1}}\lesssim d(h^{N_{k}},h)\to 0\end{equation}to conclude that
\begin{eqnarray}\big\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{5}}(\Phi_{t}h-\Pi_{N_{k}}g)\big\|_{Z_{1}}&\leq&\big\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{5}}(\Phi_{t}h-\Phi_{t}^{N_{k}}\Pi_{N_{k}}h)\big\|_{Z_{1}}\nonumber\\
&+&\big\|\langle\partial_{x}\rangle^{-s^{5}}(\Phi_{t}^{N_{k}}\Pi_{N_{k}}h-\Phi_{t}^{N_{k}}\Pi_{N_{k}}h^{N_{k}})\big\|_{Z_{1}}\to 0\nonumber.\end{eqnarray} This implies $g=\Phi_{t}h\in\Phi_{t}(E)$, so the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The aim of this note is to present some new isoperimetric inequalities with weights (also called densities) in convex cones of $\mathbb R^n$.
More general results will appear in \cite{CRS}.
The isoperimetric problem with a density $w$ concerns the existence and characterization of minimizers of the weighted perimeter $\int_{\partial\Omega}w$ among those sets $\Omega$ having constant weighted volume $\int_\Omega w$.
These type of problems have attracted attention recently ---see for example the survey \cite{M} in the Notices of the AMS.
However, weighted isoperimetric inequalities with best constant are known in very few cases, even in the case of the plane ($n=2$).
Here we present the solution of the isoperimetric problem in any open convex cone of $\mathbb R^n$ for certain nonradial weights.
Namely, our result applies to all nonnegative homogeneous weights satisfying a concavity condition in the cone.
A surprising fact is that Euclidean balls centered at the origin (intersected with the cone) minimize the isoperimetric quotient with these nonradial weights.
Our result, stated below, extends the isoperimetric inequality in convex cones of P. L. Lions and F. Pacella \cite{LP}.
Their result states that among all sets $\Omega$ with fixed volume contained in an open convex cone $\Sigma$, the unit ball intersected with the cone minimizes the perimeter inside the cone (that is, not counting the part of the boundary of $\Omega$ that lies on the boundary of the cone).
Our extension allows any homogeneous weight $w$ satisfying a concavity condition.
Our approach is completely different from the one in \cite{LP} and, therefore, by setting $w\equiv1$ we provide with a new proof of the theorem of Lions and Pacella.
Let $\Sigma$ be an open convex cone in $\mathbb R^n$ and denote by
\[P_{\Sigma}(\Omega):=\int_{\Sigma\cap\partial\Omega}w(x)d\sigma\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad m(\Omega)=\int_{\Omega}w(x)dx\]
the weighted perimeter and volume of $\Omega\subset\Sigma$ inside the cone $\Sigma$.
\begin{thm}\label{cones}
Let $\Sigma$ be an open convex cone in $\mathbb R^n$, and let $w$ be a continuous function in $\overline\Sigma$, positive and $C^{1,\gamma}$ in $\Sigma$ for some $\gamma\in(0,1)$, homogeneous of degree $\alpha\geq0$, and such that $w^{1/\alpha}$ is concave in case $\alpha>0$.
Then, for every Lipschitz domain $\Omega\subset\Sigma$,
\begin{equation}\label{dos}
\frac{P_{\Sigma}(\Omega) }{m(\Omega)^{\frac{D-1}{D}} }\geq \frac{P_{\Sigma}(\Sigma\cap B_1)}{m(\Sigma\cap B_1)^{\frac{D-1}{D}}},
\end{equation}
where $D=n+\alpha$ and $B_1=B_1(0)$ is the Euclidean unit ball of $\mathbb R^n$.
\end{thm}
Note the following surprising fact:
even that the weights considered here are not radial (unless $w\equiv1$), still Euclidean balls centered at the origin (intersected with the cone) minimize this isoperimetric quotient.
Note also that we allow $w$ to vanish somewhere on $\partial\Sigma$.
The exponent $D=n+\alpha$ has a dimension flavor and can be found by a scaling argument thanks to the homogeneity of the weight.
The interpretation of $D$ as a dimension is more clear in the following example.
The monomial weights
\begin{equation}\label{monomial}
\begin{split}
&\hspace{12mm} w(x)=x_1^{A_1}\cdots x_n^{A_n} \qquad \textrm{in the cone}\\
& \Sigma=\{x\in\mathbb R^n\,:\, x_i>0\textrm{ for all }i\textrm{ such that }A_i>0\},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $A_i\geq0$, $\alpha=A_1+\cdots+A_n$, and $D=n+A_1+\cdots+A_n$, are important examples for which (\ref{dos}) holds.
These isoperimetric (and the corresponding Sobolev) inequalities with monomial weights are studied by the first two authors in \cite{CR}.
They arose in \cite{CR2}, where we studied reaction-diffusion problems with symmetry of double revolution.
A function $u$ has symmetry of double revolution when $u(x,y)= u(|x|,|y|)$, with $(x,y) \in \mathbb R^{D}= \mathbb R^{A_1+1}\times\mathbb R^{A_2+1}$ (here we assume $A_i$ to be positive integers). In this way, $u$ can be seen as a function in $\mathbb R^2=\mathbb R^n$, and it is here where the Jacobian $x^{A_1}y^{A_2}$ appears.
A similar argument under multiple revolutions shows that, when $w$ and $\Sigma$ are given by (\ref{monomial}) and all $A_i$ are nonnegative integers, Theorem \ref{cones} follows from the classical isoperimetric inequality in $\mathbb R^D$.
We know only of two results where nonradial weights lead to radial minimizers.
The first one is the isoperimetric inequality by Maderna-Salsa \cite{MS} in the upper half plane $\{(x,y)\in\mathbb R^2\,:\, y>0\}$ with the weight $y^k$, $k>0$.
The second one is due to Brock-Chiacchio-Mercaldo \cite{BCM} and extends the one in \cite{MS} by including the weights $(x_n)^{k}\exp(c|x|^2)$ in $\mathbb R^n_+$, with $k\geq0$ and $c\geq0$. They prove that half balls are the minimizers of the isoperimetric quotient with these weights.
Our result provides a much wider class of nonradial weights and cones for which the optimizers are Euclidean balls.
Of course, not all homogeneous weights lead to radial minimizers. In fact, the following example shows that even radial homogeneous weights may lead to nonradial minimizers.
Indeed, consider in $\mathbb R^2$ the weight $w(x)=|x|^\alpha$, where $\alpha>0$, $|\cdot|$ is the Euclidean norm, and $\Sigma$ is an open convex cone of angle $\beta$.
Then, it is proved in \cite{DHHT} that there exists $\beta_0\in (0,\pi)$ such that, for $\beta<\beta_0$ the set $\Sigma\cap B_1$ minimizes the isoperimetric quotient in $\Sigma$ with weight $w$, while for $\beta>\beta_0$ it does not.
\section{Sketch of the proof}
The proof of Theorem \ref{cones} follows the ideas introduced by the first author in a new proof of the classical isoperimetric inequality; see \cite{CSCM,CDCDS}.
It is quite surprising (and fortunate) that this proof (which gives the best constant) can be adapted to the case of the previous homogeneous weights.
We next sketch the proof of our result.
To simplify the exposition, here we assume that $w\equiv0$ on $\partial\Sigma$ (at the end of the Note we explain what must be changed in the general case).
For example, the monomial weights (\ref{monomial}) satisfy the assumption $w\equiv0$ on $\partial\Sigma$.
As a consequence, $P_\Sigma(\Omega)=\int_{\Sigma\cap\partial\Omega}w=\int_{\partial\Omega}w:=P(\Omega)$.
Thus, by regularizing $\Omega$, we may assume that $\overline\Omega\subset\Sigma$ and $\Omega$ is smooth.
Consider the solution $u$ of the linear Neumann problem
\begin{equation} \label{eqsem}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} w^{-1}\textrm{div}(w\nabla u) = b_\Omega &\quad \mbox{in } \Omega\\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial\nu} =1 &\quad \textrm{on }\partial \Omega.
\end{array}\right. \end{equation}
Note that, since $w>0$ in $\Sigma$, (\ref{eqsem}) is a uniformly elliptic equation.
Since $w\in C^{1,\gamma}(\Sigma)$, $u\in C^{2,\gamma}(\overline\Omega)$.
The constant $b$ is chosen so that (\ref{eqsem}) has a unique solution up to an additive constant, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{cttb} b_\Omega=\frac{P(\Omega)}{m(\Omega)}.\end{equation}
We now consider the lower contact set of $u$, $\Gamma_u$, defined as the set of points in $\Omega$ at which the tangent hyperplane to the graph of $u$ lies below $u$ in all $\overline \Omega$.
Then, as in the ABP method, we touch by below the graph of $u$ with hyperplanes of fixed slope $p\in B_1$, and using the boundary condition in (\ref{eqsem}) we deduce that
\[B_1 \subset \nabla u (\Gamma_u).\]
From this, we obtain $\Sigma\cap B_1\subset \Sigma\cap \nabla u(\Gamma_u)$ and thus
\begin{equation}\label{ineq}
\begin{split}
m(\Sigma\cap B_1) &\leq \int_{\Sigma\cap \nabla u (\Gamma_u)}w(p)dp \\
&\leq \int_{(\nabla u)^{-1}(\Sigma)\cap \Gamma_u} w(\nabla u(x))\det D^2u(x)\,dx\\
&\leq \int_{(\nabla u)^{-1}(\Sigma)\cap \Gamma_u} w(\nabla u)\left(\frac{\Delta u}{n}\right)^ndx.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We have applied the area formula to the map $\nabla u : \Gamma_u \rightarrow \mathbb R^n$ and also the classical arithmetic-geometric mean inequality ---all eigenvalues of $D^2u$ are nonnegative in $\Gamma_u$ by definition of this set.
Next we use that, when $\alpha>0$,
\[Y^{\alpha}Z^n\leq \left(\frac{\alpha Y+nZ}{\alpha+n}\right)^{\alpha+n}\ \ \textrm{for all positive}\ \ Y\ \textrm{and}\ Z,\]
and also that
\[\alpha\left(\frac{w(p)}{w(x)}\right)^{1/\alpha}\leq \frac{\nabla w(x)\cdot p}{w(x)}
\ \ \textrm{for all}\ x\ \textrm{and}\ p\ \textrm{in}\ \Sigma,\]
which is equivalent to the concavity of $w^{1/\alpha}$ (given that $w^{1/\alpha}$ is homogeneous of degree 1).
We find
\begin{equation}\label{2}
\frac{w(\nabla u)}{w(x)}\left(\frac{\Delta u}{n}\right)^n\leq
\left(\frac{\alpha\left(\frac{w(\nabla u)}{w(x)}\right)^{1/\alpha}+\Delta u}{\alpha+n}\right)^{\alpha+n}\leq
\left(\frac{\frac{\nabla w(x)\cdot \nabla u}{w(x)}+\Delta u}{\alpha+n}\right)^{\alpha+n}=
\left(\frac{b_\Omega}{D}\right)^{D}.\end{equation}
In the last equality we have used equation (\ref{eqsem}). If $\alpha=0$ then $w\equiv1$, and (\ref{2}) is trivial.
Therefore, since $\Gamma_u\subset \Omega$, combining (\ref{ineq}) and (\ref{2}) we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{7}\begin{split}
m(\Sigma\cap B_1) &\leq \int_{\Gamma_u} \left(\frac{b_\Omega}{D}\right)^{D}w(x)dx=
\left(\frac{b_\Omega}{D}\right)^{D}m(\Gamma_u)\\
&\leq \left(\frac{b_\Omega}{D}\right)^{D}m(\Omega)
= D^{-D}\frac{P(\Omega)^{D}}{m(\Omega)^{D-1}}.\end{split}\end{equation}
In the last equality we have used the value of the constant $b_\Omega$, given by (\ref{cttb}).
Finally, when $\Omega=\Sigma\cap B_1$ we consider $u(x)=|x|^2/2$ and $\Gamma_u=\Sigma\cap B_1$. Now, $u_\nu=1$ is only satisfied on $\Sigma\cap \partial\Omega$ but, since $w\equiv 0$ on $\partial \Sigma\cap \partial\Omega$, we have $b_{\Sigma\cap B_1} = P(\Sigma\cap B_1)/m(\Sigma\cap B_1)$ --- as in (\ref{cttb}). For these concrete $\Omega$ and $u$ one verifies that all inequalities in (\ref{ineq}),(\ref{2}),(\ref{7}) are equalities. Thus, (\ref{dos}) follows.
\qed
Without the assumption $w\equiv0$ on $\partial\Sigma$, the proof is more involved. We need to consider a Neumann condition of the form $\partial u/\partial\nu=H(\nu)$ on $\partial\Omega$, with $H(\nu)=0$ in all normal directions $\nu$ to the cone and $H(\nu)=1$ for all $\nu$ which are directions interior to the cone.
|
\section{Introduction}
The $\elemA{7}{He}$ nucleus is an exotic system of three neutrons outside a $^4$He core with a particle-unstable
$J^\pi T{=}3/2^-\, 3/2$ ground state (g.s.)
lying at $0.430(3) \, \text{MeV}$~\cite{Stokes_1967,Cao2012} above the threshold of a neutron and $\elemA{6}{He}$,
which in turn is an exotic Borromean halo nucleus.
While there is a general consensus on the $5/2^-$ resonance centered at $3.35 \, \text{MeV}$,
which mainly decays to $\alpha{+}3n$~\cite{Korsheninnikov_1998}, discussions are still open for the other excited states.
In particular, the existence of a low-lying $1/2^-$ state at about $1 \, \text{MeV}$
has been advocated by many
experiments~\cite{Markenroth_2001,Meister_2002,Skaza_2006,Ryezayeva_2006,Lapoux_2006}
(most of them using knockout reactions with a $\elemA{8}{He}$ beam on a carbon target),
while it was not confirmed in several others~\cite{Bohlen_2001,Rogachev_2004,Wuosmaa_2005,Wuosmaa_2008,Denby_2008,Aksuytina_2009}.
This contradictory situation arises from the main experimental difficulty
of measuring the properties of excited states in
$\elemA{7}{He}$ in the presence of a three-body background,
coming from the particle decay of $\elemA{7}{He}$ and from the outgoing particle
involved in the reaction used to produce $\elemA{7}{He}$.
The presence of a low-lying $1/2^-$ state has also been excluded by a study on the isobaric analog states of $\elemA{7}{He}$ in $\elemA{7}{Li}$~\cite{Boutachkov_2005}. According to this latter work, a broad
$1/2^-$ resonance at ${\sim}3.5 \, \text{MeV}$ with a width $\Gamma{\sim}10 \, \text{MeV}$ fits the data the best.
Neutron pick-up and proton-removal reactions~\cite{Wuosmaa_2005, Wuosmaa_2008}
suggest instead a $1/2^-$ resonance at about $3 \, \text{MeV}$ with a width $\Gamma{\approx}2 \, \text{MeV}$.
The $1/2^-$ resonance controversy cannot be addressed by {\it ab initio} theoretical calculations based on traditional bound-state methods such as the Green's function Monte Carlo (GFMC)~\cite{GFMC}, the no-core shell model (NCSM)~\cite{Navratil:2000ww} or the Coupled Cluster Method (CCM)~\cite{Ha08,Hagen:2012sh,Roth:2011vt}. The complex CCM was recently applied to He isotopes, but only the g.s.\ of $^7$He was investigated~\cite{Hagen2007}.
In this Letter, we address the low-lying resonances of $^7$He within
the no-core shell model with continuum (NCSMC), a
new unified approach to nuclear bound and continuum states based on the coupling of the NCSM with the no-core shell model/resonating group method (NCSM/RGM)~\cite{Quaglioni:2008sm,Quaglioni:2009mn,Navratil:2010jn,Navratil2011379,Navratil:2011ay,PhysRevLett.108.042503}. In this approach,
we augment the NCSM/RGM ansatz for the $A$-body wave function~\cite{Quaglioni:2009mn} by means of
an expansion over $A$-body NCSM eigenstates $\ket{A \lambda J^\pi T} $ according to:
\begin{align}
\label{NCSMC_wav}
\!\!\!\ket{\Psi^{J^\pi T}_A} \!=\! \sum_\lambda c_\lambda \ket{A \lambda J^\pi T} \! +\! \sum_{\nu}\!\! \int \!\! dr \, r^2
\frac{\gamma_{\nu}(r)}{r}
\hat{\mathcal{A}}_\nu\ket{\Phi_{\nu r}^{J^\pi T}},
\end{align}
where the $(A-a,a)$ binary-cluster channel channel states
\begin{align}
\label{eq:formalism_20}
\ket{\Phi_{\nu r}^{J^\pi T}} = &
\Big[ \left(
\ket{A-a \; \alpha_1 I_1^{\pi_1}T_1}\ket{a \; \alpha_2 I_2^{\pi_2}T_2}
\right)^{(sT)} \nonumber\\
&\times Y_\ell(\hat{r}_{A-a,a})
\Big]^{(J^{\pi}T)} \frac{\delta(r-r_{A-a,a})}{rr_{A-a,a}} \; ,
\end{align}
are labeled by the collection of quantum numbers
$\nu=\{A-a \; \alpha_1 I_1^{\pi_1}T_1; a \; \alpha_2 I_2^{\pi_2}T_2; s\ell\}$ and $\vec{r}_{A-a,a}$ is the intercluster relative vector.
The NCSM sector of the basis provides an effective description of the short- to medium-range $A$-body structure, while the NCSM/RGM cluster states make the theory able to handle the scattering physics of the system. The discrete, $c_\lambda$, and the continuous, $\gamma_{\nu} (r)$
unknowns of the NCSMC wave functions are obtained as solutions of the following coupled equations,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:formalism_110}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
H_{NCSM} & \bar{h} \\
\bar{h} & \overline{\mathcal{H}}
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
c \\
{\chi}
\end{array}
\right)
=
E
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & \bar{g} \\
\bar{g} & 1
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
c \\
{\chi}
\end{array}
\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\chi_{\nu} (r)$
are the relative wave functions in the NCSM/RGM sector when working with the orthogonalized cluster channel states~\cite{Quaglioni:2009mn}.
The NCSM sector $H_{NCSM}$ of the Hamiltonian kernel is a diagonal matrix of the NCSM energy eigenvalues, while
$\overline{\mathcal{H}}$ is the orthogonalized NCSM/RGM kernel~\cite{Quaglioni:2009mn}.
The coupling between the two sectors is described by the
overlap, $\bar{g}_{\lambda \nu}(r)$, and hamiltonian, $\bar{h}_{\lambda \nu}(r)$, form factors respectively proportional to the $\braket{A \lambda J^\pi T}{\hat{\mathcal{A}}_{\nu} \Phi_{\nu r}^{J^\pi T }}$ and
$\matrEL{A \lambda J^\pi T} {\hat{H} \hat{\mathcal{A}}_{\nu}} {\Phi_{\nu r}^{J^\pi T }}$ matrix elements.
We solve the NCSMC equations by applying the coupled-channel microscopic R-matrix method on a Lagrange mesh~\cite{R-matrix}. Further details on the formalism will be given elsewhere~\cite{Baroni2012}.
We begin by presenting NCSM calculations for $^6$He and $^7$He that will serve as input for the subsequent NCSM/RGM and NCSMC investigations of $^7$He.
In this work, we use the similarity-rnormalization-group (SRG) evolved~\cite{SRG,Roth_SRG,Roth_2010,Bogner_2010} chiral N$^3$LO $NN$ potential of Refs.~\cite{Entem:2003ft,Machleidt:2011zz}.
For the time being, we omit both induced and chiral initial three-nucleon forces, and our results depend on the low-momentum SRG
parameter $\Lambda$. However,
for $\Lambda = 2.02$ fm$^{-1}$, we obtain
realistic binding energies for the lightest nuclei, e.g.,
$^4$He and,
especially important for the present investigation, $^6$He (see Table~\ref{tab:NCSM_He_gs}). Consequently,
this choice of $NN$ potential allows us to perform qualitatively and quantitatively meaningful calculations for $^7$He that can be compared to experiment.
Except where
differently stated, all results shown in this work have been obtained with an harmonic oscillator (HO) $N_{\rm max}{=}12$
basis size and frequency $\hbar\Omega{=}16$ MeV.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
$E_{\rm g.s.}$ [MeV] & $^4$He & $^6$He & $^7$He \\
\hline
NCSM $N_{\rm max}{=}12$ & -28.05 & -28.63 & -27.33 \\
NCSM extrap. & -28.22(1)& -29.25(15) & -28.27(25) \\
Expt. & -28.30 & -29.27 & -28.84 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\caption{Ground-state energies of $^{4,6,7}$He in MeV.
An exponential fit was employed for the extrapolations. }
\label{tab:NCSM_He_gs}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The variational NCSM calculations converge rapidly and can be easily extrapolated.
At $N_{\rm max}{=}12$ (our $^{6,7}$He limit for technical reasons), the dependence of the $^6$He g.s.\ energy on the HO frequency is flat in the
range of $\hbar\Omega\sim 16{-}19$ MeV. In general, when working within an HO basis, lower frequencies are better suited for the
description of unbound systems. Therefore, we choose $\hbar\Omega{=}16$ MeV for our subsequent calculations.
Extrapolated g.s. energies with their error estimates and the $N_{\rm max}{=}12$ results
are given in Table~\ref{tab:NCSM_He_gs}.
Calculated $^6$He excitation energies for basis sizes up to $N_{\rm max}{=}12$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{6He_exct}. The $^6$He is weakly bound with all excited states unbound. Except for the lowest $2^+$ state, all
$^6$He excited states are either broad resonances or states in the continuum. We observe a good stability of the $2^+_1$ state with respect to the basis size of our NCSM calculations. The higher excited states, however, drop in energy with increasing $N_{\rm max}$ with the most dramatic example being the multi-$\hbar\Omega$ $0^+_3$ state. This spells a potential difficulty for a NCSM/RGM calculations of $^7$He within a $n+^6$He cluster basis as, with increasing density of $^6$He states at low energies, a truncation to just a few lowest eigenstates becomes questionable.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[clip=,width=0.45\textwidth]{He6_srg-n3lo_2.02_16_spectra_vs_Nmax_excited.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(color online). Dependence of $^6$He excitation energies on the size of the basis $N_{max}$.
}
\label{6He_exct}
\end{figure}
For the $^7$He, the NCSM predicts the g.s.\ unbound in agreement with experiment. However, the resonance energy with respect to the $^6$He$+n$ threshold appears overestimated.
Obviously, it is not clear that the ad hoc exponential extrapolation is valid for
unbound states.
In addition, no information on the width of the resonance can be obtained from the NCSM calculation.
\begin{table}[b]
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cc|c|c|cc|c}
$^7$He $J^\pi$ & $^6$He${-}n(lj)$ & NCSM & CK & VMC & GFMC & Exp. \\
\hline
$3/2^-_1$ & $0^+{-}p\frac{3}{2}$ & 0.56 & 0.59 & 0.53 & 0.565 & 0.512(18)~\cite{Cao2012} \\
& & & & & & 0.64(9)~\cite{Beck2007} \\
& & & & & & 0.37(7)~\cite{Wuosmaa_2005} \\
$3/2^-_1$ &$2^+_1{-}p\frac{1}{2}$& 0.001 & 0.06 & 0.006& & \\
$3/2^-_1$ &$2^+_1{-}p\frac{3}{2}$& 1.97 & 1.15 & 2.02 & & \\
$3/2^-_1$ &$2^+_2{-}p\frac{1}{2}$& 0.12 & & 0.09 & & \\
$3/2^-_1$ &$2^+_2{-}p\frac{3}{2}$& 0.42 & & 0.30 & & \\
$1/2^-$ & $0^+{-}p\frac{1}{2}$& 0.94 & 0.69 & 0.91 & & \\
$1/2^-$ &$2^+_1{-}p\frac{3}{2}$& 0.34 & 0.60 & 0.26 & & \\
$1/2^-$ &$2^+_2{-}p\frac{3}{2}$& 0.93 & & & & \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\caption{NCSM spectroscopic factors compared to Cohen-Kurath (CK)~\cite{CK}
and VMC/GFMC~\cite{GFMC,Brida2011,Wiringa} calculations and experiment.
The CK values should be still multiplied by $A/(A{-}1)$ to correct for the center of mass motion.}
\label{tab:specfac}
\end{center}
\end{table}
We can, however, study the structure of the $^7$He NCSM eigenstates
by calculating their overlaps with $^6$He$+n$ cluster states, which are related to $\bar{g}_{\lambda\nu}$ (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:formalism_20})), and the corresponding spectroscopic factors summarized in Table~\ref{tab:specfac}.
Overall, we find a very good agreement with the VMC/GFMC results as well as with the latest experimental value for the g.s.~\cite{Cao2012}. Interesting features to notice is
the about equal spread of $1/2^-$ between the $0^+$ and $2^+_2$ states.
We stress that in our present calculations, the overlap functions and spectroscopic factors are not the final products to be compared to experiment but, on the contrary, inputs to more sophisticated NCSMC calculations.
The NCSM/RGM calculations for the $n+^6$He system presented in the following were obtained by including up to the three lowest eigenstates of $^6$He, {\em i.e.}, $0^+, 2^+_1$, and $2^+_2$. These results will be compared to NCSMC calculations, which couple the above $n+^6$He binary-cluster states to the 6 lowest negative parity NCSM eigenstates of $^7$He ($3/2^-_1,1/2^-,5/2^-,3/2^-_2,3/2^-_3,3/2^-_4$) as well as the four lowest $^7$He positive-parity eigenstates ($1/2^+,5/2^+_1,3/2^+,5/2^+_2$).
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[clip=,width=0.39\textwidth]{phase_shift_nHe6_srg-n3lo2.02_16_15_stdep_3m_fig_mod.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(color online). Dependence of the NCSM/RGM (blue lines) and NCSMC (red lines) $\elemA{6}{He} + n$
diagonal
phase shifts of the $^7$He $3/2^-$ g.s.\
on the number of $^6$He states included in the binary-cluster basis. The short-dashed,
dashed, and solid curves correspond to calculations
with the $\elemA{6}{He}$ $0^+$ g.s.\ only, $0^+,2^+$ states, and $0^+,2^+,2^+$ states, respectively.
}
\label{6He_n_target_states}
\end{figure}
First, in Fig.~\ref{6He_n_target_states}, we study the dependence of the $3/2^-$ g.s.\
diagonal
phase shifts on the number of $^6$He eigenstates included in the
NCSM/RGM (blue lines) and NCSMC (red lines) calculations.
The NCSM/RGM calculation with the $^6$He target restricted to its
g.s.\ does not produce a $^7$He $3/2^-$ resonance (the phase shift does not reach 90 degrees). A $^2P_{3/2}$ resonance does appear once the $2^+_1$ state of $^6$He is coupled, and the
resonance position further moves to lower energy with the inclusion of the second $2^+$ state of $^6$He.
On the contrary, the $^2P_{3/2}$ resonance is already present in the NCSMC calculation
with only the
g.s.\ of $^6$He.
In fact, this NCSMC model space is already enough to
obtain the $\elemA{7}{He}$ $3/2^-$ g.s.\ resonance at about $1 \, \text{MeV}$ above threshold, which is lower than the NCSM/RGM prediction of $1.39 \, \text{MeV}$ when three $\elemA{6}{He}$ states are included. Adding the $2^+_1$ state of $^6$He generates a modest shift of the resonance to a still lower energy while the second $2^+$ state of $^6$He
has no significant influence (Fig.~\ref{6He_n_target_states}, panel (b)). We further observe that the resonance position in the NCSMC calculation is lower than the NCSM/RGM one by about 0.7 MeV. This difference is due to the additional correlations brought by the $^7$He eigenstates that are coupled to the $n+^6$He binary-cluster states in the NCSMC and that
compensate for higher excited states of the $^6$He target omitted in the NCSM/RGM sector of the basis. These include both positive-parity states, some of which are shown in Fig.~\ref{6He_exct}, and negative-parity excitations, e.g., the $1^-$ soft dipole excitation {\em etc.} While NCSM/RGM calculations with a large number of clusters' excited states
can become prohibitively expensive, the coupling of a few NCSM eigenstates of the composite system is straightforward.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[clip=,width=0.4\textwidth]{phase_shift_nHe6_srg-n3lo2.02_16_15_0p2p2p_fig_mod.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(color online). NCSM/RGM (a) and NCSMC (b) $\elemA{6}{He}+n$ diagonal phase shifts (except $^6P_{3/2}$, which are eigenphase shifts)
as a function of the kinetic energy in the center of mass.
The dashed vertical area centered at $0.43 \, \text{MeV}$ indicates the experimental
centroid and width of the $\elemA{7}{He}$ g.s.~\cite{Stokes_1967,Cao2012}.
In all calculations the lowest three $\elemA{6}{He}$ states
have been included in the binary-cluster basis.
See text for further details.}
\label{6He_n_phase_shifts}
\end{figure}
The NCSM/RGM and the NCSMC phase shifts for the $n+\elemA{6}{He}$ five $P$-wave
and $^2S_{1/2}$ channels are shown in Fig.~\ref{6He_n_phase_shifts}. All curves
have been obtained including the lowest three $\elemA{6}{He}$ states.
The NCSMC calculations (panel (b)) additionally include ten $\elemA{7}{He}$ NCSM eigenstates, as described above.
As expected from a variational calculation, the introduction of the additional $A$-body
basis states $\ket{A \lambda J^\pi T}$
lowers
the centroid values for all $\elemA{7}{He}$ resonances when going from NCSM/RGM (panel (a)) to NCSMC (panel (b)).
In particular, the $\elemA{7}{He}$ $3/2^-$ g.s.\
and $5/2^-$ excited state are pushed toward
the $\elemA{6}{He}{+}n$ threshold,
closer to their respective experimental positions.
The experimental accepted values for the resonance centroids in $\elemA{7}{He}$ and the possible $1/2^-$ states are shown in Table~\ref{6He_n_table_widths}, together with our calculations.
For NCSM/RGM and NCSMC, the resonance centroids $E_R$ are obtained as the values of the kinetic energy in the center of mass for which the first derivative of the phase shifts is maximal~\cite{Thompson_priv}.
The resonance widths are then computed from the phase shifts according to (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{Thompson})
\begin{equation}\label{eq:6Hen_10}
\Gamma=\left. \frac{2}{{\rm d} \delta(E_{kin}) / {\rm d} E_{kin}}\right|_{E_{kin}=E_R}\,.
\end{equation}
An alternative, less general, choice for the resonance energy $E_R$ could be the kinetic energy corresponding to a phase shift of $\pi/2$ (thin dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{6He_n_phase_shifts}).
While
Eq.~(\ref{eq:6Hen_10})
is safely applicable to sharp resonances, broad resonances
would require an analysis of the scattering matrix in the complex plane.
As we are more interested in a qualitative discussion of the results,
we use here the above extraction procedure for broad resonances as well.
The two alternative ways of
choosing $E_R$
lead to basically identical results for the calculated $3/2^-_1$ resonances, however the same is not true for the broader $5/2^-$
and the very broad $1/2^-$ resonances.
The
$\pi/2$ condition,
particularly questionable for broad resonances, would result in $E_R\sim 3.7$ MeV and $\Gamma\sim 2.4$ MeV for the $5/2^-$ and $E_R\sim 4$ MeV (see Fig.~\ref{6He_n_phase_shifts}) and $\Gamma\sim 13$ MeV for the $1/2^-$ resonance, respectively.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc|cc|cc|c}
$J^\pi$ & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{experiment} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{NCSMC} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{NCSM/RGM} & NCSM \\
& $E_R$ & $\Gamma$ & Ref. & $E_R$ & $\Gamma$ & $E_R$ & $\Gamma$ & $E_R$ \\
\hline
$3/2^-$ & 0.430(3)& 0.182(5)& \cite{Cao2012} & 0.71 & 0.30 & 1.39 & 0.46 & 1.30 \\
$5/2^-$ & 3.35(10) & 1.99(17) & \cite{Tilley2002} & 3.13 & 1.07 & 4.00 & 1.75 & 4.56 \\
$1/2^-$ & 3.03(10) & 2 & \cite{Wuosmaa_2005} & 2.39 & 2.89 & 2.66 & 3.02 & 3.26 \\
& 3.53 & 10 & \cite{Boutachkov_2005} & & & & & \\
& 1.0(1) & 0.75(8) & \cite{Meister_2002} & & & & & \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Experimental and theoretical
resonance centroids and widths in MeV for the
$3/2^-$ g.s.\ , $5/2^-$ and $1/2^-$ excited states of $\elemA{7}{He}$.
See the text for more details.}
\label{6He_n_table_widths}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The resonance position and width of our NCSMC $3/2^-$ g.s.\ slightly overestimate the measurements,
whereas the prediction for the $5/2^-$
is lower compared to experiment~\cite{Korsheninnikov_1998,Tilley2002}, although our determination of the width should be taken with some caution in this case.
As for the $1/2^-$ resonance, the experimental situation is not clear as discussed in the introduction and documented in Table~\ref{6He_n_table_widths}. While the centroid energies
of Refs.~\cite{Wuosmaa_2005,Wuosmaa_2008} and~\cite{Boutachkov_2005} are comparable, the widths are very different. With our determination of $E_R$ and $\Gamma$, the NCSMC results are in fair agreement with the neutron pick-up and proton-removal reactions experiments~\cite{Wuosmaa_2005, Wuosmaa_2008}
and definitely do not support the hypothesis of a low lying ($E_R{\sim} 1$ MeV) narrow ($\Gamma \leq 1$ MeV) $1/2^-$ resonance~\cite{Markenroth_2001,Meister_2002,Skaza_2006,Ryezayeva_2006,Lapoux_2006}.
In addition, our NCSMC calculations predict two broad $^6P_{3/2}$ resonances (from the coupling to the two respective $^6$He $2^+$ states) at about 3.7 MeV and 6.5 MeV with widths of 2.8 and 4.3 MeV, respectively. The corresponding eigenphase shifts do not reach $\pi/2$, see Fig.~\ref{6He_n_phase_shifts}. In experiment, there is a resonance of undetermined spin and parity at 6.2(3) MeV with a width of 4(1) MeV~\cite{Tilley2002}.
Finally, it should be noted that our calculated NCSMC ground state resonance energy, 0.71 MeV, is lower but still compatible with the extrapolated NCSM value of 0.98(29) MeV (see Tables~\ref{tab:NCSM_He_gs} and \ref{6He_n_table_widths}).
In conclusion, we introduced a new unified approach to nuclear bound and continuum states based on the coupling of the no-core shell model with the no-core shell model/resonating group method. We demonstrated the potential of the NCSMC in calculations of $^7$He resonances. Our calculations do not support the hypothesis of a low lying $1/2^-$ resonance in $^7$He.
\acknowledgments
Computing support came in part from the LLNL institutional Computing Grand Challenge program. Prepared in part by LLNL under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. Support from the U.\ S.\ DOE/SC/NP (Work Proposal No.\ SCW1158) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Grant No.\ 401945-2011 is acknowledged. TRIUMF receives funding via a contribution through the National Research Council Canada. This research was supported in part by the PAI-P6-23 of the Belgian Office for Scientific Policy and by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement No.\ 62010.
\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
|
\section{Introduction}
The purpose of this article is to show that a renormalization group procedure
(RGP) of Hamiltonians, based on Gaussian elimination of basis states~\cite{Wilson70},
provides a convenient approach to the Hamiltonian matrix diagonalization problem
for an elementary oscillator with quartic anharmonicity,
\begin{eqnarray}
H & = & {\dot \phi^2 \over 2} + {m^2 \phi^2 \over 2} + g m^3 \phi^4,
\label{H}
\end{eqnarray}
where $g>0$ is a dimensionless coupling constant and the units are chosen such
that $\hslash=1$ and $c=1$. By ``elementary'' we mean that we consider $\phi$
a single variable, describing only one mode of a scalar field. Thus, instead of
a quantum field theory problem, we have a simple quantum mechanics problem.
The utility of RGP results from the band-diagonal structure of the oscillator's
Hamiltonian. Having written the initial Hamiltonian in the second-quantized form,
\begin{eqnarray}
H = m \left[ a^\dagger a + g(a^\dagger+a)^4 \right]
\label{Ha}
\end{eqnarray}
(the irrelevant constant $+m/2$ was suppressed), the Hamiltonian matrix is
obtained by evaluating matrix elements in the basis of normalized
eigenstates of $H_0 = m a^\dagger a$.
In general, band-diagonal structure of a Hamiltonian corresponds to the
situation, when an interaction cannot mix the states belonging to distinct
energy scales. Such an interaction is much easier to understand then the
one which does not possess this property. For this reason, building a
unitary transformation which decouples states distinct in energy from each
other may be the main part of solving a Hamiltonian eigenvalue problem
involving interactions of the latter kind. The examples of methods dealing
with such unitary decoupling are the similarity renormalization group (SRG)
scheme \cite{SRG,RG+SRG} and (closely related) Wegner's flow equation
\cite{Wegner,Kehrein,Furnstahl}. Both methods bring (arbitrarily chosen)
initial Hamiltonian to a band-diagonal form. The oscillator Hamiltonian possesses
a band diagonal structure from the beginning, i.e., without any need for using
SRG to make it so. Thus, this paper can be considered as dealing with the
second stage of solving the eigenvalue problem after the band diagonal
structure is already achieved.
Namely, in this paper we address the problem of precise and systematic numerical
calculation of small eigenvalues of the band-diagonal Hamiltonian, using
the one in Eq.~(\ref{Ha}) as an example. We show that the Wilsonian RGP in
the case of any band-diagonal Hamiltonian is reduced to a recursive relation
for only a few (six in the considered example) independent Hamiltonian matrix
elements. Thus, what we do here may be considered a convenient tool for
analysing band-diagonal Hamiltonians emerging from aforementioned methods.
Further discussion of this possibility in the case of realistic field-theoretic Hamiltonians can be found in~\cite{RG+SRG}, see Appendix~A there.
In zero-dimensional oscillator there are no ultraviolet divergences,
so the renormalization issues in this model are limited to finite cutoff
dependence. Such finite cutoff dependence strictly disappears from the
smallest eigenvalues when the cutoff is sent to infinity. Thus, there is
no need to introduce diverging counterterms. Nevertheless, RGP is still
of great value, because it {\it gets rid of the spurious finite cutoff
dependence of small Hamiltonian eigenvalues}, even for very small cutoffs.
The numerical recipe is very fast, precise and nonperturbative. So, it is
valid for all values of $g$. The low-energy spectra of the Hamiltonian~(\ref{Ha})
obtained with RGP method will be compared with the corresponding spectra
obtained by simply cutting off the initial Hamiltonian at the same small
cutoff, for different values of $g$.
RGPs are extensively used as numerical tools since Wilson has delivered the
algorithm \cite{Wilson75} for treating the systems in which Kondo effect
\cite{Kondo} appears. The algorithm considered in this paper resembles the
one considered in \cite{Wilson75}, but does not include a logarithmic discretization
of any conduction band. It does, however, deal with a discrete set of states
that is similar to an infinite set of intervals of pion momentum in~\cite{Wilson65}
and a discrete set in \cite{Wilson70}.
Ref.~\cite{survey} provides an overview of applications of numerical RGPs
to the quantum impurity systems. Here we show that an appropriate numerical
RGP can be always applied to any quantum Hamiltonian that is band-diagonal.
In particular, we have in mind systems of particles for which SRG renders
a Hamiltonian of the band-diagonal form \cite{RG+SRG}.
Our approach is not the only one possible in the case of a quartic oscillator.
Another approach, based directly on SRG, was presented in~\cite{RJP}. In the
case of oscillator, the procedure of Ref.~\cite{RJP} is simple and
an effective generator of SRG transformation
is found using specific simplifications. Most of the work is done analytically.
However, for an arbitrary band-diagonal Hamiltonian such simple generator
does not exist and numerical calculations based on SRG are complex. In fact,
in such circumstances they are less effective then these based on Wilsonian
RGP that are presented in this article using the example of quartic oscillator.
The paper is organized as follows. The RGP carried out in this article is
described in Section~\ref{sec:RG}. The resulting evolution of Hamiltonian
matrix elements is described in Section~\ref{sec:course}. Section~\ref{comparison}
compares results obtained using RGP with results obtained using a plain
cutoff (PC) of the Hamiltonian matrix, without inclusion of any corresponding
changes in its matrix elements. The PC procedure has no a priori justification
for general Hamiltonians but works for large enough cutoffs for band-diagonal
Hamiltonians, see Section~\ref{comparison} for details. The effective
Hamiltonians we obtain are described in Section~\ref{EH}. Section~\ref{Conclusion}
concludes the article with a summary of accuracy achieved using the RGP.
\section{ Description of RGP carried out in this article }
\label{sec:RG}
We set $m=1$ and denote $H_I= (H-H_0)/g$. In the basis of normalized
eigenstates of $H_0$, \hbox{$|k\rangle = (k!)^{-1/2}(a^\dagger)^k |0\rangle$}, $H$
has matrix elements
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Hmn}
H_{kl} \equiv \langle k | H | l \rangle
& = & [k + 3g(2k^2+2k+1)] \delta_{kl} + \\
&&+\,\, g(4l+6) \sqrt{(l+1)(l+2)} \delta_{k (l+2)} + \nonumber \\
&&+\,\, g(4k+6) \sqrt{(k+1)(k+2)} \delta_{l (k+2)} + \nonumber \\
&&+\,\, g\sqrt{(l+1)(l+2)(l+3)(l+4)} \delta_{k (l+4)} +\nonumber\\
&&+\,\, g\sqrt{(k+1)(k+2)(k+3)(k+4)} \delta_{l (k+4)} \, . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Due to the Kronecker delta functions most of the matrix elements
are zero and the Hamiltonian matrix is band-diagonal with only five
near-diagonals different from zero.
As the first step of RGP, we define the Hamiltonian with a big
cutoff $N$, \ie, we reduce the space of states to the one spanned by
the set $\{ |0\rangle, |1\rangle, \ldots, |N \rangle \}$ and write
the Hamiltonian as $(N+1)\times (N+1)$ matrix with elements given
by Eq.~(\ref{Hmn}).
Then, we denote $\langle k | \psi \rangle = \psi_k$ and write the
resulting Hamiltonian matrix eigenvalue equation in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{l=0}^{N} H_{kl} \psi_l & = & E\psi_k.
\label{eigen}
\end{eqnarray}
We extract $\psi_{N}$ from the highest energy equation, $k=N$, in the
set (\ref{eigen}) of $N+1$ equations, and use it in the remaining $N$
equations in the set (\ref{eigen}) with $k<N$. This is essentially
Gaussian elimination. The resulting set of only $N$ equations is
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{l=0}^{N-1} \left( H_{kl} +
{ H_{kN} H_{Nl} \over E - H_{NN}} \right) \psi_l & = & E \psi_k.
\label{eigenRG0}
\end{eqnarray}
Taking into account that $H = H_0 + g H_I$, we arrive at the equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{l=0}^{N-1} \bigg( H_{0\, kl} + \underbrace{
g H_{I\, kl} + g^2{ H_{I\, kN} H_{I\, Nl} \over
E - (H_{0\, NN} + g H_{I\, NN}) } }_{\displaystyle
g H_{I\, kl}^{(1)}(E)} \bigg) \psi_l & = & E \psi_k,
\label{eigenRG}
\end{eqnarray}
which is an eigenvalue problem for a new matrix with elements $H_{0\, kl} +
g H^{(1)}_{I\, kl}(E)$. We call it the matrix of effective Hamiltonian.
It can be used as a starting point for the next Gaussian elimination step,
but we notice that there appears a difficulty: $H_I^{(1)}$ depends on an
unknown eigenvalue $E$. However, we are interested only in small
eigenvalues of $H$, so small that they are negligible when compared with
$H_{0\, NN} + g H_{I\, NN}$. The latter is the highest-index diagonal
matrix element of $H$ that appears in the denominator on the left-hand
side in Eq.~(\ref{eigenRG}). Thus, we bypass the difficulty by introducing
the approximation
\begin{eqnarray}
E-(H_{0\, NN} + g H_{I\, NN}) &\approx& -(H_{0\, NN} + g H_{I\, NN}).
\label{E}
\end{eqnarray}
This approximation limits our ability to precisely calculate eigenvalues $E$
using our RGP to lowest eigenvalues. For this price we can do as many Gaussian
steps as we like, using the relation
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{I\, kl}^{(j+1)} & = & H^{(j)}_{I\, kl} -
g{ H^{(j)}_{I\, kn} H^{(j)}_{I\, nl} \over
H_{0\, nn} + g H^{(j)}_{I\, nn}} \, ,
\label{RG}
\end{eqnarray}
with $n=N-j$, provided that we keep satisfying condition (\ref{E})
for every step number~$j$.
We may suppose that for some $M = N-j$, $H_{0\, MM} + g H^{(N-M)}_{I\, MM}
\approx E$ and the condition (\ref{E}) may be eventually violated. On the
other hand, we can continue a calculation assuming the simplification and
using the approximate Gaussian steps to eliminate states $|N\rangle,
|N-1\rangle, \ldots, |n+1\rangle$
down to a small $n$. We analyse results of such steps for a set of smallest
eigenvalues for which the violation of our approximation appears quite small.
From now on, the Hamiltonian reduced in size by performing $N-n$ approximate
Gaussian steps (in other words the renormalized Hamiltonian) is denoted by
$H^{RG}_I(n)$. On the other hand, a Hamiltonian matrix reduced to the same
size with a PC is denoted by $H^{PC}_I(n)$. This means that both $H^{RG}_I(n)$
and $H^{PC}_I(n)$ are $(n+1) \times (n+1)$ matrices but their matrix elements
are different.
The matrix elements of $H^{RG}_I(n)$ are to be calculated and the matrix
elements of $H^{PC}_I(n)$ are directly given by the right-hand side of
Eq.~(\ref{Hmn}) as the terms proportional to $g$.
Note that some matrix elements of the renormalized matrix depend on $N$ and
$n$. If the dependence on $N$ were divergent or otherwise significant, it
would have to be removed by counterterms in $H^{(0)}$. Since in our model
there are no divergences, and the limit of $N \rightarrow \infty$ is easily
achieved for small eigenvalues, one can simply use some big $N$ and calculate
the corresponding matrices of operators $H^{RG}(n)$. $N$ sufficiently large
for working without counterterms to be valid, is determined in
Sec.~\ref{comparison}. $H^{RG}(n)$ will have some matrix elements that
vary with $n$. The only variation we study here is the one obtained assuming
condition~(\ref{E}). A more precise study than the one described here would
be required to identify consequences of a finite ratio $E/H_{nn}$.
\section{ RGP evolution of Hamiltonian matrix elements}
\label{sec:course}
\subsection{General band-diagonal Hamiltonian}
Matrix elements of interaction part of any band-diagonal Hamiltonian can be
written in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{I\, kl} & = & \sum_{i=-m}^m h_i(k) \delta_{k-l,i} \,
\label{bdH}
\end{eqnarray}
for some integer $m$. From Eq.~(\ref{RG}) follows that $H^{RG}_{I\,kl}(N-1)
\neq H^{RG}_{I\,kl}(N) \equiv H^{PC}_{I\, kl}(N)$ only for such $k$ that
$H^{RG}_{I\, kN}(N) \neq 0$ and $H^{RG}_{I\, Nl}(N) \neq 0$. This implies
both $k,l \geq N-m$. Thus, after first
Gaussian step, done in appoximation (\ref{E}) or exactly, $H^{RG}_I$ is still
band-diagonal. Moreover, only matrix elements situated in $m\times m$
submatrix in highest-energy corner of $H^{RG}_I(N-1)$ can be different then
corresponding matrix elements of $H^{PC}_I(N-1)$. We see, that we can repeat
this reasoning recursively, with $N$ changed into $n$ (the highest index after
some number of Gaussian steps).
Thus, we can conclude that $H^{RG}(n)$ is band-diagonal for any $n$, and
that not more then $m^2$ its matrix elements, located in the high-energy corner,
does really depend on $n$. Eq.~(\ref{RG}) allows to write down the set of
(conjugated) recursions for these matrix elements. Numerical iteration of
such a set can be easily done using computer.
\subsection{Oscillator example}
First, we see that in the case of oscillator's Hamiltonian (\ref{Hmn}),
$m=4$. Further, from Eqs.~(\ref{Hmn}) and (\ref{RG}) we see, that no
new nonzero matrix elements appear in the $4\times 4$ submatrix in the
high-energy corner during the Gaussian step. Thus, only eight matrix
elements depend on $n$. Finally, the symmetry of Hamiltonian matrix is
preserved by RGP transformation, so there are only six independent
functions of $n$ in $H_I^{RG}(n)$. To number them, we introduce a function
\begin{eqnarray}
i(k,l) & = & \left\{
\begin{array}{c @{{\quad \rm for} \quad} l}
j & k=l=n-(j\!-\!1) {\,\,\rm and\,\,} j \in \{1,2,3,4\} ,\\
5 & (k,l) = (n,n\!-\!2) {\,\,\rm or\,\,} (k,l) = (n\!-\!2,n),\\
6 & (k,l) = (n\!-\!1,n\!-\!3) {\,\,\rm or\,\,} (k,l) = (n\!-\!3,n\!-\!1),
\end{array} \right.
\label{ikl}
\end{eqnarray}
and denote
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi_{i(k,l)}(n) & = & { H^{RG}_{I\, kl}(n) \over H^{PC}_{I\, kl} }.
\label{xi}
\end{eqnarray}
This mean that $\xi_i(n\!\!=\!\!N) = 1$ and the deviation of $\xi_{i(k,l)}(n)$
from unity is the relative correction to $H^{PC}_{I\,kl}$ resulting from RGP.
Values of $g\xi_i$ are effective coupling constants in the highest-energy
$4 \times 4$ submatrix of $H_I^{RG}(n)$.
From Eq.~(\ref{RG}), we obtain a set of recursions for coefficients $\xi_i(n)$.
In the case of oscillator six conjugated first order recursive equations can
be simply split into two sets of three equations of the second order. One such
set is
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi_1(n-2) & = & \xi_3(n)
-g { f_{02} ^2 \over f_{22} }
{ \xi_5(n)^2 \over n + g f_{00} \xi_1(n) - E }
\label{RG1},\\
\xi_3(n-2) & = & 1
- g { f_{04}^2 \over f_{44} }
{ 1 \over n + g f_{00} \xi_1(n) - E }
\label{RG3},\\
\xi_5(n-2) & = & 1
- g { f_{02} f_{04} \over f_{24} }
{ \xi_5(n) \over n + g f_{00} \xi_1(n) - E }
\label{RG5},
\end{eqnarray}
where $f_{kl} = H_{I\, (n-k)(n-l)}$ are functions of $n$, explicitly known
from Eq.~(\ref{Hmn}). The second set is almost identical. The only differences
are that all down indices are increased by one and $(n-1)$ appears instead of
$n$ in the denumerator on the right-hand side. For large $n$ the two sets
evolve nearly identically. It is evident that the coefficients $\xi_i(n)$
are easy to calculate numerically.
\section{Comparison of RGP and PC}
\label{comparison}
In Eq.~(\ref{eigenRG}), we can see that $H_I^{PC}(n)$ can be interpreted
as $H_I^{PC}(N)$ after $N-n$ Gaussian steps performed in the approximation
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{I\, kl} + g{ H_{I\, kN} H_{I\, Nl} \over E - H_{NN} }
&\approx& H_{I\, kl}.
\label{cut}
\end{eqnarray}
This approximation neglects terms obtained in the approximation (\ref{E}).
Therefore, we can predict, that the results obtained using the RGP will be
more accurate then the ones obtained using the PC.
It is not clear how to compare the accuracies of the two procedures, since
we don't know the exact eigenvalues of the infinite Hamiltonian. However,
in our simple model, we can very precisely calculate small eigenvalues of
the Hamiltonian numerically diagonalizing $H^{PC}(M)$ for some big cutoff
$M$.
In all computations, the numbers were handled with precision of 53 binary
places (almost 16 decimal places). The numerical calculations show that
for $M \in [200,1000]$ and $g \in \{0.01,0.1,1,10\}$ the three smallest
eigenvalues, denoted $E_0$, $E_1$, $E_2$, do not depend on $M$ with a
relative precision $10^{-10}$. For this reason, we can consider them to be
accurate results and define the (relative) accuracy of RGP and PC as
$|E^{RG}_i(n)-E_i|/E_i$ and $|E^{PC}_i(n)-E_i|/E_i$, respectively. Also
for this reason $N = 200$ will be considered sufficiently large initial
cutoff and it will be used as a starting point for RGP described in
previous sections.
We shall illustrate our results on examples with three different values
of the initial coupling constant: $g=0.01$, $g=1$ and $g=10$. These
values are chosen because each one illustrates a different regime of RGP
results. $g=0.01$ illustrates how RGP works in the case of interactions
which only slightly change eigenvalues of $H_0$. $g=10$ illustrates how
RGP works in the case of interactions dominating the system (which
manifest itself in eigenvalues much different then those of $H_0$).
$g=1$ illustrates the intermediate situation. The results are discussed
separately for different values of $g$.
\subsection{ Results for $g=0.01$ }
For $g=0.01$, the accurate eigenvalues are $E_0 = 0.1687726041$,
$E_1 = 1.716925770$ and $E_2 = 3.602838696$. Both procedures, RGP
and PC, give precise results. Even for $n$ as small as $n=10$,
$E_0$ is recovered with accuracy
$4\cdot 10^{-10}$ and $E_1$ and $E_2$ are recovered with accuracy
$2 \cdot 10^{-8}$ in the case of RGP. In the case of PC, the
accuracy of these three eigenvalues is about $10^{-7}$.
We see that RGP increases accuracy of predicting $E_0$ about 500
times. Also $E_1^{RG}$ and $E_2^{RG}$ are calculated about 5 times
more precisely then $E_1^{PC}$ and $E_2^{PC}$. Nevertheless, accuracy
obtained with PC is also brilliant.
\subsection{ Results for $g=1$ }
For $g=1$ and $n=10$, eigenvalues $E_1^{PC}$ and $E_2^{PC}$ differ from
eigenvalues $E_1^{RG}$ and $E_2^{RG}$ much more then for $g=0.01$. We
can say that the difference is qualitative. The correct eigenvalues are
$E_1 = 3.521565666$ and $E_2 = 7.263980184$. $E^{RG}_2$ has accuracy 3\%,
while $E^{PC}_2$ only 21\%. For $E_1$, the difference is 0.25\% to 6\%
in favor of RGP.
The correct ground state energy is $E_0 = 0.6487889141$. The errors are
$2\cdot 10^{-4}$ in RGP and $6 \cdot 10^{-3}$ in PC. Both values can be
considered satisfactory if the required accuracy is of the order of 1\%.
\subsection{ Results for $g=10$ }
Utility of RGP is most clearly visible in the case of $g=10$.
This is giant, but still realistic coupling. For example the pion-nucleon
coupling constant is about 13~\cite{alpha_pn}. Moreover, there is no
{\it a priori} reason for values of couplings emerging from SRG procedure
to be small.
The accurate eigenvalues in this case are $E_0 = 1.826275924$,
$E_1 = 7.790412053$ and $E_3 = 15.70695963$. The results for eigenvalue $E_0$,
obtained with RGP and with PC, as a function of cutoff $n$
are plotted in Fig.~\ref{E0}. One sees that PC with highest index
smaller than $\sim$15 produces a huge error in the eigenvalue.
In the same cutoff region, RGP still gives a reasonable value of $E_0$.
For $n=10$, $E_0^{RG}$ has accuracy 0.35\%, which is about
100 times better than 33\% obtained with PC. These results
prove that as long as $E \ll H_{nn} \sim n^2$, RGP gives a
reasonable estimation of an eigenvalue. Even for $n=4$, RGP
reproduces $E_0$ with 5.5\% accuracy while PC introduces
about 230\% of error.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.75\textwidth]{Fig1.eps}
\caption{The ground state energy of $H$ for $g=10$
determined with RGP and PC, compared with the value achieved
in the accurate numerical calculation, Num. }
\label{E0}
\end{figure}
For $n=4$, the eigenvalues $E_1$ and $E_2$ are obtained
with poor accuracy. In RGP, $E_1^{RG}$ and $E_2^{RG}$ have
errors 11\% and 43\%, respectively. Obtaining $E_1^{PC}$ and
$E_2^{PC}$ does not make any sense.
\section{Effective Hamiltonians}
\label{EH}
The important question is how it happens that the RGP
produces a better result then PC. In PC, there appears
a non-physical parameter $n$. If $n$ is not large
enough, even small eigenvalues depend on $n$. The key
idea behind the RGP is to base physical predictions
(in this case the small eigenvalues of $H$) on the
effective theory whose Hamiltonian $H_I^{RG}(n)$ is
calculated from the initial one, instead of plainly
cutting off the initial theory to the arbitrary number
of states.
As it was explained in Sec.~\ref{sec:course}, in the case of
band-diagonal Hamiltonian most of the matrix elements of the
effective Hamiltonian stay invariant under the RGP transformation
given by Eq.~(\ref{RG}).
The ratios of the changed terms in $H_I^{RG}(n)$ to the corresponding
terms in $H^{PC}_I$ for $g=10$ are presented in Fig.~\ref{xi-fig}. One can
see that for $n < N$
\begin{eqnarray}
0< \xi_1 \approx \xi_2 < \xi_5 \approx \xi_6 < \xi_3 \approx \xi_4 < 1 \, .
\end{eqnarray}
This means that these renormalized matrix elements are
smaller then the original ones, but the sign remains unchanged.
The approximate equalities correspond to the observation made
in Sec.~\ref{sec:course} that the six evolving matrix elements
form two similar independent subsets.
Within the $4 \times 4$ highest-energy corner of the
Hamiltonian matrix, the closer is the matrix element
to the cutoff corner, the bigger is the necessary
correction. It is worth noticing that although $\xi_i$
considerably depart from unity, they still very weakly
depend on $n$. Calculations for various $g$ show that
they also weakly depend on $g$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.75\textwidth]{Fig2.eps}
\caption{The ratios of renormalized matrix elements to the
original ones, $\xi_i$, as functions of $n$, obtained for the initial
cutoff $N=200$ and $g = 10$, see Eq.~(\ref{xi}).}
\label{xi-fig}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{Conclusion}
We have considered a simple version of RGP in application to an elementary
Hamiltonian of a single-mode scalar field with an anharmonic interaction
term proportional to $\varphi^4$. We have calculated the ground state and
two least excited states energies and compared results obtained using RGP
to the results obtained using PC.
Our results show that when the coupling constant $g$ is large, the RGP is
much more accurate than the PC procedure. For $g=10$, RGP reproduces $E_0$
with 5.5\% accuracy in a $5\times 5$ matrix, which can be considered a
reasonable estimate. Such small matrices provide a model of small spaces
of states that one can handle non-perturbatively using computers in realistic
theories. In the matrix of the same size, PC gives the result with an enormous
error (about 230\%). RGP is significantly more accurate also for small values
of $g$.
In the presented oscillator model, the improvement due to RGP is \linebreak
achieved through a calculation of eight cutoff-dependent terms (only six of them
being different) in the effective Hamiltonians with small cutoffs. A small number
of terms is an unavoidable consequence of the band-diagonal structure of
the initial Hamiltonian. This feature make RGP a potentially convenient tool
for analysing band-diagonal Hamiltonians, in particular these emerging
form applying SRG to some realistic field-theoretic Hamiltonians.
The author would like to thank Stanis{\l}aw G{\l}azek for many discussions.
|
\section{Introduction }
Let $X_1,\ldots, X_{n}$ be independent copies of random
vector $X\in \bR^d$ having density $f$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure.
We want to estimate $f$ using observations $X^{(n)}=(X_1,\ldots,X_n)$.
By estimator we mean any $X^{(n)}$-measurable map
$\hat{f}:\bR^n\to \bL_p\big(\bR^d\big)$. Accuracy of an estimator $\hat{f}$
is measured by the $\bL_p$--risk
\[
\cR^{(n)}_p[\hat{f}, f]:=\Big(\bE_f \|\hat{f}-f\|_p^p\Big)^{1/p},\;\;\;p\in [1,\infty),
\]
where $\bE_f$ denotes expectation with respect to the probability measure
$\bP_f$ of the observations $X^{(n)}=(X_1,\ldots,X_n)$,
and $\|\cdot\|_p$, $p\in [1,\infty)$, is the $\bL_p$-norm on $\bR^d$. The objective is to
construct an estimator of $f$ with small $\bL_p$--risk.
\par
In the framework of the minimax approach density $f$
is assumed to belong to a functional class $\Sigma$, which is specified on the basis
of prior information on $f$.
Given a functional class $\Sigma$,
a natural accuracy measure of an estimator $\hat{f}$ is its maximal $\bL_p$--risk
over $\Sigma$,
\[
\cR_p^{(n)}[\hat{f};\Sigma] = \sup_{f\in \Sigma} \cR_p^{(n)}[\hat{f},f].
\]
The main question is:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] how to construct
a {\em rate--optimal}, or {\em optimal in order}, estimator $\hat{f}_*$ such
that
\[
\cR_p^{(n)}[\hat{f}_*;\Sigma] \asymp
\phi_n(\Sigma):=\inf_{\hat{f}} \cR_p^{(n)}[\hat{f};\Sigma],\;\;\;\;
n\to\infty?
\]
\end{itemize}
\noindent Here the infimum is taken over all possible estimators.
We refer to the
outlined problem as the {\em problem of minimax density estimation with $\bL_p$--loss
on the class $\Sigma$}.
\par
Although the minimax approach provides a fair and convenient
criterion for comparison between different estimators, it lacks some flexibility.
Typically
$\Sigma$ is a class of functions
that is determined by some {\em hyper-parameter}, say, $\alpha$.
(We write $\Sigma=\Sigma_\alpha$ in order to indicate explicitly dependence of the class $\Sigma$ on
the corresponding
hyper-parameter $\alpha$.)
In general, it turns out that an estimator which
is optimal in order on the class $\Sigma_\alpha$ is not
optimal on the class $\Sigma_{\alpha^\prime}$.
This fact motivates the following question:
\begin{itemize}
\item [(ii)] is it possible to construct an estimator $\hat{f}_*$
that is optimal in order
on some scale of functional classes $\{\Sigma_\alpha, \alpha \in A\}$ and not only on
one class $\Sigma_\alpha$? In other words, is it possible
to construct an estimator $\hat{f}_*$ such that
for any $\alpha\in A$ one has
\[
\cR^{(n)}[\hat{f}_*; \Sigma_\alpha] \asymp \phi_n(\Sigma_\alpha),\;\;\;\;n\to\infty?
\]
\end{itemize}
We refer to this question as the {\em problem of adaptive minimax density
estimation on the scale of classes
$\{\Sigma_\alpha, \alpha\in A\}$}.
\par
The minimax and adaptive minimax
density estimation with $\bL_p$--loss is a subject of
the vast literature, see for example
\cite{bretagnolle}, \cite{Ibr-Has1},
\cite{devroye-gyorfi,dev-lug96}, \cite{Efr,Efr2}, \cite{Has-Ibr},
\cite{Donoho}, \cite{Gol}, \cite{kerk},
\cite{rigollet},
\cite{massart}[Chapter~7],
\cite{samarov},
\cite{rigollet-tsybakov} and \cite{birge}.
It is not our aim here to provide a complete review of the literature on density
estimation with $\bL_p$-loss.
Below we will only discuss
results that are directly related to our study. First we review
papers dealing with the one--dimensional setting; then we proceed
with the multivariate case.
\par
The problem of minimax density estimation on $\bR^1$ with $\bL_p$--loss, $p\in [2,\infty)$,
was studied
by \cite{bretagnolle}.
In this paper the functional class $\Sigma$ is the class of all densities
such that
$\big[\|f^{(\beta)}\|_p \|f\|_{p/2}^{\beta}\big]^{1/(2\beta+1)}\leq L<\infty$, where $f^{(\beta)}$ is the generalized derivative of order
$\beta$.
It was shown there that
$$
\phi_n(\Sigma)\asymp n^{-\frac{1}{2+1/\beta}},\;\; \forall p\in [2,\infty).
$$
Note that the same parameter $p$ appears in the definitions of the risk and of the functional class.
\par
The problem of adaptive minimax density estimation on a compact interval of $\bR^1$
with $\bL_p$--loss was addressed in \cite{Donoho}. In this paper
class $\Sigma$ is
the Besov functional class $\bB^\beta_{r\theta}(L)$, where
parameter $\beta$ stands for the regularity index, and
$r$ is the index of the norm in which the regularity is measured.
It is shown there that there is an elbow in the rates of convergence for the minimax risk
according to whether $p\leq r(2\beta+1)$ (called in the literature {\em the dense zone}) or $p\geq r(2\beta+1)$ ({\em the sparse zone}). In particular,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rate-donoho}
\phi_n\big(\bB^\beta_{r\theta}(L)\big)\geq
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
n^{-\frac{1}{2+1/\beta}}, & p\leq r(2\beta+1),
\\
(\ln n/n)^{\frac{1-1/(\beta r)+1/(\beta p)}{1-1/(\beta r)+1/(2\beta)}}, &
p\geq r(2\beta+1).
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\cite{Donoho} develop a wavelet--based hard--thresholding
estimator that achieves the indicated rates
(up to a $\ln n$--factor in the dense zone) for a scale of
the Besov classes~$\bB^\beta_{r,\theta}(L)$ under additional assumption $\beta r>1$.
\par
It is quite remarkable that if the assumption that the
underlying density has compact support is dropped, then
the minimax risk behavior becomes completely different.
Specifically,
\cite{Juditsky} studied the problem of adaptive minimax density estimation on $\bR^1$
with $\Sigma$ being the H\"older class $\bN_{\infty,1}(\beta,L)$.
Their results are in striking contrast
with those of \cite{Donoho}: it is shown that
$$
\phi_n\big(\bN_{\infty,1}(\beta,L)\big) \geq
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
n^{-\frac{1}{2+1/\beta}}, & p>2+1/\beta,\\
n^{-\frac{1-1/p}{1+1/\beta}}, & 1\leq p\leq 2+1/\beta.
\end{array}\right.
$$
\cite{Juditsky} develop
a wavelet--based estimator that
achieves the indicated rates up to a logarithmic factor
on a scale of the H\"older classes.
Note that if the aforementioned
results of \cite{Donoho} for densities with compact support are
applied to the H\"older
class, $r=\infty$, then
the rate is $n^{-1/(2+1/\beta)}$ for any $p\geq 1$. Thus,
the rate corresponding to the zone $1\leq p\leq 2+1/\beta$,
does not appear in the case
of compactly supported densities.
\par
In a recent paper, \cite{patricia} consider the problem of adaptive density
estimation on $\bR^1$ with $\bL_2$--losses on the Besov classes
$\bB_{r\theta}^\beta(L)$. It is shown there
that
$$
\phi_n\big((\bB_{r\theta}^\beta(L)\big)\geq
\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
n^{-\frac{1}{2+1/\beta}}, & 2/(2\beta+1)<r\leq 2,
\\
n^{-\frac{1}{1-1/(\beta r)+1/\beta}}, & r>2.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
They also proposed
a wavelet--based estimator that achieves the indicated rates up to a
logarithmic factor for a scale of
Besov classes under additional assumption $2\beta r>2-r$. It follows from \cite{Donoho}
that if $p=2$ and the density is compactly supported
then the
corresponding rates are $\phi_n(\Sigma)\asymp n^{-1/(2+1/\beta)}$
for all $r\geq 2/(2\beta+1)$. Hence the rate corresponding to the zone $r>2$, $p=2$,
does not appear in the case
of the compactly supported densities.
\par
As for the multivariate setting, Ibragimov and Khasminskii in a series of papers
[\cite{Ibr-Has1}, and \cite{Has-Ibr}]
studied the problem of minimax density estimation
with $\bL_p$--loss on $\bR^d$. Together with some classes of infinitely
differentiable densities, they considered the anisotropic Nikolskii's classes
$\Sigma=\bN_{\vec{r},d}\big(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}\big)$, where $\vec{\beta}=(\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_d)$,
$\vec{r}=(r_1,\ldots,r_d)$ and $\vec{L}=(L_1,\ldots,L_d)$
(for the precise definition see
Section~\ref{sec:nikolski}).
It was shown that if $r_i=p$ for all $i=1,\ldots,d$ then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ibr-has}
\phi_n\big(\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L})\big)
\asymp
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
n^{-\frac{1-1/p}{1-1/(\beta p)+1/\beta}}, & p\in [1,2),\\
n^{-\frac{1}{2+1/\beta}}, & p\in [2,\infty).
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Here $\beta$ is the parameter defined by the relation $1/\beta=\sum_{j=1}^d 1/\beta_j$.
It should be stressed that in the cited papers the same norm index $p$ is used
in the definitions of the risk and of the functional class. We also refer to
the recent paper by \cite{mason},
where further discussion of these results can be found.
\par
\cite{delyon-iod} generalized the results of
\cite{Donoho} to the minimax density estimation on a
bounded interval of $\bR^d$, $d\geq 1$ over a collection of
the isotropic
Besov classes. In particular, they showed that the minimax rates of
convergence given by (\ref{eq:rate-donoho}) hold
with $1/(\beta r)$ and $1/\beta$ replaced by $d/(\beta r)$ and
$d/\beta$ respectively.
Comparing rates in (\ref{eq:ibr-has}) with
the asymptotics of minimax risk found in \cite{delyon-iod} with $r=p$
we conclude that the rate in (\ref{eq:ibr-has})
in the zone $p\in [1,2)$ does not appear for
compactly supported densities.
\par
Recently \cite{GL11} developed an adaptive minimax estimator
over a scale of classes $\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L})$;
in particular, if $r_i=p$ for all $i=1,\ldots, d$ then
their estimator attains the minimax rates indicated in
(\ref{eq:ibr-has}).
Note that in the considered setting the norm
indexes in the definitions of the risk and the functional class coincide.
\par
The results discussed above
show that there is an essential difference between
the problems of density estimation on the whole space
and on a compact interval.
The literature on density estimation on the whole space is quite fragmented, and
relationships between aforementioned results are yet to be understood.
These relationships
become even more complex and interesting in the multivariate setting
where the density to be estimated belongs
to a functional class with anisotropic and inhomogeneous smoothness.
The problem of minimax estimation
under $\bL_p$--loss over homogeneous Sobolev $\bL_q$--balls ($q\ne p$)
was initiated in \cite{nemirovski} in the regression model on the unit cube of $\bR^d$.
For the first time,
functional classes
with anisotropic and inhomogeneous smoothness were considered
in \cite{lepski-kerk,lepski-kerk-08} for
the Gaussian white noise model on a compact subset of $\bR^d$.
In the density estimation model
\cite{akakpo} studied the case $p=2$
and considered compactly supported densities on $[0,1]^d$.
\par
To the best of our knowledge, the problem of estimating a multivariate density
from anisotropic and inhomogeneous functional classes on $\bR^d$
was not considered in the literature. This problem is a subject of the current paper.
Our results cover the existing ones and
generalize them in the following directions.
\par\smallskip
1.~We fully characterize behavior of the minimax risk for all possible
relationships between regularity parameters and norm indexes in the definition of
the functional classes and of the risk.
In particular, we discover that there are four different regimes
with respect to the minimax rates of convergence:
{\em tail, dense and sparse zones}, and
the last zone, in its turn, is subdivided in two regions.
Existence of these regimes is not a consequence of the multivariate nature
of the problem or the considered functional classes; in fact,
these regimes appear already in the dimension one.
Thus our results reveal all possible zones with respect to the
rates of convergence in the problem of
density estimation on $\bR^d$
and
explain different results on
rates of convergence in the existing literature.
In particular, results in
\cite{Juditsky} and \cite{patricia} pertain
to
the rates of convergence in the
tail and dense zones, while those
in \cite{Donoho} and \cite{delyon-iod} correspond to
the dense zone and to a subregion of the sparse zone.
\par
2.~We propose an estimator
that is based upon a data--driven selection from a family of kernel estimators, and
establish for it a point--wise oracle inequality.
Then we use this inequality for derivation of bounds on the
$\bL_p$--risk over a collection of the Nikol'skii functional classes.
Since the
construction of our estimator
does not use any prior information
on the class parameters, it is
adaptive minimax
over a scale of these classes. Moreover,
we believe that
the method of deriving
$\bL_p$--risk bounds from point--wise oracle inequalities
employed in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:main}
is of interest in its own right. It is
quite general and can be applied to
other nonparametric estimation problems.
\par
3.~Another issue studied in the present paper
is related to the existence of the tail zone.
This zone does not exist in the problem of estimating compactly supported
densities. Then a natural question
arises: what is a general condition on $f$ which
ensures the same asymptotics of the minimax risk
on $\bR^d$ as in the case of
compactly supported densities?
We propose a {\em tail dominance condition} and show that, in a sense,
it is the weakest possible condition under which the tail zone disappears.
We also show that this condition guarantees
existence of a consistent estimator under $\bL_1$-loss.
Recall that smoothness alone
is not sufficient in order to guarantee consistency
of density estimators in $\bL_1(\bR^d)$ [see \cite{Ibr-Has2}].
\par\smallskip
The paper is structured as follows.
In Section~\ref{sec:procedure+oracle}
we define our estimation procedure and derive the corresponding point--wise
oracle inequality. Section~\ref{sec:main-results}
presents upper and lower bounds on the minimax risk.
We also discuss the obtained results and relate them to the existing
results in the literature.
The same estimation problem under the tail dominance condition
is studied in
Section~\ref{sec:tail-dom}.
Sections~\ref{sec:Proof-th-3}--\ref{sec:Proof-th-2}
contain
proofs of Theorems~\ref{th:oracle-inequality}--\ref{th:upper-new}; proofs
of auxiliary results are relegated to Appendices~A and~B.
\par
The following notation and conventions are used throughout the paper.
For vectors $u, v\in \bR^d$ the operations
$u/v$, $u\vee v$, $u\wedge v$ and inequalities such as $u\leq v$
are all understood in the coordinate--wise sense. For instance,
$u\vee v =(u_1\vee v_1,\ldots, u_d\vee v_d)$.
All integrals are taken over $\bR^d$
unless the domain of integration is specified explicitly.
For a Borel set
$\cA\subset\bR^d$ symbol
$|\cA|$ stands for the Lebesgue measure of $\cA$;
if $\cA$ is a finite set, $|\cA|$ denotes the cardinality
of $\cA$.
\section{Estimation procedure and point--wise oracle inequality}
\label{sec:procedure+oracle}
In this section we define our estimation procedure and
derive an upper bound on its point--wise risk.
\subsection{Estimation procedure}
\label{sec:procedure}
Our estimation procedure is based on data-driven selection
from a family of kernel estimators. The family
of estimators is defined as follows.
\subsubsection{Family of kernel estimators}
Let $K:[-1/2,1/2]^d\to\bR^1$ be a fixed kernel such that
\mbox{$K\in\bC(\bR^d)$},
$\int K(x)\rd x=1$, and
$\|K\|_\infty<\infty$.
Let
$$
\cH =\Big\{h=(h_1,\ldots,h_d)\in (0,1]^d: \;h_j=2^{-k_j},
k_j=0,\ldots, \log_2n,\;j=1,\ldots,d\Big\};
$$
without loss of generality we assume that $\log_2n$ is integer.
\par
Given a {\em bandwidth} $h\in \cH$, define
the corresponding kernel estimator of $f$ by
the formula
\begin{equation}\label{eq:kernel-est}
\hat{f}_h (x):=
\frac{1}{nV_h} \sum_{i=1}^n K\Bigg(\frac{X_i-x}{h}\Bigg)=
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n K_h(X_i-x),
\end{equation}
where $V_h:=\prod_{j=1}^d h_j$, $K_h(\cdot):=(1/V_h)K(\cdot/h)$.
Consider the family of kernel estimators
\begin{equation*}
\cF(\cH):=\{\hat{f}_h, h\in \cH\}.
\end{equation*}
The proposed estimation procedure is based on data--driven selection of an estimator
from~$\cF(\cH)$.
\subsubsection{Auxiliary estimators}
Our selection rule uses auxiliary estimators that are constructed as follows.
For any pair $h,\eta \in \cH$ define the kernel $K_h*K_\eta$ by
the formula
$
[K_h*K_\eta](t)=\int K_h(t-y) K_\eta(y)\rd y.
$
Let
$\hat{f}_{h,\eta}(x)$ denote the estimator associated with this kernel:
\begin{equation*
\hat{f}_{h,\eta}(x)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n K_{h,\eta}(X_i-x),\;\;\;
K_{h,\eta}=K_h*K_\eta.
\end{equation*}
The following representation of kernels $K_{h,\eta}$
will be useful: for any $h,\eta\in \cH$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:repres-1}
[K_h*K_\eta](t) \;=\;
\frac{1}{V_{h\vee \eta}} Q_{h,\eta}\Big(\frac{t}{h\vee \eta}\Big),
\end{equation}
where function $Q_{h,\eta}$ is given by the formula
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Q}
Q_{h,\eta}(t)=\int K\big(v(y,t-\nu y)\big) K\big(v(t-\nu y,y)\big) \rd y,\;\;\; \nu:=\frac{h\wedge \eta
}{h\vee \eta}.
\end{equation}
Here function $v:\bR^d\times \bR^d \to \bR^d$ is defined by
\[
v_j(y,z)=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
y_j, & h_j\leq \eta_j,\\
z_j , & h_j>\eta_j,
\end{array}
\right.,\;
\;\;\;\;j=1,\ldots,d.
\]
\par
The representation (\ref{eq:repres-1})--(\ref{eq:Q})
is obtained by a straightforward change of variables in the convolution integral
[see the proof of Lemma~12 in \cite{GL11a}].
We also note that ${\rm supp}(Q_{h,\eta})\subseteq [-1,1]^d$,
and $\|Q_{h,\eta}\|_\infty \leq \|K\|_\infty^2$ for all $h,\eta$.
In the special case where $K(t)=\prod_{i=1}^d k(t_i)$ for some univariate kernel
$k:[-1/2, 1/2]\to \bR^1$ we have
\[
Q_{h,\eta} (t) =\prod_{i=1}^d \int k(t_i-\nu_i u_i)k(u_i)\rd u_i,\;\;\;
\nu_i=(h_i\wedge \eta_i)/(h_i\vee \eta).
\]
We also define
\begin{equation*
Q(t) =
\sup_{h,\eta\in \cH}\Big|\int K\big(v(y,t-\nu y)\big) K\big(v(t-\nu y,y)\big) \rd y\Big|,
\end{equation*}
and
note that ${\rm supp}(Q)\subseteq [-1,1]^d$, and $\|Q\|_\infty\leq \|K\|_\infty^2$.
\subsubsection{Stochastic errors of kernel estimators and their majorants}
Uniform moment bounds on stochastic errors of kernel estimators $\hat{f}_h(x)$ and
$\hat{f}_{h,\eta}(x)$ will play an important role in the
construction of our selection rule.
Let
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi_{h}(x) &=& \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n K_h(X_i-x) - \int K_h(t-x)f(t) \rd t,
\label{eq:xi-h}
\\
\xi_{h, \eta}(x) &=& \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n K_{h,\eta}(X_i-x) - \int K_{h,\eta}(t-x)f(t) \rd t
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
denote the stochastic errors of $\hat{f}_h$ and $\hat{f}_{h,\eta}$ respectively.
In order to construct our selection rule we need
to find uniform upper bounds ({\em majorants}) on $\xi_h$ and $\xi_{h,\eta}$, i.e.
we need to find
functions
$M_h$ and $M_{h,\eta}$
such that moments of random variables
\begin{equation}\label{eq:unif-maj}
\sup_{h\in \cH}\big[|\xi_h(x)|- M_h(x)\big]_+,\;\;\;
\sup_{h,\eta\in \cH}\big[
|\xi_{h,\eta}(x)| - M_{h,\eta}(x)\big]_+
\end{equation}
are ``small'' for each $x\in \bR^d$. We will be also interested in the integrability
properties of these moments.
\par
It turns out that
the majorants $M_h(x)$ and $M_{h,\eta}(x)$ can be
defined in the following way.
For a function \mbox{$g:\bR^d\to \bR^1$} let
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:A-A}
A_h(g,x)= \int |g_h(t-x)| f(t)\rd t,\;\;\;g_h(\cdot)=V^{-1}_h g\big(\cdot/h\big),\;\;\;\;h\in \cH.
\end{equation}
Now define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:A-M}
M_h(g,x)=\sqrt{\frac{\kappa A_h(g,x)\ln n}{nV_h}} + \frac{\kappa\ln n}{nV_h},
\end{equation}
where $\kappa$ is a positive constant to be specified.
In Lemma~\ref{lem:1} in Section~\ref{sec:Proof-th-3} we show that under appropriate choice of parameter
$\kappa$ functions
\begin{equation}\label{eq:M-h-M-h-eta}
M_h(x):= M_h(K,x),\;\;\;\;M_{h,\eta}(x):= M_{h\vee \eta}(Q, x)
\end{equation}
uniformly majorate $\xi_h$ and $\xi_{h,\eta}$ in the sense that the moments
of random variables in (\ref{eq:unif-maj}) are ``small''.
\par
It should be noted, however, that functions $M_h(x)$ and $M_{h,\eta}(x)$
given by (\ref{eq:M-h-M-h-eta})
cannot be directly used
in construction of the selection rule because they depend on unknown density $f$
to be estimated. We will use empirical counterparts of $M_h(x)$ and $M_{h,\eta}(x)$ instead.
\par
For $g:\bR^d\to\bR^1$ we let
$$
\hat{A}_h(g, x)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n |g_h(X_i-x)|,
$$
and define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hat-A-M}
\hat{M}_h(g,x)= 4\sqrt{\frac{\kappa\hat{A}_h(g,x)\ln n}{nV_h}} + \frac{4\kappa\ln n}{nV_h}.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Selection rule and final estimator}
Now we are in a position to define our selection rule.
For every $x\in \bR^d$ let
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{R}_h(x)\;=\;\sup_{\eta\in \cH}\Big[|\hat{f}_{h,\eta}(x)-\hat{f}_\eta(x)| -
\hat{M}_{h\vee \eta}(Q, x)-\hat{M}_\eta(K, x)\Big]_+ &&
\nonumber
\\
+\;\;
\sup_{\eta\geq h} \hat{M}_{\eta}(Q, x) + \hat{M}_h(K,x), && h\in \cH.
\label{eq:hat-R}
\end{eqnarray}
The
selected bandwidth $\hat{h}(x)$ and the corresponding estimator are defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hat-h}
\hat{h}(x)={\rm arg}\inf_{h\in \cH} \hat{R}_h(x),\;\;\;\hat{f}(x)=\hat{f}_{\hat{h}(x)}(x),\;\;\;
x\in \bR^d.
\end{equation}
\par
Note that the estimation procedure is completely determined by the
family of kernel estimators $\cF(\cH)$ and by the constant
$\kappa$ appearing in the definition of~$\hat{M}_h$.
\par
We have to ensure that the map
$x\mapsto \hat{f}_{\hat{h}(x)}(x)$ is an $X^{(n)}$-measurable Borel function.
This follows from continuity of $K$ and the fact that $\cH$ is a discrete set;
for details see Appendix~A, Section~\ref{meas}.
\par
The main idea behind the construction of the selection
procedure (\ref{eq:hat-R})--(\ref{eq:hat-h}) is the following.
The expression $\hat{M}_{h\vee \eta}(Q, x)+\hat{M}_\eta(K, x)$
appearing in the square brackets in (\ref{eq:hat-R}) dominates with
large probability the stochastic part of the difference
$|\hat{f}_{h,\eta}(x)-\hat{f}_\eta(x)|$. Consequently, the first
term on the right hand side of (\ref{eq:hat-R}) serves as a proxy
for the deterministic part of $|\hat{f}_{h,\eta}(x)-\hat{f}_\eta(x)|$
which is the absolute value of the difference of biases
of kernel estimates $\hat{f}_{h,\eta}(x)$
and $\hat{f}_\eta(x)$. The latter, in its own turn, is closely related to
the bias of the estimator $\hat{f}_h(x)$. Thus, the first term on
the right hand side of (\ref{eq:hat-R}) is a proxy for the bias
of $\hat{f}_h(x)$, while the second term is an upper bound on the
standard deviation of $\hat{f}_h(x)$.
\subsection{Point--wise oracle inequality}
\label{sec:Pointwise oracle inequality}
Let $B_h(f,t)$ be the bias of the kernel estimator $\hat{f}_h(t)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:B-h}
B_h(f,t)=\int K_\eta(y-t) f(y)\rd y -f(t),
\end{equation}
and define
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:maximal-bias}
\bar{B}_h(f,x)= |B_h(f,x)|\,\vee\,\sup_{\eta\in \cH} \Big|\int K_\eta(t-x) B_h(f,t)\rd t\Big|.
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{theorem}\label{th:oracle-inequality}
For any $x\in \bR^d$ one has
\begin{eqnarray}
|\hat{f}(x)-f(x)| \leq \inf_{h\in \cH}
\big\{4\bar{B}_h(f,x)+
60 \sup_{\eta\geq h} M_\eta (Q, x)+ 61M_h(K,x)\big\}
+7\zeta(x)\; +\; 18\chi(x),
\label{eq:pointwise-oracle}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\zeta(x)&:=&\sup_{h\in \cH} [|\xi_h(x)|- M_h(K,x)]_+ \;\vee\;
\sup_{h,\eta\in \cH}[|\xi_{h,\eta}(x)| - M_{h\vee \eta}(Q,x)]_+,
\label{eq:zeta}
\\
\chi(x)&:=& \max_{g\in \{K,Q\}}\sup_{h\in \cH}\big[|\hat{A}_h(g,x)-A_h(g,x)|- M_h(g,x)\big]_+.
\label{eq:chi}
\end{eqnarray}
Furthermore, for any $q\geq 1$
if
$\kappa \geq [\|K\|_\infty\vee 1]^2 [(4d+2)q+4(d+1)]$ then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:integrability-of-zeta}
\int \bE_f\big\{[\zeta (x)]^q +[\chi(x)]^q\big\} \rd x
\;\leq\; C n^{-q/2}, \;\;\forall n\geq 3,
\end{equation}
where $C$ is the constant depending on $d$, $q$ and $\|K\|_\infty$ only.
\end{theorem}
We remark that
Theorem~\ref{th:oracle-inequality} does not require any conditions on the
estimated density $f$.
\section{Adaptive estimation over anisotropic Nikol'skii classes}
\label{sec:main-results}
In this section
we study
properties of the estimator defined in
(\ref{eq:hat-R})--(\ref{eq:hat-h}).
The point--wise oracle inequality
of Theorem~\ref{th:oracle-inequality} is the key technical tool
for
bounding $\bL_p$-risk of this estimator on the anisotropic Nikol'skii classes.
\subsection{Anisotropic Nikol'skii classes}\label{sec:nikolski}
Let $(e_1,\ldots,e_d)$ denote the canonical basis of $\bR^d$.
For function $g:\bR^d\to \bR^1$ and
real number $u\in \bR$ define
{\em the first order difference operator with step size $u$ in direction of the variable
$x_j$}~by
\[
\Delta_{u,j}g (x)=g(x+ue_j)-g(x),\;\;\;j=1,\ldots,d.
\]
By induction,
the $k$-th order difference operator with step size $u$ in direction of the variable $x_j$ is
defined~as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Delta}
\Delta_{u,j}^kg(x)= \Delta_{u,j} \Delta_{u,j}^{k-1} g(x) = \sum_{l=1}^k (-1)^{l+k}\binom{k}{l}\Delta_{ul,j}g(x).
\end{equation}
\begin{definition}
For given real numbers $\vec{r}=(r_1,\ldots,r_d)$, $r_j\in [1,\infty]$, $\vec{\beta}=(\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_d)$,
$\beta_j>0$, and $\vec{L}=(L_1,\ldots, L_d)$, $L_j>0$, $j=1,\ldots, d$, we
say that function $g:\bR^d\to \bR^1$ belongs to the anisotropic
Nikol'skii class $\bN_{\vec{r},d}\big(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}\big)$ if
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm (i)}] $\|g\|_{r_j}\leq L_{j}$ for all $j=1,\ldots,d$;
\item[{\rm (ii)}]
for every $j=1,\ldots,d$ there exists natural number $k_j>\beta_j$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Nikolski}
\Big\|\Delta_{u,j}^{k_j} g\Big\|_{r_j} \leq L_j |u|^{\beta_j},\;\;\;\;
\forall u\in \bR^d,\;\;\;\forall j=1,\ldots, d.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\par
The anisotropic Nikol'skii class is a specific case of the anisotropic Besov class,
often encountered in the nonparametric estimation literature.
In particular,
$\bN_{\vec{r},d}\big(\vec{\beta},\cdot\big)=
\bB_{r_1,\ldots,r_d;\infty,\ldots,\infty}^{\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_d}(\cdot)$,
see \cite[Section~4.3.4]{Nikolski}.
\subsection{Construction of kernel $K$}
We will use the following specific kernel $K$ in the definition of the family $\cF(\cH)$
[see, e.g., \cite{lepski-kerk} or \cite{GL11}].
\par
Let $\ell$ be an integer number,
and let $w:[-1/(2\ell), 1/(2\ell)]\to \bR^1$ be a function satisfying $\int w(y)\rd y=1$,
and $w\in\bC(\bR^1)$. Put
\begin{equation}\label{eq:w-function}
w_\ell(y)=\sum_{i=1}^\ell \binom{\ell}{i} (-1)^{i+1}\frac{1}{i}w\Big(\frac{y}{i}\Big),\qquad
K(t)=\prod_{j=1}^d w_\ell(t_j),\;\;\;\;t=(t_1,\ldots,t_d).
\end{equation}
The kernel $K$ constructed in this way is bounded, supported on $[-1/2,1/2]^d$, belongs to $\bC(\bR^d)$
and satisfies
\begin{equation*
\int K(t)\rd t=1,\;\;\;\int K(t) t^k \rd t=0,\;\;\forall |k|=1,\ldots, \ell-1,
\end{equation*}
where $k=(k_1,\ldots,k_d)$ is the multi--index, $k_i\geq 0$, $|k|=k_1+\cdots+k_d$, and
$t^k=t_1^{k_1}\cdots t_d^{k_d}$ for $t=(t_1,\ldots, t_d)$.
\par
\subsection{Main results}
\label{sec:adap-nikol}
Let $\bN_{\vec{r},d}\big(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}\big)$ be the
anisotropic Nikol'skii functional class.
Put
\[
\frac{1}{\beta} := \sum_{j=1}^d \frac{1}{\beta_j},\;\;\;\;\;
\frac{1}{s} := \sum_{j=1}^d \frac{1}{\beta_jr_j}, \;\;\;\;\;L_\beta:= \prod_{j=1}^d L_j^{1/\beta_j},
\]
and define
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:nu}
\nu &=&\left\{\begin{array}{lccl}
\frac{1-1/p}{1-1/s+1/\beta }, & p <\frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s},\\*[2mm]
\;\;\frac{\beta}{2\beta+1}, & \frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s} \leq p \leq s(2+1/\beta),\\*[2mm]
\quad\;s/p, & p> s(2+1/\beta),\;s<1,
\\*[2mm]
\frac{1-1/s + 1/(p\beta)}{2-2/s+1/\beta}, & p> s(2+1/\beta),\; s\geq 1,
\end{array}
\right.
\\*[4mm]
\mu_n &=& \left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
(\ln n)^{d/p}, & p \leq\frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s};
\\*[2mm]
(\ln n)^{1/p}, & p=s(2+1/\beta),
\\*[2mm]
\quad 1, & {\rm otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\par
In contrast to Theorem \ref{th:oracle-inequality} proved over the set of all probability densities,
the adaptive results presented below
require the additional assumption:
the estimated density should be uniformly bounded. For this purpose we define for
$M>0$
\[
\bN_{\vec{r},d}\big(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M\big) \;:=\; \bN_{\vec{r},d}\big(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}\big)
\;\cap \; \left\{f:\|f\|_\infty\leq M\right\}.
\]
Note, however, that if $J:=\{j=1,\ldots,d:\;r_j=\infty\}$ then
$
\bN_{\vec{r},d}\big(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M\big)=\bN_{\vec{r},d}\big(\vec{\beta},\vec{L})
$
with $M=\inf_{J}L_j$.
Moreover, in view of the embedding theorem for the anisotropic Nikol'skii classes
[see Section~\ref{subsec:preliminaries} below], condition $s>1$
implies that the density to be estimated belongs to a class of
uniformly bounded and continuous functions. Thus, if $s>1$ one has
$
\bN_{\vec{r},d}\big(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M\big)=\bN_{\vec{r},d}\big(\vec{\beta},\vec{L})
$
with some $M$ completely determined by $\vec{L}$.
The asymptotic behavior of the $\bL_p$-risk on
class $\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M)$
is characterized in the next two theorems.
\par
Let family $\cF(\cH)$ be associated with kernel (\ref{eq:w-function}).
Let $\hat{f}$ denote the estimator given by the
selection rule (\ref{eq:hat-R})--(\ref{eq:hat-h}) with
$\kappa = (\|K\|_\infty \vee 1)^2[(4d+2)p+4(d+1)]$
that is
applied to the family $\cF(\cH)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:main}
For any $M>0$, $L_0>0$, $\ell\in\bN^*$, any
$\vec{\beta}\in (0,\ell]^d$, $\vec{r}\in (1,\infty]^d$, any $\vec{L}$ satisfying
$\min_{j=1,\ldots,d}L_j\geq L_0$, and any $p\in (1,\infty)$ one has
\begin{equation*}
\limsup_{n\to\infty}\bigg\{
\mu_n\Big( \frac{L_\beta\ln n}{n}\Big)^{-\nu}\;
\cR_p^{(n)}\big[\hat{f}\,;\bN_{\vec{r},d}\big(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M\big)\big]\bigg\}\leq C <\infty.
\end{equation*}
Here constant $C$ does not depend on $\vec{L}$ in the cases $p\leq s(2+1/\beta)$ and $p\geq s(2+1/\beta)$,
$s<1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
\mbox{}
{\rm
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm 1.]
Condition $\min_{j=1,\ldots,d}L_j\geq L_0$ ensures independence of the constant $C$ on $\vec{L}$
in the cases $p\leq s(2+1/\beta)$ and $p\geq s(2+1/\beta)$,
$s<1$.
If $p\geq s(2+1/\beta)$, $s\geq 1$ then $C$ depends on $\vec{L}$,
and the corresponding expressions can be easily extracted from the proof of the theorem.
We note that in this case the map $\vec{L}\mapsto C(\vec{L})$
is bounded on every closed cube of $(0,\infty)^{d}$.
\item[\rm 2.]
We consider the case $1<p<\infty$ only, not including $p=1$ and $p=\infty$.
It is well--known, \cite{Ibr-Has2},
that smoothness alone
is not sufficient in order to guarantee consistency of density estimators in $\bL_1(\bR^d)$; see also
Theorem \ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p} for a lower bound.
The case $p=\infty$ was considered recently in
\cite{lep2012}.
\item[\rm 3.]
As it was discussed above,
Theorem~\ref{th:main} requires uniform boundedness of the estimated density, i.e.
$\|f\|_\infty\leq M<\infty$. We note however that
our estimator $\hat{f}$ is fully adaptive, i.e., its construction does not
use any information
on the parameters $\vec{\beta}, \vec{r}, \vec{L}$ and $M$.
\end{enumerate}
}
\end{remark}
\iffalse
\smallskip
\begin{remark}
Contrary to the Theorem \ref{th:oracle-inequality} proved over the set
of all probability densities the assertions of Theorem \ref{th:main}
require additionally the uniform boundedness of the estimated density, i.e. $f\in\bF(M)$. Note, however, that our selection rule led to the estimator
$\hat{f}$ is independent of the knowledge of $M$. Hence, $\hat{f}$ is fully adaptive,
i.e. is independent of all parameters involved in the description of $\bL_p$-risk.
\end{remark}
\fi
\par
Now we present lower bounds on the minimax risk.
Define
$$
\alpha_n = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\ln n, & p> s(2+1/\beta),\; s\geq 1,
\\*[2mm]
\quad 1, & {\rm otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
Let $\vec{\beta}\in (0,\infty)^{d}$, $\vec{r}\in [1,\infty]^{d}$, $\vec{L}\in (0,\infty)^{d}$ and $M>0$ be fixed.
{\rm (i)}\;\;
There exists $c>0$
such that
$$
\liminf_{n\to\infty}\bigg\{
\Big( \frac{L_\beta\alpha_n}{n}\Big)^{-\nu} \inf_{\widetilde{f}}
\cR_p^{(n)}\big[\widetilde{f};\;\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M)\big]
\bigg\} \geq c,\quad \forall p\in [1,\infty),
$$
where
the infimum is taken over all possible estimators~$\widetilde{f}$.
If $\min_{j=1,\ldots,d} L_j\geq L_0>0$ then
in the cases $p\leq s(2+1/\beta)$ or $p\geq s(2+1/\beta)$ and $s<1$
the constant $c$ is
independent of $\vec{L}$.
\smallskip
{\rm (ii)}\;\;Let $p=\infty$ and $s\leq 1$; then there is no
consistent estimator, i.e., for some $c>0$
$$
\liminf_{n\to\infty}\inf_{\tilde{f}}
\sup_{f\in\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M)}\bE_f\big\|\tilde{f}-f\big\|_\infty
\;>\;c.
$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\mbox{}
{\rm
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm 1}.] Inspection of the proof shows that
if $\max_{j=1,\ldots,d} L_j\leq L_\infty<\infty$ then the statement~(i) is valid
with constant $c$
depending on $\vec{\beta}, \vec{r}$, $L_0$, $L_\infty$, $d$ and $M$ only.
\item[{\rm 2}.] As it was mentioned above, adaptive minimax density estimation on $\bR^d$
under $\bL_\infty$--loss
was a subject of the recent paper
\cite{lep2012}.
A minimax adaptive estimator is constructed in this paper under assumption $s>1$.
Thus, statement~(ii)
of Theorem~\ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p} finalizes the research
on adaptive density estimation in the supremum norm.
It is interesting to note that the minimax rates
in the case $p=\infty$ coincide with those
of Theorem~\ref{th:main} if we put formally
$p=\infty$.
\end{enumerate}
}
\end{remark}
\subsection{Discussion}
\label{sec:open-prob}
The results of Theorem~\ref{th:main} together with the matching
lower bounds of Theorem~\ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p} provide complete classification
of minimax rates of convergence in the problem of density estimation on $\bR^d$.
In particular,
we discover four different zones with respect to the minimax rates of convergence.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\em Tail zone} corresponds to ``small'' $p$, $1<p\leq\frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s}$.
This zone does not appear if
density $f$ is assumed to be compactly supported, or
some tail dominance condition is imposed,
see Section~\ref{sec:tail-dom}.
\item {\em Dense zone} is characterized by the ``intermediate'' range of $p$,
$\frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s}\leq p\leq s(2+1/\beta)$. Here the ``usual'' rate of convergence
$n^{-\beta/(2\beta+1)}$ holds.
\item {\em Sparse zone} corresponds to ``large'' $p$, $p\geq s(2+1/\beta)$.
As Theorems~\ref{th:main} and~\ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p} show,
this zone, in its turn, is subdivided into two regions with $s\geq 1$ and $s<1$. This
phenomenon was not observed in the existing literature
even for settings with
compactly supported densities.
For other statistical models (regression, white Gaussian noise etc)
this result is also new.
\end{itemize}
It is important to emphasize that existence of these zones is not related to
the multivariate nature of the problem or to the anistropic smoothness of the estimated
density. In fact, these results hold already for the one--dimensional case, and this, to a
limited degree,
was observed in the previous works.
In the subsequent remarks
we discuss relationships between
our results and the existing results in the literature, and comment on some open problems.
\par\smallskip
1. In \cite{Donoho}, \cite{delyon-iod} and \cite{lepski-kerk-08}
the sparse zone is defined as $p>2(1+1/\beta)$, $s>1$.
Recall that condition $s>1$
implies that the density to be estimated belongs to a class of
uniformly bounded and continuous functions. In the sparse zone
we consider also the case $s\leq 1$, but density $f$ is assumed to be
uniformly bounded. It turns out that in this zone
the rate corresponding to the index $\nu=s/p$ emerges.
\par\smallskip
\par\smallskip
2.~The one--dimensional setting
was considered in
\cite{Juditsky} and \cite{patricia}. The setting of \cite{Juditsky}
corresponds to $s=\infty$, while \cite{patricia} deal with the
case of $p=2$
and $\beta>1/r-1/2$. Both settings rule out the sparse zone.
The rates of convergence in
the dense zone
obtained in the aforementioned papers are easily recovered from our results. However, in the tail zone our bound contains additional $\ln(n)$-factor.
\par\smallskip
3.
In the previous papers on adaptive estimation of densities
with unbounded support
[cf. \cite{Juditsky} and \cite{patricia}] the
developed estimators are explicitly shrunk to zero.
This shrinkage is used in bounding the minimax risk on the whole space.
We do not employ shrinkage in our estimator construction.
We derive bounds on the $\bL_p$--risk
by integration of the
point--wise oracle inequality (\ref{eq:pointwise-oracle}).
The key elements of this derivation are
inequality (\ref{eq:integrability-of-zeta})
and statement~(i) of Proposition~\ref{prop:new}.
The inequality (\ref{eq:integrability-of-zeta})
is based on the following fact:
the errors $\zeta(x)$ and $\chi(x)$ are integrable by the accurate choice
of the majorant. Indeed, Section~\ref{subsec:integrability}
shows that these
errors are not equal to zero
with probability which is integrable and ``negligible''
in the regions where the density is ``small''. This leads to integrability
of the remainders in (\ref{eq:pointwise-oracle}).
As for Proposition~\ref{prop:new}, it is related
to the integrability of the main term in
(\ref{eq:pointwise-oracle}). The main problem here is that the majorant
$M_h(\cdot,x)$ itself is not integrable. To overcome this difficulty
we use the integrability of the estimator $\hat{f}$, approximation properties of
the density $f$, and (\ref{eq:integrability-of-zeta}).
\par\smallskip
4.~In the context of the Gaussian white noise model on a compact interval
\cite{lepski-kerk} developed
an adaptive estimator that
achieves the rate of convergence
$(\ln{n}/n)^{\beta/(2\beta+1)}$ on the anisotropic Nikol'skii classes
under condition $\sum_{i=1}^d [\frac{1}{\beta_i}(\frac{p}{r_i}-1)]_+<2$.
This restriction determines a part of the dense zone, and our
Theorem~\ref{th:main} improves
on this result. In fact, our estimator achieves the
rate $(\ln{n}/n)^{\beta/(2\beta+1)}$ in the zone
$\sum_{i=1}^d \frac{1}{\beta_i}(\frac{p}{r_i}-1)\leq 2$
which is equivalent to $p\leq s(2+1/\beta)$.
\par\smallskip
5. It follows from Theorem~\ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
that the upper bound of
Theorem~\ref{th:main} is sharp in the zone $p> s(2+1/\beta)$, $s>1$,
and it is nearly sharp up to a
logarithmic factor in all other zones.
This extra logarithmic factor is a consequence of the fact that we use
the point--wise selection procedure (\ref{eq:hat-R})--(\ref{eq:hat-h}). We also have
extra $\ln n$--term
on the boundaries $p=\frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s}$, $p=s(2+1/\beta)$.
\begin{conjecture} The rates found in Theorem \ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p} are optimal.
\end{conjecture}
Thus, if our conjecture is true,
the construction of an estimator achieving the rates of
Theorem~\ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p} in the tail and dense zones
remains an open problem.
\par\smallskip
6. Theorem~\ref{th:main} is proved under
assumption $\vec{r}\in (1,\infty]^{d}$, i.e., we do not include
the case where $r_j=1$ for some $j=1,\ldots,d$. This is related to
the construction of our selection rule, and to the necessity to bound
$\bL_{r_j}$--norm, $j=1,\ldots, d$ of the term
$\bar{B}_h(f,x)$; see (\ref{eq:maximal-bias}) and (\ref{eq:pointwise-oracle}).
In our derivations for this purpose we use properties of the strong
maximal operator [for details see Section~\ref{subsec:preliminaries}], and
it is well--known that this operator is not
of the weak $(1,1)$--type in dimensions $d\geq 2$.
Nevertheless, using inequality (\ref{eq:weak-max})
we were able to obtain the following result.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:r=1}
Let $\vec{r}$ be such that
$r_j=1$ for some $j=1,\ldots,d$.
Then the result of Theorem \ref{th:main} remains valid if the normalizing factor
$\big(n^{-1}\ln{n}\big)^{\nu}$ is replaced by $\big(n^{-1}[\ln{n}]^{d}\big)^{\nu}$.
\end{corollary}
\noindent
The proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:r=1} coincides with the proof of
Theorem~\ref{th:main}
with the only difference that bounds in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:first-bound}
should use (\ref{eq:weak-max}) instead of the Chebyshev inequality.
This will result in
an extra $(\ln{n})^{d-1}$-factor. We note that
the results of Theorem~\ref{th:main} and Corollary~\ref{cor:r=1}
coincide if $d=1$. It is not surprising
because in the dimension $d=1$
the strong maximal operator is the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function which is
of the weak (1,1)--type.
\section{Tail dominance condition}
\label{sec:tail-dom}
Let $g:\bR^d\to\bR^1$ be a locally integrable function.
Define the map $g\mapsto g^*$ by the formula
\begin{equation}\label{eq:maximal-function}
g^*(x):= \sup_{h\in (0,2]^d} \frac{1}{V_h} \int_{\Pi_h(x)} g(t) \rd t,\;\;\;x\in \bR^d,
\end{equation}
where $\Pi_h(x)=[x_1-h_1/2,x_1+h_1/2]\times\cdots\times[x_d-h_d/2,x_d+h_d/2]$.
In fact, formula (\ref{eq:maximal-function}) defines the maximal operator
associated with the differential basis $\cup_{x\in \bR^d}\{ \Pi_h(x), h\in (0,2]\}$,
see \cite{Guzman}.
\par
Consider the following set of functions:
for any $\theta\in (0,1]$ and $R\in (0,\infty)$ let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:G-theta}
\bG_\theta(R)=\big\{g:\bR^d\to\bR:\;\; \|g^*\|_\theta\leq R \big\}.
\end{equation}
Note that, although we keep the previous notation $\|g\|_\theta=(\int |g(x)|^\theta \rd x)^{1/\theta}$,
$\|\cdot\|_\theta$ is not longer a norm if $\theta\in (0,1)$.
\par
The assumption that
$f\in \bG_\theta(R)$ for some $\theta\in (0,1]$ and $R>0$
imposes restrictions on the tail of the density $f$.
In particular,
the set of densities, uniformly bounded and
compactly supported on a cube of $\bR^d$,
is embedded in the set $\bG_\theta(\cdot)$
for any $\theta\in (0,1]$ (for details, see Section~\ref{subsec:(ii)-th-4}).
We will refer to the assumption $f\in \bG_\theta(R)$ as {\em the tail dominance condition}.
\par
In this section we study the problem of adaptive density
estimation under the tail dominance condition.
We show that under this condition
the minimax rate of convergence can be essentially improved in the tail
zone.
In particular, if $\theta\leq \theta^*$ for some $\theta^*<1$ given below
then the tail zone disappears.
\par\smallskip
For any $\theta\in (0,1]$ let
\[
\nu^*(\theta)=\max\left\{\frac{1-\theta/p}{1-\theta/s+1/\beta },\;\frac{1}{2+1/\beta}\right\},
\]
and define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nu-theta}
\nu(\theta) =\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\nu^*(\theta),& p \leq s(2+1/\beta),
\\*[2mm]
\nu, & p> s(2+ 1/\beta),
\end{array}
\right. \qquad
\mu_n(\theta)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(\ln n)^{1/p}, & p \in\{ \frac{2+1/\beta}{1/\theta+1/s},\; s(2+1/\beta)\},
\\*[2mm]
\quad 1, & {\rm otherwise},
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\nu$ is defined in (\ref{eq:nu}).
\begin{theorem}
The following statements hold.
\label{th:upper-new}
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm (i)}] For any $\theta\in (0,1]$ and $R>0$, Theorem~\ref{th:main}
remains valid if one replaces
$\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M)$
by
$ \bG_\theta(R)\cap\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M)$,
$\nu$ by
$\nu(\theta)$ and $\mu_n$ by $\mu_n(\theta)$. The constant $C$ may depend on $\theta$ and $R$.
\item[{\rm (ii)}]
For any $\theta\in (0,1]$, $\vec{\beta},\vec{L}\in (0,\infty)^d$,
$\vec{r}\in [1,\infty]^d$ and $M>0$ one can find $R>0$
such that
Theorem~\ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
remains valid if one replaces
$\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M)$
by
$\bG_\theta(R)\cap\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M)$,
$\nu$ by
$\nu(\theta)$, and $\mu_n$ by $\mu_n(\theta)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\mbox{}
{\rm
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm 1.}]
The tail dominance condition leads to
improvement of the rates of convergence in the whole tail zone.
In particular, if $f\in \bG_1(R)$
then the additional $\ln^{\frac{d}{p}}(n)$-factor disappears, cf. $\mu_n$ and $\mu_n(1)$.
Moreover,
under the tail dominance condition with $\theta<1$
the faster
convergence rate of the dense zone is achieved
over a wider range of values of $p$,
$\frac{2+1/\beta}{1/\theta+1/s} \leq p \leq s(2+1/\beta)$. Additionally,
if
\[
\theta < \theta^*:=\frac{ps}{s(2+1/\beta)-p},
\]
then the tail zone disappears. Note that $\theta^*\in (0,1)$
whenever $p\leq \frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s}$.
\par
As it was mentioned above,
the set of uniformly bounded and
compactly supported on a cube of $\bR^d$ densities
is embedded in the set $\bG_\theta(\cdot)$
for any $\theta\in (0,1]$. This fact explains why
the tail zone does not appear
in problems of estimating compactly supported densities.
\item[{\rm 2.}]
We would like to emphasize that the couple $(\theta, R)$
is not used in the construction of the estimation procedure; thus,
our estimator is adaptive with respect to $(\theta,R)$ as well.
In particular, if the tail dominance condition does not hold,
our estimator achieves
the rate of Theorem~\ref{th:main}.
On the other hand, if this assumption holds, the rate of convergence is improved
automatically in the tail zone.
\item[{\rm 3.}]
The second statement
of the theorem is proved under
assumption that $R$ is large enough.
The fact that $R$ cannot be chosen arbitrary small
is not technical; the parameters
$\vec{\beta}$, $\vec{L}$, $\vec{r}$, $M$,$\theta$ and $R$ are related to each other.
In particular, one can easily provide lower bounds on $R$ in terms of the
other parameters of the class. For instance, by the Lebesgue differentiation theorem,
$f(x)\leq f^*(x)$ almost everywhere; therefore
for any density $f\in \bG_\theta(R)$ such that $\|f\|_\infty\leq M$
one has
$$
1=\int f\leq M^{1-\theta}\|f^*\|^\theta_\theta\leq M^{1-\theta} R^{\theta} \;\;\Rightarrow\;\;
R\geq M^{1-1/\theta}.
$$
\par
Another lower bound on $R$ in terms of $\vec{L}$, $\vec{r}$ and $\theta$ can be established
using the Littlewood interpolation inequality [see, e.g., \cite[Section~5.5]{Garling}].
Let $0<q_0<q_1$ and $\alpha\in (0,1)$ be arbitrary numbers; then the
Littlewood inequality
states that $\|g\|_q\leq \|g\|_{q_0}^{1-\alpha}\|g\|_{q_1}^{\alpha}$,
where $q$ is defined by relation
$\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1-\alpha}{q_0}+\frac{\alpha}{q_1}$.
Now, suppose that $f\in\bG_\theta(R)\cap\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L})$, and choose
$q_0=\theta$, $q_1=r_i$ and $\alpha=\frac{1-\theta}{1-\theta/r_i}$; then $q=1$ and
by the Littlewood inequality we have
$$
1=\|f\|_1\leq
\|f\|_\theta^{1-\alpha}\|f\|_{r_i}^\alpha\leq
R^{\frac{r_i\theta-\theta}{r_i-\theta}}L_{i}^{\frac{r_i-r_i\theta}{r_i-\theta}},\quad
i=1,\ldots, d\;\;\Rightarrow\;\;\;R\geq \max_{i=1,\ldots,d}
L_i^{\frac{r_i\theta-r_i}{r_i-\theta}}~.
$$
\item[{\rm 4.}] Another interesting observation is related
to the specific case $p=1$. Recall
that the condition $f\in \bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L},M)$
alone is not sufficient for existence of consistent estimators.
However,
for any $\theta\in (0,1)$ we can show
\[
\inf_{\tilde{f}}
\cR_1^{(n)}\big[\tilde{f};\;
\bG_\theta(R)\cap \bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M)\big]
\;\leq\;C\bigg[\frac{L_\beta (\ln n)^d}{n}
\bigg]^{\frac{1-\theta}{1-\theta/s+1/\beta}}\;\to\; 0,
\;\;n\to\infty.
\]
This result follows from the proof of
Theorem~\ref{th:upper-new} and
(\ref{eq:weak-max}).
\end{enumerate}
}
\end{remark}
\par\smallskip
Now we argue that condition $f\in \bG_{\theta^*} (R)$
is, in a sense,
the weakest possible
ensuring
the ``usual'' rate of convergence,
corresponding to the index $\nu=\beta/(2\beta+1)$,
in the whole zone $p\leq s(2+1/\beta)$.
Indeed, in view of Theorem~\ref{th:upper-new},
the minimax rate of convergence on the class
$\bG_{\theta^*}(R)\cap \bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M)$, say
$\overline{\psi}_n(\theta^*)$, satisfies
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&
c\big(L_\beta/n\big)^{\frac{\beta}{2\beta+1}}\;\leq\;
\overline{\psi}_n(\theta^*)\;\leq\;
C(\ln{n})^{1/p}\big(L_\beta\ln{n}/n\big)^{\frac{\beta}{2\beta+1}},
\end{eqnarray*}
where the constants $c$ and $C$ may depend on
$R$. On the other hand, if $\underline{\psi}_n(\theta^*)$ denotes
the minimax rate of convergence on the class
$\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L},M)\setminus\bG_{\theta^*}(R)$
then
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:lower-bound-new}
c\big(L_\beta/n\big)^{\frac{1-1/p}{1-1/s+1/\beta}}
\;\leq\;
\underline{\psi}_n(\theta^*)
\;\leq\;
C\big(L_\beta\ln{n}/n\big)^{\frac{1-1/p}{1-1/s+1/\beta}},
\end{eqnarray}
provided that $p\leq \frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s}$.
The upper bound in (\ref{eq:lower-bound-new}) is one of the statements of
Theorem \ref{th:main}, while
the lower bound is proved
in Section~\ref{sec:proof-of-eq:lower-bound-new}.
\par
Thus we conclude that there is no tail zone
in estimation over the
class $G_{\theta^*}(R)\cap \bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta}, \vec{L},M)$,
and this zone appears when considering
the class
$\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta}, \vec{L},M)\setminus \bG_{\theta^*}(R)$.
In this sense $f\in
\bG_{\theta^*}(R)\cap \bN_{\vec{r}}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L},M)$
is the necessary and sufficient condition
eliminating the tail zone.
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:oracle-inequality}}
\label{sec:Proof-th-3}
First we state two auxiliary results, Lemmas~\ref{lem:proportional} and~\ref{lem:1},
and then turn to the proof of the theorem.
Proof of measurability of our estimator and proofs of
Lemmas~\ref{lem:proportional} and~\ref{lem:1} are given
in Appendix~A.
\subsection{Auxiliary lemmas}\label{sec:aux-th-1}
For any $g:\bR^d\to\bR^1$ denote
$$
\check{M}_h(g,x)
=\sqrt{\frac{\kappa\hat{A}_h(g,x)\ln n}{nV_h}} +
\frac{\kappa \ln n}{nV_h}~.
$$
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:proportional}
Let
$\chi_h(g,x)= \big[|\hat{A}_h(g,x)-A_h(g,x)|- M_h(g,x)\big]_+$, $h\in \cH$;
then
\begin{eqnarray*
[\check{M}_h(g,x)- 5M_h(g,x)]_+ \leq \frac{1}{2} \chi_h(g,x),\;\;\;\;
[M_h(g,x)- 4\check{M}_h(g,x)]_+ \leq 2 \chi_h(g,x).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
The next lemma establishes moment bounds on the following four random variables:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zetas}
\begin{array}{lll}
&&
{\displaystyle \zeta_1(x)= \sup_{h\in \cH} [|\xi_h(x)|- M_h(K,x)]_+;\;\;}
\\
&&{\displaystyle \zeta_2(x)=\sup_{h,\eta\in \cH} [|\xi_{h,\eta}(x)|-M_{h\vee \eta}(Q,x)]_+;}
\\
&&{\displaystyle \zeta_3(x):=\sup_{h\in \cH} [ |A_h(K,x)-\hat{A}_h(K,x)|-M_h(K,x)]_+;\;}
\\
&&
{\displaystyle \zeta_4(x):=\sup_{h\in \cH} [ |A_h(Q,x)-\hat{A}_h(Q,x)|-M_h(Q,x)]_+.}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\par
Denote $\rk_\infty=\|K\|_\infty\vee 1$ and
\[
F(x)=\int \mathbf{1}_{[-1,1]^d}(t-x)f(t)\rd t.
\]
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:1}
Let $q\geq 1$, $l\geq 1$ be arbitrary numbers.
If
$\kappa \geq \rk^2_\infty [(2q+4)d + 2l]$ then for all $ x\in \bR^d$
\begin{eqnarray}
\bE_f [\zeta_j(x)]^q &\leq& C_0
n^{-q/2}
\big\{ F(x)\vee n^{-l}\big\},\quad j=1,2,3,4,
\label{eq:ineq-1}
\end{eqnarray}
where constant $C_0$ depends on $d$, $q$, and $\rk_\infty$ only.
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Proof of oracle inequality (\ref{eq:pointwise-oracle})}
We recall the standard error decomposition of the kernel estimator:
for any $h\in \cH$ one has
\[
|\hat{f}_h(x) - f(x)| \leq |B_h(f,x)| + |\xi_h(x)|,
\]
where $B_h(f,x)$ and $\xi_h(x)$ are given in (\ref{eq:B-h}) and (\ref{eq:xi-h}) respectively.
Similar error decomposition holds for auxiliary estimators $\hat{f}_{h,\eta}(x)$;
the corresponding bias and
stochastic error are denoted by $B_{h,\eta}(f,x)$ and $\xi_{h,\eta}(x)$.
\par
$1^0$. The following relation for the bias
$B_{h,\eta}(f,x)$ of $\hat{f}_{h,\eta}(x)$ holds:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:bias-relation}
B_{h,\eta}(f,x) - B_\eta(f,x) = \int K_{\eta}(t-x) B_h(f,t)\rd t,\;\;\;\forall h, \eta\in \cH.
\end{eqnarray}
Indeed, using the Fubini theorem and the fact that $\int K_h(x)\rd x=1$ for all $h\in \cH$
we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int [K_h * K_\eta](t-x) f(t) \rd t &=& \int \biggl[\int K_h(t-y) K_\eta(y-x)\rd y\biggr]f(t)\rd t
\\
&=& \int K_\eta(y-x) f(y) \rd y
\\
&&\;\;+\;\;
\int K_\eta (y-x) \biggl[\int K_h(t-y)[f(t)-f(y)]\rd t\biggr] \rd y.
\end{eqnarray*}
It remains to note that
$ \int K_h(t-y)[f(t)-f(y)]\rd t=B_h(f,y)$ and to subtract $f(x)$ from the both sides of the above equality.
Thus, (\ref{eq:bias-relation}) is proved.
\par\medskip
$2^0$. By the triangle inequality we have for any $h\in \cH$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:decomposition}
|\hat{f}_{\hat{h}}(x)-f(x)| \;\leq\; |\hat{f}_{\hat{h}}(x)- \hat{f}_{\hat{h}, h}(x)| +
|\hat{f}_{\hat{h},h}(x) - \hat{f}_h(x)| + |\hat{f}_h(x) -f(x)|.
\end{equation}
We bound each term on the right hand side separately.
\par
First we note that, by (\ref{eq:bias-relation}) and (\ref{eq:maximal-bias}), for any $h\in \cH$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\hat{R}_h(x) - \sup_{\eta\geq h} \hat{M}_\eta(Q,x) - \hat{M}_h(K,x) \;=\;
\sup_{\eta\in \cH}\Big[|\hat{f}_{h,\eta}(x)-\hat{f}_\eta(x)| -
\hat{M}_{h\vee \eta}(Q,x)-\hat{M}_\eta(K,x)\Big]_+
&&
\\
\;\;\leq \bar{B}_h(f,x) +
\sup_{\eta\in \cH}\Big[|\xi_{h,\eta}(x)-\xi_\eta(x)| -
\hat{M}_{h\vee \eta}(Q, x)-\hat{M}_\eta(K, x)\Big]_+.
&&
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, for any $h\in \cH$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bound-on-R}
\hat{R}_h(x) \;\leq\; \bar{B}_h(f,x) + 2\hat{\zeta}(x) + \hat{M}_h(K,x) +
\sup_{\eta\geq h} \hat{M}_\eta(Q,x),
\end{equation}
where we put
$$
\hat{\zeta} (x) := \sup_{h,\eta\in \cH}\big[|\xi_{h,\eta}(x)|-
\hat{M}_{h\vee \eta}(Q, x)\big]_+ \;\vee\;\sup_{h \in \cH}\big[|\xi_{h}(x)|-
\hat{M}_{h}(K,x)\big]_+.
$$
\smallskip
Second,
by (\ref{eq:bias-relation}) and $\hat{f}_{h,\eta}\equiv \hat{f}_{\eta, h}$ for any $h, \eta \in \cH$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& |\hat{f}_{h,\eta}(x) - \hat{f}_h(x)| \;\leq\; |B_{\eta,h}(f,x)-B_{h}(f,x)| +
|\xi_{h,\eta}(x)-\xi_{h}(x)|
\\*[2mm]
&&\;\;\;\leq\; B_\eta(f,x) + \big[|\xi_{h,\eta}(x)-\xi_h(x)|- \hat{M}_{h\vee \eta}(Q,x)-
\hat{M}_h(K,x)\big] +
\sup_{\eta\geq h} \hat{M}_{\eta}(Q,x) + \hat{M}_h(K,x)
\\ &&\;\;\;\leq\; \bar{B}_\eta(f,x) + 2\hat{\zeta}(x) + \hat{R}_h(x),
\end{eqnarray*}
where the last inequality holds by definition of $\hat{R}_h(x)$ [see (\ref{eq:hat-R})].
There inequalities imply
the following upper bound on the first term on the right hand side of
(\ref{eq:decomposition}):
for any $h\in \cH$
\begin{eqnarray}
&& |\hat{f}_{\hat{h},h}(x) - \hat{f}_{\hat{h}}(x) | \;\leq\; \bar{B}_h(f,x) + \hat{R}_{\hat{h}}(x) + 2
\hat{\zeta}(x)
\nonumber
\\
&&\;\;\;\leq\; \bar{B}_h(f,x) + \hat{R}_h(x) + 2\hat{\zeta}(x)
\nonumber
\\
&&\;\;\;\leq\;
2\bar{B}_h(f,x) + 4\hat{\zeta}(x) + \sup_{\eta\geq h} \hat{M}_\eta (Q,x) +\hat{M}_h(K,x);
\label{eq:1}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the fact that $\hat{R}_{\hat{h}}(x) \leq \hat{R}_h(x)$ for all $h\in \cH$, and
inequality (\ref{eq:bound-on-R}).
\par
Now we turn to bounding the second term on the right hand side of (\ref{eq:decomposition}).
We get for any $h\in \cH$
\begin{eqnarray}
&& |\hat{f}_{\hat{h}, h}(x) - \hat{f}_h(x)| \;=\; |\hat{f}_{\hat{h}, h}(x) - \hat{f}_h(x)|
\pm \big[ \hat{M}_{\hat{h}\vee h}(Q,x) + \hat{M}_h(K,x)\big]
\nonumber
\\
&&\;\;\;\leq\; \hat{R}_{\hat{h}}(x) + \sup_{\eta\geq h} \hat{M}_\eta (Q,x)+\hat{M}_h(K,x)
\nonumber
\\
&&\;\;\;\leq\;
\bar{B}_h(f,x)+2\hat{\zeta}(x)+2\sup_{\eta\geq h} \hat{M}_\eta (Q,x)+2\hat{M}_h(K,x),
\label{eq:2}
\end{eqnarray}
where we again used (\ref{eq:bound-on-R}) and the fact that $\hat{R}_{\hat{h}}(x)\leq \hat{R}_h(x)$
for all $h\in \cH$.
\par
Finally
for any $h\in \cH$
\[
|\hat{f}_h(x)-f(x)| \leq |B_h(f, x)| +|\xi_h(x)| \leq \bar{B}_h(f,x) + M_h(K,x) + \zeta(x).
\]
Thus,
combining (\ref{eq:1}), (\ref{eq:2}) and (\ref{eq:decomposition}) we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:oracle-0}
|\hat{f}_{\hat{h}}(x)-f(x)| \;\leq\; \inf_{h\in \cH} \Big\{4\bar{B}_h(f,x)+
3 \sup_{\eta\geq h} \hat{M}_\eta (Q, x)+ 3\hat{M}_h(K,x) + M_h(K,x)\Big\}
+ 6\hat{\zeta}(x) + \zeta(x).
\end{equation}
\par\medskip
$3^0$.
In order to complete the proof we note
that by the first inequality of Lemma~\ref{lem:proportional} for any $g:\bR^d\to \bR^1$
\[
\hat{M}_h(g,x) \leq 20 M_h(g,x) + 2 \chi_h(g,x).
\]
In addition, by the second inequality in Lemma~\ref{lem:proportional}
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& |\xi_h(x)| - \hat{M}_h(K,x)= |\xi_h(x)| - M_h(K,x) + M_h(K,x)- \hat{M}_h(K,x) \leq
\zeta(x) + 2\chi(x),
\\
&& |\xi_{h,\eta}(x)| - \hat{M}_{h\vee \eta}(Q,x) = |\xi_{h,\eta}(x)| - M_{h\vee \eta}(Q,x) +
M_{h\vee \eta}(Q,x) - \hat{M}_{h\vee \eta}(Q,x)\leq \zeta(x) + 2\chi(x),
\end{eqnarray*}
so that
$\hat{\zeta}(x) \leq \zeta(x)+ 2\chi(x)$.
Substituting these bounds in (\ref{eq:oracle-0}) we obtain
\[
|\hat{f}(x)-f(x)| \leq \inf_{h\in \cH}
\Big\{4\bar{B}_h(f,x)+
60 \sup_{\eta\geq h} M_\eta (Q, x)+ 61M_h(K,x)\Big\}
+ 7\zeta(x) + 18\chi(x),
\]
as claimed.
\epr
\subsection{Proof of moment bounds (\ref{eq:integrability-of-zeta})}
\label{subsec:integrability}
\iffalse
Let $f^*$ be the strong maximal function of $f$, see Section \ref{sec:max-f}.
First we note that
\[
\sup_{h\in \cH} \int |K_h(t-x)| f(t) \rd t \leq \rk_\infty f^*(x),\;\;\;
\sup_{h\in \cH} \int |Q_{h}(t-x)| f(t) \rd t \leq \rk^2_\infty f^*(x),
\]
so that $A(x)\leq \rk_\infty^2 f^*(x)$, $\forall x$.
\fi
Let $\zeta_j(x)$, $j=1,\ldots, 4$ be defined by (\ref{eq:zetas}).
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\bE_f [\zeta_j(x)]^q
&\leq& C_0 n^{-q/2}
\big\{F(x)\vee n^{-l}\big\},
\end{eqnarray*}
as claimed in Lemma~\ref{lem:1}.
\par
Let $T_1=\{x\in \bR^d: F(x)\geq n^{-l}\}$ and $T_2=\bR^d\setminus T_1$.
Therefore
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq1:new-int}
&&\int_{T_1} \bE_f [\zeta_j(x)]^q \rd x \leq C_0 n^{-q/2}
\int_{T_1}F(x) \rd x\leq C_0 n^{-q/2}\int F(x) \rd x
=
2^{d}C_0n^{-q/2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Now we analyze integrability on the set $T_2$.
We consider only the case $j=1,2$
since computations for $j=3,4$ are the same as for $j=1$.
\par
Let
$
U_{\max}(x)=[x-1, x+1]^d
$
and define the event
$D(x)=\big\{\sum_{i=1}^n {{\bf 1}}[X_i\in U_{\max}(x)]<2\big\}$, and let $\bar{D}(x)$
denote the complementary event.
First we argue that for $j=1,2$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:D(x)}
\zeta_j(x) {\mathbf{1}}\{D(x)\}=0,\;\;\;\forall x\in T_2.
\end{equation}
Indeed,
if $x\in T_2$ then for any $h\in\cH$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left|\bE_f K_h(X_i-x)\right| \leq n^{d}\rk_\infty F(x)\leq \rk_\infty n^{d-l},
\quad
\left|\bE_f Q_h(X_i-x)\right| \leq n^{d}\rk^{2}_\infty F(x)\leq \rk^{2}_\infty n^{d-l}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here we have used that $\cH=\big[1/n,1]^d$ and that $\text{supp}(K)=[-1/2,1/2]^d,\;\text{supp}(Q)=[-1,1]^d$.
Hence, by definition of $\xi_h(x)$, for any $h\in \cH$ one has for any $l\geq d+1$
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\xi_h(x)| {\bf 1}\{D(x)\}\;\leq\; \Big|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n K_h(X_i-x)\Big| {\bf 1}\{D(x)\} +
\rk_\infty n^{d-l}
\\
\leq\;
\frac{2\rk_\infty}{nV_h} + \rk_\infty n^{d-l}
\;\leq\; \frac{4\rk_\infty}{nV_h}\leq M_h(K,x),
\end{eqnarray*}
where we have used that $n^{d-l}\leq (nV_h)^{-1}$ for $l\geq d+1$, $\kappa\ln n\geq 4\rk_\infty$
by the condition on $\kappa$
[see also definition of $M_h(K,x)$], and $n\geq 3$.
Therefore $\zeta_1(x){\bf 1}\{D(x)\}=0$ for $x\in T_2$.
By the same reasoning for $\zeta_2(x)$ we obtain that
$\zeta_2(x){\bf 1}\{D(x)\}=0$, $\forall x\in T_2$ because $\kappa\ln n \geq 4\rk^2_\infty$. Thus
(\ref{eq:D(x)}) is proved.
Using (\ref{eq:D(x)}) we can write
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{T_2} \bE_f [\zeta_j(x)\big]^q {\bf 1}\{\bar{D}(x)\}
\rd x
&\leq& \int_{T_2} \bE_f \Big(\big[\sup_{h\in \cH} |\xi_h(x)|^q
\vee \sup_{h,\eta\in \cH} |\xi_{h,\eta}(x)|^q\big]
{\bf 1}\{\bar{D}(x)\}\Big)
\rd x
\nonumber
\\
&\leq& \big(2\rk^2_\infty n^d\big)^q \int_{T_2} \bP_f\{\bar{D}(x)\} \rd x.
\label{eq:E-T2}
\end{eqnarray}
Now we bound from above the integral on the right hand side of the last display formula.
For any $z>0$ we have in view of the exponential Markov inequality
\begin{eqnarray*}
\bP_f\{\bar{D}(x)\} &=& \bP_f\Big\{ \sum_{i=1}^n {\bf 1}[X_i\in U_{\max}(x)] \geq 2\Big\}
\leq e^{-2z} \big[e^{z} F(x) + 1-F(x)\big]^n
\\
&=&
e^{-2z}\big[(e^z-1)F(x)+1]^n \leq \exp\{-2z + n(e^{z}-1)F(x)\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Minimizing the right hand side w.r.t. $z$ we find $z=\ln 2 -\ln{\{nF(x)\}}$ and, therefore,
\[
\bP_f\big\{\bar{D}(x)\big\} \leq
4^{-1}n^2F^2(x) \exp\{2-nF(x)\}\leq (e^2/4) n^2 F^2(x).
\]
Since $F(x)\leq n^{-l}$ for any $x\in T_2$
we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{T_2} \bP_f\{\bar{D}(x)\} \rd x \leq (e^2/4)n^{2-l} \int F(x)\rd x
=2^d \big(e^2/4\big) n^{2-l}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Combining this inequality with (\ref{eq:E-T2}) we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq2:new-int}
&&\int_{T_2} \bE_f [\zeta_j(x)\big]^q {\bf 1}\{\bar{D}(x)\}
\rd x \leq 2^d (2\rk^2_\infty)^q(e^2/4) n^{2+dq-l}.
\end{eqnarray}
Choosing $l=(d+1)q+2$ we come to the assertion of the theorem in view of
(\ref{eq1:new-int})
and (\ref{eq2:new-int}).
\epr
\section{Proofs of Theorem~\ref{th:main} and statement~(i) of
Theorem~\ref{th:upper-new}}
\label{sec:proofs}
The proofs of Theorem~\ref{th:main} and
of statement~(i) of Theorem~\ref{th:upper-new}
go along similar lines. That is why
we state our auxiliary results
(Propositions~\ref{prop:first-bound} and~\ref{prop:new})
in the form that is suitable
for the use in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:upper-new}.
\par
This section is organized as follows.
First, in Subsection~\ref{subsec:preliminaries}
we present and discuss some facts from
functional analysis.
Then in Lemma~\ref{lem:bias-norm-bound} of Subsection~\ref{sec:approximation-K}
we state an auxiliary result on approximation properties of the kernel $K$
defined in (\ref{eq:w-function}).
Proof outline and notation are discussed
in Subsection~\ref{subsec:outline+notation}.
Subsection~\ref{subsec:aux-proposition}
presents two auxiliary propositions,
and the proofs of Theorem~\ref{th:main}
and statement~(i) of Theorem~\ref{th:upper-new}
are completed in Subsections~\ref{sec:2} and~\ref{sec:upper-4}.
Proofs of the auxiliary results, Lemma~\ref{lem:bias-norm-bound}
and Propositions~\ref{prop:first-bound} and~\ref{prop:new} are given in Appendix~B.
\par
In the subsequent proof
$c_i,C_i,\bar{c}_i, \bar{C}_i, \hat{c}_i,\hat{C}_i, \tilde{c}_i, \tilde{C}_i, \ldots$,
stand for constants that can depend on $L_0$, $M$
$\vec{\beta}$, $\vec{r}$, $d$ and $p$, but
are independent of $\vec{L}$ and $n$. These constants can be different on
different appearances. In the case when the assumption
$f\in\bG_\theta(R)$ with $\theta\in (0,1]$
is imposed, they may also depend on $\theta$ and $R$.
\subsection{Preliminaries}
\label{subsec:preliminaries}
We present
an embedding theorem for the anisotropic Nikol'skii classes and discuss
some properties of the strong
maximal operator.
\subsubsection{Embedding theorem}
The statement given below in (\ref{eq:embedd-nik})
is a particular case of the embedding theorem for anisotropic Nikol'skii classes
$\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L})$; see
\cite[Section~6.9.1.]{Nikolski}.
\par
For the fixed class parameters $\vec{\beta}$ and $\vec{r}$ define
\[
\tau(p)=1-\sum_{j=1}^d\frac{1}{\beta_j}\left(\frac{1}{r_j}-\frac{1}{p}\right),\quad
\tau_i=1-\sum_{j=1}^d\frac{1}{\beta_j}\left(\frac{1}{r_j}-\frac{1}{r_i}\right),\;\;i=1,\ldots,d,
\]
and put
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gamma-and-q}
q_i=r_i\vee p,\;\;\;
\qquad\;\;
\gamma_i=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\beta_i\tau(p)}{\tau_i},\quad & r_i<p,
\\
\beta_i,\quad & r_i\geq p.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Let $\tau(p)>0$ and $\tau_i>0$ for all $i=1,\ldots, d$; then for any $p\geq 1$ one has
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:embedd-nik}
\bN_{\vec{r},d}\big(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}\big) \subseteq
\bN_{\vec{q},d}\big(\vec{\gamma},c\vec{L}\big),
\end{equation}
where constant $c>0$ is independent of $\vec{L}$ and $p$.
\iffalse
\paragraph{Strong maximal function}
\label{sec:max-f}
Let $g:\bR^d\to\bR$ be a locally integrable function, and let $g^*$ denote
the strong maximal function of $g$, see
(\ref{eq:maximal-function}).
It is worth noting that the {\em Hardy--Littlewood maximal function} is defined by
(\ref{eq:maximal-function}) with the supremum taken over all cubes with sides parallel to the
coordinate axes,
centered at $x$.
\par
It is well known that the strong maximal operator $g\mapsto g^*$
is of the strong $(p,p)$--type for all $1<p\leq \infty$, i.e.,
if $g\in \bL_p(\bR^d)$ then $g^*\in \bL_p(\bR^d)$ and there exists a constant $\bar{C}$
depending on $p$ only such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:strong-max}
\|g^*\|_p \leq \bar{C} \|g\|_p,\;\;\;p\in (1,\infty].
\end{equation}
In distinction to the Hardy--Littlewood maximal function,
the strong maximal operator is not of
the weak (1,1)--type.
In fact, the following statement holds: there exists constant $C$ depending on $d$
only such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:weak-max}
\big|\{x: g^*(x)\geq \alpha\}\big| \leq C \int \frac{|g(x)|}{\alpha}
\bigg\{ 1 +
\bigg(\ln_+\frac{|g(x)|}{\alpha}\bigg)^{d-1}\bigg\}\rd x,\quad\forall\alpha>0.
\end{equation}
We refer to \cite{Guzman} for more details.
\fi
\subsubsection{Strong maximal function}
\label{sec:max-f}
Let $g:\bR^d\to\bR$ be a locally integrable function. We define the strong maximal function $g^\star$ of $g$ by formula
\begin{equation}\label{eq2:maximal-function}
g^\star(x):= \sup_{H} \frac{1}{|H|} \int_H g(t) \rd t,\;\;\;x\in \bR^d,
\end{equation}
where the supremum is taken over all
possible rectangles $H$ in $\bR^d$ with sides parallel to the coordinate
axes, containing point $x$.
It is worth noting that the {\em Hardy--Littlewood maximal function} is defined by
(\ref{eq2:maximal-function}) with the supremum taken over all cubes with sides parallel to the
coordinate axes,
centered at $x$.
\par
It is well known that the strong maximal operator $g\mapsto g^\star$
is of the strong $(p,p)$--type for all $1<p\leq \infty$, i.e.,
if $g\in \bL_p(\bR^d)$ then $g^\star\in \bL_p(\bR^d)$ and there exists a constant $\bar{C}$
depending on $p$ only such that
\begin{equation*}
\|g^\star\|_p \leq \bar{C} \|g\|_p,\;\;\;p\in (1,\infty].
\end{equation*}
Let $g^*$ be defined defined in
(\ref{eq:maximal-function}). Since obviously $g^*(x)\leq g^\star(x)$ for all $x\in\bR^d$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:strong-max}
\|g^*\|_p \leq \bar{C} \|g\|_p,\;\;\;p\in (1,\infty].
\end{equation}
In distinction to the Hardy--Littlewood maximal function, the strong maximal operator is not
of
the weak (1,1)--type.
In fact, the following statement holds: there exists constant $C$ depending on $d$
only such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:weak-max}
\big|\{x: g^\star(x)\geq \alpha\}\big| \leq C \int \frac{|g(x)|}{\alpha}
\bigg\{ 1 +
\bigg(\ln_+\frac{|g(x)|}{\alpha}\bigg)^{d-1}\bigg\}\rd x,\quad\forall\alpha>0.
\end{equation}
We refer to \cite{Guzman} for more details.
\subsection{Approximation properties of kernel $K$}
\label{sec:approximation-K}
The
next lemma establishes an upper bound on norm of
the bias $B_h(f,\cdot)$ of kernel estimator $\hat{f}_h$
when $f$ belongs to the anisotropic Nikol'skii class.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:bias-norm-bound}
Let $f\in \bN_{\vec{r},d}\big(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}\big)$. Let $\hat{f}_h$ be the
estimator (\ref{eq:kernel-est})
associated with kernel (\ref{eq:w-function})
with $\ell> \max_{j=1,\ldots,d}\beta_j$.
Then $B_h(f,x)$ can represented as the sum
$B_h(f, x)=\sum_{j=1}^d B_{h,j}(f,x)$
with functions $B_{h,j}(f,x)$ satisfying the following inequalities:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bias-norms-1}
\big\|B_{h,j}(f, \cdot)\big\|_{r_j} \leq C_1L_j h_j^{\beta_j},\;\;\;\forall j=1,\ldots,d.
\end{equation}
Moreover, if $s \geq 1$, then for any $p\geq 1$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bias-norms-2}
\big\|B_{h,j}(f,\cdot)\big\|_{q_j} \leq C_2 L_j h_j^{\gamma_j} ,\;\;\;\forall j=1,\ldots, d,
\end{equation}
where $\vec{\gamma}=\vec{\gamma}(p)$ and $\vec{q}=\vec{q}(p)$ are defined in (\ref{eq:gamma-and-q}).
Here $C_1$ and $C_2$ are constants
independent of $\vec{L}$ and $p$.
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Proof outline and notation}\label{subsec:outline+notation}
The starting point of our proof is
the pointwise oracle inequality
(\ref{eq:pointwise-oracle}) together with the moment bound (\ref{eq:integrability-of-zeta}).
Denote
\begin{equation}\label{eq:U-bar}
\bar{U}_f(x)= \inf_{h\in\cH}\Big\{\bar{B}_h(f,x)+\sup_{\eta\geq h}
M_\eta (K\vee Q, x)\Big\};
\end{equation}
then, taking into account that
$M_\eta(K\vee Q, x)$ is greater than $M_\eta(K,x)$ and $M_\eta(Q,x)$ for any $x$ and $\eta$
[see (\ref{eq:A-A}) and (\ref{eq:hat-A-M})], and using
(\ref{eq:pointwise-oracle}), we have
\begin{equation*
|\hat{f}(x)-f(x)| \leq c_0 [\bar{U}_f(x)
+ \omega(x)],
\end{equation*}
where $c_0$ is an absolute constant, and
$\omega(x):=\zeta(x)+\chi(x)$ with
$\zeta(x)$ and $\chi(x)$ defined in (\ref{eq:zeta}) and (\ref{eq:chi}).
Therefore, by (\ref{eq:integrability-of-zeta}) applied with $q=p$ and by the Fubini theorem,
there exists
constant $\bar{c}_0>0$ such that for any probability density
$f$ and any Borel set $\cA\subseteq\bR^d$ one has
\begin{equation}
\label{eq00-new:oracle-inequality}
\bE_f\int_{\cA}|\hat{f}(x)-f(x)|^{p}\rd x \;\leq\; \bar{c}_0\bigg[\,
\int_{\cA}\bar{U}_f^p(x)\rd x +n^{-p/2}\,\bigg].
\end{equation}
Recall that $\rk_\infty=\|K\|_\infty\vee 1$; by definition of $\bar{B}_h(f,x)$ [see (\ref{eq:maximal-bias})]
and by Lemma~\ref{lem:bias-norm-bound} one has
\begin{equation*
\bar{B}_h(f,x)\leq \rk_\infty\sum_{j=1}^d B_{h,j}^*(f,x),
\end{equation*}
where $B_{h,j}^*(f,x)$ is the strong maximal function of $|B_{h,j}(f,x)|$, $j=1,\ldots,d$.
Therefore if we let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:U}
U_f(x):= \inf_{h\in \cH}\Big\{\max_{j=1,\ldots,d} B^*_{h,j}(f,x) + \sup_{\eta\geq h} M_\eta(K\vee Q, x)
\Big\},
\end{equation}
then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq01:oracle-inequality}
\bar{U}_f(x)\leq \rk_\infty U_f(x),\quad\forall x\in\bR^d.
\end{equation}
\par
The key element of the proof
is derivation of upper bounds on the integral
\[
J:=\int_{\bR^d} U_f^p(x) \rd x.
\]
These bounds
will be established by division of
$\bR^d$ in ``slices'', and appropriate choice of bandwidth
$h\in \cH$ on every ``slice''. For this purpose
the following bounds on norms of $B^*_{h,j}(f, \cdot)$
will be used.
Inequality (\ref{eq:strong-max}) and the first assertion of Lemma~\ref{lem:bias-norm-bound}
imply that for any $p>1$, $\vec{r}\in (1,\infty]^{d}$ and
any $f\in \bN_{\vec{r},d}\big(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}\big)$
one has
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \big\|B^*_{h,j}(f, \cdot)\big\|_{r_j} \leq \bar{c}_1L_j h_j^{\beta_j},\;\;\;
\forall j=1,\ldots, d,
\label{eq:B*-1}
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, if
$s\geq 1$ then, by
the second assertion of Lemma~\ref{lem:bias-norm-bound},
for any $p>1$, $\vec{r}\in (1,\infty]^{d}$ and
$f\in \bN_{\vec{r},d}\big(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}\big)$
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \big\|B^*_{h,j}(f,\cdot)\big\|_{q_j} \leq \bar{c}_2 L_j h_j^{\gamma_j} ,\;\;\;\forall j=1,\ldots,d.
\label{eq:B*-2}
\end{eqnarray}
\par\medskip
Let
$\delta:=\ln n/n$, $\varphi:= (L_\beta \delta)^{\beta/(2\beta+1)}$.
Let $m_0(\theta),\;\theta\in (0,1],$ be an integer number to be specified later; see (\ref{eq:m-0}) below.
For $m\in \bZ$, $m\geq m_0(\theta)$ define ``slices''
\[
\cX_m := \big\{x\in \bR^d: 2^m \varphi < U_f(x) \leq 2^{m+1} \varphi \big\},\;\;
\cX^-_{m_0(\theta)} := \big\{x\in \bR^d: U_f(x) \leq 2^{m_0(\theta)}\varphi\},
\]
and consider the corresponding integrals
\begin{equation*
J_m:=\int_{\cX_m} U_f^p(x) \rd x,\;\;\;J_{m_0}^-:=\int_{\cX_{m_0(\theta)}^-} U_f^p(x)\rd x.
\end{equation*}
With this notation,
using (\ref{eq00-new:oracle-inequality}) and (\ref{eq01:oracle-inequality})
we can write
\begin{eqnarray}
\bE_f\|\hat{f}-f\|_p^p &\leq& \bE_f\int_{\cX_{m_0(\theta)}^{-}} |\hat{f}(x)-f(x)|^p \rd x \;+\;
\tilde{c}_1
\sum_{m=m_0(\theta)}^\infty \int_{\cX_m} U^p_f(x) \rd x \;+ \;\tilde{c}_2n^{-p/2}
\nonumber
\\
&=:&
J_{m_0(\theta)}^-
+\;\tilde{c}_1 \sum_{m=m_0(\theta)}^\infty J_m \;+\; \tilde{c}_2n^{-p/2}.
\label{eq:start}
\end{eqnarray}
The rest of the proof consists of bounding the integrals
$J_{m_0(\theta)}^-$ and $J_m$
on the right hand side of (\ref{eq:start}) and combining these bounds in different zones.
\par
\par
The following notation will be used in the subsequent proof.
For the sake of brevity we will write
\[
M_\eta(x):=M_\eta(K\vee Q, x),\;\;\;A_\eta(x):=A_\eta(K\vee Q,x),\;\;\;\forall \eta\in \cH.
\]
We let $I:=\{1,\ldots,d\}$, and
\[
I_+:=\{j\in I: p\leq r_j<\infty\},\;\;I_-:=\{j\in I:1<r_j<p\},\;\;I_\infty:=\{j\in I:r_j=\infty\}.
\]
With
$\vec{\gamma}=(\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_d)$ and $\vec{q}=(q_1,\ldots,q_d)$ given by
(\ref{eq:gamma-and-q}) we define quantities $\gamma$, $\upsilon$ and $L_\gamma$
by the formulas
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gamma-upsilon}
\frac{1}{\gamma}:=\sum_{j=1}^d \frac{1}{\gamma_j},\qquad
\frac{1}{\upsilon}:=\sum_{j=1}^d \frac{1}{\gamma_j q_j},\qquad L_\gamma:=\prod_{j=1}^dL_j^{1/\gamma_j}.
\end{equation}
Note some useful inequalities between the quantities defined above.
First,
$\gamma_j < \beta_j$ for all $j\in I_-$ which is a consequence of the fact that $\tau(p)<\tau_j$
for $j\in I_-$. This implies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gamma<beta}
\frac{1}{\gamma} - \frac{1}{\beta} = \sum_{j\in I_-} \Big(\frac{1}{\gamma_j}-\frac{1}{\beta_j}\Big) >0.
\end{equation}
Next, if $s\geq 1$ then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:s<upsilon}
\frac{1}{s} > \frac{1}{\upsilon}.
\end{equation}
We have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{s} - \frac{1}{\upsilon} = \sum_{j\in I_-} \Big(\frac{1}{\beta_jr_j}-\frac{1}{\gamma_j p}\Big)
=\sum_{j\in I_-}\frac{1}{\beta_j}\Big(\frac{1}{r_j}-\frac{\tau_j}{\tau(p)p}\Big).
\end{equation*}
Hence (\ref{eq:s<upsilon}) will be proved if we show that $r_j^{-1}\tau(p)p\geq \tau_j$ for all $j\in I_-$. Indeed,
$$
\frac{\tau(p)p}{r_j}=\frac{p(1-1/s)+1/\beta}{r_j}\geq 1-\frac{1}{s}+\frac{1}{\beta r_j}:=\tau_j,
$$
where to get the second inequality we have used that $r_j\leq p$ for any $j\in I_-$ and that $s\geq 1$.
\par
Finally,
remark also that
\begin{equation}\label{eq003:proof-th}
p-\upsilon(2+1/\gamma)<0.
\end{equation}
Indeed, since $r_j\geq p$ for any $j\in I_+\cup I_\infty$,
$$
\frac{p}{\upsilon}=\sum_{j\in I_+}\frac{p}{\beta_jr_j}+\sum_{j\in I_-}
\frac{1}{\gamma_j}\leq \sum_{j\in I_+}\frac{1}{\beta_j}+\sum_{j\in I_-}\frac{1}{\gamma_j} =\frac{1}{\gamma}.
$$
This yields $p\leq\upsilon/\gamma$, and (\ref{eq003:proof-th}) follows.
\par
\subsection{Auxiliary results}
\label{subsec:aux-proposition}
For $\theta\in (0,1]$ and for some constant $\hat{c}_1>0$ define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:m-0}
m_0(\theta):=\min\bigg\{ m\in \bZ:
2^{m_0(\theta)\left(
\frac{1-\theta/s+1/\beta}{1+\theta/s}
\right)} >\hat{c}_1\kappa\varphi
\bigg\}.
\end{equation}
Note that $1-\theta/s+1/\beta>0$
for any $\theta\in (0,1]$, since $s\geq\beta$ by $r_j\geq 1$, $j=1,\ldots, d$. Therefore
$m_0(\theta)<0$ for large enough $n$.
\par
It will be convenient to introduce the following notation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:m-1-def}
m_1:= \min\Big\{m\in \bZ:
2^{m\left[\upsilon(2+1/\gamma)-s(2+1/\beta)\right]}\geq
\big(L_\gamma/L_\beta\big)^{\upsilon} \varphi^{\upsilon(1/\beta-1/\gamma)}
\Big\}.
\end{equation}
It follows from this definition that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:m-1-bounds}
\Big[
\big(L_\gamma/L_\beta\big) \varphi^{1/\beta-1/\gamma}
\Big]^{\frac{\upsilon}{\upsilon(2+1/\gamma)-s(2+1/\beta)}}\leq
2^{m_1}\leq
2\Big[
\big(L_\gamma/L_\beta\big) \varphi^{1/\beta-1/\gamma}
\Big]^{\frac{\upsilon}{\upsilon(2+1/\gamma)-s(2+1/\beta)}}.
\end{equation}
In view of (\ref{eq:gamma<beta}) and (\ref{eq:s<upsilon})
\begin{equation}\label{eq:m-1-deff}
\upsilon\Big(2+\frac{1}{\gamma}\Big)- s\Big(2+\frac{1}{\beta}\Big)
=
s\upsilon \bigg[\Big(2+\frac{1}{\beta}\Big)\Big(\frac{1}{s}-\frac{1}{\upsilon}\Big)+ \frac{1}{s}\Big(
\frac{1}{\gamma}-\frac{1}{\beta}\Big)\bigg]
>0;
\end{equation}
hence $m_1>1$ for large $n$.
\par
The bounds on $J_{m_0(\theta)}^-$ and $J_m$ are given in the next two propositions.
\par
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:first-bound}
There exist constants
$\hat{c}_1,\hat{c}_2>0$ and $\hat{C}_1,\hat{C}_2>0$
such that any $n$ large enough the following statements hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item[\rm (i)] For any probability density $f$ and any $m_0(1)\leq m\leq 0$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq001:m-large}
&&
J_m \leq \hat{C}_1\,
2^{m\left(p-\frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s}\right)} \varphi^p.
\end{eqnarray}
\item[\rm (ii)]
Let $f\in \bG_\theta(R)$, $\theta\in (0,1]$; then for any $m_0(\theta)\leq m\leq 0$
one has
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq01:m-large}
&&
J_m \leq \hat{C}_1\,
2^{m\left(p-\frac{2+1/\beta}{1/\theta+1/s}\right)} \varphi^p.
\end{eqnarray}
\item[{\rm (iii)}] For any $m\in \bZ$ satisfying
$1\leq 2^{m} \leq \hat{c}_2\varphi^{-1}$ and any probability density $f$ one has
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq02:m}
&&
J_m\;\leq\;\hat{C}_2 2^{m [p- s(2+1/\beta)]} \varphi^p.
\end{eqnarray}
\item[{\rm (iv)}] Let $s\geq 1$; then for any $m\in\bZ$ such that
$
m\geq m_1$,
$
\;\;2^{m} \leq \hat{c}_2\varphi^{-1}
$
and any probability density $f$
one has
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq03:m}
&&
J_m \;\leq\;\hat{C}_2\varphi^{p}
\bigg[\frac{L_\gamma\varphi^{1/\beta}}{L_\beta\varphi^{1/\gamma}}\bigg]^{\upsilon}
2^{m\left[p-\upsilon(2+1/\gamma)\right]}~.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:new}
There exist constants $\hat{C}_3, \hat{C}_4>0$ such that the following statements hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm (i)}] Let $\nu$ is defined in (\ref{eq:nu}). Then for
all large enough $n$ and for any density $f$ one has
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prop-new_1}
J^-_{m_0(1)}\;=\;\bE_f\int_{\cX^-_{m_0(1)}}\big|\hat{f}(x)-f(x)\big|^{p}\rd x\;\leq\;
\hat{C}_3\ln^d(n)(L_\beta\delta)^{p\nu}.
\end{equation}
\item[{\rm (ii)}] Let $\nu(\theta)$ is defined in (\ref{eq:nu-theta}). Then for any $\theta\in (0,1]$ and for all $n$ large enough
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prop-new_theta}
\sup_{f\in\bG_\theta(R)}\bE_f\int_{\cX_{m_0(\theta)}^-}\big|\hat{f}(x)-f(x)\big|^{p}\rd x\leq
\hat{C}_4(L_\beta\delta)^{p\nu(\theta)}.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:main}}\label{sec:2}
Using (\ref{eq:start}) and inequality
(\ref{eq:prop-new_1}) of Proposition \ref{prop:new} we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:start-1}
\bE_f\|\hat{f}-f\|_p^p \;\leq\; c_1\pi_n\big(L_\beta \delta\big)^{p\nu} +
c_2\sum_{m=m_0(1)}^\infty J_m,
\end{equation}
where $\pi_n=\ln^d(n)$ if $p\leq\frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s}$ and $\pi_n=1$ otherwise.
\par
We proceed with bounding
the second term on the right hand side of the last display formula. First,
because $\|f\|_\infty \leq M$,
$$
\max_{j=1,\ldots,d}
\|B^*_{h,j}(f,\cdot)\|_\infty\leq 2^{d}M\rk^2_{\infty},\qquad
\sup_{\eta>0}\|A_\eta\|_\infty\leq 2^{d}M\rk^2_{\infty}.
$$
This implies that there exists constant $c_3>0$ with the following property:
\[
m_2:=\min \{m\in \bZ: 2^m \geq c_3\varphi^{-1}\} \;\;\Rightarrow\;\;J_m=0,\;\forall m\geq m_2.
\]
Thus the sum on right hand side of (\ref{eq:start-1})
extends from $m_0(1)$ to $m_2$.
\par\medskip
1$^0$. {\em Tail zone: $p<\frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s}$.}
Using bounds (\ref{eq001:m-large}) and (\ref{eq02:m}) of Proposition~\ref{prop:first-bound},
we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{m=m_0(1)}^\infty J_m \;\leq\; c_4\varphi^p\Big[
\sum_{m=m_0(1)}^{0} 2^{m(p-\frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s})} + \sum_{m=1}^{m_2} 2^{m[p-s(2+1/\beta)]}\Big]
\;\leq\; c_5\,\varphi^p 2^{m_0(1)(p-\frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s})},
\end{eqnarray*}
where the last inequality follows from the fact that $m_0(1)<0$ and $p<\frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s}<s(2+1/\beta)$.
Using (\ref{eq:m-0}), after straightforward algebra we obtain that
\[
\sum_{m=m_0(1)}^\infty J_m \;\leq\;
c_6 \big(L_\beta \delta\big)^{\frac{p-1}{1+1/\beta -1/s}}\leq c_6~\big(L_\beta \delta\big)^{p\nu}.
\]
\par
2$^0$. {\em Dense zone: $\frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s} < p< s(2+\frac{1}{\beta})$.}
Because $p>\frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s}$,
by Proposition~\ref{prop:first-bound}, inequality (\ref{eq001:m-large}) with $\theta=1$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:J-m-small}
\sum_{m=m_0(1)}^0 J_m \;\leq\; c_{7} \varphi^p \sum_{m=m_0(1)}^0 2^{m(p-\frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s})}
\;\leq\; c_{8}\,\varphi^p
= c_{8} (L_\beta\delta)^{\frac{p\beta}{2\beta+1}}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, because $p<s(2+\frac{1}{\beta})$ we have by Proposition~\ref{prop:first-bound}, inequality (\ref{eq02:m}),
that
\[
\sum_{m=1}^{m_2} J_m \;\leq\; c_{9}
\varphi^p \sum_{m=1}^{m_2} 2^{m(p-s(2+\frac{1}{\beta}))} = c_{10}
(L_\beta\delta)^{\frac{p\beta}{2\beta+1}}.
\]
Thus, in the dense zone
\[
\sum_{m=m_0(1)}^{m_2} J_m \leq c_{11} (L_\beta\delta)^{\frac{p\beta}{2\beta+1}}\leq c_{11}(L_\beta\delta)^{p\nu} .
\]
\par
3$^0$. {\em Sparse zone: $p>s(2+1/\beta)$, $s<1$.}
First we note that the bound in (\ref{eq:J-m-small}) remains true since
$p>s(2+1/\beta)$. By the same reason in view of Proposition~\ref{prop:first-bound}, inequality (\ref{eq02:m}),
\begin{equation}\label{eq:new-proof}
\sum_{m=1}^{m_2} J_m\leq c_{12} \varphi^p 2^{m_2(p-s(2+\frac{1}{\beta}))}
\leq c_{13} \varphi^{s(2+\frac{1}{\beta})}
= c_{13} \big(L_\beta \delta\big)^{s}\leq c_{13}(L_\beta\delta)^{p\nu}.
\end{equation}
Here we have used the definition of $m_2$. It remains to note that conditions $p>s(2+1/\beta)$, $s<1$
imply that $\varphi^{p}\delta^{-s}\to 0$ as $n\to 0$. Therefore the statement of the theorem
follows from (\ref{eq:J-m-small}) and (\ref{eq:new-proof}).
\par
4$^0$. {\em Sparse zone: $p>s(2+1/\beta)$, $s\geq 1$.}
We need to bound only $\sum_{m=1}^{m_2} J_m$,
because (\ref{eq:J-m-small}) remains true.
By inequality (\ref{eq02:m}) of
Proposition~\ref{prop:first-bound} and because $p>s(2+1/\beta)$
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sum_{m=1}^{m_1} J_m\leq c_{14}\varphi^p2^{m_1(p-s(2+\frac{1}{\beta}))}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Next, we have in view of the inequality (\ref{eq03:m}) of Proposition ~\ref{prop:first-bound}
$$
\sum_{m=m_1+1}^{m_2} J_m\leq c_{15}
\varphi^{p}\bigg[\frac{L_\gamma\varphi^{1/\beta}}{L_\beta\varphi^{1/\gamma}}\bigg]^{\upsilon}
\sum_{m=m_1+1}^{m_2}2^{m\left[p-\upsilon(2+1/\gamma)\right]}.
$$
Since $p-\upsilon(2+1/\gamma)<0$ [see (\ref{eq003:proof-th})],
$$
\sum_{m=m_1+1}^{m_2} J_m\leq c_{16}
\varphi^{p}\bigg[\frac{L_\gamma\varphi^{1/\beta}}{L_\beta\varphi^{1/\gamma}}\bigg]^{\upsilon}
2^{m_1\left(p-\upsilon[2+1/\gamma]\right)}
\leq c_{16}\varphi^{p}2^{m_1\left(p-s[2+1/\beta]\right)}.
$$
In order to obtain the second inequality we have used (\ref{eq:m-1-bounds}). Thus,
$$
\sum_{m=1}^{m_2} J_m
\leq c_{17}\varphi^{p}2^{m_1\left[p-s(2+1/\beta)\right]}.
$$
Using equality (\ref{eq:m-1-deff}) and (\ref{eq:m-1-bounds}) we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{m=1}^{m_1} J_m\leq c_{20}
\Big(L_\gamma/L_\beta\Big)^{\frac{p-s(2+1/\beta)}{s(2+1/\beta)(1/s-1/\upsilon)+(1/\gamma-1/\beta)}}
(L_\beta\delta)^{\frac{p(1/s-1/\upsilon)+1/\gamma-1/\beta}{(2+1/\beta)(1/s-1/\upsilon)+(1/\gamma-1/\beta)s^{-1}}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\par
The statement of the theorem is now obtained by the following routine computations.
Denote
$$
A=\frac{1}{s_-}-\frac{1}{p\beta_-},\qquad \frac{1}{s_-}=\sum_{j\in I_-}\frac{1}{\beta_jr_j},\qquad \frac{1}{\beta_-}=\sum_{j\in I_-}\frac{1}{\beta_j},\qquad \frac{1}{\gamma_-}=\sum_{j\in I_-}\frac{1}{\gamma_j}.
$$
First, we remark that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq000101:proof-th}
&&p\Big(\frac{1}{s}-\frac{1}{\upsilon}\Big)+
\frac{1}{\gamma}-\frac{1}{\beta}=\frac{p}{s_-} - \frac{1}{\gamma_-} +
\frac{1}{\gamma_-} - \frac{1}{\beta_-}= \frac{p}{s_-} - \frac{1}{\beta_-}=Ap.
\end{eqnarray}
Next,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{\gamma_-}=\sum_{j\in I_-}\frac{\tau_j}{\tau(p)\beta_j}
&=& \frac{1}{\tau(p)}
\sum_{j\in I_-}\frac{1}{\beta_j}[1-1/s+1/(r_j\beta)]=
\frac{1-1/s}{\tau(p)\beta_-}+\frac{1}{\tau(p)\beta s_-}
\\
&=&\frac{1-1/s}{\tau(p)\beta_-}+\frac{1}{\tau(p)\beta}\bigg(\frac{1}{s_-}-\frac{1}{p\beta_-}\bigg)+\frac{1}{\tau(p)\beta p\beta_-}
\\
&=& \frac{1}{\tau(p)\beta_-}\bigg(1-\frac{1}{s}+\frac{1}{p\beta}\bigg)+\frac{A}{\tau(p)\beta}
=
\frac{1}{\beta_-}+\frac{A}{\tau(p)\beta}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence,
$1/\gamma-1/\beta=1/\gamma_--1/\beta_-=A/(\tau(p)\beta)$, which implies that
$$
\frac{1}{s}-\frac{1}{\upsilon}=\frac{1}{s_-}-\frac{1}{p\gamma_-}
=A+\frac{1}{p}\bigg(\frac{1}{\beta_-}-\frac{1}{\gamma_-}\bigg)=
A\bigg(1-\frac{1}{p\tau(p)\beta}\bigg).
$$
Two last equalities yield
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big(2+\frac{1}{\beta}\Big)
\Big(\frac{1}{s}-\frac{1}{\upsilon}\Big)+
\Big(\frac{1}{\gamma}-\frac{1}{\beta}\Big)\frac{1}{s}
=\frac{A}{\tau(p)}\Big[\Big(2+\frac{1}{\beta}\Big)\Big(\tau(p)-\frac{1}{p\beta}\Big)+\frac{1}{s\beta}\Big]
=\frac{A}{\tau(p)}\Big(2+\frac{1}{\beta}-\frac{2}{s\beta}\Big),
\end{eqnarray*}
where the last equality follows from the fact that
$\tau(p)-1/(p\beta)=1-1/s$.
This together with (\ref{eq000101:proof-th}).
leads to the statement of the theorem
in the sparse zone.
\par
5$^0$. {\em Boundary zones: $p=s(2+\frac{1}{\beta})$, $p=\frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s}$.}
Here the proof coincides with the proof for the dense zone with the only difference that
the corresponding sums equal $|m_1|$ and $m_2$ respectively.
\epr
\subsection{Proof of statement (i) of Theorem~\ref{th:upper-new}}
\label{sec:upper-4}
In view of (\ref{eq:start}) and
by bound (\ref{eq:prop-new_theta}) of Proposition~\ref{prop:new},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\bE_f\|\hat{f}-f\|_p^p
&\leq& c_1\big(L_\beta \delta\big)^{p\nu(\theta)} +
c_2\sum_{m=m_0(\theta)}^\infty J_m.
\end{eqnarray*}
If $p<\frac{2+1/\beta}{1/\theta+1/s}$ then,
using bounds (\ref{eq01:m-large}) and (\ref{eq02:m}) of
Proposition~\ref{prop:first-bound}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{m=m_0(\theta)}^\infty J_m \;\leq\; c_3\varphi^p
\sum_{m=m_0(\theta)}^{m_2} 2^{m\big(p-\frac{2+1/\beta}{1/\theta+1/s}\big)}
\;\leq\; c_4\,\varphi^p 2^{m_0(\theta)\big(p-\frac{2+1/\beta}{1/\theta+1/s}\big)}=
c_5(L_\beta\delta)^{\frac{p-\theta}{1-\theta/s+1/\beta}},
\end{eqnarray*}
and the assertion of the theorem
follows.
If $s(2+1/\beta)\geq p\geq\frac{2+1/\beta}{1/\theta+1/s}$ then
$$
\sum_{m=m_0(\theta)}^\infty J_m \;\leq\; c_6\mu_n^{p}(\theta)\varphi^p\leq c_7\mu_n^{p}(\theta)
\big(L_\beta \delta\big)^{p\nu(\theta)}.
$$
\section{Proofs of Theorem~\ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p},
statement~(ii) of Theorem~\ref{th:upper-new} and the lower bound in (\ref{eq:lower-bound-new})}
\label{sec:Proof-th-2}
The proof is organized as follows. First, we formulate
two auxiliary statements,
Lemmas~\ref{lem:tsyb_book-result} and~\ref{lem:V-G-lemma}.
Second, we present a general construction
of a finite set of functions employed in the proof of lower
bounds. Then we specialize the constructed set of functions
in different regimes and derive the announced lower bounds.
\subsection{Auxiliary lemmas}
The first statement given
in Lemma~\ref{lem:tsyb_book-result} is a
simple consequence of Theorem~2.4 from \cite{Tsybakov}. Let $\bF$ be a given
set of probability densities.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:tsyb_book-result}
Assume that for any sufficiently large
integer $n$ one can find a positive real number $\rho_n$
and a finite subset of functions
$\big\{f^{(0)}, f^{(j)},\;j\in\cJ_n\big\}\subset \bF
$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:ass1-klp-lemma}
&&\big\|f^{(i)}- f^{(j)}\big\|_p \geq 2\rho_n,\qquad\;
\forall i, j\in \cJ_n\cup\{0\}:\;i\neq j;
\\*[2mm]
\label{eq:ass2-klp-lemma}
&& \limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{|\cJ_n|^{2}}
\sum_{j\in\cJ_n}\bE_{f^{(0)}}\Bigg\{
\frac{\rd \bP_{f^{(j)}}}{\rd \bP_{f^{(0)}}}(X^{(n)})\Bigg\}^{2}=:C <\infty.
\end{eqnarray}
Then for any $q\geq 1$
$$
\liminf_{n\to\infty}
\inf_{\tilde f}\;
\sup_{f \in \bF}
\rho^{-1}_n\left(\bE_f \big\|\tilde{f} - f\big\|^{q}_p\right)^{1/q}
\geq \left(\sqrt{C} +\sqrt{C+1} \right)^{-2/q},
$$
where infimum on the left hand side is taken over all possible estimators.
\end{lemma}
We will apply Lemma \ref{lem:tsyb_book-result} with $\bF= \bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M)$ in the proof of Theorem \ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
and with $\bF=\bG_\theta(R)\cap\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M)$ in the proof of statement~(ii) of Theorem~\ref{th:upper-new}.
\par
Next we quote
the Varshamov--Gilbert lemma
[see, e.g., Lemma~2.9 in \cite{Tsybakov}].
\begin{lemma}[Varshamov--Gilbert]
\label{lem:V-G-lemma}
Let $\varrho_m$ be the Hamming distance on $\{0,1\}^m$, $m\in\bN^*$, i.e.
$$
\varrho_m(a,b)=\sum_{j=1}^m {\bf 1}\left\{a_j\neq b_j\right\},\quad a,b\in\{0,1\}^m.
$$
For any $m\geq 8$ there exists a subset $\cP_m$ of $\{0,1\}^m$ such that
$\big|\cP_m\big|\geq 2^{m/8}$, and
$$
\varrho_m\big(a,a^\prime\big)\geq \frac{m}{8},\;\;\;\;\;\forall a,a^\prime\in\cP_m.
$$
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p}. General construction of a finite set of functions}
\par
1$^0$. For any $t\in\bR$ set
$$
\Lambda(t)=
\bigg(\int_{-1}^1 e^{-1/(1-u^2)}\rd u\bigg)^{-1}
e^{-1/(1-t^2)}\; \mathbf{1}_{[-1,1]}(t).
$$
Note that
$\Lambda$ is a probability density
compactly supported on $[-1,1]$ and infinitely differentiable on the real line,
$\Lambda\in \bC^{\infty}(\bR^1)$.
Obviously, for any
$\alpha>0$ and $r\geq 1$ there exists constant $c_1=c_1(\alpha,r)<\infty$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq1:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
\Lambda\in\bN_{r,1}(\alpha,c_1).
\end{equation}
\par
Define
$$
\bar{f}^{(0)}(x)=
\prod_{l=1}^d\bigg[ \frac{1}{N}
\int_{\bR^1}\Lambda(y-x_l)\mathbf{1}_{[-\frac{N}{2},\frac{N}{2}]}(y)\rd y\bigg],\;\;\;\;\;
x=(x_1,\ldots,x_d)\in \bR^d,
$$
where parameter $N=N(n)>8$ will be chosen later.
By construction,
$\bar{f}^{(0)}$ is a probability density for any choice of
$N$, ${\rm supp}(\bar{f}^{(0)})=[-N/2-1, N/2+1]^d$, and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bar-f-0}
\bar{f}^{(0)}(x)=N^{-d},\;\;\;\forall x \in \big[-N/2+1, N/2-1\big]^d.
\end{equation}
Moreover,
in view of (\ref{eq1:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and by the Young inequality,
there exist constants $\vec{C}=\big(\tilde{C}_1,\ldots,\tilde{C}_d\big)$
depending on $\vec{\beta}$ and $\vec{r}$ only
such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq2:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
\bar{f}^{(0)}\in\bN_{\vec{r},d}\big(\vec{\beta},\vec{C}\big).
\end{equation}
Note that
$\vec{C}$ do not depend on $N$.
\par
Let $L_0>0$ be fixed, and let $f^{(0)}(x)=\kappa^{d}\bar{f}^{(0)}\big(x\kappa\big)$,
where $\kappa>0$
is chosen in such a way that $f^{(0)}$ belongs to the class
$\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},2^{-1}\vec{L}_0)$, where $\vec{L}_0=(L_0,\ldots,L_0)$.
The existence of such
$\kappa$ independent of $N$ and determined by
$\vec{\beta}$, $\vec{r}$ and $L_0$ is
guaranteed by (\ref{eq2:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}).
Note also that $f^{(0)}$ is a probability density. Moreover, we remark that
$\|\bar{f}^{(0)}\|_\infty\leq N^{-d}$ since $\int |\Lambda|=1$.
Thus,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq2-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
f^{(0)}\in \bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta}, \vec{L}_0/2, M/2),
\end{equation}
provided that $N>(2M^{-1})^{1/d}\kappa$. This condition is assumed to be fulfilled.
\par
\medskip
2$^0$. Put for any $t\in\bR^1$
$$
g(t)= \int_{\bR^1}\Lambda(y-t)\Big[\mathbf{1}_{[0,1]}(y)-\mathbf{1}_{[-1,0]}(y)\Big]\rd y.
$$
We obviously have $g\in\bC^\infty(\bR^1)$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq3:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&& ({\rm i})\;\;\int_{\bR^1} g(y)\rd y =0,\qquad ({\rm ii})\;\;\text{supp}(g)\subseteq [-2,2],\qquad
({\rm iii})\;\;\|g\|_\infty\leq 1.
\end{eqnarray}
\par
For any
$l=1,\ldots,d$ let
$(20\kappa)^{-1}>\sigma_l=\sigma_l(n)\to 0$, $n\to\infty$, be the sequences
to be specified later. Let
$M_l=(20\kappa\sigma_l)^{-1}N$,
and without loss of generality assume that $M_l$, $l=1,\ldots, d$ are integer numbers.
Define also
$$
x_{j,l}=-\frac{N-4}{4\kappa}+8j\sigma_l,\;\;\; j=1,\ldots, M_l,\;\;l=1,\ldots,d,
$$
and let $\cM=\{1,\ldots, M_1\}\times\cdots\times\{1,\ldots, M_d\}$.
For any $m=(m_1,\ldots,m_d)\in \cM$ define
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&G_m(x)=\prod_{l=1}^dg\left(\frac{x_l-x_{m_l,l}}{\sigma_l}\right),\quad x\in\bR^d,
\\
&&\Pi_m=\big[x_{m_1,1}-3\sigma_1,x_{m_1,1}+3\sigma_1\big]
\times\cdots\times\big[x_{m_d,d}-3\sigma_d,x_{m_d,d}-3\sigma_d\big]\subset\bR^d.
\end{eqnarray*}
Several remarks on these definitions are in order.
First, in view of (\ref{eq3:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})(ii)
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq5:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&&\text{supp}\big(G_m\big)\subset \Pi_m,\quad \forall m\in\cM,
\\*[2mm]
\label{eq6:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&& \Pi_m\cap \Pi_j=\emptyset,\quad \forall m, j\in\cM:\;\;m\neq j.
\end{eqnarray}
Second, since $g\in\bC^{\infty}(\bR^1)$, we have that
$G_m\in\bC^{\infty}(\bR^d)$ for any $m\in\cM$.
Moreover, for any $l=1,\ldots,d$, any $|h|\leq\sigma_l$
and any integer $k$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq7:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&&\text{supp}\Big\{\Delta_{h,l}\, (D^{k}_lG_m) \Big\}\subseteq \Pi_m,
\quad \forall m\in\cM,
\end{eqnarray}
where $D^k_l G$ stands for the $k$th order derivative of a function $G$ with respect
to the variable $x_l$, and $\Delta_{h,l}$ is the first order difference operator with step size
$h$ in direction of the variable $x_l$.
\par
For $m\in \cM$ define
\begin{eqnarray*}
\pi(m)=\sum_{j=1}^{d-1}(m_j-1)\bigg(\prod_{l=j+1}^d M_l\bigg)+m_d.
\end{eqnarray*}
It is easily checked that $\pi$ defines enumeration of the set $\cM$, and
$\pi:\cM\to \{1,2\ldots,|\cM|\} $ is a bijection.
Let $W$ be a subset of $\{0,1\}^{|\cM|}$.
Define a family of functions $\{F_w, w\in W\}$ by
$$
F_w(x)=A\sum_{m\in\cM}w_{\pi(m)}G_m(x),\;\;\;\;x\in \bR^d,
$$
where $w_j$, $j=1,\ldots, |\cM|$ are
the coordinates of $w$, and $A$ is a parameter to be specified.
It follows from
(\ref{eq3:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})(iii), (\ref{eq5:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and
(\ref{eq6:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq8-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
\big\|F_{w}\big\|_\infty\leq A,\quad \forall w\in W,
\end{equation}
and (\ref{eq3:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})(i) implies that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq9:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
\int_{\bR^d}F_{w}(x)\rd x=0,\quad \forall w\in W.
\end{equation}
\par\medskip
3$^0$.
Now we find conditions
which guarantee that
$F_{w}\in \bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},2^{-1}\vec{L})$
for any
$w\in W$.
\par
Fix $l=1,\ldots,d$, and
let
$k_l=\lfloor\beta_l\rfloor+1$ if $\beta_l\notin\bN^*$, and
$k_l=\lfloor\beta_l\rfloor+2$ if $\beta_l\in\bN^*$ (here $\lfloor x \rfloor$ stands for the
maximal integer number strictly less than $x$).
\par
First, for any $w\in W$ and $h\in\bR$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq10:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
\Big\|\Delta^{k_l}_{h,l} F_w\Big\|_{r_l}=
\Big\|\Delta^{k_l-1}_{h,l} (\Delta_{h,l} F_w)\Big\|_{r_l}
\leq |h|^{k_l-1}\Big\| \Delta_{h,l} (D^{k_l-1}_lF_w)\Big\|_{r_l},
\end{equation}
where the last inequality is found in \cite[Section~4.4.4]{Nikolski}.
Next, in view of (\ref{eq6:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and
(\ref{eq7:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) we obtain for any $w\in W$
and any $r_l\neq\infty$
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \Big\| \Delta_{h,l} (D^{k_l-1}_l F_w)\Big\|^{r_l}_{r_l}
\;=\;
\sum_{j\in\cM}\int_{\Pi_j}\Big| \Delta_{h,l} (D^{k_l-1}_lF_w)(x)\Big|^{r_l}\rd x
\nonumber
\\
&&\;\;\;
=\; A^{r_l} \sum_{j\in\cM}w_{\pi(j)}\int_{\Pi_j}\Big| \Delta_{h,l} (D^{k_l-1}_l G_j)(x)\Big|^{r_l}\rd x
\nonumber\\*[2mm]
&&\;\;\;\leq\; A^{r_l}S_W\big\|g\big\|^{(d-1)r_l}_{r_l}\sigma_l^{-(k_l-1)r_l}
\bigg(\prod_{j=1}^d\sigma_j\bigg)\Big\|g^{(k_l-1)}\Big(\cdot-\frac{h}{\sigma_l}\Big)
-g^{(k_l-1)}(\cdot)\Big\|^{r_l}_{r_l},
\end{eqnarray*}
where we have put
$S_W:=\sup_{w\in W}|\{j:\;w_j\neq 0\}|$. Thus, for any $r_l\neq\infty$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq11:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
\Big\| \Delta_{h,l} (D^{k_l-1}_l F_w)\Big\|_{r_l}\leq\; A \big\|g\big\|^{(d-1)r_l}_{r_l}\sigma_l^{-(k_l-1)}
\bigg(S_W\prod_{j=1}^d\sigma_j\bigg)^{\frac{1}{r_l}}\Big\|g^{(k_l-1)}\Big(\cdot-\frac{h}{\sigma_l}\Big)
-g^{(k_l-1)}(\cdot)\Big\|_{r_l}.
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, we get for any $w\in W$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq11-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&& \Big\| \Delta_{h,l} (D^{k_l-1}_l F_w)\Big\|_{\infty}
\;=\;
\sup_{j\in\cM}\sup_{x\in\Pi_j}\Big| \Delta_{h,l} (D^{k_l-1}_lF_w)(x)\Big|
\nonumber
\\
&&\;\;\;
=\; A \sup_{j\in\cM}w_{\pi(j)}\sup_{x\in\Pi_j}\Big| \Delta_{h,l} (D^{k_l-1}_l G_j)(x)\Big|
\nonumber\\*[2mm]
&&\;\;\;\leq\; A \big\|g\big\|^{(d-1)}_{\infty}\sigma_l^{-(k_l-1)}
\Big\|g^{(k_l-1)}\Big(\cdot-\frac{h}{\sigma_l}\Big)
-g^{(k_l-1)}(\cdot)\Big\|_{\infty}.
\end{eqnarray}
\par
In view of (\ref{eq3:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})(ii)
and $|h|\leq\sigma_l$,
function $g^{(k_l-1)}\big(\cdot-[h/\sigma_l]\big)
-g^{(k_l-1)}(\cdot)$ is supported on $[-3,3]$. Therefore
the fact that $g\in\bC^{\infty}(\bR^1)$ implies for any $r_l\in [1,\infty]$
$$
\Big\|g^{(k_l-1)}\big(\cdot-h/\sigma_l\big)
-g^{(k_l-1)}(\cdot)\Big\|_{r_l}\leq 6^{1/r_l}\big\|g^{(k_l)}\big\|_{\infty}(h/\sigma_l)\leq
6^{1/r_l}\big\|g^{(k_l)}\big\|_{\infty}|h/\sigma_l|^{\beta_l-k_l+1}.
$$
In the last inequality
we have used that $0\leq \beta_l-k_l+1\leq 1$ by definition of $k_l$.
Combining this with
(\ref{eq10:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}), (\ref{eq11:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and (\ref{eq11-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})
we have for any $|h|\leq\sigma_l$ and any $r_l\in [1,\infty]$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq12:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&&\Big\|\Delta^{k_l}_{h,l} F_w\Big\|_{r_l}
\leq A|h|^{\beta_l}6^{1/r_l}\big\|g\big\|_{r_l}^{d-1}\big\|g^{(k_l)}\big\|_{\infty}
\sigma_l^{-\beta_l}\bigg(S_W\prod_{j=1}^d\sigma_j\bigg)^{1/r_l}.
\end{eqnarray}
\par
If $|h|\geq\sigma_l$ then we note that
$\Delta_{h,l}(D^{k_l-1}_l F_w)(\cdot)=(D^{k_l-1}_lF_w)(\cdot-h e_l)-(D^{k_l-1}_lF_w)(\cdot)$,
and
by the triangle inequality
$$
\Big\| \Delta_{h,l}(D^{k_l-1}_l F_w)\Big\|_{r_l}\leq
2 \Big\|D^{k_l-1}_l F_w\Big\|_{r_l}\leq 2 \Big\|D^{k_l-1}_lF_w
\Big\|_{r_l}|h/\sigma_l|^{\beta_l-k_l+1}.
$$
In view of (\ref{eq5:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and
(\ref{eq6:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) we get for any $w\in W$ and any $r_l\neq\infty$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big\|D^{k_l-1}_l F_w\Big\|^{r_l}_{r_l}&=&
\sum_{j\in\cM}\int_{\Pi_j}\Big|D^{k_l-1}_l F_w(x)\Big|^{r_l}\rd x
=A^{r_l}\sum_{j\in\cM}w_{\pi(j)}\int_{\Pi_j}\Big|D^{k_l-1}_lG_j(x)\Big|^{r_l}\rd x
\nonumber\\*[2mm]
&\leq& A^{r_l}S_W\big\|g\big\|^{(d-1)r_l}_{r_l}\Big\|g^{(k_l-1)}\Big\|^{r_l}_{r_l}\sigma_l^{(1-k_l)r_l}
\bigg(\prod_{j=1}^d\sigma_j\bigg).
\end{eqnarray*}
Moreover,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big\|D^{k_l-1}_l F_w\Big\|_{\infty}&=&
\sup_{j\in\cM}\sup_{x\in\Pi_j}\Big|D^{k_l-1}_l F_w(x)\Big|
=A\sup_{j\in\cM}w_{\pi(j)}\sup_{x\in\Pi_j}\Big|D^{k_l-1}_lG_j(x)\Big|
\nonumber\\*[2mm]
&\leq& A\big\|g\big\|^{(d-1)}_{\infty}\Big\|g^{(k_l-1)}\Big\|_{\infty}\sigma_l^{(1-k_l)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We obtain finally from (\ref{eq10:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) that
for any $|h|\geq\sigma_l$ and any $r_l\in [1,\infty]$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq13:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&&\Big\|\Delta^{k_l}_{h,l} F_w\Big\|_{r_l}
\leq A|h|^{\beta_l}2\big\|g\big\|^{d-1}_{r_l}\big\|g^{(k_l-1)}\big\|_{r_l}
\sigma_l^{-\beta_l}\bigg(S_W\prod_{j=1}^d\sigma_j\bigg)^{1/r_l}.
\end{eqnarray}
Combining
(\ref{eq12:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and (\ref{eq13:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})
we conclude that for any $w\in W$ and $r_l\in [1,\infty]$
$$
\Big\|\Delta^{k_l}_{h,l} F_w\Big\|_{r_l}\leq C_1 A|h|^{\beta_l}
\sigma_l^{-\beta_l}\bigg(S_W\prod_{j=1}^d\sigma_j\bigg)^{1/r_l},\quad\forall h\in\bR^1,
$$
where
$C_1=\max_{l}(\|g\big\|_{r_l}^{d-1}
\max\{6^{1/r_l}\|g^{(k_l)}\|_{\infty},2\|g^{(k_l-1)}\|_{r_l}\})$.
Thus, if
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq14:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&&A\sigma_l^{-\beta_l}
\bigg(S_W\prod_{j=1}^d\sigma_j\bigg)^{1/r_l}\leq (2C_1)^{-1} L_l,\quad\forall l=1,\ldots, d
\end{eqnarray}
then $F_{w}\in\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},2^{-1}\vec{L})$ for any $w\in W$.
\par\medskip
4$^0.$ Define for any $w\in W$
$$
f_w(x)=f^{(0)}(x)+F_{w}(x),\;\;\;\;\; x\in\bR^d.
$$
Remind that $f^{(0)}$
is the probability density belonging to $\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}_0/2, M/2)$.
Therefore, in view of
(\ref{eq9:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and under condition (\ref{eq14:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}),
for any $w\in W$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq15:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&& \int_{\bR^d} f_w(x) \rd x=1,\;\;\;\; f_w\in \bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}),
\end{eqnarray}
where the latter inclusion holds
because $\min_{j=1,\ldots,d}L_j\geq L_0$.
\par
By construction of $F_{w}$, for any $w\in W$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq16:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&& F_{w}(x)=0, \quad \;\;\;\;\forall x\notin
\Big[-\frac{1}{4\kappa}(N-4), \;\frac{1}{4\kappa}(N+4)\Big]^d.
\end{eqnarray}
This yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq1600:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&&f_w(x)=f^{(0)}(x)\geq 0, \quad \forall x\notin \Big[-\frac{1}{4\kappa}(N-4),
\;\frac{1}{4\kappa}(N+4)\Big]^d.
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, by (\ref{eq:bar-f-0})
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq160:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
f^{(0)}(x)=\kappa^{d} N^{-d},\quad\;\;\; \forall x\in
\Big[-\frac{1}{4\kappa}(N-4), \;\frac{1}{4\kappa}(N+4)\Big]^d.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, if we require
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq17:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&& A\leq \kappa^d N^{-d},
\end{eqnarray}
this
together with (\ref{eq10:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) implies
$$
f_w(x)\geq 0,\;\;\;\quad \forall x\in\Big[-\frac{1}{4\kappa}(N-4), \;\frac{1}{4\kappa}(N+4)\Big]^d.
$$
We conclude that $f_w\geq 0$ for any $w\in W$.
Moreover, we get from (\ref{eq2-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}),
(\ref{eq8-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and
(\ref{eq17:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) that $\|f_w\|_\infty \leq M$ for any $w\in W$.
\par
All this, together
with (\ref{eq15:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}), shows that
$\{f^{(0)}, f_w, w\in W\}$ is a finite set of probability densities
from
$\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M)$.
Thus Lemma~\ref{lem:tsyb_book-result} is applicable with $\cJ_n=W$ and $\bF= \bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M)$.
\par
\medskip
5$^0$. Suppose now that the set $W$ is chosen so that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq18:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&& \varrho_{|\cM|}\big(w,w^\prime\big)\geq B,\quad\forall w,w^\prime\in W,
\end{eqnarray}
where, we remind, $\varrho_{|\cM|}$ is the Hamming distance on $\{0,1\}^{|\cM|}$.
Here $B=B(n)\geq 1$ is a parameter to be specified.
Then
we deduce from (\ref{eq15:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}),
(\ref{eq5:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and (\ref{eq6:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}), that for all $w,w^\prime\in W$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq19:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
\left\|f_w-f_{w^\prime}\right\|^{p}_p&=& \left\|F_w-F_{w^\prime}\right\|^{p}_p
=A^p\sum_{j\in\cM}\left|w_{\pi(j)}-w^\prime_{\pi(j)}\right|\int_{\Pi_j}\Big|G_j(x)\Big|^{p}\rd x
\nonumber\\
&=&A^{p}\big\|g\big\|^{dp}_{p}
\bigg(\prod_{j=1}^d\sigma_j\bigg)\sum_{j\in\cM}\left|w_{\pi(j)}-w^\prime_{\pi(j)}\right|=
A^{p}\big\|g\big\|^{dp}_{p}
\bigg(\prod_{j=1}^d\sigma_j\bigg)\varrho_{|\cM|}\big(w,w^\prime\big)
\nonumber\\
&\geq& \big\|g\big\|^{dp}_{p}A^pB\bigg(\prod_{j=1}^d\sigma_j\bigg).
\end{eqnarray}
Here we have used that the map $\pi$ is a bijection. Putting
$C_2=\frac{1}{2}\big\|g\big\|^{d}_{p}$,
we conclude that condition (\ref{eq:ass1-klp-lemma})
of Lemma~\ref{lem:tsyb_book-result} is fulfilled with
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq20:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&& \rho_n=C_2A\bigg(B\prod_{j=1}^d\sigma_j\bigg)^{1/p}.
\end{eqnarray}
Let us remark that (\ref{eq20:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) remains true if we formally put $p=\infty$. Indeed, similarly to
(\ref{eq19:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}),
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq190:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&&\left\|f_w-f_{w^\prime}\right\|_\infty= \left\|F_w-F_{w^\prime}\right\|_\infty
=A\sup_{j\in\cM}\big|w_{j}-w^\prime_{j}\big|\big\|g\big\|^{d}_{\infty}\geq A\big\|g\big\|^{d}_{\infty}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here we have used (\ref{eq6:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}),
the fact that the map $\pi$ is a bijection and, that
$w\neq w^\prime$ for all $w,w^\prime\in W$ in view of (\ref{eq18:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}).
\par
Now we verify condition (\ref{eq:ass2-klp-lemma}) of Lemma~\ref{lem:tsyb_book-result}.
First observe that
$$
\frac{\rd \bP_{f_w}}{\rd \bP_{f^{(0)}}}\big(X^{(n)}\big)=
\prod_{k=1}^n\frac{f_w(X_k)}{f^{(0)}(X_k)}.
$$
Since $X_k$, $k=1,\ldots,n$ are i.i.d. random vectors, we have for any $w\in W$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\bE_{f^{(0)}}\Bigg\{
\prod_{k=1}^n\frac{f_w(X_k)}{f^{(0)}(X_k)}
\Bigg\}^{2}&=&\Bigg\{\int_{\bR^d}
\frac{ f^{(0)}(x)+2F_w(x)+F^{2}_w(x)}{f^{(0)}(x)}\rd x
\Bigg\}^{n}
\nonumber\\
&=&\Bigg\{1+\int_{\bR^d}\frac{F^{2}_w(x)}{f^{(0)}(x)}\rd x
\Bigg\}^{n}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The last equality follows from (\ref{eq9:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}).
By
(\ref{eq16:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and (\ref{eq160:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}),
$$
\int_{\bR^d}\frac{F^{2}_w(x)}{f^{(0)}(x)}\rd x=
\kappa^{-d}N^d \|F_w\|_2^2;
$$
hence for any $w\in W$
\begin{equation*}
\bE_{f^{(0)}}\Bigg\{
\frac{\rd \bP_{f_w}}{\rd \bP_{f^{(0)}}}
\big(X^{(n)}\big)
\Bigg\}^{2}=\Big\{1+\kappa^{-d}N^d \|F_w\big\|_2^2
\Big\}^{n}\leq\exp{\Big\{n\kappa^{-d}N^d \|F_w\big\|_2^2
\Big\}}.
\end{equation*}
Repeating computations that led to (\ref{eq13:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) we have
$$
\big\|F_w\big\|_2^2\leq A^{2}\|g\|^{2d}_{2} S_W\prod_{j=1}^d\sigma_j.
$$
The right hand side of the latter inequality does not depend on $w$; hence we
$$
\frac{1}{|W|^{2}}\sum_{w\in W}\bE_{f^{(0)}}
\Bigg\{
\frac{\rd \bP_{f_w}}{\rd \bP_{f^{(0)}}}\big(X^{(n)}\big)
\Bigg\}^{2}\leq
\exp\Big\{C_3n A^2S_W N^d\bigg(\prod_{j=1}^d\sigma_j\bigg)-\ln{\big(|W|\big)}
\Big\},
$$
where we have put $C_3=\kappa^{-d}\|g\big\|^{2d}_{2}$.
Therefore, if
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq22:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
C_4nA^2S_WN^d \prod_{j=1}^d \sigma_j\leq\ln{\big(|W|\big)}
\end{eqnarray}
then condition
(\ref{eq:ass2-klp-lemma}) of Lemma \ref{lem:tsyb_book-result} is fulfilled with $C=1$.
\par
In order to apply Lemma~\ref{lem:tsyb_book-result}
it remains to specify the set $W$ and the parameters $A$,
$N$, $\sigma_j$, $j=1,\ldots,d$ so that
the relationships
(\ref{eq14:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}), (\ref{eq17:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}),
(\ref{eq18:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}),
and (\ref{eq22:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) are simultaneously fulfilled.
According to (\ref{lem:tsyb_book-result}),
under these conditions the lower bound is given by $\rho_n$ in
(\ref{eq20:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}).
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p}. Derivation of lower bounds in different zones}
We begin with the construction of the set $W$.
Let $m\geq 8$ be an integer number whose choice will be made later,
and, without loss of generality, assume that $|\cM|/m$ is integer.
Let $\cP_m$ be a subset of $\{0,1\}^{m}$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq24-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
|\cP_m|\geq 2^{m/8},\;\;\;\varrho_{m}(z,z^\prime)\geq m/8,\;\;\forall z,z^\prime \in \cP_m.
\end{eqnarray}
Existence of such set $\cP_m$ is guaranteed by
Lemma~\ref{lem:V-G-lemma}.
Let $\cJ:=\{1+\frac{j}{m}|\cM|, \;j=0,\ldots, m-1\}$,
and note that $\cJ\subseteq\{1,\ldots,|\cM|\}$
with the equality in the case $m=|\cM|$.
Define the map $\Upsilon: \cP_m\to \{0,1\}^{|\cM|}$ by
$$
\Upsilon_j[a]=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
a_j,\quad & j\in\cJ,
\\
0,\quad & j\in\{1,\ldots,|\cM|\}\setminus\cJ,
\end{array}
\right.
$$
and let $W=\Upsilon(\cP_m)$.
Obviously,
$\varrho_{|\cM|}(w,w^\prime)=\varrho_{|\cM|}(\Upsilon[a],\Upsilon[a^\prime])=
\varrho_m(a,a^\prime)$
for all $w,w^\prime\in W$; therefore
(\ref{eq24-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) implies
that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq25-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
|W|\geq 2^{m/8},\;\;\;\varrho_{|\cM|}(w,w^\prime)\geq 8^{-1}m,\;\;\forall w,w^\prime \in W.
\end{eqnarray}
With such a set $W$, $S_W\leq m$; moreover, since $\ln(|W|)\geq m\ln 2/8$,
condition (\ref{eq22:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) holds true if
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq24:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&&A^{2}n N^d \prod_{j=1}^d \sigma_j \leq (8C_4)^{-1}\ln 2.
\end{eqnarray}
We also note that condition (\ref{eq14:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) is fulfilled if we require
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq26-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
A\sigma_l^{-\beta_l} \bigg(m\prod_{j=1}^d \sigma_j\bigg)^{1/r_l}\leq (2C_1)^{-1} L_l,\quad\forall
l=1,\ldots, d.
\end{eqnarray}
In addition,
(\ref{eq18:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})
holds with $B=m/8$.
\subsubsection{Tail zone: $p\leq \frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s}$}\label{subsec:tail}
Let $m=|\cM|$. By construction,
$|\cM|=\prod_{l=1}^d M_l= (20\kappa)^{-d}N^d\prod_{l=1}^d\sigma_l^{-1}$ and, therefore
(\ref{eq26-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) is reduced to
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq2700-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
A\sigma_l^{-\beta_l}N^{d/r_l}\leq C_5L_l.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, choosing
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq27-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
\sigma_l=C_6 A^{1/\beta_l}
L_l^{- 1/\beta_l} N^{\frac{d}{\beta_l r_l}},
\end{eqnarray}
we guarantee the fulfillment of
(\ref{eq2700-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})
provided that $C_6\geq\max_{l=1,\ldots,d}C^{-1/\beta_l}_5$.
Moreover, with this choice (\ref{eq24:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) is reduced to
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq27:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&& A^{2+1/\beta}N^{d(1+1/s)}\leq C_7 L_\beta n^{-1},
\end{eqnarray}
where, as before, $L_\beta=\prod_{l=1}^d L_l^{1/\beta_l}$.
Moreover, we have from (\ref{eq20:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq26:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&& \rho_n=C_8 AN^{d/p},\;\;\;C_8=C_3(160\kappa)^{-1/p}.
\end{eqnarray}
\par
Let $N^d=C_9A^{-1}$, where constant $C_9\leq\kappa^{d}$ will be specified below;
then
(\ref{eq17:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) holds.
Next, in view of (\ref{eq27:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and (\ref{eq26:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})
$$
A=C_{10}(L_\beta/n)^{\frac{1}{1-1/s+1/\beta}},\qquad \rho_n=C_{11}(L_\beta/n)^{\frac{1-1/p}{1-1/s+1/\beta}}=C_{11}\big(L_\beta\alpha_n n^{-1}\big)^{\nu}.
$$
We remark that $N\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$.
It remains to check that $\sigma_l$, $l=1,\ldots, d$ are small enough.
It follows from (\ref{eq27-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) that if
$r_l>1$, then $\sigma_l\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$ since $A\to 0$.
If $r_l=1$, then
$$
\sigma_l=C_{12} C_9^{1/\beta_l }
L_l^{- 1/\beta_l}\leq C_{12}\big(C_9/L_{0}\big)^{1/\beta_l}.
$$
Choosing $C_9$ small enough we guarantee that $\sigma_l\leq (20\kappa)^{-1}$, for all $l=1,\ldots,d$.
This condition is required
in the construction of the family $G_{m}$, $m\in\cM$.
Thus, Lemma~\ref{lem:tsyb_book-result} can be applied with
$\rho_n=C_{11}\big(L_\beta\alpha_n n^{-1}\big)^{\nu}$, and the result follows.
\subsubsection{Dense zone: $\frac{2+1/\beta}{1+1/s} \leq p\leq s(2+\frac{1}{\beta})$}
Here, as in the previous case, we let $m=|\cM|$.
The relationships (\ref{eq27-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})
(\ref{eq27:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and (\ref{eq26:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})
remain to be true, but our choice of $N$ will be different.
\par
Let $N=C_{12}$ from some constant $C_{12}$. This
yields in view of (\ref{eq27:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and
(\ref{eq26:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})
$$
A=C_{13}(L_\beta/n)^{\frac{\beta}{2\beta+1}},\qquad \rho_n=C_{14}(L_\beta/n)^{\frac{\beta}{2\beta+1}}=C_{14}\big(L_\beta\alpha_n n^{-1}\big)^{\nu}.
$$
The requirement (\ref{eq17:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) is
obviously fulfilled since $A\to 0,\;n\to\infty$. Moreover, we obtain from
(\ref{eq27-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) that $\sigma_l\to 0$
as $n\to\infty$ and, therefore,
$\sigma_l\leq (20\kappa)^{-1}$, $l=1,\ldots,d$ for $n$ large enough.
Thus, Lemma~\ref{lem:tsyb_book-result} can be applied with
$\rho_n=C_{14}\big(L_\beta\alpha_n n^{-1}\big)^{\nu}$ and the result follows.
\iffalse
\par
In fact, we note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{2+ 1/\beta}&=& \frac{1}{2+ 1/\beta}\;\wedge\;
\frac{1- 1/p}{1- 1/s + 1/\beta},
\qquad p\geq \frac{2+ 1/\beta}{1+ 1/s};
\\*[2mm]
\frac{1- 1/p}{1- 1/s+ 1/\beta}&=&
\frac{1}{2+ 1/\beta}\;\wedge\;
\frac{1- 1/p}{1- 1/s + 1/\beta},
\qquad p \leq \frac{2+1/\beta}{1+ 1/s},
\end{eqnarray*}
which means that
Lemma~\ref{lem:tsyb_book-result} can be applied with
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq28:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&&\rho_n=
C_{13}\max\Big\{
(L_\beta n^{-1})^{\frac{1-1/p}{1-1/s+1/\beta}},\; (L_\beta n^{-1})^{\frac{1}{2+1/\beta}}\Big\}.
\end{eqnarray}
\fi
\subsubsection{Sparse zone: $s(2+\frac{1}{\beta})<p<\infty$, $s<1$}
Let
$A=\tilde{C}$ and $N=C_{17}$ and suppose that
$\tilde{C}\leq C^{-1}_{17} \kappa^{d}$;
then
(\ref{eq17:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})
is satisfied.
Moreover (\ref{eq24:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and (\ref{eq26-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})
are reduced to
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq240-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&&n \prod_{j=1}^d \sigma_j \leq \tilde{C}^{-2}C_{18},\qquad
\sigma_l^{-\beta_l} \bigg(m\prod_{j=1}^d \sigma_j\bigg)^{1/r_l}\leq \widetilde{C}^{-1}C_{19}L_l,
\quad\forall l=1,\ldots,d.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $\tilde{c_1}$, $\tilde{c}_2$ be constants satisfying $\tilde{c_1}\leq \tilde{C}^{-1}C_{18}$,
and $\tilde{c}_2\leq \tilde{C}^{-1}C_{19}$. It is straightforward to check that if we
choose
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq2400-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
m=\tilde{c}_1^{-1+s}\tilde{c}_2^{s/\beta}L_\beta^{s}n^{1-s},\qquad
\sigma_l=
(\tilde{c}_2L_l)^{-1/\beta_l}\left(\tilde{c}_1\tilde{c}_2^{1/\beta}L_\beta n^{-1}\right)^{s/(\beta_lr_l)},
\quad l=1,\ldots,d,
\end{eqnarray}
then inequalities (\ref{eq240-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})
are fulfilled.
With this choice
(\ref{eq20:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) is reduced to
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq241-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
\rho_n= \widetilde{C}C_{17}\bigg(m\prod_{j=1}^d\sigma_j\bigg)^{1/p}=\widetilde{C}C_{20}(L_\beta n^{-1})^{s/p}=\widetilde{C}C_{20}\big(L_\beta\alpha_n n^{-1}\big)^{\nu}.
\end{eqnarray}
It remains to verify that $\sigma_l$ are small enough, and that $m\geq 8$, $|\cM|/\mm \geq 1$.
Note that
$m\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$ because of $s<1$.
Remind also that
$$
|\cM|=\prod_{l=1}^d M_l= (20\kappa)^{-d}N^d\prod_{l=1}^d\sigma_l^{-1}
= (20\kappa)^{-d} C_{17}^d \tilde{c}_1 n\,;
$$
hence
$|\cM|/m\geq (20\kappa)^{-d}C_{17}^d (\tilde{c}_1\tilde{c}_2^{1/\beta})^{-s}L_0^{-s/\beta}n^s$.
Thus $|\cM|/m\geq 1$ for large enough $n$.
We note also that
$\sigma_l\leq (\tilde{c}_2L_0)^{-1/\beta_l}$
for all $n$ large enough. Therefore, if we choose $\tilde{C}$ large enough and put
$\tilde{c}_2=\tilde{C}^{-1} C_{19}$ we can ensure that
$\sigma_l\leq (20\kappa)^{-1}$ for all $l=1,\ldots,d$.
Thus, Lemma~\ref{lem:tsyb_book-result} can be applied with $\rho_n=\widetilde{C}C_{20}\big(L_\beta\alpha_n n^{-1}\big)^{\nu}$ and the result follows.
\subsubsection{Sparse zone: $s(2+\frac{1}{\beta})<p<\infty$, $s\geq 1$}
Here we consider another choice of the set $W$. Let
$W=\{e_1,e_2,\ldots,e_{|\cM|}\}$, where $e_j$, $j=1,\ldots,|\cM|$ is the canonical
basis in $\bR^{|\cM|}$. With this choice
$$
S_W=1,\qquad |W|= N^d\prod_{j=1}^d\sigma_j^{-1},
$$
and (\ref{eq18:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})
holds with $B=1$. Let $N=C_{14}$; then
(\ref{eq14:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and (\ref{eq22:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})
take the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq29:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
A\sigma_l^{-\beta_l}
\bigg(\prod_{j=1}^d \sigma_j\bigg)^{1/r_l}
&\leq&(2C_1)^{-1} L_l,\quad\forall l=1,\ldots, d;
\\
\label{eq30:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
A^{2}n\prod_{j=1}^d \sigma_j &\leq& C_{15}\ln{\Big(\prod_{j=1}^d \sigma^{-1}_j\Big)}.
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, we get from (\ref{eq20:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq31:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&& \rho_n=C_{16} A\Big(\prod_{j=1}^d\sigma_j\Big)^{1/p}.
\end{eqnarray}
Put $\e=\sqrt{\ln n/n}$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq31-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&&\;\;A=c_1L_\beta^{\frac{1}{2-2/s+1/\beta}}\e^{\frac{1-1/s}{1-1/s+
1/(2\beta)}},\qquad
\sigma_{l}=c_2L_\beta^{\frac{1- 2/r_{l}}{\beta_l(2-2/s+1/\beta)}}
\e^{\frac{1-1/s+1/(\beta r_l)}{\beta_l(1-1/s+
1/(2\beta))}} L_l^{-1/\beta_l}.
\end{eqnarray}
We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\prod_{l=1}^d\sigma_{l}=c_2^{d}L_\beta^{-\frac{2}{2-2/s + 1/\beta}}
\e^{\frac{1/\beta}{1- 1/s +
1/(2\beta)}},
\end{eqnarray*}
and it is evident that
$\prod_{l=1}^d\sigma_{l}\leq \e^{1/(\beta+1/2)}$ for all $n$ large enough;
hence
$\ln(\prod_{l=1}^d\sigma^{-1}_{l})\geq \ln n/(2\beta+1)$.
Then is is easily checked
that our choice (\ref{eq31-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) satisfies
(\ref{eq29:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and (\ref{eq30:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})
provided that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq33-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&& c_1\leq (2C_1)^{-1},\qquad c_2\leq 1\qquad
c_1^2c_2^{d}\leq C_{15}/(2\beta+1).
\end{eqnarray}
Here we have also used that $d-1/s\geq 0$. Note also that if $s>1$ then
$$
A\to 0,\qquad \max_{l=1,\ldots, d}\sigma_l\to 0,\quad n\to\infty,
$$
which ensures
(\ref{eq17:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and
$\sigma_l\leq (20\kappa)^{-1}$, $l=1,\ldots, d$ for all n large enough.
\par
On the other hand, if $s=1$ then
we should add to (\ref{eq33-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) the conditions
$$
c_1L_\beta^{\frac{1}{2-2/s+1/\beta}}\leq C_{14}\kappa^{d},\qquad
c_2\max_{l=1,\ldots,d}\bigg[L_\beta^{\frac{1/\beta_{l}- 2/(\beta_{l}r_{l})}{2-2/s+1/\beta}}
L_0^{-1/\beta_l}\bigg]\leq (20\kappa)^{-1}.
$$
Obviously, both restrictions hold if we choose $c_1$ and $c_2$ small enough,
but now these constants may depend on $\vec{L}$.
Note, however, that if
$\max_{l=1,\ldots,d}L_l\leq L_\infty$ then $c_1$ and $c_2$ can be chosen depending
on $L_0$ and $L_\infty$ only.
\par
Using (\ref{eq31:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and (\ref{eq31-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})
we conclude that Lemma \ref{lem:tsyb_book-result} is applicable with
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:sparse-s>1}
\rho_n=C_{16}L_\beta^{\frac{1/2- 1/p}{1- 1/s + 1/(2\beta)}}
\left(\frac{\ln n}{n}\right)^{\frac{1- 1/s + 1/(p\beta)}{2(1- 1/s +
1/(2\beta))}}=C_{16}L_\beta^{\frac{1/2- 1/p}{1- 1/s + 1/(2\beta)}-\nu}\left(\frac{L_\beta\alpha_n}{n}\right)^{\nu}.
\end{eqnarray}
that completes the proof of statement~(i) of the theorem.
\iffalse
It remains to note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1- 1/s+ 1/(p\beta)}{2(1- 1/s+
1/(2\beta))}&=& \frac{\beta}{2\beta+1}\;\wedge\;
\frac{1- 1/s + 1/(p\beta)}{2(1- 1/s+
1/(2\beta))}\,,
\qquad
\end{eqnarray*}
whenever $p\geq s(2+1/\beta)$ and $s\geq 1$.
This fact together with
(\ref{eq280:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and (\ref{eq:sparse-s>1})
\fi
\subsubsection{Proof of statement~(ii): sparse zone, $p=\infty$, $s\leq 1$}
The proof in this case coincides with the one
for the sparse zone with $s<1$.
Thus, we keep (\ref{eq240-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}),
(\ref{eq2400-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}), and, in view of (\ref{eq190:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}),
(\ref{eq241-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) is replaced by
$
\rho_n=\widetilde{C}C_{17}.
$
Since $\rho_n$ does not tend to $0$ as $n\to\infty$,
a consistent estimator does not exist. All other details of the proof remain unchanged.
This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p}.
\epr
\subsection{Proof of statement~(ii) of Theorem~\ref{th:upper-new}}
\label{subsec:(ii)-th-4}
The proof goes along the lines of the proof of
Theorem~\ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p} with modifications indicated below.
\par
We start with the following simple observation: for any $M>0$ and $y>0$ one has
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:inclusion-comp-sup-*}
\|g\|_\infty\leq M,\;\;
{\rm supp}\{g\}\subseteq [-y,y]^d \;\;\Rightarrow\;\; g\in
\bG_\theta\big(M(2y+4)^{d/\theta}\big),\;\;\forall\theta\in (0,1].
\end{equation}
This is an immediate consequence of the fact that
conditions $\|g\|_\infty\leq M$, ${\rm supp}\{g\}\subseteq [-y,y]^d$
imply that $\|g^*\|_\infty\leq M$ and ${\rm supp}\{g\}\subseteq [-y-2, y+2]^d$.
\iffalse
For any $y>0$ denote $\bK_y$ the set of all borel functions compactly supported on $[-y,y]^d$. Then, for any $M>0$ and $y>0$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:inclusion-comp-sup-*}
&&\bF(M)\cap\bK_y\subset\bG_\theta\left(M(2y+4)^{d/\theta}\right),\quad\forall\theta\in (0,1).
\end{eqnarray}
The latter inclusion follows from the obvious observation: if $g\in\bF(M)\cap\bK_y$ then $g^*\in\bF(M)\cap\bK_{y+2}$.
\fi
\par
Next, we note that the lower bounds of
Theorem~\ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p} in the dense and sparse zones
are proved over the set of compactly
supported densities. Hence they are valid also on
$\bG_\theta(R)\cap\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M)$, provided that $R$ is large enough.
Hence, if $p\geq \frac{2+1/\beta}{1/\theta+1/s}$ the assertion of the theorem follows.
\par
Let $p< \frac{2+1/\beta}{1/\theta+1/s}$.
The proof of the lower bound here differs from
the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p} only in
construction of the function $f^{(0)}$.
\par
Let $f^{(0)}$ be the function constructed exactly as
in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
with $N=N_0$ fixed throughout the asymptotics $n\to \infty$,
and such that
$f^{(0)}\in \bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},4^{-1}\vec{L}_0, 4^{-1}M)$.
Since $N_0$ is fixed, $f^{(0)}$ is compactly supported
and, by (\ref{eq:inclusion-comp-sup-*}) we have that $f^{(0)}\in\bG_\theta(R_1)$ for some large enough $R_1>0$.
Define
$$
\bar{f}^{(\theta)}(x)=
\prod_{l=1}^d\bigg[ N^{-1/\theta}
\int_{\bR}\Lambda(y-x_l)\mathbf{1}_{[-\frac{N}{2},\frac{N}{2}]}(y)\rd y\bigg],\;\;\;\;\;
x=(x_1,\ldots,x_d)\in \bR^d,
$$
where $N=N(n)\to\infty$ will be specified later. Let
$\tilde{f}^{(\theta)}(x)=\varsigma^{d}\bar{f}^{(\theta)}(\varsigma x)$,
where $\varsigma>0$ is chosen to guarantee
$\tilde{f}^{(\theta)}\in \bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},4^{-1}\vec{L}_0, 4^{-1}M)$.
We note however that, in contrast to the case $\theta=1$,
$\tilde{f}^{(\theta)}$ is not a probability density. In particular,
$\int \tilde{f}^{(\theta)}\to 0$ as $N\to \infty$,
because $\theta<1$.
Define
$$
f^{(\theta)}=(1-p_N)f^{(0)}+\tilde{f}^{(\theta)},
$$
where $p_N:=\int \tilde{f}^{(\theta)}$ ensures $\int f^{(\theta)}=1$.
Note also that $f^{(1)}=\tilde{f}^{(1)}$ since $\tilde{f}^{(1)}$ is a probability density and, therefore $p_N=1$.
Thus, we can assert that
\begin{eqnarray*}
f^{(\theta)}\in
\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},2^{-1}\vec{L}_0, 2^{-1}M),\quad \int f^{(\theta)}=1,\quad f^{(\theta)}\geq 0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that, by construction, $\tilde{f}^{(\theta)}$
is supported on the cube $\left[(-N/2-1)/\varsigma,(N/2+1)/\varsigma\right]^d$
and bounded by $N^{-d/\theta}\varsigma^d$. Therefore, in view of (\ref{eq:inclusion-comp-sup-*}),
$\tilde{f}^{(\theta)}\in\bG_\theta(R_2)$
for some large enough $R_2$.
\par
Let $W$ be the parameter set as defined in the proof
of Theorem~\ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p}. For any $w\in W$ and any
$\theta\leq 1$
we let
$$
f^{(\theta)}_w(x)=f^{(\theta)}(x)+F_{w}(x),\;\;\;\;\; x\in\bR^d,
$$
where functions $F_w$ are constructed as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p}.
If instead of (\ref{eq17:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) we require
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq17-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&& A\leq \big[\kappa^d+ \varsigma^{d}\big]N^{-d/\theta},
\end{eqnarray}
then we obtain in view of
(\ref{eq8-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) and
(\ref{eq17-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})
that $\{F_w,\;w\in W\}\subset\bG_\theta(R_3)$ for some large enough~$R_3$.
All said above one allows to conclude that
$\{f^{(\theta)},\;f^{(\theta)}_w,\;w\in W\}$ is a finite set of probability densities
from
$\bG_\theta(R)\cap\bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M)$ for some large enough $R>0$,
and Lemma~\ref{lem:tsyb_book-result} is applicable with $\cJ_n=W$ and $\bF=\bG_\theta(R)\cap \bN_{\vec{r},d}(\vec{\beta},\vec{L}, M)$.
Note also that if $\theta=1$ we come to the construction used in the proof of Theorem \ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p} and, therefore, the statement of the theorem
in the case $\theta=1$ follows.
\par
Suppose now that $\theta<1$. We will follow construction of the set $W$ for the tail zone which is given in
Subsection~\ref{subsec:tail}. Choose $m=|\cM|$ and
note that (\ref{eq2700-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}),
(\ref{eq27-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}),
(\ref{eq26:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) remain unchanged, while
(\ref{eq27:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) should be replaced by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq27-new-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
&& A^{2+ 1/\beta}N^{d(1/\theta+1/s)}\leq C_7 L_\beta n^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Now we choose
$N^d=cA^{-\theta}$ with $c\leq\kappa^{d}+\varsigma^{d}$; then
(\ref{eq17-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) is valid.
We obtain from (\ref{eq27-new-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p})
that
$$
A=C_{8}(L_\beta/n)^{\frac{1}{1-\theta/s+1/\beta}},\qquad
\rho_n=C_{9}(L_\beta/n)^{\frac{1-\theta/p}{1-\theta/s+1/\beta}}.
$$
Finally, because
(\ref{eq27-new:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}) remains intact,
$\sigma_l\to 0$ as $n\to \infty$ for any $l=1,\ldots, d$;
this follows from $A\to 0$ and $\theta<1$.
This completes the proof.
\epr
\subsection{Proof of the lower bound in (\ref{eq:lower-bound-new})}
\label{sec:proof-of-eq:lower-bound-new}
The required result will follow
from the lower bound
of Theorem~\ref{th:lower-bound-in-L_p}
in the tail zone (see Section~\ref{subsec:tail}) if
we will show that
for any given $R>0$ and $\theta\in (0,1)$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq300-new-new:}
f^{(0)}\notin\bG_\theta(R),\;\;f_w \notin \bG_\theta(R),\;\;\;\forall w\in W.
\end{eqnarray}
First we note that
$f^{(0)}=N^{-d}$ for $x\in [-(N-2)/(2\kappa), (N-2)/(2\kappa)\big]^d$;
therefore,
$\|[f^{(0)}]^*\|_\theta\to\infty$ as $N\to\infty$,
because $\theta<1$.
\par
Next, in view of (\ref{eq1600:proof-th:lower-bound-in-L_p}),
$f_w(x)=f^{(0)}(x)$ for any $x\notin [-(N-4)/(4\kappa),
\;(N-4)/(4\kappa)]^d$, which also implies
$$
\inf_{w\in W}\big\|f_w^*\big\|_\theta\to\infty,\quad N\to\infty.
$$
It remains to note that in the tail
zone the parameter $N$ is chosen so that $N=N(n)\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$.
This completes the proof
of (\ref{eq300-new-new:}).
\epr
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec-intro}
Understanding the behaviour of nonlinear wave resonances is of importance in numerical weather prediction, fusion reactors and in general in experiments in fibre optics and water waves. Modulational instability is the first example of relevance of resonant and quasi-resonant triads and quartets \cite{Be67}. Effects such as wave turbulence with its cascades of energy and enstrophy rely on the interconnected web of resonances. However a thorough understanding of the full-scale mechanism of energy transfers is lacking at the moment and one of the reasons for this is the poor understanding of the web of resonant and quasi-resonant triads. This poor understanding is in two aspects: (i) Kinematical aspect, regarding the actual position in wavenumber space of the modes that interact in resonant and quasi-resonant triads, as well as the interconnections of these triads to form clusters. (ii) Dynamical aspect, regarding the processes of energy exchanges between modes via $3$-wave interactions. This paper will concentrate on the kinematical aspect, in the context of the barotropic vorticity equation on periodic domains. As a motivation, we believe that the information obtained from the kinematical aspects can be used to derive a reduced approximated system of evolution equations for the Fourier amplitudes of the underlying PDEs that describe the nonlinear oscillations. The long-term goal is to produce an important degree of simplification from an infinite-dimensional space of dynamical variables to a finite-dimensional one, while keeping enough complexity so as to accommodate physically-measurable characteristics such as turbulence and energy/enstrophy cascades. This paradigm is in the spirit of the study of mesoscopic and discrete wave turbulence (areas under development). See for example \cite{Re89, Co01, Za05, Ka06}.
Another question is whether energy transfers between wave modes depend or not on the nature and strength of the forcing. Such question has been studied in a myriad of papers using numerical simulations of full PDE models, and the intuition gained is quite empirical. However, the understanding of the network of connected triads might lead to a better modelling of this and other problems. In \cite{Ha12}, the effect of forcing a single triad was studied and it was established that the triad's energy remains bounded, even if the forcing oscillates in phase with the natural frequency of the so-called unstable mode. Going beyond triads, to quartets and quintets, formation of Kolmogorov-like spectra of inverse cascade of weak turbulence was observed in \cite{An96}, in a direct numerical simulation of a special formulation of water waves. This formulation, known as integro-differential Zakharov equation, was exploited numerically in the cited reference so that only a relatively small set of wave modes needed to be integrated forward in time.
The importance of the quasi-resonant triads over the exactly resonant ones for the accurate and faithful description of nonlinear physical wave systems has been verified in several works, starting from the modulational instability \cite{Be67} and nowadays it is an accepted fact that any proper description of wave interactions must take into account quasi-resonant triads from the start \cite{Colm,Smith2005,Alam}. See also \cite{Janssen,An2006} for analogous results in the context of near-resonant quartets and quintets.
In Jupiter's atmosphere, local wave oscillations have been observed with wavelengths of 20 km \footnote{http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00724}. If such waves could be extended to cover a significant part of Jupiter's surface then we would have wavenumbers of approximately $3000$. In numerical simulations, particularly in atmospheric models, it has been shown \cite{Drit} that high resolutions are needed if one wants to describe properly the generation of small-scale turbulence out of a large-scale initial condition (see the benchmark problem of Rossby-Haurwitz wave in the cited reference). Therefore, running $2$D simulations with up to $10000$ grid points per spatial direction is meaningful, particularly if one is interested in studying inverse energy cascades. The problem with these high-resolution simulations, is that a rigorous analysis of the wave interactions (particularly in the limit of very small amplitudes, used in wave turbulence) escapes from the computational capabilities of the current computer technology. For example, if we try to do a numerical search of the quasi-resonant modes with wavenumbers less than or equal to $10000$ in size, a computer will need to do a search over $10000^4$ possible triads, and evaluate the frequency mismatch. If $\tau$ is the time it takes the computer to do one triad, then the total time for this search will be approximately $\tau \times 10^{16}.$ On a medium-sized cluster, using optimised $C^{++}$ codes, the effective time for one such computation is about $\tau \approx 5 \times 10^{-8}$ seconds, which means that the total computing time for all triads is about $15$ years!
The search for quasi-resonances becomes therefore a computational problem and this paper provides a solution, with a computational method that is based on a mapping from resonant triads to rational points on quadratic hyper-surfaces of ``Minkowski'' type (i.e., non-definite). The method for searching exact resonances is extended to a method for finding quasi-resonant triads. Here the advantage of the method over brute-force direct search is that the method produces quasi-resonant triads with preferentially small detuning levels, which is useful physically, since we are interested in the regime of small enough amplitudes. A \emph{Mathematica} code that generates the triads using this method is available from the authors upon request.
The paper is organised as follows. In Section \ref{sec:bve} we review the barotropic vorticity equation and the Rossby triads on a periodic spatial domain (torus). In Section \ref{sec:discrete} we state the Diophantine equation that determines the triad resonance conditions, develop the mapping to elliptic curves and to Minkowski-type of quadratic forms, establish the general solution to the resonance conditions, and explain in detail the computational method of solution, with a step-by-step formulation. In Section \ref{sec:num_res}, we present the numerical application of the method, showing how to construct the triads in the box of size $5000$ in wavenumber space, and studying the structure, distribution and connectivity properties of the resonant clusters that form. In Section \ref{sec:quasi} we introduce quasi-resonant triads, which are far more relevant physically than resonant triads. We explain the method to construct these quasi-resonant triads, which is based on the previous method of construction of resonant triads. In Section \ref{sec:new_dev} we discuss further extensions of the method to the case when the aspect ratio of the spatial variables is not equal to one. Finally, in Section \ref{sec:concl} we discuss the applicability of the method to the general case of the barotropic vorticity equation with finite Rossby deformation radius. The Appendix contains all necessary mathematical results to understand the method of construction of resonant triads presented in Section \ref{sec:discrete}.
\section{Governing equations}
\label{sec:bve}
\subsection{Rossby Triads}
We consider the dynamics of a rotating shallow layer of incompressible fluid, in the so-called $\beta$-plane approximation. The governing equation reduces to the following partial differential equation, known as the barotropic vorticity equation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:CHM}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left(\nabla^2 \psi - F \psi \right) + \left(\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x} \frac{\partial \nabla^2 \psi}{\partial y}-\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial y} \frac{\partial \nabla^2 \psi}{\partial x} \right) + \beta \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x} = 0,
\end{equation}
where $\psi = \psi(x,y,t) \in \mathbb{R}$ is the streamfunction, $\beta$ is a constant that determines the speed of rotation of the system, and $F = 1/R^2$ where $R$ is the Rossby deformation radius. For technical reasons (to be discussed in Section \ref{sec:concl}), we consider from here on the physically sensible limit of infinite Rossby deformation radius, $F=0.$ In terms of plasma notation, the physical limit that we consider in this paper is $\rho \, |\mbf{k}| \gg 1$, where $\rho$ is the Larmor radius and $\mbf{k}$ is the wavevector of the oscillations. This means that we are looking at small-scale structures (much smaller than the Larmor radius). We remark that the triads we will find still have a range of applicability into the more realistic case $F > 0$ (the explanation of how this is done is given in Section \ref{sec:concl}).
Equation (\ref{eq:CHM}) is also known in the literature as the Charney-Hasegawa-Mima equation, or CHM. The ``C'' comes from the atmospherical context just described. The ``HM'' comes from an independent derivation of the same mathematical equation in the context of plasma physics \cite{Ha78}. Due to this multidisciplinary aspect, the CHM equation occupies a special place in physics and mathematics. On the one hand, it suffices to say that there is no general solution of the equation. Due to its nonlinear term, its solutions display an amazing variety of complex behaviour and turbulence, such as inverse energy cascades (from small to large scales), direct enstrophy cascades (from large to small scales) and zonostrophy cascades (with non-isotropic transfers). On the other hand, the model is simple enough to accommodate convenient mathematical features such as a non-canonical Hamiltonian structure \cite{We83,Ta09}, and the equation conserves total energy and enstrophy. More importantly for our study of resonances, the equation admits an infinite number of so-called ``travelling wave'' solutions. These are simply solutions of the linearised version of (\ref{eq:CHM}) in the form of a travelling wave (called Rossby wave), parameterised by wavevectors $(k,l) \in \mathbb{R}^2:$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:basis}
\Psi_{(k,l)}(x,y,t) &=& e^{i \left(k\, x + l \,y - \omega(k,l)\, t \right)}\,,\\
\label{eq:dispersion}
\omega(k,l) & \equiv & -\frac{\beta \, k}{k^2+l^2}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
It is easy to check that $\Psi_{(k,l)},$ as well as its real part, satisfies also the full equation (\ref{eq:CHM}), i.e., the nonlinear term in that equation is identically zero. However, an arbitrary linear combination of travelling wave solutions with wavevectors that are not collinear, is still a solution of the linearised version of (\ref{eq:CHM}) but is not anymore a solution of the full equation.
The last observation leads to the study of the nonlinear term and the mixing of modes, and is the starting point in the construction of so-called resonant triad solutions, which are approximate solutions, valid in the asymptotic limit when the oscillation amplitudes are small. Without going into the details of the multiple-scales method \cite{Na08}, these solutions are linear combinations of three travelling waves, of the form:
\begin{equation}
\Phi(x,y,t) = \Re \left(A_1(t) \Psi_{(k_1,l_1)}(x,y,t) + A_2(t) \Psi_{(k_2,l_2)}(x,y,t) + A_3(t) \Psi_{(k_3,l_3)}(x,y,t)\right)\,,
\end{equation}
where $\Re$ denotes real part, $A_j$ are some complex functions of time that are ``slow'' compared to the waves, and the set of wave vectors satisfy the following system of equations:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:reso_1} k_1 + k_2 &=& k_3\\
\label{eq:reso_2} l_1 + l_2 &=& l_3\\
\label{eq:reso_3} \omega_1 + \omega_2 &=& \omega_3\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\omega_j \equiv \omega(k_j,l_j)\,,\quad j= 1, 2, 3\,.$ Any set of three wavevectors satisfying equations (\ref{eq:reso_1})--(\ref{eq:reso_3}) is called a resonant triad. We remark that there is a consistency condition that leads to a nonlinear system of evolution equations for the three slow functions $A_j.$ We refer the reader to the vast literature on the subject, such as \cite{Na08, craik1988wave} and references therein. In a more general setting, these slow functions also depend on the space coordinates \cite{Ne69}, again `more slowly' than the travelling waves.
It is possible to extend the resonant triad solutions to a more general approximate solution, consisting of a combination of groups of resonant triads:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:soluCluster}
\Phi(x,y,t) = \Re \sum_{I=1}^N A_I(t) \Psi_{(k_I,l_I)}(x,y,t)\,,
\end{equation}
in such a way that any wavevector $(k_I,l_I)$ appearing in the combination above, belongs to at least one resonant triad. In this setting, several resonant triads may be connected, forming so-called clusters. The main question of this paper is the classification of all possible values of wavevectors $(k_I,l_I)$ that belong to resonant and near-resonant triads when the spatial domain is periodic. However, it is worth mentioning that the $N$ functions $A_I(t)$ satisfy a coupled nonlinear system of evolution equations, that is derived using a set of consistency conditions, in a straightforward manner \cite{Ka07, Bu09}.
\subsection{Periodic Domains and Numerical Simulations}
\label{subsec:period}
Periodic spatial domains are the common place for numerical simulations. One of the most reliable existing methods for periodic domains is the pseudo-spectral method, that takes advantage of the fast Fourier transform to compute partial derivatives and nonlinear terms. For quadratic nonlinearities, as in the CHM equation, conservation of energy as well as enstrophy is guaranteed. The pseudo-spectral method is widely used in numerical experiments due to its rapid convergence in terms of accuracy, and is preferred over finite-difference and finite-volume methods for fundamental studies, such as turbulence and weak wave turbulence.
In the schematic version of the pseudo-spectral method, solutions to equation (\ref{eq:CHM}) are sought on the periodic domain $(x,y) \in [0,2 \pi)\times[0,2 \pi)$, so solutions $\psi(x,y,t)$ satisfy $\psi(x,y,t) = \psi(x+2 \pi,y, t) = \psi(x,y+2 \pi,t).$ The numerical method begins by approximating the solution $\psi(x,y,t)$ as a finite sum of Fourier modes:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Fourier}
\psi(x,y,t) = \Re \sum_{k=0}^{N_x} \sum_{l=-N_y}^{N_y} A_{(k,l)}(t) \Psi_{(k,l)}(x,y,t),
\end{equation}
where a ``mode'' $\Psi_{(k,l)}(x,y,t)$ is defined in equation (\ref{eq:basis}) and is identified with its associated wavevector $(k,l).$ The unknown coefficients $A_{(k,l)}(t)$ need to be advanced in time numerically, using high-order techniques such as $4^{th}$-order Runge-Kutta. The natural numbers $N_x, N_y$ denote the spatial resolution of the numerical approximation, so that oscillations of wavenumber greater than these numbers cannot be resolved by the numerical scheme.
\section{Discrete Resonant Triads}
\label{sec:discrete}
In the periodic setting discussed in Section \ref{subsec:period}, the relevant wavevectors $(k,l)$ belong to a discrete lattice of integer numbers, so the resonant conditions (\ref{eq:reso_1})--(\ref{eq:reso_3}) are now a system of Diophantine equations. For Rossby waves, the dispersion relation (\ref{eq:dispersion}) applies, and after some algebra the resonant conditions can be reduced to the following equation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:simplif}
k_3 (k_1^2+l_1^2)^2 - 2 k_3 (k_1^2+l_1^2)(k_3\,k_1 + l_3\,l_1) + 2 k_1 (k_3\,k_1 + l_3\,l_1)(k_3^2+l_3^2) - k_1 (k_3^2+l_3^2)^2 = 0\,,
\end{equation}
which can be interpreted as an equation for the pair $(k_1,l_1),$ if the pair $(k_3,l_3)$ is given. Here, the pair $(k_2,l_2)$ is obtained a posteriori by writing $(k_2,l_2) = (k_3,l_3)-(k_1,l_1).$\\
\noindent \textbf{Discarding Zonal Modes.} A mode $(k,l)$ with $k=0$ represents a so-called zonal mode. When $k_3=0,$ equation \eref{eq:simplif} reduces to $(2 l_1 - l_3)k_1 = 0,$ which is easy to solve. This case is not considered here because resonant interactions with zonal modes are trivial: physically these interactions are suppressed due to the vanishing of interaction coefficients, see for example \cite[equation 13.9]{Naz}. We remark that zonal flows are interesting, though, if quasi-resonant interactions are allowed (see Section \ref{sec:quasi}).\\
So, from here on we will assume $k_1,k_2,k_3 \neq 0.$ Without loss of generality one can assume also that $0 < k_1 \leq k_2 \leq k_3,$ but this latter assumption is not essential until the counting of physically different solutions of equation (\ref{eq:simplif}) is performed. \\
\noindent \textbf{Irreducible Triads.} Notice that equations (\ref{eq:simplif}) are invariant under overall re-scaling of the wavenumbers. This is useful from the computational point of view, because it means that we need to search for so-called irreducible triads, which are defined as solutions of the resonant condition \eref{eq:simplif} such that the six wavenumbers $k_1, l_1, k_2,l_2,k_3,l_3$ do not have a common factor.
Correspondingly, a reducible triad is defined by any solution that is an integer multiple of an irreducible triad.\\
\noindent \textbf{Change of Basis.} Let us make a convenient change of basis to the orthogonal basis spanned by $(k_3,l_3)$ and $(-l_3,k_3)$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:transf}
(k_1,l_1) = a \,(k_3,l_3) + b\,(-l_3,k_3),
\end{equation}
where $(a,b) \in \mathbb{Q}^2\,.$ Explicitly, the inverse transformation is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:transf_inv}
a = \frac{k_3\,k_1 + l_3\,l_1}{k_3^2+l_3^2}\,, \qquad b = \frac{k_3\,l_1 - l_3\,k_1}{k_3^2+l_3^2}.
\end{equation}
Notice that $k_1^2+l_1^2 = (a^2+b^2)(k_3^2+l_3^2)$ and $k_1 = a\,k_3 - b\,l_3\,.$ Therefore, equation (\ref{eq:simplif}) transforms to:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ab}
(a^2+b^2)^2 - 2\,a\,(a^2+b^2) + (2\,a-1)\left(a-\frac{l_3}{k_3}\,b\right) = 0\,.
\end{equation}
This equation is then equivalent to the original resonant condition, provided zonal modes are not involved.
\subsection{Mapping the resonance condition (\ref{eq:ab}) to classical problems: pure-cube solutions and elliptic curves}
Two cases need to be discussed separately:\\
\noindent \textbf{Case $a=0.$} Equation \eref{eq:ab} simplifies to
\begin{equation}
b^4 + \frac{l_3}{k_3}\,b = 0\,.
\end{equation}
We discard the solution $b=0$ because it represents a triad that is formed by collinear modes, and in this case the interaction coefficients are identically zero (i.e., the mixed contribution stemming from the nonlinear terms in equation (\ref{eq:CHM}) vanish identically). So we take, without loss of generality, $b \neq 0.$ We get then $b^3 = - \frac{l_3}{k_3}.$ But $b$ is a rational number, so we deduce that the case $a=0$ gives a nontrivial triad if and only if the ratio $\frac{l_3}{k_3}$ is a pure-cube rational. In such instance we obtain a triad of the form $(k_1,l_1), (k_2,l_2), (k_3,l_3),$ where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cube_soln}
(k_1,l_1) = -\left(\frac{l_3}{k_3}\right)^{1/3}\,(-l_3,k_3), \quad (k_2,l_2) = (k_3,l_3)-(k_1,l_1),
\end{equation}
where an overall scaling factor might be needed in order that all wavenumbers be integer.\\
\noindent \textbf{Example:} $l_3=1, k_3=8.$ Then $b = -\left(\frac{l_3}{k_3}\right)^{1/3} = -\frac{1}{2}$ and so, applying equation \eref{eq:cube_soln} directly we get a preliminary triad:
$$(k_1,l_1)' = \left(\frac{1}{2},-4\right), \quad (k_2,l_2)' = \left(\frac{15}{2},5\right)\,, \quad (k_3,l_3)' = (8,1)\,,$$
so we multiply by the factor $2$ in order to get an integer irreducible triad:
$$(k_1,l_1) = \left(1,-8\right), \quad (k_2,l_2) = \left(15,10\right)\,, \quad (k_3,l_3) = (16,2)\,.$$
This ``pure-cube'' construction can be done for arbitrarily large values of wavenumbers and it leads to an infinite set of different irreducible resonant triads. But most of the solutions of the resonant conditions \eref{eq:ab} are found via a completely different method, to be discussed in the remaining of this Section.\\
\noindent \textbf{Case $a\neq 0.$} Provided the ratio $l_3/k_3$ is not a pure-cube rational, we define $\xi \equiv \frac{b}{a}$ and thus equation \eref{eq:ab} becomes
\begin{equation}
a^3(1+\xi^2)^2 - 2\,a^2\,(1+\xi^2) + (2\,a-1)\left(1 -\frac{l_3}{k_3}\,\xi\right) = 0\,.
\end{equation}
Notice that this equation has degree 3 in $a$, one less than the original equation. We follow a standard procedure to isolate the coefficient of the cubic term. Defining $r \equiv a (1+\xi^2)$ we get
\begin{equation}
r^3 - 2\,r^2 + (2\,r-(1+\xi^2))\left(1 -\frac{l_3}{k_3}\,\xi\right) = 0\,.
\end{equation}
Defining now $D \equiv \frac{1}{1 -\frac{l_3}{k_3}\,\xi}$ and the quantities
$X \equiv r D, \quad Y \equiv \xi D\,,$ we obtain the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ellicur}
X^3 - 2\,D\,X^2 + 2\,D\,X - D^2 = Y^2\,,
\end{equation}
which can be interpreted as an Elliptic Curve if $D$ is fixed and we let $X, Y$ be variable.\\
\noindent \textbf{Summary of case $a\neq 0.$} To summarize, provided the ratio $l_3/k_3$ is not a pure-cube rational, there is a rational mapping from an integer triad $(k_1,l_1), (k_2,l_2), (k_3,l_3)$ satisfying all resonance conditions (\ref{eq:reso_1})--(\ref{eq:reso_3}), to the variables of the elliptic curve \eref{eq:ellicur}. The mapping is bijective up to overall re-scaling of the triad wavenumbers, and given explicitly by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:map}
X = \frac{k_3}{k_1} \times \frac{k_1^2+l_1^2}{k_3^2+l_3^2}\,, \quad Y = \frac{k_3}{k_1} \times \frac{k_3 l_1 - k_1 l_3}{k_3^2+l_3^2}\,, \quad D = \frac{k_3}{k_1} \times \frac{k_3 k_1 + l_3 l_1}{k_3^2+l_3^2},
\end{equation}
and with inverse
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:map_inv}
\frac{k_1}{k_3} = \frac{X}{D^2+Y^2}\,,\quad \frac{l_1}{k_3} = \frac{X}{Y} \left(1-\frac{D}{D^2+Y^2}\right)\,,\quad \frac{l_3}{k_3} = \frac{D-1}{Y}\,,
\end{equation}
and $(k_2,l_2) = (k_3-k_1,l_3-l_1).$
\subsection{Classification of solutions of triad equations in terms of Fermat's theorem of sums of squares}
\label{sec:Fermat}
We consider the case $a \neq 0$ described in the previous Section. We can rewrite the elliptic curve \eref{eq:ellicur} as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ellicur1}
Y^2 + \left(D + X^2 - X\right)^2 = X^2 \left(X^2-X+1\right)\,,
\end{equation}
and we can divide by $X^2$ because of our assumption of no zonal modes. We obtain:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ellicur2}
\left(\frac{Y}{X}\right)^2 + \left(\frac{D}{X} + X - 1\right)^2 = X^2-X+1\,.
\end{equation}
The LHS of equation \eref{eq:ellicur2} is a sum of squares of rationals. The RHS is a quadratic form that is best written in diagonal form by defining
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Xmn}
X \equiv -\frac{m+n}{m-n}, \quad m, n \in \mathbb{Z}\,,
\end{equation}
so we get the equation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ellicur3}
\left(\frac{Y (m-n)^2}{m+n}\right)^2 + \left(\frac{D(m-n)^2}{m+n} + 2\,m\right)^2 = 3\,m^2 + n^2\,.
\end{equation}
Equation \eref{eq:ellicur3} is to be solved for $m,n, \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $Y, D \in \mathbb{Q}.$ The cases $Y=0,$ $m=0$ or $m= \pm n$ are excluded from the solutions: they give rise to zonal modes. Notice that since $m, n$ are integers, the two members of equation \eref{eq:ellicur3} are equal to an integer. The problem of finding all possible integers that can be written as a sum of squares of two rationals is well known and dates back to Fermat \cite[Chapter V]{Dickson} (it is called Fermat's Xmas theorem). Also, the problem of finding all possible integers in the form $3\,m^2 + n^2$ was considered by Fermat and solved by Lagrange and Euler, see \cite[Chapter 1]{Cox} for further details. The current equation is a combination of these two problems and can be dealt with in a straightforward manner. As a result, all possible representations for the numbers $m, n$ and the numbers $Y, D$ can be obtained explicitly. Consequently, all possible exact resonant triads can be obtained explicitly by using the mapping \eref{eq:map_inv} from $X, Y ,D$ to the triad's wavenumbers. \\
\noindent \textbf{Method for finding the general solution of equation \eref{eq:ellicur3}.} We believe that it is not illuminating to provide here a detailed exposition of the solution method. We have relegated to the Appendix all necessary Theorems and Corollaries. Here we provide only the main idea of the solution method, but we still give the detailed explicit construction of the solution. The main idea is that integers of the form \eref{eq:ellicur3}, LHS, must be products of prime numbers of the form $4 K+1$ with $K$ some integer, times a square. On the other hand, integers of the form \eref{eq:ellicur3}, RHS, must be products of prime numbers of the form $3 K'+1$ with $K'$ some integer, times another square. So equating the two members of equation \eref{eq:ellicur3} we deduce that these must be equal to an integer that is product of primes of the form $12 K'' + 1$ with $K''$ some integer, times a square.
It follows from Corollary 4 in the Appendix, that all possible solutions of equation \eref{eq:ellicur3} for $m,n \in \mathbb{Z}$ coprime and $Y, D \in \mathbb{Q},$ can be parameterised explicitly using the following algorithm:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Construct the following expansion in prime powers:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Ngen}
N = 4^{a_0}\times{ \prod\limits_{j=1}^{M}} p_j^{a_j} \times\left({ \prod\limits_{j=1}^{M'}} q_j^{b_j}\right)^2 \times\left({ \prod\limits_{j=1}^{M''}} r_j^{c_j}\right)^2\,,
\end{equation}
where:
\noindent $a_0$ can take the values $0$ or $1;$
\noindent $\{p_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$ is the set of primes of the form $12\,k+1$ with $k$ integer;
\noindent $\{q_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$ is the set of primes of the form $3\,k+1$ with $k$ integer, excluding the primes $p_j$;
\noindent $\{r_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$ is the set of primes of the form $4\,k+1$ with $k$ integer, excluding the primes $p_j$;
\noindent The non-negative integers $M, M', M''$ denote how many primes are there in the expansion of $N$: the explicit expansion is given via three strings of non-negative integers $\{a_j\}_{j=1}^M$, $\{b_j\}_{j=1}^{M'}$ and $\{c_j\}_{j=1}^{M''}.$ These are defined so that if $M=0$ then the string $\{a_j\}_{j=1}^M$ is empty, and if $M > 0$ then $a_M > 0.$ Similar relations hold for $M$ replaced by $M'$ (resp. $M''$) and $a_j$ replaced by $b_j$ (resp. $c_j$).
Once $a_0$ and the strings $\{a_j\}_{j=1}^M$, $\{b_j\}_{j=1}^{M'}$ and $\{c_j\}_{j=1}^{M''}$ are known, the corresponding $N$ is uniquely constructed.
\item Construct all possible solutions $m,n \in \mathbb{Z}$ of the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:NmnAlg}
N = 3\,m^2 + n^2\,,
\end{equation}
using the Brahmagupta identity \eref{eq:Brahma} on the individual expansions of the solutions of $p_j = 3 \,m_j^2 + n_j^2$ and $4 = 3 \times 1^2 + 1^2.$
The choice of sign for $m$ leads to two sets of physically sensible solutions, and one can take $n > 0$ without loss of generality. With this taken into account, it can be shown that the number of different solutions for $m,n$ (with $m \neq 0, \pm n$) is equal to
$$2\times \left(2 a_0 + 1\right) \times \frac{1}{2}\times \left[\prod_{j=1}^M \prod_{k=1}^{M'} \left(a_j + 1\right) \left(2\,b_k + 1\right) - \epsilon\right],$$
where $\epsilon = 1$ if all $\{a_j\}_{j=1}^M$ are even, and $\epsilon = 0$ otherwise.
\item Construct all possible solutions $S,Q \in \mathbb{Z}$ of the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:NSQAlg}
N = S^2 + Q^2\,,
\end{equation}
using the Brahmagupta identity \eref{eq:Brahma} on the individual expansions of the solutions of $p_j = S_j^2 + Q_j^2.$
We can take without loss of generality the convention $0 \leq S < Q.$ With this taken into account, it can be shown that the number of different solutions for $S,Q$ is equal to
$$\frac{1}{2}\times \left[\prod_{j=1}^M \prod_{l=1}^{M''} \left(a_j + 1\right)\left(2\,c_l + 1\right) - \epsilon\right] + \epsilon,$$
where $\epsilon$ was defined in point (ii). Notice that the factor $4^{a_0}$ does not play an important role here.
\item Based on the above solutions for $S,Q$ integers, construct all possible solutions $s,q \in \mathbb{Q} \setminus \mathbb{Z}$ of the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:NsqAlg}
N = s^2 + q^2\,,
\end{equation}
using the Brahmagupta identity \eref{eq:Brahma} on the solutions obtained in point (iii) along with the Pythagorean rationals, which are defined by the remarkable identity:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:elegant1}
1 = \left(\frac{2 \,u\,v}{u^2+v^2}\right)^2 + \left(\frac{u^2 - v^2}{u^2+v^2}\right)^2\,, \quad \forall \,u, v \in \mathbb{Z}.
\end{equation}
The relevant solutions for $s,q$ are of the form:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:solNsqAlg}
s = \frac{2\,u\,v \,Q + (u^2-v^2)\,S}{u^2+v^2}\,,\quad q = \frac{- 2\,u\,v \,S + (u^2-v^2)\,Q}{u^2+v^2}\,,
\end{equation}
where $u,v$ are coprime integers satisfying $1 \leq |v| < u.$ This ordering prevents repetition of solutions, which at this stage we need to avoid, although they play a role in point (v).
For computational purposes we parameterise the coprime integers $u,v$ using finite sets of adjustable size. Letting $U_{\max} \in \mathbb{Z},$ $U_{\max} \geq 2,$ define the ``Pythagorean Fan'' $F(U_{\max})$ by the equation
$$F(U_{\max}) \equiv \{ (u,v) \in \mathbb{Z}^2 \quad \mathrm{coprime} \quad \mathrm{s.t.} \quad 1 \leq |v| < u \leq U_{\max}\}\,.$$
Then, for a given solution $S,Q$ of equation \eref{eq:NSQAlg}, a set of non-integer rational solutions $s,q$ of equation \eref{eq:NsqAlg} is obtained which amounts to $\# F(U_{\max})$ new solutions, where $\# F(U_{\max})$ is the cardinality of $F(U_{\max}).$
\item Gather all results above and construct all possible solutions for $Y$ and $D$ of equation \eref{eq:ellicur3}. Here, an extra $8$-fold symmetry is available that allows us to generate more solutions and correspondingly more triads. Notice that for each obtained solution $s,q$ (integer as well as non-integer) of equation \eref{eq:NsqAlg}, and solution $m,n$ of equation \eref{eq:NmnAlg}, the following statement is true: {Provided $s q \neq 0$}, we have the choice of writing eight different equations for $Y,D,$ schematically written as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:SolYD1}
\frac{Y (m-n)^2}{m+n} = \pm s\,,\quad \frac{D(m-n)^2}{m+n} + 2\,m = \pm q\,,
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:SolYD2}
\frac{Y (m-n)^2}{m+n} = \pm q\,,\quad \frac{D(m-n)^2}{m+n} + 2\,m = \pm s\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where all sign combinations can be taken. Notice that the symmetry $Y \to - Y$ amounts to taking the mirror image of a triad about the $k$-axis in the $(k,l)$-wavevector space (see Eq.~\eref{eq:map_inv}).
There is a special case which occurs when all $a_j$'s are even. There, amongst all possible solutions $S,Q$ there is one with $S = 0.$ Moreover, even when $S Q \neq 0$ there is a solution $s,q$ with $s q = 0$ for some choice of $u,v.$ In these cases we still have a symmetry, but it reduces to a $2$-fold symmetry, with two different equations for $Y,D$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:SolYD3}
\frac{Y (m-n)^2}{m+n} = \pm s\,,\qquad \frac{D(m-n)^2}{m+n} + 2\,m = 0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{enumerate}
Gathering all solutions together, we can write a formula for the total number of solutions for $X,Y,D$ of equation \eref{eq:ellicur1}, leading to the following number of irreducible triads as a function of the integer $N = 4^{a_0}\times{ \prod\limits_{j=1}^{M}} p_j^{a_j} \times\left({ \prod\limits_{k=1}^{M'}} q_k^{b_k}\right)^2 \times\left({ \prod\limits_{l=1}^{M''}} r_l^{c_l}\right)^2$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
T(N) &=& \left(2 a_0 + 1\right) \times \left[\prod_{j=1}^M \prod_{k=1}^{M'} \left(a_j + 1\right) \left(2\,b_k + 1\right) - \epsilon\right] \\
\label{eq:totalSols}
&\times& \left[\prod_{j=1}^M \prod_{l=1}^{M''} \left(a_j + 1\right) \left(2\,c_l + 1\right) + \epsilon\right] \times (4\,\# F(U_{\max}) + 4 - 3 \, \epsilon).
\end{eqnarray}
For example, taking $N = 4 \times 13$ and $U_{\max} = 2,$ so $a_0=1, a_1 = 1, M = 1, M'=M''=0, \# F(U_{\max}) = 2, \epsilon = 0,$ we get $T(N) = 144$ triads.\\
\noindent \textbf{Remarks.}
\begin{itemize}
\item As defined earlier, an irreducible triad is one whose wavenumbers $k_1, l_1, k_2, $ $l_2, k_3, l_3$ do not have a common factor. Knowing all irreducible triads within a given box in $(k,l)$-wavenumber space, say $|k|, |l| \leq L,$ allows one to compute all reducible triads within that box, by including integer multiples of irreducible triads of size smaller than $L/2$.
\item Nested character of the triads. Let the integers $N_1, N_2$ be of the form $4^{a_0}\times{ \prod\limits_{j=1}^{M}} p_j^{a_j} \times\left({ \prod\limits_{k=1}^{M'}} q_k^{b_k}\right)^2 \times\left({ \prod\limits_{l=1}^{M''}} r_l^{c_l}\right)^2.$ Then if $N_1 = N_2 \times N_3^2$ for some integer $N_3,$ then the set of triads obtained using $N_1$ contain the set of triads obtained using $N_2.$
\item Eliminating extra multiplicity. The set of all possible triads (using all possible values of $N$) obtained from this method, will appear ``repeated six times'' in the sense of the six-fold permutation symmetry of the triad equations:
\end{itemize}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{k}_1 + \mathbf{k}_2 = \mathbf{k}_3 \,,&\quad & \mathbf{k}_2 + \mathbf{k}_1 = \mathbf{k}_3, \\
(-\mathbf{k}_3)+\mathbf{k}_2 = (-\mathbf{k}_1),& \quad &\mathbf{k}_2 + (-\mathbf{k}_3) = (-\mathbf{k}_1), \\
(-\mathbf{k}_3)+\mathbf{k}_1 = (-\mathbf{k}_2),& \quad &\mathbf{k}_1 + (-\mathbf{k}_3) = (-\mathbf{k}_2),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{k}_j \equiv (k_j,l_j).$ The symmetry reduces to four-fold when permutations of ``pure-cube'' triads occur, because a ``pure-cube'' triad cannot be mapped to an elliptic curve, but four of its permutations can be mapped. Correspondingly, when collecting all triads obtained using our method, a normalisation must be applied if one wants to use formula \eref{eq:totalSols} to estimate the number of genuinely different triads. The exact number of triads for a given $N$ is thus a bit different than what the formula predicts. Only when triads are collected using several values of $N,$ the formula \eref{eq:totalSols} will give asymptotically a good estimation if we divide by $6.$ As an example, the choice $N=4\times 13$ gives 40 genuinely different triads, rather than $144/6 = 24$.
\section{Numerical results: Generating resonant triads with wavenumbers $(k,l)$ in the box $|k| \leq 5000, |l| \leq 5000$}
\label{sec:num_res}
Let us consider the following problem: Find all resonant triads in the box $|k|,|l| \leq 5000.$ As explained in the introduction, a direct search using a brute-force algorithm would take more than $15$ years to answer that problem. With the method introduced in this paper, such problem is reduced to the problem of \emph{finding the appropriate set of primes $p_j, q_j, r_j$ that generate all triads within the box.}
The answer to this latter problem has not been presented in this paper, and we believe this is a matter for a subsequent paper. From the rational character of the mapping from the triads to the points $X,Y,D$ on the elliptic curve, it follows that only small-enough primes $p_j,q_j,r_j$ and small-enough powers $a_j,b_j,c_j$ can generate small resonant triads. The open question is how small should the primes and the powers be. An extra complication is given by the Pythagorean Fan, which could in principle reduce the size of the triads.
Nevertheless, we believe that our new method can be used to obtain the vast majority of the triads within the given box, by collecting the triads obtained from combinations of small-enough primes $p_j,q_j,r_j$. We provide numerical support of this belief in the next paragraphs. Of course, we cannot wait the $15$ years in order to check explicitly the percentage of triads in the box $|k|,|l| \leq 5000$ that are generated with our new method. For this reason, to prove the point we performed a brute-force search to find all resonant triads in the box $|k|,|l| \leq 100.$ This took about $40$ minutes using a desktop computer. In contrast, on the same computer our method takes only $1/2$ of a second to generate the resonant triads within the box (along with many more triads outside the box), using a non-parallel computation of the triads generated by the following 16 numbers: $N= 4 \times p_j \times 7^2 \times 5^2$ and $N = 4 \times p_j^2 \times 7^2 \times 5^2,$ with $j=1, \ldots, 8,$ along with the Pythagorean triples generated by $u=2, v=\pm 1,$ which is used to generate extra rational solutions of the sum of squares problem.
Following the insight provided by the ``small-box'' case, we have developed a search method that looks at the triads in the box $|k|,|l| \leq 5000$ that are generated by:
\noindent The 1600 numbers $N = 4 \times p_j \times q_k^2 \times r_l^2,$ with $j=1, \ldots, 100, \quad k = 1, \ldots, 4 \quad$ and $l=1,\ldots,4,$ combined appropriately with the 42 Pythagorean triples generated by $1 \leq |v| < u \leq 8.$ Computing time: 287 seconds. Triads obtained: 510 irreducible triads within the box.
\noindent The 627 numbers $N= 4 \times p_j \times 7^2 \times 5^2$ with $j=101, \ldots, 727,$ combined appropriately with the 42 Pythagorean triples generated by $1 \leq |v| < u \leq 8.$ Computing time: 117 seconds. Triads obtained: 66 irreducible triads within the box.
\noindent The 1792 numbers $N = 4 \times p_j^2 \times q_k^2 \times r_l^2,$ with $j=1, \ldots, 7, \quad k = 1, \ldots, 16 \quad$ and $l=1,\ldots, 16,$ combined appropriately with the 42 Pythagorean triples generated by $1 \leq |v| < u \leq 8.$ Computing time: 665 seconds. Triads obtained: 134 irreducible triads within the box.
\noindent The 120 numbers $N = 4 \times p_j p_k \times 7^2 \times 5^2,$ with $j = 1,2,3$ and $ k = j+1 ,\ldots, j + 40,$ combined appropriately with the 42 Pythagorean triples generated by $1 \leq |v| < u \leq 8.$ Computing time: 122 seconds. Triads obtained: 160 irreducible triads within the box.
We have tested higher-degree combinations of primes and we have obtained up to 20 more triads, however for simplicity of presentation we do not consider these here. In total, our search takes about $20$ minutes on an $8$-core desktop computer using \emph{Mathematica}. We obtain a total of $870$ irreducible triads, which leads to a total of $6794$ triads (including reducible ones) in the box $|k|, |l| \leq 5000.$
A plot of (i) the number of irreducible resonant triads and (ii) the number of total resonant triads, contained in a box as a function of the box size, is shown in Figure \ref{fig:number_triads}, left panel. The right panel plots the same variables in log-log scaling.
It is apparent from figure \ref{fig:number_triads}, right panel, that the total number of resonant triads (including reducible ones) as a function of the box size, behaves as a power law of the size, in the form: $T = C L^\alpha$, where $\alpha \approx 1.2$ and $C \approx 0.263$ (this is obtained using fit interval $200 \leq L \leq 4000$). Notice that our numerical method gives an exact estimate for the number of triads for $L=100,$ and the estimation is by construction more accurate for smaller $L$ than for larger $L$. So, obtaining a power law for the number of triads over a range of values of $L$ is a good indication of the accuracy of our estimations.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=35mm]{number_triads_li_li.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=35mm]{number_triads_lo_lo.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:number_triads} \textbf{Left panel:} Number of exact resonant triads within box of size $L$ (i.e., wavenumbers bounded by $|k|, |l| \leq L$), as a functon of $L.$ Black curve (blue online): irreducible triads only. Grey curve (magenta online): including reducible and irreducible triads. \textbf{Right Panel:} Same plot as left panel, but in log-log scale.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Another aspect of the set of resonant triads within the box of size $L=5000$ is the connectivity of the web of resonant triads (including reducible ones). In figure \ref{fig:reso_clusters_graph}, we show a diagrammatic plot of the clusters that appear within a box of size $L=200$ (for higher values of $L$ the plots become prohibitively populated). We notice the predominance of isolated triads. This feature persists for larger box sizes, and the isolated triads contribute with approximately $50\%$ of the total number of resonant triads. However, there is a nontrivial distribution of cluster sizes within a given box size. This is evidenced in figure \ref{fig:reso_clusters}, top left panel, where we present the log-log plot of the distribution of number of clusters (y-axis) as a function of cluster size (i.e., the number of modes in the cluster), for the collection of resonant clusters within the box of size $L=5000.$ For example, isolated triads have a cluster size $n_{\mathrm{modes}}=3$ and butterflies have cluster size $n_{\mathrm{modes}}=5.$ It is apparent from the plot that several cluster sizes are represented, in a kind of power law. For reference, we plot the size of the biggest cluster as a function of box size $L$ in figure \ref{fig:reso_clusters}, top right panel. It is evident that the biggest cluster contributes with only a fraction of the modes involved in resonant interactions (about $1\%$). Finally, the total number of modes $n_{\mathrm{tot}}$ involved in resonant interactions within a given box of size $L$, as a function of $L$, behaves in a way that is similar to the total number of triads in the box. In fact, due to the fact that resonant triad connections occur via one shared mode at a time, it can be shown analytically that the total number of modes involved in resonant interactions is bounded between $2 n_{\mathrm{triads}} + 1 $ and $3 n_{\mathrm{triads}},$ where $n_{\mathrm{triads}}$ is the total number of triads. The origin of these bounds is as follows: the lower bound comes from the assumption that all modes are connected in a single cluster, \emph{with connections between triads via a single common mode}, as the clusters in figure \ref{fig:reso_clusters_graph}. The upper bound is the case when all modes form isolated triads. Finally, in figure \ref{fig:reso_clusters}, lower panel, we show the plot of the total number of modes involved in resonant interactions $n_{\mathrm{modes}}$ as a function of box size $L$, along with the respective bounds. Empirically, the relation between $n_{\mathrm{modes}}$ and $n_{\mathrm{triads}}$ is found to be linear (figure not shown). A linear fit (fitting interval $200 < L < 5000$) gives a relation $n_{\mathrm{modes}} \approx 2.6 \, n_{\mathrm{triads}} - 60.$
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=140mm]{graph_reso_clusters_L_200.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:reso_clusters_graph} Symbolic plot of the CHM resonant clusters generated within the box of size $L=200.$}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=40mm]{plot_distr_clusters_reso.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=40mm]{plot_nmodes_big_cluster_reso.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=40mm]{nmodes_total_reso_and_bounds.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:reso_clusters} \textbf{Top Left Panel:} Circles (red online): Log-log plot of the distribution of number of clusters ($n_{\mathrm{clusters}}$-axis) as a function of cluster size ($n_{\mathrm{modes}}$-axis, the number of modes in the cluster), for the collection of resonant clusters found within the box of size $L=5000.$ For example, there are $8$ clusters formed by exactly $9$ modes each, and about $80$ clusters formed by exactly $7$ modes each. \textbf{Top Right Panel:} Number of modes in the largest resonant cluster found within the box of size $L$, as a function of $L.$ \textbf{Lower Panel:} Dashed curve (magenta online): number of modes $n_{\mathrm{modes}}$ involved in the collection of all resonant clusters found within the box of size $L$, as a function of $L.$ The upper and lower curves correspond to the ``sandwich'' bound $3\, n_{\mathrm{triads}} \geq n_{\mathrm{modes}} \geq 2 \,n_{\mathrm{triads}} + 1,$ valid when the connectivity of the triads in the clusters is at most of one-common-mode type.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Quasi-Resonant Triads}
\label{sec:quasi}
Quasi-resonant triads are defined by the system of equations
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:qreso_1} k_1 + k_2 &=& k_3\\
\label{eq:qreso_2} l_1 + l_2 &=& l_3\,,
\end{eqnarray}
along with the inequality
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:qreso_3} |\omega_1 + \omega_2 - \omega_3| \leq \delta\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the bound $\delta$ is known as the \emph{detuning level} allowed for a triad.
Quasi-resonant triads play a crucial role in the dynamics of CHM and are more important physically than the resonant triads. This is because in any realistic setting the dispersion relation has an experimental error, so in fact every physically sensible triad is quasi-resonant. Moreover, the amplitude of the wave oscillations is always finite, not infinitesimally small. Therefore the time scale of non-resonant triads is not infinitesimally small, and in fact it can be comparable with the time scale of the resonant nonlinear oscillations, provided $\delta$ is small enough. The accepted conclusion is that a full understanding of the dynamics of a wave system requires the understanding of the web of quasi-resonances, rather than just the web of resonances. Notice that the web of quasi-resonances for a given dispersion relation is robust (i.e. stable) under small perturbations of the dispersion relation, whereas the web of exact resonances is unstable under small perturbations.
These considerations would appear to imply that our method presented in this paper is useless. Fortunately, this is incorrect because our method can be used directly to generate quasi-resonant triads, in a hierarchical way in the sense that the triads generated have mismatch $\omega_1 + \omega_2 - \omega_3$ that is small.\\
\noindent \textbf{Numerical Method to generate quasi-resonant triads within a given box, starting from exact resonant triads of any size.} This is based on the fact that the dispersion relation in CHM, equation (\ref{eq:dispersion}) is homogeneous under overall re-scaling of the wavenumbers $k_1,l_1,k_2,l_2,k_3,l_3$ by any constant (not necessarily integer). Our previous method to generate exact resonant triads starts with a number $N$ and computes all possible representations of the prime expansion of this number $N$. Typically, one gets a lot of triads that are outside the given box. While these triads were discarded in the previous method, the new method uses all resonant triads available.
From here on we take $\beta=-1$ for simplicity in the dispersion relation (\ref{eq:dispersion}). Let $(K_1,L_1),(K_2,L_2), (K_3,L_3)$ be an irreducible resonant triad, with $K_j,L_j$ integers. Then the re-scaled triad $(\alpha K_1, \alpha L_1),(\alpha K_2,\alpha L_2), (\alpha K_3, \alpha L_3)$ is resonant, for any $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}.$ However this triad is not necessarily integer, so we need to approximate the scaled wavevectors to nearby integers, keeping in mind that equations (\ref{eq:reso_1}) and (\ref{eq:reso_2}) should be satisfied. This approximation will generate an error in the individual frequencies, so equation (\ref{eq:reso_3}) is not satisfied anymore but inequality (\ref{eq:qreso_3}) is satisfied, with detuning levels that depend on the accuracy of the approximation from re-scaled wavevectors to integer wavevectors.
In practice, suppose we want to generate quasi-resonant triads within a box of size $L$. We take an irreducible triad that is outside the box and re-scale it to just fit within the box (i.e., the maximum modulus of the six re-scaled components is now equal to $L$). The re-scaled components are written as real numbers in, say, double precision. This is our fundamental triad. Next, we take re-scaled copies of our fundamental triad, with box norms equal to $L-1, L-2, \ldots, 1.$ For each of these copies we approximate the triad to nearby integer triads, respecting the first two resonance conditions (\ref{eq:reso_1}) and (\ref{eq:reso_2}). The resulting set of triads is formed by quasi-resonant triads only, and the higher the box norm the smaller the size of the corresponding detuning level.
We repeat the process for every irreducible triad outside the box. In this way we can get a huge number of quasi-resonant triads (ordered by detuning level) starting from a comparatively small set of resonant triads.
The advantage of this new method is that it provides, in a matter of seconds, a set of quasi-resonant triads whose detuning levels are distributed smoothly about the origin. In contrast, the brute-force search for quasi-resonant triads takes a long time to generate a smooth distribution, of the order of the time it takes to scan all possible triads, resonant or non-resonant ($15$ years for a box of size $10000$).\\
\noindent \textbf{Numerical Results.} We provide a computation of a sample of the quasi-resonant triads within the box of size $L=100.$ Although for this box size the problem can still be treated by brute-force search (there are only $L^4=10^8$ triads in total), the choice of a small box size allows us to illustrate effectively the main results in terms of connectivity of the quasi-resonant clusters. We start generating the irreducible resonant triads generated by the prime expansions of $N = 4 \times p_j \times q_k^2 \times r_l^2,$ with $j=1, \ldots, 8, \quad k = 1, \ldots, 4 \quad$ and $l=1,\ldots,4,$ combined appropriately with the 2 Pythagorean triples generated by $u = 2, v=\pm 1.$ These are $14854$ irreducible triads in total (computation time = $4$ seconds). Some of these triads are within the box of size $L=100$, but the majority are outside. We pick at random, a small sample of $40$ triads out of the $14854$ irreducible triads, so that the sample is symmetric under mirror symmetry $k_y \to -k_y$ (this is in order to allow for eventual connections of clusters with their mirror images). We apply to these $40$ triads the re-scaling algorithm explained above to generate quasi-resonant triads. As a result, $40434$ quasi-resonant triads within the box are formed. Their distribution in terms of the values of frequency mismatch is plotted in figure \ref{fig:qreso_clusters_kite}, left panel. The histogram appears uneven only because of the convention we use to store the representative triads ($0 < k_1 \leq k_2 \leq k_3$), and physically the distribution must be understood as the symmetrisation of the histogram. The corresponding group of clusters obtained is impossible to plot symbolically in a clear way, because $40434$ connected modes are involved. However, we can study quantitatively the change of the connectivity properties of the clusters as a function of the allowed detuning level. Consider figure \ref{fig:qreso_clusters_kite}, right panel (which is analogous to figure \ref{fig:reso_clusters}, lower panel, except that now the independent variable is the detuning level $\delta$). For small detuning, below $\delta = 4 \times 10^{-5},$ the connections are still predominantly between isolated triads and connected clusters with \emph{one-common-mode} connectivity. However, the clusters formed when $\delta$ goes beyond about $5\times 10^{-5},$ violate the lower bound that assumes that connectivity, so we deduce that \emph{two-common-mode} connectivity is starting to prevail. It is easy to show that this new connectivity has a lower bound for the number of modes, corresponding to the linear relation $n_{\mathrm{modes}} = n_{\mathrm{triads}} + 2.$ So, the conclusion is that the clusters that form when allowed detuning is high enough, show predominantly the new type of triad connectivity.\\
\noindent \textbf{Onset of turbulence.} A plot, in $(k,l)$ wavevector space, of the modes in the biggest cluster obtained when the allowed detuning is $\delta = 2 \times 10^{-4},$ is shown in figure \ref{fig:big_cluster_qreso}, left panel. For reference, in figure \ref{fig:qreso_clusters_kite}, right panel, such value of $\delta$ would correspond to a high predominance of two-common-mode connections. In figure \ref{fig:big_cluster_qreso}, middle panel, we plot the biggest cluster when detuning is $\delta = 4 \times 10^{-5}$ and in right panel, we plot the biggest cluster when $\delta = 3\times 10^{-5}.$ It is evident that as the allowed detuning decreases, only high wavenumbers in size are allowed to interact and the angular distribution of active modes becomes more anisotropic.
The previous analyses showed that, as the allowed detuning goes beyond some threshold, the quasi-resonant triads tend to get connected into one big cluster, with connectivity that shifts gradually from a one-common-mode regime to a two-common-mode regime. Let us accept the hypothesis that, in a statistically invariant physical system, the typical amplitude of oscillations $\sqrt{<\psi(x,y,t)^2>}$ (averaged over $x,y,t$) activates quasi-resonant triads with allowed detuning $\delta \propto \sqrt{<\psi(x,y,t)^2>}.$ Evidence in favour of this hypothesis is given by a scaling argument in CHM equation (\ref{eq:CHM}), where the amplitude scales as the inverse of time. Therefore the detuning scales as the amplitude. We deduce that if, in a physical system, we increase gradually the amplitude of the oscillations (say, via forcing or via manipulating the initial conditions), then there is a threshold amplitude below which energy transfers throughout the spectrum of scales and directions are not permitted, and above which they are permitted and in fact favoured by the fact that the connectivity is via two common modes.\\
\noindent \textbf{Percolation phenomena.} Although we have generated only a subset of the total triads in the box of size $100$ (there are $10^8$ triads in total, and we have $4\times10^4$), the connectivity properties of our clusters behave qualitatively as those of the full set of triads. In a paper in preparation (in collaboration) by one of the authors \cite{Ha12a}, a rigorous computation of all triads in a box of size $256$ gives indication of percolation phenomena. Here we show that similar behaviour is observed in our clusters. In figure \ref{fig:qreso_clusters}, top left panel, the size of the biggest cluster as a function of the detuning level $\delta$ is plotted. We see that there is an interesting transition to predominance of the big cluster, at a certain value of detuning $\delta.$ More evidence of this transition is given in figure \ref{fig:qreso_clusters}, top right panel, where the ratio between the size of the biggest cluster and the total number of modes involved is plotted. It can be inferred from the plot, that at large enough values of $\delta,$ the big cluster contains $95\%$ of the modes involved. Another piece of evidence is given in figure \ref{fig:qreso_clusters}, lower panel, where the total number of disconnected clusters is plotted as a function of detuning level. The maximum in this figure explains the transition in terms of connectivity: when $\delta$ goes beyond $2.5 \times 10^{-5},$ the disconnected clusters begin to connect at a rate that is faster than the rate of appearance of new disconnected clusters.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{Histogram_40K.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{relation_nmodes_ntriads_qreso.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:qreso_clusters_kite} \textbf{Left Panel:} Histogram, in terms of detuning or frequency mismatch, of the $40434$ quasi-resonant triads generated within the box of size $L=100$ using the analytical method described in Section \ref{sec:quasi}. The histogram appears asymmetrical because of the convention we use to store the representative triads ($0 < k_1 \leq k_2 \leq k_3$). The physically sensible histogram is the symmetrisation of the histogram in the figure, about zero detuning. \textbf{Right Panel:} With respect to the $40434$ quasi-resonant triads within box size $L=100,$ just described in this caption, number of modes $n_{\mathrm{modes}}$ involved in quasi-resonances as a function of the allowed detuning $\delta$ (solid curve, magenta online). For small values of delta, the number of modes is bounded between the upper bound $3 \, n_{\mathrm{triads}}$ (long-dashed curve, blue online) and the lower bound $2 \, n_{\mathrm{triads}} + 1$ (short-dashed curve, yellow online), corresponding to at most one common-mode connectivity type of triads. As $\delta$ grows beyond $5 \times 10^{-5}$, the number of modes goes below the previous lower bound because two-common-mode connectivity type between triads begins to dominate. In this new type of connectivity, the lower bound is $n_{\mathrm{triads}} + 2$ (dot-dashed curve, green online). }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=40mm]{cluster_qreso_k_space.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=40mm]{cluster_qreso_k_space_mid.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=40mm]{cluster_qreso_k_space_low.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:big_cluster_qreso} In terms of the $40434$ quasi-resonant triads generated within the box of size $L=100$ using the analytical method described in Section \ref{sec:quasi}: Plots, in $(k,l)$ wavevector space, of the modes in the biggest cluster obtained when the allowed detuning is set to $\delta = 2 \times 10^{-4}$ (left panel), $\delta = 4 \times 10^{-5}$ (middle panel) and $\delta = 3\times 10^{-5}$ (right panel).}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{nbig_cluster_qreso.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{n_big_cluster_over_n_tot_reso.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{nclusters_reso.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:qreso_clusters} In terms of the $40434$ quasi-resonant triads generated within the box of size $L=100$ using the analytical method described in Section \ref{sec:quasi}: \textbf{Top Left Panel:} number of modes in the biggest cluster, as a function of the allowed detuning. \textbf{Top Right Panel:} ratio between the modes in the biggest cluster and the total number of modes in all the clusters, as a function of the allowed detuning. \textbf{Lower Panel:} Number of disconnected clusters, as a function of the allowed detuning. The three plots show evidence of a percolation transition at $\delta \approx 2.5\times 10^{-5}$ (see \cite{Ha12a}).}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{New Developments: Aspect ratio not equal to one}
\label{sec:new_dev}
In this section we consider briefly the case when aspect ratio is not equal to $1$. In other words we will be considering the case where
$$\omega(k,l) = -\frac{\beta\,k}{k^2 + f^2l^2}\,,$$
where $f=f_{1} \sqrt{ f_{2} }$, $f_{1} \in \mathbb{Q}$ and $f_{2} \in \mathbb {N}$ square free. The choice of $f$ so that $f^2$ is rational is important: otherwise the resonance condition analogous to equation \eref{eq:simplif} would split into two or more independent equations, depending on the algebraic degree of $f$. For example, if $f$ was transcendental then all non-zero solutions of the resonance conditions would involve zonal modes (e.g., $k_3=0$) which do not interact physically in an exact resonant triad.
The analysis and transformations for the case $f^2 \in \mathbb{Q}$ are analogous to the case $f=1$, with some minor changes. We omit the intermediate steps and just present the final form of the mappings. With the assumption $k_3, k_1 \neq 0,$ we define
$$D = \frac{k_3}{k_1} \, \frac{k_3 k_1 + f^2l_3 l_1}{k_3^2+f^2l_3^2}$$
and we have two cases:
\subsection{Case $D=0$}
In this case, the ratio $\frac{l_3}{f^2k_3}$ must be a pure-cube rational and we obtain a triad of the form $(k_1,l_1), (k_2,l_2), (k_3,l_3)$ with
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cube_solnf}
(k_1,l_1) = -\left(\frac{l_3}{f^2 k_3}\right)^{1/3}\,(-f^2 l_3,k_3), \quad (k_2,l_2) = (k_3 - k_1,l_3-l_1),
\end{equation}
where an overall scaling factor might be needed in order that all wavenumbers be integer.
\subsection{Case $D\neq 0$}
Provided the ratio $l_3/f^2k_3$ is not a pure-cube rational, we can produce a rational bijective mapping from an integer triad $(k_1,l_1), (k_2,l_2), (k_3,l_3)$ satisfying all resonance conditions, to the variables of an elliptic curve
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ellicurf}
X^3 - 2\,D\,X^2 + 2\,D\,X - D^2 = f^2 Y^2\,.
\end{equation}
The mapping, bijective up to re-scaling of the triad wavenumbers, is given explicitly by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mapf}
X = \frac{k_3}{k_1} \, \frac{k_1^2+f^2l_1^2}{k_3^2+f^2l_3^2}\,, \quad Y = \frac{k_3}{k_1} \, \frac{k_3 l_1 - k_1 l_3}{k_3^2+f^2 l_3^2}\,, \quad D = \frac{k_3}{k_1} \, \frac{k_3 k_1 + f^2l_3 l_1}{k_3^2+f^2l_3^2},
\end{equation}
and with inverse
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:map_invf}
\frac{k_1}{k_3} = \frac{X}{D^2+f^2 Y^2}\,,\quad \frac{l_1}{k_3} = \frac{X}{f^2 Y} \left(1-\frac{D}{D^2+f^2 Y^2}\right)\,,\quad \frac{l_3}{k_3} = \frac{D-1}{f^2 Y}\,,
\end{equation}
and $(k_2,l_2) = (k_3-k_1,l_3-l_1).$
\subsection{Classification of solutions of triad equations in terms of Fermat's theorem of sums of squares (case $D\neq0$)}
We consider the case $D \neq 0$ described in the previous Subsection.
We can rewrite the elliptic curve \eref{eq:ellicurf} as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ellicur1f}
f^2\, {Y}^2 + \left(D + X^2 - X\right)^2 = X^2 \left(X^2-X+1\right)\,,
\end{equation}
and we can divide by $X$ because $X \neq 0\,,$ obtaining:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ellicur2f}
f^2 \,\left(\frac{{Y}}{X}\right)^2 + \left(\frac{D}{X} + X - 1\right)^2 = X^2-X+1\,.
\end{equation}
The last expression is a quadratic form that is best written in diagonal form by defining
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Xmnf}
X \equiv -\frac{m+n}{m-n}, \quad m, n \in \mathbb{Z}\,,
\end{equation}
so we get the equation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ellicur3f}
f^2 \, \left(\frac{{Y} (m-n)^2}{m+n}\right)^2 + \left(\frac{D(m-n)^2}{m+n} + 2\,m\right)^2 = 3\,m^2 + n^2\,.
\end{equation}
Finally, using the definition of the aspect ratio $f = f_1 \sqrt{f_2}$ with $f_1 \in \mathbb{Q}$ and $f_2 \in \mathbb{N}$ square free, we obtain the equation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ellicur4f}
f_2 \, \left(\frac{{f_1 \, Y} (m-n)^2}{m+n}\right)^2 + \left(\frac{D(m-n)^2}{m+n} + 2\,m\right)^2 = 3\,m^2 + n^2\,.
\end{equation}
The problem is thus reduced to finding representations of integers as sums of the form $3 m^2 + n^2$ with $m,n$ integers, and of the form $f_2 s^2 + q^2$ with $s,q$ rationals, where $f_2$ is a square-free natural number. The solution to this problem depends of course on the explicit value of $f_2,$ but the method is straightforward and computable, due to the so-called Hasse-Minkowski theorem, see \cite [pages 61-69]{Shaf}. Essentially, the solution algorithm will be very similar to the one shown in Section \ref{sec:Fermat}. The details will be presented in a forthcoming paper.
\section{Applicability of the method to the general CHM equation}
\label{sec:concl}
In this Section we consider briefly some remarks about the search for exact resonances in the case of the Charney-Hasegawa-Mima equation with arbitrary coefficient $F>0.$ Our paper focused on the case $F=0$ due to a technical reason: in the case $F>0,$ the system of Diophantine equations stemming from the resonance conditions becomes more difficult to analyse in terms of our mappings. We believe that the general case $F>0$ is far from obvious and requires more research for its resolution. To provide evidence of this, we show three results obtained by direct computations on a box of wavenumbers $0 < k \leq 60, \,\, -60 \leq l \leq 60.$
First, the resonance conditions for $F>0$ are again Eqs. (\ref{eq:reso_1})--(\ref{eq:reso_3}), but the frequency is given by the following dispersion relation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dispersionF}
\omega(k,l) \equiv -\frac{\beta \, k}{k^2+l^2+F}\,.
\end{equation}
After some simple algebra, it follows that the resonance conditions imply that $F$ must be rational, and in fact it must be given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Fsol}
\scriptstyle F = -\frac{{k_2} \left({k_1} ({k_1}+{k_2}) \left({k_1}^2+{k_1} {k_2}+{k_2}^2\right)+2 {k_1} ({k_1}+{k_2}) {l_1}^2+{l_1}^4\right)+2 {k_2} {l_1} \left({k_1} ({k_1}+{k_2})+{l_1}^2\right) {l_2}+2 {k_1} {k_2} ({k_1}+{k_2}) {l_2}^2+2 {k_1} {l_1} {l_2}^3+{k_1} {l_2}^4}{{k_2} \left(3 {k_1} ({k_1}+{k_2})+{l_1}^2\right)+2 ({k_1}+{k_2}) {l_1} {l_2}+{k_1} {l_2}^2}.
\end{equation}
Keeping in mind that $k_1,l_1,k_2,l_2$ are integers, a brute-force search is possible where we cover all possible triads in wavenumber space and only keep the triads that produce $F>0$ according to equation (\ref{eq:Fsol}). On the given box of size $60,$ there are $10614734$ triads with generic interaction coefficients (i.e., such that no interaction coefficient is identically zero), and amongst these triads, only $633360$ triads (about $6\%$ of the total) correspond to exact triads for some positive, and necessarily rational, $F$. Of these exact triads, only $22460$ triads correspond to \emph{integer} values of $F.$ Despite the relatively small fractions, the number of integer cases is big enough to give us some hope of finding, in the future, a generalisation of the method valid for $F=0.$ However, there is an important observation: let us order the values of $F$ in terms of the total number of resonant triads that they give rise to, within the box considered. These values of $F$ do not show an obvious pattern, other than the fact that the majority of them are integers. The first few values are: $F=0$ ($28$ triads), $F=175$ ($26$ triads), $F=10$ ($22$ triads), the cases $F=250, 1075, 50, 475$ all give $20$ triads each, and so on. But not all interesting $F$ values are multiples of $5$ or integers. For example, $F=986$ gives $16$ triads and $F=590/3$ gives $12$ triads. In terms of connectivity, most of the cases with more than $10$ triads give groups of clusters (with one-common-mode connectivity), of particular interest being the case $F=875,$ which has $18$ triads, subdivided into $8$ isolated triads, $1$ butterfly and $1$ cluster of $8$ triads (see figure \ref{fig:F_875_clusters_L_60}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{triads_F_875.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:F_875_clusters_L_60} Exact resonant clusters for the CHM equation, dispersion relation (\ref{eq:dispersionF}) with $F=875,$ in the domain $|k|, |l| \leq 60.$ }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
As a second insight, we look at the distribution of the $308544$ different values of $F > 0$ found numerically, that give rise to exact resonant triads within the box of size $L = 60.$ It turns out that these values are distributed in a kind of Log-Normal distribution (perhaps with fat tails). This is evidenced by looking at figure \ref{fig:lnF_distr_L_60}, left panel, which shows the probability density function (PDF) of the natural logarithms of the $308544$ values of $F$ (bars). The shape is quite symmetric. For comparison, a Gaussian distribution with the same mean and variance is shown (solid curve), and a vertical dashed line denotes the centre of the distribution, $\ln F_0,$ the typical value of $\ln F.$ There is an obvious mismatch between the histogram and the Gaussian fit, particularly near the centre of the distribution. We have observed (figure not shown) that the position of the centre of the distribution seems to follow the pattern $F_0 \approx 0.5 \,L^2,$ where $L$ is the box size ($L=60$ for figure \ref{fig:lnF_distr_L_60}, giving $F_0 \approx 1489$). Physically this means that most of the resonant triads found have values of $F$ comparable to the typical squares of the wavevectors, so that the terms in the denominator of equation (\ref{eq:dispersionF}) become balanced.
As a third insight, the fact that the values of $F$ are rational imply that they are somehow scattered. A measure of this scattering is obtained by looking at the distribution of $\delta \ln F,$ the separation between contiguous values of $\ln F$ in our list of $308544$ values. The logarithm of the separation is distributed according to the PDF shown in figure \ref{fig:lnF_distr_L_60}, right panel. The distribution is asymmetric. The mean of this distribution (in other words, the typical logarithm of the separation) seems to decrease with increasing box size (figure not shown). For $L=60,$ we conclude that contiguous values of $F$ near $F_0$ are separated by a typical distance of $\delta F_0 \approx 0.0205.$ \\
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{Histogram_ln_F.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{Histogram_ln_delta_ln_F.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:lnF_distr_L_60} \textbf{Left Panel:} Bars: probability density function (PDF) of the natural logarithms of the $308544$ positive values of $F$ obtained by evaluating Eq.(\ref{eq:Fsol}) over the grid $1 \leq k_1, k_2 \leq 60,$ $0 \leq |l_1|, |l_2| \leq 60.$ Solid curve: Gaussian distribution with the same mean and variance as the PDF. Vertical dashed line: mean of the distribution, $\ln F_0 \approx 7.31.$ \textbf{Right Panel:} Bars: PDF of the natural logarithms of the separation between contiguous values of $\ln F,$ taken from the $308544$ positive values of $F$ used in left panel. Vertical dashed line: mean of this distribution, $\ln (\ln (F_0+\delta F_0)-\ln F_0) \approx -11.2.$}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\noindent \textbf{Quasi-Resonances for $F > 0$.} It is possible to show that the $F=0$ resonant triads obtained with our method can be used directly as quasi-resonant triads in the case $F \gtrsim 0,$ via the replacement $k^2 + l^2 \to k^2 + l^2 + F$ in the denominator of the dispersion relation (\ref{eq:dispersion}). When $\sqrt{F}$ is comparable to or greater than the box size under consideration, our $F=0$ method will have to be modified, because it relies on a down-scaling of the wavenumbers in the triads, a procedure that is not possible in the case $F>0$ without re-scaling $F$ itself: a direct application of our method in the general case $F>0$ will miss some triads, and will produce too high detuning levels.
Let us assume we have some general method for constructing the exact resonances for any rational $F > 0.$ Then one can devise a method for constructing quasi-resonant triads, with controlled value of detuning, for any real value of $F>0.$ The method is as follows: (i) For any \emph{real} $F_*>0$ there is a neighbourhood of rational values of $F$ near $F_*,$ whose exact triads are in fact quasi-resonant triads for $F_*.$ (ii) Exact resonant triads have values of $F$ distributed in a smooth PDF as in figure \ref{fig:lnF_distr_L_60}, which guarantees that there will be a sufficient number of quasi-resonant triads.
Notice that when $F_*$ is reasonably small (but finite), this new method can be used directly to find quasi-resonant triads via a direct search (using for example the data leading to figure \ref{fig:lnF_distr_L_60}). But when $F_*$ is too large, or when the box size is too large, the direct search method will take too long and one will need to use an analytic method to find the exact resonances for any rational $F$. This research will be part of a subsequent work.
Another interesting question that we will consider in the future is how to extend our method to treat other nonlinear PDE models of turbulence, with dispersion relations that are either polynomials or quotients of polynomials. In particular, we will study the barotropic vorticity equation on the sphere, leading to the so-called Rossby-Haurwitz triads, more suitable for atmospheric models. This equation can be treated using a direct extension of our method.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We acknowledge useful scientific discussions with C. Connaughton, J. Harris, D. Holmes, P. Lynch, G. McGuire, S. Nazarenko, M. Reid, S. Siksek, B. Quinn.
MDB acknowledges UCD support under project SF564.
|
\section{Introduction and Main Results}
\label{sec:introduction}
Originally proposed by Bern, Carrasco and Johansson \citep{Bern2008,Bern2010a}, the remarkable discovery of color-kinematics duality provides a powerful tool for exploring gravity amplitudes by starting from Yang-Mills amplitudes and ``squaring'' the kinematic numerators (double-copy construction). This technique has led to a new way of thinking about tree and loop amplitudes. At tree level the validity of this construction has been proved \citep{Bern2010}, and the existence of duality-respecting kinematic numerators has been explicitly shown for all numbers of external particles \citep{Bern2008,Bjerrum-Bohr2011,Mafra2011,Bjerrum-Bohr2012}. At loop level, arguments from unitary cuts and soft limit strongly suggest that the double-copy construction should hold as long as the duality is achieved \citep{Bern2010a,Bern2010,Oxburgh2012}. This together with the validity of a duality-respecting formula has be confirmed in various cases for $4$ points up to $4$ loops and for $5$ points up to $2$ loops \citep{Bern2010a,Carrasco2012,Carrasco2011,Bern2011,Boucher-Veronneau2011,Naculich2012,Bern2012,Bern2012a}, the situation at $4$ points $5$ loops is currently under exploration \cite{Bern2012b}, and the self-dual sector in Yang-Mills has also been studied \citep{Monteiro2011}. A natural next step is to study $1$-loop MHV amplitudes with $n\geq6$ as well as the explicit connection between the maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory and gravity here. The purpose of this paper is to give some first steps in this direction.
In the 90's, Del Duca, Dixon and Maltoni showed that one-loop amplitudes in Yang-Mills can be written as~\footnote{Here we use a notation $\mathcal{A}^{(L)}$ (or $A^{(L)}$) to indicate the level of the amplitude, where $L$ is the number of loops, and $L=0$ refers to tree-level amplitudes. The curly letter denotes the full amplitudes and the ordinary letter denotes the partial amplitudes. The tilde sign indicates that the formula is written without helicity factor or SUSY delta functions. Yang-Mills amplitudes are denoted by the letter $\mathcal{A}$ (or $A$) and gravity amplitudes by $\mathcal{M}$.}~\citep{DelDuca2000b}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:result1}
\mathcal{A}^{(1)}_n=g^{n}_{\rm YM} \sum_{\sigma\in S_n/(\mathbb{Z}_n\times\mathbb{Z}_2)}f_{\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n}
A^{(1)}_n(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n)
\end{equation}
where $f_{\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n}$ is a combination of structure constants $f_{abc}$ contracted in a necklace-like form and $A^{(1)}_n(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n)$ is the so-called leading color partial amplitude of the more standard color-decomposition~\citep{Dixon1996}.
In \citep{Arkani-Hamed2010,Arkani-Hamed2011}, a formula for $A^{(1)}_n(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n)$ in terms of special integrals which gives physical results on all compact contours respecting the color-ordering was presented. We write it as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:result1a}
A^{(1)}_n(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n) = \frac{\delta^4(p_1+\cdots +p_n)\delta^8(\lambda_1\widetilde{\eta}_1+\cdots +\lambda_n\widetilde{\eta}_n)}{\langle\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n\rangle}\mathcal{P}_n(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n)
\end{equation}
where $\langle\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n\rangle$ is a shorthand notation for the standard Parke-Taylor denominator \citep{Parke1986}. In the rest of the paper we will not write the (super) momentum conservation delta functions and the coupling constant in any amplitude in order not to clutter equations.
In this paper, we show that a simple combination of \eqref{eq:result1} and \eqref{eq:result1a}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:newYMconjecture}
\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}^{(1)}_n=\sum_{\sigma\in S_n/(\mathbb{Z}_n\times\mathbb{Z}_2)}\frac{f_{\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n}}{\langle\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n\rangle}
\mathcal{P}_n(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n),
\end{equation}
gives a formula that matches physical residues on all compact contours.
We propose to use $\mathcal{P}_n(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n)$ as a basis of integrals not only in Yang-Mills but also for gravity amplitudes. The intention is to seek for a clearer observation of the relations between the two theories. In brief, these are totally ``planar'' objects enjoying cyclic and reflection symmetry as well as simple residues on all contours, and we propose to call them MHV polygons.
By expanding the MHV polygons onto scalar loop integrals and studying the color-kinematics duality, we manage to recover Carrasco and Johansson's result for $5$-pt case in $\mathcal{N}=8$ supergravity \citep{Carrasco2012}, and further transform it back to our formulation, which is as simple and compact as that in Yang-Mills theory
\begin{equation}\label{eq:result3}
\mathcal{M}^{(1)}_5=\sum_{\sigma\in S_5/(\mathbb{Z}_5\times\mathbb{Z}_2)}\frac{1}{\langle\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5\rangle}\frac{[\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5]}{\epsilon(\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4)}\mathcal{P}_5(\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5).
\end{equation}
Here $[\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5]$ denotes the Parke-Taylor denominator of an $\overline{{\rm MHV}}$ tree amplitude while $\epsilon(\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4)$ is the standard fully anti-symmetric tensor contracted with four vectors.
Then as we go on to $6$-pt case, we start to observe a new phenomenon. The formula for the gravity amplitude can still be expressed nicely as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:result4}
\mathcal{M}^{(1)}_6=\sum_{\sigma\in S_6/(\mathbb{Z}_6\times\mathbb{Z}_2)}\frac{\gamma(\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5\sigma_6)}{\langle\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5\sigma_6\rangle^2}\mathcal{P}_6(\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5\sigma_6),
\end{equation}
with the coefficients $\gamma$ required to satisfy a set of constraints, each of which relates two $\gamma$'s that differ only by a transposition of two adjacent labels; e.g.~for the standard ordering, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:result4a}
\begin{split}
\frac{\gamma(123456)}{\la123456\rangle\epsilon(123456)}+\frac{\gamma(213456)}{\la213456\rangle\epsilon(213456)}&\\
+\frac{[12][34][56]}{\la12\rangle\la34\rangle\la56\rangle}\frac{s_{12}s_{34}s_{45}s_{56}\la3|4+5|6][3|4+5|6\rangle}{\epsilon(123456)\epsilon(213456)\epsilon(3456)}&=0,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon(abcdef)=\langle ab\rangle[bc]\langle cd\rangle[de]\langle ef\rangle[fa]-[ab]\langle bc\rangle[cd]\langle de\rangle[ef]\langle fa\rangle$. For convenience, we refer to these constraints as a single \emph{functional} constraint, in the sense that it depends on a choice of permutation of the labels. Quite surprisingly, all physical information in $\mathcal{M}^{(1)}_6$ becomes $\gamma$ independent. More explicitly, once $\mathcal{P}_6(\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5\sigma_6)$ is expanded, on the physical $\mathbb{R}^4$ contour, in terms of only scalar box integrals the corresponding coefficients become $\gamma$ independent after using the functional equation. This fact is actually quite welcome as the functional equation has no solutions!
The functional equation \eqref{eq:result4a} is found by first expanding the MHV polygons in the Yang-Mills amplitude in terms of scalar integrals. We then add some particular set of redundancies to impose the color-kinematics duality conditions. It turns out that all conditions boil down to the single functional equation \eqref{eq:result4a}. Using {double-copy construction}{} we obtain the corresponding gravity amplitude. Just as for five particles, it is possible to transform it back to our formulation leading to the formula presented above.
The fact that the functional equation has no solutions implies that the numerators we found in Yang-Mills which in principle satisfy the color-kinematics duality do not actually exist. This should {\it not} come as a surprise as our ansatz for the redundancies was {\it not} the most general one. What is surprising is that even with a ``virtual" solution to the color-kinematics duality conditions one can still square the numerators to get the corresponding gravity amplitude.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:polygon} we introduce MHV polygons and summarize their general properties, after which we prove the formula for $n$-pt $1$-loop MHV amplitudes in super Yang-Mills constructed with these polygons. Then in Section \ref{sec:5ptcase} we analyze the $5$-pt case to give a taste of the relation between this new formulation and the color-kinematics duality in the context discussed by Carrasco and Johansson. Afterwards, in Section \ref{sec:6ptcase} we focus on the simplest case where new phenomena would arise, where we analyze the color structure, obtain the condition on which color-kinematics duality is satisfied, and explain the ``inconsistency'' that appears. In Section \ref{sec:6ptsugra} we go on to test the corresponding conjectured supergravity amplitude, where we provide evidences from quadruple cuts. The details of this analysis as well as a short introduction to color-kinematics duality are summarized in the appendices. In the end, we list out some possible future explorations along this line.
\vskip 0.5in
\section{MHV Polygons and Their Properties}
\label{sec:polygon}
As has been stated in the introduction, we use chiral tensor integrals that possess unit leading singularities to build $1$-loop MHV amplitudes \citep{Arkani-Hamed2010,Arkani-Hamed2011}, in order to bring all physically important information into the coefficients attached to them. Specifically within the context of our discussion, we call these objects $n$-pt MHV polygons (or MHV $n$-gons), and symbolically denote them as $\mathcal{P}_n(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n)$. They are functions of the configuration of external particles (both the ordering and the kinematics data), and can be defined in two equivalent ways. One is that an $n$-pt MHV polygon shares the same configuration of leading singularities with its corresponding $1$-loop MHV Yang-Mills partial amplitude, but with the values of all non-zero leading singularities normalized. The other definition, as can be seen in \eqref{eq:result1a}, is by the following equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:polygondefinition}
\mathcal{P}_n(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n)
=\frac{\widetilde{A}^{(1)}_n(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n)}{\widetilde{A}^{(0)}_n(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n)}.
\end{equation}
The equivalence of the two definitions is due to the fact that for any quadruple cut on the $1$-loop MHV Yang-Mills amplitude, the associated leading singularity (whenever it is non-zero) is always the corresponding tree-level amplitude \citep{Cachazo2008}.
By definition, these objects should be invariant under both cyclic permutation and reflection of the sequence of the particle labels
\begin{align}
\label{eq:polygoncycl}\mathcal{P}_n(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_{n-1}\sigma_n)&=\mathcal{P}_n(\sigma_2\sigma_3\ldots\sigma_n\sigma_1),\\
\label{eq:polygonrefl}\mathcal{P}_n(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_{n-1}\sigma_n)&=\mathcal{P}_n(\sigma_n\sigma_{n-1}\ldots\sigma_2\sigma_1).
\end{align}
That is to say, for $n$ particles, the length of the set $\{\mathcal{P}_n\}$ is $(n-1)!/2$, and each MHV polygon is a planar object with a fixed ordering of particle labels.
It is always possible to expand MHV polygons as a linear combination of scalar pentagon integrals and scalar box integrals, and the general method to obtain this expansion is worked out in \citep{Arkani-Hamed2011}. Here we will only list out the $5$-pt and $6$-pt cases, which are needed in subsequent analysis.
For any MHV pentagon (e.g.~$\mathcal{P}_5(12345)$), there is one unique reduction formula
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pentagonreduction}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{P}_5(12345)&=\frac{s_{12}s_{23}s_{34}s_{45}s_{51}}{\epsilon(1234)}I_5(1|2|3|4|5)\\
&+\sum_{\mathbb{Z}_5}\frac{\la34\rangle[45]\la51\rangle[13]s_{12}s_{23}}{\epsilon(1234)}I_4(1|2|3|45),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the summation in the second line is performed over cyclic permutations of the sequence $(12345)$; $I_n$ denotes the ordinary scalar loop integrals with $n$ loop propagators, and the vertical bars in the arguments separate external legs into groups that connect to different vertices on the loop. We also use the notation $s_{ab}=(p_a+p_b)^2$, and the $\epsilon$ symbol is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:epsilon4def}
\begin{split}
\epsilon(abcd)&=4i\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}p^\mu_ap^\nu_bp^\rho_cp^\sigma_d\\
&=\langle ab\rangle[bc]\langle cd\rangle[da]-[ab]\langle bc\rangle[cd]\langle da\rangle,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and so it is completely antisymmetric in its arguments.
Redundancies begin to appear in the reduction of MHV hexagons (e.g.~$\mathcal{P}_6(123456)$). From the method as given in \citep{Arkani-Hamed2011}, by fixing label $1$ and $6$, we can obtain one specific formula
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hexagonreduction1}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{P}_6(123456)
&=-\sum\frac{s_{34}s_{45}s_{56}(3|4+5|6)^2}{\epsilon(3456)}I_5(12|3|4|5|6)\\
&\quad-\sum\frac{\la12\rangle[23]\la34\rangle[41](1|2+3|4)^2}{\epsilon(1234)}I_4(1|23|4|56)\\
&\quad+\sum\frac{s_{56}\epsilon(123456)(5|3+4|6)^2}{\epsilon(3456)\epsilon(5612)}I_4(12|34|5|6)\\
&\quad+\sum s_{45}s_{56}\frac{\la34\rangle[46][3|4+5|6\rangle}{\epsilon(3456)}I_4(123|4|5|6)\\
&\quad+\sum s_{34}s_{45}\frac{[35]\la56\rangle\la3|4+5|6]}{\epsilon(3456)}I_4(612|3|4|5).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In the above expression, each summation is performed over cyclic permutations of even steps. And we use the following abbreviations
\begin{align}
\label{eq:parenthesis}(a|b+c|d)^2&=\langle a|b+c|d][a|b+c|d\rangle,\\
\label{eq:epsilon6def}\epsilon(abcdef)&=\langle ab\rangle[bc]\langle cd\rangle[de]\langle ef\rangle[fa]-[ab]\langle bc\rangle[cd]\langle de\rangle[ef]\langle fa\rangle.
\end{align}
In \eqref{eq:parenthesis} the square is just a notation to keep track of the dimension. We can observe that $\epsilon(abcdef)$ is invariant under cyclic permutation of even steps, and acquires a minus sign under cyclic permutation of odd steps.
Note that, \eqref{eq:hexagonreduction1} is manifestly invariant only under cyclic permutations of the labels by even steps, and it consists of only half of all the pentagon and box integrals with the correct ordering. Although cyclic permutations of odd steps also leads to a valid formula (which is by itself also manifestly invariant under cyclic permutations of even steps), their equivalence is only guaranteed by non-trivial identities among the pentagon and box integrals. Let us denote these two reductions as $\mathcal{H}(123456)$ and $\mathcal{H}(234561)$ respectively. With the purpose of exploring color-kinematics duality later on in the context of loop integrals, we should exhaust the entire loop integral basis. And so we need to express the MHV hexagon as a linear combination of the two reductions
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fullhexreduction}
\mathcal{P}_6(123456)=\alpha(123456)\mathcal{H}(123456)+\beta(123456)\mathcal{H}(234561),
\end{equation}
under the constraint
\begin{equation}\label{eq:alphaconstraint}
\alpha(123456)+\beta(123456)=1.
\end{equation}
Here the argument in the parenthesis is pure labeling and identical up to cyclic permutations of even steps. If we regard them as functions of particles' kinematics data, the functions should respect this symmetry. But notice that by now there is no definition for e.g.~$\alpha(234561)$ and $\beta(234561)$, so that we can further identify
\begin{equation}
\alpha(234561)=\beta(123456),
\end{equation}
and require that as functions, $\alpha(234561)$ and $\alpha(123456)$ are related by permutations. Then both the $\alpha$ functional parameter and the reduction formula \eqref{eq:fullhexreduction} manifestly enjoy the full cyclic invariance.
\vskip 0.5in
\section{$1$-Loop MHV Amplitudes in $\mathcal{N}=4$ Super Yang-Mills}
\label{sec:yangmills}
We first go on to show that given the MHV polygons defined in the previous section, the formula \eqref{eq:newYMconjecture}
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}^{(1)}_n=\sum_{\sigma\in S_n/(\mathbb{Z}_n\times\mathbb{Z}_2)}\frac{f_{\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n}}{\langle\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n\rangle}
\mathcal{P}_n(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n)
\end{equation*}
matches correct physical residues on all contours. In order to do this, we need to use a special formula for the tree-level amplitude \citep{DelDuca2000c}, which can be easily proved by Britto-Cachazo-Feng-Witten (BCFW) method \citep{Britto2005d,Britto2005e}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:chainformula}
\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}^{(0)}_{n}=\sum_{\sigma\in S_{n-2}}\frac{f_{1\sigma_2,\sigma_3,\ldots,\sigma_{n-2},\sigma_{n-1}n}}{\langle1\sigma_2\sigma_3\cdots\sigma_{n-1}n\rangle},
\end{equation}
where we take the abbreviation
\begin{equation}
f_{1\sigma_2,\sigma_3,\ldots,\sigma_{n-2},\sigma_{n-1}n}=f_{1\sigma_2a_2}f_{a_2\sigma_3a_3}\cdots f_{a_{n-2}\sigma_{n-1}n},
\end{equation}
and the permutation $\sigma_i$ is taken over the label set $\{2,3,\ldots,n-1\}$. This can be visualized as the summation of chain-like diagrams where we fix the two ends of the ``chain'' (in the given formula we fix $1$ and $n$) and fully permute all the intermediate vertices.
Then we go on to evaluate the factorization of $1$-loop full amplitude in the quadruple cuts in $\mathcal{N}=4$ super Yang-Mills. Since in \eqref{eq:chainformula} each color factor is accompanied by a kinematic factor which has exactly the form of an MHV tree-level partial amplitude, we can start by evaluating the quadruple cuts on partial amplitude. As has been mentioned previously, in MHV super Yang-Mills amplitudes, whenever the factorization is non-trivial, it always has the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:factorizationYM}
A^{(1)}_n\longrightarrow\prod^4A^{(0)}=A^{(0)}_n\cdot\text{Det}(|J|),
\end{equation}
where $\text{Det}(|J|)$ is exactly identical to the Jacobi determinant arising from cutting loop propagators and is to be exactly canceled by that factor under quadruple cut \citep{Cachazo2008}. So what is left to be matched from the ansatz side is purely the Parke-Taylor form.
Now switch to the full amplitude, where the non-trivial factorizations only come from two types of quadruple cuts. The virtue of the formula \eqref{eq:chainformula} is that, due to the freedom in picking up any two external particles as the two ends of the chain, if we always choose in the factorized amplitudes those ``external particles'' from the cut propagators, then as a result the color factors will just glue together to form the maximal loop (in the sense of color diagrams). And when combining the results on the corresponding kinematic factors that mimic partial amplitudes, we conclude the non-vanishing factorizations are always
\begin{equation}\label{eq:factorizationChain}
\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}^{(1)}_n\longrightarrow\prod^4\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}^{(0)}=\text{Det}(|J|)\cdot\sum_{\{\sigma^{(1)}\}}\sum_{\{\sigma^{(2)}\}}\sum_{\{\sigma^{(3)}\}}\sum_{\{\sigma^{(4)}\}}\frac{f_{\{\sigma^{(1)}\}\{\sigma^{(2)}\}\{\sigma^{(3)}\}\{\sigma^{(4)}\}}}{\langle\{\sigma^{(1)}\}\{\sigma^{(2)}\}\{\sigma^{(3)}\}\{\sigma^{(4)}\}\rangle},
\end{equation}
where the summation is performed over the group of external particles attached to each factorized amplitude respectively. This is exactly what we would get if the formula sums over all non-equivalent MHV polygons and the coefficient in front of each MHV polygon has the form as shown in \eqref{eq:newYMconjecture}. So we conclude that with the MHV polygons defined in \eqref{eq:polygondefinition} as the fundamental building block, the formula for $1$-loop $n$-pt MHV super Yang-Mills full amplitude is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:newYMformula}
\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}^{(1)}_n=\sum_{\sigma\in S_n/(\mathbb{Z}_n\times\mathbb{Z}_2)}\frac{f_{\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n}}{\langle\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n\rangle}
\mathcal{P}_n(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n).
\end{equation}
\vskip 0.5in
\section{From Yang-Mills to Gravity: $5$-pt $1$-Loop Amplitudes}
\label{sec:5ptcase}
In order to provide an example of how our formulation may work between Yang-Mills and gravity, in this section we focus on the $5$-pt case, showing that our formula
\begin{equation}\label{eq:5pt1loopYM}
\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}^{(1)}_5=\sum_{\sigma\in S_5/(\mathbb{Z}_5\times\mathbb{Z}_2)}\frac{f_{\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5}}{\langle\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5\rangle}\mathcal{P}_5(\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5)
\end{equation}
naturally gives rise to color-kinematics duality in its expansion onto scalar loop integrals, and further obtaining the corresponding gravity amplitude as a compact expression also built purely upon MHV pentagons.
In the reduction formula for the MHV pentagons \eqref{eq:pentagonreduction}, it is easy to observe that each $I_5$ receives a unique contribution from its corresponding $\mathcal{P}_5$, while the coefficient in front of each $I_4$ would receive contributions from two $\mathcal{P}_5$'s. To make the structure that appears in later discussion more apparent, we define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Qdefinition}
Q(\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5)=\frac{[\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5]}{\epsilon(\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4)},
\end{equation}
where similar to the abbreviation for angle brackets, we have
\begin{equation}
[\sigma_1\sigma_2\cdots\sigma_n]=[\sigma_1\sigma_2][\sigma_2\sigma_3]\cdots[\sigma_n\sigma_1].
\end{equation}
The function $Q$ is totally symmetric in any cyclic permutation of the labels and acquires a minus sign under reflection~\footnote{It is interesting that this $Q$ also played an important role in the analysis of \cite{Carrasco2012}} (This is desirable since $\langle\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5\rangle Q(\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5)$ is the coefficient of the pentagon integral, and we would prefer it to have the same symmetry with the corresponding basis element). Then the coefficient of one specific $I_4$, e.g.~$I_4(1|2|3|45)$ is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
f_{12345}&\frac{[12][13][23][45]}{\la45\rangle\epsilon(1234)}-f_{12354}\frac{[12][13][23][54]}{\la54\rangle\epsilon(1235)}\\
=&\frac{1}{s_{45}}f_{a1b}f_{b2c}f_{c3d}f_{dea}f_{e45}\left[Q(12345)-Q(12354)\right].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
So in the expansion the formula is again purely in terms of another functional coefficient $Q$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:5ptCJresult}
\begin{split}
\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}^{(1)}_5&=\sum f_{\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3,\sigma_4\sigma_5}\left[Q(\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5)-Q(\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_5\sigma_4)\right]\frac{I_4(\sigma_1|\sigma_2|\sigma_3|\sigma_4\sigma_5)}{s_{\sigma_4\sigma_5}}\\
&\quad+\sum f_{\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5}Q(\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5)I_5(\sigma_1|\sigma_2|\sigma_3|\sigma_4|\sigma_5),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where we use the abbreviation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:abbref}
f_{\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3,\sigma_4\sigma_5}=f_{a\sigma_1b}f_{b\sigma_2c}f_{c\sigma_3d}f_{dea}f_{e\sigma_4\sigma_5},
\end{equation}
and the summations are performed over all nonequivalent permutations of the labels respectively. Very nicely, at this point we may observe that this is exactly Carrasco and Johansson's result obtained in \citep{Carrasco2012} from an ansatz that respects color-kinematics duality~\footnote{For a quick review of the color-kinematics duality, please refer to Appendix \ref{app:CKDuality}.}, where the basis are $\{I_4/s,I_5\}$.
A more interesting implication is that the MHV pentagons in the new formulation naturally encodes the color-kinematics duality in an implicit way. In fact, we can modify the expansion of $\mathcal{P}_5$ \eqref{eq:pentagonreduction} into a different form, e.g.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pentagonexpansion2}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{P}_5(12345)
&=\la12345\rangle\bigg\{Q(12345)I_5(1|2|3|4|5)+\sum_{\mathbb{Z}_5}\frac{Q(12345)-Q(12354)}{s_{45}}I_4(1|2|3|45)\bigg\}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Hence we observe that, the MHV polygons may have a special reduction formula where all the coefficients of lower-order scalar loop integrals can be generated solely by the one that corresponds to its unique highest-order scalar loop integral. For this particular $5$-pt case, this structure comes right from the unique reduction formula of MHV pentagons.
To further appreciate the power of this $Q$ functional coefficient, we go on to $1$-loop $5$-pt gravity amplitude. Since the structure of the expansion onto loop integrals satisfies the full color-kinematics duality, by the {double-copy construction}{} originally proposed by Bern, Carrasco and Johansson \citep{Bern2010a}, we can immediately substitute the color factor by another copy of the kinematic factor in each term in the the expansion, and the resulted formula is expected to be the correct gravity amplitude, which has already been confirmed in \citep{Carrasco2012}. Moreover, it is not hard to check that in $5$-pt case, the resulted expression can even be directly re-summed to be a formula purely consisted of MHV pentagons again
\begin{equation}\label{eq:newGRformula5pt}
\mathcal{M}^{(1)}_5=\sum_{\sigma\in S_5/(\mathbb{Z}_5\times\mathbb{Z}_2)}\frac{Q(\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5)}{\langle\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5\rangle}\mathcal{P}_5(\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4\sigma_5).
\end{equation}
\vskip 0.5in
\section{From Yang-Mills to Gravity: $6$-pt $1$-Loop Amplitudes}
\label{sec:6ptcase}
Since in $5$-pt case we have observed that the MHV polygons serve as a very nice basis for $\mathcal{N}=8$ supergravity amplitude, we would like to see whether they continue to work for more particles. But we need to start by checking $6$-pt case, since redundancies start to occur in the reduction formula of MHV hexagons. The strategy is still to expand the MHV polygons into loop integrals, and seek for color-kinematics duality, and once this duality is satisfied, we can directly check whether {double-copy construction}{} gives the correct gravity amplitude. However, one needs to be cautious, because due to the redundancies the expansion does not in general have the correct color structure (in the sense that it matches with the corresponding trivalent diagram, upon which color-kinematics duality is based \citep{Bern2008,Bern2010a,Carrasco2012}. This is always true at tree level, but one needs to take loop propagators into consideration at loop levels. For more detailed discussion, please refer to Appendix \ref{app:CKDuality}). In $6$-pt case it turns out that, once we tune the expansion to have the correct color structure under our construction, color-kinematics duality is just a subsequent outcome, although a new phenomena would arise at the same time, which we will discuss in later parts of the paper.
\subsection{Analysis of the Redundancies}
In Section \ref{sec:polygon}, we have already obtained a reduction formula \eqref{eq:fullhexreduction} for MHV hexagons, which is manifestly cyclic symmetric. However, \eqref{eq:fullhexreduction} is still not nice enough to work with. Instead, we choose a particular point for the $\alpha$ parameter, and add deviations upon it
\begin{equation}\label{eq:parameterdeviation}
\begin{split}
\alpha(123456)&=-\frac{[12]\la23\rangle[34]\la45\rangle[56]\la61\rangle}{\epsilon(123456)}+\Delta(123456),\\
\alpha(234561)&=-\frac{[23]\la34\rangle[45]\la56\rangle[61]\la12\rangle}{\epsilon(234561)}-\Delta(123456).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We can see the original constraint \eqref{eq:alphaconstraint} on the $\alpha$ parameter is automatically satisfied. The virtue of analyzing around this particular point will be clear in the next subsection. But still $\Delta(234561)$ has no definition, and since $\alpha(234561)$ and $\alpha(123456)$ are assumed to be related by permutations, we would expect $\alpha(234561)$ can be naturally associated with a parameter $\Delta(234561)$ in the same way. And so it is necessary to further impose the condition
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Deltasymmetry}
\Delta(234561)=-\Delta(123456).
\end{equation}
Then $\Delta(abcdef)$ shares the same symmetry as $\epsilon(abcdef)$ under cyclic permutations.
With these adjustments, the reduction formula of the MHV hexagons still only have pentagon integrals and box integrals, but no hexagon integral~\footnote{We don't consider here adding any tensor structures to the loop integrals, {because by applying Carrasco and Johansson's ansatz \cite{Carrasco2012} with the most general tensor structures to $6$-pt case, one can check that once the full color-kinematics duality is assumed to hold, any tensors of the type $l^2l^2$ just vanish, and any tensors of the type $l^2$ are purely gauge redundancies, which can be set to zero. We will not discuss this any further since it is not relevant for our current purpose.}}. The hexagon integral should be introduced via the identities between hexagon integral and pentagon integrals, which can also be worked out systematically \citep{VanNeerven1984} (see also \citep{Binoth1999,Binoth2005}). Since in the amplitude, each MHV hexagon is dressed by the color factor corresponding to the maximal color loop with the same sequence of labels, in a particular MHV hexagon we would add identity that involves only one hexagon integral whose labels fall into the correct sequence, otherwise in the resulted expansion formula the structure of the kinematic factor and the color factor would be drastically different, which is what we want to get rid of.
Then take $\mathcal{P}(123456)$ as an example, the identity that meets these requirements is unique
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hexagonpentagonidentity}
\begin{split}
I_6(1|2|3|4|5|6)-\sum_{\mathbb{Z}_6}\frac{\epsilon(3456)}{\epsilon(123456)}I_5(12|3|4|5|6)=0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We will dress it with a coefficient $\gamma(123456)$. And by the consideration of the symmetry of the identity \eqref{eq:hexagonpentagonidentity}, this functional coefficient should satisfy
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gammasymmetry1}\gamma(123456)&=\gamma(234561),\\
\label{eq:gammasymmetry2}\gamma(123456)&=\gamma(654321).
\end{align}
\subsection{Condition for Color-Kinematics Duality}
In order not to deviate into too much technical details, we choose to summarize here only the main results in the analysis of color-kinematics duality, and put the remaining details in Appendix \ref{app:ColorStructure}, \ref{app:ConstrainFreedom} and \ref{app:loopDuality}.
As has been stated, in $6$-pt case it is no longer true that the resulted formula automatically has the correct color structure. Since color-kinematics duality is based on the correct color structure, we should first make sure this condition is satisfied. We start by temporarily setting the parameter $\Delta=0$ (so we only consider $\gamma$), and find that in the scalar loop integral expansion, box integrals of all types ($I_4(a|bc|d|ef)$, $I_4(ab|cd|e|f)$ and $I_4(abc|d|e|f)$) already have the correct color structure. Since every MHV hexagon gives rise to its corresponding unique hexagon integral, the color structure of each hexagon integrals is also already correct. Then by looking at the coefficient in front of each pentagon integral (e.g.~$I_5(12|3|4|5|6)$), we obtain a constraint relating $\gamma(123456)$ and $\gamma(213456)$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gammaconstraint}
\frac{\gamma(123456)}{\la123456\rangle\epsilon(123456)}+\frac{\gamma(213456)}{\la213456\rangle\epsilon(213456)}+\frac{[12][34][56]s_{12}s_{34}s_{45}s_{56}(3|4+5|6)^2}{\la12\rangle\la34\rangle\la56\rangle\epsilon(123456)\epsilon(213456)\epsilon(3456)}=0.
\end{equation}
As has been mentioned in the introduction, by permuting the labels, we can get constraints on other pairs of $\gamma$'s related by transposition of two adjacent labels. So we can also regard \eqref{eq:gammaconstraint} as a single functional constraint equation that depends on the choice of label ordering.
Now we turn on the redundancies parameterized by $\Delta$, and upon the previous analysis we only need to look at the effects of additional terms. Then the box integrals immediately constrain the $\Delta$ parameter to have the following form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:kappadefinition}
\Delta(abcdef)=\frac{\langle abcdef\rangle}{\epsilon(abcdef)}\kappa(abcdef),
\end{equation}
where $\kappa(abcdef)$ is completely symmetric under permutations of the labels, and so later on we will abbreviate it as $\kappa$. Under this condition, the hexagon integrals are still untouched, while the constraint \eqref{eq:gammaconstraint} from pentagon integrals now becomes
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gammaconstraintnew}
\begin{split}
\frac{\gamma(123456)}{\la123456\rangle\epsilon(123456)}+\frac{\gamma(213456)}{\la213456\rangle\epsilon(213456)}&\\
+\frac{[12][34][56]s_{12}s_{34}s_{45}s_{56}(3|4+5|6)^2}{\la12\rangle\la34\rangle\la56\rangle\epsilon(123456)\epsilon(213456)\epsilon(3456)}-\kappa\frac{s_{12}s_{34}s_{45}s_{56}(3|4+5|6)^2}{\epsilon(123456)\epsilon(213456)\epsilon(3456)}&=0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Since under \eqref{eq:gammaconstraintnew} the correct color structure is guaranteed, we can go on to check the condition for color-kinematics duality. Interestingly, it turns out that the kinematic dual identities between the kinematic numerators of the hexagon integrals and pentagon integrals are exactly equivalent to \eqref{eq:gammaconstraint} or \eqref{eq:gammaconstraintnew} (depending on whether we set $\kappa=0$), and the dual identities between kinematic numerators of the pentagon integrals and box integrals also automatically hold as a result of (repeatedly) applying \eqref{eq:gammaconstraint} or \eqref{eq:gammaconstraintnew}. And the occurrence of $\kappa$ doesn't break the duality at all. In other words, starting from the Yang-Mills formula \eqref{eq:newYMformula} in $6$-pt case and introduce redundant parameters $\gamma$ and $\kappa$ in the way as described above, just by requiring that the formula should have the correct color structure in its expansion onto scalar loop integrals, we know that these parameters only need to satisfy a single functional constraint \eqref{eq:gammaconstraintnew} in addition to their own symmetries, and then color-kinematics duality just comes for free, almost the same as what happens at $5$ points!
\subsection{A Global Inconsistency}
Before going on, let us perform a consistency check on the constraint \eqref{eq:gammaconstraint} or \eqref{eq:gammaconstraintnew}. We can see that, for every constraint with a specific configuration of the particle labels, it relates exactly two $\gamma$'s which differ by exchanging only one pair of neighboring labels. This can also be interpreted as, whenever we exchange two neighboring labels in $\gamma$, it would acquire some additional contribution as given by the inhomogeneous term in this constraint. Since this operation of exchanging labels allow us to exhaust the entire label configuration space starting from any specific point in it, we may expect that if we start from a certain point and move step by step, and if in the end we move back to the same starting point (label configuration), all the additional contributions acquired during the middle should add up to zero. This is an important consistency check in guaranteeing that the entire set of $\gamma$ parameters (with all in-equivalent label configurations) have a solution in terms of ordinary kinematics data.
However, the constraint \eqref{eq:gammaconstraint} or \eqref{eq:gammaconstraintnew} that we have obtained in the previous subsection seems to be self-contradictory under this check. In more detail, the procedure as described above should be divided into two different classes. We may imagine the label arguments of $\gamma$ to reside on a circle, since by definition $\gamma$ should be invariant under cyclic permutation of the labels, and so there is no particular origin with respect to this operation. Then within the first class, no matter what kind of operation we do during the middle, after we have returned to the starting point, if the net effect is equivalent to that no labels have been brought to move around the circle, we would find that all the additional contributions ultimately cancel out and the $\gamma$ just returns to itself, which is consistent. An example is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:figure1}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics{figure1.png}
\caption{Consistent Moves}
\label{fig:figure1}
\end{figure}
However, in the other class, as long as the net effect is equivalent to that at least one label has been brought around the circle (i.e.~let it to acquire a non-zero winding number), we would find a net discontinuity between the original $\gamma$ and the final $\gamma$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gammaconsistency}
\gamma(abcdef)_{\text{final}}=\gamma(abcdef)_{\text{original}}+(\text{additional term}).
\end{equation}
The simplest example of this kind is shown in Figure \ref{fig:figure2}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics{figure2.png}
\caption{Inconsistent Moves}
\label{fig:figure2}
\end{figure}
Attention should be paid that, no matter whether the additional term in \eqref{eq:gammaconsistency} arise or not, its value depends only on the net effect (the winding numbers the labels acquired during the transformations), but not on the specific procedure of intermediate steps, and whenever a non-zero discontinuity is there, there is no means to tune $\kappa$ in order to eliminate it.
This indicates that, if we regard the $\gamma$ and $\kappa$ as being constructed with ordinary variables (such as with the usual spin-helicity formalism) and attempt to solve the entire set of constraints, we would end up in having no solution for them. However, this inconsistency in $\gamma$ is not so harmful as it appears to be. The reason is that, back in the beginning when $\gamma$ is first introduced, it comes with a purely mathematical identity which is completely transparent to physical analysis, and characterizes an auxiliary parameter space; especially, this parameter contributes nothing to any leading singularities. If we do not insist that this parameter be constructed by ordinary variables, the inconsistency is not really there. Although not globally solvable, these ``virtual'' parameters do encode physical data in an astonishingly neat and compact way via the functional constraint on them, and allow us to travel between scattering amplitudes in different theories. Or put it in another way, the auxiliary space here only serve as a context where the constraint (the only object which carries physical information) can be properly described. These would be clarified in detail in the upcoming analysis.
\vskip 0.5in
\section{New Formula for $6$-pt $1$-Loop MHV Amplitude in $\mathcal{N}=8$ Supergravity}
\label{sec:6ptsugra}
From the previous section we know that although the existence of $\gamma$ and $\kappa$ in terms of ordinary kinematics data is at risk, the color-kinematics duality is very well satisfied, which still strongly tempts to suggest a ``gravity'' counterpart. Here in this section we are going to show that indeed we can still follow the original {double-copy construction}{} to obtain the correct formula for the corresponding $6$-pt $1$-loop gravity amplitude. This again confirms that these auxiliary parameters are not ``locally'' inconsistent. Instead, we should take the view that the constraints on these parameters work locally instead of globally, because all the physical information to be extracted only depends on certain subset of the constraints (or the same functional constraint with different arguments) which are mutually consistent with each other.
The same as in $5$-pt case, in $6$-pt case the formula obtained by {double-copy construction}{} can still be reformulated purely in terms of MHV hexagons, which is equivalent to the corresponding Yang-Mills amplitudes with the color factor in front of each MHV hexagon substituted by the kinematic coefficient of the hexagon scalar loop integral with the same ordering of labels in the loop integral expansion
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gravityamplitude6pt}
\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}^{(1)}_6=\sum_{\sigma\in S_6/(\mathbb{Z}_6\times\mathbb{Z}_2)}\frac{\gamma(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_6)}{\langle\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_6\rangle^2}\mathcal{P}_6(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_6).
\end{equation}
In order to check the consistency of \eqref{eq:gravityamplitude6pt} with the correct quadruple cuts in gravity, we only need to check two types (since we are dealing with MHV polygons, leading singularities in quadruple cuts of the type $(a|b|cd|ef)$ are trivially zero). Again we first assume $\kappa=0$. The first type is $(a|bc|d|ef)$. Without loss of generality, we can assign particular configuration of the labels. So in this case we study the cut $(1|23|4|56)$, which involves the following contributions
\begin{equation}
\frac{\gamma(123456)}{\la123456\rangle^2}+\frac{\gamma(123465)}{\la123465\rangle^2}+\frac{\gamma(132456)}{\la132456\rangle^2}+\frac{\gamma(132465)}{\la132465\rangle^2}.
\end{equation}
The amazing fact is, we are still able to use the constraints \eqref{eq:gammasymmetry1}, \eqref{eq:gammasymmetry2} and \eqref{eq:gammaconstraint} repeatedly to fully eliminate the appearance of $\gamma$, and the final result is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\frac{[23]^2[45][61]s_{23}s_{45}s_{56}s_{61}(4|5+6|1)^2}{\la23\rangle^2\la45\rangle^2\la61\rangle^2\la46\rangle\la51\rangle\epsilon(234561)\epsilon(324561)}\\
-&\frac{[56][12][34]s_{56}s_{12}s_{23}s_{34}(1|2+3|4)^2}{\la123465\rangle\la56\rangle\la12\rangle\la34\rangle\epsilon(561234)\epsilon(1234)}-\frac{[56][13][24]s_{56}s_{13}s_{32}s_{24}(1|3+2|4)^2}{\la132465\rangle\la56\rangle\la13\rangle\la24\rangle\epsilon(561324)\epsilon(1324)}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
And this can actually be verified to be identical to the correct leading singularity of the gravity amplitude.
For the other type we choose to study $(1|2|3|456)$, which receives contributions from $6$ terms
\begin{equation}
\frac{\gamma(123645)}{\la123645\rangle^2}+\frac{\gamma(123654)}{\la123654\rangle^2}+\frac{\gamma(123465)}{\la123465\rangle^2}+\frac{\gamma(123564)}{\la123564\rangle^2}+\frac{\gamma(123456)}{\la123456\rangle^2}+\frac{\gamma(123546)}{\la123546\rangle^2}.
\end{equation}
For this expression, we can use the same constraints in different ways to obtain different but equivalent final expressions, and still completely independent of $\gamma$, which can be shown to be equivalent. One example is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\left(\frac{\epsilon(123456)}{\la123456\rangle}-\frac{[12]\epsilon(3456)}{\la12\rangle\la34\rangle\la65\rangle\la36\rangle\la45\rangle}\right)\frac{[45][61][23]s_{45}s_{61}s_{12}s_{23}(6|1+2|3)^2}{\la45\rangle\la61\rangle\la23\rangle\epsilon(123456)\epsilon(123546)\epsilon(6123)}\\
-&\frac{[12]\epsilon(3456)}{\la12\rangle\la34\rangle\la65\rangle\la36\rangle\la45\rangle}\frac{[56][12][34]s_{56}s_{12}s_{23}s_{34}(1|2+3|4)^2}{\la56\rangle\la12\rangle\la34\rangle\epsilon(561234)\epsilon(651234)\epsilon(1234)}\\
-&\frac{[12]\epsilon(3546)}{\la12\rangle\la35\rangle\la64\rangle\la36\rangle\la54\rangle}\frac{[46][12][35]s_{46}s_{12}s_{23}s_{35}(1|2+3|5)^2}{\la46\rangle\la12\rangle\la35\rangle\epsilon(461235)\epsilon(641235)\epsilon(1235)}\\
+&\frac{[46][51][23]s_{46}s_{51}s_{12}s_{23}(5|1+2|3)^2}{\la123645\rangle\la46\rangle\la51\rangle\la23\rangle\epsilon(123465)\epsilon(5123)}+\frac{[56][41][23]s_{56}s_{41}s_{12}s_{23}(4|1+2|3)^2}{\la123654\rangle\la56\rangle\la41\rangle\la23\rangle\epsilon(123564)\epsilon(4123)},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
which again has been checked numerically to be equivalent to the correct leading singularity.
Now we would also like to know how the $\kappa$ parameter would affect the leading singularities in the potential gravity amplitudes. The answer is that it has exactly zero effect. More explicitly, the quadruple cut $(1|23|4|56)$) receives an additional contribution
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\bigg\{\frac{s_{56}s_{12}s_{23}s_{34}(1|2+3|4)^2}{\la123465\rangle\epsilon(561234)\epsilon(1234)}+\frac{s_{56}s_{13}s_{32}s_{24}(1|3+2|4)^2}{\la132465\rangle\epsilon(561324)\epsilon(1324)}&\\
-\frac{[23]\epsilon(4561)}{\la23\rangle\la45\rangle\la61\rangle\la46\rangle\la51\rangle}\frac{s_{23}s_{45}s_{56}s_{61}(4|5+6|1)^2}{\epsilon(234561)\epsilon(324561)\epsilon(4561)}&\bigg\}\kappa,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
which can be checked to be exactly zero. And the cut $(1|2|3|456)$ receives an additional contribution
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\bigg\{-\left(\frac{\epsilon(123456)}{\la123456\rangle}-\frac{[12]\epsilon(3456)}{\la12\rangle\la34\rangle\la65\rangle\la36\rangle\la45\rangle}\right)\frac{s_{45}s_{61}s_{12}s_{23}\epsilon(6123)}{\epsilon(123456)\epsilon(123546)\epsilon(6123)}&\\
+\frac{[12]\epsilon(3456)}{\la12\rangle\la34\rangle\la65\rangle\la36\rangle\la45\rangle}\frac{s_{56}s_{12}s_{23}s_{34}(1|2+3|4)^2}{\epsilon(561234)\epsilon(651234)\epsilon(1234)}&\\
+\frac{[12]\epsilon(3546)}{\la12\rangle\la35\rangle\la64\rangle\la36\rangle\la54\rangle}\frac{s_{46}s_{12}s_{23}s_{35}(1|2+3|5)^2}{\epsilon(461235)\epsilon(641235)\epsilon(1235)}&\\
-\frac{s_{46}s_{51}s_{12}s_{23}(5|1+2|3)^2}{\la123645\rangle\la123465\rangle\epsilon(5123)}-\frac{s_{56}s_{41}s_{12}s_{23}(4|1+2|3)^2}{\la123654\rangle\epsilon(123564)\epsilon(4123)}&\bigg\}\kappa,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
which also vanishes. As a result, in both types of quadruple cuts, the terms that contain $\kappa$ just cancel out completely. Hence we do not only get a formula \eqref{eq:gravityamplitude6pt} with the correct leading singularities of gravity amplitudes, but actually a one parameter family of them. The price for this is that we have to build the color-kinematics duality on a virtual auxiliary space.
\vskip 0.5in
\section{Discussions}
\label{conclusion}
As a brief summary, we used MHV polygons to build $1$-loop amplitudes for any number of particles in $\mathcal{N}=4$ super Yang-Mills theory, and up to $6$ points in $\mathcal{N}=8$ supergravity, all of which are expressed as a simple sum over terms enjoying manifest cyclic and reflection invariance and are related purely by permutations. In other words, with this basis, the amplitudes can be generated with a single functional object (either a functional coefficient or a functional constraint).
We have observed that non-trivial structures start to appear at $6$ points. The coefficients multiplying the MHV hexagons cannot be expressed in terms of ordinary kinematics data. Instead, the amplitude here is formulated by imposing upon these coefficients a set of linear constraints, all of which have the same form (or, there is just a single functional constraint), which totally determine all the physical information needed from the amplitude. The striking fact is that, since these redundant parameters are not globally solvable, we haven't really obtained the real color-kinematics duality on the Yang-Mills side in our specific construction. However, the result shows that we can still circumvent it to get the correct gravity amplitude, just by imposing the algebraic relations but not solving them. By origin, $\gamma$ and $\kappa$ are only parameters that describe an auxiliary space. And so they can be regarded as virtual, and their only purpose is to form a context to formulate the constraint. It is really the constraint among these auxiliary variables that generates all needed physical data.
As a natural generalization to the work presented in this paper, we can directly boost the form in \eqref{eq:gravityamplitude6pt} to a conjecture for any number of particles
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}^{(1)}_n=\sum_{\sigma\in S_n/(\mathbb{Z}_n\times\mathbb{Z}_2)}\frac{\gamma(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n)}{\langle\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n\rangle^2}\mathcal{P}_n(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n),
\end{equation}
with the $\gamma(\sigma_1\sigma_2\ldots\sigma_n)$ still fully cyclic and reflection invariant but in general not solvable. Instead, we need to find out the constraints forced onto these coefficients, which are mutually consistent with respect to each quadruple cut but not necessarily consistent as a whole. By analogy, the coefficients here are still purely redundant parameters coming from adding kinematic identities into the expansion of MHV polygons in analyzing the color-kinematics duality (here by ``purely redundant'' we mean the parameters are dressed with pure zeros). We have seen that given the color-kinematics duality is satisfied, the gravity amplitude can be obtained just simply by substituting the color factor in front of each MHV polygons with the coefficient of the highest order scalar loop integrals in the expansion of the polygons. But in order to achieve that, at this point we still have to go back to the complicated expansions in terms of the scalar loop integrals and carefully fine-tune the redundancies. Especially, we have to seek for a manifestly symmetric decomposition of the MHV polygons into scalar loop integrals by introducing pure redundancies in a proper way, which in general seems hard. But most of the information in this analysis is actually not needed in the final answer. What we expect instead is a method that can work out the single coefficient needed to put in front of the MHV polygons or the constraints they should satisfy, without really working with the full set of loop integrals. Moreover, although the entire set of constraints are inconsistent, they have some good behaviors under the operations as described before, which seems to suggest there is some non-trivial mathematical structure to be better understood for this auxiliary space. And we hope that once this auxiliary space is described in a better way, it may help reach a general formula for $1$-loop MHV amplitudes in $\mathcal{N}=8$ supergravity.
\vskip 0.5in
|
\section{Introduction}
The Fermi liquid is a remarkable state of matter. A modern understanding of Fermi liquid theory is as a self-consistently robust organization of the low energy degrees of freedom in metals \cite{Polchinski:1992ed, Shankar:1993pf}. The scaling towards a surface in momentum space can be grounded to some extent in the Luttinger theorem that relates the existence of Fermi surfaces to the fact that there is a charge density \cite{lutt1, lutt2, oshikawa}.
In a simple qualitative picture of a Fermi liquid, the exclusion principle plays a double role.
By preventing the single particle degrees of freedom from condensing in their ground state, it both prevents spontaneous breaking of electromagnetic symmetry (at least at the natural scale set by the chemical potential) and furthermore pushes some low energy excitations of the system out to a finite momentum.
In attempting to move beyond Fermi liquid theory, a crucial question is the extent to which the two roles of the exclusion principle can be decoupled. For instance, perhaps strong interactions persisting to the lowest energy scales can allow the charge-carrying low energy degrees of freedom to spread out over a volume rather than a surface in momentum space, or to collapse to a point in momentum space without triggering Bose condensation. In this paper we will explore this question in two different holographic setups.
The momentum space structure of a Fermi liquid underlies much of its characteristic phenomenology. One should be careful, however. It is sometimes stated that due to having a surface in momentum space of low energy degrees of freedom, a Fermi liquid has infinitely many more degrees of freedom than bosonic systems. The Fermi liquid low temperature specific heat $c \sim T$ is indeed larger than the $c \sim T^d$ specific heat of free relativistic bosons. However, more generally bosons have $c \sim T^{d/z}$, and so there is a quantitative sense in which bosons with dynamical critical exponent $z=d$ have the same number of low energy excitations as a Fermi liquid. Similarly, the logarithmic violation of the area law in the entanglement entropy of Fermi liquids \cite{one,two} is closely tied to the decoupling of low energy degrees of freedom at different points on the Fermi surface \cite{three, four}. However, at least in holographic settings as well as Fermi liquids, this logarithmic violation seems to be tied to the system having a specific hyperscaling violation exponent, $\theta = d - 1$ \cite{Ogawa:2011bz, Huijse:2011ef}. This is a kinematic feature of the system that a priori is logically independent of the momentum space structure of the degrees of freedom \cite{Hartnoll:2012wm}.
Other phenomenological features of Fermi liquids, in contrast, are tied unambiguously to their particular momentum space structure. Quantum oscillations in a magnetic field are a direct consequence of non-analyticity in momentum space \cite{onsager}. The $T^2$ dependence of the resistivity of a clean Fermi liquid due to umklapp scattering depends crucially on the interplay between the lattice and Fermi momenta, e.g. \cite{Hartnoll:2012rj}. Friedel oscillations induced by an external charge depend on the fact that the static susceptibility of free fermions is non-analytic at momentum equal to $2 k_F$, e.g. \cite{wen}.
This paper will focus on the observables that directly characterize the existence of charged low energy excitations as a function of momentum. These are the spectral densities -- imaginary parts of the retarded Green's functions -- of currents and charges. The linear response of a medium to an electromagnetic field may be divided into transverse and longitudinal modes. The quantities of interest are
\begin{equation}\label{eq:weights}
\sigma_\perp(k) = \lim_{\w \to 0} \frac{\text{Im} \, G^R_{J_\perp J_\perp}(\w,k)}{\w} \,, \qquad \sigma_\parallel(k) = \lim_{\w \to 0} \frac{\text{Im} \, G^R_{J^t J^t}(\w,k)}{\w} \,.
\end{equation}
We will compute the spectral densities\footnote{Throughout this paper we will refer to $\text{Im}\, G^R(\w)/\w$ as the spectral density. This quantity is always nonvanishing as $\w \to 0$ at finite temperature, and arises naturally in many contexts.} above in two holographic theories, introduced below. Let us first recall the results obtained for a free nonrelativistic fermion in 2+1 dimensions. Throughout this paper we will consider 2+1 dimensional systems.
The derivation of these formulae is sketched in appendix \ref{sec:free}.
\begin{equation}
\sigma_\perp(k) =
\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma_{0} \sqrt{k_F^2 - k^2/4}}{k}} & k < 2 k_F \\
0 & k > 2 k_F
\end{array} \right. \,, \quad
\sigma_\parallel(k) =
\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma_0}{k \sqrt{k_F^2 - k^2/4}}} & k < 2 k_F \\
0 & k > 2 k_F
\end{array} \right. \,.
\label{eq:freetrans}
\end{equation}
In both channels we see that there are no low energy excitations of the system above twice the Fermi momentum $k > 2 k_F$. In the longitudinal channel there is a strong discontinuity at
$k = 2 k_F$, while in the transverse channel it is the derivative of the spectral weight that is discontinuous.
The weaker discontinuity in the transverse channel has a geometrical origin. At low energies the fermions that contribute to the spectral weight are on the Fermi surface. If we now look at external momentum $2 k_F$, the only low energy fermions that could contribute to the conductivity have momentum parallel to the external $k = 2 k_F$ momentum and so do not contribute to the transverse conductivity. The main objective of this paper is to establish the extent to which a momentum space structure analogous to (\ref{eq:freetrans}) exists in known holographic theories.
Before moving on, we would like to contrast the spectral weights (\ref{eq:weights}) with other physically important quantities, the static susceptibilities. These are defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:screen}
\chi_\perp(k) = \lim_{\w \to 0} G^R_{J_\perp J_\perp}(\w,k) \,, \qquad \chi_\parallel(k) = \lim_{\w \to 0} G^R_{J^t J^t}(\w,k) \,.
\end{equation}
The static susceptibilities determine the screening of static currents and charges by the medium. For our free nonrelativistic fermion these can be easily obtained by performing the integrals in appendix \ref{sec:free}. The susceptibilities exhibit a kink at $k = 2 k_F$, but do not vanish for $k > 2 k_F$. Upon Fourier transforming the screened Maxwell field propagator, this kink leads to spatial Friedel oscillations in the response to a point charge. While in a Fermi liquid the static susceptibility is dominated by the low energy degrees of freedom and exhibits a (weaker) non-analyticity at the same momentum as the spectral weight, in general the
static susceptibility is not a direct probe of low energy degrees of freedom. In fact, from the Kramers-Kronig relations, the static susceptibility is equal to the spectral weight integrated over all energies. We will see explicitly in our first holographic example how the static susceptibility cannot be determined from purely low energy data. The focus in the remainder of this paper shall be on the distribution of low energy spectral weight in momentum space.
Holographic descriptions of (compressible) quantum matter at zero temperature exhibit an emergent scaling symmetry in the far interior of the dual spacetime \cite{Hartnoll:2011fn}. This scaling symmetry is characterized by a dynamical critical exponent $z$ \cite{Kachru:2008yh} as well as a hyperscaling violation exponent $\theta$ \cite{Huijse:2011ef, Charmousis:2010zz, Hartnoll:2011fn}. Because the scaling in all known holographic geometries is towards the origin in momentum space, $\w \sim k^z$, the momentum space structure of the low energy charged degrees of freedom is determined by $z$. In particular, if $z < \infty$ is finite, then the spectral weights (\ref{eq:weights}) at any nonzero $k$ are exponentially suppressed as $\w \to 0$ \cite{Hartnoll:2012wm}. In all of these systems with $z < \infty$, a strongly coupled version of the exclusion principle does not appear to be active.\footnote{The discussion in this paragraph and throughout this paper refers to leading order in the bulk semiclassical expansion, corresponding to leading order at large $N$ in the boundary field theory. This is the limit in which holography provides the greatest theoretical and conceptual simplification.} And yet, these geometries can in general be stable against symmetry-breaking instabilities. These non-Pauli excluding geometries include those with logarithmic entanglement entropy \cite{Ogawa:2011bz, Huijse:2011ef}.
In this paper we will obtain the spectral densities (\ref{eq:weights}) in two holographic frameworks that do exhibit a strong coupling remnant of Pauli exclusion physics. The first concerns theories with $z = \infty$. In these systems, time scales at the IR fixed point, but space does not. It is therefore possible to have significant low energy spectral weight at nonzero momentum \cite{Edalati:2010hk, Edalati:2010pn, Hartnoll:2012wm}. Such theories have rightly been termed semi-local quantum liquids \cite{Iqbal:2011in, Iqbal:2011ae}; they are semi-local because while momenta do not scale, the scaling of correlators with energy is generally momentum-dependent.
We will see examples of this in section \ref{sec:semi} below. In a truly locally critical theory, the IR scaling would be completely independent of momentum. One of the main results in this paper will be the observation that momentum-dependent operator dimensions can lead to important features in the low energy spectral weight. Semi-local quantum criticality can also lead to strong dissipation in fermionic correlators \cite{Faulkner:2009wj}. Semi-locally critical IR geometries are parameterized by the quantity $\eta = - \theta/z$ which is kept finite and positive as $z \to \infty$. They are conformal to $AdS_2 \times {{\Bbb R}}^2$. At low temperatures, they have an entropy density scaling like $s \sim T^\eta$. For $\eta > 0$ the entropy density vanishes at zero temperature, avoiding the `entropy catastrophe' of pure $AdS_2 \times {{\Bbb R}}^2$. On the other hand, geometries with $\eta > 0$ have divergent curvatures in the far IR, possibly requiring additional physics to resolve.
The second set of theories we consider are probe brane constructions at finite density. In these cases the charged degrees of freedom are parametrically diluted by neutral modes. In the bulk this means that the brane degrees of freedom do not backreact on the metric and therefore we do not obtain scaling geometries of the form discussed in the previous paragraph. This important physics thrown out in the probe limit is partially compensated for by the fact that the brane action is nonlinear in the bulk Maxwell field. At finite charge density, due to these nonlinearities, in the far IR the equations describing charge and current fluctuations become independent of momentum. This observation suggests that low energy spectral weight will exist at nonzero momenta, reminiscent of Fermi surfaces or semi-local criticality \cite{Hartnoll:2009ns}. Unlike the scaling geometries of the previous paragraph, however, the IR does not decouple in a simple way and the full spacetime is needed to compute the momentum dependence of the spectral densities (\ref{eq:weights}). This computation will be the topic of section \ref{sec:probe}.
The Pauli exclusion principle is a statement about a quantum mechanical wavefunction written in terms of fermionic degrees of freedom. We are interested instead in strongly interacting effective low energy descriptions of finite density systems that do not admit a quasiparticle description, fermionic or otherwise. Indeed, it would seem to be the case in holographic frameworks that it is not a well defined question, from a universal IR point to view, to ask if the charge is carried by bosons or fermions. In particular, we should resist, perhaps, contaminating our IR perspective with information such as whether the UV charged degrees of freedom in an intersecting brane model are purely fermionic or not (e.g. D3/D5 versus D2/D6 etc.). In this paper we will find that strongly interacting `IR soup' can nonetheless exhibit a feature characteristic of Pauli exclusion, namely the presence of low energy degrees of freedom at nonzero momenta. One is led to wonder about the extent to which Pauli exclusion may be a special case of more profound and general quantum dynamics.
\section{Semi-local quantum liquids}
\label{sec:semi}
The ubiquity of semi-local quantum criticality in holographic theories at finite density is one of the more interesting facts to emerge from a condensed matter perspective on holography. While the simplest $AdS_2 \times {{\Bbb R}}^2$ geometry may be pathological due to having a macroscopic ground state entropy density, this is not the case for generic semi-locally critical geometries. It was emphasized in \cite{Hartnoll:2012wm} that theories in which $\eta = -\theta/z > 0$ is kept fixed as $z \to \infty$ have semi-locally critical spectral weights, with an entropy density vanishing like $T^\eta$ at low temperatures. These spacetimes are conformal to $AdS_2 \times {{\Bbb R}}^2$ and appeared in previous works including \cite{Gubser:2009qt, Iizuka:2011hg, Gouteraux:2011ce, Gubser:2012yb}. We will describe the embedding of semi-local criticality into string theory in a particularly interesting case ($\eta = 1$) in section \ref{sec:etaone} below.
Following \cite{Charmousis:2010zz}, using the notation of \cite{Huijse:2011ef, Hartnoll:2012wm}, our starting point is the Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton theory in 3+1 bulk dimensions
\begin{align}
{\cal L} &= \frac{1}{2\kappa^2} R - \frac{1}{4e^2} Z(\Phi) F^2 -
\frac{1}{\kappa^2} (\partial \Phi)^2 - \frac{1}{2\kappa^2 L^2}
V(\Phi) \,.
\end{align}
The low energy spectral weight at low temperatures can be obtained from the IR near-horizon geometry of near-extremal black holes in these theories. We therefore only need the forms of the potential and gauge-kinetic function to leading order as $\Phi \to \infty$, as the dilaton will diverge in the far IR of these solutions. These asymptotic behaviors are taken to be
\begin{equation}
Z(\Phi) = r_0^2 Z_0^2 e^{\alpha \Phi} \,, \qquad V(\Phi) = -r_0^2 V_0^2 e^{-\beta \Phi} \,.
\end{equation}
The factors of $r_0^2$ will be convenient shortly. As presented above, $Z_0$ and $V_0$ have units of inverse length. They will carry the units of momentum in the semi-locally critical theory.
This theory admits a scaling solution where the parameters $\alpha$
and $\beta$ will be related to the dynamical critical exponent $z$ and
hyperscaling violation exponent $\theta$.
Our interest is in the limit $z\rightarrow \infty$ and
$\theta\rightarrow - \infty$ with $\eta= - \theta/z$ held
fixed. This will be seen to correspond to
\begin{equation}
\alpha = -\beta = \frac{2}{\sqrt{1+2/\eta}} \,.
\end{equation}
Black hole solutions to these theories may be found explicitly and take the form
\begin{align}
ds^2 &= \frac{L^2}{r^2} \left( -f(r) dt^2 + g(r) dr^2 + dx^2 +
dy^2\right),& A &= \frac{eL}{\kappa} h(r) dt,& \Phi &=
\sqrt{1+\frac{2}{\eta}} \log \frac{r}{r_0}.
\end{align}
Evaluated on the logarithmically running dilaton, the functions of the dilaton in the action become $Z(\Phi) = Z_0^2 r^2$ and $V(\Phi) = - V_0^2 r^2$.
The functions $f$, $g$ and $h$ are given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fgh}
f(r) = \frac{\chi(r)}{r^{4/\eta}} \,, \qquad g(r) = \frac{g_0}{r^2
\chi(r)} \,, \qquad h(r) = \frac{h_0}{r^{2(1+1/\eta)}} \,,
\end{equation}
where the constants are
\begin{equation}
g_0 = \frac{4}{V_0^2}\left(1+\frac{1}{\eta}\right)^2 \,, \qquad h_0 =
\frac{1}{Z_0 \sqrt{1+\eta}} \,,
\end{equation}
and the emblackening factor $\chi$ is
\begin{align}
\chi(r) &= 1-\left(\frac{r}{r_h}\right)^{2(1+1/\eta)}.
\end{align}
Here $r_h$ is the horizon radius, which determines the
temperature of these black hole solutions to be
\begin{align}
T &= \left(1+\frac{1}{\eta} \right) \frac{r_h^{-2/\eta}}{2
\pi\sqrt{g_0}} = \frac{V_0}{4\pi} r_h^{-2/\eta}. \label{eq:temp}
\end{align}
From these expressions, we see that the entropy density $s$ indeed vanishes at low temperatures: $s \propto r_h^{-2} \sim T^\eta$. At zero temperature, $\chi = 1$, the metric transforms covariantly under the scaling $t\to \lambda t$, $r \to \lambda^{\eta/2} r$, $ds \to
\lambda^{-\eta/2} ds$. This is our local criticality, time scales but space does not, together with hyperscaling violation parameterized by $\eta$.
To obtain the current-current correlations functions, we need to perturb the solutions above.
Taking the momentum of the perturbations to be in the $x$ direction, the perturbations will decouple into modes that are even or odd under $y \leftrightarrow - y$. Thus upon perturbing, and picking the gauge $A_r = g_{\mu r} = 0$, we will obtain coupled equations for
the transverse modes $\{\delta A_y, \delta g_{xy}, \delta g_{yt} \}$ and the longitudinal modes $\{\delta
A_t, \delta A_x, \delta g_{tt}, \delta g_{xt}, \delta g_{xx}, \delta
g_{yy}, \delta \Phi \}$.
The perturbations are taken to have the form of a function of $r$ times $e^{- i \w t + i k x}$.
Due to a residual gauge symmetry, the equations for the perturbations above will be a mix of first and second order differential equations. A set of independent and purely second order differential equations are obtained by introducing gauge-invariant variables. These variables are derived in appendix \ref{sec:gaugeinvar} and can be taken to have the following form. In the transverse channel
\begin{equation}
\psi_{\perp,1} = \frac{\kappa}{e L} \delta A_y \,, \qquad \psi_{\perp,2} = \frac{r^2}{L^2} ( \omega \delta g_{xy} + k
\delta g_{yt}) \,,
\end{equation}
and in the longitudinal channel
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_{\parallel,1} & = & \frac{\kappa}{e L} \partial_r \delta A_t -
\frac{\sqrt{1+\eta}}{Z_0 L^2 \eta r^{1-2/\eta} \chi(r)} \delta g_{tt} \,, \label{eq:la} \\
\psi_{\parallel,2} & = & \frac{1}{L^2} \delta g_{yy} + \frac{\eta \chi(r)}{2r \, L^2} \frac{1}{(1+ \eta) (1+ 2
\hat{k}^2) - (1+2\eta) \chi(r)} \partial_r\left[ r^2 \left(
\delta g_{xx}+ \delta g_{yy} \right) \right] \,, \\
\psi_{\parallel,3} & = & \frac{\delta \Phi}{\sqrt{1+2/\eta}}+ \frac{r^2}{2L^2 } \delta
g_{yy} \,. \label{eq:lc}
\end{eqnarray}
We have defined $\hat{k} = \sqrt{1+1/\eta} k/ V_0$. From the perturbed Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton equations of motion we obtain coupled equations for each set of the gauge invariant variables. These equations can be further decoupled to a large extent. In the longitudinal case especially, the equations are somewhat messy -- the details can be found in appendix \ref{sec:perteqns}.
\subsection{Transverse channel}
\label{sec:translocal}
The transverse channel at zero temperature was decoupled in \cite{Hartnoll:2012wm}. Here we extend the decoupling to nonzero temperatures. Taking our cue from
\cite{Edalati:2010hk}, we define
\begin{align}
\varphi_{\perp,\pm}(r) &= \frac{r^{1/2+1/\eta} \chi^{3/2}(r)}{ r^{4/\eta}
\omega^2 - k^2 \chi(r)} \left[p_\pm(r) \widetilde \psi_{\perp,1}(r) +
\psi_{\perp,2}'(r)\right] \,,
\end{align}
where we have rescaled $\widetilde \psi_{\perp,1} = Z_0 \sqrt{1+\eta} \psi_{\perp,1}$ and
the functions $p_\pm$ are given in appendix \ref{sec:perteqns}. In terms of these new variables, the equations of motion are decoupled
\begin{align}
0 &= \varphi_{t,\pm}''(r) + \(\frac{q_\pm \left(\chi(r) \right)
}{4 \eta^2 r^2 \chi^2(r)} + \frac{4(1+\eta)^2 \left[r^{4/\eta}
\omega^2 - k^2 \chi(r) \right] }{V_0^2 \eta^2 r^2 \chi^2(r) }
\) \varphi_{t,\pm}(r) \, , \label{eq:nicetran}
\end{align}
where $q_\pm(\chi)$ is given by
\begin{align}
q_\pm (\chi) &= 4 (1+\eta)^2 - 8(1+\eta)
\left(3 - \eta \pm 2\sqrt{1 + 2 \eta \hat{k}^2} \right) \chi -
15\eta^2 \chi^2 \,. \label{eq:tr}
\end{align}
At nonzero temperatures we are only able to solve these equations in the case $\eta = 1$ (as well as the $AdS_2 \times {{\Bbb R}}^2$ case $\eta = 0$, solved in \cite{Hartnoll:2012rj}), to be discussed in more detail below.
At $T = 0$ we can quickly recover the results of \cite{Hartnoll:2012wm}. At zero temperature $\chi = 1$ in (\ref{eq:nicetran}, \ref{eq:tr}). The resulting equation is solved in terms of Bessel functions for all $\eta$. The solution satisfying infalling boundary conditions at the horizon ($r \to \infty$) is
\begin{align}
\varphi_{\perp,\pm}(r) &= \sqrt{r} H_{\nu_{\perp}^\pm}^{(1)}\left(
\frac{r^{2/\eta} \omega (1+\eta)}{V_0} \right)\,,
\end{align}
where the indices are
\begin{align}
\nu_{\perp}^\pm &= \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{5 + \eta (2+\eta) + 4(1+\eta)^2
\left(\frac{k}{V_0}\right)^2 \pm 4(1+\eta) \sqrt{1+2 (1+\eta)
\left(\frac{k}{V_0}\right)^2}}\,.
\end{align}
The retarded Green's function is now found by expanding the solution near the boundary $r \to 0$ \cite{Hartnoll:2009sz, Hartnoll:2012wm}. From the asymptotic expansion of $H_{\nu}^{(1)}(x)$ for $x \to 0$ we obtain
\begin{align}
\varphi_{\perp,\pm}(r) &\propto \sqrt{r} \left( r^{-2
\nu_{\perp}^\pm} + {\cal G}_{\perp,\pm}^R(\omega,k) r^{2 \nu_{\perp}^\pm}
\right) \,,
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}\label{eq:IRgreen}
{\cal G}_{\perp,\pm}^R(\omega,k) \; \propto \; \omega^{2 \nu_{\perp}^\pm(k)}\,.
\end{align}
This scaling pertains to both the real and imaginary parts of the Green's function.
We are now in a position to obtain an interesting result for the transverse spectral weight.
We have obtained the Green's function in the IR near-horizon geometry, and have not specified how this
is connected onto an asymptotically $AdS_4$ or other spacetime which would define the UV of the system.
Recall, however, that to leading order at low frequencies, the imaginary part of the full UV Green's function is
given by a sum over the imaginary parts of the IR Green's functions of all operators that overlap with the UV operator
\cite{Donos:2012ra}. In the present context, the exponent $\nu_{\perp}^-$ leads to the strongest IR behavior
and so we obtain that at small frequencies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:grjj}
\text{Im} \, G^R_{J_\perp J_\perp}(\w,k) \; \propto \; \text{Im} \, {\cal G}_{\perp,-}^R(\omega,k) \; \propto \; \omega^{2 \nu_{\perp}^-(k)} \,.
\end{equation}
And therefore the transverse spectral weight (\ref{eq:weights}) is found to be
\begin{equation}
\sigma_\perp(k) = \lim_{\w \to 0} \frac{\text{Im} \, G^R_{J_\perp J_\perp}(\w,k)}{\w} =
\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
\infty & \qquad k < k_\star \\
0 & \qquad k > k_\star
\end{array} \right. \,.\label{eq:infzero}
\end{equation}
The critical momentum is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:kcritlocal}
k_\star^2 = V_0^2 \frac{\eta (2 - \eta) + 2 \sqrt{2 \eta (1+\eta)(2 - \eta)}}{4 (1+\eta)^2} \,, \qquad (0 < \eta < 2) \,.
\end{equation}
Outside the range $0 < \eta < 2$, the transverse spectral weight is zero everywhere.
The reader that finds (\ref{eq:infzero}) unpalatable, or worries that dividing by some given power of $\w$ is artificial, might like to turn on a small temperature. While we have not solved the equations in general at finite temperature, it is straightforward to show that at low temperatures and for $\w \ll T$ one has
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lowTgen}
\text{Re} \; {\cal G}^R(\omega,k) \sim T^{2
\nu} \,, \qquad \text{Im} \; {\cal G}^R(\omega,k)
\sim \omega \, T^{2\nu-1} \,.
\end{equation}
This expression is true for all $\eta$ in both the transverse and longitudinal channels. It follows in particular that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:therm}
\sigma_\perp(k) \; \propto \; T^{2 \nu_{\perp}^-(k) - 1} \,.
\end{equation}
This expression is finite and nonzero for all momenta. As we take the low temperature limit, the spectral weight diverges for $k < k_\star$ and goes to zero for $k > k_\star$.
The result (\ref{eq:infzero}) for the zero temperature transverse spectral weight, or the thermally regularized version (\ref{eq:therm}), dramatically reveals the existence of low energy spectral weight over a nonzero but finite range of momenta. In our theories with $0 < \eta < 2$ -- this does not include the simplest case of $AdS_2 \times {{\Bbb R}}^2$ -- a strongly interacting cousin of Pauli exclusion appears to be operating. The physics is tied in a precise way to the emergence of semi-local criticality \cite{Iqbal:2011in}. For $k < k_\star$ the leading IR operator excited by the transverse current is relevant under the local scaling, while for $k > k_\star$ it is irrelevant. This follows from the fact that the dimension of the IR operator is $\Delta = \nu + {\textstyle{1\over2}}$, and so becomes relevant if $\nu < {\textstyle{1\over2}}$. But $\nu < {\textstyle{1\over2}}$ corresponds to the range of momenta over which the zero temperature spectral weight diverges in (\ref{eq:infzero}).
One must be careful not to equate the $k=0$ values of (\ref{eq:IRgreen}) and (\ref{eq:therm}) with the optical and d.c. conductivities. For the conductivities, it is crucial that the limit $k \to 0$ be taken before the $\w \to 0$ limit. At exactly $k=0$, the two gauge-invariant transverse modes decouple. The transverse current operator at $k=0$ is found to correspond to the index $\nu_\perp^+(0)$, and not $\nu_\perp^-(0)$ as one would obtain by naively evaluating (\ref{eq:IRgreen}) and (\ref{eq:therm}) at $k=0$. The optical conductivity is therefore $\sigma \sim \w^{2 \nu_{\perp}^+(0) - 1} = \w^{2+\eta}$, while the critical contribution to the d.c. conductivity is $\sigma_\text{d.c.} \sim T^{2+\eta}$. These expressions agree with previous results in e.g. \cite{Iizuka:2011hg}. The critical d.c. conductivity is swamped by a translation-invariance delta function. In section \ref{sec:etaone} below we discuss the effects of impurities that render the d.c. conductivity finite. There we will obtain a strong d.c. resistivity, that is linear in temperature when $\eta = 1$.
The critical momentum $k_\star$ is set in (\ref{eq:kcritlocal}) by the data $\{\eta,V_0\}$ that appear in the definition of the bulk theory and the IR scaling solution. It is natural to consider the dimensionless ratio of the critical momentum divided by the (square root of the) total charge density of the system.
The total charge density is defined in the UV but, in the absence of bulk charges, can also be obtained from the IR because Gauss's law implies that the integrated flux is independent of radius \cite{Hartnoll:2011pp}. The charge density is then
\begin{equation}
Q = \int_{{{\Bbb R}}^2} \star \left(Z(\Phi) F^2 \right) = - \frac{Z(\Phi) h'}{\sqrt{f g}} = \frac{V_0 Z_0}{\sqrt{1 + \eta}} \,.
\end{equation}
The dimensionless ratio is therefore
\begin{equation}
\frac{k_\star^2}{Q} = \frac{V_0}{Z_0} \frac{\eta (2 - \eta) + 2 \sqrt{2 \eta (1+\eta)(2 - \eta)}}{4 (1+\eta)^{3/2}} \,.
\end{equation}
This ratio can be obtained from the parameters characterizing the IR Lagrangian, i.e. it is a property of the IR theory, but does not appear to be a universal number.
We have found the low energy spectral weight (\ref{eq:infzero}) using only IR data about the theory. As we anticipated in the introduction, this is not the case for the static susceptibilities (\ref{eq:screen}). Recall that, schematically, the full zero temperature Green's function at low frequencies takes the form
\begin{equation}
G^R_{J_\perp J_\perp}(\w,k) \sim \frac{A(k) + B(k) {\cal G}_{\perp,-}^R(\omega,k)}{C(k) + D(k) {\cal G}_{\perp,-}^R(\omega,k) } \,.
\end{equation}
Here $\{A,B,C,D\}$ are real functions of momentum that are determined by solving the bulk differential equations in the `far' region, away from the horizon, at $\w = 0$. The full structure is in fact more complicated than this, due to mixing among different modes between the IR and the UV \cite{Donos:2012ra}, but the above expression is sufficient for illustrative purposes.
Because $\nu_{\perp}^-(k) > 0$ in the IR Green's function (\ref{eq:IRgreen}), when we take $\w \to 0$ in the full Green's function to obtain the susceptibility, the contribution from the IR Green's function will go to zero. We are left with $\chi_\perp(k) \sim A(k)/C(k)$. This function of momentum is not determined by near-horizon IR data, but requires solving the Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton equations in the full geometry. It follows that (\ref{eq:infzero}) cannot be directly related to the existence of (transverse) Friedel oscillations.
\subsection{Longitudinal channel}
The equations of motion describing the three gauge-invariant longitudinal perturbations (\ref{eq:la}) -- (\ref{eq:lc}) are given in appendix \ref{sec:perteqns}. It is possible to obtain decoupled equations for two linear combinations of the three modes, but the resulting equations are still somewhat messy. Here we present results at zero temperature, while below we will solve the equations at finite temperature in the case $\eta = 1$.
For $T=0$, the longitudinal equations given in appendix \ref{sec:perteqns} simplify to
\begin{align}
0 = \varphi_{\parallel,i}'' + \frac{1}{r^2} M_{ij}\varphi_{\parallel,j} +
\frac{4(1+\eta)^2}{r^2 \eta^2 V_0^2} (r^{4/\eta}
\omega^2 -k^2) \varphi_{\parallel,i} \,.
\end{align}
Here $\varphi_{\parallel,i}$ ($i = 1,2,3$) are linear combinations of the gauge-invariant modes (\ref{eq:la}) -- (\ref{eq:lc}) and are defined in the appendix.
The matrix $M$ has constant entries given by
\begin{align}
M &=
\begin{pmatrix}
-\frac{3}{4} - \frac{4}{2+\eta} - \frac{9+14\eta}{ \eta^2} &
0 & - \frac{16(1+\eta)^2 \hat{k}^2 }{\eta^2} \\
-\frac{8 (1+\eta) \left(\hat{k}^2-1\right)}{ \eta \left( 2
(1+\eta) \hat{k}^2 -\eta \right)} & - \frac{(2+\eta) (2 +
3\eta)}{4 \eta^2} & \frac{16(1+\eta) \hat{k}^2 }{ \eta \left(2
(1+\eta) \hat{k}^2 -\eta \right)} \\
- \frac{4 (1+\eta)}{\eta (2+\eta)} & 0 & - \frac{(2+\eta) (2+
3\eta)}{4 \eta^2}
\end{pmatrix} \,.
\end{align}
By diagonalizing $M$ we obtain three decoupled differential
equations. These can be solved in terms of Bessel functions. Imposing
infalling boundary conditions at the horizon $r \to \infty$ gives the solutions again in terms of a Hankel function
\begin{equation}
\varphi_{\parallel,a}(r) = \sqrt{r} H_{\nu_{\parallel}^{a}}^{(1)}\left(
\frac{r^{2/\eta} \omega (1+\eta)}{V_0} \right) \,.
\end{equation}
Here $a= \{0,+,-\}$ labels the decoupled modes
and the indices are given by
\begin{align}
\nu_{\parallel}^{0}(k) &= \frac{1+\eta}{2} \sqrt{1+4 \left(
\frac{k}{V_0}\right)^2} \,, \label{eq:lnu1} \\
\nu_{\parallel}^{\pm}(k) &= \frac{1+\eta}{2\sqrt{2+\eta}} \sqrt{10 + \eta +
4 (2+\eta) \left(\frac{k}{V_0} \right)^2 \pm 8 \sqrt{1+(2+\eta)
\left(\frac{k}{V_0} \right)^2}} \,. \label{eq:lnu2}
\end{align}
Similarly to the transverse channel, from the asymptotic expansion of the Hankel function we find that the Green's functions have scaling
\begin{equation}
{\cal G}_{\parallel,a}^{R}(\omega, k) \propto \omega^{2\nu_{\parallel}^a} \,.
\end{equation}
Unlike in the transverse case, we see in equations (\ref{eq:lnu1}) and (\ref{eq:lnu2}) that for all $\eta$ and momentum, the indices $\nu_\parallel^a \geq {\textstyle{1\over2}}$. It follows that the longitudinal low energy spectral weight (\ref{eq:weights}) always vanishes. It does not exhibit the dramatic divergence below a critical momentum that we found in (\ref{eq:infzero}) for the transverse sector.
Relatedly, the finite temperature low energy spectral weight (\ref{eq:therm}) will now be uniformly small at low temperatures over all momenta. In terms of semi-local criticality, this is the statement that the longitudinal operators are irrelevant in the IR theory for all momenta.
It is interesting that these systems, with $0 < \eta < 2$, exhibit a sharper structure in momentum space in the transverse channel than in the longitudinal channel. This is in contrast to the free fermions that we reviewed in the introduction. It is perhaps natural that the longitudinal channel operators are irrelevant in the semi-locally critical picture. The charge density at $k=0$ cannot be relevant: that would imply we had not isolated the correct finite density IR fixed point. It seems reasonable, in addition, to expect that the scaling dimension will increase with $k$. The irrelevance of the longitudinal channel operators for all momenta further implies that our semi-locally critical IR theories are robust under addition of an ionic lattice \cite{Hartnoll:2012rj}.
\subsection{The magical $\eta=1$ case: enhanced symmetries and linear resistivity}
\label{sec:etaone}
In this section we will find that the case with $\eta = 1$ has some interesting mathematical and phenomenological properties.
This is perhaps made more interesting by the fact that this case arises easily from string theory compactifications.\footnote{We thank Aristomenis Donos for pointing out to us that these embeddings all realize $\eta = 1$.} Extremal black holes in $AdS_4 \times S^7$ with one of the four $U(1)$ charges being zero all have a near horizon geometry that is locally critical with $\eta=1$ \cite{Cvetic:1999xp}. These critical geometries therefore describe finite density phases of the worldvolume theory of $N$ coincident $M2$ branes \cite{Maldacena:1997re}.
Furthermore, if the three nonvanishing charges are equal, the background solutions can be obtained from a truncated theory with one gauge field and one scalar, of the type we are considering in this paper (e.g. \cite{Gubser:2009qt}, note however that finite momentum perturbations will probably require a larger set of fields due to an $F \wedge F$ term in the action that sources axionic fields \cite{Cvetic:1999xp}).
For $\eta=1$, the transverse equations (\ref{eq:nicetran}) reduce to
\begin{align}
0&= \varphi_{\perp,\pm}''(r) + \left(\frac{16\left(r^{4}\omega^2 -
k^2 \chi(r) \right)}{V_0^2 r^2 \chi^2(r)} + \frac{16 - 15
\chi^2(r)}{4 r^2 \chi^2(r)} - \frac{8\left(1 \pm \sqrt{1+ 2
\hat{k}^2} \right)}{r^2 \chi(r)} \right)
\varphi_{\perp,\pm}(r) \,.
\end{align}
This value of $\eta$ is the only nonzero value for which we have been
able to solve the finite temperature equations analytically. This
equation can be solved in terms of hypergeometric functions. The
solution satisfying infalling boundary conditions at the horizon is
given by
\begin{align} \varphi_{\perp,\pm}(r) = r^{1/2} \chi(r)^{ \frac{1}{2}-
\frac{i \omega}{4 \pi T}} \Big( &\G(c) \G(d)\G(1 -
\nu_{\perp}^\pm)\left(r/r_h\right)^{2\nu_{\perp}^\pm} \; {}_2F_1
\left(c,d, 1+
\nu_{\perp}^\pm, r^4/r_h^4 \right) \notag \\
&+ \; \{\nu_{\perp}^\pm \to - \nu_{\perp}^\pm \} \Big) \,,
\end{align}
where $c = -\frac{i \omega}{4 \pi T} +
\frac{\nu_{\perp}^\pm}{2}$, $d = 1-\frac{i \omega}{4 \pi T} +
\frac{\nu_{\perp}^\pm}{2}$ and the indices are those quoted in section
\ref{sec:translocal}, setting $\eta=1$:
\begin{align}
\nu_{\perp}^\pm &= \sqrt{2} \sqrt{1+ \hat k^2
\pm \sqrt{1+ 2 \hat k^2}} \,,
\end{align}
and we used the temperature $T = V_0/(4 \pi r_h^2)$, from (\ref{eq:temp}) with $\eta = 1$.
Expanding near the boundary, as in previous sections, we obtain the
retarded Green's functions
\begin{align}
{\cal G}_{\perp,\pm}^R(\omega,k) &\propto T^{2\nu_{\perp}^\pm}
\frac{\Gamma \left(- \frac{i \omega}{4 \pi T} +
\frac{\nu_{\perp}^\pm}{2} \right)}{\Gamma \left(- \frac{i
\omega}{4 \pi T} - \frac{\nu_{\perp}^\pm}{2} \right)} \frac{\Gamma \left( - \frac{i \omega}{4 \pi T} + 1+
\frac{\nu_{\perp}^\pm}{2} \right)}{\Gamma \left( - \frac{i
\omega}{4 \pi T} +1- \frac{\nu_{\perp}^\pm}{2} \right)} \,. \label{eq:sl2sl2}
\end{align}
Expanding this expression at small frequencies gives
\begin{equation}
\text{Re} \; {\cal G}_{\perp,\pm}^R(\omega,k) \sim T^{2
\nu_{\perp}^\pm} \,, \qquad \text{Im} \; {\cal G}_{\perp,\pm}^R(\omega,k)
\sim \omega T^{2\nu_{\perp}^\pm-1} \,.
\end{equation}
Here we have recovered explicitly the general result (\ref{eq:lowTgen})
that holds for all values of $\eta$.
The Green's function (\ref{eq:sl2sl2}) is of a form that strongly suggests the existence of hidden $SL(2,{{\Bbb R}})$ symmetries. More precisely, it is the form that follows from an $SL(2,{{\Bbb R}}) \times SL(2,{{\Bbb R}})$ symmetric system in which a hyperbolic generator has been `level matched' \cite{Anninos:2011af}. It seems likely that this symmetry is directly related to the $AdS_3$ factor that appears in the string theory uplift of these geometries \cite{Gubser:2009qt}. See \cite{Balasubramanian:2007bs} for a related earlier appearance of $AdS_3$ in these types of solutions. This offers the hope of obtaining an explicit dual to our IR solutions and thereby a microscopic understanding of the hyperscaling violation and the nature of the momentum dependence of the spectral weight.
Turning now to the longitudinal channel, at finite temperatures and with $\eta = 1$,
the equations for $\varphi_{\parallel,i}$ in appendix \ref{sec:perteqns}
simplify to
\begin{align}
\varphi_{\parallel,i}'' + \left[\frac{M_{ij}}{r^2 \chi(r)} + \frac{N_{ij}}{r^2}
\right] \varphi_{\parallel,j} = -\left(\frac{4}{r^2 \chi^2(r)} + \frac{16\left(r^4 \omega^2 - k^2
\chi(r)\right)}{ V_0^2 r^2 \chi^2(r)}
\right) \varphi_{\parallel,i} \,,
\end{align}
where the matrices $M$ and $N$ are given by
\begin{align}
M &= \begin{pmatrix} -\frac{88}{3} & 0 & - 64 \hat{k}^2 \\ - \frac{4
(2 \hat{k}^2 -3)}{2 \hat{k}^2 + 1} & 8 & \frac{16 \left(1 - 2
\hat{k}^2 \right)}{1 + 2 \hat{k}^2} \\ - \frac{8}{3} & 0 & -8
\end{pmatrix} \,, & N &= \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{4} & 0 & 0 \\ -
\frac{4}{1 + 2 \hat{k}^2} & - \frac{63}{4} & \frac{16 (3 \hat{k}^2
- 1 )}{2 \hat{k}^2 + 1} \\ 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{4}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align}
Magically, it seems to us, these two matrices commute so they can be simultaneously
diagonalized. The diagonalized equations can then be solved analytically in terms of hypergeometric functions, rather similarly to the transverse case. The infalling solution is
\begin{align}
\varphi_{\parallel,a}(r) = r^{1/2} \chi(r)^{ \frac{1}{2}- \frac{i
\omega}{4 \pi T}} \Big( &\G(c) \G(d)\G(1 -
\nu_{\parallel}^a)\left(r/r_h\right)^{2\nu_{\parallel}^a} \; {}_2F_1
\left(c,d, 1+ \nu_{\parallel}^a, r^4/r_h^4 \right) \notag \\
&+ \; \{\nu_{\parallel}^a \to - \nu_{\parallel}^a \} \Big) \,.
\end{align}
Here $c = s_a -\frac{i \omega}{4 \pi T} +
\frac{1+\nu_{\parallel}^a}{2}$ and $d = - s_a-\frac{i \omega}{4 \pi T}
+ \frac{1+\nu_{\parallel}^a}{2}$.
As above, $a = \{0,+,-\}$ labels the decoupled modes, and $s_0 = 1$ while $s_\pm = 0$.
The indices are obtained by setting $\eta=1$ in our previous expressions (\ref{eq:lnu1}) and (\ref{eq:lnu2})
\begin{equation}
\nu_\parallel^0 = \sqrt{1 + 2 \hat k^2} \,, \qquad \nu_\parallel^\pm =
\sqrt{\frac{11}{3} + 2 \hat k^2 \pm \frac{8}{3} \sqrt{1+ \frac{3}{2} \hat k^2}} \,.
\end{equation}
Once again imposing ingoing boundary conditions at the horizon and expanding near the asymptotic boundary, we obtain the retarded Green's functions
\begin{align}
{\cal G}_{\parallel,a}^R(\omega,k) &\propto T^{2\nu_{\parallel}^a}
\frac{\Gamma \left(- \frac{i \omega}{4 \pi T} +
\frac{1 + \nu_{\parallel}^a}{2} + s_a \right)}{\Gamma \left(- \frac{i
\omega}{4 \pi T} + \frac{1 - \nu_{\parallel}^a}{2} + s_a \right)} \frac{\Gamma \left( - \frac{i \omega}{4 \pi T} +
\frac{1 + \nu_{\parallel}^a}{2} - s_a \right)}{\Gamma \left( - \frac{i
\omega}{4 \pi T} + \frac{1 - \nu_{\parallel}^a}{2} - s_a \right)} \,.\label{eq:sl2again} \end{align}
These are again found to have the form expected from an underlying level matched $SL(2,{{\Bbb R}}) \times SL(2,{{\Bbb R}})$ symmetry. The transverse Green's function (\ref{eq:sl2sl2}) is also in the form
of the above equation (\ref{eq:sl2again}) with $s_\perp = {\textstyle{1\over2}}$. Comparing these Green's functions with those derived from an $SL(2,{{\Bbb R}})\times SL(2,{{\Bbb R}})$ symmetry in \cite{Anninos:2011af}, we see that the modes live in a symmetric lowest weight representation of $SL(2,{{\Bbb R}}) \times SL(2,{{\Bbb R}})$ with weight $\Delta = (\nu + 1)/2$
and the matched hyperbolic (i.e. $H-K$ generator in the $SL(2,{{\Bbb R}})$ algebra) momentum is, in the notation of \cite{Anninos:2011af}, $x = 2 s$.
In possession of the finite temperature longitudinal spectral weight, we can obtain an interesting phenomenological result. In particular we consider the d.c. electrical resistivity. To obtain a nonzero resistivity it is crucial to break translation invariance. One way to do this is via random impurities. For a locally critical theory in the presence of random charged impurities, the density-density spectral weight (\ref{eq:weights}) controls the d.c. electrical resistivity through the formula
\cite{Hartnoll:2012rj, Hartnoll:2008hs, Hartnoll:2007ih}
\begin{equation}
r_\text{imp.} \sim \int \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2} k^2 \lim_{\w \to 0} \frac{\text{Im} \, G^R_{J^t J^t}(\w,k)}{\w} \sim \int dk k^3 T^{2 \nu_\parallel^-(k) - 1}\,.
\end{equation}
The function $\nu_\parallel^-(k)$ is monotonically increasing with $k$. At low temperatures the integral is therefore dominated by small momenta. Up to corrections that are logarithmic in temperature, the leading low temperature behavior of the resistivity is found to be
\begin{equation}\label{eq:imp}
r_\text{imp.} \sim T^{2 \nu_\parallel^-(0) - 1} = T^{\eta} \,.
\end{equation}
Curiously, we see that precisely the value $\eta = 1$, which we have just seen to have simple string theory realizations and enhanced symmetries relative to the other cases, gives a linear in temperature resistivity. A linear in temperature resistivity is widely observed in quantum critical metals, see e.g. \cite{Sachdev:2011cs}.
The density-density spectral weight also controls the d.c. resistivity due to umklapp scattering by an ionic lattice. It was shown in \cite{Hartnoll:2012rj} that in a locally critical theory, umklapp scattering leads to a resistivity
\begin{equation}
r_\text{umklapp} \sim T^{2 \nu_\parallel^-(k_L) - 1} \,,
\end{equation}
where $k_L$ is the lattice momentum. This result is UV sensitive, as the power itself depends on lattice data. In contrast, the impurity resistivity (\ref{eq:imp}) only depends on the IR theory.
However, it is worth noting\footnote{We thank Diego Hofman for emphasizing this point to us in discussions.} that the functions $\nu_\parallel^-(k)$ are quite flat at small momenta, with the correction to the $k=0$ value going like $k^4$. It follows that there will be a range of lattice momenta for which the d.c. resistivity due to umklapp scattering will also be very close to linear in temperature when $\eta =1$.
\section{The D3/D5 system at finite density}
\label{sec:probe}
In this section we obtain the momentum space distribution of the low energy degrees of freedom in a finite density holographic system with a known supersymmetric field theory dual. The field theory will be ${\mathcal N} = 4$ $SU(N)$ SYM theory at large $N$ coupled to a single massless hypermultiplet in the fundamental representation. The hypermultiplet is furthermore constrained to propagate on a 2+1 defect in the full 3+1 field theory dimensions. This system is known to be holographically dual to a single probe $D5$ brane wrapping $AdS_4 \times S^2$ in the $AdS_5 \times S^5$ background of type IIB string theory \cite{Karch:2000gx, DeWolfe:2001pq, Erdmenger:2002ex}. We will consider the system at finite density under the `baryonic' global $U(1)$ symmetry that is dual to the Maxwell symmetry of the bulk probe $D5$ brane. There is a large literature considering Dp/Dq systems in the probe limit at finite density, a slower exposition of the setup we consider may be found in \cite{Goykhman:2012vy}. Our results will hold for many other brane systems beyond the explicit supersymmetric D3/D5 theory we have chosen to study.
The background spacetime is the Schwarzschild black hole in $AdS_5 \times S^5$
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = L^2 \left(\frac{1}{r^2} \left(- f(r) dt^2 + \frac{dr^2}{f(r)} + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 \right) + d\Omega^2_{S^5} \right) \,.
\end{equation}
Here the emblackening factor $f(r) = 1 - r^4/r_+^4$. The temperature of the black hole is given by $ T = 1/\pi r_+$, see e.g. \cite{Hartnoll:2009sz}.
The probe $D5$ brane is described by the DBI action
\begin{equation}
S_{D5} = - e^{-\phi} T_{D5} \int d^6\sigma \sqrt{- \text{det} \left({}^\star g + 2 \pi \a' F \right)} \,.
\end{equation}
Here ${}^\star g$ is the pullback of the metric to the worldvolume, $F = dA$ is the field strength of the worldvolume Maxwell field. The prefactors are the string coupling and the $D5$ brane tension.
For the configurations we consider, the Wess-Zumino term in the brane action, and corresponding equations of motion, is zero. Taking the embedding $AdS_4 \times S^2$ in the background spacetime, corresponding to massless fundamental fields, all that is necessary to place the system at finite density is to solve for the electrostatic potential $A_t(r)$ on the worldvolume. The equations of motion are easily solved to give
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stat}
A_t'(r) = - \frac{Q}{\sqrt{1 + \hat Q^2 r^4}} \,.
\end{equation}
Here we have introduced $\hat Q^2 = \frac{4 \pi^2}{\lambda} Q^2$, where the 't Hooft coupling
$\lambda \gg 1$ appears through $L^4 = \lambda \a'^2$.
The constant of integration $Q$ is proportional to the charge density of the system. This can be seen by expanding (\ref{eq:stat}) near the boundary at $r=0$. More convenient for us will be the chemical potential
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mu}
\mu = - \int_0^{r_+} dr A_t'(r) = \frac{Q}{\pi T} \, {}_2 F_1 \left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2},\frac{5}{4}; - \frac{\hat Q^2}{(\pi T)^4}\right) \,.
\end{equation}
In the probe limit, the excitations of the Maxwell field do not backreact on metric modes. This is technically a great simplification compared to the case we considered in the previous section.
Only the following perturbations are necessary: $\d A_t, \d A_x, \d A_y$. Taking each mode to be a function of $r$ times $e^{- i \w t + i k y}$, one finds the equation for the transverse mode
\begin{equation}\label{eq:perp}
\d A_\perp'' + \left(\frac{f'}{f} + \frac{2 \hat Q^2 r^3}{1 + \hat Q^2 r^4} \right) \d A_\perp' +
\left(\frac{\w^2}{f^2} - \frac{1}{f} \frac{k^2}{1 + \hat Q^2 r^4} \right) \d A_\perp = 0 \,,
\end{equation}
where $\d A_\perp = \d A_x$. The equation for the longitudinal mode $\d A_\parallel = \w \d A_y + k \d A_t$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:parallel}
\d A_\parallel'' + \frac{6 \hat Q^2 k^2 r^3 f^2 - \w^2 (1 + \hat Q^2 r^4) \left(2 \hat Q^2 r^3 f + (1 + \hat Q^2 r^4) f' \right)}{f (1 + \hat Q^2 r^4) \left(k^2 f - \w^2 (1 + \hat Q^2 r^4) \right)}\d A_\parallel'
+ \left(\frac{\w^2}{f^2} - \frac{1}{f} \frac{k^2}{1 + \hat Q^2 r^4} \right) \d A_\parallel = 0 \,.
\end{equation}
This decoupling of charge dynamics from heat flow and momentum conservation comes at a physical cost. For instance, the translation-invariance delta function in the conductivity is not visible in the probe limit \cite{Karch:2007pd}.
We are primarily interested in zero temperature. This corresponds to setting $f = 1$ in the above equations. In this limit we recover the equations in \cite{Goykhman:2012vy}. Our objective in this paper is to understand the momentum dependence of the current spectral density in these systems at
vanishing frequency. We have managed to obtain this spectral weight analytically for the transverse modes. A low frequency expansion is implemented by setting
\begin{equation}\label{eq:wexpand}
\d A_\perp = e^{i \w r} \left(\d A_\perp^{(0)} + \w \d A_\perp^{(1)} + \cdots \right) \,.
\end{equation}
It is necessary to extract the infalling near-horizon behavior as we have done here to allow for the fact that the $\w \to 0$ and $r \to \infty$ limits do not commute. Said differently, the factor of $e^{i \w r}$ removes the irregular singular point in the equation at infinity. To zeroth order in $\w$ we then find that the solution that is regular at the horizon is
\begin{equation}
\d A_\perp^{(0)}(r) = \sinh \left( \frac{k}{\sqrt{\hat Q}} \left[(-1)^{1/4} F\left(i \, \text{arcsinh} \left((-1)^{1/4} \sqrt{\hat Q} \, r \right) ,-1\right) + \frac{\G(1/4)^2}{4 \sqrt{\pi}} \right] \right) \,.
\end{equation}
Here $F$ is the incomplete elliptic integral of the first kind. The normalization of this solution is immaterial. The first order solution that is regular at the horizon can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:a1}
\d A_\perp^{(1)}(r) = c \, \d A_\perp^{(0)}(r) - i \left(r + \frac{\sqrt{1 + \hat Q^2 r^4}}{\hat Q} \frac{d}{dr}\right) \d A_\perp^{(0)}(r) \,.
\end{equation}
Here $c$ is a constant. Obtaining this unexpectedly (to us at least) simple form of the first order solution required some nontrivial integration by parts of an integral expression that is obtained upon solving the differential equation for $\d A_\perp^{(1)}$. It may also be verified directly by plugging the form (\ref{eq:a1}) into the differential equation for $\d A_\perp^{(1)}$ and then using the differential equation for $\d A_\perp^{(0)}$. It is now straightforward to expand the full solution near the boundary $r \to 0$, giving $\d A_\perp = \d A_{\perp,\text{n.n.}} + \d A_{\perp,\text{n.}} r + \cdots$. The retarded Green's function is given, as usual and up to an overall normalization, by the ratio of the normalizable and non-normalizable terms
\begin{equation}
G^R_{J_\perp J_\perp}(\w,k) = \frac{\d A_{\perp,\text{n.}}(\w,k)}{\d A_{\perp,\text{n.n.}}(\w,k)} \,.
\end{equation}
The
desired transverse spectral weight (dissipative conductivity) is then found to be
\begin{equation}\label{eq:chiprobe}
\sigma_\perp(k) = \lim_{\w \to 0} \frac{\text{Im} \, G^R_{J_\perp J_\perp}(\w,k)}{\w}
= \sigma_\perp(0) \, \left(\frac{k \mu_0}{Q} \text{csch} \frac{k \mu_0}{Q}\right)^2 \,.
\end{equation}
Here we introduced the zero temperature limit of the chemical potential (\ref{eq:mu})
\begin{equation}
\mu_0 = \lim_{T \to 0} \mu = \frac{Q}{\sqrt{\hat Q}} \frac{4 \Gamma(5/4)^2}{\sqrt{\pi}} \,.
\end{equation}
The exact expression (\ref{eq:chiprobe}) is the main result of this section and is plotted in the following figure \ref{fig:chiperpbrane}. Note the absence of hats on $Q$ in the final expression (\ref{eq:chiprobe}). We have verified this result by also computing the spectral weight numerically.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=190pt]{chiperpbrane.pdf}
\caption{Spectral weight (dissipative conductivity) of the transverse current at zero frequency as a function of momentum for the $D3/D5$ system at finite charge density. This is a plot of equation (\ref{eq:chiprobe}). \label{fig:chiperpbrane}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The main physical point to take away from (\ref{eq:chiprobe}) is that for
\begin{equation}\label{eq:expboundary}
k \lesssim k_\star = \frac{Q}{2 \mu_0} \,,
\end{equation}
the system has spectral weight at low energies. For momenta greater than this, the low energy spectral weight is exponentially suppressed.
It has already been emphasized in \cite{Hartnoll:2009ns} that gauge field fluctuations of the DBI action at finite density and zero temperature have the property that the differential equations describing the fluctuations become independent of momentum near the horizon. We can see this by taking $r \to \infty$ in (\ref{eq:perp}) and (\ref{eq:parallel}), with $f=1$ at zero temperature. It was explained that this implies the existence of low energy excitations at finite momentum. Our result (\ref{eq:chiprobe}) makes this intuition explicit and shows furthermore that these excitations are present over a precise range of momentum $0 \leq k \lesssim k_\star$.
The plot in figure \ref{fig:chiperpbrane} is satisfyingly along the lines of what one might expect for a strongly interacting quantum liquid. The well-defined vanishing of the free fermion transverse low energy spectral weight (\ref{eq:freetrans}) has been smoothened out by interactions. Nonetheless, the basic `exclusion principle' feature of low energy degrees of freedom extended in momentum space remains.
Static screening of electrical currents is determined by the real rather than the imaginary part of the transverse current Green's function. The static Green's function is also computable analytically from our solutions above for $\d A_\perp^{(0)}$ and $\d A_\perp^{(1)}$. We obtain the transverse susceptibility
\begin{equation}\label{eq:chichiperp}
\chi_\perp(k) = \lim_{\w \to 0} G^R_{J_\perp J_\perp}(\w,k) = - |\chi_\perp(0)| \, \frac{k \mu_0}{Q} \coth \frac{k \mu_0}{Q} \,.
\end{equation}
The magnetic response to a line of current is then obtained by Fourier transforming the
screened boundary transverse gauge field propagator $\left(k^2 - \chi_\perp(k)\right)^{-1}$.
Curiously, using the susceptibility (\ref{eq:chichiperp}) we find that all the poles of the screened propagator are at purely imaginary momenta. It follows
that the screening leads to a purely exponential falloff of the magnetic field with distance from the current, with no oscillations.
Possibly relatedly, no quantum oscillations in the magnetic susceptibility are observed in this and similar probe branes systems as a function of the magnetic field, e.g. \cite{Goykhman:2012vy}.
For the longitudinal channel and at finite temperatures, we have not been able to solve for the spectral weight and static susceptibility analytically. In particular the zeroth order longitudinal equation with $\w=0$ does not appear solvable even at zero temperature. The relative complexity of the longitudinal equation is partially due to the fact that it supports a zero sound mode \cite{Karch:2009zz, Goykhman:2012vy}. This feature dominates the spectral density at any small finite $\w$ and $k$ and is not a direct probe of structure at finite momentum. At zero temperature we solved the equations for $\d A_\parallel$ numerically in a perturbative expansion in $\w$, analogously to the expansion in (\ref{eq:wexpand}). This expansion pushes the zero sound feature down to arbitrarily low momenta. From the solution to the longitudinal equation we may obtain e.g. the retarded Green's function for density fluctuations from \cite{Goykhman:2012vy}
\begin{equation}
G^R_{J^t J^t}(\w,k) = - \frac{k^2}{k^2 - \w^2} \frac{\d A_{\parallel,\text{n.}}(\w,k)}{\d A_{\parallel,\text{n.n.}}(\w,k)} \,.
\end{equation}
The longitudinal susceptibility
\begin{equation}
\chi_\parallel(k) = \lim_{\w \to 0} G^R_{J^t J^t}(\w,k) \,,
\end{equation}
is found to have a qualitatively similar functional form to the transverse susceptibility (\ref{eq:chichiperp}), but with the opposite sign.
We have verified numerically that, similarly to the transverse case, the screened propagator, which is now $\left(k^2 + \chi_\parallel(k)\right)^{-1}$, has poles at purely imaginary momenta. It follows that point charges are exponentially screened in this theory and do not cause Friedel-type oscillations.
The spectral density is found to vanish with a higher power of $\w$ than in the transverse channel. We had to work numerically to order $\d A_\parallel^{(3)}$ to extract the leading nonvanishing spectral weight. Our numerical result for
\begin{equation}\label{eq:w3}
\widetilde \sigma_\parallel(k) = \lim_{\w \to 0} \frac{k^2}{\w^2} \, \frac{\text{Im} \, G^R_{J^t J^t}(\w,k)}{\w} \,,
\end{equation}
is shown in figure \ref{fig:chiparallelbrane}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=190pt]{chiparallelbrane.pdf}
\caption{Spectral weight (\ref{eq:w3}) of the longitudinal current at zero frequency as a function of momentum for the $D3/D5$ system at finite charge density. This quantity has been obtained numerically. The zero sound feature has been pushed to arbitrarily small momentum. \label{fig:chiparallelbrane}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Note the extra factor of $k^2/\w^2$ in the definition of $\widetilde \sigma_\parallel$ relative to the density-density spectral weight defined in (\ref{eq:weights}). That is, $\widetilde \sigma_\parallel = \sigma_\parallel(\w) k^2/\w^2$. We see therefore that at a given finite momentum there is much less low energy spectral weight in the longitudinal channel than in the transverse channel. At finite temperature, the fact that $\sigma_\parallel(\w) \sim \w^2$ will translate into the spectral weight vanishing like $T^2$ at low temperature. The above said, the spectral weight that does exist is seen in figure \ref{fig:chiparallelbrane} to be constrained to lie in a finite band of momenta. The dependence on momentum is qualitatively similar to the transverse channel shown in figure \ref{fig:chiperpbrane} and equation (\ref{eq:chiprobe}).
A quantity that can be extracted analytically at any temperature and for both channels are the momenta analogous to (\ref{eq:expboundary}), above which the spectral weight is exponentially suppressed. As the temperature is increased, we expect to see spectral weight move to higher momenta as states are Boltzmann populated. The exponential decay at large momenta can be extracted with a WKB computation, cf. \cite{Son:2002sd}. The imaginary part of the retarded Green's function is given by the probability for the excitation to tunnel from the boundary to the horizon. We can perform this computation directly at zero frequency, $\w = 0$. Mapping the equations to Schr\"odinger form and using $k \to \infty$ as the WKB parameter, one finds for both the longitudinal and transverse modes
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{Im} \, G^R(k) & \sim & \exp \Big\{- 2 k \int_0^{r_+} \frac{dr}{\sqrt{f(r) \left(1 + \hat Q^2 r^4\right)}} \Big\} \\
& = &
\exp \Big\{ - \frac{2 \G(5/4)}{\sqrt{\pi} \G(3/4)} \frac{k}{T} {}_2 F_1 \left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{4}, - \frac{\hat Q^2}{(\pi T)^4} \right) \Big\} \,. \label{eq:hyper}
\end{eqnarray}
In the low temperature limit, $T \to 0$, we recover the critical momentum in (\ref{eq:expboundary}) separating regions with and without spectral weight. The same rate of exponential falloff with momentum is therefore seen to apply to both the transverse and longitudinal channels.
At high temperatures the spectral weight is seen to be non-negligible for momenta (cf. \cite{Son:2002sd})
\begin{equation}
k < k_\star = \frac{\sqrt{\pi} \G(3/4)}{2 \G(5/4)} T \,. \qquad (\text{as } T \to \infty)
\end{equation}
This is precisely the anticipated Boltzmann occupation of states. The hypergeometric function in the exponent of (\ref{eq:hyper}) curtails the decrease of $k_\star$ with temperature so the finite region of momentum space in (\ref{eq:expboundary}) remains active at zero temperature.
\section{Discussion}
Our starting point has been the observation that the existence
of low energy degrees of freedom at nonzero momenta is a fundamental organizing principle
for the best characterized compressible state of matter: the Fermi liquid.
Given the central role this fact plays in the phenomenology and theory of metals,
the extent to which such momentum space structure appears in holographic phases
of matter is currently an active topic of investigation \cite{Polchinski:2012nh, Hartnoll:2012wm, Faulkner:2012gt}. In this paper we have found the first holographic identification of a strong non-analyticity in the low energy spectral weight as a function of momentum that is visible to leading order in the bulk gravity limit (\ref{eq:infzero}). In a second class of holographic theories we have found low energy spectral weight that is exponentially localized below a critical momentum (\ref{eq:chiprobe}).
Semi-local quantum criticality is among the most interesting new organizing principles to emerge
from holographic studies of finite density matter. This criticality applies to IR fixed points in which time scales but space (and hence momentum) does not. The crucial extra ingredient of semi-local criticality is that the weights with which operators scale in time are momentum-dependent. Applied to current correlators, which are the quantities that universally detect the charge dynamics in the system at leading order in the bulk gravity limit, the momentum-dependence of the scaling dimension allows a sharp momentum-space structure to emerge at zero temperature. While the local scaling itself kinematically allows low energy spectral weight at all momenta, this spectral weight only participates in charge dynamics over a finite range of momenta for which the associated current operators are relevant in the IR. This effect has an interesting resemblance to the momentum space structure of the spectral weight of a Fermi liquid.
Initial work on semi-local quantum criticality in finite density holography revolved around $AdS_2 \times {{\Bbb R}}^2$ \cite{Faulkner:2009wj}. It was emphasized in \cite{Hartnoll:2012wm} that this is a special case of holographic semi-local criticality, which is more generally parameterized by the quantity $\eta$ discussed in the introduction. For $\eta > 0$ there is no ground state entropy density. For $0 < \eta < 2$ we have found an interesting momentum space structure. We have furthermore noted that $\eta = 1$ is easily embedded into string theory and thereby realized as a finite density phase of the M2 brane CFT dual to $AdS_4 \times S^7$. The same case of $\eta = 1$ was found to exhibit mathematical simplifications and a linear in temperature resistivity in the presence of impurities.
The key question facing semi-local criticality seems to be its generality. Can it arise naturally in non-holographic systems? Is it somehow an artifact of the large $N$ limit, perhaps describing multiple Fermi surfaces that have been smeared over momentum space? Strictly local criticality is known to arise in a certain limit of spin glass systems \cite{Sachdev:2010um}. Here we are specifically interested in semi-local criticality, where there is a momentum dependence in the weights and also no entropy at zero temperature.
We suspect that the decoupling of the gauge invariant perturbations we have performed may be simpler to understand by working directly in an uplifted theory with fewer basic fields. These could be the uplifts in \cite{Cvetic:1999xp} or those in \cite{Gouteraux:2011ce}.
An interesting feature in both classes of holographic models that we considered is that there is a stronger momentum space structure in the transverse channel than the longitudinal channel. This is the opposite to free fermions. Also of interest is the fact that holography makes manifest the physical distinction between low energy spectral weight and the static susceptiblity (which controls the existence of Friedel oscillations). We have found strong momentum-space features in the spectral weight. However, the static susceptibility either does not exhibit any features -- in the probe brane case -- or is independent of IR data -- in the semi-locally critical case.
We noted that the probe brane case is also known not to exhibit quantum oscillations as function of magnetic field. It appears to be an interesting question for future work to look for quantum oscillations in the semi-locally critical cases with $0 < \eta < 2$; it is possible that the dramatic spectral weight (\ref{eq:infzero}) will have consequences for the magnetic susceptibility. The first step is to construct the extremal dyonic black holes in these theories.
We end with a few comments on the D3/D5 theory. From a weakly coupled worldvolume perspective this theory has both charged bosons and fermions. The momentum space structure that we have nonetheless found in the strongly interacting gravity dual suggests that it is not necessary to use purely fermionic worldvolume theories to obtain strongly interacting cousins of Fermi liquids. Because we have treated the D3/D5 system in the probe limit, the Drude delta function is not visible in the conductivity \cite{Karch:2007pd}. It follows that we cannot compute the d.c. conductivity due to charged lattices or impurities in this case, as these revolve around resolving the Drude delta function \cite{Hartnoll:2012rj}. It would certainly be interesting to find a setup where the momentum space structure we have uncovered, which have the form of smoothened out Fermi liquids, could be used as an input for the study of d.c. transport.
\section{Acknowledgements}
It is a pleasure to acknowledge helpful discussions with Aristomenis Donos, Thomas Faulkner, Diego Hofman, Steve Kivelson, Hong Liu, Raghu Mahajan, Jonathan Maltz and Eva Silverstein. SAH is partially funded by an Alfred P. Sloan research fellowship and by a DOE Early Career Award. DMR is supported by a Morgridge Family Stanford Graduate Fellowship and RJA by a Stanford Humanities and Sciences Fellowship.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
It is well-known that the Petrie relatives of a regular map on a closed surface form a family of generally six regular maps with the same automorphism group, obtained from the original map under iteration of the duality and Petrie operations (taking duals and Petrie-duals); see Coxeter \& Moser~\cite{cm}, McMullen \& Schulte~\cite[Ch. 7B]{arp} or Wilson~\cite{wilson}. The purpose of this short note is to point out that the skeletal polyhedra in Euclidean $3$-space $\mathbb{E}^3$ which realize a Petrie relative of the classical Gordan~\cite{gor} regular map and have full icosahedral symmetry, comprise precisely four infinite families of polyhedra, as well as four additional, individual polyhedra. Here a skeletal polyhedron is a finite geometric edge-graph in space equipped with a polyhedral face structure; see Gr\"unbaum~\cite{gr1} and \cite[Ch. 7E]{arp}, as well as Section~\ref{maskpo}.
The icosahedral polyhedra described in this paper are particularly interesting examples of regular polyhedra of index $2$ (see Cutler~\cite{cut}, Cutler \& Schulte~\cite{cutsch}, Wills~\cite{wills}); that is, they are combinatorially regular but ``fail geometric regularity by a factor of $2$". Four polyhedra were previously known and have an interesting history; namely, the planar-faced polyhedral realizations of Gordan's map $\{5,4\}_6$ and its dual $\{4,5\}_6$ of genus $4$, as well as of $\{6,5\}_4$ and $\{5,6\}_4$ of genus $9$. These give four of just five regular polyhedra of index $2$ which are orientable and have planar faces (see \cite{wills} for the enumeration and Richter~\cite{rich} for figures). The polyhedra for $\{5,4\}_6$ and $\{5,6\}_4$ were discovered by Hess (1878), Pitsch (1881) and Badoureau (1881); for the history see Coxeter~\cite[\S 6.4]{coxeter}, and for figures see \cite[Fig. 4.4a]{coxeter} and Coxeter, Longuet-Higgins \& Miller~\cite[Figs. 45, 53]{clm}. The polyhedra for $\{4,5\}_6$ and $\{6,5\}_4$, respectively, are obtained from the polyhedra for $\{5,4\}_6$ and $\{5,6\}_4$ by polarity (see Gr\"unbaum \& Shephard~\cite{gsh}); for figures see \cite[Fig. 6.4c]{coxeter}, \cite[$De_{2}f_{2}$ on Plate XI]{cdfp}, and \cite{swirp}.
In addition to these classical examples, new icosahedral polyhedra for Petrie relatives of Gordan's map can be derived from the complete classification of the finite regular polyhedra of index $2$ in \cite{cut,cutsch}. It turns out that this provides a complete list of possible realizations. Overall, each Petrie relative is seen to admit a skeletal realization with icosahedral symmetry, and some relatives can even be realized in more than one way.
\section{Maps and skeletal polyhedra}
\label{maskpo}
Skeletal polyhedra were first investigated in Gr\"unbaum~\cite{gr1}. A priori they are not solid figures bounded by faces spanned by membranes, but rather more general discrete polyhedral structures with convex or non-convex, planar or skew, and finite or infinite (helical or zig-zag) polygonal faces and vertex-figures. Here we are only concerned with finite polyhedral structures, so in particular helical or zigzag faces will not occur.
To begin with, a (finite) {\em polygon\/}, or simply an {\em $n$-gon\/}, $(v_1, v_2, \dots, v_n)$ in $\mathbb{E}^3$ is a figure formed by distinct points $v_1, \dots, v_n$, together with the line segments $(v_i, v_{i+1})$, for $i = 1, \dots, n-1$, and $(v_n, v_1)$. The points and line segments are the {\em vertices\/} and {\em edges\/} of the polygon. Note that polygons are edge cycles, {\em not\/} topological discs, and may or may not be plane polygons.
A (finite) {\em skeletal polyhedron\/}, or simply {\em polyhedron\/}, $P$ in $\mathbb{E}^3$ consists of a finite set $V_P$ of points, called {\em vertices\/}, a finite set $E_P$ of line segments, called {\em edges\/}, joining points of $V_P$, and a finite set $F_P$ of polygons, called {\em faces\/}, formed by line segments of $E_P$ such that the following three conditions hold. First, $P$ is globally connected, in the sense that the {\em edge graph\/} of $P$ defined by $V_P$ and $E_P$ is connected; and second, $P$ is locally connected, meaning that the vertex-figure of $P$ at every vertex of $P$ is connected. Recall here that the {\em vertex-figure\/} of $P$ at a vertex $v$ is the graph whose vertices are the neighbors of $v$ in the edge graph of $P$ and whose edges are the line segments $(u,w)$, where $(u, v)$ and $(v, w)$ are edges of a common face of $P$. Third, each edge of $P$ is an edge of exactly two faces of~$P$.
For combinatorial purposes we identify a polyhedron $P$ with the underlying map on a closed compact (orientable or non-orientable) surface; see \cite{cm,arp}. Thus skeletal polyhedra in $\mathbb{E}^3$ are $3$-dimensional geometric realizations of abstract polyhedra in the sense of \cite[Ch. 7E]{arp} (see also \cite{gr1,grhol} and \cite{ordinary}). Note, however, that a skeletal polyhedron is a finite geometric edge graph in $\mathbb{E}^3$ equipped with a distinguished face structure; it is not a solid figure.
A map $P$ is ({\em combinatorially\/}) {\em regular\/} if its {\em automorphism group\/} $\Gamma(P)$ is transitive on the flags (incident vertex-edge-face triples). The automorphism group $\Gamma(P)$ of a regular map is generated by involutions $\rho_0,\rho_1,\rho_2$ satisfying (at least) the Coxeter-type relations
\begin{equation}
\label{relone}
\rho_{0}^{2} = \rho_{1}^{2} = \rho_{2}^{2} =
(\rho_{0}\rho_{1})^{p} = (\rho_{1}\rho_{2})^{q} = (\rho_{0}\rho_{2})^{2} = 1,
\end{equation}
where $p$ and $q$ determine the {\em type} $\{p,q\}$ of $P$. Thus $\Gamma(P)$ is a quotient of the Coxeter group $[p,q]$ abstractly defined by the relations in (\ref{relone}).
The {\em Petrie-dual\/} of a regular map $P$ is a (regular) map with the same vertices and edges as $P$, obtained by replacing the faces of $P$ by the Petrie polygons of $P$. Recall that a {\em Petrie polygon\/} of $P$ is a polygon along the edges of $P$ such that any two, but no three, consecutive edges belong to a common face. The iteration of taking duals and Petrie-duals gives rise to a family of generally six regular maps, the {\em Petrie relatives\/} of $P$, all sharing the same automorphism group.
Following \cite{cm}, we let $\{p,q\}_r$ denote a regular map derived from the spherical, Euclidean, or hyperbolic regular plane tessellation $\{p,q\}$ by identifying any two vertices~$r$ steps apart along a Petrie polygon of $\{p,q\}$. The automorphism group of $\{p,q\}_r$ is abstractly defined by (\ref{relone}) and the relation $(\rho_{0}\rho_{1}\rho_{2})^{r}=1$. The dual and Petrie-dual of $\{p,q\}_r$ are the maps $\{q,p\}_r$ and $\{r,q\}_p$, respectively. Thus the Petrie relatives of $\{p,q\}_r$ are given by $\{p,q\}_{r}$, $\{q,p\}_{r}$, $\{r,q\}_{p}$, $\{q,r\}_{p}$, $\{r,p\}_{q}$, and $\{p,r\}_{q}$. Note that $\{p,q\}_r$ is orientable if and only if $r$ is even.
The present paper focuses on icosahedral polyhedra realizing a Petrie relative of Gordan's map $\{5,4\}_6$. In this case the six Petrie relatives are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{gord}
\{5,4\}_{6},\, \{4,5\}_{6},\, \{6,4\}_{5},\ \{4,6\}_{5},\, \{6,5\}_{4},\, \{5,6\}_{4} ,
\end{equation}
and all have the same automorphism group of order $240$. The first two maps are orientable of genus $4$; the next two are non-orientable of genus $12$; and the last two are orientable of genus $9$.
A polyhedron with full icosahedral symmetry realizing a map in (\ref{gord}) must be a regular polyhedron of index~$2$ in the sense of~\cite{wills,cutsch}. Recall that $P$ is a {\em regular polyhedron of index~$2$\/} if $P$ is a regular map and the geometric symmetry group $G(P)$ of $P$ is a subgroup of $\Gamma(P)$ of index $2$. For Gordan's map and its relatives, $G(P)$ is the full icosahedral group of order $120$ and has index $2$ in $\Gamma(P)$.
\section{The polyhedra}
\label{pols}
It follows from the above analysis that the desired icosahedral skeletal polyhedra for Gordan's map and its relatives are precisely the regular polyhedra of index $2$ that have full icosahedral symmetry and are combinatorially isomorphic to a map in (\ref{gord}).
This allows us to draw upon the complete enumeration of the finite regular polyhedra of index~$2$ obtained in \cite{cut,cutsch}.
It was shown in \cite{cutsch} that up to similarity there are precisely $22$ infinite families of regular polyhedra of index $2$ with vertices on two orbits under the full symmetry group, where two polyhedra belong to the same family if they differ only in the relative size of the spheres containing their vertex orbits; all polyhedra in these $22$ families are orientable, but only two have planar faces. The complete enumeration of the remaining regular polyhedra of index $2$, with vertices on one orbit, is described in \cite{cut}; there are exactly $10$ such (individual) polyhedra.
In particular, this establishes the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theo1}
The skeletal polyhedra in $\mathbb{E}^3$ which realize a Petrie relative of the Gordan regular map and have full icosahedral symmetry, comprise precisely four infinite families of polyhedra, as well as four individual polyhedra.
\end{theorem}
\begin{table}[htp]
\centering
{\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|l|c|c|c|cl} \hline
Type &f-Vector &Vertex Orbits&Map &Planar Faces\\
$\{p,q\}_r$ &$(f_{0},f_{1},f_{2})$&& of \cite{con}&\\[.05in]
\hline
\hline
$\{4,5\}_{6}$ & $(24,60,30)$ &2&$R4.2$&Yes, for one polyhedron\\
\hline
$\{6,5\}_{4}$ & $(24,60,20)$&2& $R9.16^*$ &Yes, for one polyhedron\\
\hline
$\{4,5\}_{6}$ & $(24,60,30)$&2& $R4.2$& No\\
\hline
$\{6,5\}_{4}$ & $(24,60,20)$&2 & $R9.16^*$& No\\
\hline
\hline
$\{4,6\}_{5}$ &$(20, 60, 30)$& 1&$N12.1$& No\\
\hline
$\{5,6\}_{4}$ &$(20, 60, 24)$&1&$R9.16$&Yes \\
\hline
$\{6,4\}_{5}$ &$(30, 60, 20)$&1&$N12.1^*$&No\\
\hline
$\{5,4\}_{6}$ &$(30, 60, 24)$&1&$R4.2^*$& Yes \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The icosahedral skeletal polyhedra realizing Petrie relatives of Gordan's map. The first four rows represent the infinite families of polyhedra shown in Figure~\ref{figcsw1}, the last four the individual polyhedra shown in Figure~\ref{figcsw2}.}
\label{tabone}}
\end{table}
Details about these polyhedra are summarized in Table~\ref{tabone}; the first four rows concern the polyhedra occurring in an infinite family, and the last four rows the individual polyhedra. The $f$-vector $(f_0,f_1,f_2)$ in the second column records the numbers $f_0$, $f_1$ and $f_2$ of vertices, edges and faces of a map. The third column lists the number of vertex orbits, $1$ or $2$, under the full icosahedral symmetry group. The fourth column gives the name of the map in the notation of Conder \cite{con}. Here ``$R$" or ``$N$", respectively, indicates an orientable or non-orientable regular map; the number before the period is the genus, and an asterisk indicates the dual.
\begin{figure}[hp]
\vspace{-.8in}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10.2cm, height=13cm]{CSWfig1.pdf}\\[-.55in]
\caption{The four families of icosahedral skeletal polyhedra of types $\{4,5\}_{6}$ or $\{6,5\}_4$.}
\label{figcsw1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
A member of each of the four families of icosahedral skeletal polyhedra which realize a Petrie relative of the Gordan map is shown in Figure~\ref{figcsw1}. They each are orientable, and have one face orbit, one edge orbit and two vertex orbits. The ratio of the diameters of the vertex orbits, which may be any positive quantity other than 1, identifies the individual polyhedra within each family. The two families in the top row each contain exactly one polyhedron with planar faces, which occurs when the ratio of the diameters of the vertex orbits is $(1 + \sqrt{5})/2$ or $2 + \sqrt{5}$, respectively. The vertices of the polyhedra coincide with the vertices of two concentric regular icosahedra, and these underlying solids, as well as a representative face of each polyhedron, are diagramed. Polyhedra in the same row are Petrie duals, and those in the same column have the same map, of type $\{4,5\}_6$ or $\{6,5\}_4$ respectively, and these maps are dual to the maps of the polyhedra shown in the bottom row of Figure 2. The 30 faces of each polyhedron in the left column are each centered on an edge of the underlying icosahedra, whereas the 20 faces of each polyhedron in the right column are each centered on a face of the underlying icosahedra. \\[-1in]
\begin{figure}[hp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm, height=15.8cm]{CSWfig2.pdf}\\[-1.1in]
\caption{The four individual icosahedral skeletal polyhedra which realize a Petrie relative of the Gordan map.}
\label{figcsw2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The four individual icosahedral skeletal polyhedra which realize a Petrie relative of the Gordan map are shown in Figure~\ref{figcsw2}. They each have one edge orbit and one vertex orbit. A representative face from each face orbit is diagramed. The vertices coincide with the vertices of either a regular dodecahedron or a regular icosidodecahedron, as shown, and each of the 60 edges of each skeletal polyhedron traverses a pentagonal face of those underlying solids. Polyhedra in the same column are Petrie duals, and the maps of those in the top row are duals. The top left has type $\{4,6\}_5$, is non-orientable and has one face orbit with non-planar faces. The 30 faces are each centered on an edge of the underlying dodecahedron. The bottom left has type $\{5,6\}_4$, is orientable and has two face orbits each with planar faces. The 24 faces are each centered on a face of the underlying dodecahedron, either as an internal pentagram or as a surrounding pentagon. The top right has type $\{6,4\}_5$, is non-orientable and has one face orbit with non-planar faces. The 20 faces are each centered on a triangular face of the underlying icosidodecahedron. The bottom left has type $\{5,4\}_6$, is orientable and has two face orbits each with planar faces. The 24 faces are each centered on a pentagonal face of the underlying icosidodecahedron, again either as an internal pentagram or as a surrounding pentagon.
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
It is well-known that the Petrie relatives of a regular map on a closed surface form a family of generally six regular maps with the same automorphism group, obtained from the original map under iteration of the duality and Petrie operations (taking duals and Petrie-duals); see Coxeter \& Moser~\cite{cm}, McMullen \& Schulte~\cite[Ch. 7B]{arp} or Wilson~\cite{wilson}. The purpose of this short note is to point out that the skeletal polyhedra in Euclidean $3$-space $\mathbb{E}^3$ which realize a Petrie relative of the classical Gordan~\cite{gor} regular map and have full icosahedral symmetry, comprise precisely four infinite families of polyhedra, as well as four additional, individual polyhedra. Here a skeletal polyhedron is a finite geometric edge-graph in space equipped with a polyhedral face structure; see Gr\"unbaum~\cite{gr1} and \cite[Ch. 7E]{arp}, as well as Section~\ref{maskpo}.
The icosahedral polyhedra described in this paper are particularly interesting examples of regular polyhedra of index $2$ (see Cutler~\cite{cut}, Cutler \& Schulte~\cite{cutsch}, Wills~\cite{wills}); that is, they are combinatorially regular but ``fail geometric regularity by a factor of $2$". Four polyhedra were previously known and have an interesting history; namely, the planar-faced polyhedral realizations of Gordan's map $\{5,4\}_6$ and its dual $\{4,5\}_6$ of genus $4$, as well as of $\{6,5\}_4$ and $\{5,6\}_4$ of genus $9$. These give four of just five regular polyhedra of index $2$ which are orientable and have planar faces (see \cite{wills} for the enumeration and Richter~\cite{rich} for figures). The polyhedra for $\{5,4\}_6$ and $\{5,6\}_4$ were discovered by Hess (1878), Pitsch (1881) and Badoureau (1881); for the history see Coxeter~\cite[\S 6.4]{coxeter}, and for figures see \cite[Fig. 4.4a]{coxeter} and Coxeter, Longuet-Higgins \& Miller~\cite[Figs. 45, 53]{clm}. The polyhedra for $\{4,5\}_6$ and $\{6,5\}_4$, respectively, are obtained from the polyhedra for $\{5,4\}_6$ and $\{5,6\}_4$ by polarity (see Gr\"unbaum \& Shephard~\cite{gsh}); for figures see \cite[Fig. 6.4c]{coxeter}, \cite[$De_{2}f_{2}$ on Plate XI]{cdfp}, and \cite{swirp}.
In addition to these classical examples, new icosahedral polyhedra for Petrie relatives of Gordan's map can be derived from the complete classification of the finite regular polyhedra of index $2$ in \cite{cut,cutsch}. It turns out that this provides a complete list of possible realizations. Overall, each Petrie relative is seen to admit a skeletal realization with icosahedral symmetry, and some relatives can even be realized in more than one way.
\section{Maps and skeletal polyhedra}
\label{maskpo}
Skeletal polyhedra were first investigated in Gr\"unbaum~\cite{gr1}. A priori they are not solid figures bounded by faces spanned by membranes, but rather more general discrete polyhedral structures with convex or non-convex, planar or skew, and finite or infinite (helical or zig-zag) polygonal faces and vertex-figures. Here we are only concerned with finite polyhedral structures, so in particular helical or zigzag faces will not occur.
To begin with, a (finite) {\em polygon\/}, or simply an {\em $n$-gon\/}, $(v_1, v_2, \dots, v_n)$ in $\mathbb{E}^3$ is a figure formed by distinct points $v_1, \dots, v_n$, together with the line segments $(v_i, v_{i+1})$, for $i = 1, \dots, n-1$, and $(v_n, v_1)$. The points and line segments are the {\em vertices\/} and {\em edges\/} of the polygon. Note that polygons are edge cycles, {\em not\/} topological discs, and may or may not be plane polygons.
A (finite) {\em skeletal polyhedron\/}, or simply {\em polyhedron\/}, $P$ in $\mathbb{E}^3$ consists of a finite set $V_P$ of points, called {\em vertices\/}, a finite set $E_P$ of line segments, called {\em edges\/}, joining points of $V_P$, and a finite set $F_P$ of polygons, called {\em faces\/}, formed by line segments of $E_P$ such that the following three conditions hold. First, $P$ is globally connected, in the sense that the {\em edge graph\/} of $P$ defined by $V_P$ and $E_P$ is connected; and second, $P$ is locally connected, meaning that the vertex-figure of $P$ at every vertex of $P$ is connected. Recall here that the {\em vertex-figure\/} of $P$ at a vertex $v$ is the graph whose vertices are the neighbors of $v$ in the edge graph of $P$ and whose edges are the line segments $(u,w)$, where $(u, v)$ and $(v, w)$ are edges of a common face of $P$. Third, each edge of $P$ is an edge of exactly two faces of~$P$.
For combinatorial purposes we identify a polyhedron $P$ with the underlying map on a closed compact (orientable or non-orientable) surface; see \cite{cm,arp}. Thus skeletal polyhedra in $\mathbb{E}^3$ are $3$-dimensional geometric realizations of abstract polyhedra in the sense of \cite[Ch. 7E]{arp} (see also \cite{gr1,grhol} and \cite{ordinary}). Note, however, that a skeletal polyhedron is a finite geometric edge graph in $\mathbb{E}^3$ equipped with a distinguished face structure; it is not a solid figure.
A map $P$ is ({\em combinatorially\/}) {\em regular\/} if its {\em automorphism group\/} $\Gamma(P)$ is transitive on the flags (incident vertex-edge-face triples). The automorphism group $\Gamma(P)$ of a regular map is generated by involutions $\rho_0,\rho_1,\rho_2$ satisfying (at least) the Coxeter-type relations
\begin{equation}
\label{relone}
\rho_{0}^{2} = \rho_{1}^{2} = \rho_{2}^{2} =
(\rho_{0}\rho_{1})^{p} = (\rho_{1}\rho_{2})^{q} = (\rho_{0}\rho_{2})^{2} = 1,
\end{equation}
where $p$ and $q$ determine the {\em type} $\{p,q\}$ of $P$. Thus $\Gamma(P)$ is a quotient of the Coxeter group $[p,q]$ abstractly defined by the relations in (\ref{relone}).
The {\em Petrie-dual\/} of a regular map $P$ is a (regular) map with the same vertices and edges as $P$, obtained by replacing the faces of $P$ by the Petrie polygons of $P$. Recall that a {\em Petrie polygon\/} of $P$ is a polygon along the edges of $P$ such that any two, but no three, consecutive edges belong to a common face. The iteration of taking duals and Petrie-duals gives rise to a family of generally six regular maps, the {\em Petrie relatives\/} of $P$, all sharing the same automorphism group.
Following \cite{cm}, we let $\{p,q\}_r$ denote a regular map derived from the spherical, Euclidean, or hyperbolic regular plane tessellation $\{p,q\}$ by identifying any two vertices~$r$ steps apart along a Petrie polygon of $\{p,q\}$. The automorphism group of $\{p,q\}_r$ is abstractly defined by (\ref{relone}) and the relation $(\rho_{0}\rho_{1}\rho_{2})^{r}=1$. The dual and Petrie-dual of $\{p,q\}_r$ are the maps $\{q,p\}_r$ and $\{r,q\}_p$, respectively. Thus the Petrie relatives of $\{p,q\}_r$ are given by $\{p,q\}_{r}$, $\{q,p\}_{r}$, $\{r,q\}_{p}$, $\{q,r\}_{p}$, $\{r,p\}_{q}$, and $\{p,r\}_{q}$. Note that $\{p,q\}_r$ is orientable if and only if $r$ is even.
The present paper focuses on icosahedral polyhedra realizing a Petrie relative of Gordan's map $\{5,4\}_6$. In this case the six Petrie relatives are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{gord}
\{5,4\}_{6},\, \{4,5\}_{6},\, \{6,4\}_{5},\ \{4,6\}_{5},\, \{6,5\}_{4},\, \{5,6\}_{4} ,
\end{equation}
and all have the same automorphism group of order $240$. The first two maps are orientable of genus $4$; the next two are non-orientable of genus $12$; and the last two are orientable of genus $9$.
A polyhedron with full icosahedral symmetry realizing a map in (\ref{gord}) must be a regular polyhedron of index~$2$ in the sense of~\cite{wills,cutsch}. Recall that $P$ is a {\em regular polyhedron of index~$2$\/} if $P$ is a regular map and the geometric symmetry group $G(P)$ of $P$ is a subgroup of $\Gamma(P)$ of index $2$. For Gordan's map and its relatives, $G(P)$ is the full icosahedral group of order $120$ and has index $2$ in $\Gamma(P)$.
\section{The polyhedra}
\label{pols}
It follows from the above analysis that the desired icosahedral skeletal polyhedra for Gordan's map and its relatives are precisely the regular polyhedra of index $2$ that have full icosahedral symmetry and are combinatorially isomorphic to a map in (\ref{gord}).
This allows us to draw upon the complete enumeration of the finite regular polyhedra of index~$2$ obtained in \cite{cut,cutsch}.
It was shown in \cite{cutsch} that up to similarity there are precisely $22$ infinite families of regular polyhedra of index $2$ with vertices on two orbits under the full symmetry group, where two polyhedra belong to the same family if they differ only in the relative size of the spheres containing their vertex orbits; all polyhedra in these $22$ families are orientable, but only two have planar faces. The complete enumeration of the remaining regular polyhedra of index $2$, with vertices on one orbit, is described in \cite{cut}; there are exactly $10$ such (individual) polyhedra.
In particular, this establishes the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theo1}
The skeletal polyhedra in $\mathbb{E}^3$ which realize a Petrie relative of the Gordan regular map and have full icosahedral symmetry, comprise precisely four infinite families of polyhedra, as well as four individual polyhedra.
\end{theorem}
\begin{table}[htp]
\centering
{\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|l|c|c|c|cl} \hline
Type &f-Vector &Vertex Orbits&Map &Planar Faces\\
$\{p,q\}_r$ &$(f_{0},f_{1},f_{2})$&& of \cite{con}&\\[.05in]
\hline
\hline
$\{4,5\}_{6}$ & $(24,60,30)$ &2&$R4.2$&Yes, for one polyhedron\\
\hline
$\{6,5\}_{4}$ & $(24,60,20)$&2& $R9.16^*$ &Yes, for one polyhedron\\
\hline
$\{4,5\}_{6}$ & $(24,60,30)$&2& $R4.2$& No\\
\hline
$\{6,5\}_{4}$ & $(24,60,20)$&2 & $R9.16^*$& No\\
\hline
\hline
$\{4,6\}_{5}$ &$(20, 60, 30)$& 1&$N12.1$& No\\
\hline
$\{5,6\}_{4}$ &$(20, 60, 24)$&1&$R9.16$&Yes \\
\hline
$\{6,4\}_{5}$ &$(30, 60, 20)$&1&$N12.1^*$&No\\
\hline
$\{5,4\}_{6}$ &$(30, 60, 24)$&1&$R4.2^*$& Yes \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The icosahedral skeletal polyhedra realizing Petrie relatives of Gordan's map. The first four rows represent the infinite families of polyhedra shown in Figure~\ref{figcsw1}, the last four the individual polyhedra shown in Figure~\ref{figcsw2}.}
\label{tabone}}
\end{table}
Details about these polyhedra are summarized in Table~\ref{tabone}; the first four rows concern the polyhedra occurring in an infinite family, and the last four rows the individual polyhedra. The $f$-vector $(f_0,f_1,f_2)$ in the second column records the numbers $f_0$, $f_1$ and $f_2$ of vertices, edges and faces of a map. The third column lists the number of vertex orbits, $1$ or $2$, under the full icosahedral symmetry group. The fourth column gives the name of the map in the notation of Conder \cite{con}. Here ``$R$" or ``$N$", respectively, indicates an orientable or non-orientable regular map; the number before the period is the genus, and an asterisk indicates the dual.
\begin{figure}[hp]
\vspace{-.8in}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10.2cm, height=13cm]{CSWfig1.pdf}\\[-.55in]
\caption{The four families of icosahedral skeletal polyhedra of types $\{4,5\}_{6}$ or $\{6,5\}_4$.}
\label{figcsw1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
A member of each of the four families of icosahedral skeletal polyhedra which realize a Petrie relative of the Gordan map is shown in Figure~\ref{figcsw1}. They each are orientable, and have one face orbit, one edge orbit and two vertex orbits. The ratio of the diameters of the vertex orbits, which may be any positive quantity other than 1, identifies the individual polyhedra within each family. The two families in the top row each contain exactly one polyhedron with planar faces, which occurs when the ratio of the diameters of the vertex orbits is $(1 + \sqrt{5})/2$ or $2 + \sqrt{5}$, respectively. The vertices of the polyhedra coincide with the vertices of two concentric regular icosahedra, and these underlying solids, as well as a representative face of each polyhedron, are diagramed. Polyhedra in the same row are Petrie duals, and those in the same column have the same map, of type $\{4,5\}_6$ or $\{6,5\}_4$ respectively, and these maps are dual to the maps of the polyhedra shown in the bottom row of Figure 2. The 30 faces of each polyhedron in the left column are each centered on an edge of the underlying icosahedra, whereas the 20 faces of each polyhedron in the right column are each centered on a face of the underlying icosahedra. \\[-1in]
\begin{figure}[hp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm, height=15.8cm]{CSWfig2.pdf}\\[-1.1in]
\caption{The four individual icosahedral skeletal polyhedra which realize a Petrie relative of the Gordan map.}
\label{figcsw2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The four individual icosahedral skeletal polyhedra which realize a Petrie relative of the Gordan map are shown in Figure~\ref{figcsw2}. They each have one edge orbit and one vertex orbit. A representative face from each face orbit is diagramed. The vertices coincide with the vertices of either a regular dodecahedron or a regular icosidodecahedron, as shown, and each of the 60 edges of each skeletal polyhedron traverses a pentagonal face of those underlying solids. Polyhedra in the same column are Petrie duals, and the maps of those in the top row are duals. The top left has type $\{4,6\}_5$, is non-orientable and has one face orbit with non-planar faces. The 30 faces are each centered on an edge of the underlying dodecahedron. The bottom left has type $\{5,6\}_4$, is orientable and has two face orbits each with planar faces. The 24 faces are each centered on a face of the underlying dodecahedron, either as an internal pentagram or as a surrounding pentagon. The top right has type $\{6,4\}_5$, is non-orientable and has one face orbit with non-planar faces. The 20 faces are each centered on a triangular face of the underlying icosidodecahedron. The bottom left has type $\{5,4\}_6$, is orientable and has two face orbits each with planar faces. The 24 faces are each centered on a pentagonal face of the underlying icosidodecahedron, again either as an internal pentagram or as a surrounding pentagon.
|
\section{Invariant measures: introductory setting}
\noindent
It is well known that discrete dynamical systems on finite-dimensional
manifolds play an important role \cite{BMS,BPS,HPP,SUZ} in describing
evolution properties of many processes in the applied sciences. Of
particular interest are discrete dynamical systems on manifolds with
invariant measures, often possessing additional properties such as
ergodicity or mixing, which allow to explain such phenomenon as chaotic
behavior and instability of the physical objects being studied. Therefore,
methods of constructing invariant (with respect to a given discrete
dynamical system) measures, such as those we develop in the sequel, are of
crucial importance.
Suppose that a topological phase space $M$ is endowed with a structure of a
measurable space, that is a $\sigma$- algebra $\mathcal{A}(M)$ of subsets in
$M$, on which there is a finite normalized measure $\mu:$\ $\mathcal{A}(M)$
\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+\text{\ }},$ $\mu(M)=1$. As is well known \cite{WZ},
a measurable mapping $\varphi:M\rightarrow M$ of the measurable space ($M$,
\mathcal{A}(M))$ is called an \emph{ergodic} discrete dynamical system if
\mu$ - almost everywhere ($\mu$- a.e.) there exists an $x\in M$ limit
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}f(\varphi^{k}x)
\label{E1.1}
\end{equation}
for any bounded measurable function $f\in\mathcal{B}(M;\mathbb{{R})}.$
We now assume that the limit (\ref{E1.1}) exists $\mu $- a.e., that is one
can define a bounded measurable function $f_{\varphi }\in \mathcal{B}(M
\mathbb{{R})},$where
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}f(\varphi
^{k}x):=f_{\varphi }(x) \label{E1.2}
\end{equation
for all $x\in M$ the function (\ref{E1.2}) defines a finite measure $\mu
_{\varphi }:\mathcal{A}(M)\rightarrow \mathbb{{R}_{+\text{\ }}}$ on $M$ such
that
\begin{equation}
\int_{M}f_{\varphi }(x)\text{ }d\mu (x):=\int_{M}f(x)\text{ }d\mu _{\varphi
}(x\text{).} \label{E1.3}
\end{equation
Actually, the Lebesgue--Helley theorem on bounded convergence \cite{Si}
implies that
\begin{equation}
\int_{M}f_{\varphi }(x)\text{ }d\mu (x)=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty
}\int_{M}f(x)\text{ }d\mu _{n,\varphi }(x), \label{E1.4}
\end{equation
where
\begin{equation}
\mu _{n,\varphi }(A):=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\mu (\varphi ^{-k}A),
\label{E1.5}
\end{equation
is the Schur average, $n\in \mathbb{{Z}_{+}},$ $A\subset \mathcal{A}(M),$
and $\varphi ^{-k}A:=\{x\in M:\varphi ^{k}x\in A\}$ for any $k\in \mathbb{{Z
_{+}}$. The limit on the right hand side of (\ref{E1.4}) obviously exists
for any bounded measurable function $f\in \mathcal{B}(M;\mathbb{{R})}$.
Consequently, the equality
\begin{equation}
\mu _{\varphi }(A):=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\mu _{n,\varphi }(A),
\label{E1.6}
\end{equation
for any $A\subset \mathcal{A}(M)$ defines on the $\sigma $ - algebra
\mathcal{A}(M)$ an additive non-negative bounded mapping $\mu _{\varphi }
\mathcal{A}(M)$ $\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+}.$ Besides, from the existence of
a uniform approximation of arbitrary measurable bounded function by means of
finite-valued measurable (simple) functions, one immediately infers the
equality (\ref{E1.3}) for any $f\in \mathcal{B}(M;\mathbb{{R})}.$ The
requirement for countable additivity of the mapping $\mu _{\varphi }
\mathcal{A}(M)$ $\rightarrow \mathbb{{R}_{+\text{\ }}}$ follows from the
equivalent expression \cite{Sk}
\begin{equation}
\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty }\sup_{n\in \mathbb{{Z}_{+}}}\mu _{n,\varphi
}(A_{k})=0 \label{E1.7}
\end{equation
for any monotonic sequence of sets $A_{j}\supset A_{j+1}$, $j\in \mathbb{{Z
_{+}}$, of $\mathcal{A}(M)$ with empty intersection
The measure $\mu_{\varphi}:\mathcal{A}(M)$ $\rightarrow\mathbb{{R}_{+}}$
defined by (\ref{E1.6}), has the following invariance property with respect
to the dynamical system $\varphi:M\rightarrow M$:
\begin{equation}
\mu_{\varphi}(\varphi^{-1}A)=\mu_{\varphi}(A) \label{E1.8}
\end{equation}
for any $\ A\in\mathcal{A}(M),$ which follows from simple identity
\begin{equation}
\mu_{n,\varphi}(\varphi^{-1}A)=\frac{n+1}{n}\mu_{n+1,\varphi}(A)-\frac{1}{n
\mu(A)\text{,} \label{E1.9}
\end{equation}
upon taking the limit as $n\rightarrow\infty.$ It is easy to see that (\re
{E1.8}) is completely equivalent to the equality
\begin{equation}
\int_{M}f(\varphi x)d\mu_{\varphi}(x)\ =\int_{M}f(x)d\mu_{\varphi }(x)\ \ \
\ \ \label{E1.10}
\end{equation}
for any $f\in\mathcal{B}(M;\mathbb{{R})}.$ Moreover, if a $\sigma$-
measurable set $A\in\mathcal{A}(M)$ is invariant with respect to the mapping
$\varphi:M\rightarrow M,$ that is $\varphi^{-1}(M)=M$ , then evidently
\mu_{\varphi}(A)=\mu(A).$\
Therefore, the existence of the $\varphi$-invariant measure $\mu_{\varphi }
\mathcal{A}(M)$ $\rightarrow\mathbb{{R}_{+}},$ coinciding with the measure
\mu:\mathcal{A}(M)\rightarrow\mathbb{{R}_{+}}$ on the $\sigma$-algebra
\mathcal{I}(M)$ $\subset\mathcal{A}(M)$ of invariant (with respect to the
dynamical system $\varphi:M\rightarrow M$ ) sets, is a necessary condition
of the convergence $\mu$- a.e. on $M$ of the mean values (\ref{E1.1}) as
n\rightarrow\infty$ for any $f\in\mathcal{B}(M;\mathbb{{R})}.$ That the
converse is also true follows from a theorem of Birkhoff \cite{Si}: if the
mapping $\varphi:M\rightarrow M$ conserves a finite measure $\mu_{\varphi }
\mathcal{A}(M)$ $\rightarrow\mathbb{{R}_{+}},$ the mean values (\ref{E1.1})
are convergent $\mu_{\varphi}$- a.e. on $M,$ and the convergence set is
invariant. Thus, if the reduction of the measure $\mu:\mathcal{A
(M)\rightarrow\mathbb{{R}_{+}}$ upon the invariant $\sigma-$ algebra
\mathcal{I}(M)$ $\subset\mathcal{A}(M)$ is absolutely continuous with
respect to that of the measure $\mu_{\varphi}:\mathcal{A}(M)$ $\rightarrow
\mathbb{{R}_{+}}$, the convergence holds $\mu$- a.e. on $M$.
\section{An invariant measure generating construction}
Assume we are given a discrete dynamical system $\varphi :M\rightarrow M$
and a sequence of associated measures $\mu _{n,\varphi }:\mathcal{A}(M)$
\rightarrow \mathbb{{R}_{+}},$ $n\in \mathbb{{Z}_{+}},$ defined by (\re
{E1.5}). Then one can define measure generating functions (m.g.f.) $\mu
_{n,\varphi }(\lambda ;A)$, $n\in \mathbb{{Z}_{+}}$, where for any $A\in
\mathcal{A}(M),$ $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$,
\begin{equation}
\ \mu_{n,\varphi}(\lambda;A):=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\lambda^{k}\ \mu(\varphi
^{-k}A). \label{E2.1}
\end{equation}
Define now the following measure generating function
\begin{equation}
\mu_{\varphi}(\lambda;A):=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\lambda
^{k}\ \mu(\varphi^{-k}A), \label{E2.2}
\end{equation}
where $A\in\mathcal{A}(M),$ and $\left\vert \lambda\right\vert <1$ to insure
the finiteness of the expression (\ref{E2.2}). It is easy now to prove the
following result.
\begin{lemma}
The m.g.f. (\ref{E2.2}) satisfies the functional equation
\begin{equation}
\mu_{\varphi}(\lambda;A)=\lambda\mu_{\varphi}(\lambda;\varphi^{-1}A)+\mu(A)
\label{E2.3}
\end{equation}
for any $A\in A(M)$ and $\left\vert \lambda\right\vert <1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From (\ref{E2.3}) one finds by iteration directly tha
\begin{equation}
\mu _{\varphi }(\lambda ;A)-\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\lambda ^{k}\ \mu (\varphi
^{-k}A)=\lambda ^{n+1}\mu _{\varphi }(\lambda ;\varphi ^{-k-1}A)
\label{E2.4}
\end{equation
for any $n\in \mathbb{Z}_{+},$ $A\in A(M)$ and $\left\vert \lambda
\right\vert <1.$ Taking the limit in (\ref{E2.4}) as $n\rightarrow \infty ,$
one arrives at the determining expression (\ref{E2.2}) that completes the
proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
\textit{Assume we are given a mapping }$\mu ^{(s)}$\textit{\ }$:=\mu -s$
\mu \circ \varphi ^{-1}$ \textit{on} $\mathcal{A}$\textit{$\mathcal{(}$M
\mathcal{)}$}$,$ \textit{where }$\left\vert s\right\vert <1.$ \textit{Then
the following equality}
\end{corollary}
\begin{equation}
\mu _{\varphi }^{(s)}(s;A)=\mu (A) \label{E2.5}
\end{equation
\textit{holds for all } $A\in $ \textit{$\mathcal{A}$}$(M),$ $\ \left\vert
s\right\vert <1.$
\begin{proof}
This follows from a straightforward substitution of the mapping $\mu ^{(s)}
\mathcal{A}$\textit{$\mathcal{(}$}$M$\textit{$\mathcal{)\ }$}$\rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$ for $\left\vert s\right\vert <1$ into (\ref{E2.3}).
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
\textit{The induced functional expansion}.
\end{example}
Let $M=[0,1]\subset\mathbb{R}$ and $\varphi:M\rightarrow M$ is the
\textquotedblleft baker\textquotedblright\ transformation, that is
\begin{equation}
\varphi (x):=\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
2x\text{ \ if \ \ \ }x\in \lbrack 0,1/2), \\
2(1-x)\text{ \ if \ }x\in \lbrack 1/2,1
\end{array
\right. . \label{E2.6}
\end{equation
Take now a mapping $f:M\rightarrow M,$ given as
\begin{equation}
f(x):=2x-x^{2} \label{E2.7}
\end{equation
for any $x\in M\ $\ \ and construct the convolution of \ (\ref{E2.5}) with
the function \ (\ref{E2.7}) $\ $ at the parametric measure $\ \mu
(A;x):=\int_{A}d\vartheta _{x}(y),A\in \mathit{\mathcal{A}}(M),x\ \in $ $M,$
where $\vartheta _{x}:M\rightarrow \mathbb{R},$ $\ x\ \in $ $M,$ is the
standard Heaviside function with the support \textrm{supp }$\vartheta
_{x}=\{y\in M:y-x\geq 0\}.$ Then the following decomposition
\begin{equation}
f(x)=(2-4s)\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}_{+}}s^{n}\varphi ^{n}(x)+(4s-1)\sum_{n\in
\mathbb{Z}_{+}}s^{n}\varphi ^{n}(x)\varphi ^{n}(x) \label{E2.8}
\end{equation
holds \cite{YH} for any $x\in M.$ In the cases \ $s=1/2$ $\ $and$\ \ s=1/4,
\ one readily obtains for any \ $x\in M$ the decompositions
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}_{+}}(1/2)^{n}\varphi ^{n}(x)\text{ }\varphi
^{n}(x)=2x-x^{2}=\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}_{+}}(1/4)^{n}\varphi ^{n}(x),
\label{E2.9}
\end{equation
which are useful for some applied set-theoretical considerations. Note here
also that a similar expansion given by
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}_{+}}1/2^{n}\varphi ^{n}(x):=\xi (x) \label{E2.11}
\end{equation
for any $x\in M,$ \ yields the well-known Weierstrass function $\xi
:[0,1]\rightarrow \lbrack 0,1],$ which is continuous but nowhere
differentiable \cite{Ta} on $M=[0,1]\subset \mathbb{R}.$
\section{Representation of invariant measures}
Assume now that the limit (\ref{E1.6}) exists owing to (\ref{E1.8}) being
measure preserving on \ $\mathcal{A}(M).$ Then the following important
Tauberian type \cite{Ha} result holds.
\begin{theorem}
\textbf{\ \ }\textit{Let the measure generating function }$\mu _{\varphi }
\mathbb{C}\times $\ $\mathcal{A}(M)$ $\rightarrow \mathbb{C},$ \textit
corresponding to a discrete dynamical system }$\varphi :M\rightarrow M,$
\textit{exist and satisfy the invariance condition (\ref{E1.8}). Then the
limit expression}
\begin{equation}
\lim_
\begin{array}{cc}
\left. \lambda \right\uparrow 1 & (\mathrm{Im}\lambda =0
\end{array
}\mathit{\ }(1-\lambda )\mu _{\varphi }(\lambda ;A)=\mu _{\varphi }(A)
\label{E3.1}
\end{equation
\textit{holds for any} $A\in \mathcal{A}(M).$Moreovere, the converse is also
true.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since all coefficients of the series (\ref{E2.1}) are bounded, that is are
of $O(1),$ then it follows from a well-known Tauberian theorem of \cite{Ha}
Hardy that
\begin{equation}
\lim_
\begin{array}{cc}
\left. \lambda \right\uparrow 1 & (\text{Im}\lambda =0
\end{array
}\mathit{\ }(1-\lambda )\mu _{\varphi }(\lambda ;A)=\lim_{n\rightarrow
\infty }\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\mu (\varphi ^{-k}A):=\mu _{\varphi }(A)
\label{E3.2}
\end{equation
for any $A\in \mathcal{A}(M),$which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
We can now use the above theorem to produce an invariant measure $\mu
_{\varphi}:\mathcal{A}(M)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ on $M$ by means of the
measure generating function $\mu_{\varphi}:\mathbb{C}\times$ $\mathcal{A}(M)$
$\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ defined by (\ref{E2.1}) for a given discrete
dynamical system \ $\varphi:M\rightarrow M$. Also, observe that the series
\ref{E2.1}) generates an analytic function when $\left\vert
\lambda\right\vert <1$ such \ that for any $\lambda\in(-1,1)$ and $A\i
\mathcal{A}(M),$
\begin{equation}
\text{Im}\mu_{\varphi}(\lambda;A)=0. \label{E3.3}
\end{equation}
Now, using classical analytic function theory \cite{PS,Pri}, one can readily
verify the following result.
\begin{theorem}
\textit{Let a measure generating function} $\mu_{\varphi}:\mathbb{C}\times
\ $\mathcal{A}(M)$ $\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ \textit{satisfy the condition
\ref{E3.3}). Then the following representation holds}:
\begin{equation}
\mu_{\varphi}(\lambda;A)=\int_{0}^{2\pi}\frac{(1-\lambda^{2})\text{
d\sigma_{\varphi}(s;A)}{1-2\lambda\cos\text{ }s+\lambda^{2}} \label{E3.4}
\end{equation}
\textit{for any } $A\in\mathcal{A}(M),$ \textit{where} $\sigma_{\varphi}
\circ;A):[0,2\pi]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ is \textit{a function of bounded
variation:}
\begin{equation}
0\leq\sigma_{\varphi}(s;A)\leq\mu(A) \label{E3.5}
\end{equation}
\textit{for any} $s\in\lbrack0,2\pi]$ \textit{and } $A\in\mathcal{A}(M).$
\end{theorem}
This theorem appears to be exceptionally interesting for applications since
it reduces the problem of detecting the invariant measure $\mu _{\varphi }:$
\mathcal{A}(M)$ $\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+}$ defined by (\ref{E1.6}) to a
calculation of the following complex analytical limit:
\begin{equation}
\mu _{\varphi }(A)=\lim_
\begin{array}{cc}
\left. \lambda \right\uparrow 1 & (\text{Im}\lambda =0
\end{array
}\mathit{\ }\int_{0}^{2\pi }\frac{2(1-\lambda )^{2}\text{ }d\sigma _{\varphi
}(s;A)}{1-2\lambda \cos \text{ }s+\lambda ^{2}}\text{ ,} \label{E3.6}
\end{equation
where $A\in \mathcal{A}(M)$ and $\sigma _{\varphi }:[0,2\pi ]$ $\times
\mathcal{A}(M)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+}$ - some Stieltjes measure on
[0,2\pi ],$ generated by a given \textit{a priori} dynamical system $\varphi
:M\rightarrow M$ and a measure $\mu :$ $\mathcal{A}(M)$ $\rightarrow \mathbb
R}_{+}.$
\begin{example}
\textit{The Gauss mapping.}
\end{example}
Consider the case of the Gauss mapping $\varphi :M\rightarrow M,$ where
M=[0,1]$ and for any $x\in (0,1],$ $\varphi (x):=\{1/x\},$ $\varphi (0)=0$
(here $\ $\textquotedblleft $\{\cdot \}$\textquotedblright\ means taking the
fractional part of a number $x\in \lbrack 0,1]).$ One can show by means of
simple but somewhat cumbersome calculations that it is indeed ergodic \cit
{Si} and possesses the following invariant measure on $M:
\begin{equation}
\ \mu _{\varphi }(A)=\frac{1}{\ln 2}\int_{A}\frac{dx}{1+x}\text{ ,}
\label{E3.7}
\end{equation
which obviously yields the well-known Gauss measure $\mu _{\varphi }:$\
\mathcal{A}(M)$ $\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+}$ on $M=(0,1].$ As a result, the
following limit for arbitrary $f\in L^{1}(0,1)$ obtains:
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}f(\varphi^{n}x)\overset{a.e.}{=
\frac{1}{\ln2}\int_{0}^{1}\frac{f(x)\text{ }dx}{1+x}. \label{E3.8}
\end{equation}
The analytical expression (\ref{E3.6}) obtained above for the invariant
measure $\mu_{\varphi}:$ $A(M)$ $\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$, generated by a
discrete dynamical system $\varphi:M\rightarrow M,$ should be quite useful
for concrete calculations. In particular, it follows directly from (\re
{E3.4}) that the Stieltjes measure $\sigma_{\varphi}(\circ;A):[0,2\pi
\rightarrow \lbrack0,\mu(A)],$ $A\in\mathcal{A}(M),$ generates for any
s\in\lbrack 0,2\pi]$ a new positive definite measure on $A\in\mathcal{A}(M)$
as
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\varphi}(s)\text{ }(A)=\sigma_{\varphi}(s;A),\text{ } \label{E4.1}
\end{equation}
which can be regarded as smearing the measure $\mu:$\ $\mathcal{A}(M)$
\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ along the unit circle $\mathbb{\ S}^{1}$ in the
complex plane $\mathbb{C}.$
An important still open problem, which is closely linked with the expression
(\ref{E3.6}), is the following inverse measure evaluation question: How can
one retrieve the dynamical system $\varphi:M\rightarrow M$ which generated
the above smeared Stieltjes measure $\sigma_{\varphi}:[0,2\pi]$ $\times
\mathcal{A}(M)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}$ via the expression (\ref{E3.4})?
\section{New generalizations of the Boole transformation and their ergodicit
}
In this section we will study invariant measures and ergodicity properties
of both the one-dimensional generalized Boole transformation
\begin{equation}
y\rightarrow \varphi (y):=\alpha y+a-\sum_{j=1}^{N}\frac{\beta _{j}}{y-b_{j}
\in \mathbb{R}, \label{ET1.1}
\end{equation
where $a$ and $b_{j}\in \mathbb{R}$ are real and $\alpha ,\beta _{j}\in
\mathbb{R}_{+}$ are positive parameters, $1\leq j\leq N$, and naturally
generalized two-dimensional Boole type transformation
\begin{align}
(x,y)& \rightarrow (x-1/x,y-1/y)\in \mathbb{R}^{2}, \notag \\
& \label{ET1.1a} \\
(x,y)& \rightarrow (x-1/y,y-1/x)\in \mathbb{R}^{2}, \notag
\end{align
defined whenever $xy\neq 0$. They generalize the classical Boole
transformation \cite{Bo} $y\rightarrow \varphi (y):=y-1/y\in \mathbb{R},$
defined for $y\neq 0$, which was proved to be ergodic \cite{AW} with respect
to the invariant standard infinite Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}.$ In the
case $\alpha =1,$ $a=0,$ the analogous ergodicity result was proved in \cit
{Aa, Aaa, AaJ} making use of the specially devised inner function approach.
The related spectral properties were in part studied in \cite{AaJ}. In spite
of these results, the case $\alpha \neq 1$ still persists as a challenge. In
fact, the only related result \cite{AaaJ} concerns the following special
case of (\ref{ET1.1}): $y\rightarrow \varphi (y):=\alpha y-\beta /y\in $
\mathbb{R}$ for $0<\alpha <1$ and arbitrary $\beta \in \mathbb{R}_{+},$
where the corresponding invariant measure appeared to be finite absolutely
continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}$ and equal to
\begin{equation}
d\mu (x):=\frac{\sqrt{\beta (1-\alpha )}dx}{\pi \lbrack x^{2}(1-\alpha
)+\beta ]}, \label{ET1.2}
\end{equation
where $x\in \mathbb{R}.$ The ergodicity for the invariant measure (\re
{ET1.2}) now can be easily proved. It should be recalled here that for a
general nonsingular mapping $\varphi :\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R},$ the
problem of constructing invariant ergodic measures is analyzed\ \cite{AaaJ,
KH} by studying the spectral properties of the adjoint Frobenius--Perron
operator $\hat{T_{\varphi }}\ :L_{^{2}}(\mathbb{R};\mathbb{R})\rightarrow
L_{2}(\mathbb{R};\mathbb{R}),$ where
\begin{equation}
\hat{T_{\varphi }}\rho (x):=\sum_{y\in \{\varphi ^{-1}(x)\}}\rho
(y)J_{\varphi }^{-1}(y) \label{ET1.3}
\end{equation
for any $\rho \in L_{2}^{\ \ }(\mathbb{R};\mathbb{R}_{+})$ and $J_{\varphi
}^{-1}(y):=|\frac{d\varphi (y)}{dy}|,$ $y\in \mathbb{R}.$ Then if $\ {\hat{T
_{\varphi }}\rho =\rho ,$ $\rho \in L_{2}(\mathbb{R};\mathbb{R}_{+}),$ the
expression $d\mu (x):=\rho (x)dx,$ $x\in \mathbb{R},$ will be an invariant
(in general infinite) measure with respect to the mapping $\varphi :\mathbb{
}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}.$
Another way of finding a general algorithm for obtaining such an invariant
measure was devised in \cite{Pr, PB} using the generating measure function
method.
Below we study some other special cases of the generalized Boole
transformation (\ref{ET1.1}), for which we derive the corresponding
invariant measures and prove the related ergodicity and spectral properties.
\subsection{Invariant measures and ergodic transformations}
We will start with analyzing the following Boole type surjective
transformation
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{R}\ni y\rightarrow\varphi(y):=\alpha y+a-\frac{\beta}{y-b}\in\mathbb
R} \label{ET2.1}
\end{equation}
for any $a,b\in\mathbb{R}$ and $2\beta:=\gamma^{2}\in\mathbb{R}_{+}.$ The
transformation (\ref{ET2.1}) for $\alpha=1/2$ and $b=2a\in\mathbb{R}$ is
measure preserving with respect to a measure like (\ref{ET1.2}). Namely, the
following lemma holds.
\begin{lemma}
The Boole type mapping (\ref{ET2.1}) is measure preserving with respect to
the measure
\end{lemma}
\begin{equation}
d\mu(x):=\frac{|\gamma|dx}{\pi\lbrack(x-2a)^{2}+\gamma^{2}]}, \label{ET2.2}
\end{equation}
\textit{where }$x\in\mathbb{R}$\textit{\ and }$\gamma^{2}:=2\beta\in \mathbb
R}_{+}\mathit{.}$
\begin{proof}
A proof follows easily from the fact that the functio
\begin{equation}
\rho(x):=\frac{\gamma}{\pi\lbrack(x-2a)^{2}+\gamma^{2}]} \label{ET2.3}
\end{equation}
satisfies for all $x\in\mathbb{R}\backslash\{{2a\}}$ the determining
condition (\ref{ET1.3})
\begin{equation}
\hat{T_{\varphi}}\rho(x):=\sum_{I}\rho(y_{\pm})|y_{\pm}^{\prime}(x)|,
\label{ET2.4}
\end{equation}
where, $\varphi(y_{\pm}(x)):=x$ for any $x\in\mathbb{R}.$ The relationship
\ref{ET2.4}) is manifestly equivalent to the invariance conditio
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\pm}d\mu(y_{\pm}(x))=d\mu(x):=\mu(dx) \label{ET2.5}
\end{equation}
for any infinitesimal subset $dx\subset\mathbb{R}$.
\end{proof}
The question about the ergodicity of the mapping (\ref{ET2.1}) is solved
here easily by the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
The measure (\ref{ET2.3}) is ergodic with respect to the transformation (\re
{ET2.1}) at $\alpha =1/2$ and $b=2a\in \mathbb{R}$ as such one is equivalent
to the canonical ergodic mapping $\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}\ni s:\rightarrow
\psi (s):=2s$ \textrm{mod }$\mathbb{Z}\in \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$ with
respect to the standard Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}.$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Define $\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}\ni s:\rightarrow\xi(s)=y\in\mathbb{R},$ wher
\begin{equation}
\xi(s):=\gamma\cot\pi s+2a, \label{ET2.6}
\end{equation}
Then the transformation (\ref{ET2.1}) for $\alpha=1/2,$ $b=2a\in\mathbb{R}$
and $\gamma^{2}:=2\beta\in\mathbb{R}_{+}$ yields under the mapping (\re
{ET2.6}
\begin{align}
\varphi(y) & =\varphi(\xi(s))=\frac{\gamma}{2}\cot\pi s+2a-\frac{\gamma}{2
\tan\pi s=\frac{\gamma(\cos^{2}\pi s-\sin^{2}\pi s)}{2\sin\pi s\cos\pi s}+2a
\notag \\
& =\gamma\frac{\cos2\pi s}{\sin2\pi s}+2a=\gamma\cot2\pi s+2a:=\xi (2s)
\label{ET2.7}
\end{align}
for any $s\in\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}.$ The result (\ref{ET2.6}) means that the
transformation (\ref{ET2.1}) is conjugated \cite{KH,AaJ} with the
transformatio
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}\ni s:\rightarrow\psi(s)=2s\text{ \textrm{mod }}\mathbb
Z}\in\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}; \label{ET2.8}
\end{equation}
that is, the following diagram is commutative
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z} & \overset{\psi}{\rightarrow} & \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}
\\
\xi\downarrow & & \downarrow\xi \\
\mathbb{R} & \overset{\varphi}{\rightarrow} & \mathbb{R}
\end{array}
\label{ET2.9}
\end{equation}
that is $\xi\circ\psi=\varphi\circ\xi,$ where $\xi:\mathbb{R}/\mathbb
Z\rightarrow R}$ is the conjugate map defined by (\ref{ET2.6}). It is easy
now to check that the measure (\ref{ET2.2}) under the conjugation (\re
{ET2.9}) transforms into the standard normalized Lebesgue measure on
\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}:
\begin{equation}
d\mu(x)|_{x=\gamma\cot\pi s+2a}=\frac{ds\gamma^{2}\left\vert d(\cot\pi
s)/ds\right\vert }{(\gamma^{2}\cot^{2}\pi s+\gamma^{2})} \label{ET2.10}
\end{equation
\begin{equation*}
=\frac{\sin^{2}\pi s\cdot(\sin\pi s)^{-2}\;ds}{\cos^{2}\pi s+\sin^{2}\pi s
=ds,
\end{equation*}
where $s\in\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}.$ The infinitesimal measures $ds$ on
\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$ and the infinitesimal measure (\ref{ET2.2}) on
\mathbb{R}$ are normalized, so they are both probability measures. Now it
suffices to make use of the fact that the measure $ds$ on $\mathbb{R}
\mathbb{Z}$ on the interval $[0,1]\simeq\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$ is ergodic
\cite{AaaJ,KH} in order to obtain the desired result.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Ergodic measures: the inner function approach}
Assume that there exists a function $\rho _{\omega }\in H_{2}(\mathbb{C}_{+}
\mathbb{C}),$ holomorphic in parameter $\omega \in \mathbb{C}_{+},$
satisfying the following identity
\begin{equation}
\hat{T_{\varphi}}\rho_{\omega}=\rho_{\tilde{\varphi}(\omega)} \label{ET3.1}
\end{equation}
for any $\omega\in\mathbb{C}_{+}$ for some induced transformation $\mathbb{C
_{+}\ni\omega\rightarrow\tilde{\varphi}(\omega)\in\mathbb{C}_{+}.$ If we now
take $\omega:=\bar{\omega}\in\mathbb{C}_{+}$ as a fixed point of the mapping
$\tilde{\varphi}:\mathbb{C}_{+}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}_{+},$ then it follows
directly from \ref{ET3.1} that $\hat{T_{\varphi}}\rho_{\bar{\omega}}=\rho_
\bar{\omega}},$ which means
\begin{equation}
d\mu (x):=\mathrm{Im}\rho _{\bar{\omega}}(x)dx \label{ET3.2}
\end{equation
for $x\in \mathbb{R}$ is an invariant measure for the transformation
\varphi :\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}.$ There is no general rule for
constructing such functions $\rho _{\omega }\in H_{2}(\mathbb{C}_{+};\mathbb
C})$, analytic in $\omega \in \mathbb{C}_{+},$ and the related induced
mappings $\tilde{\varphi}:\mathbb{C}_{+}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}_{+}.$
Nevertheless, for solving this problem one can adapt some natural ideas
related to the exact functional form of the determining Frobenius--Perron
operator $\hat{T_{\varphi }}:L_{2}^{\ \ }(\mathbb{R};\mathbb{R})\rightarrow
L_{2}^{\ \ }(\mathbb{R};\mathbb{R}).$ To explain this, let us consider the
following Boole type transformation:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{R}\ni\varphi(y):=\alpha y+a-\frac{\beta}{y-b}\in\mathbb{R},
\label{ET3.3}
\end{equation}
where $\ {a,b\in}\mathbb{R}$ and $\beta\in\mathbb{R}_{+}.$ It is easy to see
that the Frobenius-Perron operator action on any $\rho_{\omega}\in H_{2}
\mathbb{C}_{+};\mathbb{C})$ can be represented as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\hat{T_{\varphi}}\rho_{\omega}:= &
\rho_{\omega}(y_{+})y_{+}^{\prime}+\rho_{\omega}(y_{-})y_{-}^{\prime} \\
= & \frac{(\omega-y_{+})\rho_{\omega}(y_{+})(\omega-y_{-})y_{-}^{\prime}}
(\omega-y_{+})(\omega-y_{-})}+\frac{\rho_{\omega}(y_{-})(\omega
-y_{+})(\omega-y_{-})y_{-}^{\prime}}{(\omega-y_{+})(\omega-y_{-})} \\
= & \frac{k(\omega-y_{-})y_{+}^{\prime}+k(\omega-y_{+})y_{-}^{\prime}}
(\omega-y_{+})(\omega-y_{-})}=\frac{-k[(\omega-y_{+})(\omega-y_{-})]^{\prime
}{(\omega-y_{+})(\omega-y_{-})} \\
= & -k\frac{d}{dx}ln[(\omega-y_{+})(\omega-y_{-})],
\end{split}
\label{ET3.4}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\omega}(x)=\frac{k}{\omega-x} \label{ET3.5}
\end{equation}
for all $\omega\in\mathbb{C}_{+}\backslash\{x\},$ $x\in$ $\mathbb{R},$ and
some parameter $k\in\mathbb{R}.$ As a result of (\ref{ET3.5}), one can take
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\omega}(y_{+})(\omega-y_{+})=k=\rho_{\omega}(y_{-})(\omega -y_{-}),
\label{ET3.6}
\end{equation}
for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\omega\in\mathbb{C}_{+}.$ Since the root
functions $y_{+}$ and $y_{-}$ $:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ satisfy, by
definition, the same equation
\begin{equation}
\varphi (y_{\pm }(x))=x, \label{ET3.7}
\end{equation
for all $x\in \mathbb{R},$ the following identity for all $\omega \in
\mathbb{C}_{+}$ easily follows from (\ref{ET3.7}) owing to the general form
of (\ref{ET3.3}):
\begin{equation}
\alpha(\omega-y_{+})(\omega-y_{-})=[\varphi(\omega)-x](\omega-b),
\label{ET3.8}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
y_{+}(x)+y_{-}(x)=b+\frac{x-a}{2},~y_{+}(x)y_{-}(x)=\frac{bx-ab-\beta}{2}.
\label{ET3.9}
\end{equation}
Whence, taking into account the expression (\ref{ET3.4}), one computes that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\hat{T_{\varphi}}\rho_{\omega}= & -k\frac{d}{dx}\mathrm{ln}([\varphi
(\omega)-x](\omega-b)) \\
= & \frac{k(\omega-b)}{[\varphi(\omega)-x](\omega-b)}=\frac{k}
\varphi(\omega)-x}=\rho_{\varphi(\omega)},
\end{split}
\label{ET3.10}
\end{equation}
for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\omega\in\mathbb{C}_{+}.$ Therefore, the
induced mapping $\tilde{\varphi}:\mathbb{C}_{+}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}_{+}$ is
exactly the transformation $\varphi:\mathbb{C}_{+}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}_{+},$
extended naturally from $\mathbb{R}$ to the complex plane $\mathbb{C}_{+}.$
Now let $\tilde{\omega}\in\mathbb{C}_{+}$ be a fixed point of the induced
mapping $\varphi:\mathbb{C}_{+}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}_{+},$ that is $\varphi
\bar{\omega})=\bar{\omega}\in\mathbb{C}_{+}.$ Then from (\ref{ET3.10}), one
finds that $\hat{T_{\varphi}}\rho_{\bar{\omega}}=\rho_{\bar{\omega}},$ or
the corresponding invariant quasi-measure on $\mathbb{R}$ has the form
\begin{equation}
d\mu(x):=\mathrm{Im}\frac{kdx}{\bar{\omega}-x} \label{ET3.11}
\end{equation}
for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and a suitable parameter $k\in\mathbb{C}.$ As
\mathrm{Im}\rho_{\bar{\omega}}\in L_{2}(\mathbb{R};\mathbb{R}_{+})$ at any
\bar{\omega}\in\mathbb{C}_{+}\backslash\mathbb{R}$ and some $k\in\mathbb{C},$
the invariant quasi-measure (\ref{ET3.11}) transforms into an actual
invariant measure. These results can be formulated as follows:
\begin{theorem}
\label{Th_ET3.1} The quasi-measure (\ref{ET3.11}) is invariant with respect
to the transformation (\ref{ET3.3}) for any $\alpha\in\mathbb{R
_{+}\backslash\{{1\};}$ for $\alpha=1$ at the condition $a\neq0,$ $\mathrm{I
}k\neq0,$ it is reduced upon the set $\mathbb{R}/\pi\mathbb{Z},$ being
equivalent to the standard Gauss measure. \
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The desired infinitesimal quasi-measure $d\mu(x)$ exist if there is at least
one fixed point of the equation $\varphi(\omega)=\omega$ for $\omega \i
\mathbb{C}_{+}.$ If $\alpha\neq1,$ this equation is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
(\alpha-1)\omega^{2}-\omega\lbrack(\alpha-1)b-a]-(ab+\beta)=0,
\label{ET3.12}
\end{equation}
which always has a solution $\bar{\omega}\in\mathbb{C}_{+},$ for which
\varphi(\bar{\omega})=\bar{\omega}.$ When $\alpha=1$, the unique solution
\bar{\omega}=(ab+\beta)/a\in\mathbb{R}$ exists only if $a\neq0$ and $\mathrm
Im}k\neq0,$ at which the quasi-measure (\ref{ET3.11}) becomes degenerate and
reduces to the standard Gauss measure \cite{KH,Aa} on $\mathbb{R}/\pi\mathbb
Z}$.
\end{proof}
Theorem \ref{Th_ET3.1} states only that the quasi-measure (\ref{ET3.11}) is
invariant with respect to the transformation (\ref{ET3.3}), so its
ergodicity still needs to be proved separately using only the additional
property that the corresponding invariant measure is unique. Below we will
proceed to study the general case of the transformation (\ref{ET1.1}),
searching for a suitable invariant quasi-measure that is actually a measure
for some $\bar{\omega}\in \mathbb{C}_{+}\backslash \mathbb{R},$ $k\in
\mathbb{C}.$
\subsection{Invariant measures: the general case}
Consider the following equation
\begin{equation}
\varphi (y)=x, \label{ET4.1}
\end{equation
where $x,y\in \mathbb{R}$ and the mapping $\varphi :\mathbb{C
_{+}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}_{+}$ is given by expression (\ref{ET1.1}) for a
fixed integer $N\in \mathbb{Z}_{+}\backslash \{0,{1\}.}$ The equation (\re
{ET4.1}) can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\alpha\prod_{j=1}^{N+1}(y-y_{j})=[\varphi(y)-x]\prod_{j=1}^{N}(y-b_{j})
\label{ET4.2}
\end{equation}
for all $x,y\in\mathbb{R}$ and some functions $y_{j}:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow
\mathbb{R},$ $1\leq j\leq N+1.$ Then the relationship (\ref{ET4.2}) is
naturally extended on the complex plane $\mathbb{C}_{+}$ as
\begin{equation}
\alpha\prod_{j=1}^{N+1}(\omega-y_{j})=[\varphi(\omega)-x]\prod_{j=1}^{N}
\omega-b_{j}) \label{ET4.3}
\end{equation}
for any $\omega\in\mathbb{C}_{+}.$
Consider now the relationship (\ref{ET3.1}) in the manner of Section 3;
namely
\begin{equation*}
\hat{T_{\varphi }}\rho _{\omega }=\sum_{j=1}^{N+1}\rho _{\omega
}(y_{j})y_{j}^{\prime }=\sum_{j=1}^{N+1}\frac{\rho _{\omega }(y_{j})(\omega
-y_{j})\prod_{k\neq j}^{N+1}(\omega -y_{k})y_{j}^{\prime }}
\prod_{k=1}^{N+1}(\omega -y_{k})}
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
=& \sum_{j=1}^{N+1}\frac{\rho _{\omega }(y_{j})(\omega -y_{j})\prod_{k\neq
j}^{N+1}(\omega -y_{k})y_{j}^{\prime }}{\prod_{k=1}^{N+1}(\omega -y_{k})
=\sum_{j=1}^{N+1}\frac{k\prod_{k\neq j}^{N+1}(\omega -y_{k})y_{j}^{\prime }}
\prod_{k=1}^{N+1}(\omega -y_{k})} \\
& \\
=& -k\frac{\frac{d}{dx}\prod_{k}^{N+1}(\omega -y_{k})}{\prod_{k=1}^{N+1}
\omega -y_{k})}=-k\frac{d}{dx}\ln [\alpha ^{-1}\prod_{k=1}^{N+1}(\omega
-y_{k})\prod_{j=1}^{N}(y-b_{j})] \\
& \\
& =-k\frac{d}{dx}\ln [\varphi (\omega )-x]=\frac{k}{\varphi (\omega )-x},
\end{split}
\label{ET4.4}
\end{equation
where we have put, as before,
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\omega}(y_{j})(\omega-y_{j})=k, \label{ET4.5}
\end{equation}
for all $j=1,\ldots,N+1,$ $\omega\in\mathbb{C}_{+},$ and some parameters
k\in\mathbb{C}.$ This clearly means that
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\omega}(y)=\frac{k}{\omega-y} \label{ET4.6}
\end{equation}
for any $y\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\omega\in\mathbb{C}_{+}$.
Upon substituting the expression (\ref{ET4.3}) into (\ref{ET4.4}), one
readily finds that
\begin{equation}
\hat{T_{\varphi}}\rho_{\omega}(x)=\frac{k}{\varphi(\omega)-x}=\rho
_{\varphi(\omega)}(x), \label{ET4.7}
\end{equation}
for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and any $\omega\in\mathbb{C}_{+}.$ Thus, the
invariant quasi-measure for the discrete dynamical system (\ref{ET1.1}) is
given by the same expression (\ref{ET3.11}) when $\bar{\omega}\in \mathbb{C
_{+}$ is a fixed point of the mapping $\varphi:\mathbb{C}_{+}\rightarro
\mathbb{C}_{+}.$ This means that
\begin{equation}
\alpha\bar{\omega} +a- \sum_{j=1}^{N} \frac{\beta_{j}}{\bar{\omega} -b_{j}}=
\bar{\omega}, \label{ET4.8}
\end{equation}
or, equivalently,
\begin{equation}
\alpha\bar{\omega}\prod_{j=1}^{N}(\bar{\omega}-b_{j})+a\prod_{j=1}^{N}(\bar
\omega}-b_{j})-\sum_{j=1}^{N}\beta_{j}\prod_{k\neq j}^{N}(\bar{\omega
-b_{k})=\bar{\omega}\prod_{j=1}^{N}(\bar{\omega}-b_{j}), \label{ET4.9}
\end{equation}
for some $\bar{\omega}\in\mathbb{C}_{+}.$ Assume now that $\alpha\neq1;$
then it is easy to see that the algebraic equation (\ref{ET4.9}) possesses
exactly $N+1\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}$ roots, which can be used to constructing the
invariant quasi-measure (\ref{ET3.11}). When $\alpha=1$, the condition
becomes
\begin{equation}
a\prod_{j=1}^{N}(\bar{\omega}-b_{j})=\sum_{j=1}^{N}\beta_{j}\prod_{k\neq
j}^{N}(\bar{\omega}-b_{k}), \label{ET4.10}
\end{equation}
which always possesses roots for arbitrary $a\in\mathbb{R}$ if $N\geq2$.
This leads directly to the following characterization for $N\geq2$:
\begin{theorem}
The expression (\ref{ET3.11}) for some $k\in\mathbb{C}$ determines, in
general, the infinitesimal invariant quasi-measure for the generalized Boole
transformation (\ref{ET1.1}) for all $N\geq2$ with arbitrary parameters $a,$
$b_{j}\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\alpha,\beta_{j}\in\mathbb{R}_{+},$ $1\leq j\leq
N+1.$
\end{theorem}
It is an important now to find in the set of invariant quasi-measures (\re
{ET3.11}) that we obtained, those that are positive and ergodic with respect
to the transformation (\ref{ET1.1}) for $N\geq2.$ For positivity, the
determining equation (\ref{ET4.9}) must possess at least one pair of complex
conjugate roots. A thorough analysis of the roots of equation (\ref{ET4.9})
leads to the following result, which is analogous to that proved in \cit
{AaaJ}.
\begin{theorem}
The generalized Boole transformation (\ref{ET1.1}) for any $N\geq1$ is
necessarily ergodic with respect to the measure (\ref{ET3.11}) for some
\bar{\omega}\in\mathbb{C}_{+}\backslash\mathbb{R}$ and $k\in\mathbb{C}$ iff
\ \alpha=1$ and $a=0.$ If $\alpha=1$ and $a\neq0,$ the transformation (\re
{ET1.1}) is not ergodic since it is totally dissipative, that is the
wandering set $\ \mathcal{D}(\varphi):=\bigcup\mathcal{W}_{\varphi}=\mathbb{
},$ where $\mathcal{W}_{\varphi}\subset\mathbb{R}$ are such subsets such
that ${\varphi^{-n}(\mathcal{W}_{\varphi}\mathcal{)}},$ ${n\in \mathbb{Z},}$
are disjoint.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(sketch). It is easy to see that for $N\geq 2,$ $\alpha =1$ and $a=0$ the
determining algebraic equation (\ref{ET4.9}) always possesses exactly $N-1$
real roots $\bar{\omega _{j}}\in \mathbb{R},$ $j=1,\ldots ,N-1.$ Therefore,
the invariant quasi-measure expression (\ref{ET3.11}) is degenerate for all
of the $\bar{\omega _{j}}\in \mathbb{R},$ which leads directly to the
conclusion that the corresponding invariant measure $d\mu (x)=dx,$ $x\in
\mathbb{R},$ is the standard Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}.$ Its
ergodicity with respect that transformation (\ref{ET1.1}) then follows from
the fact that the corresponding dissipative set $\mathcal{D}(\varphi
)=\varnothing $ and the unique invariant set subalgebra $I(\varphi
)=\{\varnothing ,{\mathbb{R\}}}.$
\end{proof}
Results similar to those above can also be obtained for the most generalized
Boole type transformation
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{R}\ni y\rightarrow\varphi(y):=\alpha y+a+\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac
d\nu(s)}{s-y}\in\mathbb{R}, \label{ET4.11}
\end{equation}
where $a\in\mathbb{R},$ $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}_{+}$ and the measure $\nu$ on
\mathbb{R}$ has the compact support $\mathrm{supp}$ $\nu\subset\mathbb{R}$
such that the following natural conditions \cite{Aa,KN}
\begin{equation}
\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{d\nu(s)}{1+s^{2}}=a,~\int_{\mathbb{R}}d\nu (s)<\infty,
\label{ET4.12}
\end{equation}
hold. Concerning the extension of the transformation (\ref{ET4.11}) on the
upper part $\mathbb{C}_{+}$ of the complex plane $\mathbb{C}$ so that that
\mathrm{Im}\varphi(\omega)\geq0$ for all $\omega\in\mathbb{C}_{+},$ the
following representation
\begin{equation}
\varphi(\omega)=\alpha\omega+a+\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{1+s\omega}{s-\omega
d\sigma(s), \label{ET4.13}
\end{equation}
holds \cite{AF,Aa}, where the measure $d\sigma$ on $\mathbb{R}$ is closely
related to the measure $d\nu.$
The general properties of the mapping (\ref{ET4.13}) were in part studied in
\cite{AaaJ} in the framework of the theory of inner functions. The invariant
measures corresponding to (\ref{ET4.11}) and their ergodic properties can be
also treated effectively by making use of the analytical and spectral
properties of the associated Frobenius--Perron transfer operator (\ref{ET1.3
).
\section{Two-dimensional generalizations of the Boole transformation}
Consider the two-dimensional Boole type transformations $\varphi _{2},\psi
_{\sigma (2)\ }:\mathbb{R}^{2}\backslash \{0,0\}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{2}$
\begin{equation}
\varphi _{2}(x,y):=(x-1/x,y-1/y) \label{ET5.1a}
\end{equation
and
\begin{equation}
\psi _{\sigma (2)\ }(x,y):=(x-1/y,y-1/x) \label{ET5.1b}
\end{equation
It is easy to see that the infinitesimal (product) measure
\begin{equation}
d\mu (x,y):=dxdy, \label{ET5.1c}
\end{equation
is invariant with respect to the first mapping (\ref{ET5.1a}) since it is
the product of two measures, each of which is invariant with respect to the
corresponding classical Boole transformation. Therefore, the generalized
Boole type transformation (\ref{ET5.1a}) is ergodic too. In the case of the
generalized two-dimensional transformation (\ref{ET5.1b}), the invariance
property of the measure (\ref{ET5.1c}) is a direct consequence of the
following result.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Lm_ ET5.1}The mapping (\ref{ET5.1b}) satisfies the infinitesimal
invariance property
\begin{equation}
\ \mu(\psi_{\sigma(2)}^{-1}([u,u+du]\times\lbrack v,v+dv])\ =dudv=\mu
([u,u+du]\times\lbrack v,v+dv]) \label{ET5.2}
\end{equation}
with respect to the product measure defined in (\ref{ET5.1c}) for all
infinitesimal rectangles in the image of $\psi_{\sigma(2)}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Representing the map (\ref{ET5.1b}) in the form
\begin{equation}
\psi _{\sigma (2)\ }(x,y):=(u,v)=(x-1/y,y-1/x), \label{ET5.3}
\end{equation
and \textquotedblleft inverting\textquotedblright , we obtain the solutions
\begin{align}
x_{\pm }& =x_{\pm }(u,v):=\left( 1/2\right) \left[ u\pm \sqrt{u^{2}+(4u/v)
\right] :=\left( 1/2\right) \left[ u\pm X(u,v)\right] , \label{ET5.4} \\
y_{\pm }& =y_{\pm }(u,v):=v+\left( 1/x_{\pm }(u,v)\right) =\left( 1/2\right)
\left[ v\pm \sqrt{v^{2}+(4v/u)}\right] :=\left( 1/2\right) \left[ v\pm Y(u,v
\right] , \notag
\end{align
where mappings $X:$ $\mathbb{R}^{2}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and $Y:$ $\mathbb
R}^{2}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ have the obvious definitions $X(u,v)=\sqrt
u^{2}+(4u/v)}$ and $Y(u,v)=\sqrt{v^{2}+(4v/u)},$ respectively. In order to
make effective use of these formulas, it is convenient to define the
mappings $\ \hat{\psi}_{+},\hat{\psi}_{-}:\mathbb{R}^{2}\rightarrow \mathbb{
}^{2}$ as
\begin{equation}
\hat{\psi}_{+}(u,v):=\left( x_{+}(u,v),y_{+}(u,v)\right) ;\;\hat{\psi
_{\_}(u,v):=\left( x_{-}(u,v),y_{-}(u,v)\right) \ \label{ET5.4a}
\end{equation}
for $(u,v)\in \mathbb{R}^{2}.$ It follows directly from (\ref{ET5.4}) that
for all points $(u,v)\in \mathbb{R}^{2}$ in the image of $\psi _{\sigma (2)\
}:\mathbb{R}^{2}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{2},$ \ except for those of a subset
of (product) measure zero, the preimage $\psi _{\sigma (2)}^{-1}\left(
u,v\}\right) \subset \mathbb{R}^{2}$ is comprised of two points in the
domain of the map. For such points, if we choose an infinitesimal rectangle
dR:=[u,u+du]\times \lbrack v,v+dv]$ (sufficiently small by definition), the
unio
\begin{equation*}
\psi _{\sigma (2)}^{-1}\left( dR\right) =\hat{\psi}_{+}\left( dR\right)
\sqcup \hat{\psi}_{-}\left( dR\right)
\end{equation*
is disjoint, which implies tha
\begin{equation*}
\mu \left( \psi _{\sigma (2)}^{-1}\left( dR\right) \right) =\mu \left( \hat
\psi}_{+}\left( dR\right) \right) +\mu \left( \hat{\psi}_{-}\left( dR\right)
\right) ,
\end{equation*
which is owing to \ (\ref{ET5.4a}) infinitesimally equivalent to the
following equation involving the product measure:
\begin{equation}
\mu \left( \psi _{\sigma (2)}^{-1}\left( dR\right) \right) \
=dx_{+}dy_{+}+dx_{-}dy_{-}. \notag
\end{equation}
It is useful to observe from \ (\ref{ET5.4}) that we have the following
algebraic relationships
\begin{align}
x_{+}+x_{-}& =u,\;y_{+}+y_{-}=v,\;x_{+}/y_{+}=u/v, \label{ET5.5} \\
x_{+}x_{-}& =u/v,\;y_{+}y_{-}=v/u,\;x_{-}/y_{-}=u/v. \notag
\end{align
Next, we perform an infinitesimal measure computation to verify the
invariance making extensive use of the fact that for any real-valued
Lebesgue measurable function $\varphi :$ $\mathbb{R}^{2}\rightarrow \mathbb{
},$ $d(\varphi d\varphi )=$ $d\varphi d\varphi =0:$
\begin{align}
\mu \left( \psi _{\sigma (2)}^{-1}\left( dR\right) \right) &
=dx_{+}dy_{+}+dx_{-}dy_{-}=d\left( x_{+}dy_{+}+x_{-}dy_{-}\right) =d\left[
\left( u/vy_{+}\right) dy_{+}+\left( u/vy_{-}\right) dy_{-}\right]
\label{ET5.6} \\
& =\left( 1/2\right) d\left( u/v\right) d\left[ y_{+}^{2}+y_{-}^{2}\right] \
=(1/2)d\left( u/v\right) d\left( v^{2}-2v/u\right) \ =d\left( u/v\right)
\left[ vdv-d(v/u)\right] \ \notag \\
& =\left( du/v-udv/v^{2}\right) vdv-d(u/v)d(v/u)=dudv-(u/v)dv\
dv+(v^{2}/u^{2})d(u/v)d(u/v) \notag \\
& =dudv. \notag
\end{align
Thus, the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Consequently, it follows by a simple modification of the proof of the main
theorem in \cite{AW} that $\ d\mu (x,y),(x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^{2},$ is the
unique absolutely continuous invariant measure for the Boole type
transformation (\ref{ET5.1b}). This, in particular, implies that the map
\ref{ET5.1b}) is ergodic with respect to the infinitesimal measure $d\mu
(x,y),(x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^{2},$ and so we have the following result.
\begin{proposition}
The generalized two-dimensional Boole type transformations (\ref{ET5.1a})
and (\ref{ET5.1b}) are ergodic with respect to the standard infinitesimal
measure $d\mu (x,y)=dxdy\ $ for $(x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^{2}.$ In particular,
the following equalities
\begin{equation}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}f(\varphi _{2}(x,y))dxdy=\int_{\mathbb{R
^{2}}f(x,y)dxdy=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}f(\psi _{\sigma _{(2)}\ }(x,y))dxdy
\label{ET5.7}
\end{equation
hold for any integrable function $f\in L_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{2};\mathbb{R}).$
\end{proposition}
The above result strongly suggests the validity of the following conjecture.
\begin{conjecture}
Let $\sigma \ \in \Sigma _{n}$ be any element (permutation) of the symmetric
group $\Sigma _{n},n\in {\mathbb{Z_{+}}}.$ Then the following generalized
Boole type transformation $\psi _{\sigma \ }:\mathbb{R}^{n}\backslash
\{0,0,...,0\}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n},$ where
\begin{equation*}
\psi _{\sigma \ }(x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n}):=(x_{1\ }-1/x_{\sigma (1)},x_{2\
}-1/x_{\sigma (2)},x_{3\ }-1/x_{\sigma (3)},...,x_{n\ }-1/x_{\sigma (n)}),\
\end{equation*
is ergodic with respect to the standard infinitesimal measure $d\mu
(x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n}):=dx_{1}dx_{2}\cdots dx_{n},\
(x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n})\in \mathbb{R}^{n}.$
\end{conjecture}
\section{Acknowledgements}
D.B. acknowledges the National Science Foundation (Grant CMMI-1029809), A.P.
and Y.P. acknowledge the Scientific and Technological Research Council of
Turkey (TUBITAK/NASU-
111T558 Project) for a partial support of their research.
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper, we address the problem of gauge choice for the Yang-Mills equations on the Minkowski space $\mathbb R^{1+3}$, with a non-abelian structure group $\mathfrak{G}$, in the context of low regularity well-posedness of the associated Cauchy problem. The traditional gauge choices in such setting were the \emph{(local) Coulomb gauge} $\partial^{\ell} A_{\ell} = 0$ \cite{Klainerman:1995hz} or the \emph{temporal gauge} $A_{0} = 0$ \cite{Tao:2000vba}. Each, however, had a shortcoming of its own (to be discussed below), because of which there had not been many results on low regularity solutions to the Yang-Mills equations with \emph{large} data\footnote{We however remark that better results are available in the case of \emph{small} initial data. See \cite{Tao:2000vba} and also the discussion below.}. In fact, the best result (in terms of the regularity condition on the initial data) along this direction so far has been the local well-posedness of the Yang-Mills equations for data $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i}) \in \dot{H}^{1}_{x} \times L^{2}_{x}$ by S. Klainerman and M. Machedon \cite{Klainerman:1995hz}, whereas the scaling property of the Yang-Mills equations dictates that the optimal regularity condition should be $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i}) \in \dot{H}^{1/2}_{x} \times \dot{H}^{-1/2}_{x}$ (for the notations, we refer the reader to \S \ref{subsec:intro:bg}).
In this work, we propose a novel approach to this problem using the celebrated \emph{Yang-Mills heat flow}, which does not possess the drawbacks of the previous gauge choices. As such, this approach is expected to be more robust and have many applications, including that of establishing large data low regularity well-posedness of the Yang-Mills equations. As the first demonstration of the potential of this approach, we give a new proof of the aforementioned local well-posedness result of Klainerman-Machedon \cite{Klainerman:1995hz}. In the companion paper \cite{Oh:2012fk}, we demonstrate that the main result of \cite{Klainerman:1995hz}, namely the \emph{finite energy global well-posedness} of the Yang-Mills equations on $\mathbb R^{1+3}$, can be proved using the new approach as well.
\subsection{The Yang-Mills equation on $\mathbb R^{1+3}$} \label{subsec:intro:bg}
We will work on the Minkowski space $\mathbb R^{1+3}$. All tensorial indices will be raised and lowered by using the Minkowski metric, which we assume to be of signature $(-+++)$. Moreover, we will adopt the Einstein summation convention of summing up repeated upper and lower indices. Greek indices, such as $\mu, \nu, \lambda$, will run over $x^{0}, x^{1}, x^{2}, x^{3}$, whereas latin indices, such as $i, j, k, \ell$, will run \emph{only} over the spatial indices $x^{1}, x^{2}, x^{3}$. We will often write $t$ instead of $x^{0}$. A $k$-fold application of a derivative will be denoted $\partial^{(k)}$, in contrast to $\partial^{k}$ which will always mean the partial derivative in the direction $x^{k}$, with its index raised.
Let $\mathfrak{G}$ be a Lie group and $\mathfrak{g}$ be its Lie algebra. We will assume that $\mathfrak{G}$ admits a bi-invariant inner product $( \cdot, \cdot) : \mathfrak{g} \times \mathfrak{g} \to [0, \infty)$, i.e. an inner product invariant under the adjoint map\footnote{A sufficient condition for a bi-invariant inner product to exist is that $\mathfrak{G}$ is a product of an abelian and a semi-simple Lie groups.}. For simplicity, we will furthermore take $\mathfrak{G}$ to be a matrix group. A model example that one should keep in mind is the Lie group $\mathfrak{G} = \mathrm{SU}(n)$ of complex unitary matrices, in which case $\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{su}(n)$ is the set of complex traceless anti-hermitian matrices and $(A, B) = \textrm{tr} (A B^{\star})$.
Below, we will present some geometric concepts we will need in a pragmatic, condensed fashion; for a more thorough treatment, we refer the reader to the standard references \cite{Bleeker:2005uj}, \cite{Kobayashi:1963uh}, \cite{Kobayashi:1969ub}.
Let us consider a $\mathfrak{g}$-valued 1-form $A_{\mu}$ on $\mathbb R^{1+3}$, which we call a \emph{connection 1-form}. For any $\mathfrak{g}$-valued tensor $B$ on $\mathbb R^{1+3}$, we define the associated \emph{covariant derivative} ${\bf D} = {}^{(A)}{\bf D}$ by
\begin{equation*}
{\bf D}_{\mu} B := \partial_{\mu} B + \LieBr{A_{\mu}}{B}
\end{equation*}
where $\partial_{\mu}$ refers to the ordinary directional derivative on $\mathbb R^{1+3}$. Due to the bi-invariance of $(\cdot, \cdot)$, we have the following Leibniz's rule for $\mathfrak{g}$-valued tensors $B, C$:
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{\mu} (B, C) = ({\bf D}_{\mu} B, C) + (B, {\bf D}_{\mu} C)
\end{equation*}
The commutator of two covariant derivatives gives rise to a $\mathfrak{g}$-valued $2$-form $F_{\mu \nu} = F[A]_{\mu \nu}$, which we call the \emph{curvature 2-form} associated to $A$, as follows :
\begin{equation*}
{\bf D}_{\mu} {\bf D}_{\nu} B - {\bf D}_{\nu} {\bf D}_{\mu} B = \LieBr{F_{\mu \nu}}{B}.
\end{equation*}
It is easy to compute that
\begin{equation*}
F_{\mu \nu} = \partial_{\mu} A_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu} A_{\mu} + \LieBr{A_{\mu}}{A_{\nu}}.
\end{equation*}
From the way $F_{\mu \nu}$ arises from $A_{\mu}$, the following identity, called the \emph{Bianchi identity}, always holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:bianchi} \tag{Bianchi}
{\bf D}_{\mu} F_{\nu \lambda} + {\bf D}_{\lambda} F_{\mu \nu} + {\bf D}_{\nu} F_{\lambda \mu} = 0.
\end{equation}
The \emph{Yang-Mills equations on $\mathbb R^{1+3}$} are the following additional first order equations for $F_{\mu \nu}$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:hyperbolicYM} \tag{YM}
{\bf D}^{\mu} F_{\nu \mu} = 0,
\end{equation}
where we utilize the Einstein convention of summing repeated lower and upper indices.
An important feature of the Yang-Mills equations is its \emph{gauge structure}. Given a smooth $\mathfrak{G}$-valued function $U$ on $\mathbb R^{1+3}$, we let $U$ act on $A, {\bf D}, F$ as a \emph{gauge transform} according to the following rules.
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{A}_{\mu} = U A_{\mu} U^{-1} - \partial_{\mu} U U^{-1}, \qquad
\widetilde{{\bf D}}_{\mu} = U {\bf D}_{\mu} U^{-1}, \qquad
\widetilde{F}_{\mu \nu} = U F_{\mu \nu} U^{-1}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
We say that a $\mathfrak{g}$-valued tensor $B$ is \emph{gauge covariant}, or \emph{covariant under gauge transforms}, if it transforms in the fashion $\widetilde{B} = U B U^{-1}$. Given a gauge covariant $\mathfrak{g}$-valued tensor $B$, its covariant derivative ${\bf D}_{\mu} B$ is also gauge covariant, as the following formula shows.
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{{\bf D}}_{\mu} \widetilde{B} = U {\bf D}_{\mu} B U^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
The Yang-Mills equations \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} are evidently covariant under gauge transforms. This means that a solution to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} makes sense only as a class of gauge connections, related to each other by a gauge transform. Accordingly, we will call such a class of smooth connection 1-forms $A$ which solves \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} a \emph{classical solution} to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}.
A choice of a particular representative is called a \emph{gauge choice}. This is usually done by imposing a condition, called a \emph{gauge condition}, on the representative. Classical examples of gauge conditions include the \emph{temporal gauge condition} $A_{0} = 0$ and the \emph{Coulomb gauge condition} $\partial^{\ell} A_{\ell} = 0$.
In this work, and also in the companion article \cite{Oh:2012fk}, we will study the Cauchy problem associated to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}. The initial data set, which consists of $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ for $i=1,2,3$ with $\overline{A}_{i} = A_{i}(t=0)$ (magnetic potential) and $\overline{E}_{i} = F_{0i}(t=0)$ (electric field), has to satisfy the \emph{constraint equation}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:YMconstraint}
\partial^{\ell} \overline{E}_{\ell} + \LieBr{\overline{A}^{\ell}}{\overline{E}_{\ell}} = 0,
\end{equation}
where $\ell$ is summed only over $\ell = 1,2,3$. We remark that this is the $\nu = 0$ component of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}.
The Yang-Mills equations possess a positive definite conserved quantity ${\bf E}[t]$, defined by:
\begin{equation*}
{\bf E}(t) := \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb R^{3}} \sum_{\ell=1,2,3} (F_{0\ell}(t,x), F_{0\ell}(t,x)) + \sum_{k, \ell=1,2,3, k < \ell} (F_{k \ell}(t,x), F_{k \ell}(t,x)) \, \mathrm{d} x
\end{equation*}
We call ${\bf E}(t)$ the \emph{conserved energy} of the field at time $t$.
Note that the Yang-Mills equations remain invariant under the scaling
\begin{equation} \label{eq:intro:scaling}
x^{\alpha} \to \lambda x^{\alpha}, \quad A \to \lambda^{-1} A, \quad F \to \lambda^{-2} F.
\end{equation}
The norms $\nrm{\partial_{x} \overline{A}_{i}}_{L^{2}_{x}}$, $\nrm{\overline{E}_{i}}_{L^{2}_{x}}$, as well as the conserved energy ${\bf E}(t)$, of the rescaled field become $\lambda^{-1}$ of that of the original field, which allows us to assume smallness of these quantities by scaling. This reflects the \emph{sub-criticality} of these quantities compared to the Yang-Mills equations.
\subsection{Statement of the Main Theorem}
To state the Main Theorem of this paper, we must first to extend the notion of a solution to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} by taking the closure of the set of classical solutions in an appropriate topology.
\begin{definition}[Admissible solutions] \label{def:admSol}
Let $I \subset \mathbb R$. We say that a generalized solution $A_{\mu}$ to the Yang-Mills equations \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} defined on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$ is \emph{admissible} [in the temporal gauge $A_{0} = 0$] if
\begin{equation*}
A_{\mu} \in C_{t}(I, \dot{H}^{1}_{x} \cap L^{3}_{x}), \quad \partial_{t} A_{\mu} \in C_{t}(I, L^{2}_{x})
\end{equation*}
and $A_{\mu}$ can be approximated by representatives of classical solutions [in the temporal gauge $A_{0} = 0$] in the above topology.
\end{definition}
Let us define the corresponding class of initial data sets.
\begin{definition}[Admissible $H^{1}$ initial data set] \label{def:admID}
We say that a pair $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ of 1-forms on $\mathbb R^{3}$ is an \emph{admissible $H^{1}$ initial data} set for the Yang-Mills equations if the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\overline{A}_{i} \in \dot{H}_{x}^{1} \cap L^{3}_{x}$ and $\overline{E}_{i} \in L^{2}$,
\item The \emph{constraint equation}
\begin{equation*}
\partial^{i} \overline{E}_{i} + \LieBr{\overline{A}^{i}}{\overline{E}_{i}} = 0,
\end{equation*}
holds in the distributional sense.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Our main theorem is a local well-posedness result for such initial data, within the class of admissible solutions in the temporal gauge.
\begin{MainTheorem} [$H^{1}$ local well-posedness of the Yang-Mills equations, temporal gauge] \label{thm:mainThm}
Let $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ be an admissible $H^{1}$ initial data set, and define $\overline{\mathcal{I}} := \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} + \nrm{\overline{E}}_{L^{2}_{x}}$. Consider the initial value problem (IVP) for \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} with $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ as the initial data.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists $T^{\star} = T^{\star}(\overline{\mathcal{I}})> 0$, which is non-increasing in $\overline{\mathcal{I}}$, such that a unique admissible solution $A_{\mu} = A_{\mu} (t,x)$ to the IVP in the temporal gauge $A_{0} = 0$ exists on $(-T^{\star}, T^{\star})$. Furthermore, the following estimates hold.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mainThm:0}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\partial_{t,x} A_{i}}_{C_{t} ((-T^{\star}, T^{\star}),L^{2}_{x})} \leq C (\sup_{i} \nrm{\overline{A}_{i}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} +\sup_{i} \nrm{\overline{E}_{i}}_{L^{2}_{x}} ).
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mainThm:1}
\sup_{i} \nrm{A_{i}}_{C_{t} ((-T^{\star}, T^{\star}), L^{3}_{x})} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \sup_{i} \nrm{\overline{A}_{i}}_{L^{3}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
\item Let $(\overline{A}'_{i}, \overline{E}'_{i})$ be another admissible $H^{1}$ initial data set such that $\nrm{\overline{A}'}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} + \nrm{\overline{E}'}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq \overline{\mathcal{I}}$, and let $A'_{\mu}$ be the corresponding solution given by (1). Then the following estimates for the difference hold.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mainThm:2}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\partial_{t,x} A_{i}- \partial_{t,x} A'_{i}}_{C_{t} ((-T^{\star}, T^{\star}),L^{2}_{x})} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} (\sup_{i} \nrm{\overline{A}_{i} - \overline{A}'_{i}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} +\sup_{i} \nrm{\overline{E}_{i} - \overline{E}_{i}'}_{L^{2}_{x}} ).
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mainThm:3}
\sup_{i} \nrm{A_{i}- A'_{i}}_{C_{t} ((-T^{\star}, T^{\star}), L^{3}_{x})} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} (\sup_{i} \nrm{\overline{A}_{i} - \overline{A}'_{i}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \cap L^{3}_{x}} +\sup_{i} \nrm{\overline{E}_{i} - \overline{E}_{i}'}_{L^{2}_{x}} ).
\end{equation}
\item Finally, the following version of \emph{persistence of regularity} holds: if $\partial_{x} \overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i} \in H^{m}_{x}$ for an integer $m \geq 0$, then the corresponding solution given by (1) satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{t,x} A_{i} \in C^{k_{1}}_{t} ((-T^{\star}, T^{\star}), H^{k_{2}}_{x})
\end{equation*}
for every pair $(k_{1}, k_{2})$ of nonnegative integers such that $k_{1} + k_{2} \leq m$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{MainTheorem}
We emphasize that the temporal gauge in the statement of the Main Theorem plays a rather minor role. We have chosen to use it mainly because it is a well-known gauge condition that is easy to impose. Another advantage of the temporal gauge is that a classical local well-posedness result for smoother data (essentially due to Segal \cite{Segal:1979hg} and Eardley-Moncrief \cite{Eardley:1982fb}) is available, which is useful in the proof of the Main Theorem (Theorem \ref{thm:mainThm:H2lwp}). However, most of our analysis in this paper takes place under different gauge conditions, defined with the help of the \emph{Yang-Mills heat flow}, to be introduced below.
The Main Theorem is, in fact, a classical result of S. Klainerman and M. Machedon \cite{Klainerman:1995hz}, which has been the best result so far concerning low regularity local well-posedness of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} for large data. In both this paper and \cite{Klainerman:1995hz}, it is essential to choose an appropriate gauge to reveal the \emph{null structure} of the quadratic nonlinearities of the wave equations. It is known that such structure is present in the Coulomb gauge \cite{Klainerman:1994jb}. Unfortunately, in the case of a non-abelian structural group $\mathfrak{G}$, it may not be possible in general to impose the Coulomb gauge condition on an arbitrary initial data. In \cite{Klainerman:1995hz}, this issue is avoided by working in a so-called \emph{local Coulomb gauge}, which is the Coulomb gauge condition imposed on a small domain of dependence. Due to the presence of the constraint equation \eqref{eq:YMconstraint}, delicate boundary conditions had to be imposed along the lateral boundary (a cone in the case of the Minkowski space $\mathbb R^{1+3}$). Because of this, it had been difficult to use this method along with global Fourier analytic techniques such as $H^{s,b}$ spaces, and thus it has not been extended to initial data with lower regularity than $H^{1}_{\mathrm{loc}} \times L^{2}_{\mathrm{loc}}$.
Let us also mention an alternative approach to local well-posedness by Tao \cite{Tao:2000vba}, who worked entirely in the temporal gauge $A_{0} = 0$ to prove local well-posedness for initial data with even lower regularity than $H^{1}$. The main idea is that \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the temporal gauge can be cast as a coupled system of wave and transport equations (using the Hodge decomposition of $A_{i}$), where the wave equations possess a null structure similar to that in the Coulomb gauge. Although the temporal gauge has the advantage of being easy to impose (globally in space), the statements proved by this method are unfortunately restricted to \emph{small} data due to, among other things, the presence of too many time derivatives in the transport equation for $\partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$.
In this paper, we introduce a new approach to the problem of gauge choice which does not have the drawbacks of the methods outlined above. In particular, it does not involve localization in space-time and works well for large initial data. Moreover, the most dangerous quadratic nonlinearities of the wave equations are seen to possess a null structure, which allows us to give a new proof of the Main Theorem. For these reasons, we expect the present approach to be more robust and applicable to other problems as well, such as large data low regularity well-posedness of the Yang-Mills equations and other non-abelian gauge theories.
In the companion paper \cite{Oh:2012fk}, we prove global well-posedness of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} (in the temporal gauge) for this class of initial data, using the positive definite conserved energy of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}. The proof involves many techniques developed in the this paper (including the Main Theorem). On the other hand, the present paper does not depend on the results proved \cite{Oh:2012fk}\footnote{Except for Kato's inequality used in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:mainThm:regApprox}, whose proof is standard and can be found in other sources, such as \cite[Proof of Corollary 3.3]{Smith:2011ef}, as well.}.
In simple, heuristic terms, the main idea of the novel approach is to \emph{`smooth out'} the problem in a \emph{`geometric fashion'}. For the problem under consideration, the `smoothed out' problem is much easier; indeed, recall the classical works of \cite{Segal:1979hg} and \cite{Eardley:1982fb}, in which local well-posedness for (possibly large) initial data with higher degree of smoothness was established by working directly in the temporal gauge. The difficulty of the original problem manifests in our approach as the problem of estimating the difference between the solutions to the original and `smooth out' problems. Here, we need to exploit the `special structure' inherent to the Yang-Mills equations. That this is possible by using a smoothing procedure based on the associated geometric flow, the \emph{Yang-Mills heat flow} in this case, is the main thesis of this work.
The present work advances a relatively new idea in the field of hyperbolic PDEs: To use a geometric parabolic equation to better understand a hyperbolic equation.
To the author's knowledge, this was first used in the work of Klainerman-Rodnianski \cite{MR2221254}, in which the linear heat equation on a compact 2-manifold was used to develop an invariant form of Littlewood-Paley theory for arbitrary tensors on the manifold. This was applied in \cite{MR2125732} and \cite{MR2221255} to study the causal geometry of solutions to the Einstein's equations under very weak hypotheses.
More recently, this idea was carried much further by Tao, who proposed using a nonlinear geometric heat flow to deal with the problem of gauge choice in the context of energy critical wave maps. This approach, called the \emph{caloric gauge}, was put into use in \cite{Tao:2008wn} to study the long term behavior of large energy wave maps on $\mathbb R^{1+2}$. It has also played an important role in the recent study of the related energy critical Schr\"odinger map problem, in the works \cite{Bejenaru:2011wy}, \cite{Smith:2011ef} and \cite{Smith:2011ty}.
The basic idea of the caloric gauge is as follows. The associated heat flow (the \emph{harmonic map flow}) starting from a wave or a Schr\"odinger map on a fixed time slice converges (under appropriate conditions) to a single point (same for every time slice) as the heat parameter goes to $\infty$. For this trivial map at infinity, the canonical choice of gauge is clear; parallel-transporting this gauge choice back along the harmonic map flow, we obtain a (in some sense, canonical) gauge choice for the original map, which has been named the \emph{caloric gauge} by Tao.
We remark that in comparison to the works involving the caloric gauge, the analytic side of this work is simpler. One reason is that we are working with a sub-critical problem, and hence the function spaces used for treating the hyperbolic equations involved are by far less intricate. Another is that, as indicated earlier, our method depends only on the short time smoothing property of the associated heat flow, and as such, does not require understanding the long time behavior of the heat flow as in the other works.
\subsection{The Yang-Mills heat flow}
Before we give an overview of our proof of the Main Theorem, let us introduce the \emph{Yang-Mills heat flow}, which is a crucial ingredient of the new approach. Consider an one parameter family of spatial 1-forms $A_{i}(s)$ on $\mathbb R^{3}$, parameterized by $s \in [0,s_{0}]$. We say that $A_{i}(s)$ is a \emph{Yang-Mills heat flow} if it satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{eq:YMHF} \tag{YMHF}
\partial_{s} A_{i} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i}, \quad i=1,2,3.
\end{equation}
The Yang-Mills heat flow is the gradient flow for the \emph{Yang-Mills energy} (or the \emph{magnetic energy}) on $\mathbb R^{3}$, which is defined as
\begin{equation*}
{\bf B}[A_{i}] := \frac{1}{2} \sum_{1 \leq i < j \leq 3} \int (F_{ij}, F_{ij}) \, \mathrm{d} x.
\end{equation*}
First introduced by Donaldson \cite{Donaldson:1985vh}, the Yang-Mills heat flow has been a subject of active research on its own. For more on this heat flow on a 3-dimensional manifold, we refer the reader to \cite{Rade:1992tu}, \cite{Charalambous:2010vt} and etc.
As indicated earlier, our intention is to use \eqref{eq:YMHF} to geometrically smooth out \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}; we must take care, however, since \eqref{eq:YMHF} turns out to be \emph{not} strictly parabolic for $A_{i}$, as the highest order terms of the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:YMHF} has non-trivial kernel. This phenomenon ultimately originates from the covariance of the term ${\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i}$, and can be compensated if gauge transforms which depends on $s$ are used. The system \eqref{eq:YMHF}, as it stands, is not covariant under such gauge transforms (being covariant only under $s$-independent gauge transforms). Therefore, for the purpose of recovering strict parabolicity of the Yang-Mills heat flow, it is useful to reformulate the flow in a fully covariant form.
Along with $A_{i}$, let us add a new connection component $A_{s}$, and consider $A_{a}$ $(a=x^{1}, x^{2}, x^{3}, s)$, which is a connection 1-form on the product manifold $\mathbb R^{3} \times [0,s_{0}]$. Corresponding to $A_{s}$, we also define the \emph{covariant derivative} along the $\partial_{s}$ direction
\begin{equation*}
{\bf D}_{s} := \partial_{s} + \LieBr{A_{s}}{\cdot}.
\end{equation*}
A connection 1-form on $\mathbb R^{3} \times [0, s_{0}]$ is said to be a \emph{covariant Yang-Mills heat flow} if it satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cYMHF} \tag{cYMHF}
F_{si} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i}, \quad i=1,2,3,
\end{equation}
where $F_{si}$ is the commutator between ${\bf D}_{s}$ and ${\bf D}_{i}$, given by the formula
\begin{equation} \label{eq:intro:Fsi}
F_{si} = \partial_{s} A_{i} -\partial_{i} A_{s} + \LieBr{A_{s}}{A_{i}}.
\end{equation}
As the system \eqref{eq:cYMHF} is underdetermined for $A_{a}$, we need an additional gauge condition (typically for $A_{s}$) in order to solve for $A_{a}$. Choosing $A_{s} = 0$, we recover \eqref{eq:YMHF}. On the other hand, if we choose $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$, then \eqref{eq:cYMHF} becomes strictly parabolic\footnote{Indeed, up to the top order terms, it is easy to verify that the system looks like $\partial_{s} A_{i} = \triangle A_{i} + \hbox{(lower order terms)}$.}. This may be viewed as a geometric formulation of the `compensation-by-gauge-transform' procedure hinted earlier.
In what follows, the first gauge condition $A_{s} = 0$ will be called the \emph{caloric gauge}, following the usage of the term in \cite{Tao:2004tm}. On the other hand, the second gauge condition $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$ will be dubbed the \emph{DeTurck gauge}, as the idea of compensating for a non-trivial kernel by a suitable one parameter family of gauge transforms usually, which lies at the heart of the procedure outlined above, goes under the name of \emph{DeTurck's trick}\footnote{It has been first introduced by DeTurck in the context of the Ricci flow in \cite{DeTurck:1983ts}, and applied in the Yang-Mills heat flow context by Donaldson \cite{Donaldson:1985vh}.}.
\subsection{Overview of the arguments} \label{subsec:overview}
Perhaps due to the fact that we deal simultaneously with two nonlinear PDEs, namely \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} and \eqref{eq:YMHF}, each of which with a considerable body of research on its own, the argument of this paper is rather lengthy. To help the reader grasp the main ideas, we would like to present a thorough overview of the paper, with the ambition to indicate each of the major difficulties, as well as their resolutions, without getting into too much technical details. For a shorter, more leisurely overview, we refer the reader to the introduction of \cite{Oh:2012fk}.
In this overview, instead of the full local well-posedness statement, we will focus on the simpler problem of deriving a local-in-time {\it a priori} bound of a solution to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the temporal gauge.
In other words, under the assumption that a (suitably smooth and decaying) solution $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the temporal gauge exists on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$, where $I := (-T_{0}, T_{0}) \subset \mathbb R$, we aim to prove
\begin{equation} \label{eq:intro:overview:0}
\nrm{\partial_{t,x} A^{\dagger}_{\mu}}_{C_{t}(I, L^{2}_{x})} \leq C_{0} \overline{\mathcal{I}},
\end{equation}
where $\overline{\mathcal{I}} := \sum_{i=1,2,3} \nrm{(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \times L^{2}_{x}}$ measures the size of the initial data, for $T_{0}$ sufficiently small compared to $\overline{\mathcal{I}}$.
\pfstep{1. Scaling and set-up of the bootstrap}
Observe that, thanks to the scaling \eqref{eq:intro:scaling} and the sub-criticality of $\overline{\mathcal{I}}$, it suffices to prove \eqref{eq:intro:overview:0} for $T_{0} = 1$, assuming $\overline{\mathcal{I}}$ is small. We will use a bootstrap argument to establish \eqref{eq:intro:overview:0}. More precisely, under the \emph{bootstrap assumption} that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:intro:overview:1}
\nrm{\partial_{t,x} A^{\dagger}_{\mu}}_{C_{t}((-T, T), L^{2}_{x})} \leq 2 C_{0} \overline{\mathcal{I}}
\end{equation}
holds for $0 < T \leq 1$, we will retrieve \eqref{eq:intro:overview:0} for $I = (-T, T)$ provided that $\overline{\mathcal{I}}$ is sufficiently small (independent of $T$). Then, by a standard continuity argument, \eqref{eq:intro:overview:0} will follow for $I = (-1, 1)$.
\pfstep{2. Geometric smoothing of $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ by the (dynamic) Yang-Mills heat flow}
As discussed earlier, the main idea of our approach is to smooth out $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ by (essentially) using the covariant Yang-Mills heat flow. Let us append a new variable $s$ and extend $A^{\dagger}_{\mu} = A^{\dagger}_{\mu}(t,x)$ to a connection 1-form $A_{{\bf a}} = A_{{\bf a}}(t,x,s)$ (${\bf a} = x^{0}, x^{1}, x^{2}, x^{3},s $) by solving
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dYMHF} \tag{dYMHF}
F_{s \mu} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell \mu}, \quad \mu = 0,1,2,3.
\end{equation}
with $A_{\mu}(s=0) = A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$. Note that this system is nothing but \eqref{eq:cYMHF} with the extra equation $F_{s0} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell 0}$ added; we will refer to this as the \emph{dynamic Yang-Mills heat flow}.
As we would like to utilize the smoothing property of \eqref{eq:dYMHF}, we will impose the DeTurck gauge condition $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$. Then \eqref{eq:dYMHF} essentially\footnote{More precisely, \eqref{eq:cYMHF} becomes strictly parabolic, and can be solved by Picard iteration. On the other hand, we can solve for the extra variable $A_{0}$ using $F_{s0} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell 0}$ {\it a posteriori}, by a process which involves solving only linear equations. For more details, we refer the reader to Section \ref{sec:pfOfIdEst}, {\it Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:idEst}, Step 1.}} becomes a strictly parabolic system, and thus can be solved (via Picard iteration) on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0, 1]$ provided that $\sup_{t \in (-T, T)} \nrm{\partial_{x} A_{i}(t, s=0)}_{L^{2}_{x}}$ is small enough; see Sections \ref{sec:covYMHF} and \ref{sec:pfOfIdEst}. The latter condition can be ensured by taking $\overline{\mathcal{I}}$ sufficiently small, thanks to the bootstrap assumption \eqref{eq:intro:overview:1}.
\pfstep{3. The hyperbolic-parabolic-Yang-Mills system and the caloric-temporal gauge}
As a result, we have obtained a connection 1-form $A_{{\bf a}} = A_{{\bf a}} (t,x,s)$ on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$, which satisfies the following system of equations:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:HPYM} \tag{HPYM}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
F_{s \mu} &= {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell \mu} \hspace{.25in} \hbox{ on } \hspace{.1in} I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1], \\
{\bf D}^{\mu} F_{\mu \nu} &= 0 \hspace{.5in} \hbox{ along } I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times \set{0},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
as well as the DeTurck gauge condition $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$. The system (without the gauge condition) just introduced will be called the \emph{hyperbolic-parabolic-Yang-Mills} or, in short, \eqref{eq:HPYM}. It is covariant under gauge transforms of the form $U = U(t,x,s)$, which act on various variables in the following fashion:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{A}_{{\bf a}} = U A_{{\bf a}} U^{-1} - \partial_{{\bf a}} U U^{-1}, \qquad
\widetilde{{\bf D}}_{{\bf a}} = U {\bf D}_{{\bf a}} U^{-1}, \qquad
\widetilde{F}_{{\bf a} {\bf b}} = U F_{{\bf a} {\bf b}} U^{-1}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where ${\bf a}, {\bf b} = x^{0}, x^{1}, x^{2}, x^{3}, s$.
We will work with \eqref{eq:HPYM} in place of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}. Accordingly, instead of $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$, we will work with new variables $\underline{A}_{\mu} := A_{\mu}(s=1)$ and $\partial_{s} A_{\mu}(s)$ $(0 < s < 1)$. The former should be viewed as a smoothed-out version of $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$, whereas the latter measures the difference between $\underline{A}_{\mu}$ and $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$.
In analyzing \eqref{eq:dYMHF}, we indicated that the DeTurck gauge $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$ is employed. This choice was advantageous in the sense that the equations for $A_{\mu}$ were parabolic in this gauge. However, completely different considerations are needed for estimating the evolution in $t$. Here, the gauge condition we will use is
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&A_{s} = 0 \quad \hbox{ on } I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times (0,1), \\
&\underline{A}_{0} = 0 \quad \hbox{ on } I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times \set{1}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
which we dub the \emph{caloric-temporal} gauge.
Let us briefly motivate our choice of gauge. For $\partial_{s} A_{\mu}$ on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times (0, 1)$, let us begin by considering the following identity, which is nothing but a rearrangement of the formula \eqref{eq:intro:Fsi}.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:intro:covHodge}
\partial_{s} A_{i} = F_{si} + {\bf D}_{i} A_{s}.
\end{equation}
A simple computation (see Appendix \ref{sec:HPYM}) shows that $F_{si}$ is covariant-divergence-free, i.e. ${\bf D}^{\ell} F_{s \ell} = 0$. In view of this fact, the identity \eqref{eq:intro:covHodge} may be viewed (heuristically) as a \emph{covariant Hodge decomposition} of $\partial_{s} A_{i}$, where $F_{si}$ is the covariant-divergence-free part and ${\bf D}_{i} A_{s}$, being a pure covariant-gradient term, may be regarded as the `covariant-curl-free part\footnote{Although its covariant curl does not strictly vanish.}'. Recall that the Coulomb gauge condition, which had a plenty of good properties as discussed earlier, is equivalent to having vanishing curl-free part. Proceeding in analogy, we are motivated to set $A_{s} = 0$ on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times (0,1)$, which is exactly the caloric gauge condition we introduced earlier.
The second gauge condition, $\underline{A}_{0} = 0$, is motivated from the fact that $\underline{A}_{\mu}$ is expected to be \emph{smooth}. More precisely, hinted by the works \cite{Segal:1979hg}, \cite{Eardley:1982fb}, we expect that the increased degree of smoothness of $\underline{A}_{i}(t=0)$ will render a delicate choice of gauge (such as the Coulomb gauge) unnecessary, and that an easy choice (such as the temporal gauge $\underline{A}_{0} = 0$) will suffice.
\pfstep{4. Gauge transform into the caloric-temporal gauge and the initial data estimates}
With these heuristic motivations in mind, let us come back to the problem of establishing the a priori estimate \eqref{eq:intro:overview:0}. In order to proceed, we must perform a gauge transformation on $A_{{\bf a}}$, which currently is in the DeTurck gauge, into the caloric-temporal gauge. An inspection of the formula for gauge transformation shows that the desired gauge transform $U$ can be found by solving the following hierarchy of ODEs:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:intro:overview:ODE4U}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_{t} \underline{U} = \underline{U} \underline{A}_{0} \quad \hbox{ on } I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times \set{1} \\
&\partial_{s} U = U A_{s} \quad \hbox{ on } I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times (0,1)
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $U(s=1) = \underline{U}$. We will choose the initial value for \eqref{eq:intro:overview:ODE4U} to be $U(t=0, s=1) = \mathrm{Id}$\footnote{At first sight, one may think that a more natural choice of the initial value $U(t=0, s=0) = \mathrm{Id}$, as it keeps the initial data set $\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i}$ unchanged. However, it turns out that for every $(t,s) \in (-T, T) \times [0,1]$, the gauge transform arising this way is not bounded on $H^{m}_{x}$ for $m > 1$. As such, it cannot retain the smoothing estimates for \eqref{eq:dYMHF} in the DeTurck gauge, and thus inappropriate for our purposes. The choice $U(t=0, s=1) = \mathrm{Id}$, on the other hand, avoids this issue, at the cost of introducing a non-trivial gauge transform (which we call $V$) at $t=0, s=0$. See Lemma \ref{lem:est4gt2caloric} for the relevant estimates.}. Then, combined with smoothing estimates for \eqref{eq:dYMHF} in the DeTurck gauge, we arrive at a gauge transformed solution (which we still call $A_{{\bf a}}$) to \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge, which satisfies the following \emph{initial data estimates}\footnote{We remind the reader that $F_{s\mu} = \partial_{s}A_{\mu}$, thanks to the caloric-temporal gauge condition.}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:intro:overview:idEst}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\sup_{0 < s < s_{0}} s^{-(m+1)/2} \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(m-1)} \partial_{t,x} F_{si}(t=0, s)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq C_{m} \sum_{j=1,2,3} \nrm{(\overline{A}_{j}, \overline{E}_{j})}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \times L^{2}_{x}} \\
\Big( \int_{0}^{s_{0}} s^{-(m+1)} \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(m-1)} \partial_{t,x} F_{si}(t=0, s)}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{2} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \Big)^{1/2}
\leq C_{m} \sum_{j=1,2,3} \nrm{(\overline{A}_{j}, \overline{E}_{j})}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \times L^{2}_{x}} \\
\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k-1)} \partial_{t,x} \underline{A}_{i}(t=0)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq C_{k} \sum_{j=1,2,3} \nrm{(\overline{A}_{j}, \overline{E}_{j})}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \times L^{2}_{x}}
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
up to some integers $m_{0}, k_{0} > 1$, i.e. $1 \leq m \leq m_{0}$, $1 \leq k \leq k_{0}$. Moreover, we obtain a few estimates for the gauge transform $V := U(t=0, s=0)$ as well. The weights of $s$ are dictated by scaling (see \S \ref{subsec:assocWght} for a more detailed explanation).
The result described in this step is essentially the content of Theorem \ref{thm:idEst}, which is stated in Section \ref{sec:mainThm} and proved in Section \ref{sec:pfOfIdEst}.
\pfstep{5. Equations of motion of \eqref{eq:HPYM}}
The next step is to propagate the bounds \eqref{eq:intro:overview:idEst} to all $t \in (-T, T)$, by analyzing a system of coupled hyperbolic and parabolic equations derived from \eqref{eq:HPYM}\footnote{The system is, roughly speaking, parabolic in the $s$-direction and hyperbolic in the $t$-direction. Moreover, all the equations we present are covariant.}. To present this system, let us begin by introducing the notion of the \emph{Yang-Mills tension field}. For a solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$, we define its Yang-Mills tension field $w_{\nu}(s)$ at $s \in [0,1]$ by
\begin{equation*}
w_{\nu}(s) := {\bf D}^{\mu} F_{\nu \mu}(s).
\end{equation*}
The Yang-Mills tension field $w_{\nu}(s)$ measures the extent to which $A_{\mu}(s)$ fails to satisfy the Yang-Mills equations \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}. With $w_{\nu}$ in hand, we may now state the \emph{equations of motion} of \eqref{eq:HPYM}, which are central to the analysis of the $t$-evolution of $A_{{\bf a}}$.
\begin{align}
{\bf D}^\mu {\bf D}_\mu F_{s \nu}
= & 2 \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_s^\mu}}{F_{\nu \mu}} - 2 \LieBr{F^{\mu \ell}}{{\bf D}_\mu F_{\nu \ell} + {\bf D}_\ell F_{\nu \mu}}
- {\bf D}^\ell {\bf D}_\ell w_\nu + {\bf D}_\nu {\bf D}^\ell w_\ell - 2 \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_\nu^\ell}}{w_\ell}, \label{eq:hyperbolic4F} \\
\underline{\covD}^{\mu}\underline{F}_{\nu \mu} = & \underline{w}_{\nu}, \label{eq:hyperbolic4Alow} \\
{\bf D}_s w_\nu
= & {\bf D}^\ell {\bf D}_\ell w_\nu + 2 \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_\nu^\ell}}{w_\ell} + 2 \LieBr{F^{\mu \ell}}{{\bf D}_{\mu} F_{\nu \ell} + {\bf D}_{\ell} F_{\nu \mu}},
\label{eq:covParabolic4w} \\
{\bf D}_s F_{{\bf a} {\bf b}} =& {\bf D}^\ell {\bf D}_\ell F_{{\bf a} {\bf b}} - 2\LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{\bf a}^\ell}}{F_{{\bf b} \ell}}. \label{eq:covParabolic4Fab}
\end{align}
The underlines of \eqref{eq:hyperbolic4Alow} signify that each variable is restricted to $\set{s=1}$, and the indices ${\bf a}, {\bf b}$ run over $x^{0}, x^{1}, x^{2}, x^{3}, s$. Furthermore, $w_{\nu} \equiv 0$ at $s=0$, for all $\nu = 0,1,2,3$. The derivation of these equations is deferred to Appendix \ref{sec:HPYM}.
The equations \eqref{eq:hyperbolic4F} and \eqref{eq:hyperbolic4Alow} are the main hyperbolic equations of the system, used to estimate $F_{si}$ and $\underline{A}_{i}$, respectively. Both equations possess terms involving $w_{\mu}$ on the right-hand side. The Yang-Mills tension field $w_{\mu}$, in turn, is estimated by studying the parabolic equation \eqref{eq:covParabolic4w}. An important point regarding \eqref{eq:covParabolic4w} is that its data at $s=0$ is \emph{zero}, thanks to the fact that $A_{\mu}(s=0)$ satisfies \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}.
Next, the equation \eqref{eq:covParabolic4Fab} says that each curvature component satisfies a covariant parabolic equation. In view of proving the Main Theorem, of particular interest are the equations
\begin{align} \label{}
{\bf D}_s F_{si} - {\bf D}^\ell {\bf D}_\ell F_{si} = & - 2 \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_s^\ell}}{F_{i \ell}}, \label{eq:covParabolic4Fsi}\\
{\bf D}_s F_{s0} - {\bf D}^\ell {\bf D}_\ell F_{s0} = & - 2 \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_s^\ell}}{F_{0 \ell}}. \label{eq:covParabolic4w0}
\end{align}
Thanks to the smoothing property of \eqref{eq:covParabolic4Fsi}, we may (at least heuristically) always exchange derivatives of $F_{si}$ for an appropriate power of $s$. The second equation \eqref{eq:covParabolic4w0} will be used to derive estimates for $F_{s0}$, which, combined with the caloric-temporal gauge condition, leads to the corresponding estimates for $A_{0}$. As $F_{s0} = - w_{0}$, note that the data for \eqref{eq:covParabolic4w0} at $s=0$ is zero as well. This has the implication that $A_{0}$ is, in general, obeys more favorable estimates than $A_{i}$.
\pfstep{6. Analysis of the time evolution}
We are now ready to present the key ideas for analyzing the hyperbolic equations of \eqref{eq:HPYM}, namely \eqref{eq:hyperbolic4F} and \eqref{eq:hyperbolic4Alow}; this will be the content of Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst}, stated in Section \ref{sec:mainThm} and proved in Sections \ref{sec:redOfDynEst} -- \ref{sec:wave}.
In order to treat \eqref{eq:hyperbolic4F}, we need to uncover the aforementioned null structure of the most dangerous quadratic nonlinearity. It turns out that, for the problem under consideration, all quadratic nonlinearities can be treated just by Strichartz and Sobolev inequalities, except for a single term
\begin{equation*}
2 \LieBr{A^{\ell} - \underline{A}^{\ell}}{\partial_{\ell} F_{si}}.
\end{equation*}
In \cite{Klainerman:1994jb}, it was demonstrated that such a term can be written as a linear combination of null forms, provided that $A_{i}-\underline{A}_{i}$ satisfied the Coulomb condition $\partial^{\ell} (A_{\ell}-\underline{A}_{\ell}) = 0$. Of course, this assumption is not true in our case; nevertheless, combining $\partial_{s} A_{i} = F_{si}$ (from the caloric condition $A_{s} = 0$) and the identity ${\bf D}^{\ell} F_{s \ell} = 0$, we see that the covariant Coulomb condition ${\bf D}^{\ell} (\partial_{s}A_{\ell}) = 0$ is satisfied for each $\partial_{s} A_{i}(s)$, $s \in (0,1)$. This turns out to be sufficient for carrying out an argument similar to \cite{Klainerman:1994jb}. We refer the reader to \S \ref{subsec:FsWave} for more details.
On the other hand, the key point regarding \eqref{eq:hyperbolic4Alow}, which is nothing but the Yang-Mills equations in the temporal gauge with the source $\underline{w}_{\mu}$, is that its data at $t=0$ is smooth. Therefore, we will basically emulate the classical analysis of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the temporal gauge for initial data with higher degree of smoothness. See \S \ref{subsec:AlowWave} for more details.
Provided that $\overline{\mathcal{I}}$ is sufficiently small, the analysis sketched above leads to estimates for $F_{si}(s)$ and $\underline{A}_{i}$, such as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:intro:overview:dynEst}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\sup_{0 < s < s_{0}} s^{-(m+1)/2} \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(m-1)} \partial_{t,x} F_{si}(s)}_{C_{t} (I, L^{2}_{x})}
\leq C_{m} \sum_{j=1,2,3} \nrm{(\overline{A}_{j}, \overline{E}_{j})}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \times L^{2}_{x}} \\
\Big( \int_{0}^{s_{0}} s^{-(m+1)} \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(m-1)} \partial_{t,x} F_{si}(s)}_{C_{t} (I, L^{2}_{x})}^{2} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \Big)^{1/2}
\leq C_{m} \sum_{j=1,2,3} \nrm{(\overline{A}_{j}, \overline{E}_{j})}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \times L^{2}_{x}} \\
\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k-1)} \partial_{t,x} \underline{A}_{i}}_{C_{t} (I, L^{2}_{x})}
\leq C_{k} \sum_{j=1,2,3} \nrm{(\overline{A}_{j}, \overline{E}_{j})}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \times L^{2}_{x}}
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
for $1 \leq m \leq m_{0}$, $1 \leq k \leq k_{0}$.
\pfstep{7. Returning to $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$}
The last step is to translate estimates for $\partial_{s} A_{i}$ and $\underline{A}_{i}$, such as \eqref{eq:intro:overview:dynEst}, to those for $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ so that \eqref{eq:intro:overview:0} is retrieved. One immediate issue is that the naive approach of integrating the estimates \eqref{eq:intro:overview:0} in $s$ fails to bound $\nrm{\partial_{t,x} A_{\mu}(s=0)}_{C_{t} (I, L^{2}_{x})}$ by a logarithm. In order to remedy this issue, let us take the (weakly-parabolic) equation
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{s} A_{i} = \triangle A_{i} - \partial^{\ell} \partial_{i} A_{\ell} + (\hbox{lower order terms}).
\end{equation*}
differentiate by $\partial_{t,x}$, multiply by $\partial_{t,x} A_{i}$ and then integrate the highest order terms by parts over $\mathbb R^{3} \times [0, 1]$. This trick, combined with the $L^{2}_{\mathrm{d} s/s}$-type estimates of \eqref{eq:intro:overview:dynEst}, overcome the logarithmic divergence\footnote{It turns out that such a trick is already needed at the stage of deriving estimates such as \eqref{eq:intro:overview:dynEst}; see Proposition \ref{prop:est4ai}.}.
Another issue is that the estimates derived so far, being in the caloric-temporal gauge, are not in the temporal gauge along $s=0$. Therefore, we are required to control the gauge transform back to the temporal gauge along $s=0$, for which appropriate estimates for $A_{0}(s=0)$ in the caloric-temporal gauge are needed; see Lemma \ref{lem:est4gt2temporal}. These are obtained ultimately as a consequence of the analysis of the hyperbolic equations of \eqref{eq:HPYM}; see Proposition \ref{prop:est4a0}.
\subsection{Outline of the paper}
After establishing notations and conventions in Section \ref{sec:notations}, we gather some preliminary results concerning the linear wave and the heat (or parabolic) equations in Section \ref{sec:prelim}. In particular, for the parabolic equation, we develop what we call the \emph{abstract parabolic theory}, which allows us to handle various parabolic equations with a unified approach.
We embark on the proof of the Main Theorem in Section \ref{sec:mainThm}, where the Main Theorem is reduced to two smaller statements, namely Theorems \ref{thm:idEst} and \ref{thm:dynEst}, both of which are concerned with \eqref{eq:HPYM}. Theorem \ref{thm:idEst} roughly addresses Points 2 and 4 in \S \ref{subsec:overview}. More precisely, it starts with a solution $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the temporal gauge, and asserts the existence of its extension $A_{{\bf a}}$ as a solution to \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge, along with appropriate initial data estimates at $t=0$. The DeTurck gauge is used in an essential way in the proof. On the other hand, Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst} presents the result of a local-in-time analysis of \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge, corresponding to Point 6 in \S \ref{subsec:overview}.
The aim of the next two sections is to prove Theorem \ref{thm:idEst}. In Section \ref{sec:covYMHF}, we study the covariant Yang-Mills heat flow \eqref{eq:cYMHF}. In particular, various smoothing estimates for the connection 1-form $A_{i}$ will be derived in the DeTurck gauge (in \S \ref{subsec:covYMHF}), and estimates for the gauge transform from the DeTurck gauge to the caloric gauge is presented as well (in \S \ref{subsec:covYMHFgt}). As a byproduct of the analysis, we obtain a proof of local existence of a solution to \eqref{eq:YMHF} (Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YMHF}), which is used in \cite{Oh:2012fk}. We remark that the proof is independent of the original one in \cite{Rade:1992tu}. Next, based on the results proved in Section \ref{sec:covYMHF}, a proof of Theorem \ref{thm:idEst} is given in Section \ref{sec:pfOfIdEst}.
The remainder of the paper is devoted to a proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst}. We begin in Section \ref{sec:redOfDynEst} by reducing Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst} to several smaller statements, namely Propositions \ref{prop:est4a0} - \ref{prop:cont4FA} and Theorems \ref{thm:AlowWave} and \ref{thm:FsWave}, where the latter two theorems concern estimates for the hyperbolic equations \eqref{eq:hyperbolic4Alow} and \eqref{eq:hyperbolic4F}, respectively. Section \ref{sec:pEst4HPYM} is where we derive estimates for solutions to various parabolic equations, and forms the `parabolic' heart of the paper. It is here that our efforts for developing the abstract parabolic theory amply pays off. Equipped with the results from the previous section, we prove Propositions \ref{prop:est4a0} - \ref{prop:cont4FA} in Section \ref{sec:pfOfProps}. The following section, namely Section \ref{sec:wave}, is where we finally study the wave equations for $\underline{A}_{i}$ and $F_{si}$. Combined with the parabolic estimates from Section \ref{sec:pEst4HPYM}, we establish Theorems \ref{thm:AlowWave} and \ref{thm:FsWave}.
In Appendix \ref{sec:HPYM}, we give a derivation of various covariant equations from \eqref{eq:HPYM}. Then finally, in Appendix \ref{sec:gt}, we prove estimates for gauge transforms that are deferred in the main body of the paper.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
The author is deeply indebted to his Ph.D. advisor Sergiu Klainerman, without whose support and constructive criticisms this work would not have been possible. He would also like to thank l'ENS d'Ulm for hospitality, where a major part of this work was done. The author was supported by the Samsung Scholarship.
\section{Notations and Conventions} \label{sec:notations}
\subsection{Schematic notations and conventions}
We will often omit the spatial index $i$; that is, we will write $A, F_{s}, w$ as the shorthands for $A_{i}, F_{si}, w_{i}$, respectively, and so on. A norm of such an expression, such as $\nrm{A}$, is to be understood as the maximum over $i=1,2,3$. (i.e. $\nrm{A} = \sup_{i} \nrm{A_{i}}$ and etc.)
We will use the notation $\mathcal{O}(\phi_{1}, \ldots, \phi_{k})$ to denote a $k$-linear expression in the \emph{values} of $\phi_{1}, \ldots, \phi_{k}$. For example, when $\phi_{i}$ and the expression itself are scalar-valued, then $\mathcal{O}(\phi_{1}, \ldots, \phi_{k}) = C \phi_{1} \phi_{2} \cdots \phi_{k}$ for some constant $C$. In many cases, however, each $\phi_{i}$ and the expression $\mathcal{O}(\phi_{1}, \ldots, \phi_{k})$ will actually be matrix-valued. In such case, $\mathcal{O}(\phi_{1}, \ldots, \phi_{k})$ will be a matrix, whose each entry is a $k$-linear functional of the matrices $\phi_{i}$.
When stating various estimates, we adopt the standard convention of denoting by the same letter $C$ positive constants which are different, possibly line to line. Dependence of $C$ on other parameters will be made explicit by subscripts. Furthermore, we will adopt the convention that \emph{$C$ always depends on each of its parameters in a non-decreasing manner, in its respective range}, unless otherwise specified. For example, $C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}}$, where $\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}$ range over positive real numbers, is a positive, non-decreasing function of both $\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{F}$.
\subsection{Notations and conventions for the estimates for differences}
In the paper, along with estimating a single solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ of the Yang-Mills equation, we will also be estimating the difference of two nearby solutions. We will refer to various variables arising from the other solution by putting a prime, e.g. $A'_{{\bf a}}$, $F'_{s\mu}$, $w'_{i}$ and etc, and the corresponding differences will be written with a $\delta$, i.e. $\delta A_{{\bf a}} := A_{{\bf a}} - A'_{{\bf a}}$, $\delta F_{s \mu} := F_{s \mu} - F'_{s \mu}$ and $\delta w_{i} = w_{i} - w'_{i}$ and etc.
We will also use equations for differences, which are derived by taking the difference of the equations for the original variables. In writing such equations schematically using the $\mathcal{O}$-notation, we will not distinguish between primed and unprimed variables. For example, the expression $\mathcal{O}(A, \partial_{x} (\delta A))$ refers to a sum of bilinear expressions, of which the first factor could be any of $A_{i}, A'_{i}$ ($i=1,2,3$), and the second is one of $\partial_{i} (\delta A_{j})$ ($i, j = 1,2,3$).
For this purpose, the following rule, which we call the \emph{formal Leibniz's rule for $\delta$}, is quite useful :
\begin{equation*}
\delta \mathcal{O}(\phi_{1}, \phi_{2}, \ldots, \phi_{k}) = \mathcal{O}( \delta \phi_{1}, \phi_{2}, \ldots, \phi_{k}) + \mathcal{O}( \phi_{1}, \delta \phi_{2}, \ldots, \phi_{k}) + \cdots + \mathcal{O}(\phi_{1}, \phi_{2} , \ldots, \delta \phi_{k}).
\end{equation*}
\subsection{Small parameters} The following small parameters will be used in this paper.
\begin{equation*}
0 < \delta_{H} \ll \delta_{E} \ll \delta_{P} \ll \delta_{A} \ll 1.
\end{equation*}
In many parts of the argument, we will need an auxiliary small parameter, which may be fixed within that part; for such parameters, we will reserve the letter $\epsilon$, and its variants thereof.
\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:prelim}
The aim of this section is to gather basic inequalities and preliminary results concerning the linear wave and parabolic equations, which will be rudimentary for our analysis to follow. We also develop what we call the \emph{abstract parabolic theory}, which is a book-keeping scheme allowing for a unified approach to the diversity of parabolic equations to arise below. In the end, a short discussion is given on the notion of the \emph{associated $s$-weights}, which is a useful heuristic for figuring out the appropriate weight of $s$ in various instances.
\subsection{Basic inequalities}
We collect here some basic inequalities that will be frequently used throughout the paper. Let us begin with some inequalities involving Sobolev norms for $\phi \in \mathcal{S}_{x}$, where $\mathcal{S}_{x}$ refers to the space of Schwartz functions on $\mathbb R^{3}$.
\begin{lemma}[Inequalities for Sobolev norms] \label{lem:prelim:sob}
Let $\phi \in \mathcal{S}_{x}$. The following statements hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf (Sobolev inequality)} For $1 \leq q \leq r$, $k \geq 0$ such that $\frac{3}{q} = \frac{3}{r} - k$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:prelim:sob:1}
\nrm{\phi}_{L^{q}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi}_{\dot{W}^{k,r}_{x}},
\end{equation}
where $\dot{W}^{k,r}_{x}$ is the $L^{r}$-based homogeneous Sobolev norm of order $k$.
\item {\bf (Interpolation inequality)} For $1 \leq q < \infty$, $k_{1} \leq k_{0} \leq k_{2}$, $0 < \theta_{1}, \theta_{2} < 1$ such that $\theta_{1} + \theta_{2} = 1$ and $k_{0} = \theta_{1} k_{1} + \theta_{2} k_{2}$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:prelim:sob:2}
\nrm{\phi}_{\dot{W}^{k_{0}, q}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi}_{\dot{W}^{k_{1}, q}_{x}}^{\theta_{1}} \nrm{\phi}_{\dot{W}^{k_{2}, q}_{x}}^{\theta_{2}}.
\end{equation}
\item {\bf (Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality)} For $1 \leq q_{1}, q_{2}, r \leq \infty$ and $0 < \theta_{1}, \theta_{2} < 1$ such that $\theta_{1} + \theta_{2} = 1$ and $\frac{3}{r} = \theta_{1} \cdot \frac{3}{q_{1}} + \theta_{2} (\frac{3}{q_{2}} - 1)$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:prelim:sob:3}
\nrm{\phi}_{L^{r}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi}_{L^{q_{1}}_{x}}^{\theta_{1}} \nrm{\partial_{x} \phi}_{L^{q_{2}}_{x}}^{\theta_{2}}.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
These inequalities are standard; we refer the reader to \cite{MR2424078}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[Product estimates for homogeneous Sobolev norms] \label{lem:homSob}
For a triple $(s_{0}, s_{1}, s_{2})$ of real numbers satisfying
\begin{equation} \label{eq:homSob:hyp}
s_{0} + s_{1} + s_{2} = 3/2, \quad s_{0} + s_{1} + s_{2} > \max( s_{0}, s_{1}, s_{2} )
\end{equation}
there exists $C > 0$ such that the following product estimate holds for $\phi_{1}, \phi_{2} \in \mathcal{S}_{x}$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:homSob:0}
\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{-s_{0}}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{H}^{s_{1}}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{s_{2}}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is a standard result (see, for example, \cite{DAncona:2012ke}) that given a triple $(s_{0}, s_{1}, s_{2})$ of real numbers satisfying \eqref{eq:homSob:hyp}, the following \emph{inhomogeneous} Sobolev product estimate holds for $\phi_{1}, \phi_{2} \in \mathcal{S}_{x}$:
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2}}_{H^{-s_{0}}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{H^{s_{1}}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{H^{s_{2}}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
Thanks to the condition $s_{0} + s_{1} + s_{2} = 3/2$, the above estimate implies the homogeneous estimate \eqref{eq:homSob:0} by scaling. \qedhere
\end{proof}
Next, we state Gronwall's inequality, which will be useful in several places below.
\begin{lemma}[Gronwall's inequality] \label{lem:prelim:Gronwall}
Let $(s_{0}, s_{1}) \subset \mathbb R$ be an interval, $D \geq 0$, and $f(s)$, $r(s)$ non-negative measurable functions on $J$. Suppose that for all $s \in (s_{0}, s_{1})$, the following inequality holds:
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{\overline{s} \in (s_{0}, s]} f(\overline{s}) \leq \int_{s_{0}}^{s} r(\overline{s}) f(\overline{s}) \, \mathrm{d} \overline{s} + D.
\end{equation*}
Then for all $s \in (s_{0}, s_{1})$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{\overline{s} \in (s_{0}, s]} f(\overline{s}) \leq D \exp \Big( \int_{s_{0}}^{s} r(\overline{s}) \, \mathrm{d} \overline{s} \Big).
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Lemma 3.3]{MR2455195}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
In the course of the paper, we will often perform integration-by-parts arguments which require the functions involved to be sufficiently smooth and decaying sufficiently fast towards the spatial infinity (the latter assumption is used to show that the boundary term which may arise vanishes at infinity). Usually, this issue is usually dealt with by working with Schwartz functions to justify the arguments and then passing to the appropriate limit in the end. In our case, however, the nature of the Yang-Mills equation does not allow us to do so (in particular due to the elliptic constraint equation \eqref{eq:YMconstraint}). Instead, we formulate the notion of \emph{regular} functions, which is weaker than the Schwartz assumption but nevertheless strong enough for our purposes.
\begin{definition}[Regular functions] \label{def:regFtns}
Let $I \subset \mathbb R$, $J \subset [0, \infty)$ be intervals.
\begin{enumerate}
\item A function $\phi = \phi(x)$ defined on $\mathbb R^{3}$ is \emph{regular} if $\phi \in H^{\infty}_{x} := \cap_{m=0}^{\infty} H^{m}_{x}$.
\item A function $\phi = \phi(t, x)$ defined on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$ is \emph{regular} if $\phi \in C^{\infty}_{t}(I, H^{\infty}_{x}) := \cap_{k,m=0}^{\infty} C^{k}_{t}(I, H^{m}_{x})$.
\item A function $\psi = \psi(t, x,s)$ defined on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times J$ is \emph{regular} if $\phi \in C^{\infty}_{t,s}(I \times J, H^{\infty}_{x}):= \cap_{k,m=0}^{\infty} C^{k}_{t,s}(I \times J, H^{m}_{x})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
In particular, a regular function is always smooth on its domain. Moreover, Lemmas \ref{lem:prelim:sob} and \ref{lem:homSob} still hold for regular functions, by approximation.
\subsection{Estimates for the linear wave equation and the space $\dot{S}^{k}$} \label{subsec:wavePrelim}
We summarize the estimates for solutions to an inhomogeneous wave equation that will be used in the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}[Wave estimates] \label{prop:prelim:est4wave}
Let $\psi, \varphi$ be smooth solutions with a suitable decay towards the spatial infinity (say $\psi, \varphi \in C^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{S}_{x}$) to the inhomogeneous wave equations
\begin{equation*}
\Box \psi = \mathcal{N}, \qquad \Box \varphi = \mathcal{M},
\end{equation*}
on $(-T,T) \times \mathbb R^3$. The following estimates hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf ($L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}$ estimate)}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:prelim:est4wave:energy}
\nrm{\partial_{t,x} \psi}_{L^\infty_t L^2_x ((-T, T) \times \mathbb R^3)} \leq C \left( \nrm{(\psi, \partial_{0} \psi)(t=0)}_{\dot{H}^1_x \times L^2_x(\mathbb R^{3})} + \nrm{\mathcal{N}}_{L^1_t L^2_x ((-T, T) \times \mathbb R^3)} \right)
\end{equation}
\item {\bf ($L^{4}_{t,x}$-Strichartz estimate)}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:prelim:est4wave:Strichartz}
\nrm{\partial_{t,x} \psi}_{L^4_{t,x}((-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3})} \leq C \left( \nrm{(\psi, \partial_{0} \psi)(t=0)}_{\dot{H}^{3/2}_x \times \dot{H}^{1/2}_x (\mathbb R^{3})} + \nrm{\mathcal{N}}_{L^1_t \dot{H}^{1/2}_x ((-T, T) \times \mathbb R^3)} \right).
\end{equation}
\item {\bf (Null form estimate)} For $Q_{ij} (\psi, \phi) := \partial_{i} \psi \partial_{j} \phi - \partial_{j} \psi \partial_{i} \phi$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:prelim:est4wave:nullform}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{Q_{ij}(\psi, \phi)}_{L^2_{t,x}((-T',T') \times \mathbb R^{3}} \leq & \, C \left( \nrm{(\psi, \partial_{0} \psi)(t=0)}_{\dot{H}^2_x \times \dot{H}^{1}_x (\mathbb R^{3})} + \nrm{\mathcal{N}}_{L^1_t \dot{H}^{1}_x ((-T', T') \times \mathbb R^3)} \right) \\
& \times C \left( \nrm{(\phi, \partial_{0} \phi)(t=0)}_{\dot{H}^1_x \times L^2_x (\mathbb R^{3)}} + \nrm{\mathcal{M}}_{L^1_t L^2_x ((-T', T') \times \mathbb R^3)} \right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This is a standard material. For the $L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}$ and the Strichartz estimates, we refer the reader to \cite[Chapter III]{MR2455195}. For the null form estimate, see the original article \cite{Klainerman:ei}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
Motivated by Proposition \ref{prop:prelim:est4wave}, let us define the norms\footnote{We remark that $\nrm{\cdot}_{\dot{S}^{k}}$ is a norm after restricted to regular functions, by Sobolev.} $\dot{S}^{k}$ which will be used as a convenient device for controlling the wave-like behavior of certain dynamic variables. Let $\psi$ be a smooth function on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$ ($I \subset \mathbb R$) which decays sufficiently towards the spatial infinity. We start with the norm $\dot{S}^{1}$, which we define by
\begin{equation}
\nrm{\psi}_{\dot{S}^{1}(I)} := \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \psi}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}} + \abs{I}^{1/2} \nrm{\Box \psi}_{L^{2}_{t,x}}.
\end{equation}
The norms $\dot{S}^{k}$ for $k=2,3,4$ are then defined by taking spatial derivatives, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\nrm{\psi}_{\dot{S}^{k}(I)} := \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k-1)} \psi}_{\dot{S}^{1}(I)},
\end{equation}
and we furthermore define $\dot{S}^{k}$ for $k \geq 1$ a real number by using fractional derivatives. Note the interpolation property
\begin{equation}
\nrm{\psi}_{\dot{S}^{k+\theta}(I)} \leq C_{\theta} \nrm{\psi}_{\dot{S}^{k}(I)}^{1-\theta} \nrm{\psi}_{\dot{S}^{k+1}(I)}^{\theta}, \quad 0 < \theta < 1.
\end{equation}
The following estimates concerning the $\dot{S}^{k}$-norms are an immediate consequence of Proposition \ref{prop:prelim:est4wave} and the fact that regular functions can be approximated by functions in $C^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{S}_{x}$ with respect to each of the norms involved.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:prelim:est4SH}
Let $k \geq 1$ be an integer and $\psi, \phi$ smooth functions on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3}$ such that $\partial_{t,x} \psi, \partial_{t,x} \phi$ are regular. Then the following estimates hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf ($L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}$ estimate)}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:prelim:est4SH:energy}
\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k-1)} \partial_{t,x} \psi}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}((-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3})} \leq \nrm{\psi}_{\dot{S}^{k}(-T, T)}.
\end{equation}
\item {\bf ($L^{4}_{t,x}$-Strichartz estimate)}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:prelim:est4SH:Strichartz}
\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k-1)} \partial_{t,x} \psi}_{L^{4}_{t,x}((-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3})} \leq C \nrm{\psi}_{\dot{S}^{k+1/2}(-T, T)}.
\end{equation}
\item {\bf (Null form estimate)}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:prelim:est4SH:nullform}
\nrm{Q_{ij}(\psi, \phi)}_{L^{2}_{t,x}((-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3})} \leq C \nrm{\psi}_{\dot{S}^{2}(-T, T)} \nrm{\phi}_{\dot{S}^{1}(-T, T)}.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
On the other hand, in order to control the $\dot{S}^{k}$ norm of $\psi$, all one has to do is to estimate the d'Alembertian of $\psi$ along with the initial data. This is the content of the following proposition, which is sometimes referred to as the \emph{energy estimate} in the literature.
\begin{proposition}[Energy estimate] \label{prop:prelim:energyEst4SH}
Let $k \geq 1$ be an integer and $\psi$ a smooth function on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3}$ such that $\partial_{t,x} \psi$ is regular. Then the following estimate holds.
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\psi}_{\dot{S}^{k}(-T,T)} \leq C \Big( \nrm{(\psi, \partial_{0} \psi)(t=0)}_{\dot{H}^{k}_{x} \times \dot{H}^{k-1}_{x} (\mathbb R^{3})} + T^{1/2} \nrm{\Box \psi}_{L^{2}_{t,x}((-T,T)\times \mathbb R^{3})} \Big).
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
After a standard approximation procedure, this is an immediate consequence of \eqref{eq:prelim:est4wave:energy}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\subsection{Parabolic-normalized (or p-normalized) norms}
The purpose of the rest of this section is to develop a theory of parabolic equations suited to our needs later on.
Given a function $\phi$ on $\mathbb R^{3}$, we consider the operation of \emph{scaling by $\lambda >0$}, defined by
\begin{equation*}
\phi \to \phi_{\lambda} (x) := \phi(x/\lambda).
\end{equation*}
We say that a norm $\nrm{\cdot}_{X}$ is \emph{homogeneous} if it is covariant with respect to scaling, i.e. there exists a real number $\ell$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\phi_{\lambda}}_{X} = \lambda^{\ell} \nrm{\phi}_{X}.
\end{equation*}
The number $\ell$ is called the \emph{degree of homogeneity} of the norm $\nrm{\cdot}_{X}$.
Let $\phi$ be a solution to the heat equation $\partial_{s} \phi - \triangle \phi = 0$ on $\mathbb R^{3} \times [0,\infty)$. Note that this equation `respects' the scaling $\phi_{\lambda}(x,s) := \phi(x/\lambda, s/\lambda^{2})$, in the sense that any scaled solution to the linear heat equation remains a solution. Moreover, one has \emph{smoothing estimates} of the form $\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k)} \phi(s)}_{L^{p}_{x}} \leq s^{-\frac{k}{2} + ( \frac{3}{2p} - \frac{3}{2q} )}\nrm{\phi(0)}_{L^{q}_{x}}$ (for $q \leq p$, $k \geq 0$) which are invariant under this scaling. The norms $\nrm{\partial_{x} \cdot}_{L^{p}_{x}}$ and $\nrm{\cdot}_{L^{q}_{x}}$ are homogeneous, and the above estimate can be rewritten as
\begin{equation*}
s^{-\ell_{1}/2} \nrm{\partial_{x} \phi(s)}_{L^{p}_{x}} \leq s^{-\ell_{2}/2} \nrm{\phi(0)}_{L^{q}_{x}}
\end{equation*}
where $\ell_{1}$, $\ell_{2}$ are the degrees of homogeneity of the norms $\nrm{\partial_{x} \cdot}_{L^{p}_{x}}$ and $\nrm{\cdot}_{L^{q}_{x}}$, respectively.
Motivated by this example, we will define the notion of \emph{parabolic-normalized}, or \emph{p-normalized}, norms and derivatives. These are designed to facilitate the analysis of parabolic equations by capturing their scaling property.
Consider a homogeneous norm $\nrm{\cdot}_{X}$ of degree $2\ell$, which is well-defined for smooth functions $\phi$ on $\mathbb R^{3}$. (i.e. for every smooth $\phi$, $\nrm{\phi}_{X}$ is defined uniquely as either a non-negative real number or $\infty$.) We will define its \emph{p-normalized} analogue $\nrm{\cdot}_{\mathcal{X}(s)}$ for each $s > 0$ by
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\cdot}_{\mathcal{X}(s)} := s^{-\ell} \nrm{\cdot}_{X}.
\end{equation*}
We will also define the p-normalization of space-time norms. As we will be concerned with functions restricted to a time interval, we will adjust the notion of homogeneity of norms as follows. For $I \subset \mathbb R$, consider a \emph{family} of norms $X(I)$ defined for functions $\phi$ defined on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$. For $\lambda >0$, consider the scaling $\phi_{\lambda}(t,x) := \phi(t/\lambda, x/\lambda)$. We will say that $X(I)$ is \emph{homogeneous of degree $\ell$} if
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\phi_{\lambda}}_{X(I)} = \lambda^{\ell} \nrm{\phi}_{X(\lambda I)}.
\end{equation*}
As before, we define its \emph{p-normalized} analogue $\nrm{\cdot}_{\mathcal{X}(I, s)}$ as $\nrm{\cdot}_{\mathcal{X}(I, s)} := s^{-\ell} \nrm{\cdot}_{X(T)}$.
Let us furthermore define the \emph{parabolic-normalized derivative} $\nabla_{\mu}(s)$ by $s^{1/2} \partial_{\mu}$. Accordingly, for $k > 0$ we define the \emph{homogeneous $k$-th derivative norm} $\nrm{\cdot}_{\dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}(s)}$ by
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\cdot}_{\dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}(s)} := \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(k)}(s) \cdot}_{\mathcal{X}(s)}.
\end{equation*}
We will also define the \emph{parabolic-normalized covariant derivative} $\mathcal{D}_{\mu}(s) := s^{1/2} {\bf D}_{\mu}$.
We will adopt the convention $\dot{\mathcal{X}}^{0} := \mathcal{X}$. For $m > 0$ an integer, we define \emph{inhomogeneous $m$-th derivative norm} $\nrm{\cdot}_{\mathcal{X}^{k}(s)}$ by
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\cdot}_{\dot{\mathcal{X}}^{m}(s)} := \sum_{k=0}^{m} \nrm{\cdot}_{\dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}(s)}.
\end{equation*}
We will often omit the $s$-dependence of $\mathcal{X}(s)$, $\dot{\mathcal{X}}(s)$ and $\nabla_{\mu}(s)$ by simply writing $\mathcal{X}$, $\dot{\mathcal{X}}$ and $\nabla_{\mu}$, where the value of $s$ should be clear from the context.
\begin{example} A few examples of homogeneous norms and their p-normalized versions are in order. We will also take this opportunity to fix the notations for the p-normalized norms which will be used in the rest of the paper.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $X = L^{p}_{x}$, in which case the degree of homogeneity is $2\ell = 3/p$. We will define $\mathcal{X} = \mathcal{L}^{p}_{x}$ and $\dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k} := \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k,p}_{x}$ as follows.
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\cdot}_{\mathcal{L}^{p}_{x}(s)} := s^{-3/(2p)} \nrm{\cdot}_{L^{p}_{x}}, \qquad
\nrm{\cdot}_{\dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k,p}_{x}(s)} := s^{k/2 - 3/(2p)} \nrm{\cdot}_{\dot{W}^{k, p}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
The norm $\mathcal{X}^{m} := \mathcal{W}^{m,p}_{x}$ will be defined as the sum of $\dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k,p}$ norms for $k=0, \ldots, m$. In the case $p =2$, we will use the notation $\dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k} := \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}$ and $\mathcal{X}^{k} := \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}$.
\item Consider a time interval $I \subset \mathbb R$. For $X = L^{q}_{t} L^{p}_{x} (I \times \mathbb R^{3})$, in which case $2\ell = 1/q + 3/p$, we will write
\begin{align*}
\nrm{\cdot}_{\mathcal{L}^{q}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{p}_{x}(I,s)} := & s^{-1/(2q) - 3/(2p)} \nrm{\cdot}_{L^{q}_{t} L^{p}_{x}}, \\
\nrm{\cdot}_{\mathcal{L}^{q}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k, p}_{x}(I,s)} := & s^{k/2 -1/(2q) - 3/(2p)} \nrm{\cdot}_{L^{q}_{t} \dot{W}^{k, p}_{x}}.
\end{align*}
The norms $\mathcal{L}^{q}_{t} \mathcal{W}^{k,p}_{x}(I,s)$, $\mathcal{L}^{q}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}(I,s)$ and $\mathcal{L}^{q}_{t} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}(I,s)$ are defined accordingly.
\item Finally, the norm $\dot{S}^{1}$, defined in Section \ref{subsec:wavePrelim} for the purpose of hyperbolic estimates, is homogeneous of degree $2\ell = 1/2$, which is the same as $L^{\infty}_{x} \dot{H}^{1}_{x}$ (i.e. the energy). For p-normalized version of $\dot{S}^{1}$, we will use a set of notations slightly deviating from the rest in order to keep consistency with the intuition that $\nrm{\phi}_{\dot{S}^{1}}$ is at the level of $L^{\infty}_{x} \dot{H}^{1}_{x}$. Indeed, for $m, k \geq 1$ and $m$ an integer, we will write
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\phi}_{\dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k}} := s^{(k-1)/2 - 1/4} \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k-1)} \phi}_{\dot{S}^{1}_{x}}, \quad
\nrm{\phi}_{\widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{m}} := \sum_{k=1}^{m} \nrm{\phi}_{\dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
For $f = f(s)$ a measurable function defined on an $s$-interval $J \subset (0, \infty)$, we define its p-normalized Lebesgue norm $\nrm{f}_{\mathcal{L}^{p}_{s}(J)}$ by $\nrm{f}_{\mathcal{L}^{p}_{s}(J)}^{p} := \int_{J} \abs{f(s)}^{p} \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s}$ for $1 \leq p < \infty$, and $\nrm{f}_{\mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{s}(J)} := \nrm{f}_{L^{\infty}_{s}(J)}$. Given $\ell \geq 0$, we will define the weighted norm $\nrm{f}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, p}_{s}}(J)$ by
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{f}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell,p}_{s} (J)} := \nrm{s^{\ell} f(s)}_{\mathcal{L}^{p}_{s} (J)}.
\end{equation*}
Let us consider the case $J = (0, s_{0})$ or $J = (0, s_{0}]$ for some $s_{0} > 0$. For $\ell > 0$ and $1 \leq p \leq \infty$, note the obvious computation $\nrm{s^{\ell}}_{\mathcal{L}^{p}_{s}(0, s_{0})} = C_{\ell, p} s_{0}^{\ell}$. Combining this with the H\"older inequality
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{f g}_{\mathcal{L}^{p}_{s}} \leq \nrm{f}_{\mathcal{L}^{p_{1}}_{s}} \nrm{g}_{\mathcal{L}^{p_{2}}_{s}} \hbox{ for $\frac{1}{p} = \frac{1}{p_{1}} + \frac{1}{p_{2}}$},
\end{equation*}
we obtain the following simple lemma.
\begin{lemma} [H\"older for $\mathcal{L}^{\ell,p}_{s}$] \label{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}
Let $\ell, \ell_{1}, \ell_{2} \geq 0$, $1 \leq p, p_{1}, p_{2} \leq \infty$ and $f, g$ functions on $J = (0,s_{0})$ (or $J = (0, s_{0}]$) such that $\nrm{f}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{1}, p_{1}}_{s}}, \nrm{g}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{2}, p_{2}}_{s}} < \infty$. Then we have
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{fg}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell,p}_{s}(J)} \leq C s_{0}^{\ell-\ell_{1}-\ell_{2}} \nrm{f}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{1},p_{1}}_{s}(J)} \nrm{g}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{2},p_{2}}_{s}(J)}
\end{equation*}
provided that either $\ell = \ell_{1} + \ell_{2}$ and $\frac{1}{p} = \frac{1}{p_{1}} + \frac{1}{p_{2}}$, or $\ell > \ell_{1} + \ell_{2}$ and $\frac{1}{p} \geq \frac{1}{p_{1}} + \frac{1}{p_{2}}$. In the former case, $C = 1$, while in the latter case, $C$ depends on $\ell-\ell_{1}-\ell_{2}$ and $\frac{1}{p} - \frac{1}{p_{1}} - \frac{1}{p_{2}}$.
\end{lemma}
We will often used the mixed norm $\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, p}_{s} \mathcal{X} (J)} := \nrm{\nrm{\psi(s)}_{\mathcal{X}(s)}}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell,p}_{s}(J)}$ for $\psi = \psi(x, s)$ such that $s \to \nrm{\psi(s)}_{\mathcal{X}(s)}$ is measurable. The norms $\mathcal{L}^{\ell,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k} (J)$ and $\mathcal{L}^{\ell,p}_{s} \mathcal{X}^{k} (J)$ are defined analogously.
\subsection{Abstract parabolic theory} \label{subsec:prelim:absPth}
Let $J \subset (0,\infty)$ be an $s$-interval. Given a homogeneous norm $X$ and $k \geq 1$ an integer, let us define the (semi-)norm $\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}(J)$ for a smooth function $\psi$ by
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}(J)} := \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, \infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k-1}(J)} + \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}(J)}.
\end{equation*}
For $m_{0} < m_{1}$, we will also define the (semi-)norm $\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \mathcal{X}^{m_{1}}_{m_{0}} (J)$ by
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \mathcal{X}_{m_{0}}^{m_{1}} (J)} := \sum_{k=m_{0}+1}^{m_{1}} \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}(J)}.
\end{equation*}
We will omit $m_{0}$ when $m_{0} = 0$, i.e. $\mathcal{X}^{m} := \mathcal{X}^{m}_{0}$.
We remark that despite the notation $\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}$, this norms controls both the $\dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k-1}$ as well as the $\dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}$ norm of $\psi$. Note furthermore that $\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \mathcal{X}_{m_{0}}^{m_{1}}}$ controls the derivatives of $\psi$ of order from $m_{0}$ to $m_{1}$.
\begin{definition} \label{def:absP:pEst}
Let $X$ be a homogeneous norm of degree $2 \ell_{0}$. We say that $X$ satisfies the \emph{parabolic energy estimate} if there exists $C_{X} > 0$ such that for all $\ell \in \mathbb R$, $[s_{1}, s_{2}] \subset (0, \infty)$ and $\psi$ smooth\footnote{The assumption of smoothness is here only for convenience; we remark that it is not essential in the sense that, by an approximation argument, both \eqref{eq:absP:pEst:1} and \eqref{eq:absP:pEst:2} may be extended to functions $\psi$ which are not smooth.} and satisfying $\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{1}(s_{1}, s_{2}]} < \infty$, the following estimate holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:absP:pEst:1}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{1} (s_{1}, s_{2}]}
\leq &C_{X} s_{1}^{\ell} \nrm{\psi(s_{1})}_{\mathcal{X}(s_{1})} + C_{X} (\ell - \ell_{0}) \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell,2}_{s} \mathcal{X} (s_{1}, s_{2}]} \\
& + C_{X} \nrm{(\partial_{s} - \triangle) \psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell + 1, 1}_{s} \mathcal{X}(s_{1}, s_{2}]}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The norm $X$ satisfies the \emph{parabolic smoothing estimate} if there exists $C_{X} > 0$ such that for all $\ell \in \mathbb R $, $[s_{1}, s_{2}] \subset (0, \infty)$ and $\psi$ smooth and satisfying $\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \mathcal{X}^{2} (s_{1}, s_{2}]} < \infty$ , the following estimate holds:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:absP:pEst:2}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{2} (s_{1}, s_{2}]}
\leq & C_{X} s_{1}^{\ell} \nrm{\psi(s_{1})}_{\dot{\mathcal{X}}^{1}(s_{1})} + C_{X} (\ell +1/2 - \ell_{0}) \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{1}(s_{1}, s_{2}]} \\
& + C_{X} \nrm{(\partial_{s} - \triangle) \psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell + 1, 2}_{s} \mathcal{X} (s_{1}, s_{2}]}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
For the purpose of application, we will consider vector-valued solutions $\psi$ to an inhomogeneous heat equation. The norms $X$, $\mathcal{X}$, $\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \mathcal{X}$, etc. of a vector-valued function $\psi$ are defined in the obvious manner of taking the supremum of the respective norm of all components of $\psi$.
\begin{theorem}[Abstract parabolic theory] \label{thm:absP:absPth}
Let $X$ be a homogeneous norm of degree $2\ell_{0}$, and $\psi$ be a vector-valued smooth solution to $\partial_{s} \psi - \triangle \psi = \mathcal{N}$ on $[0, s_{0}]$ \footnote{$\psi$ is a function on $\mathbb R^{3} \times [0, s_{0}]$ or $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0, s_{0}]$ depending on whether $X$ is for functions on the space or the space-time, respectively.}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $X$ satisfy the parabolic energy and smoothing estimates \eqref{eq:absP:pEst:1}, \eqref{eq:absP:pEst:2}, and $\psi$ satisfy $\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell_{0}} \mathcal{X}^{2}(0, s_{0}]} < \infty$. Let $1 \leq p < \infty$, $\epsilon > 0$, $D > 0$ and $C(s)$ a function defined on $(0, s_{0}]$ which satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\int_{0}^{s_{0}} C(s)^{p} \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} < \infty
\end{equation*}
for some $1 \leq p < \infty$, and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:absP:apriori:1}
\nrm{\mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{0}+1, 1}_{s} \mathcal{X} (0,\underline{s}]} + \nrm{\mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{0}+1, 2}_{s} \mathcal{X} (0,\underline{s}]}
\leq \nrm{C(s) \psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{0}, p}_{s} \mathcal{X}^{1}(0,\underline{s}]} + \epsilon \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell_{0}} \mathcal{X}^{2}(0, s_{0}]} + D,
\end{equation}
for every $\underline{s} \in (0, s_{0}]$.
Then there exists a constant $\delta_{A} = \delta_{A}(C_{X}, \int_{0}^{s_{0}} C(s)^{p} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s}, p) > 0$ such that if
\begin{equation*}
0 < \epsilon < \delta_{A},
\end{equation*}
then the following a priori estimate holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:absP:apriori:2}
\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell_{0}} \mathcal{X}^{2} (0, s_{0}]} \leq C e^{C \int_{0}^{s_{0}} C(s)^{p} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s}}(\nrm{\psi(s=0)}_{X} + D),
\end{equation}
where $C$ depends only on $C_{X}$ and $p$.
\item Suppose that $X$ satisfies the the parabolic smoothing estimate \eqref{eq:absP:pEst:2}, and that for some $\ell \in \mathbb R$ and $0 \leq m_{0} \leq m_{1}$ (where $m_{0}$, $m_{1}$ are integers) we have $\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \mathcal{X}^{m_{1}+2}_{m_{0}}(0, s_{0}]} < \infty$. Suppose furthermore that for $m_{0} \leq m \leq m_{1}$, there exists $\epsilon > 0$ and a non-negative non-decreasing function $\mathcal{B}_{m}(\cdot)$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:absP:smth:1}
\nrm{\mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell+1, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{m} (0,s_{0}]}
\leq \epsilon \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell+1} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{m+2}(0, s_{0}]} + \mathcal{B}_{m}(\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \mathcal{X}_{m_{0}}^{m+1}(0, s_{0}]}).
\end{equation}
Then for $0 < \epsilon < 1/(2C_{X})$, the following \emph{smoothing estimate} holds:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:absP:smth:2}
\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \mathcal{X}_{m_{0}}^{m_{1}+2}(0, s_{0}]} \leq C
\end{equation}
where $C$ is determined from $C_{X}$, $\mathcal{B}_{m_{0}}, \ldots, \mathcal{B}_{m_{1}}$ and $\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{m_{0}+1} (0, s_{0}]}$.
More precisely, consider the non-decreasing function $\widetilde{\mathcal{B}_{m}}(r) := (2C_{X}(\ell-\ell_{0}+1/2) + 1) r + 2 C_{X} \mathcal{B}_{m}(r)$. Then $C$ in \eqref{eq:absP:smth:2} is given by the composition
\begin{equation} \label{eq:absP:smth:3}
C = \widetilde{\mathcal{B}}_{m_{1}} \circ \widetilde{\mathcal{B}}_{m_{1}-1}\circ \cdots \circ \widetilde{\mathcal{B}}_{m_{0}}(\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{m_{0}+1}(0, s_{0}]}).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
\pfstep{Step 1: Proof of (1)}
Without loss of generality, assume that $C_{X} \geq 2$. Thanks to the hypothesis on $\psi$ and \eqref{eq:absP:apriori:1}, we can apply the parabolic energy estimate \eqref{eq:absP:pEst:1} to obtain
\begin{equation} \label{eq:absP:apriori:pf:1}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell_{0}} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{1}(0, \underline{s}]}
\leq & C_{X} \nrm{\psi(0)}_{X}
+ C_{X} (\nrm{C(s)\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{0},p}_{s} \mathcal{X}^{1}(0,\underline{s}]} + \epsilon \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell_{0}} \mathcal{X}^{2}(0, s_{0}]} + D).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we have used the fact that $\liminf_{s_{1} \to 0} s_{1}^{\ell_{0}} \nrm{\psi(s_{1})}_{\mathcal{X}(s_{1})} = \nrm{\psi(0)}_{X}$. Using again the hypothesis on $\psi$ and \eqref{eq:absP:apriori:1}, we can apply the parabolic smoothing estimate \eqref{eq:absP:pEst:2} and get
\begin{equation} \label{eq:absP:apriori:pf:2}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell_{0}} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{2}(0, \underline{s}]}
\leq & \frac{C_{X}}{2} \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{0},2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{1}(0, \underline{s}]}
+ C_{X} (\nrm{C(s) \psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{0},p}_{s} \mathcal{X}^{1}(0,\underline{s}]} + \epsilon \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell_{0}} \mathcal{X}^{2}(0, s_{0}]} + D),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we used $\liminf_{s_{1} \to 0} s_{1}^{\ell_{0}} \nrm{\psi(s_{1})}_{\dot{\mathcal{X}}^{1}(s_{1})} = 0$, which holds as $\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{0}, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{1}} < \infty$. Using \eqref{eq:absP:apriori:pf:1} to bound the first term on the right-hand of \eqref{eq:absP:apriori:pf:2}, we arrive at
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell_{0}} \mathcal{X}^{2}(0, \underline{s}]}
\leq C_{X}^{2} \nrm{\psi(0)}_{X} + C_{X}(1+C_{X}) (\nrm{C(s)\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{0},p}_{s} \mathcal{X}^{1}(0,\underline{s}]} + \epsilon \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell_{0}} \mathcal{X}^{2}(0, s_{0}]} + D),
\end{equation*}
for every $0 < \underline{s} \leq s_{0}$.
We will apply Gronwall's inequality to deal with the term involving $C(s) \psi$. For convenience, let us make the definition
\begin{equation*}
D' = C_{X}^{2} \nrm{\psi(0)}_{X} + C_{X}(1+C_{X}) (\epsilon \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell_{0}} \mathcal{X}^{2}(0, s_{0}]} + D).
\end{equation*}
Recalling the definition of $\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell_{0}} \mathcal{X}^{2}(0, \underline{s}]}$ and unravelling the definition of $\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{0}, p}_{s} \mathcal{X}^{1}$, we see in particular that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{0 < s \leq \underline{s}} s^{\ell_{0}} \nrm{\psi(s)}_{\mathcal{X}^{1}}
\leq C_{X} (1+C_{X}) \Big( \int_{0}^{\underline{s}} C(s)^{p} (s^{\ell_{0}} \nrm{\psi(s)}_{\mathcal{X}^{1}})^{p} \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \Big)^{1/p} + D',
\end{equation*}
for every $0 < \underline{s} \leq s_{0}$. Taking the $p$-th power, using Gronwall's inequality and then taking the $p$-th root back, we arrive at
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{0 < s \leq \underline{s}} s^{\ell_{0}} \nrm{\psi(s)}_{\mathcal{X}^{1}} \leq 2^{1/p} D' \exp \Big( \frac{2 C_{X}^{p} (1+C_{X})^{p}}{p} \int_{0}^{\underline{s}} C(s)^{p} \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \Big) .
\end{equation*}
Iterating this bound into $\nrm{C(s) \psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{0}, p}_{s} \mathcal{X}^{1}(0, s_{0}]}$ and expanding $D'$ out, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell_{0}} \mathcal{X}^{2}(0, s_{0}]} \leq C_{0} \Big( C_{X}^{2} \nrm{\psi(0)}_{X} + C_{X}(1+C_{X}) (\epsilon \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell_{0}} \mathcal{X}^{2}(0, s_{0}]} + D) \Big).
\end{equation*}
where $C_{0} = \exp \Big( \frac{2 C_{X}^{p} (1+C_{X})^{p}}{p} \int_{0}^{s_{0}} C(s)^{p} \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \Big)$.
Let us define $\delta_{A} := (2 C_{0} C_{X} (1+C_{X}))^{-1}$. Then from the hypothesis $0 < \epsilon < \delta_{A}$, we can absorb the term $C_{0} C_{X}(1+C_{X}) \epsilon \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell_{0}} \mathcal{X}^{2}(0, s_{0}]}$ into the left-hand side. The desired estimate \eqref{eq:absP:apriori:2} follows.
\pfstep{Step 2: Proof of (2)}
In this step, we will always work on the whole $s$-interval $(0, s_{0}]$.
We claim that under the assumptions of (2), the following inequality holds for $m_{0} \leq m \leq m_{1}$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:absP:smth:pf:1}
\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \mathcal{X}^{m+2}_{m_{0}}} \leq \widetilde{\mathcal{B}}_{m}(\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \mathcal{X}^{m+1}_{m_{0}}}).
\end{equation}
Assuming the claim, we can start from $\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \mathcal{X}^{m_{0}+1}_{m_{0}}} = \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{m_{0}+1}}$ and iterate \eqref{eq:absP:smth:pf:1} for $m= m_{0}, m_{0} + 1, \ldots, m_{1}$ (using the fact that each $\widetilde{\mathcal{B}}_{m}$ is non-decreasing) to conclude the proof.
To prove the claim, we use the hypothesis on $\psi$ and \eqref{eq:absP:smth:1} to apply the parabolic smoothing estimate \eqref{eq:absP:pEst:2}, which gives
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{m+2}} \leq C_{X} (\ell - \ell_{0} +1/2) \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{m+1}}+ C_{X} (\epsilon \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{m+2}} + \mathcal{B}_{m}(\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \mathcal{X}^{m+1}_{m_{0}}})),
\end{equation*}
where we have used $\liminf_{s_{1} \to 0} s_{1}^{\ell} \nrm{\psi(s_{1})}_{\dot{\mathcal{X}}^{m+1}(s_{1})} = 0$, which holds as $\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{m+1}} < \infty$.
Using the smallness of $\epsilon >0$, we can absorb $C_{X} \epsilon \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{m+2}}$ into the left-hand side. Then adding $\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell,2}_{s} \mathcal{X}^{m+1}_{m_{0}}}$ to both sides, we easily obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \mathcal{X}^{m+2}_{m_{0}}} \leq (2 C_{X} (\ell-\ell_{0} +1/2) +1) \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \mathcal{X}^{m+1}_{m_{0}}} + 2 C_{X} \mathcal{B}_{m}(\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \mathcal{X}^{m+1}_{m_{0}}}).
\end{equation*}
Recalling the definition of $\widetilde{\mathcal{B}}_{m}$, this is exactly \eqref{eq:absP:smth:pf:1}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
The following proposition allows us to use Theorem \ref{thm:absP:absPth} in the situations of interest in our work.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:absP:application}
The following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $\psi$ be a regular function defined on $\mathbb R^{3} \times J$ (resp. on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times J $), where $J$ is a finite interval. Then for $X = L^{2}_{x}$ (resp. $X = L^{2}_{t,x}$ or $\dot{S}^{1}$), we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:absP:application:1}
\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}(J)} < \infty
\end{equation}
if either $1 \leq p \leq \infty$ and $\ell - \ell_{0} + k/2 > 0$, or $p=\infty$ and $\ell-\ell_{0} + k/2 = 0$.
\item Furthermore, the norms $L^{2}_{x}$, $L^{2}_{t,x}$ and $\dot{S}^{1}$ satisfy the parabolic energy and smoothing estimates \eqref{eq:absP:pEst:1}, \eqref{eq:absP:pEst:2}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By definition, we have
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, p} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}} = \nrm{s^{\ell-\ell_{0} +k/2} \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k)} \psi(s)}_{X}}_{\mathcal{L}^{p}_{s}}.
\end{equation*}
Since $\sup_{s \in J} \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k)} \psi(s)}_{X} < \infty$ for each $X$ under consideration when $\psi$ is regular, the first statement follows.
To prove the second statement, let us begin by proving that the norm $L^{2}_{x}$ satisfies the parabolic energy estimate \eqref{eq:absP:pEst:1}. In this case, $\ell_{0} = 3/4$. Let $\ell \in \mathbb R$, $[s_{1}, s_{2}] \subset (0,\infty)$ and $\psi$ a smooth (complex-valued) function such that $\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}} < \infty$. We may assume that $\nrm{(\partial_{s} - \triangle)\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell+1,1}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} < \infty$, as the other case is trivial. Multiplying the equation $(\partial_{s} - \triangle) \psi$ by $s^{2(\ell - \ell_{0})} \overline{\psi}$ and integrating by parts over $[s_{1}, \underline{s}]$ (where $s_{1} \leq \underline{s} \leq s_{2}$), we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{eq:parabolicEII1}
\begin{aligned}
\frac 1 2 \underline{s}^{2(\ell-\ell_{0})} & \int \abs{\psi (\underline{s})}^2 \, \mathrm{d} x + \int_{s_1}^{\underline{s}} \int s^{2(\ell-\ell_{0})+1} \abs{\partial_x \psi}^2 \, \mathrm{d} x \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \\
= & \frac 1 2 s_1^{2(\ell-\ell_{0})} \int \abs{\psi(s_1)}^2 \, \mathrm{d} x
+ (\ell - \ell_{0}) \int_{s_1}^{\underline{s}} \int s^{2(\ell-\ell_{0})} \abs{\psi}^2 \, \mathrm{d} x \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \\
& + \int_{s_1}^{\underline{s}} \int s^{2(\ell-\ell_{0}) + 1} (\partial_{s} - \triangle)\psi \cdot \overline{\psi} \, \mathrm{d} x \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Taking the supremum over $s_{1} \leq \underline{s} \leq s_{2}$ and rewriting in terms of p-normalized norms, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2} \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, \infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}(s_{1}, s_{2}]}^{2} + \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x} (s_{1}, s_{2}]}^{2}
\leq & \frac{1}{2} s_{1}^{2\ell} \nrm{\psi(s_{1})}_{\mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}(s_{1})}^{2} + (\ell-\ell_{0}) \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, 2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x} (s_{1}, s_{2}]}^{2} \\
& + \nrm{(\partial_{s} - \triangle)\psi \cdot \overline{\psi}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2\ell + 1, 1}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{1}_{x}(s_{1}, s_{2}]}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
By H\"older and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}, we can estimate the last term by $\nrm{(\partial_{s} - \triangle)\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell+1,1}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x} (s_{1}, s_{2}]}^{2} + (1/4) \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, \infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}(s_{1}, s_{2}]}^{2}$, where the latter can be absorbed into the left-hand side. Taking the square root of both sides, we obtain \eqref{eq:absP:pEst:1} for $L^{2}_{x}$.
Next, let us prove that the norm $L^{2}_{x}$ satisfies the parabolic smoothing estimate \eqref{eq:absP:pEst:2}. Let $\ell \in \mathbb R$, $[s_{1}, s_{2}] \subset (0,\infty)$ and $\psi$ a smooth (complex-valued) function such that $\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{P}^{\ell} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{2}_{x}} < \infty$. As before, we assume that $\nrm{(\partial_{s} - \triangle)\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell+1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} < \infty$. Multiplying the equation $(\partial_{s} - \triangle) \psi$ by $s^{2(\ell - \ell_{0})+1} \triangle \overline{\psi}$ and integrating by parts over $[s_{1}, \underline{s}]$ (where $s_{1} \leq \underline{s} \leq s_{2}$), we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{eq:parabolicEII2}
\begin{aligned}
\frac 1 2 \underline{s}^{2(\ell-\ell_{0})} & \int \abs{\partial_{x} \psi (\underline{s})}^2 \, \mathrm{d} x + \int_{s_1}^{\underline{s}} \int s^{2(\ell-\ell_{0})+2} \abs{\triangle \psi}^2 \, \mathrm{d} x \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \\
= & \frac 1 2 s_1^{2(\ell-\ell_{0})+1} \int \abs{\partial_{x} \psi(s_1)}^2 \,\mathrm{d} x
+ (\ell - \ell_{0} + \frac{1}{2}) \int_{s_1}^{\underline{s}} \int s^{2(\ell-\ell_{0})+1} \abs{\partial_{x} \psi}^2 \, \mathrm{d} x \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \\
& + \int_{s_1}^{\underline{s}} \int s^{2(\ell-\ell_{0}) + 2} (\partial_{s} - \triangle)\psi \cdot \triangle \overline{\psi} \, \mathrm{d} x \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
By a further integration by parts, the second term on the left-hand side is equal to $\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{2}_{x} (s_{1}, s_{2}]}^{2}$. Taking the supremum over $s_{1} \leq \underline{s} \leq s_{2}$ and rewriting in terms of p-normalized norms, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2} \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, \infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}(s_{1}, s_{2}]}^{2} + \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{2}_{x} (s_{1}, s_{2}]}^{2}
\leq & \frac{1}{2} s_{1}^{2\ell} \nrm{\psi(s_{1})}_{\dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}(s_{1})}^{2} + (\ell-\ell_{0} + \frac{1}{2}) \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x} (s_{1}, s_{2}]}^{2} \\
& + \nrm{(\partial_{s} - \triangle)\psi \cdot \nabla^{k} \nabla_{k} \overline{\psi}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2\ell + 1, 1}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{1}_{x}(s_{1}, s_{2}]}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
By Cauchy-Schwarz and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}, we can estimate the last term by
\begin{equation*}
(1/2)\nrm{(\partial_{s} - \triangle)\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell+1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x} (s_{1}, s_{2}]}^{2} + (1/2) \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{2}_{x}(s_{1}, s_{2}]}^{2},
\end{equation*}
where the latter can be absorbed into the left-hand side. Taking the square root of both sides, we obtain \eqref{eq:absP:pEst:2} for $L^{2}_{x}$.
For the norm $L^{2}_{t,x}$, in which case $\ell_{0} = 1$, it simply suffices to repeat the above proof with the new value of $\ell_{0}$, and integrate further in time.
Finally, in the case of the norm $\dot{S}^{1}$, for which $\ell_{0} = 1/4$, we begin by observing that
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{1}}:= \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} \psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} + \abs{I}^{1/2} \nrm{s^{3/4} \Box \psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t,x}}
\sim \nrm{s^{1/2} \partial_{t,x} \psi(t=0)}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} + \abs{I}^{1/2} \nrm{s^{3/4} \Box \psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t,x}}
\end{equation*}
for every $\ell \geq 0$ and $1 \leq p \leq \infty$, where $A \sim B$ means that $A$, $B$ are comparable, i.e. there exist $C >0$ such that $A \leq C B, B \leq C A$. One direction is trivial, whereas the other follows from the energy estimate. Using furthermore the fact that $\partial_{t,x}, \Box$ commute with $(\partial_{s} - \triangle)$, this case follows from the last two cases. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{}
From the proof of \eqref{eq:absP:application:1}, it is evident that the following variant is also true:
\begin{quote}
Let $\ell \in \mathbb R$, $1 \leq p \leq \infty$ and $k \geq 1$. For a smooth function $\psi = \psi(t,x,s)$ such that $\partial_{t,x} \psi$ is regular, we have
$\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k}} < \infty$ if either $1 \leq p \leq \infty$ and $\ell - 3/4 + k/2 > 0$, or $p = \infty$ and $\ell - 3/4 + k/2 = 0$.
\end{quote}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} \label{}
A point that the reader should keep in mind is that, despite the heavy notations and abstract concepts developed in this subsection, the analytic heart of the `abstract parabolic theory' is simply the standard $L^{2}$-energy integral estimates for the linear heat equation, as we have seen in Proposition \ref{prop:absP:application}. The efforts that we had put in this subsection will pay off in various parts below (in particular Sections \ref{sec:covYMHF} and \ref{sec:pEst4HPYM}), as it will allow us to treat the diverse parabolic equations which arise in a unified, economical way.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Correspondence principle for p-normalized norms}
In this subsection, we develop a systematic method of obtaining linear and multi-linear estimates in terms of p-normalized norms, which will be very useful to us later. The idea is to start with an estimate involving the norms of functions independent of the $s$-variable, and arrive at the corresponding estimate for $s$-dependent functions in terms of the corresponding p-normalized norms by putting appropriate weights of $s$.
Throughout this subsection, we will denote by $J \subset (0, \infty)$ an $s$-interval, $\phi_{i}=\phi_{i}(x)$ a smooth function independent of $s$, and $\psi_{i} = \psi_{i}(s,x)$ a smooth function of both $s \in J$ and $x$. All norms below will be assumed {\it a priori} to be finite. In application, $\phi_{i}$ may be usually taken to be Schwartz in $x$, and either $\psi$ or $\partial_{x} \psi$ would be regular. The discussion to follow holds also for functions which depend additionally on $t$.
It is rather cumbersome to give a precise formulation of the Correspondence Principle. We will instead adopt a more pragmatic approach and be satisfied with the following `cookbook-recipe' type statement.
\begin{corrPrinciple}
Suppose that we are given an estimate (i.e. an inequality) in terms of the norms $X_{i}$ of functions $\phi_{i} = \phi_{i}(x)$, all of which are homogeneous. Suppose furthermore that the estimate is scale-invariant, in the sense that both sides transform the same under scaling.
Starting from the usual estimate, make the following substitutions on both sides: $\phi_{i} \to \psi_{i}(s)$, $\partial_{x} \to \nabla_{x}(s)$, $X_{i} \to \mathcal{X}_{i}(s)$. Then the resulting estimate still holds, with the same constant, for every $s \in J$.
\end{corrPrinciple}
In other words, given an $s$-independent, scale-invariant estimate which involve only homogeneous norms, we obtain its p-normalized analogue by replacing the norms and the derivatives by their respective p-normalizations. The `proof' of this principle is very simple: For each fixed $s$, the substitution procedure above amounts to applying the usual estimate to $\psi_{i}(s)$ and multiplying each side by an appropriate weight of $s$. The point is that the same weight works for both sides, thanks to scale-invariance of the estimate that we started with.
\begin{example} Some examples are in order to clarify the use of the principle. We remark that all the estimates below will be used freely in what follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\bf (Sobolev)} We begin with the Sobolev inequality \eqref{eq:prelim:sob:1} from Lemma \ref{lem:prelim:sob}. Applying the Correspondence Principle, for every $1 \leq q \leq r$, $k \geq 0$ such that $ \frac{3}{q} = \frac{3}{r} - k$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\psi(s)}_{\mathcal{L}^{r}_{x}(s)} \leq C \nrm{\psi(s)}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k,q}_{x}(s)},
\end{equation*}
for every $s \in J$.
\item {\bf (Interpolation)} Recall the interpolation inequality \eqref{eq:prelim:sob:2} from Lemma \ref{lem:prelim:sob}. Applying the Correspondence Principle, for $1 \leq q < \infty$, $k_{1} \leq k_{0} \leq k_{2}$, $0 < \theta_{1}, \theta_{2} < 1$ such that $\theta_{1} + \theta_{2} = 1$ and $k_{0} = \theta_{1} k_{1} + \theta_{2} k_{2}$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\psi(s)}_{\dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k_{0}, q}_{x}(s)} \leq C \nrm{\psi(s)}^{\theta_{1}}_{\dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k_{1}, q}_{x}(s)} \nrm{\psi(s)}^{\theta_{2}}_{\dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k_{2}, q}_{x}(s)},
\end{equation*}
for every $s \in J$.
\item {\bf (Gagliardo-Nirenberg)}
Let us apply the Correspondence Principle to the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality \eqref{eq:prelim:sob:3} from Lemma \ref{lem:prelim:sob}. Then for $q \leq q_{1}, q_{2}, r \leq \infty$, $0 < \theta_{1}, \theta_{2} < 1$ such that $\frac{3}{r} = \theta_{1} \cdot \frac{3}{q_{1}} + \theta_{2} ( \frac{3}{q_{2}} - 1 )$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\psi(s)}_{\mathcal{L}^{r}_{x}(s)} \leq C \nrm{\psi(s)}_{\mathcal{L}^{q_{1}}_{x}(s)}^{\theta_{1}} \nrm{\nabla_{x} \psi(s)}_{\mathcal{L}^{q_{2}}_{x}}^{\theta_{2}}
\end{equation*}
for every $s \in J$.
\item {\bf (H\"older)} Let us start with $\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2}}_{L^{r}_{x}} \leq \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{L^{q_{1}}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{L^{q_{2}}_{x}}$, where $1 \leq q_{1}, q_{2}, r \leq \infty$ and $\frac{1}{r} = \frac{1}{q_{1}} + \frac{1}{q_{2}}$. Applying the Correspondence Principle, for every $s \in J$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\psi_{1} \psi_{2} (s)}_{\mathcal{L}^{r}_{x}(s)} \leq \nrm{\psi_{1}(s)}_{\mathcal{L}^{q_{1}}_{x}(s)} \nrm{\psi_{2}(s)}_{\mathcal{L}^{q_{2}}_{x}(s)}.
\end{equation*}
All the estimates above extend to functions on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$ with $I \subset \mathbb R$ in the obvious way. In this case, we have the following analogue of the H\"older inequality:
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\psi(s)}_{\mathcal{L}^{q_{1}}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{p}_{x}(s)} \leq s^{- \left( \frac{1}{2 q_{1}}-\frac{1}{2 q_{2}} \right)} \abs{I}^{\frac{1}{q_{1}}-\frac{1}{q_{2}}} \nrm{\psi(s)}_{\mathcal{L}^{q_{2}}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{p}_{x}(s)} \hbox{ for $q_{1} \leq q_{2}$.}
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
The following consequence of the Gagliardo-Nirenberg and Sobolev inequalities is useful enough to be separated as a lemma on its own. It provides a substitute for the incorrect $\dot{H}^{3/2}_{x} \subset L^{\infty}_{x}$ Sobolev embedding, and has the benefit of being scale-invariant. We will refer to this simply as \emph{Gagliardo-Nirenberg} for $p$-normalized norms.
\begin{lemma}[Gagliardo-Nirenberg] \label{lem:absP:algEst}
For every $s \in J$, the following estimate holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:absP:algEst}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{\nabla^{(k)}_{x} \psi(s)}_{\dot{\mathcal{H}}^{3/2}_{x} \cap \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}(s)}
\leq & C_{k} \nrm{\psi(s)}_{\dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k+2}_{x}(s)}^{1/2} \nrm{\psi(s)}_{\dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k+1}_{x}(s)}^{1/2} \\
\leq & \frac{C_{k}}{2} (\nrm{\psi(s)}_{\dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k+2}_{x}(s)} + \nrm{\psi(s)}_{\dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k+1}_{x}(s)}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, assume $k =0$. To prove the first inequality, by Gagliardo-Nirenberg, interpolation and the Correspondence Principle, it suffices to prove $\nrm{\phi}_{L^{6}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}$ and $\nrm{\partial_{x} \phi}_{L^{6}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi}_{\dot{H}^{2}_{x}}$; the latter two are simple consequences of Sobolev. Next, the second inequality follows from the first by Cauchy-Schwarz. \qedhere
\end{proof}
We remark that in practice, the Correspondence Principle, after multiplying by an appropriate weight of s and integrating over $J$, will often be used in conjunction with H\"older's inequality for the spaces $\mathcal{L}^{\ell, p}_{s}$ (Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}).
Finally, recall that the notation $\mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2}, \ldots, \psi_{k})$ refers to a linear combination of expressions in \emph{the values of} the arguments $\psi_{1}, \psi_{2}, \ldots, \psi_{k}$, where they could in general be vector-valued. It therefore follows immediately that any multi-linear estimate for the usual product $\nrm{\psi_{1} \cdot \psi_{2} \cdots \psi_{k}}$ for scalar-valued functions $\psi_{1}, \psi_{2}, \ldots, \psi_{k}$ implies the corresponding estimate for $\nrm{\mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2}, \ldots, \psi_{k}}$, where $\psi_{1}, \psi_{2}, \ldots, \psi_{k}$ may now be vector-valued, at the cost of some absolute constant depending on $\mathcal{O}$. This remark will be used repeatedly in the sequel.
\subsection{Associated $s$-weights for variables of \eqref{eq:HPYM}} \label{subsec:assocWght}
Let us consider the system \eqref{eq:HPYM}, introduced in \S \ref{subsec:overview}. To each variable of \eqref{eq:HPYM}, there is associated a power of $s$ which represents the expected size of the variable in a dimensionless norm (say $L^{\infty}_{t,s,x}$); we call this the \emph{associated $s$-weight} of the variable. The notion of associated $s$-weights provides a useful heuristic which will make keeping track of these weights easier in the rest of the paper.
The associated $s$-weights for the `spatial variables' $A=A_{i}, F=F_{ij}, F_{s}=F_{si}$ are derived directly from scaling considerations, and as such easy to determine. Indeed, as we expect that $\nrm{\partial_{x} A_{i}}_{L^{2}_{x}}$ should stay bounded for every $t, s$, using the scaling heuristics $\partial_{x} \sim s^{-1/2}$ and $L^{2}_{x} \sim s^{3/4}$, it follows that $A_{i} \sim s^{-1/4}$. The worst term in $F_{ij}$ is at the level of $\partial_{x} A$, so $F_{ij} \sim s^{-3/4}$, and similarly $F_{si} \sim s^{-5/4}$.
The associated $s$-weights for $w_{\nu}$ is $s^{-1}$, which is actually better than that which comes from scaling considerations (which is $s^{-5/4}$). To see why, observe that $w_{\nu}$ satisfies a parabolic equation $(\partial_{s} - \triangle) w_{\nu} = {}^{(w_{\nu})} \mathcal{N}$ with zero data at $s=0$.\footnote{We remind the reader, that this is a consequence of the original Yang-Mills equations ${\bf D}^{\mu} F_{\nu \mu} =0$ at $s=0$.} Duhamel's principle then tells us that $w_{\nu} \sim s {}^{(w_{\nu})} \mathcal{N}$. Looking at the equation \eqref{eq:covParabolic4w}, we see that ${}^{(w_{\nu})} \mathcal{N} \sim s^{-2}$, from which we conclude $w_{\nu} \sim 1$. Note that as $w_{0} = - F_{s0}$, this shows that the `temporal variables' $A_{0}, F_{s0}$ behave better than their `spatial' counterparts.
We summarize the associated $s$-weights for important variables as follows.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c c}
$A_{i} \sim s^{-1/4}$ & $A_{0} \sim s^{0}$ & $F_{\mu \nu} \sim s^{-3/4}$ \\
$F_{si} \sim s^{-5/4}$ & $F_{s0} \sim s^{-1}$ & $w_{\mu} \sim s^{-1}$.
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Accordingly, when we control the sizes of these variables, they will be weighted by the inverse of their respective associated weights.
As we always work on a finite $s$-interval $J$ such that $J \subset [0,1]$, extra powers of $s$ compared to the inverse of the associated $s$-weight should be considered favorable when estimating. For example, it is easier to estimate $\nrm{A_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+\ell,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}}$ when $\ell > 0$ than $\ell = 0$. (Compare Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A} with Proposition \ref{prop:est4ai}.) Informally, when it suffices to control a variable with more power of $s$, say $s^{\ell}$, compared to the associated $s$-weight, we will say that there is an \emph{extra $s$-weight of $s^{\ell}$}. Thanks to the sub-critical nature of the problem, such extra weights will be abundant, and this will simplify the analysis in many places.
It is also useful to keep in mind the following heuristics.
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{t,x}, {\bf D}_{t,x} \sim s^{-1/2}, \quad
\partial_{s}, {\bf D}_{s} \sim s^{-1}, \quad
L^{q}_{t} L^{r}_{x} \sim s^{1/(2q)+3/(2r)}\\
\end{equation*}
\section{Reduction of the Main Theorem to Theorems \ref{thm:idEst} and \ref{thm:dynEst}} \label{sec:mainThm}
In the first subsection, we state and prove some preliminary results that we will need in this section. These include a $H^{2}$ local well-posedness statement for the Yang-Mills equations in the temporal gauge, an approximation lemma for the initial data and a gauge transform lemma. Next, we will state Theorems \ref{thm:idEst} (Estimates for the initial data in the caloric-temporal gauge) and \ref{thm:dynEst} (Estimates for $t$-evolution in the caloric-temporal gauge), and show that the proof of the Main Theorem is reduced to that of Theorems \ref{thm:idEst} and \ref{thm:dynEst} by a simple bootstrap argument involving a gauge transformation.
\subsection{Preliminary results}
We will begin this subsection by making a number of important definitions. Let us define the notion of \emph{regular} solutions, which are smooth solutions with appropriate decay towards the spatial infinity.
\begin{definition}[Regular solutions] \label{def:mainThm:reg4YM}
We say that a representative $A_{\mu}$ of a classical solution to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} is \emph{regular} if $A_{\mu}$ is smooth and $\partial_{t,x} A_{\mu}$ is regular. Furthermore, we say that a smooth solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} is \emph{regular} if $A_{{\bf a}}$ is smooth and $\partial_{t,x} A_{\mu}, A_{s}$ are regular.
\end{definition}
In relation to regular solutions, we also define the notion of a \emph{regular gauge transform}, which is basically that which keeps the `regularity' of the connection 1-form.
\begin{definition}[Regular gauge transform] \label{def:reg4gt}
We say that a gauge transform $U$ on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times J$ is a \emph{regular gauge transform} if $U$, $U^{-1}$ are smooth and furthermore
\begin{equation*}
U, U^{-1} \in C^{\infty}_{t,s}(I \times J, L^{\infty}_{x}), \quad
\partial_{t,x} U, \partial_{t,x} U^{-1} \in C^{\infty}_{t,s}(I \times J, L^{3}_{x}), \quad
\partial_{t,x}^{(2)} U, \partial_{t,x}^{(2)} U^{-1} \in C^{\infty}_{t,s}(I \times J, H^{\infty}_{x}).
\end{equation*}
A gauge transform $U$ defined on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$ is a \emph{regular gauge transform} if it is a regular gauge transform viewed as an $s$-independent gauge transform on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times J$ for some $J \subset [0, \infty)$.
\end{definition}
We remark that a regular solution (whether to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} or \eqref{eq:HPYM}) remains regular under a regular gauge transform.
Let us also give the definition of \emph{regular initial data sets} for \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}.
\begin{definition}[Regular initial data sets] \label{def:reg4id}
We say that an initial data set $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} is \emph{regular} if, in addition to satisfying the constraint equation \eqref{eq:YMconstraint}, $\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i}$ are smooth and $\partial_{x} \overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i}$ are regular.
\end{definition}
Next, let us present some results needed to prove the Main Theorem. The first result we present is a local well-posedness result for initial data with higher regularity. For this purpose, we have an $H^{2}$ local well-posedness theorem, which is essentially due to Eardley-Moncrief \cite{Eardley:1982fb}. However, as we do not assume anything on the $L^{2}_{x}$ norm of the initial data $\overline{A}_{i}$ (in particular, it does not need to belong to $L^{2}_{x}$), we need a minor variant of the theorem proved in \cite{Eardley:1982fb}.
In order to state the theorem, let us define the space $\widehat{H}^{2}_{x}$ to be the closure of $\mathcal{S}_{x}(\mathbb R^{3})$ with respect to the partially homogeneous Sobolev norm $\nrm{\phi}_{\widehat{H}^{2}_{x}} := \nrm{\partial_{x} \phi}_{H^{1}_{x}}$. The point, of course, is that this norm\footnote{That $\nrm{\cdot}_{\widehat{H}^{2}_{x}}$ is indeed a norm when restricted to $\widehat{H}^{2}_{x}$ follows from Sobolev.} does not contain the $L^{2}_{x}$ norm.
\begin{theorem}[$H^{2}$ local well-posedness of Yang-Mills] \label{thm:mainThm:H2lwp}
Let $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ be an initial data set satisfying \eqref{eq:YMconstraint} such that $\partial_{x} \overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i} \in H^{1}_{x}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists $T = T(\nrm{(\overline{A}, \overline{E})}_{\widehat{H}^{2}_{x} \times H^{1}_{x}}) > 0$, which is non-increasing in $\nrm{(\overline{A}, \overline{E})}_{\widehat{H}^{2}_{x} \times H^{1}_{x}}$, such that a unique solution $A_{\mu}$ to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the temporal gauge satisfying
\begin{equation}
A_{i} \in C_{t} ((-T, T), \widehat{H}^{2}_{x}) \cap C^{1}_{t}((-T, T), H^{1}_{x})
\end{equation}
exists on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3}$.
\item Furthermore, \emph{persistence of higher regularity} holds, in the following sense: If $\partial_{x} \overline{A}, \overline{E} \in H^{m}_{x}$ (for an integer $m \geq 1$), then the solution $A_{i}$ obtained in Part (1) satisfies $\partial_{t,x} A_{i} \in C_{t}^{k_{1}} ((-T, T), H^{k_{2}}_{x})$ for non-negative integers $k_{1}, k_{2}$ such that $k_{1} + k_{2} \leq m$.
In particular, if $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ is a regular initial data set, then the corresponding solution $A_{\mu}$ is a regular solution to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the temporal gauge.
\item Finally, we have the following \emph{continuation criterion:} If $\sup_{t \in (-T', T')} \nrm{\partial_{t,x} A}_{H^{1}_{x}} < \infty$, then the solution given by Part (1) can be extended past $(-T', T')$, while retaining the properties stated in Parts (1) and (2).
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
It is not difficult to see that the iteration scheme introduced in Klainerman-Machedon \cite[Proposition 3.1]{Klainerman:1995hz} goes through with the above norm, from which Parts (1) -- (3) follow. A cheaper way of proving Theorem \ref{thm:mainThm:H2lwp} is to note that $\nrm{\overline{A}_{i}}_{H^{2}_{x}(B)} \leq C \nrm{\overline{A}_{i}}_{\widehat{H}^{2}_{x}(\mathbb R^{3})}$, $\nrm{\overline{E}_{i}}_{H^{1}_{x}(B)} \leq \nrm{\overline{E}_{i}}_{H^{1}_{x}(\mathbb R^{3})}$ uniformly for all unit balls in $\mathbb R^{3}$. This allows us to apply the localized local well-posedness statement Proposition 3.1 of \cite{Klainerman:1995hz} to each ball, and glue these local solutions to form a global solution via a domain of dependence argument.
\end{proof}
Next, we prove a technical lemma, which shows that an arbitrary admissible $H^{1}$ initial data set can be approximated by a sequence of regular initial data sets.
\begin{lemma}[Approximation lemma] \label{lem:mainThm:regApprox}
Any admissible $H^{1}$ initial data set $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i}) \in (\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \cap L^{3}_{x}) \times L^{2}_{x}$ can be approximated by a sequence of regular initial data sets $(\overline{A}_{(n) i}, \overline{E}_{(n) i})$ satisfying the constraint equation \eqref{eq:YMconstraint}. More precisely, the initial data sets $(\overline{A}_{(n) i}, \overline{E}_{(n) i})$ may be taken to satisfy the following properties.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\overline{A}_{(n)}$ is smooth, compactly supported, and
\item $\overline{E}_{(n)}$ is regular, i.e. $\overline{E}_{(n)} \in H^{k}_{x}$ for every integer $k \geq 0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This proof can essentially be read off from \cite[Proposition 1.2]{Klainerman:1995hz}. We reproduce it below for the convenience of the reader.
Choose compactly supported, smooth sequences $\overline{A}_{(n) i}, \overline{F}_{(n) i}$ such that $\overline{A}_{(n) i} \to \overline{A}_{i}$ in $\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \cap L^{3}_{x}$ and $\overline{F}_{(n) i} \to \overline{E}_{i}$ in $L^{2}_{x}$. Let us denote the covariant derivative associated to $\overline{A}_{(n)}$ by ${\bf D}_{(n)}$. Using the fact that $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ satisfies the constraint equation \eqref{eq:YMconstraint} in the distributional sense and the $\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \subset L^{6}_{x}$ Sobolev, we see that for any test function $\varphi$,
\begin{align*}
\abs{\int & ({\bf D}_{(n)}^{\ell} \, \overline{F}_{(n) \ell}, \varphi) \, \mathrm{d} x}
= \abs{\int ({\bf D}_{(n)}^{\ell} \, \overline{F}_{(n) \ell} - {\bf D}^{\ell} \, \overline{E}_{\ell}, \varphi) \, \mathrm{d} x} \\
= & \abs{\int - (\overline{F}_{(n) \ell} - \overline{E}_{\ell}, \partial^{\ell} \varphi)
+(\LieBr{\overline{A}_{(n)}^{\ell} - \overline{A}^{\ell}}{\overline{F}_{(n) \ell}} + \LieBr{\overline{A}^{\ell}}{\overline{F}_{(n) \ell} - \overline{E}_{\ell}}, \varphi) \, \mathrm{d} x} \\
\leq & \Big( \nrm{{\overline{F}_{(n)}} - \overline{E}}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{{\overline{A}_{(n)}} - \overline{A}}_{L^{3}_{x}} \nrm{{\overline{F}_{(n)}}}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\overline{A}}_{L^{3}_{x}} \nrm{{\overline{F}_{(n)}} - \overline{E}}_{L^{2}_{x}} \Big) \nrm{\varphi}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{align*}
In view of the $L^{3}_{x}, L^{2}_{x}$ convergence of $\overline{A}_{(n)}, \overline{F}_{(n)}$ to $\overline{A}, \overline{E}$, respectively, it follows that
\begin{equation*}
{\bf D}_{(n)}^{\ell} \overline{F}_{(n) \ell} \in \dot{H}_{x}^{-1} \hbox{ for each $n$}, \quad \nrm{{\bf D}_{(n)}^{\ell} \, \overline{F}_{(n) \ell}}_{\dot{H}_{x}^{-1}} \to 0 \quad \hbox{ as }n \to \infty,
\end{equation*}
where $\dot{H}_{x}^{-1}$ is the dual space of $\dot{H}_{x}^{1}$ (defined to be the closure of Schwartz functions on $\mathbb R^{3}$ under the $\dot{H}_{x}^{1}$-norm).
Let us now define $\overline{E}_{(n) i} := \overline{F}_{(n) i} + {\bf D}_{(n) i} \phi_{(n)}$, where the $\mathfrak{g}$-valued function $\phi_{(n)}$ is constructed by solving the elliptic equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:regApprox:pf:1}
{\bf D}_{(n)}^{\ell} \, {\bf D}_{(n) \ell} \phi_{(n)} = - {\bf D}_{(n)}^{\ell} \, \overline{F}_{(n) \ell},
\end{equation}
imposing a suitable decay condition at infinity; we want, in particular, to have $\phi_{(n)} \in \dot{H}^{1}_{x} \cap L^{6}_{x}$. This ensures that $(\overline{A}_{(n) i}, \overline{E}_{(n) i})$ satisfies the constraint equation. Furthermore, in view of the fact that $\overline{A}_{(n)}, \overline{F}_{(n)}$ are smooth and compactly supported, it is clear that ${\bf D}_{(n)} \phi_{(n)}$ belongs to any $H^{k}_{x}$ for $k \geq 0$, and hence so does $\overline{E}_{(n)}$. Therefore, in order to prove the lemma, it is only left to prove ${\bf D}_{(n)} \phi_{(n)} \to 0$ in $L^{2}_{x}$.
Multiplying \eqref{eq:regApprox:pf:1} by $\phi_{(n)}$ and integrating by parts, we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{eq:regApprox:pf:2}
\int \abs{{\bf D}_{(n)} \phi_{(n)}}^{2} \, \mathrm{d} x \leq \nrm{{\bf D}_{(n)}^{\ell} \overline{F}_{(n) \ell}}_{\dot{H}_{x}^{-1}} \nrm{\phi_{(n)}}_{\dot{H}_{x}^{1}}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, expanding out ${\bf D}_{(n)}$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:regApprox:pf:3}
\nrm{\phi_{(n)}}_{\dot{H}_{x}^{1}} \leq \nrm{{\bf D}_{(n)} \phi_{(n)}}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\overline{A}_{(n)}}_{L^{3}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{(n)}}_{L^{6}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
Recall Kato's inequality (for a proof, see \cite[Lemma 4.2]{Oh:2012fk}), which shows that $\abs{\partial_{i} \abs{\phi_{(n)}}} \leq \abs{ {\bf D}_{(n) i} \phi_{(n)}}$ in the distributional sense. Combining this with the $\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \subset L^{6}_{x}$ Sobolev inequality for $\abs{\phi_{(n)}}$, we get
\begin{equation} \label{eq:regApprox:pf:4}
\nrm{\phi_{(n)}}_{L^{6}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{{\bf D}_{(n)} \phi_{(n)}}_{L^{2}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{eq:regApprox:pf:2} - \eqref{eq:regApprox:pf:4} and canceling a factor of $\nrm{{\bf D}_{(n)} \phi_{(n)}}_{L^{2}_{x}}$, we arrive at
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{{\bf D}_{(n)} \phi_{(n)}}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq \nrm{{\bf D}_{(n)}^{\ell} (\overline{F}_{(n) \ell})}_{\dot{H}_{x}^{-1}} (1 + C \nrm{\overline{A}_{(n)}}_{L^{3}_{x}})
\to 0,
\end{equation*}
as desired. \qedhere
\end{proof}
Given a time interval $I \subset \mathbb R$, we claim the existence of norms $\mathcal{A}_{0}(I)$ and $\delta \mathcal{A}_{0}(I)$ for $A_{0}$ and $\delta A_{0}$ on $I$, respectively, for which the following lemma holds. The significance of these norms will be that they can be used to estimate the gauge transform back to the original temporal gauge.
\begin{lemma}[Estimates for gauge transform to temporal gauge] \label{lem:est4gt2temporal}
Consider the following ODE on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3}$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:est4gt2temporal:0}
\left \{
\begin{aligned}
& \partial_{t} V = V A_{0} \\
& V(t=0) = \overline{V},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where we assume that $A_{0}$ is smooth and $\mathcal{A}_{0}(-T, T) < \infty$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Suppose that $\overline{V} = \overline{V}(x)$ is a smooth $\mathfrak{G}$-valued function on $\set{t=0} \times \mathbb R^{3}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\overline{V}, \overline{V}^{-1} \in L^{\infty}_{x}, \quad \partial_{x} \overline{V}, \partial_{x} \overline{V}^{-1} \in L^{3}_{x}, \quad \partial_{x}^{(2)} \overline{V}, \partial_{x}^{(2)} \overline{V}^{-1} \in L^{2}_{x} .
\end{equation*}
Then there exists a unique solution $V$ to the ODE, which obeys the following estimates.\begin{equation} \label{eq:est4gt2temporal:V}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{V}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{\infty}_{x} (-T, T)}
\leq & C_{\mathcal{A}_{0}(-T, T)} \cdot \nrm{\overline{V}}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}, \\
\nrm{\partial_{t,x} V}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{3}_{x} (-T, T)}
\leq & C_{\mathcal{A}_{0}(-T, T)} \cdot (\nrm{\partial_{x} \overline{V}}_{L^{3}_{x}} +\mathcal{A}_{0}(-T, T) \nrm{\overline{V}}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}), \\
\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(2)} V}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x} (-T, T)}
\leq & C_{\mathcal{A}_{0}(-T, T)} \cdot (\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(2)} \overline{V}}_{L^{2}_{x}} +\mathcal{A}_{0}(-T, T) \nrm{\overline{V}}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}).
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
\item Let $A'_{0}$ be a smooth connection coefficient with $\mathcal{A}'_{0}(-T, T) < \infty$, and $\overline{V}'$ a $\mathfrak{G}$-valued smooth function on $\set{t=0} \times \mathbb R^{3}$ also satisfying the hypotheses of (1). Let $V'$ be the solution to the ODE \eqref{eq:est4gt2temporal:0} with $A_{0}$ and $\overline{V}$ replaced by $A'_{0}$, $\overline{V}'$, respectively. Then the difference $\delta V := V - V'$ satisfies the following estimates.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:est4gt2temporal:dltV}
\begin{aligned}
&\nrm{\delta V}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{\infty}_{x}(-T, T)} + \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \delta V}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{3}_{x}(-T, T)} + \nrm{\partial_{x} \partial_{t,x} \delta V(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}(-T, T)} \\
& \quad \leq C_{\mathcal{A}_{0}(-T, T)} \cdot (\nrm{\delta \overline{V}}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \delta \overline{V}}_{L^{3}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} \partial_{t,x} \delta \overline{V}}_{L^{2}_{x}}) \\
& \phantom{\quad \leq} + C_{\mathcal{A}_{0}(-T, T)} \cdot (\nrm{\overline{V}}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \overline{V}}_{L^{3}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} \partial_{t,x} \overline{V}}_{L^{2}_{x}}) \, \delta \mathcal{A}_{0}(-T, T)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\item Finally, all of the above statement remain true with $V$, $\delta V$, $\overline{V}$, $\delta \overline{V}$ replaced by $V^{-1}$, $\delta V^{-1}$, $\overline{V}^{-1}$ and $\delta \overline{V}^{-1}$, respectively.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
The precise definition of $\mathcal{A}_{0}, \delta \mathcal{A}_{0}$ will be given in \S \ref{subsec:defOfNorms}, whereas we defer the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:est4gt2temporal} until Appendix \ref{sec:gt}.
Next, we prove a simple lemma which will be used to estimate the $L^{3}_{x}$ norm of our solution.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:est4L3nrm}
Let $\psi = \psi(t,x)$ be a function defined on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3}$ such that $\psi(0) \in L^{3}_{x}$ and $\partial_{t,x} \psi \in C_{t} L^{2}_{x}$. Then $\psi \in C_{t} L^{3}_{x}$ and the following estimate holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:est4L3nrm:0}
\sup_{t \in (-T, T)} \nrm{\psi(t)}_{L^{3}_{x}} \leq \nrm{\psi(0)}_{L^{3}_{x}} + C T^{1/2} \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \psi}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By a standard approximation procedure, it suffices to consider $\psi = \psi(t,x)$ defined on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3}$ which is smooth in time and Schwartz in space. For $t \in (-T, T)$, we estimate via H\"older, Sobolev and the fundamental theorem of calculus as follows:
\begin{align*}
\nrm{\psi(t) - \psi(0)}_{L^{3}_{x}}
\leq & \nrm{\psi(t) - \psi(0)}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{1/2} \nrm{\psi(t)-\psi(0)}_{L^{6}_{x}}^{1/2} \\
\leq & C (\int_{0}^{t} \nrm{\partial_{t} \psi(t')}_{L^{2}_{x}} \, \mathrm{d} t')^{1/2} (\nrm{\partial_{x} \psi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} \psi(0)}_{L^{2}_{x}} )^{1/2} \\
\leq & C T^{1/2} \nrm{\partial_{t} \psi}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}}^{1/2} \nrm{\partial_{x} \psi}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}}
\leq C T^{1/2} \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \psi}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}}.
\end{align*}
By the triangle inequality, \eqref{eq:est4L3nrm:0} follows. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\subsection{Reduction of the Main Theorem}
For $A_{{\bf a}}, A'_{{\bf a}}$ regular solutions to \eqref{eq:HPYM} (defined in \S \ref{subsec:overview}) on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$, we claim the existence of norms $\mathcal{I}$ and $\delta \mathcal{I}$ which measure the sizes of $A_{{\bf a}}$ and $\delta A_{{\bf a}}$, respectively, at $t=0$ (i.e. the size of the initial data), such that the theorems below hold. The precise definitions will be given in Section \ref{sec:pfOfIdEst}.
\begin{bigTheorem}[Estimates for initial data in the caloric-temporal gauge] \label{thm:idEst}
Let $0 < T \leq 1$, and $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ a regular solution to the Yang-Mills equation in the temporal gauge $A^{\dagger}_{0} = 0$ on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3}$ with the initial data $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ at $t=0$. Define $\overline{\mathcal{I}} := \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} + \nrm{\overline{E}}_{L^{2}_{x}}$. Suppose that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:idEst:hypothesis}
\sup_{t \in (-T, T)} \sup_{i} \nrm{A^{\dagger}_{i}(t)}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} < \delta_{P},
\end{equation}
where $\delta_{P}$ is a small constant to be introduced in Proposition \ref{prop:YMHF4A:lwp4deT}. Then the following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists a regular gauge transform $V = V(t,x)$ on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3}$ and a regular solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:idEst:0}
A_{\mu}(s=0) = V (A^{\dagger}_{\mu}) V^{-1} - \partial_{\mu} V V^{-1}.
\end{equation}
\item Furthermore, the solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ satisfies the caloric-temporal gauge condition, i.e. $A_{s} = 0$ everywhere and $\underline{A}_{0} = 0$.
\item Let $(A')^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ be another regular solution to the Yang-Mills equation in the temporal gauge with the initial data $(\overline{A}'_{i}, \overline{E}'_{i})$ satisfying $\nrm{(\overline{A}, \overline{E})}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \times L^{2}_{x}} \leq \overline{\mathcal{I}}$ and \eqref{eq:idEst:hypothesis}. Let $A'_{{\bf a}}$ be the solution to \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge obtained from $(A')^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ as in Parts (1) and (2). Then the following initial data estimates hold:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:idEst:1}
\mathcal{I} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}, \quad \delta \mathcal{I} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}},
\end{equation}
where $\delta \overline{\mathcal{I}} := \nrm{\delta \overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} + \nrm{\delta \overline{E}}_{L^{2}_{x}}$.
\item Let $V'$ be the gauge transform obtained from $(A')^{\dagger}_{i}$ as in Part (1), and let us write $\overline{V} := V(t=0), \overline{V}' := V'(t=0)$. For the latter two gauge transforms, the following estimates hold:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:idEst:3}
\nrm{\overline{V}}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}}, \quad \nrm{\partial_{x} \overline{V}}_{L^{3}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(2)} \overline{V}}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:idEst:4}
\nrm{\delta \overline{V}}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} (\delta \overline{V})}_{L^{3}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(2)} (\delta \overline{V})}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}}.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
The same estimates with $\overline{V}$ and $\delta \overline{V}$ replaced by $\overline{V}^{-1}$ and $\delta \overline{V}^{-1}$, respectively, also hold.
\end{bigTheorem}
\begin{bigTheorem}[Estimates for $t$-evolution in the caloric-temporal gauge] \label{thm:dynEst}
Let $0 < T \leq 1$, and $A_{{\bf a}}$ a regular solution to the hyperbolic-parabolic Yang-Mills system \eqref{eq:HPYM} on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ in the caloric-temporal gauge. Then there exists $\delta_{H} >0$ such that if
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dynEst:hypothesis}
\mathcal{I} < \delta_{H},
\end{equation}
then the following estimate holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dynEst:0}
\sup_{0 \leq s \leq 1} \nrm{\partial_{t,x} A_{i}(s)}_{C_{t}((-T, T), L^{2}_{x})}
+ \mathcal{A}_{0}(-T, T)
\leq C \mathcal{I}.
\end{equation}
Also, if $A'_{{\bf a}}$ is an additional solution to \eqref{eq:HPYM} on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ in the caloric-temporal gauge which also satisfies \eqref{eq:dynEst:hypothesis}, then the following estimate for the difference holds as well:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dynEst:2}
\sup_{0 \leq s \leq 1} \nrm{(\partial_{t,x} A_{i} - \partial_{t,x} A'_{i})(s)}_{C_{t}((-T, T), L^{2}_{x})}
+ \delta \mathcal{A}_{0}(-T, T)
\leq C_{\mathcal{I}} \cdot \delta \mathcal{I}.
\end{equation}
\end{bigTheorem}
Our goal is to prove the Main Theorem, assuming Theorems \ref{thm:idEst} and \ref{thm:dynEst}.
\begin{proof} [Proof of the Main Theorem]
In view of Lemma \ref{lem:mainThm:regApprox} (approximation lemma) and the fact that we are aiming to prove the difference estimates \eqref{eq:mainThm:2} and \eqref{eq:mainThm:3}, we will first consider initial data sets $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ which are regular in the sense of Definition \ref{def:reg4id}. Also, for the purpose of stating the estimates for differences, we will consider an additional regular initial data set $(\overline{A}'_{i}, \overline{E}'_{i})$. The corresponding solution will be also marked by a prime. The statements in this proof concerning a solution $A$ should be understood as being applicable to both $A$ and $A'$.
Observe that $\overline{\mathcal{I}}$ does not contain the $L^{3}_{x}$ norm of $\overline{A}$, and has the scaling property.
\begin{equation*}
\overline{\mathcal{I}} \to \lambda^{-1/2} \overline{\mathcal{I}}
\end{equation*}
under the scaling of the Yang-Mills equation \eqref{eq:intro:scaling}. This allows us to treat the `local-in-time, large-data' case on an equal footing as the `unit-time, small-data' case. More precisely, we will assume by scaling that $\overline{\mathcal{I}}$ is sufficiently small, and prove that the solution to the Yang-Mills equation exists on the time interval $(-1, 1)$. Unravelling the scaling at the end, the Main Theorem will follow. We remark that the length of the time interval of existence obtained by this method will be of size $\sim \nrm{(\overline{A}, \overline{E})}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \times L^{2}_{x}}^{-2}$.
Using Theorem \ref{thm:mainThm:H2lwp}, we obtain a unique solution $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ to the hyperbolic Yang-Mills equation \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} under the temporal gauge condition $A^{\dagger}_{0} = 0$. We remark that this solution is \emph{regular} by persistence of regularity. Let us denote by $T_{\star}$ the largest number $T > 0$ such that the solution $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ exists smoothly on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3}$, and furthermore satisfies the following estimates for some $B>0$ and $C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} > 0$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mainThm:pf:0}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{\partial_{t,x} A^{\dagger}_{i}}_{C_{t}((-T, T), L^{2}_{x})} \leq & B \overline{\mathcal{I}}, \\
\nrm{\partial_{t,x} A^{\dagger}_{i} - \partial_{t,x} (A')^{\dagger}_{i}}_{C_{t}((-T, T), L^{2}_{x})} \leq & C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}}, \\
\nrm{A^{\dagger}_{i} - (A')^{\dagger}_{i}}_{C_{t}((-T, T), L^{3}_{x})} \leq & C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}, \nrm{\overline{A}}_{L^{3}_{x}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}} + C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \nrm{\overline{A} - \overline{A}'}_{L^{3}_{x}}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
The goal is to show that $T_{\star} \geq 1$, provided that $\overline{\mathcal{I}} > 0$ is small enough.
We will proceed by a bootstrap argument. In view of the continuity of the norms involved, the inequalities \eqref{eq:mainThm:pf:0} are satisfied for $T > 0$ sufficiently small if $B \geq 2$ and $C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \geq 2$, say. Next, we claim that if we assume
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mainThm:pf:1}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{\partial_{t,x} A^{\dagger}_{i}}_{C_{t}((-T, T), L^{2}_{x})} \leq & 2B \overline{\mathcal{I}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
then we can recover \eqref{eq:mainThm:pf:0} by assuming $\overline{\mathcal{I}}$ to be small enough and $T \leq 1$.
Assuming the claim holds, let us first complete the proof of the Main Theorem. Indeed, suppose that \eqref{eq:mainThm:pf:0} holds for some $0 \leq T < 1$. Applying the difference estimate in \eqref{eq:mainThm:pf:0} to infinitesimal translations of $\overline{A}, \overline{E}$ and using the translation invariance of the Yang-Mills equation, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\partial_{x} \partial_{t,x} A^{\dagger}_{i}}_{C_{t}((-T, T), L^{2}_{x})} < \infty.
\end{equation*}
This, in turn, allows us to apply Theorem \ref{thm:mainThm:H2lwp} ($H^{2}$ local well-posedness) to ensure that the solution $A^{\dagger}_{i}$ extends uniquely as a regular solution to a larger time interval $(-T-\epsilon, T+\epsilon)$ for some $\epsilon > 0$. Taking $\epsilon > 0$ smaller if necessary, we can also ensure that the bootstrap assumption \eqref{eq:mainThm:pf:1} holds and $T + \epsilon \leq 1$. This, along with the claim, allows us to set up a continuity argument to show that a regular solution $A^{\dagger}_{i}$ exists uniquely on the time interval $(-1, 1)$ and furthermore satisfies \eqref{eq:mainThm:pf:0} with $T =1$. From \eqref{eq:mainThm:pf:0}, the estimates \eqref{eq:mainThm:0} - \eqref{eq:mainThm:3} follow immediately, for regular initial data sets. Then by Lemma \ref{lem:mainThm:regApprox} and the difference estimates \eqref{eq:mainThm:2} and \eqref{eq:mainThm:3}, these results are extended to admissible initial data sets and solutions, which completes the proof of the Main Theorem\footnote{We remark that Part (3) of the Main Theorem follows from the persistence of regularity statement in Theorem \ref{thm:mainThm:H2lwp}.}.
Let us now prove the claim. Assuming $2 B \overline{\mathcal{I}} < \delta_{P}$, we can apply Theorem \ref{thm:idEst}. This provides us with a regular gauge transform $V$ and a regular solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} satisfying the caloric-temporal gauge condition, along with the following estimates at $t=0$:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{\overline{V}}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} \overline{V}}_{L^{3}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}}, \quad
\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(2)} \overline{V}}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}, \\
\mathcal{I} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}, \quad
\nrm{\underline{A}_{i}(t=0)}_{L^{3}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}} + \nrm{\overline{A}}_{L^{3}_{x}}.
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
The same estimates as the first two hold with $\overline{V}$ replaced by $\overline{V}^{-1}$. We remark that all the constants stated above are independent of $B > 0$. Applying Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst} with $\overline{\mathcal{I}}$ small enough (so that $\mathcal{I} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}$ is also small), we have
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{0 \leq s \leq 1} \nrm{\partial_{t,x} A_{i}(s)}_{C_{t}((-T, T), L^{2}_{x})} + \mathcal{A}_{0}(-T, T)
\leq C \mathcal{I} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}.
\end{equation*}
Note that $V$ is a solution to the ODE \eqref{eq:est4gt2temporal:0}, which is unique by the standard ODE theory. Furthermore, in view of the estimates we have for $\mathcal{A}_{0}(-T, T)$ and $\overline{V}$ in terms of $\overline{\mathcal{I}}$, we may invoke Lemma \ref{lem:est4gt2temporal} to estimate the gauge transform $V$ in terms of $\overline{\mathcal{I}}$. The same procedure can be used to obtain estimates for $V^{-1}$ in terms of $\overline{\mathcal{I}}$. Then using the previous bound for $\partial_{t,x} A_{i}(s=0)$ and the gauge transform formula
\begin{equation*}
A^{\dagger}_{i} = V^{-1} A_{i}(s=0) V - \partial_{i} (V^{-1}) V,
\end{equation*}
we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\partial_{t,x} A^{\dagger}_{i}}_{C_{t}((-T, T), L^{2}_{x})} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}.
\end{equation*}
Applying Lemma \ref{lem:est4L3nrm} and the initial data estimate for the $L^{3}_{x}$ norm of $\underline{A}_{i}$, we also obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{A^{\dagger}_{i}}_{C_{t}((-T, T), L^{3}_{x})} < C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}} + C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \nrm{\overline{A}}_{L^{3}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
Furthermore, applying a similar procedure to the difference, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\partial_{t,x} A^{\dagger}_{i} - \partial_{t,x} (A')^{\dagger}_{i}}_{C_{t}((-T, T), L^{2}_{x})} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \delta\overline{\mathcal{I}},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{A^{\dagger}_{i} - (A')^{\dagger}_{i}}_{C_{t}((-T, T), L^{3}_{x})} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}, \nrm{\overline{A}}_{L^{3}_{x}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}} + C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \nrm{\overline{A} - \overline{A}'}_{L^{3}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, taking $B > 0$ sufficiently large (while keeping $2 B \overline{\mathcal{I}} < \delta_{P}$), we recover \eqref{eq:mainThm:pf:0}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
The rest of this paper will be devoted to proofs of Theorems \ref{thm:idEst} and \ref{thm:dynEst}.
\section{Analysis of the covariant Yang-Mills heat flow} \label{sec:covYMHF}
In this section, which serves as a preliminary to the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:idEst} to be given in Section \ref{sec:pfOfIdEst}, we will study the \emph{covariant Yang-Mills heat flow} \eqref{eq:cYMHF}, i.e.
\begin{equation*}
F_{si} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i},
\end{equation*}
which is the spatial part of \eqref{eq:dYMHF}.
The original Yang-Mills heat flow \eqref{eq:YMHF} corresponds to the special case $A_{s} = 0$. Compared to \eqref{eq:YMHF}, which is covariant only under gauge transforms independent of $s$, the group of gauge transforms for \eqref{eq:cYMHF} is enlarged to those which may depend on $s$; at the level of the equation, this amounts to the extra freedom of choosing $A_{s}$. In \S \ref{subsec:covYMHF}, we will see that this additional gauge freedom may be used in our favor to obtain a genuinely (semi-linear) parabolic system of equations. Being parabolic, this system possesses a smoothing property, which lies at the heart of our proof of Theorem \ref{thm:idEst} in Section \ref{sec:pfOfIdEst}. The system is connected to \eqref{eq:YMHF} by a gauge transform $U$ solving a certain ODE, for which we will derive various estimates in \S \ref{subsec:covYMHFgt}. In \S \ref{subsec:covYMHFtech}, we will analyze a covariant parabolic equation satisfied by $B_{i} = F_{\nu i}$ for $\nu = 0,1,2,3$. As a byproduct of the results in \S \ref{subsec:covYMHF} - \ref{subsec:covYMHFtech}, we will obtain a proof of the following local existence result for \eqref{eq:YMHF} in \S \ref{subsec:pfOfLwp4YMHF}, which is different from the original one given by \cite{Rade:1992tu}.
\begin{bigTheorem}[Local existence for \eqref{eq:YMHF} with $\dot{H}^{1}_{x}$ initial data
\footnote{In order to complete this theorem to a full local well-posedness result, we need to supplement it with a uniqueness statement. We omit such a statement here, as it will not be needed in the sequel. We refer the interested reader to \cite{Oh:2012fk}, where a proof of uniqueness in the class of regular solutions will be given.}
] \label{thm:lwp4YMHF}
Consider the initial value problem (IVP) for \eqref{eq:YMHF} with initial data $\overline{A}_{i} \in \dot{H}^{1}_{x}$ at $s=0$. Then the following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists a number $s^{\star} = s^{\star} (\nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}) > 0$, which is non-increasing in $\nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}$, such that there exists a solution $A_{i} \in C_{s} ([0,s^{\star}], \dot{H}^{1}_{x})$ to the IVP satisfying
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lwp4YMHF:1}
\sup_{s \in [0,s^{\star}]} \nrm{A(s)}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
\item Let $\overline{A}'_{i} \in \dot{H}^{1}_{x}$ be another initial data set such that $\nrm{\overline{A}'}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \leq \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}$, and $A'$ the corresponding solution to the IVP on $[0, s^{\star}]$ given in (1). Then the following estimate for the difference $\delta A := A - A'$ holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lwp4YMHF:2}
\sup_{s \in [0,s^{\star}]} \nrm{\partial_{x}( \delta A) (s)}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\delta \overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
\item If $\overline{A}_{i}$ is smooth and $\partial_{x} \overline{A}_{i}$, $\overline{F}_{ij} := \partial_{i} \overline{A}_{j} -\partial_{j} \overline{A}_{i} + \LieBr{\overline{A}_{i}}{\overline{A}_{j}}$ are regular, then the solution $A_{i} = A_{i}(x,s)$ given in (1) is smooth and $\partial_{x} A_{i}$, $F_{ij}$ are regular on $[0,s^{\star}]$. Furthermore, if $\overline{A}_{i}(t)$ ($t \in I$) is a one parameter family of initial data such that $\partial_{t,x} \overline{A}_{i}$, $\overline{F}_{ij}$ are regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$, then $A_{i} = A_{i}(t,x,s)$ is smooth and $\partial_{t,x} A_{i}$, $F_{ij}$ are regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0, s^{\star}]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{bigTheorem}
This theorem itself is not needed for the rest of this paper, but will be used in \cite{Oh:2012fk}.
\subsection{Estimates for covariant Yang-Mills heat flow in the DeTurck gauge} \label{subsec:covYMHF}
Here, we will study \eqref{eq:cYMHF} in the DeTurck gauge $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$, which makes \eqref{eq:cYMHF} a system of (semi-linear) strictly parabolic equations for $A_{i}$. Some parts of the standard theory for semi-linear parabolic equations, such as local-wellposedness and smoothing, will be sketched for later use.
Let us begin by deriving the system of equations that we will study. Writing out \eqref{eq:cYMHF} in terms of $A_{i}, A_{s}$, we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{eq:YMHF4A:general}
\partial_s A_i = \triangle A_i + 2 \LieBr{A^\ell}{\partial_\ell A_i} - \LieBr{A^\ell}{\partial_i A_\ell} + \LieBr{A^\ell}{\LieBr{A_\ell}{A_i}} + \partial_i (A_s - \partial^\ell A_\ell) + \LieBr{A_i}{A_s - \partial^\ell A_\ell}.
\end{equation}
Then using the DeTurck gauge condition $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$, we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{eq:YMHF4A:deT1}
\partial_s A_i - \triangle A_i = 2 \LieBr{A^\ell}{\partial_\ell A_i} - \LieBr{A^\ell}{\partial_i A_\ell} + \LieBr{A^\ell}{\LieBr{A_\ell}{A_i}},
\end{equation}
The study of this system, which is now strictly parabolic, will be the main subject of this subsection. For convenience, let us denote the right-hand side of the above equation by ${}^{(A_{i})} \mathcal{N}$, so that $(\partial_{s} - \triangle)A_{i} = {}^{(A_{i})} \mathcal{N}$. Note that schematically,
\begin{equation*}
{}^{(A_{i})} \mathcal{N} = \mathcal{O}(A, \partial_{x} A) + \mathcal{O}(A, A, A).
\end{equation*}
We will study the initial value problem for \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:deT1} with the initial data $A_{i}(s=0) = \overline{A}_{i}$. We will also consider the difference of two nearby solutions. Given solutions $A, A'$ to \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:deT1} with initial data $\overline{A}, \overline{A}'$ respectively, we will denote the difference between the solutions and the initial data by $\delta A_{i} := A_{i} - A'_{i}$ and $\delta \overline{A}_{i} = \overline{A}_{i} - \overline{A}'_{i}$, respectively.
Our first result is the local well-posedness for initial data $\overline{A}_{i} \in \dot{H}^{1}_{x}$. We refer the reader back to \S \ref{subsec:prelim:absPth} for the definition of $\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{m}_{x}$.
\begin{proposition}[$\dot{H}^{1}_{x}$ local well-posedness of \eqref{eq:cYMHF} in the DeTurck gauge] \label{prop:YMHF4A:lwp4deT}
The following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists a number $\delta_{P} > 0$ such that for any initial data $\overline{A}_{i} \in \dot{H}^{1}_{x}$ with
\begin{equation} \label{eq:YMHF4A:lwp4deT:hypothesis}
\nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}} \leq \delta_{P},
\end{equation}
there exists a unique solution $A_{i} = A_{i}(x,s) \in C_{s}([0,1], \dot{H}^{1}_{x}) \cap \mathcal{L}^{2}_{s} ((0,1], \dot{H}^{2}_{x})$ to the equation \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:deT1} on $s \in [0,1]$, which satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{eq:YMHF4A:lwp4deT:est4A}
\nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{2}_{x}(0,1]} \leq C \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
\item For $A_{i}, A'_{i}$ solutions to \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:deT1} with initial data $\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{A}'_{i}$ satisfying \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:lwp4deT:hypothesis} given by (1), respectively, the following estimate hold for the difference $\delta A_{i}$
\begin{equation} \label{eq:YMHF4A:lwp4deT:est4dltA}
\nrm{\partial_{x} (\delta A)}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{2}_{x}(0,1]} \leq C_{\nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}, \nrm{\overline{A}'}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}} \nrm{\delta \overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
\item We have \emph{persistence of regularity} and \emph{smooth dependence on the initial data}. In particular, let $\overline{A}_{i}(t)$ ($t \in I$ for some open interval $I$) be a one parameter family of initial data such that $\partial_{t,x} \overline{A}_{i}$ is regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$. Then the solution $A_{i}$ given by (1) is smooth and $\partial_{t, x} A_{i}$ is regular.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This is a standard result. We will only present the proof of the {\it a priori} estimate \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:lwp4deT:est4A}, which means that we will assume the existence of a solution $A_{i}$ to \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:deT1} with initial data $\overline{A}_{i}$, which we may assume furthermore to be smooth and $\partial_{x} A_{i}$ is regular. As usual, a small variant of the arguments for the proof of the {\it a priori} estimate leads to estimates needed to run a Picard iteration argument (in a subset of a suitable Banach space), from which existence and uniqueness follows. Similar arguments applied to the equation for the difference $\delta A_{i}$ and the differentiated equation for $\partial_{x}^{(m)} A_{i}$ will prove \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:lwp4deT:est4dltA} and persistence of regularity, respectively. For a parametrized family of data, differentiation with respect to the parameter yields smooth dependence on the initial data. We will leave these standard details to the interested reader.
In order to derive the {\it a priori} estimate for $\partial_{x} A_{i}$, let us differentiate the equation. We then obtain
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{s} (\partial_{x} A_{i}) - \triangle (\partial_{x} A_{i}) = s^{-1} \nabla_{x} \mathcal{O}(A, \nabla_{x} A) + s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(A, A, \nabla_{x} A) =: {}^{(\partial_{x} A_{i})} \mathcal{N}.
\end{equation*}
Let us work on a subinterval $(0, \underline{s}] \subset (0,1)$, assuming the bootstrap assumption $\nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{2}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]} \leq 10 \epsilon$, where $\epsilon = \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}$ is the size of the initial data. As $\partial_{x} A$ is regular, we have
\begin{equation*}
\limsup_{\underline{s} \to 0} \nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{2}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]}
= \limsup_{\underline{s} \to 0} \nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]} = \nrm{\partial_{x} \overline{A}}_{L^{2}_{x}},
\end{equation*}
so the assumption holds for $\underline{s} > 0$ small enough.
Note the obvious inequalities
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\partial_{x} (\phi_{1} \partial_{x} \phi_{2})}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{H}^{3/2}_{x} \cap L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{2}_{x}}, \quad
\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2} \partial_{x} \phi_{3}}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{3}}_{\dot{H}^{2}_{x}},
\end{equation*}
which follow from H\"older and Sobolev. Using the Correspondence Principle, H\"older for $\mathcal{L}^{\ell, p}_{s}$ (Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}) and Gagliardo-Nirenberg (Lemma \ref{lem:absP:algEst}), we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{eq:YMHF4A:lwp4deT:pf:1}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{s^{-1} \nabla_{x} \mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \nabla_{x} \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4+1,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}
= & \nrm{\nabla_{x} \mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \nabla_{x} \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} \\
\leq & C \nrm{\psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} (\dot{\mathcal{H}}^{3/2}_{x} \cap \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x})} \nrm{\psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{2}_{x}} \\
\leq & C \nrm{\partial_{x} \psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}^{1/2} \nrm{\partial_{x} \psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}}^{1/2} \nrm{\partial_{x} \psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:YMHF4A:lwp4deT:pf:2}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2}, \nabla_{x} \psi_{3})}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4+1,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}
= & \nrm{\mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2}, \nabla_{x} \psi_{3})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} \\
\leq & C \nrm{\psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{\psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{\psi_{3}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{2}_{x} } \\
\leq & C \nrm{\partial_{x} \psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} \nrm{\partial_{x} \psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} \nrm{\partial_{x} \psi_{3}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x} },
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
for both $p=1,2$. Applying these inequalities with $\psi_{j} = A$, note that each factor on the right-hand sides of the above two inequalities is controlled by $\nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{2}_{x}}$. Using the bootstrap assumption, we have for $p=1,2$
\begin{equation} \label{eq:YMHF4A:lwp4deT:pf:3}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(\partial_{x} A_{i})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4+1,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]} \leq C (\epsilon + \epsilon^{2}) \nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{2}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]}.
\end{equation}
Taking $\epsilon > 0$ small enough and applying Theorem \ref{thm:absP:absPth}, we beat the bootstrap assumption, i.e. $\nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{2}_{x}} \leq 5 \epsilon$. By a standard bootstrap argument, we conclude that \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:lwp4deT:est4A} holds on $[0,1]$. \qedhere
\end{proof}
An important property of the parabolic PDE is that it is \emph{infinitely} and \emph{immediately smoothing}. Quantitavely, this means that smoother norms of the solution $A$ becomes controllable for $s > 0$ in terms of a rougher norm of the initial data $\overline{A}$. We will see many manifestations of this property throughout the paper. Here, we give a version of the infinite, immediate smoothing for the solutions to the equation \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:deT1}.
\begin{proposition}[Smoothing estimates] \label{prop:YMHF4A:smth4deT}
Let $\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{A}'_{i}$ be $\dot{H}^{1}_{x}$ initial data satisfying \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:lwp4deT:hypothesis}, and $A_{i}, A'_{i}$ the corresponding unique solutions to \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:deT1} given by Proposition \ref{prop:YMHF4A:lwp4deT}, respectively.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For integers $m \geq 1$, the following estimate for $A_{i}$ (and of course also for $A'_{i}$) holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:YMHF4A:smth4A}
\nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m+2}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{m, \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}} \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
\item Furthermore, for integers $m \geq 1$, the following estimate for the difference also holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:YMHF4A:smth4dltA}
\nrm{\partial_{x} (\delta A)}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m+2}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{m, \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}, \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}} \nrm{\delta \overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We now work on the whole interval $s \in (0, 1]$. We will prove only the non-difference estimate \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:smth4A}, as the difference analogue \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:smth4dltA} can be proved in a similar manner.
By approximation, it suffices to consider $A_{i}$ such that $\partial_{x} A_{i}$ is regular. Using Leibniz's rule and the estimates \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:lwp4deT:pf:1}, \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:lwp4deT:pf:2}, for $m \geq 1$, we immediately obtain
\begin{align*}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(\partial_{x} A_{i})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4+1}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m}_{x}}
\leq & C \nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m}_{x}}^{1/2} \nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m+1}_{x}}^{1/2} \nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}} \\
&+ C \nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{m}_{x}} \nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{m+1}_{x}}
+ C \nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{m}_{x}}^{2} \nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{m+1}_{x}}.
\end{align*}
The second and third term on the right hand side can be controlled by $C \nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{m+1}_{x}}^{2}$ and $C \nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{m+1}_{x}}^{3}$, respectively. On the other hand, the first term is problematic as $\nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m+1}_{x}}$ is not controlled by $\nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{m+1}_{x}}$. In this case, we apply Cauchy-Schwarz and estimate it by
\begin{equation*}
\epsilon^{-1} C \nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{m+1}_{x}}^{3} + \epsilon \nrm{\partial_{x} A}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m+2}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, we obtain \eqref{eq:absP:smth:1} for all $m \geq 1$ with $\psi = \partial_{x} A$, $X=L^{2}_{x}$, $\ell = 3/4$ and $\mathcal{B}_{m}(r) = C r^{2} + C r^{3}$. Applying the second part of Theorem \ref{thm:absP:absPth}, the smoothing estimate \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:smth4A} easily follows.
\end{proof}
The following statement is crucial for estimating the gauge transform into the caloric gauge $A_s =0$. It is a corollary of the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:YMHF4A:lwp4deT}.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:YMHF4A:bnd4lapAs}
Let $\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{A}'_{i}$ be $\dot{H}^{1}_{x}$ initial data satisfying \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:lwp4deT:hypothesis}, and $A_{i}, A'_{i}$ the corresponding unique solutions to \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:deT1} given by Proposition \ref{prop:YMHF4A:lwp4deT}, respectively. Consider also $A_{s}, A'_{s}$ given by the equations
\begin{equation*}
A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}, \qquad A_{s}' = \partial^{\ell} A'_{\ell}.
\end{equation*}
Then the following estimate holds for $\triangle A_{s}$.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:YMHF4A:bnd4lapAs}
\sup_{0 < s \leq 1} \nrm{\int_s^1 \triangle A_s (s') \mathrm{d} s'}_{L^2_x} \leq C_{\nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}} \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the following estimate holds for $\triangle (\delta A_{s})$.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:YMHF4A:bnd4lapDltAs}
\sup_{0 < s \leq 1} \nrm{\int_s^1 \triangle (\delta A_s )(s') \mathrm{d} s'}_{L^2_x} \leq C_{\nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}, \nrm{\overline{A}'}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}} \nrm{\delta \overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}},
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Here, we will only give a proof of \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:bnd4lapAs}, the proof of \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:bnd4lapDltAs} being similar. Again it suffices to consider $A_{i}$ such that $\partial_{x} A_{i}$ (and therefore $A_{s}$ also) is regular.
Taking $\partial^\ell$ of the equations $\partial_s A_\ell - \triangle A_\ell = {}^{(A_{\ell})} \mathcal{N}$, we get a parabolic equation for $A_s$ of the form $\partial_s A_s - \triangle A_s = \sum_{\ell} \partial_{\ell} {}^{(A_{\ell})} \mathcal{N}$. Integrating this equation from $s$ to $1$, we obtain the following identity.
\begin{equation*}
\int_s^1 \triangle A_s (s') \mathrm{d} s' = A_s (1) - A_s (s) - \sum_{\ell} \int_s^1 \partial_{\ell} {}^{(A_{\ell})} \mathcal{N} (s') \mathrm{d} s'.
\end{equation*}
Let us take the $L^{2}_{x}$ norm of both sides and take the supremum over $s \in (0,1]$. The first two terms on the right-hand side are acceptable, in view of the fact that $A_{s} = \mathcal{O}(\partial_{x} A)$. Using Minkowski, it is not difficult to see that in order to estimate the contribution of the last term, it suffices to establish
\begin{equation} \label{eq:bnd4Ns}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(\partial_{x} A_{i})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4+1,1}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}(0,1]} \leq C_{\nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}} \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
This immediately follows by combining \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:lwp4deT:est4A} with \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:lwp4deT:pf:3}, recalling that $\epsilon = \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}$. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\subsection{Estimates for gauge transform to the caloric gauge $A_{s} = 0$} \label{subsec:covYMHFgt}
In the previous subsection, we analyzed \eqref{eq:cYMHF} under the DeTurck gauge condition $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$, which led to a nice system of semi-linear parabolic equations. In this subsection, we present estimates for gauge transforms for the solution to \eqref{eq:cYMHF} in the DeTurck gauge into the caloric gauge $A_{s}= 0$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:est4gt2caloric}
Fix $s_{0} \in [0,1]$. Let $\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{A}'_{i}$ be $\dot{H}^{1}_{x}$ initial data sets satisfying \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:lwp4deT:hypothesis}, and $A_{i}, A'_{i}$ the corresponding unique solutions to \eqref{eq:cYMHF} in the DeTurck gauge given by Proposition \ref{prop:YMHF4A:lwp4deT}, respectively. Let us consider the following ODE on $\mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$.
\begin{equation*}
\left \{
\begin{aligned}
\partial_{s} U &= U A_{s} \\
U(s=s_{0}) &= \mathrm{Id},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
where we remind the reader that $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$. Then the following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists a unique solution $U$ such that $U(x,s) \in \mathfrak{G}$ for all $s \in [0,1]$, and $U$ obeys the following estimates for $m=2$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:est4gt2caloric:U:1}
\nrm{U}_{L^{\infty}_{s} L^{\infty}_{x} [0,1]}
\leq C_{\nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}}, \quad
\nrm{\partial_{x} U}_{L^{\infty}_{s} L^{3}_{x} [0,1]}
\leq C_{\nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}} \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:est4gt2caloric:U:2}
\nrm{s^{(m-2)/2} \partial_{x}^{(m)} U}_{L^{\infty}_{s} L^{2}_{x}[0,1]}
\leq C_{m, \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}} \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
\item Let $U'$ be the solution to the same ODE with $A_{s}$ replaced by $A'_{s}$, which possesses the identical initial data $U'(s=1) = \mathrm{Id}$. The difference $\delta U := U - U'$ satisfies the following estimates for $m=2$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:est4gt2caloric:dltU:1}
\nrm{\delta U}_{L^{\infty}_{s} L^{\infty}_{x} [0,1]} + \nrm{\partial_{x} (\delta U)}_{L^{\infty}_{s} L^{3}_{x} [0,1]}
\leq C_{\nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}} \nrm{\delta \overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:est4gt2caloric:dltU:2}
\nrm{s^{(m-2)/2} \partial_{x}^{(m)} (\delta U)}_{L^{\infty}_{s} L^{2}_{x}[0,1]}
\leq C_{m, \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}} \nrm{\delta \overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
\item Furthermore, if $s_{0} = 1$, then \eqref{eq:est4gt2caloric:U:2} and \eqref{eq:est4gt2caloric:dltU:2} hold for all integers $m \geq 3$ as well.
\footnote{In fact, an inspection of the proof in Appendix \ref{sec:gt} shows that one only needs the assumption $s_{0} > 0$.}
\item Finally, all of the above statements with $U$, $\delta U$ replaced by $U^{-1}$, $\delta U^{-1}$, respectively, also hold.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
We defer the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:est4gt2caloric} to Appendix \ref{sec:gt}.
\begin{remark}
We remark that Lemma \ref{lem:est4gt2caloric} will be for us an analogue of Uhlenbeck's lemma\footnote{Which states, roughly speaking, that there exists a gauge transform (with good regularity properties) which transforms a given connection 1-form $A_{i}$ into the Coulomb gauge, provided that the $L^{3/2}_{x}$ norm of $F_{ij}$ is small.} \cite{Uhlenbeck:1982vna}, on which the work \cite{Klainerman:1995hz} crucially rely, in the following sense:
Heuristically, an application of this lemma with $s_{0} = 1$, combined with the smoothing estimates of Proposition \ref{prop:YMHF4A:smth4deT}, amounts to transforming a given initial data set to another whose curl-free part is `smoother'. On the other hand, Uhlenbeck's lemma sets the curl-free part to be exactly zero.
In the simpler case of an abelian gauge gauge theory (i.e. Maxwell's equations), this heuristic can be demonstrated in a more concrete manner as follows: In this case, the connection component $A_s$ will exist all the way to $s \to \infty$, and will converge to zero in a suitable sense. Note furthermore that $\partial^{\ell} F_{s\ell} = \partial_{s} (\partial^{\ell }A_{\ell}) - \triangle A_{s} = 0$. Therefore, this lemma, if applied with `$s_{0}=\infty$', transforms the initial data to one such that the curl-free part is zero, i.e. one satisfying the Coulomb gauge condition.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Linear covariant parabolic equation for $F_{0i}$} \label{subsec:covYMHFtech}
In this subsection, we will prove a technical well-posedness proposition for a certain covariant parabolic equation, which is satisfied by $B_{i} = F_{\nu i}$. (See Appendix \ref{sec:HPYM})
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:linCovHeat}
Fix $m \geq 2$, and let $A_{i}, A_{s}$ be smooth connection coefficients such that $\partial_{x} A_{i}, A_{s}$ are regular on $\mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$.
Consider the following initial value problem for the linear parabolic equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:linCovHeat:ivp}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
{\bf D}_{s} B_{i} - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell} B_{i} =& 2 \LieBr{F_{i\ell}}{B^{\ell}}, \\
B_{i}(s=0) =& \overline{B}_{i},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where the initial data $\overline{B}_{i}$ is regular. Then the following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists a unique regular solution $B_{i} = B_{i}(x, s)$ on $[0, 1]$ to the problem \eqref{eq:linCovHeat:ivp}.
\item Assume furthermore that we have the following bounds for $A_{i}$ and $A_{s}$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:linCovHeat:hypothesis}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\nabla_{x} A_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{m-1}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{A_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{m-1}_{x} (0,1]} \leq \mathcal{C} < \infty.
\end{equation}
Then the solution $B_{i}$ obtained in (1) satisfies the following estimate.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:linCovHeat:est4B}
\sup_{i} \nrm{B_{i}}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}_{x}^{m}(0, 1]} \leq C_{\mathcal{C}} \sup_{i} \nrm{\overline{B}_{i}}_{L^{2}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
\item Let $A_{i} = A_{i}(t,x,s)$, $A_{s} = A_{s} (t,x,s)$ be a family of coefficients, parametrized by $t \in I$, such that $A_{i}$ is smooth and $\partial_{x} A_{i}, A_{s}$ are regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$. Consider the corresponding one parameter family of IVPs \eqref{eq:linCovHeat:ivp}, where the initial data sets $\overline{B}_{i}(t)$ are also parametrized by $t \in I$, in such a way that $\overline{B}_{i} = \overline{B}_{i}(t,x)$ is regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$.
Then the solution $B_{i} = B_{i}(t, x, s)$ on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ (obtained by applying (1) to each $t$) is regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
As in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:YMHF4A:lwp4deT}, we will present only the proof of the estimate \eqref{eq:linCovHeat:est4B} of Part (2) under the assumption that a regular solution $B$ already exists. The actual existence, uniqueness, persistence of regularity and stability required to justify Parts (1), (3) follow from a standard Picard iteration argument, which can be set up by a slightly modifying of the argument below. We leave the details of the procedure to the interested reader.
Let us begin by rewriting the equation \eqref{eq:linCovHeat:ivp} so that it is manifestly a semi-linear equation for the vector-valued unknown $B$:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_{s} B_{i} - \triangle B_{i}
= & 2 \LieBr{A^{\ell}}{\partial_{\ell} B_{i}} + \LieBr{\partial^{\ell} A_{\ell} - A_{s}}{B_{i}} + \LieBr{A^{\ell}}{\LieBr{A_{\ell}}{B_{i}}} + 2 \LieBr{F_{i\ell}}{B^{\ell}} \\
= & s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(A, \nabla_{x} B) + s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(\nabla_{x} A, B) + \mathcal{O}(A_{s}, B) + \mathcal{O}(A, A, B).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Note the following inequalities, which follow easily from H\"older and Sobolev.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:linCovHeat:pf:0}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{\phi_{1} \partial_{x} \phi_{2}}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} \phi_{1} \phi_{2}}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{H}^{3/2}_{x} \cap L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}, \\
& \nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2}}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}, \quad
\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2} \phi_{3}}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{3}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
Fix $(0, \underline{s}] \subset (0, 1]$. Applying the Correspondence Principle, H\"older for $\mathcal{L}^{\ell, p}_{s}$ (Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}), Gagliardo-Nirenberg (Lemma \ref{lem:absP:algEst}) and interpolation, we obtain the following set of inequalities on $(0, \underline{s}]$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:linCovHeat:pf:1}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\nrm{s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \nabla_{x} \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4+1,q}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}
+\nrm{s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(\nabla_{x} \psi_{1}, \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4+1,q}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} \\
& \qquad \leq C \nrm{\nabla_{x} \psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{s^{1/4-\epsilon'} \, \psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}},\\
&\nrm{\mathcal{O}(\psi_{0}, \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4+1,q}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}
\leq C \nrm{\psi_{0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{s^{1/4-\epsilon'} \, \psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}}, \\
& \nrm{\mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2}, \psi_{3})}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4+1,q}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}
\leq C \nrm{\psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{s^{1/4-\epsilon'} \ \psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{\psi_{3}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $1 \leq q \leq 2$ and $\epsilon' > 0$ is small enough. Using \eqref{eq:linCovHeat:pf:1} with $q=1,2$, $\psi_{0} = A_{s}$, $\psi_{1} = A$, $\psi_{2} = B$, and $\psi_{3} = A$, we obtain \eqref{eq:absP:apriori:1} with $\psi = B$, $X=L^{2}_{x}$, $\ell = 3/4$, $\epsilon = D = 0$, $p=2$ and $C(s) = C (\mathcal{C} + \mathcal{C}^{2}) s^{1/4-\epsilon'}$. Since $\nrm{B}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{m}_{x}} < \infty$ (as $B$ is regular) and $C(s)^{2}$ is integrable on $(0, 1]$, we can apply the first part of Theorem \ref{thm:absP:absPth} to conclude that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{i} \nrm{B_{i}}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{2}_{x}(0, 1]} \leq C_{\mathcal{C}} \sup_{i} \nrm{\overline{B}_{i}}_{L^{2}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
Finally, in the case $m \geq 3$, let us prove the smoothing estimate \eqref{eq:linCovHeat:est4B}. We use Leibniz's rule and \eqref{eq:linCovHeat:pf:1} with $q=2$ (and ignoring all extra weights of $s$) to estimate $\nrm{(\partial_{s} - \triangle) B_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4+1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}}$ by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
& C (\nrm{\nabla_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}} + \nrm{A_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}} + \nrm{\nabla_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}}^{2}) \nrm{B}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}} \\
& \quad \leq C ( \mathcal{C} + \mathcal{C}^{2}) \nrm{B}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}}.
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
for $0 \leq k \leq m-2$. Using the second part of Theorem \ref{thm:absP:absPth}, \eqref{eq:linCovHeat:est4B} follows. \qedhere
\end{proof}
By almost the same proof, the following slight variant of Proposition \ref{prop:linCovHeat} immediately follows.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:linCovHeat:Diff}
Fix $m \geq 2$, and assume that $(A_{i}, A_{s})$, $(A'_{i}, A_{s}')$ are pairs of smooth connection coefficients such that $\partial_{x} A_{i}, \partial_{x} A'_{i}, A_{s}, A_{s}'$ are regular and \eqref{eq:linCovHeat:hypothesis} are satisfied. Assume furthermore
\begin{equation} \label{eq:linCovHeat:Diff:hypothesis}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\nabla_{x} (\delta A_{i})}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{m-1}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{\delta A_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{m-1}_{x}(0,1]} \leq \delta \mathcal{C} < \infty.
\end{equation}
Consider regular initial data $B_{i}, B'_{i}$ which belongs to $L^{2}_{x}$ and the corresponding solutions $B_{i}, B'_{i}$ on $[0,1]$ to the initial value problems
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
{\bf D}_{s} B_{i} - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell} B_{i} =& 2\LieBr{F_{i\ell}}{B^{\ell}}, \\
B_{i}(s=0) =& \overline{B}_{i},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\hbox{ and }
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
{\bf D}'_{s} B'_{i} - ({\bf D}')^{\ell} {\bf D}'_{\ell} B_{i} =& 2\LieBr{F'_{i\ell}}{B'^{\ell}}, \\
B'_{i}(s=0) =& \overline{B}'_{i},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
given by Proposition \ref{prop:linCovHeat}. The the following estimate holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:linCovHeat:est4dltB}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\delta B_{i}}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{m}_{x}(0,1]} \leq C_{\mathcal{C}, \nrm{\overline{B}}_{L^{2}_{x}}, \nrm{\overline{B}'}_{L^{2}_{x}}} (\sup_{i} \nrm{\delta \overline{B}_{i}}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \delta \mathcal{C}).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YMHF}} \label{subsec:pfOfLwp4YMHF}
Combining the results in \S \ref{subsec:covYMHF} - \ref{subsec:covYMHFtech}, we can give a proof of Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YMHF}. This theorem is needed in \cite{Oh:2012fk}, but not for the rest of this paper, so the reader is free to skip this subsection insofar as only the Main Theorem is concerned.
\begin{proof}
The idea is to first use scaling to make the initial data small, and then solve \eqref{eq:cYMHF} in the DeTurck gauge by the theory we developed in \S \ref{subsec:covYMHF}. Then we will apply Lemma \ref{lem:est4gt2caloric} with $s_{0} = 0$ to obtain a solution to the \eqref{eq:YMHF} (which is \eqref{eq:cYMHF} in the caloric gauge).
We will give a detailed proof of (1) for smooth initial data such that $\partial_{x} \overline{A}_{i}$ is regular; then a similar argument leads to (2) for the same class of initial data, at which point we can recover the full statements of (1) and (2) (for general initial data sets in $\dot{H}^{1}_{x}$) by approximation.
As alluded to earlier, we will assume that $\overline{A}_{i}$ is smooth and $\partial_{x} \overline{A}_{i}$ is regular. Note that \eqref{eq:YMHF} is invariant under the scaling $A(x,s) \to \lambda^{-1} A(x/\lambda, s / \lambda^{2})$; using this scaling, we may enforce $\nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \leq \delta_{P}$. We are then in a position to apply Proposition \ref{prop:YMHF4A:lwp4deT}, from which we obtain a smooth solution $\widetilde{A}_{i} \in C_{t} ([0,1], \dot{H}^{1}_{x})$ to the IVP for \eqref{eq:cYMHF} in the DeTurck gauge, i.e.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lwp4YMHF:pf:0}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\widetilde{F}_{si} = \widetilde{{\bf D}}^{\ell} \widetilde{F}_{\ell i}, \,\, \widetilde{A}_{s} = \partial^{\ell} \widetilde{A}_{\ell} \quad \hbox{ on } \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1], \\
&\widetilde{A}_{i}(s=0) = \overline{A}_{i},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
which, by \eqref{eq:YMHF4A:lwp4deT:est4A}, obeys
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lwp4YMHF:pf:1}
\sup_{s \in [0,1]} \nrm{\widetilde{A}(s)}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
Next, consider a gauge transform $U = U(x,s)$ which solves the ODE
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lwp4YMHF:pf:2}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_{s} U = U \widetilde{A}_{s}, \quad \hbox{ on } \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1] \\
&U(s=0) = \mathrm{Id}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
Note that $U$ is smooth, as $\widetilde{A}_{s}$ is, and furthermore satisfies the following estimates on $\mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ thanks to Lemma \ref{lem:est4gt2caloric} :
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lwp4YMHF:pf:3}
\nrm{U}_{L^{\infty}_{x,s}} \leq C_{\nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}}, \quad
\nrm{\partial_{x} U}_{L^{\infty}_{s} L^{3}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(2)} U}_{L^{\infty}_{s} L^{2}_{x}}
\leq C_{\nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}}\nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
The identical estimates hold with $U$ replaced by $U^{-1}$ as well.
Let $A_{i} := U \widetilde{A}_{i} U^{-1} - \partial_{i} U U^{-1}$ be the connection 1-form obtained by gauge transforming $(\widetilde{A}_{i}, \widetilde{A}_{s})$ by $U$. We remark that $A_{s} = U \widetilde{A}_{s} U^{-1} - \partial_{s} U U^{-1} = 0$ thanks to the above ODE, and therefore $A_{i}$ solves \eqref{eq:YMHF}, whereas $A_{i}(s=0) = \widetilde{A}_{i}(s=0) = \overline{A}_{i}$ as $U(s=0) = \mathrm{Id}$. Therefore, we conclude that $A_{i}$ is a (smooth) solution to the IVP for \eqref{eq:YMHF} with the prescribed initial data. Furthermore, from \eqref{eq:lwp4YMHF:pf:1}, \eqref{eq:lwp4YMHF:pf:3} and the gauge transform formula for $A_{i}$, we see that $A_{i} \in C_{t} ([0,1], \dot{H}^{1}_{x})$ and also that \eqref{eq:lwp4YMHF:pf:1} holds with $\widetilde{A}_{i}$ replaced by $A_{i}$. Scaling back, we obtain (1).
Next, we will sketch the proof of (3). It suffices to consider the case of smoothly parametrized initial data sets $\overline{A}_{i}(t)$ ($t \in I$) such that $\overline{A}_{i}$ is smooth and $\partial_{t, x} \overline{A}_{i}$, $F_{ij}$ are regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$. We may furthermore assume that $I$ is compact, and that $\sup_{t \in I} \nrm{\overline{A}(t)}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \leq \delta_{P}$ by scaling. The aim is to show that the solution $A_{i}$ obtained by applying (1) for each $t$ is smooth and $\partial_{t, x} A_{i}$, $F_{ij}$ are regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$.
By Proposition \ref{prop:YMHF4A:lwp4deT}, it follows that the solution $\widetilde{A}_{i}$ to \eqref{eq:lwp4YMHF:pf:0} (solved for each $t$) is smooth and $\partial_{t,x} \widetilde{A}_{i}$ is regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$. As a consequence, $\widetilde{A}_{s} = \partial^{\ell} \widetilde{A}_{\ell}$ is regular; then it is not difficult to show\footnote{The main idea is to recast the ODE in the integral form, differentiate with respect to $t, x, s$ and apply Gronwall's inequality to deal with the highest order term. See the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:est4gt} for an example of this sort of argument.} that the solution $U$ to \eqref{eq:lwp4YMHF:pf:3} (solved for each $t$) is a regular gauge transform (in the sense of Definition \ref{def:reg4gt}). It follows that $A_{i} = U \widetilde{A}_{i} U^{-1} - \partial_{i} U U^{-1}$ is smooth and $\partial_{t, x} A_{i}$ is regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$, as desired. Next, applying Part (3) of Proposition \ref{prop:linCovHeat} to the equation
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{s} F_{ij} - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell} F_{ij} = - 2 \LieBr{F_{i\ell}}{\tensor{F}{_{j}^{\ell}}},
\end{equation*}
(where $A_{s} = 0$ and $B_{i} = F_{ji} = - F_{ij}$) it follows that $F_{ij}$ is regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ as well.
\qedhere
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The idea of the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YMHF} outlined above is not new, and is in fact nothing but the standard \emph{DeTurck trick} in disguise, first introduced by D. DeTurck \cite{DeTurck:1983ts} for the Ricci flow and introduced in the context of the Yang-Mills heat flow by S. Donaldson in \cite{Donaldson:1985vh}. A similar procedure will be used in the next section in our proof of Theorem \ref{thm:idEst}, but with an extra twist of choosing $s_{0} =1$ instead of $s_{0}=0$ in Lemma \ref{lem:est4gt2caloric}. This allows us to keep the smoothing estimates through the gauge transform back to $A_{s} = 0$ (which is not the case for the original DeTurck trick), at the expense of introducing a non-trivial gauge transform for the initial data at $t=0, s=0$.
\end{remark}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:idEst} : Estimates for the initial data} \label{sec:pfOfIdEst}
The goal of this section is to prove Theorem \ref{thm:idEst}, using the preliminary results established in the previous section.
We begin by giving the precise definitions of $\mathcal{I}$ and $\delta \mathcal{I}$, which had been alluded in Section \ref{sec:mainThm}.
Let $A_{{\bf a}}, A_{{\bf a}}'$ be regular solutions to \eqref{eq:HPYM} (which, we remind the reader, was introduced in \S \ref{subsec:overview}) on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$. We define the norms $\mathcal{I}$ and $\delta \mathcal{I}$ for $F_{si}, \underline{A}_{i}$ at $t=0$ by
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{I} := \sum_{k=1}^{10} \Big[ \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} F_{s}(t=0)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-1}_{x}} + \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} F_{s}(t=0)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-1}_{x}} \Big] + \sum_{k=1}^{31} \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}(t=0)}_{\dot{H}^{k-1}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\delta \mathcal{I} := \sum_{k=1}^{10} \Big[ \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} (\delta F_{s})(t=0)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-1}_{x}} + \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} (\delta F_{s})(t=0)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-1}_{x}} \Big] + \sum_{k=1}^{31} \nrm{\partial_{t,x} (\delta \underline{A})(t=0)}_{\dot{H}^{k-1}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
where we remind the reader the conventions $\nrm{F_{s}} = \sup_{i} \nrm{F_{si}}$ and $\nrm{\underline{A}} = \sup_{i} \nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}$.
\begin{proof} [Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:idEst}]
Throughout the proof, let us use the notation $I = (-T, T)$. The proof will proceed in a number of steps.
\pfstep{Step 1 : Solve \eqref{eq:dYMHF} in the DeTurck gauge}
The first step is to exhibit a regular solution to \eqref{eq:HPYM}, by solving \eqref{eq:dYMHF} under the DeTurck gauge condition $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$.
For the economy of notation, we will denote the solution by $A_{{\bf a}}$ in this proof; however, the reader should keep in mind that it is \emph{not} the $A_{{\bf a}}$ in the statement of the theorem, since we are in a different gauge.
We note the reader that in this step and the next, we will mostly be interested in obtaining \emph{qualitative} statements, such as smoothness of various quantities, etc. These statements will typically depend on smooth norms of $A^{\dagger}_{i}$.
We begin by solving \eqref{eq:cYMHF}, i.e. $F_{si} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i}$ for every $t$, with the initial data $A_{i}(t, s=0) = A^{\dagger}_{i}(t)$.
Let us impose the DeTurck gauge condition $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$. Recall that this makes \eqref{eq:cYMHF} a system of genuine semi-linear heat equations, which can be solved on the unit $s$-interval $[0,1]$ provided that the initial data $A^{\dagger}_{i}$ is small in a suitable sense. Indeed, for $t \in I$, by Proposition \ref{prop:YMHF4A:lwp4deT} and the hypothesis $\nrm{A^{\dagger}(t)}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} < \delta_{P}$, there exists a unique smooth solution $A_{i} (t)= A_{i} (t, s, x)$ to the above system on $0 \leq s \leq 1$. Furthermore, by Part (3) of Proposition \ref{prop:YMHF4A:lwp4deT}, $\partial_{t, x} A_{i}$ and $A_{s}$ are regular.
Our next task is to show that there exists $A_{0}$ which satisfies the remaining equation $F_{s0} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell 0}$ of \eqref{eq:dYMHF}. To begin with, let us solve the linear covariant parabolic equation (with smooth coefficients) :
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
{\bf D}_{s} B_{i} &= {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell} B_{i} + 2 \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{i}^{\ell}}}{B_{\ell}}, \\
B_{i} (t)\vert_{s=0} & = F^{\dagger}_{i0}(t).
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
It is easy to check that the hypotheses of Proposition \ref{prop:linCovHeat} are satisfied, by using the estimates in Proposition \ref{prop:YMHF4A:smth4deT}. Therefore, a unique smooth solution $B_{i}$ to this equation exists on $0 \leq s \leq 1$.
The idea is that $B_{i}$ should be $F_{i0}$ in the end, as it solves exactly the equation that $F_{i0}$ is supposed to solve. With this in mind, let us extend $A_{0}$ by formally setting $F_{s0} = {\bf D}^{\ell} B_{\ell}$, which leads to the ODE
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\partial_{s} A_{0} &= \partial_{0} A_{s} + \LieBr{A_{0}}{A_{s}} + {\bf D}^{\ell} B_{\ell} \\
A_{0} \vert_{s=0} & = 0.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
This is a linear ODE with smooth coefficients, as $A_{s}$ is regular. Therefore, by the standard ODE theory, there exists a unique smooth solution $A_{0}$ on $0 \leq s \leq 1$. Furthermore, in view of the regularity of $A_{s}$, $\partial_{x} A_{i}$ and $B_{i}$, we see that $A_{0}$ is regular. The connection coefficients $A_{i}$, $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$ and $A_{0}$ that we have obtained so far constitutes a candidate for the solution to \eqref{eq:HPYM}.
It now only remains to check that the connection 1-form $A_{{\bf a}}$ is indeed a solution to the equation $F_{s \mu} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell \mu}$, along with the condition $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$. For this purpose, it suffices to verify that $B_{i} = F_{i0}$, where $F_{i0}$ is the curvature 2-form given by
\begin{equation*}
F_{i0} := \partial_{i} A_{0} - \partial_{0} A_{i} + \LieBr{A_{i}}{A_{0}}.
\end{equation*}
From the regularity of $\partial_{t,x} A_{i}$ and $A_{0}$, it follows that $F_{i0}$ is regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$. Then the following lemma shows that $B_{i} = F_{i0}$ indeed holds.
\begin{lemma}
Let $B_{i}, A_{0}$ be defined as above, and define $F_{i0} = \partial_{i} A_{0} - \partial_{0} A_{i} + \LieBr{A_{i}}{A_{0}}$. Then we have $B_{i} = F_{i0}$ on $0 \leq s \leq 1$.
\begin{proof}
Let us begin by computing ${\bf D}_{s} F_{i0}$ :
\begin{align*}
{\bf D}_{s} F_{i0}
&= {\bf D}_{i} F_{s0} - {\bf D}_{0} F_{si} \\
&= {\bf D}_{i} {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell 0} - {\bf D}_{0} {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i} - {\bf D}_{i} {\bf D}^{\ell} (F_{\ell 0} - B_{\ell}) \\
& ={\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell} F_{i0} + 2 \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{i}^{\ell}}}{F_{\ell 0}} - {\bf D}_{i} {\bf D}^{\ell} (F_{\ell 0} - B_{\ell}) .
\end{align*}
Subtracting the equation
\begin{equation*}
{\bf D}_{s} B_{i} = {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell} B_{i} + 2 \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{i}^{\ell}}}{B_{\ell}},
\end{equation*}
from the previous equation, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
{\bf D}_{s} (\delta F_{i0}) = {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell} (\delta F_{i0}) - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{i} (\delta F_{\ell 0}) + 2 \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{i}^{\ell}}}{\delta F_{\ell 0}},
\end{equation*}
where $\delta F_{i0} := F_{i0} - B_{i}$. By construction, note that $\delta F_{i0} = 0$ at $s=0$. Furthermore, $\delta F_{i0}$ is regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$.
To proceed further, let us fix $t \in I$ and $0 \leq s \leq 1$. Taking the bi-invariant inner product of the last equation with $\delta F_{i0}$, summing over $i$, and integrating by parts over $\mathbb R^{3}$, we see that\footnote{In order to justify the integration by parts carried out on the third line, it suffices to note that ${\bf D}_{\ell} \delta F_{i0}, \delta F_{i0} \in L^{2}_{x}$ for every fixed $t \in I$ and $0 \leq s \leq 1$.}
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2} \partial_{s} & \Big( \sum_{i} \int \big( \delta F_{i0}, \delta F_{i0} \big)(s) \, \mathrm{d} x \Big) \\
= &\sum_{i, \ell} \int \big( {\bf D}_{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell} (\delta F_{i0}), \delta F_{i0} \big)(s) - \big( {\bf D}_{\ell} {\bf D}_{i} (\delta F_{\ell 0}), \delta F_{i0} \big)(s) + 2 \big( \LieBr{F_{i\ell}}{\delta F_{\ell 0}}, \delta F_{i 0} \big)(s) \, \mathrm{d} x \\
= & \sum_{i, \ell} \int - \frac{1}{2} ({\bf D}_{\ell} (\delta F_{i0}) - {\bf D}_{i} (\delta F_{\ell 0}), {\bf D}_{\ell} (\delta F_{i0}) - {\bf D}_{i} (\delta F_{\ell 0}) \big)(s) + 2 \big( \LieBr{F_{i\ell}}{\delta F_{\ell 0}}, \delta F_{i 0} \big)(s) \, \mathrm{d} x.
\end{align*}
The first term on the last line has a favorable sign, and can be thrown away. The remaining term is easily bounded by $C \Big( \sup_{i, \ell} \nrm{F_{i \ell}(s)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \Big) \Big( \sum_{i} \int (\delta F_{i0}, \delta F_{i0})(s) \, \mathrm{d} x \Big)$. Since $F_{i \ell}$ is uniformly bounded on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ (as $\partial_{x} A_{i}$ is regular), we may apply Gronwall's inequality and conclude that $ \sum_{i} \int (\delta F_{i0}, \delta F_{i0})(s) \, \mathrm{d} x = 0$ on $0 \leq s \leq 1$. This shows that $\delta F_{i0} = 0$ on $0 \leq s \leq 1$, as desired. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
In sum, we conclude that $A_{{\bf a}}$ is a regular solution to \eqref{eq:HPYM}, which satisfies the DeTurck gauge condition $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$.
\pfstep{Step 2 : Construction of a gauge transform to the caloric-temporal gauge}
In Step 1, we have constructed a regular solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the DeTurck gauge $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$. The next step is to construct a suitable smooth gauge transform $U = U(t,x,s)$ to impose the caloric-temporal gauge condition, i.e. $A_{s} = 0$ and $\underline{A}_{0} = 0$.
We begin by briefly going over the gauge structure of \eqref{eq:HPYM}. As before, the gauge transform corresponding to a smooth $\mathfrak{G}$-valued function $U(t,x,s)$ on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ is given by the formulae
\begin{equation*}
A_{{\bf a}} \to U A_{{\bf a}} U^{-1} - \partial_{{\bf a}} U U^{-1} = : \widetilde{A}_{{\bf a}}, \quad F_{{\bf a} {\bf b}} \to U F_{{\bf a} {\bf b}} U^{-1} = : \widetilde{F}_{{\bf a} {\bf b}}.
\end{equation*}
where ${\bf a} = (t, x, s)$. As a consequence, any gauge transformed connection 1-form $\widetilde{A}_{{\bf a}}$ will still solve \eqref{eq:HPYM}.
From the above discussion, it follows that in order to impose $\widetilde{\underline{A}}_{0} = \widetilde{A}_{0} (s=1)=0$ and $\widetilde{A}_{s} =0$, the gauge transform $U(t,s,x)$ must satisfy
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\partial_{0} U &= U \underline{A}_{0} \hbox{ along $s=1$,} \\
\partial_{s} U &= U A_{s} \hbox{ everywhere}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
We will solve this system by starting from the identity gauge transform at $(t=0, s=1)$. More precisely, let us fix $x \in \mathbb R^{3}$, and first solve the ODE
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\partial_{0} \big( \underline{U}(t) \big) &= \underline{U}(t) \underline{A}_{0}(t), \\
\underline{U}(t=0) &= \mathrm{Id}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
along $I \times \set{s=1}$, where $\underline{A}_{0}(t) := A_{0}(t, s=1)$. Then using these as the initial data, we solve
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\partial_{s} U(t,s) &= U(t,s) A_{s}(t,s), \\
U(t, s=1) &=\underline{U}(t).
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
Since both $A_{0}$ and $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$ are regular, it is clear, again by the standard ODE theory, that there exists a unique smooth solution $U(t,x,s)$ satisfying the above ODEs. Furthermore, using arguments as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:est4gt}, we can readily prove that $U$ is a regular gauge transform (in the sense of Definition \ref{def:reg4gt}).
By construction, the gauge transformed connection 1-form $\widetilde{A}_{{\bf a}}$ satisfies the following equations.
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{F}_{s \mu} &= \widetilde{{\bf D}}^{\ell} \widetilde{F}_{\ell \mu}, \\
\widetilde{A}_{\mu} & = U A_{\mu} U^{-1} - \partial_{\mu} U U^{-1}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
Furthermore, it satisfies the caloric-temporal gauge condition, i.e. $\widetilde{\underline{A}}_{0} = 0$ and $\widetilde{A}_{s} = 0$. As $A_{{\bf a}}$ is a regular solution to \eqref{eq:HPYM} and $U$ is a regular gauge transform, it readily follows that $\widetilde{A}_{\mu}$ is a regular solution of \eqref{eq:HPYM} as well.
\pfstep{Step 3 : Quantitative initial data estimates for non-differences, in the caloric-temporal gauge}
In this step, we will prove the non-difference estimates among the initial data estimates \eqref{eq:idEst:1} -- \eqref{eq:idEst:4}. From this point on, we must be \emph{quantitative}, which means that we must make sure that all estimates here depends only on $\overline{\mathcal{I}}$.
Before we begin, a word of caution on the notation. We will keep the same notation as the previous steps, which means that the $A_{{\bf a}}, F_{si}$ in the statement of the theorem are \emph{not} the same as $A_{{\bf a}}, F_{si}$ below, but are rather $\widetilde{A}_{{\bf a}}, \widetilde{F}_{si}$. Accordingly, the gauge transform $V$ in the statement of the theorem is given by $V(t,x) = U(t, x, s=0)$ (which is regular).
Recalling the definition of $\mathcal{I}$, in order to prove $\mathcal{I} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}$, we must estimate $\nrm{\nabla_{t,x} F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{9}_{x}}$ for $p=2, \infty$ and $\nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}_{i}}_{H^{30}_{x}}$ in terms of $C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}$. On the other hand, to prove \eqref{eq:idEst:3}, we need to show
\begin{equation} \label{eq:idEst:pf:est4U}
\nrm{U(t=0, s=0)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} U(t=0, s=0)}_{L^{3}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}}, \quad \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(2)} U(t=0, s=0)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}},
\end{equation}
and the analogous estimates for $U^{-1}$.
By Proposition \ref{prop:YMHF4A:smth4deT}, we have the following estimates at $t=0$ for $m \geq 1$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:calTempGauge:est4Apre}
\sup_{i} \nrm{A_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m}_{x}} + \sup_{i} \nrm{A_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m}_{x}} \leq C_{m, \overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}.
\end{equation}
Note that the gauge transform $U$ is equal to the identity transform at $t=0, s=1$. Consequently, we have $\widetilde{A}_{i}(t=0, s=1) = A_{i}(t=0, s=1)$. Therefore $\nrm{\partial_{x} \widetilde{\underline{A}}}_{H^{30}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}$ follows immediately from \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Apre}.
Next, we estimate the gauge transform $U$ at $t=0$. Using Lemma \ref{lem:est4gt2caloric}, it follows that the gauge transform $U$ at $t=0$ satisfy the following estimates for $m \geq 2$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:calTempGauge:est4U}
\nrm{U}_{L^{\infty}_{s} L^{\infty}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}}, \quad
\nrm{\partial_{x} U}_{L^{\infty}_{s} L^{3}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}, \quad
\nrm{s^{(m-2)/2} \partial_{x}^{(m)} U}_{L^{\infty}_{s} L^{2}_{x}} \leq C_{m, \overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}.
\end{equation}
The analogous estimates hold for $U^{-1}$. Then \eqref{eq:idEst:pf:est4U} (or its analogue for $U^{-1}$) follows immediately from \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4U} (or its analogue for $U^{-1}$).
The next step is to estimate $\widetilde{F}_{si}$. Let us begin by considering the gauge transformed connection 1-form $\widetilde{A}_{i}$ at $t=0$. We claim that they satisfy the estimates
\begin{equation} \label{eq:calTempGauge:est4A:L2}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\widetilde{A}_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m}_{x}} \leq C_{m, \overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}},
\end{equation}
for $m \geq 1$. For $m = 1$, we can compute via Leibniz's rule
\begin{align*}
\partial_{x} \widetilde{A}_{i}
= & \partial_{x} ( U A_{i} U^{-1} - \partial_{i} U U^{-1} ) \\
= & (\partial_{x} U ) A_{i} U^{-1} + U (\partial_{x} A_{i}) U^{-1} + U A_{i} (\partial_{x} U^{-1}) - (\partial_{x} \partial_{i} U ) U^{-1} - \partial_{i} U (\partial_{x} U^{-1}).
\end{align*}
Using H\"older, Sobolev and \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4U}, it is not difficult to show
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\partial_{x} \widetilde{A}_{i}(s)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot (\nrm{\partial_{x} A_{i}(s)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \overline{\mathcal{I}}).
\end{equation*}
At this point, from \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Apre}, we obtain \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4A:L2} in the case $m=1$. Proceeding similarly, we can also prove \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4A:L2} for $m \geq 2$; we omit the details.
From the previous estimates, it is already possible to estimate $\nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{9}_{x}}$ for $p=\infty$ but not $p=2$. This is essentially due to the unpleasant term $- \partial_{i} U U^{-1}$ in the gauge transformation formula for $A_{i}$. To estimates both terms at the same time, we argue differently as follows, utilizing the gauge covariance of $F_{si}$. We start by recalling the equation for $F_{si}$ in terms of $A_{i}$ and ordinary derivatives.
\begin{align*}
F_{si} =& {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i}
=\partial^{\ell} \partial_{\ell} A_{i} - \partial_{i} \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell} + 2 \LieBr{A^{\ell}}{\partial_{\ell} A_{i}} + \LieBr{\partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}}{A_{i}} - \LieBr{A^{\ell}}{\partial_{i} A_{\ell}} + \LieBr{A^{\ell}}{\LieBr{A_{\ell}}{A_{i}}}.
\end{align*}
Using this formula and \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Apre}, it is not difficult to prove the following estimates for $m \geq 0$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:calTempGauge:est4Fsi}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(m)} F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} + \sup_{i} \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(m)} F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}
\leq C_{m, \overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}.
\end{equation}
Using interpolation and \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Apre} to control $\nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(m)} A_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}}$, it is a routine procedure to replace the ordinary derivatives in \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Fsi} by covariant derivatives, i.e.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:calTempGauge:est4covDFsi}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\mathcal{D}_{x}^{(m)} F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} + \sup_{i} \nrm{\mathcal{D}_{x}^{(m)} F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}
\leq C_{m, \overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}.
\end{equation}
for $m \geq 0$, where we remind the reader that $\mathcal{D}$ is the p-normalized ${\bf D}$, i.e. $\mathcal{D}_{\mu} := s^{1/2} {\bf D}_{\mu}$. Then using the gauge transform formula $\widetilde{{\bf D}}_{x}^{(m)} \widetilde{F}_{si} = U ({\bf D}^{(m)}_{x} F_{si}) U^{-1}$ and \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4U} to estimate $U$ in $\mathcal{L}^{0,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{x}^{(m)} \widetilde{F}_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} + \sup_{i} \nrm{\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{x}^{(m)} \widetilde{F}_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}
\leq C_{m, \overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}.
\end{equation*}
for $m \geq 0$. Using interpolation and \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4A:L2} to control $\nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(m)} \widetilde{A}_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}}$, we can replace the covariant derivatives by ordinary derivatives, and finally obtain for $m \geq 0$ the following estimate:
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(m)} \widetilde{F}_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} + \sup_{i} \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(m)} \widetilde{F}_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}
\leq C_{m, \overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}.
\end{equation*}
This gives an adequate control on $\nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{9}_{x}}$ for $p=2, \infty$.
In order to estimate the terms involving the time derivative, we must look at $\widetilde{F}_{0i}$. Recall that $\widetilde{F}_{0i}$ satisfies the covariant heat equation
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{s} \widetilde{F}_{i0} = \widetilde{{\bf D}}^{\ell} \widetilde{{\bf D}}_{\ell} \widetilde{F}_{i0} - 2 \LieBr{\tensor{\widetilde{F}}{_{i}^{\ell}}}{\widetilde{F}_{0\ell}}.
\end{equation*}
Applying Proposition \ref{prop:linCovHeat} with \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4A:L2}, we obtain the following estimates on $\widetilde{F}_{0i}$ for $m \geq 0$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:calTempGauge:est4F0i}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\widetilde{F}_{0i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m}_{x}} + \sup_{i} \nrm{\widetilde{F}_{0i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m+1}_{x}}
\leq C_{m, \overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}.
\end{equation}
Because of our gauge condition $\widetilde{A}_{0}(s=1) = 0$, we have $\partial_{t} \widetilde{A}_{i}(s=1) = \widetilde{F}_{0i}(s=1)$. This immediate proves $\nrm{\partial_{0} \widetilde{\underline{A}}}_{H^{30}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}$.
In order to estimate the time derivative of $\widetilde{F}_{si}$, we need to argue a bit more. Expanding the covariant derivatives in the Bianchi identity $\widetilde{{\bf D}}_{0} \widetilde{F}_{si} + \widetilde{{\bf D}}_{s} \widetilde{F}_{i0} + \widetilde{{\bf D}}_{i} \widetilde{F}_{0s} = 0$, we obtain the equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:calTempGauge:DtFsi}
\partial_{0} \widetilde{F}_{si} = \partial_{s} \widetilde{F}_{0i} + \partial_{i} \widetilde{F}_{s0} - \LieBr{\widetilde{A}_{0}}{\widetilde{F}_{si}} + \LieBr{\widetilde{A}_{i}}{\widetilde{F}_{s0}}.
\end{equation}
We use the parabolic equation for $\widetilde{F}_{0i}$ to rewrite term $\partial_{s} \widetilde{F}_{0i}$ in terms of $\widetilde{F}_{si}$, $\widetilde{A}_{i}$ and their spatial derivatives. We estimate $\widetilde{F}_{s0}$ by \eqref{eq:dYMHF}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:calTempGauge:Fs0}
\widetilde{F}_{s0}
= \widetilde{{\bf D}}^{\ell} \widetilde{F}_{\ell 0}
= \partial^{\ell} \widetilde{F}_{\ell 0} + \LieBr{\widetilde{A}^{\ell}}{\widetilde{F}_{\ell 0}},
\end{equation}
whereas $\widetilde{A}_{0}$ is estimated by the equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:calTempGauge:fund4A0}
\widetilde{A}_{0}(s) = - \int_{s}^{1} \widetilde{F}_{s0}(s') \, \mathrm{d} s',
\end{equation}
which holds due to the caloric-temporal gauge condition.
Using \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:DtFsi}, \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:Fs0}, \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:fund4A0} and the previous estimates for $\widetilde{F}_{i0}, \widetilde{F}_{si}$ and $\widetilde{A}_{i}$, it is not difficult to show
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\nabla_{0} \widetilde{F}_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} + \sup_{i} \nrm{\nabla_{0} \widetilde{F}_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}
\leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}.
\end{equation*}
Differentiating \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:DtFsi}, \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:Fs0} and \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:fund4A0} appropriate number of times with respect to $x$, $\nabla_{x}^{(m)} \nabla_{0} \widetilde{F}_{si}$ can be estimated analogously; we leave the details to the reader. This concludes the proof of $\mathcal{I} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal{I}}$.
\pfstep{Step 4: Quantitative initial data estimates for differences}
In the fourth and the final step, we will prove the difference estimates among \eqref{eq:idEst:1} -- \eqref{eq:idEst:4}.
Let $(A, U), (A', U')$ be constructed according to the Steps 1, 2 from $A^{\dagger}_{i}, (A')^{\dagger}_{i}$, respectively. The idea is to adapt Step 3 to differences. In particular, we remark that everything we do here is done on $\set{t=0}$.
In order to prove $\delta \mathcal{I} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}}$, we must estimate $\nrm{\nabla_{t,x} (\delta F_{si})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{9}_{x}}$ for $p=2, \infty$ and $\nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}_{i}}_{H^{30}_{x}}$ in terms of $C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}}$. To prove \eqref{eq:idEst:4}, we need to show
\begin{equation} \label{eq:idEst:pf:est4dltU}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{\delta \widetilde{U}(t=0, s=0)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}
+ \nrm{\partial_{x} (\delta \widetilde{U})(t=0, s=0)}_{L^{3}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}}, \\
& \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(2)} (\delta \widetilde{U})(t=0, s=0)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
and their analogues for $\delta U^{-1}$.
From Proposition \ref{prop:YMHF4A:smth4deT}, we have the following analogue of \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Apre} for $\delta A_{i} := A_{i} - A_{i}'$ at $t=0$, for $m \geq 1$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:calTempGauge:est4Apre:Diff}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\delta A_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m}_{x}} + \sup_{i} \nrm{\delta A_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}}.\end{equation}
As before, this immediately shows $\nrm{\partial_{x} \underline{A}}_{H^{9}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}}$, since the gauge transforms $U$, $U'$ are equal to the identity $\mathrm{Id}$ at $t=0, s=1$. Next, from Lemma \ref{lem:est4gt2caloric} and the bounds \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Apre} (for A, A') and \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Apre:Diff}, we have the following analogue of \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4U} for $\delta U = U - U'$, $\delta U^{-1} = U^{-1} - (U')^{-1}$ at $t=0$, for $m \geq 2$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:calTempGauge:est4U:Diff}
\nrm{\delta U}_{L^{\infty}_{s} L^{\infty}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} (\delta U)}_{L^{\infty}_{s} L^{3}_{x}}
\leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}}, \quad
\nrm{s^{(m-2)/2} \partial_{x}^{(m)} (\delta U)}_{L^{\infty}_{s} L^{2}_{x}} \leq C_{m, \overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}}.
\end{equation}
Analogous estimates hold also for $\delta U^{-1}$. We remark that in contrast to \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4U}, the right hand side vanishes as $\delta \overline{\mathcal{I}} \to 0$. Since $\delta\overline{V}$ in the statement of the theorem is exactly $\delta \overline{V} = \delta U(t=0, s=0)$, the estimate \eqref{eq:idEst:pf:est4dltU} follows (for both $\delta U$ and $\delta U^{-1}$).
Next, we estimate $\delta F_{si}$ in the statement of the theorem, which in our case is $\delta \widetilde{F}_{si} := \widetilde{F}_{si} - \widetilde{F}'_{si}$. The idea is the same as before, namely we want to use the gauge transform property of $F_{si}$, $F_{si}'$. As in Step 3, we begin by establishing some bounds for $\delta \widetilde{A}_{i}$. Our starting point is the following formula for the difference $\delta \widetilde{A}_{i}$.
\begin{align*}
\delta \widetilde{A}_{i}
= (\delta U) A_{i} U^{-1} + U' (\delta A_{i}) U^{-1} + U' A'_{i} (\delta U^{-1}) - \big( \partial_{x} (\delta U) \big) U^{-1} - \partial_{x} U' ( \delta U^{-1}).
\end{align*}
Note that this is nothing but Leibniz's rule for $\delta$. Differentiating the above formula $m$-times and using the estimates \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Apre}, \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4U}, along with their difference analogues \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Apre:Diff}, \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4U:Diff}, it is not difficult to prove the analogue of \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4A:L2} for $\delta \widetilde{A}_{i} := \widetilde{A}_{i} - \widetilde{A}'_{i}$, for $m \geq 1$
\begin{equation} \label{eq:calTempGauge:est4A:Diff:L2}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\delta \widetilde{A}_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m}_{x}} \leq C_{m, \overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}}.
\end{equation}
The next step is to estimate $\delta F_{si}$. Using Leibniz's rule for $\delta$, we obtain the following formula for $\delta F_{si}$:
\begin{equation*}
\delta F_{si} = \mathcal{O}(\partial_{x}^{(2)} (\delta A)) + \mathcal{O}(\delta A, \partial_{x} A) + \mathcal{O}(A, \partial_{x} (\delta A)) + \mathcal{O}(\delta A, A, A).
\end{equation*}
From this formula and the estimates \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Apre}, \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Apre:Diff}, we obtain the following estimate for $\delta F_{si}$ for $m \geq 0$ as before:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:calTempGauge:est4Fsi:Diff}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(m)} (\delta F_{si})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} + \sup_{i} \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(m)} (\delta F_{si}) }_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}
\leq C_{m, \overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}}.
\end{equation}
Equipped with these estimates, we claim that the following estimates are true, for $m \geq 0$.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:calTempGauge:est4CovDFsi:Diff}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\delta (\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{x}^{(m)} \widetilde{F}_{si})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} + \sup_{i} \nrm{\delta (\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{x}^{(m)} \widetilde{F}_{si})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}
\leq C_{m, \overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}},
\end{equation}
where $\delta (\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{x}^{(m)} \widetilde{F}_{si}) := \widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{x}^{(m)} \widetilde{F}_{si} - \widetilde{\mathcal{D}'}_{x}^{(m)} \widetilde{F'}_{si}$, and accordingly $\delta (\widetilde{{\bf D}}_{x}^{(m)} \widetilde{F}_{si}) := \widetilde{{\bf D}}_{x}^{(m)} \widetilde{F}_{si} - \widetilde{{\bf D}'}_{x}^{(m)} \widetilde{F'}_{si}$.
For $m=0$, this is an easy consequence of the difference formula
\begin{align*}
\widetilde{F}_{si} - \widetilde{F}'_{si}
= & U F_{si} U^{-1} - U' F'_{si}(U')^{-1} \\
= & (\delta U) F_{si} U^{-1} + U' (\delta F_{si} )U^{-1} + U' F'_{si} (\delta U^{-1}),
\end{align*}
and the estimates \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4U}, \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Fsi}, \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4U:Diff} and \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Fsi:Diff}.
For $m=1$, we begin to see covariant derivatives, which we just write out in terms of ordinary derivatives and connection 1-forms $A_{i}$. Then we can easily check , using Leibniz's rule for $\delta$, that the following difference formula holds.
\begin{align*}
\delta (\widetilde{{\bf D}}_{x}^{(m)} \widetilde{F}_{si})
=& U {\bf D}_{x} F_{si} U^{-1} - U' {\bf D}'_{x} F'_{si} (U')^{-1} \\
=& \mathcal{O}(\delta U, F_{s}, U^{-1}) + \mathcal{O}(U, \delta F_{s}, U^{-1}) + \mathcal{O}(U, F_{s}, \delta U^{-1}) \\
& + \mathcal{O}(\delta U, A, F_{s}, U^{-1}) + \mathcal{O}(U, \delta A, F_{s}, U^{-1}) + \mathcal{O}(U, A, \delta F_{s}, U^{-1}) + \mathcal{O}(U, A, F_{s}, \delta U^{-1}).
\end{align*}
Using the estimates \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4U}, \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Fsi}, \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4U:Diff}, \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Fsi:Diff}, as well as \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Apre}, \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Apre:Diff} with interpolation, we obtain \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4CovDFsi:Diff} for $m=1$.
The cases $m \geq 2$ can be proved in an analogous fashion, namely first computing the difference formula for $\widetilde{{\bf D}}_{x}^{(m)} \widetilde{F}_{si} - (\widetilde{{\bf D}}'_{x})^{(m)} \widetilde{F}'_{si} $ by writing out all covariant derivatives and applying Leibniz's rule for $\delta$, and then estimating using \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4U}, \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Fsi}, \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4U:Diff}, \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Fsi:Diff}, as well as \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Apre}, \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4Apre:Diff} with interpolation. We leave the tedious details to the interested reader.
Using \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4A:L2} and \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4A:Diff:L2}, we can easily substitute the covariant derivatives in \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4CovDFsi:Diff} by ordinary derivatives. This proves $\nrm{\nabla_{x} (\delta F_{s})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{9}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}}$ for $p =2, \infty$.
We are now only left to estimate the norms involving $\partial_{0}$. From Proposition \ref{prop:linCovHeat:Diff}, we have the following analogue of \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:est4F0i} for $\delta \widetilde{F}_{0i}$ for $m \geq 0$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:calTempGauge:est4F0i:Diff}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\delta \widetilde{F}_{0i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m}_{x}} + \sup_{i} \nrm{\delta \widetilde{F}_{0i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m+1}_{x}}
\leq C_{m, \overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}}.
\end{equation}
As before, since $( \partial_{0} \widetilde{A}_{i}- \partial_{0} \widetilde{A}'_{i} )(t=0, s=1) = (\widetilde{F}_{0i} - \widetilde{F}'_{0i}) (t=0, s=1)$, this proves $\nrm{\partial_{0}(\delta \underline{A})}_{H^{30}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}}$.
Finally, we turn to the estimate $\nrm{\nabla_{0} (\delta F_{s})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{9}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal{I}}} \cdot \delta \overline{\mathcal{I}}$ for $p=2, \infty$. For this purpose, note that we have the following difference versions of \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:DtFsi}, \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:Fs0}, \eqref{eq:calTempGauge:fund4A0}, as follows (in order).
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{0} (\delta \widetilde{F}_{si}) = \partial_{s} (\delta \widetilde{F}_{0i}) + \partial_{i} (\delta \widetilde{F}_{s0}) - \LieBr{\delta \widetilde{A}_{0}}{\widetilde{F}_{si}} - \LieBr{\widetilde{A}'_{0}}{\delta \widetilde{F}_{si}} + \LieBr{\delta \widetilde{A}_{i}}{\widetilde{F}_{si}} + \LieBr{\widetilde{A}'_{i}}{\delta \widetilde{F}_{si}},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\delta \widetilde{F}_{s0} = \partial^{\ell} (\delta \widetilde{F}_{\ell 0} ) + \LieBr{\delta \widetilde{A}^{\ell}}{\widetilde{F}_{\ell 0}} + \LieBr{(\widetilde{A}')^{\ell}}{\delta \widetilde{F}_{\ell 0}},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\delta \widetilde{A}_{0} (s) = - \int_{s}^{1} \delta \widetilde{F}_{s0}(s') \, \mathrm{d} s'.
\end{equation*}
Taking the appropriate number of derivatives of the above equations and using the previous bounds, the desired estimate follows. We leave the easy details to the reader. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\section{Definition of norms and reduction of Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst}} \label{sec:redOfDynEst}
The purpose of the rest of the paper is to prove Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst}. In this section, which is of preliminary nature, we first introduce the various norms which will be used in the sequel, and reduce Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst} to six smaller statements: Propositions \ref{prop:est4a0}, \ref{prop:est4ai}, \ref{prop:est4Fs0:low} and \ref{prop:cont4FA}, and Theorems \ref{thm:AlowWave} and \ref{thm:FsWave}.
\subsection{Definition of norms} \label{subsec:defOfNorms}
In this subsection, we define the norms $\mathcal{A}_{0}$, $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$, $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{E}$, along with their difference analogous.
Let $I \subset \mathbb R$ be a time interval. The norms $\mathcal{A}_{0}(I)$ and $\delta \mathcal{A}_{0}(I)$, which are used to estimate the gauge transform back to the temporal gauge $A_{0} = 0$ at $s=0$, are defined by
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{A}_{0}(I) := & \nrm{A_{0}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{3}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} A_{0}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{A_{0}}_{L^{1}_{t} L^{\infty}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} A_{0}}_{L^{1}_{t} L^{3}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(2)} A_{0}}_{L^{1}_{t} L^{2}_{x}}, \\
\delta \mathcal{A}_{0}(I) := & \nrm{\delta A_{0}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{3}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} (\delta A_{0})}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\delta A_{0}}_{L^{1}_{t} L^{\infty}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} (\delta A_{0})}_{L^{1}_{t} L^{3}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(2)} (\delta A_{0})}_{L^{1}_{t} L^{2}_{x}},
\end{align*}
where $A_{0}, \delta A_{0}$ are evaluated at $s=0$.
The norms $\underline{\mathcal{A}}(I)$ and $\delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}(I)$, which control the sizes of $\underline{A}_{i}$ and $\delta \underline{A}_{i}$, respectively, are defined by
\begin{align*}
\underline{\mathcal{A}}(I) := & \sup_{i} \nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{31}_{x}} + \sup_{i} \nrm{\partial_{0} (\partial \times \underline{A})_{i}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{29}_{x}} + \sum_{k=1}^{30} \sup_{i} \nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}_{\dot{S}^{k}},\\
\delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}(I) := &\sup_{i} \nrm{\delta \underline{A}_{i}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{31}_{x}} + \sup_{i} \nrm{\partial_{0} (\partial \times (\delta \underline{A}))_{i}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{29}_{x}} + \sum_{k=1}^{30} \sup_{i} \nrm{\delta \underline{A}_{i}}_{\dot{S}^{k}}.
\end{align*}
Here, $(\partial_{x} \times B)_{i} := \epsilon_{i j k} \partial^{j} B^{k}$, where $\epsilon_{ijk}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol, i.e. the completely anti-symmetric 3-tensor on $\mathbb R^{3}$ with $\epsilon_{123} = 1$.
Next, let us define the norms $\mathcal{F}(I)$ and $\delta \mathcal{F}(I)$, which control the sizes of $F_{si}$ and $\delta F_{si}$, respectively.
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{F}(I) := & \sum_{k=1}^{10} \Big( \sup_{i} \nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4, \infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k}(0,1]} + \sup_{i} \nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k}(0,1]} \Big), \\
\delta \mathcal{F}(I) := & \sum_{k=1}^{10} \Big( \sup_{i} \nrm{\delta F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4, \infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k}(0,1]} + \sup_{i} \nrm{\delta F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k}(0,1]} \Big).
\end{align*}
We remark that $\mathcal{F}(I)$ (also $\delta \mathcal{F}(I)$) controls far less derivatives compared to $\underline{\mathcal{A}}(I)$. Nevertheless, it is still possible to close a bootstrap argument on $\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}$, thanks to the fact that $F_{si}$ satisfies a parabolic equation, which gives smoothing effects. The difference between the numbers of controlled derivatives, in turn, allows us to be lenient about the number of derivatives of $\underline{A}_{i}$ we use when studying the wave equation for $F_{si}$. We refer the reader to Remark \ref{rem:pEst4sptNrms} for a more detailed discussion.
For $t \in I$, we define $\mathcal{E}(t)$ and $\delta \mathcal{E}(t)$, which control the sizes of low derivatives of $F_{s0}(t)$ and $\delta F_{s0}(t)$, respectively, by
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{E}(t) :=& \sum_{m=1}^{3} \Big( \nrm{F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1, \infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m}_{x}(0,1]} \Big),\\
\delta \mathcal{E}(t) := & \sum_{m=1}^{3} \Big( \nrm{\delta F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1, \infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{\delta F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m}_{x}(0,1]} \Big).
\end{align*}
We furthermore define $\mathcal{E}(I) := \sup_{t \in I} \mathcal{E}(t)$ and $\delta \mathcal{E}(I) := \sup_{t \in I} \delta \mathcal{E}(t)$.
\subsection{Statement of Propositions \ref{prop:est4a0} - \ref{prop:cont4FA} and Theorems \ref{thm:AlowWave}, \ref{thm:FsWave}}
For the economy of notation, we will omit the dependence of the quantities and norms on the time interval $(-T, T)$; in other words, all quantities and space-time norms below should be understood as being defined over the time interval $(-T, T)$ with $0 < T \leq 1$.
\begin{proposition} [Improved estimates for $A_{0}$] \label{prop:est4a0}
Let $A_{{\bf a}}$, $A'_{{\bf a}}$ be regular solutions to \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge and $0 < T \leq 1$. Then the following estimates hold.
\begin{align}
\underline{\mathcal{A}}_{0}
\leq & C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \mathcal{E} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}, \label{eq:est4a0} \\
\delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}_{0}
\leq & C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \delta \mathcal{E} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}) (\delta \mathcal{F} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}) . \label{eq:est4dltA0}
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition} [Improved estimates for $A_{i}$] \label{prop:est4ai}
Let $A_{{\bf a}}$, $A'_{{\bf a}}$ be regular solutions to \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge and $0 < T \leq 1$. Then the following estimates hold.
\begin{align*}
\sup_{i} \sup_{0 \leq s \leq 1} \nrm{A_{i}(s)}_{\dot{S}^{1}} \leq & C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}), \\
\sup_{i} \sup_{0 \leq s \leq 1} \nrm{\delta A_{i}(s)}_{\dot{S}^{1}} \leq & C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\delta \mathcal{F} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}).
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}[Estimates for $\mathcal{E}$] \label{prop:est4Fs0:low}
Let $A_{{\bf a}}, A'_{{\bf a}}$ be regular solutions to \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge and $0 < T \leq 1$. Suppose furthermore that the smallness assumption
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}} \leq \delta_{E},
\end{equation*}
holds for sufficiently small $\delta_{E} > 0$. Then the following estimates hold.
\begin{align}
\mathcal{E} \leq & C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}, \label{eq:a0First:low:0} \\
\delta \underline{\mathcal{E}} \leq & C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}}) (\delta \mathcal{F} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}). \label{eq:a0First:low:1}
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}[Continuity properties of $\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}$] \label{prop:cont4FA}
Let $A_{{\bf a}}$, $A'_{{\bf a}}$ be regular solutions to \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge on some interval $I_{0} := (-T_{0}, T_{0})$. For $\mathcal{F} = \mathcal{F}(I), \underline{\mathcal{A}} = \underline{\mathcal{A}}(I)$ ($I \subset I_{0}$) and their difference analogues, the following continuity properties hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item The norms $\mathcal{F}{(-T, T)}$ and $\underline{\mathcal{A}}{(-T, T)}$ are continuous as a function of $T$ (where $0 < T < T_{0}$).
\item Similarly, the norms $\delta \mathcal{F}{(-T, T)}$ and $\delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}{(-T, T)}$ are continuous as a function of $T$.
\item We furthermore have
\begin{align*}
\limsup_{T \to 0+} \Big( \mathcal{F}{(-T, T)} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}{(-T, T)} \Big) \leq C \, \mathcal{I}, \\
\limsup_{T \to 0+} \Big( \delta \mathcal{F}{(-T, T)} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}{(-T, T)} \Big) \leq C \, \delta \mathcal{I}.
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{bigTheorem} [Hyperbolic estimates for $\underline{A}_{i}$] \label{thm:AlowWave}
Let $A_{{\bf a}}$, $A'_{{\bf a}}$ be regular solutions to \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge and $0 < T \leq 1$. Then the following estimates hold.
\begin{align}
\underline{\mathcal{A}} \leq & C \mathcal{I} + T \Big( C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \mathcal{E} + C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2} \Big), \label{eq:AlowWave:1} \\
\delta \underline{\mathcal{A}} \leq & C \delta \mathcal{I} + T \Big( C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \delta \mathcal{E} + C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}) (\delta \mathcal{E} + \delta \mathcal{F} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}) \Big). \label{eq:AlowWave:2}
\end{align}
\end{bigTheorem}
\begin{bigTheorem} [Hyperbolic estimates for $F_{si}$] \label{thm:FsWave}
Let $A_{{\bf a}}$, $A'_{{\bf a}}$ be regular solutions to \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge and $0 < T \leq 1$. Then the following estimates hold.
\begin{align}
\mathcal{F} \leq & C \mathcal{I} + T^{1/2} C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}, \label{eq:FsWave:1} \\
\delta \mathcal{F} \leq & C \delta \mathcal{I} + T^{1/2} C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}) (\delta \mathcal{E} + \delta \mathcal{F} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}). \label{eq:FsWave:2}
\end{align}
\end{bigTheorem}
A few remarks are in order concerning the above statements.
The significance of Propositions \ref{prop:est4a0} and \ref{prop:est4ai} is that they allow us to pass from the quantities $\mathcal{F}$ and $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$ to the norms of $A_{i}$ and $A_{0}$ on the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:dynEst:0}. Unfortunately, a naive approach to any of these will fail, leading to a logarithmic divergence. The structure of \eqref{eq:HPYM}, therefore, has to be used in a crucial way in order to overcome this.
Proposition \ref{prop:est4Fs0:low}, which will be proved in \S \ref{subsec:pEst4Fs0}, deserves some special remarks. This is a perturbative result for the parabolic equation for $F_{s0}$, meaning that we need some smallness to estimate the nonlinearity. However, the latter fact has the implication that the required smallness cannot come from the size of the time interval, but rather only from the size of the data ($\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}$) or the size of the $s$-interval. It turns out that this feature causes a little complication in the proof of global well-posedness in \cite{Oh:2012fk}. Therefore, in \cite{Oh:2012fk}, we will prove a modified version of Proposition \ref{prop:est4Fs0:low}, using more covariant techniques to analyze the (covariant) parabolic equation for $F_{0i}$, which allows one to get around this issue.
In this work, to opt for simplicity, we have chosen to fix the $s$-interval to be $[0,1]$ and make $\mathcal{I}$ (therefore $\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}$) small by scaling, exploiting the fact that $\mathcal{I}$ is subcritical with respect to the scaling of the equation (compare this with the smallness required for Uhlenbeck's lemma, which cannot be obtained by scaling). We remark, however, that it would have been just as fine to keep $\mathcal{I}$ large and obtain smallness by shrinking the size of the $s$-interval.
The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst} will be via a bootstrap argument for $\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}$, and Proposition \ref{prop:cont4FA} provides the necessary continuity properties. In fact, Proposition \ref{prop:cont4FA} is a triviality in view of the simplicity of our function spaces and the fact that $A_{{\bf a}}, A'_{{\bf a}}$ are regular. On the other hand, Theorems \ref{thm:AlowWave} and \ref{thm:FsWave}, obtained by analyzing the hyperbolic equations for $\underline{A}_{i}$ and $F_{si}$, respectively, give the main driving force of the bootstrap argument. Observe that these estimates themselves do not require any smallness. This will prove to be quite useful in the proof of global well-posedness in \cite{Oh:2012fk}.
As we need to use some results derived from the parabolic equations of \eqref{eq:HPYM}, we will defer the proofs of Propositions \ref{prop:est4a0} - \ref{prop:cont4FA}, along with further discussion, until Section \ref{sec:pfOfProps}. The proofs of Theorems \ref{thm:AlowWave} and \ref{thm:FsWave} will be the subject of Section \ref{sec:wave}.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst}}
Assuming the above statements, we are ready to prove Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst}.
\begin{proof} [Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst}]
Let $A_{{\bf a}}$, $A'_{{\bf a}}$ be regular solutions to \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge, defined on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$. As usual, $\mathcal{I}$ will control the sizes of both $A_{{\bf a}}$ and $A'_{{\bf a}}$ at $t=0$, in the manner described in Theorem \ref{thm:idEst}.
Let us prove \eqref{eq:dynEst:0}. We claim that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dynEst:pf:0}
\mathcal{F}(-T, T) + \underline{\mathcal{A}}(-T, T) \leq B \mathcal{I}
\end{equation}
for a large constant $B$ to be determined later, and $\mathcal{I} < \delta_{H}$ with $\delta_{H} >0 $ sufficiently small. By taking $B$ large enough, we obviously have $\mathcal{F}(-T', T') + \underline{\mathcal{A}}(-T',T') \leq B \mathcal{I}$ for $T' >0$ sufficiently small by Proposition \ref{prop:cont4FA}. This provides the starting point of the bootstrap argument.
Next, for $0 < T' \leq T$, let us assume the following \emph{bootstrap assumption}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dynEst:pf:1}
\mathcal{F}(-T', T') + \underline{\mathcal{A}}(-T', T') \leq 2 B \mathcal{I}.
\end{equation}
The goal is to improve this to $\mathcal{F}(-T', T') + \underline{\mathcal{A}}(-T', T') \leq B \mathcal{I}$.
Taking $2B\mathcal{I}$ to be sufficiently small, we can apply Proposition \ref{prop:est4Fs0:low} and estimate $\mathcal{E} \leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} (\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}$. (We remark that in order to close the bootstrap, it is important that $\mathcal{E}$ is at least quadratic in $(\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})$.) Combining this with Theorems \ref{thm:AlowWave} and \ref{thm:FsWave}, and removing the powers of $T'$ by using the fact that $T' \leq T \leq 1$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{F}(-T', T') + \underline{\mathcal{A}}(-T', T') \leq C \mathcal{I} + C_{\mathcal{F}(-T', T'), \underline{\mathcal{A}}(-T', T')} (\mathcal{F}(-T', T') + \underline{\mathcal{A}}(-T', T'))^{2}.
\end{equation*}
Using the bootstrap assumption \eqref{eq:dynEst:pf:1} and taking $2B\mathcal{I}$ to be sufficiently small, we can absorb the last term into the left-hand side and obtain
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{F}(-T', T') + \underline{\mathcal{A}}(-T', T') \leq C \mathcal{I}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, taking $B$ sufficiently large, we beat the bootstrap assumption, i.e. $\mathcal{F}(-T', T') + \underline{\mathcal{A}}(-T', T') \leq B \mathcal{I}$. Using this, a standard continuity argument gives \eqref{eq:dynEst:pf:0} as desired.
From \eqref{eq:dynEst:pf:0}, estimate \eqref{eq:dynEst:0} follows immediately by Propositions \ref{prop:est4a0}, \ref{prop:est4ai} and \ref{prop:est4Fs0:low}.
Next, let us turn to \eqref{eq:dynEst:2}. By essentially repeating the above proof for $\delta \mathcal{F} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}$, and using the estimate \eqref{eq:dynEst:pf:1} as well, we obtain the following difference analogue of \eqref{eq:dynEst:pf:0}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dynEst:pf:2}
\delta \mathcal{F}(-T, T) + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}(-T, T) \leq C_{\mathcal{I}} \cdot \delta \mathcal{I}.
\end{equation}
From \eqref{eq:dynEst:pf:0} and \eqref{eq:dynEst:pf:2}, estimate \eqref{eq:dynEst:2} follows by Propositions \ref{prop:est4a0}, \ref{prop:est4ai} and \ref{prop:est4Fs0:low}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\section{Parabolic equations of the hyperbolic-parabolic Yang-Mills system} \label{sec:pEst4HPYM}
In this section, we analyze the parabolic equations of \eqref{eq:HPYM} for the variables $F_{si}, F_{s0}$ and $w_{i}$. The results of this analysis provide one of the `analytic pillars' of the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst} that had been outlined in Section \ref{sec:redOfDynEst}, the other `pillar' being the hyperbolic estimates in Section \ref{sec:wave}. Moreover, the hyperbolic estimates in Section \ref{sec:wave} depend heavily on the results of this section as well.
As this section is a bit long, let us start with a brief outline. Beginning in \S \ref{subsec:pEst4HPYM:prelim} with some preliminaries, we prove in \S \ref{subsec:pEst4HPYM:pEst4Fsi} smoothing estimates for $F_{si}$ (Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fsi}), which allow us to control higher derivatives of $\partial_{t,x} F_{si}$ in terms of $\mathcal{F}$, provided that we control high enough derivatives of $\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}_{i}$. In \S \ref{subsec:pEst4HPYM:lowEst4Fsi}, we also prove that $F_{si}$ itself (i.e. without any derivative) can be controlled in $L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}$ and $L^{4}_{t,x}$ by $\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}$ as well (Proposition \ref{prop:lowEst4Fsi}). Next, in \S \ref{subsec:pEst4Fs0}, we study the parabolic equation for $F_{s0}$. Two main results of this subsection are Propositions \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:low} and \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:high}. The former states that low derivatives of $F_{s0}$ (i.e. $\mathcal{E}$) can be controlled \emph{under the assumption that $\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}$ is small}, whereas the latter says that once $\mathcal{E}$ is under control, higher derivatives of $F_{s0}$ can be controlled (with out any smallness assumption) as long as high enough derivatives of $\underline{A}_{i}$ are under control. Finally, in \S \ref{subsec:pEst4HPYM:pEst4wi}, we derive parabolic estimates for $w_{i}$ (Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4wi}). Although these are similar to those proved for $F_{s0}$, it is important (especially in view of the proof of finite energy global well-posedness in \cite{Oh:2012fk}) to note that no smallness of $\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}$ is required in this part.
Throughout the section, we will always work with regular solutions $A_{{\bf a}}, A'_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$, where $I = (-T, T)$.
\subsection{Preliminary estimates} \label{subsec:pEst4HPYM:prelim}
Let us begin with a simple integral inequality.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:SchurTest}
For $\delta > 0$ and $1 \leq q \leq p \leq \infty$, the following estimate holds.
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\int_{s}^{1} (s/s')^{\delta} f(s') \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'}}_{\mathcal{L}^{p}_{s} (0, 1]} \leq C_{\delta, p,q} \nrm{f}_{\mathcal{L}^{q}_{s} (0,1]}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is rather a standard fact about integral operators. By interpolation, it suffices to consider the three cases $(p,q) = (1, 1), (\infty,1)$ and $(\infty, \infty)$. The first case follows by Fubini, using the fact that $\sup_{0 < s' \leq 1} \int_{0}^{1} 1_{[0,\infty)}(s'-s) (s/s')^{\delta} \, \mathrm{d} s / s \leq C_{\delta}$, as $\delta > 0$. On the other hand, the second and the third cases (i.e. $p=\infty$ and $q=1,\infty$) follow by H\"older, using furthermore the fact that $\sup_{0 < s, s' \leq 1} 1_{[0,\infty)}(s'-s) (s/s')^{\delta} \leq 1$ and $\sup_{0 < s \leq 1} \int_{0}^{1} 1_{[0,\infty)}(s'-s) (s/s')^{\delta} \, \mathrm{d} s' / s' \leq C_{\delta}$, respectively. \qedhere
\end{proof}
By the caloric-temporal gauge condition, we have $\partial_{s} A_{\mu} = F_{s \mu}$. Therefore, we can control $A_{\mu}$ with estimates for $F_{s\mu}$ and $\underline{A}_{\mu}$. The following two lemmas make this idea precise.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:fundEst4A}
Let $X$ be a homogeneous norm of degree $2\ell_{0}$. Suppose furthermore that the caloric gauge condition $A_{s} = 0$ holds. Then for $k, \ell \geq 0$ and $1 \leq q \leq p \leq \infty$ such that $1/4 + k/2 + \ell - \ell_{0} > 0$, the following estimate holds.
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{A_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+\ell, p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}(0,1]}
\leq C (\nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4, q}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}(0,1]} + \nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}_{\dot{X}^{k}}).
\end{equation*}
where $C$ depends on $p, q$ and $r(\ell, k, \ell_{0}) := 1/4 + k/2 + \ell - \ell_{0}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the caloric gauge condition $A_{s} = 0$, it follows that $\partial_{s} A_{i}= F_{si}$. By the fundamental theorem of calculus, we have
\begin{equation*}
A_{i}(s) = -\int_{s}^{1} s' F_{si}(s') \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'} + \underline{A}_{i}.
\end{equation*}
Let us take the $\mathcal{L}^{1/4+\ell, p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}(0,1]$-norm of both sides. Defining $r(\ell, k, \ell_{0}) = 1/4 + k/2 + \ell - \ell_{0}$, we easily compute
\begin{align*}
\nrm{\int_{s}^{1} s' F_{si}(s') \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+\ell,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}(0,1]}
= & \nrm{\int_{s}^{1} (s/s')^{r(\ell, k, \ell_{0})} (s')^{\ell} (s')^{5/4}\nrm{F_{si}(s')}_{\dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}(s')} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'}}_{\mathcal{L}^{p}_{s}(0,1]} \\
\leq & \nrm{\int_{s}^{1} (s/s')^{r(\ell, k, \ell_{0})} (s')^{5/4}\nrm{F_{si}(s')}_{\dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}(s')} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'}}_{\mathcal{L}^{p}_{s}(0,1]}.
\end{align*}
where on the second line we used $\ell \geq 0$. Since $r > 0$, we can use Lemma \ref{lem:SchurTest} to estimate the last line by $C_{p, q, r}\nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,q}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}(0,1]}$.
On the other hand, $\underline{A}_{i}$ is independent of $s$, and therefore
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+\ell, p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}(0,1]} = \nrm{s^{r(\ell, k, \ell_{0})}}_{\mathcal{L}^{p}_{s}(0,1]}\nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}_{\dot{X}^{k}} \leq C_{p, q, r} \nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}_{\dot{X}^{k}},
\end{equation*}
where the last inequality holds as $r > 0$. \qedhere
\end{proof}
The following analogous lemma for $A_{0}$, whose proof we omit, can be proved by a similar argument.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:fundEst4A0}
Let $X$ be a homogeneous norm of degree $2\ell_{0}$. Suppose furthermore that the caloric-temporal gauge condition $A_{s} = 0$, $\underline{A}_{0} = 0$ holds. Then for $k, \ell \geq 0$ and $1 \leq q \leq p \leq \infty$ such that $k/2 + \ell - \ell_{0} > 0$, the following estimate holds.
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{A_{0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell, p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}(0,1]}
\leq C \nrm{F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1, q}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{X}}^{k}(0,1]},
\end{equation*}
where $C$ depends on $p, q$ and $r'(\ell, k, \ell_{0}) := k/2 + \ell - \ell_{0}$.
\end{lemma}
Some of the most frequently used choices of $X$ are $X=\dot{S}^{k}$ for Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A}, $X=L^{2}_{t} \dot{H}^{k}_{x}$ for Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A0}, and $X = \dot{H}^{k}_{x}, \dot{W}^{k,\infty}_{x}$ for both. Moreover, these lemmas will frequently applied to norms which can be written as a sum of such norms, e.g. $\mathcal{L}^{\ell, p}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{m}_{x}$, which is the sum of $\mathcal{L}^{\ell, p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}$ norms for $k=0, \ldots, m$.
As an application of the previous lemmas, we end this subsection with estimates for some components of the curvature $2$-form and its covariant derivative.
\begin{lemma} [Bounds for $F_{0i}$] \label{lem:fundEst4F0i}
Suppose that the caloric-temporal gauge condition $A_{s} = 0$, $\underline{A}_{0}=0$ holds. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The following estimate holds for $2 \leq p \leq \infty$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fundEst4F0i:1}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{F_{0i}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1/2}_{x}}
\leq & C_{p} \big( \nrm{\nabla_{0} F_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1/2}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{0} \underline{A}_{i}(t)}_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_{x}} + \nrm{F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{3/2}_{x}} \\
& + \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} (\nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} \underline{A}_{i}(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}) \big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\item For any $2 \leq p \leq \infty$ and $k \geq 1$ an integer, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fundEst4F0i:2}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{F_{0i}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}}
\leq & C_{p, k} \big( \nrm{\nabla_{0} F_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{0} \underline{A}_{i}(t)}_{\dot{H}^{k}_{x}}
+ \nrm{F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k+1}_{x}} \\
& \quad + \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} (\nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} \underline{A}_{i}(t)}_{H^{k}_{x}}) \big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\item For any $2 \leq p \leq \infty$ and $k \geq 0$ an integer, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fundEst4F0i:3}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{F_{0i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k,4}_{x}}
\leq & C_{p, k} \big( \nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k+3/2}} + \nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}_{\dot{S}^{k+3/2}}
+ T^{1/4} \sup_{t \in I}\nrm{F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k+7/4}_{x}} \\
& \quad + T^{1/4} \sup_{t \in I} \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}} (\nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+1}} + \nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}_{\widehat{S}^{k+1}}) \big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let us begin with the identity
\begin{equation*}
F_{0i} = \partial_{0} A_{i} - \partial_{i} A_{0} + \LieBr{A_{0}}{A_{i}} = s^{-1/2} \nabla_{0} A_{i} + s^{-1/2} \nabla_{i} A_{0} + \LieBr{A_{0}}{A_{i}},
\end{equation*}
Applying Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A} to $s^{-1/2} \nabla_{0} A_{i}$ and Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A0} to $s^{-1/2} \nabla_{x} A_{0}$, the estimates \eqref{eq:fundEst4F0i:1} and \eqref{eq:fundEst4F0i:2} are reduced to the product estimates
\begin{align}
& \nrm{\LieBr{A_{0}}{A_{i}}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1/2}_{x}}
\leq C_{p} \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} (\nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} \underline{A}_{i}(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}), \label{eq:fundEst4F0i:pf:1} \\
& \nrm{\LieBr{A_{0}}{A_{i}}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}}
\leq C_{p} \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} (\nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} \underline{A}_{i}(t)}_{H^{k}_{x}}), \label{eq:fundEst4F0i:pf:2}
\end{align}
respectively.
Let us start with the product estimate
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fundEst4F0i:pf:4}
\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}},
\end{equation}
which follows from the product rule for homogeneous Sobolev norms (Lemma \ref{lem:homSob}). Applying the Correspondence Principle and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\LieBr{A_{0}}{A_{i}}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1/2}_{x}} \leq C_{p} \nrm{A_{0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{0+3/8,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{A_{i}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/8,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}}
\end{equation*}
Note the extra weights of $s^{3/8}$ and $s^{1/8}$ for $A_{0}$ and $A_{i}$, respectively. Applying Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A0} to $A_{0}$ and Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A} to $A_{i}$, the desired estimate \eqref{eq:fundEst4F0i:pf:1} follows.
The other product estimate \eqref{eq:fundEst4F0i:pf:2} can be proved by a similar argument, this time starting with
$\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{H}^{5/4}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{5/4}_{x}}$,
(which follows again from Lemma \ref{lem:homSob}) instead of \eqref{eq:fundEst4F0i:pf:4}, and using Leibniz's rule to deal with the cases $k \geq 2$.
Finally, let us turn to \eqref{eq:fundEst4F0i:3}. We use Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A} and Strichartz to control $s^{-1/2} \nabla_{0} A_{i}$, and Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A0}, H\"older in time and Sobolev for $s^{-1/2} \nabla_{x} A_{0}$. Then we are left to establish
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fundEst4F0i:pf:3}
\nrm{\LieBr{A_{0}}{A_{i}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k,4}_{x}}
\leq C_{p} T^{1/4} \sup_{t \in I} \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}} (\nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+1}} + \nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}_{\widehat{S}^{k+1}}).
\end{equation}
To prove \eqref{eq:fundEst4F0i:pf:3}, one starts with
$\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2}}_{L^{4}_{t} L^{4}_{x}} \leq C \abs{I}^{1/4} \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{5/4}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{1}_{x}}$,
(which follows via H\"older and Sobolev) instead of \eqref{eq:fundEst4F0i:pf:4}. Using Leibniz's rule, the Correspondence Principle and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}, we obtain for $k \geq 0$
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\LieBr{A_{0}}{A_{i}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k,4}_{x}}
\leq C T^{1/4} \sum_{j=0}^{k} \nrm{A_{0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{0+5/16,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{j+5/4}_{x}} \nrm{A_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/16, p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k+1-j}_{x}}
\end{equation*}
Now we are in position to apply Lemmas \ref{lem:fundEst4A} and \ref{lem:fundEst4A0} to $A_{i}$ and $A_{0}$, respectively. Using furthermore $\nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} \leq \nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+1}}$, $\nrm{\partial_{x} \underline{A}_{i}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} H^{k}_{x}} \leq \nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}_{\widehat{S}^{k+1}}$, \eqref{eq:fundEst4F0i:pf:3} follows. \qedhere
\end{proof}
By the same proof applied to $\delta F_{0i}$, we obtain the following difference analogue of Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4F0i}.
\begin{lemma} [Bounds for $\delta F_{0i}$] \label{lem:fundEst4F0i:Diff}
Suppose that the caloric-temporal gauge condition $A_{s} = 0$, $\underline{A}_{0}=0$ holds (for both $A$ and $A'$). Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The following estimate holds for $2 \leq p \leq \infty$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fundEst4F0i:Diff:1}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{\delta F_{0i}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1/2}_{x}}
\leq & C_{p} ( \nrm{\nabla_{0} (\delta F_{si})(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1/2}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{0} (\delta \underline{A}_{i})(t)}_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_{x}} + \nrm{\delta F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{3/2}_{x}} )\\
& + C_{\nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}, \nrm{\partial_{x} \underline{A}_{i}(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}} \cdot \nrm{\nabla_{x} (\delta F_{s0})(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} \\
& + C_{\nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}} \cdot (\nrm{\nabla_{x} (\delta F_{si}) (t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} (\delta \underline{A}_{i})(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}})
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\item For any $2 \leq p \leq \infty$ and $k \geq 1$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fundEst4F0i:Diff:2}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{\delta F_{0i}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}}
\leq & C_{p, k} ( \nrm{\nabla_{0} (\delta F_{si})(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{0} (\delta \underline{A}_{i})(t)}_{\dot{H}^{k}_{x}} )
+ \nrm{\delta F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k+1}_{x}} \\
& + C_{\nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}}, \nrm{\partial_{x} \underline{A}_{i}(t)}_{H^{k}_{x}}} \cdot \nrm{\nabla_{x} (\delta F_{s0})(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} \\
& + C_{\nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}}} \cdot (\nrm{\nabla_{x} (\delta F_{si}) (t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} (\delta \underline{A}_{i})(t)}_{H^{k}_{x}}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\item For any $2 \leq p \leq \infty$ and $k \geq 0$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fundEst4F0i:Diff:3}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{\delta F_{0i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k,4}_{x}}
\leq & C_{p, k} ( \nrm{\delta F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k+3/2}} + \nrm{\delta \underline{A}_{i}}_{\dot{S}^{k+3/2}}
+ T^{1/4} \sup_{t \in I}\nrm{\delta F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k+7/4}_{x}} ) \\
& + T^{1/4} C_{\nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+1}}, \nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}_{\widehat{S}^{k+1}}} \cdot \sup_{t \in I} \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}} \\
& + T^{1/4} C_{\sup_{t \in I} \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}}} \cdot (\nrm{\delta F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+1}} + \nrm{\delta \underline{A}_{i}}_{\widehat{S}^{k+1}}) .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
Next, we derive estimates for ${\bf D}_{0} F_{ij} + {\bf D}_{i} F_{0j}$.
\begin{lemma} [Bounds for ${\bf D}_{0} F_{ij}$ and ${\bf D}_{i} F_{0j}$] \label{lem:fundEst4DF}
Suppose that the caloric-temporal gauge condition $A_{s} = 0$, $\underline{A}_{0}=0$ holds.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any $2 \leq p \leq \infty$ and $k \geq 0$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fundEst4DF:1}
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{{\bf D}_{0} F_{ij}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}} + \nrm{{\bf D}_{i} F_{0j}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}} \\
& \qquad \leq C_{p, k} \Big( \nrm{\nabla_{0} F_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k+1}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{0} \underline{A}_{i}(t)}_{\dot{H}^{k+1}_{x}}
+ \nrm{F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k+2}_{x}} \\
& \phantom{\qquad \leq } + (\nrm{\nabla_{t,x} F_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}_{i}(t)}_{H^{k+1}_{x}}
+ \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}})^{2} \\
& \phantom{\qquad \leq } + (\nrm{\nabla_{t,x} F_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}_{i}(t)}_{H^{k+1}_{x}}
+ \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}})^{3} \Big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\item For any $2 \leq p \leq \infty$ and $k \geq 0$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fundEst4DF:2}
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{{\bf D}_{0} F_{ij}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k,4}_{x}} + \nrm{{\bf D}_{i} F_{0j}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k,4}_{x}} \\
& \qquad \leq C_{p, k} \Big( \nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k+5/2}} + \nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}_{\dot{S}^{k+5/2}_{x}}
+ T^{1/4} \sup_{t \in I} \nrm{F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k+11/4}_{x}} \\
& \phantom{\qquad \leq } + (\nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+2}} + \nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}_{\widehat{S}^{k+2}}
+ \sup_{t \in I} \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}})^{2} \\
& \phantom{\qquad \leq } + (\nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+2}} + \nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}_{\widehat{S}^{k+2}}
+ \sup_{t \in I} \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}})^{3} \Big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof proceeds in a similar manner as Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4F0i}. We will give a treatment of the contribution of the term $\nrm{{\bf D}_{0} F_{ij}}$, and leave the similar case of $\nrm{{\bf D}_{i} F_{0j}}$ to the reader.
Our starting point is the schematic identity
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fundEst4DF:pf:1}
{\bf D}_{0} F_{ij} = s^{-1} \mathcal{O}(\nabla_{0} \nabla_{x} A) + s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(A_{0}, \nabla_{x} A) + s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(A, \nabla_{0} A) + \mathcal{O}(A, A, A_{0}),
\end{equation}
which can be checked easily by expanding ${\bf D}_{0} F_{ij}$ in terms of $A_{\mu}$.
The first term on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:fundEst4DF:pf:1} is acceptable for both \eqref{eq:fundEst4DF:1} and \eqref{eq:fundEst4DF:2}, thanks to Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A}. Therefore, it remains to treat only the bilinear and trilinear terms in \eqref{eq:fundEst4DF:pf:1}.
Let us begin with the proof of \eqref{eq:fundEst4DF:1}. For the bilinear terms (i.e. the second and the third terms), we start with the inequality
$\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2}}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_{x}}$,
which follows from Lemma \ref{lem:homSob}. Applying Leibniz's rule, the Correspondence Principle and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}, we obtain for $k \geq 0$
\begin{align*}
& \nrm{s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(A_{0}, \nabla_{x} A)(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}} + \nrm{s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(A, \nabla_{0} A)(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}} \\
& \quad \leq C \nrm{\nabla_{x} A_{0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{0+3/8,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} \nrm{\nabla_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/8,p}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}}
+ \nrm{\nabla_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/8,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} \nrm{\nabla_{0} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/8,p}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}}.
\end{align*}
Applying Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A} to $A$ and Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A0} to $A_{0}$, we see that the bilinear terms on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:fundEst4DF:pf:1} are also okay.
Finally, for the trilinear term, we start with the inequality
$\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2} \phi_{3}}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{3}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}$.
By Leibniz's rule, the Correspondence Principle and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}, we obtain for $k \geq 0$
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\mathcal{O}(A, A, A_{0})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}} \leq \nrm{\nabla_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/6,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} \nrm{\nabla_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/6,p}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} \nrm{\nabla_{x} A_{0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{0+5/12,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
Applying Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A} to $A$ and Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A0} to $A_{0}$, we see that the last term on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:fundEst4DF:pf:1} is acceptable. This proves \eqref{eq:fundEst4DF:1}.
Next, let us prove \eqref{eq:fundEst4DF:2}, which proceeds in an analogous way. For the bilinear terms, we begin with the obvious inequality
$\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2}}_{L^{4}_{t,x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{L^{\infty}_{t,x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{L^{4}_{t,x}}$. Applying Leibniz's rule, the Correspondence Principle, Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls} and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:algEst}, we obtain for $k \geq 0$
\begin{align*}
& \nrm{s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(A_{0}, \nabla_{x} A)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k,4}_{x}} + \nrm{s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(A, \nabla_{0} A)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k,4}_{x}} \\
&\qquad \leq C \sup_{t \in I} \nrm{\nabla_{x} A_{0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{0+3/8,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}} \nrm{\nabla_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/8,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \mathcal{W}^{k,4}_{x}} \\
& \phantom{\qquad \leq } + C\nrm{\nabla_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/8,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}} \nrm{\nabla_{0} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/8,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \mathcal{W}^{k,4}_{x}}.
\end{align*}
Using Strichartz and the Correspondence Principle, we can estimate $\nrm{\nabla_{t,x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/8,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \mathcal{W}^{k,4}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/8,p}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+2}}$. Then applying Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A} to $A$ and Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A0} to $A_{0}$, it easily follows that the bilinear terms on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:fundEst4DF:pf:1} are acceptable.
For the trilinear term, we start with the inequality
$\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2} \phi_{3}}_{L^{4}_{t,x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{L^{4}_{t} L^{12}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{12}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{3}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{12}_{x}}$.
By Leibniz's rule, the Correspondence Principle and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{\mathcal{O}(A, A, A_{0})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k,4}_{x}}
\leq & C \nrm{A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/6,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \mathcal{W}^{k,12}_{x}} \nrm{A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/6,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{W}^{k,12}_{x}} \\
& \cdot \sup_{t \in I} \nrm{A_{0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{0+5/12,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{W}^{k,12}_{x}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Using Strichartz and the Correspondence Principle, let us estimate the first factor $\nrm{A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/6,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \mathcal{W}^{k,12}_{x}}$ by $C \nrm{A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/6,p}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+2}}$. Next, using interpolation and the Correspondence Principle, we estimate the second factor $\nrm{A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/6,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{W}^{k,12}_{x}}$ by $\nrm{\nabla_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/6,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}}$. Finally, for the last factor, let us estimate $\nrm{A_{0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{0+5/12, \infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k,12}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\nabla_{x} A_{0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{0+5/12, \infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}}$. At this point, we can simply apply Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A} to $A$ and Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A0} to $A_{0}$, and conclude that the trilinear term is acceptable as well. This proves \eqref{eq:fundEst4DF:2}.
\end{proof}
Finally, by essentially the same proof, we can prove an analogue of Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4DF} for $\delta {\bf D}_{0} F_{ij} := {\bf D}_{0} F_{ij} - {\bf D}'_{0} F'_{ij}$ and $\delta {\bf D}_{i} F_{0j} := {\bf D}_{i} F_{0j} - {\bf D}'_{i} F'_{0j}$, whose statement we give below.
\begin{lemma} [Bounds for $\delta {\bf D}_{0} F_{ij}$ and $\delta {\bf D}_{i} F_{0j}$] \label{lem:fundEst4DF:Diff}
Suppose that the caloric-temporal gauge condition $A_{s} = 0$, $\underline{A}_{0}=0$ holds (for both $A$ and $A'$).
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any $2 \leq p \leq \infty$ and $k \geq 0$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fundEst4DF:Diff:1}
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{\delta {\bf D}_{0} F_{ij}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}} + \nrm{\delta {\bf D}_{i} F_{0j}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}} \\
& \qquad \leq C ( \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} (\delta F_{si})(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{t,x} (\delta \underline{A}_{i})(t)}_{H^{k+1}_{x}}
+ \nrm{\nabla_{x} (\delta F_{s0})(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}}),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $C = C_{p,k}(\nrm{\nabla_{t,x} F_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}}, \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}_{i}(t)}_{H^{k+1}_{x}} ,\nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}})$ is positive and non-decreasing in its arguments.
\item For any $2 \leq p \leq \infty$ and $k \geq 0$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fundEst4DF:Diff:2}
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{\delta {\bf D}_{0} F_{ij}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k,4}_{x}} + \nrm{\delta {\bf D}_{i} F_{0j}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{k,4}_{x}} \\
& \qquad \leq C_{p, k} ( \nrm{\delta F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k+5/2}} + \nrm{\delta \underline{A}_{i}}_{\dot{S}^{k+5/2}}
+ T^{1/4} \sup_{t \in I} \nrm{\delta F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k+11/4}_{x}}) \\
& \phantom{\qquad \leq } + C (\nrm{\delta F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+2}} + \nrm{\delta \underline{A}_{i}}_{\widehat{S}^{k+2}}
+ \sup_{t \in I} \nrm{\nabla_{x} (\delta F_{s0})(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}}),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $C =C_{p, k}(\nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+2}}, \nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}_{\widehat{S}^{k+2}}, \sup_{t \in I} \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}})$ on the last line is positive and non-decreasing in its arguments.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Parabolic estimates for $F_{si}$} \label{subsec:pEst4HPYM:pEst4Fsi}
Recall that $F_{si}$ satisfies a covariant parabolic equation. Under the caloric gauge condition $A_{s} = 0$, expanding covariant derivatives and $F_{i\ell}$, we obtain a semi-linear heat equation for $F_{si}$, which looks schematically as follows.
\begin{equation*}
{}^{(F_{si})}\mathcal{N} := (\partial_{s} - \triangle) F_{si}= s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}( A, \nabla_{x} F_{s}) + s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(\nabla_{x} A, F_{s}) + \mathcal{O}(A, A, F_{s}).
\end{equation*}
Note that $\mathcal{F}$ already controls some derivatives of $F_{si}$. Starting from this, the goal is to prove estimates for higher derivative of $F_{si}$.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:pEst4Fsi}
Suppose $0 < T \leq 1$, and that the caloric-temporal gauge condition holds.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any $k \geq 0$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fsi:1}
\nrm{\nabla_{t,x} F_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} F_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k+1}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{k, \mathcal{F}, \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}(t)}_{H^{k}_{x}}} \cdot \mathcal{F}.
\end{equation}
\item For $1 \leq k \leq 25$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fsi:2}
\nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k}(0,1]} + \nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \mathcal{F}.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
Part (1) of the proposition states, heuristically, that in order to control $k+2$ derivatives of $F_{si}$ in the $\mathcal{L}^{2}_{s}$ sense, we need $\mathcal{F}$ and a control of $k+1$ derivatives of $\underline{A}_{i}$. This numerology is important for closing the bootstrap for the quantity $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$. On the other hand, in Part (2), we obtain a uniform estimate in terms only of $\mathcal{F}$ and $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$, thanks to the restriction of the range of $k$. We refer the reader to Remark \ref{rem:pEst4sptNrms} for more discussion.
\begin{proof}
{\it Step 1: Proof of (1).}
Fix $t \in (-T, T)$. Let us start with the obvious inequalities
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fsi:pf:0}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{\partial_{t,x}(\phi_{1} \partial_{x} \phi_{2})}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq C \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \phi_{1}}_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} + C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}, \\
& \nrm{\partial_{t,x}(\phi_{1} \phi_{2} \phi_{3})}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq C \sum_{\sigma}\nrm{\phi_{\sigma(1)}}_{\dot{H}^{4/3}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{\sigma(2)}}_{\dot{H}^{4/3}_{x}} \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \phi_{\sigma(3)}}_{\dot{H}^{1/3}_{x}},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where the sum $\sum_{\sigma}$ is over all permutations $\sigma$ of $\set{1,2,3}$. These can be proved by using Leibniz's rule, H\"older and Sobolev.
Using Leibniz's rule, the Correspondence Principle, Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}, Gagliardo-Nirenberg (Lemma \ref{lem:absP:algEst}) and interpolation, the previous inequalities lead to the following inequalities for $k \geq 1$.
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{s^{-1/2} \nabla_{t,x} \mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \nabla_{x} \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4+1, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-1}_{x}}
+ \nrm{s^{-1/2} \nabla_{t,x} \mathcal{O}(\nabla_{x} \psi_{1}, \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4+1, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-1}_{x}} \\
& \qquad \leq C \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} \psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} \psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}}, \\
& \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} \mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2}, \psi_{3})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4+1, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-1}_{x}} \\
& \qquad \leq C \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} \psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/4, \infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} \psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} \psi_{3}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/4, \infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Note the extra weight of $s^{1/4}$ for $\psi_{1}, \psi_{3}$. Put $\psi_{1} = A, \psi_{2} = F_{s}, \psi_{3} = A$, and apply Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A} (with $\ell > 0, p=\infty, q=2$ and $X=L^{2}_{x}$) for $\nrm{A}$. Then for $k \geq 1$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fsi:pf:1}
\begin{aligned}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} ({}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{N})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4+1, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-1}_{x}}
\leq & C (\nrm{\nabla_{t,x} F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4, 2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}_{H^{k}_{x}}) \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4, 2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} \\
& + C (\nrm{\nabla_{t,x} F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4, 2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}_{H^{k}_{x}})^{2} \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4, 2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Combining this with the obvious bound $\nrm{\nabla_{t,x} F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{1}_{x}} + \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{2}_{x}} \leq \mathcal{F}$, we obtain \eqref{eq:pEst4Fsi:1} from the second part of Theorem \ref{thm:absP:absPth}.
\vspace{0.1in}
{\it Step 2: Proof of (2).} We proceed in a similar fashion. The multilinear estimates are more complicated. On the other hand, as we are aiming to control derivatives of $F_{si}$ only up to order 25 whereas $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$ controls derivatives of $\underline{A}_{i}$ up to order 30, we can be relaxed on the number of derivatives falling on $\underline{A}_{i}$.
For $\epsilon > 0$, we claim that the following estimate for ${}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{N}$ holds for $1 \leq k \leq 24$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fsi:pf:4}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4+1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k}}
\leq \epsilon \nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k+2}} + \mathcal{B}_{\epsilon, k, \underline{\mathcal{A}}}(\nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+1}}) \nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+1}}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{B}_{\epsilon, k, \mathcal{A}} (r)> 0$ is non-decreasing in $r > 0$. Then for $\epsilon > 0$ sufficiently small, the second part of Theorem \ref{thm:absP:absPth} can be applied. Combined with the obvious bound $\nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{P}^{5/4} \dot{S}^{2}} \leq \mathcal{F}$, we obtain a bound for $\nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{P}^{5/4} \mathcal{S}^{21}}$ which can be computed by \eqref{eq:absP:smth:3}. This leads to \eqref{eq:pEst4Fsi:2}, as desired.
Let us now prove the claim. We will begin by establishing the following multilinear estimates for $\dot{S}^{k}$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fsi:pf:2}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{\phi_{1} \partial_{x} \phi_{2}}_{\dot{S}^{1}}
\leq T^{1/2} \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{S}^{3/2} } \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{S}^{5/2}} + \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{S}^{3/2} \cap L^{\infty}_{t,x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{S}^{2}}, \\
& \nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2} \phi_{3}}_{\dot{S}^{1}}
\leq T^{1/2} \sum_{\sigma} \nrm{\phi_{\sigma(1)}}_{L^{\infty}_{t,x}} \nrm{\phi_{\sigma(2)}}_{\dot{S}^{3/2}} \nrm{\phi_{\sigma(3)}}_{\dot{S}^{3/2}} \\
& \phantom{\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2} \phi_{3}}_{\dot{S}^{1}}\leq}
+ \sum_{\sigma} \nrm{\phi_{\sigma(1)}}_{\dot{S}^{1}} \nrm{\phi_{\sigma(2)}}_{\dot{S}^{1}} \nrm{\phi_{\sigma(3)}}_{\dot{S}^{2}}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where the sum $\sum_{\sigma}$ is over all permutations $\sigma$ of $\set{1,2,3}$.
For the first inequality of \eqref{eq:pEst4Fsi:pf:2}, it suffices to prove that $\nrm{\phi_{1} \partial_{x} \phi_{2}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{1}_{x}}$ and $T^{1/2} \nrm{\Box (\phi_{1} \partial_{x} \phi_{2})}_{L^{2}_{t,x}}$ can be controlled by the right-hand side. Using H\"older and Sobolev, we can easily bound the former by $\leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{3/2}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{2}_{x}}$, which is acceptable. For the latter, using Leibniz's rule for $\Box$, let us further decompose
\begin{equation*}
T^{1/2}\nrm{\Box (\phi_{1} \partial_{x} \phi_{2})}_{L^{2}_{t,x}}
\leq 2 T^{1/2}\nrm{\partial_{\mu} \phi_{1} \partial_{x} \partial^{\mu} \phi_{2}}_{L^{2}_{t,x}}
+ T^{1/2}\nrm{\Box \phi_{1} \partial_{x} \phi_{2}}_{L^{2}_{t,x}} + T^{1/2}\nrm{\phi_{1} \partial_{x} \Box\phi_{2}}_{L^{2}_{t,x}}.
\end{equation*}
Using H\"older and the $L^{4}_{t,x}$-Strichartz, we bound the first term by $\leq C T^{1/2}\nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{S}^{3/2}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{S}^{5/2}}$, which is good. For the second term, let us use H\"older to put $\Box \phi_{1}$ in $L^{2}_{t} L^{3}_{x}$ and the other in $L^{\infty}_{t} L^{6}_{x}$. Then by Sobolev and the definition of $\dot{S}^{k}$, this is bounded by $\nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{S}^{3/2}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{S}^{2}}$. Finally, for the third term, we use H\"older to estimate $\phi_{1}$ in $L^{\infty}_{t,x}$ and $\partial_{x} \Box \phi_{2}$ in $L^{2}_{t,x}$, which leads to a bound $\leq \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{L^{\infty}_{t,x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{S}^{2}}$. This prove the first inequality of \eqref{eq:pEst4Fsi:pf:2}.
The second inequality of \eqref{eq:pEst4Fsi:pf:2} follows by a similar consideration, first dividing $\nrm{\cdot}_{\dot{S}^{1}}$ into $\nrm{\cdot}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{1}_{x}}$ and $\nrm{\Box (\cdot)}_{L^{2}_{t,x}}$, and then using Leibniz's rule for $\Box$ to further split the latter. We leave the details to the reader.
Let us prove \eqref{eq:pEst4Fsi:pf:4} by splitting ${}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{N}$ into its quadratic part $s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(A, \nabla_{x} F_{s}) + s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(\nabla_{x} A, F_{s})$ and its cubic part $\mathcal{O}(A, A, F_{s})$. For the quadratic terms, we use the first inequality of \eqref{eq:pEst4Fsi:pf:2}, Leibniz's rule, the Correspondence Principle, Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls} and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:algEst}. Then for $k \geq 1$ we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fsi:pf:3}
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \nabla_{x} \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4+1, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k}}
\leq C T^{1/2} \sum_{p=0}^{k-1} \nrm{\psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{1}, p_{1}}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{3/2+p}} \nrm{\psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{2}, p_{2}}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{3/2+k-p}} \\
& \phantom{\nrm{s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \nabla_{x} \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4+1, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k}} \leq}
+ C \nrm{\psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{1}+1/8, p_{1}}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+1}} \nrm{\psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{2}+1/8, p_{2}}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+1}}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\ell_{1} + \ell_{2} = 3/2$ and $\frac{1}{p_{1}} + \frac{1}{p_{2}} = \frac{1}{2}$. Note that we have obtained an extra weight of $s^{1/8}$ for each factor in the last term.
Let $1 \leq k \leq 24$, and apply \eqref{eq:pEst4Fsi:pf:3} with $(\psi_{1}, \ell_{1}, p_{1}) = (A, 1/4, \infty)$, $(\psi_{2}, \ell_{2}, p_{2}) = (F_{s}, 2, 5/4)$ for $s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(A, \nabla_{x} F_{s})$ and vice versa for $s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(\nabla_{x} A, F_{s})$. We then apply Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A} with $X = \dot{S}^{1}$, $p=\infty$ and $q=2$ to control $\nrm{A}$ in terms of $\nrm{F_{s}}$ and $\nrm{\underline{A}}$ (here we use the extra weight of $s^{1/8}$). Next, we estimate $\nrm{\underline{A}}$ that arises by $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$, which is possible since we only consider $1 \leq k \leq 24$. As a result, we obtain the following inequality:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{s^{-1} & \mathcal{O}(A, \nabla_{x} F_{s}) + s^{-1} \mathcal{O}(\nabla_{x} A, F_{s})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4+1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k}} \\
\leq & C T^{1/2} \sum_{p=0}^{k} (\nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{3/2+p}} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}) \nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{3/2+k-p}}
+ C (\nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+1}} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}) \nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+1}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
The last term is acceptable. All summands of the first term on the right-hand side are also acceptable, except for the cases $p=0, k$. Let us first treat the case $p=0$. For $\epsilon > 0$, we apply Cauchy-Schwarz to estimate
\begin{align*}
T^{1/2} & (\nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{3/2}} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}) \nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k+3/2}} \\
& \leq (\epsilon/2) \nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k+2}} + C_{\epsilon} T (\nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+1}} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2} \nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+1}},
\end{align*}
The case $p=k$ is similar. This proves \eqref{eq:pEst4Fsi:pf:4} for the quadratic terms $s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(A, \nabla_{x} F_{s}) + s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(\nabla_{x} A, F_{s})$.
Next, let us estimate the contribution of the cubic terms $\mathcal{O}(A, A, F_{s})$. Starting from the second inequality of \eqref{eq:pEst4Fsi:pf:2} and applying Leibniz's rule, the Correspondence Principle, Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls} and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:algEst}, we obtain the following inequality:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{\mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2}, \psi_{3})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4+1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k}}
\leq & C T^{1/2} \prod_{j=1,2,3} \nrm{\psi_{j}}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{j}+1/12, p_{j}}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+1}}
+ C\prod_{j=1,2,3} \nrm{\psi_{j}}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{j} + 1/6, p_{j}}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+1}},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
for $\ell_{1} + \ell_{2} + \ell_{3} = 7/4$ and $\frac{1}{p_{1}} + \frac{1}{p_{2}} + \frac{1}{p_{3}} =\frac{1}{2}$. Note the extra weight of $s^{1/12}$ and $s^{1/6}$ for each factor in the first and second terms on the right-hand side, respectively.
For $1 \leq k \leq 24$, let us put $(\psi_{1}, \ell_{1}, p_{1}) = (A, 1/4, \infty)$, $(\psi_{2}, \ell_{2}, p_{2}) = (A, 1/4, \infty)$ and $(\psi_{3}, \ell_{3}, p_{3}) = (F_{s}, 5/4, 2)$ in the last inequality, and furthermore apply Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A} with $X = \dot{S}^{1}$, $p=\infty$ and $q=2$ (which again uses the extra weights of powers of $s$) to control $\nrm{A}$ by $\nrm{F_{s}}$ and $\nrm{\underline{A}}$. Then estimating $\nrm{\underline{A}}$ by $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$ (which again is possible since $1 \leq k \leq 24$), we finally arrive at
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\mathcal{O}(A, A, F_{s})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4+1, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k}}
\leq C (1+T^{1/2}) (\nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+1}} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2} \nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+1}}
\end{equation*}
which is acceptable. This proves \eqref{eq:pEst4Fsi:pf:4}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{rem:pEst4sptNrms}
The fixed time parabolic estimate \eqref{eq:pEst4Fsi:1} will let us estimate $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$ in \S \ref{subsec:AlowWave} in terms of $\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}$, \emph{despite} the fact that $\mathcal{F}$ controls a smaller number of derivatives (of $F_{si}$) than does $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$ (of $\underline{A}_{i}$). This is essentially due to the smoothing property of the parabolic equation satisfied by $F_{si}$. It will come in handy in \S \ref{subsec:FsWave}, as it allows us to control only a small number of derivatives of $F_{si}$ to control $\mathcal{F}$.
Accordingly, the space-time estimate \eqref{eq:pEst4Fsi:2} (to be used in \S \ref{subsec:FsWave}) needs to be proved only for a finite range of $k$, which is taken to be smaller than the number of derivatives of $\underline{A}_{i}$ controlled by $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$. This allows us to estimate whatever $\nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}$ that arises by $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$; practically, we do not have to worry about the number of derivatives falling on $\underline{A}_{i}$. Moreover, we are also allowed to control (the appropriate space-time norm of) less and less derivatives for $F_{s0}$ and $w_{i}$ (indeed, see \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:2} and \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:3}, respectively), as long as we control enough derivatives to carry out the analysis in \S \ref{subsec:FsWave} in the end. Again, this lets us forget about the number of derivatives falling on $\underline{A}_{i}$ and $F_{si}$ (resp. $\underline{A}_{i}$, $F_{si}$ and $F_{s0}$) while estimating the space-time norms of $F_{s0}$ and $w_{i}$.
\end{remark}
By essentially the same proof, the following difference analogue of Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fsi} follows.
\begin{proposition}
Suppose $0 < T \leq 1$, and that the caloric-temporal gauge condition holds.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $t \in (-T, T)$. Then for any $k \geq 0$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fsi:Diff:1}
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} (\delta F_{si})(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} (\delta F_{si})(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k+1}_{x}(0,1]} \\
& \qquad \leq C_{k, \mathcal{F}, \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}(t)}_{H^{k}_{x}}} \cdot (\delta \mathcal{F} + \nrm{\partial_{t,x} (\delta \underline{A})(t)}_{H^{k}_{x}}),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\item For $1 \leq k \leq 25$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fsi:Diff:2}
\nrm{\delta F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k}(0,1]} +\nrm{\delta F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{k}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\delta \mathcal{F} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Estimates for $F_{si}$ via integration} \label{subsec:pEst4HPYM:lowEst4Fsi}
We also need some estimates for $F_{si}$ without any derivatives, which we state below. The idea of the proof is to simply integrate the parabolic equation $\partial_{s} F_{si} = \triangle F_{si} + {}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{N}$ backwards from $s=1$.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:lowEst4Fsi}
Suppose $0 < T \leq 1$, and that the caloric-temporal gauge condition holds.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $t \in (-T, T)$. Then we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lowEst4Fsi:1}
\nrm{F_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{F_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}).
\end{equation}
\item We have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lowEst4Fsi:2}
\nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t, x}(0,1]} + \nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t, x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
In the proof, all norms will be taken on the interval $s \in (0, 1]$. Let us start with the equation
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{s} F_{si} = \triangle F_{si} + {}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{N}.
\end{equation*}
Using the fundamental theorem of calculus, we obtain for $0 < s \leq 1$ the identity
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lowEst4Fsi:pf:1}
F_{si}(s) = \underline{F}_{si} - \int_{s}^{1} s' \triangle F_{si}(s') \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'} - \int_{s}^{1} s' ({}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{N}(s')) \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'}.
\end{equation}
To prove \eqref{eq:lowEst4Fsi:1} and \eqref{eq:lowEst4Fsi:2}, let us either fix $t \in (-T, T)$ and take the $\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}$ norm of both sides or just take the $\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t,x}$ norm, respectively. We will estimate the contribution of each term on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:lowEst4Fsi:pf:1} separately.
For the first term on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:lowEst4Fsi:pf:1}, note the obvious estimates $\nrm{\underline{F}_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} \leq C_{p} \nrm{\underline{F}_{si}(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}$ and $\nrm{\underline{F}_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t,x}} \leq C_{p} \nrm{\underline{F}_{si}}_{L^{4}_{t,x}}$. Writing out $\underline{F}_{si} = \mathcal{O}(\partial_{x}^{(2)} \underline{A}) + \mathcal{O}(\underline{A}, \partial_{x} \underline{A}) + \mathcal{O}(\underline{A}, \underline{A}, \underline{A})$, we see that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{t \in (-T, T)} \nrm{\underline{F}_{si}(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\underline{F}_{si}}_{L^{4}_{t,x}} \leq C \underline{\mathcal{A}} + C\underline{\mathcal{A}}^{2} + C\underline{\mathcal{A}}^{3},
\end{equation*}
which is acceptable.
For the second term on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:lowEst4Fsi:pf:1}, let us apply Lemma \ref{lem:SchurTest} with $p=2, \infty$ and $q =2$ to estimate
\begin{align*}
\nrm{\int_{s}^{1} s' \triangle F_{si}(t, s') \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}
\leq & \nrm{\int_{s}^{1} (s/s')^{5/4} (s')^{5/4} \nrm{\nabla^{(2)}_{x} F_{si}(t, s')}_{\mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}(s')} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'}}_{\mathcal{L}^{p}_{s}} \\
\leq & C_{p} \nrm{F_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{2}_{x}} \leq C_{p} \mathcal{F}.
\end{align*}
Similarly, for $p = 2, \infty$, we can prove $\nrm{\int_{s}^{1} s' \triangle F_{si}(s') \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t,x}} \leq C_{p} \nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{2,4}_{x}} \leq C_{p} \mathcal{F}$. Therefore, the contribution of the second term is okay.
Finally, for the third term on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:lowEst4Fsi:pf:1}, let us first proceed as in the previous case to reduce
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\int_{s}^{1} s' ({}^{(F_{si})}\mathcal{N}(t, s')) \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} \leq C_{p} \nrm{{}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{N}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4+1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
Recall that ${}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{N} = s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(A, \nabla_{x} F_{s}) + s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(\nabla_{x} A, F_{s}) + \mathcal{O}(A, A, F_{s})$. Starting from the obvious inequalities
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\phi_{1} \partial_{x} \phi_{2}}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{3/2}_{x}}, \quad \nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2} \phi_{3}}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq C \prod_{j=1,2, 3} \nrm{\phi_{j}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}},
\end{equation*}
and applying the Correspondence Principle, Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls} and interpolation, we obtain
\begin{align*}
& \nrm{s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(A, \nabla_{x} F_{s}) + s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(\nabla_{x} A, F_{s})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4+1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}
\leq C \nrm{\nabla_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{1}_{x}} \\
& \nrm{\mathcal{O}(A, A, F_{s})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4+1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}
\leq C \nrm{A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/4, \infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}}^{2} \nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{align*}
Note the extra weight of $s^{1/4}$ on each factor of $A$. This allows us to apply Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A} (with $q=2$) to estimate $\nrm{A}$ in terms of $\nrm{F_{s}}$ and $\nrm{\underline{A}}$. From the definition of $\mathcal{F}$ and $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$, it then follows that $\nrm{{}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{N}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4+1, 2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} \leq C (\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2} + C(\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}})^{3}$ uniformly in $t \in (-T, T)$, which finishes the proof of \eqref{eq:lowEst4Fsi:1}.
Finally, as in the previous case, we have
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\int_{s}^{1} s' ({}^{(F_{si})}\mathcal{N}(s')) \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t,x}}
\leq C_{p} \nrm{{}^{(F_{si})}\mathcal{N}(s')}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4+1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t,x}}.
\end{equation*}
Using the inequalities
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\phi_{1} \partial_{x} \phi_{2}}_{L^{4}_{t,x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{L^{\infty}_{t,x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{S}^{3/2}}, \quad
\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2} \phi_{3}}_{L^{4}_{t,x}} \leq C T^{1/4} \prod_{j=1,2, 3} \nrm{\phi_{j}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{12}_{x}},
\end{equation*}
and proceeding as before using the Correspondence Principle, Lemmas \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}, \ref{lem:absP:algEst} and \ref{lem:fundEst4A}, it follows that $\nrm{{}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4+1, 2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t,x}} \leq C (\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2} + C(\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}})^{3}$. This concludes the proof of \eqref{eq:lowEst4Fsi:2}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
Again with essentially the same proof, the following difference analogue of Proposition \ref{prop:lowEst4Fsi} follows.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:lowEst4Fsi:Diff}
Suppose $0 < T \leq 1$, and that the caloric-temporal gauge condition holds.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $t \in (-T, T)$. Then we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lowEst4Fsi:Diff:1}
\nrm{\delta F_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{\delta F_{si}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\delta \mathcal{F} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}).
\end{equation}
\item We have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lowEst4Fsi:Diff:2}
\nrm{\delta F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t, x}(0,1]} + \nrm{\delta F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t, x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\delta \mathcal{F} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Parabolic estimates for $F_{s0}$} \label{subsec:pEst4Fs0}
In this subsection, we will study the parabolic equation \eqref{eq:covParabolic4w0} satisfied by $F_{s0} = -w_{0}$. Let us define
\begin{equation*}
{}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N} := (\partial_{s} - \triangle) F_{s0} = {}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}} + {}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{align*}
{}^{(F_{s0})}\mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}} &= 2 s^{-1/2} \LieBr{A^\ell}{\nabla_\ell F_{s0}} + s^{-1/2} \LieBr{\nabla^\ell A_\ell}{F_{s0}} + \LieBr{A^{\ell}}{\LieBr{A_{\ell}}{F_{s0}}}, \\
{}^{(F_{s0})}\mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}} &=- 2 s^{-1/2} \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{0}^{\ell}}}{F_{s \ell}}.
\end{align*}
Our first proposition for $F_{s0}$ is an {\it a priori} parabolic estimate for $\mathcal{E}(t)$, which requires a smallness assumption of some sort\footnote{In our case, as we normalized the $s$-interval to be $[0,1]$, we will require directly that $\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}}$ is sufficiently small. On the other hand, we remark that this proposition can be proved just as well by taking the length of the $s$-interval to be sufficiently small.}.
\begin{proposition} [Estimate for $\mathcal{E}$] \label{prop:pEst4Fs0:low}
Suppose that the caloric-temporal gauge condition holds, and furthermore that $\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}} < \delta_{E}$ where $\delta_{E} > 0$ is a sufficiently small constant. Then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fs0:low:1}
\sup_{t \in (-T, T)}\mathcal{E}(t) \leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2},
\end{equation}
where $C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} = C(\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}})$ can be chosen to be continuous and non-decreasing with respect to both arguments.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let us fix $t \in (-T, T)$. Define $E := \abs{\partial_{x}}^{-1/2} F_{s0}$, where $\abs{\partial_{x}}^{a} := (- \triangle)^{a/2}$ is the fractional integration operator. From the parabolic equation for $F_{s0}$, we can derive the following parabolic equation for $E$:
\begin{equation*}
(\partial_{s} - \triangle) E = s^{1/4} \abs{\nabla_{x}}^{-1/2} ({}^{(F_{s0})}\mathcal{N}),
\end{equation*}
where $\abs{\nabla_{x}}^{a} := s^{a/2} \abs{\partial_{x}}^{a}$ is the p-normalization of $\abs{\partial_{x}}^{a}$. The idea is to work with the new variable $E$, and then translate to the corresponding estimates for $F_{s0}$ to obtain \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:low:1}.
We begin by making two claims. First, for every small $\epsilon, \epsilon' > 0$, by taking $\delta_{E} >0$ sufficiently small, the following estimate holds for $p=1,2$ and $0 < \underline{s} \leq 1$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fs0:low:pf:1}
\nrm{{}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{-1/2}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]}
\leq \epsilon \nrm{E}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{2}_{x}(0, 1]} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \big( \nrm{s^{1/4-\epsilon'} E}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]} + (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2} \big).
\end{equation}
Second, for $k = 1,2$, the following estimate holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fs0:low:pf:5}
\nrm{{}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-1/2}_{x}(0, 1]}
\leq \epsilon \nrm{E}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k+2}_{x}(0, 1]} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \nrm{E}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}(0, 1]} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{equation}
Assuming these claims, we can quickly finish the proof. Note that $E = 0$ at $s=0$, as $F_{s0} = 0$ there, and that the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:low:pf:1} is equal to $\nrm{s^{1/4} \abs{\nabla_{x}}^{-1/2} {}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4+1,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]}$. Applying the first part of Theorem \ref{thm:absP:absPth}, we derive $\nrm{E}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{2}_{x}(0,1]} \leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}$. Using the preceding estimate and \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:low:pf:1}, an application of the second part of Theorem \ref{thm:absP:absPth} then shows that $\nrm{E}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{4}_{x}(0,1]} \leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}$. Finally, as $E = s^{1/4} \abs{\nabla_{x}}^{-1/2} F_{s0}$, it is easy to see that $\mathcal{E}(t) \leq \nrm{E}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{4}_{x}(0,1]}$, from which \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:low:1} follows.
To establish \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:low:pf:1} and \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:low:pf:5}, we split ${}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}$ into ${}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}}$ and ${}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}$.
\pfstep{- Case 1: The contribution of ${}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}}$}
In this case, we will work on the whole interval $(0, 1]$. Let us start with the product inequality
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{-1/2}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_{x}},
\end{equation*}
which follows from Lemma \ref{lem:homSob}. Using Leibniz's rule, the Correspondence Principle and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}, we obtain for $0 \leq k \leq 2$
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-1/2}_{x}}
\leq C \sum_{j=0}^{k} \nrm{\psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,r}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{j+1/2}_{x}} \nrm{\psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-j+1/2}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
where $\frac{1}{r} = \frac{1}{p} - \frac{1}{2}$. Let us put $\psi_{1} = F_{0\ell}$, $\psi_{2} = F_{s \ell}$.
In order to estimate $\nrm{F_{0 \ell}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,r}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1/2}_{x}}$ or $\nrm{F_{0 \ell}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,r}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{j+1/2}_{x}}$ with $j >0$, we apply \eqref{eq:fundEst4F0i:1} or (an interpolation of) \eqref{eq:fundEst4F0i:2} of Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4F0i}, respectively. We then estimate $\nrm{F_{s\ell}}, \nrm{\underline{A}_{\ell}}$ which arise by $\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}$, respectively. (We remark that this is possible as $0 \leq k \leq 2$.)
Next, to estimate $\nrm{F_{s\ell}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1/2}_{x}}$, we first note, by interpolation, that it suffices to control $\nrm{F_{s\ell}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}$ and $\nrm{F_{s\ell}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}}$, to which we then apply Propositions \ref{prop:lowEst4Fsi} and \ref{prop:pEst4Fsi}, respectively. On the other hand, for $\nrm{F_{s\ell}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-j+1/2}_{x}}$ with $j < k$, we simply apply (after an interpolation) Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fsi}. Observe that all of $\nrm{\underline{A}}$ which arise can be estimated by $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$. As a result, for $1 \leq p \leq 2$ and $0 \leq k \leq 2$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{{}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-1/2}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq &C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}) \sum_{j=0}^{k} (\nrm{F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1+j}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{3/2+j}_{x}(0,1]}) \\
& + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
As $E = \abs{\partial_{x}}^{-1/2} F_{s0}$, note that
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1+j}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{3/2+j}_{x}(0,1]}
= \nrm{E}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{3/2+j}_{x}(0,1]} +\nrm{E}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{2+j}_{x}(0,1]}.
\end{equation*}
Note furthermore that the right-hand side is bounded by $\nrm{E}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{2+j}_{x}(0,1]}$. Given $\epsilon > 0$, by taking $\delta_{E} > 0$ sufficiently small (so that $\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}$ is sufficiently small), we obtain for $k=0$, $p=1,2$
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{{}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{-1/2}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq \epsilon \nrm{E}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{2}_{x}(0,1]} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2},
\end{equation*}
and for $k=1,2$ (taking $p=2$)
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{{}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-1/2}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq \epsilon \nrm{E}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k+2}_{x}(0,1]} + \epsilon \nrm{E}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}(0,1]} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2},
\end{equation*}
both of which are acceptable.
\pfstep{- Case 2: The contribution of ${}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}$}
Let $\underline{s} \in (0, 1]$; we will work on $(0, \underline{s}]$ in this case. We will see that for this term, no smallness assumption is needed.
Let us start with the inequalities
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{-1/2}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{H}^{3/2}_{x} \cap L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{-1/2}_{x}}, \\
& \nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{-1/2}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_{x}}, \\
& \nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2} \phi_{3}}_{\dot{H}^{-1/2}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{3}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
To prove the first inequality, note that it is equivalent to the product estimate $(\dot{H}^{3/2}_{x} \cap L^{\infty}_{x}) \cdot \dot{H}^{1/2}_{x} \subset \dot{H}^{1/2}_{x}$ by duality, which in turn follows from interpolation between $(\dot{H}^{3/2}_{x} \cap L^{\infty}_{x}) \cdot L^{2}_{x} \subset L^{2}_{x}$ and $(\dot{H}^{3/2}_{x} \cap L^{\infty}_{x}) \cdot \dot{H}^{1}_{x} \subset \dot{H}^{1}_{x}$. On the other hand, the second inequality was already used in the previous step. Finally, the third inequality is an easy consequences of the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev fractional integration $L^{3/2}_{x} \subset \dot{H}^{-1/2}_{x}$, H\"older and Sobolev.
Let $\epsilon' > 0$. Using the preceding inequalities, along with the Correspondence Principle and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}, we obtain the following inequalities for $p=1,2$ on $(0, \underline{s}]$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fs0:low:pf:4}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \nabla_{x} \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{2, p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{-1/2}_{x}} + \nrm{s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(\nabla_{x} \psi_{1}, \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{2, p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{-1/2}_{x}} \\
& \quad \leq C \underline{s}^{\epsilon'} \nrm{\psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} (\dot{\mathcal{H}}^{3/2}_{x} \cap \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x})} \nrm{s^{1/4-\epsilon'} \, \psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1/2}_{x}}, \\
& \nrm{\mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2}, \psi_{3})}_{\mathcal{L}^{2, p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{-1/2}_{x}}
\leq C \underline{s}^{\epsilon'} \nrm{\psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/8, \infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{s^{1/4-\epsilon'} \, \psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1/2}_{x}} \nrm{\psi_{3}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/8, \infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
We remark that the factors of $\underline{s}^{\epsilon'}$, which can be estimated by $\leq 1$, arise due to an application of H\"older for $\mathcal{L}^{\ell,p}_{s}$ (Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}) in the case $p=1$. Taking $\psi_{1} = A$, $\psi_{2} = F_{s0}$, $\psi_{3}= A$ and using Lemmas \ref{lem:absP:algEst}, \ref{lem:fundEst4A} and the fact that $\nrm{s^{1/4-\epsilon'} F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1/2}_{x}} = \nrm{s^{1/4-\epsilon'} E}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}}$, we see that
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{{}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2, p} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{-1/2}_{x} (0, \underline{s}]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \nrm{s^{1/4-\epsilon'} \, E}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]}.
\end{equation*}
for $p=1,2$. Combining this with Case 1, \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:low:pf:1} follows.
Proceeding similarly, but this time applying Leibniz's rule to \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:low:pf:4}, choosing $p=2$ and $\underline{s} =1$, we obtain for $k=1,2$
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{{}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,2} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-1/2}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \nrm{E}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x} (0,1]},
\end{equation*}
(we estimated $s \leq 1$) from which, along with the previous case, \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:low:pf:5} follows. \qedhere
\end{proof}
Our next proposition for $F_{s0}$ states that once we have a control of $\mathcal{E}(t)$, we can control higher derivatives of $F_{s0}$ \emph{without any smallness assumption}.
\begin{proposition} [Parabolic estimates for $F_{s0}$] \label{prop:pEst4Fs0:high}
Suppose $0 < T \leq 1$, and that the caloric-temporal gauge condition holds.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $t \in (-T, T)$. Then for $m \geq 4$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:1}
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}_{x}^{m-1}(0,1]} + \nrm{F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}_{x}^{m}(0,1]} \\
& \qquad \leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}(t)}_{H^{m-2}_{x}}} \cdot \Big( \mathcal{E}(t) + (\mathcal{F} + \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}(t)}_{H^{m-2}_{x}})^{2} \Big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In particular, for $1 \leq m \leq 31$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:3}
\nrm{F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}_{x}^{m-1}(0,1]} + \nrm{F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}_{x}^{m}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E}(t) + (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}).
\end{equation}
\item For $1 \leq m \leq 21$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:2}
\nrm{F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
Part (1) of the preceding proposition tells us that in order to control $m$ derivatives of $F_{s0}$ \emph{uniformly} in $s$ (rather than in the $\mathcal{L}^{2}_{s}$ sense), we need to control $m$ derivatives of $\underline{A}_{i}$. This fact will be used in an important way to close the estimates for $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$ in \S \ref{subsec:AlowWave}. On the other hand, as in Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fsi}, the range of $k$ in Part (2) was chosen so that we can estimate whatever derivative of $\underline{A}$ which arises by $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$.
\begin{proof}
\pfstep{Step 1: Proof of (1)}
Fix $t \in (-T, T)$. We will be working on the whole interval $(0,1]$.
Note that \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:3} follows immediately from \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:1} and the definition of $\mathcal{E}(t)$, as $\nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}_{i}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} H^{29}_{x}} \leq \underline{\mathcal{A}}$. In order to prove \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:1}, we begin by claiming that the following estimate holds for $k \geq 2$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:pf:1:1}
\nrm{{}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}_{H^{k}_{x}}} \cdot \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}_{H^{k}_{x}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}(t)}_{H^{k}_{x}})^{2}.
\end{equation}
Assuming the claim, we may apply the second part of Theorem \ref{thm:absP:absPth}, along with the bound $\nrm{F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{P}^{1} \mathcal{H}^{3}_{x}} \leq \mathcal{E}(t)$, to conclude \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:1}.
To prove \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:pf:1:1}, we estimate the contributions of ${}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}}$ and ${}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}$ separately.
\pfstep{ - Case 1.1: The contribution of ${}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}}$}
We start with the simple inequality
$\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{2}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{H}^{2}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{3/2}_{x} \cap L^{\infty}_{x}}$.
Applying Leibniz's rule, the Correspondence Principle, Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls} and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:algEst}, we get
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}}
\leq C \nrm{\nabla_{x} \psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k-1}_{x}} \nrm{\nabla_{x} \psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k-1}_{x}},
\end{equation*}
for $k \geq 2$.
Let us put $\psi_{1} = F_{0\ell}$, $\psi_{2} = F_{s\ell}$, and apply Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4F0i} to control $\nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{0\ell}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k-1}_{x}}$ in terms of $\nrm{F_{s}}$, $\nrm{\underline{A}}$ and $\nrm{F_{s0}}$. Then we apply Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fsi} to estimate $\nrm{F_{s}}$ in terms of $\mathcal{F}$ and $\nrm{\underline{A}}$. At this point, one may check that all $\nrm{\underline{A}}$, $\nrm{F_{s0}}$ that have arisen may be estimated by $\nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}_{H^{k}_{x}}$ and $\nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}}$, respectively. As a result, for $k \geq 2$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{{}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}}
\leq & C_{\mathcal{F}, \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}_{H^{k}_{x}}} \cdot \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}}
+ C_{\mathcal{F}, \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}_{H^{k}_{x}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}_{H^{k}_{x}}) \, \mathcal{F},
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
which is good enough for \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:pf:1:1}.
\pfstep{ - Case 1.2: The contribution of ${}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}$}
Here, let us start from \eqref{eq:linCovHeat:pf:0} in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:linCovHeat}. Applying Leibniz's rule, the Correspondence Principle, Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls} and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:algEst}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \nabla_{x} \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}}
+ \nrm{s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(\nabla_{x} \psi_{1}, \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}} \\
& \qquad \leq C \nrm{\nabla_{x} \psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} \nrm{\nabla_{x} \psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}}, \\
& \nrm{\mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2}, \psi_{3})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4+1, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}}
\leq C \nrm{\nabla_{x} \psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/4, \infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} \nrm{\nabla_{x} \psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1, 2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} \nrm{\nabla_{x} \psi_{3}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/4, \infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
for $k \geq 1$.
Note the extra weight of $s^{1/4}$ on $\psi_{1}, \psi_{3}$. Let us put $\psi_{1} = A, \psi_{2} = F_{s0}, \psi_{3} = A$, and apply Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A} to control $\nrm{A}$ in terms of $\nrm{F_{s}}$ and $\nrm{\underline{A}}$. Then using Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fsi}, we can control $\nrm{F_{s}}$ by $\mathcal{F}$ and $\nrm{\underline{A}}$. Observe that all of $\nrm{\underline{A}}$ which have arisen can be estimated by $\nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}_{H^{k}_{x}}$. As a result, we obtain the estimate
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{{}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}} \leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}_{H^{k}_{x}}} \cdot \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}},
\end{equation*}
for $k \geq 1$. Combining this with the previous case, \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:pf:1:1} follows.
\pfstep{Step 2: Proof of (2)}
Let $0 \leq k \leq 19$, where the number $k$ corresponds to the number of times the equation $(\partial_{s} - \triangle) F_{s0} = {}^{(F_{s0})}\mathcal{N}$ is differentiated. We remark that its range has been chosen to be small enough so that every norm of $F_{si}$ and $\underline{A}_{i}$ that arises in the argument below can be controlled by $C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})$ (by Propositions \ref{prop:pEst4Fsi} and \ref{prop:lowEst4Fsi}) and $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$, respectively.
We claim that for $\epsilon' > 0$ small enough, $0 \leq k \leq 19$ an integer, $1 \leq p \leq 2$ and $0 < \underline{s} \leq 1$, the following estimate holds:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:pf:2:1}
\nrm{{}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}(0,\underline{s}]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \, \cdot \nrm{s^{1/2-\epsilon'}\nabla_{x} F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]}
+ C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}) (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}).
\end{equation}
Assuming \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:pf:2:1}, and taking $k=0$, $p=1,2$, we can apply the first part of Theorem \ref{thm:absP:absPth} to obtain \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:2} in the cases $m=1,2$. Then taking $1 \leq k \leq 19$ and $p=2$, we can apply the second part of Theorem \ref{thm:absP:absPth}, along with the bound \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:2} in the case $m=2$ that was just established, to conclude the rest of \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:2}.
As before, in order to prove \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:pf:2:1}, we treat the contributions of ${}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}}$ and ${}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}$ separately.
\pfstep{ - Case 2.1: The contribution of ${}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}}$}
We claim that the following estimate holds for $0 \leq k \leq 19$ and $1 \leq p \leq2$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:pf:2:2}
\nrm{{}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}) (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}).
\end{equation}
Note in particular that the right-hand side does not involve $\nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}}$. This is because we can use \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:3} to estimate whatever factor of $\nrm{F_{s0}}$ that arises in this case.
In what follows, we work on the whole $s$-interval $(0, 1]$. Starting from H\"older's inequality $\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2}}_{L^{2}_{t,x}} \leq \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{L^{4}_{t,x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{L^{4}_{t,x}}$ and using Leibniz's rule, the Correspondence Principle and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x} }
\leq C \nrm{\psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4, r}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \mathcal{W}^{k,4}_{x}} \nrm{\psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \mathcal{W}^{k,4}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
where $\frac{1}{r} = \frac{1}{p} - \frac{1}{2}$. Let us put $\psi_{1} = F_{0 \ell}$, $\psi_{2} = F_{s \ell}$ and use Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4F0i} to control $\nrm{F_{0\ell}}$ in terms of $\nrm{F_{s0}}$, $\nrm{F_{s\ell}}$ and $\nrm{\underline{A}_{\ell}}$. Then thanks to the assumption $0 \leq k \leq 19$, we can use \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:3}, the second part of Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fsi} and the definition of $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$ to control $\nrm{F_{s0}}$, $\nrm{F_{s\ell}}$ and $\nrm{\underline{A}_{\ell}}$ have arisen by $C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2})$, $C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \mathcal{F}$ and $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$, respectively.
On the other hand, to control $\nrm{F_{s\ell}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \mathcal{W}^{k,4}_{x}}$, we first use Strichartz to estimate
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{F_{s\ell}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \mathcal{W}^{k,4}_{x}}
\leq C\nrm{F_{s\ell}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t,x}} + C \nrm{F_{s\ell}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \widehat{\mathcal{S}}^{k+1/2}}
\end{equation*}
and then use Propositions \ref{prop:lowEst4Fsi} and \ref{prop:pEst4Fsi} to estimate the first and the second terms by $C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})$ and $C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \mathcal{F}$, respectively. As a result, we obtain \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:pf:2:2} for $1 \leq p \leq 2$.
\pfstep{ - Case 2.2: The contribution of ${}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}$}
Let $0 < \underline{s} \leq 1$; we will work on the interval $(0, \underline{s}]$ in this case. Let us begin with the following estimates, which follow immediately from \eqref{eq:linCovHeat:pf:0} by square integrating in $t$ and using H\"older:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{\phi_{1} \partial_{x} \phi_{2}}_{L^{2}_{t,x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} \phi_{1} \phi_{2}}_{L^{2}_{t,x}}
\leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} (\dot{H}^{3/2}_{x} \cap L^{\infty}_{x})} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{L^{2}_{t} \dot{H}^{1}_{x}}, \\
& \nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2} \phi_{3}}_{L^{2}_{t,x}}
\leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{L^{2}_{t} \dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{3}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Using Leibniz's rule, the Correspondence Principle and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}, we obtain the following inequalities for $\epsilon' > 0$ small, $0 \leq k \leq 19$ and $1 \leq p \leq q \leq \infty$:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \nabla_{x} \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1, p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}}
+ \nrm{s^{-1/2} \mathcal{O}(\nabla_{x} \psi_{1}, \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1, p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}} \\
& \qquad \leq C \underline{s}^{\epsilon'} \Big( \sum_{j=0}^{k} \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} \psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} (\dot{\mathcal{H}}^{3/2}_{x} \cap \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x})} \Big)\nrm{s^{1/4-\epsilon'} \nabla_{x} \psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,q}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}}, \\
& \nrm{\mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2}, \psi_{3})}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4+1, 2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}} \\
& \qquad \leq C \underline{s}^{\epsilon'} \nrm{\nabla_{x} \psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/8, \infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} \nrm{s^{1/4-\epsilon'} \nabla_{x} \psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1, q}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} \nrm{\nabla_{x} \psi_{3}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/8, \infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
The factors $\underline{s}^{\epsilon'}$ have arisen from applications of H\"older for $\mathcal{L}^{\ell, p}_{s}$ (Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}); we estimate them by $\leq 1$. Let us put $\psi_{1} = A$, $\psi_{2} = F_{s0}$ and $\psi_{3} = A$, and apply Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A} to control $\nrm{A}$ in terms of $\nrm{F_{s}}$ and $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$ (the latter thanks to the range of $k$). Then we apply Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fsi} to control $\nrm{F_{s}}$ in terms of $\mathcal{F}$ and $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$ (again using the restriction of the range of $k$). As a result, we arrive at
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{{}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \nrm{s^{1/4-\epsilon'} \nabla_{x} F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,q}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]},
\end{equation*}
for $\epsilon' > 0$ small, $0 \leq k \leq 19$ and $1 \leq p \leq q \leq \infty$. Taking $q=2$ and combining with the previous case, we obtain \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:pf:2:1} \qedhere
\end{proof}
The difference analogues of Propositions \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:low} and \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:high} can be proved in a similar manner, using the non-difference versions which have been just established. We give their statements below, omitting the proof.
\begin{proposition} [Estimate for $\delta \mathcal{E}$] \label{prop:pEst4Fs0:low:Diff}
Suppose that the caloric-temporal gauge condition holds, and furthermore that $\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}} < \delta_{E}$ where $\delta_{E} > 0$ is sufficiently small. Then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fs0:low:Diff1}
\sup_{t \in (-T, T)} \delta \mathcal{E}(t) \leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}}) (\delta \mathcal{F} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition} [Parabolic estimates for $\delta F_{s0}$] \label{prop:pEst4Fs0:high:Diff}
Suppose $0 < T \leq 1$, and that the caloric-temporal gauge condition holds. Then the following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $t \in (-T, T)$. Then for $m \geq 4$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:Diff:1}
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{\delta F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}_{x}^{m-1}(0,1]} + \nrm{\delta F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}_{x}^{m}(0,1]} \\
& \qquad \leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}(t)}_{H^{m-2}_{x}}} \cdot \delta \mathcal{E}(t) \\
& \phantom{\qquad \leq } + C_{\mathcal{F}, \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}(t)}_{H^{m-2}_{x}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E}(t) + \mathcal{F} + \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}(t)}_{H^{m-2}_{x}}) (\delta \mathcal{F} + \nrm{\partial_{t,x} (\delta \underline{A})(t)}_{H^{m-2}_{x}}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In particular, for $1 \leq m \leq 31$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:Diff:3}
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{\delta F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}_{x}^{m-1}(0,1]} + \nrm{\delta F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}_{x}^{m}(0,1]} \\
& \qquad \leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \delta \mathcal{E}(t) + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E}(t) + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}) (\delta \mathcal{F} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\item For $1 \leq m \leq 21$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:Diff:2}
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{\delta F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}_{x}^{m-1}(0,1]} + \nrm{\delta F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}_{x}^{m}(0,1]} \\
& \qquad \leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \delta \mathcal{E} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}) (\delta \mathcal{F} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Parabolic estimates for $w_{i}$} \label{subsec:pEst4HPYM:pEst4wi}
Here we will study the parabolic equation \eqref{eq:covParabolic4w} satisfied by $w_{i}$. Let us define
\begin{equation*}
{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N} := (\partial_{s} - \triangle) w_{i} = {}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}} + {}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{align*}
{}^{(w_{i})}\mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}} &= 2 s^{-1/2} \LieBr{A^\ell}{\nabla_\ell w_{i}} + s^{-1/2} \LieBr{\nabla^\ell A_\ell}{w_{i}} + \LieBr{A^{\ell}}{\LieBr{A_{\ell}}{w_{i}}} + 2 \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{i}^{\ell}}}{w_{\ell}}, \\
{}^{(w_{i})}\mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}} &= - 2 \LieBr{F_{0 \ell}}{{\bf D}^{\ell} F_{0 i} + {\bf D}_{0} \tensor{F}{^{\ell}_{i}}}.
\end{align*}
The following proposition proves parabolic estimates for $w_{i}$ that we will need in the sequel.
\begin{proposition} [Parabolic estimates for $w_{i}$] \label{prop:pEst4wi}
Suppose $0 < T \leq 1$, and that the caloric-temporal gauge condition holds.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $t \in (-T, T)$. For $1 \leq m \leq 30$ we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4wi:1}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{w_{i}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{w_{i}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{E}(t), \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E}(t) + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In the case $m =31$, on the other hand, we have the following estimate.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4wi:2}
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{w_{i}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{30}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{w_{i}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{31}_{x}(0,1]} \\
& \qquad \leq C_{\mathcal{E}(t), \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}, \nrm{\partial_{0} \underline{A}(t)}_{\dot{H}^{30}_{x}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E}(t) + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}} + \nrm{\partial_{0} \underline{A}(t)}_{\dot{H}^{30}_{x}})^{2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\item For $1 \leq m \leq 16$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4wi:3}
\nrm{w_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{w_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, for $0 \leq k \leq 14$, we have the following estimate for ${}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4wi:4}
\nrm{{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x} (0,1]} + \nrm{{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x} (0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
Note that Part (1) of Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4wi} does not require a smallness assumption, as opposed to Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:low}. Moreover, in comparison with Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:high}, we need $m$ derivatives of $\underline{A}$ (i.e. one more derivative) to estimate $m$ derivatives of $w$ uniformly in $s$.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
\pfstep{Step 1: Proof of (1), for $1 \leq m \leq 3$}
Fix $t \in (-T, T)$. Let us define $v_{i} := \abs{\partial_{x}}^{-1/2} w_{i}$. From the parabolic equation for $w_{i}$, we derive the following parabolic equation for $v_{i}$:
\begin{equation*}
(\partial_{s} - \triangle) v_{i} = s^{1/4} \abs{\nabla_{x}}^{-1/2} ({}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}),
\end{equation*}
where the right-hand side is evaluated at $t$. Note that $\nrm{w_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1, p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}}} =\nrm{v_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k+1/2}_{x}}$. The idea, as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:low}, is to derive estimates for $v_{i}$ and then to translate to the corresponding estimates for $w_{i}$ using the preceding observation.
We will make two claims: First, for $0 < \underline{s} \leq 1$ and $1 \leq p \leq 2$, the following estimate holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4wi:pf:1}
\begin{aligned}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{-1/2}_{x} (0, \underline{s}]}
\leq & C_{\mathcal{E}(t), \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \nrm{s^{1/4-\epsilon'} v}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x} (0, \underline{s}]} \\
& +C_{\mathcal{E}(t), \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E}(t) + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2} .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Second, for $k = 1,2$, the following estimate holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4wi:pf:2}
\begin{aligned}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-1/2}_{x} (0, 1]}
\leq & C_{\mathcal{E}(t), \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \nrm{v}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x} (0, 1]} \\
& +C_{\mathcal{E}(t), \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E}(t) + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2} .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that $\nrm{{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}(0,\underline{s}]} = \nrm{s^{1/4} \abs{\nabla_{x}}^{-1/2} ({}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N})}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4+1,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k+1/2}_{x}(0,\underline{s}]}$. Assuming \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:pf:1} and using the preceding observation, we can apply the first part of Theorem \ref{thm:absP:absPth} to $v_{i}$ (note furthermore that $v_{i} = 0$ at $s=0$), from which we obtain a bound on $\nrm{v}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{2}_{x}}$. Next, assuming \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:pf:2} and applying the second part of Theorem \ref{thm:absP:absPth} to $v_{i}$, we can also control $\nrm{v}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{4}_{x}}$. Using the fact that $v_{i} = s^{1/4} \abs{\nabla_{x}}^{-1/2} w_{i}$, \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:1} now follows.
We are therefore left with the task of establishing \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:pf:1} and \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:pf:2}. For this purpose, we divide ${}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N} = {}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}} + {}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}$, and treat each of them separately.
\pfstep{- Case 1.1: Contribution of ${}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}}$}
In this case, we work on the whole interval $(0, 1]$. We start with the inequality
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{-1/2}_{x}} \leq \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{L^{2}_{x}},
\end{equation*}
which follows from Lemma \ref{lem:homSob}. Using Leibniz's rule, the Correspondence Principle and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}, we arrive at the following inequality for $k \geq 0$ and $\frac{1}{r} = \frac{1}{p} - \frac{1}{2}$:
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-1/2}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\nabla_{x} \psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,r}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}} \nrm{\psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
Let us restrict to $0 \leq k \leq 2$ and put $\psi_{1} = F_{0 \ell}$, $\psi_{2} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{0 i} + {\bf D}_{0} \tensor{F}{^{\ell}_{i}}$. In order to estimate $\nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{0\ell}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,r}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}}$ and $\nrm{{\bf D}^{\ell} F_{0 i} + {\bf D}_{0} \tensor{F}{^{\ell}_{i}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}}$, we apply Lemmas \ref{lem:fundEst4F0i} (with $p=r$) and \ref{lem:fundEst4DF} (with $p=2$), respectively, from which we obtain an estimate of $\nrm{{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-1/2}_{x}}$ in terms of $\nrm{F_{s0}}$, $\nrm{F_{s}}$ and $\nrm{\underline{A}}$. The latter two types of terms can be estimated by $\mathcal{F}$ and $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$, respectively. Moreover, using Propositions \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:high}, $\nrm{F_{s0}(t)}$ can be estimated by $\mathcal{E}(t)$, $\mathcal{F}$ and $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$. As a result, for $0 \leq k \leq 2$ and $1 \leq p \leq 2$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-1/2}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{E}(t), \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E}(t) + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{equation*}
which is good enough for \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:pf:1} and \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:pf:2}.
\pfstep{- Case 1.2: Contribution of ${}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}$}
Note that ${}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}$ has the same schematic form as ${}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}$. Therefore, the same proof as in Case 2 of the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:low} gives us the estimates
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{-1/2}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \nrm{s^{1/4-\epsilon'} \, v}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{1}_{x}(0,\underline{s}]},
\end{equation*}
for $p =1, 2$, $0 < \underline{s} \leq 1$ and arbitrarily small $\epsilon' > 0$, and
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k-1/2}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \nrm{v}_{\mathcal{P}^{3/4} \mathcal{H}^{k+1}_{x}(0,1]},
\end{equation*}
for $k=1,2$. Combined with the previous case, we obtain \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:pf:1} and \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:pf:2}.
\pfstep{Step 2: Proof of (1), for $m \geq 4$}
By working with $v_{i}$ instead of $w_{i}$, we were able to prove the {\it a priori} estimate \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:1} for low $m$ by an application of Theorem \ref{thm:absP:absPth}. The drawback of this approach, as in the case of $F_{s0}$, is that the estimate that we derive is not good enough in terms of the necessary number of derivatives of $\underline{A}$. In order to prove \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:1} for higher $m$, and \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:2} as well, we revert back to the parabolic equation for $w_{i}$.
We claim that the following estimate holds for $k \geq 2$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4wi:pf:3}
\begin{aligned}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq & C_{\mathcal{F}, \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}_{H^{k}_{x}}} \cdot \nrm{\nabla_{x} w}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}(0,1]}\\
& + C_{\mathcal{E}(t), \mathcal{F}, \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}(t)}_{H^{k+1}_{x}}} (\mathcal{E}(t) + \mathcal{F} + \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}(t)}_{H^{k+1}_{x}})^{2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Assuming the claim, let us first finish the proof of (1). Note that for $0 \leq k \leq 29$, we have $\nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}_{H^{k}_{x}} \leq \underline{\mathcal{A}}$. Therefore, every norm $\nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}$ arising in \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:pf:3} for $2 \leq k \leq 28$ can be estimated by $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$. Using this, along with the estimate \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:1} for $1 \leq m \leq 3$ which has been established in Step 1, we can apply the second part of Theorem \ref{thm:absP:absPth} to conclude \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:1} for all $4 \leq m \leq 30$.
Note, on the other hand, that for $k= 30$ we only have $\nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}_{H^{30}_{x}} \leq \underline{\mathcal{A}} + \nrm{\partial_{0} \underline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{30}_{x}}$. From \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:pf:3}, we therefore obtain the estimate
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{29}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq & C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \nrm{\nabla_{x} w}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{29}_{x}(0,1]}\\
& + C_{\mathcal{E}(t), \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}, \nrm{\partial_{0} \underline{A}(t)}_{\dot{H}^{30}_{x}}} (\mathcal{E}(t) + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}} + \nrm{\partial_{0} \underline{A}(t)}_{\dot{H}^{30}_{x}})^{2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Combining this with the case $k=30$ of \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:1}, an application of the second part of Theorem \ref{thm:absP:absPth} gives \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:2}.
We are therefore only left to prove \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:pf:3}. As usual, we will treat ${}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}}$ and ${}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}$ separately, and work on the whole interval $(0, 1]$ in both cases.
\pfstep{- Case 2.1: Contribution of ${}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}}$}
As in Case 1.1 in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:high}, we begin with the inequality $\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{2}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{\dot{H}^{3/2}_{x} \cap L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{\dot{H}^{2}_{x}}$ and apply Leibniz's rule, the Correspondence Principle, Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls} and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:algEst}. As a result, for $k \geq 2$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}}
\leq C \nrm{\nabla_{x} \psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,\infty}_{x} \mathcal{H}^{k-1}_{x}} \nrm{\nabla_{x} \psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{x} \mathcal{H}^{k-1}_{x}}
\end{equation*}
As in Case 1.1, we put $\psi_{1} = F_{0 \ell}$, $\psi_{2} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{0i} + {\bf D}_{0} \tensor{F}{^{\ell}_{i}}$, and apply Lemmas \ref{lem:fundEst4F0i} (with $p=\infty$) and \ref{lem:fundEst4DF} (with $p =2$), by which we obtain an estimate of $\nrm{{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}}$ in terms of $\nrm{F_{s0}}$, $\nrm{F_{si}}$ and $\nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}$. Using Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:high} and Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fsi} in order, we can estimate $\nrm{F_{s0}}$ and $\nrm{F_{si}}$ in terms of $\mathcal{E}(t)$, $\mathcal{F}$ and $\nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}$. At this point, one may check that all $\nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}$ that have arisen can be estimated by $\nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}(t)}_{H^{k+1}_{x}}$. As a result, we obtain the following estimate for $k \geq 2$:
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{E}(t), \mathcal{F}, \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}(t)}_{H^{k+1}_{x}}} (\mathcal{E}(t) + \mathcal{F} + \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}(t)}_{H^{k+1}_{x}})^{2},
\end{equation*}
which is good.
\pfstep{- Case 2.2: Contribution of ${}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}$}
As ${}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}$ looks schematically the same as ${}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}$, Step 1.2 of the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:high} immediately gives
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}_{H^{k}_{x}}} \cdot \nrm{\nabla_{x} w}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}(0,1]},
\end{equation*}
for $k \geq 1$. Combined with the previous case, this proves \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:pf:3}, as desired.
\pfstep{Step 3: Proof of (2)}
Let $0 \leq k \leq 14$, where $k$ corresponds to the number of times the equation $(\partial_{s} - \triangle) w_{i} = {}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}$ is differentiated. The range has been chosen so that Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:high} can be applied to estimate every norm of $F_{s0}$ which arises in terms of $\mathcal{E}$, $\nrm{F_{s}}$ and $\nrm{\underline{\mathcal{A}}}$, and furthermore so that all $\nrm{F_{s}}$ and $\nrm{\underline{A}}$ that arise can be estimated by $C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \mathcal{F}$ (by Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fsi}) and $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$, respectively.
We claim that for $\epsilon' > 0$ small enough, $0 \leq k \leq 14$ an integer, $1 \leq p \leq q \leq \infty$ and $0 < \underline{s} \leq 1$, the following estimate holds:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4wi:pf:4}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1, p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x} (0, \underline{s}]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \nrm{s^{1/4-\epsilon'} \nabla_{x} w}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,q}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}(0,\underline{s}]} + C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{equation}
Assuming the claim, let us prove (2). Taking $k=0$, $p = 1,2$ and $q=2$, we may apply the first part of Theorem \ref{thm:absP:absPth} (along with the fact that $w = 0$ at $s=0$) to obtain \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:3} in the cases $m=1,2$. Combining this with \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:pf:4} in the cases $1 \leq k \leq 14$, $p=q=2$ and $\underline{s} = 1$, we can apply the second part of Theorem \ref{thm:absP:absPth} to obtain the rest of \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:3}. Finally, considering \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:pf:4} with $0 \leq k \leq 14$ with $p=2, \infty$, $q=\infty$ and $\underline{s} = 1$, and estimating $\nrm{\nabla_{x} w}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}(0,1]}$ in the first term on the right-hand side by \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:3}, we obtain \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:4}, which finishes the proof of Part (2).
It therefore only remain to prove \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:pf:4}, for which we split ${}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N} = {}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}} + {}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}$ as usual.
\pfstep{- Case 3.1: Contribution of ${}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}}$}
In this case, we work on the whole interval $(0, 1]$.
Let us begin with the inequality $\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2}}_{L^{2}_{t,x}} \leq \nrm{\phi_{1}}_{L^{4}_{t,x}} \nrm{\phi_{2}}_{L^{4}_{t,x}}$. Applying Leibniz's rule, the Correspondence Principle, Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}, we obtain, for $k \geq 0$ and $1 \leq p \leq \infty$,
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\mathcal{O}(\psi_{1}, \psi_{2})}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}}
\leq C \nrm{\psi_{1}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4, r_{1}}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \mathcal{W}^{4, k}_{x}} \nrm{\psi_{2}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4, r_{2}}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \mathcal{W}^{4, k}_{x}}
\end{equation*}
where $\frac{1}{p} = \frac{1}{r_{1}} + \frac{1}{r_{2}}$. Since $p \geq 1$, we may choose $r_{1}, r_{2}$ so that $r_{1}, r_{2} \geq 2$. As before, let us take $\psi_{1} = F_{0\ell}$ and $\psi_{2} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{0i} + {\bf D}_{0} \tensor{F}{^{\ell}_{i}}$ and apply Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4F0i} (with $p=r_{1}$) and Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4DF} (with $p=r_{2}$), respectively. Then we apply Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:high} and Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fsi} in sequence, where we remark that both can be applied thanks to the restriction $0 \leq k \leq 14$. As a result, we obtain an estimate of $\nrm{{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}}$ in terms of $\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}$ and $\nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}$. One may then check that all terms that arise are at least quadratic in the latter three quantities, and furthermore that each $\nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}$ which has arisen can be estimated by $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$, thanks again to the restriction $0 \leq k \leq 14$. In the end, we obtain, for $0 \leq k \leq 14$ and $1 \leq p \leq \infty$, the following estimate:
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{forcing}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1, p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x} (0,1]} \leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{equation*}
\pfstep{- Case 3.2: Contribution of ${}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}$} As before, we utilize the fact that ${}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}$ looks schematically the same as ${}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}$. Consequently, Step 2.2 of the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:high} implies
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}_{\mathrm{linear}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1+1,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x}(0,\underline{s}]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \nrm{s^{1/4-\epsilon'} \nabla_{x} w}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,r}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{H}^{k}_{x}(0,\underline{s}]},
\end{equation*}
for $\epsilon' > 0$ small, $0 \leq k \leq 14$, $1 \leq p \leq r \leq \infty$ and $0 < \underline{s} \leq 1$. Combined with the previous case, we obtain \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:pf:4}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
Again, by essentially the same proof, the following difference analogue of Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4wi} follows.
\begin{proposition} [Parabolic estimates for $\delta w_{i}$] \label{prop:pEst4wi:Diff}
Suppose $0 < T \leq 1$, and that the caloric-temporal gauge condition holds.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $t \in (-T, T)$. For $1 \leq m \leq 30$ we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4wi:Diff:1}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{\delta w_{i}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{\delta w_{i}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{E}(t), \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E}(t) + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}) (\delta \mathcal{E}(t) + \delta \mathcal{F} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In the case $m =31$, on the other hand, we have the following estimate.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4wi:Diff:2}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{\delta w_{i}(t)&}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{30}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{\delta w_{i}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{31}_{x}(0,1]} \\
\leq & C_{\mathcal{E}(t), \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}, \nrm{\partial_{0} \underline{A}(t)}_{\dot{H}^{30}_{x}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E}(t) + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}} + \nrm{\partial_{0} \underline{A}(t)}_{\dot{H}^{30}_{x}}) \\
& \times (\delta \mathcal{E}(t) + \delta \mathcal{F} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}} + \nrm{\partial_{0} (\delta \underline{A})(t)}_{\dot{H}^{30}_{x}})
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\item For $1 \leq m \leq 16$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4wi:Diff:3}
\nrm{\delta w_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{\delta w_{i}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})(\delta \mathcal{E} + \delta \mathcal{F} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}).
\end{equation}
Furthermore, for $0 \leq k \leq 14$, we have the following estimate for ${}^{(\delta w_{i})} \mathcal{N} := (\partial_{s} - \triangle) (\delta w_{i})$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4wi:Diff:4}
\nrm{{}^{(\delta w_{i})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x} (0,1]} + \nrm{{}^{(\delta w_{i})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{k}_{x} (0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}) (\delta \mathcal{E} + \delta \mathcal{F} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\section{Proofs of Propositions \ref{prop:est4a0} - \ref{prop:cont4FA}} \label{sec:pfOfProps}
In this section, we will sketch the proofs of Propositions \ref{prop:est4a0} - \ref{prop:cont4FA}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:est4a0}]
We will give a proof of the non-difference estimate \eqref{eq:est4a0}, leaving the similar case of the difference estimate \eqref{eq:est4dltA0} to the reader.
In what follows, we work on the time interval $I = (-T, T)$. Recalling the definition of $\mathcal{A}_{0}$, we need to estimate
$\nrm{A_{0}(s=0)}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{3}_{x}}$, $\nrm{\partial_{x} A_{0}(s=0)}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}}$, $\nrm{A_{0}(s=0)}_{L^{1}_{t} L^{\infty}_{x}}$, $\nrm{\partial_{x} A_{0}(s=0)}_{L^{1}_{t} L^{3}_{x}}$ and $\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(2)} A_{0}(s=0)}_{L^{1}_{t} L^{2}_{x}}$
by the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:est4a0}.
Using $\partial_{s} A_{0} = F_{s0}$, the first two terms can be estimated simply by $C \mathcal{E}$ as follows.
\begin{align*}
& \nrm{A_{0}(s=0)}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{3}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} A_{0}(s=0)}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}} \\
& \quad \leq \int_{0}^{1} (s')^{1/2} (s')\nrm{F_{s0}(s')}_{\mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{3}_{x}(s')} \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'} + \int_{0}^{1} (s')^{1/4} (s') \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}(s')}_{\mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}(s')} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'}
\leq C \mathcal{E}.
\end{align*}
For the next two terms, using H\"older in time, it suffices to estimate $\nrm{A_{0}(s=0)}_{L^{2}_{t} L^{\infty}_{x}}$, $\nrm{\partial_{x} A_{0}(s=0)}_{L^{2}_{t} L^{3}_{x}}$. Using \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:2} of Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:high}, along with Gagliardo-Nirenberg, interpolation and Sobolev, these are estimated as follows.
\begin{align*}
\nrm{A_{0}(s=0)}_{L^{2}_{t} L^{\infty}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x} A_{0}(s=0)}_{L^{2}_{t} L^{3}_{x}}
\leq & \int_{0}^{1} (s')^{1/4} (s') \Big( \nrm{F_{s0}(s')}_{\mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}(s')} + \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s0}(s')}_{\mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{3}_{x}(s')} \Big) \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'} \\
\leq & C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \mathcal{E} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{align*}
Unfortunately, the same argument applied to the term $\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(2)} A_{0}(s=0)}_{L^{1}_{t} L^{2}_{x}}$ fails by a logarithm. In this case, we make use of the equations $\partial_{s} A_{0} = F_{s0}$ and the parabolic equation for $F_{s0}$. Indeed, let us begin by writing
\begin{align*}
\triangle A_{0}(s=0)
=& - \int_{0}^{1} \triangle F_{s0}(s') \, \mathrm{d} s'
= - \int_{0}^{1} \partial_{s} F_{s0}(s') \, \mathrm{d} s' + \int_{s}^{1} {}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}(s') \, \mathrm{d} s' \\
= & \underline{F}_{s0} + \int_{s}^{1} s' ({}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N})(s') \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'},
\end{align*}
where on the last line, we used the fact that $F_{s0}(s=0) = -w_{0}(s=0) = 0$. Taking the $L^{2}_{t,x}$ norm of the above identity and applying triangle and Minkowski, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\triangle A_{0}(s=0)}_{L^{2}_{t,x}} \leq \nrm{\underline{F}_{s0}}_{L^{2}_{t,x}} + \int_{s}^{1} s' \nrm{{}^{(F_{s0})} \mathcal{N}(s')}_{L^{2}_{t,x}} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'}.
\end{equation*}
The first term can be estimated using \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:2}, whereas the last term can be estimated by putting together \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:pf:2:1} (in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:high}) and \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:2}. As a consequence, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\triangle A_{0}(s=0)}_{L^{2}_{t,x}} \leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \mathcal{E} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{equation*}
By a simple integration by parts\footnote{The fact that $A_{0}(t, s=0) \in H^{m}_{x}$ for any $m \geq 0$ can be used to show that the boundary terms vanish at the spatial infinity.}, it follows that $\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(2)} A_{0}(s=0)}_{L^{2}_{t, x}} \leq C \nrm{\triangle A_{0}(s=0)}_{L^{2}_{t,x}}$. Then by H\"older in time, the desired $L^{1}_{t} L^{2}_{x}$-estimate follows. This completes the proof of \eqref{eq:est4a0}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\begin{proof} [Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:est4ai}]
Again, we will only treat the non-difference case, as the difference case follows by essentially the same arguments.
The goal is to estimate $\sup_{i} \sup_{0 \leq s \leq 1} \nrm{A_{i}(s)}_{\dot{S}^{1}}$ in terms of $\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}}$. Note that, proceeding naively, one can easily prove the bound
\begin{equation} \label{eq:est4A:proof:0}
\nrm{A_{i}(s)}_{\dot{S}^{1}} \leq \int_{s}^{1} s' \nrm{F_{si}(s')}_{\dot{S}^{1}} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'} + \nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}_{\dot{S}^{1}} \leq \abs{\log s}^{1/2} \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}} .
\end{equation}
The essential reason for having a logarithm is that we have an \emph{absolute integral} of $\nrm{F_{si}(s')}_{\dot{S}^{1}}$ in the inequality, whereas $\mathcal{F}$ only controls its \emph{square integral}. The idea then is to somehow replace this absolute integral with a square integral, using the structure of the Yang-Mills system.
We start with the equation satisfied by $A_{i}$ under the condition $A_{s} = 0$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:est4A:proof:1}
\partial_{s} A_{i} = \triangle A_{i} - \partial^{\ell} \partial_{i} A_{\ell} + {}^{(A_{i})} \mathcal{N}',
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation*}
{}^{(A_{i})} \mathcal{N}' = \mathcal{O}(A, \partial_{x} A) + \mathcal{O}(A, A, A).
\end{equation*}
Fix $t \in (-T, T)$. Let us take $\partial_{t,x}$ of \eqref{eq:est4A:proof:1}, take the bi-invariant inner product\footnote{In fact, for the purpose of this argument, it is possible to use any inner product on $\mathfrak{g}$ for which Leibniz's rule holds, so that integration by parts works.} with $\partial_{t,x} A_{i}$ and integrate over $\mathbb R^{3} \times [s, 1]$, for $0 < s \leq 1$. Summing up in $i$ and performing integration by parts, we obtain the following identity.
\begin{align*}
\frac 1 2 \sum_{i} \int \abs{\partial_{t,x} A_{i} (s)}^{2} \,\mathrm{d} x
= & \frac 1 2 \sum_{i} \int \abs{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}_{i}}^2 \, \mathrm{d} x - \sum_{i} \int_{s}^{1} \int s' (\partial_{t,x}({}^{(A_{i})} \mathcal{N}'), \partial_{t,x} A_{i}) (s') \, \mathrm{d} x \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'} \\
& + \sum_{i,\ell} \int_{s}^{1} \int s' \abs{\partial_{\ell} \partial_{t,x} A_{i}(s')}^2 \, \mathrm{d} x \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'} - \sum_{\ell} \int_{s}^{1} s' \abs{\partial_{t,x} \partial_{\ell} A_{\ell}(s')}^{2} \, \mathrm{d} x \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'}.
\end{align*}
Take the supremum over $0 \leq s \leq 1$, and apply Cauchy-Schwarz and H\"older to deal with the second term on the right-hand side. Then taking the supremum over $t \in (-T, T)$ and applying Minkowski, we easily arrive at the following inequality.
\begin{align*}
\sup_{0 \leq s \leq 1} \nrm{\partial_{t,x} A(s)}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}}
\leq & C \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}} + C \Big( \int_{0}^{1} s \nrm{\partial_{x} \partial_{t,x} A(s)}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}}^{2} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \Big)^{1/2} \\
& + C \sup_{i} \int_{0}^{1} s \nrm{\partial_{t,x}( {}^{(A_{i})} \mathcal{N}')(s)}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s}.
\end{align*}
Similarly, taking $\Box$ of \eqref{eq:est4A:proof:1}, multiplying by $\Box A_{i}$, integrating over $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [s, 1]$ and etc, we can also prove
\begin{align*}
\sup_{0 \leq s \leq 1} \nrm{\Box A(s)}_{L^{2}_{t,x}}
\leq & C \nrm{\Box \underline{A}}_{ L^{2}_{t,x}} + C \Big( \int_{0}^{1} s \nrm{\partial_{x} \Box A(s)}_{L^{2}_{t,x}}^{2} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \Big)^{1/2} \\
& + C \sup_{i} \int_{0}^{1} s \nrm{\Box ({}^{(A_{i})} \mathcal{N}')(s)}_{L^{2}_{t,x}} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s}.
\end{align*}
Combining the last two inequalities and recalling the definition of the norm $\dot{S}^{k}$, we get
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{0 \leq s \leq 1} \nrm{ A(s)}_{\dot{S}^{1}}
\leq C \nrm{ \underline{A}}_{\dot{S}^{1}} + C \Big( \int_{0}^{1} s \nrm{A(s)}_{\dot{S}^{2}}^{2} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \Big)^{1/2}
+ C \sup_{i} \int_{0}^{1} s \nrm{ {}^{(A_{i})} \mathcal{N}'(s)}_{\dot{S}^{1}} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s}.
\end{equation*}
Applying Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A} (with $p=q=2$) to the second term on the right-hand side, we finally arrive at the following inequality.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:est4A:proof:2}
\sup_{0 \leq s \leq 1} \nrm{ A(s)}_{\dot{S}^{1}}
\leq C \nrm{ \underline{A}}_{\dot{S}^{1}}
+ C (\nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{2}} + \nrm{ \underline{A}}_{\dot{S}^{2}} )
+ C \sup_{i} \int_{0}^{1} s \nrm{ {}^{(A_{i})} \mathcal{N}'(s)}_{\dot{S}^{1}} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s}.
\end{equation}
All terms on the right-hand side except the last term can be controlled by $C (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})$. Therefore, all that is left to show is that the last term on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:est4A:proof:2} is okay. To this end, we claim
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{i} \int_{0}^{1} s \nrm{ {}^{(A_{i})} \mathcal{N}'(s)}_{\dot{S}^{1}} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \leq C_{\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{equation*}
Recalling the definition of the $\dot{S}^{1}$ norm, we must bound the contribution of $\nrm{ \partial_{t,x} ({}^{(A_{i})} \mathcal{N}')(s)}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}}$ and $T^{1/2} \nrm{ \Box({}^{(A_{i})} \mathcal{N}')(s)}_{L^{2}_{t,x}}$. We will only treat the latter (which is slightly more complicated), leaving the former to the reader.
Using the product rule for $\Box$, we compute the schematic form of $\Box({}^{(A_{i})} \mathcal{N}')$ as follows.
\begin{equation*}
\Box {}^{(A_{i})} \mathcal{N}' = \mathcal{O}(\partial^{\mu} A, \partial_{x} \partial_{\mu} A) + \mathcal{O}(A, \partial^{\mu} A, \partial_{\mu}A) + \mathcal{O}(\Box A, \partial_{x} A) + \mathcal{O}(A, \partial_{x} \Box A) + \mathcal{O}(A, A, \Box A).
\end{equation*}
Let us treat each type in order. Terms of the first type are the most dangerous, in the sense that there is absolutely no extra $s$-weight to spare. Using Cauchy-Schwarz and Strichartz, we have
\begin{align*}
\int_{0}^{1} & s T^{1/2} \nrm{ \mathcal{O}(\partial^{\mu} A(s), \partial_{x} \partial_{\mu} A(s))}_{L^{2}_{t,x}} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \\
\leq & C T^{1/2} \Big( \int_{0}^{1} s^{1/2} \nrm{A(s)}_{\dot{S}^{3/2}}^{2} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \Big)^{1/2} \Big( \int_{0}^{1} s^{3/2} \nrm{A(s)}_{\dot{S}^{5/2}}^{2} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \Big)^{1/2}.
\end{align*}
Using Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A}, the last line can be estimated by $C(\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}$, which is acceptable.
Terms of the second type can be treated similarly using H\"older, Strichartz and Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A}, being easier due to the presence of extra $s$-weights. We estimate these terms as follows.
\begin{align*}
\int_{0}^{1} & s T^{1/2} \nrm{ \mathcal{O}(A, \partial^{\mu} A(s), \partial_{\mu} A(s))}_{L^{2}_{t,x}} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \\
\leq & T^{1/2} \int_{0}^{1} s^{1/4} \Big( s^{1/4} \nrm{A(s)}_{L^{\infty}_{t,x}} \Big) \Big(s^{1/4} \nrm{\partial^{\mu} A(s)}_{L^{4}_{t,x}}\Big) \Big( s^{1/4} \nrm{\partial_{\mu} A(s)}_{L^{4}_{t,x}} \Big) \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \\
\leq & C T^{1/2} (\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}})^{3}.
\end{align*}
The remaining terms all involve the d'Alembertian $\Box$. For these terms, using H\"older, we always put the factor with $\Box$ in $L^{2}_{t,x}$ and estimate by the $\dot{S}^{k}$ norm, whereas the other terms are put in $L^{\infty}_{t,x}$. We will always have some extra $s$-weight, and thus it is not difficult to show that
\begin{equation*}
\int_{0}^{1} s T^{1/2} \nrm{ \mathcal{O}(\Box A(s), \partial_{x} A(s))+\mathcal{O}(A(s), \partial_{x} \Box A(s))}_{L^{2}_{t,x}} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \leq C (\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\int_{0}^{1} s T^{1/2} \nrm{ \mathcal{O}(A(s), A(s), \Box A(s))}_{L^{2}_{t,x}} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \leq C(\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}})^{3}.
\end{equation*}
As desired, we have therefore proved
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{i} \int_{0}^{1} s T^{1/2} \nrm{\Box( {}^{(A_{i})} \mathcal{N}')(s)}_{L^{2}_{t,x}} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}. \qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof} [Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:est4Fs0:low}]
This is an immediate consequence of Propositions \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:low} and \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:low:Diff}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\begin{proof} [Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:cont4FA}]
In fact, this proposition is a triviality in view of the simple definitions of the quantities $\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}, \delta \mathcal{F}, \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}$ and the fact that $A_{{\bf a}}$, $A'_{{\bf a}}$ are regular solutions to \eqref{eq:HPYM}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\section{Hyperbolic estimates : Proofs of Theorems \ref{thm:AlowWave} and \ref{thm:FsWave}} \label{sec:wave}
The purpose of this section is to prove Theorems \ref{thm:AlowWave} and \ref{thm:FsWave}, which are based on analyzing the wave-type equations \eqref{eq:hyperbolic4Alow} and \eqref{eq:hyperbolic4F} for $\underline{A}_{i}$ and $F_{si}$, respectively. Note that the system of equations for $\underline{A}_{i}$ is nothing but the Yang-Mills equations with source in the temporal gauge. The standard way of solving this system (see \cite{Eardley:1982fb}) is by deriving a wave equation for $F_{\mu\nu}$; due to a technical point, however, we take a slightly different route, which is explained further in \S \ref{subsec:AlowWave}. The wave equation \eqref{eq:hyperbolic4F} for $F_{si}$, on the other hand, shares many similarities with that for $A_{i}$ in the Coulomb gauge. In particular, one can recover the null structure for the most dangerous bilinear interaction $\LieBr{A^{\ell}}{\partial_{\ell} F_{si}}$, which is perhaps the most essential structural feature of the caloric-temporal gauge which makes the whole proof work.
Throughout this section, we work with regular solutions $A_{{\bf a}}, A'_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$.
\subsection{Hyperbolic estimates for $\underline{A}_{i}$ : Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:AlowWave}} \label{subsec:AlowWave}
\subsubsection{Equations of motion for $\underline{A}_{i}$}
Recall that at $s=1$, the connection coefficients $\underline{A}_{\mu} = A_{\mu}(s=1)$ satisfy the hyperbolic Yang-Mills equation with source, i.e.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:hyperbolicYM4Flow}
\underline{\covD}^\mu \underline{F}_{\nu \mu} = \underline{w}_{\nu} \hbox{ for $\nu = 0, 1, 2, 3$}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, we have the temporal gauge condition $\underline{A}_0 = 0$.
Recall that $(\partial \times B)_{i} := \sum_{j,k} \epsilon_{ijk} \partial_{j} B_{k}$, where $\epsilon_{ijk}$ was the Levi-Civita symbol. In the proposition below, we record the equation of motion of $\underline{A}_{i}$, which are obtained simply by expanding \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM4Flow} in terms of $\underline{A}_{i}$.
\begin{proposition} [Equations for $\underline{A}_{i}$] \label{prop:eqn4Alow}
The Yang-Mills equation with source \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM4Flow} is equivalent to the following system of equations.
\begin{align}
\partial_{0} (\partial^{\ell} \underline{A}_{\ell}) =& - \LieBr{\underline{A}^\ell}{\partial_{0} \underline{A}_\ell} + \underline{w}_0, \label{eq:transport4Alow} \\
\Box \underline{A}_i - \partial_i (\partial^{\ell} \underline{A}_{\ell}) =& - 2 \LieBr{\underline{A}^\ell}{\partial_\ell \underline{A}_i} + \LieBr{\underline{A}_i}{\partial^\ell \underline{A}_\ell} + \LieBr{\underline{A}^\ell}{\partial_i \underline{A}_\ell} - \LieBr{\underline{A}^\ell}{\LieBr{\underline{A}_\ell}{\underline{A}_i}} - \underline{w}_i. \label{eq:eqn4Alow}
\end{align}
Taking the curl (i.e. $\partial \times \cdot$) of \eqref{eq:eqn4Alow}, we obtain the following wave equation for $\partial \times \underline{A}$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:wave4curlAlow}
\begin{aligned}
\Box (\partial \times \underline{A})_i = & - \partial \times (2 \LieBr{\underline{A}^\ell}{\partial_\ell \underline{A}_i} + \LieBr{\underline{A}_i}{\partial^\ell \underline{A}_\ell} + \LieBr{\underline{A}^\ell}{\partial_i \underline{A}_\ell}) \\
& - \partial \times (\LieBr{\underline{A}^\ell}{\LieBr{\underline{A}_\ell}{\underline{A}_i}}) - (\partial \times \underline{w})_i.
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
The usual procedure of solving \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM4Flow} in temporal gauge consists of first deriving the hyperbolic equation for $\underline{F}_{\nu \mu}$, using the Bianchi identity and \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM4Flow}. Then one couples these equations with the transport equation
\begin{equation*}
\underline{F}_{0i} = \partial_{0} \underline{A}_i,
\end{equation*}
(which follows just from the definition of $\underline{F}_{0i}$ and the temporal gauge condition $\underline{A}_{0} = 0$) and solves the system altogether. This is indeed the approach of Eardley-Moncrief \cite{Eardley:1982fb} and Klainerman-Machedon \cite{Klainerman:1995hz}. A drawback to this approach, however, is that it requires taking a $t$-derivative when deriving hyperbolic equations for $\underline{F}_{0i}$. In particular, one has to estimate $\partial_{0} \underline{w}_{i}$, which complicates matters in our setting.
The equations that we stated in Proposition \ref{prop:eqn4Alow} is the basis for a slightly different approach, which avoids taking $\partial_{0}$ at the expense of using a little bit of Hodge theory. We remark that such an approach had been taken by Tao \cite{Tao:2000vba}, but with greater complexity than here as the paper was concerned with lower regularity (but small data) solutions to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:AlowWave}}
In this part, we give a proof of Theorem \ref{thm:AlowWave}
\begin{proof} [Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:AlowWave}]
In the proof, we will work on the time interval $(-T, T)$, where $0 < T \leq 1$. We will give a rather detailed proof of \eqref{eq:AlowWave:1}. The difference analogue \eqref{eq:AlowWave:2} can be proved in an analogous manner, whose details we leave to the reader.
Let us begin with a few product estimates.
\begin{align}
\nrm{\mathcal{O}(\underline{A}, \partial_{0} \underline{A})}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{m}_{x}} &\leq C \underline{\mathcal{A}}^{2}, &\hbox{ for $0 \leq m \leq 29$,} \label{eq:AlowWave:pf:1} \\
\nrm{\mathcal{O}(\underline{A}, \partial_{x} \underline{A})}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{m}_{x}} &\leq C \underline{\mathcal{A}}^{2}, &\hbox{ for $0 \leq m \leq 30$,} \label{eq:AlowWave:pf:2}\\
\nrm{\mathcal{O}(\underline{A}, \underline{A}, \underline{A})}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{m}_{x}} &\leq C \underline{\mathcal{A}}^{3}, &\hbox{ for $0 \leq m \leq 31$.} \label{eq:AlowWave:pf:3}
\end{align}
Each of these can be proved by Leibniz's rule, H\"older and Sobolev, as well as the fact that $\nrm{\partial_{x} \underline{A}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} H^{30}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{0} \underline{A}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} H^{29}_{x}} \leq \underline{\mathcal{A}}$. Using the same techniques, we can also prove the following weaker version of \eqref{eq:AlowWave:pf:1} in the case $m=30$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:AlowWave:pf:4}
\nrm{\mathcal{O}(\underline{A}, \partial_{0} \underline{A})}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{30}_{x}} \leq C \underline{\mathcal{A}}^{2} + C \nrm{\underline{A}}_{L^{\infty}_{t,x}} \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(30)} \partial_{0} \underline{A}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
Next, observe that $\nrm{\underline{w}_{0}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{m}_{x}} \leq \sup_{t \in (-T, T)} \nrm{F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1, \infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m}_{x}}$, where the latter can be controlled by \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:high:3} for $0 \leq m \leq 30$. Combining this with \eqref{eq:transport4Alow}, \eqref{eq:AlowWave:pf:1}, we obtain the following estimate for $0 \leq m \leq 29$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:AlowWave:pf:5}
\nrm{\partial_{0}(\partial^{\ell} \underline{A}_{\ell})}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{m}_{x}}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \mathcal{E} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{equation}
In the case $m=30$, replacing the use of \eqref{eq:AlowWave:pf:1} by \eqref{eq:AlowWave:pf:4}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\partial_{0}(\partial^{\ell} \underline{A}_{\ell})}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{30}_{x}}
\leq C \underline{\mathcal{A}} \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(30)} \partial_{0} \underline{A}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}}
+ C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \mathcal{E} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{equation*}
Recall the simple div-curl identity $\sum_{i,j} \nrm{\partial_{i} B_{j}}^{2} = \frac{1}{2}\nrm{\partial \times B}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{2} + \nrm{\partial^{\ell} B_{\ell}}^{2}$ with $B = \underline{A}(t)$. Using furthermore \eqref{eq:AlowWave:pf:5} with $m=29$ and the fact that $\underline{\mathcal{A}}$ controls $\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(29)} \partial_{0} (\partial \times \underline{A})}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}}$, we obtain the following useful control on $\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(30)} \partial_{0} \underline{A}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}}$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:AlowWave:pf:6}
\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(30)} \partial_{0} \underline{A}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}}
\leq C \underline{\mathcal{A}} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \mathcal{E} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2} .
\end{equation}
Therefore, \eqref{eq:AlowWave:pf:5} holds in the case $m=30$ as well, i.e.
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\partial_{0}(\partial^{\ell} \underline{A}_{\ell})}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{30}_{x}}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \mathcal{E} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{equation*}
Integrating \eqref{eq:AlowWave:pf:5} with respect to $t$ from $t=0$, we obtain for $0 \leq m \leq 30$
\begin{equation} \label{eq:AlowWave:pf:7}
\nrm{\partial^{\ell} \underline{A}_{\ell}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{m}_{x}} \leq \mathcal{I} + T\Big( C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \mathcal{E} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2} \Big).
\end{equation}
Next, observe that $\nrm{\underline{w}_{i}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{m}_{x}} \leq \sup_{t \in (-T, T)}\nrm{w_{i}(t)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m}_{x}}$. Combining this observation with \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:1} and \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:2} from Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4wi}, as well as \eqref{eq:AlowWave:pf:6} to control $\nrm{\partial_{0} \underline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{30}_{x}}$, we have the following estimates for $0 \leq m \leq 30$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:AlowWave:pf:8}
\nrm{\underline{w}_{i}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{m}_{x}} \leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{equation}
We are now ready to finish the proof. Let $i=1,2,3$ and $1 \leq m \leq 30$. By the energy inequality and H\"older, we have
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}_{\dot{S}^{m}} \leq C \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}(t=0)}_{\dot{H}^{m-1}_{x}} + C T \nrm{\Box \underline{A}_{i}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{m-1}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
The first term is controlled by $C \mathcal{I}$. To control the second term, apply \eqref{eq:eqn4Alow}, \eqref{eq:AlowWave:pf:2}, \eqref{eq:AlowWave:pf:3}, \eqref{eq:AlowWave:pf:8}. Furthermore, use \eqref{eq:AlowWave:pf:7} to control the contribution of $\partial_{i} \partial^{\ell} \underline{A}_{\ell}$. As a result, we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{eq:AlowWave:pf:9}
\nrm{\underline{A}_{i}}_{\dot{S}^{m}}
\leq C \mathcal{I} + T \Big( C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \mathcal{E} + C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2} \Big),
\end{equation}
for $i=1,2,3$ and $1 \leq m \leq 30$.
Similarly, by the energy inequality and H\"older, we have
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{(\partial \times \underline{A})_{i}}_{\dot{S}^{30}} \leq C \nrm{\partial_{t,x} (\partial \times \underline{A})(t=0)}_{\dot{H}^{29}_{x}} + C T \nrm{\Box (\partial \times \underline{A})_{i}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{30}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
The first term is again controlled by $C \mathcal{I}$. To control the second term, we apply \eqref{eq:wave4curlAlow}, \eqref{eq:AlowWave:pf:2}, \eqref{eq:AlowWave:pf:3}, \eqref{eq:AlowWave:pf:8}; note that this time we do not need an estimate for $\partial^{\ell} \underline{A}_{\ell}$. We conclude
\begin{equation} \label{eq:AlowWave:pf:10}
\nrm{(\partial \times \underline{A})_{i}}_{\dot{S}^{30}} \leq C \mathcal{I} + T \, C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{equation}
Finally, using the div-curl identity, \eqref{eq:AlowWave:pf:7} and \eqref{eq:AlowWave:pf:10}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\underline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{31}_{x}} \leq C \mathcal{I} + T\Big( C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \mathcal{E} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F}+\underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2} \Big).
\end{equation*}
This concludes the proof. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\subsection{Hyperbolic estimates for $F_{si}$ : Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:FsWave}} \label{subsec:FsWave}
Let us recall the hyperbolic equation \eqref{eq:hyperbolic4F} satisfied by $F_{si}$:
\begin{equation*}
{\bf D}^\mu {\bf D}_\mu F_{s i} = 2 \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_s^\mu}}{F_{i \mu}} - {\bf D}^\ell {\bf D}_\ell w_i + {\bf D}_i {\bf D}^\ell w_\ell - {}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}.
\end{equation*}
Note that we have rewritten $2 \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_i^\ell}}{w_\ell} + 2 \LieBr{F^{\mu \ell}}{{\bf D}_\mu F_{i \ell} + {\bf D}_\ell F_{i \mu}} = {}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}$ for convenience.
\subsubsection{Semi-linear wave equation for $F_{si}$}
Let us begin by rewriting the wave equation for $F_{si}$ in a form more suitable for our analysis. Writing out the covariant derivatives in \eqref{eq:hyperbolic4F}, we obtain the following semi-linear wave equation for $F_{si}$.
\begin{equation*}
\Box F_{si} = {}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{quadratic}} + {}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{cubic}} + {}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{w},
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{align*}
{}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{quadratic}} := & - 2\LieBr{A^\ell}{\partial_\ell F_{si}} + 2 \LieBr{A_0}{\partial_{0} F_{si}}\\
&+ \LieBr{\partial_{0} A_0}{F_{si}} - \LieBr{\partial^\ell A_\ell}{F_{si}} - 2\LieBr{\tensor{F}{_i^\ell}}{F_{s \ell}} + 2\LieBr{F_{i 0}}{F_{s0}}, \\
{}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{cubic}} := & \LieBr{A_{0}}{\LieBr{A_{0}}{F_{si}}} - \LieBr{A^{\ell}}{\LieBr{A_{\ell}}{F_{si}}} \\
{}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{w} := & - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell} w_{i} + {\bf D}_{i} {\bf D}^{\ell} w_{\ell} - {}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}.
\end{align*}
The semi-linear equation for the difference $\delta F_{si} := F_{si} - F'_{si}$ is then given by
\begin{equation*}
\Box \delta F_{si} = {}^{(\delta F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{quadratic}} + {}^{(\delta F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{cubic}} + {}^{(\delta F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{w},
\end{equation*}
where ${}^{(\delta F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{quadratic}} := {}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{quadratic}} - {}^{(F'_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{quadratic}}$, ${}^{(\delta F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{cubic}} := {}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{cubic}} - {}^{(F'_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{cubic}}$ and ${}^{(\delta F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{w} := {}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{w} - {}^{(F'_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{w}$.
\subsubsection{Estimates for quadratic terms}
We begin the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:FsWave} by estimating the contribution of quadratic terms.
\begin{lemma} [Estimates for quadratic terms] \label{lem:FsWave:quadratic}
Assume $0 < T \leq 1$. For $1 \leq m \leq 10$ and $p=2, \infty$, the following estimates hold.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:FsWave:quadratic}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{quadratic}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:FsWave:quadratic:Diff}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(\delta F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{quadratic}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})(\delta \mathcal{E} + \delta \mathcal{F} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will give a rather detailed proof of \eqref{eq:FsWave:quadratic}. The other estimate \eqref{eq:FsWave:quadratic:Diff} may be proved by first using Leibniz's rule for $\delta$ to compute ${}^{(\delta F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{quadratic}}$, and then proceeding in an analogous fashion. We will omit the proof of the latter.
Let $1 \leq m \leq 10$ and $p = 2$ or $\infty$. We will work on the whole $s$-interval $(0, 1]$. Let us begin with an observation that in order to prove \eqref{eq:FsWave:quadratic}, it suffices to prove that each of the following can be bounded by $C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}$:
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\nrm{s^{-1/2} \LieBr{(A^{\mathrm{cf}})^{\ell}}{\nabla_{\ell} \nabla_{x}^{(m-1)} F_{si}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t,x}}, \quad
\nrm{s^{-1/2} \LieBr{(A^{\mathrm{df}})^{\ell}}{\nabla_{\ell} \nabla_{x}^{(m-1)} F_{si}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t,x}}, \\
&\sum_{j=1}^{m-1} \nrm{s^{-1/2} \LieBr{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} A^{\ell}}{\nabla_{\ell} \nabla_{x}^{(m-1-j)} F_{si}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t,x}}, \\
& \nrm{s^{-1/2} \LieBr{A_0}{\nabla_{0} F_{si}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}}, \quad
\nrm{s^{-1/2} \LieBr{\nabla_{0} A_0}{F_{si}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}}, \\
& \nrm{\LieBr{F_{i 0}}{F_{s0}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}}, \quad
\nrm{\LieBr{\tensor{F}{_i^\ell}}{F_{s \ell}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
Here, $A^{\mathrm{cf}}$ and $A^{\mathrm{df}}$, called the \emph{curl-free} and the \emph{divergence-free} parts of $A$, respectively, constitute the \emph{Hodge decomposition} of $A$, i.e. $A_{i} = A^{\mathrm{cf}}_{i} + A^{\mathrm{df}}_{i}$. They are defined by the formulae
\begin{equation*}
A^{\mathrm{cf}} := - (-\triangle)^{-1} \partial_{i} \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}, \quad A^{\mathrm{df}} := (-\triangle)^{-1} (\partial \times (\partial \times A))_{i}.
\end{equation*}
Let us treat each of them in order.
\pfstep{- Case 1 : Proof of $\nrm{s^{-1/2} \LieBr{(A^{\mathrm{cf}})^{\ell}}{\nabla_{\ell} \nabla_{x}^{(m-1)} F_{si}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t,x}} \leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}$}
We claim that the following estimate for $A^{\mathrm{cf}}$ holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:FsWave:quadratic:est4Acf}
\nrm{A^{\mathrm{cf}} (s)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4, \infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}} \leq C \underline{\mathcal{A}} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{equation}
Note, on the other hand, that $\nrm{\nabla_{\ell} \nabla_{x}^{(m-1)} F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}} \leq \mathcal{F}$ for $1 \leq m \leq 10$. Assuming the claim, the desired estimate then follows immediately by H\"older.
The key to our proof of \eqref{eq:FsWave:quadratic:est4Acf} is the covariant Coulomb condition satisfied by $F_{si}$
\begin{equation*}
{\bf D}^{\ell} F_{s\ell} = 0,
\end{equation*}
which was proved in Appendix \ref{sec:HPYM}. Writing out the covariant derivative ${\bf D}^{\ell} = \partial^{\ell} + A^{\ell}$ and using the relation $F_{s\ell} = \partial_{s} A_{\ell}$, we arrive at the following \emph{improved transport equation} for $\partial^{\ell}A_{\ell}$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:FsWave:quadratic:est4Acf:0}
\partial_{s} \big( \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell} (s) \big) = - \LieBr{A^{\ell}(s)}{F_{s\ell}(s)}.
\end{equation}
Observe furthermore that $\nrm{A^{\mathrm{cf}}_{\ell}(s)}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4, \infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}} = \sup_{0 < s \leq 1} \nrm{A^{\mathrm{cf}}(s)}_{L^{2}_{t} L^{\infty}_{x}}$. Our goal, therefore, is to estimate the latter by using \eqref{eq:FsWave:quadratic:est4Acf:0}.
Using the fundamental theorem of calculus and Minkowski, we obtain, for $1 \leq r \leq \infty$, the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{eq:FsWave:quadratic:est4Acf:1}
\sup_{0 < s \leq 1} \nrm{\partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}(s)}_{L^{2}_{t} L^{r}_{x}} \leq \nrm{\partial^{\ell} \underline{A}_{\ell}}_{L^{2}_{t} L^{r}_{x}} + \int_{0}^{1} \nrm {\LieBr{A^{\ell}(s)}{F_{s\ell}(s)}}_{L^{2}_{t} L^{r}_{x}} \, \mathrm{d} s.
\end{equation}
Let us recall that $(A^{\mathrm{cf}})_{i} = (- \triangle)^{-1} \partial_{i} \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$ by Hodge theory. It then follows that $\partial_{i} (A^{\mathrm{cf}})_{j} = R_{i} R_{j} (\partial^{\ell} A_{\ell})$, where $R_{i}, R_{j}$ are Riesz transforms. By elementary harmonic analysis \cite{MR0290095}, for $1 < r < \infty$, we have the inequality
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\partial_{x} A^{\mathrm{cf}}}_{L^{2}_{t} L^{r}_{x}} \leq C_{r} \nrm{\partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}}_{L^{2}_{t} L^{r}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
On the other hand, using Sobolev and Gagliardo-Nirenberg, we have
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{A^{\mathrm{cf}}}_{L^{2}_{t} L^{\infty}_{x}}
\leq C \nrm{\partial_{x} A^{\mathrm{cf}}}_{L^{2}_{t,x}}^{1/3} \nrm{\partial_{x} A^{\mathrm{cf}}}_{L^{2}_{t} L^{4}_{x}}^{2/3}.
\end{equation*}
As a result of these two inequalities, it suffices to bound the $L^{2}_{t,x}$ and $L^{2}_{t} L^{4}_{x}$ norms of $\partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}(s)$ using \eqref{eq:FsWave:quadratic:est4Acf:1}. For the first term on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:FsWave:quadratic:est4Acf:1}, we obviously have
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\partial^{\ell} \underline{A}_{\ell}}_{L^{2}_{t,x}} + \nrm{\partial^{\ell} \underline{A}_{\ell}}_{L^{2}_{t} L^{4}_{x}}
\leq C T^{1/2} (\nrm{\partial^{\ell} \underline{A}_{\ell}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial^{\ell} \underline{A}_{\ell}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{4}_{x}})
\leq C \underline{\mathcal{A}}.
\end{equation*}
by H\"older in time. Next, note that the second term on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:FsWave:quadratic:est4Acf:1} is equal to $\nrm{\LieBr{A^{\ell}}{F_{s\ell}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{\ell_{r},1}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{r}_{x}}$, where $\ell_{r} = \frac{5}{4} + \frac{3}{2r}$. In the case $r=2$, we estimate this, using Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A} and Proposition \ref{prop:lowEst4Fsi}, as follows.
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\LieBr{A^{\ell}}{F_{s\ell}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,1}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t,x}}
\leq C T^{1/2} \nrm{s^{1/4}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2}_{s}} \nrm{A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4, \infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t,x}} \nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{x}}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{equation*}
In the other case $r=4$, we proceed similarly, again using Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A} and Proposition \ref{prop:lowEst4Fsi}.
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\LieBr{A^{\ell}}{F_{s\ell}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{13/8,1}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{x}}
\leq C \nrm{s^{1/8}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2}_{s}} \nrm{A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4, \infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t,x}}
\leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{equation*}
Combining these estimates, we obtain \eqref{eq:FsWave:quadratic:est4Acf}.
\pfstep{- Case 2 : Proof of $\nrm{s^{-1/2} \LieBr{(A^{\mathrm{df}})^{\ell}}{\nabla_{\ell} \nabla_{x}^{(m-1)} F_{si}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t,x}} \leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}$}
In this case, we \emph{cannot} estimate $A^{\mathrm{df}}$ in $L^{2}_{t} L^{\infty}_{x}$. Here, we need to look more closely into the exact form of the nonlinearity, and recover a \emph{null form}, \`a la Klainerman \cite{Klainerman:tc}, Christodoulou \cite{MR820070} and Klainerman-Machedon \cite{Klainerman:ei}. We remark that this is the only place where we utilize the null form estimate.
For $B = B_{i}$ (i=1,2,3), $\phi$ smooth and $B_{i}, \phi \in \dot{S}^{1}$, we claim that the following estimate holds for $0 < s \leq 1$ :
\begin{equation} \label{eq:FsWave:quadratic:Adf:0}
\nrm{\LieBr{(B^{\mathrm{df}})^{\ell}}{\partial_{\ell} \phi }}_{L^{2}_{t,x}} \leq C(\sup_{k} \nrm{B_{k}}_{\dot{S}^{1}}) \nrm{\phi}_{\dot{S}^{1}}.
\end{equation}
Assuming the claim, by the Correspondence Principle, we then obtain the estimate
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{s^{-1/2} \LieBr{(\mathcal{T}^{\mathrm{df}})^{\ell}}{\nabla_{\ell} \psi }}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t,x}} \leq C(\sup_{k} \nrm{\mathcal{T}_{k}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{1}}) \nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{1}},
\end{equation*}
for smooth $\mathcal{T} = \mathcal{T}_{i}(s)$ (i=1,2,3) $\psi$ such that the right-hand side is finite. Let us take $\mathcal{T} = A$, $\psi = \nabla_{x}^{(m-1)} F_{si}$. By Proposition \ref{prop:est4ai}, we have $\nrm{A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{1}} \leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})$, whereas by definition $\nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(m-1)} F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{1}} \leq C \mathcal{F}$ for $1 \leq m \leq 10$. The desired estimate therefore follows.
Now, it is only left to prove \eqref{eq:FsWave:quadratic:Adf:0}. The procedure that we are about to describe is standard, due to Klainerman-Machedon \cite{Klainerman:1994jb}, \cite{Klainerman:1995hz}. We reproduce the argument here for the sake of completeness.
Let us first assume that $B_{i}$ is Schwartz in $x$ for every $t, s$. Then simple Hodge theory tells us that $B^{\mathrm{df}}_{i} = (\partial \times V)_{i}$, where
\begin{equation*}
V_{i}(x) := (-\triangle)^{-1} (\partial \times B)_{i}(x) = \frac{1}{4 \pi} \int \Big( B(y) \times \frac{(x-y)}{\abs{x-y}^{3}}\Big)_{i} \mathrm{d} y,
\end{equation*}
where we suppressed the variables $t, s$. Substituting $(B^{\mathrm{df}})^{\ell} = (\partial \times V)^{\ell}$ on the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:FsWave:quadratic:Adf:0}, we have
\begin{align*}
\nrm{\sum_{j,k,\ell} \epsilon_{\ell j k} \LieBr{\partial_{j} V_{k}(s)}{\partial_{\ell} \psi(s)} }_{L^{2}_{t,x}}
\leq & \frac 1 2 \sum_{j, k, \ell} \nrm{Q_{j\ell} (V_{k}(s), \psi)(s)}_{L^{2}_{t,x}} \\
\leq & C ( \sup_{k} \nrm{V_{k}(s)}_{\dot{S}^{2}} ) \nrm{\psi(s)}_{\dot{S}^{1}} ,
\end{align*}
where we remind the reader that $Q_{ij} (\phi, \psi) = \partial_{i}\phi \partial_{j} \psi - \partial_{j} \phi \partial_{i} \psi$, and on the last line we used \eqref{eq:prelim:est4SH:nullform} of Proposition \ref{prop:prelim:est4SH} (null form estimate). Since $\partial_{j} V_{k} = (-\triangle)^{-1} \partial_{j} (\partial \times B)_{i}$, and $\nrm{\cdot}_{\dot{S}^{1}}$ is an $L^{2}_{x}$-type norm, we see that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{k} \nrm{V_{k}(s)}_{\dot{S}^{2}} = \sup_{j,k} \nrm{\partial_{j} V_{k}(s)}_{\dot{S}^{1}} \leq C \sup_{k} \nrm{B_{k}(s)}_{\dot{S}^{1}},
\end{equation*}
from which \eqref{eq:FsWave:quadratic:Adf:0} follows, under the additional assumption that $B_{i}$ are Schwartz in $x$. Then, using the quantitative estimate \eqref{eq:FsWave:quadratic:Adf:0}, it is not difficult to drop the Schwartz assumption by approximation.
\pfstep{- Case 3 : Proof of $\sum_{j=1}^{m-1} \nrm{s^{-1/2} \LieBr{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} A^{\ell}}{\nabla_{\ell} \nabla_{x}^{(m-1-j)} F_{si}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t,x}} \leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}$}
By the H\"older inequality $L^{4}_{t,x} \cdot L^{4}_{t,x} \subset L^{2}_{t,x}$, the Correspondence Principle and H\"older for $\mathcal{L}^{\ell,p}_{s}$ (Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}), we immediately obtain the estimate
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j=1}^{m-1} \nrm{s^{-1/2} \LieBr{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} A^{\ell}}{\nabla_{\ell} \nabla_{x}^{(m-1-j)} F_{si}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t,x}}
\leq C \sum_{j=1}^{m-1} \nrm{A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{j,4}_{x}} \nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{m-j,4}_{x}}.
\end{align*}
Let us apply Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A} to $\nrm{A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{j,4}_{x}}$; as $1 \leq j \leq m-1 \leq 9$, this can be estimated by $C (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})$. On the other hand, as $1 \leq m-j \leq m-1 \leq 9$, $\nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{4}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{W}}^{m-j,4}_{x}}$ can be controlled by $C\mathcal{F}$ via Strichartz. The desired estimate follows.
\pfstep{- Case 4 : Proof of $ \nrm{s^{-1/2} \LieBr{A_0}{\nabla_{0} F_{si}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}} \leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}$}
By Leibniz's rule, the H\"older inequality $L^{2}_{t} L^{\infty}_{x} \cdot L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x} \subset L^{2}_{t,x}$, the Correspondence Principle and H\"older for $\mathcal{L}^{\ell,p}_{s}$ (Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}), we have
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{s^{-1/2} \LieBr{A_0}{\nabla_{0} F_{si}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}}
\leq C \sum_{j=0}^{m-1} \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} A_{0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{0+1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{\nabla_{0} F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1-j}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
Thanks to the extra weight of $s^{1/4}$ and the fact that $0 \leq j \leq m-1 \leq 9$, we can easily prove $\nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} A_{0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}} \leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}$ via Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A0}, Gagliardo-Nirenberg (Lemma \ref{lem:absP:algEst}) and Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:high}. On the other hand, as $0 \leq m-1-j \leq 9$, we have $\nrm{\nabla_{0} F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1-j}_{x}} \leq C \mathcal{F}$. The desired estimate then follows.
\pfstep{- Case 5 : Proof of $ \nrm{s^{-1/2} \LieBr{\nabla_{0} A_0}{F_{si}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}} \leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}$}
We claim that the following estimate for $\nabla_{0} A_{0}$ holds for $0 \leq j \leq 9$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:FsWave:quadratic:D0A0:0}
\nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} \nabla_{0} A_{0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{0, \infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}} \leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}.
\end{equation}
Assuming the claim, let us prove the desired estimate. As in the previous case, we have
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{s^{-1/2} \LieBr{\nabla_{0} A_0}{F_{si}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}}
\leq C \sum_{j=0}^{m-1} \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} \nabla_{0} A_{0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1-j}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
The factor $\nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} \nabla_{0} A_{0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}}$ can be controlled by \eqref{eq:FsWave:quadratic:D0A0:0}. For the other factor, we divide into two cases: For $1 \leq j \leq m-1 \leq 9$, we have $\nrm{F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1-j}_{x}} \leq C \mathcal{F}$, whereas for $j=0$ we use Proposition \ref{prop:lowEst4Fsi}. The desired estimate then follows.
To prove the claim, we begin with the formula $\partial_{0} A_{0} = - \int_{s}^{1} \partial_{0} F_{s0}(s') \, \mathrm{d} s'$. Proceeding as in the proofs of the Lemmas \ref{lem:fundEst4A} and \ref{lem:fundEst4A0}, we obtain the estimate
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} \nabla_{0} A_{0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{0, \infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} \nabla_{0} F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
In order to estimate the right-hand side, recall the identity $\partial_{0} F_{s0} = \partial^{\ell} w_{\ell} + \LieBr{A^{\ell}}{w_{\ell}} + \LieBr{A_{0}}{F_{s0}}$ from Appendix \ref{sec:HPYM}. It therefore suffices to prove
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} \nabla^{\ell} w_{\ell}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}}
+ \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} \LieBr{A^{\ell}}{w_{\ell}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/2,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}}
+ \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} \LieBr{A_{0}}{F_{s0}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/2,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}}
\leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2},
\end{equation*}
for $0 \leq j \leq 9$.
By Gagliardo-Nirenberg (Lemma \ref{lem:absP:algEst}) and Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4wi}, we have $ \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} \nabla^{\ell} w_{\ell}}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}} \leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}$ for $0 \leq j \leq 9$.
Next, by Leibniz's rule, H\"older, the Correspondence Principle and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} \LieBr{A^{\ell}}{w_{\ell}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/2,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}}
\leq C \sum_{j' = 0}^{j} \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j')} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4+1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t,x}} \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j-j')} w}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
Note the extra weight of $s^{1/4}$ on the first factor. As $0 \leq j' \leq 9$, by Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A}, Gagliardo-Nirenberg (Lemma \ref{lem:absP:algEst}) and Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fsi}, we have $\nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j')} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/2,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t,x}} \leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}).$ On the other hand, $\nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j-j')} w}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}} \leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}$ by Gagliardo-Nirenberg (Lemma \ref{lem:absP:algEst}) and Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4wi}.
Finally, we can show $\nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} \LieBr{A_{0}}{F_{s0}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/2,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{x}} \leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}$ by proceeding similarly, with applications of Propositions \ref{prop:pEst4Fsi} and \ref{prop:pEst4wi} replaced by Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:high}. We leave the details to the reader.
\pfstep{- Case 6 : Proof of $\nrm{\LieBr{F_{i 0}}{F_{s0}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}} \leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}$}
By Leibniz's rule, H\"older, the Correspondence Principle and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\LieBr{F_{i0}}{F_{s0}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}}
\leq C \sum_{j=0}^{m-1} \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} F_{i0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t,x}} \nrm{F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1-j}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
Using Gagliardo-Nirenberg (Lemma \ref{lem:absP:algEst}) and Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4F0i}, combined with Propositions \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:high}, \ref{prop:pEst4Fsi}, we can prove the following estimate for the first factor (for $0 \leq j \leq 9$):
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} F_{i0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{3/4,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t,x}}
\leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}).
\end{equation*}
For the second factor, we simply apply Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:high} to conclude $\nrm{F_{s0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1-j}_{x}} \leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \mathcal{E} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}$ for $0 \leq m-1-j \leq 9$, which is good.
\pfstep{- Case 7 : Proof of $\nrm{\LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{i}^{\ell}}}{F_{s\ell}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}} \leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}$}
In this case, we simply expands out $F_{i\ell} = \partial_{i} A_{\ell} - \partial_{\ell} A_{i} + \LieBr{A_{i}}{A_{\ell}}$. Note that the first two terms give additional terms of the form already handled in Step 3, whereas the last term will give us cubic terms which can simply be estimated by using H\"older and Sobolev. For more details, we refer to the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:FsWave:cubic} below. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Estimates for cubic terms}
The contribution of cubic terms are much easier to handle compared to quadratic terms. Indeed, we have the following lemma.
\begin{lemma} [Estimates for cubic terms] \label{lem:FsWave:cubic}
Assume $0 < T \leq 1$. For $1 \leq m \leq 10$ and $p=2, \infty$, the following estimates hold.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:FsWave:cubic}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{cubic}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x} (0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{3},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:FsWave:cubic:Diff}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(\delta F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{cubic}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x} (0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2} (\delta \mathcal{E} + \delta \mathcal{F} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As before, we give a proof of \eqref{eq:FsWave:cubic}, leaving the similar proof of the difference version \eqref{eq:FsWave:cubic:Diff} to the reader.
Let $1 \leq m \leq 10$ and $p = 2$ or $\infty$. As before, we work on the whole interval $(0,1]$. We begin with the obvious inequality
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\phi_{1} \phi_{2} \phi_{3}}_{L^{2}_{t,x}} \leq C T^{1/2} \prod_{i=1,2,3} \nrm{\phi_{i}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} \dot{H}^{1}_{x}},
\end{equation*}
which follows from H\"older and Sobolev. By Leibniz's rule, the Correspondence Principle and H\"older for $\mathcal{L}^{\ell,p}_{s}$ (Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}), we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{cubic}}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}}
\leq & C T^{1/2} \nrm{\nabla_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{H}_{x}^{m-1}}^{2} \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{H}_{x}^{m-1}} \\
& + C T^{1/2} \nrm{\nabla_{x} A_{0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{0+1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{H}_{x}^{m-1}}^{2} \nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{H}_{x}^{m-1}}.
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
Note the obvious bound $\nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{H}_{x}^{m-1}} \leq C\mathcal{F}$. Applying Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A0} to $\nrm{A_{0}}$ (using the extra weight of $s^{1/4}$) and Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fs0:high}, we also obtain $\nrm{\nabla_{x} A_{0}}_{\mathcal{L}^{0+1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{H}_{x}^{m-1}} \leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot \mathcal{E} + C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2}$. Finally, we split $\nrm{\nabla_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{H}_{x}^{m-1}}$ into $\nrm{A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}_{x}^{1}}$ and $\nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(2)} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{H}_{x}^{m-2}}$ (where the latter term does not exist in the case $m = 1$). For the former we apply Proposition \ref{prop:est4ai}, whereas for the latter we apply Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A}. We then conclude $\nrm{\nabla_{x} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t} \mathcal{H}_{x}^{m-1}} \leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})$. Combining all these estimates, \eqref{eq:FsWave:cubic} follows. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Estimates for terms involving $w_{i}$}
Finally, the contribution of ${}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{w}$ is estimated by the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}[Estimates for terms involving $w_{i}$] \label{lem:FsWave:w}
Assume $0 < T \leq 1$. For $1 \leq m \leq 10$ and $p=2, \infty$, the following estimates hold.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:FsWave:w}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{w}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:FsWave:w:Diff}
\sup_{i} \nrm{{}^{(\delta F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{w}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})(\delta \mathcal{E} + \delta \mathcal{F} + \delta \underline{\mathcal{A}}).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As before, we will only give a proof of \eqref{eq:FsWave:w}, leaving the similar proof of \eqref{eq:FsWave:w:Diff} to the reader.
Let $1 \leq m \leq 10$ and $p = 2$ or $\infty$. We work on the whole interval $(0,1]$. Note that, schematically,
\begin{align*}
{}^{(F_{si})}\mathcal{M}_{w}
= & \partial^\ell \partial_\ell w_i - \partial_i \partial^\ell w_\ell + {}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N} + \mathcal{O}(A, \partial_{x} w) + \mathcal{O}(\partial_{x} A, w) + \mathcal{O}(A, A, w).
\end{align*}
By Leibniz's rule, the Correspondence Principle (from the H\"older inequality $L^{\infty}_{t,x} \cdot L^{2}_{t,x} \subset L^{2}_{t,x}$) and Lemma \ref{lem:absP:Holder4Ls}, we obtain the following estimate.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:FsWave:w:pf:1}
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{{}^{(F_{si})}\mathcal{M}_{w}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}} \\
& \qquad \leq C \nrm{w}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m+1}_{x}} + C \nrm{{}^{(w_{i})} \mathcal{N}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2,p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m+1}_{x}}
+C \sum_{j=0}^{m} \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t,x}} \nrm{ w}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-j}_{x}} \\
&\phantom{\qquad \leq}+ C \sum_{j, j' \geq 0, j+j' \leq m-1} \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t,x}}\nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j')} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t,x}} \nrm{w}_{\mathcal{L}^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1-j-j'}_{x}}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{lem:fundEst4A}, combined with Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4Fsi}, the following estimate holds for $0 \leq j \leq 10$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:FsWave:w:pf:2}
\nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(j)} A}_{\mathcal{L}^{1/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{\infty}_{t,x}} \leq C_{\mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} (\mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}}).
\end{equation}
Now \eqref{eq:FsWave:w} follows from \eqref{eq:FsWave:w:pf:1}, \eqref{eq:FsWave:w:pf:2} and \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:3}, \eqref{eq:pEst4wi:4} of Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4wi}, thanks to the restriction $1 \leq m \leq 10$. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Completion of the proof}
We are now prepared to give a proof of Theorem \ref{thm:FsWave}.
\begin{proof} [Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:FsWave}]
Let us begin with \eqref{eq:FsWave:1}. Recalling the definition of $\mathcal{F}$, it suffices to show
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{m}(0,1]} \leq C \mathcal{I} + T^{1/2} C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} \cdot (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2},
\end{equation*}
for $i=1,2,3$, $p= 2, \infty$ and $1 \leq m \leq 10$. Starting with the energy inequality and applying the Correspondence Principle, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4, p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{S}}^{m}}
\leq C \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} F_{si}(t=0)}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}} + C T^{1/2} \nrm{\Box F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{2, p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{2}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
The first term on the right-hand side is estimated by $C\mathcal{I}$. For the second term, as $\Box F_{si} = {}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{quadratic}} + {}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{cubic}} + {}^{(F_{si})} \mathcal{M}_{w}$, we may apply Lemmas \ref{lem:FsWave:quadratic} -- \ref{lem:FsWave:w} (estimates \eqref{eq:FsWave:quadratic}, \eqref{eq:FsWave:cubic} and \eqref{eq:FsWave:w}, in particular) to conclude
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\Box F_{si}}_{\mathcal{L}^{5/4+1, p}_{s} \mathcal{L}^{1}_{t} \dot{\mathcal{H}}^{m-1}_{x}} \leq T^{1/2} C_{\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{F}, \underline{\mathcal{A}}} (\mathcal{E} + \mathcal{F} + \underline{\mathcal{A}})^{2},
\end{equation*}
which is good.
The proof of \eqref{eq:FsWave:2} is basically identical, this time controlling the initial data term by $C \delta \mathcal{I}$ and using \eqref{eq:FsWave:quadratic:Diff}, \eqref{eq:FsWave:cubic:Diff}, \eqref{eq:FsWave:w:Diff} in place of \eqref{eq:FsWave:quadratic}, \eqref{eq:FsWave:cubic}, \eqref{eq:FsWave:w}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Recall that in \cite{Klainerman:1995hz}, one has to recover two types of null forms, namely $Q_{ij}(\abs{\partial_{x}}^{-1} A, A)$ and $\abs{\partial_{x}}^{-1} Q_{ij}(A, A)$, in order to prove $H^{1}$ local well-posedness in the Coulomb gauge. An amusing observation is that we did not need to uncover the second type of null forms in our proof.
\end{remark}
|
\section{Introduction}
Since its discovery \citep{1968Sci...162.1481S,1969Natur.221..453C}, the pulsar in the Crab nebula
has been one of the most targeted objects in the sky at all wavelengths, from radio to very high energy-rays,
serving as a test bed for pulsar theories as well as for studying astrophysical non-thermal processes.
Optical pulsations were discovered more than 40 years ago (\citealt{1969Natur.221..525C,1969ApJ...155L.121L})
and the Crab pulsar was indeed the first celestial object to be detected as a pulsating source in the optical band.
The optical light curve of the Crab pulsar has been monitored through the years using a
variety of telescopes and instruments (e.g. \citealt{2009MNRAS.397..103S}).
The pulse shape is characterized by a double peak profile, separated in phase by
$\sim 140^{\circ}$. The shape is similar through the entire electromagnetic spectrum, although
the morphological details differ substantially from radio to gamma-rays.
Wavelength-dependent changes in the pulsar properties have been
reported also by Percival et al. (1993) (peaks width and separation larger in the V band
than in the UV) and by \cite{2002ApJ...581..485F}.
The pulse shape is very stable (e.g. \citealt{2011AdSpR..47..365Z}), despite the secular decrease of the
luminosity \citep{1996A&A...314..849N} and the presence of glitches and timing noise.
Occasionally small variations of the shape of the pulse have been observed
\citep{2007Ap&SS.308..595K}.
Several issues concerning the pulsar engine and the actual geometry of the emission regions are still debated,
ranging from the nature and location of the acceleration mechanism, to wavelength
dependent variations of the pulse profile, to properties of the Giant Radio Pulses
(GRPs). In particular, the study of GRPs is currently a very active field, with deep
theoretical implications. So far GRPs have been observed in a handful of pulsars.
However, an analogous optical phenomenon has been observed only at the Crab.
GRPs seem to show a weak correlation with optical pulses
(\citealt{2003A&A...411L..31K,2004ApJ...605L.129R}), which are on average 3\%
brighter when coincident with GRPs (\citealt{2003Sci...301..493S}).
Recent coeval timing at optical and radio wavelengths by \cite{2008A&A...488..271O}
found a 255 $\pm$ 21 $\mu$s delay of radio with respect to optical pulse.
In the last few years we started a monitoring programme of the
Crab pulsar in the optical band aimed at studying the long term stability and sub-$\mu$s structure
of its pulse shape, and at performing accurate optical timing of the
main peak. By comparing the behaviour in other wavebands, especially radio,
we aim to improve the understanding of the geometry of the acceleration site.
Observations are performed by means of a very fast single photon-counter
instrument, Aqueye, mounted at the 182 cm Copernico Telescope in Asiago \citep{2009JMOp...56..261B,2011AdSpR..47..365Z}.
The design of Aqueye follows that of QuantEYE \citep[the Quantum EYE;][]{2005astro.ph.11027D,2008JMO..11..190B},
an instrument specifically tailored for studying rapid optical variability of astrophysical
sources with the ESO E-ELT. A second version of the instrument, named Iqueye, has been
installed and successfully used at the ESO NTT telescope \citep{2009A&A...508..531N,2010SPIE.7735E.138N}.
In a preliminary investigation \citep{2011AdSpR..47..365Z} we concentrated on the pulse
shape stability of the Crab pulsar and found
that it is stable at the level of $\sim 1$\% on a timescale of 14 years. This result
reinforces evidence for decadal stability of the inclination angle between the spin
and magnetic axis, and of the thickness of the emission region.
Here we present a follow-up investigation reporting accurate phase analysis
of optical timing of the main peak and comparing it with radio ephemerides
of the Jodrell Bank (JB) radio Observatory \citep{1993MNRAS.265.1003L}.
The plan of the paper is as follows. In section~\ref{observations} we list observations
of the Crab pulsar performed with the Aqueye instrument and discuss the barycenterization procedure.
In Section~\ref{phaseanalysis} we illustrate the implementation of phase analysis.
In Section~\ref{results} our results are presented and compared with radio ephemerides.
Section~\ref{conclusions} summarizes the conclusions.
\begin{table}
\caption[]{Log of October 2008 Crab pulsar observations performed
with Aqueye mounted at the 182cm Copernico telescope in Asiago. The start time
of the observations is the GPS integer second, accurate to $\pm$30 nanoseconds.
}
\label{tab1}
$$
\begin{array}{p{0.05\linewidth}p{0.35\linewidth}p{0.1\linewidth}}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
& Starting time & Duration\\
& (UTC) & (s) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
1 & October 10, 23:45:14 & 898 \\
2 & October 11, 00:05:07 & 1197 \\
3 & October 11, 01:00:22 & 1797 \\
4 & October 11, 01:45:44 & 1797 \\
5 & October 11, 02:23:07 & 1631 \\
6 & October 11, 03:23:46 & 1197 \\
7 & October 11, 23:08:03 & 292 \\
8 & October 11, 23:25:09 & 3597 \\
9 & October 12, 00:54:31 & 1794 \\
10 & October 12, 23:03:59 & 292 \\
11 & October 12, 23:13:57 & 3998 \\
12 & October 13, 00:57:07 & 7194 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{array}
$$
\end{table}
\section{Observations}
\label{observations}
The Crab pulsar was observed with Aqueye mounted at the 182 cm Copernico Telescope in Asiago.
The observations were performed in 2008 and lasted for three nights, starting from October 10.
The sky was clear and seeing conditions fair (1.5 arcsec average). For a timing log of observations, see Table~\ref{tab1}.
During each observing run we recorded the arrival time of $\sim 0.15-3.6 \times 10^7$ photons,
time-tagged with a relative time accuracy of $\sim$100 picoseconds and an
absolute precision (referred to UTC) better than 500 ps (for details about
the timing accuracy of the acquisition system see \citealt{2009A&A...508..531N}).
To our knowledge, this is the most accurate measurement of photon arrival times
from the Crab pulsar ever obtained in the optical band.
The time-tag of each detected photon in the unbinned time series was reduced to the Solar System
barycentric time using the software Tempo2\footnote{http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/ppta/tempo2}
\citep{2006MNRAS.369..655H,2006MNRAS.372.1549E}.
The adopted position of the Crab pulsar is that reported in the Jodrell
Bank monthly ephemerides (R.A. 05h 34m 31.97232s, DEC. +22$^0$ 00$'$ 52.0690$''$ [J2000]), with no correction for proper motion.
To perform this conversion the software needs also accurate value of the observatory
geocentric coordinates.
They were obtained with a GPS receiver, which was connected to an antenna
with a length compensated cable and situated at the dome of the telescope.
At least 6 GPS satellites were used in the positional data acquisition, which
typically lasted 3 hours and was repeated for several days. Finally the position
of the antenna was referred to the intersection of the telescope hour angle and
declination axes by laser assisted metrology. We estimate the positional error
to be $\sim$30 cm, amply sufficient for the purpose of this paper.
In order to compare our ephemerides to those reported in the JB Observatory
radio archive we baricentered the time-tags also in the Tempo1 emulation mode.
In doing so, we found an error in the actual value of the Roemer delay, caused by
some inconsinstency in the Earth configuration files related to the calculation
of the polar motion of the Earth\footnote{The Roemer delay computed in Tempo2 showed an anomalous
oscillation at around the time of our observations,
reaching a maximum value of 30 $\mu$s (instead of $\la 35$ ns; see e.g. \citealt{2006MNRAS.369..655H}).
This caused a drift of the phase of the main peak of $\sim$1 ms per day and a lengthening of the rotational
period of $\sim$0.4 ns.}.
This problem was solved by using updated Earth configuration files loaded from the Tempo2 SCM
repository\footnote{http://tempo2.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/tempo2/tempo2/T2runtime/}.
\begin{table}
\caption[]{Geocentric coordinates of the 182 cm Copernico telescope in Asiago.
The $3\sigma$ uncertainty is 0.3 m.}
\label{tabcoords}
$$
\begin{array}{p{0.3\linewidth}p{0.3\linewidth}p{0.3\linewidth}}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
$x$ & $y$ & $z$ \\
(m) & (m) & (m) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
4360966.0 & 892728.1 & 4554543.1 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{array}
$$
\end{table}
\section{Phase-analysis}
\label{phaseanalysis}
We analyzed the evolution of the phase of the main peak of the Crab pulsar using
the barycentered event list.
A reference period $P_{init}$ is assumed and the light curve is divided into
$n$ seconds long segments. Each segment is then folded over $P_{init}$ and
is binned at $\sim$1/300 in phase. The phase of the main peak is determined by
cross-correlating the pulse shape with a template, as summarized in the Appendix.
Our method is conceptually similar to the one adopted by \citet{2008A&A...488..271O}
and is more accurate than previous approaches based on fitting the main peak
with a simple analytic function like a Lorentzian, Gaussian or parabola
(see e.g. \citealt{2006A&A...456..283O}), given its asymmetric shape.
Following the standard pulsar spin down model, we describe the phase drift
of the main peak with respect to uniform rotation using a third-order polynomial,
i.e.:
\begin{equation}
\Delta\phi(t)=\phi(t)-\phi'(t)=\phi_{0}+(\nu-\nu_{init})(t-t_{0})+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\nu}(t-t_{0})^{2}+\frac{1}{6}\ddot{\nu}(t-t_{0})^{3}
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
where $t_0$ is a reference time,
$\phi_0=\phi(t_0)$ is the phase of the main peak at $t_0$, $\phi'(t)=(t-t_{0})/P_{init}$ is the phase
for constant rotation at frequency $\nu_{init}=1/P_{init}$, and $\nu$, $\dot{\nu}$,
$\ddot{\nu}$ are the actual rotational frequency and its first and second derivatives, respectively.
$P_{init}$ is chosen in such a way that $\Delta \phi$ varies slowly during the period of observation.
For a 2 days baseline, the linear and quadratic terms, i.e. the first and second derivatives of the phase, are sufficient to describe the drift, and we
can safely neglect the cubic term in equation~(\ref{eq1}).
Then, the expression for $\Delta \phi(t)$ (eq.~[\ref{eq1}]) becomes of the form
\begin{equation}
\psi(t)=\phi_{0}+a(t-t_{0})+b(t-t_{0})^{2} \, ,
\label{eq2}
\end{equation}
where $\phi_0$, $a$ (in units of $s^{-1}$) and $b$ (in units of $s^{-2}$)
are determined by fitting $\psi(t)$ to the observed phase-drift.
After determining $\psi(t)$ from the fit, the phase of the main peak is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq4}
\phi(t)=\phi'(t)+\Delta\phi(t)=\nu_{init}(t-t_{0})+\psi(t) \, .
\end{equation}
\subsection{The radio phase from the Jodrell Bank ephemerides archive}
We compared the phase of the Crab pulsar measured by Aqueye with that reported in the
radio archive at the JB Observatory\footnote{http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/$\sim$pulsar/crab.html}
\citep{1993MNRAS.265.1003L}. The phases of the JB ephemerides are those
of the main peak at infinite frequency at the barycenter of the Solar System.
The observed barycentric radio phase $\phi_r(t)$ is obtained using the values of $\nu_r$, $\dot{\nu}_r$ and $\ddot{\nu}_r$
nearest to our observing epochs and reported in the archive\footnote{http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/$\sim$pulsar/crab/all.gro}.
The radio phase drift is given by an expression similar to equation~(\ref{eq1}):
\begin{equation}
\Delta\phi_r=\phi_r(t)-\phi'(t)=\phi_{r,0}+(\nu_r-\nu_{init})(t-t_{0})+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\nu}_r(t-t_{0})^{2}
+\frac{1}{6}\ddot{\nu}_r(t-t_{0})^{3}
\label{eq6}
\end{equation}
The optical phase is in agreement with the radio one if the phase drifts inferred
from equations~(\ref{eq1}) and~(\ref{eq6}) are in agreement.
The radio phase $\phi_{r,0}$ at epoch $t_{0}$ is calculated by means of a quadratic
extrapolation starting from the closest value in time reported in the JB radio ephemerides
(Oct 15, 2008) and is in agreement, within the errors, with the value calculated with a Fortran
code available at the JB radio ephemerides website.
No known glitch (down to the intensity to which radio monitoring is sensitive to) affected
the Crab in the interval of time between the determination of the
Crab radio parameters and the optical observations.
\section{Results}
\label{results}
In Figure~\ref{fig3} we show the light curve of the Crab pulsar folded over the
average spin period for one of the Aqueye observations (see also \citealt{2011AdSpR..47..365Z}).
The light curve includes the contribution of both the pulsar and the nebular background
entering the Aqueye pinhole entrance aperture. For a whole observation the counting statistics is large
and hence the bin time is smaller than that adopted for the
phase analysis, for which the typical integration time is a few seconds (see below).
The average count rate of the Crab pulsar (all channels) measured by Aqueye is $\sim 5500$
counts s$^{-1}$. The count rate of the background, estimated from the off-pulse region of the
folded light curve (see Figure~\ref{fig3}), is $\sim 4500$ counts s$^{-1}$,
which implies a total number of net source photons of $\sim 2.6\times 10^6$,
time tagged to better than 500 ps with respect to UTC. As we already point out in
\citet{2011AdSpR..47..365Z}, the pulse shape agrees well with the 33 years-old
pulse profile obtained by \citet{1975ApJ...200..278G}, as well as with the more
recent one by \citet{2007Ap&SS.308..595K}.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{lc_folded_obs4.eps}}
\caption{Folded light curve of the Crab pulsar as a function of phase for the Aqueye
observation 4 in Table~\ref{tab1}. The folding period and the bin time are 0.0336216417 s
and $33.6 \, \mu$s, respectively.
The typical double peak profile of the pulse is recognizable. For sake of clarity two
rotations of the neutron star are shown. Phase zero/one corresponds to the position
of the main peak in the radio band and is marked with a vertical {\it dashed} line.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht!]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{crab_asiago_2008_phase_drift.eps}}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{crab_asiago_2008_phase_res.eps}}
\caption{\emph{Top panel}: Phase-drift of the main peak of the Crab pulsar
(changed sign) measured during the observing run in Asiago in October 2008.
The (red) curve is the best-fitting parabola (eq[\ref{eq2}]).
The reference epoch $t_0$ is MJD=54749.0, while the reference rotational
period is $P_{init}=0.0336216386529$ s.
\emph{Bottom panel}: Phase residuals (in $\mu$s) after subtracting the
best-fitting parabola to the phase-drift.}
\label{fig6}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Optical phase drift}
\label{optphaseanalysis}
In the following we focus on the detailed analysis of the optical phase drift of the main peak
of the Crab pulsar and compare it with the behaviour observed in the radio using the JB ephemerides.
Figure~\ref{fig6} shows the best-fitting parabola to the phase-drift of the Crab pulsar
measured by Aqueye. The phase of the main peak is calculated using intervals 2 seconds long.
The typical 1-$\sigma$ uncertainty on the position of the peak is $\sim 30 \, \mu$s.
The best-fit gives a reduced $\chi^2 \sim 1.06$. The reference epoch $t_0$ is MJD=54749.0, while the reference rotational
period $P_{init}=1/\nu_{init}$ used to fold the light curve is $P_{init}=0.0336216386529$ s.
The best-fitting parabola of the optical phase drift $\psi(t)$ (eq.~[\ref{eq2}]) is:
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi(t) &=& (1.021431 \pm 0.000081) \nonumber \\
&-& [(3.21329 \pm 0.00011)\times 10^{-5} \, s^{-1}] \, (t-t_0) \nonumber \\
&+& [(1.859380 \pm 0.000029) \times10^{-10} \, s^{-2}] \, (t-t_0)^{2} \, .
\label{eq7}
\end{eqnarray}
The quoted uncertainties are the 1-$\sigma$ errors for one interesting parameter.
Figure~\ref{fig6} shows also the phase residuals remaining after subtracting equation~(\ref{eq7})
from the measured phase drift. The distribution shows a spread of $\la 100 \, \mu$s
($\sim$ 0.003 cycles) and is rather symmetric around zero (see Figure~\ref{fig8}),
testifying that all the observations are phase-connected.
The rotational frequecy is $\nu=d\phi(t)/dt$. Thus,
inserting equation~(\ref{eq7}) into equation~(\ref{eq4}) and taking the
derivative with respect to $t$, we obtain an expression for the rotational
frequency $\nu$ and period $P=1/\nu$ at a given (barycentered time) $t$. Table~\ref{tab2}
lists the rotational periods of the Crab pulsar measured with Aqueye and
those from the JB ephemerides at 3 reference dates (barycentered
MJD=54750, 54751, 54752). The differences between optical and radio ranges
from $\sim 2$ to 4 ps. The statistical error on the optical rotational
periods is 1.7 ps ($1\sigma$ error).
The quoted error from the JB radio archive is $\sim 0.1$ ps. Thus,
the rotational periods calculated by Aqueye agree within the statistical
error with those derived from radio measurements. Also the measurements of
the first derivative of the rotational frequency ${\dot \nu}$ are in
agreement within the errors: ${\dot \nu}_{Aqueye} = 3.71876\times10^{-10} \pm
6\times10^{-15}$ s$^{-2}$ and ${\dot \nu}_{JB} = 3.718655\times10^{-10}
\pm 2\times10^{-16}$ s$^{-2}$.
We emphasize that, in order to compare our data with those of the JB
radio ephemerides, we barycentered the time-tags of the optical photons
in Tempo2 using the Tempo/Tempo1 emulation mode. This is because, for
historical reasons, the JB radio ephemerides are calculated using Tempo,
which is the older version of the software used for barycentering.
The systems of time adopted in the two packages are different.
Tempo2 uses the Barycentric Coordinate Time (TCB), while Tempo the
barycentric dynamical time (TDB)\footnote{TCB is a coordinate time referred to the barycenter of the Solar System,
synchronized with the proper time of a distant observer comoving with it.
The system adopted in Tempo1 is the barycentric dynamical time (TDB), effectively measured
in units that differ subtly from the conventional SI second \citep{2006MNRAS.369..655H}.
It is as if the time dilation effects
were not correctly accounted for using TDB units, so that, for example,
rotational periods in the TDB system are systematically shorter than the TCB ones.}.
In Table~\ref{tab3} we report rotational periods after barycentering
with Tempo2 in TCB units. Although there are other differences between the
Tempo/Tempo1 mode setup used for calculating the JB ephemerides of the Crab and
the full Tempo2 mode (as for example the adopted Solar System ephemerides),
the main difference between rotational periods reported in Tables~\ref{tab2}
and~\ref{tab3} is due to the use of TCB units (SI units) instead of TDB.
The rotational periods of the Crab are $\sim 0.5$ ns longer than those
measured using Tempo1 in TDB units. If we take the ratio of the periods
in Table~\ref{tab3} (TCB units) to those in the second column of Table~\ref{tab2}
(TDB units) we find that the ratio of the two time units is
$K \sim 1 + 1.53 \times 10^{-8} \pm 1.3 \times 10^{-10}$,
consistent with the value reported by \cite{1999A&A...348..642I} and
\cite{2006MNRAS.369..655H}. The constant $K$ sums up a contribution
from the linear term of the Einstein delay, $L_C$, and another term
from the gravitational plus spin potential of the Earth, $L_G$.
Thanks to its timing capability and performances,
Aqueye can put in evidence the occurrence of the corrections $L_C$ and $L_G$
to the pulsar spin period in only two days of data taking on the Crab pulsar.
\begin{table}[!t!]
\caption{\footnotesize{Rotational periods of the Crab pulsar measured
by Aqueye in 2008 compared to those reported in the Jodrell Bank radio
ephemerides. The time-tags were barycentered
in Tempo1 emulation mode.}}
\label{tab2}
$$
\begin{array}{p{0.35\linewidth}p{0.3\linewidth}p{0.3\linewidth}}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
MJD$^a$ & $P$(Aqueye)$^b$ & $P$ (JB) \\
& (s) & (s) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
54750.0 & 0.033621638649 & 0.033621638653 \\
54751.0 & 0.033621674970 & 0.033621674973 \\
54752.0 & 0.033621711290 & 0.033621711292 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{array}
$$
\begin{list}{}{}
\item[$^{\mathrm{a}}$] MJD at the solar system barycenter (Tempo1 mode).
\item[$^{\mathrm{b}}$] $\sigma_P$=1.7 ps (68\% statistical error)
\end{list}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!ht!]
\caption{\footnotesize{Rotational periods of the Crab pulsar measured by Aqueye
in October 2008. The time-tags were barycentered in Tempo2 (TCB units).}}
\label{tab3}
$$
\begin{array}{p{0.35\linewidth}p{0.3\linewidth}}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
MJD$^a$ & $P$ (Aqueye)$^b$ \\
& (s) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
54750.0 & 0.033621639166 \\
54751.0 & 0.033621675484 \\
54752.0 & 0.033621711803 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{array}
$$
\begin{list}{}{}
\item[$^{\mathrm{a}}$] MJD at the solar system barycenter (Tempo2 mode).
\item[$^{\mathrm{b}}$] $\sigma_P$=1.7 ps (68\% statistical error).
\end{list}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[!t!]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{crab_asiago_2008_phase_delay.eps}}
\caption{Difference between the optical and radio time of arrival of the main
peak of the Crab pulsar. The optical
peak leads the radio one by $\sim 230\ \mu s$ (at MJD=54750, epoch of the first observation).
The (blue) line is the radio-optical drift, which is consistent with zero within the errors (see text).
}
\label{fig7}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t!]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{distr_phase_res.eps}}
\caption{Distribution of the residual of the optical phase of the
main pulse around the best fit shown in Figure~\ref{fig6}.
Each point represents the number of phase residuals $N_{i}$ in the $i$-th bin.
The error bar on each bin is $\sqrt{N_{i}}$.
The three datasets refer to all the observations ({\it circles}), to observation
4 ({\it squares}) and observation 1 ({\it diamonds}), respectively.
The bin widths are $1.5\mu$s, $4.1\mu$s and $7.3\mu$s.
The (red) solid lines superimposed to each dataset represent the best fitting
gaussian with $\sigma \sim 32 \, \mu$s ({\it circles}), $\sigma \sim 24 \, \mu$s
({\it squares}) and $\sigma \sim 54 \, \mu$s ({\it diamonds}), respectively.}
\label{fig8}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t!]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{distr_phase_res_simulated.eps}}
\caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig8} for a simulated signal
with superimposed random noise (see text for details). The assumed count rate is the
average count-rate measured by Aqueye. The bin width is $3.6\mu$s. The distribution
is fit by a gaussian with $\sigma \sim 24 \, \mu$s.}
\label{fig9}.
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Radio-Optical delay}
The time of arrival at the detector of the first pulse of the light curve after a
certain epoch $t$ is $t_{arr}=\phi P_{init}$,
where $\phi$ is the phase defined in Section~\ref{phaseanalysis}. Figure~\ref{fig7} shows the difference
between the optical time of arrival of the main peak of the Crab pulsar and the radio
one determined from the JB radio ephemerides. The dispersion measure at around the
epoch of the Aqueye observations was 56.7842 pc cm$^{-3}$ (Oct 15, 2008).
We find that the optical peak leads the radio one. Taking into account the uncertainty on the time of
arrival quoted in the JB archive\footnote{http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pulsar/crab/crab2.txt} ($\sim60\ \mu$s)
and the errors from the fit, the time difference is $\sim 230 \pm 60 \, \mu s$ at MJD=54750,
with a drift of $\simeq 7 \, \mu s$/day. While within the errors the drift is consistent
with zero, the difference in the arrival times is significant. The optical peak leads
the radio one, in agreement with what was found previously by \citet{sanwal99},
\citet{2006A&A...456..283O} and \citet{2008A&A...488..271O}, the latter obtained
using simultaneous optical and radio observations. Our value
of the radio delay is also consistent with the recent measurement performed
by our group with Iqueye (178 $\mu$s; \citealt{2012IAUS..285..296C}), but larger
than the one reported in \citet{2003Sci...301..493S}.
The uncertainity on our measurement is dominated by the error on
the radio ephmerides, and can be further reduced in future using simultaneous
radio-optical observations.
\subsection{Phase noise}
\label{noise}
Figure~\ref{fig8} shows the distribution of the phase residuals in Figure~\ref{fig6}.
The distribution is fit with a gaussian and, for all the observations,
gives a reduced $\chi^2 \sim 0.9$.
The gaussian has $\sigma \sim 32 \, \mu$s, consistent with the error bar of each measured phase
(see Section~\ref{phaseanalysis}). This indicates that, with
the present accuracy, the phase noise of the Crab pulsar observed with Aqueye
can be approximated with a Gaussian. However, the distribution of phase residuals in different observations
appears to have different widths. The distributions with the smallest (obs. 4) and largest
(obs. 1) widths are also shown in Figure~\ref{fig8} for comparison. This suggests the existence
of additional errors in the data chain of some observations, possibly induced
by signal loss (e. g. clouds or telescope tracking errors).
We compared the observed phase residuals with those obtained from a synthetic signal
generated as a sequence of pulses distributed in time with the probability proportional
to the pulse shape, such as the average count rate and background level are
those of the Crab pulsar observed with Aqueye.
The signal has superimposed random noise and lasts $\sim 850$ s.
Figure~\ref{fig9} shows the distribution of the residuals of the simulated signal.
The distribution is clearly Gaussian but with $\sigma\sim 24 \, \mu$s. This
is smaller than the total phase noise distribution in Figure~\ref{fig8}.
However, as mentioned above, the observations have different widths of the
distributions. Some of them are comparable (obs. 4) or marginally larger (obs. 6 and
7) than that inferred from the simulation, while some others have more outliers.
It is thus possible that the outliers are due to errors in the data chain, induced
by the smaller quality of the dataset. For the best dataset (obs. 4; see Figure~\ref{fig8}),
the measured width of the phase residuals distribution appears to approach
the theoretical expectations for phase noise induced by pure photon statistics.
\section{Discussion and conclusions}
\label{conclusions}
We observed the Crab pulsar with the photon counting instrument Aqueye,
mounted at the 182cm Copernico telescope in Asiago, during the nights of October 10-13, 2008.
The counting statistics and quality of the data allowed us to monitor the
phase of the main peak of the Crab pulsar over 2~s long intervals and to determine
the pulsar rotational period and period derivative with great accuracy, using
observations covering only a 2 day interval in time. The statistical error on the
period inferred from a fit of the pulsar phase drift is of the order of a few picoseconds.
The measurements of the period and period derivative agree within the statistical
error with those inferred from the JB ephemerides.
We also found that the time of arrival of the optical peak of the Crab pulsar
leads the radio one (with the latter inferred from the JB radio ephemerides)
in agreement with previous findings \citep{sanwal99,2003Sci...301..493S}.
The actual value of the radio delay, $\sim 230 \, \mu$s, is in agreement
with the most accurate measurement previously reported in the literature by
\citet{2008A&A...488..271O}. Previous measurements performed using fitting
functions of the main peak are less precise. In such a case, as pointed by
\citet{2006A&A...456..283O} and \citet{2012IAUS..285..296C}, the phase of the
main peak depends on the chosen fitting function, introducing a systematic difference
caused by the intrinsic asymmetric shape of the peak.
Assuming a Gaussian or Lorentzian fit, different values of the phase of the peak
are obtained for different fitting ranges around it. Using a 0.1, 0.05, 0.02 phase
interval to the right and to the left of the peak, the difference in position is
$247 \, \mu$s, $230 \, \mu$s, $134 \, \mu$s for the Gaussian fit
and $197 \, \mu$s, $197 \, \mu$s, $114 \, \mu$s for the Lorentzian fit,
respectively.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the correct estimate of the
radio-optical time delay can be obtained only from simultaneous optical
and radio observations using similar procedures for the barycenterization
and the analysis (e.g. \citealt{2012IAUS..285..296C}).
As pointed out by \citet{2006A&A...456..283O}, a time delay of the radio peak
of $\sim 230 \, \mu$s could have two different interpretations. The emission
region of the optical radiation is: (a) higher in the magnetosphere ($\sim 70$ km) than
the radio emission, (b) located at a different angle ($\sim 2.5^0$) with respect to the radio one.
We also studied the phase noise distribution of the Crab pulsar observed with Aqueye and found
that, with the present accuracy, it can be modelled as a Gaussian.
The width of the distribution of the entire dataset is slightly larger than that induced
by pure photon random noise from a synthetic signal having the same pulse shape, average
count rate and background level of the Crab pulsar observed with Aqueye.
However, residual systematic errors in the data chain may be present in a subset
of observations that tend to broaden the distribution. In fact, the distribution
of the best batch of data, i.e. that with the smaller width, is consistent with
that induced by photon statistics. While the observed broadening seems to be
caused mostly by the deterioration in the quality of some observations, the existence
of a smaller source of phase noise, possibly related to the intrinsic pulsar mechanism,
cannot be ruled out at present and needs to be carefully investigated with
future observations.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We thank the referee for his/her constructive criticisms that helped to
improve our paper.
We would like to thank also
Alessandro Patruno (Astronomical Institute, University of Amsterdam) for useful discussions.
We acknowledge the use of the Crab pulsar radio ephemerides available at the web site of the
Jodrell Bank radio Observatory (http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/$\sim$pulsar/crab.html; \citealt{1993MNRAS.265.1003L}).
This work has been partly supported by the University of Padova, by the Italian Ministry
of University MIUR through the program PRIN 2006 and by the Program of Excellence
2006 Fondazione CARIPARO.
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\section{Introduction}
It appears that classical phenomena in mathematical physics, like
heat conduction, wave propagation or elasticity, show some memory
effects (see e.g. \cite{fabrizio1987mathematical,Nunziato1971}).
One way to mathematically model these effects is to use integro-differential
equations. In this work we give a unified approach to the well-posedness
of linear integro-differential equations of hyperbolic and parabolic
type, i.e. equations of the form
\begin{equation}
\ddot{u}(t)+\intop_{-\infty}^{t}g(t-s)\ddot{u}(s)\mbox{ d}s+A^{\ast}Au(t)-\intop_{-\infty}^{t}A^{\ast}h(t-s)Au(s)\mbox{ d}s=f(t)\quad(t\in\mathbb{R}),\label{eq:hyper}
\end{equation}
and of the form
\begin{equation}
\dot{u}(t)+\intop_{-\infty}^{t}g(t-s)\dot{u}(s)\mbox{ d}s+A^{\ast}Au(t)-\intop_{-\infty}^{t}A^{\ast}h(t-s)Au(s)\mbox{ d}s=f(t)\quad(t\in\mathbb{R}),\label{eq:parabolic-1}
\end{equation}
respectively. In both cases $A$ denotes a closed, densely defined
linear operator on some Hilbert space, which is in applications a
differential operator with respect to the spatial variables. These
type of equations were treated by several authors, mostly assuming
that the kernels $g$ and $h$ are scalar-valued, while we allow $g$
and $h$ to be operator-valued. If the kernels are absolutely continuous,
the well-posedness can easily be shown. However, we focus on kernels,
which are just integrable in some sense without assuming any kind
of differentiability.\\
The theory of integro-differential equations has a long history and
there exists a large amount of works by several authors and we just
mention the monographs \cite{pruss1993evolutionary,Gripenberg1990}
and the references therein for possible approaches. Topics like well-posedness
and the asymptotic behaviour of solutions were studied by several
authors, even for semi-linear versions of \prettyref{eq:hyper} or
\prettyref{eq:parabolic-1} (e.g. \cite{Cavalcanti2003,Berrimi2006,Cannarsa2011}
for the hyperbolic and \cite{Aizicovici1980,Clement1992,Cannarsa2003}
for the parabolic case). \\
Our approach to deal with integro-differential equations invokes the
framework of evolutionary equations, introduced by Picard in \cite{Picard,Picard2010}.
The main idea is to rewrite the equations as problems of the form
\begin{equation}
\left(\partial_{0}M(\partial_{0}^{-1})+A\right)U=F.\label{eq:evol}
\end{equation}
Here $\partial_{0}$ denotes the time-derivative established as a
boundedly invertible operator in a suitable exponentially weighted
$L_{2}$-space. The operator $M(\partial_{0}^{-1})$, called the linear
material law, is a bounded operator in time and space and is defined
as an analytic, operator-valued function of $\partial_{0}^{-1}$.
The operator $A$ is assumed to be skew-selfadjoint (this can be relaxed
to the assumption that $A$ is maximal monotone, see \cite{Trostorff_2011,Trostorff2012_NA}).
As it was already mentioned in \cite{Kalauch2011}, the operator $M\left(\partial_{0}^{-1}\right)$
can be a convolution with an operator-valued function and we will
point out, which kind of linear material laws yield integro-differential
equations. By the solution theory for equations of the form \prettyref{eq:evol}
(see \cite[Solution Theory]{Picard} or \prettyref{thm:sol_theory}
in this article) it suffices to show the strict positive definiteness
of $\Re\partial_{0}M(\partial_{0}^{-1})$ in order to obtain well-posedness
of the problem. Besides existence, uniqueness and continuous dependence
we obtain the causality of the respective solution operators, which
enables us to treat initial value problems. \\
In Section 2 we recall the notion of linear material laws, evolutionary
equations and we state the solution theory for this class of differential
equations. Section 3 is devoted to the well-posedness of hyperbolic-
and parabolic-type integro-differential equations. We will show how
to reformulate the problem as an evolutionary equation and state conditions
for the involved kernels, which imply the positive definiteness of
$\Re\partial_{0}M(\partial_{0}^{-1})$ and therefore yield the well-posedness
of the problems. Furthermore, in Subsection 3.1 we will briefly discuss
a way how to treat initial value problems (see \prettyref{rem:ivp})
as well as problems where the whole history of the unknown is given
(\prettyref{rem: history}). Finally, we apply our findings in Section
4 to the equations of visco-elasticity. This problem was also treated
by Dafermos \cite{Dafermos1970_asymp_stab,Dafermos1970_abtract_Volterra},
even for operator-valued kernels but under the stronger assumption
that the kernels are absolutely continuous. \\
Throughout, every Hilbert space is assumed to be complex and the inner
product, denoted by $\langle\cdot|\cdot\rangle_{H}$ is linear in
the second and anti-linear in the first argument. Norms are usually
denoted by $|\cdot|$ except the operator-norm, which we denote by
$\|\cdot\|.$
\section{Evolutionary Equations}
In this section we recall the notion of evolutionary equations due
to \cite{Picard,Picard2010,Picard_McGhee}. We begin to introduce
the exponentially weighted $L_{2}$-space and the time-derivative
$\partial_{0}$, established as a normal, boundedly invertible operator
on this space. Using the spectral representation of this time-derivative
operator, we define so called linear material laws as operator-valued
$\mathcal{H}^{\infty}$-functions of $\partial_{0}^{-1}.$ In the
second subsection we recall the solution theory for evolutionary equations
\cite[Solution Theory]{Picard} and the notion of causality.
\subsection{The Time-derivative and Linear Material Laws}
Throughout let $\nu\in\mathbb{R}$. As in \cite{Picard_McGhee,Picard,Kalauch2011}
we begin to introduce the exponentially weighted $L_{2}$-space%
\footnote{For convenience we always identify the equivalence classes with respect
to the equality almost everywhere with their respective representers.%
}.
\begin{defn}
We define the Hilbert space
\[
H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R})\coloneqq\left\{ f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{C}\,\left|\, f\mbox{ measurable},\:\intop_{\mathbb{R}}|f(t)|e^{-2\nu t}\mbox{ d}t<\infty\right.\right\}
\]
endowed with the inner-product
\[
\langle f|g\rangle_{H_{\nu,0}}\coloneqq\intop_{\mathbb{R}}f(t)^{\ast}g(t)e^{-2\nu t}\mbox{ d}t\quad(f,g\in H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R})).
\]
\end{defn}
\begin{rem}
Obviously the operator
\[
e^{-\nu m}:H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R})\to L_{2}(\mathbb{R})
\]
defined by $\left(e^{-\nu m}f\right)(t)=e^{-\nu t}f(t)$ for $t\in\mathbb{R}$
is unitary.
\end{rem}
We define the derivative $\partial$ on $L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$ as the
closure of the operator
\begin{align*}
\partial|_{C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})}:C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})\subseteq L_{2}(\mathbb{R}) & \to L_{2}(\mathbb{R})\\
\phi & \mapsto\phi',
\end{align*}
where $C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ denotes the space of infinitely
differentiable functions on $\mathbb{R}$ with compact support. This
operator is known to be skew-selfadjoint (see \cite[p. 198, Example 3]{Yosida})
and its spectral representation is given by the Fourier-Transform
$\mathcal{F}$, which is given by
\[
\left(\mathcal{F}\phi\right)(t)\coloneqq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\intop_{\mathbb{R}}e^{-\i st}\phi(s)\mbox{ d}s\quad(t\in\mathbb{R})
\]
for functions $\phi\in L_{1}(\mathbb{R})\cap L_{2}(\mathbb{R}),$
i.e., we have
\begin{equation}
\partial=\mathcal{F}^{\ast}(\i m)\mathcal{F},\label{eq:Fourier}
\end{equation}
where $m:D(m)\subseteq L_{2}(\mathbb{R})\to L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$ denotes
the multiplication-by-the-argument operator ($\left(mf\right)(t)=tf(t)$)
with maximal domain $D(m).$
\begin{defn}
We define the operator $\partial_{\nu}$ on $H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R})$
by
\[
\partial_{\nu}\coloneqq\left(e^{-\nu m}\right)^{-1}\partial e^{-\nu m}
\]
and obtain again a skew-selfadjoint operator. From \prettyref{eq:Fourier}
we immediately get
\[
\partial_{\nu}=\left(e^{-\nu m}\right)^{-1}\mathcal{F}^{\ast}\i m\mathcal{F}e^{-\nu m},
\]
which yields the spectral representation for $\partial_{\nu}$ by
the so-called \emph{Fourier-Laplace-Transform }$\mathcal{L}_{\nu}\coloneqq\mathcal{F}e^{-\nu m}:H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R})\to L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$.
\end{defn}
An easy computation shows, that for $\phi\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$
we get $\phi'=\partial_{\nu}\phi+\nu\phi,$ which leads to the following
definition.
\begin{defn}
We define the operator $\partial_{0,\nu}\coloneqq\partial_{\nu}+\nu$,
the \emph{time-derivative} on $H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R})$. If the choice
of $\nu\in\mathbb{R}$ is clear from the context we will write $\partial_{0}$
instead of $\partial_{0,\nu}.$\end{defn}
\begin{rem}
Another way to introduce $\partial_{0,\nu}$ is by taking the closure
of the usual derivative of test-functions with respect to the topology
in $H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R}),$ i.e.
\[
\partial_{0,\nu}=\overline{\partial|_{C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})}}^{H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R})\oplus H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R})}.
\]
\end{rem}
We state some properties of the derivative $\partial_{0,\nu}$ and
refer to \cite{Kalauch2011,Picard_McGhee} for the proofs.
\begin{prop}
Let $\nu>0$. Then the following statements hold:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item The operator $\partial_{0,\nu}$ is normal and $0\in\rho(\partial_{0,\nu})$
with $\|\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1}\|=\frac{1}{\nu}.$
\item $\partial_{0,\nu}=\mathcal{L}_{\nu}^{\ast}(\i m+\nu)\mathcal{L}_{\nu}.$
\item For $u\in H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R})$ we have \foreignlanguage{english}{\textup{$\left(\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1}u\right)(t)=\intop_{-\infty}^{t}u(s)\mbox{ d}s$}}
for almost every $t\in\mathbb{R}.$%
\footnote{This shows, that for $\nu>0$ the operator $\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1}$
is causal, while for $\nu<0$ we get the anti-causal operator given
by $\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1}u=-\intop_{\cdot}^{\infty}u(s)\mbox{ d}s$
(see \cite{Kalauch2011}).%
}
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
Of course, the operator $\partial_{0,\nu}$ can be lifted in the canonical
way to Hilbert space-valued functions and for convenience we will
use the same notation for the derivative on scalar-valued and on Hilbert
space-valued functions. The space of Hilbert space-valued functions,
which are square-integrable with respect to the exponentially weighted
Lebesgue measure will be denoted by $H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H)$ for
$\nu\in\mathbb{R}.$ Using the spectral representation for the inverse
time-derivative $\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1}$ for $\nu>0$, we introduce
linear material laws as follows.
\begin{defn}
For $r>0$ let $M:B_{\mathbb{C}}(r,r)\to L(H)$ be a bounded, analytic
function. Then we define the bounded linear operator
\[
M\left(\frac{1}{\i m+\nu}\right):L_{2}(\mathbb{R};H)\to L_{2}(\mathbb{R};H)
\]
for $\nu>\frac{1}{2r}$ by $\left(M\left(\frac{1}{\i m+\nu}\right)f\right)(t)=M\left(\frac{1}{\i t+\nu}\right)f(t)$
for $t\in\mathbb{R}$ and the \emph{linear material law} $M(\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1})$
by
\[
M(\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1})\coloneqq\mathcal{L}_{\nu}^{\ast}M\left(\frac{1}{\i m+\nu}\right)\mathcal{L}_{\nu}\in L(H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H),H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H)).
\]
\end{defn}
Note that the operator $M(\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1})$, as a function
of $\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1}$, commutes with the derivative $\partial_{0,\nu},$
in the sense that $\partial_{0,\nu}M(\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1})\supseteq M(\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1})\partial_{0,\nu}.$
\begin{rem}
The assumed analyticity of the mapping $M$ is needed to ensure the
\emph{causality} (see \prettyref{thm:sol_theory}) of the operator
$M(\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1})$ using a Paley-Wiener-type result (cf.
\cite{rudin1987real}).
\end{rem}
\subsection{Well-posedness and Causality of Evolutionary Equations}
In \cite{Picard} the following type of a differential equation was
considered:
\begin{equation}
\left(\partial_{0,\nu}M(\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1})+A\right)u=f,\label{eq:evol_eq}
\end{equation}
where $A:D(A)\subseteq H\to H$ is a skew-selfadjoint operator, $f\in H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H)$
is an arbitrary source term and $u\in H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H)$ is
the unknown. For this class of problems the following solution theory
was established.
\begin{thm}[{\cite[Solution Theory]{Picard}}]
\label{thm:sol_theory}Let $A:D(A)\subseteq H\to H$ be a skew-selfadjoint
operator and let $M:B_{\mathbb{C}}(r,r)\to L(H)$ be analytic, bounded
and such that there exists $c>0$ such that for all $z\in B_{\mathbb{C}}(r,r)$
the following holds
\begin{equation}
\Re z^{-1}M(z)\geq c.\label{eq:solv}
\end{equation}
Then for each $\nu>\frac{1}{2r}$ the operator $\left(\partial_{0,\nu}M(\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1})+A\right)$
is boundedly invertible as an operator on $H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H)$
and the inverse is causal, i.e.
\[
\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{\leq a}}(m)\overline{\left(\partial_{0,\nu}M(\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1})+A\right)^{-1}}\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{\leq a}}(m)=\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{\leq a}}(m)\overline{\left(\partial_{0,\nu}M(\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1})+A\right)^{-1}}
\]
for each $a\in\mathbb{R}.$%
\footnote{Here we denote by $\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{\leq a}}(m)$ the cut-off operator
given by $\left(\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{\leq a}}(m)f\right)(t)=\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{\leq a}}(t)f(t).$%
}
\end{thm}
This means that under the hypotheses of \prettyref{thm:sol_theory},
Problem \prettyref{eq:evol_eq} is well-posed, i.e. the uniqueness,
existence and continuous dependence on the data $f$ of a solution
$u$ is guaranteed. However, \prettyref{eq:evol_eq} just holds in
the sense of
\[
\left(\overline{\partial_{0,\nu}M(\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1})+A}\right)u=f,
\]
where the closure of the operator is taken with respect to the topology
on $H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H).$ To avoid the closure, one can use the
concept of extrapolation spaces, so-called Sobolev-chains with respect
to the operator $A+1$ and $\partial_{0,\nu}$ (see \cite{Picard2000},
\cite[Chapter 2]{Picard_McGhee}). In this context Equation \prettyref{eq:evol_eq}
holds in the space $H_{\nu,-1}(\mathbb{R};H_{-1}(A+1))$, where we
denote by $\left(H_{\nu,k}(\mathbb{R})\right)_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}$ the
Sobolev-chain associated to $\partial_{0,\nu}.$ Using that $M(\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1})$
and $A$ commute with $\partial_{0,\nu}$, one derives the following
corollary from \prettyref{thm:sol_theory}.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:sol_extrapolation}Under the conditions of \prettyref{thm:sol_theory}
the solution operator $\left(\partial_{0,\nu}M(\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1})+A\right)^{-1}$
extends to a bounded linear operator on $H_{\nu,k}(\mathbb{R};H)$
for each $k\in\mathbb{Z}.$ \end{cor}
\begin{rem}[{\cite[Chapter 6]{Picard_McGhee}, \cite[Theorem 1.4.2]{Waurick_2011}}]
The solution theory is independent of the particular choice of $\nu>\frac{1}{2r}$
in the sense that for right-hand sides $f\in H_{\nu,k}(\mathbb{R};H)\cap H_{\mu,k}(\mathbb{R};H)$
for $\mu,\nu>\frac{1}{2r},\, k\in\mathbb{Z}$ we have
\[
\left(\partial_{0,\nu}M(\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1})+A\right)^{-1}f=\left(\partial_{0,\mu}M(\partial_{0,\mu}^{-1})+A\right)^{-1}f.
\]
\end{rem}
\section{Integro-Differential Equations}
In this section we introduce an abstract type of integro-differential
equations with operator-valued kernels, which covers hyperbolic- and
parabolic-type equations. This abstract type allows to treat convolutions
with the unknown as well as with the derivatives (with respect to
time and space) of the unknown. We introduce the space $L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H))$
for $\mu\in\mathbb{R}$ as the space of weakly measurable functions
$B:\mathbb{R}_{\geq0}\to L(H)$ (i.e. for every $x,y\in H$ the function
$t\mapsto\langle B(t)x|y\rangle$ is measurable) such that the function
$t\mapsto\|B(t)\|$ is measurable%
\footnote{If $H$ is separable, then the weak measurability implies the measurablitiy
of $t\mapsto\|B(t)\|.$%
} and
\[
|B|_{L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\ge0};L(H))}\coloneqq\intop_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\mu t}\|B(t)\|\mbox{ d}t<\infty.
\]
Note that $L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H))\hookrightarrow L_{1,\nu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H))$
for $\mu\leq\nu.$ For a function $B\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H))$
we can establish the Fourier-transform of $B$ as a function on the
lower half-plane $[\mathbb{R}]-\i[\mathbb{R}_{\geq\mu}]\coloneqq\{t-\i\nu\,|\, t\in\mathbb{R},\nu\geq\mu\}$
by defining
\[
\langle\hat{B}(t-\i\nu)x|y\rangle\coloneqq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\intop_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\i ts}e^{-\nu s}\langle B(s)x|y\rangle\mbox{ d}s\quad(t\in\mathbb{R},\nu\geq\mu)
\]
for $x,y\in H.$ Obviously the function $t-\i\nu\mapsto\hat{B}(t-\i\nu)$
is bounded on $[\mathbb{R}]-\i[\mathbb{R}_{\geq\mu}]$ with values
in the bounded operators on $H$ and satisfies $|\hat{B}|_{L_{\infty}([\mathbb{R}]-\i[\mathbb{R}_{>\mu}];L(H))}\leq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}|B|_{L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H))}.$
Moreover it is analytic on the open half plane $[\mathbb{R}]-\i[\mathbb{R}_{>\mu}]$%
\footnote{Note that scalar analyticity on a norming set and local boundedness
is equivalent to analyticity (see \cite[Theorem 3.10.1]{hille1957functional}). %
}. For $B\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H))$ we define the convolution
operator as follows.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:conv_op-1} Let \textbf{$B\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H))$
}for some $\mu\in\mathbb{R}$. We denote by $S(\mathbb{R};H)$ the
space of simple functions on $\mathbb{R}$ with values in $H$. Then
for each $\nu\geq\mu$ the \emph{convolution operator}%
\footnote{The integral is defined in the weak sense.%
}
\begin{align*}
B\ast:S(\mathbb{R};H)\subseteq H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H) & \to H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H)\\
u & \mapsto\left(t\mapsto\intop_{\mathbb{R}}B(t-s)u(s)\,\mathrm{d}s\right)
\end{align*}
is bounded with $\|B\ast\|_{L(H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H))}\leq|B|_{L_{1,\nu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H))}$.
Hence, it can be extended to a bounded linear operator on $H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H).$\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\nu\geq\mu.$ Then we estimate for $u\in S(\mathbb{R};H)$ using
Young's inequality
\begin{align*}
\intop_{\mathbb{R}}e^{-2\nu t}|(B\ast u)(t)|^{2}\mbox{ d}t & \leq\intop_{\mathbb{R}}\left(\intop_{\mathbb{R}}e^{-\nu(t-s)}\|B(t-s)\|e^{-\nu s}|u(s)|\mbox{ d}s\right)^{2}\mbox{ d}t\\
& \leq\left(\intop_{\mathbb{R}}e^{-\nu t}\|B(t)\|\mbox{ d}t\right)^{2}\intop_{\mathbb{R}}|u(t)|^{2}e^{-2\nu t}\mbox{ d}t,
\end{align*}
which yields $B\ast u\in H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H)$ and
\[
|B\ast u|_{H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H)}\leq\intop_{0}^{\infty}e^{-\nu t}\|B(t)\|\mbox{ d}t\,|u|_{H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H)}.
\]
This completes the proof.\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Note that since $B\ast$ commutes with $\partial_{0,\nu}$ we can
extend $B\ast$ to a bounded linear operator on $H_{\nu,k}(\mathbb{R};H)$
for each $k\in\mathbb{Z}.$\end{rem}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:Neumann}Let $B\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H))$.
Then $\lim_{\nu\to\infty}|B|_{L_{1,\nu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H))}=0$
and thus, in particular $\lim_{\nu\to\infty}\|B\ast\|_{L(H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H))}=0.$ \end{cor}
\begin{proof}
This is an immediate consequence of \prettyref{lem:conv_op-1} and
the theorem of monotone convergence.
\end{proof}
\newpage{}
\begin{lem}
Let $B\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R};L(H))$ for some $\mu\geq0$ and $u\in H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H)$
for $\nu\geq\mu.$ Then
\[
\left(\mathcal{L}_{\nu}(B\ast u)\right)(t)=\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(t-\i\nu)\left(\mathcal{L}_{\nu}u(t)\right)
\]
for almost every $t\in\mathbb{R}.$\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is a classical computation using Fubini's Theorem and we
omit it.
\end{proof}
From now on let $H_{0},H_{1}$ be complex Hilbert spaces, $A:D(A)\subseteq H_{0}\to H_{1}$
be a densely defined closed linear operator, $B_{1},B_{3},C_{1},C_{3}\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{0}))$
and $B_{2},B_{4},C_{2},C_{4}\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{1}))$
for some $\mu\geq0$. We consider linear material laws of the form
\begin{align*}
M(z) & =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
Q_{1}\left(\hat{C}_{1}(-\i z^{-1})\right)^{-1}P_{1}\left(\hat{B}_{1}(-\i z^{-1})\right) & 0\\
0 & Q_{2}\left(\hat{C}_{2}(-\i z^{-1})\right)^{-1}P_{2}\left(\hat{B}_{2}(-\i z^{-1})\right)
\end{array}\right)\\
& \quad+z\left(\begin{array}{cc}
Q_{3}\left(\hat{C}_{3}(-\i z^{-1})\right)^{-1}P_{3}\left(\hat{B}_{3}(-\i z^{-1})\right) & 0\\
0 & Q_{4}\left(\hat{C}_{4}(-\i z^{-1})\right)^{-1}P_{4}\left(\hat{B}_{4}(-\i z^{-1})\right)
\end{array}\right)
\end{align*}
for $z\in B_{\mathbb{C}}\left(\frac{1}{2\mu},\frac{1}{2\mu}\right)$,
where $P_{i},Q_{i}$ are complex affine linear functions, such that
$Q_{i}\left(\hat{C}_{i}\left(-\i z^{-1}\right)\right)$ is boundedly
invertible for $z\in B_{\mathbb{C}}\left(\frac{1}{2\nu},\frac{1}{2\nu}\right)$
and $z\mapsto Q_{i}(\hat{C}_{i}(-\i z^{-1}))^{-1}P_{i}(\hat{B}_{i}(-\i z^{-1}))$
is bounded for every $i\in\{1,\ldots4\}$. Under these assumptions
$M$ defines a linear material law and we consider evolutionary problems
of the form
\begin{equation}
\left(\partial_{0,\nu}M\left(\partial_{0,\nu}^{-1}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & A^{\ast}\\
-A & 0
\end{array}\right)\right)U=F.\label{eq:integro}
\end{equation}
According to \prettyref{thm:sol_theory} it suffices to check the
solvability condition \prettyref{eq:solv}, which will be done in
concrete cases in the forthcoming subsections. Throughout we set $H\coloneqq H_{0}\oplus H_{1}.$
\subsection{Hyperbolic-type equations}
In this subsection we consider the case $P_{3},P_{4}=0,$ $P_{1}(x)=1+\sqrt{2\pi}x,\: Q_{1},P_{2}=1$
and $Q_{2}(x)=1-\sqrt{2\pi}x$. Thus the material law reads as follows
\begin{equation}
M(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{C}(-\i z^{-1}) & 0\\
0 & \left(1-\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-\i z^{-1})\right)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)\quad(z\in B_{\mathbb{C}}(r,r))\label{eq:material_law_hyper}
\end{equation}
for some $C\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{0})),B\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{1}))$,
where $\mu\geq0$. According to \prettyref{cor:Neumann} there exists
$\mu_{0}>\mu,$ such that $\|B\ast\|_{L(H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H_{1}))}<1$
for each $\nu\geq\mu_{0}$. To ensure that the function $M$ defines
a linear material law, we choose $r\coloneqq\frac{1}{2\mu_{0}}.$
Note that the system \prettyref{eq:integro} with $M$ given by \prettyref{eq:material_law_hyper}
and $F=\left(\begin{array}{c}
f\\
g
\end{array}\right)\in H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H)$ reads as
\begin{equation}
\left(\partial_{0}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+C\ast & 0\\
0 & (1-B\ast)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & A^{\ast}\\
-A & 0
\end{array}\right)\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
v\\
q
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
f\\
g
\end{array}\right).\label{eq:hyper-1}
\end{equation}
In the special case that $g=0$ we obtain
\[
\partial_{0}(1-B\ast)^{-1}q=Av
\]
or, equivalently,
\[
q=\partial_{0}^{-1}(1-B\ast)Av.
\]
If we plug this representation of $q$ into the first line of Equation
\prettyref{eq:hyper-1} we get
\[
\partial_{0}(1+C\ast)v+A^{\ast}\partial_{0}^{-1}(1-B\ast)Av=f
\]
which gives, by defining $u\coloneqq\partial_{0}^{-1}v$
\[
\partial_{0}^{2}(1+C\ast)u+A^{\ast}(1-B\ast)Au=f.
\]
A semi-linear version of this equation was treated in \cite{Cannarsa2011}
for scalar-valued kernels, where criteria for the well-posedness and
the exponential stability were given. Also in \cite{Pruss2009} this
type of equation was treated for scalar-valued kernels and besides
well-posedness, the polynomial stability was addressed. In both works
the well-posedness (the existence and uniqueness of mild solutions)
was shown under certain conditions on the kernel by techniques developed
for evolutionary integral equations (see \cite{pruss1993evolutionary}).
We will show that the assumptions on the kernels made in both articles
can be weakened such that the well-posedness of the problem can still
be shown, even for operator-valued kernels. \\
To ensure the well-posedness of \prettyref{eq:hyper-1}, we have to
guarantee that there exist $r_{1},c>0$ with $r_{1}\leq r$ such that
for all $z\in B_{\mathbb{C}}(r_{1},r_{1}):$
\begin{equation}
\Re z^{-1}(1-\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-\i z^{-1}))^{-1}\geq c\label{eq:solv_1}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\Re z^{-1}(1+\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{C}(-\i z^{-1}))\geq c.\label{eq:solv_C}
\end{equation}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:absolute_cont}One standard assumption for scalar-valued
kernels is absolute continuity. In our case this means that there
exists a function $G\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{1}))$ for
some $\mu\geq0$ such that
\[
B(t)=\intop_{0}^{t}G(s)\mbox{ d}s+B(0)\quad(t\in\mathbb{R}_{\geq0})
\]
for the kernel $B.$\\
For simplicity let us assume $C=0$. Note that due to the absolute
continuity, \textbf{$B$ }is an element of \foreignlanguage{english}{$L_{1,\nu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{1}))$}\textbf{
}for each $\nu>\mu$ and we choose $\nu$ large enough, such that
$|B|_{L_{1,\nu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{1}))}\!<\!1.$ In this case
\prettyref{eq:solv_1} can be easily verified. Using the Neumann-series
we obtain
\begin{align*}
z^{-1}(1-\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-\i z^{-1}))^{-1} & =z^{-1}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\left(\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-\i z^{-1})\right)^{k}\\
& =z^{-1}+z^{-1}\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-\i z^{-1})\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\left(\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-\i z^{-1})\right)^{k}
\end{align*}
for $z\in B_{\mathbb{C}}\left(\frac{1}{2\nu},\frac{1}{2\nu}\right).$
The Fourier-transform of $B$ can be computed by
\[
\hat{B}(-\i z^{-1})=z\left(\hat{G}(-\i z^{-1})+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}B(0)\right)
\]
and hence we can estimate
\begin{align*}
& \Re z^{-1}(1-\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-\i z^{-1}))^{-1}\\
& =\Re z^{-1}+\Re\left(\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{G}(-\i z^{-1})+B(0)\right)\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\left(\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-\i z^{-1})\right)^{k}\\
& \geq\nu-\frac{|\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{G}(-\i\left(\cdot\right)^{-1})|_{L_{\infty}\left(B_{\mathbb{C}}\left(\frac{1}{2\nu},\frac{1}{2\nu}\right);L(H_{1})\right)}+\|B(0)\|_{L(H_{1})}}{1-|\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-\i\left(\cdot\right)^{-1})|_{L_{\infty}\left(B_{\mathbb{C}}\left(\frac{1}{2\nu},\frac{1}{2\nu}\right);L(H_{1})\right)}}\\
& \geq\nu-\frac{|G|_{L_{1,\nu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{1}))}+\|B(0)\|_{L(H_{1})}}{1-|B|_{L_{1,\nu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{1}))}}
\end{align*}
for every $z\in B_{\mathbb{C}}\left(\frac{1}{2\nu},\frac{1}{2\nu}\right).$
Since $\frac{|G|_{L_{1,\nu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{1}))}+\|B(0)\|_{L(H_{1})}}{1-|B|_{L_{1,\nu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{1}))}}\to\|B(0)\|_{L(H_{1})}$
as $\nu\to\infty$, this yields the assertion.
\end{rem}
In the case, when $C$ and $B$ are not assumed to be differentiable
in a suitable sense, the conditions \prettyref{eq:solv_1} and \prettyref{eq:solv_C}
are hard to verify. We now state some hypotheses for $B$ and $C$
and show in the remaining part of this subsection, that these conditions
imply \prettyref{eq:solv_1} and \prettyref{eq:solv_C}.
\begin{hyp} Let $T\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(G)),$ where
$G$ is an arbitrary Hilbert space and $\mu\geq0.$ Then $T$ satisfies
the hypotheses \prettyref{eq:selfadjoint},\prettyref{eq:commute}
and \prettyref{eq:imaginary} respectively, if
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item \label{eq:selfadjoint}for all $t\in\mathbb{R}_{\geq0}$ the
operator $T(t)$ is selfadjoint,
\item \label{eq:commute} for all $s,t\in\mathbb{R}_{\geq0}$ the
operators $T(t)$ and $T(s)$ commute,
\item \label{eq:imaginary} there exists $\nu_{0}\geq\mu$ such that
for all $t\in\mathbb{R}$
\[
t\Im\hat{T}(t-\i\nu_{0})\leq0.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{hyp}
\begin{rem}
$\,$\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item If $T$ satisfies the hypothesis \prettyref{eq:selfadjoint},
then
\[
\Im\hat{T}(t-\i\nu_{0})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\intop_{0}^{\infty}\sin(-ts)e^{-\nu_{0}s}T(s)\mbox{ d}s=-\Im\hat{T}(-t-\i\nu_{0})\quad(t\in\mathbb{R})
\]
and thus \prettyref{eq:imaginary} holds if and only if
\[
\Im\hat{T}(t-\i\nu_{0})\leq0\quad(t\in\mathbb{R}_{>0}).
\]
\item Note that in \cite{Pruss2009} and \cite{Cannarsa2011} the
kernel is assumed to be real-valued. Thus, \prettyref{eq:selfadjoint}
and \prettyref{eq:commute} are trivially satisfied. In \cite{Pruss2009}
we find the assumption, that the kernel should be non-increasing and
non-negative, i.e., $T(s)\geq0$ and $T(t)-T(s)\leq0$ for each $t\geq s\geq0.$
Note that these assumptions imply
\[
\langle\left(e^{-\nu t}T(t)-e^{-\nu s}T(s)\right)x|x\rangle=e^{-\nu t}\langle\left(T(t)-T(s)\right)x|x\rangle+(e^{-\nu t}-e^{-\nu s})\langle T(s)x|x\rangle\leq0
\]
for every $t\geq s\geq0,\nu\geq0$ and $x\in G$. Hence, we estimate
for $t>0$ and $x\in G$
\begin{align*}
& \langle\Im\hat{T}(t-\i\nu_{0})x|x\rangle\\
& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\intop_{0}^{\infty}\sin(-ts)e^{-\nu_{0}s}\langle T(s)x|x\rangle\mbox{ d}s\\
& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\left(\intop_{2k\frac{\pi}{t}}^{(2k+1)\frac{\pi}{t}}\sin(-ts)e^{-\nu_{0}s}\langle T(s)x|x\rangle\mbox{ d}s+\intop_{(2k+1)\frac{\pi}{t}}^{2(k+1)\frac{\pi}{t}}\sin(-ts)e^{-\nu_{0}s}\langle T(s)x|x\rangle\mbox{ d}s\right)\\
& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\left(\intop_{2k\frac{\pi}{t}}^{(2k+1)\frac{\pi}{t}}\sin(-ts)e^{-\nu_{0}s}\langle T(s)u|u\rangle\mbox{ d}s\right.+\\
& \left.\quad+\intop_{2k\frac{\pi}{t}}^{(2k+1)\frac{\pi}{t}}\sin(-ts-\pi)e^{-\nu_{0}\left(s+\frac{\pi}{t}\right)}\left\langle \left.T\left(s+\frac{\pi}{t}\right)u\right|u\right\rangle \mbox{ d}s\right)\\
& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\intop_{2k\frac{\pi}{t}}^{(2k+1)\frac{\pi}{t}}\sin(-ts)\left\langle \left.\left(e^{-\nu_{0}s}T(s)-e^{-\nu_{0}\left(s+\frac{\pi}{t}\right)}T\left(s+\frac{\pi}{t}\right)\right)u\right|u\right\rangle \mbox{ d}s\\
& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\intop_{2k\frac{\pi}{t}}^{(2k+1)\frac{\pi}{t}}\sin(ts)\left\langle \left.\left(e^{-\nu_{0}\left(s+\frac{\pi}{t}\right)}T\left(s+\frac{\pi}{t}\right)-e^{-\nu_{0}s}T(s)\right)u\right|u\right\rangle \mbox{ d}s\leq0,
\end{align*}
which yields \prettyref{eq:imaginary} according to (a). The authors
of \cite{Cannarsa2011} assume that the integrated kernel defines
a positive definite convolution operator on $L_{2}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0}).$
However, according to \cite[Proposition 2.2 (a)]{Cannarsa2011}, this
condition also implies \prettyref{eq:imaginary}.
\end{enumerate}\end{rem}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:one_nu_every_nu}Assume that $T\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(G))$
satisfies the hypotheses \prettyref{eq:selfadjoint} and \prettyref{eq:imaginary}.
Then we have for all $\nu\geq\nu_{0}$ and $t\in\mathbb{R}$
\[
t\Im\hat{T}(t-\i\nu)\leq0.
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $x\in G$ and $\nu\geq\mu.$ We define the function
\[
f(t)\coloneqq\langle T(t)x|x\rangle\quad(t\in\mathbb{R})
\]
which is real-valued, due to the selfadjointness of $T(t)$ and we
estimate
\[
\intop_{\mathbb{R}}|f(t)|e^{-\mu t}\mbox{ d}t\leq\intop_{\mathbb{R}}\|T(t)\|e^{-\mu t}\mbox{ d}t\,|x|^{2}
\]
which shows $f\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{>0})$. We observe that
\begin{align*}
\left\langle \hat{T}(t-\i\nu)x|x\right\rangle & =\left\langle \left.\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\intop_{\mathbb{R}}e^{-\i ts}e^{-\nu s}T(s)\mbox{ d}s\: x\,\right|x\right\rangle \\
& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\intop_{\mathbb{R}}e^{\i ts}e^{-\nu s}\langle T(s)x|x\rangle\mbox{ d}s\\
& =\hat{f}(-t-\i\nu)
\end{align*}
for each $t\in\mathbb{R},\nu\geq\mu.$ Hence, by
\[
\langle\Im\hat{T}(t-\i\nu)x|x\rangle=\Im\langle\hat{T}(t-\i\nu)x|x\rangle=\Im\hat{f}(-t-\i\nu)
\]
it suffices to prove $t\Im\hat{f}(-t-\i\nu)\leq0$ for $\nu\geq\nu_{0},\; t\in\mathbb{R}$
under the condition that $t\Im\hat{f}(-t-\i\nu_{0})\leq0$ for each
$t\in\mathbb{R}.$ For this purpose we follow the strategy in \cite[Lemma 3.4]{Cannarsa2003}
and employ the Poisson formula for the half plain (see \cite[p. 149]{stein2003fourier})
in order to compute the values of the harmonic function $\Im\hat{f}(\cdot):[\mathbb{R}]-\i\left[\mathbb{R}_{\geq\mu}\right]\to\mathbb{R}.$
This gives, using $\Im\hat{f}(-s-\i\nu)=-\Im\hat{f}(s-\i\nu)$
\begin{align*}
\Im\hat{f}(-t-\i\nu) & =\frac{1}{\pi}\intop_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\nu-\nu_{0}}{(t-s)^{2}+(\nu-\nu_{0})^{2}}\Im\hat{f}(-s-\i\nu_{0})\mbox{ d}s\\
& =\frac{\nu-\nu_{0}}{\pi}\left(\intop_{0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(t+s)^{2}+(\nu-\nu_{0})^{2}}\Im\hat{f}(s-\i\nu_{0})\mbox{ d}s\right.+\\
& \quad+\left.\intop_{0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(t-s)^{2}+(\nu-\nu_{0})^{2}}\Im\hat{f}(-s-\i\nu_{0})\mbox{ d}s\right)\\
& =\frac{\nu-\nu_{0}}{\pi}\intop_{0}^{\infty}\left(\frac{1}{(t-s)^{2}+(\nu-\nu_{0})^{2}}-\frac{1}{(t+s)^{2}+(\nu-\nu_{0})^{2}}\right)\Im\hat{f}(-s-\i\nu_{0})\mbox{ d}s\\
& =4t\frac{\nu-\nu_{0}}{\pi}\intop_{0}^{\infty}\left(\frac{s}{\left((t-s)^{2}+(\nu-\nu_{0})^{2}\right)\left((t+s)^{2}+(\nu-\nu_{0})^{2}\right)}\right)\Im\hat{f}(-s-\i\nu_{0})\mbox{ d}s,
\end{align*}
which implies
\begin{align*}
& \quad t\Im\hat{f}(-t-\i\nu)\\
& =4t^{2}\frac{\nu-\nu_{0}}{\pi}\intop_{0}^{\infty}\left(\frac{s}{\left((t-s)^{2}+(\nu-\nu_{0})^{2}\right)\left((t+s)^{2}+(\nu-\nu_{0})^{2}\right)}\right)\Im\hat{f}(-s-\i\nu_{0})\mbox{ d}s\\
& \leq0.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:pos_B}Let $B$ satisfy the hypotheses \prettyref{eq:selfadjoint}-\prettyref{eq:imaginary}.
Then there exists $0<r_{1}\leq r$ such that for all $z\in B_{\mathbb{C}}(r_{1},r_{1})$
the condition \prettyref{eq:solv_1} is satisfied.\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $x\in H_{1}$ and set $r_{1}\coloneqq\min\left\{ \frac{1}{2\nu_{0}},r\right\} .$
Let $z\in B_{\mathbb{C}}(r_{1},r_{1})$ and note that $z^{-1}=\i t+\nu$
for some $t\in\mathbb{R},\nu>\nu_{0}.$ Since the operator $1-\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(t-\i\nu)$
is bounded and boundedly invertible, so is its adjoint, which is given
by $1-\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-t-\i\nu)$ since $B(s)$ is selfadjoint
for each $s\in\mathbb{R}.$ We compute
\[
\Re\langle(\i t+\nu)(1-\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(t-\i\nu))^{-1}x|x\rangle=\Re\langle(\i t+\nu)(|1-\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(t-\i\nu)|^{2})^{-1}(1-\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-t-\i\nu))x|x\rangle.
\]
We define the operator $C\coloneqq|1-\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(t-\i\nu)|{}^{-1}$.
Furthermore, note that due to the assumption that the operators pairwise
commute, we have that the operators $\hat{B}(\cdot)$ commute, too.
This especially implies, that $\hat{B}(t-\i\nu)$ is normal and hence
$C$ and $1-\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-t-\i\nu)$ commute. Thus, we can estimate
the real part by
\begin{align*}
& \quad\Re\langle(\i t+\nu)C^{2}(1-\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-t-\i\nu))x|x\rangle\\
& =\Re(\i t+\nu)\langle(1-\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-t-\i\nu))Cx|Cx\rangle\\
& =\nu\langle\left(1-\sqrt{2\pi}\Re\hat{B}(-t-\i\nu)\right)Cx|Cx\rangle+t\langle\sqrt{2\pi}\Im\hat{B}(-t-\i\nu)Cx|Cx\rangle\\
& \geq\nu\left(1-\|\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-t-\i\nu)\|\right)|Cx|^{2}-\sqrt{2\pi}\langle t\Im\hat{B}(t-\i\nu)Cx|Cx\rangle\\
& \geq\nu(1-|B|_{L_{1,\nu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{1}))})|Cx|^{2},
\end{align*}
where we have used \prettyref{lem:one_nu_every_nu}. Using now the
inequality
\[
|x|=|C^{-1}Cx|=\left|\left(1-\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(t-\i\nu)\right)Cx\right|\leq(1+|B|_{L_{1,\nu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{1}))})|Cx|
\]
we arrive at
\begin{align*}
\Re\langle(\i t+\nu)C^{2}(1-\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-t-\i\nu))x|x\rangle & \geq\nu\frac{1-|B|_{L_{1,\nu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{1}))}}{\left(1+|B|_{L_{1,\nu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{1}))}\right)^{2}}|x|^{2}\\
& \geq\nu_{0}\frac{1-|B|_{L_{1,\nu_{0}}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{1}))}}{\left(1+|B|_{L_{1,\nu_{0}}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{1}))}\right)^{2}}|x|^{2},
\end{align*}
which shows the assertion.
\end{proof}
After these preparations we can state our main theorem.
\begin{thm}[Solution theory for hyperbolic-type integro-differential equations]
\label{thm:sol_theory_hyperbolic} Let $A:D(A)\subseteq H_{0}\to H_{1}$
be a densely defined closed linear operator and $C\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{0})),B\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{1}))$
for some $\mu\geq0.$ Assume that $C$ and $B$ are absolutely continuous
or that $B$ satisfies the hypotheses \prettyref{eq:selfadjoint}-\prettyref{eq:imaginary}
and $C$ satisfies \prettyref{eq:selfadjoint} and \prettyref{eq:imaginary}.
Then the problem \prettyref{eq:hyper-1} is well-posed in the sense
of \prettyref{thm:sol_theory}.\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
In case of absolute continuity of $B$ or $C$ the positive definiteness
condition is satisfied according to \prettyref{rem:absolute_cont}.
If $B$ satisfies \prettyref{eq:selfadjoint}-\prettyref{eq:imaginary}
then \prettyref{lem:pos_B} yields \prettyref{eq:solv_1}. If $C$
satisfies \prettyref{eq:selfadjoint} and \prettyref{eq:imaginary}
then we estimate
\begin{align*}
\Re\left(\i t+\nu\right)\left(1+\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{C}(t-\i\nu)\right) & =\nu\left(1+\sqrt{2\pi}\Re\hat{C}(t-\i\nu)\right)-\sqrt{2\pi}t\Im\hat{C}(t-\i\nu)\\
& \geq\nu\left(1-|C|_{L_{1,\nu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H))}\right)
\end{align*}
for each $t\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\nu\geq\nu_{0},$ where we have used
\prettyref{lem:one_nu_every_nu}. Using \prettyref{cor:Neumann},
this yields the assertion.
\end{proof}
In applications it turns out that Equation \prettyref{eq:hyper-1}
is just assumed to hold for positive times, i.e. on $\mathbb{R}_{>0}$
and the equation is completed by initial conditions. So for instance,
we can require that the unknowns $v$ and $q$ are supported on the
positive real line and attain some given initial values at time $0.$
Then we arrive at a usual initial value problem. Since, due to the
convolution with $B$ and $C$ the history of $v$ and $q$ has an
influence on the equation for positive times, we can, instead of requiring
an initial value at $0$, prescribe the values of $v$ and $q$ on
the whole negative real-line. This is a standard problem in delay-equations
and it is usually treated by introducing so-called history-spaces
(see e.g. \cite{hale1993introduction,diekmann1995delay}). However,
following the idea of \cite{Kalauch2011} we can treat this kind of
equations as a problem of the form \prettyref{eq:hyper-1} with a
modified right-hand side. Let us treat the case of classical initial
value problems first.
\begin{rem}[Initial value problem]
\label{rem:ivp}For $\left(f,g\right)\in H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H)$
with $\operatorname{supp} f,\operatorname{supp} g\subseteq\mathbb{R}_{\geq0}$ we consider the
differential equation \foreignlanguage{english}{
\[
\left(\partial_{0}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+C\ast & 0\\
0 & (1-B\ast)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & A^{\ast}\\
-A & 0
\end{array}\right)\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
v\\
q
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
f\\
g
\end{array}\right)
\]
}on $\mathbb{R}_{>0}$ completed by initial conditions of the form
\[
v(0+)=v^{(0)}\in D(A)\mbox{ and }q(0+)=q^{(0)}\in D(A^{\ast}).
\]
We assume that the solvability conditions \prettyref{eq:solv_1} and
\prettyref{eq:solv_C} are fulfilled. Assume that a pair $(v,q)\in\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}(m_{0})[H_{\nu,1}(\mathbb{R};H)]$%
\footnote{This means that we find a pair $(w,p)\in H_{\nu,1}(\mathbb{R};H)$
that coincides with $(v,q)$ for positive times.%
} solves this problem. Then we get
\[
\partial_{0}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+C\ast & 0\\
0 & (1-B\ast)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
v-\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\otimes v^{(0)}\\
q-\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\otimes q^{(0)}
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & A^{\ast}\\
-A & 0
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
v\\
q
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
f\\
g
\end{array}\right)
\]
on $\mathbb{R},$ which is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\left(\partial_{0}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+C\ast & 0\\
0 & (1-B\ast)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & A^{\ast}\\
-A & 0
\end{array}\right)\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
v\\
q
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
f\\
g
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+C\ast & 0\\
0 & (1-B\ast)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)\delta\otimes\left(\begin{array}{c}
v^{(0)}\\
q^{(0)}
\end{array}\right).\label{eq:ivp}
\end{equation}
We claim that this equation is the proper formulation of the initial
value problem in our framework. According to \prettyref{cor:sol_extrapolation}
this equation admits a unique solution $(v,q)\in H_{\nu,-1}(\mathbb{R};H)$
and due to the causality of the solution operator we get $\operatorname{supp} v,\operatorname{supp} q\subseteq\mathbb{R}_{\geq0}$.
We derive from \prettyref{eq:ivp} that
\[
\left(\partial_{0}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+C\ast & 0\\
0 & (1-B\ast)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & A^{\ast}\\
-A & 0
\end{array}\right)\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
v-\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\otimes v^{(0)}\\
q-\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\otimes q^{(0)}
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
f\\
g
\end{array}\right)-\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\otimes\left(\begin{array}{c}
A^{\ast}q^{(0)}\\
-Av^{(0)}
\end{array}\right)
\]
which gives $\left(\begin{array}{c}
v-\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\otimes v^{(0)}\\
q-\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\otimes q^{(0)}
\end{array}\right)\in H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H).$ However, we also get that%
\footnote{Note that $A$ and $A^{\ast}$can be extended to bounded operators
$A:H_{0}\to H_{-1}(|A^{\ast}|+\i)$ and $A^{\ast}:H_{1}\to H_{-1}(|A|+\i)$
respectively (cf. \cite[Lemma 2.1.16]{Picard_McGhee}).%
}
\begin{align*}
& \partial_{0}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+C\ast & 0\\
0 & (1-B\ast)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
v-\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\otimes v^{(0)}\\
q-\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\otimes q^{(0)}
\end{array}\right)\\
= & \left(\begin{array}{c}
f\\
g
\end{array}\right)-\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & A^{\ast}\\
-A & 0
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
v\\
q
\end{array}\right)\in H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H_{-1}(|A^{\ast}|+\i)\oplus H_{-1}(|A|+\i)),
\end{align*}
and hence,
\[
\left(\begin{array}{c}
v-\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\otimes v^{(0)}\\
q-\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\otimes q^{(0)}
\end{array}\right)\in H_{\nu,1}(\mathbb{R};H_{-1}(|A^{\ast}|+\i)\oplus H_{-1}(|A|+\i)).
\]
Using the Sobolev-embedding Theorem (see \cite[Lemma 3.1.59]{Picard_McGhee}
or \cite[Lemma 5.2]{Kalauch2011}) we obtain that \foreignlanguage{english}{$\left(\begin{array}{c}
v-\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\otimes v^{(0)}\\
q-\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\otimes q^{(0)}
\end{array}\right)$} is continuous with values in $H_{-1}(|A^{\ast}|+\i)\oplus H_{-1}(|A|+\i)$
and hence
\[
0=\left(v-\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\otimes v^{(0)}\right)(0-)=\left(v-\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\otimes v^{(0)}\right)(0+)
\]
in $H_{-1}(|A^{\ast}|+\i)$ and thus
\[
v(0+)=v^{(0)}\mbox{ in }H_{-1}(|A^{\ast}|+\i).
\]
Analogously we get
\[
q(0+)=q^{(0)}\mbox{ in }H_{-1}(|A|+\i).
\]
\end{rem}
$\,$
\begin{rem}[Problems with prescribed history]
\label{rem: history} For $\left(f,g\right)\in H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H)$
with $\operatorname{supp} f,\operatorname{supp} g\subseteq\mathbb{R}_{\geq0}$ we again consider
the equation
\begin{equation}
\left(\partial_{0}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+C\ast & 0\\
0 & (1-B\ast)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & A^{\ast}\\
-A & 0
\end{array}\right)\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
v\\
q
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
f\\
g
\end{array}\right)\label{eq:hyper_again}
\end{equation}
on $\mathbb{R}_{>0}$ and the initial conditions
\[
v|_{\mathbb{R}_{<0}}=v_{(-\infty)},\: v(0+)=v_{(-\infty)}(0-)\mbox{ and }q|_{\mathbb{R}_{<0}}=q_{(-\infty)},\: q(0+)=q_{(-\infty)}(0-).
\]
We assume that $v_{(-\infty)}\in H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H_{0})$ with
$\operatorname{supp} v_{(-\infty)}\subseteq\mathbb{R}_{\leq0}$ and such that $v_{(-\infty)}(0-)\in D(A)$
and $\left(1+C\ast\right)v_{(-\infty)}\in\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}(m_{0})[H_{\nu,1}(\mathbb{R};H_{0})]$
as well as $q{}_{(-\infty)}\in H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H_{1})$ with
$\operatorname{supp} q_{(-\infty)}\subseteq\mathbb{R}_{\leq0}$, $q_{(-\infty)}(0-)\in D(A^{\ast})$
and $\left(1-B\ast\right)^{-1}q_{(-\infty)}\in\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}(m_{0})[H_{\nu,1}(\mathbb{R};H_{1})]$.
We want to determine an evolutionary equation for $w\coloneqq\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}v$
and $p\coloneqq\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}q.$ We have that
\begin{align}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
f\\
g
\end{array}\right) & =\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\left(\partial_{0}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+C\ast & 0\\
0 & (1-B\ast)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & A^{\ast}\\
-A & 0
\end{array}\right)\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
v\\
q
\end{array}\right)\nonumber \\
& =\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\left(\partial_{0}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+C\ast & 0\\
0 & (1-B\ast)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & A^{\ast}\\
-A & 0
\end{array}\right)\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
w+v_{(-\infty)}\\
p+q_{(-\infty)}
\end{array}\right)\nonumber \\
& =\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\left(\partial_{0}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+C\ast & 0\\
0 & (1-B\ast)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & A^{\ast}\\
-A & 0
\end{array}\right)\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
w\\
p
\end{array}\right)\nonumber \\
& \quad+\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\partial_{0}\mbox{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{array}{c}
(1+C\ast)v{}_{(-\infty)}\\
(1-B\ast)^{-1}q_{(-\infty)}
\end{array}\right)}}.\label{eq:comp}
\end{align}
Hence, we arrive at the following equation for $(w,p):$
\begin{align*}
\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\left(\partial_{0}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+C\ast & 0\\
0 & (1-B\ast)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & A^{\ast}\\
-A & 0
\end{array}\right)\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
w\\
p
\end{array}\right) & =\left(\begin{array}{c}
f\\
g
\end{array}\right)-\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\partial_{0}\mbox{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{array}{c}
(1+C\ast)v{}_{(-\infty)}\\
(1-B\ast)^{-1}q_{(-\infty)}
\end{array}\right)}}.
\end{align*}
Note that we can omit the cut-off function on the left hand side due
to the causality of the operators. The conditions $v(0+)=v_{(-\infty)}(0-)$
and $q(0+)=q_{(-\infty)}(0-)$ are now classical initial conditions
for the unknowns $w$ and $p$. Hence, following \prettyref{rem:ivp}
we end up with the following evolutionary equation for $(w,p)$:
\begin{align}
\left(\partial_{0}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+C\ast & 0\\
0 & (1-B\ast)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & A^{\ast}\\
-A & 0
\end{array}\right)\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
w\\
p
\end{array}\right) & =\left(\begin{array}{c}
f\\
g
\end{array}\right)-\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\partial_{0}\mbox{\ensuremath{\left(\begin{array}{c}
(1+C\ast)v{}_{(-\infty)}\\
(1-B\ast)^{-1}q_{(-\infty)}
\end{array}\right)}}+\nonumber \\
& +\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+C\ast & 0\\
0 & (1-B\ast)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)\delta\otimes\left(\begin{array}{c}
v_{(-\infty)}(0-)\\
q_{(-\infty)}(0-)
\end{array}\right).\label{eq:pre_history}
\end{align}
This equation possesses a unique solution in $H_{\nu,-1}(\mathbb{R};H)$
with $\operatorname{supp} w,\operatorname{supp} p\subseteq\mathbb{R}_{>0}$ due to the causality
of the solution operator. Like in \prettyref{rem:ivp} we get that
\[
\left(\begin{array}{c}
w-\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\otimes v_{(-\infty)}(0-)\\
p-\chi_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\otimes q_{(-\infty)}(0-)
\end{array}\right)\in H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H)
\]
from which we derive, using Equation \prettyref{eq:pre_history},
that
\[
w(0+)=v_{(-\infty)}(0-)\mbox{ and }p(0+)=q_{(-\infty)}(0-)
\]
in $H_{-1}(|A|+\i)$ and $H_{-1}(|A^{\ast}|+\i)$ respectively. We
are now able to define the original solution by setting
\[
v\coloneqq w+v_{(-\infty)}\in H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H_{0})\mbox{ and }q=p+q_{(-\infty)}\in H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H_{1}).
\]
Indeed, $v$ and $q$ satisfy the initial conditions by definition
and on $\mathbb{R}_{>0}$ the solution $(v,q)$ satisfies the differential
equation \prettyref{eq:hyper_again} according to the computation
done in \prettyref{eq:comp}.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Parabolic-type Equations}
In this subsection we treat the case $P_{1}(x)=1+\sqrt{2\pi}x,Q_{1}=1,P_{2}=0,P_{3}=0,P_{4}=1$
and $Q_{4}(x)=1-\sqrt{2\pi}x.$ Hence, we end up with a linear material
law of the form
\[
M(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{C}(-\i z^{-1}) & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{array}\right)+z^{-1}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\\
0 & \left(1-\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-\i z^{-1})\right)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)\quad\left(z\in B_{\mathbb{C}}(r,r)\right)
\]
where $B\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{1}))$ and $C\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{0}))$
for some $\mu\geq0$ and $r>0$ is chosen suitably. The corresponding
integro-differential equation is given by
\begin{equation}
\left(\partial_{0}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1+C\ast & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\\
0 & \left(1-B\ast\right)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & A^{\ast}\\
-A & 0
\end{array}\right)\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
u\\
q
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
f\\
g
\end{array}\right),\label{eq:parabolic}
\end{equation}
which, in the case $g=0,$ yields the parabolic equation
\begin{equation}
\partial_{0}u+C\ast\partial_{0}u+A^{\ast}Au-A^{\ast}\left(B\ast Au\right)=f.\label{eq:parabolic-2}
\end{equation}
This problem was already considered in \cite{Cannarsa2003} for scalar-valued
kernels. As it turns out the solution theory for this kind of problem
is quite easy in comparison to the solution theory for the hyperbolic
case.
\begin{thm}[Solution theory for parabolic-type integro-differential equations]
\label{thm:sol_theory_parabolic} Let $A:D(A)\subseteq H_{0}\to H_{1}$
be a densely defined closed linear operator and $B\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{1})),C\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R};L(H_{0}))$
for some $\mu\geq0.$ Assume that $C$ satisfies the hypotheses \prettyref{eq:selfadjoint}
and \prettyref{eq:imaginary} (see Subsection 3.1). Then problem \prettyref{eq:parabolic}
is well-posed in the sense of \prettyref{thm:sol_theory}.\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
To verify the solvability condition \prettyref{eq:solv}, we have
to show that the operators $\Re z^{-1}(1+\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{C}(-\i z^{-1}))$
and $\Re(1-\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-\i z^{-1}))^{-1}$ are uniformly strictly
positive definite on some ball $B_{\mathbb{C}}(r,r).$ The first term
can be estimated as in \prettyref{thm:sol_theory_hyperbolic}. For
the second term we use the Neumann-series and estimate
\begin{align*}
\Re\left(1-\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-\i z^{-1})\right)^{-1} & =1+\Re\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-\i z^{-1})\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\left(\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-\i z^{-1})\right)^{k}\\
& \geq1-\frac{\sup_{z\in B_{\mathbb{C}}(r,r)}\|\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-\i z^{-1})\|_{L(H_{1})}}{1-\sup_{z\in B_{\mathbb{C}}(r,r)}\|\sqrt{2\pi}\hat{B}(-\i z^{-1})\|_{L(H_{1})}}\\
& \to1\quad(r\to0+),
\end{align*}
which yields the strict positive definiteness of the second term. \end{proof}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:vlasov} In \cite{Vlasov2010} the following kind of a
parabolic-type integro-differential equation was considered:
\begin{equation}
\partial_{0}u+C\ast\partial_{0}u+Au-B\ast Au=f,\label{eq:parabolic_vlasov}
\end{equation}
where $A:D(A)\subseteq H_{0}\to H_{0}$ is a selfadjoint strictly
positive definite operator and $B,C\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{0}))$.
Equivalently we can consider the equation
\[
\partial_{0}u+(1+C\ast)^{-1}(1-B\ast)Au=(1+C\ast)^{-1}f.
\]
In this case the well-posedness can be shown, without imposing additional
hypotheses on $C.$ First we write the problem in the form given in
\prettyref{eq:integro}. For doing so, consider the operator $A:D(A)\subseteq H_{1}(\sqrt{A})\to H_{0}.$
We compute the adjoint of this operator. First observe that for $g\in H_{1}(\sqrt{A})$
we get
\begin{align*}
\langle g|Af\rangle_{H_{0}} & =\langle\sqrt{A}g|\sqrt{A}f\rangle_{H_{0}}\\
& =\langle g|f\rangle_{H_{1}(\sqrt{A})}
\end{align*}
for each $f\in D(A)$ and thus $g\in D(A^{\ast}).$ Furthermore, if
$g\in D(A^{\ast})$ there exists $h\in H_{1}(\sqrt{A})$ such that
for all $f\in D(A)$
\[
\langle g|Af\rangle_{H_{0}}=\langle h|f\rangle_{H_{1}(\sqrt{A})}=\langle\sqrt{A}h|\sqrt{A}f\rangle_{H_{0}}=\langle h|Af\rangle_{H_{0}}.
\]
Since $A$ has dense range we conclude that $g=h\in H_{1}(\sqrt{A}).$
Thus, the adjoint is given by the identity $1:H_{1}(\sqrt{A})\subseteq H_{0}\to H_{1}(\sqrt{A}).$
We rewrite Equation \prettyref{eq:parabolic_vlasov} in the following
way
\[
\left(\partial_{0}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\\
0 & (1-B\ast)^{-1}(1+C\ast)
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1\\
-A & 0
\end{array}\right)\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
u\\
q
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
(1+C\ast)^{-1}f\\
0
\end{array}\right).
\]
Note that this is now an equation in the space $H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H_{1}(\sqrt{A})\oplus H_{0}).$
The strict positive definiteness of $\Re(1-B\ast)^{-1}(1+C\ast)$
follows from the strict positive definiteness of $\Re(1-B\ast)^{-1}$
(compare the proof of \prettyref{thm:sol_theory_parabolic}) and the
fact that $\|(1-B\ast)^{-1}C\ast\|_{L(H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H_{0}))}\to0$
as $\nu\to\infty.$
\end{rem}
\section{Application to Visco-Elasticity}
In this section we apply our findings of Subsection 3.1 to the equations
of visco-elasticity. For doing so we first need to introduce the involved
differential operators. Throughout let $\Omega\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}$
be an arbitrary domain.
\begin{defn}
We consider the space
\[
L_{2}(\Omega)^{n\times n}\coloneqq\left\{ \Psi=(\Psi_{ij})_{i,j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}}\,|\,\forall i,j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}:\Psi_{ij}\in L_{2}(\Omega)\right\}
\]
equipped with the inner product
\[
\langle\Psi|\Phi\rangle\coloneqq\intop_{\Omega}\operatorname{trace}(\Psi(x)^{\ast}\Phi(x))\mbox{ d}x\quad(\Psi,\Phi\in L_{2}(\Omega)^{n\times n}).
\]
It is obvious that $L_{2}(\Omega)^{n\times n}$ becomes a Hilbert
space and that
\[
H_{\mathrm{sym}}(\Omega)\coloneqq\left\{ \Psi\in L_{2}(\Omega)^{n\times n}\,|\,\Psi(x)^{T}=\Psi(x)\quad(x\in\Omega\mbox{ a.e.})\right\}
\]
defines a closed subspace of $L_{2}(\Omega)^{n\times n}$ and therefore
$H_{\mathrm{sym}}(\Omega)$ is also a Hilbert space. We introduce
the operator
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{Grad}|_{C_{c}^{\infty}(\Omega)^{n}}:C_{c}^{\infty}(\Omega)^{n}\subseteq L_{2}(\Omega)^{n} & \to H_{\mathrm{sym}}(\Omega)\\
(\phi_{i})_{i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}} & \mapsto\left(\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{i}\phi_{j}+\partial_{j}\phi_{i})\right)_{i,j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}},
\end{align*}
which turns out to be closable and we denote its closure by $\operatorname{Grad}_{c}.$
Moreover we define $\operatorname{Div}\coloneqq-\operatorname{Grad}_{c}^{\ast}.$
\end{defn}
For $\Phi\in C_{c}^{1}(\Omega)^{n\times n}\cap H_{\mathrm{sym}}(\Omega)$
one can compute $\operatorname{Div}\Phi$ by
\[
\left(\operatorname{Div}\Phi\right)_{i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}}=\left(\sum_{j=1}^{n}\partial_{j}\Phi_{ij}\right)_{i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}}.
\]
The equations of linear elasticity in a domain $\Omega\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}$
read as follows (see e.g. \cite[p. 102 ff.]{duvaut1976inequalities})
\begin{align}
\partial_{0}(\rho\partial_{0}u)-\operatorname{Div} T & =f\label{eq:dynamic_ela}\\
T & =C\operatorname{Grad}_{c}u,\label{eq:material_law_ela}
\end{align}
where $u\in H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};L_{2}(\Omega)^{n})$ denotes the
displacement field and $T\in H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H_{\mathrm{sym}}(\Omega))$
denotes the stress tensor. Note that due to the domain of the operator
$\operatorname{Grad}_{c}$ we have assumed an implicit boundary condition, which
can be written as
\[
u=0\mbox{ on }\partial\Omega
\]
in case of a smooth boundary.%
\footnote{By suitable realizations of the operators $\operatorname{Grad}$ and $\operatorname{Div}$ one
can model also more complicated boundary conditions (see \cite[p. 98 ff.]{Trostorff_2011}).%
} The function $\rho\in L_{\infty}(\Omega)$ describes the pressure
and is assumed to be real-valued and strictly positive. The operator
$C\in L(H_{\mathrm{sym}}(\Omega))$, linking the stress and the strain
tensor $\operatorname{Grad}_{c}u$ is assumed to be selfadjoint and strictly positive
definite. In viscous media it turns out that the stress $T$ does
not only depend on the present state of the strain tensor, but also
on its past. One way to model this relation is to add a convolution
term in \prettyref{eq:material_law_ela}, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
T(t)=C\operatorname{Grad}_{c}u(t)-\intop_{-\infty}^{t}B(t-s)\operatorname{Grad}_{c}u(s)\mbox{ d}s,\quad(t\in\mathbb{R}),\label{eq:material_law_visco}
\end{equation}
where $B\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{\mathrm{sym}}(\Omega))).$
If we plug \prettyref{eq:material_law_visco} into \prettyref{eq:dynamic_ela}
we end up with the equation, which was considered in \cite{Dafermos1970_asymp_stab}
under the assumption, that $B$ is absolutely continuous.\\
We now show that \prettyref{eq:dynamic_ela} and \prettyref{eq:material_law_visco}
can be written as a system of the form \prettyref{eq:hyper-1}. For
this purpose we define $v\coloneqq\partial_{0}u.$ Note that the operator
$C-B\ast=C^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(1-C^{-\frac{1}{2}}\left(B\ast\right)C^{-\frac{1}{2}}\right)C^{\frac{1}{2}}$
is boundedly invertible, since $C$ is boundedly invertible and $\left(t\mapsto C^{-\frac{1}{2}}B(t)C^{-\frac{1}{2}}\right)\in L_{1,\mu}(\mathbb{R}_{\geq0};L(H_{\mathrm{sym}}(\Omega)))$
which gives that $\left(1-C^{-\frac{1}{2}}\left(B\ast\right)C^{-\frac{1}{2}}\right)$
is boundedly invertible on $H_{\nu,0}(\mathbb{R};H_{\mathrm{sym}}(\Omega))$
for large $\nu$ (\prettyref{cor:Neumann}). Therefore we can write
Equation \prettyref{eq:material_law_visco} as
\[
\left(1-C^{-\frac{1}{2}}\left(B\ast\right)C^{-\frac{1}{2}}\right)^{-1}C^{-\frac{1}{2}}T=C^{\frac{1}{2}}\operatorname{Grad}_{c}u
\]
and by differentiating the last equality we obtain
\[
\partial_{0}\left(1-C^{-\frac{1}{2}}\left(B\ast\right)C^{-\frac{1}{2}}\right)^{-1}C^{-\frac{1}{2}}T=C^{\frac{1}{2}}\operatorname{Grad}_{c}v.
\]
Thus, we get formally
\begin{equation}
\left(\partial_{0}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
0 & \left(1-C^{-\frac{1}{2}}\left(B\ast\right)C^{-\frac{1}{2}}\right)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -\rho^{-1}\operatorname{Div} C^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
-C^{\frac{1}{2}}\operatorname{Grad}_{c} & 0
\end{array}\right)\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
v\\
C^{-\frac{1}{2}}T
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\rho^{-1}f\\
0
\end{array}\right).\label{eq:visco_ealstic}
\end{equation}
Following the strategy used in \cite[Section 5.2.1]{Picard_McGhee}
we define a new inner-product on $H$ in the following way.
\newpage{}
\begin{defn}
Let $H$ be a Hilbert space and $M\in L(H)$ be selfadjoint and strictly
positive definite. Then we define an inner product on $H$ by%
\footnote{Note that $M^{-1}\in L(H)$ is also selfadjoint and strictly positive
definite.%
}
\[
\langle x|y\rangle_{M[H]}\coloneqq\langle M^{-1}x|y\rangle_{H},\quad(x,y\in H)
\]
which yields an equivalent norm on $H.$ We denote the Hilbert space
$\left(H,\langle\cdot|\cdot\rangle_{M[H]}\right)$ by $M[H].$\end{defn}
\begin{lem}
We define the operator
\begin{align*}
A\coloneqq C^{\frac{1}{2}}\operatorname{Grad}_{c}:D(\operatorname{Grad}_{c}) & \subseteq\rho^{-1}\left[L_{2}(\Omega)^{n}\right]\to H_{\mathrm{sym}}(\Omega).
\end{align*}
Then $A^{\ast}=-\rho^{-1}\operatorname{Div} C^{\frac{1}{2}}.$ \end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\Phi\in D\left(\operatorname{Div} C^{\frac{1}{2}}\right).$ Then we compute
for $\psi\in D(\operatorname{Grad}_{c})$
\begin{align*}
\langle A\psi|\Phi\rangle_{H_{\mathrm{sym}}(\Omega)} & =\langle\psi|-\operatorname{Div} C^{\frac{1}{2}}\Phi\rangle_{L_{2}(\Omega)^{n}}\\
& =\langle\psi|-\rho^{-1}\operatorname{Div} C^{\frac{1}{2}}\Phi\rangle_{\rho^{-1}[L_{2}(\Omega)^{n}]},
\end{align*}
showing that $-\rho^{-1}\operatorname{Div} C^{\frac{1}{2}}\subseteq A^{\ast}.$
If $\Phi\in D(A^{\ast}),$ then there exists $\eta\in L_{2}(\Omega)^{n}$
such that
\[
\langle C^{\frac{1}{2}}\operatorname{Grad}\psi|\Phi\rangle_{H_{\mathrm{sym}}(\Omega)}=\langle A\psi|\Phi\rangle_{H_{\mathrm{sym}}(\Omega)}=\langle\psi|\eta\rangle_{\rho^{-1}[L_{2}(\Omega)^{n}]}=\langle\rho\psi|\eta\rangle_{L_{2}(\Omega)^{n}}.
\]
The latter yields that $C^{\frac{1}{2}}\Phi\in D(\operatorname{Div})$ and $-\operatorname{Div} C^{\frac{1}{2}}\Phi=\rho\eta$,
which gives the remaining operator inclusion.
\end{proof}
The previous lemma shows that \prettyref{eq:visco_ealstic} as an
equation in $H_{\nu,0}\left(\mathbb{R};\rho^{-1}[L_{2}(\Omega)^{n}]\oplus H_{\mathrm{sym}}(\Omega)\right)$
is of the form given in \prettyref{eq:hyper-1}. Thus our solution
theory (\prettyref{thm:sol_theory_hyperbolic}) applies. So, in the
case that $B$ is absolutely continuous (as it was assumed in \cite{Dafermos1970_asymp_stab})
we get the well-posedness. If we do not assume any smoothness for
$B$ we end up with the following result.
\begin{thm}
Assume that $B$ satisfies the hypotheses \prettyref{eq:selfadjoint}-\prettyref{eq:imaginary}
and that $C$ and $B(t)$ commute for each $t\in\mathbb{R}.$ Then
\prettyref{eq:visco_ealstic} is well-posed as an equation in $H_{\nu,0}\left(\mathbb{R};\rho^{-1}[L_{2}(\Omega)^{n}]\oplus H_{\mathrm{sym}}(\Omega)\right)$
for $\nu$ large enough.\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Note that $C^{-\frac{1}{2}}\left(B\ast\right)C^{-\frac{1}{2}}=\left(C^{-\frac{1}{2}}B(\cdot)C^{-\frac{1}{2}}\right)\ast$,
so according to \prettyref{thm:sol_theory_hyperbolic} it suffices
to verify the hypotheses \prettyref{eq:selfadjoint}-\prettyref{eq:imaginary}
for the kernel $C^{-\frac{1}{2}}B(\cdot)C^{-\frac{1}{2}}.$ The conditions
\prettyref{eq:selfadjoint} and \prettyref{eq:commute} are obvious.
Furthermore
\[
\left(\widehat{C^{-\frac{1}{2}}B(\cdot)C^{-\frac{1}{2}}}\right)(t-\i\nu)=C^{-\frac{1}{2}}\hat{B}(t-\i\nu)C^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\]
for each $t\in\mathbb{R},\nu>\mu$ and hence by the selfadjointness
of $C$
\[
\Im\left(\widehat{C^{-\frac{1}{2}}B(\cdot)C^{-\frac{1}{2}}}\right)(t-\i\nu)=C^{-\frac{1}{2}}\Im\hat{B}(t-\i\nu)C^{-\frac{1}{2}}.
\]
This gives
\[
\left\langle \left.t\Im\left(\widehat{C^{-\frac{1}{2}}B(\cdot)C^{-\frac{1}{2}}}\right)(t-\i\nu_{0})\Phi\right|\Phi\right\rangle _{H_{\mathrm{sym}}(\Omega)}=\left\langle \left.t\Im\hat{B}(t-\i\nu_{0})C^{-\frac{1}{2}}\Phi\right|C^{-\frac{1}{2}}\Phi\right\rangle _{H_{\mathrm{sym}}(\Omega)}\leq0
\]
for each $\Phi\in H_{\mathrm{sym}}(\Omega)$ and $t\in\mathbb{R}.$
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusion}
We have shown that linear integro-differential equations with operator-valued
kernels of hyperbolic and parabolic type are covered by the class
of evolutionary equations and we gave sufficient conditions for the
well-posedness in both cases. Moreover, using the causality of the
solution operators and its continuous extensions to the Sobolev-chain
associated to the time-derivative, we have proposed a way to treat
initial value problems without introducing history spaces (see \prettyref{rem:ivp}
and \prettyref{rem: history}). Note that most of the results can
also be formulated for differential inclusions, where we replace the
operator $A^{\ast}A$ by a maximal monotone relation, using the techniques
developed in \cite{Trostorff2012_NA,Trostorff_2011}. \\
So far, we have restricted ourselves to the case of affine linear
functions $P_{i},Q_{i}$ in \prettyref{eq:material_law_hyper}. However,
one could also treat polynomials instead, which would yield integro-differential
equations with compositions of convolution operators. Also one could
allow non-vanishing off-diagonal entries in the block operator matrices
in \prettyref{eq:material_law_hyper}. For these cases it is left
to state some sufficient conditions for the well-posedness, which
are easier to verify than the abstract solvability condition \prettyref{eq:solv}.\\
Another possible generalization would be integro-differential equations
with convolutions with unbounded operators, for example equations
of the form
\[
\left(\partial_{0}^{2}+A^{\ast}(1-B\ast)A\right)u=f,
\]
where the operators $B(t)$ are unbounded, but continuous as operators
on the Sobolev-chain associated with the operator $|A^{\ast}|+\i.$
Also in this case the solution theory for evolutionary equations is
applicable, if we assume that the resolvent $(1-B\ast)^{-1}$ is bounded.
However, the main problem remains to give sufficient conditions for
the solvability condition \prettyref{eq:solv} in this case. \cite{Waurick2013_fractional}
|
\section{A Broken Symmetry State}
Our objective is to find the ground state of the nearest neighbor spin $1/2$ kagome antiferromagnet constrained to the set of Gutzwiller projected variational BCS wave functions
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Gutzwiller}
|\Psi\rangle = \hat{\mathcal P}_{S=1/2}|\Psi_0\rangle
\end{equation}
where $\Psi_0(R)=\langle R|\Psi_0\rangle=\det M(R)$,
$M_{ij}(R) = \phi(\vec r_{i\uparrow},\vec r_{j\downarrow})$
is the BCS pairing amplitude and $\hat P_{S=1/2}$ projects these states onto the physical singly occupied Hilbert space of spin wave functions. This set of variational ansatz includes projected Slater determinants such as the $U(1)$ Dirac spin liquid \cite{Ran2007}. The variational search is performed by minimizing the ground state energy
\begin{equation}
E = \langle \Psi|\hat H|\Psi\rangle,\quad \hat H = \sum_{\langle ij\rangle}\hat S^\alpha_i\hat S^\alpha_j.
\end{equation}
of the Heisenberg spin Hamiltonian on the kagome lattice using as parameters all $n(n-1)/2$ real values of the pairing function
$\phi(\vec r_i, \vec r_j)$ (building on Refs. \onlinecite{Neuscamman2012,Clark2011}). To avoid only finding local minima in this energy landscape, we choose to start the optimization
in many qualitatively different starting points by
making use of the well developed projective symmetry group classification developed in the literature\cite{Wen2002, Ran2007, Hermele2008, Lu2011}. In particular, we will choose mean field parameters following Ref. \onlinecite{Lu2011} and derive a pairing matrix from these following supplemental materials(SM){} S-I and S-II. This allows us to start from 14 different spin liquid wave functions. Fig. \ref{fig:Opt}(a) shows prototypical optimization traces of the energies for each spin liquid state on the $4 \times 4$ lattice, labeled following Table II of Ref. \onlinecite{Lu2011}. Many states lie below the energy of the Dirac spin liquid and the minimal energy state we find is at $-0.430520 \pm 5\times 10^{-6}$ per site (see SM{} S-III for its pairing matrix), significantly below the Dirac spin liquid energy of $−0.42938 \pm 4 \times 10^{-5}$ per site showing that the Dirac spin liquid is not the most stable projected mean field state.
This is particularly surprising in light of previous studies that find the Dirac spin liquid to be stable against many instabilities\cite{Hastings2000,Ran2007,Hermele2008,Ma2008,Iqbal2011b}. Such calculations failed to find this state because they only considered short-range mean field Hamiltonians, a limitation we avoid by optimizing a general pairing function that allows both long-range hopping terms and spatial symmetry breaking in the fermion Hamiltonian. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Opt}(b) and discussed in more detail below, our approach in conjunction with enforcing $U(1)$ symmetry does not lower the energy. But, additionally allowing the $U(1)$ gauge symmetry to break down to $Z_2$ does lower the energy (left side of Fig. \ref{fig:Opt}). Consequently, the gauge symmetry breaking down to $Z_2$ is intricately linked to spatial symmetry breaking and also possibly long-range hopping/pairing terms in the Hamiltonian.
\begin{figure}[t]
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{fig2a-FullOpt.pdf}}{}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{fig2b-U1Opt.pdf}}{}
\caption{(a): Prototypical stochastic optimization traces starting from the 14 distinct PSG ansatz defined in Table II of Ref. \onlinecite{Lu2011} and optimizing the pairing function $\phi$.
Inset shows magnified version. (b): Optimization of
only single particle orbitals starting from perturbed Dirac states where $X$ labels the strength of the perturbation.
}
\label{fig:Opt}
\end{figure}
Let us then focus on the nature of our lowest energy state. Most strikingly we find that the state breaks translational symmetry doubling the unit cell. Fig.~\ref{fig:S.S} (right) shows the deviation of the spin-spin correlation function on nearest neighbors from its average value, in contrast with the U(1) Dirac spin liquid shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:S.S} (left). The symmetry breaking seen in the Dirac spin liquid is a finite size artifact coming from twisted boundary conditions in one direction. In our optimized state we find breaking of the translational symmetry and a doubling of the unit cell leading us to conclude that the minimal projected mean field state is \emph{not} an isotropic spin liquid.
To further verify that there is not a nearby isotropic spin liquid state to our optimal state,
we stochastically modify the pairing function, starting from a low energy state, in small increments searching for a true symmetric spin liquid.
In particular, we make a random stochastic change to the pairing function accepting it
only if we have moved closer to a spin liquid state (defined by the deviations of the unprojected $\langle \vec S_i\cdot \vec S_j\rangle$). In this way, we search for the ``closest'' spin liquid. When we run this procedure, the spin liquid
state it approaches has the energy of the Dirac spin liquid
(and hence is presumably the Dirac spin liquid).
This leads us to believe that
their is no additional nearby isotropic spin liquid.
Having found a broken symmetry state, we would like to now understand whether it retains characteristics reminiscent of any spin liquid phase. To make such a connection, it is useful to compute the anomalous density matrix from the unprojected wave function defined by the pairing matrix that corresponds to our lowest energy projected state. It is given by
\begin{equation}
\rho_{ij} = \begin{pmatrix} -A_{ij}^* & B_{ij} \\ B_{ij}^* & A_{ij} \end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
A_{ij} = \frac{\langle\Psi_0|f_{i\downarrow}^\dagger f_{j\downarrow} |\Psi_0\rangle}{\langle\Psi_0|\Psi_0\rangle},\quad
B_{ij} = \frac{\langle\Psi_0|f_{i\uparrow} f_{j\downarrow} |\Psi_0\rangle}{\langle\Psi_0|\Psi_0\rangle}
\end{equation}
and transforms under an SU(2) gauge transformation, $\Psi\to{\bf G}\cdot\Psi$, like $\rho_{ij}\to {\bf G}_i\cdot\rho_{ij}\cdot{\bf G}_j^\dagger$ exactly like the mean fields in the corresponding slave particle theory (see Ref. \cite{WenText2004} or the SM{} S-I). We can therefore use this matrix to study the projective symmetry properties of the obtained unprojected state $|\Psi_0\rangle$.
To study fluxes through the lattice, we can use the SU(2) matrix version of a ``phase'' variable
\begin{equation}
{\bf W}_{ij} = -i \rho_{ij}/|\rho_{ij}|
\end{equation}
that is an analog of the $U(1)$ phase $e^{ia_{ij}}$ we associate with ordinary electricity and magnetism on a lattice. Following Ref. \onlinecite{WenText2004}, the analog of flux through any loop on the lattice is therefore the product of this matrix around the loop
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{ijk\ldots l} = i^{N_{loop}}{\bf W}_{ij}\cdot{\bf W}_{jk}\cdot\ldots\cdot{\bf W}_{li}
\end{equation}
where $N_{loop}$ is the number of bonds $ij$ that form the loop. Unfortunately, this product is not gauge invariant,
but for every loop of the lattice, we can define an angle $\theta$ associated with its flux through the trace of this matrix. Unlike a $U(1)$ flux, here $\theta=2\pi$ introduces a phase change of $-1$. The natural first loops to consider when characterizing the state $|\Omega\rangle$ are the nearest neighbor bow ties (product of two neighboring triangles) and hexagons (the trace of $\Phi_{ijk\ldots l}$ for an odd site loop vanishes by time reversal symmetry). These loops allow us to determine which of the four U(1) spin liquid states is closest to our best optimized state. The results are
\begin{equation}
\langle\theta_\text{hex}\rangle = (1.994 \pm 0.003)\pi, \langle\theta_{bow}\rangle = (0.010\pm .007)\pi
\end{equation}
where the error estimate is the standard deviation and $\langle\ldots\rangle$ denotes the average value of the flux over different hexagons or bow ties respectively. These results are equivalent to nearly $\pi$ flux through the hexagon and $0$ flux through the bow tie or triangle in the traditional $U(1)$ description of flux. They show distinctly that the optimized state is very close to the $U(1)$ Dirac state as expected from energetic considerations but that because of the symmetry breaking shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:S.S} it is an instability.
Having established that our newly discovered state is very close to the Dirac state, we now turn to its symmetry breaking properties. To this end, we seek the space group representations that give the largest contribution to the pattern in Fig. \ref{fig:S.S}(b) which are periodic with at most a quadrupled unit cell. Such representations were constructed in Ref. \cite{Hermele2008} and labeled as $A_1$, $A_2$, $B_1$, $B_2$, $E_1$, $E_2$ for those related to the point group alone and $F_1$, $F_2$=$F_1\otimes A_2$, $F_3=F_1\otimes B_1$, $F_4=F_1\otimes B_2$ for those allowed by a doubling/quadrupling of the unit cell. The focus of Ref.~\cite{Hermele2008} was on the $F_1$ representation for the ``Hastings valence bond crystal'' states associated with the generation of mass of the Dirac fermions. However, the bond amplitudes plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:S.S}(b) are not of this representation. Instead, they are dominated by the $F_2$ and $E_2$ representations whose patterns are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:symmetryanalysis} (a) and (b). Remarkably, the symmetry of the $F_2$ pattern alone is the same as the symmetry of the $F_2$ and $E_2$ patterns. The $E_2$ pattern alone, however, has higher symmetry. Hence, the symmetry breaking observed here arises uniquely from a desire to form the $F_2$ pattern.
The only time reversal symmetric alternative to the Hastings states, among instabilities of the Dirac fixed point identified in Ref. \cite{Hermele2008} is the spin singlet/nodal triplet ``$w$-monopole'' that is created by a complex operator $w_i$, $i=x,y,z$\cite{Hermele2008}. In SM{} S-IV we show, following the transformation properties determined in Ref.~\cite{Hermele2008}, that the six dimensional vector $(\text{Re}\,w_x,\text{Re}\,w_y,\text{Re}\,w_z,\text{Im}\,w_x,\text{Im}\,w_y,\text{Im}\,w_z)^T$ transforms under the two three-dimensional representations $F_1$ and $F_2$. This remarkable coincidence allows us to conjecture that the $w$-monopole is responsible for the instability of the Dirac state observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:S.S}(b).
\begin{figure}[t]
\subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{fig3a-kagome-e2.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{fig3b-kagome-f2.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{fig3c-Assym}}
\subfigure[]{ \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{fig3d-FMat}}
\caption{Spatial symmetry analysis of our state.
(a) and (b) are the kagome space group representations associated with the pattern of Fig. \ref{fig:S.S}(b).
(c) and (d) Correlation between the energy of different states and the amount of assymetry ((c): as defined by eqn.~\ref{eqn:GlobalAssymetry};
(d): as defined by eqn.~\ref{eqn:FAssymetry}). Red circles correspond to states
generated during part of an optimization, the green star to the Dirac spin liquid and the blue triangle to our most optimized state. For energies below the Dirac spin liquid, improved energy is correlated with decreased total assymetry but increased
strength of the $F_2$ pattern.}
\label{fig:symmetryanalysis}
\end{figure}
To further understand the role of the symmetry breaking, we measure the asymmetry of Fig.~\ref{fig:S.S} during part of an optimization run and correlate this with the observed energy.
We compare global asymmetry (removing the $E_2$ representation to remove the effects of twisted boundary conditions) defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:GlobalAssymetry}
{\mathcal O} = \sum_{\langle ij\rangle}\langle\Psi_0|\vec S_i \cdot \vec S_j|\Psi_0\rangle - E_{2ij}^1 \langle\Psi_0|\vec S_i \cdot \vec S_j|\Psi_0\rangle
\end{equation}
as well as
the assymetry of the $F_2$ component defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:FAssymetry}
{\mathcal O}_{F_2} = \sum_{\langle ij\rangle} F_{2ij}^1\langle\Psi_0|\vec S_i \cdot \vec S_j|\Psi_0\rangle
\end{equation}
where $F^1_{2ij}=1/\sqrt{2N_b/3}$ on the solid thick bonds, $F^{1}_{2ij}=-1/\sqrt{2Nb/3}$ on the dashed thick bonds and zero otherwise with $N_b$ the number of nearest neighbor bonds.
These are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:symmetryanalysis} (c) and (d).
Interestingly, although we see a clear symmetry breaking, lower energy states have lower asymmetry, saturating at a value (triangle) that is small but still above the Wen Dirac state (star).
We find exactly the opposite behavior for the overlap with the $F_2$ component: lower energy states have greater overlap. This implies the symmetry breaking associated with the $F_2$ representation is an important feature of our state throughout much of the minimization process.
In addition to breaking the spatial symmetries of the lattice, the physical system also breaks the $U(1)$ symmetry of the Dirac state down to a $Z_2$ symmetry. To study this symmetry breaking we produced a series of runs without any pairing in the wave functions.
We initialize twelve runs by taking the Dirac pairing function and multiplying each element by $(1+r)$ where $r$ is sampled in the interval $[0,X]$. Using
$X=\{0.1,0.2,0.33\}$ we ran 12 simulations whose variation in initial energy was significant starting as high as $E=-0.375$ per site. All simulations converged to $E=-0.4295$, the energy of the Dirac state.
From these results we conclude that the Dirac state lies at the bottom of a deep and wide region in orbital space and that the pairing of spinons is necessary to produce the state shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:S.S}(b).
Based on our results, it seems very likely that the Dirac fixed point is unstable to the formation of a stripe-like spin-liquid crystal phase. This conclusion rests on two assumptions: that fluctuations beyond those captured by the projected wave function do not restore the symmetry and that this symmetry breaking is not a finite size effect. We have some indirect evidence supporting the latter assumption. DMRG and exact diagonalization results indicate that a 4x4 unit cell cluster should be large enough to capture the qualitative physics of the system. In addition, we have looked at up to 8x8 unit cell clusters and can still find states with lower energy than the Dirac state.
One way to directly address these assumptions would be to perform a PSG analysis on the relevant lower symmetry subgroup of the kagome lattice and use it to search for the state that projects to our state (we cannot do this directly because projection is a many-to-one mapping and cannot be inverted). Such an analysis would allow a determination of the finite size scaling of the symmetry breaking effects and provide a starting point for studying fluctuations about this phase in a low energy effective theory. This would also establish more directly the question of whether there is an energy gap (however, we expect such a gap because the wave vector of the symmetry breaking pattern connects the Dirac nodes of the Brillouin zone).
Given the lack of evidence in large-scale DMRG calculations for our state, it is unlikely to represent the true ground state. However, since it lies very
close by and involves a minimal loss of crystal symmetries, it seems likely to be a leading instability. In particular, small perturbations to the Hamiltonian could stabilize it suggesting it could be realized in nature. One promising class of materials are the Zn-Paratacamite family parameterized by Zn doping concentration $x$ with $x<1/3$. Unlike the structurally perfect kagome lattice of the $x=1$ Herbertsmithite member of the family, compounds with $x<1/3$, including clinoatacamite at $x=0$, break crystal symmetries and have distorted kagome layers\cite{SHLee2007} with precisely the distortion expected from the symmetry breaking of our state. Our results therefore motivate the study of single crystals of these materials and suggests that either the mysterious intermediate phase below $7 \text{K} < T < 20\text{K}$ or the high temperature phase $T> 20\text{K}$ could still have spinons as low energy excitations that are delocalized along the ``rails'' of the distorted lattice.
The most remarkable implication of our results is its suggestion that spin liquid crystal phases may be a common phenomena. Since any dimer state is the exact ground state at the mean field level\cite{Rokhsar1990}, projection must introduce quantum fluctuations that melt such crystalline phases, take the system through a succession of more symmetric phases until, in our case, it nearly reaches an isotropic phase. Such a picture has several implications for the DMRG calculations on the kagome lattice. It is known\cite{Yan2011} that small perturbations to the Hamiltonian in DMRG (boundary conditions, pinning fields, etc.) can enhance different states and lead to symmetry breaking. Exploring the class of perturbations that stabilize the symmetry breaking we observe here would help make a deeper connection between analytic Schwinger-fermion theory and DMRG. More interestingly, the observed DMRG state might be understood as a further instability of our state to a nematic spin liquid crystal, a state found recently on a triangular lattice model with ring exchange\cite{Grover2010}. A nematic spin liquid phase would be indistinguishable from a spin liquid phase on long cylinders that explicitly break rotational symmetry. Of course, it is also possible that such a putative nematic state melts into an isotropic $Z_2$ spin liquid. More generically, our results suggest that spin liquid crystal states are common in frustrated antiferromagnets and may be found using methods similar to ours as competitive ground states in many other systems.
\section{acknowledgements}
We acknowledge useful discussions with David Huse and Nandini Trivedi. This work used the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE), which is supported by National Science Foundation grant number OCI-1053575 and the High Performance Computing Cluster at Case Western Reserve University.
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $A$ be a complex abelian variety and $L$ a holomorphic line
bundle over $A$. The sheaf of holomorphic connections on $L$
defines a torsor ${\mathcal C}_L$ on $A$ for the holomorphic cotangent
bundle $\Omega_A$.
Let $\alpha\, , p_1\, ,p_2 \, :\, A\times A\, \longrightarrow\,
A$ be the addition map and the projections respectively. The
holomorphic line bundle
$$
{\mathcal L}\, :=\, (p^*_1 L^*)\otimes (\alpha^*L)\,
\longrightarrow\,A\times A\,\stackrel{p_2}{\longrightarrow}\, A
$$
will be considered as a holomorphic family, parametrized by
$A$, of topologically trivial holomorphic line bundles on $A$.
We have an $\Omega_A$--torsor
${\mathcal Z}_L\, \longrightarrow\, A$
whose holomorphic sections over any open subset $U\, \subset\,
A$ are the holomorphic families of relative holomorphic
connections on ${\mathcal L}\vert_{A\times U}$.
In \cite{BHR} it was crucially used that the two torsors
${\mathcal C}_L$ and ${\mathcal Z}_L$ are holomorphically,
or equivalently, algebraically, isomorphic (see \cite[Proposition
2.1]{BHR}). The proof of Proposition 2.1 of \cite{BHR} was
carried out by comparing the cohomological invariants associated
to the torsors.
Our aim here is to give an explicit construction of a
holomorphic isomorphism between the two torsors. The isomorphism
is canonical in the sense that its construction does require
making any choices.
We work with a compact complex torus; we do not need $A$ to be
algebraic.
\section{A criterion for isomorphism of torsors}
Let $M$ be a connected complex manifold. Let $\mathcal V$ be a
holomorphic vector bundle over $M$.
A $\mathcal V$--\textit{torsor} on $M$ is a holomorphic fiber
bundle
$p\, :\, Z\, \longrightarrow\, X$ and a holomorphic map from
the fiber product
$$
\varphi\, :\, Z\times_M {\mathcal V}\, \longrightarrow\, Z
$$
such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $p\circ\varphi\,=\, p\circ p_Z$, where $p_Z$ is the
natural projection of $Z\times_M \mathcal V$ to $Z$,
\item the map $Z\times_M {\mathcal V}\, \longrightarrow\,
Z\times_M Z$
defined by $p_Z\times \varphi$ is an isomorphism,
\item $\varphi(\varphi(z\, ,v)\, ,w)\,=\, \varphi(z\, ,v+w)$.
\end{enumerate}
A $\mathcal V$--torsor $(Z\, ,p\, ,\varphi)$ is called
\textit{trivializable} if there is a holomorphic isomorphism
$$
\beta\, : {\mathcal V}\,\longrightarrow\, Z
$$
such that $p\circ\beta$ is the natural projection of $\mathcal V$ to $M$, and
$$
\beta^{-1}\circ \varphi\circ (\beta\times\text{Id}_{\mathcal
V})\, :\, {\mathcal V}\times_M {\mathcal V}\, \longrightarrow\,
{\mathcal V}
$$
is the fiberwise addition homomorphism on ${\mathcal V}\times_M {\mathcal V}$. A
holomorphic isomorphism $\beta$ satisfying
the above conditions is called a \textit{trivialization} of $Z$.
Any $\mathcal V$--torsor $Z$ has a $C^\infty$ section $M\,\longrightarrow
\, Z$ because the fibers of $Z$ are contractible. It has a
holomorphic section if and only if it is trivializable.
Take a $\mathcal V$--torsor $(Z\, ,p\, ,\varphi)$. Let
$$
\sigma\,:\, M\, \longrightarrow\, Z
$$
be a $C^\infty$ section, so $p\circ\sigma\,=\, \text{Id}_M$.
Let
$$
d\sigma\, :\, T^{\mathbb R}M\, \longrightarrow\,
\sigma^* T^{\mathbb R} Z
$$
be the differential of $\sigma$, where $T^{\mathbb R}$ is the
real tangent bundle. The almost complex structures
on $M$ and $Z$ will be denoted by $J_M$ and $J_Z$ respectively.
Let
$$
\widetilde{\sigma}\, :\, T^{\mathbb R}M\, \longrightarrow\,
\sigma^* T^{\mathbb R} Z\, ,~\, ~ \, v\, \longmapsto\,
d\sigma (J_M(v)) - J_Z(d\sigma (v))
$$
be the obstruction for $\sigma$ to be holomorphic. Since the
projection $p$ is holomorphic, we have
$$
dp (\widetilde{\sigma}(v))\,=\, dp(d\sigma (J_M(v))) - dp
(J_Z(d\sigma (v)))\,=\, J_M(v) - J_M(dp(d\sigma(v)))\,=\, 0\, ,
$$
where $dp$ is the differential of $p$. Hence
$\widetilde{\sigma}(v)$ is an element of ${\mathcal V}_x$ if
$v\, \in\, T^{\mathbb R}_xM$ (the vertical tangent subbundle
of $T^{\mathbb R}Z$ for
$p$ is identified with $p^*{\mathcal V}$). Note that
$\widetilde{\sigma}(J_M(v))\,=\,-J_Z(\widetilde{\sigma}(v))$.
Define
\begin{equation}\label{e2}
\widehat{\sigma}\, :\, T^{0,1}M\, \longrightarrow\, {\mathcal
V}\, ,\, ~\, ~ \, v+\sqrt{-1}\cdot J_M(v)\, \longmapsto\,
\widetilde{\sigma}(v)\, .
\end{equation}
So $\widehat{\sigma}$ is a smooth $(0\, ,1)$--form with values
in $\mathcal V$.
Clearly, $\widehat{\sigma}\,=\,0$ if and only if $\sigma$ is
holomorphic. Equivalently, $\widehat{\sigma}\,=\,0$ if and only
if $\sigma$ is a trivialization of $Z$.
Let $(Z_1\, ,p_1\, ,\varphi_1)$ and $(Z_2\, ,p_2\, ,\varphi_2)$
be two $\mathcal V$--torsors. Let $\sigma$ and $\tau$ be
$C^\infty$
sections of $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ respectively. We have a unique $C^\infty$
isomorphism of $\mathcal V$--torsors
\begin{equation}\label{e3}
\gamma\, :\, Z_1\, \longrightarrow\, Z_2\, ,~\,~\,
\gamma\circ \varphi_1(\sigma(x)\, ,v)\,=\, \varphi_2(\tau(x)\,
,v) \, ,~\, x\,\in\, M\, , v\,\in\, {\mathcal V}_x\, .
\end{equation}
So, $\gamma\circ\sigma\,=\, \tau$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
If $\widehat{\sigma}\,=\, \widehat{\tau}$ (constructed as
in \eqref{e2}), then $\gamma$ in \eqref{e3} is holomorphic.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let
$$
q\, :\, H\, \longrightarrow\, M
$$
be the holomorphic fiber bundle whose fiber over any $x\, \in\,
M$ is the space of all isomorphisms $\phi\, :\, (Z_1)_x\,
\longrightarrow\, (Z_2)_x$ such that $\phi\circ\varphi_1
(z\, ,v)\,=\, \varphi_2(\phi(z)\, ,v)$
for all $v\, \in\, {\mathcal V}_x$. Note that we have a map
$$
\varphi_x\, :\, H_x\times {\mathcal V}_x\, \longrightarrow\,
H_x\, ,~\,~\,
\varphi_x(\phi\, ,v)(z)\,=\, \varphi_2(\phi(z)\, ,v)\,=\,
\phi\circ \varphi_1(z\, ,v)\, .
$$
There is a complex structure on $H$ uniquely determined by
the condition that a section of $H$
defined over any open subset $U\, \subset\, M$ is holomorphic
if the corresponding map $Z_1\vert_U \, \longrightarrow\,
Z_2\vert_U$ is holomorphic.
The triple $(H\, ,q\, ,\varphi)$ is a $\mathcal V$--torsor,
where $\varphi\vert_{H_x\times{\mathcal V}_x}\,:=\, \varphi_x$.
The map $\gamma$ in \eqref{e3} defines a $C^\infty$ section $M
\, \longrightarrow\, H$, which will also be denoted by $\gamma$.
It is straightforward to check that $\widehat{\gamma}\,=\,
\widehat{\tau}-\widehat{\sigma}$. Therefore, if $\widehat{\tau}
\,=\, \widehat{\sigma}$, then $\widehat{\gamma} \,=\, 0$. As
noted before, $\widehat{\gamma}\,=\, 0$ if and only if $\gamma$
is holomorphic.
\end{proof}
\section{Line bundles on a complex torus}
Let $A$ be a compact complex torus. Let
\begin{equation}\label{a}
\alpha\, :\, A\times A\, \longrightarrow\, A
\end{equation}
be the addition map. Let $p_i\, :\, A\times A\,
\longrightarrow\, A$, $i\,=\, 1\, ,2$, be the projection
to the $i$-th factor. Take a holomorphic line bundle $L$ over
$A$. The holomorphic line bundle
\begin{equation}\label{l}
{\mathcal L}\, :=\, (p^*_1 L^*)\otimes (\alpha^*L)\,
\longrightarrow\,A\times A\,\stackrel{p_2}{\longrightarrow}\, A
\end{equation}
will be considered as a holomorphic family of holomorphic line bundles on
$A$ parametrized by $A$. For any $x\, \in\, A$, consider
the holomorphic line bundle
\begin{equation}\label{x}
{\mathcal L}^x\, :=\, {\mathcal L}\vert_{A\times\{x\}}
\longrightarrow\, A\, .
\end{equation}
It is topologically trivial, so ${\mathcal L}^x$ admits
holomorphic connections.
The holomorphic cotangent bundle of $A$ will be denoted by
$\Omega_A$. Define $V\,:=\, H^0(A,\, \Omega_A)$, and let
\begin{equation}\label{v}
{\mathcal V}\,:=\, A\times V\, \longrightarrow\, A
\end{equation}
be the trivial holomorphic vector bundle. The space of all holomorphic
connections on ${\mathcal L}^x$ is
an affine space for $V$. We have a $\mathcal V$--torsor
\begin{equation}\label{z}
p_Z\, :\, {\mathcal Z}_L\, \longrightarrow\, A
\end{equation}
whose fiber over any point $x\, \in\, X$ is the space of all
holomorphic connections on ${\mathcal L}^x$. A holomorphic
section of ${\mathcal Z}_L$ defined over an open subset $U\,
\subset\, A$ is a holomorphic family of relative holomorphic
connections on ${\mathcal L}\vert_{A\times U}$. This condition
determines uniquely the complex structure of ${\mathcal Z}_L$.
Let
$$
0\, \longrightarrow\, {\mathcal O}_A \, \longrightarrow\,
\text{At}(L) \, \longrightarrow\, TA \, \longrightarrow\, 0
$$
be the Atiyah exact sequence for $L$ (see \cite{At}); here $TA$
is the holomorphic tangent bundle. Let
\begin{equation}\label{at}
0\, \longrightarrow\, \Omega_A \, \longrightarrow\,
\text{At}(L)^* \, \stackrel{\lambda}{\longrightarrow}\,{\mathcal
O}_A \, \longrightarrow\, 0
\end{equation}
be the dual of the Atiyah exact sequence. Let $1_A$ be the
section of ${\mathcal O}_A$ given by the constant function
$1$. From \eqref{at} it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{c}
p_C\, :\, {\mathcal C}_L\, :=\, \lambda^{-1}(1_A)\,
\longrightarrow\, A
\end{equation}
is an $\Omega_A$-torsor. Note that the vector bundle $\Omega_A$
is canonically identified with $\mathcal V$ (defined in
\eqref{v}) using the evaluation map on sections.
Therefore, ${\mathcal C}_L$ is a $\mathcal V$--torsor on $A$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm1}
The two $\mathcal V$--torsors ${\mathcal Z}_L$ and ${\mathcal
C}_L$, constructed in \eqref{z} and \eqref{c} respectively, are
canonically holomorphically isomorphic.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We will show that both ${\mathcal Z}_L$ and ${\mathcal C}_L$
have tautological $C^\infty$ sections.
There is a unique translation invariant, with respect to
$\alpha$ in \eqref{a}, $(1\, ,1)$--form
$\omega$ on $A$ representing $c_1(L)\, \in\, H^2(A,\, {\mathbb
Q})$ (any translation invariant form on $A$ is closed). There is a
unique unitary complex connection $\nabla_L$ on
$L$ such that the curvature of $\nabla_L$ is $\omega$. The
hermitian structure on $L$ for $\nabla_L$ is determined uniquely
up to multiplication by a constant positive real number. Since
complex connections on $L$ are $C^\infty$ splittings of
\eqref{at}, the
connection $\nabla_L$ defines a $C^\infty$ section of the
$\mathcal V$--torsor ${\mathcal C}_L$ in \eqref{c}. Let
\begin{equation}\label{si}
\sigma\, :\, A\, \longrightarrow\, {\mathcal C}_L
\end{equation}
be this $C^\infty$ section.
Consider the holomorphic line bundle ${\mathcal L}$ in
\eqref{l}. The connection $\nabla_L$ on $L$ pulls back to
connections on both $p^*_1 L$ and $\alpha^*L$, and the
connection on $p^*_1 L$ produces a connection on
$p^*_1 L^*$. Therefore, we get a unitary complex connection on
${\mathcal L}$ from $\nabla_L$; this connection on ${\mathcal L}$ will be
denoted by $\nabla_{\mathcal L}$.
For any point $x\, \in\, A$, let $\nabla^x_{\mathcal L}$ be the
restriction of $\nabla_{\mathcal L}$ to the line bundle ${\mathcal L}^x$
defined in \eqref{x}. Since the curvature of the connection
$\nabla_L$ is translation invariant, the curvature of
$\nabla^x_{\mathcal L}$ vanishes identically. Hence
$\nabla^x_{\mathcal L}$ is a holomorphic connection on
${\mathcal L}^x$. Consequently, we get a $C^\infty$ section of
the $\mathcal V$--torsor ${\mathcal Z}_L$ in \eqref{z}
\begin{equation}\label{ta}
\tau\, :\, A\, \longrightarrow\, {\mathcal Z}_L\, ,~\, ~\,
x\, \longmapsto\, \nabla^x_{\mathcal L}\, .
\end{equation}
In view of Proposition \eqref{prop1}, to prove the theorem it
suffices to show that $\widehat{\sigma}\,=\, \widehat{\tau}$,
where $\tau$ and $\sigma$ are constructed in \eqref{ta} and
\eqref{si} respectively. Note that a smooth
$(0\, ,1)$--form on $M$ with values in $V\, :=\, H^0(A,\,
\Omega_A)\,=\, \Omega_A$ is a $(1\, ,1)$--form on $A$.
As before, $\omega$ denotes the curvature of $\nabla_L$.
It is standard that
\begin{equation}\label{i1}
\widehat{\sigma}\,=\, \omega
\end{equation}
(it is a general expression of the curvature of a connection in
terms of the splitting of the Atiyah exact sequence for the
connection).
Consider the connection $\nabla_{\mathcal L}$ on $\mathcal L$
constructed above. Since the curvature of $\nabla_L$ is
$\omega$, it follows immediately that the curvature of
the connections on $p^*_1 L^*$ and $\alpha^*L$ are
$-p^*_1\omega$ and $\alpha^*\omega$ respectively. Hence
the curvature of $\nabla_{\mathcal L}$ is
$$
{\mathcal K}(\nabla_{\mathcal L})\,=\, \alpha^*\omega -
p^*_1\omega
$$
(see \eqref{l}). For any $y\, \in\, A$, let
$$f_y\, :\, A\, \longrightarrow\, A\times A$$ be the section of
$p_2$ defined by $x\, \longrightarrow\, (y\, ,x)$. We have
\begin{equation}\label{i}
f^*_y{\mathcal K}(\nabla_{\mathcal L})\,=\, f^*_y\alpha^*\omega
-f^*_y p^*_1\omega\, =\, \omega
\end{equation}
because $\omega$ is translation invariant. From \eqref{i} it
follows that
\begin{equation}\label{i2}
\widehat{\tau}\,=\, \omega\, ,
\end{equation}
where $\tau$ is constructed in \eqref{ta} (see \eqref{e2}); the
curvature ${\mathcal K}(\nabla_{\mathcal L})$ is the obstruction
for the $C^\infty$ family of holomorphic connections
$\nabla^x_{\mathcal L}$ to be holomorphic. From
\eqref{i1} and \eqref{i2} we conclude that $\widehat{\tau}\,=\,
\widehat{\sigma}$. Therefore, the proof of the theorem is complete by
Proposition \ref{prop1}.
\end{proof}
Theorem \ref{thm1} immediately implies Proposition 2.1 of
\cite{BHR} by giving the isomorphism $\eta$ in the proposition
explicitly. The factor $-1$ in Proposition 2.1 of \cite{BHR}
arises because ${\mathcal C}_L$ and ${\mathcal Z}_{L^*}$ is being
compared (instead of ${\mathcal C}_L$ and ${\mathcal Z}_L$).
Note that there is a natural holomorphic isomorphism
$\delta\, :\, {\mathcal Z}_L\, \longrightarrow\, {\mathcal Z}_{
L^*}$ between the total spaces such that $\delta(z+v)\,=\,
\delta(z)-v$ for all $v\, \in\, \mathcal V$; this is because
there is a natural bijection between the connections on a line
bundle $\zeta$ and its dual $\zeta^*$. For the same reason,
there is a holomorphic isomorphism $\delta'\, :\, {\mathcal C}_L
\, \longrightarrow\, {\mathcal C}_{L^*}$ between the total
spaces such that $\delta'(z+v)\,=\, \delta'(z)-v$ for all
$v\, \in\, \mathcal V$.
\medskip
\noindent
\textbf{Acknowledgements.}\, The first two authors thank
the Issac Newton Institute for hospitality while the work
was carried out.
|
\section{Introduction}
Spin systems with geometrical frustration have both fundamental and practical importance. Theoretically, lots of interesting phenomena have been found in the geometrically frustrated systems, like the antiferromagnetic triangular lattice, kagome lattice. The systems can remain disordered even at absolute zero temperature because of the competitive magnetic interactions. For example, an antiferromagnetic triangular lattice has a residual entropy $s_0=0.3281\ldots$ per unit cell~\cite{PhysRev.79.357}. The frustration effect has important application in achieving a lower temperatures through the adiabatic demagnetization compared with other methods. When the temperature, external magnetic field, and other factors are considered, the geometrically frustrated systems can show very rich phase diagrams.~\cite{diep} A typical case is that the magnetocaloric effect can be enhanced near the phase
transition points when a finite external field is applied.~\cite{2004PhRvB70j0403Z,2004PhRvB70j4418I,JPSJ.73.2851} Of considerable interest has been searching for geometrically frustrated systems. Some new frustrated materials have been fabricated and studied recently, such as $Ho_2Ti_2O_7$, $Dy_2Ti_2O_7$, and $Cu_9X_2(cpa)_6\cdot xH_2O (X=F, Cl, Br)$.~\cite{2000JAP87.5914R,1997PhRvL79.2554H, 1994JAP75.5949M,tlk,ISI:000255457200055,2008PhRvB78v4410L,2008PhRvB78b4428Y}
In 2007, a new class of geometrically frustrated magnetic materials polymeric iron (III) acetate ~\cite{17615608} was fabricated, in which Fe ions form a two-dimensional lattice referred as star lattice. Experiment has found that the materials exhibit spin frustration and have two kinds of magnetic interactions: intratrimer $J_T$ and intertrimer $J_D$ shown in Fig.~\ref{starlattice}. The Fe ion has a large spin, which is $S=5/2$. The system may have the paramagnetic ground state because of the geometrical and quantum fluctuations.
The Ising model on the star lattice with uniform ferromagnetic couplings has been solved.~\cite{1995PhRvB..51.5840B} The critical temperature $K_{c}=0.81201$ was given with $K_{c}=\beta_{c}J$. The Bose-Hubbard model on the star lattice has also been studied using the quantum Monte Carlo method.~\cite{2009PhRvB..80u4503I} Recently, the edge states and topological orders were found in the spin liquid phases of star lattice.~\cite{1202.4163} Even though the $S=1/2$ quantum Heisenberg model is considered to be appropriate to help studying the new material because of its quantum fluctuations in the ground state,~\cite{springerlink:10.1007/BFb0119592} the Ising model on the star lattice is still very important especially for the non-uniform case. In real materials, the Fe ion has $S=5/2$ which is close to the classical limit and the magnetic system shows two types of interactions.~\cite{17615608} Therefore, it is important to study Ising spins on the star lattice with the asymmetric interactions, especially for the frustrated case.
In this paper, we aim at the thermodynamics of Ising spins on the star lattice with asymmetric interactions using the exact analytic methods and Monte Carlo simulations. We present the phase diagram as a function of interactions, temperature and external magnetic field. There is a clear difference between the $J_{D}>0$ case and the $J_{D}<0$ case. Our study provides useful information for determining the sign of $J_{D}$.
This paper is organized as follows. The model is described in Sec. II. In Sec. III, we map the star lattice to honeycomb lattice and get the exact results. Sec. IV presents the phase diagrams as functions of interactions and external magnetic field. In Sec. V, the Monte Carlo results for the heat capacity and susceptibility are given. Finally, in Sec. VI we summarize the results.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
{\resizebox*{0.47\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{starlattice.eps}}}
\caption{(Color online). The star lattice. The dashed frame represents a unit cell of the star lattice. There are six spins per unit cell.}
\label{starlattice}
\end{figure}
\section{Model \label{model}}
The structure of star lattice and its unit cell are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{starlattice}. We study Ising spins on the star lattice with two kinds of nearest-neighbor interactions, the intratrimer coupling $J_{T}$ and intertrimer coupling $J_{D}$. The Hamiltonian is
\begin{equation}
H=-J_{T}\sum_{<ij>}\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}-J_{D}\sum_{<i'j'>}\sigma_{i'}\sigma_{j'}-h\sum_{i}\sigma_{i},
\end{equation}
where $<ij>$ runs over all the nearest neighbor spin pairs, $J_{T}$ is the intra-triangular interaction and $J_{D}$ is the inter-triangular interaction, $h$ is the external magnetic field, and $\sigma_{i}=\pm 1$. The unit cell of the star lattice contains six spins shown in Fig.~\ref{starlattice}. If we use $N_T$ and $N_D$ to denote the total numbers of $J_{T}$- and $J_D$-bonds, we have $N_T:N_D=2:1$.
The analytic result of partition function is obtained for $h=0$.
For simplicity, we use $|J_T|$ as the units of energy in the following. The corresponding phase diagrams are actually in a three-dimensional parameter space, $\frac{J_{D}}{|J_{T}|}$,$\frac{T}{|J_{T}|}$ and $\frac{h}{|J_{T}|}$.
\section{Exact solution in zero field \label{zerofield}}
In this section, we study the exact analytic results of Ising model on the star lattice in zero magnetic field ($h=0$). Using a sequence of $\Delta-Y$ transformation and series reductions\cite{ISI:000255457200055},
we can transform the Ising model on the star lattice into one on the honeycomb lattice whose partition function has been exactly solved using the Pfaffian method~\cite{1966JMP7.1776F,1963JMP4}.
Besides the exact analytical results, we expand the partition function in series for some special cases.
\subsection{Effective coupling on the equivalent honeycomb lattice \label{sec:mapping}}
The results of $\Delta-Y$ transformation and series reduction are given in Ref.~\onlinecite{ISI:000255457200055}. Using the variables $t_{i}=tanh\beta J_{i}$ and $x_{i}=e^{-2\beta J_{i}}$, the relations among the exchange couplings of Fig.~\ref{transformation} can be written as
\begin{align}
t_1 = &\frac {1}{\sqrt{t_{T}+t_{T}^{-1}-1}}\\
& t_2 =t_{1}t_{D}\\
&t_{h} =t_{1}t_{2}.
\end{align}
We write $t_h$ in terms of $t_T$ and $t_D$ directly
\begin{equation}
t_h=\frac{t_{T}t_D}{t_{T}^2-t_{T}+1}
\end{equation}
For convenience, we can rewrite it in terms of $x_i$
\begin{equation}
x_h=\frac{x_D+(2+x_D)x_{T}^{2}}{1+(1+2x_D)x_{T}^2}
\label{xh}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
{\resizebox*{0.47\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{transformation.eps}}}
\caption{(Color online). Transformation of star lattice to honeycomb lattice. (a) Depicts a section of the star lattice with two couplings, $J_{D}, J_{T}$. By applying the $\Delta-Y$ transformation and then we obtain (b). After that take the two bonds $J_{D}$, $J_{1}$ in series and we obtain (c) where generates a new coupling $J_{2}$. Finally, take $J_{1}$ and $J_{2}$ in series and the honeycomb lattice (d) is obtained.}
\label{transformation}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Phase boundary}
It is known that the critical temperature of the honeycomb lattice Ising model is given by $x_{h}^{c}=2-\sqrt{3}$. \cite{baxter} Having mapped star lattice to honeycomb lattice, we can substitute this into the equivalent coupling in Eq.~(\ref{xh}). Thus, an implicit equation for the critical temperature $\frac{1}{\beta_{c}}$ of star lattice Ising model can be obtained as,
\begin{equation}
\frac{e^{-2\beta_{c}J_{D}}+(2+e^{-2\beta_{c}J_{D}})e^{-4\beta_{c}J_{T}}}
{1+(1+2e^{-2\beta_{c}J_{D}})e^{-4\beta_{c}J_{T}}}=2-\sqrt{3}
\end{equation}
This result is plotted in Fig.~\ref{zerofieldphasediagram}. When $J_{D}$ is ferromagnetic ($J_{D}>0$) and strong enough, the critical temperature saturates at a finite value, i.e. $T_{c}/|J_{T}|\approx 4/ln[3/(2\sqrt{3}-3)]\approx 2.14332$. The critical temperature drops to zero as $J_{D}$ approaches zero. When $J_{T}\approx|J_{D}|$, the curve is approximately linear with $T_{c}/|J_{T}|\approx 1.23151$.
Furthermore, when $x_D=x_T=x$, Eq.(~\ref{xh}) reduces to the result of star lattice with equivalent couplings. \cite{1995PhRvB..51.5840B} We get $x_c=0.19710$, or equivalently, $K_c=0.81201$.
Since all the factors obtained here are analytical, the singularity in the partition function remains when we transform the star lattice into the honeycomb lattice. The phase transition is the same as the honeycomb lattice where a continuous second-order transition happens.
If $J_{D}$ is antiferromagnetic ($J_{D}<0$), we get the negative critical temperature, which implies no phase transition existing in this case. It can be used as a criterion for experimentalists to determine if the couplings in a real material is ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic. If one finds a phase transition in the real material, we can conclude that the couplings $J_{D}$ and $J_{T}$ should be both ferromagnetic. In there is no long range order found, it means that at least one kind of nearest neighbor couplings is antiferromagnetic in the material.
\subsection{Partition function}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
{\resizebox*{0.47\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{exactphasediagram.eps}}}
\caption{(Color online). Phase diagram of the star lattice Ising model in the $(J_{D},T)$ plane, for $J_{T}= 1$ and $h=0$. The thick curve is the exact solution. It illustrates that when $J_{D}>0$, the phase is ordered.
The ordered phase is ferromagnetic. On the contrary, when $J_{D}<0$ the phase is immediately disordered (paramagnetic). When $J_{T}=-1$, the phase diagram is below $T$-axis (not shown in the figure), which implies that there is no phase transition in this phase.}
\label{zerofieldphasediagram}
\end{figure}
Since we have utilized the $\Delta-Y$ transformation and series reductions to map the star lattice to a honeycomb lattice, the partition function per unit cell, $z_{s}$, of the star lattice Ising model is equivalent to that of the honeycomb lattice $z_{H}$ multiplied by some coefficients which result from the transformation. These coefficients are as follows,
\begin{align}
&z_{1}=\frac{1}{1+x_{1}^{3}}\sqrt{\frac{x_{1}^3}{x_{T}^3}}\\
z_{2}&=(1+x_{1}x_{D}) \sqrt{\frac{x_{2}}{x_{1}x_{D}}}\\
z_{3}&=(1+x_{1}x_{2})\sqrt{\frac{x_{h}}{x_{1}x_{2}}}
\end{align}
Therefore, the total partition function of the star lattice is
\begin{equation}
z_{s}=z_{1}^2 z_{2}^3 z_{3}^3 z_{H}
\end{equation}
where $z_{H}$ is calculated using the Pfaffian method.\cite{1963JMP4}
We rewrite it here,
\begin{equation}
z_H(x_h)
=\frac{\sqrt{2} (1 - {x_h}^2)}{x_h}
\exp \{ \tfrac{1}2 \Omega\left[w(x_h)\right] \}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\Omega(w)
=\int_0^{2\pi} \frac{dp}{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} \frac{dq}{2\pi}
\ln (w - \cos p - \cos q - \cos (p+q))
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
w(x_h)
= \frac{1 - 2{x_h} + 6{x_h}^2 - 2{x_h}^3 + {x_h}^4}{2x_h(1-x_h)^2}.
\end{equation}
We can rewrite $\Omega(w)$ and get a more accurate numerical evaluation according to the singularities of the integrand.
\begin{equation}
\Omega(w)
=\frac{2}{\pi} \int_0^{\pi/2} dp
\ln \left[\cos p + \text{arccosh} \frac{w-\cos 2p}{2 \cos p}
\right]
\end{equation}
The partition function of the star lattice Ising model is therefore
\begin{equation}
z_{s}(x_{T},x_{D})
=\Psi(x_{T},x_{D})
\exp \left[ \tfrac{1}2 \Omega (w (x_h (x_{T}, x_{D}))) \right]
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
\Psi(x_{T}&,x_{D})=x_{T}^{-3}x_{D}^{-\frac{3}{2}}(1-x_{T}^2)(1-x_{D}^2)\notag \\
&\times\sqrt{2(1+x_{T}^{2}+2x_{D}x_{T}^{2})(x_{D}+2x_{T}^{2}+x_{D}x_{T}^{2})}
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
{\resizebox*{0.47\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{thermodynamicquantity1.eps}}}
\caption{(Color online). Thermodynamic functions for one unit cell vs temperature $T$ for the unfrustrated case $J_{D}=0.5$ and $J_{T}=1$. The specific heat (red line) diverges as $T\approx 0.74|J_{T}|$ revealing that there is a phase transition from the ferromagnetic phase to the parametric phase. Energy (blue line) is shown as $-u(T)$. Entropy (orange line) approaches zero when $T \rightarrow 0$ and saturates at $6ln2$ as $T\rightarrow \infty$.}
\label{thermodynamicquantity1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
{\resizebox*{0.47\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{thermodynamicquantity2.eps}}}
\caption{(Color online). Thermodynamic functions for one unit cell vs temperature $T$ for frustrated coupling $J_{D}=-0.5$ and $J_{T}=-1$. The specific heat (red line) is no longer diverging. Entropy (orange line) remains a none-zero value at $T=0$ and $6ln2$ at high temperature.}
\label{thermodynamicquantity2}
\end{figure}
The total partition function is given by $Z_{s}=z_{s}^{N}$, where $N$ is the spin number of unit cell. Since the partition function is obtained, the internal energy, specific heat, entropy and free energy can be calculated from it.
\subsection{Energy}
Taking derivation of the partition function, the energy per unit cell of the star lattice Ising model can be obtained.
\begin{align}
u&=-\frac{d\ln z}{d \beta}
=
-\frac{d x_{T}}{d \beta} \frac{\partial \ln z}{\partial x_{T}}
-\frac{d x_{D}}{d \beta} \frac{\partial \ln z}{\partial x_{D}}\notag
\\
&=\sum_{i=D,T}
J_i x_i \left[2\frac{\partial \ln\Psi}{\partial x_i}
+ \frac{\partial x_h}{\partial x_i} \frac{d w}{d x_h} \frac{d \Omega}{d w}
\right],
\end{align}
where $\frac{d\Omega}{dw}$ is expressed in terms of the complete elliptic integral of the first kind, K,~\cite{JPSJ.61.64}
\begin{align}
\frac{d \Omega}{d w}
&=-\tfrac2{\pi
(-w-1)^{3/4}(-w+3)^{1/4}}\notag
\\ \times
& K
\left( \tfrac{1}2+
\tfrac{w^2-3}{2(w+1)(-w-1)^{1/2}(-w+3)^{1/2}} \right).
\end{align}
The plots of energy in units of $|J_{D}|$, $\frac{u}{|J_{D}|}$ is illustrated in Figs~\ref{thermodynamicquantity1} and ~\ref{thermodynamicquantity2} for the unfrustrated case and frustrated case respectively.
\subsection{Specific heat}
By further derivation, $c=\frac{du}{dT}$, the heat capacity per unit cell can be obtained. The details are shown in Ref.~\onlinecite{ISI:000255457200055}. Here we show the plots of $c$ in Figs~\ref{thermodynamicquantity1} and ~\ref{thermodynamicquantity2}.
In the unfrustrated case, the specific heat $c$ shows a sharp peak at $T\approx 0.74|J_{T}|$ where a phase transition happens. The phase transition point is consistent with the result of Eq.~(\ref{xh}). In addition, there is a broad hump at higher temperature because of the flopping of spins.
Moreover, this hump changes with $R=|\frac{J_D}{J_T}|$. It is obvious when $R<1$ and becomes indistinct when $R=1$. However, it arises again when $R \ge 6$
In the unfrustrated case, the sharp peak vanishes which implies no phase transition, consistent with the conclusion drawn from the phase diagram.
\subsection{Zero-temperature limit: residual entropy}
The plots of entropy are shown in Figs.~\ref{thermodynamicquantity1} and \ref{thermodynamicquantity2}. Nonetheless, we can expand the partition function in series to gain more information about the residual entropy in the low temperature limit.
In the case of $J_{D}>0$, the partition function can be expanded as
\begin{align}
lnz&=-\frac{3}{2}lnx_{D}-3lnx_{T}+\frac{3}{2}x_{D}^{2}+...\\
u&=-3|J_D|-6|J_T|+6|J_{D}|e^{-4\beta |J_{D}|}+...
\end{align}
The residual entropy is therefore $0$ when $T\rightarrow 0$.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
{\resizebox*{0.47\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{phase2.eps}}}
\caption{(Color online). Spin configurations of the degenerate states of phase II. The two spins are coupled by $J_{T}$. Each triangular has exactly two spins pointing up.}
\label{phase2}
\end{figure}
However, when $J_{D}<0$, the model becomes frustrated. In this way, when $T\rightarrow 0$, $\beta \rightarrow \infty$, which means $x_{D}, x_{T}
\rightarrow \infty$, $w \rightarrow \infty$. Therefore, $ln\Omega(w)$ becomes $\sim ln(w)$. Expanding $ln(z)$, we get
\begin{align}
lnz&=\frac{1}{2}ln21 +\frac{3}{2}lnx_{D}+lnx_{T}+...\\
u&=(3|J_{D}+2|J_{T}|)+...
\end{align}
These results contribute to the residual entropy by
\begin{align}
s_0 &= \lim_{\beta J_{T}\rightarrow -\infty} \lim_{\beta
J_{D}\rightarrow -\infty}
\left( \ln Z + \beta u\right)=\frac{1}{2}ln21.
\label{residualentropy}
\end{align}
Thus, the frustration of the system leads to a $\frac{1}{2}ln21 \approx 1.522$ residual entropy per unit cell when $T\rightarrow 0$. One can confirm that, this value is consistent with the entropy at $T=0$ in Fig.~\ref{thermodynamicquantity2}. The residual entropy per site is approximately $0.254$, smaller than the triangle lattice, TKL, and kagome lattice\cite{PhysRev.79.357,ISI:000255457200055,PTP.10.158}. Therefore, the star lattice is less frustrated compared to them.
\section{Phase diagrams at zero temperature \label{zerotemperature}}
In this section, we present the phase diagrams at zero temperature along with some thermodynamic properties such as energy, magnetization and entropy.
By calculating the ground state energy of the star lattice, we derive the full phase diagram for the system.
Since the phase diagram at zero field is already shown in Fig.~\ref{zerofieldphasediagram}, we focus on the none-zero field case in this section.
The corresponding results are summarized in Figs.~\ref{phasediagram1} and \ref{phasediagram2} according to the sign of $J_T$.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
{\resizebox*{0.47\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{phase3.eps}}}
\caption{(Color online). Spin configurations of the degenerate states of phase III. The two spins are coupled by $J_{T}$. Each triangle has exactly two spins pointing up.}
\label{phase3}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Zero Field (Phase V and VI)}
The phase diagram for zero field as a function of couplings is showed in Fig.~\ref{zerofieldphasediagram}. When $J_{D}>0$, the phase is ordered and
ferromagnetic. When $J_{D}<0$, the phase is frustrated with a residual entropy $s_{0}=\frac{1}{2}ln21$. When $J_{T}=-1$, the phase is located in the negative section of $T$-axis , which reveals that there is no phase transition in this phase. The disordered and ordered phases are labeled by V and VI in Figs.~\ref{phasediagram1} and ~\ref{phasediagram2} respectively.
In phase V, the system is fully frustrated. We find $18$ degenerate ground states for each unit cell. However, as shown in Eq.~(\ref{residualentropy}), the residual entropy is not $ln18$ but $\frac{1}{2}ln21$. This is similar as the triangular lattice whose residual entropy can not be obtained by counting the number of ground states in a unit cell.~\onlinecite{PhysRev.79.357}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
{\resizebox*{0.47\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{phase4.eps}}}
\caption{(Color online). Spin configurations of the degenerate states of phase IV. All the configurations have only one spin points down.}
\label{phase4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
{\resizebox*{0.47\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{phase7.eps}}}
\caption{(Color online). Spin configurations of the degenerate states of phase VII. This is a interesting phase because spins in the same triangle point the same direction. It can map to a honeycomb lattice with equivalent antiferromagtic coupling with high spins.}
\label{phase7}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Saturated ferromagnetic phase (Phase I)}
When the external field is strong enough, i.e. $h>Max\{2|J_T|,|J_{D}|+2|J_{T}|\}$, the phase is ferromagnetic where all spins are lined up. It is obvious that this state has energy $u=-J_{D}-6J_{T}-6h$, magnetization $m=6$ and entropy $s=0$ per unit cell.
\subsection{Phase II}
When the field is weaker, e.g. $0<h<2|J_{T}|$ and $J_{T}<0,J_{D}>0$, it is a phase with $u=-J_{D}+2J_{T}-2h, m=2, s=ln5$. The spin configurations of the degenerate ground states of this phase are shown in Fig.~\ref{phase2}. The two spins connected by $J_D$ become aligned due to the positive $J_D$ and the weak field $h$.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
{\resizebox*{0.47\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{phasediagram1.eps}}}
\caption{(Color online). Phase diagram of the star lattice Ising model in the $(J_{D}, h)$ plane for $J_{T}>0$ and $T=0$. The phase diagram is symmetric under a sign change of $h$.}
\label{phasediagram1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
{\resizebox*{0.47\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{phasediagram2.eps}}}
\caption{(Color online). Phase diagram of the star lattice Ising model in the $(J_{D}, h)$ plane for $J_{T}<0$ and $T=0$.}
\label{phasediagram2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Phase III}
If $0<h<2$, the system is in a frustrated phase. We find four degenerate ground states in this phase contributing to the residual entropy $s=ln4$. The other properties are given by $u=J_{D}+2J_{T}-2h$, and $m=2$. The spin configurations are shown in Fig.~\ref{phase3}. In this case, the two spins connected by $J_T$ become antiparallel since $J_D$ is antiferromagnetic.
\subsection{Phase IV}
In the case of $2<h<|J_{D}|+2|J_{T}|$ and $J_{T}>0,J_{D}<0$, phase III evolves into phase IV, which has $m=4$ and $s=ln2$. Only one spin points down in this phase and it should be one of the two connected by $J_D$. The spin configurations are shown in Fig.~\ref{phase4}.
\subsection{Phase VII}
Phase VII is a new phase when $J_T$ becomes positive in none-zero field. In this phase, $h<\frac{1}{3}|J_{D}|$ and $J_{D}<0,J_{T}>0$, the spins on the same triangle are parallel, however, antiparallel to the neighboring triangles for the positive $J_T$ and negative $J_D$. If we treat the three spins on the same triangle as a higher spin located in the center of the triangle, it becomes an antiferromagnetic phase in a honeycomb lattice. This state gives $u=J_{D}-6J_{T},s=ln2$ and m=0.
\subsection{Phase diagram}
According to the discussion above, we now combine all the results together to obtain a full phase diagram. Fig.~\ref{phasediagram1} show the phase diagram when $J_{T}$ is antiferromagnetic and thus $J_{T}<0$ and Fig.~\ref{phasediagram2}, on the contrary, shows the case when $J_{T}$ is ferromagnetic. The phase diagram is symmetric under the sign change of $h$.
\section{Monte Carlo Simulations \label{montecarlo}}
In this section we show the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation results of the star lattice Ising model with different combinations of parameters, which helps to corroborate our analytic predictions. Meanwhile, they allow us to calculate the magnetization and susceptibility at finite temperature.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
{\resizebox*{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{mcc.eps}}}
\caption{(Color online). Temperature dependence of heat capacity per site from exact solution (red line) and Monte Carlo simulations with $L=8$, $16$ and $32$ for $J_{D} = 5 J_{T} = 1$. The critical temperature $T_c \approx 2.1$$|J_T|$, consistent with Fig.~\ref{zerofieldphasediagram}.}
\label{mcc}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
{\resizebox*{0.55\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{suscferro.eps}}}
\caption{(Color online). Temperature dependence of susceptibility from the Monte Carlo simulations with $L=8$, $16$ and $32$ for $J_{D} = 5 J_{T} = 1$.}
\label{mcsf}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
{\resizebox*{0.55\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{suscanti.eps}}}
\caption{(Color online). Temperature dependence of susceptibility from the Monte Carlo simulations with $L=8$, $16$ and $32$ for $J_{D} = 5 J_{T} = -1$. There is no apparent peak found, which means there is no continuous phase transition for $J_{T}<0$. The exact solution in Fig.~\ref{zerofieldphasediagram} gives the same result in this case.}
\label{mcsan}
\end{figure}
We choose system size $L=8$, $16$, $32$, where $L$ is the length of the unit cell for the star lattice, which means that the total number of spins $N$ is $N=6L^{2}$, as there are six spins in each unit cell. The periodic boundary condition is used for the simulations.
The specific heat $c$ and magnetic susceptibility $\chi$ during the MC simulations can be calculated using the fluctuation-dissipation theorem
\begin{align}
c &=\frac{\mean{H^2} - \mean{H}^2}{NT^2},\\
\chi &=\frac{\mean{M^2} - \mean{M}^2}{NT},
\label{chi}
\end{align}
where $\mean{H}$ and $\mean{M}$ are respectively the Monte Carlo averages of the
total energy (i.e., the Hamiltonian) and magnetization.
Fig.~\ref{mcc} shows the temperature dependence of heat capacity per site at $h=0$ for a typical unfrustrated case $J_{D}/ J_{T} = 5$, $J_{T} >0$. The MC results are consistent with the exact analytic results.
We also calculate the susceptibility from the MC simulations, which is shown in Fig.~\ref{mcsf}. As $L$ increases, the peaks become sharper and sharper, indicating a phase transition.
We also study two different combinations of interactions for the unfrustrated case, which is $J_{T}>0$, in Figs.~\ref{mcsf} and \ref{mcsan}. The temperature dependence of susceptibility is found to be sensitive to the sign of $J_{D}$. When $J_{D}>0$, the susceptibility has a sharp peak at the critical point between the ferromagnetic phase and paramagnetic phase. However, when $J_{D}<0$, there is no such peak, which implies no phase transition in this case, just as what we get in exact solutions. The shape of the susceptibility peak depends on the size of the system when $J_{D}>0$, whereas for $J_{D}<0$, the size of the system has no influence on the susceptibility.
\section{CONCLUSIONS}
In summary, we have studied the Ising model on the star lattice with two different exchange couplings $J_{T}$ and $J_{D}$ using both analytical method and Monte Carlo simulations. We have presented its thermodynamic properties including internal energy, free energy, specific heat, entropy and susceptibility in the zero field. The phase transition temperature for $J_{T}=J_{D}$ is exactly same as the one found in Ref.~\cite{1995PhRvB..51.5840B}. There is no phase transition found if one of the couplings is antiferromagnetic. Moreover, we have obtained the rich phase diagrams in terms of $J_{T}, J_{D} $ and $h$ at zero temperature. Monte Carlo simulation is used to confirm the exact results and calculate the susceptibility.
In the fully frustrated case, the residual entropy of the system can be expressed as a closed form ($s_{0}=\frac{1}{2}ln21$ as showed in Eq.~(\ref{residualentropy}) which is consistent with the triangular and Kagome lattices. The system is less frustrated compared to the other triangulated lattices.
Our study provides a benchmark calculation for the thermodynamics of Ising spins on the star lattice, which can help experimentalists to investigate the real materials.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank Xiao-Ming Chen and Ming-Liang Tong for helpful discussions.
This work is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities of China (11lgjc12 and 10lgzd09), NSFC-11074310 and 11275279, MOST of China 973 program (2012CB821400), Specialized Research Fund
for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education (20110171110026),
Undergraduate Training Program at SYSU and NCET-11-0547.
\end{acknowledgments}
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
|
\section{Introduction}
The aim of this paper is to examine geometric properties of a {\em
quadratic embedding}, i.e. a mapping between projective spaces sharing some
properties of the classical quadratic Veronese embedding. We follow an
approach
that has been used in discussing embeddings of Grassmann spaces (cf.\
\cite{Ha81}
and \cite{We83}) and product spaces (cf.\ \cite{Za94}). See also
\cite[chapter 25]{HT91} for combinatorial characterizations of Veronese
varieties over finite fields.
Let $F$ be a commutative field and $(\Pcal,\Lcal):=\PG{n}{F}$. Write
\begin{displaymath}
\Phi:=\{\Scal\subset\Pcal|\,\Scal \mbox{ is a quadric of }
\PG{n}{F}\}\cup\{\Pcal\}.
\end{displaymath}
If $\Mcal\subset\Pcal$, then the {\em quadratic closure\/} of
$\Mcal$ is
\begin{displaymath}
\clos{\Mcal}:=\bigcap_{\Mcal\subset\Scal,\,\Scal\in\Phi}\Scal.
\end{displaymath}We call $\Mcal$ a {\em closed set\/} if
$\Mcal=\clos{\Mcal}$.
The linear closure of a set $\Mcal$ of points will be denoted by
$\overline{\Mcal}$. Each hyperplane of \PG{n}{F} is a quadric, namely a
repeated hyperplane. Hence $\Mcal\subset\clos\Mcal\subset\overline\Mcal$.
\begin{defi}
Let $(\Pcal,\Lcal):=\PG{n}{F}$ and $(\Pcal',\Lcal'):=\PG{n'}{F'}$, where
the field $F$ is commutative. A mapping \applicaz{\nu}{\Pcal}{\Pcal'}
is a {\em quadratic embedding} if
\begin{equation}\label{D/1/1}
\clos{\Mcal}=
(\overline{\Mcal^{\nu}}){}^{\nu^{-1}}
\mbox{ for all } \Mcal\subset\Pcal,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\overline{\im\nu}=\Pcal'.
\end{equation}
\end{defi}
We give some examples of quadratic embeddings:
\begin{example}{\rm
The classical {\em quadratic Veronese embedding\/} $\rho$ is defined in
the case $F'=F$, $n'=
{n+2 \choose 2}-1$, by
\begin{displaymath}
F(x_0,\ldots,x_n) \stackrel{\rho}{\longmapsto}
F(y_{ij})_{0\leq i\leq j\leq n},
\mbox{ with } y_{ij}:= x_ix_j.
\end{displaymath}
There are many equivalent definitions. Cf., e.g., \cite{Bu61},
\cite{He82}, \cite{Ka87}.
}\end{example}
\begin{example}{\rm
Let $n'={n+2 \choose 2}-1$. If \applicaz{\alpha}F{F'}\ is an injective
homomorphism, then $\alpha$ induces a canonical embedding $\epsilon$ of
\PG{n'}F\ into \PG{n'}{F'}. The mapping $\rho\epsilon$ turns out to be a
quadratic embedding. Since there are examples of fields admitting an
injective, but not surjective homomorphism \applicaz{\alpha}FF,
there exist quadratic embeddings different from the classical one, even
if we demand that $F$ and $F'$ are isomorphic.
}\end{example}
\begin{example}{\rm
If $n=1$ then $\Mcal\subset\Pcal$ is closed if, and only if, $|\Mcal|\leq
2$ or $\Mcal=\Pcal$. Thus a mapping \applicaz{\nu}{\Pcal}{\Pcal'} is a
quadratic embedding if, and only if, $n'=2$, $\nu$ is injective and
$\im\nu$ is an arc.
}\end{example}
\begin{example}{\rm
If \PG nF = \PG 22 and $\Fcal$ is a frame in \PG 5{F'} then any injection
\applicaz{\nu}{\Pcal}{\Pcal'} such that $\im\nu=\Fcal$ is a quadratic
embedding. This is immediate from the fact that each subset $\Mcal$ of
$\Pcal$ is closed, unless $|\Mcal|=6$.
}\end{example}
\section{Properties of quadratic embeddings}
In this section $\nu$ is a quadratic embedding of $\PG nF=(\Pcal,\Lcal)$
($n\geq 1$) into $\PG{n'}{F'}=(\Pcal',\Lcal')$.
\begin{prop}\label{3/5}
Let $\Kcal_1$ and $\Kcal_2$ be two distinct closed sets in \PG nF. Then
$\overline{\Kcal^{\nu}_1}\neq \overline{\Kcal^{\nu}_2}$. Consequently,
the mapping $\nu$ is injective and satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{3/5/1}
\clos{\Mcal}^{\nu}=\overline{\Mcal^{\nu}}\cap \im\nu
\mbox{ for all }
\Mcal\subset\Pcal.
\end{equation}
If\/ $\Ucal'\subset\Pcal'$ is a subspace, then
$\Ucal'^{\nu^{-1}}\subset\Pcal$ is a closed set.
\end{prop}
\proof By the definition of a quadratic embedding,
\begin{displaymath}
(\overline{\Kcal^{\nu}_1})^{\nu^{-1}}=\clos{\Kcal_1}=\Kcal_1\not=
\Kcal_2=\clos{\Kcal_2}=(\overline{\Kcal^{\nu}_2})^{\nu^{-1}},
\end{displaymath}
so that $\overline{\Kcal^{\nu}_1}\neq \overline{\Kcal^{\nu}_2}$. Moreover,
$\nu$ is injective, since any subset of $\Pcal$ with a single element is
closed. Hence (\ref{3/5/1}) is true. Finally, let $\Mcal:=\Ucal'^{\nu^{-1}}$.
Then
\begin{displaymath}
\clos{\Mcal}=(\overline{\Mcal^{\nu}}){}^{\nu^{-1}}
\subset\Ucal'^{\nu^{-1}}=\Mcal.\Box
\end{displaymath}
\begin{theo}\label{3/7}
If $\nu$ is a quadratic embedding of $\PG nF$
into $\PG{n'}{F'}$,
then
$n'={n+2 \choose 2}
-1.$
\end{theo}
\proof Define $\delta(t):=
{t+2 \choose 2}$, $t\in\NN$. Let $\{\ee_0,\ldots,\ee_n\}$ be a basis of
$F^{n+1}$ and
\begin{displaymath}\Xcal:=\{F(\ee_i+\ee_j)|0\leq i<j\leq n\}
\cup\{F\ee_i|i=0,\ldots,n\}.
\end{displaymath}
Since $|\Xcal|=\delta(n)$ and $\clos{\Xcal}=\Pcal$, we have
$\im\nu\subset\overline{\Xcal^{\nu}}$, hence
\begin{equation}\label{3/7/1}
n'\leq\delta(n)-1.
\end{equation}
We now prove that in (\ref{3/7/1}) the equality holds. We give a definition,
by recursion on $d=0,\ldots,n$, of distinct closed sets in \PG nF, say
$\Kcal_{\delta(d-1)}$, $\Kcal_{\delta(d-1)+1}$, \ldots,
$\Kcal_{\delta(d)-1}$, such that
\begin{displaymath}
\Kcal_{\delta(d-1)}\subset\Kcal_{\delta(d-1)+1}\subset
\ldots\subset\Kcal_{\delta(d)-1},
\end{displaymath}
with $^d\Ucal:=\Kcal_{\delta(d)-1}$ being a $d$-subspace of \PG nF. For
$d=0$, choose a point $Q$ and let $\Kcal_0={}^0\Ucal:=\{Q\}$. Now let $d>0$
and
$\Kcal_{\delta(d-1)-1}={}^{d-1}\Ucal$. Take a $d$-subspace $^d\Ucal$
containing $^{d-1}\Ucal$ and a basis $\Bcal=\{P_0,\ldots,P_d\}$ of $^d\Ucal$
such that $^{d-1}\Ucal\cap\Bcal=\emptyset$. Since the union of two subspaces
of \PG nF\ is a closed set, we can define
\begin{displaymath}
\Kcal_{\delta(d-1)+i}:={}^{d-1}\Ucal\cup \overline{\{P_0,\ldots,P_i\}},
\hspace{.5in}i\in\{0,\ldots,d\}.
\end{displaymath}
By Prop.~\ref{3/5},
\begin{displaymath}
\emptyset\subset \overline{\Kcal^{\nu}_0}\subset
\overline{\Kcal^{\nu}_1}\subset\ldots\subset \Kcal_{\delta(n)-1}^{\nu}
\end{displaymath}
is a chain of distinct subspaces of \PG{n'}{F'}.$\Box$
\begin{prop}\label{3/9}
If $\Mcal\subset\Pcal$, then $\dim(\overline{\Mcal^{\nu}})$ is equal to
the largest $i\in\NN$, such that there exists a chain
\begin{equation}\label{3/9/1}
\emptyset\subset\Kcal_0\subset\Kcal_1\subset\ldots
\subset\Kcal_i=\clos{\Mcal},
\end{equation}
consisting of $i+2$ distinct closed subsets of $\clos{\Mcal}$.
Consequently,
$\dim(\overline{\Mcal^{\nu}})=\dim(\overline{\Mcal^{\rho}})$,
where $\rho$ denotes the quadratic Veronese embedding.
\end{prop}
\proof By Prop.~\ref{3/5}, the subspaces $\overline{\Kcal^{\nu}_0}$,
$\overline{\Kcal^{\nu}_1}$, \ldots, $\overline{\Kcal^{\nu}_i}$ are distinct
and
\begin{displaymath}
\overline{\Kcal^{\nu}_i}= \overline{\overline{\Mcal^{\nu}}\cap\im\nu}=
\overline{\Mcal^{\nu}},
\end{displaymath}
whence $\dim(\overline{\Mcal^{\nu}})\geq i$.
Now assume $\dim(\overline{\Mcal^{\nu}})>i$. Then there exists an integer
$j$, $0\leq j<i$, such that
\begin{displaymath}
\dim(\overline{\Kcal^{\nu}_{j+1}})\neq \dim(\overline{\Kcal^{\nu}_j})+1.
\end{displaymath}
Let $P\in\Kcal^{\nu}_{j+1}\setminus\overline{\Kcal^{\nu} _j}$. Then
$\Kcal:=(\overline{\{P\}\cup\Kcal^{\nu}_j}){}^{\nu^{-1}}$ is a closed set
(cf.\ Prop.~\ref{3/5}), and $\Kcal_j\subset\Kcal\subset\Kcal_{j+1}$,
$\Kcal\neq\Kcal_j$. The maximality of the chain (\ref{3/9/1}) implies
$\Kcal=\Kcal_{j+1}$. Therefore
\begin{displaymath}
\dim(\overline{\Kcal^{\nu}_{j+1}})=
\dim(\overline{\{P\}\cup\Kcal^{\nu}_j})= \dim(\overline{\Kcal^{\nu}_j})+1,
\end{displaymath}
a contradiction.$\Box$
\begin{prop}\label{immsing}
If $\Tcal$ is a hyperplane of \PG nF\ and $\Mcal\subset \Pcal\setminus
\Tcal$, then
\begin{equation}\label{immsing/1}
\dim(\overline{(\Tcal\cup\Mcal)^{\nu}})=
{n+1 \choose 2}
+\dim(\overline{\Mcal}).
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\proof By Theorem~\ref{3/7}, $\dim(\overline {\Tcal^{\nu}})=
{n+1 \choose 2}-1$. If
$\Bcal=\{P_0,\ldots,P_t\}\subset\Mcal$ is a basis of $\overline{\Mcal}$, then
the closed sets
\begin{displaymath}
\Kcal_i:=\Tcal\cup\overline{\{P_0,\ldots,P_i\}},
\hspace{.5 in}i\in\{0,\ldots,t\},
\end{displaymath}
form a saturated chain
\begin{displaymath}
\Tcal\subset\Kcal_0\subset\ldots\subset\Kcal_t.
\end{displaymath}
Now the assertion is a consequence of Theorem~\ref{3/7}
and Prop.~\ref{3/9}.$\Box$
\begin{prop}\label{H/2}
Let $\Tcal$ be a hyperplane of \PG nF. If
$\overline{\Tcal^{\nu}}$ and $\Ecal'$ are complementary subspaces of
\PG{n'}{F'}, then the mapping
\begin{equation}\label{H/2/1}
\Applicaz{\iota}{\Pcal\setminus \Tcal}{\Ecal'}
\,:\, A\longmapsto \overline{(\Tcal\cup\{A\})^{\nu}}\cap\Ecal'
\end{equation}
has the following property:
\begin{equation}\label{H/2/2}
\dim(\overline{\Mcal})=\dim(\overline{\Mcal^{\iota}})
\mbox{ for all }
\Mcal\subset\Pcal\setminus \Tcal.
\end{equation}
Consequently, $\iota$ is preserving both collinearity and
non-collinearity of points. So, the mapping $\iota$ is a {\em (linear)
embedding} of the affine space $\Pcal\setminus \Tcal$ into the projective
space $\Ecal'$.
\end{prop}
\proof By (\ref{immsing/1}), $\dim\overline{\Tcal^{\nu}}=
{n+1 \choose 2}-1$, whence
$\dim\Ecal'=n$. Applying (\ref{immsing/1}) again yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
\dim(\overline{\Mcal^{\iota}}) &=&
\dim(\overline{\Tcal^{\nu}\cup\Mcal^{\nu}}\cap\Ecal')=
\dim(\overline{\Tcal^{\nu}\cup\Mcal^{\nu}})-
(\dim(\overline{\Tcal^{\nu}})+1) \\
&=& \dim(\overline{\Mcal}).\Box
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{prop}\label{H/3}
Let $|F|>2$ and $n\geq2$. If $|F|\not=3$ or $n\not=2$, then the embedding
(\ref{H/2/1}) can be extended to exactly one embedding
\applicaz{\beta}{\Pcal}{\Ecal'}.
\end{prop}
\proof The case $n=2$ is dealt with in \cite{Ri65}. The case $|F|>3$ is
covered by \cite[Theorem 3.5]{BR84}. Thus only $|F|=3$ and $n>2$ remains
open. For $F'$ being finite,
the assertion follows from a result in \cite[chapitre
2.3]{Li80} (cf.\ also \cite[th\'eor\`eme 1]{Li82}), and by slight
modifications, this carries over to an infinite $F'$.
On the other hand we sketch a direct proof for $n>2$: Let $P\in \Tcal$. If
$g,h\in\Lcal$ and $P\in g\cap h$, then the lines
$\overline{(g\setminus\{P\})^{\iota}}$ and
$\overline{(h\setminus\{P\})^{\iota}}$ are coplanar by Prop.~\ref{H/2}.
Since
there exist three non coplanar lines through $P$, all lines of the kind
$\overline{(g\setminus\{P\})^{\iota}}$, with $P\in g$, share one point
$P'\in\Ecal'$. Then we define $P^{\beta}:=P'$. By repeatedly using
Prop.~\ref{H/2}, we have that $\beta$ is an embedding. The restriction
of $\beta$ to a plane $\Acal$ of $\Pcal$, not contained in $\Tcal$, is an
extension of $\iota|(\Acal\setminus\Tcal)$, and thus we obtain the
uniqueness of $\beta$.$\Box$
As a corollary, we have:
\begin{theo}
Let $|F|>2$ and $n\geq2$. If $|F|\not=3$ or $n\not=2$, then the existence
of
a quadratic embedding of $\PG nF$ into $\PG{n'}{F'}$ implies that the
field $F$ is isomorphic to a subfield of $F'$.$\Box$
\end{theo}
Whenever for some fixed hyperplane $\Tcal\subset\Pcal$ and an adequately
chosen subspace $\Ecal'\subset\Pcal'$ the mapping (\ref{H/2/1}) is uniquely
extendable to an embedding \applicaz{\beta}{\Pcal}{\Ecal'}, then $\Tcal$
gives rise to an embedding
\begin{equation}\label{nu_t}
\Applicaz{\nu_\Tcal}{\Pcal}{\Pcal'/\overline{\Tcal^\nu}}\,:\,
X\longmapsto\{X^\beta\}\vee\overline{\Tcal^\nu};
\end{equation}
here $\Pcal'/\overline{\Tcal^\nu}$ denotes the point set of the quotient
space \PG{n'}{F'} modulo $\overline{\Tcal^\nu}$. Moreover, we can associate
with $\Tcal$ the following hyperplane of \PG{n'}{F'}:
\begin{displaymath}
\overline{\Tcal^{\nu}\cup \Tcal^{\beta}}=:\Hcal'_\Tcal.
\end{displaymath}
Both definitions do not depend on the choice of $\Ecal'$. Since
$\Hcal'_\Tcal\cap\Ecal'\cap\im\iota=\emptyset$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{**}
(\Hcal'_\Tcal)^{\nu^{-1}}=\Tcal.
\end{equation}
\begin{prop}\label{H/4}
Let $\Sigma$\ be the collection of all hyperplanes of \PG nF. If
$\Hcal'_\Tcal$ is well defined for all $\Tcal\in\Sigma$, then
\begin{equation} \label{overnu}
\Applicaz{\overnu}{\Sigma}{\Sigma'}\,:\, \Tcal\longmapsto\Hcal'_\Tcal
\end{equation}
is an injective mapping.$\Box$
\end{prop}
The previous results give sufficient conditions for the existence of
the mapping $\overnu$.
\section {Regular quadratic embeddings}
In the following we shall assume that $\nu$ is a quadratic embedding of
\PG nF, $n\geq 1$, into \PG{n'}{F'}, $n'={n+2 \choose 2}-1$.
\begin{defi}
A quadratic embedding $\nu$ is called {\em $(P,\ell)$-regular\/} if there
exists an incident point-line pair $(P,\ell)$ of \PG nF\ such that the
plane arc $\ell^{\nu}$ has a unique unisecant line which is running
through $P^{\nu}$ and contained in the plane $\overline{\ell^{\nu}}$.
If $\nu$ is $(P,\ell)$-regular for all incident pairs $(P,\ell)$, then
$\nu$ is said to be a {\em regular\/} quadratic embedding.
\end{defi}
\begin{prop} \label{X31}
Suppose that $n\geq2$ and that $\nu$ is $(P,\ell)$-regular.
Then $\nu$ is regular.
\end{prop}
\proof
By $n\geq2$, there exists a hyperplane $\Tcal$ of \PG nF\ such that
$P\in\Tcal$, $\ell\not\subset\Tcal$. Define an embedding
\applicaz{\iota}{\Pcal\setminus\Tcal}{\Ecal'} according to
(\ref{H/2/1}).
The $(P,\ell)$-regularity of $\nu$ implies that
\begin{equation} \label{XA}
|\overline{(\ell\setminus\{P\})^{\iota}}\setminus
(\ell\setminus\{P\})^{\iota}|=1.
\end{equation}
If the settings of Prop.~\ref{H/3} are true, then $\iota$ extends to an
embedding \applicaz{\beta}{\Pcal}{\Ecal'} with
$\ell^{\beta}=\overline{(\ell\setminus\{P\})^{\iota}}$ by (\ref{XA}).
Hence $\beta$ is a collineation.
Otherwise $|F|=:p\in\{2,3\}$ so that $|F'|=p$ by (\ref{XA}).
If $X\in\Pcal\setminus\Tcal$, then there is a certain number of lines
through $X$ and on each such line there are $p$ points of
$\Pcal\setminus\Tcal$.
In $\Ecal'$ the same number of lines is running through $X^{\iota}$ and,
by Prop.~\ref{H/2}, there are $p$ points of $\im\iota$ on each such line.
This in turn means that on each line in $\Ecal'$ through a point of
$\Ecal'\setminus\im\iota$ there is either no point of $\im\iota$
or no other point of $\Ecal'\setminus\im\iota$, whence
$\Ecal'\setminus\im\iota$ is a subspace.
More precisely, $\Tcal':=\Ecal'\setminus\im\iota$ is a hyperplane of
$\Ecal'$.
Two distinct lines of the affine space $\Pcal\setminus\Tcal$ are parallel if,
and only if, they are disjoint and coplanar.
By Prop.~\ref{H/2} these properties carry over to the $\iota$-images of these
lines, whence $\iota$ is an affinity of $\Pcal\setminus\Tcal$ onto
$\Ecal'\setminus\Tcal'$.
(This is trivial when $p=3$.)
Thus $\iota$ is also extendable to a collineation
\applicaz{\beta}{\Pcal}{\Ecal'} if Prop.~\ref{H/3} cannot be applied.
Next choose any point $X_1\in\Tcal$ and any line
$\ell_1\not\subset\Tcal$, $X_1\in\ell_1$.
Then
$(\{X_1^\beta\}\vee\overline{\Tcal^\nu})\cap\overline{\ell^{\nu}_1}$
is the only unisecant of
$\ell_1^{\nu}$ at $X_1^{\nu}$ within the plane
$\overline{\ell_1^{\nu}}$, since
$|\overline{(\ell_1\setminus\{X_1\})^{\iota}}
\setminus(\ell_1\setminus\{X_1\})^{\iota}|=1$.
Hence $\nu$ is $(X_1,\ell_1)$-regular.
Repeatedly using this last idea yields that $\nu$ is regular.$\Box$
As an immediate consequence of the proof of Prop.~\ref{X31} we have
\begin{prop} \label{X32}
Let $\nu$ be a regular quadratic embedding and $n\geq2$.
Choose any hyperplane $\Tcal\subset\Pcal$.
Then the embedding \applicaz{\iota}{\Pcal\setminus\Tcal}{\Ecal'},
defined according to (\ref{H/2/1}), is extendable to a unique collineation
\applicaz{\beta}{\Pcal}{\Ecal'}.
Consequently, $F$ and $F'$ are isomorphic fields, and
\applicaz{\nu_{\Tcal}}{\Pcal}{\Pcal'/\overline{\Tcal^{\nu}}}
(cf.~(\ref{nu_t})) is a collineation.$\Box$
\end{prop}
If $n=1$, then the $(P,\ell)$-regularity of $\nu$ implies
\[
|F|=|\ell\setminus\{P\}|=|\ell^{\nu}\setminus\{P^{\nu}\}|=|F'|.
\]
This does not imply, however, that $\nu$ is regular.
If $n=1$ and $\nu$ is regular, then $\im\nu$ obviously is an oval
but not necessarily a conic.
Cf.~\cite{Bu79,BHL80,St95} for topological conditions that force an oval
to be a conic.
These results can be improved if we assume that $|F|=:q$ is finite.
Then $n=1$ and $\nu$ being $(P,\ell)$-regular yield
$|F|=|F'|=q$ so that $\im\nu$ is a $(q+1)$-arc in
\PG 2{F'}${}\cong{}$\PG 2q.
Hence $\im\nu$ is an oval, which in turn shows that $\nu$ is regular.
Moreover, by Segre's theorem, $\im\nu$ is a (regular) conic if $q$ is
odd; the last result is also true when $q\in\{2,4\}$.
The case $n=1$ is excluded from our further discussions. Hence
we may assume without loss of generality that $F=F'$, by
virtue of Prop.~\ref{X32}.
The following result will be used in order to characterize the $\nu$-images
of lines.
\begin{lemma}\label{H/6}
Let $P_0$ and $P_2$ be two distinct points of \PG2F and let $\sigma$ be a
collineation of \PG2F taking $P_0$ to $P_2$, but not fixing the line
$\overline{P_0P_2}$. Then
\begin{displaymath}
\Ccal :=\{X|\{X\}=x\cap x^\sigma,x\mbox{ is a line through }P_0 \}
\end{displaymath}
is containing three distinct collinear points if, and only if, $\sigma$ is
a non-projective collineation.
\end{lemma}
\proof If $\sigma$ is projective, then $\Ccal$ is a regular conic, whence it
does not contain three distinct collinear points.
If $\sigma$ is not projective, then let $\alpha\in \mbox{Aut}(F)$ be the
companion automorphism of $\sigma$. Set
\begin{displaymath}
\{P_1\}:=(\overline{P_0P_2})^{\sigma^{-1}}\cap
(\overline{P_0P_2})^{\sigma}.
\end{displaymath}
Choose some line $e$ running through $P_0$ but not containing $P_1$ or $P_2$
and define $\{E\}:=e\cap e^\sigma$. Then $(P_0,P_1,P_2,E)$ is an ordered
quadrangle; we may assume that this is the standard frame of reference. A
straightforward calculation yields
\begin{displaymath}
\Ccal =\{F(u_0 u_0^\alpha,u_0 u_1^\alpha,u_1 u_1^\alpha)|
(0,0)\not=(u_0,u_1)\in F^2\}.
\end{displaymath}
By $\alpha\not=\mbox{id}_F$, there exists an element $c\in F$ with
$c\not=c^\alpha$. Define $v\in F$ via $c=v^{\alpha\alpha}c^\alpha$. Thus
$v\not=0,1$ and $F(1,1,1)$, $F(1,v^\alpha, vv^\alpha)$ are distinct points of
$\Ccal$. With
\begin{displaymath}
w:=\frac{1+vv^\alpha c}{1+v^\alpha c}
\end{displaymath}
we obtain
\begin{displaymath}
\frac{1}{1+c}(1,1,1) + \frac{c}{1+c}(1,v^\alpha, vv^\alpha) =
(1,w^\alpha,ww^\alpha),
\end{displaymath}
whence $\Ccal$ is containing three distinct collinear points.$\Box$
\begin{prop}\label{H/7}
If $g$ is a line of \PG nF, $n\geq2$, and $\nu$ is a regular quadratic
embedding, then $g^\nu$ is a regular conic.
\end{prop}
\proof Choose
hyperplanes $\Tcal,\Ucek\subset\Pcal$ such that
$g\cap\Tcal\cap\Ucek=\emptyset$. Set
$\{T\}:=g\cap\Tcal$ and define a collineation $\nu_{\Tcal}$ according to
(\ref{nu_t}).
Write
\begin{displaymath}
\Lcal_T':=\{x'\in\Lcal'|T^{\nu}\in x'\subset\overline{g^\nu}\}
\end{displaymath}
and
\begin{displaymath}
\Applicaz{\pi_T}{\Lcal_T'}{g^{\nu_{\Tcal}}}\,:\,
x'\longmapsto x'\vee\overline{\Tcal^\nu}.
\end{displaymath}
This $\pi_T$ is a projectivity from a pencil of lines onto a pencil of
subspaces.
Replacing $\Tcal$ by $\Ucek$ gives a point $U$ and a projectivity $\pi_U$.
Since $\nu_{\Tcal}^{-1}\nu_{\Ucek}$ is a collineation of quotient spaces,
\begin{displaymath}
\Applicaz{\pi_T\nu_{\Tcal}^{-1}\nu_{\Ucek}\pi_U^{-1}}{\Lcal_T'}{\Lcal_U'}
\end{displaymath}
is extendable to a collineation, say $\sigma$, of the plane
$\overline{g^\nu}$ onto itself. We have
\begin{displaymath}
\begin{array}
{ r@{\:\stackrel{\sigma}{\longmapsto}\:} l }
\overline{g^\nu}\cap \Tcal^\overnu &\overline{T^\nu U^\nu}
\not=\overline{g^\nu}\cap \Tcal^\overnu,
\\
\overline{T^\nu U^\nu} &\overline{g^\nu}\cap \Ucek^\overnu,
\\
\overline{T^\nu X^\nu} &\overline{U^\nu X^\nu}\,
(X\in g\setminus\{T,U\})
\end{array}
\end{displaymath}
and
\begin{displaymath}
g^\nu=\{X'|\{X'\}=x'\cap x'^\sigma,x'\in\Lcal_T'\}.
\end{displaymath}
Since any two distinct points of $g$ form a closed set, no three points of
$g^\nu$ are collinear. We read off from Lemma~\ref{H/6} that $\sigma$
is projective, whence $g^\nu$ is a regular conic.$\Box$
We remark that $\nu^{-1}_{\Tcal}\nu_{\Ucek}$ is a projective collineation
of quotient spaces.
\begin{prop} \label{X33}
Let $(P_0,P_1,\ldots,P_n,E)$ be an ordered frame of \PG nF, $n\geq2$,
and let $\nu$ be a regular quadratic embedding.
Write $Q'_{ii}:=P^{\nu}_i$, $E':=E^{\nu}$, and $Q'_{ij}$ for the common
point of the tangent lines of the conic $(\overline{P_iP_j})^{\nu}$
at $P_i^{\nu}$ and $P_j^{\nu}$, $i,j\in\{0,1,\ldots,n\}$, $i\neq j$.
Then
\begin{equation}\label{frame}
\{Q'_{ij}|0\leq i\leq j\leq n\}\cup\{E'\}
\end{equation}
is a frame of \PG {n'}F.
\end{prop}
\proof
For any $i,j\in\{0,1,\ldots,n\}$, $i<j$, take a
$P_{ij}\in\overline{P_iP_j}\setminus\{P_i,P_j\}$.
Then $\{Q'_{00},Q'_{11},\ldots,Q'_{nn}\}\cup\{P_{ij}^{\nu}|0\leq i<j\leq n\}$
is a basis of \PG {n'}F by Theorem \ref{3/7}.
Since $Q'_{ii}$, $Q'_{jj}$, $P_{ij}^{\nu}$, $Q'_{ij}$ is a plane quadrangle,
the exchange lemma yields that
\[
\Bcal':=\{Q'_{ij}|0\leq i\leq j\leq n\}
\]
is a basis of \PG {n'}F.
Define hyperplanes
\[
\Tcal_i:=\overline{\{P_k|k\in\{0,1,\ldots,n\}\setminus\{i\}\}}\subset\Pcal,
\]
and $\Xcal'_i:=\Tcal_i^{\overnu}$ (cf.~(\ref{overnu})) for
$i\in\{0,1,\ldots,n\}$.
Obviously $Q'_{jk}\in\Xcal'_i$ for all
$j,k\in\{0,1,\ldots,n\}\setminus\{i\}$.
Moreover, if $j\in\{0,1,\ldots,n\}\setminus\{i\}$, then
\[
\overline{\{Q'_{ii},Q'_{ij},Q'_{jj}\}}\cap \Xcal'_i
\]
is the tangent line of the conic $(\overline{P_iP_j})^\nu$
at $P^{\nu}_j=Q'_{jj}$, so that $Q'_{ij}\in\Xcal'_i$.
We infer that
\[
\Xcal'_i=\overline{\Bcal'\setminus\{Q'_{ii}\}}.
\]
Now $E\not\in\Tcal_i$ implies $E'\not\in\Xcal'_i$.
Finally, $\Tcal_i\cup\Tcal_j$ is a closed set not containing $E$.
Hence
\[
E'\not\in\overline{(\Tcal_i\cup\Tcal_j)^\nu}=
\overline{\Bcal'\setminus\{Q'_{ij}\}}.
\]
This completes the proof.$\Box$
\begin{theo}
If $\nu$ is a regular quadratic embedding of \PG nF into \PG{n'}F,
$n\geq2$, $n'={n+2\choose 2}-1$ and $\rho$ denotes the quadratic Veronese
embedding, then there exists a collineation $\kappa$ of \PG{n'}F such
that $\nu=\rho\kappa$.
\end{theo}
\proof
We adopt the notation of Prop.~\ref{X33}.
The coordinates with respect to $(P_0,P_1,\ldots,P_n,E)$ of a point
$X\in\Pcal$ are written as
$F(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_n)$, and the coordinates of $X^\nu$ with respect
to $(Q'_{00},Q'_{01},\ldots,Q'_{nn},E')$ (cf.\ (\ref{frame}))
are denoted by
$F(y_{00},y_{01},\ldots,y_{nn})$.
In order to simplify notation we put $y_{ij}:=y_{ji}$ for $i>j$.
Choose an index $i\in\{0,1,\ldots,n\}$ and set
\[
\Ecal'_i:=\overline{\{Q'_{i0},Q'_{i1},\ldots,Q'_{in}\}}.
\]
Hence $\Ecal'_i$ is a complement of $\overline{\Tcal^{\nu}_i}$
(cf.\ the proof of Prop.~\ref{X33}) and, by Prop.~\ref{X32}, we obtain a
collineation \applicaz{\beta_i}{\Pcal}{\Ecal'_i} with
$P_j\mapsto Q'_{ij}$ ($j\in\{0,1,\ldots,n\}$) and $E\mapsto E'_i$,
where $\{E'_i\}:=(\{E'\}\vee \overline{\Tcal_i^\nu})\cap\Ecal'_i$.
So, by taking $(Q'_{i0},Q'_{i1},\ldots,Q'_{in},E'_i)$ as frame of
reference in $\Ecal'$, we obtain that $X^{\beta_i}$ has coordinates
\[
F(x_0^{\alpha_i},x_1^{\alpha_i},\ldots,x_n^{\alpha_i})
\]
with $\alpha_i\in\mbox{Aut}(F)$.
If $j\in\{0,1,\ldots,n\}$, then
$\nu^{-1}_{\Tcal_i}\nu_{\Tcal_j}$ is a projective collineation,
as has been remarked after Prop.~\ref{H/7}.
Hence also $\beta^{-1}_i\beta_j$ is projective.
Thus $\beta_i$ and $\beta_j$ belong to the same automorphism
$\alpha:=\alpha_i\in\mbox{Aut}(F)$.
Now we compare the coordinates of $X$, $X^\nu$, $X^{\beta_i}$:
If $x_i\neq0$, then
$\{X^{\beta_i}\}=(\{X^\nu\}\vee\overline{\Tcal_i^\nu})\cap\Ecal'_i$.
Hence there exists an element $c_i\in F\setminus\{0\}$ such that
\[
y_{i0}=c_ix^{\alpha}_0,\
y_{i1}=c_ix^{\alpha}_1,\ \ldots\ ,\
y_{in}=c_ix^{\alpha}_n.
\]
If, moreover, $x_j\neq0$, $j\in\{0,1,\ldots,n\}\setminus\{i\}$, then
\[
c_i=\frac{y_{ij}}{x^{\alpha}_j},\hspace{2em}
c_j=\frac{y_{ji}}{x^{\alpha}_i}
\]
whence, by $y_{ij}=y_{ji}$,
\[
\frac{c_i}{c_j}=\frac{x^{\alpha}_i}{x^{\alpha}_j}.
\]
If $x_i=0$, then $y_{i0}=y_{i1}=\ldots=y_{in}=0$.
Thus we have
\[
F(y_{00},y_{01},\ldots,y_{nn})=
F(x^{\alpha}_0x^{\alpha}_0,x^{\alpha}_0x^{\alpha}_1,\ldots,
x^{\alpha}_nx^{\alpha}_n).
\]
Now letting $\kappa$ be that collineation of \PG{n'}F which transforms
each coordinate under $\alpha$ completes the proof.$\Box$
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
As the result of quick development of
experimental techniques in nuclear physics, the bulk
data on nuclear static moments has become very extensive and
comprehensive \cite{stone}, thus creating a challenge to nuclear theory.
First of all,
it concerns the nuclei distant from the $\beta$-decay stability
valley
which are often close to the drip lines and are of great
interest to nuclear astrophysics. For this reason, a
theoretical approach used for describing such nuclei should
have a
high predictive power. The self-consistent Theory of Finite
Fermi Systems (TFFS) \cite{khodelsap} based on the EDF by Fayans
{\it et al.} \cite{Fay} is one of such approaches.
A good description of the
quadrupole \cite{BE2,QM} and
magnetic\cite{Tol-Sap,mu2} moments of odd
semi-magic
nuclei has been achieved within this
approach.
For quadrupole moments, we use a new DF3-a version
\cite{Tol-Sap1} of the original DF3 functional \cite{Fay}
which was employed in calculations of magnetic moments. It
differs from the DF3 version only in the spin-orbit parameters
$\varkappa,\varkappa'$ and the effective tensor force.
The DF3-a functional is characterized
by a rather strong effective tensor force.
In these calculations, the so-called ``single-quasiparticle
approximation'' has been used, where one quasiparticle in
the fixed state $\lambda=(n,l,j,m)$ with the energy
$\varepsilon_{\lambda}$ is added to the even-even core.
According to the TFFS \cite{AB}, a quasiparticle differs from
a particle of the single-particle model in two respects.
First, it possesses the local charge $e_q$ and, second, the core is polarized
due to the interaction between the particle and the core nucleons via the
Landau--Migdal (LM) amplitude. In other words, the quasiparticle possesses the
effective charge $e_{\rm eff}$ caused by the polarizability of the core, which is found
by solving the TFFS equations.
In the many-particle Shell Model,
a similar quantity is introduced as a phenomenological parameter which describes
polarizability of the core consisting of outside nucleons.
It should be noted that for this series of problems
within the scope of the mean-field theory, the self-consistent TFFS is
similar to the HF-QRPA approach.
Recently,
quadrupole moments of the
first $2^+$ state in
even lead and tin isotopes have been found \cite{voitphysrev2012}, again
within the self-consistent TFFS. For this problem which is evidently
beyond the mean-field theory, the TFFS results are significantly
different from the QRPA ones.
In this paper, we review briefly the results of the cited
references on quadrupole moments of odd nuclei and of the $2^+$
states in even-even ones and add some new calculations for odd unstable nuclei.
In addition, we include here some results
of \cite{voitnsrt12} for the quadrupole moments of odd-odd nuclei
neighboring to the double magic ones.
\section{Brief calculation scheme}
The calculation scheme of the self-consistent TFFS based on the EDF
method by Fayans {\it et al.} is described in detail in Ref.
\cite{BE2}. Here we write down only several formulas which are
necessary for understanding main ingredients of the approach. The
EDF method by Fayans {\it et al.} \cite{Fay} is a generalization for
superfluid finite systems of the original Kohn--Sham EDF method
\cite{KSh}. In this method, the ground state energy of a nucleus is
considered as a functional of normal and anomalous densities,
\begin{equation}
E_0=\int {\cal E}[\rho_n({\bf r}),\rho_p({\bf r}),\nu_n({\bf
r}),\nu_p({\bf r})] d^3r.\label{E0}
\end{equation}
Within the TFFS, the static quadrupole moment $Q_{\lambda}$ of an
odd nucleus with the odd nucleon in the state $\lambda$ can be
found in terms of the diagonal matrix element $ \langle\lambda|
V(\omega =0)|\lambda\rangle$ of the effective field $V$ in the
static external field $ V_0 = \sqrt{16\pi /5} r^2 Y_{20}$.
In systems with pairing correlations, equation
for the effective field can be written in a compact form as
\begin{equation}
\label{Vef_s}{\hat V}(\omega)={\hat e_q}V_0(\omega)+{\hat {\cal F}}
{\hat A}(\omega) {\hat V}(\omega), \end{equation}
where all the terms are
matrices. In the standard TFFS notation \cite{AB}, we have: \begin{equation}
{\hat V}=\left(\begin{array}{c}V
\\d_1\\d_2\end{array}\right)\,,\quad{\hat
V}_0=\left(\begin{array}{c}V_0
\\0\\0\end{array}\right)\,,
\label{Vs} \end{equation}
\begin{equation} {\hat {\cal F}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
{\cal F} &{\cal F}^{\omega \xi}&{\cal F}^{\omega \xi}\\
{\cal F}^{\xi \omega }&{\cal F}^\xi &{\cal F}^{\xi \omega }\\
{\cal F}^{\xi \omega }&{\cal F}^{\xi \omega }& {\cal F}^\xi \end{array}\right), \label{Fs} \end{equation}
\begin{equation} {\hat A}(\omega)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc} {\cal L}(\omega) &{\cal M}_1(\omega)
&{\cal M}_2(\omega)\\
{\cal O}(\omega)&-{\cal N}_1(\omega) &{\cal N}_2(\omega)\\{\cal O}(-\omega)&-{\cal N}_1(-\omega) &
{\cal N}_2(-\omega)
\end{array}\right)\,,
\label{As} \end{equation} where ${\cal L},\; {\cal M}_1$, and so on stand
for integrals over $\varepsilon$ of the products of different
combinations of the Green function $G(\varepsilon)$ and two Gor'kov
functios $F^{(1)}(\varepsilon)$ and $F^{(2)}(\varepsilon)$. They can be found in
\cite{AB}.
Isotopic indices in Eqs. (\ref{Vs}-\ref{As}) are omitted for
brevity. The explicit form of the above equations
is written down for the case of the electric ($t$-even)
symmetry we deal with.
In Eq. (\ref{Fs}), ${\cal F}$ is the usual LM amplitude,
\begin{equation} {\cal F}=\frac {\delta^2 {\cal E}}{\delta \rho^2}, \label{LM}\end{equation}
${\cal F}^{\xi}$ is the density-dependent effective pairing interaction,
\begin{equation} {\cal F}^{\xi}(\rho)=\frac {\delta^2 {\cal E}}{\delta \nu^2}, \label{EPI}\end{equation}
and the amplitudes ${\cal F}^{\omega \xi}={\cal F}^{\xi
\omega}$ stand for the mixed second derivatives,
\begin{equation} {\cal
F}^{\omega \xi}=\frac {\delta^2 {\cal E}}{\delta \rho \delta \nu}.
\label{LMxi}
\end{equation}
In the case of volume pairing, one has ${\cal
F}^{\omega \xi}=0$, whereas for the case of surface pairing we deal the amplitude
${\cal F}^{\omega \xi}$ is non-zero and should be taken into account
when Eqs. (\ref{Vs}-\ref{As}) are solved. As the analysis of Ref. \cite{BE2} shows,
the component $V$ of the vector ${\hat V}$, as a rule, dominates. However, the fields
$d_1,d_2$ also contribute, and sometimes significantly, to the value of $Q_{\lambda}$.
In this article the TFFS equations are solved in the self-consistent
basis obtained within the EDF method with the functional DF3-a.
Thus, the same set of parameters has been used to calculate the
single particle scheme and, according to Eqs.
(\ref{LM},\ref{EPI},\ref{LMxi}), the effective interactions in the
TFFS equations. We consider the surface kind of pairing as
motivated by our previous research \cite{BE2}, see also {\it
ab initio} arguments in Ref. \cite{baldo2004}.
\begin{table}[ht!]
\caption{Quadrupole moments $Q\;$ $(e\;b)$ of odd-neutron nuclei in
the state $\lambda$.}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc }
\hline \hline nucleus &$\lambda$ & $Q_{\rm exp}$
&\hspace*{1.5ex}$Q_{\rm th}$\hspace*{1.5ex}& $\delta Q$ \\
\hline
$^{39}$Ca &$1d_{3/2}$ &0.036(7) &+0.040 &0.004 \\
& & 0.040(6) & & 0.000 \\
$^{41}$Ca &$1f_{7/2}$ &-0.090(2) &-0.078 &0.012\\
& & -0.066(2)& &-0.012 \\
& &-0.080(8) & &0.002\\
$^{85}$Kr &$1g_{9/2}$ & +0.443(3) &+0.507 &0.064 \\
$^{87}$Kr &$2d_{5/2}$ & -0.30(3) &-0.355 &-0.06 \\
$^{87}$Sr &$1g_{9/2}$ & +0.33(2) &+0.335& 0.01 \\
$^{89}$Sr &$2d_{5/2}$ & -0.271(9) &-0.245 &-0.026 \\
$^{89}$Zr &$1g_{9/2}$ & +0.28(10) &+0.262 &-0.02 \\
$^{91}$Zr &$2d_{5/2}$ & -0.176(3) &-0.195 &-0.019 \\
& & (-)0.257(13) & & 0.062 \\
& & -0.206(10) & & 0.011 \\
$^{109}$Sn &$2d_{5/2}$ &+0.31(10) & +0.250 &-0.06 \\
$^{111}$Sn &$1g_{7/2}$ &+0.18(9) &+0.029 &-0.13\\
$^{115}$Sn &$1g_{7/2}^{\,*}$ &0.26(3) &+0.377 &0.12\\
$^{119}$Sn &$2d_{3/2}^{\,*}$ &0.094(11) & -0.035 &-0.129 \\
& &-0.065(5) & & 0.030 \\
& &-0.061(3) & & 0.026 \\
$^{121}$Sn &$2d_{3/2}$ &-0.02(2) &+0.063 & 0.08 \\
$^{135}$Xe &$2d_{3/2}$ & +0.214(7) &+0.217& 0.003\\
$^{137}$Xe& $2f_{7/2}$ & -0.48(2) &-0.376&0.10 \\
$^{137}$Ba&$2d_{3/2}$ & +0.245(4) &+0.254&0.009 \\
$^{139}$Ba& $2f_{7/2}$ & -0.573(13) & -0.445&0.128 \\
$^{141}$Nd &$2d_{3/2}$ & +0.32(13) &+0.289 &-0.03 \\
$^{143}$Nd& $2f_{7/2}$ & -0.61(2) &-0.518 &0.09 \\
$^{143}$Sm &$2d_{3/2}$ & +0.4(2) &+ 0.296 &0.1\\
$^{145}$Sm& $2f_{7/2}$ & -0.60(7) &-0.537 &0.06 \\
$^{197}$Pb &$3p_{3/2}$ &-0.08(17) &+0.195 &0.27 \\
$^{199}$Pb &$3p_{3/2}$ &+0.08(9) &+0.272 & 0.19\\
$^{201}$Pb &$2f_{5/2}$ &-0.01(4) &+0.137 & 0.15\\
$^{203}$Pb &$2f_{5/2}$ &+0.10(5) &+0.284 & 0.18\\
$^{205}$Pb &$2f_{5/2}$ &+0.23(4) &+0.336 &0.09 \\
$^{209}$Pb &$2g_{9/2}$ &-0.3(2) &-0.264 &0.1\\
$^{211}$Pb &$2g_{9/2}$ &+0.09(6) &-0.283 &-0.37\\
\hline\hline
$^{113}$Sn &$1h_{11/2}^{\,*}$ &0.41(4) &-0.776 & -0.37 \\
& & 0.48(5) & & -0.30 \\
$^{115}$Sn &$1h_{11/2}^{\,*}$ &0.38(6) &-0.703 &-0.32 \\
$^{117}$Sn &$1h_{11/2}^{\,*}$ &-0.42(5) &-0.593& -0.17 \\
$^{119}$Sn &$1h_{11/2}^{\,*}$ &0.21(2) &-0.469& -0.25 \\
$^{121}$Sn &$1h_{11/2}^{\,*}$ &-0.14(3) &-0.293 &-0.15 \\
$^{123}$Sn &$1h_{11/2}$ &+0.03(4) &-0.123 &-0.15 \\
$^{125}$Sn &$1h_{11/2}$ &+0.1(2) &+0.039 & -0.1 \\
$^{135}$Xe &$1h_{11/2}^{\,*}$ & +0.62(2) &+0.504&0.12 \\
$^{137}$Ba &$1h_{11/2}^{\,*}$ & +0.78(9) &+0.588&-0.19 \\
$^{147}$Gd& $1i_{13/2}^{\,*}$ & -0.73(7) & -0.791 &-0.06 \\
$^{191}$Pb &$1i_{13/2}^{\,*}$ &+0.085(5) &+0.0004 &-0.085 \\
$^{193}$Pb &$1i_{13/2}^{\,*}$ &+0.195(10) &+0.335 &0.140 \\
$^{195}$Pb &$1i_{13/2}^{\,*}$ &+0.306(15) &+0.689 &0.383 \\
$^{197}$Pb &$1i_{13/2}^{\,*}$ &+0.38(2) &+0.980 &0.60 \\
$^{205}$Pb &$1i_{13/2}^{\,*}$& 0.30(5) &+0.665 &0.37 \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:Q_n}
\end{table}
\section{Quadrupole moments of odd semi- and near-magic nuclei}
The final expression for the quadrupole moment of an odd nucleus is
as follows \cite{AB,solov}:
\begin{equation}\label{Qlam}
Q^{p,n}_{\lambda} = (u^2_{\lambda}-v^2_{\lambda}) V^{p,n}_{\lambda},
\end{equation}
where $u_{\lambda}$, $v_{\lambda}$ are the Bogolyubov coefficients and
\begin{equation}\label{Vlam}
V_{\lambda} = -\frac{2j-1}{2j+2} \int V(r) R_{nlj}^2(r)
r^{2}dr.
\end{equation}
For odd neighbors of a magic nucleus the ``Bogolyubov'' factor in
(\ref{Qlam}) reduces to 1 for a particle state and to $-1$ for a
hole one, see also \cite{BM}. If the odd nucleon belongs to the
superfluid component, the factor $(u^2_{\lambda}-v^2_{\lambda})$ in
Eq. (\ref{Qlam}) becomes non-trivial. It changes permanently
depending on the state $\lambda$ and the nucleus under
consideration. This factor determines the sign of the quadrupole
moment. It depends essentially on values of the single-particle
basis energies $\varepsilon_{\lambda}$ reckoned from the chemical potential
$\mu$ as we have
\begin{equation}(u^2_{\lambda}-v^2_{\lambda})=(\varepsilon_{\lambda}-\mu)/E_{\lambda},\end{equation}
$E_{\lambda}=\sqrt{\varepsilon_{\lambda}^2+\Delta_{\lambda}^2}$. Keeping in
mind such sensitivity, we found this quantity for a given odd
nucleus $(Z,N+1)$ or $(Z+1,N)$, $N,Z$ even, with taking into
account the blocking effect in the pairing problem \cite{solov}
putting the odd nucleon to the state $\lambda$ under consideration.
For the $V_{\lambda}$ value in Eq. (\ref{Qlam}) we used the half-sum
of these values in two neighboring even nuclei.
The results of the calculations are presented in Tables 1 and 2
which contain odd-neutron and odd-proton nuclei respectively with
known experimental quadrupole moments (our predictions for odd
nuclei with unknown quadrupole moments see in \cite{BE2,QM}).
One can see that the theoretical sign of the quadrupole
moment is correct in all cases when the sign of the experimental
moment is known. This permits to use our predictions to determine
the sign when it is unknown. Several rather strong disagreements
with the experimental data for high-j levels $1h_{11/2}$ in Sn
isotopes and $1i_{13/2}$ in Pb isotopes originate from their too
distant positions from the Fermi level, see \cite{QM}, where
it was found that the $Q$ values depend strongly on the
single-particle level structure. It follows mainly from Eq. (11).
\begin{table}[ht!]
\caption{Quadrupole moments $Q\;$(b) of odd-proton nuclei in the
state $\lambda$.}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c}
\hline \hline nucl. &$\lambda$ & $Q_{\rm exp}$ &\hspace*{1.ex}
$Q_{\rm
th}$\hspace*{1.ex}&$\delta Q$\\
\hline
$^{39}$K & $1d_{3/2}$&0.0585(6) &0.069 &0.010 \\
$^{41}$Sc & $1f_{7/2}$&-0.156(3) &-0.139 & 0.017 \\
& &0.120(6) & &-0.019\\
& &0.168(8) & & 0.029\\
$^{87}$Rb & $2p_{3/2}$ & +0.134(1) &+0.132 &-0.002\\
& & +0.138(1) & &-0.006\\
$^{105}$In & $1g_{9/2}$& +0.83(5) & +0.833 & 0.00 \\
$^{107}$In & $1g_{9/2}$& +0.81(5) &+0.976 &0.17 \\
$^{109}$In & $1g_{9/2}$& +0.84(3) &+1.113 & 0.27 \\
$^{111}$In & $1g_{9/2}$& +0.80(2) &+1.165 &0.36 \\
$^{113}$In & $1g_{9/2}$& +0.80(4) &+1.117 &0.32\\
$^{115}$In & $1g_{9/2}$& +0.81(5) & +1.034 &0.22 \\
& & 0.58(9)& &0.45\\
$^{117}$In & $1g_{9/2}$& +0.829(10)& +0.965 & 0.136 \\
$^{119}$In & $1g_{9/2}$& +0.854(7) &+0.909 & 0.055\\
$^{121}$In & $1g_{9/2}$& +0.814(11) &+0.833 &0.019 \\
$^{123}$In & $1g_{9/2}$& +0.757(9) &+0.743 &-0.014 \\
$^{125}$In & $1g_{9/2}$& +0.71(4) &+0.663 &-0.05 \\
$^{127}$In & $1g_{9/2}$& +0.59(3) &+0.550 &-0.04 \\
$^{115}$Sb & $2d_{5/2}$& -0.36(6) &-0.882 & -0.52 \\
$^{119}$Sb & $2d_{5/2}$& -0.37(6) &-0.766 &-0.40 \\
$^{121}$Sb & $2d_{5/2}$& -0.36(4) & -0.721 & -0.36 \\
& & -0.45(3) & & -0.27\\
$^{123}$Sb & $1g_{7/2}$& -0.49(5) &-0.739 & -0.25 \\
$^{137}$Cs & $1g_{7/2}$&+0.051(1) &-0.031 &-0.080 \\
$^{139}$La & $1g_{7/2}$& +0.20(1) &+0.103 &-0.10 \\
$^{141}$Pr & $2d_{5/2}$& -0.077(6) &-0.120 &-0.043 \\
& & -0.059(4) & &-0.061\\
$^{145}$Eu & $2d_{5/2}$& +0.29(2) &+0.156 &-0.13 \\
$^{205}$Tl & $3d_{3/2}^*$ &+0.74(15) & +0.227 &-0.51 \\
$^{203}$Bi & $1h_{9/2}$ & -0.93(7) & -1.323 &-0.39 \\
& & -0.68(6) & & -0.64 \\
$^{205}$Bi & $1h_{9/2}$& -0.81(3) & -0.945 &-0.14 \\
& & -0.59(4) & &-0.36 \\
$^{207}$Bi & $1h_{9/2}$& -0.76(2) & -0.454 &0.31 \\
& & -0.55(4) & &0.10 \\
& &-0.60(11) & &0.15 \\
$^{209}$Bi & $1h_{9/2}$& -0.516(15) & -0.342 & 0.18 \\
& & -0.37(3) & & 0.03\\
& & -0.55(1) & & 0.21\\
& & -0.77(1) & & 0.43 \\
& & -0.40(5) & & 0.06 \\
& & -0.39(3) & & 0.05 \\
$^{213}$Bi & $1h_{9/2}$& -0.83(5) &-0.508 & 0.32 \\
& & -0.60(5) & & 0.09 \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:Q_p}
\end{table}
To evaluate the agreement with experiment quantitatively, we
calculate the mean theory-experiment difference
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{\overline{(\delta Q)^2_{\rm rms}}} = \sqrt{\frac 1 {\cal N}
\sum_{i} \left(Q^{\rm th}_i- Q^{\rm exp}_i\right)^2},\label{rms}
\end{equation}
with obvious notation. On average, the agreement, can be considered
as reasonable. For 42 quadrupole moments of odd-neutron nuclei, the
average disagreement between theory and experiment is not so small,
$ \sqrt{\overline{(\delta Q)^2_{\rm rms}}} = 0.189\;$e b. However,
it is concentrated mainly in 15 intruder states for which we have $
\sqrt{\overline{(\delta Q)^2_{\rm rms}}}[\rm intruder] = 0.269\;$e
b. For the rest of
27 ``normal'' states, the disagreement is rather moderate
$ \sqrt{\overline{(\delta Q)^2_{\rm rms}}}[\rm normal] = 0.125\;$e
b. For protons, agreement is worse. The rms deviation is $
\sqrt{\overline{(\delta Q)^2_{\rm rms}}} = 0.254\;$e b. The main
contribution to this deviation comes from In and Sb isotopes, odd
neighbors of even tin nuclei. It is the result of too strong
quadrupole field $V_{n,p}(r)$ for the DF3-a functional \cite{BE2}.
For neutrons, this drawback is partially hidden with multiplying by
the Bogolyubov factor, but for protons it appears to the full
extent. For more detailed discussion, see \cite{QM}.
For odd-neutron neighbors of even $N {=} 50$ isotones, the
proton-subsystem is superfluid and the neutron Bogolyubov factor in Eq. (\ref{Qlam})
is $\pm1$. In this case, agreement with the data is almost perfect,
$ \sqrt{\overline{(\delta Q)^2_{\rm rms}}} {=} 0.041\;$e b. The
situation is similar for odd-neutron neighbors of even isotones with
$N{=}82$. Again, agreement with the data is rather good, $
\sqrt{\overline{(\delta Q)^2_{\rm rms}}} {=} 0.093\;$e b.
For the major part of nuclei in Tables 1 and 2, neighboring
to double-magic ones, let us call them ``near-magic'', the quality
of agreement is rather good. Therefore, we hope to predict
reasonably the quadrupole moment values for such nuclei including
strongly proton- or neutron-rich ones. These predictions are
presented in Table 3.
\begin{table}[th]
\label{tablqoddn} \caption{Predictions for quadrupole moments $Q\;$
$(e\;b)$ of odd near-magic nuclei.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c }
\hline \hline \noalign{\smallskip}
nucl. & $J^{\rm \pi}$
&\hspace*{1.ex} $T_{\rm 1/2}$\hspace*{1.ex} &\hspace*{1.ex} $Q_{\rm theor}$ &\hspace*{1.ex}$Q_{\rm exp}$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
${^{55}_{28}}$Ni$_{27}$ & 7/2$^{+}$ & 204.7 ms & -0.26 & --\\
${^{57}_{28}}$Ni$_{29}$ & 3/2$^{-}$ & 35.6 h & -0.17 & --\\
${^{77}_{28}}$Ni$_{49}$ & (9/2)$^{+}$ & 128 ms & 0.20 & --\\
${^{79}_{29}}$Ni$_{50}$ & (5/2$^{+}$) & 635 ns & -0.12 & --\\
${^{101}_{50}}$Sn$_{51}$ & (5/2)$^{+}$ & 1.7 s & -0.21 & --\\
${^{131}_{50}}$Sn$_{81}$ & (3/2$^{+}$) & 56 s & 0.10 & -0.04(8)\\
${^{133}_{50}}$Sn$_{83}$ & 7/2$^{-}$ & 1.46 s & -0.17 & --\\
${^{207}_{82}}$Pb$_{125}$ & (1/2)$^{-}$& stable & 0 & --\\
${^{55}_{27}}$Co$_{28}$ & 7/2$^{-}$ & 17.53 h & 0.31 & --\\
${^{57}_{29}}$Cu$_{28}$ & 3/2$^{-}$ & 196.3 ms & -0.20 & --\\
${^{79}_{29}}$Cu$_{50}$ & (3/2$^{-}$) & 188 ms & -0.13 & --\\
${^{99}_{49}}$In$_{50}$ & (9/2)$^{+}$ & 3 s & -0.35 & --\\
${^{131}_{49}}$In$_{82}$ & (9/2)$^{+}$ & 0.28 s & 0.28 & --\\
${^{133}_{51}}$Sb$_{82}$ & (7/2)$^{+}$ & 2.34 m & -0.23 & --\\
${^{207}_{81}}$Tl$_{126}$ & 1/2$^{+}$ & 4.77 m & 0 & --\\
\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
As it was mentioned in Introduction,
the core polarizability by the
quadrupole external field is characterized directly by the
effective quadrupole charges, which are defined naturally within
TFFS as $e_{\rm eff}^{p,n}=V^{p,n}_{\lambda}/(V_0^p)_{\lambda}$
\cite{kaevyadfiz1965}. In Tables 1 and 2, there are only two
nucleus, $^{209}$Bi and $^{209}$Pb, with a double-magic core. In
this case, the polarizability is relatively moderate, $e^{p}_{\rm
eff}=1.4$, $e^n_{eff}= 0.9$. In nuclei with unfilled neutron shell,
it becomes much stronger, $e_{\rm eff}\simeq 3\div 6$ \cite{BE2}.
The reason is rather obvious. Indeed, for the case of positive
parity field $V_0$, virtual transitions inside the unfilled shell
begin to contribute in such nuclei and small energy
denominators appear in the propagator ${\cal L}^n$, Eq. (5),
playing the main role in Eq. (\ref{Vef_s}) for the problem under consideration.
This enhances the neutron response to the field $V_0$ and, via the
strong LM neutron-proton interaction amplitude ${\cal F}^{np}$, the
proton response as well. The results in Table 2 for the chain
$^{203,205,209}$Bi show how the polarizability grows with increase
of the number of neutron holes. Keeping in mind this physics, one
can represent the effective charges as $e^{p}_{\rm eff} = 1 +
e^{p}_{\rm pol}, e^{n}_{\rm eff} = e^{n}_{\rm pol}$ where
$e^{p,n}_{\rm pol}$ is the pure polarizability charge. To separate
contributions of the unfilled shells and core nucleons explicitly,
one can divide the Hilbert space of the QRPA equations (\ref{Vef_s})
to the ``valent'' and subsidiary ones and carry out the
corresponding renormalization procedure \cite{kaev1969}.
\section{ Quadrupole moments of the first 2$^+$ states in Sn and Pb isotopes }
Account for the phonon coupling (PC) is the direct way to
generalize the standard nuclear theory. As a rule, the so-called
$g^2$ approximation is used where $g$ is the phonon creation
amplitude. However, almost all of these generalizations
did not take into account \textit{all} the $g^2$ terms,
limiting themselves with the mass operator pole diagrams only, see
the first diagram in Fig. 1, where diagrams for the mass operator
are displayed. The second diagram represents the sum of all $g^2$
non-pole diagrams usually called the tadpole.
The problem of consistent consideration of all $g^2$
terms including tadpoles was analyzed firstly in the article by Khodel \cite{khodel1976}.
The method developed was applied to magic nuclei, mainly for ground
state nuclear characteristics, within the self-consistent TFFS
\cite{khodelsap}. It was found
that, as a rule, the tadpole contributions in magic nuclei
are noticeable and are often of opposite sign as compared with those of the
pole terms. The first attempts to include phonon tadpole effects for nuclei with pairing
were recently made in Refs. \cite{kaevsap},
\cite{kaevavevoit2011} and \cite{voitphysrev2012}.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{1.\columnwidth}{!}{%
\includegraphics{Fig1.eps}}
\caption{$g^2$ order corrections to the mass operator
in magic nuclei. The circles with one wavy line in the first term
are the phonon creation amplitudes $g$. The second term is the phonon
tadpole.}
\end{figure}
\vspace{3mm} According to Ref. \cite{khodel1976}, in the $g^2$
approximation, the matrix element $M_{LL}$ for a static moment of
the excited state (phonon) with the orbital angular moments $L$ in a
static external field $V^{0}$ is determined in terms of the change
of the one-particle Green function (GF) in the field of this
phonon:
\begin{equation}
\label{matrixelem} M_{LL} = \int V^{0}(\textbf{r})\delta^{(2)}_{LL}
G(\textbf{r},\textbf{r},\varepsilon )d\textbf{r}
\frac{d\varepsilon}{2 \pi \imath} ,
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{deltaLL} \delta^{(2)}_{L L} G =\delta_{L}(G g_{L}
G) = G(\varepsilon) g_{L}
G(\varepsilon + \omega_{L}) g_{L} G(\varepsilon) \\
\nonumber +G(
\varepsilon) g_{L} G( \varepsilon - \omega_{L}) g_{L} G(
\varepsilon)+ G( \varepsilon) \delta_L g_{L} G( \varepsilon), \end{eqnarray}
where $g_L$ is the amplitude for the production of the L phonon with
the energy $\omega_L$ and $ \delta_L g_{L}$ is the variation of
$g_L$ in the field of other $L$ phonon. This quantity is the main
part of the phonon tadpole in Fig. 1. After some transformations
of these expressions one can obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{matrixelem4} M_{L L} = V^0 G g_L G g_{L} G + V^0 A \delta_L
g_{L}.
\end{equation}
It is convenient to transform this expression in such a way that the
effective field $V$, Eq. (\ref{Vef_s}), appears instead of the
external field $V^{0}$. After regrouping terms in Eq.
(\ref{matrixelem4}) and in the integral equation for
$\delta_L g_L $, for details, see Refs.
\cite{khodelsap,kaevavevoit2011,voitphysrev2012}, we obtain the
ultimate expression,
\begin{equation}
\label{matrixelem2} M_{L L}= VGg_LGg_LG +V A \delta_L {\cal F} A
g_{L},
\end{equation}
which is illustrated in Fig. 2.
It contains now the effective field $V$, Eq. (\ref{Vef_s}), instead of $V^{0}$
and the quantity $\delta_L {\cal F}$ in the second term which
denotes the variation of the effective ph interaction ${\cal F}$ in
the field of the $L$ phonon. For the density dependent TFFS
effective interaction ${\cal F}(\rho)$, the following ansatz can
be readily obtained \cite{khodel1976,khodelsap}:
\begin{equation}
\label{deltaLF} \delta_L {\cal F}({\bf r})= \frac{\partial {\cal
F}}{\partial \rho} \rho_L^{\rm tr}(r) Y_{LM}(\bf n),
\end{equation}
where $\rho_L^{\rm tr}=Ag_L$ is the transition
density for the $L$ phonon excitation. The first term of Eq. (16)
coincides with the result of Refs. \cite{speth1970,Br1970} while the
second one, with the $ \delta_L {\cal F} $ quantity, is a
generalization to take into account all the $g^2$ terms.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{1.\columnwidth}{!}{%
\includegraphics{Fig2.eps}}
\caption{Matrix element $M_{L L}$ in the form of Eq. (16).}
\end{figure}
All the above equations can be readily modified for such processes
as the transition between the excited states $L$ and $L'$ in the
external field $V^0(\omega = \omega_{L'}- \omega_L)$ or the
excitation of the two-phonon state $L+L'$ in the external field
$V^0(\omega = \omega_{L'}+\omega_L)$. The static moment case corresponds
to $\omega = 0, \omega_{L'}= \omega_L $.
This approach for magic nuclei has been generalized for non-magic
ones in \cite{kaevvoit2009,voitphysrev2012}. Then eight matrix
elements instead of one in Fig. 2 should be considered, two of them
are shown in Fig. 3.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{1.\columnwidth}{!}{%
\includegraphics{Fig3.eps}}
\caption{Matrix elements for $M^{(1)}_{L L}$ and $M^{(5)}_{L L}$
for non-magic nuclei.}
\end{figure}
It is necessary to compare this expression with the QRPA approach.
Here we mean the usual scheme \cite{ponomarev1998} which uses the QRPA wave functions for
the matrix element between two excited states.
In Ref. \cite{ponomarev1998} the expression for
the $B(E2)$ quantity has been derived using the
bare external field $V^0$ and
the QRPA wave
functions without the pp and hh-channels. The analytical expression
for the sum of the eight above-mentioned matrix elements consists of
two parts. The first part coincides with the corresponding formula
in \cite{ponomarev1998,solov} with one important correction, which
is the first generalization of the QRPA approach. Namely, instead of
the external field $V^0$, which does not depend on the frequency,
the effective field $V$ appears, which depends in general on the
frequency $\omega = \omega_L \pm \omega_L^\prime $. The second part
of the sum is new and describes the contribution of the ground state
correlations (GSC), the so-called backward-going diagrams, to the
first diagrams of Fig. 3 with the integrals of three GF's
(``triangle''). This is the second generalization. We calculate the
contribution of such correlations separately.
The terms with $\delta_L {\cal F}$ and
$\delta_L {\cal F}^\xi $, Fig. 3, are the third generalization of
the QRPA approach. Note that these terms are also absent in Refs.
\cite{Br1970,speth1970,vdovin1,vdovin2,broglia1972}.
The main difference of our approach from the calculations in Refs.
\cite{Br1970,broglia1972,vdovin1,vdovin2} is
the self-consistency on the (Q)RPA level and absence of any
phenomenological or fitted parameters.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Quadrupole moments $Q\;$($e\;b)$ of the first 2$^+$ states in
Sn and Pb isotopes.}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c}
\hline \hline \noalign{\smallskip}
nucl. & \hspace*{1.ex}$Q_{\rm theor}$\hspace*{1.ex} &\hspace*{1.ex}
$Q_{\rm exp}$ \cite{stone}&\hspace*{1.ex}$Q (GSC=0)$&\hspace*{1.ex}$Q_{\rm QRPA}$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
$^{100}$Sn & 0.04 &-- & 0.05 & 0.017\\
$^{102}$Sn &-0.07 &-- & -0.02 & -0.001\\
$^{104}$Sn &-0.22 &-- & -0.08 & -0.001\\
$^{106}$Sn &-0.34 &-- &-0.13 & -0.002\\
$^{108}$Sn &-0.39 &-- &-0.14 & -0.002\\
$^{110}$Sn &-0.50 &-- &-0.17 & -0.003\\
$^{112}$Sn &-0.45 &-0.03(11) &-0.15 & -0.003\\
$^{114}$Sn &-0.28 &0.32(3), &-0.09 & -0.004\\
& & 0.36(4)\\
$^{116}$Sn &-0.12 &-0.17(4), & -0.03 & -0.003\\
& & +0.08(8)\\
$^{118}$Sn &-0.01 &-0.05(14) & 0.01 & -0.003\\
$^{120}$Sn & 0.04 &+0.022(10), &0.03 & -0.003\\
& & -0.05(10)\\
$^{122}$Sn & 0.01 &-0.28 $<Q$ &0.02 & -0.003\\
& &$Q<$+0.14&\\
$^{124}$Sn &-0.07 &0.0(2) & -0.01 & -0.003\\
$^{126}$Sn &-0.13 &-- &-0.04 & -0.002\\
$^{128}$Sn &-0.14 &-- & -0.05 & -0.002\\
$^{130}$Sn &-0.07 &-- & -0.03 & -0.001\\
$^{132}$Sn & 0.04 &-- & 0.05 & 0.015\\
$^{134}$Sn &-0.01 &-- & 0.00 & -0.001\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
$^{190}$Pb &-0.92 &-- & -0.30 & -0.008\\
$^{192}$Pb &-1.15 &-- & -0.38 & -0.008\\
$^{194}$Pb &-1.31 &-- & -0.44 & -0.008\\
$^{196}$Pb &-1.26 &-- & -0.42 & -0.008\\
$^{198}$Pb &-1.05 &-- & -0.35 & -0.008\\
$^{200}$Pb &-0.52 &-- & -0.17 & -0.006\\
$^{202}$Pb &-0.15 &-- & -0.03 & -0.005\\
$^{204}$Pb & 0.10 &+0.23(9) & 0.06 & -0.003\\
$^{206}$Pb & 0.09 &+0.05(9) & 0.06 & -0.002\\
$^{208}$Pb & 0.05 &-0.7(3) & 0.07 & 0.043\\
\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{1.\columnwidth}{!}{%
\includegraphics{Q_Sn_ispr.eps}}
\caption{Quadrupole moments of the first 2$+$ excited states in even
Sn isotopes.}
\end{figure}
We calculated the quadrupole moments of the first 2$^+$ states in
the tin and lead isotopes
in the $\lambda$-representation with
self-consistent single-particle wave functions $\phi_{\lambda}$ obtained within the EDF method
of Ref. \cite{Fay} with the functional DF3-a \cite{Tol-Sap1}.
A spherical box
of the radius $R{=}16\;$fm is used to simulate the single-particle continuum. We examined the
dependence of the results on the cut-off energy $E_{\rm max}$
and have found that the value of $E_{\rm max}{=}100\;$MeV ensures 1\% accuracy. To calculate
the quantities V and $g_L$, the results of Ref. \cite{BE2} have been used where
all the calculations were performed in the coordinate representation using the same self-consistent
DF3-a basis as in the present calculation of the matrix element $M_{LL}$.
Thus, the single-particle continuum is taken into account adequately in the present
calculations.
The contribution to the Q values of the term with $\delta \cal F$ in Fig. 3,
Eq. (\ref{deltaLF}), turned out to be rather small,
($-(0.01\div 0.03)\;$e b).
However, there are cases where these corrections are comparable with the total $Q(2^{+}_{1})$ value
when the proton and neutron
values almost compensate each other, e.g. in $^{118}$Sn and $^{122}$Sn nuclei.
The term with $\delta_L{\cal F}^\xi$ contains the anomalous analogs
of the corresponding quantities in Eq. (\ref{deltaLF}).
The results are given in Table 4 and Fig. 4. Except for $^{112}$Sn
and $^{208}$Pb nuclei,
we obtained a reasonable agreement with experimental data
\cite{stone}.
The contribution of the GSC term
turned out to be large.
Often it is more than $50\div 60$\% of all triangle contributions
(column Q(GSC=0)). The usual QRPA (GSC=0 and $V = V^0$), see the
last column in Table 4, results in considerably less Q values.
\section{Quadrupole moments of odd-odd near magic nuclei}
As the odd-odd nuclei are more complicated objects than the odd
ones, we consider here only the near-magic odd-odd nuclei.
Within the above-described self-consistent EDF approach, we
calculated the ground state quadrupole moments of odd-odd
near-magic nuclei with the use
of the approximation disregarding the
interaction between two odd particles.
This simple approximation
can be checked
in a pure phenomenological way \cite{kaevyadfiz,voitnsrt12} and
it turned out reasonable.
Within this approximation, the problem is reduced to
calculations of quadrupole moments of corresponding odd nuclei.
Indeed, if we neglect the interaction between two quasi-particles,
the quadrupole moment of the odd-odd nucleus with the spin $I$ is as
follows:
\begin{equation}\label{qu} Q_I=<II \mid V^p + V^n \mid II>,
\end{equation}
where $\Psi_{II}
= \Sigma \varphi_1 \varphi_2 <j_1m_1 j_2m_2\mid II>,$ for the
particle-particle case.
Here $\varphi_1$ is the
single-particle wave function with the quantum numbers $1 \equiv
\lambda_1 \equiv (n_1,j_1,l_1,m_1)$.
Then the expression for ground state quadrupole moment of the odd-odd
near-magic nucleus has the form:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{oddodd}
Q_I = (2I+1)
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
{I} &{2} &{I}\\
{I} &{0} &{-I} \end{array}\right)
(-1)^{j_p+j_n+I+2} \times\nonumber\\
\times \left[\left\lbrace\ \begin{array}{ccc}
{j_p} &{I} &{j_n}\\
{I} &{j_p} &{2}
\end{array} \right\rbrace c^{-1}_{j_{p}} Q^{p}
+ \left\lbrace \begin{array}{ccc}
j_n & I & j_p\\
I & j_n & 2
\end{array}\right\rbrace c^{-1}_{j_{n}} Q^{n} \right] ,
\end{eqnarray} where 3j-symbol $c_{j}=2j(2j-1)^{1/2}\left[(2j+3)(2j+2)\right.
\times $ \\$\left. \times(2j+1)2j \right]^{-1/2}$, $Q^p$ and $Q^n$
are the quadrupole moments of corresponding odd nuclei. Similar
formulae can be easily obtained for the hole-hole, particle-hole
and hole-particle cases. The details can be found in the
Poster article by Voitenkov {\it et al.} \cite{voitnsrt12} at the given
conference.
The results of the calculations are presented in Table 5. In column
Q${\rm _{eff}}$ we show the results for the odd-odd nuclei
under consideration obtained with the effective charges
$e{^p_{eff}}=2$, $e{^n_{eff}}=1$ in order to compare them with this
well-known phenomenological description. We see that there are only
three experimental Q values for the long-living nuclei and our
approach describes them rather satisfactory.
Other nuclei are short-living ones and our results give reliable predictions for their Q values.
\begin{table}[h]
\label{selfodd-odd}
\caption{Quadrupole moments \textit{Q} (e b) of odd-odd near-magic nuclei.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c }
\hline \hline \noalign{\smallskip}
nucl. & $J^{\rm \pi}$
&\hspace*{1.ex} $T_{\rm 1/2}$\hspace*{1.ex} &\hspace*{1.ex}$Q_{\rm eff}
$\hspace*{1.ex} &\hspace*{1.ex} $Q_{\rm theor}$ &\hspace*{1.ex}$Q_{\rm exp}$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
${^{54}_{27}}$Co$_{27}$ & 0$^{+}$ & 193.28 ms & -- & -- & --\\
${^{56}_{27}}$Co$_{29}$ & 4$^{+}$ & 77.236 d & 0.19 & 0.30 & +0.25(9)\\
${^{56}_{29}}$Cu$_{27}$ & (4$^{+}$) & 93 ms & 0.14 & 0.28 & --\\
${^{58}_{29}}$Cu$_{29}$ & 1$^{+}$ & 3.204 s & 0.09 & 0.15 & --\\
${^{78}_{29}}$Cu$_{49}$ & (3$^{-}$) & 637 s & -0.18 & -0.21 & --\\
& (4$^{-}$) & & 4$\times 10^{-5}$ & -0.03 & --\\
${^{100}_{49}}$In$_{51}$& (6$^{+}$) & 5.9 s & 0.24 & 0.21 & --\\
${^{130}_{49}}$In$_{81}$& 1$^{-}$ & 0.29 s & -0.08 & -0.07 & --\\
${^{132}_{49}}$In$_{83}$& (7$^{-}$) & 0.207 s & -0.40 & -0.29 & --\\
${^{132}_{51}}$Sb$_{81}$& (4)$^{+}$ & 2.79 m & -0.30 & -0.22 & --\\
${^{134}_{51}}$Sb$_{83}$& (0$^{-}$) & 0.78 s & -- & -- & --\\
${^{206}_{81}}$Tl$_{125}$& 0$^{-}$ & -- & -- & -- & --\\
${^{208}_{81}}$Tl$_{127}$& 5$^{+}$ & 3.053 m & -0.30 & -0.27 & --\\
${^{208}_{83}}$Bi$_{125}$& 5$^{+}$ & 3.68E+5 y & -0.51 & -0.35 & -0.64(6)\\
${^{210}_{83}}$Bi$_{127}$& 1$^{-}$ & 5.012 d & 0.21 & 0.16 & +0.136(1)\\
\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
Quadrupole moments of odd neighbors of
semi-magic lead and tin isotopes and $N=50,N=82$ isotones are
calculated within the self-consistent TFFS based on the Energy
Density Functional by Fayans {\it et al.} with the DF3-a parameters
fixed previously. The same approach has been used to calculate
quadrupole moments of the first 2$^+$ state in tin and lead isotopes as
well as the moments of near-magic odd-odd nuclei.
For the quadrupole moments of odd and odd-odd near magic nuclei a good agreement with
the experiment has been obtained.For the case of semi-magic nuclei a reasonable agreement with experiment for the quadrupole moments has been obtained for the most part of nuclei considered. In
this case when the odd particle belongs to the superfluid subsystem, the Bogolyubov factor
$(u^2_{\lambda}-v^2_{\lambda})=(\varepsilon_{\lambda}-\mu)/E_{\lambda}$
comes to the quadrupole moment value, in addition to the matrix
element of the effective field $V_{\lambda}$. This factor makes the
quadrupole moment value very sensitive to calculation accuracy of
the single-particle energy $\varepsilon_{\lambda}$ of the state under
consideration, especially near the Fermi surface as the quantity
$Q_{\lambda}$ vanishes at $\varepsilon_{\lambda}=\mu$. For such a
situation, influence of the coupling of single-particle degrees of
freedom with phonons, see \cite{Tol-Sap,kaevavevoit2011,QM}, should
be especially important.
For the quadrupole moments of the first $2^+$ states, we have obtained a
noticeable difference from the traditional QRPA approach. In
particular, new terms with $\delta_{L}{\cal F}$ and $\delta_{L}{\cal
F}^{\xi}$ appear, which contain the density derivatives of both the
ph and pp effective interactions. In the problem under
consideration, their contribution turned out to be
rather small, as a rule. However, for consistency, these terms should be
included. Except for the $^{112}$Sn and $^{208}$Pb cases, a
reasonable agreement has been obtained with the experiment
available. Using the self-consistent method which contains no newly
adjusted parameters we have also predicted the values of quadrupole
moments of the first 2$^+$ states in several unstable lead and tin
isotopes including the $^{100}$Sn and $^{132}$Sn nuclei. An
unexpectedly large contribution of ground state correlations to the
$Q(2^+_1)$ values is found. A non-trivial dependence of the
quadrupole moments of the first $2^+$ states on the neutron excess
is found which can be traced to the negative proton contributions.
A similar behavior could probably be present in other isotope chains.
Quadrupole moments of unstable nuclei including those near
the exotic $^{100}$Sn and $^{132}$Sn $^{56,78}$Ni are also predicted, which should be of special interest.
\begin{acknowledgement}
The work was partly supported by the DFG and RFBR Grants
Nos.436RUS113/994/0-1 and 09-02-91352NNIO-a, by the Grants
NSh-7235.2010.2 and 2.1.1/4540 of the Russian Ministry for Science
and Education, and by the RFBR grants 11-02-00467-a and 12-02-00955-a.
\end{acknowledgement}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Nuclei are aggregates of protons and neutrons interacting through forces arising from the underlying theory of quantum chromodynamics.
Understanding how the strong force binds nucleons together in nuclei is fundamental to explain the very existence of the universe. Indeed, the mutual interactions between nucleons led to the formation of the lightest nuclei a few minutes after the Big Bang, and the following nuclear processes, producing heavier nuclei during stellar evolution and in violent events like supernovae, have been crucial in shaping the world we leave in. Therefore, one of the central goals of nuclear physics is to come to a basic understanding of the structure and dynamics of nuclei. The {\em ab initio} ({\em i.e.} from first principles) no-core shell model/resonating group method (NCSM/RGM)~\cite{PhysRevLett.101.092501,PhysRevC.79.044606} is a theoretical technique that attempts to achieve such a goal for light nuclei.
\section{{\em Ab initio} NCSM/RGM}
\label{formalism}
In the {\em ab initio} NCSM/RGM approach the many-body wave function,
\begin{eqnarray}
|\Psi^{J^\pi T}\rangle &=& \sum_{\nu} \int dr r^2 \, \hat{\mathcal A}_{\nu}|\Phi^{J^\pi T}_{\nu r}\rangle \frac{[{\cal N}^{-1/2}\chi]^{J^\pi T}_\nu(r)}{r}
\, , \label{trial}
\end{eqnarray}
is expanded over a set of translational-invariant cluster basis states describing two nuclei (a target and a projectile composed of $A-a$ and $a \le A$ nucleons, respectively) whose centers of mass are separated by the relative coordinate $\vec r_{A-a,a}$ and that are traveling in a $^{2s}\ell_J$ wave or relative motion (with $s$ the channel spin, $\ell$ the relative momentum, and $J$ the total angular momentum of the system):
\begin{equation}
|\Phi^{J^\pi T}_{\nu r}\rangle = \Big [ \big ( \left|A{-}a\, \alpha_1 I_1^{\,\pi_1} T_1\right\rangle \left |a\,\alpha_2 I_2^{\,\pi_2} T_2\right\rangle\big ) ^{(s T)}
Y_{\ell}\left(\hat r_{A-a,a}\right)\Big ]^{(J^\pi T)}\frac{\delta(r-r_{A-a,a})}{rr_{A-a,a}}\,.\label{basis}
\end{equation}
Here, the antisymmetric wave functions $\left|A{-}a\, \alpha_1 I_1^{\,\pi_1} T_1\right\rangle$ and $\left |a\,\alpha_2 I_2^{\,\pi_2} T_2\right\rangle$ are eigenstates of the $(A-a)$- and $a$-nucleon intrinsic Hamiltonians, respectively, as obtained within the NCSM approach~\cite{PhysRevLett.84.5728} and are characterized by the spin-parity, isospin and energy labels $I_i^{\pi_i},T_i$, and $\alpha_i$, respectively, where $i=1,2$. Additional quantum numbers labeling these RGM-inspired continuous basis states are parity $\pi=\pi_1\pi_2(-1)^{\ell}$ and total isospin $T$. In our notation, all these quantum numbers are grouped into a cumulative index $\nu=\{A{-}a\,\alpha_1I_1^{\,\pi_1} T_1;\, a\, \alpha_2 I_2^{\,\pi_2} T_2;\, s\ell\}$. The Pauli principle is enforced by introducing the appropriate inter-cluster antisymmetrizer, schematically
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathcal A}_{\nu}=\sqrt{\frac{(A{-}a)!a!}{A!}}\left( 1+\sum_{P\neq id}(-)^pP\right)\,,
\label{antisymmetrizer}
\end{equation}
where the sum runs over all possible permutations of nucleons $P$ different from the identical one
that can be carried out between the two different clusters,
and $p$ is the number of interchanges characterizing them.
Finally, the continuous linear variational amplitudes $\chi^{J^\pi T}_\nu(r)$ are determined by solving the orthogonalized RGM equations:
\begin{equation}
{\sum_{\nu^\prime}\int dr^\prime r^{\prime\,2}} [{\mathcal N}^{-\frac12}{\mathcal H}\,{\mathcal N}^{-\frac12}]^{J^\pi T}_{\nu\nu^\prime\,}(r,r^\prime)\frac{\chi^{J^\pi T}_{\nu^\prime} (r^\prime)}{r^\prime} = E\,\frac{\chi^{J^\pi T}_{\nu} (r)}{r} \label{RGMeq}\,,
\end{equation}
where ${\mathcal N}^{J^\pi T}_{\nu\nu^\prime}(r, r^\prime)$ and ${\mathcal H}^{J^\pi T}_{\nu\nu^\prime}(r, r^\prime)$, commonly referred to as integration kernels, are respectively the overlap (or norm) and Hamiltonian matrix elements over the antisymmetrized basis~(\ref{basis}), {\em i.e.}:
\begin{align}
{\mathcal N}^{J^\pi T}_{\nu^\prime\nu}(r^\prime, r) = \left\langle\Phi^{J^\pi T}_{\nu^\prime r^\prime}\right|\hat{\mathcal A}_{\nu^\prime}\hat{\mathcal A}_{\nu}\left|\Phi^{J^\pi T}_{\nu r}\right\rangle,
&\;
{\mathcal H}^{J^\pi T}_{\nu^\prime\nu}(r^\prime, r) = \left\langle\Phi^{J^\pi T}_{\nu^\prime r^\prime}\right|\hat{\mathcal A}_{\nu^\prime}H\hat{\mathcal A}_{\nu}\left|\Phi^{J^\pi T}_{\nu r}\right\rangle.
\label{NH-kernel}
\end{align}
Here, $H$ is the microscopic $A-$nucleon Hamiltonian and $E$ is the total energy in the center of mass (c.m.)\ frame.
For a detailed explanation of how norm and Hamiltonian kernels are obtained from the underlying nuclear interaction and the NCSM eigenvectors of target and projectile we refer the interested reader to Refs.~\cite{PhysRevC.79.044606} and~\cite{PhysRevC.83.044609}.
\section{Applications}
Applications of the NCSM/RGM approach to the description of nucleon- and deuteron-nucleus
type of collisions based on two-nucleon ($NN$) realistic interactions have already led to
very promising results~\cite{PhysRevLett.101.092501,PhysRevC.79.044606,PhysRevC.82.034609,PhysRevC.83.044609,Navratil2011379,PhysRevLett.108.042503}. In most instances, we employed similarity-renormalization-group (SRG)~\cite{PhysRevC.75.061001,PhysRevC.77.064003} evolved potentials, and in particular, those obtained from the chiral N$^3$LO~\cite{N3LO} $NN$ interaction. Here we briefly review two of such applications, the calculation of the $^7$Be$(p,\gamma)^8$B radiative capture~\cite{Navratil2011379}, and the study of the $^3$H$(d,n)^4$He and $^3$He$(d,p)^4$He fusion reactions~\cite{PhysRevLett.108.042503}.
\subsection{The $^7$Be$(p,\gamma)^8$B radiative capture}
Recently, we have performed the first {\em ab initio} many-body calculation of the $^7$Be$(p,\gamma)^8$B radiative capture~\cite{Navratil2011379}, the final step in the nucleosynthetic chain leading to $^8$B and one of the main inputs of the Standard Solar Model. This calculation was carried out in a model space spanned by $p$-$^7$Be channel states including the five lowest eigenstates of $^7$Be (the $\tfrac32^-$ ground and the $\tfrac12^-$,$\tfrac72^-$, and first and second $\tfrac52^-$ excited states) in an $N_{\rm max}=10$ NCSM basis, and employed the SRG-N$^3$LO $NN$ interaction with $\Lambda=1.86$ fm$^{-1}$, where $\Lambda$ denotes the SRG evolution parameter~\cite{PhysRevC.75.061001}.
We first solved Eq.~(\ref{RGMeq}) with bound-state boundary conditions to find the bound state of $^8$B, and then with scattering boundary conditions to find the $p$-$^7$Be scattering wave functions. Former and latter wave functions were later used to calculate the capture cross section, which, at solar energies, is dominated by non-resonant $E1$ transitions from $p$-$^7$Be $S$- and $D$-waves into the weakly-bound ground state of $^8$B. All stages of the calculation were based on the same HO frequency of $\hbar\Omega=18$ MeV, which minimizes the g.s.\ energy of $^7$Be.
At $N_{\rm max}=10$, the largest model space achievable for the present calculation within the full NCSM basis, the $^7$Be g.s. energy is very close to convergence as indicated by a fairly flat frequency dependence in the range $16\le\hbar\Omega\le20$ MeV, and the vicinity to the $N_{\rm max}=12$ result obtained within the importance-truncated NCSM~\cite{PhysRevLett.99.092501,PhysRevC.79.064324}. With the chosen value $\Lambda=1.86$ fm$^{-1}$ for the SRG evolution of the N$^3$LO $NN$ interaction, we obtain a single $2^+$ bound state for $^8$B with a separation energy of 136 keV, which is quite close to the observed one (137 keV). This is very important for the description of the low-energy behavior of the $^7$Be$(p,\gamma)^8$B astrophysical S-factor, known as $S_{17}$. While for a complete {\em ab initio} calculation one should include also the three-nucleon ($NNN$) interaction induced by the SRG evolution of the $NN$ potential as well as the SRG-evolved attractive initial chiral $NNN$ force, we note that in the $\Lambda$-range $\sim1.8$-$2.1$ fm$^{-1}$, and, in very light nuclei, the former interaction is repulsive and the two contributions cancel each other to a good extent~\cite{PhysRevLett.103.082501,PhysRevC.83.034301}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{minipage}{13.5pc}
\includegraphics[width=13.5pc]{FB20_Quaglioni_pBe7-1.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:p7Be1}Calculated $^7$Be$(p,\gamma)^8$B S-factor as a function of the energy in the center of mass compared to data. Only $E1$ transition were considered in the calculation.}
\end{minipage}\hspace{2pc}%
\begin{minipage}{13.5pc}
\includegraphics[width=13.5pc]{FB20_Quaglioni_pBe7-2.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:p7Be2}Convergence of the $^7$Be$(p,\gamma)^8$B S-factor as a function of the number of $^7$Be eigenstates included in the calculation (shown in the legend together with the corresponding separation energy). }
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
Figure 1 compares the resulting $S_{17}$ astrophysical factor with several experimental data sets. Energy dependence and absolute magnitude follow closely the trend of the indirect Coulomb breakup measurements of Sh\"umann {et al}.~\cite{Schuemann1},
while somewhat underestimating the direct data of Junghans {\em et al}.~\cite{Junghans}. The resonance due to the $M1$ capture, particularly evident in these and Filippone's data and missing in our results, does not contribute to a theoretical calculation outside of the narrow $^8$B $1^+$ resonance and is negligible at astrophysical energies~\cite{Adelberger1}.
The $M1$ operator, for which any dependence upon two-body currents needs to be included explicitly, poses more uncertainties than the Siegert's $E1$ operator. In addition, the treatment of this operator within the NCSM/RGM approach is slightly complicated by the contributions coming from the core ($^7$Be) part of the wave function. Nevertheless, we plan to calculate its contribution in the future.
Our calculated $S_{17}(0)=19.4(7)$ MeV b is on the lower side, but consistent with the latest evaluation $20.8\pm0.7$(expt)$\pm1.4$(theory)~\cite{Adelberger1}. The 0.7 eV b uncertainty was estimated by studying the dependence of the S-factor on the harmonic oscillator (HO) basis size $N_{\rm max}$ as well as the influence of higher-energy excited states of the $^7$Be target. More precisely, we performed calculations up to $N_{\rm max}=12$ within the importance-truncation NCSM scheme~\cite{PhysRevLett.99.092501,PhysRevC.79.064324} including (due to computational limitations) only the first three eigenstates of $^7$Be. The $N_{\rm max}=10$ and $12$ S-factors are very close. In addition, the convergence in the number of $^7$Be states was explored by means of calculations including up to 8 $^7$Be eigenstates in a $N_{\rm max}=8$ basis (larger $N_{\rm max}$ values are currently out of reach with more then five $^7$Be states). This last set of calculations is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:p7Be2}, from which it appears that, apart from the two $\tfrac52^-$ states, the only other state to have a significant impact on the $S_{17}$ is the second $\frac72^-$, the inclusion of which affects the separation energy and contributes somewhat to the flattening of the $S$-factor around $1.5$ MeV. For these last set of calculations we used SRG-N$^3$LO interactions obtained with different $\Lambda$ values with the intent to match closely the experimental separation energy in each of the largest model spaces. Based on this analysis, we conclude that the use of an $N_{\rm max}=10$ HO model space is justified and the restriction to five $^7$Be eigenstates is quite reasonable.
\subsection{The $^3$H$(d,n)^4$He and $^3$He$(d,p)^4$He fusion reactions}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{minipage}{13.5pc}
\includegraphics[width=13.5pc]{FB20_Quaglioni_d3He.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:d3He}Calculated S-factor of the $^3$He$(d,p)^4$He reaction compared to experimental data. Convergence with the number of deuterium pseudostates in the $^3S_1$-$^3D_1$ ($d^*$) and $^3D_2$ ($d^{\prime *}$) channels. }
\end{minipage}\hspace{2pc}%
\begin{minipage}{13.5pc}
\includegraphics[width=13.5pc]{FB20_Quaglioni_d3H.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:d3H}Calculated $^3$H$(d,n)^4$He S-factor compared to experimental data. Convergence with $N_{\rm max}$ obtained for the SRG-N$^3$LO $NN$ potential with $\Lambda=1.45$ fm$^{-1}$ at $\hbar\Omega=14$ MeV.}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
In the following we present the first {\em ab initio} many-body calculations of $^3$H$(d,n)^4$He and $^3$He$(d,p)^4$He fusion reactions~\cite{PhysRevLett.108.042503} starting from the SRG-N$^3$LO $NN$ interaction with $\Lambda=1.5$ fm$^{-1}$, for which we reproduce the experimental $Q$-value of both reactions within $1\%$. These reactions have important implications first and foremost for fusion energy generation, but also for nuclear astrophysics, and atomic physics. Indeed, the deuterium-tritium fusion is the easiest reaction to achieve on earth and is pursued by research facilities directed at reaching fusion power. Both $^3$H$(d,n)^4$He and $^3$He$(d,p)^4$He affect the predictions of Big Bang nucleosynthesis for light-nucleus abundances. In addition, the deuterium-$^3$He fusion is also an object of interest for atomic physics, due to the substantial electron-screening effects presented by this reaction.
The model spaces adopted are characterized by HO model basis sizes up to $N_{\rm max}=13$ with a frequency of $\hbar\Omega=14$ MeV and channel bases including $n$-$^4$He ($p$-$^4$He), $d$-$^3$H ($d$-$^3$He), $d^*$-$^3$H ($d^*$-$^3$He) and $d^{\prime*}$-$^3$H ($d^{\prime*}$-$^3$He) binary cluster states. Here, $d^*$ and $d^{\prime*}$ denote $^3S_1$-$^3D_1$ and $^3D_2$ deuterium excited pseudostates, respectively, and the $^3$H ($^3$He) and $^4$He nuclei are in their ground state.
The results obtained for the $^3$He$(d,p)^4$He S-factor are presented in Figure~\ref{fig:d3He}. The deuteron deformation and its virtual breakup, approximated by means of $d$ pseudostates, play a crucial role in reproducing the observed magnitude of the S-factor. Convergence is reached for $9d^*+5d^{\prime*}$. The typical dependence upon the HO basis sizes adopted is illustrated by the $^3$H$(d,n)^4$He results of Fig.~\ref{fig:d3H}. The convergence is satisfactory and we expect that an $N_{\rm max}=15$ calculation, which is currently out of reach, would not yield significantly different results. While the experimental position of the $^3$He$(d,p)^4$He S-factor is reproduced within few tens of keV and we find an overall fair agreement with experiment (if we exclude the region at very low energy, where the accelerator data are enhanced by laboratory electron screening), the $^3$H$(d,n)^4$He S-factor is not described as well with $\Lambda=1.5$ fm$^{-1}$.
Due to its very low activation energy, the $^3$H$(d,n)^4$He S-factor, particularly the position and height of its peak, is extremely sensitive to higher-order effects in the nuclear interaction, such as the $NNN$ force (not yet included in the calculation) and missing isospin-breaking effects in the integration kernels (which are obtained in the isospin formalism). With a very small change in the value of the SRG evolution parameter we can compensate for these missing higher-order effects in the interaction and reproduce the position of the $^3$H$(d,n)^4$He S-factor. This led to the theoretical S-factor of Fig.~\ref{fig:d3H} (obtained for $\Lambda=1.45$ fm$^{-1}$), that is in overall better agreement with data, although it presents a slightly narrower and somewhat overestimated peak. This calculation would suggest that some electron-screening enhancement could also be present in the $^3$H$(d,n)^4$He measured S-factor below ~10 keV c.m.\ energy. However, these results cannot be considered conclusive until more accurate calculations using a complete nuclear interaction (that includes the $NNN$ force) are performed. Work in this direction is under way.
\section{Recent developments}
Here we outline some of our more recent efforts in the development of the NCSM/RGM approach, namely the progress toward the inclusion of the three-nucleon force into the formalism, and the treatment of three-body clusters and their dynamics.
\subsection{Scattering and three-nucleon force}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{minipage}{13.5pc}
\includegraphics[width=13.5pc]{FB20_Quaglioni_n4He-1.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:n4He-1} Convergence with respect to the HO basis size $N_{\rm max}=11$ at $\hbar\Omega=20$ MeV of the $n+^4$He(g.s.) phase shifts obtained for the SRG-(N$^3$LO NN + N$^2$LO NNN) interaction with $\Lambda=2.0$ fm$^{-1}$. The label $N_{\rm A3max}=14$ refers to the HO size of the NNN matrix elements.}
\end{minipage}\hspace{2pc}%
\begin{minipage}{13.5pc}
\includegraphics[width=13.5pc]{FB20_Quaglioni_n4He-2.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:n4He-2} Calculated $n+^4$He(g.s.) phase shifts for SRG-N$^3$LO NN-only (dots), NN+NNN-induced (dashed line) and SRG-(N$^3$LO NN + N$^2$LO NNN) interactions (solid line) with $\Lambda=2.0$ fm$^{-1}$ obtained within the HO basis size $N_{\rm max}=11$ and frequency $\hbar\Omega=20$ MeV. See also the caption of Fig.~\ref{fig:n4He-1}.}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
In past applications for light-ion reactions, we omitted the $NNN$ interaction induced by the SRG renormalization of the $NN$ potential as well as the initial chiral $NNN$ force. By neglecting induced forces, we introduced a dependence on the SRG parameter $\Lambda$, which was then chosen so that the particle separation energies were well reproduced. For low-energy thermonuclear reactions, this is a dominant effect, and overall such a procedure led to (never obtained before) realistic results. However,
a truly accurate {\em ab initio} description demands the inclusion of both induced and chiral $NNN$ interactions.
While the inclusion of the $NNN$ force into the NCSM/RGM formalism is conceptually straightforward, in practice it poses major challenges having to deal with: 1) the large number of $NNN$ matrix elements, which makes it essential to work within the JT-coupled scheme; and 2) the appearance of kernels depending on the three-body densities of the target already for nucleon-nucleus processes, which demands new efficient computing strategies for applications with $p$-shell targets to be possible.
Figures~\ref{fig:n4He-1} and \ref{fig:n4He-2} present initial results for $^4$He$(n,n)^4$He scattering phase shifts with inclusion of the $NNN$ force. The use of SRG-evolved interactions facilitates the convergence of the calculation within $N_{\rm max}\sim11$. At the same time, Fig.~\ref{fig:n4He-2} highlights the influence of induced and initial components of the $NNN$ force on the resonant phase shifts. The largest splitting between $^2P_{3/2}$ and $^2P_{1/2}$ is found when both induced and chiral $NNN$ forces are included (NN+NNN curve).
It should be noticed that these results are still preliminary, as not all relevant excitations of the $^4$He nucleus have been taken into account yet. In particular,
the resonances are sensitive to the inclusion of the first six excited states of the $^4$He~\cite{PhysRevC.79.044606} (here only the g.s. is included). We will complete this study in the coming months.
We have also obtained first results for the $d+^4$He scattering phase shifts and the ground state of $^6$Li including both SRG-induced and chiral $NNN$ forces. The model spaces adopted so far contain only the g.s. of the $^4$He and $d$ nuclei within a $N_{\rm max} = 8$ HO basis size. While calculations for larger $N_{\rm max}$ values and including pseudo-excited states of the deuteron (fundamental to model the deformation and virtual breakup of this nucleus) are under way, these preliminary results are already very promising. In particular, the inclusion of the $NNN$ force produces a change in position and splitting of the $^3D_1$ and $^3D_2$ scattering phase shifts, which were not well described in our former calculation with only the $NN$ part of the SRG interaction. The $NNN$ force has also the effect of increasing the binding energy of the $^6$Li nucleus.
\subsection{Three-cluster dynamics}
A proper description of Borromean halo nuclei and three-body breakup reactions (but also virtual breakup effects) within the NCSM/RGM approach requires the inclusion of three-cluster channel states and the treatment of the three-body dynamics.
\begin{table}[!h]
\caption{Ground-state energies of the $^{4,6}$He nuclei in MeV. Both NCSM/RGM and NCSM calculations were performed with the SRG-N$^3$LO $NN$ potential with $\Lambda=1.5$ fm$^{-1}$, and $\hbar\Omega=16$ MeV HO frequency. Extrapolations were performed with an exponential fit.}
\label{tab:1}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
Approach & &$E_{\rm g.s.}(^4$He$)$ & $E_{\rm g.s.}(^6$He$)$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
NCSM/RGM &($N_{\rm max}=12$) & $-28.22$ MeV & $-28.72$ MeV \\
NCSM &($N_{\rm max}=12$) & $-28.22$ MeV & $-29.75$ MeV \\
NCSM &(extrapolated) & $-28.23$ MeV& $-29.80$ MeV\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
At present we have completed the development of the formalism for the treatment of three-cluster systems formed by two separate nucleons in relative motion with respect to a nucleus of mass number $A-2$.
Preliminary results for the g.s.\ energy of $^6$He within a $^4$He(g.s.)$+ n + n$ cluster basis and an $N_{\rm max}=12$, $\hbar\Omega=16$ MeV HO model space, are compared to NCSM calculations in Table~\ref{tab:1}. The interaction adopted is the SRG-N$^3$LO $NN$ potential with $\Lambda=1.5$ fm$^{-1}$. With such a low value of $\Lambda$, at $N_{\rm max}\sim12$ the binding energy calculations are close to convergence in both NCSM/RGM and NCSM approaches. The $\sim 1$ MeV difference observed is due to the excitations of the $^4$He core, included only in the NCSM at present. Contrary to the NCSM, in the NCSM/RGM the $^4$He(g.s.)$+n+n$ wave functions present the appropriate asymptotic behavior.
This will be essential in describing $^6$He excited states in the continuum, such as, {\em e.g.}\ the $1^-$ soft dipole resonance. Work towards the solution of the three-cluster NCSM/RGM equations with continuum boundary conditions is under way.
\section{Conclusions}
We presented an outline of the NCSM/RGM, an {\em ab initio} many-body approach capable of describing simultaneously both bound and scattering states in light nuclei, by complementing the RGM with the use of realistic interactions, and a microscopic and consistent description of the nucleon clusters, obtained via the {\em ab initio} NCSM. We discussed applications to fusion reactions that power stars and Earth based fusion facilities, such as the $^7$Be$(p,\gamma)^8$B radiative capture, and the $^3$H$(d,n)^4$He and $^3$He$(d,p)^4$He fusion reactions. Finally, we outlined the progress toward the inclusion of the $NNN$ force into the formalism and the treatment of three-cluster dynamics, and presented an initial assessment of $NNN$-force effects on $^4$He$(n,n)^4$He scattering, as well as preliminary results for the g.s.\ energy of $^6$He computed within a $^4$He(g.s.)$+n+n$ NCSM/RGM three-cluster basis. Since the publication of the first results~\cite{PhysRevLett.101.092501,PhysRevC.79.044606,PhysRevC.82.034609},
obtained for nucleon-nucleus collisions, the NSCM/RGM has grown into a powerful approach for the description of binary reactions starting from realistic $NN$ forces. A truly accurate {\em ab initio} description of light-ion fusion reactions and light exotic nuclei that encompasses the full $NNN$ force and the three-cluster dynamics is now within reach.
|
\section{Introduction}
The ocean is now well known to play a dominant role in the climate system because it can initiate and amplify climate change on many different time scales. Hence, the simulation of ocean model is became a relevant but highly complex task and it involves an intricate interaction of theoretical insight, data handling and numerical modelling.
Over the past several years, ocean numerical models have become quite realistic as a result of improved methods, faster computers, and global data sets. Models now treat basin-scale to global domains while retaining the fine spatial scales that are important for modelling the transport of heat, salt, and other properties over vast distances.
Currently, there are many models and methods employed in the rapidly advancing field of numerical ocean circulation modelling as Nemo, Hops, MOM , POP et al (see~\cite{paper1} for a nice review). However, several of these numerical models are not yet optimized by using scientific computing libraries and ''ad hoc'' preconditioning techniques. In all these frameworks the numerical kernel is represented by the discretization of the Navier-Stokes equations ~\cite{paper3} on a three dimensional grid and by the computation of the evolution time of each variable for each grid point. The high resolution computational grid requires efficient preconditiong techniques for improving the accuracy in the computed solution and parallelization strategies for answering to the huge amount of computational demand.\\
In this paper we propose a new solver based on preconditioned conjugate gradient (PCG) method with an approximate inverse preconditioner AINV~\cite{book4-14} for the numerical solution of the elliptic sea-surface equation in NEMO-OPA ocean model~\cite{book3-1}, a state of the art modelling framework in the oceanographic research. The PCG is a widely used iterative method for solving linear systems with symmetric, positive definite matrix and it has proven its efficiency and robustness in a lot of applications. The preconditioning is often a bottleneck in solving the linear systems efficiently and it is well established that a suitable preconditioner increases the performance of an application dramatically.\\
The elliptic sea-surface equation is originally solved in NEMO-OPA by means of the PCG with diagonal preconditioner, and in our work we prove that it is inefficient and inaccurate. We build a new inverse preconditioner and we implement the PCG on a Graphic Processor Unit (GPU) by means of the linear algebra Scientific Computing libraries. The GPUs are massively parallel architectures that efficiently work with the linear algebra operations and give impressive performance improvements. They require a deep understanding of the underlying computing architecture and the programming with these devices involves a massive re-thinking of existing CPU based applications. A challenge is how to optimally use the GPU hardware adopting adequate programming techniques, models, languages and tools. In this paper, we present an easy-to-implement version of the elliptic solver with the scientific computing libraries on Compute Unified Device Architecture (CUDA)~\cite{book4-2bis2}. We implement a code by using CUDA based supported libraries CUBLAS~\cite{book4-2} and CUSPARSE~\cite{book4-2bis} for the sparse linear algebra and the graph computations.
\noindent The library GPU based approach allows a short code development times and an easy to use GPUs implementations that can fruitfully speed up the expensive numerical kernel of an oceanographic simulator. The paper is set out as follows. In section 2 we briefly review the mathematical model: elliptic equations that are at the heart of the model. In section 3, the preconditioned conjugate gradient method used to invert the elliptic equations are described. In section 4, we outline a implementation strategy for solving the elliptic solver by using standard libraries and in section 5 we discuss the mapping of our algorithm onto a massively parallel machine. Finally, the conclusions are drawn.
\section{The Mathematical Model}
Building and running ocean models able to simulate the world of global circulation with great realism require a variety of scientific skills. In modelling the general ocean circulation it is necessary to solve problems of elliptic nature. These problems are difficult to solve, with the following issues causing the most trouble in practice\cite{paper1}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item {In simulations with complicated geometry (e.g., multiple islands), topography, time varying
surface forcing, and many space-time scales of variability (i.e., the World Ocean), achieving a
good first guess for the iterative elliptic solver is often quite difficult to achieve. This makes it
difficult for elliptic solvers to converge to a solution within a reasonable number of iterations. For this reason, many climate modellers limit the number of elliptic solver iterations used, even if the solver has not converged. This approach is very unsatisfying.}
\item{Many elliptic solvers with their associated non-local and time dependent boundary conditions (be they Neumann or Dirichlet) do not project well onto parallel distributed computers, which acts to hinder their scaling properties \cite{duco,web,webi}.}
\end{enumerate}
\noindent In the OPA-NEMO numerical code the primitive equations are discretized within sea-surface hypothesis~\cite{Roullet} and the model is charecterized by the three-dimensional distribution of currents, potential temperature, salinity, preassure and density~\cite{paper3}.
The numerical method OPA-NEMO is grounded on discretizing of the primitive equation - by the use of finite differences on a three dimensional grid - and computing the time evolution to each variable "ocean" at each grid point for the entire globe~\cite{ara}.
A sketch of the OPA-NEMO computational model, see Figure~\ref{fig:NEMO-OPA}, shows the complex dynamic processes that mimic the ocean circulation model, composed by steps that are many time simulated.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{OPA-NEMO_MODEL_STEPS}
\caption{\small {NEMO-OPA model.}}
\label{fig:NEMO-OPA}
\end{figure}
\noindent The kernel algorithm (highlighted with red color, equation 1) solves the sea-surface hight equation $\eta$ The elliptic kernel is discretized with a semi-discrete equations, as following:
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\eta^{n+1}=\eta^{n-1}}- 2 \Delta t D^n \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \qquad \ \ \label{uno} \quad \\[1.5mm]
2\Delta t g T_{c} \Delta_h D^{n+1}= D^{n+1}- D^{n-1}+2\Delta t g \Delta_h \eta^n \label{unounos} \quad \ \ \\[1.5mm]
\Delta_h = \nabla \big[(H+\eta^n)\nabla \big]. \qquad \qquad \quad \qquad \ \ \qquad \quad
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\noindent where $\eta^n, \ n \in \mathbb{N}$ is the sea-surface height at the $n-$th step of the model, which describes the shape of the air-sea interface, $D^n$ is the centered difference approximation of the first time derivative of $\eta$,
$\Delta t $ is the time stepping, $g$ is the gravity constant, $T_c$ is a physical parameter, $\Delta_h$ is the horizontal Laplacian operator and $H$ is the depth
of the ocean bottom \cite{book3-1}.
\noindent Whereas the domain of the ocean models is the Earth sphere (or part of it) the model uses the geographical coordinates system $(\lambda,\phi,r)$ in which a position is defined by the latitude $\phi$, the longitude $\lambda$ and the distance from the center of the earth $r=a + z(k)$ where a is the Earth's radius and z the altitude above a reference sea level. The local deformation of the curvilinear geographical coordinate system is given by $e_1$,$e_2$ and $e_3$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{small}
\begin{array}{c}
e_1 = rcos \phi, \quad
e_2 = r, \quad
e_3 = 1.
\end{array}
\end{small}
\end{equation}
The Laplacian Operator in spherical coordinates $\Delta_h D^{n+1}$ in~(\ref{unounos}) becomes:
\begin{small}
{
\begin{equation}
\Delta_h D^{n+1}=\frac{1}{e_1 e_2} \Bigg[\frac {\partial }{\partial i } \bigg( \alpha(\phi )\frac {\partial D^{n+1} }{\partial i } \bigg)+\frac {\partial }{\partial j } \bigg(\beta(\phi)\frac {\partial D^{n+1} }{\partial i } \bigg) \Bigg]
\end{equation}}
\end{small}
\noindent where:
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha(\phi)= (H+\eta^n) {{ e_2}/{ e_1}} \label{uu} \\[2mm]
\beta(\phi)= (H+\eta^n) {e_1}/{ e_2} \label{ua}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent For the functions $\alpha(\phi)$ in (\ref{uu}) and $\beta(\phi)$ in (\ref{ua}), we have the following relations:
\begin{equation}
\begin{small}
\lim_{\phi \longrightarrow \pm \frac{\pi}{2} }\alpha(\phi)=+\infty \quad \wedge \
\lim_{\phi \longrightarrow \pm \frac{\pi}{2} }\beta(\phi)=0
\label{limite1}
\end{small}
\end{equation}
\noindent From~(\ref{limite1}), if we choose $M, \epsilon \in \mathbb{R}$ with $M>>\epsilon$ then exists an interval $\big[\frac{\pi}{2}-\delta, \frac {\pi}{2}\big]$ or $\big[-\frac{\pi}{2}, \ -\frac{\pi}{2}+~\delta\big]$, such that the following inequality holds:
\begin{equation}
\begin{small}
\alpha(\phi)>M>>\epsilon>\beta(\phi)
\label{limite2}
\end{small}
\end{equation}
\noindent In physical terms, in the proximity of the geographical poles, $(\lambda, \pm \phi/2,r)$, there are several orders of magnitude between the functions $\alpha(\phi)$ and $\beta(\phi)
\noindent The result (\ref{limite2}), will significantly influence the rate of convergence in the iterative solver.
\section{Inverse Preconditioned Techniques in the Elliptic Solver of the Ocean Model}
\noindent Let us now consider the elliptic NEMO model~\cite{book3-1} defined by the following coefficients:
\begin{equation}
\begin{small}
\begin{array}{c}
C_{i,j}^{NS}= 2\Delta t^2 { H(i,j) e_{1}(i,j)}/{e_{2}(i,j)}, \quad
C_{i,j}^{EW}= 2\Delta t^2 { H(i,j) e_{2}(i,j)}/{e_{1}(i,j)} \\[0.5mm]
b_{i,j}=\delta_i(e_{2}M_u)-\delta_j(e_{1}M_v) \quad \quad
\end{array}
\label{coef}
\end{small}
\end{equation}
where $\delta_i $ and $\delta_j$ are the discrete derivative operators along the axes $\mathbf i$ and $\mathbf j$.
\noindent The discretization of the equation~(\ref{unounos}) by means of a five-point finite difference method gives:
\begin{equation}
\begin{small}
\begin{array}{c}
C_{i,j}^{NS} D_{i-1,j}+C_{i,j}^{EW} D_{i,j-1}-
\big(C_{i+1,j}^{NS}+C_{i,j+1}^{EW}+ C_{i,j}^{NS}+ C_{i,j}^{EW}\big) D_{i,j}+\\[2mm]
\qquad \qquad + C_{i,j+1}^{EW} D_{i,j+1} + C_{i+1,j}^{NS} D_{i+1,j}=b_{i,j}.
\end{array}
\label{sistema}
\end{small}
\end{equation}
\noindent where the equation~(\ref{sistema}) is a symmetric system of linear equations. All the elements of the sparse matrix $\mathbf A$ vanish except those of five diagonals. With the natural ordering of the grid points (i.e. from west to east and from south to north), the structure of $\mathbf A$ is a block-tridiagonal with tridiagonal or diagonal blocks. The matrix $\mathbf A$ is a positive-definite symmetric matrix with $n=jpi \times jpj$ size, where $jpi$ and $jpj$ are respectively the horizontal dimensions of the grid discretization of the domain.\\ The Conjugate Gradient Method is a very efficient iterative method for solving the linear system~(\ref{sistema}) and it provides the exact solution in a number of iterations equal to the size of the matrix. The convergence rate is faster as the matrix is closer to the identity one. By spectral point of view a convergence relation between the solution of the linear system and its approximation $x_{m}$ is given by:
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\|\mathbf x-\mathbf x_{m}\|_A< 2\bigg( \frac {\sqrt {\mu_2(A)} -1}{\sqrt {\mu_2(A)} + 1}\bigg)^{m-1}\|\mathbf x-\mathbf x_{0}\|_A
\label{rel}
\end{equation}
\end{small}
\noindent with $\mu_2(A)=\lambda_{max}/\lambda_{min}$, where $\lambda_{max}$ and $\lambda_{min}$ are respectively the greatest and the lowest eigenvalue of $\mathbf A$, and $\|\cdot\|_A$ is the A-norm. The preconditioning framework consists to introduce amatrix $ \mathbf M$, that is an approximation of $\mathbf A $ easier to invert, and to solve the equivalent linear system:
\begin{equation}
\begin{small}\mathbf{M^{-1}A}\mathbf x=\mathbf {M^{-1}b}\end{small}
\end{equation}
The ocean global model NEMO-OPA uses the diagonal preconditioner, where $\mathbf M$ is chosen to the diagonal of $\mathbf A$. Let us introduce the following cardinal coefficients:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_{i,j}^E={{C_{i,j+1}}^{EW}}/{d_{i,j}} \qquad \alpha_{i,j}^W= {{C_{i,j}}^{EW}}/{d_{i,j}} \qquad \label{coef21} \\[2mm] \beta_{i,j}^S= {{C_{i,j}}^{NS}}/{d_{i,j}} \qquad \beta_{i,j}^N= {{C_{i+1,j}}^{NS}}/{d_{i,j}}
\label{coef22}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
\noindent where $d_{i,j}= \big(C_{i+1,j}^{NS}+C_{i,j+1}^{EW}+ C_{i,j}^{NS}+ C_{i,j}^{EW}\big)$ represents the diagonal of the matrix $\mathbf A$. The~(\ref{sistema}), using the diagonal preconditioner, can be written as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{small}
\begin{array}{c}
-\beta_{i,j}^{S} D_{i-1,j}-\alpha_{i,j}^{W} D_{i,j-1}+ D_{i,j}
- \alpha_{i,j}^{E} D_{i,j+1}+
\hfill - \beta_{i,j}^{N} D_{i+1,j} =\bar b_{i,j}.
\end{array}
\label{nuovosistema}
\end{small}
\end{equation}
\noindent with $\bar b_{i,j}= - b_{i,j} /d_{i,j}$.
\noindent Starting from the observations~(\ref{limite1}) and~(\ref{limite2}) we proof that the diagonal preconditioner does not work very well in some critical physical situations involving curvilinear spherical coordinates.
\begin{proposition}
\label{remark}
In the geographical coordinate, if $\phi \rightarrow + {\frac {\pi}{2}}^{-}$, $\Delta \lambda \rightarrow 0 $, $\Delta \phi \rightarrow 0$ then the conditioning number $\mu (\mathbf {M^{-1}A)}$ goes to $+\infty$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{small}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\noindent \textbf{Proof.} \ \ In the geographical coordinate, i.e. when $(i, j) \rightarrow (\lambda, \phi)$ and $(e_1 , e_2 ) \rightarrow (r \cos \phi, r)$, for $\phi \rightarrow + {\frac {\pi}{2}}^{-}$, $\Delta \lambda \rightarrow 0 $ and $\Delta \phi \rightarrow 0$, the functions $\alpha^{W}$ and $\alpha^{E}$ in (\ref{coef21}) go to -1/2 while $\beta^{N}$ and $\beta^{S}$ in (\ref{coef22}) go to 0. Hence the limit of matrix $\mathbf {M^{-1}A}$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
\begin{tiny}
\mathbf A'=\left [
\begin{array}{ccccc}
1& - 1/2 & 0& \ldots & 0 \\
-1/2 & 1 & -1/2 & \ddots& 0\\
0 & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & 0\\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots &-1/2\\
0 & \ddots & \ddots & -1/2 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right ].
\end{tiny}
\label{matricelimite}
\end{equation}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\noindent The eigenvalues of the matrix in (\ref{matricelimite}) are:
\begin{equation}
\lambda_k=1+\cos\bigg(\frac {k \pi}{n+1}\bigg) \quad k=1,...,n
\end{equation}
and then the condition number $\mu_2(M^{-1}{A}) =\lambda_{max}/\lambda_{min} \approx n^2/2$ (by using the series expansion of $ \cos x = 1-x ^ 2/2 + o (x ^ 2) $). Moreover for $\Delta \lambda \rightarrow 0 $ and $\Delta \phi \rightarrow 0$ the size $n$ of the matrix $\mathbf A $ goes to $ +\infty$ and hence we obtain the thesis. { \hfill $ \small \blacksquare $ }
\end{small} \\[2mm]
\noindent By the proposition~(\ref{remark}), for $n$ large and $\phi \rightarrow \pm \pi/2$, it is preferable to adopt more suitable preconditioning techniques or a stategy based on the local change of the coordinates at poles. In this paper we propose an alternative approximate sparse inverse preconditioning AINV techniques \cite{book4-14} for the linear system (\ref{sistema}).
AINV technique is a critical step since the inverse of a sparse matrix is usually
dense. The problem is how to build a preconditoner that preserves the sparse structure. We introduce a factored sparse approximate inverse FSAI preconditioner $\mathbf P= \tilde {\mathbf Z} \tilde {\mathbf {Z^t}}$ \cite{book4-16,book4-31}, computed by means conjugate-orthogonalization procedure. Specifically, we propose an ``ad hoc'' method for computing an incomplete factorization of the inverse of the matrix $\mathbf T \subset \mathbf A$, obtained by $\mathbf A$ taking only the elements $a_{i,j}$ such that $|j-i|\leq 1$. The factorized sparse approximate inverse of $\mathbf T$ is used as explicit preconditioner for (\ref{sistema}).
\noindent In the following we give some remarks for the sparsity pattern selection S of our inverse preconditioner $\mathbf P$.
\begin{proposition}{}
\label{titi}
If $\mathbf T$ is a tridiagonal, symmetric and diagonally dominant matrix, with diagonal elements all positive $t_{k,k}>0,\ k=1,...,n$, then the Cholesky's factor $\mathbf U$ of the matrix $\mathbf T$ is again diagonally dominant.
\end{proposition}
\begin{small}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent \textbf{Proof.} Since $\mathbf T$ is a tridiagonal matrix then $\mathbf U$ is a bidiagonal matrix.
Using the inductive method we proof that $\mathbf U$ is diagonally dominant matrix. For $k=1$ is trivially, indeed by hypothesis we know that $|a_{1,1}|>|a_{1,2}| \Longleftrightarrow |u_{1,1}^2|> |u_{1,1} u_{1,2}|$, then we obtain $|u_{1,1}|>|u_{1,2}|$. Moreover placed the thesis true for $k-1$ i.e. $|{{u_{k-1,k-1}}}|> |{{u_{k-1,k}}}|$ then by the following inequalities:
\begin{eqnarray}
|a_{k,k}|>|a_{k,k-1}|+|a_{k,k+1}| \Longleftrightarrow \qquad \quad \qquad \quad \qquad \quad \qquad \quad \nonumber \\[2mm] |u_{k-1,k}^2+ u_{k,k}^2|>|u_{k-1,k} u_{k-1,k-1} |+|u_{k,k} u_{k,k+1}|
> u_{k-1,k}^2+|u_{k,k} u_{k,k+1}|. \qquad \quad \label{dividi}
\end{eqnarray}
subtracting the inequality (\ref{dividi}) for $u_{k-1,k}^2$, then the thesis holds also for k.{ \hfill $ \small \blacksquare $ }
\end{small}
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent This result allows to prove the following proposition:
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{proposition}
The inverse matrix $\mathbf Z$ of a bidiagonal and diagonally dominant matrix $\mathbf U$ has column vectors $\mathbf z_k, k=1,...n$ such that starting from diagonal element $z_{k,k}$, they contain a finite sequence $ \{z_{k-i,k} \}_{i=0,...,k-1}$ strictly decreasing.
\label{final}
\end{proposition}
\begin{small}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\noindent \textbf{Proof.} Applying a backward substitution procedure for solving the system of equations $\mathbf U \mathbf z_k = \mathbf e_k $, we get:
\begin{equation}
z_{k-i,k}=\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
{1}/{u_{k,k}} \quad {if \ \ i=0}\\[5mm]
({-1})^{i}/{u_{k,k}} \cdot\ {\displaystyle \prod_{r=1}^{i}}
\big({u_{k-r,k-r+1}}/{u_{k-r,k-r}}\big)\\[5mm]
\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad { if \ \ 0<i\leq k-1}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
\label{propdue}
By means of the preposition (\ref{titi}) we obtain that $z_{k-i,k}> z_{k-i-1,k}$ with {$ \small{0<i\leq k-1}$} and hence the thesis is proved. { \hfill $ \small \blacksquare $ }
\end{small}
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent The previous propositions (\ref{titi}) and (\ref{final}) enable to select a sparsity pattern S by the following scheme:
\begin{enumerate}
{\tt \small
\item{ Consider the symmetric, diagonally dominant and triangular matrix $\mathbf{T}$, obtained by $\mathbf A $ taking only the elements $a_{i,j}$ such that $|j-i|\leq 1$}
\item{ $\mathbf T= \mathbf U ^T \mathbf U$ is diagonally dominant matrix. Consequently its Cholesky factor $\mathbf U$ is diagonally dominant (proposition (\ref{titi}) ).}
\item{ $\mathbf U$ is a bidiagonal and diagonally dominant matrix. $\mathbf Z=\mathbf U^{-1}$ has columns vector $\mathbf {z}_k, \ k=1,...,n$ such that $z_{k-i,k}> z_{k-i-1,k}$ with {$ \small{0<i\leq k-1}$}. (proposition (\ref{final})) }
\item{ Fixed an upper bandwidth $q$, the entries $z_{i,j}$ with $j>i+q$ of $\mathbf Z$ are considered negligible.}
\item {The preconditioner $\mathbf P= \tilde {\mathbf Z} \tilde {\mathbf {Z^t}}$ is built as:
\begin{equation}
\tilde z_{i,j}=\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
z_{i,j} \quad {if \ \ j \leq i+q}\\[5mm]
0 \quad {if \ \ j > i+q}
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}}
\item{ The sparse factor $\tilde {\mathbf Z}$ is computed by $T$-orthogonalization procedure posing the sparsity pattern S=$\{(i,j)\ / j>i+q \}$ }
}
\end{enumerate}
$ \mathbf T$ is a diagonally dominant matrix then the incomplete inverse factorization of $\mathbf T$ exists for any choice of the sparsity pattern S on $\mathbf Z$~\cite{book4-16}.
\noindent From computationally point of view, the $T$-orthogonalization procedure with the sparsity pattern S is based on matrix-vector operations with computational cost of $5(q+1)$ floating point operations. Moreover, for each column vector $\tilde {\mathbf z}_k$ of $ \tilde {\mathbf{Z}}$ we work only on its $q+1$ components $\tilde z_k[k-q], \tilde z_k[k-q+1],..., \tilde z_k[k]$ with consequently global complexity of $5q(q+1) O(n)$.
\section{Practical Considerations}
\noindent In this section we give some practical details on the elliptic solver implementation with FSAI preconditioner, on a generic GPU architecture. The matrices $\mathbf A$, $\tilde {\mathbf Z}$ and $\tilde {\mathbf Z^T}$ are stored with the special storage format Compressed Sparse Row (CSR). The FSAI is performed in serial on the CPU and its building requires a negligible time on total execution of the elliptic solver. We show the implementation of the Algorithm 1 outlines on the GPUs \cite{bell,book4-10,eurosam}.
\begin{algorithm}[h!]
\caption{FSAI-PCG solver
\begin{small}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE $k=0$; $\quad \mathbf x_0= D_{i,j}^0=2D_{i,j}^{t-1}$, the initial guess;\\[0.5 mm]
\STATE $\mathbf r_0 = \mathbf b-\mathbf A \mathbf x_0$;\\[0.5 mm]
\STATE ${\mathbf s_{0}}= \tilde {\mathbf Z} \tilde {\mathbf {Z^t}} {\mathbf r_0} $, with ${\mathbf{ P}}= \tilde {\mathbf Z} \tilde {\mathbf Z^{t}}$ the FSAI preconditioner;\\[0.5 mm]
\STATE $\mathbf d_0 = \mathbf s_0$;\\[0.5 mm]
\WHILE{$\big({ \|\mathbf r_{k}\|}/{\|\mathbf b\|} > \epsilon \ .and.\ k \leq n \big)$}
\STATE $\mathbf q_k=\mathbf A \mathbf d_k$; $\quad \alpha_k ={ (\mathbf{s}_k,\mathbf r_k)}/({\mathbf d_k, \mathbf q_k})$; $\quad \mathbf x_{k+1} = \mathbf x_{k} +\alpha_k \mathbf d_k$;\\[0.5 mm]
\STATE ${\mathbf r_{k+1}} = {\mathbf r_k}-\alpha_k {\mathbf q_k}$; $\quad {\mathbf s_{k+1}}=\tilde {\mathbf Z} \tilde {\mathbf {Z^t}} {\mathbf r_{k+1}} $; $\quad \beta_k ={({ \mathbf s}_{k+1}, \mathbf r_{k+1})}/{({ \mathbf s}_{k},\mathbf r_{k})}$;\\[0.5 mm]
\STATE $\mathbf d_{k+1}={\mathbf r}_{k+1}+\beta_{k} \mathbf d_{k}$; $\quad k=k+1$; \\[0.5 mm]
\ENDWHILE
\end{algorithmic}
\end{small}
\label{PCG}
\end{algorithm}
In details, our solver is implemented by means of the CUDA language with the auxiliary linear algebra libraries CUBLAS, for the ``dot product '' (\texttt{xDOT}), ``combined scalar multiplication plus vector addition'' (\texttt{xAXPY}), ``euclidean norm'' (\texttt{xNRM2}) and ``vector by a constant scaling'' (\texttt{xSCAL}) operations, and CUSPARSE for the sparse matrix-vector operations in the PCG solver.
\noindent The linear algebra scientific libraries are extremely helpful to easily implement a software on the GPU architecture. A ``by-hand'' implementation (see Figure~\ref{fig:grid_configuration} and \ref{fig:spmv_csr_kernel}) of the solver without the library features in reported as a tedious GPU programming example. In this type of coding, the manually configuration of the grid of thread blocks is necessary. For example if we use the TESLA S2050 the variables \texttt{warpSize} and \texttt{maxGridSize} (respectively at lines 2 and 3) have to be assigned. In details,\texttt{warpSize} indicates the number of threads (32) in a warp, which is a sub-division use in the hardware implementation to coalesce memory access and instruction dispatch; \texttt{maxGridSize} is the maximum number of simultaneous blocks (65535). Furthermore, \texttt{warpCount} (at line 4) represents the number of warps and it depends on the dimension \texttt{n} of the problem. In the end, variables \texttt{threadCountPerBlock} and \texttt{blockCount} (respectively at lines 5 and 6) are the parameter used for setting the grid and block configuration (lines 7 and 8). For example, if \texttt{n~=~10000} is the size of a vector, then \texttt{threadCountPerBlock~=~32} and \texttt{blockCount~=~313}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{Grid_Block_Conf}
\caption{\small {Grid and block configuration.}}
\label{fig:grid_configuration}
\end{figure}
\noindent The figure~\ref{fig:spmv_csr_kernel} shows the matrix-vector product, with the matrix stored in CSR format. We observe that this implementation requires a large amount of kernel functions, invoked by the ``host'' (CPU) and executed on the ``device'' (GPU).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{spmv_csr_kernel}
\caption{\small {Naive GPU implementation of a function for the matrix-vector product of a matrix in CSR format.}}
\label{fig:spmv_csr_kernel}
\end{figure}
\noindent In the following, we will show how to implement the Algorithm 1 outlines by using library features. In order to use the CUBLAS library it is necessary inizialize it by means of the following instructions:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
cublasStatus stat;
cublasInit();
\end{Verbatim}
\noindent For the use of the CUSPARSE library two steps are necessary. The first one consists, as follow, in the library initialization:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
cusparseHandle_t handle=0;
cusparseCreate(&handle);
\end{Verbatim}
\noindent moreover, it is recalled the creation and setup of a matrix descriptor:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
cusparseMatDescr_t descra=0;
cusparseCreateMatDescr(&descra);
cusparseSetMatType(descra,CUSPARSE_MATRIX_TYPE_GENERAL);
cusparseSetMatIndexBase(descra,CUSPARSE_INDEX_BASE_ZERO);
\end{Verbatim}
\noindent The library avoids to configure the grid of the thread blocks and it allows to write codes in a very fast way. For example, at line 6 of the Algorithm~\ref{PCG} the computation of $\mathbf q_k= \mathbf {Ad}_k$ is required, and this operation can be made simply by calling the CUSPARSE routine \texttt{cusparseScsrmv()}, that performs the operation $\mathbf q = a \mathbf {A ∗ d} + b \mathbf q$ as follows:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
cusparseScsrmv(handle, CUSPARSE_OPERATION_NON_TRANSPOSE, n, n,
a, descra, A, start, j, d, b, q);
\end{Verbatim}
\noindent In our context, \texttt{A}, \texttt{j} and \texttt{start} represent the symmetric positive-definite matrix $\mathbf A$, stored in the CSR format. More precisely, the vector \texttt{A} denotes the non-zero elements of the matrix $\mathbf A$, \texttt{j} is the vector that stores the column indexes of the non-zero elements, the vector \texttt{start} denotes, for each row of the matrix, the address of the first non-zero element and \texttt{n} represents the row and columns number of the square matrix $\mathbf A$. The constants $a$ and $b$ are assigned to $1.0$ and $0.0$ respectively. Moreover it happens that at line 6 of the Algorithm~\ref{PCG}, the computation of ${ (\mathbf{s}_k,\mathbf r_k)}$ is performed by means the CUBLAS routine for the dot product:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
alfa_num = cublasSdot(n, s, INCREMENT_S, r, INCREMENT_R);
\end{Verbatim}
The constants \texttt{INCREMENT$\_$S} and \texttt{INCREMENT$\_$R} are both assigned to $1$. Last operation of line 6 in Algorithm~\ref{PCG}, is the $\mathbf x_{k+1} = \mathbf x_{k} +\alpha_k \mathbf d_k$ for updating the solution and it is implemented by calling the CUBLAS routine for the saxpy operation:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
cublasSaxpy(n, alfa, d, INCREMENT_D, x, INCREMENT_X);
\end{Verbatim}
The constants \texttt{INCREMENT$\_$D} and \texttt{INCREMENT$\_$X} are both assigned to $1$.
In addition, the computation of ${\mathbf{s_{k+1}}}=\tilde {\mathbf{Z}} \tilde {\mathbf{Z^t}} {\mathbf{r_{k+1}}}$ at line 7 is the preconditioning step of the linear system~(\ref{sistema}) and it is computed by means of two matrix-vector operations performed as:
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
cusparseScsrmv(handle, CUSPARSE_OPERATION_NON_TRANSPOSE, n, n,
a, descra, Z_t, start_Z_t, j_Z_t, r, b, zt);
cusparseScsrmv(handle, CUSPARSE_OPERATION_NON_TRANSPOSE, n, n,
a, descra, Z_t, start_Z, j_Z, zt, b, z);
\end{Verbatim}
In details, in the first call of \texttt{cusparseScsrmv()}, ${\mathbf{zt}}=\tilde {\mathbf{Z^t}} {\mathbf{r_{k+1}}}$ and ${\mathbf{s_{k+1}}}=\tilde {\mathbf{Z}} {\mathbf{zt}}$ are computed. We have outlined just few of computational operations because the other will be performed in the same way. The parameters \texttt{handle}, \scalebox{0.8}{\texttt{CUSPARSE\_OPERATION\_NON\_TRANSPOSE}} and \texttt{descra} are discussed in the NVIDIA report~\cite{book4-2bis} in more detailed way. In summary, we highlight how the use of the standard library, designed for the GPU architecture, allow to optimize the computational oceanographic simulation model.
\section{Numerical Experiments}
In this section we focus on the important numerical issues of our elliptic solver implemented with GPU architecture in single precision. The solver is tested on three grid size resolutions of the NEMO-OPA ocean model (Table~\ref{tab:gird}).
\begin{small}
\begin{center}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.9}{
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
Matrix Name & Size & Matrix non-zeros elements\\
\hline
ORCA-2 & $180\times149$ & $133800$ \\ \hline
ORCA-05 & $751\times510$ & $1837528$ \\ \hline
ORCA-025 & $1442\times1021$ & $7359366$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\caption{NEMO-OPA grid resolutions.}
\label{tab:gird}
\end{table}
\end{center}
\end{small}
\noindent In the Table~\ref{tab:a}, we compare the performance in terms of PCG iterations of the proposed inverse bandwidth preconditioner $\mathbf P $ respect to $\mathbf P^{-1}$, that is the diagonal NEMO-OPA preconditioner. We fix an accuracy of $\epsilon = 10^{-6}$ on the relative residue $r=||\mathbf{Ax}-\mathbf{b}||/||\mathbf b||$ on the linear system solution. The experiments are carried out in the case of well-conditioned $\mathbf A$ matrix, corresponding to the geographical case of $\phi \approx 0$ and in the case of ill-conditioned $\mathbf A$ with $\phi \approx \pi/2$. We can observe as in the worst case with $n$ large and $\mathbf A$ ill-conditioned the PCG with $\mathbf P^{-1}$ has a very slow convergence with a huge number of iterations to reach the fixed accuracy. The experiment, reported in the Table~\ref{tab:a}, highlights the poor performance of the $\mathbf P^{-1}$ for solving the Laplace elliptic problem~(\ref{sistema}) within OPA-NEMO.
\begin{small}
\begin{center}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.9}{
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
$\mathbf A$ Dimension
& $\qquad ${$\mathbf P$}\scalebox{0.7}{ $(\phi \approx 0)$ }
& $\qquad $$\mathbf P^{-1}$\scalebox{0.7}{$(\phi \approx 0)$ }
& $\qquad ${$\mathbf P$}\scalebox{0.7}{ $(\phi \approx \pi/2)$}
& $\qquad $$\mathbf P^{-1}$\scalebox{0.7}{ $(\phi \approx \pi/2)$} \\
\hline
ORCA-2 & 271 & 460 & 8725 & 26820\\ \hline
ORCA-05 & 1128 & 1593 & 22447 & 86280\\ \hline
ORCA-025 & 2458 & 3066 & 28513 & 139742\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison between $\mathbf P$ and $\mathbf P^{-1}$ in terms of Number of Iterations of the PCG in the case $\mathbf A$ is well-conditioned ($\phi \approx 0$) and $\mathbf A$ ill-conditioned ($\phi \approx \pi/2 $), varying the problem dimensions.}
\label{tab:a}
\end{table}
\end{center}
\end{small}
In the following, we show the performance in terms of PCG iterations of $\mathbf P$ respect to the AINV Bridson Class preconditioners, that believe to CUSP library. To be more specific, let us consider the $\mathbf P_{B1}$ and $\mathbf P_{B2}$ Bridson's preconditioners, obtained by means of the $A$-orthogonalization method. The first is given by posing a (fixed) {drop tolerance} and by ignoring the elements below the fixed tolerance \cite{book4-21} and in the second one is predetermined the number of non-zeros elements on each its row.~\cite{book4-23}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\begin{flushright}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{itp_vs_brids_eq_mod}
\caption{\small {Comparison between $\mathbf P$, $\mathbf P_{B1}$ and $\mathbf P_{B2}$ in terms of Number of Iterations of the PCG ($y-$axis) when $\mathbf A$ is well-conditioned, varying the problem dimensions ($x-$axis) }}
\label{fig:ITP_vs_Brids}
\end{flushright}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{0.5cm}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\begin{flushleft}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{itp_vs_brids_geq_mod}
\caption{\small {Comparison between $\mathbf P$, $\mathbf P_{B1}$ and $\mathbf P_{B2}$ in terms of Number of Iterations of the PCG ($y-$axis) when $\mathbf A$ is ill-conditioned, varying the problem dimensions ($x-$axis) }}
\label{fig:ITP_vs_Brids_geq}
\end{flushleft}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\noindent The required accuracy on the solution is fixed to $\epsilon = 10^{-6}$ on the relative residue. In Figure~\ref{fig:ITP_vs_Brids} we report the PCG iterations of $\mathbf P$, $\mathbf P_{B1}$ and $\mathbf P_{B2}$ in the case of the matrix $\mathbf A$ well-conditioned $(\phi \approx 0)$. In Figure~\ref{fig:ITP_vs_Brids_geq} we present the case of the ill-conditioned $(\phi \approx \pi/2)$ matrix $\mathbf A$. \noindent The numerical results show as the number of iterations of the solver $\mathbf P$ is comparable to $\mathbf P_{B1}$ and $\mathbf P_{B2}$ when the dimensions of the problem are small or middle. Furthermore, it is strongly indicated to use $\mathbf P$ with a huge problem dimension. We test $\mathbf {P}$, $\mathbf {P^{-1}}$, $\mathbf P_{B1}$ and $\mathbf P_{B2}$ on the sparse matrix {\tt NOS6} of the Market Matrix database \cite{MaMa} by setting the required accuracy on the computed solution to $\epsilon = 10^{-6}$ and the band q of the preconditioner to 4. This sparse matrix is obtained in the Lanczos algorithm with partial re-orthogonalization Finite difference approximation to Poisson's equation in an L-shaped region, mixed boundary conditions.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.39]{N06.eps}
\caption{\small PCG iterations. P is the proposed preconditioner, P\_d is $\mathbf P^{-1}$, P\_B1 P\_B2 are $\mathbf P_{B1}$ and $\mathbf P_{B2}$ }
\label{fig:N06}
\end{figure}
The figure~\ref{fig:N06} shows as $\mathbf {P}$ achieves the best performance in terms of iterations.\\
Finally, we test the elliptic solver implementation on GPU architecture. The numerical experiments are carried out on an ``NVIDIA TESLA S2050'' card, based on the ``FERMI GPU''. The ``TESLA S2050'' consists of 4 GPGPUs, each of which with 3GB of RAM memory and 448 processing cores working at 1.55 GHz. All runs are given on 1 GPU device. We have adopted CUDA release 4.0, provided by NVIDIA as a GPGPU environment and the numerical code is implemented by using the single precision arithmetic. \\
As described in the previous sections by using scientific computing library it is not necessary manually setting up the block and grid configuration on the memory device. The number of blocks required to store the elliptic solver input data (in CSR format) do not have to exceed the maximum sizes of each dimension of a GPU grid device. Schematic results of GPU memory utilization for ocean model resolutions are presented in the Table~\ref{tab:memory}.
Observe that in our numerical experiments we do not fill the memory of the TESLA GPU and the simulations run also on cheaper or older boards, as for example the Quadro 4700FX. Generally, it is possible to grow the grid dimensions of the ocean model according to the memory capacity of the available GPU.
\begin{small}
\begin{center}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.9}{
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
Matrix Name & Non-zeros Elem. & Mem. Occ.\\
\hline
ORCA-2 & $133800$ & $4$MB \\ \hline
ORCA-05 & $1837528$ & $37$MB \\ \hline
ORCA-025 & $7359366$ & $135$MB \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\caption{Matrix memory occupancy. Mem Occ. is the full memory allocated memory on the GPU. }
\label{tab:memory}
\end{table}
\end{center}
\end{small}
\noindent The elliptic solver requires a large amount of Sparse-Matrix Vector (\texttt{cusparseCsrmv}) multiplications, vector reductions and other vector operation to be performed. CPU version is implemented in ANSI C executed in serial on a 2.4GHz ``Intel Xeon E5620'' CPU, with 12MB of cache memory. Serial and GPU versions are in single precision. We test the performance of the solver in terms of Floating Point Operations (FLOPS). The performance of the numerical experiments (reported in the Figure~\ref{fig:CPU_VS_GPU}) are given in the case of $A$ ill-conditioned matrix ($\phi \approx \pi/2$). We count an average of the iterations of solver and the complexity of all linear algebra operations involved in both serial and parallel implementations. The ''GPU solver`` (blue) and ''CPU solver`` (orange) curves represent the GFLOPS of the solver, respectively, for the CPU and GPU versions.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.45\linewidth}
\begin{flushleft}
\includegraphics[scale=.6]{GPU_speedup_over_CPU.eps}
\caption{Sparse-Matrix Vector multiplications speed-up.}
\label{fig:spmv}
\end{flushleft}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{0.5cm}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{CPU_VS_GPU_mod}
\caption{CPU and GPU comparison of the solver in terms of GFLOPS.}
\label{fig:CPU_VS_GPU}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\noindent The main recalled computational kernels in the solver are the Sparse-Matrix Vector. From the Figure~\ref{fig:spmv} we highlight the improvement in terms of GFLOPs speed-up by replacing \texttt{gemv()} with \texttt{cusparseCsrmv()} function. These results prove that, increasing the model grid resolution, it is possible to exploit the computational power of the GPUs. In details, the GPU solver implementation in the ORCA-025 configuration has a peak performance of 87 GFLOPS respect to 1,43 GFLOPS of the CPU version.
\section{Conclusions}
The ocean modelling is a challenging application where expensive computational kernels are fundamental tools to investigate the physics of the ocean and the climate change. In a lot of applications, the elliptic Laplace equations are used in the complex mathematical models; they represents critical computational points since the convergence of the numerical solvers to a solution, within a reasonable number of iterations, it is not always guaranteed.
In our case, this happens to the preconditioning technique of the OPA-NEMO ocean model, for which we prove to be inefficient and inaccurate.
In this paper, we have proposed a new inverse preconditioner based on the FSAI method that shows better results respect to the OPA-NEMO diagonal one and to others of the Bridson class. Moreover, an important contribute is given by an innovative approach for parallelizing the elliptic solver on the Graphical Processing Units (GPU) by means of the scientific computing libraries. The library based implementation of the computing codes allows to optimize oceanic framework reducing the simulation times and to develop computational solvers easy-to-implement.
\section{Acknowledgments}
The computing resources and the related technical support used for this work have been provided by CRESCO/ENEAGRID ``High Performance Computing infrastructure'' and its staff with particular acknowledgments to the researcher Marta Chinnici; CRESCO/ENEAGRID is funded by ENEA, the ``Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development'' and by national and European research programs. See \url{www.cresco.enea.it} for more information.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
One of the most important problem in astrophysics is the problem
of particle acceleration. The general expression for acceleration
of a charged particle is
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt}(\gamma m{\bf v})=Ze\left({\bf E}+\frac{1}{c}{\bf v}\times {\bf B}\right)\,,
\end{equation}
where ${\bf E}$ and ${\bf B}$ are the electric and magnetic field strength,
${\bf v}$ is the velocity of particle and $\gamma = 1/\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}$.
In most astrophysical conditions static electrical fields cannot be maintained because of
a very high electrical conductivity. Therefore the acceleration can be
associated either with non-stationary electric fields
(electromagnetic waves) or with time-varying magnetic fields.
In the latter case the work can be done by the induced electric field
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial {\bf B}}{\partial t}=-{\bf\nabla\times E}\,.
\end{equation}
The basic idea of acceleration by electromagnetic inhomogeneities
in astrophysical conditions was suggested by \citet{fermi1,fermi2}
who assumed that the Galactic cosmic rays (CRs) were accelerated by collisions
of charged particles with fluctuations of magnetic fields (magnetic clouds) moving
chaotically with the velocity dispersion $u$.
One of the features of this theory was that it yielded naturally a power-law spectrum of
accelerated particles. The rate of particle acceleration by this stochastic mechanism is
about
\begin{equation}
\left(\frac{d\mathcal{E}}{dt}\right)_F\sim \frac{u^2}{v^2\tau}\mathcal{E}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{E}$ and $v$ are the particle kinetic energy and velocity,
and $\tau$ is the average time of particle collision with the clouds.
This rate of acceleration is slow because $u\ll v$.
In kinetic equations, the Fermi (stochastic) acceleration is described as momentum diffusion
\citep[see e.g.,][]{topt85}
\begin{equation}\label{toptyginEq}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}-\frac{1}{p^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial p}
\left[D_F(p)p^2\frac{\partial f}{\partial p}\right]+\hat{L}f=0\,,
\end{equation}
with the diffusion coefficient $D_F(p)$ in the form
\begin{equation}\label{dfermi}
D_F(p)\sim p^2\frac{u^2}{v^2\tau} \,.
\end{equation}
Here $f(p,t)$ is the particle distribution function, $p$ is the
particle momentum, $t$ is the time, and the operator $\hat{L}$ describes particle
spatial propagation and their momentum losses.
In spite of its low efficiency, stochastic acceleration may be
essential for particle acceleration in solar flares \citep[see e.g.,][]{miller,petr12},
in the interstellar medium of the Galaxy
\citep[][]{ber90} and near the Galactic center \citep[see e.g.,][]{mertsch}.
The problem of stochastic particle acceleration in galaxy clusters
arose from observations in the hard X-ray (HXR) energy range
\citep[see e.g.,][]{fusf,fus,repha,reph,eckert,neva09,ajello1}
which showed an emission excess above the equilibrium thermal
X-ray spectrum.
One of the several interpretations of the HXR excess from the Coma cluster
in the range 20-80 keV was an assumption that it was produced by bremsstrahlung
radiation of suprathermal electrons \citep[see e.g.,][]{elb99} accelerated in
the intracluster medium.
However, this model was criticized by \citet{petr01} who concluded
from simple estimates that in this case the intracluster plasma in
Coma had to be overheated very fast.
The point is that suprathermal electrons emitting the HXR excess lose their energy
mainly by Coulomb losses, i.e., they lose their energy by heating the background plasma.
If these electrons generate an X-ray flux $L_X$ by bremsstrahlung,
they transfer the energy flux $L_C$ to the background plasma.
The necessary energy input is estimated as
\begin{equation}\label{c_en}
L_C\sim L_X\left[\frac{(d\mathcal{E}/dt)_C}{(d\mathcal{E}/dt)_{BR}}\right]\,,
\end{equation}
where $(d\mathcal{E}/dt)_C$ and $(d\mathcal{E}/dt)_{BR}$ are the
rates of Coulomb and bremsstrahlung losses, respectively.
In the keV energy range $(d\mathcal{E}/dt)_C\gg (d\mathcal{E}/dt)_{BR}$,
and this seems to make plasma overheating inevitable.
However, we should point out that in effect particle acceleration may also be
accompanied by plasma cooling due to run-away flux of high energy
particles from thermal pool, and more careful analysis is necessary
to define which of these effects (plasma heating or cooling) prevails.
This analysis is presented in the following sections.
\section{ Review of Particle Acceleration from Background Plasma}\label{lin}
A natural source for suprathermal particles is stochastic acceleration
of seed particles from a background plasma.
These particles are accelerated when the rate of acceleration
$(d\mathcal{E}/dt)_F$ exceeds the rate of the Coulomb losses $(d\mathcal{E}/dt)_C$.
A characteristic energy called the injection energy $\mathcal{E}_{\rm inj}$ is the
energy above which a non-thermal spectrum is formed by acceleration.
It is determined by equating these rates of acceleration and loss.
The kinetic equation in the particle momentum space
describing stochastic particle acceleration from background plasma
has the form (assume isotropic distribution)
\begin{equation}\label{e_k}
{{\partial f}\over{\partial t}}+{1\over p^2}{\partial\over{\partial p}}p^2
\left[\left(\frac{dp}{dt}\right)_C f - \left\{D_C(p)+D_F(p)\right\}{{\partial f}
\over{\partial p}}\right]=0\,,
\end{equation}
where $D_F(p)$ is the diffusion coefficient of stochastic (Fermi)
acceleration, and $(dp/dt)_C$ and $D_C(p)$ describe particle
momentum losses and diffusion due to Coulomb collisions. These
coefficients are calculated from the total distribution function
$f$ (see Appendix~\ref{appendix-kin}), and therefore in general
the equation is nonlinear.
\subsection{Linear Approximation}
An analytical solution of this equation for the case of weak
acceleration from a background plasma with temperature $T$ was
obtained by \citet{gur60}. The term of stochastic acceleration was
taken in the phenomenological form
\begin{equation}
D_F(p)=\alpha p^2\,.
\end{equation}
The analysis was provided for the case when the characteristic
time of stochastic acceleration,
\begin{equation}\label{tauF}
\tau_F=p^2/D_F\,,
\end{equation}
is much larger than the time of thermal particle collisions,
$\tau_{th}$,
\begin{equation}\label{tauth}
\tau_{th}\simeq \sqrt{\frac{2}{m}}~\frac{m_e(k_{\rm B}T)^{3/2}}{\pi N e^4\ln\Lambda}\,,
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the density and $T$ is the temperature of background
plasma, $\ln\Lambda$ is the Coulomb logarithm, $m_e$ is the
electron rest mass and $m$ is the mass of accelerated particles.
In this case the injection energy $\mathcal{E}_{\rm inj}$ is much
larger than the plasma temperature, $\mathcal{E}_{\rm inj}\gg k_{\rm
B}T$. Coulomb collisions keep the equilibrium Maxwellian
distribution for most part of the momentum range, and the coefficients
of Eq.~(\ref{e_k}) for nonrelativistic momenta $p\gg\sqrt{2mk_{\rm B}T}$
\citep[as used by][]{gur60} for the Maxwellian distribution
function. For $\tau_{th}\ll\tau_F$, significant distortions from
the equilibrium Maxwellian state are expected only for very large
values of momenta and a very small fraction of thermal particles
is accelerated. Therefore \citet{gur60} assumed that the number
of particles $N(t)$ in the momentum range $p<p_{\rm inj}$ varies
very slowly with time $t$, $N(t)=N_0-St$, where $N_0$ is the
initial particle density and a small run-away flux $S$ is
generated at relatively high momentum range. The run-away
flux for the case of slow acceleration can be described as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{runaway}
S(p)=S_0{4\over\sqrt{\pi}}\int\limits^{{\bar p}}_0
x^2 e^{-x^2} dx
=S_0\left[{\rm erf}\left({\bar p}\right)
-{2\over\sqrt{\pi}}\,{\bar p}\,e^{-{\bar p}^2}\right]\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\rm erf}(z)$ is the error function, ${\bar p}=p/\sqrt{2mk_{\rm B}T}$,
and the constant $S_0$ is derived from boundary conditions. The flux is zero
at $p=0$ but when $p \gg \sqrt{2mk_{\rm B}T}$, it reaches a maximum value
$S(p)=S_0$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:S0}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig01.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Run-away flux $S$ as a function of the dimensionless
momentum $p/\sqrt{2mk_{\rm B}T}$.}
\label{fig:S0}
\end{figure}
In the momentum range where $S(p)\simeq S_0$ the distribution function
is non-Maxwellian and it is described by the kinetic equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq_flux}
p^2\left[\left(\frac{dp}{dt}\right)_C f -
\left\{D_C(p)+D_F(p)\right\}{{\partial f}\over{\partial p}}\right]=S_0\,.
\end{equation}
The acceleration forms a nonthermal component of the spectrum in
the range $p>p_{\rm inj}$ where $p_{\rm inj}$ is the solution of equation
\begin{equation}\label{pinj}
p_{\rm inj} = {D_F(p_{\rm inj})\over (dp/dt)_C}\,.
\end{equation}
However, if $D_F(p)\neq 0$ in the range $p<p_{\rm inj}$, a solution of this equation
describes also an excess of the distribution function above the equilibrium
Maxwellian distribution
in momentum ranges both above and below $p_{\rm inj}$
\citep[see][]{gur60}. This excess at $p<p_{\rm inj}$ is formed by
Coulomb collisions in the transition range between the thermal
(Maxwellian) and non-thermal parts of the spectrum. If the HXR
excess is due to bremsstrahlung emission of electrons from this
transition region then the relation~(\ref{c_en}) used by
\citet{petr01} cannot be applied to the estimate of $L_C$ and more
accurate calculations are necessary.
Bremsstrahlung emission of electrons from the transition region
was calculated in \citet{dog1,liang,dog2}. The conclusion is that
the necessary energy input $L_C$ for Coma was about one order of
magnitude less than obtained by \citet{petr01}. This may solve the
problem of the plasma overheating. However, their linear analysis
of equation~(\ref{e_k}) does not include variations of temperature
$T$ which is supposed to be constant.
\subsection{Non-Linear Treatment}
More reliable conclusions can be derived from analyses of the
nonlinear equation in the form similar to those used by
\citet{rosen}, when a feedback of accelerated particles on the
plasma temperature is taken into account. Very recently
\citet{wolfe} and \citet{east} provided similar numerical analysis
for the case of stochastic acceleration from a background plasma.
The nonlinear kinetic equation describing particle Coulomb
collisions is derived in \citet{ll} (see Appendix
\ref{appendix-kin}). Using this theory \citet{nayak} derived
coefficients of this equation for the case of isotropic and
homogeneous distribution function for non-relativistic and
ultra-relativistic particles. Later, \citet{wolfe} extended their
analysis to the general case of anisotropic distribution function.
Numerical analysis of these equations has been performed by
\citet{wolfe} for the isotropic stochastic acceleration in the form
\begin{equation}
D_F(p) = \alpha p^\varsigma \theta(p - 1/2)\,.
\end{equation}
\citet{wolfe} stated that
the continuous stochastic acceleration of thermal electrons
produced a nonthermal tail.
But for the hard X-ray emission in the Coma Cluster this model
actually cannot work because the energy gained by the particles is
distributed to the whole plasma on a timescale much shorter than
that of the acceleration process itself. Moreover, bremsstrahlung is
relatively inefficient to cool the accelerated electrons,
the energy of this tail is quickly dumped into the thermal background plasma and
heat the plasma.
Similarly, \citet{east} obtained numerical solutions of the nonlinear
isotropic kinetic equations which included effects of plasma
heating for the stochastic diffusion in the form
\begin{equation}\label{petrosian}
D_F(\mathcal{E})=\frac{\mathcal{E}^2}
{\zeta(\mathcal{E})\tau_0(1+\mathcal{E}_c/\mathcal{E})^q}\,,
\end{equation}
where
$\mathcal{E}=\sqrt{p^2+1}-1$ is the kinetic energy normalized to $mc^2$,
$\zeta(\mathcal{E})=(2-\gamma^{-2})/(1+\gamma^{-1})$, and
$\tau_0$, $\mathcal{E}_c$ and $q$ are free parameters.
\citet{east} concluded that their calculations confirmed
qualitatively results of \citet{dog2} that the required input
energy $L_C$ was lower than that follows from the estimate (\ref{c_en})
but by a factor of 2 or 3 only, and that did not solve the problem of
plasma overheating. Besides, they argued that their calculations
confirmed results of \citet{wolfe} that stochastic acceleration
could not work in clusters because the energy gained by the
particles was distributed to the whole plasma on timescales much
shorter than that of the acceleration process. At acceleration
rates smaller than the thermalization rate of the background
plasma, there is very little acceleration. The primary effect of
acceleration is heating of the plasma. In the opposite case, at
higher energizing rates, a distinguishable nonthermal tail is
developed, but this is again accompanied by an unacceptably high
rate of heating.
In other words it follows from these investigations that it is
problematic to accelerate particles from a background plasma
because the main effect of this acceleration is plasma
overheating. The energy supplied by external sources in the form
of stochastic (Fermi) acceleration is quickly absorbed by a background plasma.
An interesting question arises: whether any
conditions exist when the stochastic acceleration generate
prominent nonthermal tails while the plasma is not overheated and
its temperature varies relatively slowly.
From the analysis in the following sections, we argue that the answer is affirmative.
\section{Particle Acceleration from Background Plasma: Quasi-Linear
Approximation}\label{quasilin}
First, we estimate variations of plasma temperature derived in
quasi-stationary approximations when the distribution function can
be presented as $f = f(p,N,T)$. In this case,
\begin{equation}\label{q_st}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial f}{\partial N}\frac{dN}{dt}
+ \frac{\partial f}{\partial T}\frac{dT}{dt}\,.
\end{equation}
where $N =N(t)$ and $T = T(t)$ are slowly varying functions of $t$.
\subsection{Distribution function}\label{distrib_f}
In this subsection we investigate the isotropic form of the kinetic equation~(\ref{equp}).
This equation describes stochastic particle acceleration from background plasma and
it is exactly the same as Eq.~(\ref{e_k}). The appropriate boundary conditions
are Eqs.~(\ref{kinet_symp}) \& (\ref{kinet_sym1p}).
Recall that the particle momentum has been normalized to $mc$.
Here and in the following the temperature $T$ is indeed the thermal energy $k_{\rm B}T$
normalized to $mc^2$. The particle kinetic energy $\mathcal{E}=\sqrt{p^2+1}-1$
is also normalized to $mc^2$. The coefficients $(dp/dt)_C(p)$, $D_C(p)$ and $D_F(p)$ are
normalized accordingly.
The stochastic Fermi acceleration is supposed to be isotropic and has a
phenomenological form as
\begin{equation}\label{pcut}
D_F(p) = \alpha p^\varsigma \theta(p-p_0)\,,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$, $\varsigma$ and $p_0$ are arbitrary parameters.
The problem is characterized also by the injection momentum
\begin{equation}\label{pinjection}
\alpha p_{\rm inj}^\varsigma
= - p_{\rm inj} \left.\left({dp\over dt}\right)_c\right|_{p=p_{\rm inj}}\,.
\end{equation}
The acceleration is effective in the momentum range
$p>{\rm max}\{p_0,p_{\rm inj}\}$.
Similar to \citet{gur60} we assume that the acceleration time $\tau_F$,
is much longer than the time of thermal particle collisions $\tau_{th}$,
i.e., values of $p_{\rm inj}$ or $p_0$ are large and
one of the corresponding energy values is much higher
than the temperature,
\begin{equation}
T\ll {\rm max}(\mathcal{E}_{\rm inj}, \mathcal{E}_0)\,.
\end{equation}
In this case, Coulomb collisions keep the equilibrium Maxwellian
distribution over an extended momentum range with a significant
deviation from this distribution at very large momenta,
i.e., a small part of thermal particles is accelerated. The number
of non-thermal particles generated by the acceleration $N_n$ in
this case is much smaller than the number of thermal particles
$N$, $N_n/N\ll 1$.
Below we present the distribution function and the coefficients
of the kinetic equation as series expansions over the small
parameter $\epsilon=N_n/N\ll 1$,
\begin{eqnarray}
f(p,t) &&= f_0(p,t) + f_1(p,t) + O\left(\epsilon^2\right)\,, \nonumber \\
D_c(p,t) &&= D_0(p,t) + D_1(p,t) + O\left(\epsilon^2\right)\,, \\
\left({dp\over dt}\right)_c(p,t) &&= \left({dp\over dt}\right)_0(p,t)
+ \left({dp\over dt}\right)_1(p,t) + O\left(\epsilon^2\right)\,. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here $O\left(\epsilon^i\right)$ denotes terms of order $\epsilon^i$ or above.
Note that $f_i(p,t)=O(\epsilon^i)$,
$D_0$ and $(dp/dt)_0$ are calculated from Eq.~(\ref{coef1p}) for the function $f_0$,
and $D_1$ and $(dp/dt)_1$ for the function $f_1$, etc.
In the quasi-stationary approximation the derivative $\partial f/\partial t$ can be
presented in the form (\ref{q_st}). The derivatives $dN/dt$ and
$dT/dt$ can be presented as series $dN/dt = O(\epsilon)$ and
$dT/dt = O(\epsilon)$, because without acceleration ($N_n=0$) we have
$dN/dt = 0$ and $dT/dt = 0$. Here we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial f_0}{\partial t} +
O\left(\epsilon^2\right)\,,
\end{equation}
and ${\partial f_0}/{\partial t}$ is of the order of $\epsilon$.
It is convenient to express the distribution function as
\begin{equation}\label{ff}
f(p) = f^I(p)\theta(p_0 - p) + f^{II}(p)\theta(p-p_0)\,.
\end{equation}
First, we find the solution of Eq.~(\ref{e_k}) in the momentum
range $0<p<p_0$ where the acceleration term vanishes and $f=f^I$
(see Eq.~(\ref{ff})). In zero order of expansion (no
acceleration) the function $f_0$ is Maxwellian
\begin{equation}\label{maxwellI}
f^I_0(p)
=C_0 \exp\left[\int_0^p\left({dp\over dt}\right)_0{dp\over D_0}\right]
=C_0\exp(-\mathcal{E}/T)\,,
\end{equation}
where $D_0$ and $(dp/dt)_0$ are the Maxwellian kinetic coefficients.
For $p \gg \sqrt{T^2+1}-1$ the Bethe-Bloch approximation for the
these coefficients is
\begin{eqnarray}
\left({dp\over dt}\right)_0 &&= - A \left(1+{1\over p^2}\right)\,, \label{bethe-1} \\
D_0 &&= - T\sqrt{1+{1\over p^2}}\left({dp\over dt}\right)_0
=AT\left(1+{1\over p^2}\right)^{3/2}\nonumber \,.
\end{eqnarray}
Here and below
\begin{equation}\label{taumc-1}
A = 4\pi r_e^2cN \ln \Lambda\,.
\end{equation}
The characteristic time of Coulomb losses for a particle with
momentum $p$ (in unit of $mc$) is
\begin{equation}\label{tauC}
\tau_C(p)\sim \frac{p^3}{A(p^2+1)}\,.
\end{equation}
Constant $C_0$ is estimated from the normalization condition
\begin{equation}\label{maxwellC0}
C_0 = N \left[\int\limits_0^{p_0} p^2 f^I_0(p)dp\right]^{-1} \approx
\frac{N\exp(-T^{-1})}{TK_2(T^{-1})}\,,
\end{equation}
where $K_2(x)$ is the modified Bessel function.
For non-relativistic temperatures ($T\ll 1$) we obtain
\begin{equation}
C_0 \approx N\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}T^{-3/2}\,.
\end{equation}
The kinetic equation for the function $f^I_1$ can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{kin-o2-epsilson}
\frac{1}{p^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial p}p^2\left[
D_0(p)\frac{\partial f^I_1}{\partial p} +
D_1(p)\frac{\partial f^I_0}{\partial p} -
\left(\frac{dp}{dt}\right)_0 f^I_1 -
\left(\frac{dp}{dt}\right)_1 f^I_0\right] =
\frac{\partial f^I_0}{\partial t} + O\left(\epsilon^2\right)\,.
\end{equation}
Integrating the above equation from 0 to $p$ gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq_nr_I_1-1}
p^2 \left[ D_0(p)\frac{\partial f^I_1}{\partial p} -
\left(\frac{dp}{dt}\right)_0 f^I_1\right] = -S =
-\left(S_1 + S_2\right)\,,
\end{equation}
where $S$ is the flux of particles through the point $p$. Here
\begin{equation}\label{s1-1}
S_1 = -\frac{dN(p,t)}{dt} = -\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\int\limits_0^p u^2f^I_0(u)du\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
S_2 = p^2\left[D_1(p)\frac{\partial f^I_0}{\partial p} -
\left({dp\over dt}\right)_1 f^I_0(p)\right]\,.
\end{equation}
The flux $S_1$ describes a particle leakage (in momentum space) caused by the
acceleration. It generates a slow decrease of particle number in
the thermal region. The flux $S_2$ causes the plasma heating and
temperature variations with time.
Thus, the solution of Eq.~(\ref{eq_nr_I_1-1}) is
\begin{equation}\label{sol_eq_nr_I_1-1}
f^I_1(p) = \exp(-\mathcal{E}/T)\left[C_1 - \int\limits_0^p
\frac{S(u)}{u^2 D_0(u)}\exp(\mathcal{E}/T)du\right]\,.
\end{equation}
As in \citet{gur60} the value of the constant $C_1$ can be derived
from the normalization condition
\begin{equation}\label{C1_norm}
\int\limits_0^{p_0} p^2 f^I_1(p)dp = 0\,.
\end{equation}
The kinetic coefficients $D_1$ and $(dp/dt)_1$ are calculated for
the function $f^I_1+f^{II}$. Therefore Eq.~(\ref{sol_eq_nr_I_1-1})
is an integral equation for $f^I_1(p)$ which
should be added by an equation for $f^{II}(p)$. The asymptotic
form of $f^I_1(p)$ for large values of $p$ can easily be derived.
Indeed, if $\mathcal{E}\gg T$ then $S_1(p) = O(\epsilon)$ while
$S_2(p) \sim O(\epsilon)\exp(-\mathcal{E}/T) \ll S_1$. Therefore
$S_2(p)$ can be neglected. As one can see from Eq.~(\ref{s1-1}) the
flux $S_1(p)$ remains almost constant for sufficiently large $p$
(see Fig.~\ref{fig:S0}). So with a high degree of accuracy we can put
$S_1(p) = S_N \equiv - dN/dt$, which is the same as
$S_0$ in \citet{gur60}.
It follows from Eqs. (\ref{sol_eq_nr_I_1-1}) and (\ref{C1_norm}) that the
constant $C_1$ is
\begin{equation}
C_1 \approx S_N\tau_C(p_0)\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}T^{-3/2}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\tau_C(p_0)$ is the characteristic time of Coulomb
collision for the particle momentum $p=p_0$ (for $\tau_F$ and
$\tau_C$ see Eqs. (\ref{tauF}) and (\ref{tauC})). Thus, for the
estimation of $S_N$ obtained in subsection~\ref{trans} we have
\begin{equation}
C_1 \sim {N\over T^{3/2}}
\exp\left(-\frac{\mathcal{E}_0}{T}\right)\frac{\tau_C(p_0)}{\tau_F(p_0)}
\sim {N\over T^{3/2}}\exp\left(-\frac{\mathcal{E}_0}{T}\right)\ll C_0\,.
\end{equation}
The distribution function in the range $p<p_0$ can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{rel_f-1}
&&f^I(p)\simeq f^I_0(p)+f^I_1(p) \nonumber \\
&&\quad\quad
=\frac{N}{TK_2(T^{-1})}\exp\left(-\frac{\xi}{T}\right)
-\frac{S_N}{AT}\left[\frac{1}{T}
\exp\left(-\frac{\xi}{T}\right)Ei\left(\frac{\xi}{T}\right)
- \frac{1}{\xi}\right] \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\xi = \sqrt{p^2+1} = \mathcal{E}+1$ is the total energy of particle and
\begin{equation}
Ei(z) = \int\limits_{-\infty}^z\frac{\exp(x)}{x}dx\,.
\end{equation}
For non-relativistic temperatures $\xi/T \gg 1$ the expansion of $Ei(z)$ for
$z\gg 1$ is
\begin{equation}
Ei(z) = \frac{\exp(z)}{z}\sum\limits_{k=0}^\infty \frac{k!}{z^k}\,.
\end{equation}
Thus for large values of $p$
\begin{equation}\label{fI-1}
f^I(p) =
\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\frac{N}{T^{3/2}}\exp\left(-\frac{\mathcal{E}}{T}\right)
- \frac{S_N}{A(p^2+1)}\,.
\end{equation}
The distributions function Eq.~(\ref{rel_f-1}) can be presented in the form
\begin{equation}\label{f_1_bigO-1}
f^I(p) = \left \{
\begin{array}{l}
f_0^I(p)
+ O(\epsilon)\,,\mbox{ for }\mathcal{E}\leq T \\
f_0^I(p)
- \frac{S_N}{A(p^2+1)}+O\left(\epsilon^2\right)\,,
\mbox{ for }\mathcal{E}_0\geq\mathcal{E}\gg T
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
In the range $p \geq p_0$ the acceleration cannot be neglected.
With the constant flux $S_N$ of particles the equation for the
distribution function $f^{II}$ in this region reads
\begin{equation}\label{eq+acc-1}
p^2\left[ \left\{D_0(p)+D_F(p)\right\}\frac{\partial f^{II}}{\partial p}
-\left(\frac{dp}{dt}\right)_0 f^{II}\right] = -S_N\,.
\end{equation}
The general solution of this equation is \citep[see, e.g.,][]{gur60}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{gur_sol01-1}
&&f^{II}(p) = C^{II} \exp\left\{\int \limits_0^p
\frac{(dp/dt)_0(u)du}{D_F(u)+D_0(u)}\right\} \nonumber \\
&&- S_N \exp\left\{\int \limits_0^p \frac{(dp/dt)_0(u)du}{D_F(u)+D_0(u)}\right\}
\int\limits_0^p\frac{v^{-2}dv}{D_F(v)+D_0(v)}
\exp\left\{-\int\limits_0^v \frac{(dp/dt)_0(u)du}{D_F(u)+D_0(u)}\right\}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The constant $C^{II}$ can be estimated from the continuity
condition at $p=p_0$: $f^I(p_0) = f^{II}(p_0)$ while the value of
$S_N$ can be estimated from the second boundary condition:
$f^{II}(p_{\rm max}) = 0$.
For $p \gg p_{\rm inj}$, we can assume acceleration dominates Coulomb loss. It is
easy to show from Eq.~(\ref{eq+acc-1}) and Eq.~(\ref{pcut}) that the function
$f^{II}(p)$ is a power-law
\begin{equation}\label{fII_pwlaw-1}
f^{II}(p) = \tilde{C}_1 + \frac{S_N}{\alpha(\varsigma+1)}p^{-\varsigma-1}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{C}_1$ is a constant.
\subsection{Plasma heating rate}\label{PHR}
Using the total distribution function $f$ (see Eq.~(\ref{ff}), where $f^I$ and
$f^{II}$ are determined by Eqs.~(\ref{f_1_bigO-1}) \& (\ref{gur_sol01-1})),
we can calculate the kinetic coefficients~(\ref{coef1p}) for the nonlinear equation~(\ref{e_k}),
and then estimate the temperature variations of the
background plasma caused by particle acceleration.
In this case the stochastic Fermi momentum diffusion describes the energy supply into the system
by external sources.
Generally speaking, energy supply can vary with time, but usually it is assumed that
external sources keep a
stationary level of acceleration such that $D_F$ is constant.
The total energy input into the system is
\begin{equation}
\dot{W}_{\rm ext} =-\int\limits_0^{\infty} \mathcal{E}\frac{\partial}
{\partial p}\left[p^2D_F\frac{\partial f}{\partial p}\right]\, dp\,.
\end{equation}
It is a function of time even if $D_F$ is constant,
because the distributions function $f$ is time dependent.
Note that Coulomb collisions do not change the total energy in the system,
therefore we have
\begin{equation}\label{cond}
\int\limits_0^{\infty} \mathcal{E}\frac{\partial}{\partial p}
p^2\left[\left(\frac{dp}{dt}\right)_C f -
D_C(p){{\partial f}\over{\partial p}}\right]\, dp=0\,.
\end{equation}
This condition is valid for any function $f$ if the kinetic coefficients
$(dp/dt)_C$ and $D_C(p)$ are calculated from Eq.~(\ref{coef1p}) for this function $f$.
The energy supplied by the stochastic Fermi acceleration is distributed over
the spectrum in the form of accelerated particles and a heated plasma,
because accelerated particles lose their energy by Coulomb collisions
and thus transfer a part of their energy to thermal particles.
Variations of
$dT/dt$ in the quasi-equilibrium part of the spectrum can be
derived from estimates of the energy flux into the region $p<p_0$
which is
\begin{equation}
\dot{W_0} = \frac{\partial }{\partial t}
\int\limits_0^{p_0} p^2 \mathcal{E}f^I(p) dp \label{wdot_1}
= \int\limits_0^{p_0} \mathcal{E}\frac{\partial}{\partial p}\left[p^2D_c
\frac{\partial f^I}{\partial p} -p^2\left(\frac{dp}{dt}\right)_c f^I\right]\,dp\,,
\end{equation}
where the coefficients $D_c$ and $(dp/dt)_c$ are calculated for
the total distribution function (\ref{ff}). For the estimation of the integral
(\ref{wdot_1}) we can use the condition (\ref{cond}), and obtain
\begin{equation}
\dot{W_0} = - \int\limits_{p_0}^\infty \mathcal{E}\frac{\partial}{\partial p}
\left[p^2D_c\frac{\partial f^{II}}{\partial p} -
p^2 \left(\frac{dp}{dt}\right)_c f^{II}\right]\,dp\,.
\end{equation}
Integration by parts gives
\begin{equation}\label{wdot_3_c-1}
\dot{W_0}=-\mathcal{E}_0S_N + \int\limits_{p_0}^\infty
\frac{p^3}{\sqrt{p^2+1}}\left[D_c\frac{\partial f^{II}}{\partial p}
-\left(\frac{dp}{dt}\right)_c f^{II} \right]\,dp\,.
\end{equation}
Since $\dot{W_0} = O(\epsilon)$ and $f^{II} = O(\epsilon)$ we can use
the Maxwellian (Bethe-Bloch) expressions for the kinetic
coefficients $D_0$ and $(dp/dt)_0$ as in Eq.~(\ref{bethe-1}),
\begin{equation}\label{wdot_3-1}
\dot{W_0}=-\mathcal{E}_0S_N + \int\limits_{p_0}^\infty
\frac{p^3}{\sqrt{p^2+1}}\left[D_0\frac{\partial f^{II}}{\partial p}
-\left(\frac{dp}{dt}\right)_0 f^{II} \right]\,dp\,.
\end{equation}
We see that the energy input into the thermal part of the spectrum
(plasma heating) is determined by two processes: (i) energy losses
of nonthermal particles (the integral of Eq.~(\ref{wdot_3-1})) which heat the
plasma, and (ii) a particle escape to the high energy part of the
equilibrium spectrum (the first term on the RHS of Eq.~(\ref{wdot_3-1})) which cools
the plasma. On the other hand we can express $\dot{W_0}$ in the form
\begin{equation}\label{w0_dot}
\frac{dW_0}{dt} = \frac{\partial W_0}{\partial T}\frac{dT}{dt} +
\frac{\partial W_0}{\partial N}\frac{dN}{dt}\,.
\end{equation}
To the first order of $\epsilon$ of the expansion of $dT/dt$ we
can take $W_0$ as
\begin{equation}\label{EnergyContent0}
W_0 = \int\limits_0^{p_0}u^2 \mathcal{E} f_0^I(u)\,du =
\frac{N\exp(-T^{-1})}{TK_2(T^{-1})}\int\limits_0^{p_0}u^2 \mathcal{E}
\exp\left(-{\mathcal{E}\over T}\right) du \,. \nonumber
\end{equation}
In the general case the temperature variations can be calculated
numerically (see section~\ref{nl}). However, these calculations
can be simplified. The point is that the particle spectrum described by
Eqs.~(\ref{fI-1}) \& (\ref{gur_sol01-1}) depends strongly on the relation
between the momenta $p_{\rm inj}$ and $p_0$. Fig.~\ref{fig:spectr}
illustrates this situation: as $p_0$ increases the transition
region in momentum range $p>p_0$ shrinks and finally disappears
when $p_0$ reaches $p_{\rm inj}$. In the limiting case $p_0>p_{\rm inj}$
the transition region vanishes almost completely and the
power-law tail of nonthermal particles is attached almost directly to
the thermal equilibrium distribution. In this case,
evaluations of the plasma temperature can be performed
analytically because the functions $f^I$ and $f^{II}$ have very
simple form. We notice that the conclusion of \citet{gur60} about a
very extended transition region between thermal and nonthermal
parts of the spectrum is valid only for the case when $p_0<p_{\rm inj}$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig02_new.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Shape of $f(p)$ for different values of $p_0$. Thin solid
line represents $f(p)$, thick solid line - pure Maxwellian
distribution, dashed line - power-law approximation.}
\label{fig:spectr}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The case of transitionless acceleration}\label{trans}
If $p_0>p_{\rm inj}$, Eq.~(\ref{fII_pwlaw-1}) is an appropriate solution
for the distribution function.
$\tilde{C}_1$ and $S_N$ are determined from the boundary conditions at $p=p_0$ and
$p=p_{\rm max}$, namely, $f^{II}(p_0)=f^I(p_0)=f_0$ and $f^{II}(p_{\rm max})=0$,
\begin{eqnarray}
S_N &&= \alpha (\varsigma+1)p_0^{\varsigma+1} f_0\,,\label{SN1-1} \\
\tilde{C}_1 &&= -{S_Np^{-(\varsigma+1)}_{\rm max}\over\alpha(\varsigma+1)}
=- f_0 \left({p_{\rm max} \over p_0}\right)^{-(\varsigma+1)}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
As $p_{\rm max} \gg p_0$, thus for simplicity we set $\tilde{C}_1 =0$,
and for non-relativistic temperatures $T \ll 1$ from Eq.~(\ref{fI-1}) we have
\begin{equation}\label{rel_f0-1}
f_0 = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\frac{N}{T^{3/2}}\exp\left(-{\mathcal{E}_0\over T}\right)
\left[1 +\frac{\alpha(\varsigma+1)p_0^{\varsigma+1}}{A(p_0^2+1)}\right]^{-1}\,.
\end{equation}
In this case the run-away particle flux toward high energies can
be expressed directly from Eq.~(\ref{SN1-1}) as
\begin{equation}\label{SN2-1}
S_N = \alpha(\varsigma+1)p_0^{\varsigma+1}
\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\frac{N}{T^{3/2}}\exp\left(-{\mathcal{E}_0\over T}\right)
\left[1
+\frac{\alpha(\varsigma+1)p_0^{\varsigma+1}}{A(p_0^2+1)}\right]^{-1}\,.
\end{equation}
For $p_0\gg 1$ Eq.~(\ref{EnergyContent0}) becomes
\begin{equation}\label{w0_maxw-1}
W_0 = \int\limits_0^\infty p^2\mathcal{E}f^I_0(p)dp =
N\left[(3T-1)+ {K_1(T^{-1})\over K_2(T^{-1})}\right]\,,
\end{equation}
or for non-relativistic values of $T \ll 1$
\begin{equation}\label{w0_maxw_nonr}
W_0 = \frac{3}{2}NT +\frac{15}{8}NT^2 + \dots
\end{equation}
Now we have (recall Eqs.~(\ref{wdot_3-1}) and (\ref{w0_dot}))
\begin{eqnarray}\label{w0_notr-1}
&&\frac{\partial W_0}{\partial T} \frac{dT}{dt}
= \left({W_0\over N}-\mathcal{E}_0\right)S_N
+ \int\limits_{p_0}^\infty
\frac{p^3}{\sqrt{p^2+1}}\left[D_0(T)\frac{\partial f}{\partial p}
-\left({dp\over dt}\right)_0 f\right]\,dp \\
&&=\alpha f_0 \mathcal{E}_0 p_0^{\varsigma+1}(\varsigma+1)
\left[\frac{AQ(p_0,\varsigma)}{\alpha \mathcal{E}_0(\varsigma+1)}-1\right]
+ ATf_0 \left\{\frac{3\alpha p_0^{\varsigma+1}(\varsigma+1)}{2A}
- \left[1+ \frac{(\varsigma+1)}{(\varsigma-1)}p_0^2\right]\right\}\,,
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
Q(p_0,\varsigma) = \int\limits_{p_0}^\infty x^{-\varsigma}
\sqrt{x^2+1\,} \,dx \,.
\end{equation}
If $\alpha \mathcal{E}_0(\varsigma+1) \neq AQ(p_0,\varsigma)$ and
$\mathcal{E}_0 \gg T$ then the second term in Eq.(\ref{w0_notr-1})
is small and can be neglected. Finally from
Eq.~(\ref{w0_maxw_nonr}) we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{tdot_rel-1}
\frac{dT}{dt} =
\frac{2S_N}{3N}\left[\frac{A Q(p_0,\varsigma)}{\alpha(\varsigma+1)} -
\mathcal{E}_0 \right]\,,
\end{equation}
where $A$ and $S_N$ are defined by Eqs. (\ref{taumc-1}) and
(\ref{SN2-1}).
For high values of $\alpha$ one can see from Eq.~(\ref{tdot_rel-1})
that the plasma cools down and $dT/dt < 0$. The temperature
decreases with time due to a very intensive outflow of high
energy particles from the thermal pool, even though external sources in
the form of stochastic Fermi acceleration supply energy to the system
(analogue to Maxwell demon). This effect can be seen in Fig.
\ref{fig:spectr} as a deficit of high energy thermal particles at
$p<p_0$.
When $\alpha$ decreases, collisions start to dominate over the
outflow effect. As the result the derivative $dT/dt$ increases and
at sufficiently small $\alpha$ the regime changes from cooling to
heating of plasma. However the process of acceleration reduces the
amount of particles in the thermal pool ($dN/dt<0$ at $p<p_0$). If
$\alpha$ remains constant then the value of $A$ decreases with
time and, in principle for a sufficiently long time we come again to the
condition when $\alpha \mathcal{E}_0(\varsigma+1) >
A(t)Q(p_0,\varsigma)$, enter the regime of plasma cooling again.
A more accurate analysis of this regime can be provided by
numerical calculations of the nonlinear case.
\section{Nonlinear Case: Semi-Analytical Method and Numerical Calculations}\label{nl}
The most straightforward way to solve the problem is a numerical
solution of the original nonlinear equation.
However, this method is very time-consuming. We proceed with approximation methods
that simplify the numerical calculations, but still give a good result.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig03.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The comparison between heating timescale $t_T$ and
tail-formation time-scale $t_{\rm F}$ for different $p_0$ and
acceleration rates. The temperature is $T=0.016$ (the corresponding
momentum is $p_T = 0.12$). The threshold value is marked by the gray
horizontal line.}
\label{fig:fill}
\end{figure}
Analysis of kinetic equations depend on the relation between the
plasma heating time and the acceleration time. We define the heating time as
\begin{equation}\label{t_T}
t_T = T / (dT/dt)\,.
\end{equation}
The lower limit of this time can be obtained for the
quasi-stationary solution for $dW/dt$ when we neglect the cooling term
$S_N\mathcal{E}_0$ in Eq.~(\ref{wdot_3-1}). The acceleration time
characterizes a period required for particles to fill the
non-thermal tail. Numerical calculations show that for
$\varsigma>2$ this time is of the order of
\begin{equation}\label{t_acc}
t_{\rm F} \simeq \alpha^{-1} \,.
\end{equation}
The quasi-stationary state (when the plasma temperature is almost
constant and the acceleration generate prominent non-thermal
``tails'') can be reached only if $t_T > t_{\rm F}$.
In this case we can use analytical solutions presented in previous section.
The ratio $t_T/t_{\rm F}$ as a function of $p_0$ is
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fill}. The threshold value of ratio
$t_T/t_{\rm F} = 1$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fill} by the gray
horizontal dashed line. The quasi-stationary state will be achieved if
$t_T/t_{\rm F}$ is above the gray line.
If the acceleration time is larger than the heating time, $t_T < t_{\rm F}$,
the quasi-stationary state cannot be reached. In this case we can
simplify the calculations using the trick in \cite{east}. The
evolution of distribution function $f(p)$ can be described by the
non-stationary linear kinetic equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} +
\frac{1}{p^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial p}p^2
\left[ \left({dp\over dt}\right)_0(p,N,T)f \label{eq_lin_num_0}
-\left\{D_0(p,N,T)+D_F(p)\right\}\frac{\partial f}{\partial p}
\right] = 0\,.
\end{equation}
We can estimate the variation of temperature by the following algorithm:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For a given $f(t,p)$, estimate $f(t+\delta t, p)$ from
Eq.~(\ref{eq_lin_num_0});
\item compute $N(t+\delta t)$ from $\int_0^\infty f(t+\delta t,p) dp$;
\item calculate $\dot{W_0}$ from Eq.~(\ref{wdot_3-1}),
then $W_0(t+\delta t) = W_0(t)+\dot{W_0} \delta t$,
then find $T(t+\delta t)$ from Eq.~(\ref{EnergyContent0});
\item for new values of $N(t+\delta t)$ and $T(t+\delta t)$ recalculate the
kinetic coefficients using analytical expressions for Maxwellian
coefficients, see Eqs.~(\ref{MaxwellCoeff1}) \& (\ref{MaxwellCoeff2});
\item repeat steps 1-4.
\end{enumerate}
The analytical expressions for the kinetic coefficients are
calculated as
\citep[see][and references therein]{east}:
\begin{equation}\label{MaxwellCoeff1}
\left({dp\over dt}\right)_0(p,N,T)
= -\,\frac{A(p^2+1)}{p^2}\left[\mbox{erf}\left(\sqrt{{\mathcal{E}\over T}}
\right) - \sqrt{{4\mathcal{E}\over \pi T}}\exp\left(-{\mathcal{E}\over T}
\right)\right]\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{MaxwellCoeff2}
D_0(p,N,T) = -\, {T\sqrt{p^2+1}\over p}\left({dp\over dt}\right)_0(p,N,T) \,.
\end{equation}
Here $\mbox{erf}(z)$ is the error function.
With this method we combine the simplicity of the analytical method
with the accuracy of the numerical method. The only problem is that
this approach like any other semi-analytical method based on Eq.
(\ref{wdot_3-1}) cannot be used near $p_0 = 0$.
Now we compare the results obtained with different methods. We
consider the following methods:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Transitionless case: It is based on Eq.~(\ref{tdot_rel-1}). The equations
are integrated numerically using the Runge-Kutta method to obtain the evolution
of the temperature $T(t)$ and density $N(t)$. This method is applicable if
$p_{\rm inj} < p_0$.
\item Quasi-linear approximation: The distribution function is given
as in Eq. (\ref{f_1_bigO-1}) and (\ref{gur_sol01-1}). Eqs.~(\ref{wdot_3-1})
and (\ref{EnergyContent0}) are used to estimate the $dT/dt$.
The variations of the temperature $T(t)$ and density $N(t)$ are obtained using
the Runge-Kutta method. This approximation is valid for $t_T > t_{\rm F}$.
\item Semi-analytical method: It uses a combination of numerical solution to
Eq.~(\ref{eq_lin_num_0}) and analytical calculations of Eqs.~(\ref{wdot_3-1})
\& (\ref{EnergyContent0}) in order to estimate the variations of the temperature.
This method can be applied to $p_0 \gg p_T = \sqrt{(T+1)^2-1}$.
\item Numerical method: Evolution of the distribution function is obtained by a numerical
solution of the original non-linear equation Eq.~(\ref{e_k})
(for details see Appendix~\ref{appendix-num}).
This method is the most universal and is used to check whether the results obtained
by methods 1-3 are correct.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig04.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison between our numerical method (solid line) and
method used by \citet{east} (dashed line). All notations are the
same as in \citet{east} (see the text for details).}
\label{fig:petr_2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig05.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison between $D_F(p)$ used by \citet{east} (thin
dashed lines), Eq.~(\ref{petrosian}), and in this paper (thick
solid lines), Eq.~(\ref{pcut}).}
\label{fig:Dp}
\end{figure}
We checked our numerical program by calculations of temperature
variations for the acceleration in the form Eq.~(\ref{petrosian})
and for the same parameters as used by \citet{east}, i.e.,
$p_0 = 0$, $q = 1$, $\mathcal{E}_c = 0.2$ and three values of $\tau_0$
equaled correspondingly: $2.4\tau_{C}$, $0.18\tau_{C}$ and
$0.013\tau_{C}$, where $\tau_{C} \equiv (4\pi r_0^2 c N \ln
\Lambda)^{-1} \approx 2.7\times 10^7\times
(N/10^{-3}~\mbox{cm}^{-3})^{-1}$ yr and $r_0 = e^2/(m_ec^2)$. The
acceleration parameters, $D_F(p)$, for these three cases are shown
in Fig. \ref{fig:Dp} by the thin dashed lines.
The result of our calculations and that of \citet{east} are shown
in Fig.~\ref{fig:petr_2} by the solid and dashed lines
correspondingly. One can see that despite of some discrepancy the
results are more or less the same.
Now we present results of calculations for the acceleration
parameter $D_F$ in the form (\ref{pcut}), when $p_0\neq 0$. In all
cases we take $p_0=0.55$.
Variations of $p_0$ change the temperature variations
quantitatively but not qualitatively.
We choose $\varsigma = 2$ in order to
obtain the same momentum dependence of $D_F$ at high energies as
in Eq.~(\ref{petrosian}). Note that in this case $t_{\rm F} = 2\tau_0$.
Below we will use $\tau_0$ as a characteristic timescale to compare results
with those of \citet{east}.
For other values of $\varsigma$ the results are qualitatively the same, yet
lower values of $\varsigma$ will increase the amount of non-thermal particles
and thus decrease the heating timescale and vice-versa. One can see this from
Eq. (\ref{tdot_rel-1}).
The calculations where performed for the three different regimes
of acceleration:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] heating dominates over cooling;
\item[(b)] cooling and heating rates are of the same order;
\item[(c)] cooling dominates over heating.
\end{itemize}
The functions $D_F(p)$ used for these three cases are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:Dp} by the solid lines.
We provide calculations by the four different methods: analytical
(transitionless), quasi-linear, semi-analytical and numerical.
Temperature variations, $T(t)$, obtained by these methods are
shown in Figs. \ref{fig:Tneff}, \ref{fig:Teff} and \ref{fig:Ttless}
by the dashed, thin solid, thick solid and dotted lines, correspondingly.
\begin{itemize}
\item [(a)] For the case of slow acceleration we take $\alpha/A =
2.77$. In this case the quasi-stationary approach is not valid,
and only numerical and semi-analytical methods can provide an
adequate result. Temperature variations for this case of
acceleration parameter are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Tneff}. As one
can see the result of acceleration for this parameter $\alpha$ is
the plasma overheating that is in
complete agreement with the conclusions of \citet{wolfe} and
\citet{east}.
The only difference is that the overheating occurs for the time $t
\approx 4.5\tau_0 \approx 1.6\tau_C$ which is longer than that of
\citet{east} by a factor of 4 who obtained $t\sim \tau_0$. The
reason is that for $p_0 = 0$ the acceleration generates an
extended excess above the equilibrium Maxwellian function while
for $p_0 \neq 0$ this excess is not so prominent (compare dashed and solid lines in
Fig.~\ref{fig:trans_petr}). Since the amount of suprathermal
particles in the case $p_0=0$ is higher than the case $p_0>0$,
it is not surprising that the plasma is overheated by the Coulomb
losses in a shorter time when $p_0=0$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig06.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The temperature evolution when heating dominates over
cooling for the parameters: $\alpha/A = 2.77$, $p_0 = 0.55$,
$\varsigma = 2$, $T_0 = 7$ keV. Dotted line - numerical model,
thick solid line - semi-analytical model, thin solid line -
quasi-linear model, dashed line - transitionless model. Note that
semi-analytical model and the numerical model almost overlap entirely.}
\label{fig:Tneff}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig07.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison between spectra formed under influence of
momentum diffusion coefficient in the form of
Eq.~(\ref{petrosian}) for $\tau_0 = 0.18\tau_{C}$ (thin dashed
lines) and those of Eq.~(\ref{pcut}) for $\alpha/A=2.77$,
$\varsigma=2$ and $p_0=0.55$ (solid lines). The distribution
were taken at the moment when the temperatures are the same.
Two values of the temperature were used: $T_1 = 8.5$ keV,
$T_2 = 16.5$ keV.}
\label{fig:trans_petr}
\end{figure}
\item [(b)] The case of moderate acceleration ($\alpha/A = 11.63$) is
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Teff}.
One can see that all methods are in good agreement. At the first
stage we see plasma heating, however the timescale is much longer
than in \citet{east}, the plasma temperature increases by a
factor of 1.3 at the moment $t \approx 86\tau_0 = 7\tau_C$ that
is almost two orders of magnitude higher than that of
\citet{east}. A prominent quasi-stationary power-law
tail of nonthermal particles is formed by the acceleration
for a much shorter time (since $t_T/t_{\rm F} > 1$, see Fig. \ref{fig:fill}).
Moreover unlike in \citet{east}, after this time heating reverses to cooling.
\item [(c)] The case of fast acceleration
($\alpha/A = 18.5$) is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Ttless}.
The numerical method, the semi-analytical method and the quasi-linear
approximation give almost the same result. For comparison we also
show the calculations obtained with transitionless case (dashed
line). We see that in spite of some difference this method
provides a similar qualitative time variations of the temperature
$T$. All methods demonstrate plasma cooling in this regime from
the very beginning. The temperature of the plasma shows a steady
decrease with time while nonthermal tails are formed rapidly ($t_T/t_{\rm F} > 1$,
see Fig. \ref{fig:fill}) that differs completely from the results
obtained by \citet{east}.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig08.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Same as Fig. \ref{fig:Tneff} but for the case when
cooling and heating processes are of the same order of magnitude
($\alpha/A = 11.6$).}
\label{fig:Teff}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig09.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Same as Fig. \ref{fig:Tneff} but for the case when
cooling dominates over heating ($\alpha/A = 18.5$).}
\label{fig:Ttless}
\end{figure}
These results can be understood from Fig. \ref{fig:spectr}.
For the ratio $\alpha/A = 2.77$ the injection momentum is
$p_{\rm inj}\simeq 0.83$, i.e., $p_{\rm inj}>p_0$
(similar to the upper curve of Fig.~\ref{fig:spectr}).
An excess of quasi-thermal particles
is formed in the range between $p_0$ and $p_{\rm inj}$.
Coulomb losses of these particles results in effective
plasma heating. As we already above-mentioned \citet{east}
assumed $p_0=0$ that led to more extended transition region and
more effective heating.
In the case of $\alpha/A = 11.63$, $p_{\rm inj}\simeq 0.5\simeq p_0$
(similar to the middle curve of Fig.~\ref{fig:spectr}).
The transition region is almost negligible in this case.
Therefore, plasma heating by nonthermal particles is insignificant
which then changes into cooling.
In the case of $\alpha/A = 18.5$, $p_{\rm inj}\simeq 0.4$, i.e.,
$p_{\rm inj}<p_0$ (similar to the lower curve of Fig.~\ref{fig:spectr}).
A deficit of high energy particles is formed in
the thermal energy range that provides the effect of cooling.
Thus, we conclude, that depending on parameters, $p_0$ and
$\alpha$, different regimes of acceleration from background plasma
are realized. The important inference is that stochastic
acceleration may produce a flux of nonthermal particle without
plasma overheating.
A specific spectrum of turbulence that provides stochastic
acceleration is out of the scope of this paper. It depends on
mechanisms which excite electromagnetic fluctuations in an
astrophysical plasma. As an example, we mention particle
acceleration in OB-associations by a supersonic turbulence
\citep[see][]{byk93}. The momentum diffusion coefficient in this
case has the form $D(p)=D_0p^2$. This acceleration is effective in
the momentum range $p>p_0$, where the value of $p_0$ is derived
from $r_L(p_0)=lu/c$. Here $r_L$ is the particle
Larmor radius, $u$ is the shock velocity and $l$ is a distance
between shocks. Particles with $p<p_0$ are not accelerated by this
mechanism.
\section{Conclusion}\label{conclusion}
We analyzed nonlinear kinetic equations describing particle
stochastic (or second-order Fermi) acceleration from background
plasma when the acceleration is non-zero for particles with
momenta $p>p_0$. The goal of these investigations is to define
whether the only result of stochastic acceleration is plasma
overheating as concluded by \citet{wolfe} and \citet{east}, or this
acceleration can generate prominent tails of nonthermal particles
when the plasma temperature remains almost stationary. The
following results are obtained from our analysis:
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig10.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Regions of heating (below the solid line) and cooling
(above the solid line) in the parameter space ($T,\alpha/A$).
The dashed lines show the evolution of systems at
the same starting temperature but with different $\alpha/A$.}
\label{traj}
\end{figure}
\begin{enumerate}
\item We showed that in the case of stochastic acceleration two
competitive processes determine temperature variations of
background plasma. The first one is Coulomb energy losses of
nonthermal particles which heat the plasma. The other one is a
run-away flux of high-energy particles from the thermal pool
that leads to plasma cooling. Depending on the
rates of these processes the plasma may cool down or
heat up.
\item From numerical and analytical calculations we conclude that
for a low enough acceleration rate the cooling process is
negligible. The plasma gains much heat on the acceleration
timescale $\tau_0$.
As a result the plasma temperature rises
rapidly while prominent nonthermal tails are not generated, that
fully confirms results of \citet{wolfe} and \citet{east}.
\item For a moderate acceleration the cooling and heating
processes partly compensate each other. As a results the plasma
temperature is quasi-stationary on a timescales much longer than
$\tau_0$.
In this case, the acceleration produces a nonthermal
component of the spectrum. After a period of moderate plasma
heating the process changes into cooling. This regime does not
appear in the models of \citet{wolfe} and \citet{east}.
\item For a high rate of acceleration the run-away flux of thermal
particles cools the plasma down from the very beginning. In spite
of energy supply by external sources the plasma temperature drops
down (analogue to Maxwell demon).
\item The evolution of plasma temperature depends on the characteristic
time of Coulomb collisions in the background plasma (the collision
frequency $A$) and the acceleration frequency $\alpha$. This is
illustrated in Fig. \ref{traj} where the solid line defines the
border between heating (below the line) and cooling (above the
line) regimes for quasi-stationary systems. It corresponds to the
solution of the $dT/dt = 0$ (see Eq.~(\ref{wdot_3-1})). Dashed
lines in Fig. \ref{traj} show the evolution of plasma parameters
for the same initial temperature but different initial value of
$A$ ($\alpha$ is the same for the systems). Since $N$ decreases
monotonically because of particle acceleration, $A$ decreases
monotonically accordingly (see Eq.~(\ref{taumc-1})).
One can see that even if the system starts from the
regime of heating, sooner or later it changes to plasma
cooling. If the evolution of the system is quasi-stationary the turning point of
the trajectory should be located on the boundary. However we mention that the
quasi-stationary approximation is inapplicable to low values of $\alpha / A$.
\end{enumerate}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Sec:intro}
In applications such as space-exploration, mining or agriculture automation, modeling the underlying resource is a fundamental problem. For such applications, an efficient, flexible and high-fidelity representation of the geology is critical. The key challenges in realizing this are that of dealing with the problems of uncertainty and incompleteness. Uncertainty and incompleteness are virtually ubiquitous in any sensor based application as sensor capabilities are limited. The problem is magnified in a field automation scenario due to sheer scale of the application. Incompleteness is a major problem in any large scale resource modeling endeavor as sensors have limited range and applicability. A more significant contributor to this issue is that of cost - sampling and collecting such data is expensive. Geological data is typically collected through various sensors/processes of widely differing characteristics and consequently lead to different kinds of information. Often the resource is characterized by numerous quantities (for example, soil composition in terms of numerous elements). These quantities often are correlated.
Given these issues, large scale geological resource modeling needs a representation that can handle spatially correlated, incomplete and uncertain data. Not only must the correlation between homogeneous quantities be modeled but also that between heterogeneous quantities. This paper uses a Gaussian process (GP) representation of resource data similar to that described in \cite{vasudevan_jfr2009}. GPs are ideally suited to handling spatially correlated data. This paper further uses an extension of the basic Gaussian process model, the multi-task Gaussian process (MTGP), to simultaneously model multiple quantities of interest. The proposed model not only captures spatial correlations between individual quantities with themselves (at different locations) but also that between totally different quantities that together quantify the resource. That the quantities modeled in this paper exhibit strong correlation is known from geological sciences. This paper presents an empirical evaluation to understand (1) if simultaneous modeling of multiple quantities of interest (i.e. modeling and using the correlations between them and hence performing data fusion) is better than modeling these quantities independently and (2) if the nonstationary kernels are more effective than stationary kernels at modeling geological data. Experiments are performed on large scale real sensor data.
\section{Related work}
\label{sec:related_work}
Gaussian processes (GPs) \cite{rasmussen2006} are powerful non-parametric Bayesian learning techniques that can handle correlated, uncertain and incomplete data. They have been used in a range of fields, the Gaussian process web-site\footnote{\url{http://www.gaussianprocess.org/}} lists several examples. GPs produce a scalable multi-resolution model of the entity under consideration. They yield a continuous domain representation of the data and hence can be sampled at any desired resolution. GPs incorporate and handle uncertainty in a statistically sound manner and represent spatially correlated data appropriately. They model and use the spatial correlation of the given data to estimate the values for other unknown points of interest. GPs basically perform a standard interpolation technique known as \textit{Kriging} \cite{matheron1963}.
The work \cite{vasudevan_jfr2009}, modeled large scale terrain modeling using GPs. It proposed the use of non-stationary kernels (neural network) to model large scale discontinuous spatial data. A performance comparison between GPs based on stationary (squared exponential) and non-stationary (neural network) kernels as well as several other standard interpolation methods applicable to alternative representations of terrain data, was reported. The non-stationary neural network kernel was found to be superior to the stationary squared exponential kernel and at least as good as most standard interpolation techniques for a range of terrain (in terms of sparsity/complexity/discontinuities). The work presented in this paper builds on this GP representation. However, it addresses the problem of simultaneous modeling multiple heterogeneous quantities of interest, in the context of geological resource modeling. This requires the modeling and usage of the correlations between these quantities towards improving predictions of each of them - an instance of data fusion using Gaussian processes.
Data fusion in the context of Gaussian processes is necessitated by the presence of multiple, multi-sensor, multi-attribute, incomplete and/or uncertain data sets of the entity being modeled. Two preliminary attempts towards addressing this problem include \cite{ebeltagy2001} and \cite{msmith2005}. The former bears a ``hierarchical learning'' flavor to it in that it demonstrates how a GP can be used to model an expensive process by (a) modeling a GP on an approximate or cheap process and (b) using the many input-output data from the approximate process and the few samples available of the expensive process together in order to learn a GP for the latter. The work \cite{msmith2005} attempts to generalize arbitrary transformations on GP priors through linear transformations. It hints at how this framework could be used to introduce heteroscedasticity (random variables with non-constant variance) and how information from different sources could be fused. However, specifics on how the fusion can actually be performed are beyond the scope of the work.
Girolami in \cite{girolami2006} integrated heterogeneous feature types within a Gaussian process classification setting, in a protein fold recognition application domain. Each feature representation is represented by a separate GP. The fusion uses the idea that individual feature representations are considered independent and hence a composite covariance function would be defined in terms of a linear sum of Gaussian process priors. A recent work by Reece et al. \cite{reece2011} integrated ``hard'' data obtained from sensors with ``soft'' information obtained from human sources within a Gaussian process classification framework. This problem/approach is different from the work presented here. It uses heterogeneous information domains (i.e. kinds of information) as mutually independent sources of information that are transformed into the kernel representation (a kernel for each kind of information) and combined using a product rule (a linear sum in Girolami's work). The focus thus, is on encoding or representing different kinds of information in a common mathematical framework using kernels. This paper is concerned with a ``higher level'' data fusion problem of heterogeneous-source information integration \emph{after} it has been represented using kernel methods. The experiments of this paper demonstrate the case when information from each source is itself from a homogeneous domain - e.g. the heterogeneous input data are all real numbers. The approach presented in this paper improves the estimate of several different quantities being simultaneously modeled by explicitly modeling the correlation between multiple heterogeneous information sources. If this is not the case (e.g. input data is made up of qualitative and quantitative data dimensions), each of heterogeneous information types can be represented by separate kernels and these can be combined using a sum or product as has been done in \cite{girolami2006,reece2011}. Simpler data fusion approaches, based on GPs, heteroscedastic GPs and their variants (see \cite{vasudevan2012}), may be applied. However, the application of the approach presented in this paper, based on multi-output or multi-task GPs, will require a non-trivial derivation of auto and cross covariances for kernels applied on heterogeneous information types.
Examples of related works that use multiple sources of the same kind of information within a single GP representation framework include \cite{thompson2008} and \cite{dragiev2011}. Whereas the former uses single output GPs to incorporate in-situ surface spectra information and remotely sensed spectra information into a kilometer scale map of the environment, the latter uses a GP implicit surface representation of an object that has to be grasped and manipulated. The representation incorporates visual, haptic and laser data into a single representation of the object. Data from each of these sensor modalities conditions the GP prior based on the implied surface at that point (on/outside/inside the object).
Two recent approaches demonstrating data fusion with Gaussian processes in the context of large scale terrain modeling were based on heteroscedastic GPs \cite{vasudevan_icra2010} and dependent GPs \cite{vasudevan_iros2010,vasudevan_icra2011}. These address the problem of fusing multiple, multi-sensor data sets of a single quantity of interest. This paper describes the framework for extending this concept to multiple heterogeneous quantities of interest. The work \cite{vasudevan_icra2010} treated the data-fusion problem as one of combining different noisy samples of a common entity (terrain) being modeled. In the Machine Learning community, this idea is referred to as heteroscedastic GPs \cite{goldberg1998,wabha2004,le2005,kersting2007}. The works \cite{vasudevan_iros2010} and \cite{vasudevan_icra2011} treated the data fusion problem as one of improving GP regression through modeling the spatial correlations (auto and cross covariances) between several dependent GPs representing the respective data sets. This idea has been inspired by recent machine learning contributions in multi-task or multi-output or dependent GP modeling including \cite{Bonilla2007} and \cite{Boyle2004}, the latter being based on \cite{Higdon2002}. In Kriging terminology, this idea is akin to Co-kriging \cite{wackernagel2003}. The work \cite{vasudevan2012} performed a model complexity analysis of multiple approaches to data fusion using GPs, applied in the context of large scale terrain modeling. The work presented in this paper, focuses on the most generic of these approaches in the context of geological resource modeling. The significantly stronger evaluation, the discussion of ``big-picture'' issues relating to the application of the approach in practical problems, the fusion of heterogeneous data, the use of more kernels and the tying together of different prior works that have studied this approach \cite{vasudevan_iros2010,vasudevan_icra2011,melkumyan2011} are enhancements presented in this work.
The work \cite{melkumyan2011} provided preliminary findings to geological resource modeling using various combinations of stationary kernel including the squared exponential (SQEXP), Matern 3/2 and a sparse covariance function \cite{melkumyan2009}. For a geological resource modeling data set taken from a mine, it found the Matern 3/2 - Matern 3/2 - SQEXP kernel combination provided best performance in terms of the prediction error. This paper reports a detailed multi-metric benchmarking experiment, using cross validation methods, performed on a multi-task GP, an equivalent set of GPs and a set of independently optimized GPs, to provide for an exact and an independent comparison between them. The objective is to quantify the benefit (if any) of simultaneous modeling of the multiple quantities by modeling and using the correlations between them as against modeling each of these quantities separately. This paper also compares data fusion using multiple stationary and nonstationary kernels in the context of modeling geological data.
An extensive review of kernel methods applied in modeling vector valued functions was presented in a recent survey paper \cite{alvarez2012}. The paper discusses different approaches to develop kernels for multi-task applications and draws parallels between regularization perspective of this problem and a Bayesian one. The latter perspective is discussed through Gaussian processes. The work presented in this paper focuses on one of the approaches reviewed in \cite{alvarez2012}; specifically, it addresses modeling and information fusion of multi-task geological data using Gaussian processes developed using the process convolution approach. The paper presents a detailed empirical study of the approach applied to a large scale real world problem in order to evaluate its efficacy for information fusion, to understand the modeling capabilities of different kernels (chosen apriori) with such data and to understand broader approach-related questions from an application perspective. The paper also ties together past works of the authors within the process convolution theme.
\section{Approach}
\label{sec:approach}
\subsection{Gaussian processes}
\label{sec:gpintro}
Gaussian processes \cite{rasmussen2006} (GPs) are stochastic processes wherein any finite subset of random variables is jointly Gaussian distributed. They may be thought of as a Gaussian probability distribution in function space. They are characterized by a mean function $m(\mathbf{x})$ and the covariance function $k(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}')$ that together specify a distribution over functions. In the context of geological resource modeling, each $\mathbf{x} \;\equiv\; (east, north, depth)$ (3D coordinates) and $f(\mathbf{x}) \;\equiv\; z$, the concentration of the quantity being modeled. Although not necessary, the mean function $m(\mathbf{x})$ may be assumed to be zero by scaling/shifting the data appropriately such that it has an empirical mean of zero.
The covariance function or kernel models the relationship between the random variables corresponding to the given data. It can take numerous forms \cite[chap. 4]{rasmussen2006}. The stationary squared exponential (or Gaussian) kernel (SQEXP) is given by
\begin{equation}
k_{SQEXP}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}',\Sigma) = \sigma_f^2 \,.\, \exp \left( -\frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}')^T \Sigma (\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}') \right) \,,
\label{eqn:sqexp}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $k$ is the covariance function or kernel; $\Sigma = diag[\; l_{east} \;,\; l_{north} \;,\; l_{depth} \;]^{-2}$ is a $d$ x $d$ diagonal length-scale matrix ($d$ = dimensionality of input = 3 in this case), a measure of how quickly the modeled function changes in the east, north and depth directions; $\sigma_f^2$ is the signal variance. The set of parameters $\{\;l_{east} \;,\; l_{north} \;,\; l_{depth} \;,\; \sigma_f \;\}$ are referred to as the kernel hyperparameters.
The non-stationary neural network (NN) kernel \cite{Neal1996,Williams1998a,Williams1998b} takes the form
\begin{equation}
k_{NN}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}',\Sigma) \,=\, \sigma_f^2 \,.\, \frac{2}{\pi}\;\arcsin \left( \frac{2\tilde{\mathbf{x}}^T \Sigma \tilde{\mathbf{x}}'}{\sqrt{(1 \,+\,2 \tilde{\mathbf{x}}^T \Sigma \tilde{\mathbf{x}})(1 \,+\, 2\tilde{\mathbf{x}}'^T \Sigma \tilde{\mathbf{x}}')}} \right) \,,
\label{eqn:nn}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}$ and $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}'$ are augmented input vectors (each point is augmented with a 1), $\Sigma$ is a $(d+1)$ x $(d+1)$ diagonal length-scale matrix given by $\Sigma = diag[\; \beta \;,\, l_{east} \;,\; l_{north} \;,\; l_{depth} \;]^{-2}$, $\beta$ being a bias factor and $d$ being the dimensionality of the input data. The variables $\{\;\beta \;,\; l_{east} \;,\; l_{north} \;,\; l_{depth} \;,\; \sigma_f \;\}$ constitute the kernel hyperparameters. The NN kernel represents the covariance function of a neural network with a single hidden layer between the input and output, infinitely many hidden nodes and using a Sigmoidal transfer function \cite{Williams1998a} for the hidden nodes. Hornik, in \cite{Hornik1993}, showed that such neural networks are universal approximators and Neal, in \cite{Neal1996}, observed that the functions produced by such a network would tend to a Gaussian process. Prior work in \cite{vasudevan_jfr2009} found the NN kernel to be more effective than the SQEXP kernel at modeling discontinuous data.
The Matern 3/2 kernel is another stationary kernel differing from the SQEXP kernel in that the latter is infinitely differentiable and consequently tends to have a strong smoothing nature, which is argued as being detrimental to modeling physical processes \cite{rasmussen2006}. It takes the form specified in Equation \ref{eqn:matern3}.
\begin{equation}
k_{MATERN3}(x,x',\Sigma) \,=\, \sigma_f^2 \,.\, {\prod_{1 \leq k \leq d} (1 + \frac{\sqrt{3}r_k}{l_{k}}) \exp{\left(-\frac{\sqrt{3}r_k}{l_{k}}\right)}}
\label{eqn:matern3}
\end{equation}
where $k \;\epsilon\; 1 \ldots d$ is the dimension of the input data ($d$ = dimensionality of input = 3 in this case), $\Sigma = [\; l_{east} \;,\; l_{north} \;,\; l_{depth} \;]$ is a $1$ x $d$ length-scale matrix, a measure of how quickly the modeled function changes in the east, north and depth directions; $\sigma_f^2$ is the signal variance. The set of parameters $\{\;l_{east} \;,\; l_{north} \;,\; l_{depth} \;,\; \sigma_f \;\}$ is referred to as the kernel hyperparameters.
Regression using GPs uses the fact that any finite set of training (evaluation) data and test data of a GP are jointly Gaussian distributed. Assuming noise free data, this idea is shown in Expression \ref{eqn:gpmodel} (hereafter referred to as Equation \ref{eqn:gpmodel}). This leads to the standard GP regression equations yielding an estimate (the mean value, given by Equation \ref{eqn:gpmean}) and its uncertainty (Equation \ref{eqn:gpcov}).
\begin{equation}
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{z} \\
f_*
\end{array}
\right]
\;\sim\;
N \left( 0 \,,\,
\left[
\begin{array}{c c}
K(X,X) & K(X,X_*) \\
K(X_*,X) & K(X_*,X_*)
\end{array}
\right]
\right)
\label{eqn:gpmodel}
\end{equation}
\begin{align}
\bar{f}_* = {} & K(X_*,X) \; K(X,X)^{-1} \; \mathbf{z} \label{eqn:gpmean} \\
\mathrm{cov}(f_*) = {} & K(X_*,X_*) - K(X_*,X) K(X,X)^{-1} K(X,X_*) \label{eqn:gpcov}
\end{align}
For $n$ training points $(X,\mathbf{z}) \,=\, (\mathbf{x_i},z_i)_{i=1 \ldots n}$ and $n_*$ test points $(X_*,f_*)$, $K(X,X_*)$ denotes the $n \times n_*$ matrix of covariances evaluated at all pairs of training and test points. The terms $K(X,X)$, $K(X_*,X_*)$ and $K(X_*,X)$ are defined likewise. In the event that the data being modeled is noisy, a noise hyperparameter ($\sigma$) is also learnt with the other GP hyperparameters and the covariance matrix of the training data $K(X,X)$ is replaced by $[ K(X,X)+\sigma^2I ]$ in Equations \ref{eqn:gpmodel}, \ref{eqn:gpmean} and \ref{eqn:gpcov}. GP hyperparameters may be learnt using various techniques such as cross validation based approaches \cite{rasmussen2006} and maximum-a-posteriori approaches using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques \cite{rasmussen2006,Williams1998b} and maximizing the marginal likelihood of the observed training data \cite{rasmussen2006,vasudevan_jfr2009}. This paper adopts the latter most approach based on the intuition that it may be more suited for large data sets. The marginal likelihood to be maximized is described in Equation \ref{eqn:gplml}.
\begin{equation}
\log\; p(\mathbf{z}|X,\theta) \,=\, -\frac{1}{2} \mathbf{z}^T K(X,X)^{-1}\mathbf{z} - \frac{1}{2} \log|K(X,X)| -\frac{n}{2} \log(2\pi) \label{eqn:gplml}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Multi-task Gaussian processes (MTGPs)}
\label{sec:dgp}
The problem being addressed in this paper can be described as follows. The objective is to model multiple heterogeneous quantities (e.g. concentrations of various elements) of the entity in consideration (e.g. land mass). The data fusion aspect of this problem is the improved estimation of each one of these quantities by integration or use of all other quantities of interest. If each quantity is modeled using a separate GP, the objective is to improve one GPs prediction estimates given all other GP models.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth]{mtgp1}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth]{mtgp2}}
\end{center}
\caption{A simple demonstration of the MTGP/DGP concept demonstrating data fusion. Two sine waves (black) are to be modeled. One is an inverted function of the other. Noisy samples are available all over one of them (red) whereas the other one has noisy samples only in one part of it (green). Merely using these few green samples would result in a poor prediction of the sine wave in the areas devoid of samples. Using the spatial correlation with the red sampled sine wave enables the MTGP approach to improve the prediction of the green sampled sine wave. The figure above shows the predictions of the GPs given the other GP (red/blue circles) and that of the second GP taken alone (green plus marks). The figure below shows the uncertainty in predictions (error bars of two standard deviations about mean) of the second GP taken alone (green) and that when taken together with the first GP (blue) - a clear reduction in uncertainty is observed.}
\label{fig:mogp}
\end{figure*}
Multi-task Gaussian processes (MTGPs or multi-output GPs or Dependent GPs) extend Gaussian processes to handle multiple correlated outputs simultaneously. The main advantage of this technique is that the model exploits not only the spatial correlation of data corresponding to one output but also those of the other outputs. This improves GP regression/prediction of an output given the others, thus performing data fusion. Figure \ref{fig:mogp} shows a simulated example of this concept.
Let the number of outputs/tasks that need to be simultaneously modeled be denoted by $nt$. Equations \ref{eqn:gpmodel}, \ref{eqn:gpmean} and \ref{eqn:gpcov} represent respectively the MTGP data fusion model, the regression estimates and their uncertainties, subject to the following modifications to the basic notation. The set
$$\mathbf{z} = [\;\mathbf{z}_1\;,\;\mathbf{z}_2\;,\;\mathbf{z}_3\;,\;...\;,\;\mathbf{z}_{nt}\;]'$$ represents the output values of the selected training data from the individual $nt$ tasks that need to be simultaneously modeled. The term $$X = [\;X_1\;,\;X_2\;,\;X_3\;,\;...\;,\;X_{nt}\;]$$ denotes the input location values (east, north, depth) of the selected training data from the individual data sets. Any kernel \cite{rasmussen2006} may be used and even different kernel could be used for different data sets using the technique demonstrated in \cite{melkumyan2011} (for stationary kernel) or the convolution process technique demonstrated in \cite{Higdon2002,Boyle2004,vasudevan_iros2010,vasudevan_icra2011} and in this paper (for both stationary and nonstationary kernel). The covariance matrix of the training data is given by
$$ K(X,X) \,\equiv\, \left[ \begin{array}{c c c c}
K^Y_{11} & K^Y_{12} & \ldots & K^Y_{1\,nt} \\
K^Y_{21} & \ldots & \ldots & \vdots \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
K^Y_{nt\,1} & \ldots & \ldots & K^Y_{nt\,nt} \\
\end{array} \right] $$
where
\begin{eqnarray}
K_{ii}^Y & = & K_{ii}^U(X_i,X_i) \,+\, \sigma_i^2I \nonumber\\
K_{ij}^Y & = & K_{ij}^U(X_i,X_j) \,. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $K_{ii}^Y$ represents the auto-covariance of the $i^{th}$ data set with itself and $K_{ij}^Y$ represents the cross covariance between the $i^{th}$ and $j^{th}$ data sets. These terms model the covariance between the noisy observed data points ($z$ values). Thus, they also take the noise components of the individual data sets / GPs into consideration. The corresponding noise free terms are respectively given by $K_{ii}^U$ and $K_{ij}^U$. These are derived by using the process convolution approach to formulating Gaussian processes; details of this follow in the next subsection. The covariance matrix between the test points and training points is given by
$$K(X_*,X) = [ K^U_{i1}(X_*,X_1), K^U_{i2}(X_*,X_2), \ldots, K^U_{i\,nt}(X_*,X_{nt}) ] \;,$$
where $i \,\epsilon\, \{1\,\ldots\,nt\}$ is the GP that is being evaluated given all other GPs. The matrix $K(X,X_*)$ is defined likewise. Finally, the covariance of the test points is given by $$K(X_*,X_*) \,=\, K^U_{ii}(X_*,X_*)+\sigma_i^2I \;,$$ assuming the $i^{th}$ GP needs to be evaluated for the particular test point. The mean and variance of the concentration estimate can thus be obtained by applying Equations \ref{eqn:gpmean} and \ref{eqn:gpcov}, after incorporating multiple outputs/tasks, multiple GP/noise hyperparameters and deriving appropriate auto and cross covariances functions that model the spatial correlation between the individual data sets. Data fusion is thus achieved in the MTGP approach by correlating individual heterogeneous outputs/tasks and using this correlation information to improve the prediction estimates of each of them.
\subsection{Derivation of the auto and cross covariance terms}
\label{sec:pca}
The main challenge in the use of multi-task GPs is the derivation of closed form cross (and auto) covariance functions. The process convolution approach to modeling GPs, proposed in \cite{Higdon2002}, can address this problem. The cited paper (1) modeled a GP as the convolution of a ``smoothing kernel'' and a Gaussian white noise process, (2) expressed a relationship between the ``smoothing kernel'' and the corresponding covariance function through the Fourier transform, (3) noted that for stationary isotropic kernels, there existed a one-to-one relationship between the covariance function and its smoothing kernel and that for non-isotropic and/or non-stationary kernels, there was no unique solution to the smoothing kernel and (4) hinted at how this approach may be used to develop GP models with complex properties (e.g. nonstationarity). As a consequence of this approach, modeling the GP amounted to modeling the hyperparameters of the smoothing kernel. For the second point above, the paper suggested that the smoothing kernel for a covariance function could be obtained as the Inverse Fourier Transform of the square root of the spectrum (Fourier transform) of the covariance function. The process convolution approach to MTGPs has been used with the stationary SQEXP kernel in \cite{Boyle2004,alvarez2008,vasudevan_iros2010} and the nonstationary NN kernel in \cite{vasudevan_icra2011,vasudevan2012}. Once the smoothing kernel is identified for a covariance function, the cross-covariance between two covariance functions can be derived as a kernel correlation between the respective smoothing kernels \cite{Boyle2004}. The following mathematical formalism is based on \cite{Higdon2002} and \cite{Boyle2004}.
\begin{align}
Y_i(s) = {} & U_i(s) \,+\, W_i(s) \label{eqn:pc1} \\
U_i(s) = {} & \int_s k_i(s,\lambda) \,\star\, X(\lambda) \,\, d\lambda \label{eqn:pc2}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
K_{ij}^{U}(s_{a},s_{b}) = {} & E\left\{ U_{i}(s_{a})\, U_{j}(s_{b})\right\} \nonumber \\
= {} & E\left\{ \int k_{i}(s_{a},\alpha).X(\alpha)d\alpha\;\int k_{j}(s_{b},\beta).X(\beta)d\beta\right\}\nonumber\\
= {} & \int k_{i}(s_{a},\alpha)\, k_{j}(s_{b},\alpha)\: d\alpha \label{eqn:ccov} \\
K_{ii}^{U}(s_{a},s_{b}) = {} & \int k_{i}(s_{a},\alpha)\, k_{i}(s_{b},\alpha)\: d\alpha \label{eqn:acov}
\end{align}
Mathematically, if $Y_i(s)$ represents the observed data in Equation \ref{eqn:pc1}, it is expressed as a combination of a noise-free GP $U_i(s)$ and Gaussian white noise process $W_i(s)$. The GP $U_i(s)$ is further modeled as a convolution of a smoothing kernel $k_i(s,\lambda)$ and a Gaussian white noise process $X(\lambda)$, as shown in Equation \ref{eqn:pc2}. A stationary and/or isotropic smoothing kernel would take the form $k_i(s-\lambda)$ as it would be a function of the distance between the input points. If two covariance functions (corresponding to two GPs $U_i(s)$ and $U_j(s)$) have smoothing kernels $k_i(s_a,\lambda)$ and $k_j(s_b,\lambda)$ respectively, then the cross covariance between them can be derived as shown in Equation \ref{eqn:ccov}. The auto covariance can be deduced from the cross covariance expression and take the form shown in Equation \ref{eqn:acov}. The smoothing kernel $k_i$ and $k_j$ need to be finite energy kernels i.e. $\int|\;k_{i}(x_{a},\alpha)\;|^{2}\: d\alpha\;<\infty$. This can be intrinsically true of some kernel (e.g. squared exponential kernel) or can be true subject to the bounded application of the kernel (e.g. neural network kernel).
The work \cite{melkumyan2011} suggested that if a covariance function could be written as a convolution of its ``basis functions'' (the form specified in Equation \ref{eqn:acov}), then a cross-covariance between two covariance functions could be derived as a kernel correlation of their respective basis functions (the form specified in Equation \ref{eqn:ccov}). The paper proved that the resulting cross-covariance would be positive definite. In order to find the basis function for a particular covariance function, the paper derived an expression in terms of its Fourier transform. This relationship is identical to that suggested by \cite{Higdon2002} and valid for stationary kernels only. The paper also derives closed form cross-covariance functions for different combinations of stationary kernels including the squared exponential, Matern 3/2 and a sparse covariance function developed by the authors in \cite{melkumyan2009}.
This paper argues that both of these methods using the ``smoothing kernel'' \cite{Higdon2002} and the ``basis functions'' \cite{melkumyan2011} are actually equivalent with the former providing a sound basis to explain the latter as well as a powerful framework to develop other complex GP models such as space-time models and nonstationary GPs. The key insight obtained here is in the methodology of identifying the smoothing kernel for the process convolution approach. If the covariance function is a stationary kernel, there is an exact one-to-one relationship between the covariance function and the smoothing kernel as pointed out in \cite{Higdon2002} and whose expression is derived in \cite{melkumyan2011}. If the covariance function is nonstationary, several possible smoothing kernels may lead to the same covariance function, as pointed out in \cite{Higdon2002}. However, attempting to express the kernel in a separable form (e.g. as the correlation of two identically formed basis functions) and thereby identifying the smoothing kernel would be \emph{one} possible approach, if the form of the kernel form allowed for such separation. Needless to say, this idea would be applicable only in a restricted class of covariance functions and finding a universal approach to identifying the smoothing kernel for other nonstationary kernel remains an open question. Given the smoothing kernel of the covariance functions in consideration, the cross-covariance terms can be derived as a kernel correlation as demonstrated in \cite{Higdon2002,Boyle2004,vasudevan_icra2011,vasudevan2012,melkumyan2011}.
Assume two GPs $N(0, k_i)$ and $N(0, k_j)$, with with length scale matrices $\Sigma_i$ and $\Sigma_j$. Based on \cite{Boyle2004}, the cross and auto covariances for the stationary SQEXP kernel are given by Equations \ref{eqn:ccov_sqexp} and \ref{eqn:acov_sqexp} respectively. The corresponding expressions for the nonstationary NN kernel are derived in \cite{vasudevan_icra2011,vasudevan2012} and given in Equations \ref{eqn:ccov_nn} and \ref{eqn:acov_nn} respectively. For the Matern 3/2 kernel, the expressions for the cross covariance and auto covariance are derived in \cite{melkumyan2011} and given in Equations \ref{eqn:ccov_matern3} and \ref{eqn:acov_matern3} respectively. Also based on \cite{melkumyan2011}, the cross covariance function between an SQEXP and a Matern 3/2 kernel is given by Equation \ref{eqn:ccov_sqexp_matern3}.
\noindent \fbox{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth-0.4\parindent}
\begin{equation}
K_{ij}^U(x,x') = K_f(i,j) \; \frac{(2\pi)^{\frac{d}{2}}}{|\Sigma_i \,+\, \Sigma_j|^{\frac{1}{2}}} \; \exp{\left( -\frac{1}{2} (x-x')^T \Sigma_{ij} (x-x') \right)} \label{eqn:ccov_sqexp}
\end{equation}
where $$\Sigma_{ij} \,=\, \Sigma_i(\Sigma_i+\Sigma_j)^{-1}\Sigma_j \,=\, \Sigma_j(\Sigma_i+\Sigma_j)^{-1}\Sigma_i$$
\begin{equation}
K_{ii}^U(x,x') = K_f(i,i) \; \frac{(\pi)^{\frac{d}{2}}}{|\Sigma_i|^{\frac{1}{2}}} \; \exp{\left(-\frac{1}{4}(x-x')^T\Sigma_i(x-x')\right)} \label{eqn:acov_sqexp}
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}}
\noindent \fbox{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth-0.4\parindent}
\begin{equation}
K_{ij}^U(x,x') = K_f(i,j) \; 2^{\frac{d+1}{2}} \frac{|\Sigma_i|^{\frac{1}{4}} |\Sigma_j|^{\frac{1}{4}}}{|\Sigma_i \;+\; \Sigma_j|^{\frac{1}{2}}} \; k_{NN}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x'},\Sigma_{ij}) \label{eqn:ccov_nn}
\end{equation}
where $$\Sigma_{ij} \,=\, 2\;\Sigma_i\;(\Sigma_i\;+\;\Sigma_j)^{-1}\;\Sigma_j$$
\begin{equation}
K_{ii}^U(x,x') \,=\, K_f(i,i) \; k_{NN}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x'},\Sigma_i) \label{eqn:acov_nn}
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}}
\noindent \fbox{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth-0.4\parindent}
\begin{equation}
K_{ij}^U(x,x') \,=\, K_f(i,j) \; {\prod_{1 \leq k \leq d} \frac{2 l_{ik}^\frac{1}{2} l_{jk}^\frac{1}{2}}{l_{ik}^2-l_{jk}^2}%
\left(l_{ik}e^{-\sqrt{3}\frac{r_k}{l_{ik}}}-l_{jk}e^{-\sqrt{3}\frac{r_k}{l_{jk}}}\right)} \label{eqn:ccov_matern3}
\end{equation}
where $k \;\epsilon\; 1 \ldots d$ is the dimension of the input data, $l_i$ and $l_j$ are the length scales for the two Matern 3/2 kernel based GPs $i$ and $j$, $l_{ik}$ and $l_{jk}$ are the $k^{th}$ length scales (corresponding to the $k^{th}$ dimensions) of these GPs and $r_k\,=\,|x_k-x'_k|$ is the distance in the $k^{th}$ dimension between the input data.
\begin{equation}
K_{ii}^U(x,x') \,=\, K_f(i,i) \; k_{MATERN3}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x'},\Sigma_i) \label{eqn:acov_matern3}
\end{equation}
\end{minipage}}
\vspace{5mm}
\noindent \fbox{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth-0.4\parindent}
\begin{align}
K_{ij}^U(x,x') \;=\; K_f(i,j) & {\prod_{1 \leq k \leq d} \sqrt{\lambda_k} \left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right)^{1/4} e^{\lambda_k^{2}} \Bigg[ 2\cosh \left(\frac{\sqrt{3}r_k}{l_{Mk}}\right) } - \nonumber \\
& e^{\frac{\sqrt{3}r_k}{l_{Mk}}} \operatorname{erf} \left(\lambda_k +\frac{r_k}{l_{SEk}}\right) - e^{-\frac{\sqrt{3}r_k}{l_{Mk}}} \operatorname{erf} \left(\lambda_k -\frac{r_k}{l_{SEk}}\right) \Bigg] \label{eqn:ccov_sqexp_matern3}
\end{align}
where $\lambda_k =\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\frac{l_{SEk}}{l_{Mk}}$, $\operatorname{erf}\left(x\right)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{0}^{x}e^{-t^{2}}\textrm{d}t$, $k \;\epsilon\; 1 \ldots d$ is the dimension of the input data, $l_{SE}$ and $l_M$ are the respective length scales for the SQEXP and Matern 3/2 kernel based GPs $i$ and $j$, $l_{SEk}$ and $l_{Mk}$ are the $k^{th}$ length scales (corresponding to the $k^{th}$ dimensions) of these GPs and $r_k\,=\,|x_k-x'_k|$ is the distance in the $k^{th}$ dimension between the input data.
\end{minipage}}
\vspace{5mm}
In Equations \ref{eqn:ccov_nn} and \ref{eqn:acov_nn}, the term, $k_{NN}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x'},\Sigma_{ij})$, is the NN kernel for two data $\mathbf{x}$, $\mathbf{x'}$ and length scale matrix $\Sigma_{ij}$. It is given by Equation \ref{eqn:nn}, excluding the signal variance term ($\sigma_f^2$). Likewise, in Equation \ref{eqn:acov_matern3}, $k_{MATERN}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x'},\Sigma_i)$ refers to the Matern 3/2 kernel for two data $\mathbf{x}$, $\mathbf{x'}$ and length scale matrix $\Sigma_{ij}$, given by Equation \ref{eqn:matern3} (excluding the $\sigma_f^2$ term). The $K_f$ terms in Equations \ref{eqn:ccov_sqexp}, \ref{eqn:acov_sqexp}, \ref{eqn:ccov_nn} and \ref{eqn:acov_nn} are inspired by \cite{Bonilla2007}. This term models the task similarity between individual tasks. Incorporating it in the auto and cross covariances provides additional flexibility to the multi-task GP modeling process. It is a symmetric matrix of size $nt$ x $nt$ and is learnt along with the other GP hyperparameters. Thus, the hyperparameters of the system that need to be learnt include $(nt.(nt+1))/2$ task similarity values, $nt \,.\, 2$ or $nt \,.\,3$ length scale values respectively for the individual SQEXP/MATERN3 or NN kernels and $nt$ noise values corresponding to the noise in the observed data sets. Learning these hyperparameters by adapting the GP learning procedure described before (Equation \ref{eqn:gplml}) for multiple outputs/tasks \cite{vasudevan_iros2010,vasudevan_icra2011}.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\subfigure[Element-1 (E1) concentration]{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{e1_data}\label{fig:e1}}
\subfigure[Element-2 (E2) concentration]{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{e2_data}\label{fig:e2}}
\subfigure[Element-3 (E3) concentration]{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{e3_data}\label{fig:e3}}
\end{center}
\caption{The geological resource data set. Figures \ref{fig:e1}, \ref{fig:e2} and \ref{fig:e3} respectively show the concentrations of three elements over the region of interest. The central region of points is surrounded by sparse sets of points which are not pre-filtered when applying the proposed algorithm.}
\label{fig:data}
\end{figure}
Experiments were conducted on a large scale geological resource data set made up of real sensor data. The data consists of 63,667 measurements from a 3478.4 m x 1764.6 m x 345.9 m region in Australia that has undergone drilling and chemical assays to determine its composition. The holes are generally 25-100m apart and tens to hundreds of meters deep. Within each hole, data is collected at an interval of 2m. The measurements include the (east, north, depth) position data along with the concentrations of three elements, Element-1, Element-2 and Element-3, hereafter denoted as E1, E2 and E3 respectively. These three quantities are known to be correlated and hence the objective is to use each of their GP models to improve the others' prediction estimates by capturing the correlation between these quantities. The data set is shown in Figure \ref{fig:data}. The methodology of testing is described in Section \ref{sec:exp:testprocedure}. Multiple metrics have been used to evaluate the methods, these are described in Section \ref{sec:exp:metrics}. Results obtained are then presented and discussed in Section \ref{sec:exp:results}. Outputs of the data fusion process provided by the best performing model as suggested by the evaluation are also presented.
\subsection{Testing procedure}
\label{sec:exp:testprocedure}
The objective of the experiment was to compare the multi-task GP approach with a conventional GP approach and quantify if the data fusion in the MTGP actually improves estimation. A second objective of the experiments was to compare the nonstationary NN kernel with the stationary SQEXP kernel, the Matern 3/2 kernel and a combination of them that proved effective in prior testing \cite{melkumyan2011}. Towards these aims, a ten fold cross validation experiment was performed on the data set, with each of the kernels. This was motivated by the work \cite{kohavi1995study}, which suggests a ten fold stratified (similar number of samples in each fold) cross validation as the best way of testing the estimation accuracy of machine learning methods on real world data sets.
The MTGP and simple GP approaches each require an optimization step for model learning. The optimization step in each method can result in different local minima in each trial (and with each kernel). Thus, to do a one-on-one comparison between the two approaches and quantify their relative performances, an exact comparison is required. The benchmarking experiment presented in this paper provides an \emph{exact} comparison between the MTGP and GP approaches. To do this,
\begin{itemize}
\item The best available MTGP parameters were found for each kernel. From this, appropriate subsets of the parameters were chosen for the GP approach.
\item The approaches were compared on identical test points and identical training/evaluation points selected for each of the test points.
\item It is also necessary that the covariance function for the simple GP approach \emph{must} be identical to the auto-covariance function of the DGP approach. For this reason, the auto-covariance function (for both kernels) is used as the covariance function for the GP approach to data fusion.
\end{itemize}
In addition to this, three independent GPs (denoted as GPI here after) were optimized for E1, E2 and E3 and their estimates for the same set of test points were also compared. Thus the effect of information integration in the context of the geological resource modeling can be seen in terms of both an exact comparison (MTGP vs GP) and an independent comparison (MTGP vs GPI).
For the cross validation, a ``block'' sampling technique (see Figure \ref{fig:bs}) was used, a 3D version of the ``patch'' sampling method used in \cite{vasudevan_jfr2009}. The idea was that rather than selecting test points uniformly, blocks of data test the robustness of the approach better as the support points to the query point are situated farther away than in uniform point selection. The data set is gridded into blocks of different sizes. Collections of blocks represent individual folds. In each cross validation test, one fold was designated as a test fold and points from it were used exclusively for testing. All other folds together constituted the evaluation data, a small subset of which were labeled as the training data. Note that this technique of testing will naturally lead to larger errors. For the test fold, the E1, E2 and E3 concentrations (and error metrics defined in the following section) are estimated first using the MTGP approach, then with the GP approach using parameters from the optimized MTGP parameters and finally, with an independently optimized GP for each of the three quantities. The result of a 10 fold cross validation test is a 63,667 point evaluation in tougher test conditions than what would be attainable with uniform sampling (e.g. every tenth point) of test points.
Block sizes were chosen empirically, in proportion (arbitrarily rounded up or down) to the dimensions of the whole data set and with a view of performing a stratified cross validation test. The block sizes chosen and the resulting implications on the cross validation testing are shown in Table \ref{tab:cvp_bs}. The smaller block size of 22m x 11m x 2m results in each fold having a similar number of points (i.e. numbers of points in folds with min/max test points are similar) and thus results in the most stratified cross validation test. With increasing block size, prediction error increases (support data is farther away), stratification is reduced and hence, variance in prediction error also increases. Uniform sampling of test points may be considered as a limiting case of block sampling with the smallest block size possible.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{block_sampling}
\end{center}
\caption{Example of 3D block sampling of a geological resource data set. Blocks may be sampled of different sizes. The red and yellow blocks represent blocks from two of the ten folds used in cross validation testing. Test points within these blocks have ``support'' data away from them, outside the blocks. This sampling method is therefore a stronger test of the robustness of an approach to estimating the quantity of interest, as compared to uniformly sampling test points. The estimation errors however, will be higher than that obtained for a uniformly sampled set of points.}
\label{fig:bs}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\caption{10 fold cross validation with block sampling; 63667 points in data set spread over 3478.4 m x 1764.6 m x 345.9 m; block sizes tested vs relative implications on results}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c |}
\hline
\hline
Block size & Number of points & Number of points & Comments on \\
(m) & in fold with MIN & in fold with MAX & cross validation test \\
& test points & test points & \\
\hline
22 x 11 x 2 %
& 6209 & 6454 & Most stratified cross validation \\
& & & Least prediction error \\
\hline
44 x 22 x 4 %
& 6183 & 6456 & stratification $\downarrow$ prediction error $\uparrow$ \\
\hline
87 x 45 x 9 %
& 5807 & 6739 & stratification $\downarrow$ prediction error $\uparrow$ \\
\hline
174 x 89 x 18 %
& 5133 & 7549 & stratification $\downarrow$ prediction error $\uparrow$ \\
\hline
348 x 177 x 35 %
& 4976 & 9662 & stratification $\downarrow$ prediction error $\uparrow$\\
\hline
696 x 353 x 70 %
& 1204 & 10371 & Least Stratified cross validation \\
& & & Highest prediction error \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-4mm}
\label{tab:cvp_bs}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\clearpage
\subsection{Metrics}
\label{sec:exp:metrics}
Multiple metrics have been used to understand the various methods being tested. They are briefly described below. These are evaluated for each test point in each fold of the cross validation test. The result would then be represented by the mean and standard deviations of all values across all folds.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Squared Error (SE):}
This represents the squared difference between the predicted concentration and the known concentrations for the set of test points. The mean over the set of all test points (Mean Squared Error or MSE) is the most popular metric for the context of this paper. Referring Equations \ref{eqn:gpmean} and \ref{eqn:gpcov}, for the $i^{th}$ test point,
$$
SE(i) \;=\; (\bar{f}_*(i) - z_i)^2
$$
\item \emph{Variance (VAR):}
This represents the variance (uncertainty) in the predicted concentrations for the set of test points. a lower VAR is a good outcome, only if the SE is also low. A model that has high SE and low VAR would be a poor model as this result would suggest that the model is confident of its inaccurate estimates. A better outcome would be a model with high SE and correspondingly high VAR i.e. a model that has inaccurate predictions but is also uncertain about these predictions.
\item \emph{Negative log probability / Log loss (NLP):}
Inspired by \cite{rasmussen2006} (see page 23), this is a measure of the extent to which the model (including the GP model, kernel, parameters and evaluation data) explain the current test point. The lower the value of this metric, the better the model.
For the $i^{th}$ test point,
$$
NLP(i) \;=\; \frac{1}{2}log(2\pi\sigma_*^2) + \frac{(\bar{f}_*(i) - z_i)^2}{2\sigma_*(i)^2}
$$
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Results}
\label{sec:exp:results}
\definecolor{Gray}{gray}{0.8}
\newcolumntype{g}{>{\columncolor{Gray}}c}
\begin{sidewaystable}
\normalsiz
\caption{E1 concentration estimation; 10 fold cross validation results using block sampling of various block sizes; Multi-task GP (MTGP) vs GP derived from MTGP (GP) vs Independently optimized GP (GPI) using Neural Network (NN), Matern 3/2 (MM), Squared exponential (SQEXP) and a Matern 3/2 - Matern 3/2 - Squared Exponential (MS) kernel combination on identical test data. The error metrics are expressed in squared units (squ).}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c*{13}{|g}|}
\hline
\hline
\rowcolor{white}
Block size & Method & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{NN kernel} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{MM kernel} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{SQEXP kernel} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{MS kernel}\\
\hline
\rowcolor{white}
(m) & & SE & VAR & NLP & SE & VAR & NLP & SE & VAR & NLP & SE & VAR & NLP \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (squ) & (squ) & & (squ) & (squ) & & (squ) & (squ) & & (squ) & (squ) & \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) \\
\hline
& MTGP & 1.59 & 1.47 & 1.68 & 2.66 & 0.96 & 2.35 & 23.14 & 0.39 & 31.63 & 34.08 & 33.48 & 3.18 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (7.25) & (0.28) & (2.75) & (8.66) & (0.15) & (5.01) & (55.62) & (0.10) & (76.20) & (76.16) & (1.48) & (1.14) \\
22 x 11 x 2%
& GP & 36.52 & 14.93 & 3.56 & 41.42 & 5.96 & 5.77 & 44.43 & 0.51 & 45.37 & 43.49 & 36.98 & 3.30 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (86.50) & (8.23) & (3.25) & (96.79) & (5.50) & (9.97) & (122.12) & (0.74) & (103.28) & (95.17) & (5.59) & (1.27) \\
& GPI & 41.28 & 73.23 & 3.34 & 45.26 & 76.44 & 3.38 & 52.96 & 86.80 & 3.45 & 45.26 & 76.44 & 3.38 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (90.35) & (7.30) & (0.60) & (96.79) & (5.23) & (0.62) & (107.62) & (4.74) & (0.61) & (96.79) & (5.23) & (0.62) \\
\hline
& MTGP & 1.86 & 1.81 & 1.74 & 2.79 & 1.17 & 2.19 & 24.29 & 0.48 & 28.69 & 39.49 & 34.57 & 3.26 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (9.49) & (0.59) & (2.66) & (10.51) & (0.24) & (4.53) & (57.54) & (0.20) & (68.94) & (87.09) & (1.71) & (1.27) \\
44 x 22 x 4%
& GP & 52.75 & 26.55 & 3.60 & 65.00 & 13.91 & 5.05 & 76.89 & 1.07 & 50.71 & 57.55 & 40.75 & 3.46 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (124.18) & (17.09) & (2.72) & (149.17) & (14.52) & (7.27) & (235.51) & (3.92) & (113.15) & (124.37) & (10.77) & (1.48) \\
& GPI & 55.81 & 81.28 & 3.45 & 58.74 & 81.80 & 3.47 & 65.30 & 89.95 & 3.53 & 58.74 & 81.80 & 3.47 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (119.69) & (11.10) & (0.71) & (124.07) & (8.02) & (0.74) & (132.02) & (6.61) & (0.72) & (124.07) & (8.02) & (0.74) \\
\hline
& MTGP & 3.38 & 3.24 & 1.91 & 7.50 & 1.65 & 3.04 & 30.08 & 0.85 & 21.35 & 52.13 & 36.90 & 3.42 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (22.92) & (5.06) & (2.56) & (28.75) & (0.47) & (6.07) & (70.98) & (0.53) & (49.50) & (109.11) & (2.07) & (1.47) \\
84 x 45 x 9%
& GP & 85.88 & 58.60 & 3.71 & 114.05 & 44.66 & 4.44 & 265.25 & 8.06 & 45.35 & 91.75 & 57.17 & 3.71 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (187.61) & (39.70) & (2.00) & (242.32) & (37.46) & (4.35) & (853.00) & (25.34) & (95.72) & (190.74) & (33.92) & (1.63)\\
& GPI & 85.53 & 100.04 & 3.63 & 86.81 & 97.42 & 3.64 & 91.63 & 101.22 & 3.67 & 86.81 & 97.42 & 3.64 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (171.85) & (21.34) & (0.81) & (175.15) & (15.97) & (0.85) & (179.65) & (13.42) & (0.85) & (175.15) & (15.97) & (0.85)\\
\hline
& MTGP & 14.60 & 10.97 & 2.24 & 32.05 & 2.24 & 7.29 & 52.96 & 1.54 & 19.27 & 83.79 & 39.05 & 3.81 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (88.59) & (27.66) & (2.70) & (96.26) & (0.61) & (15.78) & (122.09) & (0.78) & (41.43) & (166.79) & (2.41) & (2.09) \\
174 x 89 x 18%
& GP & 128.39 & 113.03 & 3.84 & 156.56 & 95.10 & 4.23 & 701.62 & 34.69 & 28.36 & 154.34 & 104.53 & 3.94 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (261.10) & (88.51) & (1.60) & (306.22) & (56.46) & (3.05) & (1787.63) & (59.68) & (59.58) & (319.96) & (106.83) & (1.58)\\
& GPI & 124.52 & 129.20 & 3.79 & 124.93 & 121.09 & 3.80 & 128.86 & 122.29 & 3.82 & 124.93 & 121.09 & 3.80 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (235.22) & (45.85) & (0.88) & (240.35) & (26.43) & (0.95) & (244.59) & (23.44) & (0.96) & (240.35) & (26.43) & (0.95)\\
\hline
& MTGP & 73.42 & 64.36 & 3.00 & 112.99 & 2.74 & 19.76 & 114.47 & 2.45 & 24.18 & 155.36 & 40.86 & 4.64 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (213.89) & (86.94) & (2.09) & (206.86) & (0.64) & (32.27) & (214.94) & (0.98) & (42.85) & (257.28) & (2.50) & (3.08) \\
348 x 177 x 35%
& GP & 204.57 & 249.34 & 4.06 & 215.40 & 153.09 & 4.25 & 1091.93 & 124.02 & 16.84 & 290.14 & 329.34 & 4.23 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (387.09) & (232.37) & (1.39) & (373.05) & (71.73) & (2.51) & (2801.29) & (94.50) & (43.56) & (541.45) & (376.16) & (1.21)\\
& GPI & 189.14 & 199.86 & 3.98 & 189.21 & 151.49 & 4.00 & 190.92 & 155.24 & 4.01 & 189.21 & 151.49 & 4.00\\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (335.76) & (120.66) & (0.90) & (327.56) & (45.31) & (1.04) & (331.84) & (44.34) & (1.03) & (327.56) & (45.31) & (1.04)\\
\hline
& MTGP & 180.64 & 173.67 & 3.61 & 206.18 & 2.97 & 33.83 & 214.11 & 2.89 & 37.05 & 243.80 & 41.95 & 5.66 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (368.05) & (154.95) & (1.56) & (349.73) & (0.52) & (54.10) & (357.84) & (0.84) & (58.21) & (380.23) & (2.21) & (4.46)\\
696 x 353 x 70%
& GP & 325.98 & 562.94 & 4.31 & 301.60 & 192.63 & 4.43 & 871.72 & 185.80 & 12.58 & 460.23 & 976.69 & 4.55 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (546.05) & (523.54) & (1.19) & (452.75) & (64.46) & (2.29) & (2481.90) & (93.03) & (39.08) & (775.98) & (915.85) & (1.01)\\
& GPI & 291.72 & 362.43 & 4.19 & 282.28 & 180.05 & 4.23 & 283.43 & 183.92 & 4.23 & 282.28 & 180.05 & 4.23 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (465.37) & (271.48) & (0.80) & (428.51) & (49.34) & (1.12) & (430.84) & (49.45) & (1.11) & (428.51) & (49.34) & (1.12)\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:cvp_e1}
\end{sidewaystable}
\definecolor{Gray}{gray}{0.8}
\newcolumntype{g}{>{\columncolor{Gray}}c}
\begin{sidewaystable}
\normalsiz
\caption{E2 concentration estimation; 10 fold cross validation results using block sampling of various block sizes; Multi-task GP (MTGP) vs GP derived from MTGP (GP) vs Independently optimized GP (GPI) using Neural Network (NN), Matern 3/2 (MM), Squared exponential (SQEXP) and a Matern 3/2 - Matern 3/2 - Squared Exponential (MS) kernel combination on identical test data. The error metrics are expressed in squared units (squ).}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c*{13}{|g}|}
\hline
\hline
\rowcolor{white}
Block size & Method & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{NN kernel} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{MM kernel} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{SQEXP kernel} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{MS kernel}\\
\hline
\rowcolor{white}
(m) & & SE & VAR & NLP & SE & VAR & NLP & SE & VAR & NLP & SE & VAR & NLP \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (squ) & (squ) & & (squ) & (squ) & & (squ) & (squ) & & (squ) & (squ) & \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) \\
\hline
& MTGP & 3.85 & 3.13 & 2.10 & 3.88 & 2.02 & 2.23 & 52.32 & 0.04 & 650.87 & 36.09 & 39.09 & 3.20 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (17.59) & (0.53) & (2.87) & (18.47) & (0.36) & (4.74) & (231.51) & (0.10) & (1848.02) & (102.25) & (2.48) & (1.27) \\
22x11x2%
& GP & 36.86 & 19.44 & 3.34 & 40.79 & 8.45 & 4.37 & 75.67 & 0.05 & 668.93 & 46.60 & 43.34 & 3.31 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (118.99) & (8.89) & (3.10) & (129.77) & (6.63) & (7.41) & (869.23) & (0.30) & (1880.52) & (134.94) & (6.65) & (1.36) \\
& GPI & 49.79 & 93.47 & 3.44 & 53.61 & 97.26 & 3.47 & 60.25 & 85.95 & 3.48 & 53.61 & 97.26 & 3.47 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (143.90) & (7.40) & (0.71) & (151.69) & (5.97) & (0.72) & (161.56) & (5.68) & (0.86) & (151.69) & (5.97) & (0.72) \\
\hline
& MTGP & 4.79 & 3.80 & 2.20 & 4.72 & 2.53 & 2.29 & 88.25 & 0.10 & 657.09 & 42.82 & 40.31 & 3.28 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (22.21) & (1.06) & (2.87) & (22.80) & (0.58) & (4.43) & (352.70) & (0.30) & (1840.03) & (117.40) & (2.88) & (1.40) \\
44x22x4%
& GP & 55.51 & 32.14 & 3.49 & 64.20 & 18.19 & 4.19 & 181.27 & 0.26 & 694.20 & 64.50 & 47.76 & 3.46 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (174.24) & (18.07) & (2.70) & (192.62) & (17.10) & (5.58) & (1385.73) & (2.48) & (1901.88) & (186.52) & (12.97) & (1.58) \\
& GPI & 68.69 & 101.11 & 3.55 & 71.21 & 102.80 & 3.56 & 77.86 & 89.38 & 3.57 & 71.21 & 102.80 & 3.56 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (195.85) & (10.86) & (0.86) & (201.30) & (8.82) & (0.88) & (211.96) & (9.01) & (1.04) & (201.30) & (8.82) & (0.88)\\
\hline
& MTGP & 8.04 & 6.22 & 2.37 & 10.97 & 3.69 & 2.81 & 211.05 & 0.56 & 461.55 & 56.72 & 42.90 & 3.44 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (40.48) & (6.00) & (2.71) & (44.78) & (1.12) & (5.02) & (753.57) & (1.15) & (1290.67) & (146.64) & (3.41) & (1.64) \\
84x45x9%
& GP & 95.98 & 66.23 & 3.71 & 116.98 & 54.56 & 4.05 & 1140.18 & 4.72 & 532.52 & 105.69 & 67.37 & 3.69 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (274.95) & (41.41) & (2.27) & (318.33) & (43.24) & (3.56) & (8156.99) & (22.50) & (1420.66) & (288.37) & (42.25) & (1.70)\\
& GPI & 105.20 & 119.02 & 3.72 & 105.27 & 119.32 & 3.72 & 115.96 & 103.63 & 3.74 & 105.27 & 119.32 & 3.72 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (277.85) & (20.10) & (1.03) & (279.95) & (17.19) & (1.06) & (301.71) & (23.63) & (1.22) & (279.95) & (17.19) & (1.06)\\
\hline
& MTGP & 21.49 & 15.88 & 2.66 & 37.85 & 5.09 & 4.85 & 402.24 & 1.92 & 228.66 & 90.32 & 45.49 & 3.79 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (102.60) & (29.16) & (2.61) & (117.51) & (1.44) & (8.77) & (1144.48) & (2.06) & (752.97) & (211.07) & (3.73) & (2.23)\\
174x89x18%
& GP & 142.62 & 123.42 & 3.88 & 165.30 & 112.93 & 4.07 & 3510.60 & 25.86 & 312.01 & 170.93 & 125.06 & 3.91 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (356.16) & (91.33) & (1.88) & (394.82) & (64.77) & (2.70) & (14425.39) & (59.06) & (914.26) & (420.58) & (134.64) & (1.59) \\
& GPI & 148.71 & 146.71 & 3.88 & 147.83 & 145.39 & 3.88 & 164.86 & 133.30 & 3.92 & 147.83 & 145.39 & 3.88 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (347.79) & (41.34) & (1.09) & (351.45) & (28.92) & (1.12) & (376.69) & (41.47) & (1.25) & (351.45) & (28.92) & (1.12)\\
\hline
& MTGP & 82.02 & 72.71 & 3.23 & 119.86 & 6.26 & 10.28 & 419.72 & 4.61 & 134.53 & 167.10 & 48.08 & 4.54 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (233.18) & (90.66) & (2.04) & (236.67) & (1.52) & (16.06) & (1196.06) & (2.90) & (599.11) & (320.09) & (4.15) & (3.23)\\
348x177x35%
& GP & 219.37 & 265.84 & 4.09 & 232.89 & 178.16 & 4.17 & 8397.84 & 114.38 & 164.10 & 314.92 & 414.05 & 4.23 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (484.76) & (239.30) & (1.71) & (475.45) & (81.64) & (2.19) & (28045.42) & (102.39) & (633.41) & (689.64) & (500.88) & (1.24) \\
& GPI & 213.44 & 213.16 & 4.05 & 216.33 & 182.88 & 4.06 & 234.24 & 194.54 & 4.11 & 216.33 & 182.88 & 4.06 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (442.90) & (107.76) & (1.09) & (443.91) & (51.20) & (1.18) & (459.31) & (59.86) & (1.17) & (443.91) & (51.20) & (1.18) \\
\hline
& MTGP & 196.72 & 189.18 & 3.75 & 227.42 & 6.86 & 17.23 & 420.95 & 6.14 & 94.13 & 273.23 & 49.71 & 5.58 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (379.37) & (162.78) & (1.48) & (370.75) & (1.26) & (24.68) & (1016.76) & (2.62) & (458.35) & (440.21) & (4.07) & (4.37)\\
696x353x70%
& GP & 340.01 & 594.95 & 4.34 & 331.10 & 223.12 & 4.37 & 5910.35 & 189.13 & 105.40 & 493.28 & 1309.98 & 4.59 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (603.14) & (544.29) & (1.33) & (534.42) & (73.21) & (1.77) & (23857.18) & (106.28) & (514.02) & (924.16) & (1309.73) & (0.96)\\
& GPI & 314.51 & 365.16 & 4.24 & 317.37 & 218.58 & 4.27 & 331.32 & 236.80 & 4.32 & 317.37 & 218.58 & 4.27 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (529.84) & (250.80) & (0.91) & (519.71) & (58.44) & (1.15) & (531.79) & (60.61) & (1.13) & (519.71) & (58.44) & (1.15)\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:cvp_e2}
\end{sidewaystable}
\definecolor{Gray}{gray}{0.8}
\newcolumntype{g}{>{\columncolor{Gray}}c}
\begin{sidewaystable}
\normalsiz
\caption{E3 concentration estimation; 10 fold cross validation results using block sampling of various block sizes; Multi-task GP (MTGP) vs GP derived from MTGP (GP) vs Independently optimized GP (GPI) using Neural Network (NN), Matern 3/2 (MM), Squared exponential (SQEXP) and a Matern 3/2 - Matern 3/2 - Squared Exponential (MS) kernel combination on identical test data. The error metrics are expressed in squared units (squ).}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c*{13}{|g}|}
\hline
\hline
\rowcolor{white}
Block size & Method & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{NN kernel} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{MM kernel} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{SQEXP kernel} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{MS kernel}\\
\hline
\rowcolor{white}
(m) & & SE & VAR & NLP & SE & VAR & NLP & SE & VAR & NLP & SE & VAR & NLP \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (squ) & (squ) & & (squ) & (squ) & & (squ) & (squ) & & (squ) & (squ) & \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean & mean \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) & (std) \\
\hline
& MTGP & 1.60 & 1.29 & 1.64 & 1.29 & 0.98 & 1.57 & 7.30 & 0.64 & 6.50 & 19.15 & 36.32 & 2.98 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (6.82) & (0.35) & (2.49) & (5.42) & (0.14) & (2.84) & (20.47) & (0.10) & (16.50) & (45.80) & (0.17) & (0.63) \\
22 x 11 x 2%
& GP & 9.09 & 3.84 & 2.83 & 9.65 & 2.36 & 3.57 & 10.47 & 0.75 & 8.21 & 19.18 & 36.47 & 2.98 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (26.21) & (1.76) & (3.67) & (27.41) & (1.44) & (6.46) & (29.99) & (0.40) & (21.19) & (45.75) & (0.19) & (0.63) \\
& GPI & 9.69 & 14.64 & 2.58 & 11.19 & 16.90 & 2.66 & 12.06 & 18.46 & 2.70 & 12.06 & 18.46 & 2.70\\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (27.69) & (3.24) & (0.90) & (31.47) & (1.16) & (0.94) & (33.46) & (1.15) & (0.91) & (33.46) & (1.15) & (0.91) \\
\hline
& MTGP & 1.90 & 1.68 & 1.71 & 1.50 & 1.19 & 1.62 & 7.99 & 0.73 & 6.49 & 22.53 & 36.35 & 3.03 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (8.29) & (0.66) & (2.17) & (7.41) & (0.23) & (2.92) & (21.94) & (0.19) & (16.04) & (52.33) & (0.20) & (0.72) \\
44 x 22 x 4%
& GP & 12.80 & 6.38 & 2.91 & 14.47 & 4.52 & 3.50 & 15.59 & 1.07 & 9.56 & 22.56 & 36.51 & 3.03\\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (37.03) & (3.66) & (3.17) & (40.66) & (3.53) & (5.34) & (45.59) & (1.45) & (23.82) & (52.27) & (0.23) & (0.72) \\
& GPI & 12.88 & 16.79 & 2.69 & 14.16 & 18.14 & 2.76 & 14.92 & 19.41 & 2.79 & 14.92 & 19.41 & 2.79 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (36.55) & (4.65) & (1.00) & (39.23) & (1.79) & (1.08) & (40.78) & (1.73) & (1.05) & (40.78) & (1.73) & (1.05) \\
\hline
& MTGP & 2.87 & 2.79 & 1.88 & 3.08 & 1.65 & 1.99 & 9.19 & 1.09 & 5.46 & 29.82 & 36.43 & 3.13 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (13.66) & (1.97) & (2.06) & (12.59) & (0.42) & (3.53) & (24.11) & (0.48) & (12.14) & (63.83) & (0.31) & (0.88) \\
84 x 45 x 9%
& GP & 20.35 & 13.22 & 3.01 & 24.26 & 12.01 & 3.33 & 35.53 & 3.73 & 9.73 & 29.82 & 36.61 & 3.13 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (55.84) & (8.54) & (2.45) & (64.08) & (8.52) & (3.63) & (99.80) & (7.16) & (21.78) & (63.64) & (0.36) & (0.87) \\
& GPI & 19.56 & 21.69 & 2.86 & 20.50 & 21.61 & 2.92 & 21.21 & 22.73 & 2.94 & 21.21 & 22.73 & 2.94\\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (51.95) & (8.26) & (1.08) & (53.15) & (3.60) & (1.19) & (54.63) & (3.76) & (1.17) & (54.63) & (3.76) & (1.17) \\
\hline
& MTGP & 6.63 & 6.00 & 2.17 & 8.67 & 2.19 & 3.07 & 14.56 & 1.73 & 5.51 & 39.96 & 36.66 & 3.27 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (35.07) & (8.73) & (2.24) & (24.92) & (0.54) & (4.93) & (34.46) & (0.70) & (10.69) & (80.47) & (0.54) & (1.10) \\
174 x 89 x 18%
& GP & 29.91 & 25.03 & 3.13 & 32.57 & 23.31 & 3.28 & 73.85 & 12.06 & 7.34 & 39.81 & 36.89 & 3.26 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (81.55) & (19.65) & (2.01) & (79.36) & (12.64) & (2.58) & (189.74) & (14.90) & (14.06) & (79.82) & (0.66) & (1.08) \\
& GPI & 28.27 & 29.28 & 3.01 & 28.87 & 26.65 & 3.07 & 29.50 & 28.35 & 3.09 & 29.50 & 28.35 & 3.09 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (69.54) & (16.01) & (1.10) & (69.91) & (6.01) & (1.27) & (72.11) & (6.17) & (1.24) & (72.11) & (6.17) & (1.24) \\
\hline
& MTGP & 22.76 & 23.57 & 2.64 & 25.66 & 2.62 & 5.81 & 27.36 & 2.58 & 6.50 & 54.46 & 37.62 & 3.46 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (76.19) & (36.17) & (1.91) & (50.80) & (0.57) & (8.42) & (55.29) & (0.89) & (10.74) & (99.06) & (1.59) & (1.32) \\
348 x 177 x 35%
& GP & 48.12 & 55.21 & 3.32 & 47.08 & 34.95 & 3.39 & 96.50 & 33.92 & 5.49 & 54.31 & 38.13 & 3.45 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (113.43) & (53.40) & (1.82) & (100.71) & (15.85) & (2.25) & (228.76) & (22.17) & (10.17) & (98.51) & (2.22) & (1.30)\\
& GPI & 43.19 & 46.90 & 3.20 & 42.96 & 32.36 & 3.25 & 43.24 & 34.15 & 3.25 & 43.24 & 34.15 & 3.25 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (97.09) & (36.64) & (1.15) & (92.63) & (10.28) & (1.40) & (93.69) & (10.70) & (1.35) & (93.69) & (10.70) & (1.35) \\
\hline
& MTGP & 50.93 & 81.32 & 3.10 & 43.57 & 2.86 & 8.55 & 46.94 & 3.00 & 8.98 & 66.54 & 40.95 & 3.58 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (123.14) & (99.31) & (1.43) & (77.06) & (0.48) & (12.36) & (81.94) & (0.77) & (13.24) & (109.25) & (5.93) & (1.32) \\
696 x 353 x 70%
& GP & 73.71 & 129.87 & 3.57 & 64.20 & 43.42 & 3.58 & 93.45 & 47.21 & 4.85 & 67.03 & 43.80 & 3.57 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (146.92) & (126.46) & (1.65) & (112.93) & (14.04) & (2.05) & (205.91) & (21.02) & (8.96) & (109.94) & (11.83) & (1.27)\\
& GPI & 65.75 & 83.71 & 3.41 & 61.34 & 38.04 & 3.48 & 61.26 & 39.36 & 3.47 & 61.26 & 39.36 & 3.47 \\
\rowcolor{white}
& & (122.28) & (72.39) & (1.03) & (108.31) & (10.97) & (1.39) & (108.52) & (10.98) & (1.34) & (108.52) & (10.98) & (1.34)\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:cvp_e3}
\end{sidewaystable}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\subfigure[Predicted E1 concentrations over entire region superimposed with input data]{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{e1_op_3d}\label{fig:ope11}}
\subfigure[2D section view of the predicted E1 concentrations]{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{e1_op_2d}\label{fig:ope12}}
\subfigure[Uncertainty in E1 predictions constituting the 2D section view]{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{e1_op_2d_std}\label{fig:ope13}}
\end{center}
\caption{Figures \ref{fig:ope11}, \ref{fig:ope12} and \ref{fig:ope13} respectively show the predicted E1 concentrations (over the entire region) superimposed with the input data, a 2D section-view of the output data and the uncertainty in the predicted concentrations for the 2D view. Expectedly, the uncertainty is low around regions where input/given data exist and rapidly rises for predictions away from such areas - typically, the fringe areas. The 2D section view shows two red regions corresponding two regions of high E1 concentration. The corresponding regions in Figures \ref{fig:ope2} and \ref{fig:ope3} show low E2 and E3 concentrations respectively.}
\label{fig:ope1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\subfigure[Predicted E2 concentrations over entire region superimposed with input data]{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{e2_op_3d}\label{fig:ope21}}
\subfigure[2D section view of the predicted E2 concentrations]{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{e2_op_2d}\label{fig:ope22}}
\subfigure[Uncertainty in E2 predictions constituting the 2D section view]{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{e2_op_2d_std}\label{fig:ope23}}
\end{center}
\caption{Figures \ref{fig:ope21}, \ref{fig:ope22} and \ref{fig:ope23} respectively show the predicted E2 concentrations (over the entire region) superimposed with the input data, a 2D section-view of the output data and the uncertainty in the predicted concentrations for the 2D view. Expectedly, the uncertainty is low around regions where input/given data exist and rapidly rises for predictions away from such areas - typically, the fringe areas. The 2D section view shows two violet regions corresponding two regions of low E2 concentration. The corresponding regions in Figure \ref{fig:ope1} show high E1 concentration and those from Figure \ref{fig:ope3} show low E3 concentration.}
\label{fig:ope2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\subfigure[Predicted E3 concentrations over entire region superimposed with input data]{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{e3_op_3d}\label{fig:ope31}}
\subfigure[2D section view of the predicted E3 concentrations]{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{e3_op_2d}\label{fig:ope32}}
\subfigure[Uncertainty in E3 predictions constituting the 2D section view]{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{e3_op_2d_std}\label{fig:ope33}}
\end{center}
\caption{Figures \ref{fig:ope31}, \ref{fig:ope32} and \ref{fig:ope33} respectively show the predicted E3 concentrations (over the entire region) superimposed with the input data, a 2D section-view of the output data and the uncertainty in the predicted concentrations for the 2D view. Expectedly, the uncertainty is low around regions where input/given data exist and rapidly rises for predictions away from such areas - typically, the fringe areas. The 2D section view shows two violet regions corresponding two regions of low E3 concentration. The corresponding regions in Figure \ref{fig:ope1} show high E1 concentration and those from Figure \ref{fig:ope2} show low E2 concentration.}
\label{fig:ope3}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{fig:ope1}, \ref{fig:ope2} and \ref{fig:ope3} show the predicted concentrations of E1, E2 and E3 over the entire region of interest as well as 2D section views of this output and the uncertainty of the predictions that constitute it; these were produced using multi-task GPs using the Neural Network kernel. Tables \ref{tab:cvp_e1}, \ref{tab:cvp_e2} and \ref{tab:cvp_e3} show the results of the cross validation testing on the geological resource data set with the Neural Network (NN), Matern 3/2 (MM), Squared Exponential (SQEXP) and Matern 3/2 - Matern 3/2 - Squared exponential (MS) kernels. The three tables are visualized through numerous graphs that summarize the main trends observed; these are located in the appendix. Figures \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_se} through \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_gp_gpi_ms_nlp} depict the main results of Table \ref{tab:cvp_e1} (element E1), Figures \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_se} through \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_gp_gpi_ms_nlp} depict the main results of Table \ref{tab:cvp_e2} (element E2) and Figures \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_se} through \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_gp_gpi_ms_nlp} depict the main results of Table \ref{tab:cvp_e3} (element E3). The following observations were made from the results obtained.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Prediction error (SE) increases with increase in test block size.
\begin{itemize}
\item See Figures \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_se}, \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_gp_gpi_nn_se}, \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_gpi_mm_sqexp_se}, \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_gp_gpi_ms_se} for E1, Figures \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_se}, \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_gp_gpi_nn_se}, \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_gpi_mm_sqexp_se}, \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_gp_gpi_ms_se} for E2 and Figures \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_se}, \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_gp_gpi_nn_se}, \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_gpi_mm_sqexp_se}, \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_gp_gpi_ms_se} for E3.
\item This behavior is expected. It happens because the support training data required for regressing at a test point is situated farther away. Increasing the test block size also results in reduced stratification as one fold of the cross validation may have e.g. 10,000 test points whereas another may have only 1000 points. This results in increased standard deviation of prediction error. A ten fold stratified cross validation is generally considered to be the most representative of performance measure \cite{kohavi1995study}, however testing multiple larger block sizes provides a better understanding of the model's behavior and robustness.
\end{itemize}
\item NN kernel based MTGP/GP models trained faster than other kernels
\begin{itemize}
\item Further optimization of each of the MTGP/GP models could yield better results. The results shown are the result of a reasonable amount of optimization applied to each kernel and GP model. Typically, multiple attempts were performed and the best results obtained were pursued/used. One iteration consisted of a stochastic optimization step (simulated annealing) and/or a gradient based optimization step (Quasi Newton optimization with BFGS Hessian update) with 10,000 training data chosen uniformly from the data. This work uses a ``block-learning'' approximation \cite{vasudevan_iros2010} which approximates the total marginal likelihood as a sum of a sequence of marginal likelihoods computed over blocks of points comprising the training data. The size of the block is defined by the computational resources available. The stochastic optimization step was the most time consuming part; each attempt was started with completely random parameters. The code was unoptimized MATLAB code running typically on an 8-core processor based machine. Most times, not all the cores were used for the same process; multiple processes also shared the same system. Note that the experiments in this paper do not use analytical gradients for the optimization of the hyperparameters; this was a design choice made in the interest of stability and comparability of the optimization results across kernels. The use of analytical gradients can significantly reduce the total training time. Training time may also be reduced significantly by various other ways including other approximations, intelligently setting initial parameters, scaling the data etc.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| l | l | l |}
\hline
Model & Kernel & Number of training attempts, iterations \\
& & Total training time for successful attempt \\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{MTGP} & NN & 2 attempts, 3 iterations, total training time = 78.89 hours \\
& MM & 3 attempts, 2 iterations, total training time = 222.15 hours \\
& SQEXP & 4 attempts, 1 iteration, total training time = 92.52 hours \\
& MS & 2 attempts, 3.5 iterations, 3 iterations took 113.69 hours \\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{GPI} & NN & 3 attempts, 2 iterations, total training time = 41.07 hours \\
& MM & 2 attempts, 1 iteration, total training time = 48.91 hours \\
& SQEXP & 2 attempts, 1 iteration, total training time = 47.67 hours \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Rather than the individual training times, the relative amount of training (under similar conditions, with different kernel) required to produce a reasonable set of parameters is of more interest. Experience suggests that the NN kernel based MTGP/GP models converged faster and better as compared to other kernels.
\end{itemize}
\item MTGP models based on the NN kernel outperform other kernels tested.
\begin{itemize}
\item See Figures \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_se}, \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_var}, \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_nlp} for E1, Figures \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_se}, \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_var}, \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_nlp} for E2 and Figures \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_se}, \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_var}, \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_nlp} for E3.
\item The NN kernel is the best performing kernel of the four tested, across all block sizes tested. The MTGP based on the NN kernel produces lower SE (better estimate) and reduced NLP (better model) estimates than other kernels tested.
\item For small block sizes, both the NN and MM kernel are competitive; in case of E3, the MM even marginally outperforms the NN kernel for the two smallest block sizes tested. Note however that considering all test sizes and all three elements, the observation is that the MM kernel produces lower VAR for a higher SE, meaning that it is more confident of its SE values which are worse/higher than those of the NN kernel. This makes its NLP higher and the model poorer than an MTGP based on the NN kernel. Note also that as the test block size increases, the advantage in performance of the MTGP based on the NN kernel over that based on the MM kernel becomes more distinctive. Not only are the SE values smaller for the NN kernel, the NLP values remain in the same range whereas those of the MM kernel rise significantly. This proves that the MTGP-NN is better performing and more robust than the MTGP-MM. The latter property suggests that the MTGP-NN will be able to cope better with incomplete data sets.
\item Both the MS and SQEXP kernels are not competitive with respect to the NN or MM kernels considering both the SE and NLP metrics. These kernels are discussed individually in the following paragraphs.
\end{itemize}
\item MTGP models perform significantly better than three separate GPs (using the MTGP parameters) or three independently optimized GPs as information fusion improves estimation.
\begin{itemize}
\item See Figures \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_gp_gpi_nn_se} and \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_gp_gpi_nn_nlp} for E1, Figures \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_gp_gpi_nn_se} and \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_gp_gpi_nn_nlp} for E2 and Figures \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_gp_gpi_nn_se} and \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_gp_gpi_nn_nlp} for E3.
\item For the NN kernel, the MTGP metrics are always lower than the corresponding derived GP (GP) or independent GP (GPI) metrics - lower SE (better estimate) with lower NLP (better model). This clearly demonstrates the benefits of information fusion across heterogeneous information sources so as to improve individual predictions using the MTGP model.
\item From Tables \ref{tab:cvp_e1}, \ref{tab:cvp_e2} and \ref{tab:cvp_e3}, the average reduction in error (i.e. improvement in performance) of MTGP models over GP/GPI models for the smallest, intermediate and largest test block sizes are -
\begin{itemize}
\item E1
\begin{itemize}
\item 22 x 11 x 2 - 95.6\% over GP, 96.2\% over GPI
\item 84 x 45 x 9 - 96.1\% over GP, 96.0\% over GPI
\item 696 x 353 x 70 - 44.6\% over GP, 38.1\% over GPI
\end{itemize}
\item E2
\begin{itemize}
\item 22 x 11 x 2 - 89.6\% over GP, 92.3\% over GPI
\item 84 x 45 x 9 - 91.6\% over GP, 92.4\% over GPI
\item 696 x 353 x 70 - 42.1\% over GP, 37.5\% over GPI
\end{itemize}
\item E3
\begin{itemize}
\item 22 x 11 x 2 - 82.4\% over GP, 83.5\% over GPI
\item 84 x 45 x 9 - 85.9\% over GP, 85.3\% over GPI
\item 696 x 353 x 70 - 30.9\% over GP, 22.5\% over GPI
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
These numbers demonstrate significant improvements in performance, even in very large test block sizes, when using the MTGP-NN model for correlated data.
\item The MS kernel was uncompetitive
\begin{itemize}
\item See Figures \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_gp_gpi_ms_se} and \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_gp_gpi_ms_nlp} for E1, Figures \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_gp_gpi_ms_se} and \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_gp_gpi_ms_nlp} for E2 and Figures \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_gp_gpi_ms_se} and \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_gp_gpi_ms_nlp} for E3.
\item The MS kernel is not competitive with respect to the NN and MM kernels as discussed earlier. However, the MTGP using this kernel combination proves to be better than a derived GP and an independently optimized GP with respect to the SE metric. From the NLP perspective, the MTGP-MS model is more competitive than the other GP models for small block sizes. For larger block sizes, using an independently optimized GP proves to be a more trust worthy modeling option as the increase in error is met with a corresponding increase in uncertainty (hence low NLP) for the independent GP models. The exception to this behavior is seen in the results for E3, the MTGP model is poor in this case. This is attributed to do with inferior parameters relevant to the element E3 obtained from the optimization process.
\item The MS kernel performs better than the SQEXP with respect to the NLP metric and hence can be trusted more (prediction error compensated by prediction uncertainty), but in two of the three elements (E1 and E3), its SE was inferior to that of the SQEXP.
\end{itemize}
\item The SQEXP kernel was uncompetitive and unreliable
\begin{itemize}
\item See Tables \ref{tab:cvp_e1}, \ref{tab:cvp_e2} and \ref{tab:cvp_e3}; see Figures \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_se}, \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_var} \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_nlp}, \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_gpi_mm_sqexp_se}, \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_gpi_mm_sqexp_nlp}, \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_gp_gpi_ms_se} and \ref{fig:e1_mtgp_gp_gpi_ms_nlp} for E1, Figures \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_se}, \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_var}, \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_nlp}, \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_gpi_mm_sqexp_se}, \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_gpi_mm_sqexp_nlp}, \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_gp_gpi_ms_se} and \ref{fig:e2_mtgp_gp_gpi_ms_nlp} for E2 and Figures \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_se}, \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_var}, \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_nlp}, \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_gpi_mm_sqexp_se}, \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_gpi_mm_sqexp_nlp}, \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_gp_gpi_ms_se} and \ref{fig:e3_mtgp_gp_gpi_ms_nlp} for E3.
\item The MTGP-SQEXP model performs poorly in comparison with the equivalent models using the NN/MM kernels, with respect to both SE and NLP.
\item For elements E1 and E3, the MTGP-SQEXP has a better SE than the corresponding model based on the MS kernel; it has an SE better than the corresponding derived/independent GP models but an inferior (overconfident or low uncertainty) VAR and a fluctuating NLP trend. For element E2, the MTGP-SQEXP is worse off than both the equivalent model based on the MS kernel as well as its corresponding GP models.
\item Considering the results for E2, the NLP is directly proportional to the SE and inversely to the prediction variance. At the smallest block size, the MTGP-SQEXP produces relatively high SE (with respect to e.g. MTGP-NN) but very low prediction variance. This basically suggests that the model is confident of its poor estimates - a bad outcome. This results in a high NLP and poor model. As the block size increases, the prediction variance increases more relative to the prediction error resulting in the decreasing NLP trend. For elements E1 and E3, the largest block size results in a stronger increase in prediction error than the variance in the prediction resulting in an increase in NLP. Overall, the MTGP-SQEXP model is poor.
\item The SQEXP kernel is a limiting case of the MM kernel; both are stationary kernels. Considering the behavior of the GPI model using the SQEXP kernel and its competitive results with respect to those of the GPI-MM kernel, it is possible that the poor performance of the MTGP-SQEXP (as compared to the MTGP-MM) is due to poor optimization output (a bad local minima). Further investigation on this result is ongoing but the findings are not expected to change the conclusions of this paper.
\end{itemize}
\item In general, the stationary kernels tested seemed to have an inadequate increase in prediction uncertainty with increasing test block size and worsening predictions. This leads a higher NLP metric and a poor model that is overly confident of its worsening predictions. This behavior can be attributed to the correlation profile of the stationary kernels tested - they all share the ``correlation decreases with increasing distance of support data from point of interest'' trend. This results in stationary kernels not being able to cope with large test block sizes as the support data is farther away (i.e. less correlated and not of much use). In contrast, the nonstationary NN kernel has a sigmoidal profile that can handle this issue across a range of test block sizes.
\item The SE metric taken alone can be misleading. The experiments have reinforced the need for a multi-metric analysis. The SE metric only provides information on the prediction error but it does not describe the prediction uncertainty which is very important in understanding if a model is reliable or otherwise. The VAR and NLP metrics provided key insights on the difference in performance between different models and kernels. A model that is very confident of its poor predictions is unreliable (as was the case for the SQEXP kernel). Worsening predictions (due to increasing test block size) is itself not a bad outcome, provided it is met with an equivalent increase in prediction uncertainty.
\end{enumerate}
\clearpage
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
On the basis of this study, an attempt is made in answering two fundamental questions - (1) How can I know if I have a good MTGP model ? and (2) Which GP model or kernel should I use ? By no means is this intended to be a ready-made prescription, universal formula or short-cut to be used as a substitute for context specific and statistically apt decisions in developing Gaussian process models. Rather, this is a reflection of the authors' experiences based on the scope of this and past work in other domains such as terrain modeling. Note that there are numerous very sophisticated GP techniques (kernels, approximation etc.) which are beyond the scope of this work and which may change some of these inferences.
\subsection{How can I know if I have a good MTGP model ?}
To effectively develop and validate MTGP models, the experiments are suggestive of the following -
\begin{enumerate}
\item The use of multiple kernel from the same family would provide a good method for validating the general behavior/trends of the model in question. For instance when developing an MTGP model based on the SQEXP kernel, developing a Matern 3/2 kernel based MTGP model could provide a means to validate the behavior of the MTGP-SQEXP model.
\item The model hyperparameter optimization performed in this paper is based on maximizing the marginal likelihood. Typically, error metrics such as the SE being sufficiently low is suggestive of the model being good. A cross validation test could also be performed to ensure that this is indeed the case. However, it is also important to check if the model in question is under/over confident (high/low uncertainty) for a given level of error. This can be done, not as a standalone test, but in comparison with alternative models or test cases.
\item When developing a MTGP model, it is a good idea to compare with an equivalent derived GP model and an independently optimized GP model. The availability of more information and the effective use of this information through the MTGP model should ideally result in significantly lower error metrics (e.g. SE) with a significant improvement in confidence (i.e. decrease in prediction variance, VAR) and a net reduction in the Negative Log Loss (NLP) metric.
\item It may be useful to design a variety of different test cases (e.g. different test block sizes) and check if the performance metrics behave as expected. Such a test would also be indicative of the robustness of the model.
\item It may be useful to optimize independent GP models for each task and use these hyperparameters as the initial parameters for the MTGP model.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Which GP model or kernel should I use ?}
This obviously depends on the data set at hand and the constraints of the modeling problem. The following are purely indicative, based on our experiences in multiple problem domains \cite{vasudevan_jfr2009,vasudevan2012,melkumyan2011} and may change considering alternative kernels, other novel ways of treating the modeling problem or approximation methods.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Time, complexity, computational resources are a premium. I need a method that just works}: Independently optimized GP models using the Neural Network kernel or the Matern 3/2 kernel would be a competitive solution. Note that the outcome will only be as good as the data being modeled and other information sources cannot be leveraged.
\item \textit{I need the best possible model over a range of test sizes and I do not know much about my data}: Multi-task GP models using the Neural Network kernel would be a competitive solution.
\item \textit{I need the best possible model over a range of test sizes and I know how my data changes}: Multi-task GP models with a kernel representative of the variation of the data e.g. a uniform variation (no sudden changes in trend) can be effectively modeled using the Matern 3/2 or Squared Exponential kernels.
\item \textit{I need a model that can cope with sparse data and/or incomplete data sets}: Neural network kernel based GP or MTGP models depending on the computational complexity constraints and model accuracy requirements.
\item \textit{I have ``good'' multi-attribute data. I need to model this well and fast}: Independent GP models for each of the attributes, using either a Neural Network kernel or some other kernel more suited to the data, would provide a competitive solution. The use of independent GP models will result in the ability to parallelize the modeling process and significantly reduce the possibility of poor models (poor local minima) as a consequence of a reduction in number of model parameters. Note that ``good'' here is application dependent but would certainly require being well sampled, not noisy and reasonably complete (no large gaps where other information modalities can be leveraged).
\end{enumerate}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
This paper studied the problem of geological resource modeling using multi-task Gaussian processes (MTGPs). The concentrations of three elements were modeled and predicted over a region of interest using the MTGP as well as individual Gaussian processes (GPs) for each of these quantities. The paper demonstrates that MTGPs perform significantly better than individual GPs at the modeling problem as they effectively integrate heterogeneous sources of information (concentrations of individual elements) to improve the individual predictions of each of them. The benefits of information integration using the MTGP as against independent GPs for the task of geological resource modeling have been quantified by a multi-metric and multi-test-size cross validation study that performed both an exact and an independent comparison between MTGPs and GPs. Multi-task Gaussian process models based on the Neural Network kernel was shown to be a competitive and robust option across a range of test block sizes.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work has been funded by the Rio Tinto Centre for Mine Automation.
|
\section{Introduction}
{\it Introduction---}
Quantum coherence allows open multi-level systems to form superpositions that uncouple from the dissipative dynamics. The system evolves towards a stationary pure state. These are named dark states from their discovery as non-absorbing resonances in illuminated atom gases~\cite{cpt}. Two ground states coupled to the same excited state form a superposition that is not affected by the lasers. The occupation of orthogonal superpositions which can be excited by the lasers (often called bright states) decays due to the spontaneous emission from the excited state. Many applications for optical systems followed, including laser cooling, lasing without inversion and coherent adiabatic passage~\cite{arimondo}.
As for some remarkable quantum optics phenomena, these applications have found their translation to mesoscopic electronic circuits~\cite{tobias}.
There, transitions are mediated by coherent tunneling or by time dependent electromagnetic fields. In quantum dot arrays, dark superpositions are essential to proposals of coherent state transfer~\cite{greentree} or current switching by coherent population trapping~\cite{tobiascpt}. However, their detection in transport has been elusive for requiring exquisite control of complicated multidot arrangements~\cite{michaelis,maria} or many level configurations~\cite{clive}. Here we introduce a dark state based on collective spin dynamics rather than single-electron interference. The required technology is the same that has achieved single electron spin resonance (ESR)~\cite{engel2,koppens} in already a number of experiments~\cite{koppens,laird,nowack,pioro,nadjperge}. Remarkably, the resulting two-electron dark state is maximally entangled.
In the solid state, entanglement has been demonstrated by the violation of Bell inequalities in superconductor phase qubits~\cite{ansmann} while quantum dot spin qubits have succeeded in the performance of essential ingredients as universal quantum gates~\cite{petta,koppens} or single shot readout~\cite{nowack-2qubit}. Electronic entanglers have been proposed based on Cooper pair splitting~\cite{recher}, electron-hole excitations~\cite{beenakker}, single-electron emitters~\cite{janine}, parity detection~\cite{trauzettel} or purification protocols~\cite{taylor}. Quite counter-intuitively, entanglement of macroscopic atomic ensembles can be generated by dissipation~\cite{muschik}. A proper engineering of the environment drives an open quantum system to a pure steady state~\cite{diehl}, similar to a dark state.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth,clip]{fig1.eps}
\caption{\label{sys} Dynamical generation of entanglement. (a) In a spin blockade double quantum dot, charge flows through states of two electrons with opposite spins, $\{{\mid}{\uparrow}{,}{\downarrow}\rangle,{\mid}{\downarrow}{,}{\uparrow}\rangle\}$, coupled by intradot tunneling, $\tau$, to the doubly occupied singlet ${\mid}S_R\rangle$, from where an electron tunnels to the drain lead. (b) The occupation of the even-parity subspace blocks the current, forming a mixed state, $\hat\rho_{SB}$, with statistical weights, $p_\sigma$. Coherent spin rotations by an ac magnetic field, $B_x$, open the system to transport again. For a particular frequency, $\Omega$, an even-parity eigenstate of the magnetic field becomes a dark state, ${\mid}\psi_d\rangle$. (c) The system evolves towards a pure steady state composed of Bell superpositions. Coherence of the steady state is apparent in the undamped oscillations of the off-diagonal elements.
}
\end{figure}
In solid state qubits, the environment can be engineered by voltages and electromagnetic fields.
Here we propose how to generate a maximally entangled dark state
of two spatially separated electrons stored in a double quantum dot tunnel-coupled in series to fermionic source and drain leads. In the Coulomb blockade regime with strong Coulomb interactions, electrons are transferred one by one through the system, which can be tuned to contain up to two conduction electrons, cf. Fig.~\ref{sys}. We consider a configuration described by the charge occupation states ${(}N_L{,}N_R{)}{=}{(}0{,}1{)}{,}{(}1{,}1{)}{,}{(}0{,}2{)}$.
In the presence of inhomogeneous in-plane magnetic fields, odd-parity states, $\{{\mid}{\uparrow}{,}{\downarrow}\rangle,{\mid}{\downarrow}{,}{\uparrow}\rangle\}$, support a current through the drain dot singlet ${\mid}S_R\rangle{=}{\mid}{0}{,}{\uparrow}{\downarrow}\rangle$ from which an electron is transferred to the drain lead. However, the occupation of the even parity subspace, $\{{\mid}{\uparrow}{,}{\uparrow}\rangle,{\mid}{\downarrow}{,}{\downarrow}\rangle\}$, suppresses the current for a forward applied bias (from left to right) due to Pauli exclusion principle, what is known as spin blockade~\cite{ono}.
Thus, the reduced density matrix of the double quantum dot, $\hat\rho$, evolves toward a mixed steady state in the even parity subspace: $\hat\rho_{SB}{=}p_\uparrow{\mid}{\uparrow}{,}{\uparrow}\rangle\langle{\uparrow}{,}{\uparrow}{\mid}{+}p_\downarrow{\mid}{\downarrow}{,}{\downarrow}\rangle\langle{\downarrow}{,}{\downarrow}{\mid}$, with statistical weights $p_\sigma$. Single electron spin rotations by an ac magnetic field lift spin blockade and lead to a resonant current when its frequency matches one of the individual Zeeman splittings, $\hbar\omega{=}\Delta_L,\Delta_R$~\cite{koppens,pioro,nadjperge}. We find that for a particular frequency, superpositions of even-parity Bell states,
\begin{equation}
{\mid}\psi_\pm\rangle{=}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}({\mid}{\uparrow}{,}{\uparrow}\rangle{\pm}{\mid}{\downarrow}{,}{\downarrow}\rangle),
\end{equation}
decouple both from the driving field and transport. The system is thus dynamically driven to a pure dark state, $\rho_{st}{\approx}{\mid}\psi_d\rangle\langle\psi_d{\mid}$, see Eqs.~\eqref{ds} and \eqref{rst} below. Any other superposition decays by the combined effect of the ac field and tunneling into the reservoirs.
We investigate the fingerprints that such states leave in transport spectroscopy experiments as being carried out nowadays~\cite{koppens,laird,nowack,pioro,nadjperge}. Collective rotations of the two electron spins lead to a resonant current showing a sharp dip which cannot be explained by the individual electron spin dynamics. This effect will manifest clearly in the current at the border of the spin blockade window where the (1,1)$\rightarrow$(0,2) tunneling transition is resonant.
{\it Model---}
Our system is modeled by a two-site Anderson Hamiltonian,
$\hat H{=}\hat H_{\rm DQD}{+}\hat H_{\rm leads}{+}\hat H_{\rm coupl}$, describing the double quantum dot, the electronic source ($S$) and drain ($D$) reservoirs, $\hat{H}_{\rm leads}{=}\sum_{lk\sigma}\varepsilon_{lk}\hat d_{lk\sigma}^\dagger\hat d_{lk\sigma}$, and their tunneling couplings, $\hat H_{\rm coupl}{=}{\sum_{lk\sigma}}(\Lambda_{l}\hat{d}_{lk\sigma}^\dagger\hat{c}_{l\sigma}{+}{\rm H.c.})$,
where the fermionic operators $\hat{c}_{i\sigma}$ and $\hat{d}_{lk\sigma}$ annihilate an electron with spin $\sigma$ in dot $i{\in}\{L,R\}$ and lead $l{\in}\{S,D\}$, respectively, and $\Lambda_l$ is the coupling strength. The double quantum dot term is given by $\hat{H}_{\rm DQD}{=}\hat{H}_0{+}\hat{H}_\tau$, accounting for the bare energy of the double quantum dot (including interactions), $\hat{H}_0$, and the coherent interdot tunneling, $\hat{H}_\tau{=}{-}\sum_{\sigma}(\tau\hat{c}_{\rm L\sigma}^\dagger\hat{c}_{\rm R\sigma}{+}{\rm H.c.})$. We consider a single discrete level of energy $\varepsilon_i$ in each dot which can be occupied by two electrons forming a spin singlet. Excited states are assumed to be far off in energy so their contribution ---forming on-site triplets that would lift spin blockade--- can be neglected here. Thus we have
$\hat{H}_{0}=\sum_{i\sigma}\varepsilon_{i}\hat c_{i\sigma}^\dagger\hat c_{i\sigma}+\sum_{i}U_{i}\hat n_{i{{\uparrow}}}\hat n_{i{\downarrow}}+U_{LR}\hat n_{L}\hat n_{R}$,
where $U_i$ and $U_{LR}$ describe on-site and interdot Coulomb repulsion, and $\hat{n}_{i\sigma}$ and $\hat{n}_{i}$ are the spin resolved and total number operators, respectively.
The chemical potentials of the leads, $\mu_i$, are such that only two electrons are
allowed in the system:
$\varepsilon_i{<}\mu_i{-}U_{\rm LR}{<}\varepsilon_i{+}U_i$ and $\mu_i{<}\varepsilon_i{+}2U_{LR}$. If $\varepsilon_R{<}\mu_D$, the right quantum dot stays occupied. Considering spin, only seven states with charge distributions described by (0,1), (1,1) and (0,2) are relevant.
Coherent interdot tunneling will be resonant when the states (1,1) and (0,2) are degenerate. We parametrize their detuning by $\delta\varepsilon{=}\varepsilon_L{-}\varepsilon_R{+}U_R{-}U_{LR}$. The spin blockade window is hence defined by the region $\delta\varepsilon\ge0$.
For spin manipulation, we include magnetic fields in an ESR configuration~\cite{engel2,moi}. It consists of in-plane magnetic fields with a dc component that creates a Zeeman splitting $\Delta^z_i$ in each dot, and an ac component perpendicular to it whose frequency is close to the resonance conditions $\hbar\omega{\approx}\Delta^z_i$. Since magnetic fields are experimentally hard to localize, alternatives have been introduced using more tunable gate voltages. Effective ac magnetic fields are obtained by coupling the spin to a pulsed electric signal mediated by either spin orbit or hyperfine interaction~\cite{nowack,nadjperge,laird}, slanting dc magnetic fields~\cite{tokura,pioro}, or by spin-phonon coupling in the presence of mechanical vibrations of the dot~\cite{ohm}. For theoretical generality, we consider the purely magnetic field case given by the Hamiltonian term:
$\hat{H}_B(t){=}\sum_i(\Delta^x_i\cos\omega t,0,\Delta^z_i){\cdot}\mathbf{\hat{S}_i}$,
with $\Delta^j_i{=}g_{ji}\mu_BB_{ji}$ and spin operators ${\bf \hat S}_i{=}\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\sigma \sigma'} \hat c^\dagger_{i\sigma} \boldsymbol{\hat\sigma}_{\sigma \sigma'}\hat c_{i\sigma'}$. The Land\'e factors, $g_{ji}$, are in general inhomogeneous, $\mu_B$ is the Bohr magneton, $B_{ji}$ are the magnetic field $j$ component in dot $i$, and $ \boldsymbol{\hat\sigma}$ are the Pauli matrices. Different Zeeman splittings are required, $\Delta^z_L{\ne}\Delta^z_R$, otherwise the ESR field has no visible effect~\cite{moi}. The different components $\Delta^j_{i}$ can be tuned either by the control of the Land\'e factor~\cite{huang} or by applying inhomogeneous magnetic fields: for instance by means of a micromagnet~\cite{pioro,laird}, or pulses of different amplitude in electric dipole spin resonance experiments. Such experimental ability allows us to consider the simplest required configuration, with $\Delta^x_L{=}\Delta^x_R{=}\gamma B_x$ and $\Delta^z_L{=}a\Delta^z_R{=}\gamma B_z$. To ease the notation, we include the asymmetries in the parameter $a$, assuming that the magnetic fields are homogeneous.
The dynamical evolution of the system is described by a Markovian quantum master equation for the reduced density matrix $\hat\rho$ obtained by tracing the reservoir degrees of freedom out
\begin{equation}
\label{mastereq}
\dot\rho=-\frac{i}{\hbar}[\hat{H}_{\rm DQD}{+}\hat{H}_B(t),\hat\rho]+{\cal L}_\Gamma\hat\rho,
\end{equation}
where the commutator accounts for the coherent dynamics inside the double quantum dot.
The Liouvillian superoperator ${\cal L}_\Gamma{=}\sum_{\alpha{=}\pm,l}{\cal L}_l^\alpha$ describes tunneling events to ($+$) or from ($-$) lead $l$ and includes decoherence for the finite lifetime of states coupled to the leads~\cite{engel2,moi}. Spin decoherence is assumed to be of a longer time scale. The drain current is then given by $I{=}q{\rm tr}[({\cal L}_D^+-{\cal L}_D^-)\hat\rho]$. In the high bias regime, transport is unidirectional with ${\cal L}_S^+{=}{\cal L}_D^-{=}0$. The remaining terms are fully described by the tunneling rates $\Gamma_l{=}\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}|\Lambda_l|^2\nu_l$, where $\nu_l$ is the density of states in the leads, for processes carrying an electron from the source to the dots and from the dots to the drain. Processes taking electrons in the backward direction are negligible, though they are included in the numerical calculations.
{\it Results---}
Na\"ively, one would expect that the current spectroscopy results from the sum of two Lorentzian resonance peaks centered at $\hbar\omega{=}\Delta_L^z,\Delta_R^z$ ---when the rotation of each electron spin would lift spin blockade--- and is zero elsewhere. Indeed, this picture agrees with experimental observations~\cite{pioro,nadjperge,laird}. However, due to the interplay of coherent spin rotation and interdot tunneling, resonant features of a non trivial lineshape appear, as shown in Fig.~\ref{iwbac}. On one hand, peaks are not necessarily centered at the individual spin resonances but at points of maximal hybridization which depend on $\tau$, $\Delta_i^j$ and $\delta\varepsilon$. On the other hand, and most importantly, current vanishes for a frequency $\hbar\omega{=}\hbar\Omega{\equiv}(\Delta_L^z{+}\Delta_R^z)/2$. Such anti-resonant behaviour is a clear signature of dark states. We note that similar current characteristics are predicted in discrete lattice models of transport~\cite{alfredo} to which our system can be mapped.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.685\linewidth,clip]{IvswBxfig.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{iwbac}\small Current as a function of the driving frequency, $\omega$. The collective spin rotation results in a nontrivial lineshape not centered at the ESR conditions (at $\hbar\omega{=}\Delta_L^z,\Delta_R^z$, vertical dashed lines) and a vanishing current (dark state) at $\hbar\Omega{=}(\Delta_L^z{+}\Delta_R^z)/2$. Cases for different driving amplitudes, $B_x$, are vertically offset.
Parameters (for all figures, except where indicated): $\hbar\Gamma{=}10^{-2}$meV, $\tau{=}20\Gamma$, $\gamma{=}0.4$meV/T, $B_z{=}0.1$T and $a{=}0.8$. Interdot tunneling is resonant: $\delta\varepsilon{=}0$. The inset shows the shift of the antiresonance frequency, $\omega_m$, with the amplitude of the ac field. The solid line is a quadratic fit.}
\end{figure}
Analytical understanding of the dynamics at that point can be obtained within a rotating wave approximation (RWA), when $\Delta_i^x{\ll}\Delta_i^z{\sim}\hbar\omega$. Thus, neglecting the contribution of counter-rotating terms, we get a time independent magnetic field Hamiltonian:
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}_{B,{\rm RWA}}=\sum_i\left[(\Delta_i^z-\hbar\omega)\hat{S}_i^z+\Delta_i^x\hat{S}_i^x\right].
\end{equation}
We can easily verify that ${\mid}\psi_-\rangle{=}({\mid}{\uparrow}{\uparrow}\rangle{-}{\mid}{\downarrow}{\downarrow}\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ is a zero eigenvalue eigenstate of $\hat{H}_{B,{\rm RWA}}+\hat{H}_{\tau}$ at $\omega{=}\Omega$. Therefore it is decoupled both from the external magnetic field and from transport, due to parity and spin blockade. Electrons occupying any other state or superposition will flow to the drain lead and be replaced. As a consequence, the system will dynamically evolve towards a stationary solution given by the Bell state ${\mid}\psi_-\rangle$. The density matrix will be then described by the pure state ${\mid}\psi_-\rangle\langle\psi_-{\mid}$, fulfilling ${\cal L}_{\rm RWA}{\mid}\psi_-\rangle\langle\psi_-{\mid}{=}0$, with the Liouvillian superoperator ${\cal L}_{\rm RWA}\hat{\cal O}{=}{-}i\hbar^{-1}[\hat{H}_{\rm DQD}{+}\hat{H}_{B,{\rm RWA}},\hat{\cal O}]{+}{\cal L}_\Gamma\hat{\cal O}$. In this sense, opening the system to transport drives it to a maximally entangled dark state, for any initial state.
In the laboratory frame, the steady state describes Rabi oscillations of the two even-parity Bell states, ${\mid}\psi_\pm\rangle$, with frequency $\Omega{=}(\Delta_L^z{+}\Delta_R^z)/(2\hbar)$:
\begin{equation}
\label{ds}
{\mid}\psi_{st}(t)\rangle{=}i\sin\Omega t{\mid}\psi_+\rangle{+}\cos\Omega t{\mid}\psi_-\rangle,
\end{equation}
within the RWA.
Hence we can approximate the stationary density matrix by ${\mid}\psi_{st}(t)\rangle\langle\psi_{st}(t){\mid}$, explicitly:
\begin{equation}
\label{rst}
\hat\rho_{st}(t){\approx}{\frac{1}{2}}{\left[{\mid}{\uparrow}{,}{\uparrow}\rangle\langle{\uparrow}{,}{\uparrow}{\mid}{+}{\mid}{\downarrow}{,}{\downarrow}\rangle\langle {\downarrow}{,}{\downarrow}{\mid}{-}{\left(e^{2i\Omega t}{\mid}{\uparrow}{,}{\uparrow}\rangle\langle {\downarrow}{,}{\downarrow}{\mid}{+}{\rm H.c.}\right)}\right]}{.}
\end{equation}
We note that this solution is exact for a circularly polarized ac magnetic field but, for experimental feasibility, we restrict our analysis to linear polarization. As known since the work of Bloch and Siegert~\cite{blochsiegert}, counter-rotating terms of linearly polarized electromagnetic fields induce a shift of the resonance condition; see inset in Fig.~\ref{iwbac}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\linewidth,clip]{purityvsw.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.685\linewidth,clip]{figtom.eps}
\caption{\label{pure} A pure and coherent steady state. (a) Purity of the steady state as a function of the driving frequency. At the antiresonance frequency $\Omega$ a pure state is formed. Far from resonance, the purity tends to 1/2, consistently with a spin blockaded density matrix, $\hat\rho_{SB}$. Here, $B_x{=}B_z/5$. (b) Mean and variance of a state tomography at $\omega{=}\Omega$. Only two-electron states are represented for clarity. Finite off diagonal elements reveal a coherent superposition. Their explicit time dependence (cf. Eq.~\eqref{rst}) will be averaged out in the mean of any measurement, but will affect its variance.
}
\end{figure}
A numerical confirmation of our above results, namely that the system is driven to a pure and maximally entangled steady state, is shown next.
The purity of the steady state is given by ${\rm Tr}(\hat\rho^2)$ which is 1 for a pure state.
We verify this property for the stationary solution of the full time-dependent master equation~\eqref{mastereq}. As shown in Fig.~\ref{pure}(a), the steady state is mixed [${\rm Tr}(\hat\rho^2){<}1$, as expected for a transport configuration], but is dynamically purified at $\omega{=}\Omega$
A detection scheme for state coherence is quantum state tomography. A single-shot readout of the two electron spins can extract the required correlations~\cite{nowack-2qubit}. In our case, the explicit time dependence of the dark state off-diagonal elements, cf. Eq.~\eqref{rst}, will be averaged out in the mean of any measurement; see Fig.~\ref{pure}(b). The result would be then similar to that of a mixed spin blockade state, $\langle\hat\rho\rangle{=}(1/2)\sum_\sigma {\mid}{\sigma}{,}{\sigma}\rangle\langle{\sigma}{,}{\sigma}{\mid}$. The variance of the experimental data will discriminate between the two for the finite contribution of off-diagonal elements, cf. Fig.~\ref{pure}(b). It reveals the coherence of the steady state, in agreement with what is expected from Eq.~\eqref{rst}~\cite{timeav}.
{\it Experimental discussion---}
\label{sec:exp}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip]{fig4rev.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{exp} Transport spectroscopy for different dc magnetic fields, with $B_x{=}B_z^0{=}0.1$T. (a) For finite detuning ($\delta\varepsilon{=}2$ meV), a double peak structure coinciding with the individual ESR conditions ($\hbar\omega=\Delta_l$, marked by color dots) is consistent with previous experimental observations. (b) Resonant interdot tunneling ($\delta\varepsilon{=}0$) enhances the visibility of the collective features. The dark antiresonance is robust upon increasing the magnetic field. At low $B_z$ two peaks are visible which do not correspond to individual ESR. The latter appear as humps for larger magnetic fields. An offset is introduced for clarity. Inset: Frequency splitting of the current maxima, $\Delta\omega_{M}$. In orange, the expected behaviour for the individual ESR.
}
\end{figure}
No signature of such a dark Bell state has been reported so far~\cite{nowack,pioro,nadjperge,laird}. Our results indicate that the role of coherent tunneling must be emphasized. Configurations where interdot tunneling is not resonant show well defined double peak resonances centered at the individual ESR conditions, $\hbar\omega{=}\Delta_L^z,\Delta_R^z$~\cite{nowack,pioro,nadjperge,laird}. Thus they split as $\Delta\omega_M{\approx}(1{-}a)\gamma B_z$.
Using realistic parameters, our model reproduces that behaviour for $\delta\varepsilon{>}0$, cf. Fig.~\ref{exp}(a). Then, the effect of coherent tunneling is reduced and only a tiny antiresonance appears.
We propose that a clearer evidence of the dark Bell state will appear in the resonant tunneling case, $\delta\varepsilon{=}0$, due to the enhanced interplay of coherent tunneling and collective spin resonance, see Fig.~\ref{exp}(b). For low $B_z$, where tunneling dominates the coherent dynamics, two peaks appear around the antiresonance condition, whose splitting weakly depends on the magnetic field, cf. inset in Fig.~\ref{exp}(b), and are not centered at $\hbar\omega{=}\Delta_L,\Delta_R$.
At the antiresonance, current vanishes.
As analyzed in Ref.~\cite{michaelis}, a finite current at the dark state condition can be used to estimate the effect of other sources of decoherence different from tunneling. Upon increasing the dc magnetic field, the current develops humps that follow the individual ESR conditions and would be eventually resolved as separate peaks for larger $B_z$. However, the central structure is dominant. This peculiar behaviour, namely (i) a double peak which does not follow the individual ESR conditions at low $B_z$ and (ii) a central structure for larger $B_z$, is robust against decoherence~\cite{decoh} and conforms an unambiguous signature of the collective dark state, even if the antiresonance becomes faint.
{\it Conclusions---}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We predict a transport-induced maximally entangled state of two spatially separated electrons in a driven double quantum dot. Interplay of coherent interdot tunneling and collective electron spin resonance is essential for leaving clear signatures of the dark Bell state in transport spectroscopy experiments. The entangled state is decoupled from its environment by parity symmetry and Pauli exclusion principle. Thus it is not affected by the decoherence due to coupling the system to leads. Other sources of decoherence can be probed and will motivate further investigation. We propose an experimental setup which is within reach where resonant interdot tunneling
enhances the visibility of the entangled dark state features. Our work introduces a mechanism to produce Bell states in open systems for any initial condition. It will allow for investigations of non local quantum correlations of two electrons stored in solid state qubits. Our simple configuration constitutes an ideal candidate for the detection of transport dark states.
\acknowledgments
We acknowledge support from the CSIC and FSE JAE-Doc program, the Spanish MICINN Juan de la Cierva program and MAT2011-24331, and ITN Grant No. 234970 (EU).
|
\section{Introduction}
The variety of the mod $p$ cohomology ring of a finite group was first
studied by
Quillen in his fundamental 1971 paper
\cite{Quillen:1971b+c}, and has been a central tool in group
cohomology since then. The variety describes the mod $p$ group cohomology ring
up to {\em $F$--isomorphism}, i.e., a ring homomorphism
with nilpotent kernel and where every element in the target
raised to a $p^k$th power lies in the image; see
\cite[Prop.~B.8-9]{Quillen:1971b+c} and Remark~\ref{fisorem}.
Quillen's first application of the theory was to show in \cite{Quillen:1971a} that if the
Sylow $p$--subgroup inclusion $S \leq G$ induces an $F$--isomorphism
on mod $p$ cohomology
then $S$ controls
$p$--fusion in $G$, if $p$ is odd, which in this case means that
$G$ is $p$--nilpotent.
Quillen's result has subsequently been revisited
in a number of contexts \cite{Henn:1990a,Brunetti:1998a,Gonzalez-Sanchez:2010a,Isaacs/Navarro:2010a,arXiv:1107.5158v2}, however all retaining the
hypothesis that $S$ is a Sylow $p$--subgroup in $G$.
The main goal of this paper is to considerably strengthen Quillen's
result by replacing $S$ by an arbitrary subgroup $H$ of $G$ containing
$S$, thereby moving past $p$--nilpotent groups to all finite groups.
We recall that for $S \leq H \leq
G$, $H$ is said to {\em control $p$--fusion} in $G$, if pairs of
tuples of elements of $S$ are conjugate in $H$ if they are conjugate
in $G$, or equivalently if for
all $p$--subgroups $P,Q \leq S$, $N_H(P,Q)/C_H(P)$ equals
$N_G(P,Q)/C_G(P)$ as homomorphisms from $P$ to $Q$.
\begin{Th}[$F$--isomorphism implies control of $p$--fusion, $p$
odd]\label{MainCohomThm} Let $\iota\colon\thinspace H \leq G$ be an inclusion of finite groups of
index prime to $p$, $p$ an odd prime, and consider the induced map
on mod $p$ group cohomology $\iota^*\colon\thinspace H^*(G;\mathbb{F}_p) \to H^*(H;\mathbb{F}_p)$. If for each $x \in
H^*(H;\mathbb{F}_p)$, $x^{p^k} \in
\operatorname{im}(\iota^*)$ for some $k \geq 0$,
then $H$ controls $p$--fusion in $G$.
\end{Th}
Recall that $\iota^*$ is injective by an easy transfer
argument \cite[Prop.~4.2.5]{Evens:1991a}, since $p \nmid
|G:H|$. Hence, the condition above that for each $x\in H^*(H,\mathbb{F}_p)$
there exists $k\geq 0$ with $x^{p^k}\in\operatorname{im}(\iota^*)$, is in fact
equivalent to $\iota^*$ being an $F$-isomorphism. Note that by the classical 1956 Cartan--Eilenberg stable elements formula
\cite[XII.10.1]{Cartan/Eilenberg:1956a}, $\iota^*$ is an (actual)
isomorphism if $H$ controls $p$--fusion in $G$, so the converse also holds.
The assumption in Theorem~\ref{MainCohomThm} that $H$ and $G$ share a common
Sylow $p$--subgroup is necessary as the inclusion $C_p \to C_{p^2}$
shows. Likewise the assumption that $p$ is odd is necessary, as
Quillen's original example $Q_8
< 2A_4 = Q_8 \rtimes C_3$ shows. Stronger yet, we show in
Example~\ref{th:GnHn} that for any $n$
there exists an inclusion $H \leq G$ of odd index with different
$2$--fusion but which
induces a mod $2$ cohomology isomorphism modulo
the class of
$n$--nilpotent unstable modules $\mathcal{N}\!\mathit{il}_n$
\cite[Ch.~6]{Schwartz:1994a}; $F$--isomorphism
means isomorphism modulo the largest class $\mathcal{N}\!\mathit{il}_1$.
\smallskip
Our proof of Theorem~\ref{MainCohomThm} is purely algebraic: By
\cite[Prop.~10.9(ii)$\Rightarrow$(i)]{Quillen:1971b+c} (or the
algebraic reference \cite{Alperin:2006a}) $F$-isomorphism in mod $p$ group cohomology implies control of fusion on elementary abelian subgroups. Thus, Theorem~\ref{MainCohomThm} follows from the following group
theoretic statement, which is of
independent interest. For $p$ odd it says that if $H$ controls
$p$--fusion in $G$ on elementary abelian $p$--subgroups then it in fact
controls $p$--fusion. We formulate and prove the statement in terms of
fusion systems, and refer the reader for example to
\cite{Aschbacher/Kessar/Oliver:2011a} for definitions and information
about these---we also recap the essential definitions in Section~\ref{grpsec}.
\begin{Th}[Small exponent abelian $p$--subgroups control $p$--fusion] \label{MainThm}
Let $\mathcal{G} \leq \mathcal{F}$ be two saturated fusion systems on the same
finite $p$--group $S$.
Suppose that
$\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{G}(A,B)=\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{F}(A,B)$ for all $A,B \leq S$ with $A,B$
elementary abelian if $p$ is odd, and abelian of exponent at
most $4$ if $p=2$. Then $\mathcal{G}=\mathcal{F}$.
\end{Th}
Our proof of this theorem is rather short. In outline we use Alperin's Fusion Theorem to reduce to a situation where we can apply
results of J.~G.~Thompson on $p'$--automorphisms of $p$--groups
\cite[Ch.~5.3]{Gorenstein:1968a}. Consequently, our proof of Theorem \ref{MainCohomThm} is also relatively elementary. In particular, at odd primes, we obtain a comparatively simple algebraic proof of Mislin's Theorem. This theorem states that, for a homomorphism $\phi\colon\thinspace H \to G$ of finite groups, which induces an isomorphism in mod $p$ group cohomology, $|\ker(\phi)|$ and
$|G:\phi(H)|$ are coprime to $p$ and $\phi(H)$ controls $p$--fusion
in $G$. Here the first part is a 1978 theorem of Jackowski
\cite[Thm.~1.3]{Jackowski:1978a}. (Jackowski gave a topological
argument, but a short algebraic proof exists via Tate
cohomology; see \cite[Thm.~5.16.1]{Benson:1991b} with ${\mathbb Z}$
replaced by ${\mathbb Z}_{(p)}$.) So the proof of Mislin's Theorem reduces quickly to the situation that $\phi$ is an inclusion of finite groups of index prime to $p$, where the statement follows from Theorem~\ref{MainCohomThm} if $p$ is odd. Mislin's original proof of his theorem uses the
Dwyer--Zabrodsky theorem \cite{Dwyer/Zabrodsky:1987a} in algebraic
topology, whose proof again relies on Lannes' theory \cite{Lannes:1992a}, extending Miller's proof of the
Sullivan conjecture \cite{Miller:1984a}.
In the early 1990s, for example at the 1994 Banff
conference on representation theory, Alperin made the highly publicized challenge
to find a purely algebraic proof of Mislin's theorem, and this was pursued
by many authors.
Symonds \cite{Symonds:2004a},
following an idea of Robinson \cite[\S 7]{Robinson:1998a},
provided an algebraic reduction of the problem to a statement about
cohomology of trivial source modules, which he then proved
topologically. Algebraic proofs were finally completed
independently by Hida \cite{Hida:2007a} and
Okuyama \cite{Okuyama:2006a}, who gave algebraic proofs of
Symonds' statement, through
quite delicate arguments in modular representation theory.
(See also e.g., \cite{Alperin:2006a} and \cite{Symonds:2007b}.)
\smallskip
We now come to a further application of Theorem~\ref{MainThm}. As remarked above, the assumptions in Theorem~\ref{MainCohomThm} that $p$ is odd and $|G:H|$ is prime to $p$ are both in fact necessary. Switching from mod $p$ cohomology to generalized cohomology theories, we can
however combine the methods of Theorem~\ref{MainThm} with Hopkins--Kuhn--Ravenel (HKR) generalized
character theory \cite{Hopkins/Kuhn/Ravenel:1992a,Hopkins/Kuhn/Ravenel:2000a} to obtain
a statement that holds for all primes, and that also avoids the assumption that $H$
and $G$ share a common Sylow $p$--subgroup.
\begin{Th}[Chromatic group cohomology isomorphism implies control
of $p$--fusion] \label{KnThm}
Let $\phi\colon\thinspace H \to G$ be a homomorphism of finite groups, and let $E(n)$ denote height $n$ Morava $E$--theory at
a fixed prime $p$. Suppose that $\phi$ induces an isomorphism $$\phi^*\colon\thinspace E(n)^*(BG)[ \frac1p]
\xlongrightarrow{\sim} E(n)^*(BH)[\frac1p]$$
for some $n \geq {\operatorname{rk}_p}(G)$. Then
$|\ker(\phi)|$ and $|G: \phi(H)|$ are prime to $p$, and $\phi(H)$ controls $p$--fusion
in $G$.\end{Th}
In fact our proof works not just for $E(n)$ but for
any height $n$ cohomology theory satisfying the assumptions listed in
\cite[Thm.~C]{Hopkins/Kuhn/Ravenel:2000a}. We
recall that for height $n$ Morava $E$--theory, $E(n)^*(pt) = W(\mathbb{F}_{p^n})\llbracket
w_1,\ldots,w_{n-1}\rrbracket [u,u^{-1}]$, with $W(\mathbb{F}_{p^n})$ the
unramified extension of degree $n$ of the $p$--adic integers, $|w_i| =
0$ and $|u|=-2$.
As usual, the notation $[\frac1p]$ means that we invert
$p$ after taking cohomology, producing a $\mathbb{Q}_p$--algebra.
The converse to Theorem~\ref{KnThm} is clear, e.g., by the standard
Cartan--Eilenberg stable elements formula and the fact that a mod $p$ cohomology isomorphism of spaces induces an $E(n)^*$--isomorphism. Theorem~\ref{KnThm} also provides a new proof
of a strong form of Mislin's
theorem, assuming only isomorphism in large degrees. This proof is valid at all
primes, but replaces the reliance on Quillen's
variety theory by the (currently) less algebraic HKR character
theory; indeed the proof mirrors that of Atiyah's 1961 $p$--nilpotence
criterion \cite{Quillen:1971a,Atiyah:1961a}, replacing
$K$--theory by higher chromatic $E(n)$--theories; see Remark~\ref{rem:highdegcohom2}.
A $p$--rank restriction in Theorem~\ref{KnThm} is indeed necessary:
$\mathbb{F}_{p^2} \rtimes \mathbb{F}_{p^2}^\times < (\mathbb{F}_{p^2} \rtimes \mathbb{F}_{p^2}^\times)
\rtimes \operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb{F}_{p^2})$ is an example of an inclusion of groups of
index prime to $p$, for $p$ odd, which is an $E(1)^*[\frac1p]$--equivalence, by
HKR character theory \eqref{HKR-theorem}, but with different
$p$--fusion; the same example with $\mathbb{F}_{p^2}$ replaced by $\mathbb{F}_{2^3}$
works for
$p=2$. We speculate that the bound $n \geq {\operatorname{rk}_p}(G)$ we give may be
close to optimal, but we currently do not know an example to this effect.
Finally, we remark that isomorphism on $E(n)^*$ is equivalent to
isomorphism on $n$th Morava $K$--theory $K(n)^*$, whereas an
$E(n)^*[\frac 1p]$--isomorphism is a priori significantly weaker---see
Remark~\ref{spec-remark} for a variety interpretation of
Theorem~\ref{KnThm} and
Remark~\ref{KnWhitehead} for the connection to other stable homotopy theory results.
\smallskip
To prove Theorem~\ref{KnThm} we need the following variant of
Theorem~\ref{MainThm}, where we drop the assumption of a common Sylow
$p$-subgroup, but on the other hand assume the same fusion on all
abelian $p$--subgroups---it again appears to be new, even in special
cases.
\begin{Th}[Abelian $p$--subgroups control fusion]
\label{KnThm-algebraic} Assume that a finite group homomorphism
$\phi\colon\thinspace H \to G$ induces a bijection $$\operatorname{Rep}(A,H) \xlongrightarrow{\sim} \operatorname{Rep}(A,G)$$
for all finite abelian $p$--groups $A$ with ${\operatorname{rk}_p}(A) \leq {\operatorname{rk}_p}(G)$. Then
$|\ker(\phi)|$ and $|G: \phi(H)|$ are prime to $p$, and $\phi(H)$ controls $p$--fusion
in $G$.
More generally, suppose that $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{G}$ are saturated fusion
systems on finite $p$--groups $S$ and $T$ respectively,
and that $\phi\colon\thinspace T \to S$ is a fusion preserving homomorphism inducing a bijection $\operatorname{Rep}(A,\mathcal{G}) \xrightarrow{\sim} \operatorname{Rep}(A,\mathcal{F})$ for
any finite abelian $p$--group $A$ with ${\operatorname{rk}_p}(A) \leq {\operatorname{rk}_p}(S)$. Then
$\phi$ induces an isomorphism from $T$ to $S$ and $\mathcal{G}$ to $\mathcal{F}$.
\end{Th}
Here $\operatorname{Rep}(A,G)$ denotes the quotient of $\operatorname{Hom}(A,G)$ where we identify
$\phi$ with $c_g \circ \phi$ for all $g \in G$, and likewise $\operatorname{Rep}(A,\mathcal{F})$ is the quotient of $\operatorname{Hom}(A,S)$,
identifying two morphisms if they differ by a morphism in $\mathcal{F}$; we
spell out what the assumptions of the theorem mean in
Lemma~\ref{bijection}.
Finally, we remark that Theorems~\ref{MainCohomThm} and \ref{KnThm} can be formulated in
terms of the fusions systems of the groups, and they should hold for
abstract fusion systems as well. Indeed, as is clear from our proofs, the
only missing piece is a reference for the Quillen
stratification and the HKR character theorem in that context---we will however not pursue this here.
\section{$p^\prime$--automorphisms of $p$--groups and proofs of Theorems~\ref{MainThm} and \ref{KnThm-algebraic}}\label{grpsec}
The goal of this section is to prove Theorems~\ref{MainThm} and \ref{KnThm-algebraic}
by group theoretic methods, combining manipulations with fusion
systems with results of J.~G.~Thompson on $p^\prime$--automorphisms of
$p$--groups, which can by now be found in textbooks.
Thompson's {\em critical subgroup
theorem} \cite[Lem.~2.8.2]{Feit/Thompson:1963a} (see also the textbook
reference \cite[Thm.~5.3.11]{Gorenstein:1968a}) says that for any
finite $p$--group $P$ there exists a
characteristic subgroup $C$ of $P$ such that $C/Z(C)$ is elementary
abelian, $[P,C] \leq Z(C)$, $C_P(C) = Z(C)$, and every nontrivial
$p'$--automorphism of $P$ restricts to a non-trivial
$p^\prime$--automorphism of $C$. Our main classical group theoretic
tool in this paper is a variant of that theorem, where instead of a
critical subgroup we use a certain characteristic subgroup of $P$ of small exponent and consider its maximal abelian subgroups.
\begin{theorem}[Small exponent abelian subgroups detect $p'$--automorphisms]\label{ThLemma}
Let $P$ be a finite $p$--group. There exists a characteristic subgroup
$D$ of $P$, of exponent $p$ if $p$ is odd and exponent $4$ if
$p=2$, such that $[D,P]\leq Z(D)$, and such that every non-trivial
$p^\prime$--automorphism of $P$ restricts to a non-trivial automorphism of
$D$. Furthermore, for any such $D$ and any
maximal (with respect to inclusion) abelian
subgroup $A$ of $D$ we have $A \nsg P$ and $C_{\operatorname{Aut}(P)}(A)$ is a $p$--group.
\end{theorem}
Note that the example of the extra-special group $p^{1+2}_+$ shows that an
abelian characteristic subgroup that detects $p'$--automorphisms need not exist.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{ThLemma}]
Taking $D = \Omega_1(C)$, the subgroup generated by elements of
order $p$ of a critical subgroup $C$, produces such a subgroup $D$ as
in the theorem, for
$p$ odd, as proved in \cite[Thm.~5.3.13]{Gorenstein:1968a}. For
$p=2$ the claim holds for $D = \Omega_{2}(C)$, the
subgroup of $C$ generated by elements of order at most $2^2$; we establish this fact
in Lemma~\ref{p=2} below.
For the last part, let $A$ be a maximal abelian subgroup of $D$ with
respect to inclusion. Since $[A,P]
\leq Z(D) \leq A$ it follows that $A \unlhd P$. Furthermore, if $B \leq
C_{\operatorname{Aut}(P)}(A)$ is a $p^\prime$--group, then $A \times B$ acts on
$P$ and thus on $D$. Since $A$ is maximal abelian it follows that $C_{D}(A) = A$, and in particular $B$ acts trivially
on $C_{D}(A)$; Thompson's $A \times B$--lemma
\cite[Thm.~5.3.4]{Gorenstein:1968a} now says that $[D,B]=1$ and so $B =1$, and we
conclude that $C_{\operatorname{Aut}(P)}(A)$ is a $p$--group as wanted.
\end{proof}
We now provide a proof of the postponed lemma for $p=2$.
\begin{lemma}\label{p=2}
Let $P$ be a $2$--group such that $P/Z(P)$ is elementary abelian. Then
for all $x,y \in P$, $(xy)^4=x^4y^4$ and in particular $\Omega_2(P)$
is of exponent at most $4$. Furthermore if $B$ is a $p^\prime$--group
of automorphisms of $P$ with $[\Omega_2(P),B]=1$, then $B=1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that $(xy)^2 = x^2(x^{-1}yxy^{-1})y^2$ with all three factors in
$Z(P)$, so
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
(xy)^4 = x^4y^4(x^{-1}yxy^{-1})^2 &=
x^4y^4(x^{-1}(x^{-1}yxy^{-1})yxy^{-1}) \\ &=
x^4y^4(x^{-2}yx^2y^{-1}) = x^4y^4.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\indent For the last statement about $p^\prime$--automorphisms we follow \cite[Thm.~5.3.10]{Gorenstein:1968a}.
Let $P$ be a minimal counterexample. If $Q$ is a
proper $B$--invariant subgroup of $P$ then $Q/(Q\cap Z(P))$ is
elementary abelian and $Q\cap Z(P)\leq Z(Q)$, so $Q/Z(Q)$ is
elementary abelian. Moreover, $\Omega_2(Q)\leq \Omega_2(P)$ and thus
$[\Omega_2(Q),B]=1$. So, as $P$ is a minimal counterexample,
$[Q,B]=1$. By \cite[Thm.~5.2.4]{Gorenstein:1968a}, $P$ is
non-abelian. So in particular, $Z(P)$ is a proper characteristic
subgroup of $P$ and thus $[Z(P),B]=1$.
We now show that $[P,B]\leq \Omega_2(P)$: Suppose $x\in P$ and $b\in
B$, and note that $x^4\in Z(P)$, as $P/Z(P)$ is elementary
abelian, and thus $(x^4)^b=x^4$, as $[Z(P),B]=1$. Hence
$[x,b]^4=(x^{-1}x^b)^4=x^{-4}(x^4)^b = x^{-4}x^{4}=1$ as wanted,
where we also used the first part of the lemma.
By assumption $[\Omega_2(P),B]=1$, so in particular $[[P,B],B] =1$ by
the above, and we conclude that $[P,B]=1$, by
\cite[Thm.~5.3.6]{Gorenstein:1968a}.
\end{proof}
In the case where $\mathcal{F}$ is the fusion system of $G = S \rtimes K$, with $p \nmid |K|$, Theorem~\ref{MainThm} follows
directly from Theorem~\ref{ThLemma}, as the action of elements of $K$
on $S$ is detected by small abelian subgroups of $S$, but the proof of the
general statement requires more work, and here fusion systems
enter in a more prominent way. The arguments can be translated into
the special case of ordinary finite groups, but doing so provides
no essential simplifications, and indeed, from our perspective, the
arguments are considerably shorter and more transparent in the setup of fusion systems.
\smallskip
Recall that a {\em saturated fusion system $\mathcal{F}$} on a finite
$p$--group $S$ \cite[Def.~1.2]{Broto/Levi/Oliver:2003a}\cite[Prop.~I.2.5]{Aschbacher/Kessar/Oliver:2011a}
is a category whose objects are the subgroups of $S$, and morphisms
are group monomorphims satisfying axioms which mimic those satisfied
by morphisms induced by conjugation in
some ambient group $G$. More precisely, conjugation by elements in $S$ need to be in
the category, every map needs to factor as an isomorphism followed by
an inclusion, and furthermore two non-trivial conditions need to be
satisfied, called the Sylow and extension axiom, which we recall below
together with some terminology. We refer to
\cite{Aschbacher/Kessar/Oliver:2011a} and
\cite{Broto/Levi/Oliver:2003a} for detailed information, and also
direct the reader to Puig's original work \cite{Puig:2006a}, where
terminology however differs.
A subgroup $Q \leq S$ is called {\em fully $\mathcal{F}$--normalized} if $|N_S(Q)|$ is
maximal among $\mathcal{F}$--conjugates of $Q$, it is called {\em fully
$\mathcal{F}$--centralized} if the corresponding property holds for the
centralizer, and it is called {\em $\mathcal{F}$--centric} if $C_S(Q') = Z(Q')$ for all
$\mathcal{F}$--conjugates $Q'$ of $Q$. The {\em Sylow axiom} says that if $Q$ is
fully
$\mathcal{F}$--normalized then it is fully $\mathcal{F}$--centralized and $\operatorname{Aut}_S(Q)$ is
a Sylow $p$--subgroup of $\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(Q)$. (Here $\operatorname{Aut}_S(Q)$ means the
automorphisms of $Q$ induced by elements in $S$.) The {\em extension
axiom} says that any morphism $\phi\colon\thinspace Q \to S$ with $\phi(Q)$
fully $\mathcal{F}$--centralized extends to
$$N_\phi = \{ g \in N_S(Q) | {}^\phi (c_g|_Q) \in \operatorname{Aut}_S(\phi(Q))\}.$$
The first tool we need is the following variant of the extension axiom.
\begin{lemma}\label{FSEl1} Fix a saturated fusion system $\mathcal{F}$ on $S$ and
let
$\phi\colon\thinspace P \to S$ be {\em any} monomorphism (not necessarily in $\mathcal{F}$). For $Q
\unlhd P$ and $\psi = \phi|_Q$ the following hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{a}
$N_\psi \geq P$ and ${}^\psi\! \operatorname{Aut}_P(Q)=\operatorname{Aut}_{\phi(P)}(\phi(Q))$.
\item\label{b} If $\psi \in \mathcal{F}$ and $\phi(Q)$ is fully
$\mathcal{F}$--centralized then $\psi$ extends to $\hat{\psi}\in$ \\ $\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{F}(P,\phi(P)C_S(\phi(Q)))$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For \eqref{a} we calculate, for any $g \in P$ and $x \in \phi(Q)$,
$$({}^\psi c_g)(x) = \psi \circ c_g \circ
\psi^{-1}(x) = \psi(g \psi^{-1}(x) g^{-1}) = \phi(g) x \phi(g^{-1}) =
c_{\phi(g)}(x),$$ from which it is clear that
$N_\psi \geq P$ and $^\psi \operatorname{Aut}_P(Q)=\operatorname{Aut}_{\phi(P)}(\phi(Q))$.
For \eqref{b} note that the extension axioms imply that
$\psi$ extends to $\hat{\psi}\in \operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{F}(P,S)$. And, since
$\operatorname{Aut}_{\phi(P)}(\phi(Q))={^\psi \operatorname{Aut}_P(Q)}=\operatorname{Aut}_{\hat{\psi}(P)}(\phi(Q))$, where the last
equality is by applying \eqref{a} with $\hat\psi$
in place of $\phi$, we conclude that $\hat{\psi}(P)\leq \phi(P)C_S(\varphi(Q))$ as wanted.
\end{proof}
For the purpose of the next proof, recall that a
proper subgroup $H$ of a finite group $G$ is called {\em strongly
$p$-embedded} if $p$ divides the order of $H$ and, for all $g\in
G\backslash H$, $H\cap {^gH}$ has order prime to $p$. Provided $p$ divides $|G|$, one easily shows
that $H$ is strongly $p$--embedded in $G$ if and only if $H$ contains a
Sylow $p$--subgroup $S$ of $G$ such that $N_G(R)\leq H$ for every
$1\neq R\leq S$ (see for example
\cite[Lem.~17.10]{Gorenstein/Lyons/Solomon:1996a} or \cite[Prop.~5.2]{Quillen:1978a}); in particular an
overgroup of a strongly $p$--embedded subgroup is again strongly
$p$--embedded, if it is a proper subgroup. (Groups with strongly
embedded subgroups play a central role in many aspects of local group theory, and in
particular they show up in connection with Alperin's fusion theorem \cite[Thm.~I.3.6]{Aschbacher/Kessar/Oliver:2011a}, though
we shall only indirectly need them in that capacity here.)
We now give the key step in deducing Theorem
\ref{MainThm} from Theorem~\ref{ThLemma}, providing a way to show
that the fusion in $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{G}$ agree on all subgroups $P$ by
downward induction starting with $S$.
\begin{mlemma}\label{MainLemma} Let $\mathcal{G} \leq \mathcal{F}$ be two saturated fusion
systems on the same finite $p$--group $S$, and $P \leq S$ an
$\mathcal{F}$--centric and fully $\mathcal{F}$--normalized subgroup,
with $\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(R)=\operatorname{Aut}_{\mathcal{G}}(R)$ for every $P<R\leq N_S(P)$.
Suppose that there exists a subgroup $Q \unlhd P$ with $\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{F}(Q,S)=\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{G}(Q,S)$. Then $\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(P) = \< \operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{G}(P),C_{\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(P)}(Q)\>$.
\end{mlemma}
\begin{proof}To ease the notation set $G = \operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(P)$, $H =
\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{G}(P)$, and $\overline G = G/\operatorname{Inn}(P)$, and denote by
$\overline{U}$ the image in $\overline G$ of any subgroup $U\leq G$. We want to
show that $G = \< H, C_G(Q)\>$.
\smallskip
\noindent{\em Step 1:} We first assume in addition that
\begin{equation*}\label{extra}
\tag{$*$}
C_S(\xi(Q)) \leq P \mbox{ for all }\xi\in H
\end{equation*}
and show that $G=HC_G(Q)$. Let $\gamma\in G$ be arbitrary; set
$\psi=(\gamma^{-1})|_{\gamma(Q)}\in \operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{F}(\gamma(Q),Q)$. Then $\psi\in
\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{G}(\gamma(Q),Q)$ by assumption. We claim
that $Q$ is fully centralized in $\mathcal{G}$, and postpone the proof to
Lemma~\ref{FSEl2} below, since it is a general statement. Granted
this, Lemma~\ref{FSEl1}(\ref{b}), applied to $\gamma^{-1}$ and $\mathcal{G}$ in
the roles of $\phi$ and $\mathcal{F}$, implies that we can extend $\psi\colon\thinspace
\gamma(Q) \to Q$ to $\hat \psi\colon\thinspace P \to PC_S(Q)$ in $\mathcal{G}$, and, as $C_S(Q) \leq P$
by assumption \eqref{extra}, we conclude that $\hat{\psi}\in
H$.
Since $\gamma\circ\hat{\psi}\in C_{G}(Q)$, we have $\gamma\in
C_{G}(Q)H$, and, as $\gamma$ was arbitrary, this
yields $G=HC_G(Q)$ as required.
\smallskip\noindent
{\em Step 2:} If $P=S$ assumption \eqref{extra} is automatically
satisfied and the lemma follows from Step~1; likewise we are done if $H = G$.
In this step we
show that if $P < S$ and $H < G$ then
$\bar H$ is strongly $p$--embedded in $\bar G$.
Consider $P<R\leq
N_S(P)$. For $\varphi\in
N_G(\operatorname{Aut}_R(P))$ it follows from the extension axiom that $\phi$
extends to $\hat{\varphi}\in \operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{F}(R,S)$, since $P$ is fully
$\mathcal{F}$--normalized and $R \leq N_\phi$, cf.\
Lemma~\ref{FSEl1}. Furthermore, by Lemma~\ref{FSEl1}\eqref{a},
$\operatorname{Aut}_R(P)={^\varphi \operatorname{Aut}_R(P)}=\operatorname{Aut}_{\hat{\varphi}(R)}(P)$, so since
$C_S(P)\leq P$ by $\mathcal{F}$--centricity of $P$, we have
$\hat{\varphi}(R)=R$. It then follows from
our hypothesis that $\hat{\varphi}\in \operatorname{Aut}_{\mathcal{G}}(R)$ and thus
$\varphi\in H$. We conclude that
$\overline H$ is strongly
$p$--embedded in $\overline G$.
\smallskip
\noindent{\em Step 3:} Finally set $H_0 = \<H,C_{G}(Q)\>$, and suppose for contradiction that there exists $\chi \in G \setminus
H_0$.
Then by Step~2, $\overline H_0$ is a
strongly $p$--embedded subgroup of $\overline G$, so in particular $\operatorname{Aut}_S(P)\cap {}^\chi H_0=\operatorname{Inn}(P)$ as $\operatorname{Aut}_S(P)\leq H_0$. Note that $ C_{G}(\chi(Q)) = {}^{\chi} C_{G}(Q) \leq
{}^\chi H_0$, so $C_{\operatorname{Aut}_S(P)}(\chi(Q)) \leq \operatorname{Aut}_S(P) \cap {}^{\chi}H_0=\operatorname{Inn}(P)$. Hence $N_S(P)\cap C_S(\chi(Q))
\leq P$, using that $P$ is centric. Now, as $C_S(\chi(Q))P$ is a
$p$--group, $C_S(\chi(Q))\leq P$ (see
\cite[Thm.~2.3.4]{Gorenstein:1968a} for this elementary property of
finite $p$--groups).
Note that $\xi\circ \chi\in
G\backslash H_0$ for any $\xi \in H$; so as $\chi$ was arbitrary the
argument actually shows that $C_S(\xi(\chi((Q))))\leq P$ for any $\xi
\in H$. But now (\ref{extra}) holds with $\chi(Q)$ in place of $Q$. Observe also that $\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{F}(\chi(Q),S)=\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{G}(\chi(Q),S)$. For if $\phi\in \operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{F}(\chi(Q),S)$ then $\phi\circ \chi$ and $\chi^{-1}$ are in $\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{F}(Q,S)=\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{G}(Q,S)$, so $\phi=(\phi\circ \chi)\circ \chi^{-1}\in \operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{G}(\chi(Q),S)$.
Therefore Step~1 gives that $G =HC_G(\chi(Q))$. As $C_G(\chi(Q))$ is conjugate to $C_G(Q)$ in $G$, it follows that $C_G(\chi(Q))$ is conjugate to $C_G(Q)$ by an element of $H$ and thus $G=HC_G(Q)$. This is a contradiction, and we conclude
that $G = H_0$ as wanted.
\end{proof}
We next prove the postponed lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{FSEl2} Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a saturated fusion system on $S$
and suppose that $Q \unlhd
P \leq S$, with $P$ fully $\mathcal{F}$--normalized, and $C_S(\xi(Q)) \leq P$ for all $\xi\in \operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(P)$. Then $Q$ is fully $\mathcal{F}$--centralized.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By \cite[Lem.~2.6]{Linckelmann:2007a} we may choose $\alpha\colon\thinspace N_S(Q) \to S$ in $\mathcal{F}$ such that $\alpha(Q)$ is fully
normalized. Furthermore, as $P$ is fully normalized, again by \cite[Lem.~2.6]{Linckelmann:2007a}, there is $\beta\in \operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{F}(N_S(\alpha(P)),N_S(P))$ such that
$\beta(\alpha(P))=P$.
Then
$$\beta(C_S(\alpha(Q))\cap N_S(\alpha(P)))\leq C_S(\beta(\alpha(Q)))\leq P=\beta(\alpha(P))$$
where the second inclusion follows by assumption as $\beta\circ\alpha$
restricts to an element of $\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(P)$. This yields
$C_S(\alpha(Q))\cap N_S(\alpha(P))\leq\alpha(P)$, so $$N_{C_S(\alpha(Q))\alpha(P)}(\alpha(P))=(C_S(\alpha(Q))\cap N_S(\alpha(P)))\alpha(P)=\alpha(P).$$ Thus, as
$C_S(\alpha(Q))\alpha(P)$ is a $p$--group, it follows from \cite[Thm.~2.3.3(iii) and Thm.~2.3.4]{Gorenstein:1968a} that $C_S(\alpha(Q))\leq
\alpha(P)$. Hence, $C_S(\alpha(Q))=C_{\alpha(P)}(\alpha(Q))=\alpha(C_P(Q))=\alpha(C_S(Q))$ where the last equality holds since our assumption gives $C_S(Q)\leq P$. It follows $|C_S(\alpha(Q))|=|\alpha(C_S(Q))|=|C_S(Q)|$; so $Q$ is fully $\mathcal{F}$--centralized as $\alpha(Q)$ is fully $\mathcal{F}$--centralized.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{MainThm}]
By Alperin's fusion theorem, $\mathcal{F}$ is generated by $\mathcal{F}$--auto\-morphisms of fully $\mathcal{F}$--normalized and
$\mathcal{F}$--centric subgroups; see
\cite[Thm.~I.3.6]{Aschbacher/Kessar/Oliver:2011a} (in fact we only
need
``$\mathcal{F}$--essential'' subgroups and $S$). We want to show that
$\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{G}(P) = \operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(P)$ for all $P \leq S$; by downward induction
on the order we can assume that $\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{G}(R) = \operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(R)$ for all subgroups $R\leq S$
with $|R|>|P|$, and by the fusion theorem we can furthermore assume
that $P$ is $\mathcal{F}$--centric and fully $\mathcal{F}$--normalized.
Now choose a characteristic subgroup $D$ of $P$ as described in
Theorem~\ref{ThLemma}, and a maximal abelian subgroup $A$ of
$D$, and recall that the theorem tells us that $A \nsg P$ and
that $C_{\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(P)}(A)$ is a $p$--group. As $P$ is
fully $\mathcal{F}$--normalized, $\operatorname{Aut}_S(P)$ is a Sylow $p$--subgroup of
$\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(P)$,
so if we replace $A$ by a conjugate of $A$ under
$\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(P)$, we can arrange that $C_{\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(P)}(A)\leq \operatorname{Aut}_S(P)\leq
\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{G}(P)$.
But $A$ also satisfies the assumptions on $Q$ in Lemma~\ref{MainLemma},
so $\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(P) = \< \operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{G}(P), C_{\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(P)}(A)\>$, and we
conclude that $\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{G}(P) = \operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(P)$ as wanted.
\end{proof}
We now head towards a proof of Theorem~\ref{KnThm-algebraic}. Recall
that for $Q$ a group and $\mathcal{F}$ a fusion system on $S$ we define
$\operatorname{Rep}(Q,\mathcal{F}) = \operatorname{Hom}(Q,S)/\mathcal{F}$ as the quotient of $\operatorname{Hom}(Q,S)$ under $\mathcal{F}$--conjugation,
i.e., where we identify $\phi \in \operatorname{Hom}(Q,S)$ with $\alpha
\circ \phi $,
for all $\alpha \in \operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{F}(\phi(Q),S)$. The proof of Theorem~\ref{KnThm-algebraic} reduces quickly to the case that $\mathcal{G}$ is a subsystem of $\mathcal{F}$. We first make explicit what
the assumption in Theorem~\ref{KnThm-algebraic} then means, and state
this as a lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{bijection}
Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a fusion system on a finite $p$-group $S$ and let $\mathcal{G}$ be
a sub-fusion system of $\mathcal{F}$ on $T \leq S$.
Suppose $Q$ is a
finite $p$--group (not necessarily a subgroup of $S$). The induced map $\operatorname{Rep}(Q,\mathcal{G}) \rightarrow \operatorname{Rep}(Q,\mathcal{F})$
is surjective if and only if every epimorphic image of $Q$ in
$S$ is $\mathcal{F}$--conjugate to a subgroup of $T$. It is injective, if and
only if $\mathcal{G}$ controls fusion on the epimorphic images of $Q$ in $T$,
i.e., for any epimorphic image $Q'\leq T$ of $Q$ we have $
\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{F}(Q',T)=\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{G}(Q',T)$. \qed
\end{lemma}
The next lemma, together with
Theorem~\ref{MainThm}, will easily imply Theorem~\ref{KnThm-algebraic}.
\begin{lemma}\label{sylowiso}
Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a saturated fusion system on a finite $p$-group $S$ and
let $\mathcal{G}$ be a saturated subsystem of $\mathcal{F}$ on $T \leq S$.
Suppose that
there exists an $\mathcal{F}$--centric subgroup $Q \leq T$ with
$\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{F}(Q,T)=\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{G}(Q,T)$. Then $\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(T)=\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{G}(T)$ and
$T=S$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As $T$ is a finite $p$--group, there is a finite chain
$$Q = T_0 \vartriangleleft T_1 \vartriangleleft \cdots \vartriangleleft T_n = T$$
with $T_{i+1} = N_T(T_i)$ for $0\leq i<n$. Note that, as $Q$ is $\mathcal{F}$--centric, every $T_i$ is $\mathcal{F}$--centric and thus also $\mathcal{G}$--centric.
We want to show that
$\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(T)=\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{G}(T)$ by proving that
\begin{equation*}\label{*}\tag{$**$}
\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{F}(T_i,T)=\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{G}(T_i,T) \mbox{, for all }0\leq i\leq n,
\end{equation*}
by induction on $i$. For $i=0$ the claim is true by assumption. Let now $0\leq i<n$ such
that $\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{F}(T_i,T)=\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{G}(T_i,T)$. Let $\gamma\in
\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{F}(T_{i+1},T)$. Then $\psi=\gamma|_{T_i}\in
\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{F}(T_i,T)=\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{G}(T_i,T)$. As $T_i$ is $\mathcal{G}$--centric, $\gamma(T_i)$ is fully $\mathcal{G}$--centralized and $C_T(\gamma(T_i))\leq \gamma(T_i)$; so by
Lemma \ref{FSEl1}\eqref{b}, applied to $\gamma$ and $\mathcal{G}$ in the roles
of $\phi$ and $\mathcal{F}$, $\psi$ extends to $\hat{\psi}\in
\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{G}(T_{i+1},\gamma(T_{i+1}))$. Then $\hat{\psi}^{-1}\circ\gamma\in
C_{\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(T_{i+1})}(T_i)$ and, by \cite[Prop.~A.8]{Broto/Levi/Oliver:2003a} or \cite[Lem.~I.5.6]{Aschbacher/Kessar/Oliver:2011a},
$C_{\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(T_{i+1})}(T_i)=\operatorname{Aut}_{Z(T_i)}(T_{i+1})$.
We conclude that $\hat{\psi}^{-1}\circ\gamma\in
\operatorname{Aut}_{Z(T_i)}(T_{i+1})\leq \operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{G}(T_{i+1})$
and thus $\gamma\in \operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{G}(T_{i+1},T)$, i.e., \eqref{*}
holds. So $$\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{G}(T) = \operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{G}(T,T) = \operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{F}(T,T) = \operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(T).$$
If $\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(T)=\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{G}(T)$
then, in particular, $\operatorname{Aut}_\mathcal{F}(T)/\operatorname{Inn}(T)$ has order prime to $p$, by
the Sylow axiom for $\mathcal{G}$,
and so
$\operatorname{Aut}_S(T)=\operatorname{Inn}(T)$. Since $Q\leq T$ is $\mathcal{F}$--centric, this implies that
$N_S(T)=T$, and thus $S=T$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[{Proof of Theorem~\ref{KnThm-algebraic}}]
We only prove the claim about fusion systems, as the claim about
groups is a special case. First, it is obvious that $T \to
S$ has to be a monomorphism, since if an element is conjugate to the
trivial element, it is trivial. Hence, we may consider $\mathcal{G}$ as a subsystem
of $\mathcal{F}$. Choose a subgroup $A\leq T$ such that $A$ is of maximal order
among the abelian subgroups of $T$. The assumptions, together with Lemma~\ref{bijection},
imply that
every abelian subgroup of $S$ is $\mathcal{F}$--conjugate to a subgroup of $T$,
so $A$ is of maximal order among the abelian subgroups of
$S$, and hence $\mathcal{F}$--centric. Moreover, again by Lemma~\ref{bijection}, $\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{G}(A,T) = \operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{F}(A,T)$.
Lemma~\ref{sylowiso}
now shows that $T=S$. This reduces us to a special case of the
setup of Theorem~\ref{MainThm}, and the result follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Proofs of Theorems \ref{MainCohomThm} and \ref{KnThm} }\label{topsec}
\begin{proof}[{Proof of Theorem~\ref{MainCohomThm}}]
By Theorem~\ref{MainThm} we just need to verify that an $F$--isomor\-phism on
cohomology rings implies that $H$ controls fusion in $G$ on elementary
abelian $p$--groups. However this is the statement of
\cite[Prop.~10.9(ii)$\Rightarrow$(i)]{Quillen:1971b+c} (see also \cite{Alperin:2006a}).
\end{proof}
Before proving Theorem~\ref{KnThm} we state a lemma
explaining the condition on $n$, whose proof is elementary and seems
best left to the reader. Below $\mathbb{Z}_p$ denotes the $p$--adic integers.
\begin{lemma} \label{smalllemma} For a homomorphism $\phi\colon\thinspace H \to G$ of
finite groups, and a fixed natural number $n$, $\operatorname{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_p^n,H)
\xrightarrow{\sim} \operatorname{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_p^n,G)$ if and only if
$\operatorname{Rep}(A,H) \xrightarrow{\sim} \operatorname{Rep}(A,G)$ for all finite abelian
$p$--groups $A$ with ${\operatorname{rk}_p}(A) = n$.
Furthermore, isomorphism for a fixed positive $n
\geq \min\{{\operatorname{rk}_p}(G),{\operatorname{rk}_p}(H) +1\}$ implies ${\operatorname{rk}_p}(G) = {\operatorname{rk}_p}(H)$ and
isomorphism for all $n$. \qed
\end{lemma}
In further preparation for the proof of Theorem~\ref{KnThm}, we briefly recall the
HKR character theorem \cite[Thm~C]{Hopkins/Kuhn/Ravenel:2000a}:
For any multiplicative cohomology theory $E$ and finite group $G$, taking $E^*$--cohomology induces a
map
\[
\operatorname{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_p^n,G) \xlongrightarrow{}
\operatorname{Hom}_{E^*\mbox{-}\mathrm{alg}}(E^*(BG),E^*_{\mathrm{cont}}(B\mathbb{Z}_p^n))
\]
with $E^*_{\mathrm{cont}}(B\mathbb{Z}_p^n) = \operatorname{colim}_r E^*(B(\mathbb{Z}/p^r)^n)$, since any
$\alpha\colon\thinspace \mathbb{Z}_p^n \to G$ factors canonically through $(\mathbb{Z}/p^r)^n$ for $r$ large.
By adjunction we can view this as an
$E^*$--algebra homomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{charactermap}
E^*(BG) \xlongrightarrow{} \prod_{\operatorname{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_p^n,G)} E^*_{\mathrm{cont}}(B\mathbb{Z}_p^n)
\end{equation}
where the right-hand side is $E^*_{\mathrm{cont}}(B\mathbb{Z}_p^n)$--valued
functions on the finite set $\operatorname{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_p^n,G)$, with point-wise multiplication.
The map \eqref{charactermap} is the {\em $n$--character map} and the HKR character theorem
\cite[Thm.~C]{Hopkins/Kuhn/Ravenel:2000a} says that, for certain $E$, this becomes an
isomorphism after suitable localization.
More precisely, assume that $E =
E(n)$, so $E^*(BS^1) \cong
E^*\llbracket x\rrbracket$, $|x|=2$, and define $L(E^*)$ to be the
ring of fractions of $E^*_{\mathrm{cont}}(B\mathbb{Z}_p^n)$ obtained by inverting $\alpha^*(x)$ for all
for all non-zero $\alpha \in \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathrm{cont}}(\mathbb{Z}_p^n, S^1) \cong
(\mathbb{Z}/p^\infty)^n$. Then, by \cite[Thm.~C]{Hopkins/Kuhn/Ravenel:2000a},
$L(E^*)$ is faithfully flat over $E(n)^*[\frac1p]$ (and in
particular non-zero) and \eqref{charactermap} induces an isomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{HKR-theorem}
L(E^*) \otimes_{E^*[\frac1p]} E^*(BG)[\frac1p] \xlongrightarrow{\sim}
\prod_{\operatorname{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_p^n,G)} L(E^*)
\end{equation}
\begin{proof}[{Proof of Theorem~\ref{KnThm}}]
By the assumption of the theorem and the HKR character isomorphism
\eqref{HKR-theorem} we have an isomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{res} \prod_{\operatorname{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_p^n,G)} L(E^*) \xlongrightarrow{\sim}
\prod_{\operatorname{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_p^n,H)} L(E^*)
\end{equation}
given by precomposing with the natural map $\operatorname{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_p^n,H) \to
\operatorname{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_p^n,G)$. Since $L(E^*) \neq 0$ we conclude that
$\operatorname{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_p^n,H) \to \operatorname{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_p^n,G)$ is an isomorphism. By
the assumption on $n$ and Lemma~\ref{smalllemma} this implies that
$\operatorname{Rep}(A,H) \to \operatorname{Rep}(A,G)$ is an isomorphism for all finite abelian
groups, and Theorem~\ref{KnThm} now follows from
Theorem~\ref{KnThm-algebraic}.
\end{proof}
\section{Variations on the results and further comments}
In this final section we elaborate on some supplementary results alluded to in the introduction.
\begin{rk}[A variety version of
Theorem~\ref{MainCohomThm}]
\label{fisorem}
In Theorem~\ref{MainCohomThm} we can replace the assumption of
$F$--isomorphism by the assumption that the map $\iota^* \colon\thinspace H^*(G;\bar \mathbb{F}_p) \to H^*(H;\bar \mathbb{F}_p)$ induces a
bijection of maximal ideals, by referencing
\cite[Prop.~10.9(iii)$\Rightarrow$(i)]{Quillen:1971b+c}, and noting that the
maximal ideal spectrum of $H^*(G;\bar \mathbb{F}_p)$ identifies with $ \operatorname{Hom}_{\bar
\mathbb{F}_p\mbox{-}\mathrm{alg}}(H^*(G;\bar \mathbb{F}_p),\bar \mathbb{F}_p) =
\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathrm{rings}}(H^*(G;\mathbb{F}_p),\bar \mathbb{F}_p)$.
In general a finite morphism $f: A \to B$ of
finitely generated $\mathbb{F}_p$--algebras is an $F$--isomorphism if and
only if it induces a {\em variety
isomorphism}, i.e., a bijection $\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathrm{rings}}(B,\Omega) \xrightarrow{\sim}
\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathrm{rings}}(A,\Omega)$ for all algebraically closed fields
$\Omega$ \cite[Prop.~B.8-9]{Quillen:1971b+c}. But to get the same fusion on elementary
abelian $p$-subgroups we in fact just need a bijection on $\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathrm{rings}}(-,\Omega)$, for some proper
field extension $\Omega$ of $\mathbb{F}_p$, by properties of the Quillen
stratification; see \cite[\S9-10]{Quillen:1971b+c} and also \cite[\S9.1]{Evens:1991a}.
\end{rk}
\begin{eg}[An isomorphism
modulo $\mathcal{N}\!\mathit{il}_n$ for $p=2$ which does not control
$p$--fusion]\label{th:GnHn}
For any $n$, let $G_n = (2A_4)^n$, $P_n = (Q_8)^n$ and $H_n = \ker(\psi)$, where
$\psi\colon\thinspace G_n \to G_n/P_n \cong (C_3)^n \to
C_3$ is given by $(g_1,\dots,g_n)\mapsto g_1\dots g_n$. Note that
$H_n$ does not control $p$--fusion in $G_n$.
We however claim that the restriction $H^*(G_n;\mathbb{F}_2)\to H^*(H_n;\mathbb{F}_2)$ is an
isomorphism modulo $\mathcal{N}\!\mathit{il}_n$, as defined in \cite[Ch.~6]{Schwartz:1994a}, hence showing that Theorem~\ref{MainCohomThm} fails
severely for $p=2$ ($F$--isomorphism is equivalent to isomorphism
modulo $\mathcal{N}\!\mathit{il}_1$):
Recall that $H^*(Q_8;\mathbb{F}_2) \cong
H^{<4}(Q_8;\mathbb{F}_2) \otimes \mathbb{F}_2[z]$, with $|z|=4$, where the action of
$2A_4/Q_8 \cong C_3$ on $\mathbb{F}_2[z]$ is trivial, while on
$H^{<4}(Q_8;\mathbb{F}_2)$ it is trivial in degrees 0 and 3, and degrees 1 and 2
consists of the two dimensional irreducible
$\mathbb{F}_2C_3$--module $V$.
Since $G_n$ and $H_n$ both have Sylow $2$--subgroup $P_n$, the
restriction map $H^*(G_n;\mathbb{F}_2)\to H^*(H_n;\mathbb{F}_2)$ is injective, and
the cokernel is a tensor product of $\mathbb{F}_2[z_1,\dots,z_n]$ with a certain
finite module $M$, given as the sum of the non-trivial irreducible
$G_n/P_n$--representations on $H^{<4}(Q_8;\mathbb{F}_2)^{\otimes n}$ which restrict trivially to $H_n/P_n$.
Using the definition of $\mathcal{N}\!\mathit{il}_m$ \cite[Ch.~6]{Schwartz:1994a}, the largest $m$ for
which the restriction map is an isomorphism modulo $\mathcal{N}\!\mathit{il}_m$
therefore is the first degree where $M$ is non-zero.
To determine this degree we extend coefficients to $\mathbb{F}_4$ and use Frobenius reciprocity
$\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbb{F}_4(H_n/P_n)}(\mathbb{F}_4,-) \cong
\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbb{F}_4(G_n/P_n)}((\mathbb{F}_4){\uparrow _{H_n}^{G_n}},-)$, and note that
$ (\mathbb{F}_4){\uparrow_{H_n}^{G_n}} \cong (\mathbb{F}_4\otimes\dots\otimes \mathbb{F}_4)
\oplus (\omega\otimes\dots\otimes \omega) \oplus (\bar\omega\otimes
\dots\otimes \bar\omega)$,
for $\mathbb{F}_4$, $\omega$ and $\bar\omega$ the three 1-dimensional
$\mathbb{F}_4 C_3$--modules.
In this notation, we have to locate the first copy of
$\omega\otimes\dots\otimes\omega$ or $\bar\omega\otimes\dots\otimes\bar\omega$
in $(H^{<4}(Q_8;\mathbb{F}_4))^{\otimes n}$.
This occurs for the first time in degree $n$, where there is a summand $V\otimes\dots\otimes V$,
which over $\mathbb{F}_4$ is $(\omega \oplus
\bar\omega)\otimes\dots\otimes(\omega\oplus \bar\omega)$ completing
the proof of the claim.
\end{eg}
\begin{rk}[A generalization of Mislin's theorem via Theorem~\ref{KnThm}] \label{rem:highdegcohom2}
A notion of equivalence stronger than $F$--isomorphism, and in fact
also than that of Example~\ref{th:GnHn}, is isomorphism in large degrees.
If a homomorphism $\phi\colon\thinspace H \to G$ induces an isomorphism
in mod $p$ cohomology in large degrees, we can use
Theorem~\ref{KnThm} to see that $|\ker(\phi)|$ and $|G:\phi(H)|$
are coprime to $p$ and that $\phi(H)$ controls $p$--fusion in $G$,
providing a new proof of a strengthening of Mislin's theorem first obtained in \cite[Cor.~3.4]{Mislin:1993a} (cf.\ also
\cite[Thm.~1.1]{Benson/Carlson/Robinson:1990a}):
By finiteness of group
cohomology the induced map between
$E^2$--terms of $E(n)^*$--Atiyah--Hirzebruch spectral
sequences \cite[Thm.~12.2]{Boardman:1999a} has kernel and cokernel a finite
$p$--group in each total degree. We therefore deduce an
isomorphism $E(n)^*(BG)[\frac1p] \xrightarrow{\sim}
E(n)^*(BH)[\frac1p]$ by spectral sequence comparison
\cite[Thm.~7.2]{Boardman:1999a}, and the claim now follows from Theorem~\ref{KnThm}.
It is perhaps
interesting to note that this proof structurally mirrors Atiyah's 1961
proof of his $p$--nilpotency criterion
\cite{Atiyah:1961a}\cite[Thm.~1.3]{Quillen:1971a}, which says that a
Sylow inclusion $S < G$ controls $p$--fusion if it induces an isomorphism in mod $p$ cohomology in
sufficiently high dimension: Reinterpreting
\cite[p.~362]{Quillen:1971a}, Atiyah uses his version of the Atiyah--Hirzebruch
spectral sequence \cite[Thm.~5.1]{Atiyah:1961a} to conclude that $K^*(BG;\mathbb{Z}_p)[\frac1p] \xrightarrow{\sim}
K^*(BS;\mathbb{Z}_p)[\frac1p]$. It now follows from the Atiyah--Segal
completion theorem \cite[Thm.~7.2]{Atiyah:1961a} that $S$ and $G$ have the same fusion on cyclic
$p$--subgroups, and hence the same $p$--fusion by \cite[Satz~IV.4.9]{Huppert:1967a}.
\end{rk}
\begin{rk}[A variety version of Theorem~\ref{KnThm}
and the role of inverting $p$]\label{spec-remark}
Also in Theorem~\ref{KnThm} it is enough to
assume a variety isomorphism: If $\phi^*\colon\thinspace E(n)^*(BG)[\frac 1p] \to
E(n)^*(BH)[\frac1p]$ induces a
bijection on $\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathrm{rings}}(-,\Omega)$ for all algebraically closed
fields $\Omega$, then the same holds after
extending scalars along $E(n)^*[\frac1p] \to L(E^*)$. Hence \eqref{HKR-theorem} shows that \eqref{res}
induces a bijection
$ \coprod_{\operatorname{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_p^n,H)} \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathrm{rings}}(L(E^*),\Omega) \xrightarrow{\sim}
\coprod_{\operatorname{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_p^n,G)} \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathrm{rings}}(L(E^*),\Omega)$
for any algebraically closed field $\Omega$, so $\operatorname{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}^n_p,H)
\xrightarrow{\sim} \operatorname{Rep}(\mathbb{Z}_p^n,G)$, and
Theorem~\ref{KnThm} follows from Theorem~\ref{KnThm-algebraic} as above.
In \cite[\S 3]{Greenlees/Strickland:1999a}
Greenlees--Strickland
explain how the variety of $E(n)^*(BG)[\frac1p]$
constitutes a `zeroth pure stratum' of a chromatic stratification
of the formal spectrum of $E(n)^*(BG)$. Hence
having an isomorphism on $E(n)^*(-)[\frac1p]$ is a
priori significantly weaker than having isomorphism on
$E(n)^*(-)$ or the formal spectrum ${\operatorname{Spf}}(E(n)^*(-))$.
\end{rk}
\begin{rk}[Theorem~\ref{KnThm} in relationship to other results in stable
homotopy theory] \label{KnWhitehead} To illuminate the
assumptions in Theorem~\ref{KnThm} we note
that a map induces an isomorphism on $E(n)$ (without inverting $p$) if and only if
it induces isomorphism on the corresponding uncompleted Johnson--Wilson
theory, or isomorphism on $K(i)$ for all $i
\leq n$ (see \cite[Thm.~2.1]{Ravenel:1984a} and
\cite[Lec.~23]{Lurie:2010a}). This in turn happens if and only if it
induces isomorphism on just $K(n)$, by a result of Bousfield \cite[Thm.~1.1]{Bousfield:1999a}.
Homotopy theorists may wonder if there exists a `purely homotopic'
proof of Theorem~\ref{KnThm}. We do not know such a proof, but
combining Mislin's original theorem \cite{Mislin:1990a} with some
deep results in homotopy theory, one can get a weaker statement that $E(n)^*$--isomorphism for a quite large $n$ (and without inverting $p$) implies that $H$ controls $p$--fusion in
$G$. We briefly explain this: Bousfield proved in 1982 a `$K(n)$--Whitehead theorem'
stating that a map between spaces which is an isomorphism on $K(n)^*$
also induces an isomorphism on $H^i(-;\mathbb{F}_p)$ for $i \leq n$ (see
\cite[Ex.~8.4]{Bousfield:1982a} and
\cite[Thm.~1.4]{Bousfield:1999a}).
The claim now follows since it is possible to give a
large constant $n$, depending on the Sylow subgroup, such that isomorphism in $H^i(-;\mathbb{F}_p)$ for $i \leq n$ implies
isomorphism on $H^*(-;\mathbb{F}_p)$, e.g., using results of Symonds
\cite[Prop.~10.2]{Symonds:2010a} that say that the generators and relations of group cohomology are at most in degree
$2k^2$, where $k$ is the minimal dimension of a
faithful complex representation of $G$. Observe the bound needs to
depend on more than the $p$--rank: For any $n$ we can pick $p$ such
that $2n \mid p-1$. In this case $\mathbb{F}_p \rtimes C_n < \mathbb{F}_p \rtimes C_{2n}$ induces an
isomorphism on $H^i(-;\mathbb{F}_p)$ for $i<n$ without controlling
$p$--fusion. This is in
contrast to the
Hup\-pert--Thompson--Tate $p$--nilpotency criterion
\cite{Tate:1964a}, which states that an inclusion of a Sylow $p$--subgroup that induces isomorphism on
$H^1(-;\mathbb{F}_p)$
controls $p$--fusion.
\end{rk}
\begin{acknowledgements}
Our interest
in Theorem~\ref{MainCohomThm} was piqued by a discussion during the problem session at
the August 2011 workshop on Homotopical Approaches to Group Actions
in Copenhagen with Peter Symonds and others, and also stimulated by
\cite{arXiv:1107.5158v2}.
We thank Mike Hopkins for pointers concerning the relationship between Theorem~\ref{KnThm}
and classical stable homotopy theory, explained in
Remark~\ref{KnWhitehead}, and Lucho Avramov, Nick Kuhn, and Neil
Strickland for other literature references.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction and sample selection}
\label{intro}
Redshifted \HI\ 21-cm provides a probe of the most abundant element in the Universe, through surveys which are not subject to the
flux limitations of optical surveys. In absorption, 21-cm probes the cool component of the neutral gas, which is
the reservoir of raw material ultimately responsible for all star formation. Furthermore, the strength of the absorption depends only upon
the column density of the absorber and the flux of the background source, making the 21-cm transition potentially detectable up to
redshifts of $z\sim50$, where the ionosphere begins to affect the $\lapp30$ MHz radio waves.
Despite this, redshifted 21-cm absorption is currently rare, with only 78 absorbers known at $z\geq0.1$, 80\% of which
are detected at $z\lapp1$. Much of this is due to the past availability of interference free bands at low frequencies, although
there are additional selection effects at play:
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] For absorbers {\em intervening} the sight-lines to more distant radio sources,
the 60\% detection rate at $z\leq1$, compared to 20\% at $z\geq1$,
in systems known to have high hydrogen column densities\footnote{Damped Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption systems (DLAs),
with neutral hydrogen column densities of $N_{\rm HI}\ge2\times10^{20}$ \scm.}, can be attributed to the geometry effects introduced by an
expanding Universe, where the coverage of the background flux is systematically lower at redshifts of $z\gapp1$ \citep{cw06,cur12}.
\item[-] For absorbers {\em associated} with the radio source itself, the detection rate at
$z\lapp1$ is 40\%, compared to 17\% at $z\gapp1$ \citep{cw10}.
This is
believed to be due to the higher redshifts biasing towards the most ultra-violet
luminous objects, where the intense flux ionises the gas.
Specifically, associated 21-cm absorption has {\em never} been detected where the $\lambda=1216$ \AA\ continuum
luminosity of the active galactic nucleus (AGN) exceeds $L_{\rm 1216}\sim10^{23}$ \WpHz\
(\citealt{cww+08} and recently confirmed by \citealt{gd11}). At these frequencies ($2.47\times10^{15}$ Hz) and
above, the photons have enough energy to excite the hydrogen beyond the ground state, so that it cannot
absorb in 21-cm. \citet{cw12} have extended this to the ionising ($\lambda \leq912$ \AA) radiation and show
that a similar (i.e. $L_{\rm 912}\sim10^{23}$ \WpHz) cut-off also applies.
The large fraction of non-detections at high redshift are therefore due to the flux limited nature of the optical surveys
selecting the brightest objects,
where the observed-frame optical light is rest-frame ultra-violet, in which all of the gas is
believed to be ionised \citep{cw12}.
\end{itemize}
In order to find the neutral gas missing from high redshift AGN, we suggest that high redshift 21-cm surveys should be
directed towards the most optically faint sources. We have therefore embarked on an observing campaign of objects
selected by faint optical magnitudes. As discussed in \citet{cwwa11}, our usual source catalogue, the Parkes Half-Jansky
Flat-spectrum Sample (PHFS, \citealt{dwf+97}), yielded only two sources with faint blue magnitudes ($B\gapp22$) in the
90-cm band ($z=3.09 - 3.63$)\footnote{Applying the $B-z$ curve (figure 5 of \citealt{cww09}), gives $B\gapp22$ for
$L_{\rm 1216}\lapp10^{23}$ \WpHz\ at these redshifts.}, both of which have been previously searched for in 21-cm
\citep{cww+08}. We therefore compiled all available radio catalogues, which give both redshifts and magnitudes, and
selected those with $B, V, R~{\rm or}~I$ magnitudes which indicate that $L_{1216}\lapp10^{23}$ \WpHz\ at the given
redshift (Fig. \ref{M-z}).
\begin{figure*}
\centering \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.80]{R_L-z.eps}
\caption{The red magnitude (top) and $\lambda = 1216$ \AA\ continuum luminosity (bottom) for the redshifted associated
21-cm searches (compiled in \citealt{cw10,ace+12}). The filled symbols show the detections and the unfilled symbols
the non-detections, with the asterisks showing our targets (all of which are non-detections), i.e. the eleven points
in the top panel and the eight for which useful data were obtained in the bottom panel (with $L_{1216} $ as originally
estimated and not corrected for extinction, as the remaining points are). In the top panel the curve shows which $B$ magnitude corresponds to
$L_{1216}=10^{23}$ \WpHz\ for a spectral slope of $\alpha = -1.5$ (cf. figure 5 of \citealt{cww09}) used to select the
targets and in the bottom panel the line signifies $L_{1216}=10^{23}$ \WpHz, above which associated 21-cm has never
been detected. Note that for J0231+3600, at $z=3.079$, $I=25.0$ is shown (Table \ref{obs}).
}
\label{M-z}
\end{figure*}
We further shortlisted
those in which 21-cm is redshifted into the 290--395 MHz band of the Green Bank Telescope (GBT) or the UHF-low band
(250--460 MHz) of the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT) and which reached sufficiently high elevations at
these locations, while having flux densities estimated to be $\gapp0.2$ Jy at the redshifted 21-cm
frequency.\footnote{Except for J0617+5012 for which no fluxes were available from the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database,
although we report 1.28 Jy at 342 MHz here.} This gave eleven sources which we observed (Table~\ref{obs}), eight
of which were not completely ruined by RFI, and as seen from Fig.~\ref{M-z}, all are believed to be below the critical luminosity.
For the $\approx40\%$ detection rate at $L_{1216}\lapp10^{23}$ \WpHz, we therefore expect approximately three detections,
although there were none. We discuss possible reasons for the exclusive non-detections in this paper.
\section{Observations and data reduction}
\label{observations}
\subsection{Green Bank observations}
\label{gbo}
Each of the sources targetted with the Green Bank Telescope were observed for a
total of two hours on source, with the aim of reaching an r.m.s. noise level of $\lapp5$ mJy per 10 \kms\ channel (for $T_{\rm sys}
= 70$ K). This gives a $3\sigma$ optical depth limit of
$\tau\approx0.03$ per channel for a flux density of 0.5 Jy, i.e. a sensitivity to $N_{\rm HI}\approx3\times10^{17}(T_{\rm spin}/f)$ \scm,
the lower limit for most of the published searches (see figure 4 of \citealt{cww+08}). We used the {\tt Rcvr\_342} receiver backed with the GBT
Spectrometer in narrow bandwidth, high resolution mode in
$4\times12.5$ MHz bands,
while maintaining a redshift
coverage of $\Delta z \approx \pm0.06$ in each band. Each source was observed in two orthogonal linear polarisations
which, after flagging of bad data, were averaged together (using the {\sc gbtidl} software):\\
{\bf NVSS\,J012142+132058} was observed at 314.53 MHz on 17 June 2010, over 4096 channels, giving a spacing of 3.052 kHz (2.92 \kms). After
flagging of the worst RFI affected scans, 0.6
hours of data remained with an average system temperature of $T_{\rm sys} = 90$ K, although some spikes were still present in the bandpass (Fig. \ref{spectra}).\\
{\bf NVSS\,J020510+224250} was observed at 315.23 MHz on 31 August 2010, over 4096 channels, giving a spacing of 3.052 kHz (2.91 \kms).
$T_{\rm sys} = 87$ K and the {\sf YY} polarisation exhibited negative fluxes for the whole observations and after flagging out the worst RFI affected on the {\sf XX} polarisation
0.68 hours of data remained.\\
{\bf NVSS\,J023111+360027} was observed at 348.22 MHz on 1 September 2010, over 8196 channels, giving a spacing of 1.526 kHz (1.31 \kms).
After flagging, 0.74 hours of data remained, although all of the scans exhibited negative fluxes. $T_{\rm sys} = 75$ K and between the RFI spikes, the r.m.s. noise levels were low
(4 mJy per 10 \kms), although the spikes raised the mean to 189 mJy over the observed range.\\
{\bf WN\,J0617+5012} was observed at 342.02 MHz on 6 July 2010, over 8196 channels, giving a spacing of 1.526 kHz (1.34 \kms). The mean system temperature
was 76 K and after flagging, 0.63 hours of data remained. There is an ``absorption feature'' close to the expected redshift of $z= 3.153$ (fitted by
two narrow Gaussians at an offset of 220 and 241 \kms\ from 0 \kms,\ defined by 342.02 MHz), which is present on all four sub-averages of the data.
However, this is also true for the two ``emission features'' at $\approx -1500$ and $-1100$ \kms\ and so we must attribute these to RFI. Again,
the regions between the spikes had low r.m.s. noise levels (5 mJy per 10 \kms), although in Table \ref{obs} we quote the value over 337.56 --343.17 MHz,
were the spikes are fairly weak.\\
{\bf PKS\,0742+10} was observed at 390.30 MHz on 13 August 2010, over 16\,384 channels, giving a spacing of 763~kHz (0.59 \kms).
After flagging of the worst RFI affected scans,
0.6 hours of data remained with an average system temperature of $T_{\rm sys}
= 81$ K. However, intermittent spikes remained, meaning that the r.m.s. noise level quoted in Table \ref{obs}
only applies to the clean regions between these, with a spike being present over $z = 2.6302-2.6309$
(391.20--391.27 MHz), very close to the emission redshift of the source.\\
{\bf FIRST\,J074729.3+365438} was observed at 355.81 MHz on 7 June 2010, over 16\,384 channels, giving a spacing of
763~kHz (0.66 \kms). The mean system temperature was 63 K and 0.8 hours of data remained after flagging the
integrations affected most by RFI. As seen in Fig. \ref{spectra},
the bandpass was still dominated by spikes and so in Table \ref{obs} we quote the r.m.s. noise level over the relatively clear 355.78--357.15 MHz.\\
{\bf NVSS\,J092022--071217} was observed at 377.77 MHz on 9 September and 29 December 2010, over 16\,384 channels,
giving a spacing of 763~kHz (0.61 \kms). The mean system temperature was 65 K and flagging of badly affected data gave
a total integration time of 0.63 hours. Even so, the bandpass was still dominated by spikes with RFI close to the
expected frequency of the redshifted 21-cm line preventing us from assigning a
limit.\\
{\bf B2\,1121+31B} was observed at 336.83 MHz in three sessions spanning from 6 July to 5 August 2010. The band was split
over 4096 channels, giving a spacing of 3.052 kHz (2.73 \kms). The mean system temperature was 62 K and RFI was minimal, with
0.90 hours of
data remaining after flagging the worst of this. Despite the absence of severe RFI and the flat bandpasses, like J0205+2242 each scan
exhibited a negative flux, in both polarisations, over the whole run. Negative fluxes can often caused by a region of high
confusion leading to the off-measurement
being stronger than the
source. At 337 MHz, the half-power beam width of the GBT is $\sim40\arcmin$, within which the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database
lists 17\,000 sources, 140 of which are classified as radio sources. Therefore confusion within the beam/sidelobes/off-position
leading to a negative flux is a possibility. Although the flux levels may be
not be properly calibrated, the data themselves are believed to the reliable \citep{rie12}, as is apparent from the consistency
between scans for both J0205+2242 and 1121+31B.
\subsection{Westerbork observations}
For the WSRT observations we requested four hours for each source using all 15 antennas (giving 105 baseline pairs), with the aim of
reaching an r.m.s. noise level of $\lapp20$ mJy per 10 \kms\ channel. For a flux density of $0.5$ Jy, this gives a $3\sigma$ optical depth limit of
$\tau\approx0.1$ per channel, a sensitivity to $N_{\rm
HI}\gapp2\times10^{18}(T_{\rm spin}/f)$ \scm.
We used the UHF-low receiver backed with the correlator over $2\times5$ MHz bands,
each in two polarisations over
1024 channels, in order to have a channel spacing of $\approx4$ \kms, while
maintaining a redshift coverage of $\Delta z \approx\pm0.04$. For each source
the delays were all self calibrated with 3C\,48, 3C\,147 and 3C\,286
being used for bandpass calibration and the data were reduced using the {\sc
miriad} interferometry reduction package, with a spectrum being extracted from each cube. As per the GBT spectra, these are
shown in Fig. \ref{spectra} and summarised in Table \ref{obs}:\\
{\bf NVSS\,J012142+132058} was observed on 5 January 2010 for a total of 5.0 hours. Severe RFI meant that
extensive flagging of the data was required, leaving 45 baseline pairs. Despite the flagging, a reasonable
image could not be produced and so a spectrum was obtained by averaging together the remaining baselines pairs,
giving a much reduced flux with two spikes remaining. An r.m.s. noise level of 10 mJy per 10 \kms\ channel
was reached between these spikes, which rises to 134 mJy averaged over the whole bandpass.
Each unsmoothed channel was 4.66 \kms\ wide and the synthesised beam was $772"\times 83"$.\\
{\bf NVSS\,J020510+224250} was observed on 19 February 2010 for a total of 5.0 hours. Again severe RFI required extensive flagging, leaving only the {\sf XX} polarisation and 78
baseline pairs which produced a poor quality image. A spectrum was, however, extracted from the cube, which had
an r.m.s. noise level of 77 mJy per 10 \kms\ channel between the two main spikes, which rises to 130 mJy over the whole bandpass.
Each unsmoothed channel was 4.64 \kms\ wide and the synthesised beam $237"\times61"$.\\
{\bf NVSS\,J023111+360027} was observed on 10 February 2010 for a total of 3.5 hours. Again, RFI required extensive flagging,
leaving only 55 baseline pairs. From this an image of the target could not be produced, with
patchy emission over the field being evident as a ripple in the extracted spectrum.
Each unsmoothed channel was 4.20 \kms\ wide and the synthesised beam $256"\times69"$.\\
{\bf B2\,0300+37A} was observed for 2.7 hours on 14 December 2009 for 4.5 hours.
After flagging 66 baselines remained, but RFI was still too severe to allow us to produce an image and so we show the
average of the unflagged baseline pairs. Each unsmoothed channel was 3.61 \kms\ wide.\\
{\bf WN\,J0617+5012} was observed at 342.02 MHz
for 6.0 hours on 18 January 2010, but severe RFI meant that no data could be used.\\
{\bf PKS\,0742+10} was observed at 390.30 MHz
for 5.8 hours on 14 December 2009, but again, severe RFI marred the whole observation.\\
{\bf FIRST\,J074729.3+365438} was observed at 355.81 MHz
for 6.0 hours on 11 March 2010. After flagging the worst RFI, 55 baseline pairs remained from which an image of the
target could not be produced. Nevertheless, the spectrum extracted from the field was relatively spike free and, as in
the case of J0231+3600, there is a strong ripple evident, although the spectrum is very noisy. Each unsmoothed channel was
4.10 \kms\ wide and the synthesised beam was $244"\times 66"$.\\
{\bf VLSS J1115.1+5016} was observed at 401.24 MHz
on 12 December 2009 for 4.0 hours.
However, severe RFI in this band meant that none of the
data where useable.\\
{\bf B2\,1121+31B} was observed at 336.83 MHz
for 5.2 hours on 19 January 2010. After flagging, 66 baseline pairs
remained from which an image was produced. The image was of poor quality and the extracted spectrum is over the central $\pm\approx15'$,
with the flux density showing a strong dependence on the extent of the image used, thus limiting the reliability of this. Each unsmoothed channel was
4.35 \kms\ wide and the synthesised beam was $288"\times 62"$.\\
{\bf B2\,1240+39} was observed at 453.66 MHz
for 3.0 hours on 5 April 2010. After flagging, 55 baseline pairs remained and a spectrum was extracted from the cube.
Each unsmoothed channel was
3.27 \kms\ wide and the synthesised beam was $303"\times 73"$.\\
\begin{figure*}
\vspace{12.0cm}
\special{psfile= gbt+wsrt/J0121+1320_IF0_HI-recs0+2_10kms.dat.ps hoffset=-10 voffset=340 hscale=25 vscale=25 angle=-90}
\special{psfile= gbt+wsrt/j0121+1320.315.3c48.315-ii-200.dat.ps hoffset=120 voffset=340 hscale=25 vscale=25 angle=-90}
\special{psfile= gbt+wsrt/J0205+2242_IF0_HI-recs1_3_5_10kms.dat.ps hoffset=250 voffset=340 hscale=25 vscale=25 angle=-90}
\special{psfile= gbt+wsrt/j0205+2242.315.3c48.315.dat.ps hoffset=380 voffset=340 hscale=25 vscale=25 angle=-90}
\special{psfile= gbt+wsrt/J0231+3600_IF0_HI_10kms.dat.ps hoffset=-10 voffset=255 hscale=25 vscale=25 angle=-90}
\special{psfile= gbt+wsrt/j0231+3600.348.3c48.348.dat.ps hoffset=120 voffset=255 hscale=25 vscale=25 angle=-90}
\special{psfile= gbt+wsrt/J0303+3733.405_T0.3c147.405.dat.ps hoffset=250 voffset=255 hscale=25 vscale=25 angle=-90}
\special{psfile= gbt+wsrt/J0617+5012_IF0_HI_10kms.dat.ps hoffset=380 voffset=255 hscale=25 vscale=25 angle=-90}
\special{psfile=gbt+wsrt/B0742+10_IF0_HI_10kms.dat.ps hoffset=-10 voffset=170 hscale=25 vscale=25 angle=-90}
\special{psfile= gbt+wsrt/pks0742+10.391_T1.3c286_1.391.dat.ps hoffset=120 voffset=170 hscale=25 vscale=25 angle=-90}
\special{psfile= gbt+wsrt/J0747+3654_IF0_HI_10kms.dat.ps hoffset=250 voffset=170 hscale=25 vscale=25 angle=-90}
\special{psfile= gbt+wsrt/j0747+3654.356.3c147.356-image.dat.ps hoffset=380 voffset=170 hscale=25 vscale=25 angle=-90}
\special{psfile= gbt+wsrt/J0920-0712_IF0_HI_10kms.dat.ps hoffset=-10 voffset=85 hscale=25 vscale=25 angle=-90}
\special{psfile=gbt+wsrt/J1123+3141_IF0_HI_10kms.dat.ps hoffset=120 voffset=85 hscale=25 vscale=25 angle=-90}
\special{psfile= gbt+wsrt/j1123+3141-ii-500-restore.icln.dat.ps hoffset=250 voffset=85 hscale=25 vscale=25 angle=-90}
\special{psfile= gbt+wsrt/j1242+3915.454.3c286.454_55.dat.ps hoffset=380 voffset=85 hscale=25 vscale=25 angle=-90}
\caption{The spectra from the \HI\ 21-cm searches shown at a spectral resolution of 10 \kms. The ordinate
gives the flux density [Jy] and the abscissa the barycentric frequency [MHz]. The downwards arrow shows the expected
frequency of the absorption from the optical redshift, with the horizontal bar showing a span of $\pm200$ \kms\ for guidance.
The scale along the top axis shows the redshift of \HI\ 21-cm.}
\label{spectra}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{160mm}
\caption{The observational results for the $\gapp0.2$ Jy optically faint northern sources which fall into the GBT and
WSRT 90-cm bands. With the exception of B0742+10 (which is from \citealt{wp85}), all are ultra-steep spectrum
sources (from \citealt{dvs+02}). The second and third columns list the magnitudes and their values. The
fourth column gives the source redshift, followed by the observed frequency range [MHz] over which $\Delta S$, the
r.m.s. noise [mJy] reached per 10 \kms\ channel, is applicable. $S$ is the continuum flux density [Jy] and
$\tau_{\rm obs}=-\ln(1 - 3\Delta S/S_{\rm cont})$ gives the $3\sigma$ limit to the observed optical depth of the line per 10 \kms\
channel. This is followed by the resulting neutral hydrogen column density, where $N_{\rm HI}=1.823\times10^{18}\,(T_{\rm
spin}/f)\int\!\tau_{\rm obs}\,dv$) [\scm~K$^{-1}$], $T_{\rm spin}$ being the spin temperature and $f$ the
covering factor (see Sect. \ref{rp}). Lastly we list the redshift range over which the limit applies.
}
\begin{tabular}{@{}l l c c c c c c l c c @{}}
\hline\smallskip
Source & Mag & Value & $z$ & $\nu_{\rm obs}$ & $\Delta S$ & $S$ & $\tau_{\rm obs}$ & Tel. & $N_{\rm HI}.\,(f/T_{\rm spin})$& z-range \\
\hline
0121+1320 & $r_{_{\rm S}}$ & $>24$ & 3.516 & 313.43--316.40 & 23 & 0.455& $<0.15$ & GBT & $<2.7\times10^{18}$ & 3.4893--3.5318 \\
... & ... & ... & ... & 312.11--317.06 & 10 & 0.103 & $<0.29$ & WSRT & $<5.3\times10^{18}$ & 3.4799--3.5510 \\
J0205+2242 & $r_{_{\rm S}}$ & $>24$ & 3.506 & 309.93--317.60 & 24 & 0.251 & $<0.29$ & GBT & $<5.3\times10^{18}$ & 3.4723--3.5830\\
... & ... & ... & ... & 367.57--372.16 & 77 & 0.574 & $<0.51$ & WSRT & $<9.3\times10^{18}$ & 2.8167--2.8643\\
J0231+3600 & $ I $ & $25.0$ & 3.079 & 342.68--353.46 & 189 & --- & --- & GBT & --- & --- \\
... & ... & ... & ... & 345.80--350.75 & 5.3 & 0.377 &$<0.042$ & WSRT & $<7.7\times10^{17}$ & 3.0496--3.1076 \\
B0300+37A& $r_{_{\rm S}}$ & $23.2$ & 2.506 & 400.94--408.65 & --- & --- & --- & WSRT & --- & --- \\
J0617+5012 & $R$ & $ > 24 $& 3.153 & 337.56 --343.17 & 17 & 1.277 & $<0.040$ & GBT & $<7.3\times10^{17}$ & 3.1391--3.2079\\
... & ... & ... & ... & 339.59-- 344.53 & --- & --- & --- & WSRT & --- & --- \\
B0742+10 & $R $ & $23.7$ & 2.630 & 391.32--394.74 & 22 & 0.874 & $<0.076$ & GBT & $<1.4\times10^{18}$ & 2.5983--2.6298\\
.. & ... & ... & ... & 388.78--393.61 & --- & --- & --- & WSRT & --- & --- \\
J0747+3654 & $r_{_{\rm S}}$ & $ >23$ & 2.992 & 355.78--357.15 & 15 & 1.232 & $<0.037$ & GBT & $<6.7\times10^{17}$ & 2.9771--2.9923 \\
.. & ... & ... & ... & 353.39--358.34 & 100 & 0.466 & $<1.0$ & WSRT & $<1.8\times10^{19}$ & 2.9638--3.0194\\
J0920--0712 & $R$ & $22.4$ & 2.760 & --- & --- & 0.621 & --- & GBT & --- & --- \\
J1115+5016 & $r_{_{\rm S}}$& $ >24$ & 2.540 & 396.21--406.21 & --- & --- & --- & WSRT & --- & --- \\
B1121+31B & $r_{_{\rm S}}$ & $21.3$ & 3.217 & 332.74--337.16 & 7.9& ---& $<0.042^{\ast}$ & GBT & $<7.7\times10^{17}$ & 3.2129--3.2688 \\
. & ... & ... & ... & 334.56-- 338.70 & 66 & 0.876 & $<0.23$ & WSRT& $<4.2\times10^{18}$ & 3.1937--3.2456\\
B1240+39 & $r_{_{\rm S}}$ & $23.6$ & 2.131 & 451.17--456.15 & 39 & 0.348 & $<0.41$ & WSRT & $<7.5\times10^{18}$ & 2.1139--2.1483 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
{Notes: $^{\ast}$Derived by interpolating $S_{\rm 151~MHz} = 1.19$ Jy \citep{wyrw96} and $S_{\rm 365~MHz} = 0.525$ Jy \citep{dbb+96}, giving a continuum flux of $S_{\rm 378~MHz} \approx 0.57$ Jy.}
\label{obs}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
\section{Possible reasons for the non-detection of 21-cm}
\subsection{Sensitivity limits}
\label{odl}
Despite our deliberate selection of optically faint sources, with continuum luminosities below the threshold of
$L_{1216}=10^{23}$ \WpHz, we have not detected \HI\ 21-cm in any of the eight sources for which there were useable data.
Below this critical value, \citet{cw10} find a $\gapp40$\% general detection rate, which consists of $\approx50$\%
for compact objects\footnote{Gigahertz peaked spectrum (GPS), compact steep spectrum sources (CSS) and
compact symmetric objects (CSO). Although the 21-cm detection rate is generally believed to be higher for these
than the general population, when the $L_{1216}\geq10^{23}$ \WpHz\ sources are removed the rates
are similar, indicating that the higher rates may be due to the generally
low ultra-violet luminosities of the compact objects \citep{cw10}.} and $\approx40$\% for others. That is, we may expect approximately three detections out
of the eight sources for which the data were not overwhelmed by RFI.
One possible reason for the non-detections is that all of the sources where affected to some degree by RFI, giving some
relatively poor sensitivity limits (Table \ref{obs}), where detections of optical depths of $\tau_{\rm obs}\gapp0.1$ have been documented
to be in the minority \citep{vpt+03,mor04}. In order to investigate this, in Fig. \ref{tau_dist} we show the obs optical depths
for all the redshifted 21-cm searches.
\begin{figure*}
\centering \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.45]{tau_dist.eps}
\caption{The observed optical depth versus the FWHM of the profile (left), redshift (middle) and rest-frame 1.4 GHz flux density (right).
The symbols are as per Fig. \ref{M-z}, where in the left panel, for the sake of clarity, only our limits are shown.
These, and the other limits in the remaining panels, have been resampled to a spectral resolution of 167 \kms, the mean of the detections which range from 18 to 475 \kms\
(\citealt{cps92} and \citealt{vpt+03}, respectively). The unfilled histogram shows the distribution for the detections and the hatched histogram the limits to our
eight targets not overwhelmed by RFI.}
\label{tau_dist}
\end{figure*}
Since many of our sources were observed by both the GBT and WSRT, we use the best limit in each case and
smooth these, as well as rebinning the $3\sigma$ limits from the literature, to a channel spacing of 167 \kms, the
mean FWHM of the 21-cm detections. This normalises all of the limits, published at various spectral resolutions,
and gives the limit for the detection of putative line of width FWHM$\,=167$ \kms\ within a single channel.
This normalisation has the effect of moving all of our limits to $\tau_{\rm obs} \lapp 0.1$, while
degrading the column density limits (see Fig.~\ref{3-N}) by a factor of $\approx4$ to those quoted in Table \ref{obs}.
From Fig. \ref{tau_dist}, we see that our limits are located in the densest clustering of the detections and so
for the rest of the analysis, since we are attempting
to explain the exclusive non-detections, we assume that (at least some of) the targets have been searched sufficiently deeply.
We note also a weak correlation between the obs optical depth and the profile width (left panel)\footnote{The observed
distribution has a 1.4\% probability of occuring by chance, which is significant at $2.46\sigma$, assuming Gaussian
statistics.}, which may suggest that weak, wide profiles may be missed by 21-cm surveys, despite having
similar column densities to the detections (Allison et al., in prep.).
For completeness, we also show how the optical depth is distributed with redshift (middle panel) and
the rest frame 1.4~GHz flux density, from which we see the expected anti-correlation.
\subsection{Radio properties}
\label{rp}
A possible effect which could reduce the probability of detecting 21-cm absorption is the non-deliberate selection of
these high redshift radio galaxies having steep radio spectra (all, apart from B0742+10 being ``Ultra-Steep Spectrum
Radio Sources'', \citealt{dvs+02}). This may have an effect on the {\em actual} optical depth of the line, $\tau$,
which is related to the {\em observed} optical depth, $\tau_{\rm obs}\equiv\Delta S/S$, through
$\tau\equiv-\ln\left(1-\frac{\Delta S}{Sf}\right)$, where $f$, the covering factor, quantifies how much of the observed
flux is intercepted by the absorber. In the optically thin regime (where $\Delta S \lapp 0.3\,S$), this expression
reduces to $\tau\approx {\Delta S/}({Sf}) = \tau_{\rm obs}/f$. Since, by definition, $f\leq1$ then the actual optical
depth limit is $\tau\geq\tau_{\rm obs}$.\footnote{Since $f$ is generally unknown (see \citealt{cur12}), we leave this
(as well as the spin temperature) as a free parameter (Table \ref{obs}). Assuming $f$ has its maximum value of unity,
as if often the case in the literature, improves the perceived sensitivity of the observation, where in fact $f<1$.}
That is, the limit is affected by how effectively the absorbing gas intercepts the background emission.
Unfortunately, for this sample there is only high
resolution radio imaging available for one source -- B0742+10, which subtends 1.2 mas at 15 GHz \citep{sdo+01}. At
$z = 2.630$ this corresponds to a linear extent of 10 pc (using a
standard $\Lambda$ cosmology with $H_{0}=71$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{\rm matter}=0.27$ and
$\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73$). Of the remainder of the sample, only
four are in the area of sky currently covered by the Very
Large Array's FIRST (Faint Images of the Radio Sky at Twenty
Centimetres) survey, having deconvolved minor axes of 0.91\arcsec (7 kpc) for J0747+3654, 1.02 \arcsec (8 kpc) for J0920--0712,
1.58\arcsec (12 kpc) for B1121+31B and 0.75\arcsec (6 kpc) for B1240+39. Since these are typically unresolved by the 5\arcsec
synthesised beam, assigning a source size of $\lapp40$ kpc for each component may be more apt.
For J0121+1320, J0205+2242, J0231+3600, B0300+37A and
J0617+5012, which are all unresolved by the NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS), the typical 17\arcsec minor axis of the beam gives
source sizes of $\lapp130$ kpc for these redshifts.
Given the lack of high resolution radio imaging, information on the source size may be gleaned from the radio SEDs, given that
the turnover frequency is anti-correlated with the size of
the radio source \citep{ffs+90}.
In order to explore this possibility, in Fig.~\ref{SEDs}, we show the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of our eight targets,
\begin{figure*}
\centering \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.60]{SEDs_full.eps}
\caption{The SEDs of our eight targets not overwhelmed by RFI. The broken curve shows
the fit to the radio data, the dotted line to the full data and the broken/dotted to the UV data, where possible (see the Appendix).
The vertical dotted line signifies a rest-frame frequency of $3.29\times10^{15}$ Hz ($\lambda = 912$ \AA).}
\label{SEDs}
\end{figure*}
from which the derived turnover frequencies and spectral indices are summarised in Table \ref{lums}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{75mm}
\caption{The radio properties and luminosities of the targets. $\nu_{_{\rm TO}}$ is the
rest-frame turnover frequency [GHz], where the upper limits designate no observed turnover (which is thus assumed to
occur below the observed frequencies), followed by the spectral index at the rest-frame 21-cm frequency, \AL. In the last
three columns we list the $\lambda=1216$ \AA\ (as originally estimated and not corrected for extinction) and $\lambda=912$ \AA\
(as derived from the fits in the Appendix) rest-frame continuum luminosities [\WpHz], as well as
the ionising ($\lambda\leq912$ \AA) photon rate [s$^{-1}$] in logs.}
\begin{tabular}{@{}l r r c c c @{}}
\hline \smallskip
Source & $\nu_{_{\rm TO}}$ & $\alpha$ & $L_{1216}$ & $L_{912}$ & rate \\
\hline
J0121+1320 & $<0.331$ & $-1.22$ & 22.50& --- & --- \\
J0205+2242 & $<0.331$ & $-1.18$&22.15& --- & --- \\
J0231+360 & $<0.302$ & $-1.18$ & 21.28 &--- & --- \\
J0617+5012 & $<1.41$ & $-0.89$ & 22.00 & --- &--- \\
B0742+10 & 6.46 & $0.29$ & 22.00 & 22.20 & 55.68 \\
J0747+3654 & 0.17&$-1.23$ & 22.54 & 23.30 & 57.04 \\
B1121+31B & 0.040& $-1.21$ & 22.98 & 22.97 & 56.03 \\
B1240+39 & 0.012& $-1.50$ & 22.60& --- & ---- \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{lums}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
From this we see that B0742+10 is the only source with an indisputable turnover, consistent with its observed
compactness (10 pc at 15 GHz, \citealt{sdo+01}). Given that none of the other sources exhibit a {\em clear} turnover
above the lowest frequency which has been observed in the literature\footnote{Whether there are turnovers in the SEDs of J0231+360,
J0747+3654, B1121+31B and B1240+39 are disputable (Fig. \ref{SEDs}).}, it is possible that the majority of our targets may have very
extended radio morphologies, thus making $\tau\gg\tau_{\rm obs}$ in the case of the limits.
In order to verify this through the comparison of the radio SEDs with the rest of the 21-cm searched sources (compiled in \citealt{cw10,ace+12}),
we fit the radio SEDs (see the Appendix) and use the {\sc asurv} survival analysis package \citep{ifn86} to obtain
mean values of the turnover frequency and spectral index for various sub-samples (Table \ref{stats}).
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{82mm}
\caption{The mean values of the turnover frequency [Hz] and the spectral index at the rest-frame 1420 MHz for all of
the sources searched in redshifted 21-cm absorption (\citealt{cw10,ace+12}). $n_{\rm p}$ gives the number of data points and
$n_{\rm l}$ the number of these which are limits. Note that the various sub-samples from the second row on
exclude the current sources, which are summarised in the first row.}
\begin{tabular}{@{} l c r r c r @{}}
\hline\smallskip
Sub-sample & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\sc turnover frequency} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\sc spectral index}\\
& $\left<\log_{10}\nu_{_{\rm TO}}\right>$ & $n_{\rm p}$ & $n_{\rm l}$& $\left<\alpha\right>$ & $n_{\rm p}$ \\
\hline
This paper & $7.91\pm0.35$ & 8 & 4 & $-1.02\pm 0.18$ & 8 \\
Detections & $8.19\pm0.14$ & 56 & 23 & $-0.29\pm 0.08$ & 58\\
Non-detections & $8.03\pm0.09$ & 171 & 92 & $-0.39\pm0.04$ & 173 \\
Dets + nons & $8.07\pm0.08$ & 227 & 115 & $-0.37\pm 0.04$ & 231\\
UV luminous & $8.14\pm0.29$ & 19 & 11 & $-0.26\pm0.12$ & 19\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{stats}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
From this it is seen that the mean turnover frequency for this sample is indeed lower than for any of
the other sub-samples, indicating that the radio sources are generally larger. However, this is based upon four limits to the turnover frequencies
out of eight SEDs and, as warned by {\sc asurv},
may be unreliable.\footnote{As seen from Fig. \ref{SEDs},
it is conceivable that seven of the turnover frequencies are limits. Furthermore, the high redshift sources will also be subject to a higher mean turnover due to that
fact that the lowest typical value, 74 MHz, is in the observed-frame, giving the high redshift sources higher upper
limits in the rest-frame.} In the case of the spectral indices, where there are no limits, we see that the spectra of our sample are
significantly steeper than for the other sub-samples.\footnote{Note also that the non-detections have steeper indices
than the detections, although these are consistent within the uncertainties.} Thus, if the spectral index is a
reliable tracer of the background source size, the fact that this sample consists almost exclusively of steep spectrum sources, indicating
large radio source sizes, means that poor coverage of the background source cannot be ruled out as the cause of the
non-detections. Note, however, for the ``UV luminous'' sources (the 19 which lie above the $L_{\rm UV}=10^{23}$ \WpHz\
cut-off, \citealt{cwm+10}), the mean spectral index is close to that of the 21-cm detections, thus ruling out the same
predisposition towards large radio sources being the cause of the non-detections.
\subsection{Ionising luminosities and photon rates}
\label{ilpr}
Although all of our sources were selected to have $\lambda=1216$ \AA\ continuum
luminosities below the critical value of $L_{\rm 1216}\sim10^{23}$ \WpHz\ (Fig. \ref{M-z}), it is clear that
the total ionising ($\lambda\leq912$ \AA) luminosity, $\int^{\infty}_{\nu_{\rm ion}}({L_{\nu}}/{\nu})\,d{\nu}$, provides a much better measure of the ionising flux
than a monochromatic value (be it $L_{\rm 1216}$ or $L_{\rm 912}$, \citealt{cw12}). In equilibrium, the total ionising luminosity
is related to the recombination of the atoms via \citep{ost89},
\begin{eqnarray}
\int^{\infty}_{\nu_{\rm ion}}\frac{L_{\nu}}{h\nu}\,d{\nu}= 4\pi\int^{r_{\rm ion}}_{0}\,n_{\rm p}\,n_{\rm e}\,\alpha_{A}\,r^2\, dr ,
\label{eq1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $h$ is the Planck constant, giving the number of ionising photons per second. On the right hand side of the
expression, $n_{\rm p}$ and $n_{\rm e}$ are the proton and electron densities, respectively, $\alpha_{A}$ the radiative
recombination rate coefficient of hydrogen and $r_{\rm ion}$ is the extent of the ionisation (the ``Str\"{o}mgren
sphere''). For a gas which decreases in density with increasing
distance from the ionising source,
\citet{cw12} show that $r_{\rm ion}\rightarrow\infty$ for a finite ultra-violet luminosity and that for a large spiral this value is $L_{912} \sim L_{1216} \sim 10^{23}$ \WpHz, thus
explaining this critical luminosity above which 21-cm absorption has never been detected.
From the mean SEDs of all of the associated 21-cm searches, the critical ionising photon rate arising from this luminosity is estimated to be
$\int^{\infty}_{\nu_{\rm ion}}({L_{\nu}}/{h\nu})\,d{\nu} = 2.9\times10^{56}$ s$^{-1}$ \citep{cw12}.
From the polynomial fits (see the Appendix), we could determine photon rates for three of the targets presented here
(Fig.~\ref{SEDs}), one of which is above the estimate of the critical value
($\log_{10}[2.9\times10^{56}] =56.5$, cf. Table~\ref{lums}). Applying fits to each of the SEDs,
the highest photon rate which could be determined for a 21-cm detection is $5.1\times10^{55}$ s$^{-1}$,
which is below or close to the photon rate of the three targets ($\log_{10}[5.1\times10^{55}] = 55.7$, see Fig.~\ref{3-N}).
\begin{figure*}
\centering \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.70]{3-N_lum-histo.eps}
\caption{The $\lambda=1216$ \AA\ continuum luminosity (top), $\lambda=912$ \AA\ continuum luminosity (middle) and number
of ionising photons per second (bottom) versus the 21-cm line strength ($1.823\times10^{18}\int\tau dv$), see Sect. \ref{ilpr}.
The horizontal lines in the top and middle panels shows the critical monochromatic luminosity of $10^{23}$ \WpHz\ and
in the bottom panel $\int^{\infty}_{\nu_{\rm ion}}({L_{\nu}}/{h\nu})\,d{\nu} = 5.1\times10^{55}$ s$^{-1}$, the highest photon
rate at which a 21-cm detection occurs (see main text). The symbols are as per Fig. \ref{M-z},
with the left pointing arrows showing the $3\sigma$ upper limits to the 21-cm line strength (from \citealt{cw10,cwm+10,ace+12}).
As per Fig. \ref{tau_dist}, these have been rebinned and integrated over a FWHM$\,=167$ \kms, which has the effect of
degrading our limits by a factor of $\approx4$ in comparison to those quoted in Table \ref{obs} (see \citealt{cur12} for details).
The unfilled histogram shows the distribution of the detection line strengths and the hatched histogram the limits to
eight targets not overwhelmed by RFI.}
\label{3-N}
\end{figure*}However, given that we have no estimates of the photon rates for the remaining five sources,
from the previous estimates of the $\lambda = 1216$~\AA\
continuum luminosities (Table~\ref{lums}), it is possible that several of these have rates lower than for the three for
which we do have estimates. For instance, J0121+1320 has been detected in CO emission \citep{dno03}, which
may suggest a UV luminosity below the critical value, although further studies are required to find if this applies to
the warm emitting molecular gas.
While the monochromatic luminosities may not provide a reliable
estimate of the photon rates, if, for the sake of argument, the remaining five sources do have ionising photon rates below the critical value,
for a 40\% detection rate (Sect. \ref{odl}), the binomial probability of zero out of five detections is 0.078. This is
significant at $1.76\sigma$, assuming Gaussian statistics, and so not statistically important. Recalling that a possible reason for the
non-detections is that the targets have not been searched sufficiently deeply (Sect. \ref{odl}), this significance could be lower, thus
not requiring us to ``explain away'' all eight non-detections.
Lastly, given that $\int^{\infty}_{\nu_{\rm ion}}({L_{\nu}}/{h\nu})\,d{\nu} \approx3\times10^{56}$ s$^{-1}$ is sufficient to ionise all of the gas
in a large spiral, photon rates lower than this will completely ionise gas disks of correspondingly smaller
scale-lengths \citep{cw12}. The sample presented here is at more than double the look-back time of the majority
of 21-cm detections (Fig.~\ref{M-z}) and so if there
is any evolution in galactic morphology, with a larger fraction of smaller galaxies at
higher redshift \citep{bmce00,lf03}, we may expect the value of the critical photon rate to be lower at the redshifts searched here, making
the detection of 21-cm absorption all the more difficult.
Evolution may also play a r{\^o}le in that if the molecular (\MOLH) component constitutes a larger fraction of the
gas at high redshift \citep{or09a}, lower relative column densities will make the \HI\ more difficult to
detect. However, as seen from Fig. \ref{M-z}, 21-cm has already been detected at $z\gapp2$
and, although molecular gas has been detected in emission in over 100 ultra-luminous
infrared galaxies (see \citealt{cur09,ctk+11} and references therein), searches for molecular absorption within the hosts of
millimetre-loud sources have proved unfruitful \citep{cwc+11}.\footnote{Given that J0121+1320 is detected in CO emission
and that a further five of the targets are known exhibit strong FIR emission (Fig.~\ref{SEDs}),
these sources should be searched in the millimetre band to rule out the
possibility of a high molecular fraction suppressing the atomic abundance (if not already done so, although there are no
published searches for molecular emission in the remaining targets). However, the cool absorbing molecular gas,
rather than warm emitting component, may be expected to be the coincident with the cool atomic gas (see
\citealt{cw98b,mwf+00} and references therein).}
\section{Summary}
We have undertaken a survey for the hydrogen apparently missing in high redshift radio
galaxies and quasars by selecting targets in which
the optical magnitudes indicate that these are below the UV luminosity cut-off, above which all of the
gas is ionised \citep{cw12}. Despite this, there were no detections in the eight $z\gapp2$ objects
for which useful data were obtained. Upon an examination of the spectral energy distributions of the targets,
we suggest two possible reasons for this:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Due to our requirement of optically faint, radio-loud objects, for which their redshift placed them within the
GBT and WSRT 90-cm bands, our sample was dominated by the ultra-steep spectrum sources of \citet{dvs+02}. By fitting
radio SEDs to these, we find a mean spectral index of $\left<\alpha\right> = -1.0$, which is significantly higher than
$\left<\alpha\right> = -0.3$ and $-0.4$ for the 21-cm detections and the remaining non-detections, respectively. This
suggests that most of our targets may have extended radio emission, thus reducing the coverage of the background flux
by the absorbing gas, lowering the effective sensitivity of our survey.
\item Although our magnitude selection predicted that all of the targets are below the critical luminosity of $L_{\rm UV}\sim10^{23}$ \WpHz,
those for which the ionising photon rate could be determined are above or close to $5.1\times10^{55}$ ionising photons s$^{-1}$, the
highest value which can be determined for a 21-cm detection. However, the photon rate could only be estimated for three of the
eight sources and their monochromatic $\lambda=1216$ \AA\ continuum luminosities may nevertheless suggest that
these are below the threshold. Without sufficient blue/ultra-violet photometry, this is, however, speculation.
\end{enumerate}
Although it is impossible at this time to determine which reason is main the culprit, note that the mean radio-band SEDs of the 19
sources for which $L_{1216} \gapp10^{23}$ \WpHz, which initially highlighted a UV threshold, is no steeper than the SEDs of the 21-cm detections. This
suggests that a bias towards larger radio sources is not the cause of the exclusive
non-detections for the UV luminous sample.
Also, presuming that the remaining five sources, for which the photon rate could not be determined, are below the
threshold gives a detection rate (0 out of 5) which is not statistically significant, given the 40\% chance of a detection
at $z\lapp1$.
Furthermore, at these redshifts we are probing look-back times more than double that of the $z\lapp1$ sources and if
there is a larger fraction of smaller galaxies at these epochs, the gas will be ionised at lower luminosities. For
instance, the highest photon rate for which there exists a 21-cm detection ($5\times10^{55}$ s$^{-1}$), is sufficient to
fully ionise a gas distribution of scale-length of 1.6 kpc (50\% that of a large spiral, \citealt{kk09}), for $n_0 = 10$ \ccm\ \citep{cw12}.\footnote{For a disk, in
which the thickness flares in the same manner as for the Milky Way \citep{kdkh07}, the total gas mass is
estimated to be $M_{\rm gas}
=1.3\times10^{9}$ \Mo, a sixth of that found for a rate of $3\times10^{56}$ ionising photons s$^{-1}$, the critical
value estimated by \citet{cw12}.} If this is the case, objects even fainter than those targetted here are required to
find the missing hydrogen at high redshift, a task perhaps best suited for blind surveys with the Square Kilometre Array, where
an optical redshift is not a prerequisite.
To conclude, although we cannot rule out the radio structure and other hitherto unforeseen high redshift effects as the
source of the non-detections, the fact remains that $\lambda\leq912$ \AA\ photons ionise hydrogen and there exists
a $8.32\times10^{-8}$ probability (a $5.36\sigma$ significance) of the exclusive non-detections above a given ionising photon
rate arising by chance \citep{cw12}. This is conjunction with the fact that the critical rate observed is just sufficient to ionise all of the gas in a large
galaxy, leaves little doubt that photoionsation of the gas by the active nucleus is a dominant issue in the search of neutral
gas within the hosts of these objects.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We wish to thank Gyula J\'{o}zsa for coordinating all of the WSRT observations.
This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database
(NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration. This research has also made use of NASA's
Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Services and {\sc asurv} Rev
1.2 \citep{lif92a}, which implements the methods presented
in \citet{ifn86}.
The Centre for All-sky Astrophysics is an Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence, funded by grant CE110001020.
|
\section{Introduction}
This paper is a higher dimensional sequel of the recent article \cite{BTproba} by the first and the third authors (and also of \cite{BT2, BT3,BL}).
As such it aims to construct global in time solutions of the cubic wave equation with low regularity (infinite energy) random initial data. To the best of our knowledge such a regularity is out of reach of the present deterministic methods. The major difference between the present paper and \cite{BTproba} is that here we only establish existence results and in particular no uniqueness statement is proven. Let us recall that in \cite{BTproba} a suitable uniqueness and a probabilistic continuity of the flow were proven. This result was followed by more recent results by Nahmod-Pavlovic-Staffilani~\cite{NPS} on the $2$ and $3$-dimensional homogeneous Navier-Stokes equation, where the authors obtain strong (in $2$-d) and weak (in $3$-d) results, and in turn, here we are inspired by this latter $3$-d weak-existence result.
Related weak-existence results had been already used in the context of the randomly forced Navier-Stokes equation by Da Prato-Debussche~ \cite{DPD} and the Euler equation by Albeverio-Cruzeiro~\cite{AC}, using more sophisticated probabilistic tools (Prokhorov and Skorohod Theorems).
This approach may be seen as the analogue in the random setting of the Leray compactness method for constructing solutions of nonlinear evolution equations.
It has the advantage to require less regularity on the initial data, one allows infinite energy while the Leray method requires finite energy of the data.
It should however be emphasised that as in the Leray method our approach still makes a crucial use of the energy functional.
In this paper we will only need an invariance property for the linear evolution combined with large deviation estimates on the nonlinear part which are much easier to achieve than the invariance properties as in \cite{DPD,AC}.
Let us now describe our model.
Let $d\geq 3$ and consider the cubic wave equation on the torus $ \mathbb{T} ^{d}=( \mathbb{R} /2\pi \mathbb{Z} )^{d}$
\begin{equation}\label{Wv0}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\partial^{2}_{t}u- {\mathbf{\Delta}} u+ u^{3}=0, \quad (t,x)\in \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{T} ^{d},\\
&(u,\partial_{t}u)(0,\cdot)= (u_{0},u_{1}) \in \H^{s},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where ${\mathbf{\Delta}}:={\mathbf{\Delta}}_{ \mathbb{T} ^{d}}$ is the Laplace operator and
$$\H^{s}=\H^{s}( \mathbb{T} ^{d}):=H^{s}( \mathbb{T} ^{d})\times H^{s-1}( \mathbb{T} ^{d}).$$
Denote by $s_{c}=(d-2)/2$ the critical (scaling) Sobolev index for \eqref{Wv0}. Then one can show that \eqref{Wv0} is well-posed in $\H^{s}$ for $s>s_{c}$ (\cite{GiVe}) and ill-posed when $s<s_{c}$ (\cite{GiVe,CCT,L}). See the introduction of \cite{BTproba} for more details.
The energy of \eqref{Wv0} reads
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{E}(u)=\frac12\int_{ \mathbb{T} ^{d}}\big(|\nabla u|^{2}+(\partial_{t} u)^{2}\big)+\frac14\int_{ \mathbb{T} ^{d}}u^{4},
\end{equation*}
thus with deterministic compactness methods due to Leray (see {\it e.g.} Lebeau \cite[Section 6]{L} for the application of the method in the context of \eqref{Wv0}),
we can construct global weak solutions to \eqref{Wv0} so that
\begin{equation*}
\big(u,\partial_{t}u\big)\in \mathcal{C}_{w}\big( \mathbb{R} ; H^{1}( \mathbb{T} ^{d})\cap L^{4}( \mathbb{T} ^{d})\big)\times \mathcal{C}_{w}\big( \mathbb{R} ; L^{2}( \mathbb{T} ^{d})\big),
\end{equation*}
(here $\mathcal{C}_{w}$ means weak continuity in time) and $\mathcal{E}(u)(t)\leq \mathcal{E}(u)(0)$ for all $t\in \mathbb{R} $.
Observe that for $d>4$ one has $1<s_{c}$ and thus the construction of weak solutions works for data of supercritical regularity with respect to the scaling of the equation.
However it requires finite energy of the initial data. The main goal of this paper is to show that weak solutions still exist for infinite energy, almost surely with respect to a large class of probability measures.
Let us now describe precisely the initial data sets (statistical ensembles) that we shall consider in this article. Here we follow \cite{BTproba}. Let $0<s<1$ and let $(u_{0},u_{1})\in \H^{s}$ with Fourier series
\begin{equation*}
u_{j}(x)=a_{j}+\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z} _{\star}^{d}}\big(b_{n,j}\cos(n\cdot x)+c_{n,j}\sin(n\cdot x)\big),\quad j=0,1,
\end{equation*}
where $ \mathbb{Z} _{\star}^{d}= \mathbb{Z} ^{d}\backslash\{0\}$. Then let $\big(\alpha_{j}(\omega),\beta_{n,j}(\omega),\gamma_{n,j}(\omega)\big)$, $n\in \mathbb{Z} _{\star}^{d}$, $j=0,1$ be a sequence of independent real random variables given on a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F}, \partial )$ with a joint distribution $\theta$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\exists\,c>0,\quad \forall\,\gamma\in \mathbb{R} ,\quad \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \text{e} ^{\gamma x}\text{d}\theta(x)\leq \text{e} ^{c \gamma^{2}}.
\end{equation*}
We then define the random variables $u_{j}^{\omega}$ by
\begin{equation*}
u_{j}^{\omega}(x)=\alpha_{j}(\omega)a_{j}+\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z} _{\star}^{d}}\big(\beta_{n,j}(\omega)b_{n,j}\cos(n\cdot x)+\gamma_{n,j}(\omega)c_{n,j}\sin(n\cdot x)\big),
\end{equation*}
and we define the measure $\mu_{(u_{0},u_{1})}$ on $\H^{s}$ as the image of $ \partial $ under the map
\begin{equation*}
\displaystyle \omega\longmapsto (u^{\omega}_{0},u^{\omega}_{1})\in \H^{s}.
\end{equation*}
We then define $\mathcal{M}^{s}$ by
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}^{s}=\bigcup_{(u_{0},u_{1})\in \H^{s}}\big\{\mu_{(u_{0},u_{1})}\big\}.
\end{equation*}
Denote by
\begin{equation}\label{linear}
\displaystyle S(t)(u_{0},u_{1})=\cos\big(\,t\sqrt{-{\mathbf{\Delta}}}\,\big)(u_{0})+\frac{\sin\big(\,t\sqrt{-{\mathbf{\Delta}}}\,\big)}{\sqrt{-{\mathbf{\Delta}}}}(u_{1}),
\end{equation}
the free wave evolution. Then our result reads
\begin{theo}\label{theo1}
Let $0<s<1$ and $\mu\in \mathcal{M}^{s}$. Then there exists a set $\Sigma$
of full $\mu$ measure so that for every $(u_{0},u_{1})\in \Sigma\subset \H^{s}$ the
equation \eqref{Wv0} with
initial condition $(u(0),\partial_{t}u(0))=(u_{0},u_{1})$ has a solution
\begin{equation*}
u(t)=S(t)(u_{0},u_{1})+w(t) ,
\end{equation*}
where for any $\varepsilon>0$
\begin{equation*}
\big(w,\partial_{t}w\big)\in \mathcal{C}\big( \mathbb{R} ; H^{1-\varepsilon}( \mathbb{T} ^{d})\times H^{-\varepsilon}( \mathbb{T} ^{d}) \big).
\end{equation*}
Moreover, for all $t\in \mathbb{R} $
\begin{equation*}\begin{gathered}
\|(w(t), \partial_t w(t)) \|_{\mathcal{H}^1( \mathbb{T} ^{d})} \leq C (M+ |t|)^{\frac {1-s} s + \varepsilon} ,\\
\|w(t)\|_{L^4( \mathbb{T} ^d)}\leq C (M+ |t|)^{\frac {1-s} {2s} + \varepsilon},
\end{gathered}
\end{equation*}
with
$ \mu (M>\lambda) \leq C e^{-\lambda^\delta}$ for some $\delta>0$.
\end{theo}
\begin{rema}
Let us recall (see \cite{BTproba}) that if the measure $\mu \in \mathcal{M}^s$ is constructed using data $(u_0,u_1) \in \mathcal{H}^s (\mathbb{T}^d)$, then $\mu( \mathcal{H}^s)=1$, while if for some $s<\sigma$, we have $(u_0,u_1) \notin \mathcal{H}^\sigma (\mathbb{T}^d)$, then as soon as the random variables $(\alpha_j, \beta_{n,j}, \gamma_{n,j})$ do not accumulate at $0$ (for example, in the case where they are non trivial and identically distributed, then $\mu( \mathcal{H}^{ \sigma })=0$. On the other hand, under rather weak assumptions, $\mu(B^{s})>0$ for any non empty open ball $B^{s}\subset \H^{s}$ (see \cite[Proposition 1.2]{BTproba}).
\end{rema}
Let us now mention two possible extensions of our result.
In the case $d=4$ one may expect to get uniqueness by combining the analysis of \cite{BTproba} with the critical $H^1$ theory for \eqref{Wv0}.
One may also expect to include the case $s=0$ by elaborating on the arguments developed in \cite{BTproba} to treat this case. It is not clear to us what
happens for $s<0$ (and in \cite{BTproba} as well). In particular we do not know whether $s=0$ is the optimal regularity one may achieve by our approach.
Invariant Gibbs measures for dispersive equations were extensively studied (see {\it e.g.} \cite{Zhidkov,Bourgain1,Bourgain2,Tzvetkov1,Tzvetkov2,Oh1,Oh2,BTT} ).
In these papers the Gibbs measure is combined with a suitable local in time result (which can sometimes be quite involved)
to get global existence and uniqueness on the support of the measure.
By an extension of the method (using in particular Skorohod and Prokhorov theorems) we use in this paper one may construct a dynamics (without any uniqueness) on the support of a Gibbs measure and prove its invariance. We plan to give several relevant examples of this observation in \cite{BTT3}.
We however do not see how to make work such an approach in the context of \eqref{Wv0}. Indeed, the present methods of renormalization of Gibbs measures are restricted to dimensions $\leq 2$ (see~\cite{Bourgain1}).
Let us also recall that as mentioned above a global existence based on Gibbs measures only works for a very specific choice of the initial distribution.
On the other hand, it has of course the advantage to give a quite remarkable dynamical property of the flow.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows.
In Section~\ref{Sect.3} we recall stochastic properties of the linear flow which were proven in \cite{BTproba}.
In Section \ref{Sect.4} we study the dynamics of an approximation of \eqref{Wv0}. Section \ref{Sect.5} is devoted to the proof of Theorem \ref{theo1}.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We thank Arnaud Debussche for discussions and for pointing out the reference \cite{DPD}.
The second author is very grateful to Philippe Carmona for many clarifications on measures.
\end{acknowledgements}
\section{Stochastic estimates on the linear flow}\label{Sect.3}
Once for all we fix $0<s<1$ and $\mu=\mu_{(u_{0},u_{1})} \in \mathcal{M}^{s}$.
Recall the definition \eqref{linear} of the linear wave propagator $S(t)$.
In this section we prove estimates which reflect the invariance of $\mu$ under $S(t)$.
This is the only measure invariance aspect used in this paper.
\subsection{The projectors}
Denote by $ \mathbb{Z} ^{d}_{\star}= \mathbb{Z} ^{d}\backslash\{0\}$. For a Fourier series $u$
\begin{equation*}
u(x)=a+\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z} _{\star}^{d}}\big(b_{n}\cos(n\cdot x)+c_{n}\sin(n\cdot x)\big),
\end{equation*}
we denote by $\Pi_{0}(u)=a$ and for $N\geq 1$
\begin{equation*}
\Pi_{N}(u)=a+\sum_{1\leq |n|\leq N}\big(b_{n}\cos(n\cdot x)+c_{n}\sin(n\cdot x)\big) \quad \text{and}\quad \Pi^{N}=1-\Pi_{N}.
\end{equation*}
Let $\chi\in \mathcal{C}_{0}^{\infty}(-1,1)$, so that $\chi\equiv 1$ on $(-1/2,1/2)$. Let us also introduce the smooth spectral projector
\begin{equation*}
S_{N}(u)
\equiv \chi(-N^{-2}{\mathbf{\Delta}})
=a+\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z} ^{d}_{\star}}\chi\Big(\frac{|n|^2}{N^2}\Big)\big(b_{n}\cos(n\cdot x)+c_{n}\sin(n\cdot x)\big),
\end{equation*}
which will be needed in the next section. This operator has the following property (see {\it e.g.} \cite{BGT2} for a proof).
\begin{lemm}\label{lem.sn} Let $M$ be a compact Riemannian manifold. Let ${\mathbf{\Delta}}$ be the Laplace-Beltrami operator on $M$.
Let $1\leq p\leq \infty$ and denote by $L^{p}=L^{p}(M)$. Then
$S_{N}= \chi(-N^{-2}{\mathbf{\Delta}}): L^{p}\longrightarrow L^{p}$ is continuous and there exists $C>0$ so that for every $N\geq 1$,
\begin{equation*}
\|S_{N}\|_{L^{p}\to L^{p}}\leq C.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, for all $f\in L^{p}$, $S_{N}f\longrightarrow f$ in $L^{p}$, when $N\longrightarrow +\infty$.
\end{lemm}
\subsection{The estimates}
Following \cite{BTproba}, we introduce the following sets for
$$\delta > 1/2, \;\widetilde{\delta} > 1/3, \;\check{\delta} > 0, \;\varepsilon>0$$
\begin{eqnarray*}
F_{M}&=&\Big\{(u_{0},u_{1})\ :\;\;\| \Pi_{M}(u_{0},u_{1})\|_{\H^{1}( \mathbb{T} ^{d})} \leq M^{1-s+\varepsilon}\Big\},\\
G_{M}&=&\Big\{(u_{0},u_{1}):\;\;\| \Pi_{M}(u_{0})\|_{L^{4}( \mathbb{T} ^{d})}\leq M^{\varepsilon}\Big\},\\
H_{M}&=&\Big\{(u_{0},u_{1}):\;\;\| \<t\>^{-\delta} S(t)(\Pi^{M}(u_{0},u_{1}))\|_{L^{2}( \mathbb{R} _{t};L^{\infty}( \mathbb{T} ^{d}))}\leq M^{\varepsilon-s}\Big\}\\
K_{M}&=&\Big\{(u_{0},u_{1}):\;\;\| \<t\>^{-\widetilde{\delta}} S(t)(\Pi^{M}(u_{0},u_{1}))\|_{L^{3}( \mathbb{R} _{t};L^{6}( \mathbb{T} ^{d}))}\leq M^{\varepsilon-s}\Big\}\\
R_M &=&\Big\{(u_{0},u_{1})\ :\;\;\| \<t\>^{-\check{\delta}} S(t)\Pi^{M}(u_{0},u_{1})\|_{L^\infty( \mathbb{R} ; L^4( \mathbb{T} ^{d}))} \leq M^{\varepsilon-s}\Big\},
\end{eqnarray*}
and $E_M = F_M \cap G_M\cap H_M\cap K_M\cap R_M$.
Then the following result holds true.
\begin{lemm}
For any $\varepsilon>0$, there exists $\varepsilon_0>0$ such that there exist $C,c>0$ such that for every $M\geq 1$
\begin{gather*}
\mu(F^{c}_{M})\leq C \text{e} ^{-cM^{2\varepsilon_0}},\quad \mu(G^{c}_{M})\leq C \text{e} ^{-cM^{2\varepsilon_0}},\\
\mu(H^{c}_{M})\leq C \text{e} ^{-cM^{2\varepsilon_0}},\quad \mu(K^{c}_{M})\leq C \text{e} ^{-cM^{2\varepsilon_0}}, \quad \mu(R^{c}_{M})\leq C \text{e} ^{-cM^{2\varepsilon_0}}.
\end{gather*}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof} This result is very close to \cite[Lemma 4.2]{BTproba}. Indeed, the only new point is the bound on the measure of $R_M$, whose proof follows the same lines as the proof of the bound on $K_M$, once we notice that by ($1$-d) Sobolev injection, with $p$ sufficiently large and such that $ \check{\delta}> \frac 1 p$, $\sigma > \frac 1 p$, $\sigma <s$,
\begin{multline}
\qquad \| \<t\>^{-\check{\delta}} S(t)\Pi^{M}(u_{0},u_{1})\|_{L^\infty( \mathbb{R} ; L^4( \mathbb{T} ^{d}))} \\
\leq C \| (1+ |D_t|)^ \sigma \<t\>^{-\check{\delta}} S(t)\Pi^{M}(u_{0},u_{1})\|_{L^p ( \mathbb{R} ; L^4( \mathbb{T} ^{d}))}\\
\leq C' \| \<t\>^{-\check{\delta}} (1+ |D_t|) ^\sigma S(t)\Pi^{M}(u_{0},u_{1})\|_{L^p ( \mathbb{R} ; L^4( \mathbb{T} ^{d}))}\\
\leq C' \| \<t\>^{-\check{\delta}} (1+ |D_x|) ^\sigma S(t)\Pi^{M}(u_{0},u_{1})\|_{L^p ( \mathbb{R} ; L^4( \mathbb{T} ^{d}))}.
\end{multline}
\end{proof}
\section{Uniform bounds on the Sobolev norms, $s>0$}\label{Sect.4}
For $N\gg1$ we consider the following truncation of \eqref{Wv0}
\begin{equation}\label{Wv*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\partial^{2}_{t}u_N- {\mathbf{\Delta}} u_N+ S_{N}\big((S_{N}u_N)^{3}\big)=0, \quad (t,x)\in \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{T} ^{d},\\
&(u_N,\partial_{t}u_N)(0,\cdot)= (u_{0},u_{1}) \in \H^{s}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
In fact, equation \eqref{Wv*} is an ODE in low frequencies, and is the linear wave equation in high frequencies. Indeed, if $K$ is large enough so that $\Pi_K S_N = S_N$, then the equation~\eqref{Wv*} is equivalent to the uncoupled system
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\partial^{2}_{t}\Pi_K u_N- {\mathbf{\Delta}} \Pi_K u_N + S_{N}\big((S_{N}u_N)^{3}\big)=0, \quad (t,x)\in \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{T} ^{d},\\
&(\Pi_K u_N ,\partial_{t}\Pi_Ku_N)(0,\cdot)= (\Pi_Ku_{0},\Pi_Ku_{1}) ,\\
& (\text{Id} - \Pi_K) (u_N) = S(t)\big(\,(\text{Id}-\Pi_K)u_{0},(\text{Id}-\Pi_K)u_{1}\,\big).
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
Then from the conservation of the energy
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{E}_{N}(\Pi_K(u_N))(t)=\frac12\int_{ \mathbb{T} ^{d}}\Big((\partial_{t}\Pi_Ku_N)^{2}+|\nabla_{x}\Pi_Ku_N|^{2}+\frac12(S_{N}u_N)^{4}\Big)\text{d}x,
\end{equation*}
we deduce that, for all $N\geq 1$, \eqref{Wv*} admits a global flow $\Phi_{N}(t)$.
The goal of this section is to prove the following statement.
\begin{prop}\label{th.3}
Let $0<s<1$ and $\mu\in {\mathcal M}^s$. Then for any $\varepsilon>0$ there exist $C, \delta >0$ such that for every $(v_0, v_1)\in \Sigma$,
there exists $M>0$ such that the family of global solution $(u_N)_{N\in \mathbb{N}}$ to~\eqref{Wv*} satisfies
\begin{equation*}\begin{gathered}
u_N(t)= S(t) \Pi^0(v_0, v_1)+ w_N(t), \\
\|(w_N(t), \partial_t w_N(t)) \|_{\mathcal{H}^1} \leq C (M^s+ |t|)^{\frac {1-s} s + \varepsilon} ,\\
\|S_N(u_N)\|_{L^4( \mathbb{T} ^d)}\leq C (M^s+ |t|)^{\frac {1-s} {2s} + \varepsilon},
\end{gathered}
\end{equation*}
with
$ \mu (M>\lambda) \leq C e^{-\lambda^\delta}\,.
$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We only give the proof for positive times, the analysis for negative times being analogous.
Fix $\varepsilon>0$ and $\varepsilon_{1}>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eps1eps0}
\varepsilon < \frac s 2, \qquad \frac{1-s+ \varepsilon} {s- 2\varepsilon}\leq
\frac{1-s} {s}+\varepsilon_1,
\end{equation}
and fix $\delta>1/2, \widetilde \delta > 1/3 $ such that
\begin{equation}\label{obrat}
(\delta-\frac 1 2)s<2\delta\varepsilon, \qquad \widetilde \delta <1.
\end{equation}
We have the following statement.
\begin{lemm}\label{iinntt}
For every $c>0$ there exists $C>0$ such that for every
$t\geq 1$, every integer $M\geq 1$ such that $t\leq cM^{s-2\varepsilon}$, every
$(v_0, v_1)\in E_M$ the solution of \eqref{Wv*} with data $(v_0,v_1)$ satisfies
$$
\|u_N(t)-S(t)\Pi^0(u_{0}, u_{1})\|_{\mathcal{H}^1( \mathbb{T} ^d)}\leq CM^{1-s+\varepsilon}.
$$
In particular, thanks to \eqref{eps1eps0}, if $t\approx M^{s-2\varepsilon}$ then
$$
\|u_N(t)-S(t)\Pi^0(u_{0}, u_{1})\|_{\mathcal{H}^1( \mathbb{T} ^d)}\lesssim t^{\frac{1-s} {s}+\varepsilon_1}.
$$
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
For $(v_0, v_1)\in E_M$ we decompose the solution of \eqref{Wv*} with data $(v_0,v_1)$ as
$$
u_N(t)=S(t) \Pi^M(u_{0}, u_{1})+ w_{N,M},
$$
where $w_{N,M}$ solves the problem
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&(\partial_t^2-\Delta_{ \mathbb{T} ^d})w_{N,M}+S_{N}\big((S_{N}w_{N,M}+S_{N}S(t) \Pi^M(u_{0}, u_{1}))^3\big)=0,\\
& (w_{N,M}(0),\partial_t w_{N,M}(0))=\Pi_{M}(v_0,v_1).
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
Then thanks to an integration by parts and the fact that $S_{N}$ is self adjoint, we get
\begin{multline}\label{derivee}
\frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}t}\mathcal{E}_{N}(w_{N,M})=\\
\begin{aligned}
&=\int_{ \mathbb{T} ^{d}}\Big(\partial^{2}_{t}w_{N,M}\partial_{t}w_{N,M}+\nabla_{x}w_{N,M}\cdot \partial_{t}\nabla_{x}w_{N,M}+(S_{N}w_{N,M})^{3}\partial_{t} S_{N}w_{N,M}\Big)\text{d}x\\
&=\int_{ \mathbb{T} ^{d}}\partial_{t}w_{N,M}\Big(\partial^{2}_{t}w_{N,M}-{\mathbf{\Delta}} w_{N,M}+S_{N}\big((S_{N}w_{N,M})^{3}\big)\Big)\text{d}x\\
&=\int_{ \mathbb{T} ^{d}}\partial_{t}w_{N,M}\Big(S_{N}\big((S_{N}w_{N,M})^{3}\big)-S_{N}\big((S_{N}S(t)\Pi^{M}(u_{0},u_{1})+S_{N}w_{N,M})^{3}\big)\Big)\text{d}x.
\end{aligned}
\end{multline}
Denote by
\begin{equation*}
g_{M}(t)=\| S(t)\Pi^{M}(u_{0},u_{1})\|^{3}_{L^{6}( \mathbb{T} ^{d})}\quad \text{and}\quad f_{M}(t)=\| S(t)\Pi^{M}(u_{0},u_{1})\|_{L^{\infty}( \mathbb{T} ^{d})} .\end{equation*}
Therefore from \eqref{derivee} and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we deduce that
\begin{multline}
\frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}t}\mathcal{E}_{N}(w_{N,M}) \\
\begin{aligned}
&\leq C \mathcal{E}^{1/2} _{N}(w_{N,M})\| (S_{N}w_{N,M})^{3}- \big(S_{N}S(t)\Pi^{M}(u_{0},u_{1})+S_{N}w_{N,M}\big)^{3} \|_{L^{2}( \mathbb{T} ^{d})} \nonumber\\
&\leq C \mathcal{E}^{1/2} _{N}(w_{N,M}) \hfill \big(\| S(t)\Pi^{M}(u_{0},u_{1})\|^{3}_{L^{6}( \mathbb{T} ^{d})}+\| S(t)\Pi^{M}(u_{0},u_{1})\|_{L^{\infty}( \mathbb{T} ^{d})} \|S_{N}w_{N,M}\|_{L^{4}( \mathbb{T} ^{d})}^{2}\big)\nonumber
\end{aligned}\\
\leq C \mathcal{E}^{1/2} _{N}(w_{N,M})\Big(g_{M}(t)+f_{M}(t) \mathcal{E}^{1/2} _{N}(w_{N,M}) \Big),
\end{multline}
and with the Gronwall lemma, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{E}^{1/2}_{N}(w_{N,M})(t)&\leq &C \text{e} ^{C\int_{0}^{t}f_{M}(\tau)\text{d}\tau}\Big(\mathcal{E}^{1/2}_{N}(w_{N,M})(0)+\int_{0}^{t}g_{M}(\tau)\text{d}\tau\Big)\nonumber\\
&\leq &C \text{e} ^{C\int_{0}^{T}f_{M}(\tau)\text{d}\tau}\Big(\mathcal{E}^{1/2}_{N}(w_{N,M})(0)+\int_{0}^{T}g_{M}(\tau)\text{d}\tau\Big):=\mathcal{G}_{M}(T)\label{gronwall}
\end{eqnarray}
(notice that since $w_{N,M}(0)$ does not depend on $N$, the right-hand side in the last inequality is also independent on $N$).
We now observe that for $(v_0,v_1)\in E_M$
\begin{equation*}
\Big|\int_0^t g_M(\tau)d\tau \Big|\leq C M^{3(-s+ \varepsilon)}\langle t\rangle ^{3 \widetilde{\delta}}
\leq
CM^{3(-s+ \varepsilon)+3\widetilde{\delta}(s-2\varepsilon)}\leq C,
\end{equation*}
provided
$$
-s+\varepsilon+\widetilde{\delta}(s-2\varepsilon)\leq 0.
$$
The last condition can be readily satisfied according to \eqref{obrat}.
\par
Next, we have (using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in time) that for $(v_0,v_1) \in E_M$,
\begin{equation*}
\Big |\int_0^t f_M(\tau)d\tau \Big|\leq \|\langle \tau \rangle ^{- \delta} f_M\|_{L^2( \mathbb{R})} \langle t \rangle ^{\delta+ \frac 1 2}\leq CM^{-s + \varepsilon} \langle t\rangle^{\delta +\frac 1 2}
\leq C M^{-s + \varepsilon+(\delta+ \frac 1 2 )(s-2\varepsilon)}\leq C,
\end{equation*}
provided $-s + \varepsilon+(\delta+ \frac 1 2) (s-2\varepsilon)\leq 0$, a condition which is satisfied thanks to \eqref{obrat}.
\par
For $(v_0, v_1) \in E_M$, we have
$$ {\mathcal E}^{1/2} (w_{N,M}(0))\leq C( \|\Pi_M( u_{0}, u_{1})\|_{{\mathcal H}^1}+\|\Pi_{M}(v_0)\|_{L^4}^2) \leq CM^{1-s+ \varepsilon},
$$
and coming back to \eqref{gronwall}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{borne.w}
{\mathcal E}^{1/2}(w_{N,M}(t)) \leq C M^{1-s+ \varepsilon}.
\end{equation}
Recall that
$$
u_N(t)= w_{N,M}(t) + S(t)\Pi^M(u_{0}, u_{1})=S(t)\Pi^0(u_{0}, u_{1})+w_{N,M}(t)-S(t)\Pi_M\Pi^0(u_{0}, u_{1}).
$$
We have that for a solution to the linear wave equation the linear energy
$$ \|\nabla_x u \|_{L^2( \mathbb{T} ^d)}^2 + \|\partial_t u \|_{L^2( \mathbb{T} ^d)}^2
$$ is independent of time and that if $(u, \partial_tu) $ is orthogonal to constants ($(u, \partial_t u) = \Pi^0 (u, \partial_t u)$), then this energy controls the $\mathcal{H}^1( \mathbb{T} ^d)$-norm, we deduce for $(v_0,v_1)\in E_{M}\subset F_M$ that
$$
\|S(t)\Pi_{M}\Pi^0(u_{0}, u_{1})\|_{\mathcal{H}^1( \mathbb{T} ^d)}\leq CM^{1-s+\varepsilon}
$$
and therefore
$$
\|u_N(t)-S(t)\Pi^0(u_{0}, u_{1})\|_{\mathcal{H}^1( \mathbb{T} ^d)}\leq CM^{1-s+\varepsilon}\,.
$$
This completes the proof of Lemma~\ref{iinntt}.
\end{proof}
Next we set
$$
E^{M}=\bigcap_{K\geq M} E_{K},
$$
where the intersection is taken over the dyadic values of $K$, {\it i.e.} $K=2^j$ with $j$ an integer.
Thus $\mu(E^M)$ tends to $1$ as $M$ tends to infinity.
Using Lemma~\ref{iinntt}, we obtain that there exists $C>0$ such that for every $t\geq 1$, every $M$, every $(v_0,v_1)\in E^M$, and every $N\in \mathbb{N} $,
$$
\|u_N(t)-S(t)\Pi^0(u_{0}, u_{1})\|_{\mathcal{H}^1 ( \mathbb{T} ^d)}\leq C\big(M^{1-s+\varepsilon}+t^{\frac{1-s} {s}+\varepsilon_1}\big)\,.
$$
Furthermore, by~\eqref{borne.w} and the definition of $R_M$, we get that for $(u_0, u_1) \in E_M$, and $t\leq c M^{s-2 \varepsilon}$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\| S_N (u_N)\|_{L^4( \mathbb{T} ^d)}(t)
&\leq &\| S_N (w_{N,M})\|_{L^4( \mathbb{T} ^d)}(t)+ \| S_N (S(t) \Pi^M(u_0, u_1))\|_{L^4( \mathbb{T} ^d)}(t)\\
& \leq &\mathcal{E}^{1/4} ( w_{N,M})(t) + M^{-s+2\epsilon}\leq C M^{\frac{1-s+\epsilon}{2}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Finally, we set
$$
E= \bigcup_{M= 1}^{\infty} E^M\,.
$$
We have thus shown the $\mu$ almost sure bounds on the possible growths of the Sobolev norms of the solutions established in the previous section
for data in $E$ which is of full $\mu$ measure. This completes the proof of Proposition~\ref{th.3}.
\end{proof}
\section{Passing to the limit}\label{Sect.5}
\subsection{Some deterministic estimates} We now need an interpolation result. Define the space $W_{T}^{1,\infty}$ by the norm $\|u\|_{W_{T}^{1,\infty}}=\|u\|_{L_{T}^{\infty}}+\|\partial_{t}u\|_{L_{T}^{\infty}}$, and denote by $H^{ \sigma }=H^{ \sigma }( \mathbb{T} ^{d})$.
\begin{lemm}\label{lemm.42}
Let $T>0$, $-\infty< \sigma _{2}\leq \sigma _{1} <+\infty$ and assume that
$$u\in L^{\infty}\big([-T,T]; H^{ \sigma _{1}}\big), \qquad \partial_{t}u\in L^{\infty}\big([-T,T]; H^{ \sigma _{2}}\big).$$ Then for all $\theta\in (0, 1)$, and all $t_{1},t_{2}\in [-T,T]$
\begin{equation*}
\|u(t_{1})-u(t_{2})\|_{H^{\theta \sigma _1 + (1- \theta) \sigma _2}}\leq C|t_{1}-t_{2}|^{1-\theta}\|u\|^{\theta}_{L^{\infty}_{T}H^{ \sigma _{1}}} \| u\|^{1-\theta}_{W_{T}^{1,\infty}H^{ \sigma _{2}}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
By H\"older we get
\begin{equation*}
\|u(t_{1})-u(t_{2})\|_{H^{ \sigma _{2}}}=\|\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}\partial_{\tau}u(\tau)\text{d}\tau\|_{H^{ \sigma _{2}}}\leq |t_{1}-t_{2}|\|\partial_{t} u\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}H^{ \sigma _{2}}}.
\end{equation*}
Next we clearly have
\begin{equation*}
\|u(t_{1})-u(t_{2})\|_{H^{ \sigma _{1}}}\leq 2\| u\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}H^{ \sigma _{1}}},
\end{equation*} and we conclude using that
$$ \|u\|_{H^{\theta \sigma _1 + (1- \theta) \sigma _2}}\leq \| u\|_{H^{ \sigma _1}}^\theta \| u \|_{H^{ \sigma _2}}^{1- \theta}.
$$
\end{proof}
Now for $ \sigma \in \mathbb{R} $ and $\a\in (0,1)$, let us define the space $\mathcal{C}_{T}^{\a}H^{ \sigma }=\mathcal{C}^{\a}\big([-T,T]; H^{ \sigma }( \mathbb{T} ^{d})\big)$ by the norm
\begin{equation*}
\|u\|_{\mathcal{C}_{T}^{\a}H^{ \sigma }}=\sup_{t_{1},t_{2}\in [-T,T], t_{1}\neq t_{2}}\frac{\|u(t_{1})-u(t_{2})\|_{H_{x}^{ \sigma }}}{|t_{1}-t_{2}|^{\a}}+\|u\|_{L^{\infty}_{T}H_{x}^{ \sigma }}.
\end{equation*}
According to Ascoli theorem, we obtain
\begin{lemm}\label{lem.4.2}
For any $T>0$, any $\a>0$ and any $\epsilon >0$, the embedding
$$\mathcal{C}_{T}^{\a}H^{ \sigma }\mapsto C((0,T); H^{ \sigma - \epsilon})
$$ is compact.
\end{lemm}
\subsection{The compactness argument}
According to Proposition~\ref{th.3}, we know that almost surely, there exists $M\geq 1$ such that the family of solutions to~\eqref{Wv*}
$$u_N(t)= S(t) \Pi^0(v_0, v_1)+ w_N(t), $$ is such that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\|(w_N(t), \partial_t w_N(t)) \|_{\mathcal{H}^1( \mathbb{T} ^d)} \leq C (M^s+ |t|)^{\frac {1-s} {s} + \varepsilon}\\
\|S_N(u_N)\|_{L^4((0,t)\times \mathbb{T} ^d)}\leq C (M^s+ |t|)^{\frac {1-s} {2s} + \varepsilon} |t|^{1/4}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
We apply Lemma \ref{lemm.42} with $ \sigma _{1}=1$ and $ \sigma _{2}=0$ and we deduce that the sequence $w_N$ is for any $\epsilon>0$ bounded in $\mathcal{C}_{T}^{\epsilon/2}H^{1-\epsilon/2}$. According to Lemma~\ref{lem.4.2} we can almost surely extract a sequence converging for any $T$ in $\mathcal{C}\big((0,T); H^{1 - \epsilon}\big)$, to a limit that we denote by $w$.
On the other hand, the sequence $S_N(u_N)$ is, for any $T$ bounded in $L^4_{t,x}$ and we can consequently extract a sequence converging weakly in $L^4_{loc, t, x}$ to a limit that we denote by $u$. But for any $K\in \mathbb{N} $, if $K\leq N-2$, we have
$$S_K (S_N(u_N)) = S_K(u_N)= S_K( S(t)\Pi^0(v_0, v_1)+ w_N(t)),$$
and we deduce that (in distribution sense), $S_K (S_N(u_N))$ is converging to $S_K(u)$ on the one hand and to $S_K \bigl(S(t) (u_0, u_1) + w \bigr)$ on the other hand. Hence
$$\forall\, K \in \mathbb{N} , \quad S_K (u)=S_K\bigl(S(t) (u_0, u_1) + w \bigr).$$
We deduce that (in distribution sense) $u=S(t) (u_0, u_1) + w$.
Now we deduce that $S_N(u_N)$ is converging weakly in $L^4_{loc,t,x}$ and strongly in $L^2_{loc,t,x}$ to $u$ (here by strong convergence in $L^p_{loc,t,x}$ we mean that the convergence is strong on any compact set). By interpolation, we deduce that $S_N(u_N)$ is converging strongly to $u$ in $L^p_{loc,t,x}$ for $2\leq p<4$. In particular using this property for $p=3$, we can pass to the limit in~\eqref{Wv*} (here we use Lemma \ref{lem.sn} to pass to the limit in the nonlinear term) and obtain that $u$ satisfies~\eqref{Wv0}. To prove the convergence of $\partial_{t}w_{N}$ in $ \mathcal{C}\big((0,T); H^{-\varepsilon}( \mathbb{T} ^{d}) \big)$, we estimate
$$\partial_t^2 w_{N}=\Delta w_{N}-S_{N}\big((S_{N}w_{N}+S_{N}S(t) \Pi^0(u_{0}, u_{1}))^3\big),$$
in $ L^{\infty}\big((0,T); H^{-\tau}( \mathbb{T} ^{d}) \big)$ with $\tau=\max{(d/4,1)}$ (here we use $L^{4/3}( \mathbb{T} ^{d})\subset H^{-d/4}( \mathbb{T} ^{d})$), and we can conclude thanks to Lemma \ref{lemm.42} with $ \sigma _{1}=0$ and $ \sigma _{2}=-\tau$.
|
\section{Acknowledgements}
The authors thank Yoshikazu Tanaka for help with the use of the x-ray generator facilities for preliminary characterization of our materials and samples. We also gratefully acknowledge Masayuki Udagawa for use of He transfer tube, and Tatsuo Fukuda for helpful discussions about the shell model, and Seigo Yamamoto for his invaluable help in preparing for the powder measurements. We thank the Japan Synchrotron Radiation Research Institute (JASRI) for granting us beam time at BL35XU in SPring-8 under proposal no.'s 2010B1527, 2011A1271, 2011B1590, 2012A1362, 2012A1818, and RIKEN for granting us beamtime at the RIKEN Materials Science Beamline (BL44B2) in SPring-8 under proposal no. 2011-2881.
|
\section{Introduction}
The possibility of Lorentz violation in nature
has received much attention in recent years,
triggered by the pioneering work
of Kosteleck\'y, Samuel, and Potting
\cite{ksp}.
Numerous investigations of Lorentz symmetry have been carried
out in systems
involving ordinary fermionic matter:
electrons, protons, and neutrons.
In the case of electrons,
these have included studies with
spin-polarized torsion pendula
\cite{08HeckelPRD,TorsionPend},
atomic transitions \cite{2009Altschul2S1S},
Penning traps \cite{99Dehmelt,1999Mittleman},
colliders \cite{2010Altschullabe},
optical and microwave resonators
\cite{resonators},
and
astrophysical results \cite{astrophysics,07AltschulAstrophys}.
In fact,
Lorentz-symmetry investigations of a theoretical and experimental nature
cover all subfields of physics
\cite{cptprocs}.
Proton-based investigations have been performed
with comagnetometers
\cite{Romalis,1995berglund,99akcl},
the hydrogen maser
\cite{Hmaser},
Cesium fountain clocks
\cite{2006Wolf},
Doppler-shifted systems
\cite{doppler},
and the Penning trap
\cite{1999Gabrielse}.
Among the investigations done with neutrons
are ones with
clock-comparisons \cite{clockcomparisons},
magnetometers \cite{magnetom,09AltschulClocks,Romalis},
ultra-cold neutrons \cite{2009Altarev},
masers \cite{maser_n,04Cane}
and
astrophysical data \cite{Astrophs_n}.
In the general framework for Lorentz violation
known as the Standard-Model Extension, or SME,
the minimal theory has 44 independent experimental observables for each
of the three fermions making up ordinary matter.
As of January 2012,
experimental sensitivities exist
for about 58\% of them \cite{12Tables}.
In this work,
our goal is to study the structure of these observables,
known as the `tilde' coefficients,
and to seek relationships between them that may be
used to deduce limits from theoretical considerations.
The SME is a general realistic effective field theory for Lorentz violation
\cite{97SME, 98SME, akgrav},
providing for minuscule violations of CPT \cite{02greenberg}
and Lorentz symmetry
in the Standard Model
and General Relativity.
The framework is set up using a Lagrange density
containing conventional terms
supplemented with unconventional ones,
each a coordinate independent product
of a coefficient for Lorentz violation
and a Lorentz-breaking operator.
The operators
can be classified according to their mass dimension,
and the minimal SME
involves mass dimensions 3 and 4 only.
Apart from investigations in the
ordinary-matter fermionic sectors,
dozens of experiments have been conducted
to investigate whether any of the coefficients
of the Lorentz-violating operators are nonzero
\cite{12Tables}.
Studies of the minimal SME have found
the dispersion relation for a free fermion
in a constant background \cite{2001Lehnert},
ways to factorize it \cite{10quaternions},
and methods for deducing
the associated classical Lagrange function
\cite{classical}.
Other investigations have explored
the geometries relevant in curved spacetimes \cite{2011finsler},
and have looked at the nonminimal operators
in the photon sector,
where a classification exists for all mass
dimensions \cite{09Nonmin}.
Recent work has studied the nonminimal neutrino sector
\cite{12nu}.
Here,
we primarily consider the observables for
experiments with electrons, protons, and neutrons
\cite{99akcl,99akclNonRel,SpaceTests}
in which boost effects can be neglected.
\section{Minimal fermion sector in flat spacetime}
In the minimal SME,
the flat-space lagrangian density $\cl$ describing a spin-$\half$
fermion $\ps$ of mass $m$ is
\cite{97SME,98SME}
\beq
\cl = \frac{1}{2}i \ol{\ps} \Ga_\nu \lrvec{\prt^\nu} \ps
- \ol{\ps} M \ps
\quad ,
\label{lagr}
\eeq
where
\beq
M := m + a_\mu \ga^\mu + b_\mu \ga_5 \ga^\mu
+ \half H_\mn \si^\mn
\quad
\label{M}
\eeq
and
\bea
\Ga_\nu &:=& \ga_\nu + c_\mn \ga^\mu + d_\mn \ga_5 \ga^\mu
+e_\nu + i f_\nu \ga_5 + \half g_{\la \mu \nu} \si^{\la \mu}
\quad .
\label{Gam}
\eea
The coefficients
$a_\mu$,
$b_\mu$,
and $H_{\mu\nu}$
appearing in \rf{M} have dimensions of mass
and control operators of mass dimension 3,
while the coefficients
$c_{\mu\nu}$,
$d_{\mu\nu}$,
$e_\mu$,
$f_\mu$,
and
$g_{\mu\nu\la}$
appearing in \rf{Gam}
are dimensionless
and control operators of mass dimension 4.
In the minimal SME,
there are three distinct fermionic sectors,
and the coefficients in each are denoted by superscripts:
$e$ for electrons and positrons,
$p$ for protons and antiprotons,
and
$n$ for neutrons and antineutrons.
When working in just one particle-antiparticle sector,
these superscripts are often suppressed.
Within one sector,
experiments with sensitivities to these coefficients
are likely to involve
comparisons of the particle with its antiparticle,
comparisons of differing spin states of one particle,
or comparisons of differing motional states of a particle.
By definition,
$c_{\mn}$ and $d_{\mn}$
are traceless,
$g_{\mu\nu\la}$ is antisymmetric in the first two indices,
and
$H_{\mu\nu}$ is antisymmetric.
This gives a total
of $4+4+15+15+4+4+24+6=76$
components of the coefficients
$a_\mu$ through $H_{\mu\nu}$,
respectively,
for a single fermion.
To allow comparison between results from different experiments,
measurements of the Lorentz-breaking background fields are
reported in the standard Sun-centered inertial reference frame,
with coordinates denoted by upper-case roman letters
$(T,X,Y,Z)$ \cite{SpaceTests}.
This has $Z$ axis parallel to the rotational axis of the Earth,
and $X$ axis pointing from the Sun towards the northern vernal equinox.
We assume a Minkowski spacetime throughout,
so that the metric is diagonal.
Where sign choices are necessary,
we choose spacetime metric $\et_{\mn}$ with $\et_{TT}=+1$,
and antisymmetric tensor $\ep^{\mnab}$ defined with $\ep^{TXYZ} = +1$.
In a few places, indices $J$, $K$, $L$,
can take on possible values
$X, Y, Z$ in the Sun-centered inertial reference frame.
It is natural to define the
symmetric and antisymmetric parts of
the $d_\mn$ coefficients,
and we do this with factors of a half:
\beq
d^\pm_{\mu\nu} \equiv \half(d_{\mu\nu}\pm d_{\nu\mu})
\, .
\eeq
To keep track of independent coefficients with
symmetric or antisymmetric pairs of indices,
we adopt the following ordering:
$TX, TY, TZ, XY, YZ, ZX$.
In addition to $d^\pm_\mn$, this affects
the first two indices of
$\gg\mu\nu\la$, and $H_\mn$.
The 24 independent components of $g_{\la\mu\nu}$
are naturally expressed in terms of
four axial components $\glA\mu$,
four trace components $\gT\mu$,
and 16 mixed-symmetry components $\gm\la\mu\nu$.
The Appendix provides the definitions of these components,
and discusses this decomposition in more detail.
Table \ref{mixed} shows
that the mixed-symmetry $g$ coefficients
are split into two independent dimension $8$
subspaces,
one with all three indices distinct,
and the other with a pair of repeated indices.
The index structure of $\gg\la\mu\nu$
is shared with the spacetime torsion tensor,
and limits on torsion have been generated
based on experiments testing Lorentz symmetry
\cite{08ktr}.
\section{Field redefinitions and observable combinations}
A variety of dependences exist between
the coefficients for Lorentz violation
in flat spacetime
\cite{97SME, 98SME}
and in gravity
\cite{akgrav}.
They can be understood through
field redefinitions,
which yield 32 coefficient combinations
in each fermion sector that are unobservable
at leading or higher orders in Lorentz violation.
This reduces
the number of coefficients appearing in equation \rf{lagr}
to a smaller set of basis combinations.
Field redefinitions have been considered
in the context of
the photon sector \cite{09Nonmin},
Finsler geometry \cite{2011finsler},
the pure-gravity sector \cite{11akjt},
supersymmetry \cite{02MBAK},
and nonlocality \cite{06RLnonlocal}.
A related topic involves
studies of particular coordinate transformations,
showing the relationship between photons and fermions
\cite{04akqb},
or between the photon coefficients and various early test models
\cite{02akmmEM}.
The absorption of the $f$ coefficient into the $c$ coefficient
has been studied in the context of the Dirac theory \cite{06Altschul}
and classical kinematics \cite{classical}.
A number of results for the fermion sector
are presented in Ref.~\cite{2002DCPM}.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{unobservables}Leading-order unobservable combinations of fermion-sector SME coefficients for a single particle in Minkowski space}
\begin{indented}
\item[]\begin{tabular}{@{}cll}
\br
{\bf Unobservable combination} & {\bf Redefinition} & {\bf \#}\\
\mr
$ a_\mu $&$ \ps=e^{-ia\cdot x}\ch $&$ 4 $ \\[4pt]
$ a_\mu + m e_\mu $&$ \ps=\left(1 + v_\mu\ga^\mu\right)\ch \, , \ v_\mu \mbox{ real} $&$ 4 $ \\[4pt]
$ b_\mu+\glA\mu $&$ \ps=\left(1 + v_\mu\ga_5\ga^\mu\right)\ch \, , \ v_\mu \mbox{ real} $&$ 4 $ \\[4pt]
$ H_{\mn} + \fr 1 2 m {\ep_{\mn}}^{\si\ta} d_{\si\ta} $&$ \ps=\left(1 + v_\mn\si^\mn\right)\ch \, , \ v_\mn \mbox{ real} $&$ 6 $ \\[4pt]
$ c_{\mn}-c_{\nu\mu} $&$ \ps=\left(1 - \fr 1 4 i c_\mn\si^\mn\right)\ch $&$ 6 $ \\[4pt]
$ f_\mu $&$ \ps=\left(1 + \fr 1 2 i f_\mu\ga_5\ga^\mu\right)\ch $&$ 4 $ \\[4pt]
$ \gT\mu $&$ \ps=\left(1 - \fr 1 6 i \gT\mu \ga^\mu\right)\ch $&$ 4 \ \mbox{\bf Total: } 32 $ \\
\hlinethree
\end{tabular}
\end{indented}
\end{table}
Table \ref{unobservables}
summarizes the unobservable combinations of SME coefficients
for each fermion sector
in Minkowski spacetime.
The first column lists the unobservable combinations,
the second indicates the field redefinition used to show
the result,
while the last column gives the number
of independent conditions involved.
The first line
expresses the result that
the four components of the coefficient $a_\mu$
are unobservable in experiments within a single fermion sector.
This holds at all orders
in Lorentz violation \cite{97SME},
and corresponds physically to
an unobservable shift in the
energy and momentum of the system.
This differs from curved spacetime,
where the components of $a_\mu$
must vary to maintain compatibility with
the geometrical structure,
and only one component is unobservable
\cite{11akjt}.
The next six lines involve
redefinitions of the form
$\ps =(1+v\cdot \Gamma)\ch$,
where $\Gamma$ is one of
$\ga^\mu$, $\ga_5\ga^\mu$, or $\si^\mn$,
\cite{98SME,2002DCPM},
and $v$ is complex-valued with appropriate contractions.
The dependences found are valid at leading order in Lorentz violation,
and some may be valid at higher orders too.
The second, third, and fourth lines
show linear dependences between
operators of dimension 3 and 4.
In particular,
the $e_\mu$ coefficient can be absorbed into
$a_\mu$,
the four axial components of $g_{\la\mu\nu}$
can be absorbed into $b_\mu$,
and the six antisymmetic components of $d_\mn$
can be absorbed into $H_\mn$.
The unobservable combinations
listed in the
second, third and fourth lines
have
orthogonal expressions that are observable.
These can be obtained by reversing the sign between the two terms.
In the case of $H_\mn$ and $d_\mn$,
the observable combinations are:
\bea
&&
H_{TX} + m d^-_{YZ}\, , \ \
H_{TY} + m d^-_{ZX}\, , \ \
H_{TZ} + m d^-_{XY}\, , \ \
\nonumber\\
&&
H_{YZ} - m d^-_{TX}\, , \ \
H_{ZX} - m d^-_{TY}\, , \ \
H_{XY} - m d^-_{TZ}\, .
\label{dHobservable}
\eea
In total,
Table \ref{unobservables}
lists 32 unobservable combinations
of SME coefficients.
These linear conditions reduce the number of independent
SME coefficients for each fermion sector
from the 76 appearing in equation \rf{lagr}
to 44.
The 44 combinations may be counted as follows.
The combination $b_\mu-m \glA\mu$ has 4 components;
the symmetric and traceless $c_{\mu\nu}$ and $d_{\mu\nu}$
expressions contribute 9+9;
the combination of $H_{\mu\nu}$ with $d^-_{\mn}$
gives 6 more;
and, finally,
the mixed-symmetry components $\gm \la\mu\nu$
provide 16 independent combinations.
\section{The tilde observables in the fermion sectors}
How many of the 44 independent coefficients
that are in principle observable in each fermionic sector
after redefinitions have been accounted for,
are experimentally observable?
Based on the results of a number of analyses
of experiments with fermions,
the answer to this is that all can be accessed.
The particular combinations of SME coefficients
that appear as observables in experiments
are conventionally denoted with a tilde accent.
Forty of these can be found from
results with clock-comparison experiments
\cite{99akcl}
and space tests \cite{SpaceTests}.
Analyses with the Penning-trap system
\cite{97Penning},
which can confine both particles and antiparticles,
provide the motivation for the remaining four tilde coefficients.
Three of these are the $b$-type coefficients
relevant for antiparticles,
denoted $\bt^*_J$ with $J=X,Y,Z$.
They differ from the $\bt_J$ coefficients
in the sign of the $d$ and $H$ terms.
The remaining degree of freedom is
in the diagonal part of the $c$ coefficient.
Since $c$ is traceless,
there are three independent combinations
that can be formed on the diagonal,
two of which are the quadrupole observable $\ct_Q$,
and $\ct_-$, arising in clock-comparison experiments.
In Penning-trap systems,
the cyclotron frequency is sensitive to the combination
$c_{TT}+c_{XX}+c_{YY}$, and this is an option for defining
the 44th tilde observable.
However, due to the popularity in theoretical studies
of isotropic Lorentz violation,
the choice $\ct_{TT} := mc_{TT}$
has instead been made.
So, the basis for the diagonal
$c$ coefficients includes $\ct_Q$ and $\ct_-$
in parallel with $\dt_Q$ and $\dt_-$ for the similarly traceless $d$
coefficient;
however,
the last diagonal element for the $c$ coefficients is $\ct_{TT}$
while for $d$ it is $\dt_+$.
The full set of 44 tilde observables first appeared in Table XVII of the
{\em Data Tables for Lorentz and CPT Violation,}
January 2009 edition \cite{12Tables}.
Tables \ref{ctildetable} and \ref{tildetable}
provide the tilde definitions in a form that
differs in the order of presentation,
gives the decomposition of the $g$ coefficients
into axial, trace, and mixed-symmetry parts explicitly,
and collects together terms that are linearly dependent.
Since Lorentz violation is small,
the tilde definitions are necessarily linear,
and amount to a $44\times 44$ matrix transformation
applied to the basis of 44 independent SME coefficients
in the fermion sector.
It is of interest to investigate
the block structure of this matrix.
Table \ref{ctildetable} lists
the 9 observable $c$ combinations,
which decouple from the other observables.
The first two columns in this table,
and in Table \ref{tildetable},
express the tilde definitions
with an assignment sign understood between them.
The last column indicates the number of independent coefficients.
The first three entries of Table \ref{ctildetable}
are the observables for the diagonal.
These definitions involve
all four basic diagonal terms $c_{TT},\ c_{XX},\ c_{YY}$, and $c_{ZZ}$,
and the traceless condition can be used to eliminate any one of these.
So, the definitions of the $\ct$ coefficients
include a $3\times 3$ block mixing $c_{XX},\ c_{YY}$, and $c_{ZZ}$,
and six off-diagonal entries.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{ctildetable}Definitions of the $c$-tilde coefficients in the minimal fermion sector}
\begin{indented}
\item[]
\begin{tabular}{cll}
\hlineone
\multicolumn{1}{l}{{\bf Tilde combination}} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{{\bf Non-tilde combination}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{{\bf Components}} \\
\hlinetwo
$ \tilde{c}_Q $&$ m(c_{XX}+c_{YY}-2c_{ZZ}) $& \\ [2 pt]
$ \tilde{c}_- $&$ m(c_{XX}-c_{YY}) $& \\ [2 pt]
$ \tilde{c}_{TT} $&$ m c_{TT} $& 3 \\ [2 pt]
\hlinetwo
$ \tilde{c}_{TJ} $&$ m(c_{TJ}+c_{JT}) $& 3 \\ [2 pt]
$ \ct_{X} $&$ m(c_{YZ}+c_{ZY}) $& 1 \\ [2 pt]
$ \ct_{Y} $&$ m(c_{XZ}+c_{ZX}) $& 1 \\ [2 pt]
$ \ct_{Z} $&$ m(c_{XY}+c_{YX}) $& 1 \mbox{\bf Total: 9} \\ [2 pt]
\hlinethree
\end{tabular}
\end{indented}
\end{table}
Table \ref{tildetable}
gives the definitions of the remaining $35$ tilde observables.
Note that the observable combinations
in the second column,
which are orthogonal to the combinations in lines 3 and 4
of Table \ref{unobservables},
are grouped using parentheses.
The matrix implicit in this table has 8 blocks,
separated by horizontal lines:
one of dimension $6$,
three of dimension $5$,
three of dimension $4$,
and one of dimension $2$.
A bolder line separates the
first four from the last four,
and this split matches the splitting
in the mixed-symmetry $g$ components
indicated by the horizontal line in Table \ref{mixed}.
In fact,
each of the eight subspaces contains an independent
set of two of the $\gm{}{}{}$ coefficients.
In the presence of Lorentz violation in the form of $g$ coefficients only,
the first four blocks would each have dimension $4$,
because they would involve the axial $\glA{}$ as well,
and the remaining four would each have dimension $2$.
This would give access to 20 of the 24 $g$ coefficients,
with the four traceless ones being inaccessible at leading order,
consistent with the bottom line of Table \ref{unobservables}.
In addition to the two $\gm{}{}{}$ entries,
the $6\times 6$ block
contains the three diagonal entries of the $d$ coefficient,
and $b_T$,
while the three $5\times 5$ blocks
contain $b_J$, $\ep_{JKL}H_{KL}$, and the symmetric $d^+_{TJ}$ coefficients,
with one $J$ value in each.
The three $4\times 4$ blocks,
in addition to the $\gm{}{}{}$ entries,
contain $H_{TJ}$ and the remaining three $d^+$ coefficients,
again with one $J$ value in each.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tildetable}Definitions of the minimal-fermion-sector tilde coefficients, excluding the $c$'s.}
\begin{indented}
\item[]
\begin{tabular}{cll}
\hlineone
\multicolumn{1}{l}{{\bf Tilde combination}} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{{\bf Non-tilde combination}} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{{\bf Components}} \\
\hlinetwo
$ \bt_T $&$ (b_T - m \glA T) + m \gm X Y Z $& \\ [2pt]
$ \gt_T $&$ (b_T - m \glA T) - 2 m \gm X Y Z $& \\ [2pt]
$ \dt_Q $&$ m(d_{XX}+d_{YY}-2 d_{ZZ}) + 3 m \gm X Y Z $& \\ [2pt]
$ \dt_+ $&$ m(d_{XX}+d_{YY}) $& \\ [2pt]
$ \dt_- $&$ m(d_{XX}-d_{YY}) $& \\ [2pt]
$ \gt_c $&$ 2 m \gm X Y Z + m \gm Y Z X $& 6 \\ [2pt]
\hlinetwo
$ \bt_X^* $&$ (b_X - m \glA X) + (H_{YZ} - m d^-_{TX}) + m d^+_{TX} + m \gm Y Z T $& \\ [2pt]
$ \bt_X $&$ (b_X - m \glA X) - (H_{YZ} - m d^-_{TX}) - m d^+_{TX} + m \gm Y Z T $& \\ [2pt]
$ \dt_X $&$ - \frac 1 2 (H_{YZ}-m d^-_{TX}) + \frac 3 2 m d^+_{TX} $& \\ [2pt]
$ \gt_{DX} $&$ -(b_X - m \glA X) + 2 m \gm Y Z T $& \\ [2pt]
$ \gt_{TX} $&$ -m \gm Y Z T - 2 m \gm T Y Z $& 5 \\ [2pt]
\hlinetwo
$ \bt_Y^* $&$ (b_Y - m \glA Y) + (H_{ZX} - m d^-_{TY}) + m d^+_{TY} + m \gm Z X T $& \\ [2pt]
$ \bt_Y $&$ (b_Y - m \glA Y) - (H_{ZX} - m d^-_{TY}) - m d^+_{TY} + m \gm Z X T $& \\ [2pt]
$ \dt_Y $&$ - \frac 1 2 (H_{ZX} - m d^-_{TY}) + \frac 3 2 m d^+_{TY} $& \\ [2pt]
$ \gt_{DY} $&$ -(b_Y - m \glA Y) + 2 m \gm Z X T $& \\ [2pt]
$ \gt_{TY} $&$ -m \gm Z X T - 2 m \gm T Z X $& 5 \\ [2pt]
\hlinetwo
$ \bt_Z^* $&$ (b_Z - m \glA Z) + (H_{XY} - m d^-_{TZ}) + m d^+_{TZ} + m \gm X Y T $& \\ [2pt]
$ \bt_Z $&$ (b_Z - m \glA Z) - (H_{XY} - m d^-_{TZ}) - m d^+_{TZ} + m \gm X Y T $& \\ [2pt]
$ \dt_Z $&$ - \frac 1 2 (H_{XY} - m d^-_{TZ}) + \frac 3 2 m d^+_{TZ} $& \\ [2pt]
$ \gt_{DZ} $&$ -(b_Z - m \glA Z) + 2 m \gm X Y T $& \\ [2pt]
$ \gt_{TZ} $&$ -m \gm X Y T - 2 m \gm T X Y $& 5 \\ [2pt]
\hlinethree
$ \Ht_{TX} $&$ (H_{TX} + m d^-_{YZ}) - m d^+_{YZ} - m \gm T X T + m \gm X Y Y $& \\ [2pt]
$ \dt_{YZ} $&$ 2 m d^+_{YZ} - m \gm T X T - 2 m \gm X Y Y $& \\ [2pt]
$ \gt_{XZ} $&$ - 2 m \gm T X T - m \gm X Y Y $& \\ [2pt]
$ \gt_{XY} $&$ -m \gm T X T + m \gm X Y Y $& 4 \\ [2pt]
\hlinetwo
$ \Ht_{TY} $&$ (H_{TY} + m d^-_{ZX}) - m d^+_{ZX} - m \gm T Y T + m \gm Y Z Z $& \\ [2pt]
$ \dt_{ZX} $&$ 2 m d^+_{ZX} - m \gm T Y T - 2 m \gm Y Z Z $& \\ [2pt]
$ \gt_{YX} $&$ - 2 m \gm T Y T - m \gm Y Z Z $& \\ [2pt]
$ \gt_{YZ} $&$ -m \gm T Y T + m \gm Y Z Z $& 4 \\ [2pt]
\hlinetwo
$ \Ht_{TZ} $&$ (H_{TZ} + m d^-_{XY}) - m d^+_{XY} - m \gm T Z T + m \gm Z X X $& \\ [2pt]
$ \dt_{XY} $&$ 2 m d^+_{XY} - m \gm T Z T - 2 m \gm Z X X $& \\ [2pt]
$ \gt_{ZY} $&$ - 2 m \gm T Z T - m \gm Z X X $& \\ [2pt]
$ \gt_{ZX} $&$ -m \gm T Z T + m \gm Z X X $& 4 \\ [2pt]
\hlinetwo
$ \gt_- $&$ -m \gm T X X + m \gm T Y Y $& \\ [2pt]
$ \gt_Q $&$ -3m \gm T X X - 3 m \gm T Y Y $& 2 \ \ {\bf Total: 35} \\ [2pt]
\hlinethree
\end{tabular}
\end{indented}
\end{table}
Reference \cite{12Tables}
provides experimental measurements of the tilde observables
for the electron, proton, and neutron sectors,
as well as a summary table giving the maximal experimental sensitivity
to each coefficient with the assumption that other coefficients don't contribute.
Sensitivity to all nine $\ct$ observables
exists for the electron and proton sectors,
and six of them in the neutron sector.
No experimental sensitivities have been published
to tilde coefficients in the $2\times 2$ block
in any of the three fermion sectors.
Among the $5\times 5$ blocks,
no sensitivities to the $J=Z$ set have been published for protons or neutrons.
The least explored fermion sector is that of the proton,
for which only six sensitivities
exist outside of the $c$ block:
these are within the $J=X$ and $J=Y$
$5\times 5$ blocks.
Experimental access to the $6\times 6$ block
can be attained by taking into account the boost of the
experiment relative to the standard reference frame.
This has been done for the electron sector
using a torsion-pendulum experiment
\cite{08HeckelPRD},
and for the neutron sector using a dual maser system
\cite{04Cane}.
At present, there are no published sensitivities to coefficients
in the $6\times 6$ block of the proton sector.
\section{Inverting the tilde definitions}
In some experiments,
measurements have been made of SME coefficients
that differ from the tilde observables.
This has been done by decoupling the observables
through combining independent results.
For results such as these,
the sensitivities to the tilde observables
can be deduced by using the inverse of the tilde definitions.
The linear transformation relating
the 44 independent SME coefficient combinations
and the 44 tilde observables
is invertible,
and we present the relevant expressions in
Tables \ref{c:table} and
\ref{Inversetildetable}.
Table \ref{c:table} expresses
the inverse of the $9\times 9$ matrix
defining the $\ct$ observables
in Table \ref{ctildetable}.
In this inverse,
the traceless condition
$
c_{TT} = c_{XX} + c_{YY} + c_{ZZ}
$
has been imposed to eliminate $c_{TT}$,
and this may be verified by
adding the first three lines of the table.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{c:table} Minimal-fermion-sector $c$ coefficients in terms of tilde quantities.}
\begin{indented}
\item[]
\begin{tabular}{cll}
\hlineone
{\bf Non-tilde combination} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{{\bf Tilde combination}} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{{\bf Components}}\\
\hlinetwo
$ m c_{XX} $&$ \frac 1 6 (\ct_Q + 3 \ct_- + 2 \ct_{TT}) $& \\ [2 pt]
$ m c_{YY} $&$ \frac 1 6 (\ct_Q -3 \ct_- + 2 \ct_{TT}) $& \\ [2 pt]
$ m c_{ZZ} $&$ \frac 1 3 (-\ct_Q + \ct_{TT}) $& 3 \\ [2 pt]
\hlinetwo
$ m \abs{\ve_{JKL}} c_{KL} $&$ \ct_J $& 1+1+1 \\ [2 pt]
$ m(c_{TJ}+c_{JT}) $&$ \ct_{TJ} $& 1+1+1 \ \ {\bf Total: 9} \\ [2 pt]
\hlinethree
\end{tabular}
\end{indented}
\end{table}
Table \ref{Inversetildetable}
expresses the inverse of the remaining $35$ tilde definitions .
The block structure has been carried over from Table \ref{tildetable}
and horizontal lines are again used to separate the 8 subspaces.
In the $6\times 6$ block
$d_{TT}$ has been eliminated using the condition
that $d_\mn$ is traceless,
$d_{TT} = d_{XX} + d_{YY} + d_{ZZ}$.
The next three sections of Table~\ref{Inversetildetable}
are $5 \times 5$ blocks based on the definitions
for
$\bt_J, \, \bt_J^*, \, \dt_J, \, \gt_{DJ}, \, \gt_{TJ}$,
with $J=X, Y, Z$.
In each of the first four sections of Table~\ref{Inversetildetable},
the two mixed-symmetry components
satisfy one of the four nonaxial conditions \rf{nonaxial}.
So, for example, an expression for $m \gm Z X Y$ can be found by adding the
last two lines in the first section of the Table,
giving
\beq
m \gm Z X Y = \frac 1 3 (\bt_T - \gt_T) - \gt_c
\, .
\eeq
In each of the bottom four blocks in Table \ref{Inversetildetable},
the two mixed-symmetry coefficients $\gm{}{}{}$
satisfy a traceless condition \rf{traceless}.
The four traceless conditions are given explicitly
in Table \ref{mixed}.
Adding the last two lines of Table \ref{Inversetildetable},
and noting the last line of Table \ref{mixed},
one can verify that
\beq
m \gm T Z Z = \frac 1 3 \gt_Q
\, .
\eeq
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{Inversetildetable}Minimal-fermion-sector SME coefficients in terms of tilde quantities (excluding $c$'s).}
\begin{indented}
\item[]
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\hlineone
{\bf Non-tilde combination} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{{\bf Tilde combination}} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{{\bf Components}} \\
\hlinetwo
$ b_T - m \glA T $&$ \frac 1 3 (2 \bt_T + \gt_T) $& \\ [2pt]
$ m d_{XX} $&$ \frac 1 2 (\dt_+ + \dt_- ) $& \\ [2pt]
$ m d_{YY} $&$ \frac 1 2 (\dt_+ -\dt_- ) $& \\ [2pt]
$ m d_{ZZ} $&$ \frac 1 2 (\bt_T - \gt_T + \dt_+ -\dt_Q) $& \\ [2pt]
$ m \gm X Y Z $&$ \frac 1 3 (\bt_T - \gt_T) $& \\ [2pt]
$ m \gm Y Z X $&$ - \frac 2 3 (\bt_T - \gt_T) + \gt_c $& 6 \\ [2pt]
\hlinetwo
$ b_X - m\glA X $&$ \frac 1 3 (\bt_X + \bt^*_X -\gt_{DX}) $& \\ [2pt]
$ H_{YZ} - m d^-_{TX} $&$ - \frac 3 8 (\bt_X - \bt^*_X) - \frac 1 2 \dt_X $& \\ [2pt]
$ m d^+_{TX} $&$ - \frac 1 8 (\bt_X - \bt^*_X) + \frac 1 2 \dt_X $& \\ [2pt]
$ m\gm Y Z T $&$ \frac 1 6 (\bt_X + \bt^*_X + 2 \gt_{DX}) $& \\ [2pt]
$ m\gm T Y Z $&$ - \frac 1 {12} (\bt_X + \bt^*_X + 2 \gt_{DX} + 6 \gt_{TX}) $& 5 \\ [2pt]
\hlinetwo
$ b_Y - m \glA Y $&$ \frac 1 3 (\bt_Y + \bt^*_Y -\gt_{DY}) $& \\ [2pt]
$ H_{ZX} - m d^-_{TY} $&$ -\frac 3 8 (\bt_Y - \bt^*_Y) - \frac 1 2 \dt_Y $& \\ [2pt]
$ m d^+_{TY} $&$ -\frac 1 8 (\bt_Y - \bt^*_Y) + \frac 1 2 \dt_Y $& \\ [2pt]
$ m \gm Z X T $&$ \frac 1 6 (\bt_Y + \bt^*_Y+ 2 \gt_{DY}) $& \\ [2pt]
$ m \gm T Z X $&$ - \frac 1 {12}(\bt_Y + \bt^*_Y + 2 \gt_{DY} + 6 \gt_{TY}) $& 5 \\ [2pt]
\hlinetwo
$ b_Z - m \glA Z $&$ \frac 1 3 (\bt_Z + \bt^*_Z - \gt_{DZ}) $& \\ [2pt]
$ H_{XY} - m d^-_{TZ} $&$ - \frac 3 8 (\bt_Z - \bt^*_Z) - \frac 1 2 \dt_Z $& \\ [2pt]
$ m d^+_{TZ} $&$ - \frac 1 8 (\bt_Z - \bt^*_Z) + \frac 1 2 \dt_Z $& \\ [2pt]
$ m \gm X Y T $&$ \frac 1 6 (\bt_Z + \bt^*_Z + 2 \gt_{DZ}) $& \\ [2pt]
$ m \gm T X Y $&$ - \frac 1 {12} (\bt_Z + \bt^*_Z + 2 \gt_{DZ} +6 \gt_{TZ}) $& 5 \\ [2pt]
\hlinethree
$ H_{TX} + m d^-_{YZ} $&$ \Ht_{TX} + \half (\dt_{YZ} - \gt_{XY} - \gt_{XZ}) $& \\ [2pt]
$ m d^+_{YZ} $&$ \frac 1 2 (\dt_{YZ} + \gt_{XY} - \gt_{XZ}) $& \\ [2pt]
$ m \gm T X T $&$ - \frac 1 3 (\gt_{XY} + \gt_{XZ}) $& \\ [2pt]
$ m \gm X Y Y $&$ \frac 1 3 (2\gt_{XY} - \gt_{XZ} ) $& 4 \\ [2pt]
\hlinetwo
$ H_{TY} + m d^-_{ZX} $&$ \Ht_{TY} + \half (\dt_{ZX} - \gt_{YZ} - \gt_{YX}) $& \\ [2pt]
$ m d^+_{ZX} $&$ \frac 1 2 (\dt_{ZX} + \gt_{YZ} - \gt_{YX}) $& \\ [2pt]
$ m \gm T Y T $&$ - \frac 1 3 (\gt_{YZ} + \gt_{YX} ) $& \\ [2pt]
$ m \gm Y Z Z $&$ \frac 1 3 (2\gt_{YZ} - \gt_{YX} ) $& 4 \\ [2pt]
\hlinetwo
$ H_{TZ} + m d^-_{XY} $&$ \Ht_{TZ} + \half (\dt_{XY} - \gt_{ZX} - \gt_{ZY}) $& \\ [2pt]
$ m d^+_{XY} $&$ \frac 1 2 (\dt_{XY} + \gt_{ZX} - \gt_{ZY}) $& \\ [2pt]
$ m \gm T Z T $&$ - \frac 1 3 (\gt_{ZX} + \gt_{ZY}) $& \\ [2pt]
$ m \gm Z X X $&$ \frac 1 3 (2\gt_{ZX} -\gt_{ZY} ) $& 4 \\ [2pt]
\hlinetwo
$ m \gm T X X $&$ - \frac 1 6 (3 \gt_- + \gt_Q) $& \\ [2pt]
$ m \gm T Y Y $&$ \frac 1 6 (3 \gt_- - \gt_Q) $& 2 \ \ {\bf Total: 35} \\ [2pt]
\hlinethree
\end{tabular}
\end{indented}
\end{table}
\section{Limits on SME observables}
We next use expressions in Table \ref{Inversetildetable} to estimate
limits on several of the electron-sector tilde observables.
The three expressions
\beq
b_J - m\glA J = \frac 1 3 (\bt_J + \bt^*_J -\gt_{DJ})
\, ,
\label{bexpr}
\eeq
appearing as the first line in each
of the dimension 5 blocks,
generate limits on $b^*_J$ and $\gt_{DJ}$
from the existing limits
on $b_J$, for $J=1,2,3$.
In this case,
the bounds are
$|b_J| < 50$~rad/sec
$\simeq 3.3 \times 10^{-23}$ GeV,
based on Penning-trap experiments
\cite{99Dehmelt}.
Setting the axial components $\glA J$ to zero,
since the $g$ coefficients were not included
in analyses when these results were published,
we may deduce separate order-of-magnitude limits on each of the tilde
coefficients on the right-hand side of Eq.\ \rf{bexpr}.
To do this,
we assume that the limit on $|b_J|$ is at the $2\si$ level;
then,
considering each tilde coefficient
in isolation,
we deduce that
\beq
|\bt^{*e}_J|, \, |\gt_{DJ}^e| < 9.9\times 10^{-23} \gev\, \simeq 10^{-22} \gev \, .
\label{resultbg}
\eeq
The same bound also follows for $|\bt_J|$,
but is not competitive with limits from other experiments.
Several limits on electron-sector tilde combinations follow from
inverse Compton scattering bounds on SME coefficients
\cite{07AltschulAstrophys}.
Following a similar argument as above,
the limit
$|d_{YZ}+d_{ZY}|< 7\times 10^{-15}$
may be inserted into the second line of the first dimension-four block
in Table \ref{Inversetildetable}.
Using the electron mass $m=0.51\times 10^{-3} \gev$
yields
\beq
|\gt_{XY}^e| \, , |\gt_{XZ}^e| < 10^{-17} \gev
\, .
\label{resultgg1}
\eeq
The second lines of the other two dimension-four blocks
in Table \ref{Inversetildetable},
combined with the results
$|d_{XZ}+d_{ZX}|< 2\times 10^{-14}$
and
$|d_{XY}+d_{YX}|< 2\times 10^{-15}$
in \cite{07AltschulAstrophys},
lead to
\bea
|\gt_{YZ}^e| \, , |\gt_{YX}^e| &<& 10^{-17} \gev
\, , \label{resultgg2}
\\
|\gt_{ZX}^e| \, , |\gt_{ZY}^e| &<& 10^{-18} \gev
\, , \label{resultgg3}
\eea
respectively.
A limit on the electron-sector $\dt_Z$ can be extracted from
the result $|d_{TZ}| < 8\times 10^{-17}$
in Ref.~\cite{07AltschulAstrophys}.
In that analysis,
$H_{XY}$ may be interpreted as having been
absorbed into the antisymmetric part of
$m d_{TZ}$.
By reinstating it via the observable
combination seen in equation \rf{dHobservable},
the quantity bounded becomes
$
m d_{TZ}
\rightarrow m d^+_{TZ} + m d^-_{TZ} - H_{XY}
$.
This can be expanded in terms of tilde expressions
using the results in
the $Z$ component $5\times 5$ block of Table~\ref{Inversetildetable},
giving
$
m d_{TZ}
\rightarrow (\bt_Z - \bt^*_Z)/4 + \dt_Z
$.
While the resulting sensitivities to $\bt_Z$ and $\bt_Z^*$
are weaker than ones derived from other systems,
the sensitivity to $\dt_Z$
is the only one known at present.
The latter result is
\beq
|\dt_Z^e| < 10^{-19} \gev
\, .
\label{resultdZ}
\eeq
We estimate a 90\% confidence level
for each of these astrophysical limits.
The electron-sector bounds extracted here from
Penning-trap experiments and astrophysical data
are consistent
with the estimated maximal sensitivities
appearing in Ref. \cite{12Tables},
but have not been described in the literature to date.
\section{Summary and discussion}
We have considered the algebraic structure
of the coefficients for Lorentz violation
in the flat-space fermion sector of the minimal SME.
This has revealed a block structure in the system of experimental
observables.
By inverting the definitions,
thirteen limits on the tilde observables
in the electron-positron sector have been found,
and are given in equations
\rf{resultbg},
\rf{resultgg1},
\rf{resultgg2},
\rf{resultgg3},
and
\rf{resultdZ}.
To date,
most Lorentz tests
have concentrated on seeking sidereal variations in signals,
due to the rotation of the laboratory relative to
the standard Sun-centered inertial reference frame.
When the linear motion of the system
relative to the inertial reference frame
is considered
modifications involving the boost factor
$\ga = (1-v^2)^{-1/2}$
in the expressions for the $44$
fermion observables can be expected.
This has been done in
Lorentz tests
with a spin-polarized torsion pendulum
\cite{08HeckelPRD}
and with a dual maser system
\cite{04Cane},
as mentioned earlier.
In Lorentz tests where the particles are
significantly boosted
relative to the inertial reference frame,
such as in muon experiments
\cite{08Muon},
the observables will necessarily involve
factors of $\ga$.
In such cases,
the relativistic hamiltonian
\cite{99akclNonRel}
is needed,
and the $\bt_J$ and $\bt^*_J$
observables take the modified
`\hacek'
form
\cite{00BKL:muonPRL}:
\beq
\check b_X^\mp := \fr 1 \ga (b_X - m\glA X + m\gm Y Z T)
\mp (H_{YZ}-m d^-_{TX}) \mp m d^+_{TX}
\, ,
\eeq
with $\check b^\mp_Y$ and $\check b^\mp_Z$ defined by cyclic rotations of
$X,Y,Z$.
The \hacek\ expressions equal the tilde coefficients
in the $\ga \rightarrow 1$ nonrelativistic limit.
Another way to gain sensitivities
to SME coefficients is to
take interactions into account.
This has been done in the context of
relativistic nuclear binding effects
in atomic clocks
\cite{09AltschulClocks}.
The results indicate that,
under appropriate circumstances,
separation can be achieved between
the $b$ and $g$ coefficients,
and between the $H$ and $d$ coefficients.
As noted earlier,
the $6\times 6$ block of tilde observables
for the proton sector of Table \ref{tildetable}
has no published bounds on it.
The boosted observable expressions mix the spatial components
from the three $5\times 5$ blocks
with the time components in the $6\times 6$ block.
It follows that any experiments sensitive to
tilde coefficients in the proton sector
have the potential to access
the $6\times 6$ block in Table \ref{tildetable}.
In addition,
the absence of any sensitivities to
one of the $5\times 5$ blocks
in the proton sector,
and all three of the $4\times 4$ blocks,
means Lorentz tests
have the potential to yield a rich crop of new results.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
The hospitality of the Indiana University Center
for Spacetime Symmetries is gratefully acknowledged.
|
\section{Introduction}
Active galactic nuclei (AGN) are astrophysical sources emitting broad-band electromagnetic radiation that can be observed from radio wavelengths to very high energies (VHE, $E \gtrsim 100$~GeV). The current framework for understanding the emission from these objects depicts them as composed of a disk, feeding a super massive black hole (SMBH), possibly with a jet on each side of the accretion plane. The orientation of the system with regard to the observer's line of sight is one of the key parameters for unifying the various subclasses of AGN \citep{Urry}. The class of blazars for which the jet is probably directed within a few degrees toward the observer is of particular interest for the study of non-thermal processes occurring in astrophysical relativistic flow.
The VHE emission of blazars, such as the BL Lac object Mrk~421 or the flat spectrum radio quasar PKS~1222+21, can sometimes exhibit doubling times of the order of ten minutes \citep{1996Natur.383..319G,2011ApJ...730L...8A} while variability on the minute scale is observed in light curves of BL Lac objects, such as Mrk~501 \citep{2007ApJ...669..862A} or PKS~2155--304 \citep{2007ApJ...664L..71A}. The high quality of the VHE data on the latter object has enabled the characterization of various statistical properties of the emission, such as a skewed flux distribution, interpreted as a log-normal distribution, and a linear relation between the sample RMS of the flux and the sample flux \citep{2155_2010}.
These properties were initially studied in the X-ray emission of the galactic black hole binary Cygnus X-1 \citep{2001MNRAS.323L..26U,UttMcVa} and are now observed in other accreting objects, such as the blazar BL Lac \citep{2009A&A...503..797G}, or non-aligned AGNs, such as the Seyfert galaxies NGC~4051 \citep{2004MNRAS.348..783M} and IRAS~13224-3809 \citep{1538-4357-612-1-L21}.
They are sometimes interpreted as arising from multiplicative processes, originating e.g. in the accretion disk. The product of random variables whose logarithms have finite moments is indeed asymptotically log-normal. Furthermore, flux log-normality implies a linear relation between the flux and its RMS \citep[see Appendix~D of][]{UttMcVa}.
The statistical properties of non-thermal light curves are key ingredients for answering the crucial question of the origin of variability in AGNs: do the variations of the flux come from the jet itself, i.e. the medium that conveys the accelerated particles, or from the disk that could modulate the jet emission. In accretion models such as developed by \citet{1997MNRAS.292..679L}, inward propagating fluctuations in the disk from different radii cumulate in a multiplicative way \citep[see e.g.][]{2006MNRAS.367..801A}, which could explain the log-normality and the linear RMS-flux relation.
However, variability on time scales shorter than the light-crossing time $T_G~=~2GM/c^3$ are difficult to achieve \citep{2012MNRAS.420..604N} in disks. Transient emission on time scales $t_{\rm var}~\sim~T_G / 50$ are easier to locate in a jet with a bulk Lorentz factor $\Gamma$ \citep[unless generated by a companion system, as e.g. in][]{2010A&A...520A..23R}. Phenomena occurring on time scales $T_G$ then appear at $t_{\rm var}~\sim~T_G / \delta$ to the observer, where $\delta$ is the Doppler factor of the jet\footnote{The link between the Doppler factor and the bulk Lorentz factor is discussed extensively in the following.}.
Values of the Doppler factor $\delta \geq 50$ are not uncommon for VHE blazars and permit both minute-time-scale variations \citep{2007ApJ...664L..71A} and an optical thinness to the emitted VHE $\gamma$-rays \citep{2008MNRAS.384L..19B}. \citet{2008MNRAS.386L..28G} propose a needle-in-a-jet model, where fast minijets closely aligned with the line of sight could explain the variations. \citet{2009MNRAS.395L..29G} have investigated a jets-in-a-jet scenario, involving reconnection and a Poynting-dominated flow. \citet{2012MNRAS.420..604N} considered a turbulent process, modelled by a random motion of minijets inside the jet. Models involving minijets have also been invoked to explain the fast variations in the emission of radio galaxies \citep{2010MNRAS.402.1649G}, though the time scales of variations observed at VHE are much longer than for blazars, approximately a day for M~87 \citep{2012ApJ...746..151A}.
These models are additive (the flux is given by the sum of the contributions of several regions) and, provided there are finite moments for the individual components, the central limit theorem (CLT) can be applied. But the Gaussian flux distribution expected from the CLT is not skewed, as is the observed one.\\
\par
We seek a way out the jet-or-disk origin dilemma by studying the implications of the observed linearity between the sample RMS and the flux (Sect.~\ref{UsualExp}). We discuss the properties of Pareto-distributed fluxes in Sect.~\ref{Pareto} and discuss the relevance of the CLT for these random variables. We show in Sect.~\ref{Sec:Model} that Pareto distributions are naturally generated by the minijets-in-a-jet statistical model and discuss the consequences of this model in Sect.~\ref{Sec:CCL}.
\section{Additive processes and Pareto distributions}
Modelling of VHE blazar variability should reproduce the short time scale of the variations and the statistical properties of the flux. While the stochastic nature of the flux is understood if the emission is modulated by the disk of the SMBH, the observed time scales are difficult to explain. Inversely, a jet origin of the variability is often rejected because the models are additive and should not be able to reproduce the skewness of the flux nor the linear RMS-flux relation. This argument is studied in the next section.
\subsection{Additive and multiplicative processes}\label{UsualExp}
Within additive models, the observed flux is the sum of the contributions of several (and potentially many) regions. If the components are modelled as independent, identically distributed random variables (hereafter iid) with finite moments, their sum should follow a normal distribution according to the CLT, assuming that the number of regions is large enough - typically more than a few tens. A natural outcome of such a process would then be symmetric flux distributions, in disagreement with the high-flux tails frequently observed in light curves. Moreover, the addition of incoherent variations in various components should result in a flux being independent of its variance. A translation into statistical terms would be that the sample mean\footnote{i.e. averaged on short time periods in the light curve.} and the sample RMS of a distribution are independent if and only if the underlying distribution is a Gaussian \citep[see the discussion in the Appendix~D of][]{UttMcVa}.
{\it A contrario}, multiplicative processes naturally generate log-normality, with a characteristic tailed and skewed distribution. If we let the quantity $\phi$ be the product of a large number of iid variables, then the logarithm of $\phi$ is a sum of iid quantities and, according to the CLT, $\log \phi$ follows a normal distribution, i.e. $\phi$ follows a log-normal distribution \citep[see e.g. the simulations of][with only three multiplicative variables]{1538-4357-570-1-L21}.
The RMS-flux relation can be explained as a consequence of a log-normal distribution of the flux \citep[][]{UttMcVa}, but the reciprocal is not true. Indeed, let the observed flux $\phi$ be a function of an underlying random variable $x$, so that $\phi = f(x)$; for a log-normal distribution, $f$ is the exponential function and $x$ is normally distributed. A small fluctuation of $x$ around $x_0$, $\delta x$, results in a small fluctuation of the flux $\phi$ around $f(x_0)$, $\delta \phi$, and the variance of the flux is
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:VAR}
\delta \phi^2 = \left[ {{\partial f} \over {\partial x}}(x_0) \right]^2 \delta x^2.
\end{equation}
With a sample flux proportional to $f(x_0)$, a linear flux-RMS relation is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:DefExp}
f(x_0)^2 \propto \left[ {{\partial f} \over {\partial x}}(x_0) \right]^2 \delta x^2.
\end{equation}
Equation~(\ref{Eq:DefExp}) is one of the definitions of the exponential function, so the sample RMS is proportional to the sample flux if and only if the flux is the exponential of an underlying variable, as is the case for a log-normally distributed flux. Log-normality thus implies linearity between the RMS and the flux\footnote{And the reciprocal is not true!}, as does any distribution that arises from the exponential of an underlying variable.
\subsection{Pareto distributions and the central limit theorem}\label{Pareto}
We now consider the class of distributions that, instead of arising from the exponential of normal distributions, arise from the exponential of exponential distributions $\exp(-\alpha x)$. These are known as Pareto distributions and are characterized by a probability density function (PDF) that follows a power-law function of index $1+\alpha$:
\begin{equation}
f_Y(y) = {\alpha \over y^{1+\alpha}} {\rm \quad for\ } y > 1.
\end{equation}
Pareto distributions are used in seismology, in finance, and in biology and various examples of applications such as ``volcanic eruptions, solar-flares, lightning strikes, river networks, forest fires, extinctions of biological species, war casualties, Internet traffic, stock returns, insurance pay-offs'', can be found in the literature \citep[see, e.g.,][and reference therein]{2005ConPh..46..323N,Zaliapin}.
The CLT cannot be applied to Pareto distributed iid, mostly because, for $\alpha \leq 2$, the variance of each random variable cannot be defined. A generalized central limit theorem has been established for such a high-tailed distribution \citep[see, e.g., ][]{Voit}, and it states that the sum of Pareto-distributed iid converge to $\alpha$-stable distributions, a class of probability distribution with fascinating properties.
Only a handful of $\alpha$-stable distributions can be expressed in terms of elementary functions. Some special cases are symmetric, such as the Gaussian distribution, which corresponds to the limit $\alpha = 2$, but a large skewness is generally seen, e.g., with the Landau distribution ($\alpha = 1$), used by particle physicists \citep{2000EPJC...15..163G} to describe the distribution of the energy loss of a charged particle passing through matter. In particular, for $0 < \alpha < 2$ the PDF of an $\alpha$-stable distribution asymptotically follows a power law of index $1+\alpha$ \citep{Zaliapin,nolan:2012}.
The convergence of the CLT is achieved with a few tens of ``regular''\footnote{i.e. with finite moments.} components, but sums of Pareto iid variables tend to the asymptotic $\alpha$-stable distributions only for large numbers of components, typically $10^4$ \citep{Zaliapin}, which prevents the PDF of the sum from being analytically derived for an intermediate number of Paretian iid quantities. Even though the log-normal distribution is not an attractor for the sum of such iid variables, skewed distributions that closely resemble the log-normal can be expected, as is shown in Sect.~\ref{Sec:NBlobsFlux}.
Equations~(\ref{Eq:VAR}) and (\ref{Eq:DefExp}) prove that the sample RMS is proportional to the sample flux for a single random variable as long as it is the exponential of an underlying variable. This is the case for Pareto distributions, and it will be shown in Sect.~\ref{Sec:NBlobsFlux} that this relation holds for the sum of a large number of Paretian iid, certainly because the PDF of the sum follows the same power-law behaviour for high fluxes.
\section{A minijets-in-a-jet statistical model}\label{Sec:Model}
Power laws are generally seen as the signature of a scale invariant process and a wide variety of models can certainly produce such flux distributions. In the next sections, a simple kinematic model that naturally generates Paretian fluxes is developed.
The relativistic enhancement of the flux, known as Doppler boosting, is computed for an emitting region randomly oriented in a medium. For the sake of generality, both the emitting region and the medium, called minijet and jet respectively, have a relativistic motion. Beamed astrophysical objects thus fit in this general framework, as well as non-beamed objects, when the Lorentz factor of the medium is set to unity.
\subsection{Doppler factor of a minijet randomly oriented in a jet}\label{DopplBlob}
We consider a minijet, e.g. a blob of plasma, that moves randomly in a jet and is characterized by its Lorentz factor $\gamma$ and associated velocity $\beta = \sqrt{1-\gamma^{-2}}$, within the jet frame. The orientation of the minijet in the jet frame can be defined with the conventional angles in spherical coordinates, which will be called $\psi$ and $\varphi$. The jet is defined by a Lorentz factor $\Gamma$, associated velocity $\Sigma$, within the observer frame and its axis is misaligned from the line of sight by an angle $\theta$. A schematic representation of these parameters is shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:SchematicView}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.81\linewidth]{Geometry}
\caption{Schematic view of the geometry. The left side corresponds to the observer frame $\cal R_{\rm obs}$, in which the jet is tilted by angle $\theta$ from the line of sight (along $x_{\rm obs}$) and is boosted by a Lorentz factor $\Gamma$ (velocity $\Sigma$) along $x'_{\rm jet}$. The minijet is defined by its Lorentz factor $\gamma$ (velocity $\beta$), in the jet frame $\cal R_{\rm jet}$ (top right). The orientation of the minijet along $x'_{\rm minijet}$ compared to the jet axis in its rest frame, $x_{\rm jet}$, is defined by the spherical angles $\psi$ and $\varphi$. The emission is assumed isotropic in the minijet frame $\cal R_{\rm minijet}$ (bottom right).}
\label{Fig:SchematicView}
\end{figure}
To derive the Doppler factor $\delta$ of the emitting region, the minijet, one only needs to determine the energy measured in the observer frame as a function of the energy in the minijet frame, where the emission is assumed to be isotropic. We consider a photon emitted in the minijet frame with energy $E_{\rm minijet}$ and momentum $\vec p_{\rm minijet} = \{p_{x\ \rm minijet},p_{y\ \rm minijet},p_{z\ \rm minijet}\}$. A series of transformations must be applied to derive the energy in the observer frame~: the tilt of the jet, a boost, the tilt of the minijet in the jet, defined by two angles, and finally the boost of the minijet. Only photons propagating along the $x_{\rm obs}$ direction, i.e. along the line of sight, are considered because these are the only ones observed. We can thus set the transverse momentum to zero, $p_{y\ \rm obs}=p_{z\ \rm obs}=0$, while the longitudinal momentum is $p_{x\ \rm obs}~=~E$, where the speed of light is set to unity and where $E$ is the photon energy in the observer frame.
These equalities and the frame transformations are summarized in Eq.(~\ref{Eq:AllTransformations}), where c and s denotes the cosine and sine functions:
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:AllTransformations}
\begin{array}{l}
\left[\begin{array}{c} E \\ E \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{array}\right] =
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & & & \\
& {\rm c}_\theta & {\rm s}_\theta & \\
& -{\rm s}_\theta & {\rm c}_\theta & \\
& & & 1 \\
\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
\Gamma & \Gamma \Sigma & & \\
\Gamma \Sigma & \Gamma & & \\
& & 1 & \\
& & & 1 \\
\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & & & \\
& 1 & & \\
& & {\rm c}_{\varphi} & {\rm s}_{\varphi} \\
& & -{\rm s}_{\varphi} & {\rm c}_{\varphi} \\
\end{array}\right] \\ \qquad \quad
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & & & \\
& {\rm c}_{\psi} & {\rm s}_{\psi} & \\
& -{\rm s}_{\psi} & {\rm c}_{\psi} & \\
& & & 1 \\
\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
\gamma & \gamma \beta & & \\
\gamma \beta & \gamma & & \\
& & 1 & \\
& & & 1 \\
\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{c} E_{\rm minijet} \\ p_{x\ \rm minijet} \\ p_{y\ \rm minijet} \\ p_{z\ \rm minijet} \end{array} \right].
\end{array}
\end{equation}
The inverse of the Doppler factor, i.e. the ratio between the emitted and the observed energies, is derived by inverting Eq.(~\ref{Eq:AllTransformations}). The time-like component of the vectorial equality then reads as $\delta^{-1} E~=~E_{\rm minijet}$, with $\delta$ given in Eq.(~\ref{Eq:DopplerFactor}):
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:DopplerFactor}
\delta = {1 \over { \gamma \Gamma ( 1 + \Sigma\beta{\rm c}_{\psi} - (\Sigma+\beta{\rm c}_{\psi}){\rm c}_\theta) + \gamma \beta {\rm s}_\theta {\rm s}_{\psi} {\rm c}_{\varphi} }}.
\end{equation}
For a jet closely aligned with the line of sight, the extrema of the Doppler factor are
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:DopplerEx}
\begin{array}{c}
\delta \leq {1 \over { \gamma \Gamma ( 1-\Sigma)(1- \beta) } } \sim 4 \Gamma \gamma \\
\delta \geq {1 \over { \gamma \Gamma ( 1-\Sigma)(1 + \beta) } } \sim \Gamma / \gamma
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where the approximated expressions correspond to the ultra-relativistic limit.
It is worth noting that for reasonable Lorentz factors such as $\Gamma =5$ and $\gamma=5$, the maximum Doppler factor obtained for a minijet and a jet aligned with the line of sight is enhanced by a factor $2\gamma = 10$ compared to isotropic emission in the jet frame ($\gamma=1$), and Doppler factors as high as $10^2$ are reached.
Figure~\ref{Fig:DopplerFactor} shows the Doppler factor as a function of the misalignment from the line of sight $\theta$. The Lorentz factors of the jet and of the minijet are fixed to a value of five and $\theta$ is normalized to $1/\Gamma$, the opening angle of the jet.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\hspace{-0.25cm}
\includegraphics[width=1.05\linewidth]{DepAng}
\caption{Doppler factor of a minijet with a Lorentz factor $\gamma = 5$ moving in a jet of Lorentz factor $\Gamma = 5$ as a function of the misalignment between the jet and the line of sight $\theta$, normalized to the opening angle of the jet $1/\Gamma$. The maximum, average, and minimum Doppler factor are compared to the usual Doppler factor (solid line), derived for an isotropic emission in the jet frame ($\gamma=1$).}
\label{Fig:DopplerFactor}
\end{figure}
The maximum and minimum values of the Doppler factor are represented with the long and short dashed lines. The average Doppler factor is derived with $\mu = \cos \psi$ uniformly distributed between [-1,1] and $\varphi$ uniformly distributed between [0,2$\pi$]. This corresponds to an isotropic distribution of the minijet orientation in the jet frame. One can compute the average Doppler factor in the blazar case, i.e for $\theta=0$
\begin{equation}
\hat \delta_0 = {1 \over {\gamma\Gamma(1-\Sigma)}} \int_{-1}^{1} \rm d\mu {1 \over {1-\beta \mu}} \nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\hat \delta_0 = {1 \over {\gamma\Gamma(1-\Sigma)\beta}} \ln\left({{1+\beta}\over{1-\beta}}\right) \sim {4\Gamma \over \gamma} \ln 2\gamma.
\end{equation}
For $\gamma \gtrsim 4$, the reference Doppler factor ($\gamma=1$), represented with the solid line in Fig.~\ref{Fig:DopplerFactor}, is larger than the average Doppler factor, a comparison that can be extended only to quantities that are linearly dependent on the Doppler factor. The impact on the flux intensity, which is roughly a quartic function of the Doppler factor, is discussed in the following.
\subsection{Flux of a single minijet}\label{SingleBlob}
Let $I(E)$ be the flux intensity at energy $E$, the quantity $I(E)/E^3$ is a Lorentz invariant \citep[e.g.,][]{Rybicki}, and the Doppler boost $\delta$ of the energy results in an enhancement $\delta^3$ of the intensity or of the flux \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Urry}. One finds the usual enhancement of the bolometric luminosity by a factor $\delta^4$ after integration over the energy domain.
The non-thermal spectra of high-energy astrophysical sources can generally be approximated, at least locally, by power-law functions. We characterize the intensity of the source by the index $s$ (photon index $s+1$), i.e. $I(E_{\rm minijet}) \propto E_{\rm minijet}^{-s}$, where $E_{\rm minijet}$ is the photon energy in the source rest frame. The intensity measured by the observer is, in the observer's frame,
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:DefI}
I(E) = \delta^3 I(E_{\rm minijet}) = \delta^3 I(E/\delta) \propto \delta^3 (E/\delta)^{-s} \propto \delta^{3+s} E^{-s}.
\end{equation}
The distribution of the intensity can then be derived from Eq.(~\ref{Eq:DopplerFactor}), imposing a distribution for the underlying random variables. We assume in this model that the relevant physical parameter is the orientation of the minijet(s) in the jet frame. Imposing isotropy in this frame corresponds to having $\psi$ and $\varphi$ angles homogeneously populate the unit sphere, i.e. $\mu~=~\cos\psi$ uniformly distributed between [-1,1] and $\varphi$ uniformly distributed between [0,$2\pi$]. For the sake of simplicity, we derive the probability density function of the intensity in the blazar case. In this case, combining the definition of the Doppler factor in Eq.(~\ref{Eq:DopplerFactor}) with Eq.(~\ref{Eq:DefI}) yields
\begin{equation}
I(E) \propto \left[\gamma\Gamma(1-\Sigma)(1-\beta\rm \mu) \right]^{-3-s} E^{-s} \equiv (4\Gamma\gamma)^{3+s} g(\mu) E^{-s}.
\end{equation}
The factor $(4\Gamma\gamma)^{3+s}$ scales the function $g$ so that
\begin{equation}
g(\mu) = \left({{(1+\Sigma)(1+\beta)} \over 4} \times {{1-\beta} \over {1-\beta \mu}} \right)^{3+s} \leq 1 {\rm \ with\ \mu}\in[-1,1].
\end{equation}
We call $I_N = g(\mu)$ the intensity normalized to its maximum. The PDF of $I_N$, $f_\mathcal{I}(I_N)$, is linked to the PDF of $\mu=\cos \psi$, $f_{\mathcal{C}}(\mu) = 1/2$ with $\mu\in[-1;1]$ via
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:Compos}
f_\mathcal{I}(I_N) = \left|{{\partial g^{-1}(I_N)} \over {\partial I}}\right| f_{\mathcal{C}}\left(g^{-1}(I_N)\right),
\end{equation}
where
$\displaystyle g^{-1}(x) = {1 \over \beta}\times\left(1-{{1+\Sigma}\over 2}\times{1\over {2\gamma^2}}\times x^{-{1 \over {3+s}}} \right) $.
Then, the probability density function of the normalized intensity is
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:ParDist}
f_\mathcal{I}(I_N) = {{1+\Sigma} \over 2\beta} \times {1 \over {4\gamma^2(3+s)}} \times {1 \over {I_N^{1 + {{1} \over {3+s}}}}}.
\end{equation}
The flux emitted by a minijet randomly oriented in a jet (or in a non-relativistic medium) thus follows a Pareto distribution of index $\alpha = 1/(3+s)$, where $s$ is the spectral index of the intensity. The Pareto distribution holds for a non-beamed object ($\Gamma=1$ and $\Sigma=0$), as derived independently by \citet{2012arXiv1205.5094C} to model the flares of the Crab in the high-energy domain.
The Pareto distribution also holds for beamed objects misaligned from the line of sight, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Distrib1blob}, where the distribution of the logarithm of the intensity $\propto \delta^{3+s}$ has been generated by drawing random minijet orientations. The conservation of the slope of the distribution can be understood by neglecting the term $\gamma \beta {\rm s}_\theta {\rm s}_{\psi} {\rm c}_{\varphi}$ in Eq.(~\ref{Eq:DopplerFactor}), in which case the previous proof holds with the inverse of the Doppler factor remaining a linear function of $\cos \psi$. The conclusions derived in the following can then be applied to both blazars, such as \PKS, and non-aligned objects, such as M~87.
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace{-0.25cm}
\includegraphics[width=1.02\linewidth]{DistribTheta}
\caption{Distribution of the logarithm of the intensity of a minijet for various angles $\theta$ between the line of sight and the jet axis. The intensity is proportional to $\delta^{3+s}$, where $\delta$ is the Doppler factor and $s$ the spectral index. These distributions are obtained simulating random orientations of a minijet for $s= 1$, for a jet boost $\Gamma = 5$, and a minijet boost $\gamma = 5$, without generality loss. While the intensity decreases when the misalignment increases, the slope of the distribution remains the same as in the ``blazar'' case, $\theta = 0$.}
\label{Fig:Distrib1blob}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Flux of N minijets}\label{Sec:NBlobsFlux}
As discussed in Sect.~\ref{Pareto}, Pareto-distributed random variables do not follow the central limit theorem, and their sum does not converge to a normal distribution. Assuming that the jet is composed of several randomly oriented minijets, the total emitted flux is proportional to the sum of the $N$ independent minijet intensities, in an optically thin medium.
To illustrate this point, minijets of Lorentz factor $\gamma = 5$ are simulated for $\theta = 0$ and a jet boost $\Gamma = 5$. These moderated values yield a single component flux spanning over eight decades, roughly between $( \Gamma / \gamma )^{3+s}$ and $( 4\Gamma \gamma )^{3+s}$. Unless strongly suppressing the beaming (typically for $\gamma \lesssim 1.5$), the dynamic range of the flux is large enough that the location of the cut-off does not affect the following results (up to at least $10^4$ additive components).
As shown in Sect.~\ref{SingleBlob}, the results for other orientations or other Lorentz factors remain identical within a multiplicative factor (i.e. a shift in log representation). The flux distributions simulated for several numbers $N$ of minijets are shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:DistribNblob}. To generate smooth distributions, $10^8$ iterations, called hereafter time steps, are performed with $N\in\{1,10,30,10^2,3\times 10^2,10^3,3\times 10^3,10^4 \}$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{NiceDistrib}
\caption{Distribution of the logarithm of the intensity of $N$ independent and randomly oriented minijets. The number of minijets $N$ increases from left to right with $N\in\{1,10,30,10^2,3\times 10^2,10^3,3\times 10^3,10^4 \}$. Even for a large number of regions, asymmetrical, tailed distributions are obtained.}
\label{Fig:DistribNblob}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=0.92\linewidth]{LogNormAndNormFit}
\caption{Distribution of the logarithm of the flux of $N$ minijets for $N~=~3\times 10^3$ (left) and $N = 10^4$ (right), as in Fig.~\ref{Fig:DistribNblob}. The continuous black and grey dashed lines represent the best fit with a log-normal and normal flux distributions, respectively.}
\label{Fig:LogNormAndNormFit}
\end{figure}
For a large number of minijets, typically $N \gtrsim 10^3$, the distribution of the logarithm of the flux can be described with a peak, followed by a power-law tail. The distributions obtained for $3\times 10^3$ and $10^4$ minijets are shown Fig.~\ref{Fig:LogNormAndNormFit}, with a linear $y$-axis, together with the best-fit functions corresponding to a normal and log-normal flux.
Although the distribution of the flux of $N$ minijets is neither normal nor log-normal, Fig.~\ref{Fig:LogNormAndNormFit} illustrates how an experimental distribution, with limited statistics and a poor characterization of the high flux tail, could be interpreted as a log-normal distribution, even if arising from an additive process and not from a multiplicative one.
We have shown in Sect.~\ref{Pareto} that the RMS is strictly proportional to the flux if and only if the flux is the exponential of an underlying variable, which is the case for Pareto distributions. Interestingly, linearity holds when considering the sum of a large number of power-law components. To illustrate this statement, light curves are simulated with $10^5$ time steps for $N = 1$ and $N = 10^4$ minijets. The sample mean and the sample RMS are then computed in ten points wide windows. For the sake of clarity, the flux and the RMS are averaged in $50$ bins between the maximum flux and the minimum flux. The sample RMS is plotted as function of the sample flux in Fig.~\ref{Fig:RMSflux}, where the error bars correspond to the standard deviation in each bin.
The positive {\it x}-intercept in the RMS-flux relation, as seen in the right-hand panel in Fig.~\ref{Fig:RMSflux}, corresponds to the peak in the flux distribution shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:DistribNblob}. While it could be interpreted as a constant component, this threshold flux corresponds to the value around which the average emissions of the minijets pile up within the additive model presented here.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{RMSFluxRelationOneBlob}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{RMSFluxRelation}
\caption{Sample RMS as a function of the sample flux of $N=1$ minijet (top) and the sum of $N=10^4$ minijets (bottom). Linear relations are found in both cases, with a zero {\it x}-intercept in the first case and a positive one in the second.}
\label{Fig:RMSflux}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion and conclusion}\label{Sec:CCL}
The linear relation between the RMS and the flux of individual blazars or the skewness of the distribution of the flux are interpreted by several authors as arising from multiplicative processes, favouring a variability stemming from the disk.
We are studying a minijets-in-a-jet statistical model where the variability stems from the jet itself. We first considered the enhancement of the flux due to the relativistic Doppler effect and show that an isotropic orientation of a single region in the jet frame result in a Pareto distribution of its contribution to the flux, characterized by a power-law PDF. As for log-normal variables, Pareto-distributed variables can be seen as the exponential of an underlying variable and, as such, satisfy the linear relation between the flux and its RMS. These random variables do not fulfil the hypotheses under which the central limit theorem can be applied and the summation of the contributions of many regions does not yield a normal distribution of the flux. The total flux distribution thus remains highly skewed and tailed when increasing the number of contributing regions, up to at least $10^4$ regions, and could very well be interpreted as a log-normal. A noticeable difference between the attractor of the sum of Pareto distributed variables, called $\alpha$-stable distributions, and the log-normal distribution is their high flux tails that follow a power law and that could be probed with long-term, finely-sampled light curves. This power-law tail is, moreover, responsible for the invariance of the linear relation between the RMS and the flux when the number of minijets is increased. The study of the link between the slope of the RMS-flux relation and the kinematic parameters of the mini-jets-in-a-jet statistical model is beyond the scope of this paper and will be the object of further studies.
The minijets-in-a-jet statistical model is largely inspired from the jets-in-jet model of \citet{2009MNRAS.395L..29G}, where magnetic dissipation triggers the emission of relativistic blobs of plasma. The authors reproduce the luminosity and the fast variations observed in the light curves of blazars at very high energies with a Lorentz factor of the minijet $\gamma \sim 10$ in the jet frame. \citet{2012MNRAS.420..604N} refined this model and invoke relativistic turbulence to explain both the variability time scales and the scarcity of the flaring events. The random orientation of the minijet in the jet frame would be directly linked to the direction in which the reconnection region is created (magnetic dissipation) or to the wandering of the velocity vector of the minijet over the radiating time (relativistic turbulence). The isotropic orientation of the minijets in the jet frame is the most natural configuration in both scenarios.
A ``minijet statistical model''\footnote{motivating the name of the model we have developed.} has also recently been derived by \citet{2012arXiv1205.5094C} to explain the high-energy flares of Crab Nebula. The authors assume that magnetic reconnection triggers the emission of two-sided relativistic flows with a random orientation in the nebula frame, a particular geometry corresponding to a bulk Lorentz factor of the medium set to unity in the framework developed in this paper. Assuming that the individual components do not overlap, the authors restricted the study to a very small number of minijets, a problem that is overcome in this paper.
Unlike \citet{2012arXiv1205.5094C}, we did not study observables such as the power spectral density or the variation time scales observed in light curves. These quantities depend on the detailed mechanism responsible for the generation of the minijets, and their study is beyond the scope of this paper. Our model, based on a Doppler-boosted beamed emission, can certainly be generalized to other mechanisms, such as the ``kinetic beaming'' studied by \citet{2012arXiv1205.3210C}, which will probably yield similar conclusions on the statistical properties of the flux, while providing refined energy-dependent observables.
The generalization of such stochastic models, where many sub-regions are considered, growingly reduces the dominance of shock emission models in high-energy astrophysics. The springboard of such a change of paradigm points out the need for high-quality non-thermal light curves and widening studies of flux distributions, of the relation between the sample RMS and the sample flux, and of the power spectral density.
\acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the anonymous referee for the insights that have improved this article.
|
\section{Introduction}
Friction implies stability. A solid block only remains static on an inclined
plane because there is friction with the underlying surface. Similarly, a heap
made of granular particles, in general, will have a higher angle of stability
with increased friction coefficient~\cite{nedderman.book}. Inside the heap, the
particle volume fraction will generally be lower
and the number of inter-particle contacts smaller, while the heap nevertheless
remains stable~\cite{PhysRevE.65.031304}. A similar stabilization occurs when
the grains are driven into a fluid state. Under shear, the jamming transition
from a freely flowing state to a yield-stress fluid occurs at lower volume
fractions as compared to the frictionless
case~\cite{bi11:_jamming_by_shear,PhysRevE.83.051301,PhysRevE.84.041308}.
Here, we present simulations of a driven granular system were friction acts
opposite to what is expected from these simple examples. We show how friction
can lead to anomalous particle dynamics that very efficiently fluidize the
system. As a result the system undergoes a re-entrance melting transition from a
glassy to a fluid state by \emph{lowering} the amplitude of driving.
Experimentally, a variety of driving mechanisms have been proposed to
characterize the dynamical properties of dense granular systems. Among those are
shaking~\cite{Mullin, Yeomans} fluid- or
air-flow~\cite{schroeter2005PRE,keysNatPhys2007,B926754A}, cyclic
shear~\cite{pouliquen2003PRL,dauchot2005PRL} or temperature
oscillations~\cite{chen06:_granul,PhysRevLett.101.148303}. We describe a
two-dimensional system, similar to the setup used in
Refs.~\cite{Mullin,lechenault,B926754A,keysNatPhys2007}. At high densities and
low enough driving amplitude these systems readily form glassy states, where
structural relaxation is completely suppressed~\cite{PhysRevLett.104.225701}.
Interestingly, Ref.~\cite{lechenault} also reports anomalous particle dynamics
deep in the glassy phase, and suspects friction to play a central role in this
process. Unfortunately, it is rather difficult experimentally to quantitatively
characterize or tune the frictional interactions between the
particles~\cite{PhysRevE.84.031306} or between particles and container walls.
The connection between friction and particle dynamics is therefore unclear. Our
simulations have the goal to elucidate such a connection.
{\it Model~--~} We consider a monolayer
of $N=2500$ disks. One half of the particles (``small'') have radius $R_s=0.5d$
and mass $m_s=\rho(4\pi/3)R_s^3$, the other half (``large'') have radius
$R_l=0.7d$ and mass $m_l=\rho(4\pi/3)R_l^3$. The particle area fraction is
defined as $\phi = \sum_{i=1}^N \pi R_i^2/L^2$, where $L$ is the size of the
simulation box. Unless otherwise stated we fix $\phi=0.825$, which is only
slightly below the random close packing value of $\phi_c=0.84$. Periodic
boundary conditions are used in both directions.
Particles interact via a standard spring-dashpot interaction
(e.g.~\cite{PhysRevE.65.031304,PhysRevE.83.051301,PhysRevE.84.041308}). In
short, two particles $i,j$ interact when they are in contact, i.e. when their
mutual distance $r$ is smaller than the sum of their radii $R_i+R_j$. The
interaction force has both a normal component $F_n=k_n(r-(R_i+R_j)) $ and a
tangential component $F_t=k_t\delta_t$, where $k_n$ and $k_t$ are the spring
constants and $\delta_t$ is the tangential (shear) displacement since the
formation of the contact. The tangential spring mimics sticking of the two
particles due to dry friction. The frictional forces are limited by the Coulomb
condition $F_t\leq \mu F_n$, which is implemented by rescaling the tangential
displacement $\delta_t\to \mu F_n/k_t$ whenever necessary.
To mimic the presence of an external container, we place the particles on a flat
surface ($xy$-plane) \xx{which acts like a frictional particle with infinite
radius. The normal component of the interaction is set by gravity, $F^{(s)}_n
= m_ig$, which pushes the particles into the surface. Therefore, and because
we do not allow particles to move away from the surface ($z$-direction),
particles are in permanent contact with the surface. The tangential
displacement $\delta_t$ then corresponds simply to the in-plane displacement
of the particle, properly rescaled when the Coulomb condition is violated,
$\delta_t \leq\mu_s m_ig/k_t$, where $\mu_s$ is the surface friction
coefficient.}
Particles are driven with an oscillating force $F(t)=A\sin(\omega t)$ that acts
(in the plane of the surface) along the y-direction. Even though this driving is
uni-directional, we find that due to the dense packing the system remains
roughly isotropic.
With this kind of driving force, an isolated particle on a frictionless surface
oscillates at an amplitude $y_0 = A/m\omega^2$. In a dense assembly this leads
to local frustration as particles with smaller masses tend to move faster.
Rearrangements result which, at the high densities under consideration, may or
may not be able to lead to structural relaxation. It is this glassy dynamics
that we are interested in, with the driving amplitude $A$ playing the role of
thermal temperature. Note, that this driving mechanism injects energy directly
into the bulk. System-size is therefore not an issue and the system is
spatially homogeneous.
\xx{As units we choose particle mass density $\rho$, particle diameter $d$ and
the period of the driving, $T=2\pi/\omega$. With these definitions we perform
molecular dynamics simulations using LAMMPS~\cite{lammps} with parameters
$k_n=1000$, $k_t=2k_n/7$ and a time-step of $\Delta t=0.001$.}
The simplest quantity which is measured from particle displacements is the
mean-squared displacement \xx{(MSD),
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:}
\Delta^2 (t) = \left\langle \frac{1}{N}
\sum_{i=1}^N [x_i(t_0+t) - x_i(t_0)]^2 \right\rangle
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta x_i(t_0,t) = x_i(t+t_0)-x_i(t_0)$ is the displacement of particle
$i$ in the time interval $[t_0,t_0+t]$} in the direction transverse to the
driving. Snapshots of the system are taken after every full force cycle. Time is
therefore restricted to $t \equiv t_n = nT$ and $n$ integer. With this
definition the MSD is zero when particle motion during cycles is periodic.
{\it Results~--~} Let us first consider the case where there is no
inter-particle friction ($\mu=0$) and only particle-surface friction
($\mu_s=1$). In Fig.~\ref{fig:msd} we display the evolution of the MSD for
various driving amplitudes $A$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{fig1a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{fig1b.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Mean-square displacement $\Delta^2(t)$ for different driving amplitudes
$A$ (arrows indicate decreasing amplitude) . At short times the plateau
decreases with decreasing amplitude. By way of contrast, at long times the
MSD is nonmonotonic with $A$ and has a maximum at $A^\star\approx 1$. On
intermediate time-scales superdiffusive particle motion develops when
$A\approx A^\star$. \xx{Inset: typical trajectories in glassy regime (top)
and in the re-entrance fluid (bottom). Scale-bar is of length $R_s$.} }
\label{fig:msd}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{fig2.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ The effective diffusivity $D$ is nonmonotonous with a minimum in the
glassy regime and a maximum at $A^\star\approx 1$. The temperature $T$ is
monotonously decreasing with decreasing amplitude.}
\label{fig:msd.slope}
\end{figure}
At relatively high amplitudes ($A\geq 3$) we observe typical signs of glassy
dynamics; an extended plateau in the MSD, caging of particles and hopping events
\xx{(see sample trajectory in Fig.~\ref{fig:msd}a inset)}. As expected the MSD
decreases with decreasing driving amplitude. Surprisingly, this trend does not
persist when the amplitude is further reduced. Instead, for lower amplitudes we
observe a greatly enhanced MSD and a total dissapearance of the plateau. Thus,
the system is fluidized, very unintuitively, by reducing the amplitude of
agitation (also see suppl. movies). This re-entrance melting transition is our
main result.
The fluidization is particularly evident in the long-time diffusivity $D :=
\lim_{t\to\infty}\Delta^2(t)/t$ (see Fig.\ref{fig:msd.slope}), which has a
minimum in the glassy regime~\footnote{In this regime we cannot reach the
long-time diffusive regime and $D$ is only an upper bound for the real
diffusivity.} but then strongly increases up to a sharp maximum at
$A^\star\approx 1$. At the same time, the ``granular temperature'' $T$, defined
as the average kinetic energy in the direction transverse to the drive, is
completely normal and monotonously decreases with decreasing $A$. This
parallels the behavior of the MSD at short times. Anomalous dynamics only
develops at intermediate time-scales. Associated with the maximum of
$D(A^\star)$, we observe an intermediate super-diffusive regime that spans one
to two orders of magnitude in time.
{\it Discussion~--~} \xx{ The external driving injects momentum into the system.
This momentum is subsequently randomized by inter-particle collisions, and
dissipated by surface friction. The onset of re-entrance melting corresponds
to the situation that dissipation of momentum competes with the randomization
due to collisions. This can most easily be seen in a system, where only the
small particles are driven. The large particles then only move because they
are kicked around by the mobilized small particles. We can show (see suppl.
material) that in the re-entrance fluid phase kicks only temporarily mobilize
the large particles. They then undergo some small slip displacement and
quickly come to rest before the next collision occurs. Thus, all the momentum
from the collision is immediately lost to the surface. By way of contrast, in
the glassy phase this momentum is first redistributed to other particles
before it is dissipated away.
Similar effects occur when both particles are driven. The value of $A^\star=1$
is below the Coulomb threshold for the large particles, which in our units is
at a force $A_l=1.43$. This means that large particles can only be mobilized
by additional kicks from mobile small particles, which have a smaller Coulomb
threshold of $A_s=0.52$.
Accordingly, the MSD of large particles is suppressed on short times
(Fig.\ref{fig:light.heavy}a) but otherwise displays the same superdiffusive
behavior on intermediate time-scales. }
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.475\columnwidth]{fig3b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\columnwidth]{fig3a.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ (left) MSD of large particles is similar to that of small particles,
except at short times, where large particles move much less. (right)
\xx{Normalized autocorrelation function $C(\tau)/C(0)$ of single-cycle
displacements. Negative correlations in glassy regime ($A=3$, plotted is
$-C(\tau)$) compare with positive correlations in re-entrance fluid ($A=1$).
Data taken by direct evaluation of the correlations (small symbols) and by
differentiation of MSD, via $C(\tau)=\partial^2\Delta^2(\tau)/\partial\tau^2$
(large symbols).} }
\label{fig:light.heavy}
\end{figure}
\xx{ Superdiffusion then naturally emerges, when there is positive temporal
correlations in the kicks. Fig.~\ref{fig:light.heavy} displays the
auto-correlation function $C(t)=\langle\Delta x(t_0,1)\Delta
x(t_0+t,1)\rangle$ of large-particle displacements, $\Delta x(t,1)$, during a
single cycle. Clearly, a pronounced positive correlation is visible at
intermediate times corresponding to the superdiffusive regime. The same
positive correlations are visible in the trajectory displayed in Fig.1b
(inset) where they lead to long stretches of quasi-directed motion. By way of
contrast, the correlation function is negative in the glassy regime,
indicating anti-correlations in the kicks.
To understand the origin of these correlations, we have to analyze in more
detail the dynamics of the small particles. With the large particles sticking
to the surface, the small particles explore their local free volume on short
times within an effectively \emph{frozen} environment. This situation is
depicted in Fig.\ref{fig:traj.cage}, where a small test particle (black dots)
is confined to a typical cage-like surrounding, which is taken to consist of
large particles that are frozen in space (grey area and lines). Driven by the
external force the test particle will move around and explore the available
free volume (white area). }
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{fig4a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{fig4b.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ \xx{Short-time ($t=30$) motion of a small test particle (black dots)
as driven by the periodic force without (left) and with surface friction
(right). The test particle is confined by a set of large particles, which
are frozen in space. The ``excluded'' space (grey area) is formed from the
area covered by ``effective'' particles of radius $R_s+R_l$. For the high
densities under consideration, the available space for particle motion
(white area) is much smaller than the particle diameter. The boundaries
therefore appear on this scale only with a small curvature (red lines). As
the particles are not infinitely stiff, some overlap during collisions
(penetration into the grey area) is allowed.}}
\label{fig:traj.cage}
\end{figure}
If we switch off the frictional interactions of the test particle with the
underlying surface (Fig.\ref{fig:traj.cage}a), the motion is quickly randomized
by the collisions with the cage. \xx{This builds up a pore pressure, which can
act as a restoring force when, on longer time-scales, the large particles
(cage wall) start to move. The consequences are anticorrelation (negative
$C(\tau)$), particle localization and caging.
}
With friction turned on (Fig.\ref{fig:traj.cage}b), the trajectory is completely
different and the test particle explores only a small part of the available
volume. \xx{Any additional momentum from an inter-particle collision is quickly
dissipated and the particles stick to the surface for as long as the force
needs to switch sign and push it back. This allows to synchronize with the
force and avoids the chaotic type of motion characteristic of the glassy
regime.}
The synchronization is apparent in the phase of the oscillations of the
particle. Without friction the particle coordinate is out-of phase with the
forcing, just like a driven and undamped oscillator. With friction the particle
velocity is in phase with the forcing, like an overdamped oscillator (see suppl.
material).
\xx{ On intermediate time-scales the large particles move and the cage evolves.
If the kicks are sufficiently weak (small $A$) the cage will only change very
little from one cycle to the next and the periodic trajectories of the small
particles slowly evolve with the surrounding structure.
On this intermediate time-scale the kicks are correlated and lead to
superdiffusive motion of the confining large particles (and as a consequence
also of the confined small particles). With increasing driving amplitude the
kicks get stronger and stronger, and the positive correlation is reduced.
Finally, at high enough amplitudes the large particles are fully mobilized and
cannot dissipate their momentum before the next kick occurs. This completely
randomizes particle motion and corresponds to the transition into the glassy
regime. }
{\it Inter-particle friction~--~}
\xx{The above discussion of the origin of anomalous diffusion shows that surface
friction essentially acts as a strong dissipation mechanism. However, if we
substitute surface friction with a strong \emph{linear} damping force, $\vec
F_{\rm damp}=-\zeta \vec v_i$, and in the absence of inter-particle friction
($\mu=0$), no anomalous dynamics occurs. In fact, the particles move on
strictly periodic trajectories (Fig.~\ref{fig:msd.inter} inset) and the MSD is
identical zero. Such a behavior parallels the caging dynamics seen in the
glassy regime, with the effective cage shrinking to a point. This suggests
that the \emph{nonlinear} nature of friction is also essential for the
anomalous dynamics. Indeed, if we switch on inter-particle friction ($\mu=1$),
particles readily diffuse around and the MSD displays again a super-diffusive
(or even ballistic) regime at short and intermediate time-scales
(Fig.~\ref{fig:msd.inter}). The second role of friction, next to dissipation,
is thus to induce small perturbations during particle collisions, such that
the periodic trajectories are slightly, but irreversibly modified. This leads
to a slow but steady evolution of the local structure, which is visible in the
MSD as ballistic regime.}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{fig5.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{MSD with interparticle friction and strong damping $\zeta=50$ chosen
such that velocities are damped on time-scales shorter than the driving
period. The driving force ($A=50$) is only applied to small particles. If
all particles were driven, no rearrangements would occur (overdamped limit).
\xx{The MSD decreases upon increasing the volume-fraction towards the
random-close packing limit.} Inset: example of a periodic particle
trajectory when friction is switched off completely. The amplitude of the
motion corresponds to roughly $5\%$ of the particle diameter.}
\label{fig:msd.inter}
\end{figure}
{\it Conclusion~--~}We have shown that, quite unintuitivly, frictional
interactions can speed up particle motion and lead to superdiffusive dynamics.
This contrasts with what friction is expected to do: slow down particle motion
by making them stick. We have rationalized this nontrivial behavior by
considering friction as a weak irreversible perturbation to genuinely periodic
trajectories. This fluidization competes with the localization due to randomized
particle motion. As a result we encounter a re-entrance melting transition from
a granular glass (localized) to a fluid state upon \emph{lowering} the
temperature.
These results may be important for experiments in several ways. First, note that
the role of frictional interactions with the surface is quite subtle.
Fluidization only happens on relatively long time-scales, while on short times,
particle motion is completely normal. There, friction only leads to a
suppression of particle motion because of the Coulomb threshold. Such effects
would make it hard to evaluate the relevance of friction in experiments,
whenever interactions with an external container are to be avoided.
In the experiments of Ref.~\cite{lechenault} superdiffusive particle motion was
indeed observed, however only at volume fractions around the critical close
packing limit. In contrast, we find anomalous dynamics for a range of densities
(Fig.~\ref{fig:msd.inter}). The high stiffness of the brass particles in the
experiment makes a key difference with the simulation. We speculate that only at
$\phi_c$ this high stiffness provides a sufficiently tight packing, such that
frictional effects can compete with the randomization due to the driving. The
role of friction would then be to provide the nonlinear ingredient that can
``rectify'' the motion. Our analysis suggests that important additional insight
can be obtained by changing the driving amplitude. First
results~\cite{coulais.preprint} indeed suggest that the anomalous dynamics is
enhanced for lower driving amplitudes.
Finally, the transition between reversible and irreversible particle motion is a
nice example of a transition into an absorbing state, as described in the
experiments of Pine et al.~\cite{pine2005Nature}. Interestingly, in our case the
particles continue to interact in the absorbing state. This can, for example, be
seen from the periodic trajectories of individual particles, which are complex
loops and not just straight lines (inset of Fig.\ref{fig:msd.inter}). It remains
to be seen if a volume fraction can be identified, which plays the role of the
critical point of this non-equilibrium transition. We leave this question for
future work.
\acknowledgments
We acknowledge support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Emmy Noether
program: He 6322/1-1.
|
\section{Introduction}
The {\em Thue--Morse sequence} $\{t(n)\}_{n\geq 0}$ over the alphabet $\{-1,1\}$ is given by $t(n)=(-1)^{s(n)}$ where $s(n)$ is the number of $1$s in the base $2$ expansion of the number $n$. Using this definition it is immediate that the sequence $\{t(n)\}_{n\geq 0}$ is $2$-automatic. That is, there is a deterministic finite automaton that takes the base $2$ expansion of $n$ as input and outputs the value $t(n)$ (see Figure \ref{Fig1}); the definition of an automatic sequence will be discussed in more detail below.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}
\begin{picture}(60,20)
\put(14.25,4){{$1$}}
\put(15,5){\circle{20}}
\put(43,4){{$-1$}}
\put(45,5){\circle{20}}
\put(-2,5){\vector(1,0){10}}
\qbezier(40, 10)(30, 15)(20, 10)
\put(21, 10.5){\vector(-2,-1){1}}
\put(29,14){{\tt 1}}
\qbezier(40, 0)(30, -5)(20, 0)
\put(39, -.5){\vector(2,1){1}}
\put(29,-1){{\tt 1}}
\qbezier(12, 11.5)(12, 15)(9, 17)
\qbezier(9, 17)(6, 19)(6, 15)
\qbezier(6, 15)(6, 11)(9, 9)
\put(8.25, 10){\vector(1,-1){1}}
\put(12,15){{\tt 0}}
\qbezier(50, 10)(54, 13)(52, 17)
\qbezier(52, 17)(51, 19)(48, 15)
\qbezier(48, 15)(47, 13.3)(47, 12)
\put(47.6, 13.6){\vector(-1,-2){1}}
\put(53.5,15){{\tt 0}}
\end{picture}
\caption{The generating $2$-automaton of the Thue--Morse sequence.}
\label{Fig1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\noindent It is also immediate using the definition that the Thue--Morse sequence is the unique sequence given by $t(0)=1$, $t(2n)=t(n)$ and $t(2n+1)=-t(n)$. Thus, writing the generating power series for $t(n)$ as $T(z)=\sum_{n\geq 0}t(n)z^n$, we have that $T(z)$ satisfies the functional equation $$(1-z)T(z^2)=T(z).$$ The {\em Thue--Morse number} is the evaluation of the generating power series for $\{t(n)\}_{n\geq 0}$ at $z=1/2$; that is, the number $T(1/2)=\sum_{n\geq 0}t(n)2^{-n}.$ Due to the nature of the construction of the Thue--Morse sequence and the functional equation satisfied by its generating power series, the Thue--Morse number and those numbers with similar attributes are a natural class of numbers to consider from the perspectives of transcendental number theory and Diophantine approximation.
Focusing on the functional equation aspect, in the late 1920s and early 1930s, Mahler \cite{M1929, M1930a, M1930b} showed that if $F(z)\in\mathbb{Q}[[z]]$ satisfies \begin{equation}\label{LF}a(z)F(z^k)=b(z)F(z)\end{equation} for some $a(z),b(z)\in\mathbb{Q}[z]$ and $F(z)$ is transcendental over $\mathbb{Q}(z)$, then for all but finitely many algebraic points $\alpha$ in radius of convergence of $F(z)$, $F(\alpha)$ is transcendental over $\mathbb{Q}$. One of the main goals of Mahler's above-cited work was to provide a proof of the transcendence of the Thue--Morse number, a goal which Mahler accomplished \cite{M1929}. Extensions of Mahler's work in this area have been, and are still, a vital area of research in number theory under the heading {\em Mahler's method}. In this paper, we are concerned with the following generalization of~\eqref{LF}.
Let $k\geq 2$ be a positive integer. We say that a function $F(z)\in\mathbb{C}[[z]]$ is {\em $k$-Mahler} (or sometimes just {\em Mahler}) provided there exist a non-negative integer $d$ and polynomials $a_0(z),\ldots,a_d(z)\in\mathbb{C}[z]$ with $a_0(z)a_d(z)\neq 0$ such that \begin{equation}\label{F} a_0(z)F(z)+a_1(z)F(z^k)+\cdots+a_d(z)F(z^{k^d})=0.\end{equation} The functional equation in \eqref{F} is called a {\em Mahler-type functional equation}. Loxton and van der Poorten \cite{LP1988} claimed an analogue of Mahler's above-mentioned result for functions $F(z)\in\mathbb{Z}[[z]]$ satisfying \eqref{F}, although their proof is not complete \cite[remark following Corollary~2]{B1994}.
One may also wish to possibly avoid the functional equation approach and focus on generalizing the automatic aspect inspired by the Thue--Morse sequence. While the definition of automaticity based on computability by finite state automata is useful in a computational setting, we will use an equivalent and combinatorial (or sequential) definition which is more suitably generalized in a mathematical context. Let $\mathbf{f}:=\{f(n)\}_{n\geq 0}$ be a sequence with values in a ring $R$. We define the {\em $k$-kernel} of $\mathbf{f}$ to be the set $$\Big\{\{f(k^ln+r)\}_{n\geq 0}:l\geq 0 \mbox{ and } 0\leq r<k^l\Big\}.$$ Given $k\geq 2$, we say a sequence $\mathbf{f}$ is $k$-{\em automatic} if and only if the $k$-kernel of $\mathbf{f}$ is finite. Note that by the definition, an automatic sequence can only take on a finite number of values. To expand the notion of automatic sequences to sequences which can have values from an infinite set, we take the following definition from Allouche and Shallit \cite{AS1992}. We say that a sequence $\mathbf{f}$ taking values in a $\mathbb{Z}$-module $R$ is a {\em $k$-regular sequence} (or just $k$-regular) provided there exist a finite number of sequences over $R$, say $\{\mathbf{f}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{f}_m\}$, with the property that every sequence in the $k$-kernel of $\mathbf{f}$ is a $\mathbb{Z}$-linear combination of the $\mathbf{f}_i$; that is, $\mathbf{f}$ is $k$-regular provided the $k$-kernel of $\mathbf{f}$ is contained in a finitely generated $\mathbb{Z}$-module. We say that the series $\sum_{n\geq 0}f(n)z^n$ is {\em $k$-regular} (resp.~$k$-automatic) when $\mathbf{f}$ is $k$-regular (resp.~$k$-automatic). Note that with these definitions in mind, it is easy to see that any $k$-automatic function is also $k$-regular.
While the generalizations put forth in the preceding two paragraphs seem to branch into unrelated territories, they are in fact closely related. Indeed, in 1994 Becker \cite{B1994} showed that a $k$-regular series is $k$-Mahler; this was previously known for $k$-automatic series \cite{LP1988}. Thus to consider questions of transcendence of regular or automatic numbers, it may be enough to focus on Mahler's method. In the application of Mahler's method, as in the approach of Loxton and van der Poorten~\cite{LP1988}, one must have in hand a transcendence result for the series $F(z)$. Fortunately, Nishioka~\cite[Theorem 5.1.7]{N1996} established a rational--transcendental dichotomy for solutions of certain systems of functional equations; in particular, a $k$-Mahler function $F(z)\in\mathbb{C}[[z]]$ is either rational or transcendental.
Also in 1994, B\'ezivin~\cite[Th\'eor\`eme~1-3]{Bezivin} provided an extension of the special case of Nishioka's theorem to differentiably finite power series.
Recall that a function is said to be {\em differentiably finite} (or {\em $D$-finite}) if it satisfies a homogeneous linear differential equation with polynomial coefficients~\cite{S1980}.
\begin{theorem}[B\'ezivin \cite{Bezivin}]\label{Df} Let $k\geq 2$ be an integer and $F(z)\in\mathbb{C}[[z]]$ be a $k$-Mahler function. If $F(z)$ is $D$-finite, then $F(z)$ is a rational function.
\end{theorem}
Rand\'e in his doctoral thesis \cite{R1992} proved a P\'olya--Carlson type theorem for Mahler functions.
Unfortunately, Rand\'e's result has not appeared in the literature.
\begin{theorem}[Rand\'e \cite{R1992}]\label{PC} Let $k\geq 2$ be an integer and $F(z)\in\mathbb{C}[[z]]$ be a $k$-Mahler function. Then $F(z)$ is a rational function or it has the unit circle as a natural boundary.
\end{theorem}
In this paper, we provide new proofs of the theorems of B\'ezivin and Rand\'e.
These theorems appear here in English for the first time.
We note that the main ingredient of our proofs of Theorems \ref{Df} and \ref{PC} is that a meromorphic $k$-Mahler function is necessarily rational.
\section{Rational--transcendental dichotomy}
We use the following result of Dumas \cite[Theorem 31]{D1993}.
\begin{theorem}[Structure Theorem of Dumas \cite{D1993}]\label{Dumas} A $k$-Mahler function is the quotient of a series and an infinite product which are $k$-regular and analytic in the unit disk. That is, if $F(z)$ is the solution of the Mahler functional equation $$a_0(z)F(z)+a_1(z)F(z^k)+\cdots+a_d(z)F(z^{k^d})=0,$$ where $a_0(z)a_d(z)\neq 0$, the $a_i(z)$ are polynomials, then there exists a $k$-regular series $H(z)$ such that $$F(z)=\frac{H(z)}{\prod_{j\geq 0}\Gamma(z^{k^j})},$$ where $a_0(z)=\rho z^{\delta_0}\Gamma(z)$, with $\rho\neq 0$ and $\Gamma(0)=1$.
\end{theorem}
Dumas' theorem yields the following immediate corollary, which we note here as a lemma. We denote the open ball of radius $r>0$ centered at the origin by $B(0,r)$.
\begin{lemma} Let $k\geq 2$ be an integer and let $F(z)\in\mathbb{C}[[z]]$ be a $k$-Mahler function. Then $F(z)$ has a positive radius of convergence.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $k\geq 2$ be an integer and $F(z)\in\mathbb{C}[[z]]$ be a $k$-Mahler function satisfying, say, $$\sum_{j=0}^{d} a_j(z)F(z^{k^j})=0,$$ for $a_j(z)\in\mathbb{C}[z]$ with $a_0(z)a_d(z)\neq 0$. Noting that a $k$-regular series is analytic in the unit disk (see Allouche and Shallit \cite[Theorem 2.10]{AS1992}), Theorem \ref{Dumas} gives that $F(z)$ converges in $B(0,r)$, where $r\in(0,1)$ is the minimal distance from $0$ to a nonzero root of $a_0(z)(z-1)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{merofinite} Let $k\geq 2$ be an integer and let $F(z)\in\mathbb{C}[[z]]$ be a $k$-Mahler function. The function $F(z)$ is meromorphic if and only if it has finitely many singularities. Moreover, if $F(z)$ is not meromorphic then it has infinitely many non-polar singularities on the unit circle.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $k\geq 2$ be an integer and $F(z)\in\mathbb{C}[[z]]$ be a $k$-Mahler function satisfying, say, $$\sum_{j=0}^{d} a_j(z)F(z^{k^j})=0,$$ for $a_j(z)\in\mathbb{C}[z]$ with $a_0(z)a_d(z)\neq 0$. Write \begin{equation}\label{F1} F(z^{k^d})=-\sum_{j=0}^{d-1} \frac{a_j(z)}{a_d(z)}F(z^{k^j}).\end{equation}
Suppose that $F(z)$ is not meromorphic on the plane, and let $\alpha=Re^{i\vartheta}$ be a non-polar singularity of $F(z)$ with $R\geq 1$ minimal and $\vartheta\in[0,2\pi);$ note that such a minimal singularity exists since the singularity set is closed and $F(z)$ has only polar singularities in the unit circle (see Theorem \ref{Dumas})
We note here that the case $R>1$ cannot occur. To see this, suppose that $z=Re^{i\vartheta_0}$ is a non-polar singularity of $F(z)$ of minimal distance $R>1$ to the origin and $\vartheta_0\in[0,2\pi)$. Then $F(z^{k^d})$ has a non-polar singularity at $z=R^{k^{-d}}e^{i\vartheta_0 k^{-d}},$ and so by \eqref{F1} it must be the case that the right-hand side of \eqref{F1} has a non-polar singularity at $z=R^{k^{-d}}e^{i\vartheta_0 k^{-d}}.$ Since this cannot be contributed by the rational functions, there is some $j_0\in\{0,\ldots,d-1\}$ such that $F(z^{k^{j_0}})$ has a non-polar singularity at $z=R^{k^{-d}}e^{i\vartheta_0 k^{-d}},$ which in turns implies that $F(z)$ has a non-polar singularity at $z=R^{k^{-d+j_0}}e^{i\vartheta_0 k^{-d+j_0}}.$ Since $R^{k^{-d+j_0}}<R$ and $R$ was chosen minimally we arrive at a contradiction. Thus it must be the case that $R=1$.
Supposing that $R=1$, we will show that $F(z)$ has infinitely many singularities on the unit circle. To this end suppose that $F(z)$ has a non-polar singularity at $z=e^{i\vartheta_0}$ with $\vartheta_0\in(0,2\pi]$.
Then $F(z^{k^d})$ has a non-polar singularity at $z=e^{i\vartheta_0{k^{-d}}},$ and so by \eqref{F1} it must be the case that the right-hand side of \eqref{F1} has a non-polar singularity at $z=e^{i\vartheta_0k^{-d}}.$ Since this cannot be contributed by the rational functions, there is some $j_0\in\{0,\ldots,d-1\}$ such that $F(z^{k^{j_0}})$ has a non-polar singularity at $z=e^{i\vartheta_0k^{-d}},$ which in turns implies that $F(z)$ has a non-polar singularity at $z=e^{i\vartheta_0k^{-d+j_0}}.$ Now set $$\vartheta_1:=\vartheta_0k^{-d+j_0},$$ and repeat this process to construct an infinite sequence of distinct non-polar singularities $\{e^{i\vartheta_n}\}_{n\geq 0}$ of $F(z)$ with the property that \begin{equation}\label{limRn}\lim_{n\to\infty} e^{i\vartheta_n}=1.\end{equation} Thus if $F(z)$ has finitely many singularities, it is meromorphic. Note also, we have shown that if $F(z)$ has a non-polar singularity, then it has a non-polar singularity at $z=1$, since the singularity set is closed and the polar singularities are isolated
On the other hand, suppose that $F(z)$ is meromorphic and for the sake of a contradiction, suppose that it has infinitely many singularities. We may assume that there is a sequence of these singularities, say $\{R_ne^{i\vartheta_n}\}_{n\geq 0}$, which tend to infinity in modulus, since if not there would be an accumulation point of singularities and that accumulation point would be a non-isolated singularity, which would contradict that $F(z)$ is meromorphic. We will show that under these conditions the function $F(z)$ has infinitely many singularities in a bounded region. To this end, let $L>1$ be fixed, but large enough so that all zeros of the polynomials $a_0(z),\ldots,a_d(z)$ have modulus strictly less than $L$. Let $M\in\mathbb{N}$ be such that $M>1$ and $\alpha=Re^{i\vartheta}$ is a singularity of $F(z)$ with $L^{k^{Md}}\leq R<L^{k^{(M+1)d}}$ and $\vartheta\in(0,2\pi]$. Define the region $$\mathcal{S}(M):=\left\{z\in\mathbb{C}: |z|\in[L,L^{k^{2d}}], \arg z\in\left(0,\frac{2\pi}{k^{(M-1)d}}\right]\right\}.$$ Note that we have assumed without loss of generality that there are infinitely many such $M$ (and $\alpha$) with the above constraints and so to prove this direction of the lemma it is enough to show that there is a singularity of $F(z)$ in $\mathcal{S}(M)$ for such an $M$ as this implies that there are infinitely many singularities in the annulus $|z|\in[L,L^{k^{2d}}]$.
To this end, using \eqref{F1} as above, since $\alpha=Re^{i\vartheta}$ is a singularity of $F(z)$, $R^{k^{-d}}e^{i\vartheta k^{-d}}$ is a singularity of $F(z^{k^d})$ and so for some $j_1\in\{0,\ldots,d-1\}$, $R^{k^{-d+j_1}}e^{i\vartheta k^{-d+j_1}}$ is a singularity of $F(z)$. Continuing in this manner, we have that for some $j_1,\ldots,j_m\in\{0,\ldots,d-1\}$, $R^{k^{-md+j_1+\cdots+j_m}}e^{i\vartheta k^{-md+j_1+\cdots+j_m}}$ is a singularity of $F(z)$ for each $m$. Now let $n$ be such that $nd-(j_1+\cdots+j_n)\in[(M-1)d,Md);$ note that since $md-(j_1+\cdots+j_m)$ grows at least by $1$ and at most by $d$ for each increment in $m$ such an $n$ exists in $[M,Md]$. Set $$\alpha_M:=R^{k^{-nd+j_1+\cdots+j_n}}e^{i\vartheta k^{-nd+j_1+\cdots+j_n}}.$$ Since $L^{k^{Md}} < R<L^{k^{(M+1)d}}$, we have $$L^{k^{Md-nd+j_1+\cdots+j_n}} < R^{k^{-nd+j_1+\cdots+j_n}}<L^{k^{(M+1)d-nd+j_1+\cdots+j_n}},$$ and since $nd-(j_1+\cdots+j_n)\in[(M-1)d,Md)$, we thus have $$L < R^{k^{-nd+j_1+\cdots+j_n}}<L^{k^{(M+1)d-(M-1)d}}=L^{k^{2d}}.$$ Thus $|\alpha_M|\in[L,L^{k^{2d}}]$. Also, $$0<\arg\alpha_M=\frac{\vartheta}{k^{nd-(j_1+\cdots+j_n)}}\leq\frac{2\pi}{k^{(M-1)d}}.$$ Hence $\alpha_M\in\mathcal{S}(M)$. Since $\alpha_M$ is a singularity, we obtain the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} Let $k\geq 2$ be an integer and $F(z)\in\mathbb{C}[[z]]$ be a $k$-Mahler function. If $F(z)$ is entire, then $F(z)$ is a polynomial.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $k\geq 2$ be an integer and $F(z)\in\mathbb{C}[[z]]$ be an entire $k$-Mahler function satisfying $$\sum_{j=0}^{d} a_j(z)F(z^{k^j})=0,$$ for $a_j(z)\in\mathbb{C}[z]$ with $a_0(z)a_d(z)\neq 0$. As in the proof of Lemma \ref{merofinite}, write \begin{equation}\label{F2} F(z^{k^d})=-\sum_{j=0}^{d-1} \frac{a_j(z)}{a_d(z)}F(z^{k^j}).\end{equation}
Pick $L>1$ such that all of the zeros of $a_d(z)$ are in the open disk $B(0,L)$ of radius $L$ centered at the origin. Notice that since the $a_i(z)$ are polynomials, there is an $N>1$ and a constant $C>1$ such that for $|z|\geq L$, we have \begin{equation}\label{aiadbound} \max_{0\leq i\leq d-1}\left\{\left|\frac{a_i(z)}{a_d(z)}\right|\right\}<C|z|^N;\end{equation} in particular, the value $N=\max_{0\leq i\leq d-1}\{\deg a_i(z), 2\}$ is sufficient.
For $\ell\geq 0$ denote $$M_\ell:=\max\left\{|F(z)|:|z|=L^{k^\ell}\right\},$$ where $L$ is as chosen above. Using \eqref{F2}, \eqref{aiadbound}, and the Maximum Modulus Theorem, we have for $j\geq d$ that $$M_j\leq d \cdot C\big(L^{k^{j-d}}\big)^N M_{j-1}\leq C d L^{Nk^{j}}M_{j-1}.$$ Thus recursively, we have for each $n\geq d$ that $$M_n\leq M_{d-1}(C d)^n L^{Nk^{n+1}}.$$ But since $L>1$, this implies that there is some constant $b>0$ such that for $n\geq d$ we have $$M_n\leq L^{bk^n}.$$
Now let $m\geq b+2$ be a natural number, fix an $\alpha\in\mathbb{C}$ and consider $$F^{(m-1)}(\alpha)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\gamma_n}\frac{F(z)}{(z-\alpha)^m}dz,$$ where $\gamma_n$ is the circle of radius $L^{k^n}$ with $n$ large enough so that $\alpha$ is inside the circle of radius $L^{k^n}/2$ centered at the origin. Then for all $z$ on $\gamma_n$ we have that $$\frac{|z|}{2}\leq |z-\alpha|.$$ Thus for $n$ large enough, we have $$|F^{(m-1)}(\alpha)|\leq \frac{1}{2\pi} \cdot 2\pi L^{k^n}\cdot \frac{2^mM_n}{(L^{k^n})^m}= \frac{2^mM_n}{(L^{k^n})^{m-1}}\leq 2^mL^{k^n(b-m+1)}.$$ Recall that $m\geq b+2$ so that the above gives that $$|F^{(m-1)}(\alpha)|\leq \frac{2^m}{L^{k^n}}.$$ Since $n$ can be taken arbitrarily large, we have that $F^{(m-1)}(\alpha)=0$. But $\alpha\in\mathbb{C}$ was arbitrary, and so $F^{(m-1)}(z)$ is identically zero; hence $F(z)$ is a polynomial.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{main1} Let $k\geq 2$ be an integer and $F(z)\in\mathbb{C}[[z]]$ be a $k$-Mahler function. If $F(z)$ has only finitely many singularities, then $F(z)$ is a rational function.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $k\geq 2$ be an integer and $F(z)\in\mathbb{C}[[z]]$ be a $k$-Mahler function satisfying \begin{equation}\label{F3} \sum_{j=0}^{d} a_j(z)F(z^{k^j})=0,\end{equation} for $a_j(z)\in\mathbb{C}[z]$ with $a_0(z)a_d(z)\neq 0$. If $F(z)$ has only finitely many singularities, then there is a non-zero polynomial $q(z)\in\mathbb{C}[z]$ such that $q(z)F(z)$ is entire. For $j\in\{0,\ldots,d-1\}$ set $$q_j(z):=\frac{1}{q(z^{k^j})}\prod_{i=0}^d q(z^{k^i})\in\mathbb{C}[z].$$ Multiplying \eqref{F3} by $\prod_{i=0}^d q(z^{k^i})\in\mathbb{C}[z]$ we then have that $$\sum_{j=0}^{d} a_j(z)q_j(z)q(z^{k^j})F(z^{k^j})=0,$$ where since $q(z)$ is not identically zero we have that $a_0(z)q_0(z)a_d(z)q_d(z)\neq 0.$ Hence $q(z)F(z)$ is an entire $k$-Mahler function and thus, by the preceding lemma, a polynomial. This proves that $F(z)$ is a rational function.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{Df}] A $D$-finite series has finitely many singularities; namely, if $F(z)$ satisfies $p_0(z) F(z) + p_1(z) F'(z) + \cdots + p_m(z) F^{(m)}(z) = 0$ then each singularity of $F(z)$ is a zero of $p_m(z)$.
An application of Theorem \ref{main1} provides the desired result.
\end{proof}
The following corollary is a result of Nishioka \cite[Theorem~5.1.7]{N1996}.
\begin{corollary}[Nishioka \cite{N1996}] Let $k\geq 2$ be an integer and $F(z)\in\mathbb{C}[[z]]$ be a $k$-Mahler function. If $F(z)$ is algebraic, then $F(z)$ is a rational function.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} An algebraic series is $D$-finite; see Stanley \cite[Theorem~2.1]{S1980}.
\end{proof}
\section{A P\'olya--Carlson type result}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{PC}] Suppose that $F(z)\in\mathbb{C}[[z]]$ is $k$-Mahler and not rational. By the structure theorem, we have that $F(z)$ has only polar singularities in the unit disk. Note that we have already shown that if $F(z)$ is meromorphic, then it is a rational function, so we may suppose that there is some non-polar singularity of $F(z)$. By Lemma \ref{merofinite} we have that there are infinitely many non-polar singularities of $F(z)$ on the unit circle.
Let $S$ be the closure of the non-polar singularities of $F(z)$ on the unit circle. We will show that $S$ is the entire unit circle. Towards a contradiction, suppose there are points $\beta,\gamma\in S$ with $\arg\beta<\arg\gamma$ such that the points on the small arc of the unit circle strictly between $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are not singularities of $F(z)$.
Let \begin{equation}\label{pFd}\sum_{i=0}^d p_i(z)F(z^{k^i})=0\end{equation} be a non-trivial Mahler functional equation for $F(z)$ which is minimal with respect to $d$, and define the vector space $$V:=\sum_{i\geq 0}\mathbb{C}(z)F(z^{k^i}).$$
It is quite easy to see that $V$ has dimension $d$ as a $\mathbb{C}(z)$-vector space since $d$ is minimal with respect to the relation \eqref{pFd}. Indeed, suppose that $$\sum_{i=0}^n q_i(z)F(z^{k^i})\in V$$ with $q_n(z)\neq 0$ and $n\geq d$. Then multiplying by $1$ and subtracting zero using \eqref{pFd}, we have that \begin{align*} \sum_{i=0}^n q_i(z)&F(z^{k^i}) = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}q_i(z)F(z^{k^i})\\
&+\frac{1}{p_d(z^{k^{n-d}})}\left(p_d(z^{k^{n-d}})q_n(z)F(z^{k^n})-q_n(z)\sum_{i=0}^d p_i(z^{k^{n-d}})F(z^{k^{n-d+i}})\right)\\
&\quad\qquad = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}q_i(z)F(z^{k^i})-\frac{1}{p_d(z^{k^{n-d}})}\left(q_n(z)\sum_{i=0}^{d-1} p_i(z^{k^{n-d}})F(z^{k^{n-d+i}})\right)\\
&\quad\qquad \in\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\mathbb{C}(z)F(z^{k^{i}}).
\end{align*} Continuing in this manner shows that $$\sum_{i=0}^n q_i(z)F(z^{k^i})\in\sum_{i=0}^{d-1}\mathbb{C}(z)F(z^{k^{i}}).$$ Thus $\dim_{\mathbb{C}(z)}V\leq d.$ Since $d$ was chosen minimally so that \eqref{pFd} holds, we have that $\dim_{\mathbb{C}(z)}V=d$.
Similarly, for all integers $L>0$, the $\mathbb{C}(z)$-vector space $$\sum_{i=0}^{d-1}\mathbb{C}(z)F(z^{k^{i+L}})$$ is $d$-dimensional, and since it is a subspace of $V$ it is equal to $V$.
Thus since $F(z)\in V$, there are then polynomials $q_{0,L}(z),\ldots,$ $q_{d,L}(z)$ with $q_{0,L}(z)$ nonzero such that \begin{equation}\label{qFL} q_{0,L}(z)F(z)=\sum_{i=1}^d q_{i,L}(z)F(z^{k^{i+L-1}}).\end{equation}
Since $S$ is the closure of the non-polar singularities, and polar singularities are isolated, we can pick a non-polar singularity $\alpha$ of $F(z)$ as close as we wish to $\beta$. Pick such an $\alpha$ and an $L>0$ big enough so that $\alpha\omega^j$ is in the arc between $\beta$ and $\gamma$ for $j=1,\ldots,d+1$ where $\omega:=e^{2\pi i/k^L}.$ Notice that $q_{0,L}(z)F(z)$ has a non-polar singularity at $z=\alpha$ since $q_{0,L}(z)$ is nonzero.
Define \begin{multline*}W:=\Big\{(s_1(z),\ldots,s_d(z))\in\mathbb{C}(z)^d:\\ \sum_{i=1}^d s_i(z)F(z^{k^{i+L-1}})\mbox{ has at most a polar singularity at $z=\alpha$}\Big\}.\end{multline*} Note that $W$ is a $\mathbb{C}(z)$-vector space. Then sending $z\mapsto \omega^jz$ in \eqref{qFL} for $j=1,\ldots,d+1$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{qFeq}
q_{0,L}(\omega^jz)F(\omega^jz)=\sum_{i=1}^d q_{i,L}(\omega^jz)F((\omega^jz)^{k^{i+L-1}}).
\end{equation}
By construction, the left-hand side of \eqref{qFeq} has no non-polar singularity at $z=\alpha$.
Since $\omega$ is a $k^L$th root of unity, $F((\omega^jz)^{k^{i+L-1}}) = F(z^{k^{i+L-1}})$ for all $j$ and all $i\geq 1$, and thus $$\mathbf{u}_j(z):=\left(q_{1,L}(\omega^jz),\ldots,q_{d,L}(\omega^jz)\right)\in W$$ for $j=1,\ldots,d+1$.
Since $\dim_{\mathbb{C}(z)}W<d+1$, there is some $t\in\{1,\ldots,d+1\}$ such that $$\mathbf{u}_t(z)=g_1(z)\mathbf{u}_1(z)+\cdots+g_{t-1}(z)\mathbf{u}_{t-1}(z).$$ In other words, we have that \begin{equation}\label{star} q_{i,L}(\omega^tz)=g_1(z)q_{i,L}(\omega z)+\cdots+g_{t-1}(z)q_{i,L}(\omega^{t-1}z)\end{equation} for each $i=1,\ldots,d$.
Replacing $z$ with $\omega z$, using \eqref{star} gives that $$\mathbf{u}_{t+1}(z):=\left(q_{1,L}(\omega^{t+1}z),\ldots,q_{d,L}(\omega^{t+1}z)\right)\in W.$$ Continuing, we get that $\left(q_{1,L}(\omega^{k^L}z),\ldots,q_{d,L}(\omega^{k^L}z)\right)\in W.$ Since $\omega^{k^L}=1$, we have that $$\left(q_{1,L}(z),\ldots,q_{d,L}(z)\right)\in W,$$ and thus \eqref{qFL} gives that $q_{0,L}(z)F(z)$ is non-singular at $z=\alpha$, a contradiction. This proves the theorem.
\end{proof}
\section{Acknowledgements}
We thank Jean-Paul B\'ezivin for pointing out his paper to us and the referee for a careful reading.
The research of J.~P.~Bell was supported by NSERC grant 31-611456 and the research of M.~Coons was supported in part by a Fields--Ontario Fellowship and NSERC.
|
\section{Introduction and Primal Problem}
Minimal distance problems between two surfaces arise naturally from many applications, which have been recently studied by both engineers and scientists (see \cite{JOHN-COHEN,PATO-GILLES}). In this article, the problem presents a quadratic minimization problem with equality constraints: we let ${\bf x}:=({\bf y},{\bf z})$ and
\eb
({\cal P}):\ \min\left\{\Pi({\bf x})=\frac{1}{2}\|{\bf y}-{\bf z}\|^2:\ h({\bf y})=0,\ g({\bf z})=0\right\},
\ee
where $h:I\!\!R^n\rightarrow I\!\!R$ and $g:I\!\!R^n\rightarrow I\!\!R$ are defined by
\eb\label{h}
h({\bf y}):=\frac{1}{2}\left({\bf y}^t{\bf A}{\bf y}-r^2\right),
\ee
\eb\label{g}
g({\bf z}):=\frac{1}{2}\alpha\left(\frac{1}{2}\|{\bf z}-{\bf c}\|^2-\eta\right)^2-{\bf f}^t({\bf z}-{\bf c}),
\ee
in which,
${\bf A}\inI\!\!R^{n\times n}$ is a positive definite matrix, $\alpha,r$ and $\eta$ are positive numbers,
and ${\bf f},{\bf c}\in I\!\!R^n$ are properly chosen so that these two surfaces
\[
{\calY_c}:=\{{\bf y}\inI\!\!R^n:\ h({\bf y})=0\}
\]
and
\[
{\calZ_c}:=\{{\bf z}\inI\!\!R^n:\ g({\bf z})=0\}
\]
are disjoint such that if ${\bf z}\in {\calZ_c}$ then $h({\bf z})> 0$.
For example, it can be proved that if ${\bf c}=0$, $r>0$, $\eta>0.5r^2$ and $\|{\bf f}\|<0.5(0.5r^2-\eta)^2/r$ then, ${\calY_c}\cap{\calZ_c}=\emptyset$ and if ${\bf z}\in {\calZ_c}$ then $h({\bf z})> 0$. Notice that the feasible set ${\calX_c}={\calY_c}\times{\calZ_c}\subsetI\!\!R^n\timesI\!\!R^n$, defined by $${\calX_c}=\{{\bf x}\inI\!\!R^n\timesI\!\!R^n:\ h({\bf y})=0,\ g({\bf z})=0\},$$ is, in general, non-convex.
By introducing Lagrange multipliers $\lambda,\mu\inI\!\!R$ to relax the two equality constraints in ${\calX_c}$, the classical Lagrangian associated with the constrained problem $({\cal P})$ is \eb \label{Lagrangian}
L({\bf x},\lambda,\mu)=\frac{1}{2}\|{\bf y}-{\bf z}\|^2+\lambda h({\bf y})+\mu g({\bf z}).
\ee
Due to the non-convexity of the constraint $g$, the problem may have multiple local minima.
The identification of the global minimizer has been a fundamentally difficult task in global optimization. The {\em canonical duality theory} is a newly developed, potentially useful methodology, which is composed mainly of (i) a
\emph{canonical dual transformation}, (ii) a {\em complementary-dual principle, }
and (iii) an associated \emph{triality theory}. The canonical dual transformation can be used to formulate dual problems
without duality gap; the complementary-dual principle shows that the canonical dual problem is equivalent to
the primal problem in the sense that they have the same set of KKT points;
while the triality theory can be used to identify both global and local extrema.
In global optimization, the canonical duality theory has been successfully used for solving many non-convex/non-smooth
constrained optimization problems, including polynomial minimization \cite{DGAO1,DGAO4},
concave minimization with inequality constraints \cite{DGAO3}, nonlinear dynamical systems \cite{ruan-gao-ima},
non-convex quadratic minimization with spherical \cite{DGAO2}, box \cite{DGAO5}, and integer constraints \cite{FANG}.
In the next section, we will show how to correctly
use the canonical dual transformation to convert the non-convex constrained problem into a canonical dual problem.
The global optimality condition is proposed in Section 2. Applications are illustrated in Section 3.
The global minimizer is uniquely identified by the triality theory proposed in \cite{DGAOB}.
\section{Canonical dual problem}
In order to use the canonical dual transformation method, the key step is to introduce a so-called \emph{geometrical operator} $\xi=\Lambda({\bf z})$ and a \emph{canonical function} $V(\xi)$ such that the non-convex function \eb\label{functionW}
W({\bf z})=\frac{1}{2}\alpha\left(\frac{1}{2}\|{\bf z}-{\bf c}\|^2-\eta\right)^2
\ee in $g({\bf z})$ can be written in the so-called canonical form $W({\bf z})=V(\Lambda({\bf z}))$.
By the definition introduced in \cite{DGAOB}, a differentiable function
$V:{\calV_a}\subsetI\!\!R\rightarrow{\calV_a}^*\subsetI\!\!R$ is called a \emph{canonical function} if the duality relation
$\varsigma=DV(\xi):{\calV_a}\rightarrow{\calV_a}^*$ is invertible. Thus, for the non-convex function defined by
\eqref{functionW}, we let $$\xi=\Lambda({\bf z})=\frac{1}{2}\|{\bf z}-{\bf c}\|^2,$$ then the quadratic function $V(\xi):=\frac{1}{2}\alpha(\xi-\eta)^2$ is a canonical function on the domain ${\calV_a}=\{\xi\inI\!\!R:\ \xi\geq 0\}$
since the duality relation
$$\varsigma=DV(\xi)=\alpha(\xi-\eta):{\calV_a}\rightarrow{\calV_a}^*=\{\varsigma\inI\!\!R:\ \varsigma\geq -\alpha\eta\}$$
is invertible. By the Legendre transformation, the conjugate function of $V(\xi)$ can be uniquely defined by
\eb V^*(\varsigma)=\{\xi\varsigma-V(\xi):\ \varsigma=DV(\xi)\}=\frac{1}{2\alpha}\varsigma^2+\eta\varsigma.
\ee
It is easy to prove that the following canonical relations
\eb\label{canonicalrelations}
\xi=DV^*(\varsigma)\Leftrightarrow\varsigma=DV(\xi)\Leftrightarrow V(\xi)+V^*(\varsigma)=\xi\varsigma
\ee
hold in ${\calV_a}\times{\calV_a}^*$.
Thus, replacing $W({\bf z})$ in the non-convex function $g({\bf z})$ by $V(\Lambda({\bf z}))=\Lambda({\bf z})\varsigma-V^*(\varsigma)$, the non-convex Lagrangian $L({\bf x},\lambda,\mu)$ can be written in the Gao-Strang \emph{total complementary function} form \eb\label{XI}
\Xi({\bf x},\lambda,\mu,\varsigma)=\frac{1}{2}\|{\bf y}-{\bf z}\|^2+\lambda h({\bf y})+\mu (\Lambda({\bf z})\varsigma-V^*(\varsigma)-{\bf f}^t({\bf z}-{\bf c})).
\ee
Through this total complementary function, the canonical dual function can be defined by
\eb\label{XiPId} \Pi^d(\lambda,\mu,\varsigma)=\left\{\Xi({\bf x},\lambda,\mu,\varsigma): {\bf \nabla}_{{\bf x}}\Xi({\bf x},\lambda,\mu,\varsigma)=0\right\}.
\ee
Let the dual feasible space $\calS_a$ be defined by
\eb\label{setSa}
\calS_a:=\{(\lambda,\mu,\varsigma)\inI\!\!R^3:(1+\mu\varsigma)({\bf I}+\lambda{\bf A})-{\bf I} \text{ is invertible}\},
\ee
where ${\bf I}\inI\!\!R^{n\times n}$ is the identity matrix.
Then the canonical dual function $\Pi^d$ is well defined by \eqref{XiPId}.
In order to have the explicit form of $\Pi^d$, we need to calculate
\[
{\bf \nabla}_{{\bf x}}\Xi({\bf x},\lambda,\mu,\varsigma)=\left[\begin{array}{c}
{\bf y}-{\bf z}+\lambda{\bf A}{\bf y}\\
{\bf z}-{\bf y}+\mu\varsigma({\bf z}-{\bf c})-\mu{\bf f}
\end{array}\right].
\]
Clearly, if $(\lambda,\mu,\varsigma)\in\calS_a$ we have that
${\bf \nabla}_{{\bf x}}\Xi({\bf x},\lambda,\mu,\varsigma)=0$ if and only if
\eb\label{xbar}
{\bf x}(\lambda,\mu,\varsigma)=\left[
\begin{array}{c}\mu((1+\mu\varsigma)({\bf I}+\lambda{\bf A})-{\bf I})^{-1}({\bf f}+\varsigma{\bf c})\\
\mu({\bf I}+\lambda{\bf A})((1+\mu\varsigma)({\bf I}+\lambda{\bf A})-{\bf I})^{-1}({\bf f}+\varsigma{\bf c})
\end{array}\right].
\ee
Therefore,
\[
\Pi^d(\lambda,\mu,\varsigma)=\Xi({\bf x}(\lambda,\mu,\varsigma),\lambda,\mu,\varsigma),
\]
where ${\bf x}(\lambda,\mu,\varsigma)$
is given by \eqref{xbar}.\\
The stationary points of the function $\Xi$ play a key role in identifying the global minimizer of $({\cal P})$.
Because of this, let us put in evidence what conditions the stationary points of $\Xi$ must satisfy:
\ebe
\label{grad_x Xi}
& &{\bf \nabla}_{{\bf x}}\Xi({\bf x},\lambda,\mu,\varsigma)=\left[\begin{array}{c}
{\bf y}-{\bf z}+\lambda{\bf A}{\bf y}\\
{\bf z}-{\bf y}+\mu\varsigma({\bf z}-{\bf c})-\mu{\bf f}
\end{array}\right]=0,\\
\label{grad_lam Xi}
& &\frac{\partial\Xi}{\partial\lambda}({\bf x},\lambda,\mu,\varsigma)=h({\bf y})=0,\\
\label{grad_mu Xi}
& &\frac{\partial\Xi}{\partial\mu}({\bf x},\lambda,\mu,\varsigma)=\Lambda({\bf z})\varsigma-V^*(\varsigma)-{\bf f}^t({\bf z}-{\bf c}),\\
\label{grad_vsig Xi}
& &\frac{\partial\Xi}{\partial\varsigma}({\bf x},\lambda,\mu,\varsigma)=\mu(\Lambda({\bf z})-DV^*(\varsigma)).
\eee
The following result can be found in \cite{V-Z}. Their proof will be presented for completeness.
\begin{lemma}\label{mu&lamnot0}
Consider $({\bf x},\lambda,\mu,\varsigma)$ a stationary point of $\Xi$ then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[a)] $\mu=0$,
\item[b)] $\lambda=0$,
\item[c)] ${\bf x}\notin{\calX_c}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[a) $\rightarrow$ b)] If $\mu=0$, then from \eqref{grad_x Xi} we have ${\bf y}={\bf z}$. This implies that $\lambda{\bf A}{\bf y}=0$ but ${\bf y}\neq 0$ since $\|{\bf y}\|=r$ by \eqref{grad_lam Xi} and ${\bf A}$ is invertible, therefore $\lambda=0$.
\item[b) $\rightarrow$ c)] If $\lambda=0$, then from \eqref{grad_x Xi}, ${\bf y}={\bf z}$ and so $({\bf y},{\bf z})\notin{\calX_c}$ because ${\calY_c}\cap{\calZ_c}=\emptyset$.
\item[c) $\rightarrow$ a)] Consider the counter-positive form of this statement, namely, if $\mu\neq 0$ then from \eqref{grad_vsig Xi}, $\Lambda({\bf z})=DV^*(\varsigma)$ which combined together with \eqref{canonicalrelations} and \eqref{grad_mu Xi} provides ${\bf z}\in{\calZ_c}$. Since ${\bf y}\in{\calY_c}$, from \eqref{grad_lam Xi}, it has been proven that ${\bf x}\in{\calX_c}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
Now we are ready to re-introduce Theorems 1 and 2 of Gao and Yang (\cite{DGAOY}).
\begin{theorem}\label{compl-dual princ}
(Complementary-dual principle) If $(\bar{\bx},\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})$ is a stationary point of $\Xi$ such that $(\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})\in\calS_a$ then $\bar{\bx}$ is a critical point of $({\cal P})$ with $\bar{\lam}$ and $\bar{\mu}$ its Lagrange multipliers, $(\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})$ is a stationary point of $\Pi^d$ and \eb \Pi(\bar{\bx})=L(\bar{\bx},\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu})=\Xi(\bar{\bx},\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})=\Pi^d(\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig}).
\ee
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From Lemma \ref{mu&lamnot0}, we must have that $\bar{\lam}$ and $\bar{\mu}$ are different than zero, otherwise they both will be zero and $(0,0,\varsigma)\notin \calS_a$ for any $\varsigma\inI\!\!R$ which contradicts the assumption that $(\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})\in\calS_a$. Furthermore $\bar{\bx}\in{\calX_c}$,
clearly $\bar{\bx}$ is a critical point of $({\cal P})$ with $\bar{\lam}$ and $\bar{\mu}$ its Lagrange multipliers and
$$\Pi(\bar{\bx})=L(\bar{\bx},\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu})=\Xi(\bar{\bx},\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig}).$$ On the other hand, since
$(\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})\in\calS_a$, Equations \eqref{xbar} and \eqref{grad_x Xi} are equivalent, therefore it is
easily proven that
$$\frac{\partial\Xi}{\partial t}(\bar{\bx},\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})=\frac{\partial\Pi^d}{\partial t}(\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})=0,$$
where $t$ is either $\lambda,\mu$ or $\varsigma$.
This implies that $(\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})$ is a stationary point of $\Pi^d$ and $$\Xi(\bar{\bx},\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})=\Pi^d(\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})$$
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Following the canonical duality theory, in order to identify the global minimizer of $({\cal P})$, we first need to look at the Hessian of $ \Xi$:
\eb\label{HessianXi_x}
{\bf \nabla}^2_{{\bf x}}\Xi({\bf x},\lambda,\mu,\varsigma)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
{\bf I}+\lambda{\bf A} & -{\bf I} \\
-{\bf I} & (1+\mu\varsigma){\bf I}
\end{array}\right].
\ee
This matrix is positive definite if and only if ${\bf I}+\lambda{\bf A}$ and $(1+\mu\varsigma)({\bf I}+\lambda{\bf A})-{\bf I}$
are positive definite (see Theorem 7.7.6 in \cite{HORN}).
With this, we define $\calS_a^+\subset\calS_a$ as follows: \eb\label{setSa+}
\calS_a^+:=\{(\lambda,\mu,\varsigma)\in\calS_a:\ {\bf I}+\lambda{\bf A} \succ 0 \text{ and } (1+\mu\varsigma)({\bf I}+\lambda{\bf A})-{\bf I}\succ 0 \}.
\ee
\begin{theorem}\label{necessaryconditions}
Suppose that $(\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})\in\calS_a^+$ is a stationary point of $\Pi^d$. Then $\bar{\bx}$ defined by \eqref{xbar} is the only global minimizer of $\Pi$ on ${\calX_c}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since $(\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})\in\calS_a^+$, it is clear that $\bar{\bx}\in{\calX_c}$ and is the only global minimizer of
$\Xi(\cdot,\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})$. From \eqref{canonicalrelations}, notice that $V$ is a strictly convex function,
therefore $V^*(\varsigma)=\sup\{\xi\varsigma-V(\xi):\xi\geq 0\}$ and
\eb\label{Xi&L}
\Xi({\bf x},\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})\leq L({\bf x},\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu}),\ \forall {\bf x}\inI\!\!R^{n\times n},
\ee
in particular, $\Xi(\bar{\bx},\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})= L(\bar{\bx},\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu})$.
Suppose now that there exists ${\bf x}'\in{\calX_c}\setminus\{\bar{\bx}\}$
such that
$$\Pi({\bf x}')\leq\Pi(\bar{\bx}),$$
we would have the following: $$L({\bf x}',\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu})=\Pi({\bf x}')\leq\Pi(\bar{\bx})=L(\bar{\bx},\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu}),$$
but because of \eqref{Xi&L} this is equivalent to
$$\Xi({\bf x}',\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})\leq L({\bf x}',\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu})\leq L(\bar{\bx},\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu}) = \Xi(\bar{\bx},\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig}).$$
This contradicts the fact that $\bar{\bx}$ is the only global minimizer of $\Xi(\cdot,\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})$,
therefore, we must have that $$\Pi(\bar{\bx})<\Pi({\bf x}),\ \forall {\bf x}\in{\calX_c}\setminus\{\bar{\bx}\}.$$
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Notice that Theorem \ref{necessaryconditions} ensures that a stationary point in $\calS_a^+$ will give us the only
solution of $({\cal P})$. Therefore, the existence and uniqueness of the solution of $({\cal P})$ is necessary in order to
find a stationary point of $\Pi^d$ in $\calS_a^+$. From this it should be evident that the examples provided in
\cite{V-Z} does not contradict any of the results established under the new conditions of Theorems
\ref{compl-dual princ} and \ref{necessaryconditions}.
It is a conjecture proposed in
\cite{DGAO5} that in nonconvex optimization with box/integer constraints, if the canonical dual problem
does not have a critical point in $\calS_a^+$, the primal problem could be NP-hard.
\end{remark}
\section{Numerical Results}
The graphs in this section were obtained using WINPLOT \cite{PEANUT}.
\subsection{Distance between a sphere and a non-convex polynomial}
Let $n=3$, $\eta=2$, $\alpha=1,$ ${\bf f}=(2,1,1)$, ${\bf c}=(4,5,0)$, $r=2\sqrt{2}$ and ${\bf A}={\bf I}$. In this case, the sets $\calS_a$ and $\calS_a^+$ are given by:
\eb\label{SaEx1}
\calS_a=\{(\lambda,\mu,\varsigma)\inI\!\!R^3:(1+\mu\varsigma)(1+\lambda)\neq 1\},
\ee
\eb\label{Sa+Ex1}
\calS_a^+=\{(\lambda,\mu,\varsigma)\inI\!\!R^3:1+\lambda>0,\ (1+\mu\varsigma)(1+\lambda)> 1\}.
\ee
Using Maxima \cite{MAXIMA}, we can find the following stationary point of $\Pi^d$ in $\calS_a^+$:
$$(\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})=(0.9502828628898,1.06207786194864,0.30646555192966).$$ Then the global minimizer of $({\cal P})$ is given by Equation \eqref{xbar}: $$\bar{\by}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
2.161477484004744\\
1.696777196962463\\
0.67004643869564
\end{array}\right),\ \
\bar{\bz}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
4.215492495576614\\
3.309195489378083\\
1.306780086728456
\end{array}\right).$$
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{MinDistEx1.eps}
\caption{Distance between a sphere and a non-convex polynomial}
\label{FigExample1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Distance between an ellipsoid and a non-convex polynomial}
Let $n=3$, $\eta=2$, $\alpha=1,$ ${\bf f}=(-2,-2,1)$, ${\bf c}=(-4,-5,0)$, $r=2\sqrt{2}$ and $${\bf A}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
3 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & 4 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & 5
\end{array}\right].$$ Using Maxima \cite{MAXIMA}, we can find the following stationary point of $\Pi^d$ in $\calS_a^+$: $$(\bar{\lam},\bar{\mu},\bar{\vsig})=(0.84101802234162,1.493808342458642,0.12912817444352).$$ To put in evidence that this stationary point is in fact in $\calS_a^+$, notice that the eigenvalues of ${\bf A}$ are given by: \begin{eqnarray*}
\beta_1 = & \frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}\cos\left(\frac{4\pi}{3}+\frac{\theta}{3}\right)+4 & \approx 3.460811127 \\
\beta_2 = & \frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}\cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{3}+\frac{\theta}{3}\right)+4 & \approx 2.324869129 \\
\beta_3 = & \frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}\cos\left(\frac{\theta}{3}\right) +4 \verb| | & \approx 6.214319743,
\end{eqnarray*} with $\displaystyle\theta=\cos^{-1}\left(\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{8}\right)$. Then, the matrices ${\bf I}+\bar{\lam}{\bf A}$ and $(1+\bar{\mu}\bar{\vsig})({\bf I}+\bar{\lam}{\bf A})-{\bf I}$ are similar to $$\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
3.910604529727413 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 2.955256837074665 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 6.226354900456345
\end{array}\right]$$ and $$\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
3.664931769065526 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 2.525304438283014 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 6.42737358375643
\end{array}\right]$$ respectively. Finally, the global minimizer of $({\cal P})$ is given by Equation \eqref{xbar}: $$\bar{\by}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
-1.121270493506938\\
-0.83025443673537\\
0.66262025515374
\end{array}\right),\ \
\bar{\bz}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
-4.091279940255224\\
-4.009023330835817\\
1.807730500535487
\end{array}\right).$$
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{MinDistEx2.eps}
\caption{Distance between an ellipsoid and a non-convex polynomial}
\label{FigExample2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Example given in \cite{V-Z}}
Let $n=2$, $\alpha=\eta=1$, ${\bf c}=(1,0)$, ${\bf f}=\left(\frac{\sqrt{6}}{96},0\right)$, $r=1$ and ${\bf A}={\bf I}$. As it was pointed out in \cite{V-Z}, there are no stationary points in $\calS_a^+$. Under the new conditions of Theorem \ref{necessaryconditions}, this is expected since the problem has more than one solution (see figure \ref{FigExample3a}).
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.3]{MinDistEx3a.eps}
\caption{Example given in \cite{V-Z}}
\label{FigExample3a}
\end{figure} The following was found (\cite{V-Z}) to be one of the global minimizers of $({\cal P})$:
\[
\bar{\by}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
0.5872184947\\
0.8094284647
\end{array}\right),\ \
\bar{\bz}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
1.012757759\\
1.395996491
\end{array}\right).
\]
Notice that $\calS_a$ and $\calS_a^+$ are defined as in Equations \eqref{SaEx1} and \eqref{Sa+Ex1}.\\
In order to solve this problem, we will introduce a perturbation. Instead of the given ${\bf f}$, we will consider ${\bf f}_n=\left(\frac{\sqrt{6}}{96},\frac{1}{n}\right)$ for $n>100$.\\ The following table summarizes the results for different values of $n$.\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
$n$ & $(\bar{\lam}_n,\bar{\mu}_n,\bar{\vsig}_n)\in\calS_a^+$ & $\bar{\bx}_n=(\bar{\by}_n,\bar{\bz}_n)$\\ \hline
64 & (0.2284381,5.319007,-0.0219068) & $\bar{\by}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
0.2250312\\
0.9743515
\end{array}\right),\ \bar{\bz}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
0.2764370\\
1.1969306
\end{array}\right)$\\
\hline
1000 & (0.6926569,16.01863,-0.0248297) & $\bar{\by}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
0.5656039\\
0.8246770
\end{array}\right),\ \bar{\bz}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
0.9573734\\
1.3958953
\end{array}\right)$\\
\hline
10000 & (0.7214940,16.42599,-0.0254434) & $\bar{\by}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
0.5850814\\
0.8109745
\end{array}\right),\ \bar{\bz}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
1.0072142\\
1.3960878
\end{array}\right)$\\
\hline
100000 & (0.7243521,16.46345,-0.0255083) & $\bar{\by}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
0.5870050\\
0.8095833
\end{array}\right),\ \bar{\bz}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
1.0122034\\
1.3960066
\end{array}\right)$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
{\label{2DPert64}\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{MinDist2DPert64.eps}}\quad
{\label{2DPert100K}\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{MinDist2DPert100K.eps}}
\caption{Perturbations of Example given in \cite{V-Z}, $n=64$ to the left and $n=100000$ to the right.} \label{2DPert}
\end{figure}
\vspace{.3cm}
\begin{remark}
The combination of the linear perturbation method and canonical duality theory
for solving nonconvex optimization problems was first proposed in
\cite{r-g-j} with successful applications in solving some NP-complete problems \cite{wangetal}.
High-order perturbation methods for solving integer programming problems were discussed in
\cite{gao-ruan-jogo08}.
\end{remark}
\section{Concluding remarks and future research}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$\bullet$] The total complementary function (Equation \eqref{XI}) is indeed useful for finding necessary conditions for solving $({\cal P})$ by means of the Canonical Duality theory.
\item[$\bullet$] The examples presented in \cite{V-Z} do not contradict the new conditions and results presented here.
\item[$\bullet$] As stated by Theorem \ref{necessaryconditions}, in order to use the canonical dual transformation a necessary condition is that $({\cal P})$ has a unique solution. The question if this condition is sufficient remains open.
\item[$\bullet$] The combination of the perturbation and the canonical duality theory is an important method
for solving nonconvex optimization problems which have more than one global optimal solution.
\item[$\bullet$] Finding a stationary point of $\Pi^d$ in $\calS_a^+$ is not a simple task.
It is worth to continue studying this problem in order to develop an efficient algorithm for solving challenging
problems in global optimization.
\end{enumerate}
|
\section{Introduction} Although low-temperature properties of some metals \cite{metals0a,metals0b,metals0c,metals0d} and doped SrTiO$_3$ \cite{SrTiO0} were found to follow the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer theory with overlapping energy bands \cite{Suhl,Moskalenko}, multi-gap superconductivity was treated rather exotic in the last century. Nowadays, the physics of cuprates \cite{cuprates0a,cuprates0b,cuprates0c}, MgB$_2$ \cite{MgB0a,MgB0b,MgB0c,MgB0d} and pnictides
\cite{pnictides0a,pnictides0b,pnictides0c,pnictides0d,pnictides0e},
among others, draws enormous attention to that scenario.
An interaction between superconductivity components plays the crucial role for two-band systems. Interband coupling raises critical temperature of the condensate. That pairing causes the penetration of the Cooper pairs from the stronger band (i.e. band with stronger superconductivity) into weaker one inducing there additional contribution to superconductivity. This peculiarity becomes important in the temperature region where stronger band is intrinsically superconducting (active), but weaker one is not yet, and results in the simultaneous vanishing of the band gaps in spite of distinct intraband critical points.
An effect of interband pairing is most intriguing in the situation when joint superconducting state is close to the splitting into two independent condensates. In this case the memory about intrinsic criticality of the weaker band becomes very pronounced and visible in the temperature scale as an additional maximum or a kink in the heat capacity curve \cite{capacity1,capacity2,capacity3,capacity4,capacity5,me2}, coherence lengths \cite{babaev1,litak2012,ord1}, relaxation times \cite{ord2}, conductivity \cite{VSi1} and superfluid density data \cite{Vsi2,FeSe1}. At that, there appears an inflection point in the temperature behaviour of the weaker-band gap which was observed in a number of two-gap materials \cite{SrTiO0,SrTiO1,NbSe,RNiBC1,RNiBC2,RNiBC3,LaC,MgAlB1}. Here we mention heavy fermion \cite{UNiAl} and multilayered \cite{Cu1234a,Cu1234b} systems which also demonstrate distinct superconductivity gaps opening fully at different temperatures.
The evolution of weaker-band superconducting instability with increase of interband coupling indicates close analogy with the modifications of the phase transition anomaly under applied external field \cite{landau}. Generally, that field rounds the singularities of various characteristics appearing at the phase transition point and locates them into somewhat shifted positions. Moreover, these tendencies are common within certain universality class with scaling behaviour in the known form. The analogy between interband pairing and external field can essentially enrich an understanding of two-gap physics. In particular, it may be of importance for type-1.5 superconductivity \cite{babaev2} for which the proximity to intrinsic critical point of the weaker band plays in favour.
The behaviour of the gap healing length, analysed recently for two-band scenario, reveals a peak close to the superconducting phase transition point of the weaker band taken as independent system. The magnitude of that peak scales with interband interaction constant with an exponent $-\frac{1}{3}$ \cite{shanenko}. Since the same exponent appears in the Landau mean-field theory for correlation length, it may signal the correctness of the analogy between interband coupling and external field. However, justification of this similarity calls for the analysis of other characteristics of a system. Moreover, one should be cautious due to discrepancy between spatial scales of coherency and recovery of the gap functions in a two-band superconductor \cite{babaev3}.
In the present contribution we perform a detailed examination of the
smearing of intraband superconducting instability by interband pairing
seen in the temperature behaviour of thermodynamic functions. From the
analysis carried out it follows that weak interband interaction
affects the various quantities related to the weaker band as an external
field associated with the order parameter.
\section{Thermodynamics of a two-gap system} We start with the Hamiltonian of a homogeneous two-band superconductor with intra- and interband pair-transfer interactions,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{e1}
&&H=\sum_{\alpha\mathbf{k}s}\tilde{\epsilon}_\alpha(\mathbf{k})a^+_{\alpha\mathbf{k}s}a_{\alpha\mathbf{k}s}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{1}{V}\sum_{\alpha\alpha^\prime}\sum_{\mathbf{k}\mathbf{k^\prime}}W_{\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}a^+_{\alpha\mathbf{k}\uparrow}a^+_{\alpha-\mathbf{k}\downarrow}a_{\alpha^\prime-\mathbf{k^\prime}\downarrow}a_{\alpha^\prime\mathbf{k^\prime}\uparrow},\qquad
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde{\epsilon}_\alpha=\epsilon_\alpha-\mu$ is the electron
energy in the band $\alpha=1,2$ relative to the chemical potential $\mu$; $V$ is the volume of superconductor and $W_{\alpha\alpha^{\prime}}$ are the
matrix elements of intraband attraction ($W_{\alpha\alpha}>0$) or interband
($\alpha\neq\alpha^\prime$) interaction. It is supposed that the
chemical potential is located in the region of the bands
overlapping. We assume that (effective) electron-electron
interactions are nonzero only in the layer $\mu\pm\hbar\omega_\mathrm{D}$ and that the interaction constants are independent on electron wave
vector in this layer. We also take $W_{12}=W_{21}$.
To calculate the partition function
$Z=\mathrm{Sp}\exp\left(\frac{-H}{k_\mathrm{B}T}\right)$ we use the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation \cite{Hubbard,Stratonovich} by means of which one linearizes and diagonalizes an exponent in $Z$ by
introducing complex integration variables. For sufficiently small
interband interaction $W^2=W_{11}W_{22}-W_{12}^2>0$ the static path
approximation reads as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{e2}
&&Z=\left(\frac{V}{\pi
k_BTW}\right)^2\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}\exp\left(-\frac{V\tilde{f}}{k_\mathrm{B}T}\right)\mathrm{d}\delta^\prime_{1}\mathrm{d}\delta^{\prime\prime}_{1}\mathrm{d}\delta^\prime_{2}\mathrm{d}\delta^{\prime\prime}_{2}
,\qquad\\
&&\tilde{f}=\sum_{\alpha}\Bigg[\frac{1}{V}\sum_\mathbf{k}\left
(\tilde{\epsilon}_\alpha(\mathbf{k})-
2k_{B}T\ln\bigg(2\mathrm{ch}\frac{\tilde{E}_{\alpha}(\mathbf{k})}{2k_\mathrm{B}T}\bigg)\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{W_{3-\alpha,3-\alpha}}{W^2}|\delta_\alpha|^2-\frac{W_{\alpha,3-\alpha}}{W^2}(\delta^\prime_\alpha\delta^\prime_{3-\alpha}+\delta^{\prime\prime}_\alpha\delta^{\prime\prime}_{3-\alpha})\Bigg].\label{e3}
\end{eqnarray}
Here the integration variables $\delta^\prime_\alpha$ and
$\delta^{\prime\prime}_{\alpha}$ are treated as real and
imaginary parts of the non-equilibrium complex order parameters
$\delta_\alpha$, and
\begin{equation}\label{e4}
\tilde{E}_{\alpha}(\mathbf{k})=\sqrt{\Big(\tilde{\epsilon}_\alpha(\mathbf{k})-\frac{W_{\alpha\alpha}}{2V}\Big)^2+|\delta_\alpha|^2}.
\end{equation}
Next we find the equilibrium free energy density $f=-k_\mathrm{B}T\frac{\ln Z}{V}$ for a macroscopic superconductor ($V\to\infty$). First, we perform an integration in $Z$ over the phases of non-equilibrium order parameters and then go to infinite volume. In this process one obtains the integration over wave vector $\mathbf{k}$ instead of summation in $\tilde{f}$, which we replace with the integration over energy. Free energy density $f$ becomes
\begin{eqnarray}\label{e5}
&&f=f_\mathrm{n}+\sum_\alpha\Bigg[-4k_\mathrm{B}T\rho_\alpha\int\limits_{0}^{\hbar\omega_\mathrm{D}}
\ln\frac{\mathrm{ch}\frac{E_\alpha(\tilde\epsilon_\alpha)}{2k_\mathrm{B}T}}
{\mathrm{ch}\frac{\tilde{\epsilon}_\alpha}{2k_\mathrm{B}T}}\mathrm{d}\tilde{\epsilon}_\alpha\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{W_{3-\alpha,3-\alpha}}{W^2}\Delta_\alpha^2-\frac{|W_{\alpha,3-\alpha}|}{W^2}\Delta_\alpha\Delta_{3-\alpha}\Bigg].
\end{eqnarray}
Here $E_\alpha(x)=\sqrt{x^2+\Delta_\alpha^2}$, where $\Delta_\alpha$ is the modulus of equilibrium order parameter, i.e. the value of $|\delta_\alpha|$ which minimizes non-equilibrium free energy density $\tilde{f}$. The quantity $f_\mathrm{n}$ corresponds to the free energy density in
the absence of superconductivity, and $\rho_\alpha$ is the density of electron states taken to be constant in the narrow integration layer around the Fermi level.
The minimization of non-equilibrium free energy leads to the equations for equilibrium order parameters
\begin{equation}\label{e6}
\frac{W_{3-\alpha,3-\alpha}}{W^2}\Delta_\alpha-\rho_\alpha\Delta_\alpha\int\limits_{0}^{\hbar\omega_\mathrm{D}}
\mathrm{th}\frac{E_\alpha(\tilde\epsilon)}{2k_\mathrm{B}T}\frac{\mathrm{d}\tilde\epsilon}{E_\alpha(\tilde\epsilon)}=\frac{|W_{\alpha,3-\alpha}|}{W^2}\Delta_{3-\alpha}.
\end{equation}
If interband interaction is absent, the latter system
splits into two independent equations which describe intrinsic
superconductivity in the bands. The corresponding critical
temperatures equal
$T_{\mathrm{c}\alpha}=1.13\frac{\hbar\omega_\mathrm{D}}{k_\mathrm{B}}e^{-\frac{1}{\rho_\alpha W_{\alpha\alpha}}}$. Below we assume that $\alpha=1$ corresponds to the stronger band, i.e. $T_{\mathrm{c}1}>T_{\mathrm{c}2}$. If interband coupling is present the critical temperatures $T_{\mathrm{c}\alpha}$ transform into
\begin{equation}\label{e7}
T_{\mathrm{c}\mp}=1.13\frac{\hbar\omega_\mathrm{D}}{k_\mathrm{B}}e^{-\frac{2}{\rho_1W_{11}
+\rho_2W_{22}\pm\sqrt{(\rho_1W_{11}-\rho_2W_{22})^2+4\rho_1\rho_2W_{12}^2}}},
\end{equation}
where $T_{\mathrm{c}-}>T_{\mathrm{c}+}$. With $|W_{12}|$ increase the temperature $T_{\mathrm{c}-}$ increases and $T_{\mathrm{c}+}$
decreases approaching zero as $W\to0$. For $W_{12}\to0$ one has
$T_{\mathrm{c}-}\to T_{\mathrm{c}1}$ and $T_{\mathrm{c}+}\to
T_{\mathrm{c}2}$. Note that for a superconductor with interacting bands there is only one phase transition temperature $T_\mathrm{c}=T_{\mathrm{c}-}$. However, the point $T_{\mathrm{c}+}$ is also meaningful, because below $T_{\mathrm{c}+}$ the metastable superconducting states or saddle-points of non-equilibrium free energy appear \cite{Soda,me1}. These peculiarities can be reflected in the behaviour of superconducting fluctuations.
Thermodynamics of the system related to superconductivity is entirely described by excess free energy density $\Delta f=f-f_\mathrm{n}$ and its temperature derivatives, e.g. excess specific entropy $\Delta s=-\Delta f^\prime$ and specific heat capacity $\Delta c=-T\Delta f^{\prime\prime}$. For the degenerate electron gas one has $s_\mathrm{n}=c_\mathrm{n}=\gamma_\mathrm{S}T$, where $\gamma_\mathrm{S}=\sum_\alpha\gamma_{\mathrm{S}\alpha}$
is the Sommerfeld constant and $\gamma_{\mathrm{S}\alpha}=\frac{2}{3}\pi^2k_\mathrm{B}^2\rho_\alpha$. Therefore, the extrema and inflection points of $\Delta s$ coincide in the temperature scale with zeros and extrema of $\frac{\Delta c}{c_\mathrm{n}}$, correspondingly.
In a two-band superconductor thermodynamic functions may be represented by means of additive contributions from the relevant bands, i.e. $\Delta f=\sum_\alpha\Delta f_\alpha$, $\Delta s=\sum_\alpha\Delta s_\alpha$ and $\Delta c=\sum_\alpha\Delta c_\alpha$. However, due to interband pairing, the relations between band contributions to the thermodynamic functions may be dissimilar to those known for non-interacting subsystems.
\section{Critical exponents}
Since thermodynamics driven by free energy (\ref{e5}) can be analysed only numerically, one should use certain restrictions to get analytic results. By starting with non-equilibrium free energy $\tilde{f}$ expanded in powers of $\delta_\alpha$, we obtain for a macroscopic superconductor
\begin{equation}\label{e8}
\Delta
f=\sum_\alpha\left( a_\alpha\Delta_\alpha^2+\frac{b_\alpha}{2}\Delta_\alpha^4-\gamma\Delta_\alpha\Delta_{3-\alpha}\right),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{e9}
a_\alpha=\frac{W_{3-\alpha,3-\alpha}}{W^2}-\rho_\alpha\ln\frac{1.13\hbar\omega_\mathrm{D}}{k_\mathrm{B}T},
\end{equation}
and $b_\alpha=\frac{0.11\rho_\alpha}{(k_\mathrm{B}T)^2}$, $\gamma=\frac{|W_{12}|}{W^2}$. This approximation works perfectly in the vicinity of critical point $T_\mathrm{c}=T_{\mathrm{c}-}$. However, as we do not expand the parameters $a_\alpha$ and $b_\alpha$ in powers of $T_\mathrm{c}-T$, we have at least qualitatively correct picture also further off the critical temperature \cite{GL}. In particular, one ascertains numerically that corresponding gap equations
\begin{equation}\label{e10}
a_\alpha\Delta_\alpha+b_\alpha\Delta_\alpha^3=\gamma\Delta_{3-\alpha}
\end{equation}
describe a kink in the behaviour of smaller gap $\Delta_2(T)$ near $T_{\mathrm{c}+}$. Note that alternative approaches \cite{shanenko2} based on the expansion in powers of $T_\mathrm{c}-T$ cannot reproduce that kink for tiny interband coupling.
Next we solve analytically the system (\ref{e10}) in the vicinity of $T_{\mathrm{c}+}$ for extremely small interband interactions. Corresponding equation for $\Delta_2(T)$ reads as
\begin{equation}\label{e11}
\Delta_2^2\left(\left(\Delta_2^2-x\right)^3-y^3\right)=\frac{\gamma^2(\gamma^2-a_1a_2)}{b_1b_2^3},
\end{equation}
where $x=-\frac{a_2}{b_2}$ and $y^3=-\frac{a_1\gamma^2}{b_1b_2^2}$. As the condition $\gamma^2-a_1a_2=0$ determines the points $T_{\mathrm{c}\pm}$, we obtain $\Delta^2_{2+}=x_++y_+$. Here and elsewhere index $+$ stands for $T=T_{\mathrm{c}+}$. Next we expand these values in powers of normalized interband coupling $w=\left(\frac{W_{12}}{\rho_2W_{11}W_{22}}\right)^2$ by using the expansion forms $x_+=\sum_{n=0}^\infty x_+^{\{1+n\}}$ and $y_+=\sum_{n=0}^\infty y_+^{\{\frac{1}{3}+n\}}$ with summation over the contributions of different powers of $w$ denoted by upper indexes in curly brackets, for instance, $x_+^{\{n\}}\sim w^n$. We also introduce the quantities $A=\frac{\rho_2}{b_2}$ and $B=\frac{\gamma^2}{b_2^2}$ for which $A_+=\sum_{n=0}^\infty A_+^{\{n\}}$ and $B_+=\sum_{n=0}^\infty B_+^{\{1+n\}}$. The first terms of these expansions are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&x_+^{\{1\}}=A_+^{\{0\}}\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_1}t^{-1}w,\qquad y_+^{\{\frac{1}{3}\}}=A_+^{\{0\}}t^\frac{1}{3}w^\frac{1}{3},\nonumber\\
&&A_+^{\{0\}}=9.4\big(k_\mathrm{B}T_{\mathrm{c}2}\big)^2,\qquad B_+^{\{1\}}=A_+^{\{0\}2}w,\label{e12}
\end{eqnarray}
and $t=\ln\frac{T_{\mathrm{c}1}}{T_{\mathrm{c}2}}$. Note also that $\frac{T_{\mathrm{c}+}}{T_{\mathrm{c}2}}\approx1+o(w)$.
By differentiating Eq. (\ref{e11}) at $T_{\mathrm{c}+}$, we find the consecutive temperature derivatives of $\Delta_2$. For instance, in the lowest order in $w$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{e13}
\Delta_{2+}=\sqrt{y_+^{\{\frac{1}{3}\}}},\qquad\frac{\Delta_{2+}^\prime}{\Delta_{2+}}=-\frac{A_+^{\{0\}}}{3T_{\mathrm{c}+}y_+^{\{\frac{1}{3}\}}},\label{ea4}
\end{equation}
etc. Usually $w$ power of the lowest order contributions to the consecutive derivatives at $T_{\mathrm{c}+}$ decreases by $\frac{1}{3}$ as order of the derivative increases, for instance, $\frac{\Delta_{2+}}{\Delta_{2+}^{\prime}}\sim w^\frac{1}{3}$. Sometimes, however, corresponding $w$ power decreases by $\frac{2}{3}$ due to extra vanishing of the terms. The latter takes place e.g. for $\Delta_{2+}^{\prime\prime}$ which results in $\frac{\Delta_{2+}^{\prime}}{\Delta_{2+}^{\prime\prime}}\sim w^0$ and $\frac{\Delta_{2+}^{\prime\prime}}{\Delta_{2+}^\mathrm{I\!I\!I}}\sim w^\frac{2}{3}$.
The temperature dependence of the smaller gap is given by the Taylor series
$\Delta_2(T)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\Delta_{2+}^{(n)}\frac{(T-T_{\mathrm{c}+})^n}{n!}$, where index in parentheses denotes the order of the temperature derivative. The value $\Delta_2(T_{\mathrm{c}2})$ contains the sum of $w$ dependent contributions which become smaller and smaller as $n$ increases. For tiny $|W_{12}|$ this value is defined predominantly by $\Delta_{2+}$, or
\begin{equation}\label{e14}
\Delta_2(T_{\mathrm{c}2})\sim |W_{12}|^\frac{1}{3}.
\end{equation}
The "susceptibility" related to the "field" $|W_{12}|$ reads as
\begin{equation}\label{e15}
\frac{\partial\Delta_2(T_{\mathrm{c}2})}{\partial |W_{12}|}\sim |W_{12}|^{-\frac{2}{3}}.
\end{equation}
The weaker-band contribution to excess specific entropy is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{e16}
\Delta
s_2=-a_2^\prime\Delta_\alpha^2-\frac{b_2^\prime}{2}\Delta_2^4,
\end{eqnarray}
and $\Delta c_2=T\Delta s_2^\prime$. Similarly to the situation with the smaller gap, the values $\Delta s_2(T_{\mathrm{c}2})$ and $\Delta c_2(T_{\mathrm{c}2})$ are defined predominantly by $\Delta s_{2+}$ and $\Delta c_{2+}$, correspondingly, for tiny $|W_{12}|$. As a result,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{e17}
&&\Delta s_2(T_{\mathrm{c}2})\sim |W_{12}|^\frac{2}{3},\\
&&\Delta c_2(T_{\mathrm{c}2})\sim |W_{12}|^0.\label{e18}
\end{eqnarray}
Next we compare these dependencies with thermodynamics based on free energy (\ref{e5}) and gap equations (\ref{e6}). For illustration we consider the following set of intraband parameters: $\rho_{1,2}=(1,0.9)
(\mathrm{eV}\cdot\mathrm{cell})^{-1}$, $W_{11,22}=0.3\mathrm{\
eV}\cdot\mathrm{cell}$ and $\mathrm{cell}=0.1\mathrm{\ nm}^3$. In
this case $T_{\mathrm{c2}}=0.69T_{\mathrm{c1}}$. Fig. \ref{f1} shows that restrictions made do no harm the description of the weaker-superconductivity component.
\begin{figure*}
\resizebox{1.1\columnwidth}{!}{
\includegraphics{Graph1.eps}}\vspace{-6cm}
\caption{The plots of the weaker-band gap (a), corresponding excess specific entropy (b) and normalized excess specific heat capacity (c) vs interband interaction constant at $T_{\mathrm{c2}}$. The thick curves represent thermodynamics based on Eqs. (\ref{e5}) and (\ref{e6}), while thin ones correspond to the dependencies (\ref{e14}), (\ref{e17}) and (\ref{e18}) found for tiny $|W_{12}|$.}\label{f1}
\end{figure*}
In the Landau mean-field theory of criticality an applied external field $h$ introduces additional contribution $h\Delta_\mathrm{L}$ to the free energy expansion and forces the order parameter $\Delta_\mathrm{L}$ to change as $h^\frac{1}{\delta}$ ($\delta=3$), susceptibility as $h^{\frac{1}{\delta}-1}$, entropy as $h^\epsilon$ ($\epsilon=\frac{2}{3}$) and heat capacity as $h^{-\alpha_\mathrm{c}}$ ($\alpha_\mathrm{c}=0$). The weaker-band superconducting instability modifies with interband interaction constant in the same way, see Eqs. (\ref{e14}), (\ref{e15}), (\ref{e17}), and (\ref{e18}). Thus, interband coupling acts as external field governing the intrinsic criticality of weaker band. At that, for sufficiently small values $W_{12}$ there appears a term proportional to $W_{12}\Delta_1\Delta_2$ in the free energy expression (\ref{e8}) which hints at the same conclusion (in the corresponding domain $\Delta_1$ depends on $W_{12}$ very weakly). Note also that intrinsic phase transition of the stronger band is affected in a qualitatively different way, for instance, $\Delta_1(T_{\mathrm{c}1})\sim\sqrt{1-\frac{T_{\mathrm{c}1}}{T_\mathrm{c}}}\sim |W_{12}|$ and $\frac{\partial\Delta_1(T_{\mathrm{c}1})}{\partial |W_{12}|}\sim |W_{12}|^0$ for vanishing interband interaction. That pairing rather shifts critical point from $T_{\mathrm{c}1}$ to $T_\mathrm{c}$, but not smears it as in the case of weaker band.
An impact of interband interaction on the weaker-superconductivity component established should also manifest itself in the behaviour of non-thermodynamic properties, e.g. spatial coherency. Note that due to interband coupling there appear critical and non-critical channels in the spatial variations \cite{babaev1,litak2012,ord1} (and temporal relaxation \cite{ord2}) of gap fluctuations. Each channel is characterised by its own correlation length, and both of them participate in the coherency properties of each band involved. However, in the vicinity of $T_{\mathrm{c}2}$ the non-critical channel can be neglected for the weaker band \cite{babaev1,GL}. At that, the correlation length of the critical channel should change as $h^{-\frac{1}{3}}$ under "applied external field" $h\sim |W_{12}|$, similarly to the weaker-band healing length \cite{shanenko}. Thus, the peculiarities of spatial coherency in the weaker band also follow at $T_{\mathrm{c}2}$ the Landau theory of phase transitions with interband pairing in the role of external field.
Unlike other source fields, e.g. external electric or magnetic field in ferroelectric or ferromagnetic systems, correspondingly, interband interaction constant in two-band superconductors is not easily tunable parameter. However, it was illustrated that the coupling between gap order parameters can be varied by changing the size of superconducting structure \cite{bluhm}, doping \cite{MgAlB1}, pressure \cite{pressure} etc.
\section{Smearing of a weaker-band phase transition}
The presence of the weaker-band superconducting instability smeared slightly by interband interaction affects drastically the thermodynamics of a two-gap superconductor. Fig. \ref{f2} shows the changes of the gaps, excess entropy and heat capacity with intra- and interband interactions calculated numerically on the basis of Eqs. (\ref{e5})-(\ref{e6}). By turning interband coupling on, the interband proximity effect takes place, i.e. the vanishing of the smaller gap $\Delta_2$ at $T_{\mathrm{c}2}$ changes into inflection near $T_{\mathrm{c}+}$ with simultaneous vanishing of the band superconductivity at $T_\mathrm{c}=T_{\mathrm{c}-}$. That inflection indicates the crossover from active to passive regime of the weaker band and it disappears as $|W_{12}|$ exceeds some value.
\begin{figure*}
\resizebox{1.1\columnwidth}{!}{
\includegraphics{Graph2.eps}}\vspace{-1cm}
\caption{The plots of the gaps (a), excess specific entropy (b) and normalized excess specific heat capacity (c) vs reduced temperature for
$W_{12}=0.0001\mathrm{\ eV}\cdot\mathrm{cell}$ (1),
$W_{12}=0.001\mathrm{\ eV}\cdot\mathrm{cell}$ (2) and
$W_{12}=0.01\mathrm{\ eV}\cdot\mathrm{cell}$ (3). In the first row
of figures the dashed curves denote the corresponding quantities for
slightly weaker coupling in the second band $W_{22}=0.25\mathrm{\
eV}\cdot\mathrm{cell}$ ($T_{\mathrm{c2}}=0.33T_{\mathrm{c1}}$). In Fig. (1a) the larger gaps flow together for
the constants $W_{22}$ considered. In the second and third rows
of figures the thin curves denote band contributions to the excess
entropy and specific heat capacity.}\label{f2}
\end{figure*}
For tiny interband coupling the band contributions to entropy and heat capacity (see panels 2b,c in Fig. \ref{f2}) develop considerably in different temperature regions below $T_\mathrm{c}$. Their additive impact results in the substantial increment for net entropy and the non-monotonicity for net heat capacity in the vicinity of $T_{\mathrm{c}+}$. The latter was observed also experimentally \cite{MgB2,FeSe2,cuprates1}. For sufficiently strong interband pairings the memory about weaker-band criticality disappears.
Interestingly, weak interband coupling together with the certain configuration of intraband interaction channels result in the local maximum of entropy in superconducting state, see the first row of panels in Fig. \ref{f2}. In this case $\frac{\Delta c}{c_\mathrm{n}}\sim\frac{\mathrm{d}\Delta s}{\mathrm{d} T}$ crosses zero below $T_\mathrm{c}$ three times. Similar effect was revealed in Cu1234 \cite{cuprates2}. We predict also same feature for FeSe$_{1-x}$ \cite{FeSe1} approximately at $3.4$ K.
Usually, external field rounds the singularities related to the phase transition anomaly as well as locates them into positions shifted differently in the vicinity of critical temperature. In a two-gap system interband interaction acts in the same way with respect to weaker-superconductivity component. However, the presence of the band with stronger superconductivity obscures the interrelations between atypical peculiarities seen in Fig. \ref{f2} near $T_{\mathrm{c}2}$. We analyse that problem by calculating inflection points for smaller gap and for temperature derivatives of free energy.
In the case of extremely small interband couplings the solution of Eq. (\ref{e11}) is characterized by the following inflection point
\begin{equation}\label{e19}
T_\mathrm{inf}^{\Delta_2}\approx T_{\mathrm{c}+}-\frac{\Delta_{2+}^{\prime\prime}}{\Delta_{2+}^\mathrm{I\!I\!I}}= T_{\mathrm{c}+}\Bigg(1+\frac{9y_+^{\{\frac{1}{3}\}2}}{2A_+^{\{0\}2}}+\frac{3B_+^{\{1\}}}{2A_+^{\{0\}}y_+^{\{\frac{1}{3}\}}}\Bigg),
\end{equation}
The temperature $T_\mathrm{inf}^{\Delta_2}$ contains the lowest order correction to $T_{\mathrm{c}+}$ proportional to
$|W_{12}|^\frac{4}{3}$. It proves that the smaller gap as a function of temperature inflects in the vicinity of $T_{\mathrm{c}+}$ if interband interaction is extremely weak.
The dependence $\Delta_2(T)$ defines uniquely the temperature behaviour of free energy (\ref{e8}) which we construct as the Taylor series in the vicinity of $T_{\mathrm{c}+}$. Since sharp non-monotonic behaviour of heat capacity in Fig. \ref{f2} is of particular interest, we search for the zeros of the third temperature derivative $\Delta f^\mathrm{I\!I\!I}(T)$ near $T_{\mathrm{c}+}$. Our calculation indicates that functions $\Delta f^\mathrm{I\!I\!I}(T)$ and $\Delta f^\mathrm{I\!V}(T)$ vanish remarkably farther off $T_{\mathrm{c}+}$ as opposed to $\Delta f^\mathrm{V}(T)$. In other words, neither extrema nor inflection points of $\frac{\Delta c}{c_\mathrm{n}}$ appear as close to $T_{\mathrm{c}+}$ as $T_\mathrm{inf}^{\Delta_2}$ for tiny interband interactions. This conclusion is confirmed also by numeric analysis of free energy (\ref{e5}) and gap equations (\ref{e6}), see Fig. \ref{f3}a.
\begin{figure}
\resizebox{1.1\columnwidth}{!}{\hspace{0cm}\includegraphics{Graph3.eps}}\vspace{-6cm}
\caption{(a) The evolution of inflection points for $\Delta f^\prime$ (two thin dashed curves for maximum and minimum of $\frac{\Delta c}{c_\mathrm{n}}$), $\Delta f^{\prime\prime}$ (thin solid curve), $\Delta f^\mathrm{I\!I\!I}$ (thick solid curve) and for $\Delta_2$ (thick dashed curve) with interband interaction constant near $T_{\mathrm{c}2}$. (b) Inflection points for $\Delta_2$ (thick dashed curve) and for $\Delta f^\mathrm{I\!I\!I}$ (thick solid curve) compared to the approximations given by the analytic formulas (\ref{e19}) and (\ref{e20}) (thin solid curves). In both figures we calculate inflection points on the basis of free energy (\ref{e5}) and gap equations (\ref{e6}).}\label{f3}
\end{figure}
The vanishing of $\Delta f^\mathrm{V}(T)$ sufficiently close to $T_{\mathrm{c}+}$ for tiny interband pairings points to an inflection point of $\Delta f^\mathrm{I\!I\!I}(T)$, namely,
\begin{equation}\label{e20}
T_\mathrm{inf}^{\Delta
f^\mathrm{I\!I\!I}}\approx T_{\mathrm{c}+}-\frac{\Delta
f_+^\mathrm{V}}{\Delta
f_+^\mathrm{V\!I}}=
T_{\mathrm{c}+}\Bigg(1+\frac{3B_+^{\{1\}}}{2A_+^{\{0\}}y_+^{\{\frac{1}{3}\}}}\Bigg).
\end{equation}
That inflection stems from the behaviour of the weaker-band contribution to $\Delta f^\mathrm{I\!I\!I}(T)$. Expressions (\ref{e19}) and (\ref{e20}) approximate values found numerically strikingly well (see Fig. \ref{f3}b). Moreover, these formulas evidences the matching of inflection points for smaller gap and for third derivative of free energy, when $T_{\mathrm{c}1,2}$ are close (the second term in Eq. (\ref{e19}) can be neglected). Since large difference between $T_{\mathrm{c}1,2}$ may be compensated by the weakness of interband interaction, this matching may be more general than analytic approach we use. Numerics presented support the conclusion.
\section{Conclusions}The growing family of milti-component superconductors requires deep insight into the processes introduced by inter-component couplings. Various examples show that corresponding physics becomes non-trivial and it is hardly deducible from the superposition of non-interacting superconducting subsystems. He we reported new understanding of the impact of interband pair-transfer interaction on the formation of two-band superconducting order. Namely, the latter pairing was shown to play the role of external field associated with smaller-gap order parameter. The finding can be of importance for the interpretation of the experimental data in the superconducting materials with tiny interband coupling, e.g. FeSe$_{1-x}$, V$_3$Si etc.
\ack
We thank Egor Babaev for valuable discussions. The study was supported by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (Centre of Excellence "Mesosystems: Theory and Applications", TK114) and by the Estonian Science Foundation (Grant No 8991).
\section*{References}
|
\section*{\contentsname
\@starttoc{toc
}
\newcommand*\l@section[2]
\ifnum \c@tocdepth >\z@
\addpenalty\@secpenalty
\addvspace{1.0em \@plus\p@
\setlength\@tempdima{1.5em
\begingroup
\parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth
\parfillskip -\@pnumwidth
\leavevmode \bfseries
\advance\leftskip\@tempdima
\hskip -\leftskip
#1\nobreak\hfil \nobreak\hb@xt@\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
\endgroup
\fi}
\newcommand*\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\newcommand*\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\newcommand*\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\newcommand*\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\makeatother
\setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{10}
\iffalse
\newenvironment{proof}[1][Proof]{\textbf{#1.} }{\ \rule{0.5em}{0.5em}}
\fi
\oddsidemargin=0in \evensidemargin=0in \textwidth=6.5in
\textheight=8.5in \topmargin=0in
\input{tcilatex}
\begin{document}
\title{Carleman estimates for global uniqueness, stability and numerical
methods for coefficient inverse problems }
\author{Michael V. Klibanov$^{\ast }$}
\thanks{Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of North
Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA, email: mklibanv{@}uncc.edu}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
This is a review paper of the role of Carleman estimates in the theory of
Multidimensional Coefficient Inverse Problems since the first inception of
this idea in 1981.
\end{abstract}
\tableofcontents
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:1}
This is a review paper of the Bukhgeim-Klibanov method (BK). The author
considers this paper as an introductory material for BK. Because of many
publications on BK, the author restricts himself to citations of those works
which he is best familiar with. An interested reader can find further
citations as well as analytical details in publications cited here. Three
topics are discussed in this paper: (1) Global uniqueness for
Multidimensional Coefficient Inverse Problems (MCIPs) with single
measurement data via BK, (2) Global stability both for MCIPs and some
ill-posed Cauchy problems via Carleman estimates, and (3) Related convergent
numerical methods both for MCIPs and some ill-posed Cauchy problems.
BK was introduced in three originating papers of Bukhgeim and Klibanov in
1981 \cite{BukhKlib,Bukh1,Klib1}. Until now BK remains the only technique
enabling to prove global uniqueness and stability theorems for MCIPs with
single measurement data. The state of the art in the field of Inverse
Problems in 1981 is well reflected in the following citation from the paper
\cite{BukhKlib}. \textquotedblleft \emph{Uniqueness theorems for
multidimensional inverse problems have at present been obtained mainly in
classes of piecewise analytic functions and similar classes or
locally...Moreover, the technique of investigating these problems has, as a
rule depended in an essential way on the type of the differential equation.
In this note a new method of investigating inverse problems is proposed that
is based on weighted a priori estimates. This method makes it possible to
consider in a unified way a broad class of inverse problems for those
equations }$Pu=f$\emph{\ \ for which the solution of the Cauchy problem
admits a Carleman estimate...The theorems of \S 1 were proved by M.V.
Klibanov and those of \S 2 by A.L. Buhgeim. They were obtained
simultaneously and independently.}"
While the paper \cite{BukhKlib} contains announcement of results and an
indication of the proof, papers \cite{Bukh1,Klib1} contain first complete
proofs. Also, see, e.g. \cit
{Bukh2,EEK,Kalt,Klib2,Klib3,Klib4,KlibMaxw,Klib5,KlibPar1,KlibSurvey,KlibPar2,KT,KYam,Klib6}
and Sections 1.10 and 1.11 of the book \cite{BK} for some follow up
publications of these authors on BK. Prior publications \cit
{BukhKlib,Bukh1,Klib1} only the so-called \textbf{local} uniqueness theorems
were known for MCIPs with single measurement data. The term \emph{local}
means here that unknown spatially dependent coefficients were assumed to be
either piecewise analytic functions, or functions represented via truncated
Fourier-like series, or sufficiently small perturbations of constants. At
that time the common desire of many mathematicians working on MCIPs was to
prove \textbf{global} uniqueness theorems. That is, to prove uniqueness for
the case when the unknown coefficient $a\left( x\right) ,x\in \mathbb{R
^{n},n\geq 2$ satisfies only some natural conditions, such as, e.g. $a\in
C^{k}$. However, it was unclear at that time how to do this. Indeed,
standard methods were basically based on integral equations and did not work
for this goal. The absence of global uniqueness theorems was the main
stumbling block in the field of Inverse Problems in 1970s. This is what has
originally motivated the author in 1979 to think about moving away from
traditional techniques. The author has spent two years to figure out the
solution.
This paper is focused only on MCIPs with single measurement data. BK is
based on a special use of Carleman estimates for MCIPs. Roughly speaking, as
soon as Carleman estimate is valid for a PDE operator, BK can be applied.
Therefore, the generality of BK is due to the fact that Carleman estimates
are valid for hyperbolic, parabolic, elliptic, the non-stationary Schr\"{o
dinger and some other operators. Schematically, BK consists of the following
two steps:
\textbf{Step 1}. Given an MCIP, figure out whether a proper Carleman
estimate is valid for the PDE operator of this problem. If not, derive a
proper Carleman estimate (if possible).
\textbf{Step 2}. Given a proper Carleman estimate, apply BK.
Carleman estimates were originated in 1939 in a remarkable work of a
distinguished Swedish mathematician Torsten Carleman \cite{Carl}. Since then
and up to now they have been traditionally applied by many authors to proofs
of uniqueness theorems for various ill-posed problems for PDEs with the
Cauchy data on non-characteristic hypersurfaces, see, e.g. the paper of
Calderon \cite{Cald} and the book of H\"{o}rmander \cite{Horm}. While in
these references Carleman estimates were used for functions with compact
support, the book of Lavrent'ev, Romanov and Shishatskii \cite{LRS} (Chapter
4) uses functions with non-compact support.\ As a result, the technique of
this book allowed to prove not only uniqueness but H\"{o}lder stability
results as well for some ill-posed Cauchy problems. Thus, it was briefly
noticed in earlier publications \cite{Klib3,Klib5} with the reference to
\cite{LRS} that the applicability of BK to an MCIP usually automatically
implies the H\"{o}lder stability estimate for this MCIP. Since the author is
concerned with MCIPs, multiple quite interesting works on applications of
Carleman estimates to various ill-posed Cauchy problems are not cited here.
BK applies Carleman estimates, in a specially designed way, to proofs of
global uniqueness and stability results for MCIPs. MCIPs are substantially
different from those Cauchy problems. Indeed, in such a Cauchy problem all
coefficients of the corresponding PDE operator are known, the initial
condition is unknown, and the Cauchy data at a non-characteristic
hypersurface are known. It is required then to reconstruct the solution $u$
of the corresponding PDE. On the other hand, in an MCIP at least one of
coefficients, $a\left( x\right) ,$ of the corresponding PDE operator is
unknown, the initial condition is known, and the lateral Cauchy data are
known as well. It is required then to reconstruct the pair of functions
\left( a,u\right) .$ Those Cauchy problem are linear and any MCIP is
nonlinear.
The term \textquotedblleft MCIP with single measurement data" means the
problem of the recovery of one of coefficients of a PDE from a boundary
measurement generated by a single set of initial conditions. In the case of
either the point source or a plane wave this means either a single position
of that source or a single direction of that incident plane wave. More
generally, this is a single pair of initial conditions for a hyperbolic PDE
and a single initial condition for a parabolic PDE. Sometimes a few initial
sets of initial conditions are allowed. In the case when $k$ coefficients
are unknown, $k$ sets of initial conditions are allowed, which means $k$
measurements. MCIPs with single measurement are non-overdetermined ones. The
non-overdetermination means that the number of free variables in the data
equals the number of free variables in the unknown coefficient. The single
measurement case is the one with the minimal amount of the available
information. Hence, this is the most economical way of data collection. In
particular, in military applications the single measurement case is far
preferable to the case of many measurements. This is because an installation
of each source carries a serious risk for life of soldiers on a battlefield.
There is a single condition of BK, which has been viewed as a drawback from
the applied standpoint for a long time since 1981, This condition is still
not lifted. Specifically, BK requires that at least one initial condition to
be non-zero in the entire domain of interest. However, after getting an
extensive recent numerical experience with the approximately globally
convergent numerical method for MCIPs (see the book of Beilina and Klibanov
\cite{BK} and Section 6 below), the author believes now that this drawback
is an absolutely insignificant one precisely\emph{\ }from the applied
standpoint (although the mathematical question remains open). Indeed, the
most interesting case in applications is the case when the initial condition
is the function $\delta \left( x-x_{0}\right) $ with a fixed position of the
source $x_{0}.$ However, replacement of this function by its approximation
via a narrow Gaussian $\delta _{\varepsilon }\left( x-x_{0}\right) ,$
\begin{equation*}
\delta _{\varepsilon }\left( x-x_{0}\right) =C_{\varepsilon }\exp \left(
\frac{\left\vert x-x_{0}\right\vert ^{2}}{\varepsilon ^{2}}\right)
,\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\delta _{\varepsilon }\left( x-x_{0}\right) dx=1
\end{equation*
immediately lets BK working ($\varepsilon >0$ is sufficiently small here).
The corresponding boundary data, which model the data resulting from a
measurement, have only an insignificant change.\ Therefore, if a numerical
method for a corresponding MCIP is stable, as it must be, then this change
should affect the solution only insignificantly. Furthermore, physicists and
engineers are indifferent to such a replacement because of the above
reasons. This is why functions $\delta \left( x-x_{0}\right) $\ and $\delta
_{\varepsilon }\left( x-x_{0}\right) $\ are equivalent precisely from the
applied standpoint.
Still, the author has proved \cite{Klib6} uniqueness theorem for an MCIP for
the equation $u_{tt}=\Delta u+a\left( x,y,z\right) u,\left( x,y,z\right) \in
\mathbb{R}^{3}$ for the case of an incident plane wave with $u\left(
x,y,z,0\right) =0,u_{t}\left( x,y,z,0\right) =\delta \left( z\right) $ and
under the assumption that this equation for the function $u$ is written in
finite differences with respect to $\left( x,y\right) .$
The idea of BK is described in Section 3. Five examples of this section show
how BK works. In a less general form examples of Sections 3.2, 3.3.2 and 3.4
were first published in originating works \cite{BukhKlib,Klib1}, also see
\cite{BK,Klib5,KT} for more general forms of these three examples as well as
for two other examples of Section 3. In principle, it is possible to
formulate BK in a general abstract form, see, e.g. the earlier paper of the
author \cite{Klib2} for this form. However, it is not necessary to do so for
the understanding of BK. Previously published relevant results are discussed
in Section 4 as well as in the end of each of Sections 2,3,5,6.
\section{Carleman Estimates, H\"{o}lder Stability and the
Quasi-Reversibility Method}
\label{sec:2}
\subsection{Definition of the Carleman estimate}
\label{sec:2.1}
We now introduce the notion of the pointwise Carleman estimate for a general
Partial Differential Operator of the second order. Let $G\subset \mathbb{R
^{n}$ be a bounded domain with a piecewise smooth boundary $\partial G.$ Let
the function $\xi \in C^{2}\left( \overline{G}\right) $ and $\left\vert
\nabla \xi \right\vert \neq 0$ in $\overline{G}.$ For a number $c\geq 0$
denote
\begin{equation*}
\xi _{c}=\left\{ x\in \overline{G}:\xi \left( x\right) =c\right\}
,G_{c}=\left\{ x\in G:\xi \left( x\right) >c\right\} .
\end{equation*
Assume that $G_{c}\neq \varnothing .$ Let $\Gamma _{c}\subseteq \partial G$
a part of the boundary $\partial G$ defined as
\begin{equation*}
\Gamma _{c}=\left\{ x\in \partial G:\xi \left( x\right) \geq c\right\} .
\end{equation*
Let $G_{c}\neq \varnothing .$ Then the boundary of the domain $G_{c}$
consists of two parts
\begin{equation}
\partial G_{c}=\partial _{1}G_{c}\cup \partial _{2}G_{c},\partial
_{1}G_{c}=\xi _{c},\partial _{2}G_{c}=\Gamma _{c}. \label{2.1}
\end{equation
Let $\lambda >1$ be a parameter, which we will consider to be large.
Consider the function $\varphi _{\lambda }\left( x\right) ,
\begin{equation}
\varphi _{\lambda }\left( x\right) =\exp \left( \lambda \xi \left( x\right)
\right) . \label{2.2}
\end{equation
It follows from (\ref{2.1}), (\ref{2.2}) that
\begin{equation}
\min_{\overline{G}_{c}}\varphi _{\lambda }\left( x\right) =\varphi _{\lambda
}\left( x\right) \mid _{\xi _{c}}\equiv \exp \left( \lambda c\right) .
\label{2.3}
\end{equation}
Let $A\left( x,D\right) $ be a linear Partial Differential Operator of the
second order with real valued coefficients in $G$ and with its principal
part $A_{0}\left( x,D\right) ,$
\begin{eqnarray}
A\left( x,D\right) u &=&\sum\limits_{\left\vert \alpha \right\vert \leq
2}a_{\alpha }\left( x\right) D^{\alpha }u,\text{ }A_{0}\left( x,D\right)
u=\sum\limits_{\left\vert \alpha \right\vert =2}a_{\alpha }\left( x\right)
D^{\alpha }u. \label{2.4} \\
a_{\alpha } &\in &C^{1}\left( \overline{G}\right) \text{ for }\left\vert
\alpha \right\vert =2,K:=\max_{\left\vert \alpha \right\vert =2}\left(
\left\Vert a_{\alpha }\right\Vert _{C^{1}\left( \overline{G}_{c}\right)
}\right) \text{; }a_{\alpha }\in C\left( \overline{G}\right) \text{ for
\left\vert \alpha \right\vert =0,1. \label{2.5}
\end{eqnarray}
\textbf{Definition 2.1}. \emph{Let }$G_{c}\neq \varnothing .$ \emph{We say
that the operator }$A_{0}\left( x,D\right) $\emph{\ admits pointwise\
Carleman estimate in the domain }$G_{c}$\emph{\ with the Carleman Weight
Function (CWF) }$\varphi _{\lambda }\left( x\right) $\emph{\ if there exist
constants }$\lambda _{0}\left( \Omega ,K\right) >1,C_{0}=C_{0}\left( \Omega
,K\right) \geq 0,C\left( \Omega ,K\right) >0$\emph{\ depending only on the
domain }$G_{c}$\emph{\ and the number }$K$\emph{, such that the following a
priori estimate holds
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( A_{0}u\right) ^{2}\varphi _{\lambda }^{2}\left( x\right) &\geq &\frac
C_{0}}{\lambda }\sum\limits_{\left\vert \alpha \right\vert =2}\left(
D^{\alpha }u\right) ^{2}\varphi _{\lambda }^{2}\left( x\right) +C\lambda
\left( \nabla u\right) ^{2}\varphi _{\lambda }^{2}\left( x\right) +C\lambda
^{3}u^{2}\varphi _{\lambda }^{2}\left( x\right) +\func{div}U, \label{2.6} \\
\forall \lambda &\geq &\lambda _{0},\forall u\in C^{2}\left( \overline{G
\right) ,\forall x\in G_{c}. \label{2.7}
\end{eqnarray
\emph{In (\ref{2.6}) the term under the divergence sign satisfies the
following estimate}
\begin{equation}
\left\vert U\right\vert \leq C\lambda ^{3}\left[ \left( \nabla u\right)
^{2}+u^{2}\right] \varphi _{\lambda }^{2}\left( x\right) +\frac{C_{0}}
\lambda }\sum\limits_{\left\vert \alpha \right\vert =2}\left( D^{\alpha
}u\right) ^{2}\varphi _{\lambda }^{2}\left( x\right) . \label{2.8}
\end{equation}
In the case of parabolic and elliptic operators $C_{0}>0$ and $C_{0}=0$ in
the case of a hyperbolic operator. Lemma 2.1 is elementary.
\textbf{Lemma 2.1}.\emph{\ Let conditions (\ref{2.5}) imposed on
coefficients of the operator }$A$ \emph{be valid. Suppose that the Carleman
estimate (\ref{2.6})-(\ref{2.8}) is valid for the principal part }
A_{0}\left( x,D\right) $\emph{\ of the operator }$A\left( x,D\right) .$\emph
\ Then it is also valid \ for the operator }$A\left( x,D\right) $\emph{,
although with a different constant }$\lambda _{0}.$ \emph{In other words,
the Carleman estimate depends only on the principal part of the operator. }
\textbf{Proof.} We have
\begin{equation}
\left( Au\right) ^{2}\varphi _{\lambda }^{2}\left( x\right) \geq \left(
A_{0}u\right) ^{2}\varphi _{\lambda }^{2}\left( x\right) -M\left[ \left(
\nabla u\right) ^{2}+u^{2}\right] \varphi _{\lambda }^{2}\left( x\right) ,
\label{2.9}
\end{equation
where $M>0$ is a constant depending only on the maximum of norms $\left\Vert
a_{\alpha }\right\Vert _{C\left( \overline{G}\right) },\left\vert \alpha
\right\vert =0,1.$ Substituting (\ref{2.9}) in (\ref{2.6}) and taking
\lambda $ sufficiently large, we again obtain (\ref{2.6}). $\square $
\subsection{H\"{o}lder stability}
\label{sec:2.2}
\bigskip Consider the following Cauchy problem for the differential
inequalit
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\vert A_{0}u\right\vert &\leq &B\left( \left\vert \nabla u\right\vert
+\left\vert u\right\vert +\left\vert f\right\vert \right) ,\forall x\in
G_{c}, \label{2.10} \\
u &\mid &_{\Gamma _{c}}=g_{0}\left( x\right) ,\partial _{n}u\mid _{\Gamma
_{c}}=g_{1}\left( x\right) , \label{2.11}
\end{eqnarray
where $B=const.>0$ and $f\in L_{2}\left( G_{c}\right) $ is a function.
Clearly, functions $g_{0},g_{1}$ in (\ref{2.11}) are the Cauchy data for the
function $u$. In particular, equation $Au=f$ with the boundary data (\re
{2.11}) can be reduced to the problem (\ref{2.10}), (\ref{2.11}). We want to
estimate the function $u$ via functions $f,g_{0},g_{1}.$ Such estimates were
derived in Chapter 4 of the book of Lavrent'ev, Romanov and Shishatskii \cit
{LRS} for parabolic, elliptic and hyperbolic operators.
\textbf{Theorem 2.1} (H\"{o}lder stability estimate). \emph{Assume that
conditions (\ref{2.5}) hold and that the Carleman estimate of Definition 2.1
is valid.\ Suppose that there exists a sufficiently small number }
\varepsilon >0$\emph{\ such that the domain }$G_{c+3\varepsilon }\neq
\varnothing .$\ \emph{Denote }$m=\max_{\overline{G}_{c}}\xi \left( x\right)
. $\emph{\ Define the number }$\beta =2\varepsilon /\left( 3m+2\varepsilon
\right) \in \left( 0,1\right) .$ \emph{Let functions }$g_{0},g_{1},f$ \
\emph{be such that} $g_{0}\in H^{1}\left( \Gamma _{c}\right) ,g_{1}\in
L_{2}\left( \Gamma _{c}\right) ,f\in L_{2}\left( G_{c}\right) .$ \emph{Let
the function }$u\in C^{2}\left( \overline{G}_{c}\right) $\emph{\ satisfies
conditions (\ref{2.10}), (\ref{2.11}). Then there exists a sufficiently
small number }$\delta _{0}=\delta _{0}\left( \varepsilon ,m,B,K,G_{c}\right)
\in \left( 0,1\right) $\emph{\ and a constant }$C_{1}=C_{1}\left(
\varepsilon ,m,B,K,G_{c}\right) >0$\emph{\ such that if }$\delta \in \left(
0,\delta _{0}\right) $\emph{,
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( G_{c}\right) }+\left\Vert
g_{0}\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( \Gamma _{c}\right) }+\left\Vert
g_{1}\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( \Gamma _{c}\right) }\leq \delta
\label{2.11_1}
\end{equation
\emph{then the following H\"{o}lder stability estimate holds
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( G_{c+3\varepsilon }\right) }\leq
C_{1}\left( 1+\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( G_{c}\right) }\right)
\delta ^{\beta },\forall \delta \in \left( 0,\delta _{0}\right) ,
\label{2.11_2}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Remark 2.1.} Estimate (\ref{2.11_2}) is H\"{o}lder stability
estimate because $\beta \in \left( 0,1\right) .$ If we would have $\beta =1,$
then (\ref{2.11_2}) would become the Lipschitz stability estimate. Because
of the presence of the term $\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left(
G_{c}\right) },$ this is the so-called \textquotedblleft conditional
stability estimate", which are common in the theory of ill-posed problems
\cite{BKok,BK,EHN,Kab,T}. Indeed, the presence of this term actually means
that we assume an \emph{a priori }given upper bound for the norm $\left\Vert
u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( G_{c}\right) }.$
\textbf{Proof of Theorem 2.1}. In this proof $C=C\left( \varepsilon
,K,G_{c}\right) $ and $C_{1}=C_{1}\left( \varepsilon ,m,B,K,G_{c}\right) $
denote different positive constants depending on listed parameters but
independent on the function $u$ and the parameter $\lambda .$ Obviously
G_{c+3\varepsilon }\subset G_{c+2\varepsilon }\subset G_{c+\varepsilon
}\subset G_{c}.$ Since $G_{c+3\varepsilon }\neq \varnothing ,$ then
G_{c+2\varepsilon },G_{c+\varepsilon },G_{c}\neq \varnothing .$ Let $\chi
\left( x\right) $ be a function such tha
\begin{equation}
\chi \in C^{2}\left( \overline{G}_{c}\right) ,\chi \left( x\right) =\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
1,x\in G_{c+2\varepsilon }, \\
0,x\in G_{c}\diagdown G_{c+\varepsilon }, \\
\in \left[ 0,1\right] ,x\in G_{c+\varepsilon }\diagdown G_{c+2\varepsilon }
\end{array
\right. \label{2.11_3}
\end{equation
Consider the function $v$,
\begin{equation}
v=\chi u. \label{2.11_30}
\end{equation
Then (\ref{2.10}), (\ref{2.11}) and (\ref{2.11_3}) impl
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\vert A_{0}v\right\vert &\leq &C_{1}\left[ \left\vert \nabla
v\right\vert +\left\vert v\right\vert +\left\vert \nabla \chi \right\vert
\left\vert \nabla u\right\vert +\left( \sum\limits_{\left\vert \alpha
\right\vert =2}\left\vert D^{\alpha }\chi \right\vert \right) \left\vert
u\right\vert +\left\vert f\right\vert \right] ,\forall x\in G_{c},
\label{2.11_4} \\
v &\mid &_{\Gamma _{c}}=\chi g_{0},\partial _{n}v\mid _{\Gamma
_{c}}=g_{0}\partial _{n}\chi +\chi g_{1}, \label{2.11_5}
\end{eqnarray
\begin{equation}
v\left( x\right) =0,x\in G_{c}\diagdown G_{c+\varepsilon }. \label{2.11_6}
\end{equation
Square both sides of (\ref{2.11_4}), multiply by $\varphi _{\lambda
}^{2}\left( x\right) $ and apply (\ref{2.6}) ignoring $C_{0}$. We obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
C_{1}f^{2}\varphi _{\lambda }^{2}\left( x\right) +C_{1}\left\vert \nabla
\chi \right\vert ^{2}\left\vert \nabla u\right\vert ^{2}+C_{1}\left(
\sum\limits_{\left\vert \alpha \right\vert =2}\left\vert D^{\alpha }\chi
\right\vert ^{2}\right) \left\vert u\right\vert ^{2}-\func{div}U &\geq & \\
C\lambda \left( 1-\frac{C_{1}}{\lambda }\right) \left( \nabla v\right)
^{2}\varphi _{\lambda }^{2}\left( x\right) +C\lambda ^{3}\left( 1-\frac{C_{1
}{\lambda ^{3}}\right) v^{2}\varphi _{\lambda }^{2}\left( x\right) ,\forall
\lambda &>&\lambda _{0},\forall x\in G_{c}.
\end{eqnarray*
Choose $\lambda >\lambda _{1}:=\max \left( \lambda _{0},2C_{1}\right) $ so
large that $C_{1}/\lambda <1/2.$Then with a different constant $C
\begin{eqnarray*}
C_{1}f^{2}\varphi _{\lambda }^{2}\left( x\right) +C_{1}\left\vert \nabla
\chi \right\vert ^{2}\left\vert \nabla u\right\vert ^{2}+C_{1}\left(
\sum\limits_{\left\vert \alpha \right\vert =2}\left\vert D^{\alpha }\chi
\right\vert ^{2}\right) \left\vert u\right\vert ^{2}-\func{div}U &\geq & \\
C\lambda \left( \nabla u\right) ^{2}\varphi _{\lambda }^{2}\left( x\right)
+C\lambda ^{3}u^{2}\varphi _{\lambda }^{2}\left( x\right) ,\forall \lambda
&>&\lambda _{1},\forall x\in G_{c}.
\end{eqnarray*
Integrate this inequality over $G_{c}$ using Gauss-Ostrogradsky formula as
well as (\ref{2.1}), (\ref{2.3}), (\ref{2.8}), (\ref{2.11_3}), (\ref{2.11_5
) and (\ref{2.11_6}). We obtai
\begin{eqnarray}
&&C_{1}e^{2\lambda m}\int\limits_{G_{c}}f^{2}dx+C_{1}\lambda ^{3}e^{2\lambda
m}\int\limits_{\Gamma _{c}}\left[ \left( \nabla g_{0}\right) ^{2}+g_{1}^{2
\right] dS_{x} \notag \\
&&+C_{1}\exp \left[ 2\lambda \left( c+2\varepsilon \right) \right]
\int\limits_{G_{c+\varepsilon }\diagdown G_{c+2\varepsilon }}\left(
\left\vert \nabla u\right\vert ^{2}+u^{2}\right) dx \label{2.12} \\
&\geq &\lambda \int\limits_{G_{c}}\left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}\varphi
_{\lambda }^{2}dx+\lambda ^{3}\int\limits_{G_{c}}v^{2}\varphi _{\lambda
}^{2}dx. \notag
\end{eqnarray
Since $G_{c+3\varepsilon }\subset G_{c+2\varepsilon }\subset G_{c}$, then
strengthening inequality (\ref{2.12}) and using (\ref{2.11_3}), (\re
{2.11_30}), we obtai
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&C_{1}e^{2\lambda m}\int\limits_{G_{c}}f^{2}dx+C_{1}\lambda ^{3}e^{2\lambda
m}\int\limits_{\Gamma _{c}}\left[ \left( \nabla g_{0}\right) ^{2}+g_{1}^{2
\right] dS_{x}+C_{1}\exp \left[ 2\lambda \left( c+2\varepsilon \right)
\right] \int\limits_{G_{c+\varepsilon }\diagdown G_{c+2\varepsilon }}\left(
\left\vert \nabla u\right\vert ^{2}+u^{2}\right) dx \\
&\geq &\lambda \int\limits_{G_{c+3\varepsilon }}\left( \nabla u\right)
^{2}\varphi _{\lambda }^{2}dx+\lambda ^{3}\int\limits_{G_{c+3\varepsilon
}}u^{2}\varphi _{\lambda }^{2}dx\geq \lambda \exp \left[ 2\lambda \left(
c+3\varepsilon \right) \right] \int\limits_{G_{c+3\varepsilon }}\left[
\left( \nabla u\right) ^{2}+u^{2}\right] dx.
\end{eqnarray*
Hence, we have established that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&C_{1}e^{2\lambda m}\int\limits_{G_{c}}f^{2}dx+C_{1}\lambda ^{3}e^{2\lambda
m}\int\limits_{\Gamma _{c}}\left[ \left( \nabla g_{0}\right) ^{2}+g_{1}^{2
\right] dS_{x}+C_{1}\exp \left[ 2\lambda \left( c+2\varepsilon \right)
\right] \left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( G_{c}\right) }^{2} \\
&\geq &\lambda \exp \left[ 2\lambda \left( c+3\varepsilon \right) \right]
\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( G_{c+3\varepsilon }\right) }^{2}.
\end{eqnarray*
Divide both sides of this inequality by $\lambda \exp \left[ 2\lambda \left(
c+3\varepsilon \right) \right] $.\ Hence, there exists a number
$\lambda _{2}=\lambda _{2}\left( \varepsilon ,m,B,K,G_{c}\right) >\lambda
_{1}$ such tha
\begin{equation}
\left[ \int\limits_{G_{c}}f^{2}dx+\int\limits_{\Gamma _{c}}\left[ \left(
\nabla g_{0}\right) ^{2}+g_{1}^{2}\right] dS_{x}\right] C_{1}e^{3\lambda
m}+C_{1}\exp \left[ -2\lambda \varepsilon \right] \left\Vert u\right\Vert
_{H^{1}\left( G_{c}\right) }^{2}\geq \left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left(
G_{c+3\varepsilon }\right) }^{2},\forall \lambda >\lambda _{2}. \label{2.13}
\end{equation
Using (\ref{2.11_1}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( G_{c+2\varepsilon }\right) }^{2}\leq
C_{1}\left( \delta ^{2}e^{3\lambda m}+e^{-2\lambda \varepsilon }\left\Vert
u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( G_{c}\right) }^{2}\right) . \label{2.14}
\end{equation
We now balance two terms in the right hand side of (\ref{2.14}) via choosing
$\lambda =\lambda \left( \delta \right) $ such that
\begin{equation*}
\delta ^{2}e^{3\lambda m}=e^{-2\lambda \varepsilon }.
\end{equation*
Hence,
\begin{equation}
\lambda =\ln \left( \delta ^{-2\left( 3m+2\varepsilon \right) ^{-1}}\right) .
\label{2.15}
\end{equation
Hence we should have $\delta \in \left( 0,\delta _{0}\right) ,$ where the
number $\delta _{0}=\delta _{0}\left( \varepsilon ,m,B,K,G_{c}\right) $ is
so small that $\ln \left( \delta _{0}^{-2\left( 3m+2\varepsilon \right)
^{-1}}\right) >\lambda _{2}.$ The target estimate (\ref{2.11_2}) follows
from (\ref{2.14}) and (\ref{2.15}). $\square $
\textbf{Theorem 2.2} (uniqueness). \emph{Let conditions of Theorem 2.1 hold,
in (\ref{2.11}) }$g_{0}\left( x\right) \equiv g_{1}\left( x\right) \equiv
0,x\in \Gamma _{c}$\emph{\ and also }$f\left( x,t\right) \equiv 0.$\emph{\
Then }$u\left( x\right) \equiv 0$ \emph{\ for }$x\in G_{c}.$
This theorem immediately follows from Theorem 2.1. To prove convergence of
the Quasi-Reversibility Method (Section 2.5), we need to replace the
pointwise inequality (\ref{2.10}) with the following integral inequalit
\begin{equation}
\int\limits_{G_{c}}\left( Au\right) ^{2}dx\leq S^{2}. \label{2.150}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Theorem 2.3}. \emph{Let the function }$u\in H^{2}\left( G_{c}\right)
$\emph{\ satisfies inequality (\ref{2.150}), }$u\mid _{\Gamma _{c}}=\partial
_{n}u\mid _{\Gamma _{c}}=0$\emph{\ and the number }$S\in \left( 0,\delta
\right) .$\emph{\ Assume that conditions (\ref{2.5}) hold and that the
Carleman estimate of Definition 2.1 is valid.\ Suppose that there exists a
sufficiently small number }$\varepsilon >0$\emph{\ such that the domain }
G_{c+3\varepsilon }\neq \varnothing .$\ \emph{Denote }$m=\max_{\overline{G
_{c}}\xi \left( x\right) .$\emph{\ Define the number }$\beta =2\varepsilon
/\left( 3m+2\varepsilon \right) \in \left( 0,1\right) .$ \emph{Then there
exists a sufficiently small number }$\delta _{0}=\delta _{0}\left(
\varepsilon ,m,A,G_{c}\right) \in \left( 0,1\right) $\emph{\ and a constant
$C_{1}=C_{1}\left( \varepsilon ,m,A,G_{c}\right) >0$\emph{\ such that if }
\delta \in \left( 0,\delta _{0}\right) $\emph{, then the following H\"{o
lder stability estimate holds
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( G_{c+3\varepsilon }\right) }\leq
C_{1}\left( 1+\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( G_{c}\right) }\right)
\delta ^{\beta },\forall \delta \in \left( 0,\delta _{0}\right) .
\end{equation*}
\textbf{Proof}. Assume first that the function $u\in C^{2}\left( \overline{G
_{c}\right) .$ We have
\begin{equation*}
S^{2}e^{2\lambda m}\geq \int\limits_{G_{c}}\left( Au\right) ^{2}\varphi
_{\lambda }^{2}\left( x\right) dx\geq \int\limits_{G_{c}}\left(
A_{0}u\right) ^{2}\varphi _{\lambda }^{2}\left( x\right)
dx-C_{1}\int\limits_{G_{c}}\left( \left( \nabla u\right) ^{2}+u^{2}\right)
\varphi _{\lambda }^{2}\left( x\right) dx.
\end{equation*
This is equivalent wit
\begin{equation*}
S^{2}e^{2\lambda m}+C_{1}\int\limits_{G_{c}}\left( \left( \nabla u\right)
^{2}+u^{2}\right) \varphi _{\lambda }^{2}\left( x\right) dx\geq
\int\limits_{G_{c}}\left( A_{0}u\right) ^{2}\varphi _{\lambda }^{2}\left(
x\right) dx.
\end{equation*
The rest of the proof is similar with the proof of Theorem 2.1. The
replacement of $u\in C^{2}\left( \overline{G}_{c}\right) $ with $u\in
H^{2}\left( G_{c}\right) $ can be done via density arguments. $\square $
\subsection{Derivation of the Carleman estimate for a parabolic operator}
\label{sec:2.3}
The goal of this Section is to present an example of the derivation of the
Carleman estimate. To choose the case of a simplified parabolic operator.\
Our derivation method is similar with the one of \S 1 of Chapter 4 of the
book of Lavrent'ev, Romanov and Shishatskii \cite{LRS}.
For any $x\in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ denote $y=\left( x_{2},..,x_{n}\right) .$ Let
numbers $\alpha ,\eta \in \left( 0,1\right) $ and $\alpha <\eta .$ Let
Y,T>0 $ be two arbitrary numbers. Consider the function $\psi \left(
x,t\right) ,
\begin{equation}
\psi \left( x,t\right) =x_{1}+\frac{\left\vert y\right\vert ^{2}}{2Y^{2}}
\frac{t^{2}}{2T^{2}}+\alpha . \label{2.16_0}
\end{equation
Define the domain $G_{\eta }$ a
\begin{equation*}
G_{\eta }=\left\{ \left( x,t\right) :\psi \left( x,t\right) <\eta
,x_{1}>0\right\} =\left\{ x_{1}+\frac{\left\vert y\right\vert ^{2}}{2Y^{2}}
\frac{t^{2}}{2T^{2}}+\alpha <\eta ,x_{1}>0\right\} .
\end{equation*
Let $\lambda ,\nu >1$ be two large parameters which we will choose later.
Consider the function $\varphi _{\lambda ,\nu }\left( x,t\right) ,
\begin{equation}
\varphi \left( x,t\right) =\exp \left( \lambda \psi ^{-\nu }\right) .
\label{2.16}
\end{equation
$\varphi _{\lambda ,\nu }\left( x,t\right) $ is the CWF for our parabolic
operator $L$ (below). To simplify notations, we use the notation $\varphi
\left( x,t\right) $ instead of $\varphi _{\lambda ,\nu }\left( x,t\right) .$
Hence, the boundary of the domain $G_{\eta }$ consists of a piece of the
hyperplane $\left\{ x_{1}=0\right\} $ and a piece of the paraboloid $\left\{
\psi \left( x,t\right) =\eta ,x_{1}>0\right\} ,
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial G_{\eta } &=&\partial _{1}G_{\eta }\cup \partial _{2}G_{\eta },
\label{2.17} \\
\partial _{1}G_{\eta } &=&\left\{ x_{1}=0,\frac{\left\vert y\right\vert ^{2
}{2Y^{2}}+\frac{t^{2}}{2T^{2}}+\alpha <\eta \right\} ,\partial _{2}G_{\eta
}=\left\{ x_{1}>0,x_{1}+\frac{\left\vert y\right\vert ^{2}}{2Y^{2}}+\frac
t^{2}}{2T^{2}}+\alpha <\eta \right\} . \label{2.18}
\end{eqnarray}
Consider a function $a\left( x,t\right) $ for $\left( x,t\right) \in G_{\eta
}$ such that
\begin{equation}
a\in C^{1}\left( \overline{G}_{\eta }\right) ,K=\left\Vert a\right\Vert
_{C^{1}\left( \overline{G}_{\eta }\right) },a\left( x,t\right) \geq
a_{0}=const.>0\text{ for }\left( x,t\right) \in G_{\eta }. \label{2.19}
\end{equation
Consider the parabolic operator $L,
\begin{equation}
Lu=u_{t}-a\left( x,t\right) \Delta u,\left( x,t\right) \in G_{\eta }.
\label{2.20}
\end{equation
By Definition 2.1 we want to estimate now $\left( Lu\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2}$
from the below. Introduce the new function $v=u\varphi $ and express
derivatives of the function $u$ via derivatives of the function $v$, using
\ref{2.16_0}) and (\ref{2.16}).\emph{\ }Below $O\left( 1/\lambda \right)
,O\left( 1/\nu \right) $ denote different $C^{1}\left( \overline{G}_{\eta
}\right) -$functions, which are independent on the function $u,$ and such
that $\left\vert O\left( 1/\lambda \right) \right\vert \leq C/\lambda
,\left\vert O\left( 1/\nu \right) \right\vert \leq C/\nu ,\forall \lambda
,\nu \geq 1.$ Here and below in this section $C=C\left( a_{0},K,G_{\eta
}\right) $ denotes different positive constants depending only on listed
parameters.
\textbf{Lemma 2.1}. \emph{Suppose that the function }$a\left( x,t\right)
\emph{\ satisfies conditions (\ref{2.19}). Then} \emph{there exist
sufficiently large numbers }$\lambda _{0}=\lambda _{0}\left( a_{0},K,G_{\eta
}\right) >1,\nu _{0}=\nu _{0}\left( a_{0},K,G_{\eta }\right) >2$\emph{\ such
that for any function }$u\in C^{2,1}\left( \overline{G}_{\eta }\right)
\emph{\ the following estimate holds for all }$\lambda \geq \lambda _{0},\nu
\geq \nu _{0},\left( x,t\right) \in G_{\eta }$
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( Lu\right) ^{2}\psi ^{\nu +2}\varphi ^{2} &\geq &-C\lambda \nu \left(
\nabla u\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2}+C\lambda ^{3}\nu ^{4}\psi ^{-2\nu
-2}\varphi ^{2}+\func{div}U_{1}+\partial _{t}V_{1}, \label{2.21} \\
\left\vert U_{1}\right\vert +\left\vert V_{1}\right\vert &\leq &C\lambda
^{3}\nu ^{3}\psi ^{-2\nu -2}\left( \left( \nabla u\right) ^{2}+u^{2}\right)
\varphi ^{2}. \label{2.22}
\end{eqnarray}
\textbf{Proof}. We have $u=v\exp \left( -\lambda \psi ^{-\nu }\right) .$
Hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
u_{t} &=&\left( v_{t}+\frac{t}{T^{2}}\lambda \nu \psi ^{-\nu -1}v\right)
\exp \left( -\lambda \psi ^{-\nu }\right) , \\
u_{x_{1}} &=&\left( v_{x_{1}}+\lambda \nu \psi ^{-\nu -1}v\right) \exp
\left( -\lambda \psi ^{-\nu }\right) , \\
u_{x_{1}x_{1}} &=&\left[ v_{x_{1}x_{1}}+2\lambda \nu \psi ^{-\nu
-1}v_{x_{1}}+\lambda ^{2}\nu ^{2}\psi ^{-2\nu -2}\left( 1+O\left( \frac{1}
\lambda }\right) \right) v\right] \exp \left( -\lambda \psi ^{-\nu }\right) ,
\\
u_{x_{i}} &=&\left( v_{x_{i}}+\frac{x_{i}}{Y^{2}}\lambda \nu \psi ^{-\nu
-1}v\right) \exp \left( -\lambda \psi ^{-\nu }\right) ,i\in \left[ 2,n\right]
, \\
u_{x_{i}x_{i}} &=&\left[ v_{x_{i}x_{i}}+2\frac{x_{i}}{Y^{2}}\lambda \nu \psi
^{-\nu -1}v_{x_{i}}+\lambda ^{2}\nu ^{2}\psi ^{-2\nu -2}\left( \frac
x_{i}^{2}}{Y^{4}}+O\left( \frac{1}{\lambda }\right) \right) v\right] \exp
\left( -\lambda \psi ^{-\nu }\right) ,i\in \left[ 2,n\right] .
\end{eqnarray*
These equalities imply that
\begin{equation*}
\left( Lu\right) ^{2}\psi ^{\nu +2}\varphi ^{2}=
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\left\{ v_{t}-a\Delta v-\left[ 2a\lambda \nu \psi ^{-\nu
-1}v_{x_{1}}+2a\lambda \nu \psi ^{-\nu -1}\sum\limits_{i=2}^{n}\frac{x_{i}}
Y^{2}}v_{x_{i}}\right] -a\lambda ^{2}\nu ^{2}\psi ^{-2\nu -2}\left( \left[
1+\sum\limits_{i=2}^{n}\frac{x_{i}^{2}}{Y^{4}}+O\left( \frac{1}{\lambda
\right) \right] \right) v\right\} \psi ^{\nu +2}.
\end{equation*
Denot
\begin{eqnarray}
z_{1} &=&v_{t},z_{2}=-a\Delta v, \label{2.23} \\
z_{3} &=&-\left[ 2a\lambda \nu \psi ^{-\nu -1}v_{x_{1}}+2a\lambda \nu \psi
^{-\nu -1}\sum\limits_{i=2}^{n}\frac{x_{i}}{Y^{2}}v_{x_{i}}\right] ,
\label{2.24} \\
z_{4} &=&-a\lambda ^{2}\nu ^{2}\psi ^{-2\nu -2}\left[ 1+\sum\limits_{i=2}^{n
\frac{x_{i}^{2}}{Y^{4}}+O\left( \frac{1}{\lambda }\right) \right] v.
\label{2.25}
\end{eqnarray
Hence,
\begin{equation}
\left( Lu\right) ^{2}\psi ^{\nu +2}\varphi ^{2}\geq \left(
z_{1}^{2}+2z_{1}z_{2}+2z_{1}z_{3}+z_{3}^{2}+2z_{2}z_{3}+2z_{3}z_{4}+2z_{1}z_{4}\right) \psi ^{\nu +2}.
\label{2.26}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Step 1}. Estimate $2z_{1}z_{2}\psi ^{\nu +2}$ from the below. By
\ref{2.23})
\begin{eqnarray*}
2z_{1}z_{2}\psi ^{\nu +2} &=&-2\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}v_{t}v_{x_{i}x_{i}}a\psi
^{\nu +2}=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\left( -2v_{t}v_{x_{i}}a\psi ^{\nu +2}\right)
_{x_{i}} \\
&&+2\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}v_{tx_{i}}v_{x_{i}}a\psi ^{\nu
+2}+2v_{t}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}v_{x_{i}}\left( a\psi ^{\nu +2}\right)
_{x_{i}} \\
&=&\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\left( -2v_{t}v_{x_{i}}a\psi ^{\nu +2}\right)
_{x_{i}}+\left[ \left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}a\psi ^{\nu +2}\right]
_{t}-\left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}\left( a\psi ^{\nu +2}\right)
_{t}+2v_{t}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}v_{x_{i}}\left( a\psi ^{\nu +2}\right)
_{x_{i}}.
\end{eqnarray*
Thus, since $\psi <1,$ then
\begin{eqnarray}
2z_{1}z_{2}\psi ^{\nu +2} &\geq &2v_{t}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}v_{x_{i}}\left(
a\psi ^{\nu +2}\right) _{x_{i}}-C\nu \left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}+\func{div
U_{1,1}+\left( V_{1,1}\right) _{t}, \label{2.27} \\
\left\vert U_{1,1}\right\vert +\left\vert V_{1,1}\right\vert &\leq &C\nu
\left( v_{t}^{2}+\left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}\right) . \label{2.28}
\end{eqnarray}
\textbf{Step 2}. Estimate $\left(
z_{1}^{2}+2z_{1}z_{2}+2z_{1}z_{3}+z_{3}^{2}\right) \psi ^{\nu +2}.$ Using
\ref{2.23}), (\ref{2.27}) and (\ref{2.28}), we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\left( z_{1}^{2}+2z_{1}z_{2}+2z_{1}z_{3}+z_{3}^{2}\right) \psi ^{\nu +2}\geq
\end{equation*
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&z_{1}^{2}+z_{3}^{2}+2z_{1}\left(
z_{3}+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}v_{x_{i}}\left( a\psi ^{\nu +2}\right)
_{x_{i}}\right) -C\nu \left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}+\func{div}U_{1,1}+\left(
V_{1,1}\right) _{t} \\
&\geq &z_{1}^{2}+z_{3}^{2}-z_{1}^{2}-\left(
z_{3}+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}v_{x_{i}}\left( a\psi ^{\nu +2}\right)
_{x_{i}}\right) ^{2}-C\nu \left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}+\func{div
U_{1,1}+\left( V_{1,1}\right) _{t} \\
&=&z_{3}^{2}-z_{3}^{2}-2z_{3}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}v_{x_{i}}\left( a\psi
^{\nu +2}\right) _{x_{i}}-\left( \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}v_{x_{i}}\left( a\psi
^{\nu +2}\right) _{x_{i}}\right) ^{2}-C\nu \left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}+\func
div}U_{1,1}+\left( V_{1,1}\right) _{t}.
\end{eqnarray*
Using (\ref{2.24}), we obtai
\begin{equation*}
-2z_{3}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}v_{x_{i}}\left( a\psi ^{\nu +2}\right)
_{x_{i}}=4a^{2}\lambda \nu \left( \nu +2\right) \left[ v_{x_{1}}+\su
\limits_{i=2}^{n}\frac{x_{i}}{Y^{2}}v_{x_{i}}\right] ^{2}-C\lambda \nu
\left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}\geq -C\lambda \nu \left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}.
\end{equation*
Thus,
\begin{equation}
\left( z_{1}^{2}+2z_{1}z_{2}+2z_{1}z_{3}+z_{3}^{2}\right) \psi ^{\nu +2}\geq
-C\lambda \nu \left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}+\func{div}U_{1,1}+\left(
V_{1,1}\right) _{t}. \label{2.29}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Step 3}. Estimate $2z_{2}z_{3}\psi ^{\nu +2},
\begin{equation}
2z_{2}z_{3}\psi ^{\nu +2}=4a^{2}\lambda \nu \psi \left(
v_{x_{1}}+\sum\limits_{i=2}^{n}\frac{x_{i}}{Y^{2}}v_{x_{i}}\right) \Delta v.
\label{2.30}
\end{equation
Consider for example the term $4a^{2}\lambda \nu \psi v_{x_{1}}\Delta v,
\begin{eqnarray*}
4a^{2}\lambda \nu \psi v_{x_{1}}\Delta v &=&4\lambda \nu
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}v_{x_{i}x_{i}}v_{x_{1}}a^{2}\psi
=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\left( 4\lambda \nu a^{2}\nu _{x_{i}}v_{x_{1}}\psi
\right) _{x_{i}} \\
&&-\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}4\lambda \nu a^{2}\psi \nu
_{x_{i}}v_{x_{i}x_{1}}-\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}4\lambda \nu \left( a^{2}\psi
\right) _{x_{i}}\nu _{x_{i}}v_{x_{1}} \\
&\geq &\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\left( 4\lambda \nu a^{2}\nu
_{x_{i}}v_{x_{1}}\psi \right) _{x_{i}}+\left( \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}2\lambda
\nu a^{2}\psi \nu _{x_{i}}^{2}\right) _{x_{1}}-2\lambda \nu \left( a^{2}\psi
\right) _{x_{1}}\left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}-C\lambda \nu \left( \nabla
v\right) ^{2} \\
&\geq &-C\lambda \nu \left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}+\func{div}U_{1,2}.
\end{eqnarray*
Thus, $4a^{2}\lambda \nu \psi v_{x_{1}}\Delta v\geq -C\lambda \nu \left(
\nabla v\right) ^{2}+\func{div}U_{1,2}.$ Similarly we obtain using (\re
{2.30}
\begin{equation}
2z_{2}z_{3}\psi ^{\nu +2}\geq -C\lambda \nu \left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}
\func{div}U_{1,3}. \label{2.31}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Step 4}. Estimate $2z_{3}z_{4}\psi ^{\nu +2},
\begin{eqnarray*}
2z_{3}z_{4}\psi ^{\nu +2} &=&4a^{2}\lambda ^{3}\nu ^{3}\psi ^{-2\nu -1}\left[
1+\sum\limits_{i=2}^{n}\frac{x_{i}^{2}}{Y^{4}}+O\left( \frac{1}{\lambda
\right) \right] \left[ v_{x_{1}}+\sum\limits_{i=2}^{n}\frac{x_{i}}{Y^{2}
v_{x_{i}}\right] v \\
&=&\left[ 2a^{2}\lambda ^{3}\nu ^{3}\psi ^{-2\nu -1}\left(
1+\sum\limits_{i=2}^{n}\frac{x_{i}^{2}}{Y^{4}}+O\left( \frac{1}{\lambda
\right) \right) v^{2}\right] _{x_{1}} \\
&&+\left[ 2a^{2}\lambda ^{3}\nu ^{3}\psi ^{-2\nu -1}\left(
1+\sum\limits_{j=2}^{n}\frac{x_{j}^{2}}{Y^{4}}+O\left( \frac{1}{\lambda
\right) \right) \left( \sum\limits_{i=2}^{n}\frac{x_{i}}{Y^{2}}\right) v^{2
\right] _{x_{i}} \\
&&+2a^{2}\lambda ^{3}\nu ^{3}\left( 2\nu +1\right) \psi ^{-2\nu -2}\left[
1+\left( \sum\limits_{i=2}^{n}\frac{x_{i}}{Y^{2}}\right) ^{2}+O\left( \frac{
}{\lambda }\right) +O\left( \frac{1}{\nu }\right) \right] v^{2}.
\end{eqnarray*
Thus
\begin{equation}
2z_{3}z_{4}\psi ^{\nu +2}\geq C\lambda ^{3}\nu ^{4}\psi ^{-2\nu -2}v^{2}
\func{div}U_{1,4}. \label{2.32}
\end{equation
Similarly,
\begin{equation}
2z_{1}z_{4}\psi ^{\nu +2}\geq -C\lambda ^{2}\nu ^{3}\psi ^{-\nu -1}v^{2}
\func{div}U_{1,5}+\left( V_{1,2}\right) _{t}. \label{2.33}
\end{equation
Summing up (\ref{2.29})-(\ref{2.33}) and replacing $v$ with $u=v\varphi
^{-1},$ we obtain (\ref{2.21}), (\ref{2.22}). $\square $
As one can see that we have one positive and one negative term in the right
hand side in estimate (\ref{2.21}). Therefore, we need to balance them
somehow to obtain only positive terms. To do this, we prove Lemma 2.2 first.
\textbf{Lemma 2.2}. \emph{Suppose that the function }$a\left( x,t\right)
\emph{\ satisfies conditions (\ref{2.19}). Then there exist sufficiently
large numbers }$\lambda _{0}=\lambda _{0}\left( a_{0},K,G_{\eta }\right)
>1,\nu _{0}=\nu _{0}\left( a_{0},K,G_{\eta }\right) >2$\emph{\ such that for
any function }$u\in C^{2,1}\left( \overline{G}_{\eta }\right) $\emph{\ the
following estimate holds for all }$\lambda \geq \lambda _{0},\nu \geq \nu
_{0},\left( x,t\right) \in G_{\eta }
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( u_{t}-a\left( x,t\right) \Delta u\right) u\varphi ^{2} &\geq &C\left(
\nabla u\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2}-C\lambda ^{2}\nu ^{2}\psi ^{-2\nu
-2}\varphi ^{2}u^{2}+\func{div}U_{2}+\partial _{t}V_{2}, \label{2.34} \\
\left\vert U_{2}\right\vert +\left\vert V_{2}\right\vert &\leq &C\left(
\left\vert \nabla u\right\vert ^{2}+u^{2}\right) \varphi ^{2}. \label{2.35}
\end{eqnarray}
\textbf{Proof}. We hav
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left( u_{t}-a\left( x,t\right) \Delta u\right) u\varphi ^{2} &=&\left(
\frac{1}{2}u^{2}\varphi ^{2}\right) _{t}+\frac{t}{2T^{2}}\lambda \nu \psi
^{-\nu -1}\varphi ^{2}u^{2}+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\left( -a\left( x,t\right)
u_{x_{i}}u\varphi ^{2}\right) _{x_{i}}+a\left( \nabla u\right) ^{2}\varphi
^{2} \\
&&-2a\lambda \nu \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\psi _{x_{i}}\psi ^{-\nu
-1}u_{x_{i}}u\varphi ^{2}+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}a_{x_{i}}u_{x_{i}}u\varphi
^{2} \\
&\geq &C\left( \nabla u\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2}-C\lambda ^{2}\nu ^{2}\psi
^{-2\nu -2}\varphi ^{2}u^{2}+\func{div}U_{2}+V_{2t}.\text{ }\square
\end{eqnarray*}
\textbf{Theorem 2.4}. \emph{Suppose that the function }$a\left( x,t\right)
\emph{\ satisfies conditions (\ref{2.19}). Then there exist sufficiently
large numbers }$\lambda _{0}=\lambda _{0}\left( a_{0},K,G_{\eta }\right)
>1,\nu _{0}=\nu _{0}\left( a_{0},K,G_{\eta }\right) >2$\emph{\ such that for
any function }$u\in C^{2,1}\left( \overline{G}_{\eta }\right) $\emph{\ the
following Carleman estimate holds for all }$\lambda \geq \lambda _{0},\nu
\geq \nu _{0},\left( x,t\right) \in G_{\eta }
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( Lu\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2} &\geq &C\lambda \nu \left( \nabla u\right)
^{2}\varphi ^{2}+C\lambda ^{3}\nu ^{4}\psi ^{-2\nu -2}\varphi ^{2}u^{2}
\func{div}U+V_{t}, \label{2.36} \\
\left\vert U\right\vert +\left\vert V\right\vert &\leq &C\lambda ^{3}\nu
^{3}\psi ^{-2\nu -2}\left( \left( \nabla u\right) ^{2}+u^{2}\right) \varphi
^{2}. \label{2.37}
\end{eqnarray}
\textbf{Proof}. Multiply (\ref{2.34}) and (\ref{2.35}) by $2\lambda \nu $
and sum up with (\ref{2.21}), (\ref{2.22}). We obtai
\begin{equation}
\left( Lu\right) ^{2}\psi ^{\nu +2}\varphi ^{2}+2C\lambda \nu \left(
Lu\right) u\varphi ^{2}\geq C\lambda \nu \left( \nabla u\right) ^{2}\varphi
^{2}+C\lambda ^{3}\nu ^{4}\psi ^{-2\nu -2}\left( 1-\frac{1}{\nu }\right)
\varphi ^{2}u^{2}+\func{div}U+V_{t}, \label{2.38}
\end{equation
where the vector function $\left( U,V\right) $ satisfies (\ref{2.37}).
Choose $\nu _{0}=\nu _{0}\left( a_{0},K,G_{\eta }\right) >2.$ Also, since
\psi ^{\nu +2}<1,$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\left( Lu\right) ^{2}\psi ^{\nu +2}\varphi ^{2}+2\lambda \nu \left(
Lu\right) u\varphi ^{2}\leq 2\left( Lu\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2}+\lambda
^{2}\nu ^{2}\varphi ^{2}u^{2}.
\end{equation*
Combining this with (\ref{2.38}), we obtain (\ref{2.36}). $\square $
We now want to incorporate higher order derivatives $u_{t},u_{x_{i}x_{j}}$
in the Carleman estimate of Theorem 2.3. To do this, we prove Lemma 2.4 and
Theorem 2.4.
\textbf{Lemma 2.4}. \emph{Suppose that the function }$a\left( x,t\right)
\emph{\ satisfies conditions (\ref{2.19}). Fix the number }$\nu :=\nu
_{0}\left( a_{0},K,G_{\eta }\right) >2$\emph{\ of Theorem 2.3. There exists
sufficiently large number }$\lambda _{0}=\lambda _{0}\left( a_{0},K,G_{\eta
}\right) >1$\emph{\ such that for any function }$u\in C^{3}\left( \overline{
}_{\eta }\right) $\emph{\ the following estimate holds for all }$\lambda
\geq \lambda _{0},\left( x,t\right) \in G_{\eta }
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( Lu\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2} &\geq &\frac{1}{2}\left(
u_{t}^{2}+\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{n}u_{x_{i}x_{j}}^{2}\right) \varphi
^{2}-C\lambda ^{2}\left( \nabla u\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2}+\func{div
U_{3}+\partial _{t}V_{3}, \label{2.39} \\
\left\vert U_{3}\right\vert +\left\vert V_{3}\right\vert &\leq &C\left(
u_{t}^{2}+\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{n}u_{x_{i}x_{j}}^{2}+\left( \nabla u\right)
^{2}\right) \varphi ^{2}. \label{2.40}
\end{eqnarray}
\textbf{Proof}. We hav
\begin{equation}
\left( Lu\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2}\geq \left( u_{t}^{2}+2au_{t}\Delta
u+a_{0}^{2}\left( \Delta u\right) ^{2}\right) \varphi ^{2}. \label{2.41}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Step 1}. Estimate $2au_{t}\Delta u\varphi ^{2},
\begin{eqnarray*}
2au_{t}\Delta u\varphi ^{2}
&=&\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}2au_{t}u_{x_{i}x_{i}}\varphi
^{2}=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\left( 2au_{t}u_{x_{i}}\varphi ^{2}\right)
_{x_{i}}-2\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}au_{tx_{i}}u_{x_{i}}\varphi ^{2} \\
&&-2\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}a_{x_{i}}u_{t}u_{x_{i}}\varphi ^{2}-4\lambda \nu
\psi ^{-\nu -1}\left( \psi \right)
_{x_{i}}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}au_{t}u_{x_{i}}\varphi ^{2}.
\end{eqnarray*
We have
\begin{equation*}
-2\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}au_{tx_{i}}u_{x_{i}}\varphi ^{2}=\left( -a\left(
\nabla u\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2}\right) _{t}-4\lambda \nu \frac{t}{T^{2}
\psi ^{-\nu -1}a\left( \nabla u\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2}+a_{t}\left( \nabla
u\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2}.
\end{equation*
Since the number $\nu :=\nu _{0}\left( a_{0},K,G_{\eta }\right) $ depends on
the same parameters as the constant $C,$ we can incorporate $\nu $ in $C$.
Hence, we obtai
\begin{equation}
2au_{t}\Delta u\varphi ^{2}\geq -u_{t}^{2}\varphi ^{2}-C\lambda ^{2}\left(
\nabla u\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2}+\func{div}U_{3,1}+\left( V_{3,1}\right)
_{t}. \label{2.42}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Step 2}. Estimate $\left( \Delta u\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left( \Delta u\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2}
&=&\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{n}u_{x_{i}x_{i}}u_{x_{j}x_{j}}\varphi
^{2}=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}\left(
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}u_{x_{i}x_{i}}u_{x_{j}}\varphi ^{2}\right) _{x_{j}} \\
&&-\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}u_{x_{i}x_{i}x_{j}}u_{x_{j}
\varphi ^{2}+2\lambda \nu \psi ^{-\nu
-1}\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{n}u_{x_{i}x_{i}}u_{x_{j}}\psi _{x_{j}}\varphi ^{2} \\
&\geq &\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\left(
-\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}u_{x_{i}x_{j}}u_{x_{j}}\varphi ^{2}\right) _{x_{i}}
\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{n}u_{x_{i}x_{j}}^{2}\varphi ^{2}-C\lambda
^{2}\left( \nabla u\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2} \\
+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}\left(
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}u_{x_{i}x_{i}}u_{x_{j}}\varphi ^{2}\right) _{x_{j}} &=
\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{n}u_{x_{i}x_{j}}^{2}\varphi ^{2}-C\lambda
^{2}\left( \nabla u\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2}+\func{div}U_{3,2},
\end{eqnarray*
Hence, we have obtained that
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( \Delta u\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2} &\geq &\frac{1}{2
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{n}u_{x_{i}x_{j}}^{2}\varphi ^{2}-C\lambda ^{2}\left(
\nabla u\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2}+\func{div}U_{3,2}, \label{2.43} \\
\left\vert U_{3,2}\right\vert &\leq &C\left(
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{n}u_{x_{i}x_{j}}^{2}+\left( \nabla u\right) ^{2}\right)
\varphi ^{2}. \label{2.44}
\end{eqnarray
Comparing (\ref{2.41}), (\ref{2.42}), (\ref{2.43}) and (\ref{2.44}), we
obtain (\ref{2.39}) and (\ref{2.40}). $\square $
\textbf{Theorem 2.5.} \emph{Suppose that the function }$a\left( x,t\right)
\emph{\ satisfies conditions (\ref{2.19}). Fix the number }$\nu :=\nu
_{0}\left( a_{0},K,G_{\eta }\right) >2$\emph{\ of Theorem 2.3. Then there
exists a sufficiently large number }$\lambda _{0}=\lambda _{0}\left(
a_{0},K,G_{\eta }\right) >1$\emph{\ such that for any function }$u\in
C^{3}\left( \overline{G}_{\eta }\right) $\emph{\ the following estimate
holds for all }$\lambda \geq \lambda _{0},\left( x,t\right) \in G_{\eta }
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( Lu\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2} &\geq &\frac{C_{0}}{\lambda }\left(
u_{t}^{2}+\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{n}u_{x_{i}x_{j}}^{2}\right) \varphi
^{2}+C\lambda \left( \nabla u\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2}+C\lambda
^{3}u^{2}\varphi ^{2}+\func{div}U+V_{t}, \label{2.45} \\
\left\vert U\right\vert +\left\vert V\right\vert &\leq &\frac{C_{0}}{\lambda
}\left( u_{t}^{2}+\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{n}u_{x_{i}x_{j}}^{2}\right) \varphi
^{2}+C\lambda ^{3}\left( \left( \nabla u\right) ^{2}+u^{2}\right) \varphi
^{2}, \label{2.46}
\end{eqnarray
\emph{where the constant }$C_{0}=C_{0}\left( a_{0},K,G_{\eta }\right) >0
\emph{\ depends on the same parameters as the constant }$C$\emph{\ above. }
\textbf{Proof}. Divide inequality (\ref{2.39}) by $b\lambda $ with an
appropriate constant $b=b\left( a_{0},K,G_{\eta }\right) >1.$ Next, add the
resulting inequality to (\ref{2.36}), where set $\nu :=\nu _{0}.$ Then we
obtain (\ref{2.45}), (\ref{2.46}). $\square $
\textbf{Remark 2.2}. If one would set above $u_{t}\equiv 0$ and would ignore
the term $t^{2}/T^{2}$ in the function $\psi ,$ then one would obtain
analogs of these results for the general elliptic operator. A close analog
of Theorem 2.4 is valid for a general parabolic operator of the second
order, see \S 1 of Chapter 4 of the book of Lavrent'ev, Romanov and
Shishatskii \cite{LRS}. Therefore, Theorems 2.1-2.3 are valid for this
operator.
\subsection{Carleman estimate for a hyperbolic operator}
\label{sec:2.4}
Theorem 2.5 is proven in the book of Beilina and Klibanov \cite{BK}. Similar
theorems were established in earlier books of Isakov \cite{Is0,Is} and
Klibanov and Timonov \cite{KT}. Theorem 2.6 can be found in \S 4 of Chapter
4 of the book of Lavrent'ev, Romanov and Shishatskii \cite{LRS}. We do not
reproduce proofs here for brevity.
For brevity we consider a simple domain $\Omega =\left\{ \left\vert
x\right\vert <R\right\} \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}.$ Let $T=const.>0.$ Denote
\begin{equation*}
Q_{T}=\Omega \times \left( 0,T\right) ,Q_{T}^{\pm }=\Omega \times \left(
-T,T\right) ,S_{T}=\partial \Omega \times \left( 0,T\right) ,S_{T}^{\pm
}=\partial \Omega \times \left( -T,T\right) .
\end{equation*
Choose a point $x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}^{n}$. In particular, we can have
x_{0}\in \Omega .$ Let the number $\eta \in \left( 0,1\right) .$ Let
\lambda >1$ be a large parameter$.$ Define functions $\xi \left( x,t\right)
,\varphi \left( x,t\right) $ a
\begin{equation}
\xi \left( x,t\right) =\left\vert x-x_{0}\right\vert ^{2}-\eta t^{2},\varphi
\left( x,t\right) =\exp \left[ \lambda \xi \left( x,t\right) \right] .
\label{2.47}
\end{equation
For a number $\gamma >0$ define the domain $G_{\gamma }$ a
\begin{equation}
G_{\gamma }=\left\{ \xi \left( x,t\right) >\gamma \right\} . \label{2.471}
\end{equation
One can choose $\gamma $ such tha
\begin{equation}
G_{\gamma }\subset Q_{T}^{\pm }. \label{2.472}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Theorem 2.5.} \emph{Let }$\Omega =\left\{ \left\vert x\right\vert
<R\right\} \subset \mathbb{R}^{n},n\geq 2.$\emph{\ Let conditions (\ref{2.47
), (\ref{2.48}) and (\ref{2.49}) be in place. Let }$d=const.\geq 1.$ \emph
Let} \emph{the function }$c\left( x\right) $\emph{\ satisfies the following
conditions
\begin{eqnarray}
c^{-2}\left( x\right) &\in &\left[ 1,d\right] ,\forall x\in \overline{\Omega
},c\in C^{1}\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) , \label{2.48} \\
\left( x-x_{0},\nabla c^{-2}\left( x\right) \right) &\geq &0,\text{ }\forall
x\in \overline{\Omega }, \label{2.49}
\end{eqnarray
\emph{for a certain point }$x_{0}\in \Omega ,$ \emph{where }$\left( \cdot
,\cdot \right) $ \emph{denotes the scalar product in }$\mathbb{R}^{n}$\emph
. Let }$Lu=u_{tt}-c^{2}\left( x\right) \Delta u$\emph{\ be a hyperbolic
operator. Let}
\begin{equation}
P=P\left( x_{0},\Omega \right) =\max_{x\in \overline{\Omega }}\left\vert
x-x_{0}\right\vert . \label{2.49_1}
\end{equation
\emph{Then there exists a number }$\eta _{0}=\eta _{0}\left( \Omega
,d,P,\left\Vert \nabla c\right\Vert _{C\left( \overline{\Omega }\right)
}\right) \in \left( 0,1\right) $ \emph{such that for any }$\eta \in \left(
0,\eta _{0}\right) $\emph{\ one can choose a sufficiently large number }
\lambda _{0}=\lambda _{0}\left( d,P,\left\Vert \nabla c\right\Vert _{C\left(
\overline{\Omega }\right) },\eta ,\gamma \right) >1$\emph{\ and the number }
C=C\left( d,P,\left\Vert \nabla c\right\Vert _{C\left( \overline{\Omega
\right) },\eta ,\gamma \right) >0$\emph{, such that for all }$u\in
C^{2}\left( \overline{G}_{\gamma }\right) $\emph{\ and for all }$\lambda
\geq \lambda _{0}$\emph{\ the following pointwise Carleman estimate holds}
\begin{equation*}
\left( Lu\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2}\geq C\lambda \left( \left\vert \nabla
u\right\vert ^{2}+u_{t}^{2}\right) \varphi ^{2}+\lambda ^{3}u^{2}\varphi
^{2}+\func{div}U+V_{t}\text{, \emph{in} }G_{\gamma },
\end{equation*
\emph{where }
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\vert U\right\vert &\leq &C\lambda ^{3}\left( \left\vert \nabla
u\right\vert ^{2}+u_{t}^{2}+u^{2}\right) \varphi ^{2}, \label{2.50} \\
\left\vert V\right\vert &\leq &C\lambda ^{3}\left[ \left\vert t\right\vert
\left( u_{t}^{2}+\left\vert \nabla u\right\vert ^{2}+u^{2}\right) +\left(
\left\vert \nabla u\right\vert +\left\vert u\right\vert \right) \left\vert
u_{t}\right\vert \right] \varphi ^{2}. \label{2.51}
\end{eqnarray
\emph{\ } \emph{In particular, (\ref{2.51}) implies that if either }$u\left(
x,0\right) =0$\emph{\ or }$u_{t}\left( x,0\right) =0,$ \emph{then }
\begin{equation}
V\left( x,0\right) =0. \label{2.52}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Theorem 2.6}. \emph{Let }$c\left( x\right) \equiv 1$\emph{. Then
Theorem 2.5 is valid for any }$\eta \in \left( 0,1\right) .$
\subsection{The Quasi-Reversibility Method (QRM)}
\label{sec:2.5}
In this section we use notations of Sections 2.1, 2.2. Let $A$ be the
operator of Section 2.1. QRM delivers an approximate solution of the
following Cauchy proble
\begin{eqnarray}
Au &=&f,x\in G_{c}, \label{2.500} \\
f &\in &L_{2}\left( G_{c}\right) ,u\in H_{0}^{2}\left( G_{c}\right) =\left\{
u\in H^{2}\left( G_{c}\right) :u\mid _{\Gamma _{c}}=\partial _{n}u\mid
_{\Gamma _{c}}=0\right\} . \label{2.501}
\end{eqnarray
To find that approximate solution, QRM minimizes the following Tikhonov
functional with the regularization parameter $\gamma
\begin{equation}
J_{\gamma }\left( u\right) =\left\Vert Au-f\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left(
G_{c}\right) }^{2}+\gamma \left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left( G_{c}\right)
}^{2},u\in H_{0}^{2}\left( G_{c}\right) . \label{2.502}
\end{equation
The variational principle implies that any minimizer $u_{\gamma }\in
H_{0}^{2}\left( G_{c}\right) $ satisfies the following integral identit
\begin{equation}
\left( Au_{\gamma },Av\right) +\gamma \left[ u,v\right] =\left( f,Av\right)
,\forall v\in H_{0}^{2}\left( G_{c}\right) , \label{2.503}
\end{equation
where $\left( ,\right) $ and $\left[ ,\right] $ are scalar products in
L_{2}\left( G_{c}\right) $ and $H^{2}\left( G_{c}\right) $ respectively.
Riesz theorem and (\ref{2.503}) imply Lemma 2.5.
\textbf{Lemma 2.5}. \emph{Let }$A$\emph{\ be the operator defined in (\re
{2.4}), (\ref{2.5}) and the function }$f\in L_{2}\left( G_{c}\right) $\emph
. Then for any }$\gamma >0$\emph{\ there exists unique minimizer }$u\in
H_{0}^{2}\left( G_{c}\right) $\emph{\ of the functional (\ref{2.502}).\
Furthermore, with a constant }$\overline{C}=\overline{C}\left( A\right)
\emph{\ the following estimate holds }$\left\Vert u_{\gamma }\right\Vert
_{H^{2}\left( G_{c}\right) }\leq \overline{C}/\sqrt{\gamma }.$
\textbf{Theorem 2.7} (convergence). \emph{Assume that conditions (\ref{2.5})
hold and that the Carleman estimate of Definition 2.1 is valid. Suppose that
there exists a sufficiently small number }$\varepsilon >0$\emph{\ such that
the domain }$G_{c+3\varepsilon }\neq \varnothing .$\emph{\ Let the function
$u^{\ast }$\emph{\ be the exact solution of the problem (\ref{2.500}), (\re
{2.501}) with the exact function }$f^{\ast }\in L_{2}\left( G_{c}\right) .
\emph{\ Let }$\left\Vert f-f^{\ast }\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( G_{c}\right)
}\leq \delta $\emph{\ and }$\gamma =\delta ^{2}.$\emph{\ Denote }$m=\max_
\overline{G}_{c}}\xi \left( x\right) .$\emph{\ Define the number }$\beta
=2\varepsilon /\left( 3m+2\varepsilon \right) \in \left( 0,1\right) .$ \emph
There exists a sufficiently small number }$\delta _{0}=\delta _{0}\left(
\varepsilon ,m,A,G_{c},\left\Vert u^{\ast }\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left(
G_{c}\right) }\right) \in \left( 0,1\right) $\emph{\ and a constant }
C_{1}=C_{1}\left( \varepsilon ,m,A,G_{c}\right) >0$\emph{\ such that if }
\delta \in \left( 0,\delta _{0}\right) $\emph{, then the following
convergence rate is valid
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert u_{\gamma }-u^{\ast }\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( G_{c+3\varepsilon
}\right) }\leq C_{1}\left( 1+\left\Vert u^{\ast }\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left(
G_{c}\right) }\right) \delta ^{\beta /2},\forall \delta \in \left( 0,\delta
_{0}\right) .
\end{equation*}
\textbf{Proof}. We have
\begin{equation*}
\left( Au^{\ast },Av\right) +\gamma \left[ u^{\ast },v\right] =\left(
f^{\ast },Av\right) +\gamma \left[ u^{\ast },v\right] ,\forall v\in
H_{0}^{2}\left( G_{c}\right) .
\end{equation*
Subtract this identity from (\ref{2.503}) and denote $w_{\gamma }=u_{\gamma
}-u^{\ast },g=f-f^{\ast }.$ We obtai
\begin{equation}
\left( Aw_{\gamma },Av\right) +\gamma \left[ w_{\gamma },v\right] =\left(
g,Av\right) -\gamma \left[ u^{\ast },v\right] ,\forall v\in H_{0}^{2}\left(
G_{c}\right) . \label{2.504}
\end{equation
Setting in (\ref{2.504}) $v:=w_{\gamma }$ and using Cauchy-Bunyakovsky
inequality, we obtai
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\Vert Aw_{\gamma }\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( G_{c}\right) }^{2} &\leq
&\left( 1+\left\Vert u^{\ast }\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left( G_{c}\right)
}^{2}\right) \delta ^{2}\leq \delta , \\
\left\Vert w_{\gamma }\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left( G_{c}\right) }^{2} &\leq
&1+\left\Vert u^{\ast }\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left( G_{c}\right) }^{2}.
\end{eqnarray*
The rest of the proof follows from Theorem 2.3. $\square $
\subsection{Published results about QRM}
\label{sec:2.6}
As it is clear from (\ref{2.502}), QRM is a special form of the Tikhonov
regularization functional, see \cite{BKok,BK,EHN,T} for the theory of this
functional. In \textquotedblleft conventional" Tikhonov functional the
originating operator is continuous. On the other hand in QRM the originating
operator is a PDE operator, which is continuous only if its domain is $H^{2}
. QRM is well suitable for providing approximate solutions for ill-posed
Cauchy problems for PDEs, including boundary value problems with
over-determined boundary conditions. QRM was first introduced by Lattes and
Lions in their book \cite{LL}. This book shows how to apply QRM to ill-posed
Cauchy problems for all three main types of PDE operators of the second
order: elliptic, parabolic and hyperbolic. Although convergence theorems
were proven in \cite{LL}, convergence rates for QRM were not established
there.
The first work where a Carleman estimate was applied to get convergence rate
of QRM was one of Klibanov and Santosa \cite{KlibSant}. In \cite{KlibSant}
QRM was applied to the Cauchy problem for the Laplace equation. In Chapter 2
of the book of Klibanov and Timonov \cite{KT} Carleman estimates were also
applied to establish convergence rate of QRM for ill-posed Cauchy problems
for elliptic, parabolic and hyperbolic PDEs. Next, Carleman estimates were
used to prove convergence rate of QRM for the Cauchy problem for the Laplace
equation by Bourgeois \cite{Bourg1}, Bourgeois and Darde \cite{Bourg2} and
Cao, Klibanov and Pereverzev \cite{Cao}. The QRM for the problem of
determining of the initial condition in the parabolic PDE from boundary
measurements was considered by the author in \cite{Kl1,Kltherm}. Papers \cit
{Bourg2,Cao,KlibSant} contain numerical results. As to the application of
QRM to the problem with the lateral Cauchy data for the hyperbolic PDE, see
Sections 5.4 and 5.5.
While above citations of QRM are concerned only with linear problems, it was
recently applied by the author with coauthors to solve MCIPs with
backscattering data via the approximately globally convergent method \cit
{KuzhKl,KPK,KBK,KBKSNF,IEEE}, also see chapter 6 of \cite{BK}. The main
difference between the latter application of the QRM and the conventional
one is that MCIPs are nonlinear.
\section{The Bukhgeim-Klibanov Method}
\label{sec:3}
\subsection{Estimating an integral}
\label{sec:3.1}
First, we estimate a Volterra-like integral with a weight function. For the
first time an analog of Lemma 3.1 was proven by the author in \cite{Klib1}.
Next, that proof was published in some of above cited follow up papers of
the author about BK. The estimate of this lemma with the parameter
1/\lambda $ in it was first published in the book of Klibanov and Timonov
\cite{KT}, also see Section 1.10.3 in the book \cite{BK}.
\textbf{Lemma 3.1.} \emph{Let the function }$\varphi \in C^{1}\left[ 0,
\right] $\emph{\ and }$\varphi ^{\prime }\left( t\right) \leq -b$\emph{\ in
$\left[ 0,a\right] $\emph{, where }$b=const>0$\emph{. For a function }$g\in
L_{2}\left( -a,a\right) $\emph{\ consider the integral}
\begin{equation*}
I\left( g,\lambda \right) =\int\nolimits_{-a}^{a}\left(
\int\nolimits_{0}^{t}g\left( \tau \right) d\tau \right) ^{2}\exp \left[
2\lambda \varphi \left( t^{2}\right) \right] dt,\lambda =const.>0.
\end{equation*
\emph{Then, }
\begin{equation*}
I\left( g,\lambda \right) \leq \frac{1}{4\lambda b}\in
\nolimits_{-a}^{a}g^{2}\left( t\right) \exp \left[ 2\lambda \varphi \left(
t^{2}\right) \right] dt.
\end{equation*}
\textbf{Proof.} We have for $t>0
\begin{equation*}
t\exp \left[ 2\lambda \varphi \left( t^{2}\right) \right] =t\frac{4\lambda
\varphi ^{\prime }\left( t^{2}\right) }{4\lambda \varphi ^{\prime }\left(
t^{2}\right) }\exp \left[ 2\lambda \varphi \left( t^{2}\right) \right]
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
=\frac{1}{4\lambda \varphi ^{\prime }\left( t^{2}\right) }\frac{d}{dt
\left\{ \exp \left[ 2\lambda \varphi \left( t^{2}\right) \right] \right\} =
\frac{1}{4\lambda \varphi ^{\prime }\left( t^{2}\right) }\frac{d}{dt}\left\{
-\exp \left[ 2\lambda \varphi \left( t^{2}\right) \right] \right\}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq \frac{1}{4\lambda b}\frac{d}{dt}\left\{ -\exp \left[ 2\lambda \varphi
\left( t^{2}\right) \right] \right\} .
\end{equation*
Hence,
\begin{equation*}
\int_{0}^{a}\left( \int_{0}^{t}g\left( \tau \right) d\tau \right) ^{2}\exp
\left( 2\lambda \varphi \left( t^{2}\right) \right) dt\leq \int_{0}^{a}\exp
\left( 2\lambda \varphi \left( t^{2}\right) \right) t\left(
\int_{0}^{t}g^{2}\left( \tau \right) d\tau \right) dt
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq \frac{1}{4\lambda b}\int_{0}^{a}\frac{d}{dt}\left[ -\exp \left(
2\lambda \varphi \left( t^{2}\right) \right) \right] \left(
\int_{0}^{t}g^{2}\left( \tau \right) d\tau \right) dt
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
=-\frac{1}{4\lambda b}\exp \left( 2\lambda \varphi \left( a^{2}\right)
\right) \int_{0}^{a}g^{2}\left( \tau \right) d\tau +\frac{1}{4\lambda b
\int_{0}^{a}g^{2}\left( \tau \right) \exp \left( 2\lambda \varphi \left(
t^{2}\right) \right) dt
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq \frac{1}{4\lambda b}\int_{0}^{a}g^{2}\left( \tau \right) \exp \left(
2\lambda \varphi \left( t^{2}\right) \right) dt.
\end{equation*
Thus, we have proved that
\begin{equation*}
\int_{0}^{a}\exp \left( 2\lambda \varphi \left( t^{2}\right) \right) \left(
\int_{0}^{t}g\left( \tau \right) d\tau \right) ^{2}dt\leq \frac{1}{4\lambda
}\int_{0}^{a}g^{2}\left( \tau \right) \exp \left( 2\lambda \varphi \left(
t^{2}\right) \right) dt.
\end{equation*
Similarly,
\begin{equation*}
\int_{-a}^{0}\exp \left( 2\lambda \varphi \left( t^{2}\right) \right) \left(
\int_{0}^{t}g\left( \tau \right) d\tau \right) ^{2}dt\leq \frac{1}{4\lambda
}\int_{-a}^{0}g^{2}\left( \tau \right) \exp \left( 2\lambda \varphi \left(
t^{2}\right) \right) dt.\text{\quad }\square
\end{equation*}
\subsection{An MCIP for a hyperbolic equation}
\label{sec:3.2}
In this section we use notations of Section 2.4. Let functions $a_{\alpha
}\left( x,t\right) \in C\left( \overline{Q}_{T}\right) ,\left\vert \alpha
\right\vert \leq 1$ and the function $c\left( x\right) \in C^{1}\left(
\overline{\Omega }\right) ,c\left( x\right) \geq const>0.$ Let the function
u\in C^{2}\left( \overline{Q}_{T}\right) $ be the solution of the following
initial boundary value problem
\begin{eqnarray}
c\left( x\right) u_{tt} &=&\Delta u+\sum\limits_{\left\vert \alpha
\right\vert \leq 1}a_{\alpha }\left( x\right) D_{x}^{\alpha }u\text{, \ in
Q_{T}, \label{3.1} \\
u\left( x,0\right) &=&f_{0}\left( x\right) ,\text{ \ }u_{t}\left( x,0\right)
=f_{1}\left( x\right) , \label{3.2} \\
u|_{S_{T}} &=&p\left( x,t\right) ,S_{T}=\partial \Omega \times \left(
0,T\right) . \label{3.3}
\end{eqnarray}
\textbf{Coefficient Inverse Problem for the Hyperbolic Equation (\ref{3.1}).}
Let the Neumann boundary condition be known,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial n}|_{S_{T}}=q\left( x,t\right) . \label{3.4}
\end{equation
Determine one of $x-$dependent coefficients of equation (\ref{3.1}),
assuming that other coefficients are known, so as and functions
f_{0},f_{1},p,q$ in (\ref{3.2})-(\ref{3.4}).
\textbf{Theorem 3.1.} \emph{Let the domain }$\Omega =\left\{ \left\vert
x\right\vert <R\right\} \subset \mathbb{R}^{n},n\geq 2.$ \emph{Denote}
b\left( x\right) =1/\sqrt{c\left( x\right) }.$ \emph{Let the function }
b\left( x\right) $\emph{\ satisfies conditions (\ref{2.48}), (\ref{2.49}).\
In addition, let coefficients }$a_{\alpha }\in C\left( \overline{\Omega
\right) .$\emph{\ \ Consider two cases:}
\textbf{Case 1.}\emph{\ The coefficient }$c\left( x\right) $\emph{\ is
unknown and all other coefficients }$a_{\alpha }\left( x,t\right) $\emph{\
are known.\ In this case we assume that}
\begin{equation}
\Delta f_{0}\left( x\right) +\sum\limits_{\left\vert \alpha \right\vert \leq
1}a_{\alpha }\left( x\right) D_{x}^{\alpha }f_{0}\left( x\right) \neq 0\text{
\emph{for} }x\in \overline{\Omega }. \label{3.5}
\end{equation
\emph{Then for a sufficiently large }$T>0$\emph{\ there exists at most one
pair of functions }$\left( u,c\right) $\emph{\ satisfying (\ref{3.1})-(\re
{3.4}) and such that }$u\in C^{4}\left( \overline{Q}_{T}\right) .$
\textbf{Case 2.}\emph{\ Let }$\alpha _{0}$ \emph{be one of multi-indices in
\ref{3.1}), }$\left\vert \alpha _{0}\right\vert \leq 1$\emph{.\ Let the
coefficient }$a_{\alpha _{0}}\left( x\right) $\emph{\ be unknown and all
other coefficients are known.\ In this case we assume that }
\begin{equation}
D_{x}^{\alpha _{0}}f_{0}\left( x\right) \neq 0\text{ }\emph{for}\text{ }x\in
\overline{\Omega }. \label{3.6}
\end{equation
\emph{Then for a sufficiently large }$T>0$\emph{\ there exists at most one
pair of functions }$\left( u,a_{\alpha _{0}}\right) $\emph{\ satisfying (\re
{3.1})-(\ref{3.4}) and such that }$u\in C^{3+\left\vert \alpha
_{0}\right\vert }\left( \overline{Q}_{T}\right) $\emph{. }
\emph{If in (\ref{3.2}) }$f_{0}\left( x\right) \equiv 0,$\emph{\ then
conditions of these two cases should be imposed on the function }
f_{1}\left( x\right) $\emph{, the required smoothness of the function }$u
\emph{\ should be }$u\in C^{5}\left( \overline{Q}_{T}\right) $ \emph{in Case
1 and }$u\in C^{4+\left\vert \alpha _{0}\right\vert }\left( \overline{Q
_{T}\right) $\emph{\ in Case 2, and the above statements about uniqueness
would still hold.}
\textbf{Proof.} First, we note that if $f_{0}\left( x\right) \equiv 0,$\emph
\ }then one should consider in this proof $u_{t}$ instead of $u,$ and the
rest of the proof is the same as the one below. We prove this theorem only
for Case 1, since Case 2 is similar. Assume that there exist two solutions
\left( u_{1},c_{1}\right) $ and $\left( u_{2},c_{2}\right) $. Denote
\widetilde{u}=u_{1}-u_{2},\widetilde{c}=c_{1}-c_{2}$. Since
\begin{equation*}
c_{1}u_{1tt}-c_{2}u_{2tt}=c_{1}u_{1tt}-c_{1}u_{2tt}+\left(
c_{1}-c_{2}\right) u_{2tt}=c_{1}\widetilde{u}_{tt}+\widetilde{c}u_{2tt},
\end{equation*
then (\ref{3.1})-(\ref{3.4}) lead to
\begin{eqnarray}
L\widetilde{u} &=&c_{1}\left( x\right) \widetilde{u}_{tt}-\Delta \widetilde{
}-\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}a_{\alpha }\left( x\right) D_{x}^{\alpha }\widetilde{
}=\widetilde{c}\left( x\right) B\left( x,t\right) ,\text{ in }Q_{T},
\label{3.7} \\
\widetilde{u}\left( x,0\right) &=&0,\widetilde{u}_{t}\left( x,0\right) =0,
\label{3.9} \\
\widetilde{u}|_{S_{T}} &=&\frac{\partial \widetilde{u}}{\partial n
|_{S_{T}}=0, \label{3.101} \\
B\left( x,t\right) &:&=-u_{2tt}\left( x,t\right) . \label{3.7_1}
\end{eqnarray
Setting in (\ref{3.1}) $c:=c_{2},u:=u_{2},t:=0$ and using (\ref{3.5}) and
\ref{3.101}), we obtain
\begin{equation*}
B\left( x,0\right) =-c_{2}^{-1}\left( x\right) \left( \Delta f_{0}\left(
x\right) +\sum\limits_{\left\vert \alpha \right\vert \leq 1}a_{\alpha
}\left( x\right) D_{x}^{\alpha }f_{0}\left( x\right) \right) \neq 0\text{
for }x\in \overline{\Omega }.
\end{equation*
Hence, there exists a sufficiently small positive number $\varepsilon $,
such that
\begin{equation}
B\left( x,t\right) \neq 0\text{ in }\overline{Q}_{\varepsilon }=\overline
\Omega }\times \text{ }\left[ 0,\varepsilon \right] . \label{3.11}
\end{equation
By (\ref{3.7})
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{c}\left( x\right) =\frac{L\widetilde{u}}{B\left( x,t\right)
\text{ in }\overline{Q}_{\varepsilon }.
\end{equation*
Hence,
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left[ \widetilde{c}\left( x\right) \right]
\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left[ \frac{L\widetilde{u}}{B\left( x,t\right)
\right] =0\text{ in }\overline{Q}_{\varepsilon }.
\end{equation*
Or
\begin{equation}
L\widetilde{u}_{t}=\frac{B_{t}}{B}\left( L\widetilde{u}\right) \text{ in
\overline{Q}_{\varepsilon }. \label{3.12}
\end{equation
Denote
\begin{equation}
h\left( x,t\right) =\frac{B_{t}}{B}\left( x,t\right) . \label{3.13}
\end{equation
By (\ref{3.11}) and (\ref{3.13})
\begin{equation}
h\in C^{2}\left( \overline{Q}_{\varepsilon }\right) . \label{3.14}
\end{equation
Denote
\begin{equation}
v\left( x,t\right) =\widetilde{u}_{t}\left( x,t\right) -h\widetilde{u}\left(
x,t\right) . \label{3.15}
\end{equation
We can consider (\ref{3.15}) as an ordinary differential equation with
respect to $\widetilde{u}\left( x,t\right) $ with the initial condition from
(\ref{3.8}), i.e. $\widetilde{u}\left( x,0\right) =0.$ Hence, using (\re
{3.13}), (\ref{3.14}) and (\ref{3.15}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{u}\left( x,t\right) &=&\int\limits_{0}^{t}K\left( x,t,\tau
\right) v\left( x,\tau \right) d\tau , \label{3.16} \\
K\left( x,t,\tau \right) &=&\frac{B\left( x,t\right) }{B\left( x,\tau
\right) }\in C^{2}\left( \overline{\Omega }\times \left[ 0,\varepsilon
\right] \times \left[ 0,\varepsilon \right] \right) , \label{3.17} \\
v\left( x,0\right) &=&0. \label{3.18}
\end{eqnarray
Using (\ref{3.13}), (\ref{3.14}), (\ref{3.15}), (\ref{3.16}) and (\ref{3.17
), we obtain in $\overline{Q}_{\varepsilon }$
\begin{eqnarray*}
c_{1}\left( \widetilde{u}_{t}\right) _{tt}-hc_{1}\widetilde{u}_{tt}
&=&c_{1}v_{tt}+2c_{1}h_{t}\widetilde{u}_{t}+c_{1}h_{tt}\widetilde{u} \\
&=&c_{1}v_{tt}+2c_{1}h_{t}v+2c_{1}h_{t}\int\limits_{0}^{t}K_{t}\left(
x,t,\tau \right) v\left( x,\tau \right) d\tau
+c_{1}h_{tt}\int\limits_{0}^{t}K\left( x,t,\tau \right) v\left( x,\tau
\right) d\tau ,
\end{eqnarray*
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Delta \widetilde{u}_{t}-h\Delta \widetilde{u} &=&\Delta v+2\nabla h\nabla
\widetilde{u}+\Delta h\widetilde{u} \\
&=&\Delta v+2\nabla h\nabla \left( \int\limits_{0}^{t}K\left( x,t,\tau
\right) v\left( x,\tau \right) d\tau \right) +\Delta
h\int\limits_{0}^{t}K\left( x,t,\tau \right) v\left( x,\tau \right) d\tau .
\end{eqnarray*
Since by (\ref{3.12}) and (\ref{3.13}) $L\widetilde{u}_{t}-h\cdot
\widetilde{u}=0$ in $Q_{\varepsilon },$ then two recent formulas, boundary
conditions (\ref{3.9}), the initial condition (\ref{3.18}) as well as (\re
{3.14}) and (\ref{3.17}) lead to
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\vert c_{1}\left( x\right) v_{tt}-\Delta v\right\vert &\leq &M\left[
\left\vert \nabla v\right\vert \left( x,t\right) +\left\vert v\right\vert
\left( x,t\right) +\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left( \left\vert \nabla v\right\vert
+\left\vert v\right\vert \right) \left( x,\tau \right) d\tau \right] \text{
in }\overline{Q}_{\varepsilon }, \label{3.19} \\
v &\mid &_{S_{\varepsilon }}=\frac{\partial v}{\partial n}\mid
_{S_{\varepsilon }}=0, \label{3.20} \\
v\left( x,0\right) &=&0, \label{3.21}
\end{eqnarray
where $M>0$ is a constant independent on $v,x,t.$ The idea now is to apply
the Carleman estimate of Theorem 2.5 to the problem (\ref{3.19})-(\ref{3.21
) and estimate integrals using Lemma 3.1.
Let the point $x_{0}\in \Omega ,$ the number $P=P\left( x_{0},\Omega \right)
$ be the one defined in (\ref{2.49_1}) and $\eta _{0}=\eta _{0}\left(
d,P,\left\Vert \nabla c\right\Vert _{C\left( \overline{\Omega }\right)
}\right) \in \left( 0,1\right) $ be the number considered in Theorem 2.5.
Choose an arbitrary number $\eta \in \left( 0,\eta _{0}\right) .$ Assuming
that $\varepsilon $ is so small that $\eta _{0}\varepsilon ^{2}<R^{2},$
consider the domain $G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}$,
\begin{equation*}
G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}=\left\{ \left( x,t\right) :\left\vert
x\right\vert ^{2}-\eta t^{2}>R^{2}-\eta \varepsilon ^{2},t>0,\left\vert
x\right\vert <R\right\} .
\end{equation*
Then $G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}\subset \overline{Q}_{\varepsilon }.$ Let
$S_{\varepsilon }=\partial \Omega \times \left( 0,\varepsilon \right) .$ The
boundary of $G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}$ consists of three parts
\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+} &=&\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{3}\partial
_{i}G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}, \\
\partial _{1}G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+} &=&S_{\varepsilon }\cap \overline
G}_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}, \\
\partial _{2}G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+} &=&\left\{ \left\vert
x\right\vert \in \left( \sqrt{R^{2}-\eta \varepsilon ^{2}},R\right)
,t=0\right\} , \\
\partial _{3}G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+} &=&\left\{ \left\vert
x\right\vert ^{2}-\eta t^{2}=R^{2}-\eta \varepsilon ^{2},t>0,\left\vert
x\right\vert <R\right\} .
\end{eqnarray*}
Square both sides of inequality (\ref{3.19}), multiply by the function
\varphi ^{2}\left( x,t\right) $ defined in subsection 2.4, apply Theorem 2.5
and Gauss-Ostrogradsky formula. By (\ref{2.50}) and (\ref{3.20}) integral
over $\partial _{1}G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}$ equals zero. By (\ref{2.52
) and (\ref{3.21}) integral over $\partial _{2}G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}$
also equals zero. Hence, we obtain with a different constant $M
\begin{eqnarray}
C\lambda \int\limits_{G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}}\left( \nabla v\right)
^{2}\varphi ^{2}dxdt+C\lambda ^{3}\int\limits_{G_{\eta \varepsilon
^{2}}^{+}}v^{2}\varphi ^{2}dxdt &\leq &M\int\limits_{G_{\eta \varepsilon
^{2}}^{+}}\left[ \left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}+v^{2}\right] \varphi ^{2}dxdt
\notag \\
&&M\int\limits_{G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}}\left(
\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left( \left\vert \nabla v\right\vert +\left\vert
v\right\vert \right) \left( x,\tau \right) d\tau \right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2}dxdt
\label{3.21_1} \\
+C\lambda ^{3}\exp \left[ 2\lambda \left( R^{2}-\eta \varepsilon ^{2}\right)
\right] \int\limits_{\partial _{3}G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}}\left[
\left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}+v^{2}\right] dS_{x,t},\forall \lambda &>&\lambda
_{0}. \notag
\end{eqnarray}
For an arbitrary point $\left( x,0\right) \in \partial _{2}G_{\eta
\varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}$ consider the straight line, which is parallel to the
t-$axis and passes through the point $\left( x,0\right) .$ Then this line
intersects the hypersurface $\partial _{3}G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}$ at
the point $\left( x,t\left( x\right) \right) .$ Hence, applying Lemma 3.1 to
any function $g\in C\left( \overline{G}_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}\right) ,$
we obtai
\begin{equation}
\int\limits_{G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}}\left(
\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left\vert g\right\vert \left( x,\tau \right) d\tau
\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2}dxdt=\int\limits_{\partial _{3}G_{\eta \varepsilon
^{2}}^{+}}dx\left[ \int\limits_{0}^{t\left( x\right) }\left(
\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left\vert g\right\vert \left( x,\tau \right) d\tau
\right) ^{2}\varphi ^{2}dt\right] \leq \frac{C}{\lambda }\int\limits_{G_
\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}}g^{2}\varphi ^{2}dxdt. \label{3.21_2}
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{3.21_1}) and (\ref{3.21_2}) and choosing a sufficiently large
number $\lambda _{1}=\lambda _{1}\left( M,\lambda _{0}\right) >\lambda _{0}
, we obtain with a different constant $C
\begin{equation*}
C\lambda \int\limits_{G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}}\left( \nabla v\right)
^{2}\varphi ^{2}dxdt+C\lambda ^{3}\int\limits_{G_{\eta \varepsilon
^{2}}^{+}}v^{2}\varphi ^{2}dxdt\leq C\lambda ^{3}\exp \left[ 2\lambda \left(
R^{2}-\eta \varepsilon ^{2}\right) \right] \int\limits_{\partial _{3}G_{\eta
\varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}}\left[ \left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}+v^{2}\right]
dS_{x,t},\forall \lambda >\lambda _{1}.
\end{equation*
Let $\delta \in \left( 0,\eta \varepsilon ^{2}\right) $ be any number. Then
G_{\delta }^{+}\subset G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}$ and $\varphi
^{2}\left( x,t\right) >\exp \left[ 2\lambda \left( R^{2}-\delta \right)
\right] $ in $G_{\delta }^{+}.$ Hence, strengthening the last inequality, we
obtain with a different constant $C
\begin{equation*}
\lambda ^{3}\exp \left[ 2\lambda \left( R^{2}-\delta \right) \right]
\int\limits_{G_{\delta }^{+}}v^{2}dxdt\leq C\lambda ^{3}\exp \left[ 2\lambda
\left( R^{2}-\eta \varepsilon ^{2}\right) \right] \int\limits_{\partial
_{3}G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}}\left[ \left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}+v^{2
\right] dS_{x,t},\forall \lambda >\lambda _{1}.
\end{equation*
Dividing by $\lambda ^{3}\exp \left[ 2\lambda \left( R^{2}-\delta \right)
\right] ,$ we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\int\limits_{G_{\delta }^{+}}v^{2}dxdt\leq C\exp \left[ -2\lambda \left(
\eta \varepsilon ^{2}-\delta \right) \right] \int\limits_{\partial
_{3}G_{\eta \varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}}\left[ \left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}+v^{2
\right] dS_{x,t}.
\end{equation*
Setting here $\lambda \rightarrow \infty ,$ we obtain $v\left( x,t\right) =0$
in $G_{\delta }^{+}.$ Since numbers $\eta \in \left( 0,\eta _{0}\right) $
and $\delta \in \left( 0,\eta \varepsilon ^{2}\right) $ are arbitrary ones,
then $v\left( x,t\right) =0$ in $G_{\eta _{0}\varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}.$
Hence, by (\ref{3.16}) $\widetilde{u}\left( x,t\right) =0$ in $G_{\eta
_{0}\varepsilon ^{2}}^{+}.$ Hence, setting $t=0$ in (\ref{3.7}) and using
\ref{3.5}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{c}\left( x\right) =0\text{ for }x\in \left\{ \left\vert
x\right\vert \in \left( \sqrt{R^{2}-\eta _{0}\varepsilon ^{2}},R\right)
\right\} . \label{3.22}
\end{equation}
Substitute (\ref{3.22}) in (\ref{3.7}) and use (\ref{3.8}) and (\ref{3.9}).
We obtain for $\left( x,t\right) \in \left\{ \left\vert x\right\vert \in
\left( \sqrt{R^{2}-\eta _{0}\varepsilon ^{2}},R\right) \right\} \times
\left( 0,T\right) $
\begin{eqnarray}
L\widetilde{u} &=&c_{1}\left( x\right) \widetilde{u}_{tt}-\Delta \widetilde{
}-\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}a_{\alpha }\left( x\right) D_{x}^{\alpha }\widetilde{
}=0, \label{3.23} \\
\widetilde{u}\left( x,0\right) &=&0,\widetilde{u}_{t}\left( x,0\right) =0,
\label{3.25} \\
\widetilde{u}|_{S_{T}} &=&\frac{\partial \widetilde{u}}{\partial n
|_{S_{T}}=0. \label{3.26}
\end{eqnarray
Consider an arbitrary number $t_{0}\in \left( 0,T-\varepsilon \right) .$ And
consider the domain $G_{\eta _{0}\varepsilon ^{2}}\left( t_{0}\right) ,$
\begin{equation*}
G_{\eta _{0}\varepsilon ^{2}}\left( t_{0}\right) =\left\{ \left( x,t\right)
:\left\vert x\right\vert ^{2}-\eta _{0}\left( t-t_{0}\right) ^{2}>R^{2}-\eta
_{0}\varepsilon ^{2},t>0,\left\vert x\right\vert <R\right\} .
\end{equation*
Since $t_{0}\in \left( 0,T-\varepsilon \right) ,$ then $t\in \left(
0,T\right) $ in this domain. Hence,
\begin{equation*}
G_{\eta _{0}\varepsilon ^{2}}\left( t_{0}\right) \subset \left\{ \left\vert
x\right\vert \in \left( \sqrt{R^{2}-\eta _{0}\varepsilon ^{2}},R\right)
\right\} \times \left( 0,T\right) .
\end{equation*
Hence, using conditions (\ref{3.25}), (\ref{3.26}), we can apply Theorems
2.3, 2.5 to the domain $G_{\eta _{0}\varepsilon ^{2}}\left( t_{0}\right) $.
Therefore, $\widetilde{u}\left( x,t\right) =0$ for $\left( x,t\right) \in
G_{\eta _{0}\varepsilon ^{2}}\left( t_{0}\right) .$ Since $t_{0}$ is an
arbitrary number of the interval $\left( 0,T-\varepsilon \right) ,$ then,
varying this number, we obtain that
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{u}\left( x,t\right) =0\text{ for }\left( x,t\right) \in \left\{
\left\vert x\right\vert \in \left( \sqrt{R^{2}-\eta _{0}\varepsilon ^{2}
,R\right) \right\} \times \left( 0,T-\varepsilon \right) .
\end{equation*
Therefore, we now can replace in (\ref{3.7})-(\ref{3.10}) sets $Q_{T}$ and
S_{T}$ with sets $Q_{T}^{\varepsilon }$ and $S_{T}^{\varepsilon }$
respectively, where
\begin{equation*}
Q_{T}^{\varepsilon }=\left\{ \left\vert x\right\vert <\sqrt{R^{2}-\eta
_{0}\varepsilon ^{2}}\right\} \times \left( 0,T-\varepsilon \right)
,S_{T}^{\varepsilon }=\left\{ \left\vert x\right\vert =\sqrt{R^{2}-\eta
_{0}\varepsilon ^{2}}\right\} \times \left( 0,T-\varepsilon \right) .
\end{equation*
Next, we repeat the above proof. Hence, we obtain instead of (\ref{3.22})
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{c}\left( x\right) =0\text{ for }x\in \left\{ \left\vert
x\right\vert \in \left( \sqrt{R^{2}-2\eta _{0}\varepsilon ^{2}},R\right)
\right\} .
\end{equation*
Since $\varepsilon >0$ is sufficiently small, we can choose $\varepsilon $
such that $R^{2}=k\eta _{0}\varepsilon ^{2}$ where $k=k\left( R,\varepsilon
\right) \geq 1$ is an integer. Suppose that
\begin{equation*}
T>k\varepsilon =\frac{R^{2}}{\eta _{0}\varepsilon }.
\end{equation*
Then we can repeat this process $k$ times until the entire domain $\Omega
=\left\{ \left\vert x\right\vert <R\right\} $ will be covered. Thus, we
obtain that $\widetilde{c}\left( x\right) =0$ in $\Omega .$ Hence, the right
hand side of equation (\ref{3.7}) is identical zero. This and the standard
energy estimate imply that $\widetilde{u}\left( x,t\right) =0$ in $Q_{T}.$
\square $
An inconvenient point of Theorem 3.1 is that the observation time $T$ is
assumed to be sufficiently large. An experience of the author of working
with experimental data \cite{BK,BK4,KFBPS,KBKSNF,IEEE} indicates that this
is not a severe restriction in applications.\ Indeed, usually the
pre-processing procedure of the measured signal leaves only a small portion
of the time dependent curve to work with. Still, it is possible to restrict
the value of $T$ via imposing the condition $f_{1}\left( x\right) \equiv 0.$
The proof of Theorem 3.2 partially uses arguments of works of Imanuvilov and
Yamamoto \cite{Y2,Y3}.
\textbf{Theorem 3.2.} \emph{Assume that all conditions of Theorem 3.1 are
satisfied. In addition, assume that the function }$f_{1}\left( x\right)
\equiv 0.$\emph{\ Then Theorem 3.1 holds if }
\begin{equation}
T>\frac{R}{\sqrt{\eta _{0}}}. \label{3.27}
\end{equation
\emph{In particular if }$c\left( x\right) \equiv 1,$\emph{\ then it is
sufficient to have }$T>R.$
\textbf{Proof.} Just as in the proof of Theorem 3.1, we consider now only
Case 1, keep notations of Theorem 3.1. Introduce the function $w\left(
x,t\right) =\widetilde{u}_{tt}\left( x,t\right) .$ Then by (\ref{3.7})-(\re
{3.10})
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{1}\left( x\right) w_{tt}-\Delta w-\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}a_{\alpha }\left(
x\right) D_{x}^{\alpha }w &=&-\widetilde{c}\left( x\right) \partial
_{t}^{4}u_{2},\text{ in }Q_{T}, \label{3.28} \\
w_{t}\left( x,0\right) &=&0, \notag \\
w|_{S_{T}} &=&\frac{\partial w}{\partial n}|_{S_{T}}=0, \notag \\
w\left( x,0\right) &=&-\widetilde{c}\left( x\right) p\left( x\right) ,
\label{3.29} \\
p\left( x\right) &=&c_{1}^{-1}\left( x\right) \left( \Delta f_{0}\left(
x\right) +\sum\limits_{\left\vert \alpha \right\vert \leq 1}a_{\alpha
}\left( x\right) D_{x}^{\alpha }f_{0}\left( x\right) \right) \neq 0,x\in
\overline{\Omega } \label{3.30}
\end{eqnarray
By (\ref{3.29}) and (\ref{3.30})
\begin{equation*}
-\widetilde{c}\left( x\right) =\frac{w\left( x,0\right) }{p\left( x\right) }
\frac{1}{p\left( x\right) }\left[ w\left( x,t\right)
-\int\limits_{0}^{t}w_{t}\left( x,\tau \right) d\tau \right] .
\end{equation*
Substituting this formula in (\ref{3.28}) and proceeding similarly with the
proof of Theorem 3.1, we obtain that $\widetilde{c}\left( x\right) =0$ in
\Omega $ and $w\left( x,t\right) =\widetilde{u}\left( x,t\right) =0$ in
Q_{T}.$ $\square $
\subsection{MCIPs for parabolic equations}
\label{sec:3.3}
In this subsection we prove uniqueness theorems for three MCIPs for
parabolic PDEs. Unlike the hyperbolic case, conditions imposed on the
principal part of the corresponding elliptic operator are not restrictive in
two out of three of these problems. The reason is that Carleman estimate can
be proven for a quite general parabolic operator, see \S 1 of Chapter 4 of
the book \cite{LRS}. Below $C^{k+\beta },C^{2k+\beta ,k+\beta /2}$ are H\"{o
lder spaces, where $k\geq 0$ is an integer and $\beta \in \left( 0,1\right)
.
\subsubsection{The first MCIP for a parabolic equation}
\label{sec:3.3.1}
Denote $D_{T}^{n+1}=\mathbb{R}^{n}\times \left( 0,T\right) .$ Consider the
Cauchy problem for the following parabolic equation
\begin{eqnarray}
c\left( x\right) u_{t} &=&\Delta u+\sum\limits_{\left\vert \alpha
\right\vert \leq 1}a_{\alpha }\left( x\right) D_{x}^{\alpha }u\text{ \ in
D_{T}^{n+1}, \label{3.33} \\
u\left( x,0\right) &=&f_{0}\left( x\right) , \label{3.34} \\
c,a_{\alpha } &\in &C^{\beta }\left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\right) ,\text{ }c\left(
x\right) \in \left[ 1,d\right] ,\text{ }f_{0}\in C^{2+\beta }\left( \mathbb{
}^{n}\right) . \label{3.35}
\end{eqnarray
The problem (\ref{3.33})-(\ref{3.35}) has unique solution $u\in C^{2+\beta
,1+\beta /2}\left( \overline{D}_{T}^{n+1}\right) ,$ see the book of
Ladyzhenskaya, Solonnikov and Uralceva \cite{LSU}. Just as in Section 3.2,
we assume that $\Omega =\left\{ \left\vert x\right\vert <R\right\} \subset
\mathbb{R}^{n},n\geq 2.$ Let $\Gamma \subseteq \partial \Omega $ be a part
of the boundary of the domain $\Omega $, $T=const.>0$ and $\Gamma
_{T}=\Gamma \times \left( 0,T\right) $.
\textbf{The First Parabolic Coefficient Inverse Problem. }Suppose that one
of coefficients in equation (\ref{3.33}) is unknown inside of the domain
\Omega $ and is known outside of it. Also, assume that all other
coefficients in (\ref{3.33}) are known and conditions (\ref{3.34}), (\re
{3.35}) are satisfied. Determine that unknown coefficient inside of $\Omega
, $ assuming that the following functions $p\left( x,t\right) $ and $q\left(
x,t\right) $ are known
\begin{equation}
u\mid _{\Gamma _{T}}=p\left( x,t\right) ,\quad \frac{\partial u}{\partial n
\mid _{\Gamma _{T}}=q\left( x,t\right) . \label{3.36}
\end{equation}
It is yet unclear how to prove a uniqueness theorem for this CIP
\textquotedblleft straightforwardly\textquotedblright . The reason is that
one cannot extend properly the solution of the problem (\ref{3.33}), (\re
{3.34}) in $\left\{ t<0\right\} .$ Thus, the idea here is to consider an
associated MCIP for the hyperbolic PDE (\ref{3.1}) using a connection
between these two CIPs via an analog of the Laplace transform. Next, since
the Laplace transform is one-to-one, then Theorem 3.1 will provide the
desired uniqueness result.
That associated hyperbolic Cauchy problem is
\begin{eqnarray}
c\left( x\right) v_{tt} &=&\Delta v+\sum\limits_{\left\vert \alpha
\right\vert \leq 1}a_{\alpha }\left( x\right) D_{x}^{\alpha }v\text{ \ in
D_{\infty }^{n+1}=\mathbb{R}^{n}\times \left( 0,\infty \right) ,
\label{3.37} \\
v|_{t=0} &=&0,\text{ }v_{t}|_{t=0}=f_{0}\left( x\right) . \label{3.38}
\end{eqnarray
In addition to (\ref{3.35}), we assume that the coefficients $c\left(
x\right) ,a_{\alpha }\left( x\right) $ and the initial condition
f_{0}\left( x\right) $ are so smooth that the solution $v$ of the problem
\ref{3.37}), (\ref{3.38}) is such that (a) $v\in C^{5}\left( \overline{D
_{\infty }^{n+1}\right) $ if the function $c\left( x\right) $ is unknown,
and (b) $v\in C^{4+\left\vert \alpha \right\vert }\left( \overline{D
_{\infty }^{n+1}\right) $ if the function $c\left( x\right) $ is \ known and
any of functions $a_{\alpha }\left( x\right) $ is unknown.
Consider the Laplace-like transform $\mathcal{R}$ of Reznickaya \cite{Rezn}.
Since the publication \cite{Rezn} in 1973 this transform is widely used \cit
{BK,KT,LRS}. The following connection between solutions $u$ and $v$ of
parabolic and hyperbolic Cauchy problems (\ref{3.33}), (\ref{3.34}) and (\re
{3.37}), (\ref{3.38}) can be easily verified
\begin{equation}
u\left( x,t\right) =\frac{1}{2t\sqrt{\pi t}}\int_{0}^{\infty }\exp \left[
\frac{\tau ^{2}}{4t}\right] \tau v\left( x,\tau \right) d\tau :=\mathcal{R}v.
\label{3.39}
\end{equation
Using an analogy with the Laplace transform, one can easily prove that the
operator $\mathcal{R}$ is one-to-one. Hence, given functions $p,q$ in (\re
{3.36}), the following two functions $\overline{p}\left( x,t\right) $ and
\overline{q}\left( x,t\right) $ can be uniquely determined
\begin{equation}
v|_{\Gamma _{\infty }}=\overline{p}\left( x,t\right) ,\text{\quad }\frac
\partial v}{\partial n}|_{\Gamma _{\infty }}=\overline{q}\left( x,t\right) .
\label{3.40}
\end{equation
Therefore, we have reduced the First Parabolic Coefficient Inverse Problem
to the hyperbolic CIP (\ref{3.37}), (\ref{3.38}), (\ref{3.40}).
To apply Theorem 3\textbf{.}1, we need to replace $\Gamma _{\infty }$ in
\ref{3.40}) with $S_{\infty }.$ To do this, we observe that, using (\re
{3.36}) and the fact that the unknown coefficient is given outside of the
domain $\Omega $, one can uniquely determine the function $u\left(
x,t\right) $ for $\left( x,t\right) \in \left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\diagdown
\Omega \right) \times \left( 0,T\right) .$ Indeed, this follows from Remark
2.2. Therefore we can uniquely determine functions $u,\partial _{n}u$ at
S_{T}.$ Hence, we can replace in (\ref{3.40}) $\Gamma _{\infty }$ with
S_{\infty }.$ Hence, Theorem 3.1 implies Theorem 3.3.
\textbf{Theorem 3.3. }\emph{Assume that conditions (\ref{3.35}) hold. Also,
assume that coefficients }$c\left( x\right) ,a_{\alpha }\left( x\right)
\emph{\ and the initial condition }$f_{0}\left( x\right) $\emph{\ are so
smooth that the solution }$v$\emph{\ of the problem (\ref{3.37}), (\ref{3.38
) is such that: }
\emph{(a) }$v\in C^{5}\left( \overline{D}_{\infty }^{n+1}\right) $\emph{\ if
the function }$c\left( x\right) $\emph{\ is unknown, and (b) }$v\in
C^{4+\left\vert \alpha \right\vert }\left( \overline{D}_{\infty
}^{n+1}\right) $\emph{\ if the function }$a_{\alpha }\left( x\right) $\
\emph{is unknown. Let the domain }$\Omega =\left\{ \left\vert x\right\vert
<R\right\} \subset \mathbb{R}^{n},n\geq 2.$ \emph{Denote} $b\left( x\right)
=1/\sqrt{c\left( x\right) }.$ \emph{Let the function }$b\left( x\right) $
\emph{satisfies conditions (\ref{2.48}), (\ref{2.49}). Suppose that
conditions of either of Cases 1 or 2 of Theorem 3.1 hold. Then conclusions
of Theorem 3.1 are true for the inverse problem (\ref{3.33})-(\ref{3.36}).}
\subsubsection{The second MCIP for the parabolic equation}
\label{sec:3.3.2}
Two points of Theorem 3.3 are inconvenient ones. First, one needs to reduce
the parabolic CIP to the hyperbolic CIP via inverting the transform (\re
{3.39}). Second, one needs to use a special form of the elliptic operator in
(\ref{3.37}) with the restrictive condition (\ref{2.49}) imposed on the
coefficient $c\left( x\right) $. Although (\ref{2.49}) holds for the case
c\left( x\right) \equiv 1$, still the question remains whether it is
possible to prove uniqueness of an MCIP for the case of a general parabolic
operator of the second order. We show in this Section that the latter is
possible, provided that one can guarantee the existence of the solution of
the parabolic PDE for $t\in \left( -T,T\right) $ and that the function
u\left( x,0\right) $ is known. On the other hand, it was noticed in the
paper of Yamamoto and Zou \cite{Y9} that the measurement of the temperature
at $t=\theta >0$ is often easier to achieve than the measurement at the
initial time moment $t=0$. Thus, that condition likely has a good applied
sense.
Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$ be either finite or infinite connected
domain with the piecewise smooth boundary $\partial \Omega $, $\Gamma
\subseteq \partial \Omega $ be a part of this boundary and $T=const>0$.
Denote $\Gamma _{T}^{\pm }=\Gamma \times \left( -T,T\right) .$ Let $L$ be
the elliptic operator in $Q_{T}^{\pm }$ of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
Lu &=&\sum\limits_{\left\vert \alpha \right\vert \leq 2}a_{\alpha }\left(
x\right) D_{x}^{\alpha }u,\left( x,t\right) \in Q_{T}^{\pm }, \label{3.41}
\\
a_{\alpha } &\in &C^{1}\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) ,\left\vert \alpha
\right\vert =2,a_{\alpha }\in C\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) ,\left\vert
\alpha \right\vert =0,1, \label{3.42} \\
\mu _{1}\left\vert \xi \right\vert ^{2} &\leq &\sum\limits_{\left\vert
\alpha \right\vert =2}a_{\alpha }\left( x\right) \xi ^{\alpha }\leq \mu
_{2}\left\vert \xi \right\vert ^{2},\forall \xi \in \mathbb{R}^{n},\forall
x\in \overline{\Omega };\mu _{1},\mu _{2}=const.>0. \label{3.43}
\end{eqnarray}
\textbf{The Second Parabolic Coefficient Inverse Problem. }Assume that one
of coefficients $a_{\alpha _{0}}\left( x\right) $\ of the operator $L$\ is
unknown in $\Omega $, and all other coefficients of $L$\ are known in
\Omega $. Let the function $u\in C^{4,2}\left( \overline{Q}_{T}^{\pm
}\right) $\ satisfies the parabolic equation
\begin{equation}
u_{t}=Lu+F\left( x,t\right) ,\text{ in }Q_{T}^{\pm }. \label{3.44}
\end{equation
Determine the coefficient $a_{\alpha _{0}}\left( x\right) $ for $x\in \Omega
,$ assuming that the function $F\left( x,t\right) $ is known in $Q_{T}^{\pm
} $ and that the following functions $f_{0}\left( x\right) ,p\left(
x,t\right) $\ and $q\left( x,t\right) $\ are known as well
\begin{eqnarray}
u\left( x,0\right) &=&f_{0}\left( x\right) ,x\in \Omega , \label{3.45} \\
u|_{\Gamma _{T}^{\pm }} &=&p\left( x,t\right) ,\frac{\partial u}{\partial n
|_{\Gamma _{T}^{\pm }}=q\left( x,t\right) . \label{3.46}
\end{eqnarray}
\textbf{Theorem 3.4}. \emph{Assume that conditions (\ref{3.42}) and (\re
{3.43}) are valid and that
\begin{equation}
D_{x}^{\alpha _{0}}f_{0}\left( x\right) \neq 0\emph{\ }\text{in}\emph{\
\overline{\Omega }\emph{.} \label{3.47}
\end{equation
\emph{\ Then there exists at most one solution }$\left( u,a_{\alpha
_{0}}\right) $ \emph{of the inverse problem (\ref{3.44})-(\ref{3.46}) such
that }$u\in C^{4,2}\left( \overline{Q}_{T}^{\pm }\right) $\emph{.}
\textbf{Proof.} Assume that there exist two solutions $\left(
u_{1},a_{\alpha _{0}}^{\left( 1\right) }\right) $ and $\left(
u_{2},a_{\alpha _{0}}^{\left( 2\right) }\right) $. Denote $\widetilde{u
=u_{1}-u_{2},\widetilde{a}=a_{\alpha _{0}}^{\left( 1\right) }-a_{\alpha
_{0}}^{\left( 2\right) }.$ Using (\ref{3.44})-(\ref{3.46}), we obtai
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{u}_{t}-L^{\left( 1\right) }\widetilde{u} &=&\widetilde{a}\left(
x\right) D^{\alpha _{0}}u_{2}, \label{3.48} \\
\widetilde{u}\left( x,0\right) &=&0, \label{3.49} \\
\widetilde{u}|_{\Gamma _{T}^{\pm }} &=&\frac{\partial \widetilde{u}}
\partial n}\mid _{\Gamma _{T}^{\pm }}=0. \label{3.50}
\end{eqnarray
Here $L^{\left( 1\right) }$ means that the coefficient $a_{\alpha
_{0}}\left( x\right) $ in the operator $L$ is replaced with $a_{\alpha
_{0}}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( x\right) .$ It follows from (\ref{3.47}) that
there exists a small number $\varepsilon >0$ such that $D^{\alpha
_{0}}u_{2}\neq 0$ in $\overline{Q}_{\varepsilon }^{\pm }.$ Denote for
brevity $g\left( x,t\right) =D^{\alpha _{0}}u_{2}\left( x,t\right) .$ By
\ref{3.48}
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{a}\left( x\right) =\frac{\widetilde{u}_{t}-L^{\left( 1\right)
\widetilde{u}}{g},\left( x,t\right) \in \text{ }\overline{Q}_{\varepsilon
}^{\pm }.
\end{equation*
Differentiating this equality with respect to $t$ and denoting
\begin{equation}
h\left( x,t\right) =\frac{g_{t}}{g}, \label{3.51}
\end{equation
we obtai
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{u}_{tt}-L^{\left( 1\right) }\widetilde{u}_{t}=h\left( \widetilde{
}_{t}-L^{\left( 1\right) }\widetilde{u}\right) . \label{3.52}
\end{equation
We now proceed similarly with the proof of Theorem 3.1. Denote
\begin{equation}
v=\widetilde{u}_{t}-h\widetilde{u}. \label{3.53}
\end{equation
Solving the Ordinary Differential Equation (\ref{3.53}) with the zero
initial condition (\ref{3.49}) and taking into account (\ref{3.51}), we
obtai
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{u}\left( x,t\right) =\int\limits_{0}^{t}K\left( x,t,\tau \right)
v\left( x,\tau \right) d\tau ,K\left( x,t,\tau \right) =\frac{g\left(
x,t\right) }{g\left( x,\tau \right) },\left( x,t\right) \in \overline{Q
_{\varepsilon }^{\pm } \label{3.54}
\end{equation
Next, using (\ref{3.50}), (\ref{3.52}) and (\ref{3.53}), we obtain similarly
with (\ref{3.19}) and (\ref{3.20})
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\vert v_{t}-L_{0}^{\left( 1\right) }v\right\vert &\leq &M\left[
\left\vert \nabla v\right\vert \left( x,t\right) +\left\vert v\right\vert
\left( x,t\right) +sgn\left( t\right) \int\limits_{0}^{t}\left( \left\vert
\nabla v\right\vert +\left\vert v\right\vert \right) \left( x,\tau \right)
d\tau \right] \text{ in }\overline{Q}_{\varepsilon }^{\pm }, \label{3.55} \\
v &\mid &_{\Gamma _{\varepsilon }^{\pm }}=\frac{\partial v}{\partial n}\mid
_{\Gamma _{\varepsilon }^{\pm }}=0, \label{3.56}
\end{eqnarray
where $L_{0}^{\left( 1\right) }$ is the principal part of the operator
L^{\left( 1\right) }$, $sgn\left( t\right) =1$ if $t>0$ and $sgn\left(
t\right) =-1$ if $t<0,$ and the positive constant $M$ is independent on
x,t,v.$ Without loss of generality we assume that
\begin{equation}
\Gamma =\left\{ x_{1}=0,\left\vert y\right\vert \leq Y\right\} .
\label{3.57}
\end{equation
Otherwise we can still obtain (\ref{3.57}) for at least a piece of $\Gamma $
via a change of variables. Consider such a point $x_{0}\in \Omega $ that the
straight line which is perpendicular to $\left\{ x_{1}=0\right\} $ and
passes through $x_{0}$, intersects $\Gamma ,$ and the segment of this
straight line which connects $x_{0}$ and $\Gamma ,$ lies inside of $\Omega .$
Without loss of generality we assume that
\begin{equation}
x_{0}\in \left\{ x_{1}>0,x_{1}+\frac{\left\vert y\right\vert ^{2}}{2Y^{2}
<\eta -\alpha \right\} , \label{3.58}
\end{equation
where numbers $\alpha ,\eta \in \left( 0,1\right) ,\alpha <\eta $ were
defined in subsection 2.3.
Let $\varphi \left( x,t\right) $ be the function defined in (\ref{2.16_0}),
\ref{2.16}). In (\ref{2.16_0}) choose the parameter $T$ so large that
\varepsilon ^{2}/\left( 2T^{2}\right) <\eta -\alpha .$ Hence, the domain
G_{\eta }\subset Q_{\varepsilon }^{\pm },$ where $G_{\eta }$ was defined in
subsection 2.3. Square both sides of inequality (\ref{3.55}), multiply by
the function $\varphi ^{2}\left( x,t\right) $, integrate over the domain
G_{\eta }$. Following Remark 2.2, we use the Carleman estimate of Theorem
2.3, assuming that it is valid for the operator $L_{0}^{\left( 1\right) }.$
In addition, we use (\ref{3.56}). Also, fix the parameter $\nu :=\nu
_{0}\left( K,G_{\eta },\mu _{1},\mu _{2}\right) .$ We obtain with a new
constant $M
\begin{eqnarray*}
C\lambda \int\limits_{G_{\eta }}\left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}\varphi
^{2}dxdt+C\lambda ^{3}\int\limits_{G_{\eta }}v^{2}\varphi ^{2}dxdt &\leq
&M\int\limits_{G_{\eta }}\left[ \left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}+v^{2}\right]
\varphi ^{2}dxdt+M\int\limits_{G_{\eta }}\left[ \int\limits_{0}^{t}\left(
\left\vert \nabla v\right\vert +\left\vert v\right\vert \right) d\tau \right]
^{2}\varphi ^{2}dxdt \\
&&+C\lambda ^{3}\exp \left[ 2\lambda \eta ^{-\nu }\right] \int\limits_
\partial _{2}G_{\eta }}\left[ \left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}+v^{2}\right] dS.
\end{eqnarray*
Using Lemma 3.1, we obtain similarly with the proof of inequality (\re
{3.21_2}) with a new constant $M
\begin{equation*}
M\int\limits_{G_{\eta }}\left[ \int\limits_{0}^{t}\left( \left\vert \nabla
v\right\vert +\left\vert v\right\vert \right) d\tau \right] ^{2}\varphi
^{2}dxdt\leq \frac{M}{\lambda }\int\limits_{G_{\eta }}\left[ \left( \nabla
v\right) ^{2}+v^{2}\right] \varphi ^{2}dxdt.
\end{equation*
Hence, choosing sufficiently large $\lambda _{1}=\lambda _{1}\left(
M,K,G_{\eta },\mu _{1},\mu _{2}\right) >\lambda _{0},$ we obtai
\begin{equation}
\lambda ^{3}\int\limits_{G_{\eta }}v^{2}\varphi ^{2}dxdt\leq C\lambda
^{3}\exp \left[ 2\lambda \eta ^{-\nu }\right] \int\limits_{\partial
_{2}G_{\eta }}\left[ \left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}+v^{2}\right] dS,\forall
\lambda >\lambda _{1}. \label{3.59}
\end{equation
Let $\delta \in \left( 0,\eta -\alpha \right) $ be so small that the point
\left( x_{0},0\right) \in G_{\eta -\alpha }.$ Then making (\ref{3.59})
stronger, we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\lambda ^{3}\exp \left[ 2\lambda \left( \eta -\delta \right) ^{-\nu }\right]
\int\limits_{G_{\eta -\delta }}v^{2}dxdt\leq C\lambda ^{3}\exp \left[
2\lambda \eta ^{-\nu }\right] \int\limits_{\partial _{2}G_{\eta }}\left[
\left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}+v^{2}\right] dS,\forall \lambda >\lambda _{1}.
\end{equation*
Dividing this inequality by $\lambda ^{3}\exp \left[ 2\lambda \left( \eta
-\delta \right) ^{-\nu }\right] ,$ we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\int\limits_{G_{\eta -\delta }}v^{2}dxdt\leq C\exp \left\{ -2\lambda \left[
\left( \eta -\delta \right) ^{-\nu }-\eta ^{-\nu }\right] \right\} ,\forall
\lambda >\lambda _{1}.
\end{equation*
Setting here $\lambda \rightarrow \infty ,$ we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\int\limits_{G_{\eta -\delta }}v^{2}dxdt=0.
\end{equation*
Hence, $v\left( x,t\right) =0$ in $G_{\eta -\delta }.$ Hence, (\ref{3.54})
implies that $\widetilde{u}\left( x,t\right) =0$ in $G_{\eta -\delta }.$
Substituting this in (\ref{3.48}) and using $D^{\alpha _{0}}u_{2}\left(
x,t\right) \neq 0$ in $\overline{G}_{\eta -\delta },$ we obtain $\widetilde{
}\left( x\right) =0$ in $G_{\eta -\delta }\cap \left\{ t=0\right\} .$ In
particular $\widetilde{a}\left( x_{0}\right) =0.$ It is clear that rotating
and moving the coordinate system, one can cover the entire domain $\Omega $
by paraboloids like $G_{\eta -\delta }\cap \left\{ t=0\right\} .$ Thus,
\widetilde{a}\left( x\right) \equiv 0.$ This, (\ref{3.48}), (\ref{3.50}),
Theorems 2.3, 2.4 and Remark 2.2 imply that $u_{1}\left( x,t\right)
=u_{2}\left( x,t\right) $ in $Q_{T}^{\pm }.$ $\square $
\subsubsection{An MCIP for a parabolic equation with final over determinatio
}
\label{sec:3.3.3}
Let $D_{T}^{n+1}=\mathbb{R}^{n}\times \left( 0,T\right) $ and $L$ be the
elliptic operator in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$, whose coefficients depend only on $x,
\begin{eqnarray}
Lu &=&\sum\limits_{\left\vert \alpha \right\vert \leq 2}a_{\alpha }\left(
x\right) D_{x}^{\alpha }u, \label{3.60} \\
a_{\alpha } &\in &C^{2+\beta }\left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\right) ,\beta \in \left(
0,1\right) , \label{3.61} \\
\mu _{1}\left\vert \xi \right\vert ^{2} &\leq &\sum\limits_{\left\vert
\alpha \right\vert =2}a_{\alpha }\left( x\right) \xi ^{\alpha }\leq \mu
_{2}\left\vert \xi \right\vert ^{2},\forall x,\xi \in \mathbb{R}^{n},\mu
_{1},\mu _{2}=const.>0. \label{3.62}
\end{eqnarray
Consider the following Cauchy problem
\begin{eqnarray}
u_{t} &=&Lu\text{ in }D_{T}^{n+1},\quad u\in C^{4+\beta ,2+\beta /2}\left(
\overline{D}_{T}^{n+1}\right) , \label{3.63} \\
u|_{t=0} &=&f\left( x\right) \in C^{4+\beta }\left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\right) .
\label{3.64}
\end{eqnarray
It is well known that the problem (\ref{3.63}), (\ref{3.64}) has unique
solution \cite{LSU}.
\textbf{The Parabolic Coefficient Inverse Problem with\ Final
Overdetermination.} Let $T_{0}\in \left( 0,T\right) $ and $\Omega \subset
\mathbb{R}^{n}$ be a bounded domain. Suppose that the coefficient $a_{\alpha
_{0}}\left( x\right) $ of the operator $L$ is known inside of $\Omega $ and
is unknown outside of $\Omega $. Assume that the initial condition $f\left(
x\right) $ is also unknown. Determine both the coefficient $a_{\alpha
_{0}}\left( x\right) $ for $x\in \mathbb{R}^{n}\diagdown \Omega $ and the
initial condition $f\left( x\right) $ for $x\in \mathbb{R}^{n},$ assuming
that the following function $F\left( x\right) $ is known
\begin{equation}
F\left( x\right) =u\left( x,T_{0}\right) ,x\in \mathbb{R}^{n}. \label{3.65}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Theorem 3.5}. \emph{Assume that conditions (\ref{3.60})-(\ref{3.62})
hold, all coefficients of the operator }$L$\emph{\ belong to }$C^{\infty
}\left( \Omega \right) $\emph{, and }
\begin{equation*}
D^{\alpha _{0}}F\left( x\right) \neq 0\text{, in }\mathbb{R}^{n}\diagdown
\Omega .
\end{equation*
\emph{Then there exists at most one pair vector function }$\left( u\left(
x,t\right) ,a_{\alpha _{0}}\left( x\right) ,f\left( x\right) \right) $\emph
\ satisfying conditions (\ref{3.63})-(\ref{3.65}).}
\textbf{Proof. }Consider the solution of the following hyperbolic Cauchy
problem
\begin{eqnarray*}
v_{tt} &=&Lv\text{ in }D_{\infty }^{n+1}, \\
v\left( x,0\right) &=&0,v_{t}\left( x,0\right) =f\left( x\right) .
\end{eqnarray*
Then by (\ref{3.39}) $u=\mathcal{R}v$. Hence, for any $x\in \mathbb{R}^{n}$
the function $u\left( x,t\right) $ is analytic as a function of the real
variable $t>0$. We now show that the function $u\left( x,t\right) $ can be
uniquely determined for $\left( x,t\right) \in \Omega \times \left(
0,T\right) .$ Since all coefficients $a_{\alpha }\in C^{\infty }\left(
\Omega \right) $, then $u\in C^{\infty }\left( \Omega \times \left(
0,T\right) \right) ,$ see the book of Friedman \cite{F}. Hence, using (\re
{3.63}) and (\ref{3.65}), we obtain
\begin{equation*}
D_{t}^{k+1}u\left( x,T_{0}\right) =L^{k}\left[ F\left( x\right) \right]
,x\in \Omega ,k=0,1,\ldots .
\end{equation*
This means that one can uniquely determine all $t$ derivatives of the
function $u\left( x,t\right) $ at $t=T_{0}$ for all $x\in \Omega .$ Hence,
the analyticity of the function $u\left( x,t\right) $ with respect to $t$
implies that this function can be uniquely determined for $\left( x,t\right)
\in \Omega \times \left( 0,T\right) .$ Next, applying Theorem 3.4, we obtain
that the coefficient $a_{\alpha _{0}}\left( x\right) $ is uniquely
determined in the domain $\mathbb{R}^{n}\diagdown \Omega .$ The classical
theorem about the uniqueness of the solution of the parabolic equation with
the reversed time \cite{F,LRS} implies that the initial condition $f\left(
x\right) $ is also uniquely determined. $\square $
\subsection{An MCIP for an elliptic equation}
\label{sec:3.4}
We now consider an elliptic analog of the Second Parabolic Coefficient
Inverse Problem. Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$ be either finite or
infinite domain with the piecewise smooth boundary $\partial \Omega $ and
let $\Gamma \subset \partial \Omega $ be a part of this boundary. Let
T=const>0$. We keep notations of Section 3.3. Let $L$ be an elliptic
operator in $\Omega $,
\begin{eqnarray}
Lu &=&\sum\limits_{\left\vert \alpha \right\vert \leq 2}a_{\alpha }\left(
x\right) D_{x}^{\alpha }u,x\in \Omega , \label{3.66} \\
a_{\alpha } &\in &C^{1}\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) ,\left\vert \alpha
\right\vert =2;a_{\alpha }\in C\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) ,\left\vert
\alpha \right\vert =0,1, \label{3.67} \\
\mu _{1}\left\vert \xi \right\vert ^{2} &\leq &\sum\limits_{\left\vert
\alpha \right\vert =2}a_{\alpha }\left( x\right) \xi ^{\alpha }\leq \mu
_{2}\left\vert \xi \right\vert ^{2},\forall \xi \in \mathbb{R}^{n},\forall
x\in \Omega ;\mu _{1},\mu _{2}=const.>0. \label{3.68}
\end{eqnarray}
\textbf{Coefficient Inverse Problem for an Elliptic Equation.} Let the
function $u\in C^{2}\left( \overline{Q}_{T}^{\pm }\right) $\ satisfies the
following conditions
\begin{eqnarray}
u_{tt}+Lu &=&F\left( x,t\right) \text{ in }Q_{T}^{\pm }, \label{3.69} \\
u\left( x,0\right) &=&f_{0}\left( x\right) \text{ in }\Omega , \label{3.70}
\\
u|_{\Gamma _{T}^{\pm }} &=&p\left( x,t\right) ,\quad \frac{\partial u}
\partial n}|_{\Gamma _{T}^{\pm }}=q\left( x,t\right) . \label{3.71}
\end{eqnarray
Assume that the coefficient $a_{\alpha _{0}}\left( x\right) $ of the
operator $L$\ is unknown in $\Omega $ and all other coefficients are known.
Determine the coefficient $a_{\alpha _{0}}\left( x\right) $ from conditions
\ref{3.69})-(\ref{3.71}).
\textbf{Theorem 3.6}. \emph{Assume that }$D_{x}^{\alpha _{0}}f_{0}\left(
x\right) \neq 0$ \emph{in }$\overline{\Omega }$ \emph{and conditions (\re
{3.66})-(\ref{3.68}) hold. Then there exists at most one pair of functions }
\left( a_{\alpha _{0}}\left( x\right) ,u\left( x,t\right) \right) $\emph{\
satisfying (\ref{3.69})-(\ref{3.71}) and such that }$u\in C^{3+\left\vert
\alpha _{0}\right\vert }\left( \overline{Q}_{T}^{\pm }\right) .$\emph{\ }
It follows from Theorem 2.4 and Remark 2.2 that the proof of this theorem is
completely similar with the proof Theorem 3.4. Therefore, we omit this proof
here.
\section{Published Results About BK}
\label{sec:4}
Given a significant number of publications about BK, it would be quite space
consuming to tell details about the topic of each one. Therefore, the author
provides short comments about cited papers. An interesting reader is
referred to the corresponding paper for detail. Many works cited in this
section are devoted to either Lipschitz or H\"{o}lder global stability
estimates for MCIPs. H\"{o}lder stability estimate means $\left\Vert
a_{1}-a_{2}\right\Vert _{X}\leq C\left\Vert F_{1}-F_{2}\right\Vert
_{Y}^{\alpha },\alpha =const.\in \left( 0,1\right] .$ Here $a_{1}$ and
a_{2} $ are two unknown coefficients, corresponding to the data $F_{1}$ and
F_{2}$ respectively and $X$ and $Y$ are corresponding Banah spaces. The case
$\alpha =1$ is called Lipschitz stability estimate, which is obviously
stronger than $\alpha <1.$ This is why the Lipschitz stability estimate is
usually much harder to prove than the H\"{o}lder stability. On the other
hand, it was briefly mentioned in earlier papers of the author \cit
{Klib3,Klib5} that usually the H\"{o}lder stability follows almost
immediately from BK.\ To do this, one needs to combine BK either with
Theorem 2.1 or with similar theorems of Chapter 4 of the book \cite{LRS}.
All stability estimates for finding coefficients mentioned in this section
are conditional stability estimates, as it is usually the case in the theory
of Ill-Posed problems \cite{BKok,BK,EHN,Kab,T}. In other words, some \emph{a
priori} upper bounds are imposed either on certain norms of coefficients of
interest or on certain norms of solutions of corresponding PDEs. The
constant $C$ depends on these bounds. In some works the problem of finding
an unknown coefficient is replaced with the problem of finding the function
f\left( x\right) $ in the source term $f\left( x\right) P\left( x,t\right) ,$
where the function $P\left( x,t\right) $ is known. This problem is almost
equivalent to a corresponding MCIP, since the interpretation of $f\left(
x\right) $ in this case is $f\left( x\right) =a_{1}\left( x\right)
-a_{2}\left( x\right) $, see (\ref{3.7}) and (\ref{3.7_1}). Since the
problem of finding the source term is linear, unlike an MCIP, then \emph{a
priori} bounds depend on the function $P\left( x,t\right) $.
\subsection{MCIPs for hyperbolic PDEs}
\label{sec:4 1}
Lipschitz stability is established for some of these MCIPs. This became
possible because the hyperbolic PDE can be solved in both forward and
backward directions of time. The idea behind Lipschitz stability estimates
is to use various combinations of BK with the Lipschitz stability estimate
for the Cauchy problem for the hyperbolic equation with Dirichlet and
Neumann data given at the lateral boundary of the time cylinder. For the
latter see Theorem 5.1 in Section 5.1 as well as originating papers of
Klibanov and Malinsky \cite{KlibM}\ and Kazemi and Klibanov \cite{Kaz}.
For the first time, the Lipschitz stability estimate for an MCIP with single
measurement data was obtained by Puel and Yamamoto \cite{Y1}. The initial
boundary value problem in \cite{Y1} is
\begin{eqnarray}
u_{tt} &=&\Delta u-p\left( x\right) u-f\left( x\right) P\left( x,t\right)
,\left( x,t\right) \in Q_{T}, \notag \\
u\left( x,0\right) &=&u_{t}\left( x,0\right) =0, \label{7.1} \\
u &\mid &_{S_{T}}=0. \notag
\end{eqnarray
The MCIP of \cite{Y1} consists in finding the source function $f\left(
x\right) ,$ assuming that the normal derivative $g\left( x,t\right)
=\partial _{n}u\mid _{S_{T}}$is known and $P\left( x,0\right) \neq 0$ in
\overline{\Omega }$. Hence, this MCIP can be obtained from the MCIP of
finding the unknown coefficient $p\left( x\right) $ by assuming that
f\left( x\right) =p_{1}\left( x\right) -p_{2}\left( x\right) ,$ where $p_{1}$
and $p_{2}$ are two possible coefficients. In this case in (\ref{7.1})
p=p_{2},u=u_{1}-u_{2},P=u_{1},$ where $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}$ are solutions of
the problem (\ref{7.1}) with $p:=p_{1}$ and $p:=p_{2}$ respectively with the
same initial conditions
\begin{equation*}
u_{1}\left( x,0\right) =u_{2}\left( x,0\right) =P\left( x,0\right)
,u_{1t}\left( x,0\right) =u_{2t}\left( x,0\right)
\end{equation*
and the same Dirichlet boundary condition $u_{1}\mid _{S_{T}}=$ $u_{2}\mid
_{S_{T}}=P\mid _{S_{T}}.$ It was shown in \cite{Y1} that if $\Omega =\left\{
\left\vert x\right\vert <R\right\} $ and $T>2R,$ then
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{3}\left( \Omega \right) }\leq C\left(
\sum\limits_{j=0}^{4}\left\Vert \partial _{t}^{j}g\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left(
S_{T}\right) }^{2}\right) ^{1/2}.
\end{equation*
Isakov and Yamamoto \cite{Y4} and Imanuvilov and Yamamoto \cite{Y2,Y3} have
obtained various\ Lipschitz stability estimates for MCIPs for hyperbolic
PDEs with the principal part of hyperbolic operators $\partial
_{t}^{2}-\Delta .$ Bellassoued \cite{Bell1} has proved Lipschitz stability
for an MCIP for the equation $u_{tt}=c^{2}\left( x\right) Au,$ where $A$ is
a self-adjoint elliptic operator of the second order with $x-$dependent
coefficients and $c\left( x\right) $ is the unknown coefficient.
Imanuvilov and Yamamoto \cite{Y5} have considered the case of the
determination of the coefficient $p\left( x\right) $ in equatio
\begin{equation}
u_{tt}=\func{div}\left( p\left( x\right) \nabla u\right) . \label{7.8}
\end{equation
A new element here, compared with Theorem 3.1, is that both the function $p$
and its first derivatives are involved in equation (\ref{7.8}). On the other
hand, the machinery of Theorem 3.1 would require to consider derivatives
p_{x_{i}}$ as \textquotedblleft independent" functions.\ In turn, this would
require to use $n+1$ independent initial conditions. However, only one
initial condition was used in \cite{Y5}. H\"{o}lder stability estimate was
obtained in \cite{Y5}. This result was extended by Klibanov and Yamamoto
\cite{KYam} to the Lipschitz stability. The method of \cite{KYam} is
different in some respects from the one of \cite{Y5}, because in \cite{KYam}
a combination of ideas of Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 5.1 was used.
Publications cited above in this section used the assumption that the
Dirichlet boundary condition is known on the entire boundary $S_{T}$ and the
Neumann boundary condition is known on a part of the boundary$\partial
\Omega $ satisfying an appropriate geometrical condition. To obtain
logarithmic stability estimates for the case when the Neumann boundary
condition is known on an arbitrary piece of the boundary, Bellassoued \cit
{Bell1} has proposed to use the so-called \textquotedblleft
Fourier-Bros-Iagolnitzer integral transformation" (FBI) with respect to $t$
. FBI transforms the hyperbolic equation in the elliptic one, where the
operator $\partial _{t}^{2}-\Delta $ is replaced with $\partial
_{t}^{2}+\Delta .$ While in \cite{Bell1} this was done for equation
u_{tt}=\Delta u-p\left( x\right) u,$ Bellassoued and Yamamoto \cite{Y6} have
extended this result to the case of equation (\ref{7.8}). We refer to
Robbiano \cite{Rob1,Rob2} for the introduction of the FBI transformation.
Liu and Triggiani \cite{Trig3} have considered the hyperbolic equation with
the damping term $q\left( x\right) u_{t},$
\begin{eqnarray*}
u_{tt} &=&\Delta u+q\left( x\right) u_{t},\left( x,t\right) \in Q_{T}, \\
u\left( x,\frac{T}{2}\right) &=&u_{0}\left( x\right) ,u_{t}\left( x,\frac{T}
2}\right) =u_{1}\left( x\right) , \\
\partial _{n}u &\mid &_{S_{T}}=g\left( x,t\right) .
\end{eqnarray*
The MCIP of \cite{Trig3} consists in determining the coefficient $q\left(
x\right) $ from the Dirichlet data $u\mid _{\Gamma _{T}}=f\left( x,t\right)
, $ where $\Gamma \subset \partial \Omega $ is a part of the boundary
\partial \Omega $ satisfying an appropriate geometrical condition. The
Lipschitz stability estimate for this MCIP was obtained in \cite{Trig3}.
As to other publications about the use of BK for MCIPs for hyperbolic PDEs,
we refer to works of Kha\u{\i}darov \cite{Khai}, Isakov \cite{Is0,IsMilan,Is
, Doubova and Osses \cite{DO}, Baudouin, Cr\'{e}peau and Velein \cite{Baud2
, Baudouin, Mercado and Osses \cite{BMO}, Yuan and Yamamoto \cite{Y21} and
Liu and Triggiani \cite{Trig4,Trig5}. All above results for MCIPs for
hyperbolic PDEs are obtained under assumptions like the one in (\ref{2.49}),
which is imposed on the coefficient $c\left( x\right) $ in the principal
part of the hyperbolic operator. This is because conditions like (\ref{2.49
) are the only known ones which guarantee the existence of the Carleman
estimate for the hyperbolic case on the one hand, and can be directly
analytically verified for generic functions on the other hand. Note that
\ref{2.49}) is valid of course for the case $c\left( x\right) \equiv 1.$
\subsection{MCIPs for parabolic PDEs}
\label{sec:4.2}
A comprehensive survey about the topic of this section as well as about some
related topics can be found in the paper of Yamamoto \cite{Y7}. Thus, the
author refers to \cite{Y7} for further references. It is a long standing
well known open problem to prove uniqueness theorems for MCIPs for parabolic
PDEs with single measurement in the case when the regular initial condition
is given at $\left\{ t=0\right\} $ and the equation is valid only for $t\in
\left( 0,T\right) .$ This is why the only case when the uniqueness can be
currently proven for this type of data is the one of Section 3.3.1, where
the inverse Reznickaya's transform (\ref{3.39}) was used to obtain the MCIP
for a similar hyperbolic PDE. Hence, we discuss in this section only the
case when the equation is valid for $t\in \left( -T,T\right) $ and the data
are given at $\left\{ t=0\right\} $ as well as on at least a part of the
lateral boundary. The only exception is the case of nonlinear parabolic PDEs.
An inconvenience of the conventional Carleman estimate of Theorem 2.4
(Section 2.3) is that it is valid only in the paraboloid $G_{\eta },$ which
is a subdomain of the time cylinder $Q_{T}^{\pm }.$ On the other hand,
Fursikov and Imanuvilov \cite{Furs, Im} have proved a radically new Carleman
estimate for an arbitrary parabolic operator of the second order. This
estimate is valid in the entire time cylinder $Q_{T}^{\pm }$, although the
Carleman Weight Function exponentially decays to zero at $t\rightarrow \pm
T. $ Using this fact, Imanuvilov and Yamamoto \cite{Y8} have proved, for the
first time, the Lipschitz stability estimate for an MCIP for a general
parabolic equation with $x-$dependent coefficients. In \cite{Y8} the
Dirichlet boundary condition for the solution of the forward problem was
known at the entire boundary, whereas the Neumann boundary condition was
known on any piece of the boundary. Starting from \cite{Y8}, Carleman
estimates of the Fursikov-Imanuvilov type became popular in the inverse
problems community, see, e.g. the papers of Baudouin and Puel \cite{Baud1}
and Cristofol, Gaitan and Ramoul \cite{Cr1}.
Yamamoto \cite{Y7} has obtained the H\"{o}lder stability estimate for the
case of the equation $u_{t}=\func{div}\left( p\left( x\right) \nabla
u\right) $ with the unknown coefficient $p\left( x\right) $ in the case when
two boundary conditions are given at any part $\Gamma $ of the boundary
\partial \Omega .$ The main difference between this result and the one of
Theorem 3.4 is that the machinery of Theorem 3.4 would require to treat
first derivatives of the function $p\left( x\right) $ as independent
functions, which would lead, in turn to the necessity to use $\left(
n+1\right) $ conditions at $\left\{ t=0\right\} .$ Unlike the latter, only
one condition at $\left\{ t=0\right\} $ is used in \cite{Y7}. It was pointed
out in Remark on page 41 of \cite{Y7} that if one boundary condition would
be known at the entire boundary $\partial \Omega $ and the second one would
be known only at $\Gamma ,$ then the Lipschitz stability estimate would be
obtained. In the latter case the Carleman estimate of the
Fursikov-Imanuvilov type would be used.
Yamamoto and Zou \cite{Y9} have considered an MCIP for the equation
\begin{eqnarray*}
u_{t} &=&\Delta u+p\left( x\right) u,\left( x,t\right) \in Q_{T}, \\
u &\mid &_{S_{T}}=\eta \left( x,t\right)
\end{eqnarray*
Let $\omega \subset \Omega $ be subdomain of the domain $\Omega .$ An
interesting new feature of this work is that the inverse problem consists in
the simultaneous reconstruction of both the coefficient $p\left( x\right) $
and the initial condition $\mu \left( x\right) =u\left( x,0\right) ,$
assuming that the following functions $f$ and $g$ are give
\begin{equation*}
u\left( x,\theta \right) =f\left( x\right) ,u\mid _{\partial \omega \times
\left( 0,T\right) }=g\left( x,t\right) ,
\end{equation*
where $\theta =const.\in \left( 0,T\right) .$ First, using the technique of
\cite{Y8}, they proved Lipschitz stability estimate for the function
p\left( x\right) .$ Next, they proved logarithmic stability for the initial
condition $\mu \left( x\right) $ using the method of logarithmic convexity
of Payne \cite{Payne}. This method works for the case when the corresponding
elliptic operator is self-adjoint. In addition, they have constructed a
numerical method, which is based on the minimization of the Tikhonov
functional. A careful convergence analysis was provided. That analysis was
confirmed by a number of numerical experiments.
Surprisingly, L\"{u} \cite{Lu}, has applied BK, for the first time, to an
MCIP for the stochastic parabolic PDE.
The assumption of Theorem 3.4 that coefficients of the operator $L$ are
independent on $t$ was imposed only for the sake of simplicity. In fact, one
can allow all coefficients, except of $a_{\alpha _{0}}\left( x\right) ,$ to
be dependent on both $x$ and $t$. A direct analog of Theorem 3.4 is valid in
this case. To prove it, one should use the Carleman estimate of Theorem 2.5
(for $L_{0}^{\left( 1\right) }),$ a certain change of variables and the
assumption that the target coefficient $a_{\alpha _{0}}\left( x\right) $ is
known for $x\in \Gamma ,$ see works of the author \cite{Klib2,Klib4,Klib5}
as well as Theorem 1.10.7 in the book \cite{BK}. The same is true for
Theorem 3.6. This idea was used in the works of the author discussed in the
next paragraph.
BK was also applied to MCIPs for nonlinear parabolic PDEs. In the 1d case
the author has considered the inverse problem for the equation
\begin{equation*}
u_{t}=F\left( u_{xx},u_{x},u,q_{1}\left( u\right) ,...,q_{n}\left( u\right)
\right) ,\left( x,t\right) \in \left( 0,1\right) \times \left( 0,T\right) ,
\end{equation*
where $\partial _{u_{xx}}F\left( y\right) \neq 0,\forall y\in \mathbb{R
^{n+3}$ \cite{KlibPar1}. Let $\left\{ x_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{n+1}\subset
\left( 0,1\right) $ be a sequence of points, such that $x_{i}\neq x_{j}$ if
i\neq j.$ The inverse problem in \cite{KlibPar1} consists in determining the
vector function $q\left( u\right) =\left( q_{1},...,q_{n}\right) \left(
u\right) ,$ assuming that the functions $f_{i}\left( t\right) =u\left(
x_{i},t\right) ,i\in \left[ 1,n+1\right] $ are known. It was assumed that
u_{x}>0$ in $\left[ 0,1\right] \times \left[ 0,T\right] .$ This inequality
can often be established via the maximum principle. Uniqueness theorem was
proved in \cite{KlibPar1}. The first step was to introduce a new spatial
variable $z$ and a new function $v\left( z,t\right) $ via $u\left( v\left(
z,t\right) ,t\right) :=z.$
In \cite{KlibPar2} \ and Chapter 4 of \cite{KT} the author considered an
MCIP for the nonlinear parabolic equation
\begin{equation*}
u_{t}=F\left(
u_{x_{1}x_{1}},...,u_{x_{n}x_{n}},u_{x_{1}},...,u_{x_{n}},u,x,t,q\left(
u,x_{2},...,x_{n}\right) \right) ,x\in \left\{ x_{1}\in \left( 0,1\right)
,y\in \Omega ^{\prime }\right\} ,t\in \left( 0,T\right) ,
\end{equation*
where $y=\left( x_{2},...,x_{n}\right) ,$ and $\partial
_{u_{x_{i}x_{i}}}F\left( z\right) \in \left[ \mu _{1},\mu _{2}\right]
,\forall z\in \mathbb{R}^{3n+3},$ where $\mu _{1},\mu _{2}=const.>0.$ Here
\Omega ^{\prime }\subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ is an arbitrary domain. The
following functions $\varphi _{1},\varphi _{2},\psi _{1},\psi _{2}$ were
given in \cite{KlibPar2
\begin{equation*}
\varphi _{1}\left( y,t\right) =u\left( 0,y,t\right) ,\psi _{1}\left(
y,t\right) =u_{x_{1}}\left( 0,y,t\right) ,\varphi _{2}\left( y,t\right)
=u\left( 1,y,t\right) ,\psi _{2}\left( y,t\right) =u_{x_{1}}\left(
1,y,t\right) ,\left( y,t\right) \in \Omega ^{\prime }\times \left(
0,T\right) .
\end{equation*
It was required to reconstruct the function $q\left(
u,x_{2},...,x_{n}\right) .$ The first step was again to introduce a new
spatial variable $z$ and a new function $v\left( z,y,t\right) $ via $u\left(
v\left( z,y,t\right) ,t\right) :=z.$ Next, uniqueness theorem was proved.
However, a stability estimate was not established in \cite{KlibPar2}.\
Furthermore, unlike the linear case, H\"{o}lder stability estimate does not
follow automatically from BK in this nonlinear case. Thus, the H\"{o}lder
stability estimate for a similar inverse problem was proved in the paper of
Egger, Engl and Klibanov \cite{EEK} for the case of the equation
\begin{equation*}
u_{t}=u_{xx}+q\left( u\right) +f\left( x,t\right)
\end{equation*
with the unknown function $q.$ In addition, a numerical reconstruction
procedure was developed in \cite{EEK} via minimizing the Tikhonov
functional. Numerical results were also presented in \cite{EEK}. Other MCIPs
for nonlinear parabolic PDEs were treated via BK in Boulakia, Grandmont and
Osses \cite{Boul} and Kaltenbacher and Klibanov \cite{Kalt}.
Some other MCIPs for parabolic PDEs were treated by various modifications of
BK in papers of Bellassoued and Yamamoto \cite{Y20}, Benabdallah, Dermenjian
and Le Rousseau \cite{Ben2}, Benabdallah, Gaitan and Le Rousseau \cite{Ben3}
and Poisson \cite{Poisson}.
Isakov \cite{Is0,Is} has proved uniqueness of the parabolic MCIP with the
final overdetermination without the assumption of Theorem 3.5 of the
knowledge of the target coefficient in the domain $\Omega $.\ The initial
condition is also known in \cite{Is0,Is}. BK was not used in \cite{Is0,Is}.
\subsection{MCIPs for the non-stationary Schr\"{o}dinger equation}
\label{sec:4.3}
Baudouin and Puel \cite{Baud1} were the first ones who has applied BK to the
MCIP for the non-stationary Schr\"{o}dinger equatio
\begin{eqnarray}
iu_{t}+\Delta u+q\left( x\right) u &=&0,\left( x,t\right) \in Q_{T},i^{2}=-1,
\notag \\
u\left( x,0\right) &=&u_{0}\left( x\right) , \label{7.9} \\
u &\mid &_{S_{T}}=h\left( x,t\right) . \notag
\end{eqnarray}
The inverse problem in \cite{Baud1} consists in determining the coefficient
q\left( x\right) $ from the Neumann boundary condition
\begin{equation}
\partial _{n}u\mid _{\Gamma _{T}}=g\left( x,t\right) ,\Gamma _{T}=\Gamma
\times \left( 0,T\right) , \label{7.10}
\end{equation
where $\Gamma \subseteq \partial \Omega $ is \ a part of the boundary
satisfying an appropriate geometrical condition. First, following the idea
of \cite{Y8}, an analog of the Carleman estimate of Fursikov and Imanuvilov
\cite{Furs, Im} was proved. Next, the Lipschitz stability for the MCIP (\re
{7.9}), (\ref{7.10}) was established.
For three other results of the topic of this section we refer to works of
Baudouin and Mercado \cite{Baud3}, Mercado, Osses and Rosier \cite{Mercado}
and Yuan and Yamamoto \cite{Y22}.
\subsection{Non-standard PDEs}
\label{sec:4.4}
Baudouin, Cerpa, Cr\'{e}peau and Mercado \cite{Baud4} have considered the
Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation (KS) in 1d with $Q_{T}=\left( 0,1\right)
\times \left( 0,T\right) $, $_{x}$
\begin{eqnarray}
u_{t}+\left( \sigma \left( x\right) u_{xx}\right) _{xx}+\gamma \left(
x\right) u_{xx}+u\cdot u_{x} &=&g, \label{7.11} \\
u\left( x,0\right) &=&u_{0}\left( x\right) , \label{7.12}
\end{eqnarray
\begin{eqnarray}
u &\mid &_{x=0}=h_{1}\left( t\right) ,u\mid _{x=1}=h_{2}\left( t\right) ,
\label{7.13} \\
u_{x} &\mid &_{x=0}=h_{3}\left( t\right) ,u_{x}\mid _{x=1}=h_{4}\left(
t\right) . \label{7.14}
\end{eqnarray
Note that KS is a nonlinear equation. Conditions (\ref{7.11})-(\ref{7.14})
define the forward problem for KS. First, an existence, uniqueness and
stability theorem for this problem was proved in \cite{Baud4}. In the
inverse problem the following functions were assumed to be know
\begin{equation*}
u\left( x,T_{0}\right) ,u_{xx}\left( 0,t\right) ,u_{xxx}\left( 0,t\right) ,
\end{equation*
where $T_{0}=const.\in \left( 0,T\right) .$ As to the knowledge of the
function $u\left( x,T_{0}\right) ,$ see the arguments in the beginning of
Section 4.2. The Lipschitz stability for the inverse problem was proved in
\cite{Baud4}.
Cavaterra, Lorenzi and Yamamoto \cite{Lorenzi} considered an MCIP for a PDE
whose principal part was a hyperbolic operator $\partial
_{t}^{2}-c^{2}\left( x\right) \Delta $ and lower order terms included
Volterra integrals
\begin{equation}
\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left( \cdot \right) d\tau . \label{7.15}
\end{equation
The Lipschitz stability estimate was obtained in \cite{Lorenzi}. Romanov and
Yamamoto \cite{Rom3} obtained the H\"{o}lder stability estimate for an MCIP
for a hyperbolic-like PDE with integrals (\ref{7.15}). We also refer to the
work of Buhan and Osses \cite{Buhan}, where logarithmic stability estimate
for a hyperbolic-like coupler system of PDEs with integrals like the one in
\ref{7.15}) was obtained, a numerical method, based on the minimization of
the Tikhonov functional, was developed, and numerical results were presented.
\subsection{Coupled systems of PDEs}
\label{sec:4.5}
In this section we do not present coupled systems under discussion because
they are well known. Still, we present two systems of PDEs, which are not
conventionally known. An MCIP for the Maxwell equations was considered by
the author in \cite{KlibMaxw}. Let $\varepsilon \left( x\right) $ and
\sigma \left( x\right) ,x\in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ be the dielectric permittivity
and the electric conductivity coefficients respectively. It was required to
find both of them simultaneously, given the magnetic vector field $\mathbf{H
\left( x,t\right) $ outside of the domain of interest.\ It was assumed that
the magnetic permeability coefficient $\mu \left( x\right) \equiv 1.$
Uniqueness theorem was proved. We also refer to the book of Romanov and
Kabanikhin \cite{RomKab} for inverse problems for the Maxwell's system with
impulsive sources.
Yamamoto \cite{Y40} studied an inverse source problem for the Maxwell's
system. In this case the unknown source vector function $\mathbf{f}\left(
x\right) $ is three dimensional. Both electric and magnetic vector fields
were known at the boundary. Uniqueness theorem was proved. We also refer to
the papers of Li \cite{LiSIAM} and Li and Yamamoto \cite{LiYam} for the
cases of bi-isotropic and anisotropic Maxwell's system respectively. In \cit
{LiSIAM} the Lipschitz stability estimate was proved, and in the paper \cit
{LiYam} the H\"{o}lder stability was establishes.\ Note that in \cite{LiYam}
the unknown coefficients are actually matrices of dielectric and magnetic
permeability coefficients which are independent on one spatial variable but
dependent on time $t$.
Bellassoued, Cristofol and Soccorsi \cite{Bell2} obtained H\"{o}lder
stability estimate for an MCIP for the Maxwell's system. In this case both
functions $\varepsilon \left( x\right) $ and $\mu \left( x\right) $ were
unknown and $\sigma \left( x\right) \equiv 0.$ Tangential components of both
magnetic and electric field were measured at the boundary for two sets of
initial conditions, i.e. measurements were conducted twice.
Imanuvilov, Isakov and Yamamoto \cite{Y10} considered the MCIP of the
reconstruction of all three elastic coefficients $\lambda \left( x\right)
,\mu \left( x\right) ,\rho \left( x\right) $ in the time dependent Lam\'{e}
system. Two sets of initial data were used and they have generated two sets
of boundary conditions, which were used as the data for MCIP. The H\"{o}lder
stability estimate was obtained.
In \cite{Y10} the data for the inverse problem were given at the entire
boundary. Unlike this, Bellassoued, Imanuvilov, and Yamamoto \cite{Y11}
considered the MCIP of recovering of elastic coefficients $\lambda \left(
x\right) ,\mu \left( x\right) ,\rho \left( x\right) $ of the time dependent
Lam\'{e} system in the case when the data for the MCIP are given at an
arbitrary part $\Gamma \subset \partial \Omega $ of the boundary for $t\in
\left( 0,T\right) .$ In other words, the previous idea of Bellassoued \cit
{Bell1} and Bellassoued and Yamamoto \cite{Y6} (Section 4.1) was extended
from a single hyperbolic equation to the to the case of Lam\'{e} system.
Similarly with \cite{Bell1,Y6} the Fourier-Bros-Iagolnitzer transformation
was applied. Logarithmic stability estimate was obtained in \cite{Y11}.
Liu and Triggiani \cite{Trig2} considered the following $2\times 2$ coupled
system of Schr\"{o}dinger equations in $Q_{T}
\begin{eqnarray*}
iw_{t}+\Delta w &=&m\left( x\right) \cdot \nabla w+n\left( x\right)
w+\varsigma \left( x\right) \cdot \nabla z+p\left( x\right) z, \\
iz_{t}+\Delta z &=&\mu \left( x\right) \cdot \nabla z+\sigma \left( x\right)
z+\psi \left( x\right) \cdot \nabla w+q\left( x\right) w, \\
w\left( x,\frac{T}{2}\right) &=&w_{0}\left( x\right) ,z\left( x,\frac{T}{2
\right) =z_{0}\left( x\right) , \\
\partial _{n}w &\mid &_{S_{T}}=g_{1}\left( x\right) ,\partial _{n}z\mid
_{S_{T}}=g_{2}\left( x\right) .
\end{eqnarray*
The MCIP in \cite{Trig2} consists in the determination of the pair of
unknown coefficients $\left( p,q\right) \left( x\right) ,x\in \Omega $ from
the Dirichlet boundary data
\begin{equation*}
w\mid _{\Gamma _{T}}=f_{1}\left( x,t\right) ,z\mid _{\Gamma
_{T}}=f_{2}\left( x,t\right) ,
\end{equation*
where $\Gamma \subset \partial \Omega $ is a part of the boundary satisfying
an appropriate geometrical condition. Uniqueness theorem was proved in \cit
{Trig2}.
Fan, Di Cristo, Jiang and Nakamura \cite{Fan} proved Lipschitz stability
estimate for an MCIP for Navier-Stokes equations. The MCIP consists in
recovering of the viscosity function from a single boundary measurement.
Wu and Liu \cite{Wu2} considered the MCIP for the thermoelastic system with
memory (also, see their preceding work \cite{Wu1}). That system is
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbf{u}_{tt}-\alpha \Delta \mathbf{u}-\beta \nabla \func{div}\mathbf{u+
\gamma \nabla v &=&\sigma \left( x,t\right) \mathbf{p}\left( x\right)
,\left( x,t\right) \in Q_{T}, \\
v_{t}-\int\limits_{0}^{t}k\left( t-\tau \right) \Delta v\left( x,\tau
\right) d\tau +\gamma \func{div}\mathbf{u}_{t} &=&0,\left( x,t\right) \in
Q_{T}, \\
\mathbf{u}\left( x,0\right) &=&\mathbf{u}_{0}\left( x\right) ,\mathbf{u
_{t}\left( x,0\right) =\mathbf{u}_{1}\left( x\right) ,v\left( x,0\right)
=v_{1}\left( x\right) , \\
\mathbf{u} &\mid &_{S_{T}}=0,v\mid _{S_{T}}=0.
\end{eqnarray*
Here $\mathbf{u}=\left( u_{1},u_{2},u_{3}\right) ^{T}$ and $v$ are
displacement and temperature respectively. Let $\omega \subset \Omega $ be a
subdomain. The MCIP in \cite{Wu2} consists in the recovery of the source
term $\mathbf{p}\left( x\right) $, given the vector function $\mathbf{f
\left( x,t\right) =\mathbf{u}\left( x,t\right) $ for $\left( x,t\right) \in
\omega \times \left( 0,T\right) .$ The function $\sigma \left( x,t\right) $
is assumed to be known. Lipschitz stability estimate for this MCIP was
obtained in \cite{Wu2}.
Cristofol, Gaitan and Ramoul \cite{Cr1} considered the following parabolic
2\times 2$ syste
\begin{eqnarray*}
u_{t} &=&\Delta u+a\left( x\right) u+b\left( x\right) v,\left( x,t\right)
\in Q_{T}, \\
v_{t} &=&\Delta v+c\left( x\right) u+d\left( x\right) v,\left( x,t\right)
\in Q_{T}, \\
u\left( x,0\right) &=&u_{0}\left( x\right) ,v\left( x,0\right) =v_{0}\left(
x\right) . \\
u &\mid &_{S_{T}}=g\left( x,t\right) ,v\mid _{S_{T}}=h\left( x,t\right) .
\end{eqnarray*
This is a reaction-diffusion system. Let $\omega \subset \Omega $ be a
subdomain, $t_{0}\in \left( 0,T\right) $ and $T^{\prime }=\left(
t_{0}+T\right) /2$. The data for the MCIP in \cite{Cr1} are the following
function
\begin{equation*}
\Delta u\left( x,T^{\prime }\right) ,u\left( x,T^{\prime }\right) ,v\left(
x,T^{\prime }\right) ,v_{t}\mid _{\omega \times \left( t_{0},T\right) }.
\end{equation*
The MCIP consists in determining the vector function $\left(
b,u_{0},v_{0}\right) .$The function $b$ can be replaced with the function $a
. A new point of \cite{Cr1} is that only one function $v_{t}$ is measured in
$\omega ,$ unlike the conventional way of measuring both functions $u$ and
v.$ The Lipschitz stability estimate for the coefficient $b\left( x\right) $
as well as the logarithmic stability estimate for initial conditions
u_{0}\left( x\right) ,v_{0}\left( x\right) $ were obtained in \cite{Cr1}.
\section{Stability Estimates for Hyperbolic Equations and Inequalities With
Lateral Cauchy Data and Thermoacoustic Tomography}
\label{sec:5}
It was shown in Section 2.2 how Carleman estimates lead to H\"{o}lder
stability estimates for ill-posed Cauchy problems for PDEs, including
inequalities. In this section we obtain Lipschitz and logarithmic stability
estimates for the case of hyperbolic PDEs. We also show how these estimates
help to specify QRM for the hyperbolic case. In Section 5.5 we cite related
published results.
\subsection{Lipschitz stability}
\label{sec:5.1}
As usual, we consider the simplest case when the domain of interest $\Omega $
is a ball, $\Omega =\left\{ \left\vert x\right\vert <R\right\} \subset
\mathbb{R}^{n}$, where $R=const.>0.$ Let functions $c\left( x\right)
,b_{j}\left( x,t\right) $ satisfy the following condition
\begin{eqnarray}
c\left( x\right) &\in &C^{1}\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) ,c\left(
x\right) \neq 0\text{ in }\overline{\Omega }, \label{4.1} \\
b_{j} &\in &C\left( \overline{Q}_{T}^{\pm }\right) ,j=0,...,n+1. \label{4.2}
\end{eqnarray
Let the function $u\in C^{2}\left( \overline{Q}_{T}^{\pm }\right) $ and the
function $f\in C\left( \overline{Q}_{T}^{\pm }\right) .$ Suppose that the
function $u$ is a solution of the following hyperbolic equatio
\begin{equation}
u_{tt}=c^{2}\left( x\right) \Delta u+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n+1}b_{j}\left(
x,t\right) u_{x_{j}}+b_{0}\left( x,t\right) u+f\left( x,t\right) ,\left(
x,t\right) \in Q_{T}^{\pm }, \label{4.3}
\end{equation
where $u_{n+1}:=u_{t}.$ Consider Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions
for the function $u$ at the lateral side $S_{T}^{\pm }$ of the time cylinder
$Q_{T}^{\pm },
\begin{equation}
u\mid _{S_{T}^{\pm }}=p\left( x,t\right) ,\partial _{n}u\mid _{S_{T}^{\pm
}}=q\left( x,t\right) . \label{4.4}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Problem 5.1}. Given conditions (\ref{4.3}), (\ref{4.4}), estimate
the function $u\in C^{2}\left( \overline{Q}_{T}^{\pm }\right) $ in the time
cylinder $Q_{T}^{\pm }$ via functions $p$, $q$ and $f$.
The of this section works for a more general case of a hyperbolic
inequality. Specifically, we consider the following problem.
\textbf{Problem 5.2}. Let $A=const.>0.$ Let the function $u\in C^{2}\left(
\overline{Q}_{T}^{\pm }\right) $ satisfies the following pointwise
inequality in the cylinder $Q_{T}^{\pm }
\begin{equation}
\left\vert u_{tt}-c^{2}\left( x\right) \Delta u\right\vert \leq A\left(
\left\vert \nabla u\right\vert +\left\vert u_{t}\right\vert +\left\vert
u\right\vert +\left\vert f\right\vert \right) ,\forall \left( x,t\right) \in
Q_{T}^{\pm }, \label{4.5}
\end{equation
where the function $f\in L_{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) .$ Estimate the
function $u$ via functions $p$, $q$ and $f$.
Since Problem 5.2 is more general than Problem 5.1, we study only Problem
5.2 in this section. Theorem 4.1 provides the Lipschitz stability estimate
for Problem 5.2. We now reformulate condition (\ref{2.49}) for the case of
the operator $\partial _{t}^{2}-c^{2}\left( x\right) \Delta $ in a stronger
form as
\begin{equation}
\left( x,\nabla c^{-2}\left( x\right) \right) \geq \alpha =const.>0\text{ in
}\overline{\Omega }, \label{4.6}
\end{equation
where $\alpha >0$ is a certain number and $\left( ,\right) $ is the scalar
product in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. Hence, there exists a sufficiently small number
$\varepsilon =\varepsilon \left( \alpha ,\left\Vert \nabla c^{-2}\right\Vert
_{C^{1}\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) }\right) \in \left( 0,R\right) $
such tha
\begin{equation}
\left( x-x_{0},\nabla c^{-2}\left( x\right) \right) \geq \frac{\alpha }{2}>
\text{ in }\overline{\Omega },\forall x_{0}\in \left\{ \left\vert
x_{0}\right\vert \leq \varepsilon \right\} . \label{4.6_1}
\end{equation
Inequality (\ref{4.6_1}) guarantees the Carleman estimate for the operator
\partial _{t}^{2}-c^{2}\left( x\right) \Delta $ (Theorem 2.5). This estimate
is also guaranteed if $c\equiv const.\neq 0.$
\textbf{Theorem 5.1}. \emph{Let the domain }$\Omega =\left\{ \left\vert
x\right\vert <R\right\} .$\emph{\ Let }$\alpha >0$ \emph{and }$d>1$\ \ \emph
be certain numbers. Let
\begin{equation}
c\in C^{1}\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) \emph{,}c^{-2}\left( x\right) \in
\left[ 1,d\right] ,\left\Vert \nabla c^{-2}\right\Vert _{C^{1}\left(
\overline{\Omega }\right) }\leq d. \label{4.6_2}
\end{equation}
\emph{In the case }$c\neq const.$\emph{\ we assume that condition (\ref{4.6
) is fulfilled. Let the function }$u\in C^{2}\left( \overline{Q}_{T}^{\pm
}\right) $\emph{\ satisfies inequality (\ref{4.5}) with Dirichlet and
Neumann boundary conditions (\ref{4.4}). Then there exists a constant }$\eta
_{0}=\eta _{0}\left( R,d,\alpha \right) \in \left( 0,1\right] $\emph{\ such
that if
\begin{equation}
T>\frac{R}{\sqrt{\eta _{0}}}, \label{4.7}
\end{equation
\emph{then with a constant }$K=K\left( A,R,T,d,\alpha \right) =const.>0
\emph{\ the following Lipschitz stability estimate holds for the function }
u,
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }\leq K\left[
\left\Vert p\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( S_{T}^{\pm }\right) }+\left\Vert
q\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( S_{T}^{\pm }\right) }+\left\Vert f\right\Vert
_{L_{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }\right] . \label{4.8}
\end{equation
\emph{In particular, if }$c\left( x\right) \equiv 1,$\emph{\ then one can
take }$\eta _{0}=1$\emph{\ and in (\ref{4.7}) }$T>R$\emph{.}
\textbf{Proof}. In this proof $K=K\left( A,R,T,d,\alpha \right) $ denotes
different positive constants depending on listed parameters. We note first
that the constant $P\left( x_{0},\Omega \right) $ in (\ref{2.49_1}) can be
estimated as $P\left( x_{0},\Omega \right) \leq 2R.$ Hence, we can set in
Theorem 2.5 $\eta _{0}=\eta _{0}\left( R,d,\left\Vert c^{-2}\right\Vert
_{C^{1}\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) }\right) \in \left( 0,1\right) .$ By
(\ref{4.7}) we can choose a sufficiently small $\varepsilon $ in (\ref{4.6_1
) and then choose $\eta $ such tha
\begin{equation}
\eta \in \left( \frac{\left( R+\varepsilon \right) ^{2}}{T^{2}},\eta
_{0}\right) \subset \left( 0,1\right) , \label{4.7_1}
\end{equation
Similarly with Section 2.4 let $\gamma =const\in \left( 0,\varepsilon
^{2}/9\right) ,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\xi \left( x,t\right) &=&\left\vert x\right\vert ^{2}-\eta t^{2},\varphi
\left( x,t\right) =\exp \left[ \lambda \xi \left( x,t\right) \right] ,\left(
x,t\right) \in Q_{T}^{\pm }, \\
G_{\gamma } &=&\left\{ \xi \left( x,t\right) >\gamma ,x\in \Omega \right\}
=\left\{ \left\vert x\right\vert ^{2}-\eta t^{2}>\gamma ,x\in \Omega
\right\} ,
\end{eqnarray*
where $\lambda >1$ is a large parameter which we define later. By (\re
{4.7_1})
\begin{equation}
\overline{G}_{\gamma }\subset \left\{ \left\vert t\right\vert <T\right\} .
\label{4.9}
\end{equation
Choose a sufficiently small number $\delta $ such that $\gamma +3\delta \in
\left( 0,\varepsilon ^{2}/9\right) .$ Hence
\begin{equation}
G_{\gamma +3\delta }\neq \varnothing \text{ and }G_{\gamma +3\delta }\subset
G_{\gamma +2\delta }\subset G_{\gamma +\delta }\subset G_{\gamma }.
\label{4.9_1}
\end{equation}
Introduce a function $\chi _{\delta }\in C^{2}\left( \overline{Q}_{T}^{\pm
}\right) $ satisfyin
\begin{equation}
\chi _{\delta }\left( x,t\right) =\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
1,\left( x,t\right) \in G_{\gamma +2\delta }, \\
0,\left( x,t\right) \in Q_{T}^{\pm }\diagdown G_{\gamma +\delta }, \\
\text{between 0 and 1 otherwise.
\end{array
\right. \label{4.10}
\end{equation
The existence of such functions is well known from the Real Analysis course.
Le
\begin{equation}
v\left( x,t\right) =u\left( x,t\right) \chi _{\delta }\left( x,t\right) .
\label{4.11}
\end{equation
Multiplying both sides of (\ref{4.5}) by $\chi _{\delta }$ and using (\re
{4.4}), (\ref{4.9}), (\ref{4.10}) and (\ref{4.11}), we obtai
\begin{equation}
\left\vert v_{tt}-c^{2}\left( x\right) \Delta v\right\vert \leq K\left(
\left\vert \nabla v\right\vert +\left\vert v_{t}\right\vert +\left\vert
v\right\vert +\left\vert f\right\vert \right) +K\left( 1-\chi _{\delta
}\right) \left( \left\vert \nabla u\right\vert +\left\vert u_{t}\right\vert
+\left\vert u\right\vert \right) ,\left( x,t\right) \in G_{\gamma },
\label{4.12}
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
v\mid _{S_{T}^{\pm }}=\chi _{\delta }\varphi ,\partial _{n}v\mid
_{S_{T}^{\pm }}=\chi _{\delta }\psi +\varphi \partial _{n}\chi _{\delta }.
\label{4.13}
\end{equation
Squaring both sides of (\ref{4.12}) and using Theorem 2.5, we obtai
\begin{equation*}
K\left( \left\vert \nabla v\right\vert ^{2}+v_{t}^{2}+v^{2}+f^{2}\right)
\varphi ^{2}+K\left( 1-\chi _{\delta }\right) \left( \left\vert \nabla
u\right\vert ^{2}+u_{t}^{2}+u^{2}\right) \varphi ^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\geq C\lambda \left( \left\vert \nabla v\right\vert ^{2}+v_{t}^{2}\right)
\varphi ^{2}+C\lambda ^{3}v^{2}\varphi ^{2}+\func{div}U+V_{t}\text{, in
G_{\gamma },\forall \lambda \geq \lambda _{0}.
\end{equation*
where the vector function $\left( U,V\right) $ satisfies conditions (\re
{2.50}), (\ref{2.51}) with the replacement of $u$ by $v$. Hence, (\ref{4.10
) implies that $U=V=0$ on $\left\{ \left( x,t\right) :\xi \left( x,t\right)
=\gamma ,x\in \Omega \right\} .$ Hence, integrating the letter inequality
over $G_{\gamma }$ and using Gauss-Ostrogradsky formula and (\ref{4.13}), we
obtai
\begin{equation*}
C\int\limits_{G_{\gamma }}\lambda \left( \left\vert \nabla v\right\vert
^{2}+v_{t}^{2}\right) \varphi ^{2}dxdt+C\lambda ^{3}\int\limits_{G_{\gamma
}}v^{2}\varphi ^{2}dxdt\leq K\int\limits_{G_{\gamma }}\left( \left\vert
\nabla v\right\vert ^{2}+v_{t}^{2}+v^{2}+g^{2}\right) \varphi ^{2}
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
+K\exp \left[ 2\lambda \left( \gamma +2\delta \right) \right] \left\Vert
u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}+Ke^{2\lambda
R^{2}}\left( \left\Vert p\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( S_{T}^{\pm }\right)
}^{2}+\left\Vert q\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( S_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}\right)
.
\end{equation*
Let $\lambda _{0}>1$ be the number of Theorem 2.5. There exists a number
\lambda _{1}=\lambda _{1}\left( \lambda _{0},C,K\right) \geq \lambda _{0}$
such that $C\lambda /2>K,\forall \lambda \geq \lambda _{1}.$ Hence
\begin{equation*}
\lambda \int\limits_{G_{\gamma }}\left( \left\vert \nabla v\right\vert
^{2}+v_{t}^{2}+v^{2}\right) \varphi ^{2}dxdt\leq
\end{equation*
\begin{equation*}
\leq K\exp \left[ 2\lambda \left( \gamma +2\delta \right) \right] \left\Vert
u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}+Ke^{2\lambda R^{2}
\left[ \left\Vert p\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( S_{T}^{\pm }\right)
}^{2}+\left\Vert q\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( S_{T}^{\pm }\right)
}^{2}+\left\Vert g\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( S_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}\right]
.
\end{equation*
By (\ref{4.9_1}) and (\ref{4.10})
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lambda \int\limits_{G_{\gamma }}\left( \left\vert \nabla v\right\vert
^{2}+v_{t}^{2}+v^{2}\right) \varphi ^{2}dxdt &\geq &\lambda
\int\limits_{G_{\gamma +3\delta }}\left( \left\vert \nabla v\right\vert
^{2}+v_{t}^{2}+v^{2}\right) \varphi ^{2}dxdt \\
&\geq &\exp \left[ 2\lambda \left( \gamma +3\delta \right) \right]
\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( G_{\gamma +3\delta }\right) }^{2}.
\end{eqnarray*
Hence
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( G_{\gamma +2\delta }\right) }^{2}\leq
K\exp \left( -2\lambda \delta \right) \left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left(
Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}+Ke^{2\lambda R^{2}}\left[ \left\Vert p\right\Vert
_{H^{1}\left( S_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert q\right\Vert
_{L_{2}\left( S_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert f\right\Vert
_{L_{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}\right] . \label{4.14}
\end{equation
Note that
\begin{equation}
G_{\gamma +3\delta }\cap \left\{ t=0\right\} =\left\{ x:\left\vert
x\right\vert \in \left( \sqrt{\gamma +3\delta },R\right) \right\} \supset
\left\{ x:\left\vert x\right\vert \in \left( \frac{\varepsilon }{3},R\right)
\right\} . \label{4.15}
\end{equation}
Choose now a point $x_{0}$ such that $\left\vert x_{0}\right\vert =3\sqrt
\gamma +3\delta }.$ Then $\left\vert x_{0}\right\vert <\varepsilon .$
Consider now an arbitrary point $y\in \left\{ \left\vert x\right\vert \leq
\sqrt{\gamma +3\delta }\right\} .$ The
\begin{equation*}
\left\vert y-x_{0}\right\vert \geq \left\vert x_{0}\right\vert -\left\vert
y\right\vert =3\sqrt{\gamma +3\delta }-\left\vert y\right\vert \geq 3\sqrt
\gamma +3\delta }-\sqrt{\gamma +3\delta }=2\sqrt{\gamma +3\delta }>\sqrt
\gamma +3\delta }.
\end{equation*
Hence,
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \left\vert x\right\vert \leq \sqrt{\gamma +3\delta }\right\} \subset
\left\{ \left\vert y-x_{0}\right\vert >\sqrt{\gamma +3\delta }\right\} .
\label{4.16}
\end{equation
Introduce now the domain $G_{\gamma }\left( x_{0}\right) $ a
\begin{equation*}
G_{\gamma }\left( x_{0}\right) =\left\{ \left\vert x-x_{0}\right\vert
^{2}-\eta t^{2}>\gamma ,x\in \Omega \right\} .
\end{equation*
It follows from (\ref{4.15}) and (\ref{4.16}) that there exists a
sufficiently small number $\sigma =\sigma \left( \varepsilon \right) $ such
tha
\begin{equation}
\left\{ t\in \left( 0,\sigma \right) \right\} \subset \left[ G_{\gamma
+3\delta }\cup G_{\gamma +3\delta }\left( x_{0}\right) \right] .
\label{4.17}
\end{equation
Since $\gamma +3\delta \in \left( 0,\varepsilon ^{2}/9\right) $ and
\left\vert x_{0}\right\vert =3\sqrt{\gamma +3\delta },$ then (\ref{4.7_1})
implies that $\overline{G}_{\gamma }\left( x_{0}\right) \subset \left\{
\left\vert t\right\vert <T\right\} .$ Next, we use (\ref{4.6_1}) and Theorem
2.5 and obtain similarly with (\ref{4.14})
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( G_{\gamma +3\delta }\left(
x_{0}\right) \right) }^{2}\leq K\exp \left( -2\lambda \delta \right)
\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}+Ke^{2\lambda
R^{2}}\left[ \left\Vert p\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( S_{T}^{\pm }\right)
}^{2}+\left\Vert q\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( S_{T}^{\pm }\right)
}^{2}+\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}\right]
.
\end{equation*
Combining this with (\ref{4.14}), we obtai
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( G_{\gamma +2\delta }\cup G_{\gamma
+2\delta }\left( x_{0}\right) \right) }^{2}\leq K\exp \left( -2\lambda
\delta \right) \left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right)
}^{2}+Ke^{2\lambda R^{2}}\left[ \left\Vert p\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left(
S_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert q\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( S_{T}^{\pm
}\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right)
}^{2}\right] .
\end{equation*
This, (\ref{4.17}) and the mean value theorem imply that there exists a
number $t_{0}\in \left[ 0,\sigma \right] $ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\left\Vert u\left( x,t_{0}\right) \right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( \Omega \right)
}^{2}+\left\Vert u_{t}\left( x,t_{0}\right) \right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( \Omega
\right) }^{2} \label{4.18} \\
&\leq &K\exp \left( -2\lambda \delta \right) \left\Vert u\right\Vert
_{H^{1}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}+Ke^{2\lambda R^{2}}\left[ \left\Vert
p\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( S_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert q\right\Vert
_{L_{2}\left( S_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert f\right\Vert
_{L_{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}\right] . \notag
\end{eqnarray}
Let $u_{tt}-c^{2}\left( x\right) u:=Z\left( x,t\right) .$ Then by (\ref{4.5
)
\begin{equation}
\left\vert Z\right\vert \leq A\left( \left\vert \nabla u\right\vert
+\left\vert u_{t}\right\vert +\left\vert u\right\vert +\left\vert
f\right\vert \right) ,\forall \left( x,t\right) \in Q_{T}^{\pm }.
\label{4.300}
\end{equation
Consider the initial boundary value problem with reversed tim
\begin{eqnarray}
u_{tt}-c^{2}\left( x\right) u &=&Z\left( x,t\right) ,\forall \left(
x,t\right) \in \left\{ x\in \Omega ,t\in \left( -T,t_{0}\right) \right\} ,
\label{4.301} \\
u\left( x,t_{0}\right) &=&u_{0}\left( x\right) ,u_{t}\left( x,t_{0}\right)
=u_{1}\left( x\right) , \label{4.302} \\
u &\mid &_{\left( x,t\right) \in \partial \Omega \times \left(
-T,t_{0}\right) }=p\left( x,t\right) . \label{4.303}
\end{eqnarray
Next, consider the same initial boundary value problem but in the time
cylinder $\left( x,t\right) \in \left\{ x\in \Omega ,t\in \left(
t_{0},T\right) \right\} .$ Recall that the hyperbolic equation can be solved
in both positive and negative directions of time. Hence, the standard method
of energy estimates being applied to two latter problems combined with
inequalities (\ref{4.18}) and (\ref{4.300}) leads to
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}\leq K\exp
\left( -2\lambda \delta \right) \left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left(
Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}+Ke^{2\lambda R^{2}}\left[ \left\Vert p\right\Vert
_{H^{1}\left( S_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert q\right\Vert
_{L_{2}\left( S_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}+\left\Vert f\right\Vert
_{L_{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}\right] . \label{4.19}
\end{equation
Choosing $\lambda =\lambda \left( K,\delta \right) $ so large that $K\exp
\left( -2\lambda \delta \right) \leq 1/2,$ we obtain the target estimate
\ref{4.8}) from (\ref{4.19}). $\square $
To apply QRM (Section 5.4.2), we need Theorem 5.2. The proof of this theorem
is almost identical with the proof of Theorem 5.1.
\textbf{Theorem 5.2}. \emph{Let the function }$u\in C^{2}\left( \overline{Q
_{T}^{\pm }\right) $\emph{\ satisfies the Dirichlet and Neumann boundary
conditions (\ref{4.4}) as well as the following integral inequality
\begin{equation*}
\int\limits_{Q_{T}^{\pm }}\left( u_{tt}-c^{2}\left( x\right) \Delta
u-\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n+1}b_{j}\left( x,t\right) u_{x_{j}}-b_{0}\left(
x,t\right) u\right) ^{2}dxdt\leq S^{2}
\end{equation*
\emph{and the rest of conditions of Theorem 5.1 is in place. Here }
S=const.>0.$\emph{\ Then there exists a constant }$\eta _{0}=\eta _{0}\left(
R,d,\alpha \right) \in \left( 0,1\right] $\emph{\ such that if }$T>R/\sqrt
\eta _{0}},$\emph{\ then with a constant }$K=K\left( A,R,T,d,\alpha \right)
=const.>0$\emph{\ the following Lipschitz stability estimate holds for the
function }$u,
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }\leq B\left[
\left\Vert p\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( S_{T}^{\pm }\right) }+\left\Vert
q\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( S_{T}^{\pm }\right) }+S\right] .
\end{equation*
\emph{In particular, if }$c\left( x\right) \equiv 1,$\emph{\ then one can
take }$\eta _{0}=1$\emph{\ and }$T>R$\emph{.}
\subsection{Thermoacoustic tomography}
\label{sec:5.2}
In thermoacoustic tomography (TAT) a short radio frequency pulse is sent in
a biological tissue, see papers of Agranovsky and Kuchment \cite{AK} and
Finch and Rakesh \cite{FR}. Some energy is absorbed. It is well known that
malignant legions absorb much more energy than healthy ones. Then the tissue
expands and radiates a pressure wave.\ The propagation of this wave can be
modeled as the solution of the following Cauchy problem
\begin{eqnarray}
u_{tt} &=&c^{2}\left( x\right) \Delta u,x\in \mathbb{R}^{3}, \label{4.20} \\
u\left( x,0\right) &=&f\left( x\right) ,u_{t}\left( x,0\right) =0.
\label{4.21}
\end{eqnarray
The function $u\left( x,t\right) $ is measured by transducers at certain
locations either at the boundary of the medium of interest or outside of
this medium. The function $f\left( x\right) $ characterizes the absorption
of the medium. Hence, if one would know the function $f\left( x\right) $,
then one would know locations of malignant spots. The inverse problem
consists in determining the initial condition $f\left( x\right) $ using
those measurements. Hence, we obtain the following inverse problem
\textbf{Inverse Problem 5.1 (IP5.1).} Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{3}$ be
a bounded domain with $\partial \Omega \in C^{1}.$ Consider the Cauchy
problem (\ref{4.20}), (\ref{4.21}). Suppose that
\begin{equation}
f\left( x\right) =0,x\in \mathbb{R}^{3}\diagdown \Omega . \label{4.22}
\end{equation
Determine the function $f\left( x\right) $ inside of the domain $\Omega $
assuming that the following function $p\left( x,t\right) $ is know
\begin{equation}
u\mid _{S_{T}}=p\left( x,t\right) . \label{4.23}
\end{equation}
We show below in this section how Theorem 5.1 implies the Lipschitz
stability estimate for IP5.1. Assume that $c\left( x\right) =1$ for $x\in
\mathbb{R}^{3}\diagdown \Omega .$ Then (\ref{4.20})-(\ref{4.23}) imply that
the function $u\left( x,t\right) $ is the solution of the following initial
boundary value problem in $\left( \mathbb{R}^{3}\diagdown \Omega \right)
\times \left( 0,T\right)
\begin{eqnarray}
u_{tt} &=&\Delta u,x\in \mathbb{R}^{3}\diagdown \Omega ,t\in \left(
0,T\right) , \notag \\
u\left( x,0\right) &=&u_{t}\left( x,0\right) =0,x\in \mathbb{R}^{3}\diagdown
\Omega , \label{4.24} \\
u &\mid &_{S_{T}}=p\left( x,t\right) . \notag
\end{eqnarray
Under certain well known conditions the solution $u\in H^{2}\left( \left(
\mathbb{R}^{3}\diagdown \Omega \right) \times \left( 0,T\right) \right) $ of
this problem exists, is unique and depends continuously on the boundary data
$p\left( x,t\right) $. Just as above consider the case $\Omega =\left\{
\left\vert x\right\vert <R\right\} .$ For $\left\vert x\right\vert \geq R$
let $\overline{p}\left( x,t\right) =p\left( x,t\right) \left\vert
x\right\vert R^{-1}\rho \left( x\right) ,$ where the function $\rho \in
C^{2}\left( \left\vert x\right\vert \geq R\right) ,\rho \left( x\right) =0$
for $x\in \left\{ \left\vert x\right\vert \geq 3R\right\} $ and $\rho \left(
x\right) =1$ for $x\in \left\{ \left\vert x\right\vert \in \left[ R,2R\right]
\right\} .$ Let $v\left( x,t\right) =u\left( x,t\right) -\overline{p}\left(
x,t\right) .$ Substituting $v$ in equations (\ref{4.24}) and using the
standard method of energy estimates (see, e.g. the book of Ladyzhenskaya
\cite{Lad} for this method), we obtain the following stability estimate
\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left( \left( \mathbb{R}^{3}\diagdown \Omega
\right) \times \left( 0,T\right) \right) }\leq C\left\Vert p\right\Vert
_{H^{3}\left( S_{T}\right) }.$ Let $q\left( x,t\right) =\partial _{n}u\mid
_{S_{T}}.$ Hence, trace theorem implies that
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert q\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( S_{T}\right) }=\left\Vert \partial
_{n}u\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( S_{T}\right) }\leq C\left\Vert p\right\Vert
_{H^{3}\left( S_{T}\right) }. \label{4.25}
\end{equation
Here $C>0$ denotes different positive constants depending only on $R$ and
the function $\rho \left( x\right) .$
Consider now the even extension $\widetilde{u}\left( x,t\right) $ with
respect to $t$ of the function $u\left( x,t\right) .$ Assuming that $u\in
C^{2}\left( \overline{Q}_{T}\right) ,$ we obtain $\widetilde{u}\in
C^{2}\left( \overline{Q}_{T}^{\pm }\right) $ and als
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{u}_{tt} &=&c^{2}\left( x\right) \Delta \widetilde{u},\left(
x,t\right) \in Q_{T}^{\pm }, \label{4.26} \\
\widetilde{u} &\mid &_{S_{T}^{\pm }}=\widetilde{p}\left( x,t\right)
,\partial _{n}\widetilde{u}\mid _{S_{T}^{\pm }}=\widetilde{q}\left(
x,t\right) , \label{4.27}
\end{eqnarray
where functions $\widetilde{p}$ and $\widetilde{q}$ are even extensions of
functions $p$ and $q$ respectively. In addition, by (\ref{4.21})
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{u}\left( x,0\right) =f\left( x\right) . \label{4.28}
\end{equation
Hence, Theorem 5.1, (\ref{4.25})-(\ref{4.28}) and trace theorem imply
Theorem 5.3. We need here $u\in H^{4}\left( \mathbb{R}^{3}\times \left(
0,T\right) \right) $ in order to make sure that the function $p\in
H^{3}\left( S_{T}\right) .$
\textbf{Theorem 5.3}. \emph{Let the domain }$\Omega =\left\{ \left\vert
x\right\vert <R\right\} .$\emph{\ Let the function }$c\in C^{1}\left(
\mathbb{R}^{3}\right) ,c=1$\emph{\ in }$\mathbb{R}^{3}\diagdown \Omega
\emph{\ and also }$c$ \emph{satisfies conditions (\ref{4.6_2}). In the case
$c\neq const.$\emph{\ we assume that condition (\ref{4.6}) is fulfilled.
Suppose that functions }$c\left( x\right) $\emph{\ and }$f\left( x\right)
\emph{\ are such that there exists the solution }$u\in C^{2}\left( \mathbb{R
^{3}\times \left[ 0,T\right] \right) \cap H^{4}\left( \mathbb{R}^{3}\times
\left( 0,T\right) \right) $\emph{\ of the Cauchy problem (\ref{4.20}), (\re
{4.21}).\ Also, let condition (\ref{4.22}) be satisfied. Then there exists a
constant }$\eta _{0}=\eta _{0}\left( R,d,\alpha \right) \in \left( 0,1\right]
$\emph{\ such that if }$T>R/\sqrt{\eta _{0}}$\emph{, then with a constant }
K=K\left( A,R,T,d,\alpha \right) >0$\emph{\ the following Lipschitz
stability estimate holds for IP5.1
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( \Omega \right) }\leq K\left\Vert
p\right\Vert _{H^{3}\left( S_{T}\right) }.
\end{equation*
\emph{In particular, if }$c\left( x\right) \equiv 1,$\emph{\ then one can
take }$\eta _{0}=1$\emph{\ and }$T>R$\emph{.}
\subsection{Logarithmic stability in the case of a general hyperbolic
operator of the second order with $x-$dependent coefficients}
\label{sec:5.3}
Condition (\ref{4.6}) is used in Theorem 5.1 because it is linked with the
existence of the Carleman estimate for the hyperbolic case, see the end of
Section 4.1. Clearly (\ref{4.6}) is a restrictive condition.\ Therefore, the
next question is whether a stability estimate can be obtained for an analog
of IP5.1 in the case of an arbitrary hyperbolic operator of the second
order. For the first time, this question was positively addressed by the
author in \cite{Kltherm}. We formulate main results of \cite{Kltherm} in
this section without proofs.
The idea is to apply an analog of the above Reznickaya's transform (\re
{3.39}). This way the hyperbolic PDE is transformed in a similar parabolic
PDE. And the function $f\left( x\right) $ becomes the initial condition for
that parabolic PDE. On the other hand, logarithmic stability estimates for
the inverse problem of determination of the initial condition of a general
parabolic equation from lateral Cauchy data were obtained by Klibanov \cit
{Kl1} in the case of a finite domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$ and by
Klibanov and Tikhonravov \cite{KT2} in the case of an infinite domain
\Omega \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n}.$ Thus, modifications of these results can
be applied. Results of both publications \cite{Kl1,KT2} were obtained via
Carleman estimates. The difference between logarithmic stability estimates
for initial conditions in \cite{Kl1,KT2} and those in the book of Payne \cit
{Payne} is that in \cite{Kl1,KT2} the case of a general elliptic operator
with coefficients depending on $\left( x,t\right) $ was considered. On the
other hand, the technique of \cite{Payne} works only for self-adjoint
elliptic operators with coefficients depending only on $x$. Since the method
of \cite{Kl1,KT2} works not only for parabolic PDEs but for integral
inequalities as well (see Theorem 2.2 in \cite{Kltherm} as well as Theorem
2.3 in Section 2.2 above), then it enables us to prove convergence of the
QRM, unlike the technique of \cite{Payne}.
We refer to Li, Yamamoto and Zou \cite{LYZ} for another logarithmic
stability estimate of the initial condition of a parabolic equation with the
self-adjoint operator $L$ in a finite domain. A Carleman estimate was also
used in this reference. An interesting feature of \cite{LYZ} is that
observations are performed on an internal subdomain for times $t\in \left(
\tau ,T\right) $ where $\tau >0.$ In addition, a numerical method was
developed in \cite{LYZ}.
\subsubsection{Statements of inverse problems}
\label{sec:5.3.1}
Let $\Omega \subset \left\{ x_{1}>0\right\} $ be a bounded domain with the
boundary $\partial \Omega \in C^{3}$. Denote $P=\left\{ x_{1}=0\right\}
,P_{T}=P\times \left( 0,T\right) ,\forall T>0.$Let $k\geq 0$ be an integer
and $\alpha \in \left( 0,1\right) $. Consider the elliptic operator $L$ of
the second order,
\begin{eqnarray}
Lu &=&\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{n}a_{i,j}\left( x\right)
u_{x_{i}x_{j}}+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}b_{j}\left( x\right)
u_{x_{j}}+b_{0}\left( x\right) u,x\in \mathbb{R}^{n}, \label{1.2} \\
a_{i,j} &\in &C^{k+\alpha }\left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\right) \cap C^{1}\left(
\mathbb{R}^{n}\right) ,b_{j},b_{0}\in C^{k+\alpha }\left( \mathbb{R
^{n}\right) ,k\geq 2,\alpha \in \left( 0,1\right) , \label{1.3} \\
\mu _{1}\left\vert \eta \right\vert ^{2} &\leq
&\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{n}a_{i,j}\left( x\right) \eta _{i}\eta _{j}\leq \mu
_{2}\left\vert \eta \right\vert ^{2},\forall x,\eta \in \mathbb{R}^{n};\mu
_{1},\mu _{2}=const.>0. \label{1.4}
\end{eqnarray
Let the function $f\left( x\right) $ be such tha
\begin{equation}
f\in C^{p}\left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\right) ,p\geq 3,f\left( x\right) =0,x\in
\mathbb{R}^{n}\diagdown \Omega . \label{1.5}
\end{equation
Consider the following Cauchy proble
\begin{eqnarray}
u_{tt} &=&Lu,x\in \mathbb{R}^{n},t\in \left( 0,\infty \right) , \label{1.6}
\\
u\left( x,0\right) &=&f\left( x\right) ,u_{t}\left( x,0\right) =0.
\label{1.7}
\end{eqnarray
We use everywhere below in Section 5 the following assumption.
\textbf{Assumption 5.1}. We assume that in (\ref{1.3}), (\ref{1.5}) integers
$k\geq 2,p\geq 4$, coefficients of the operator $L$ and the initial
condition $f$ are such that there exists unique solution $u\in C^{4}\left(
\mathbb{R}^{n}\times \left[ 0,T\right] \right) ,\forall T>0$ of the problem
\ref{1.6}), (\ref{1.7}) satisfying
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{C^{4}\left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\times \left[ 0,T\right]
\right) }\leq Be^{dT},\forall T>0, \label{1.171}
\end{equation
where the constants $B=B\left( L,\overline{B}\right) >0,d=d\left( L
\overline{B}\right) >0$ depend only from the coefficients of the operator $L$
and the upper estimate $\overline{B}$ of the norm $\left\Vert f\right\Vert
_{C^{p}\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) }\leq \overline{B}.$
Note that (\ref{1.5}) as well as the finite speed of propagation of the
solution of problem (\ref{1.6}), (\ref{1.7}) guarantee that the function
u\left( x,t\right) $ has a finite support $\Psi \left( T\right) \subset
\mathbb{R}^{n},\forall t\in \left( 0,T\right) ,\forall T>0,$ see, e.g. the
book of Ladyzhenskaya \cite{Lad}. Hence, $C^{4}\left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\times
\left[ 0,T\right] \right) $ in Assumption 5.1 is actually the space
C^{4}\left( \overline{\Psi \left( T\right) }\times \left[ 0,T\right] \right)
.$ Using the classical tool of energy estimates \cite{Lad}, one can easily
find non-restrictive sufficient conditions imposed on coefficients of the
operator $L$ and the function $f$ guaranteeing the smoothness $u\in
C^{4}\left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\times \left[ 0,T\right] \right) ,\forall T>0$ as
well as (\ref{1.171}). We are not doing this here for brevity. We consider
the following two Inverse Problems.
\textbf{Inverse Problem 5.2 (IP5.2).}\emph{\ Suppose that conditions (\re
{1.2})-(\ref{1.5}) and Assumption 5.1 hold. Let }
$u\in C^{4}\left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\times \left[ 0,T\right] \right) ,\forall
T>0 $\emph{\ be the solution of the problem (\ref{1.6}), (\ref{1.7}). Assume
that the function }$f\left( x\right) $\emph{\ is unknown. Determine this
function, assuming that the following function }$\varphi _{1}\left(
x,t\right) $\emph{\ is known
\begin{equation}
u\mid _{S_{\infty }}=\varphi _{1}\left( x,t\right) . \label{1.8}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Inverse Problem 5.3 (IP5.3).} \emph{Suppose that conditions (\re
{1.2})-(\ref{1.5}) and Assumption 5.1 hold. Let }$u\in C^{4}\left( \mathbb{R
^{n}\times \left[ 0,T\right] \right) ,\forall T>0$\emph{\ be the solution of
the problem (\ref{1.6}), (\ref{1.7}). Assume that the function }$f\left(
x\right) $\emph{\ is unknown. Determine this function, assuming that the
following function }$\varphi _{2}\left( x,t\right) $\emph{\ is known
\begin{equation}
u\mid _{x\in P_{\infty }}=\varphi _{2}\left( x,t\right) . \label{1.9}
\end{equation}
IP5.2 has complete data collection, since the function $\varphi _{1}$ is
known at the entire boundary of the domain of interest $\Omega .$ On the
other hand, IP5.3 is a special case of incomplete data collection, since
\Omega \subset \left\{ x_{1}>0\right\} .$
In stability estimates one is usually interested to see how the solution
varies for a small variation of the input data. Therefore, following (\re
{1.171}), (\ref{1.8}) and (\ref{1.9}), we assume that in the case of IP5.
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert \varphi _{1}\right\Vert _{C^{4}\left( \overline{S}_{T}\right)
}\leq \delta e^{dT},\forall T>0, \label{1.142}
\end{equation
and in the case of IP5.
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert \varphi _{2}\right\Vert _{C^{4}\left( \overline{P}_{T}\right)
}\leq \delta e^{dT},\forall T>0, \label{1.143}
\end{equation
where $\delta \in \left( 0,1\right) $ is a sufficiently small number. Note
that it is not necessary that $\delta =B,$ where $B$ is the number from (\re
{1.171}). Indeed, while the number $B$ is involved in the estimate of the
norm $\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{C^{4}\left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\times \left[ 0,
\right] \right) },\forall T>0$ in the entire space, the number $\delta $ is
a part of the estimate of the norm of the boundary data for both IP5.2 and
IP5.3.
\textbf{Remarks 5.1.}
\textbf{1}. The number $\delta $ can be viewed as an upper estimate of the
level of the error in the data $\varphi _{1},\varphi _{2}.$ Hence, Theorems
5.3 and 5.4 below address the question of estimating variations of the
solution $f$ of either IP5.2 or IP5.3 via the upper estimate of the level of
the error in the data.
\textbf{2}. Since the kernel of the transform $\mathcal{L}$ in (\ref{1.10})
decays rapidly with $\tau \rightarrow \infty ,$ then the condition $t\in
\left( 0,\infty \right) $ in (\ref{1.8}), (\ref{1.9}) is not a serious
restriction from the applied standpoint. In addition, if having the data in
\ref{1.8}), (\ref{1.9}) only on a finite time interval $t\in \left(
0,T\right) $ and knowing an upper estimate of a norm of the function $f$ in
\ref{1.7}), one can estimate the error in the integral (\ref{1.10}) when
integrating over $\tau \in \left( T,\infty \right) .$ Next, this error can
be incorporated in the stability estimates of theorems of this section.
\subsubsection{Transformation to the parabolic case}
\label{sec:5.3.2}
Consider the following analog of the Reznickaya's transform (\ref{3.39})
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}g=\overline{g}\left( t\right) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi t}
\int\limits_{0}^{\infty }\exp \left( -\frac{\tau ^{2}}{4t}\right) g\left(
\tau \right) d\tau . \label{1.10}
\end{equation
The transformation (\ref{1.10}) is valid for, e.g. all functions $g\in
\left[ 0,\infty \right) $ which satisfy $\left\vert g\left( t\right)
\right\vert \leq A_{g}e^{k_{g}t},$ where $A_{g}$ and $k_{g}$ are positive
constants depending on $g$. It follows from (\ref{1.171})\ that the solution
$u\left( x,t\right) $ of the problem (\ref{1.6}), (\ref{1.7}) satisfies this
condition together with its derivatives up to the fourth order. Obviousl
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left[ \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi t}}\exp \left( -\frac
\tau ^{2}}{4t}\right) \right] =\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \tau ^{2}}\left[
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi t}}\exp \left( -\frac{\tau ^{2}}{4t}\right) \right] .
\end{equation*
Hence
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}\left( g^{\prime \prime }\right) =\overline{g}^{\prime }\left(
t\right) ,\forall g\in C^{2}\left[ 0,\infty \right) \text{ such that
g^{\prime }\left( 0\right) =0. \label{1.101}
\end{equation
Changing variables in (\ref{1.10}) $\tau \Leftrightarrow z,z:=\tau /2\sqrt{t
,$ we obtain $\lim_{t\rightarrow 0^{+}}\overline{g}\left( t\right) =g\left(
0\right) .$ Denote
\begin{equation}
v:=\mathcal{L}u. \label{1.100}
\end{equation
It follows from (\ref{1.171}) and (\ref{1.101}) that
\begin{equation}
v\in C^{2+\alpha ,1+\alpha /2}\left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\times \left[ 0,T\right]
\right) ,\forall \alpha \in \left( 0,1\right) ,\forall T>0. \label{1.102}
\end{equation
By (\ref{1.6}), (\ref{1.7}) and (\ref{1.102}) the function $v\left(
x,t\right) $ is the solution of the following parabolic Cauchy proble
\begin{eqnarray}
v_{t} &=&Lv,x\in \mathbb{R}^{n},t>0, \label{1.11} \\
v\left( x,0\right) &=&f\left( x\right) . \label{1.12}
\end{eqnarray
We refer here to the well known uniqueness result for the solution $v\in
C^{2+\alpha ,1+\alpha /2}\left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\times \left[ 0,T\right]
\right) ,\forall T>0$ of the problem (\ref{1.11}), (\ref{1.12}), see, e.g.
the book of Ladyzhenskaya, Solonnikov and Uralceva \cite{LSU}.
Below in Sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 we work only with the function $v$. Thus,
we set everywhere below $T:=1$ for the sake of definiteness. Denote
S_{1}=\partial \Omega \times \left( 0,1\right) ,P_{1}=P\times \left(
0,1\right) ,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L\varphi }_{1}:=\overline{\varphi }_{1}\left( x,t\right) =v\mid
_{S_{1}},\text{ }\mathcal{L\varphi }_{2}:=\overline{\varphi }_{2}\left(
x,t\right) =v\mid _{P_{1}}. \label{1.13}
\end{equation
The
\begin{equation}
\overline{\varphi }_{1}\in C^{2+\alpha ,1+\alpha /2}\left( \overline{S
_{1}\right) ,\overline{\varphi }_{2}\in C^{2+\alpha ,1+\alpha /2}\left(
\overline{P}_{1}\right) . \label{1.14}
\end{equation
Let
\begin{equation}
\overline{\psi }_{1}\left( x,t\right) =\partial _{\nu }v\mid _{S_{1}}
\overline{\psi }_{2}\left( x,t\right) =\partial _{x_{1}}v\mid _{P_{1}}.
\label{1.140}
\end{equation
By Theorem 5.2 of Chapter IV of \cite{LSU}, (\ref{1.171}) and (\ref{1.13})-
\ref{1.140}) there exist numbers $C\left( \Omega ,L\right) ,C\left(
P,L\right) >0$ depending only on listed parameters such tha
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\Vert \overline{\psi }_{1}\right\Vert _{C^{1+\alpha ,\alpha /2}\left(
\overline{S}_{1}\right) } &\leq &C\left( \Omega ,L\right) \left\Vert
\overline{\varphi }_{1}\right\Vert _{C^{2+\alpha ,1+\alpha /2}\left(
\overline{S}_{1}\right) }, \label{1.14_1} \\
\left\Vert \overline{\psi }_{2}\right\Vert _{C^{1+\alpha ,\alpha /2}\left(
\overline{P}_{1}\right) } &\leq &C\left( P,L\right) \left\Vert \overline
\varphi }_{2}\right\Vert _{C^{2+\alpha ,1+\alpha /2}\left( \overline{P
_{1}\right) }. \label{1.141}
\end{eqnarray}
We now describe an elementary and well known procedure of finding the normal
derivative of the function $v$ either at $S_{1}$ (in the case of IP5.2) or
at $P_{1}$ (in the case of IP5.3). In fact, an analog of this procedure was
described in Section 5.2 for the hyperbolic case, see (\ref{4.24}), (\re
{4.25}). In the case of IP5.2 we solve the initial boundary value problem
for equation (\ref{1.11}) for $\left( x,t\right) \in \left( \mathbb{R
^{n}\diagdown \Omega \right) \times \left( 0,1\right) $ with the zero
initial condition in $\mathbb{R}^{n}\diagdown \Omega $ (because of (\ref{1.5
)) and the Dirichlet boundary condition $v\mid _{S_{1}}=\overline{\varphi
_{1}.$ Then we uniquely find the normal derivative $\partial _{\nu }v\mid
_{S_{1}}=\overline{\psi }_{1}$. Similarly, in the case of IP5.3, we uniquely
find the Neumann boundary condition $\partial _{x_{1}}v\mid _{P_{1}}
\overline{\psi }_{2}$. Estimates (\ref{1.14_1}), (\ref{1.141}) ensure the
stability of this procedure.
Therefore, problems IP5.2 and IP5.3 are replaced with a corresponding
inverse problem for the parabolic PDE (\ref{1.11}) with the lateral Cauchy
data (\ref{1.13}), (\ref{1.140}). These data are given at $S_{1}$ for IP5.2
and at $P_{1}$ for IP5.3. Uniqueness of the solution of each of these
parabolic inverse problems follows from Theorem 2.2 and Remark 2.2.
Using (\ref{1.142}), (\ref{1.10}), (\ref{1.101}) and (\ref{1.13})-(\re
{1.141}), we obtai
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert \overline{\varphi }_{1}\right\Vert _{C^{2+\alpha ,1+\alpha
/2}\left( \overline{S}_{1}\right) }+\left\Vert \overline{\psi
_{1}\right\Vert _{C^{1+\alpha ,\alpha /2}\left( \overline{S}_{1}\right)
}\leq C_{1}\left( \Omega ,L,d\right) \delta . \label{1.144}
\end{equation
Next, using (\ref{1.143}) instead of (\ref{1.142}), we obtai
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert \overline{\varphi }_{2}\right\Vert _{C^{2+\alpha ,1+\alpha
/2}\left( \overline{P}_{1}\right) }+\left\Vert \overline{\psi
_{2}\right\Vert _{C^{1+\alpha ,\alpha /2}\left( \overline{P}_{1}\right)
}\leq C_{2}\left( P,L,d\right) \delta , \label{1.145}
\end{equation
where constants $C_{1}\left( \Omega ,L,d\right) ,C_{2}\left( P,L,d\right) >0$
depend only on listed parameters. It follows from (\ref{1.144}) that with a
different constant $\overline{C}:=\overline{C}\left( \Omega ,L,d\right) >0
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert \overline{\varphi }_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( S_{1}\right)
}+\left\Vert \overline{\psi }_{1}\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( S_{1}\right)
}\leq \overline{C}\delta . \label{1.146}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Logarithmic stability estimates for IP5.2 and IP5.3}
\label{sec:5.3.3}
\textbf{Theorem 5.4.} \emph{Consider IP5.2. Let Assumption 5.1 holds and
conditions (\ref{1.5}), (\ref{1.142}) be valid. Also, assume that the upper
bound }$F$\emph{\ of the norm }$\left\Vert \nabla f\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left(
\Omega \right) }$\emph{\ is given, }$\left\Vert \nabla f\right\Vert
_{L_{2}\left( \Omega \right) }\leq F.$ \emph{Then there exists a
sufficiently small number }$\delta _{0}=\delta _{0}\left( L,\Omega \right)
\in \left( 0,1\right) $\emph{\ and a constant }$M_{1}=M_{1}\left( L,\Omega
\right) >0,$\emph{\ both dependent only on listed parameters, such that if
the number }$\delta $\emph{\ in (\ref{1.142}) is so small that }$\overline{C
\delta \in \left( 0,\delta _{0}\right) $\emph{, then the following
logarithmic stability estimate holds
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( \Omega \right) }\leq \frac{M_{1}F}
\sqrt{\ln \left[ \left( \overline{C}\delta \right) ^{-1}\right] }}.\text{ }
\end{equation*
\emph{Here} $\overline{C}=\overline{C}\left( \Omega ,L,d\right) >0$ \emph{is
the number in (\ref{1.146}). }
Consider now IP5.3. Denote $\overline{x}=\left( x_{2},...,x_{n}\right) .$
Changing variables $\left( x^{\prime },t^{\prime }\right) =\left( \sqrt{b
x,dt\right) $ with an appropriate constant $b>0$ and keeping the same
notations for new variables for brevity, we obtain that without loss of
generality we can assume that
\begin{equation}
\Omega \subset \left\{ x_{1}+\left\vert \overline{x}\right\vert ^{2}<\frac{
}{4},x_{1}>0\right\} . \label{1.23}
\end{equation
Denot
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi &=&\left\{ \left( x,t\right) :x_{1}\in \left( 0,1\right) ,\overline{x
=\left( x_{2},x_{3},...,x_{n}\right) \in \left( -1,1\right) ^{n-1},t\in
\left( 0,1\right) \right\} , \label{3.91} \\
\partial _{1}\Phi &=&\overline{\Phi }\cap P=\left\{ \left( x,t\right)
:x_{1}=0,\overline{x}\in \left( -1,1\right) ^{n-1},t\in \left( 0,1\right)
\right\} . \label{3.92}
\end{eqnarray
Recall that (\ref{1.143}) implies (\ref{1.145}). Hence, assuming that (\re
{1.143}) holds and using (\ref{3.91}), (\ref{3.92}), we derive that there
exists a constant $\widetilde{C}=\widetilde{C}\left( L,\Phi ,d\right) >0$
such that
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert \overline{\varphi }_{2}\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( \partial
_{1}\Phi \right) }+\left\Vert \overline{\psi }_{2}\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left(
\partial _{1}\Phi \right) }\leq \widetilde{C}\delta . \label{3.94}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Theorem 5.5.} \emph{Consider IP5.3. Let Assumption 5.1 holds and
\ref{1.5}), (\ref{1.143}) be valid. Also, assume that for a certain }$\alpha
\in \left( 0,1\right) $\emph{\ the upper bound }$F$\emph{\ of the norm }
\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{C^{2+\alpha }\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) }
\emph{\ is given, i.e. }$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{C^{2+\alpha }\left(
\overline{\Omega }\right) }\leq F$. \emph{Then there exists a sufficiently
small number }$\delta _{0}=\delta _{0}\left( L,\Phi \right) \in \left(
0,1\right) $\emph{\ and a constant }$M_{2}=M_{2}\left( L,\Phi \right) >0,
\emph{\ both dependent only on listed parameters, such that if the number }
\delta $\emph{\ in (\ref{1.143}) is so small that }$\widetilde{C}\delta \in
\left( 0,\delta _{0}\right) $\emph{, then the following logarithmic
stability estimate holds}
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( \Omega \right) }\leq \frac{M_{2}F}
\sqrt{\ln \left[ \left( \widetilde{C}\delta \right) ^{-1}\right] }}.\text{ }
\end{equation*
\emph{Here }$\widetilde{C}=\widetilde{C}\left( L,\Phi ,d\right) >0$\emph{\
is the number from (\ref{3.94}).}
\subsection{QRM in the hyperbolic case}
\label{sec:5.4}
Although the Quasi-Reversibility Method (QRM) was discussed in Section 2.5,
it is worth to discuss it here again for the specific hyperbolic case. The
reason is that we now have two types of stability estimates, which are
different from the H\"{o}lder stability estimate of Section 2.5: the
Lipschitz stability estimates of Theorems 5.1, 5.2 and the logarithmic
stability estimates of Theorems 5.3, 5.4. We start from IP5.3. The case of
IP 5.2 is not discussed here since it is similar.
\subsubsection{QRM for IP5.3}
\label{sec:5.4.1}
To use embedding theorem, we work in this section only in 3d. The 2d case is
similar. We now increase the required smoothness of the solution of the
problem (\ref{1.6}), (\ref{1.7}). To do this, we replace Assumption 5.1 with
Assumption 5.2, where we use the norm $\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{C^{8}\left(
\mathbb{R}^{n}\times \left[ 0,T\right] \right) }$ instead of the norm
\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{C^{4}\left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\times \left[ 0,T\right]
\right) }$ of Assumption 5.1.
\textbf{Assumption 5.2.} We assume that integers $k,p$ in (\ref{1.3}), (\re
{1.5}), coefficients of the operator $L$ and the initial condition $f$ are
such that there exists unique solution $u\in C^{12}\left( \mathbb{R
^{n}\times \left[ 0,T\right] \right) ,\forall T>0$ of the problem (\ref{1.6
), (\ref{1.7}) satisfying
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{C^{12}\left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\times \left[ 0,T\right]
\right) }\leq Be^{dT},\forall T>0, \label{4.100}
\end{equation
where the constants $B=B\left( L,\overline{B}\right) >0,d=d\left( L
\overline{B}\right) >0$ depend only from the coefficients of the operator $L$
and an upper estimate $\overline{B}$ of the norm $\left\Vert f\right\Vert
_{C^{p}\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) }\leq \overline{B}.$
We assume in Section 5.4.1 that Assumption 5.2 holds. Hence, Theorem 5.2 of
Chapter IV of the book \cite{LSU}, (\ref{4.100}) and (\ref{1.13})-(\re
{1.140}) imply that functions
\begin{equation}
\overline{\varphi }_{2}\in C^{10+\alpha ,5+\alpha /2}\left( \overline{P
_{1}\right) ,\overline{\psi }_{2}\in C^{8+\alpha ,4+\alpha /2}\left(
\overline{P}_{1}\right) \label{4.101}
\end{equation
and there exists a number $C_{3}\left( P,L\right) >0$ depending only on
listed parameters such that
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert \overline{\psi }_{2}\right\Vert _{C^{8+\alpha ,4+\alpha /2}\left(
\overline{P}_{1}\right) }\leq C_{3}\left( P,L\right) \left\Vert \overline
\varphi }_{2}\right\Vert _{C^{10+\alpha ,5+\alpha /2}\left( \overline{P
_{1}\right) }. \label{4.102}
\end{equation
Let sets $\Phi ,\partial _{1}\Phi $ be the ones introduced in (\ref{3.91}),
\ref{3.92}).\ Then (\ref{4.101}) and (\ref{4.102}) imply that
\begin{equation}
\overline{\varphi }_{2},\overline{\psi }_{2}\in H^{8,4}\left( \partial
_{1}\Phi \right) ,\left\Vert \overline{\varphi }_{2}\right\Vert
_{H^{8,4}\left( \partial _{1}\Phi \right) }+\left\Vert \overline{\psi
_{2}\right\Vert _{H^{8,4}\left( \partial _{1}\Phi \right) }\leq C_{4}\left(
P,\Phi ,L\right) \left\Vert \overline{\varphi }_{2}\right\Vert
_{C^{10+\alpha ,5+\alpha /2}\left( \overline{P}_{1}\right) }, \label{4.103}
\end{equation
where the number $C_{4}\left( P,\Phi ,L\right) =const.>0$ depends only on
listed parameters.
Let the function $v\left( x,t\right) $ be the one defined in (\ref{1.100}).
Then $v\in C^{10+\alpha ,5+\alpha /2}\left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\times \left[ 0,
\right] \right) ,\forall T>0$ is the solution of the problem (\ref{1.11}),
\ref{1.12}). Denot
\begin{eqnarray}
r\left( x,t\right) &=&\overline{\varphi }_{2}\left( x,t\right) +x_{1
\overline{\psi }_{2}\left( x,t\right) =\overline{\varphi }_{2}\left(
\overline{x},t\right) +x_{1}\overline{\psi }_{2}\left( \overline{x},t\right)
, \label{4.104} \\
\widehat{v}\left( x,t\right) &=&v\left( x,t\right) -r\left( x,t\right) ,
\label{4.105} \\
p\left( x,t\right) &=&-\left( r_{t}-Lr\right) \left( x,t\right) .
\label{4.106}
\end{eqnarray
Let $H_{0}^{4}\left( \Phi \right) :=\left\{ u\in H^{4}\left( \Phi \right)
:u\mid _{\partial _{1}\Phi }=u_{x_{1}}\mid _{\partial _{1}\Phi }=0\right\} .$
Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\widehat{v}_{t}-L\widehat{v} &=&p\left( x,t\right) ,\left( x,t\right) \in
\Phi ,\widehat{v}\in H_{0}^{4}\left( \Phi \right) , \label{4.108} \\
\widehat{v} &\mid &_{\partial _{1}\Phi }=0,\widehat{v}_{x_{1}}\mid
_{\partial _{1}\Phi }=0. \label{4.109}
\end{eqnarray}
To solve IP5.3 via the QRM, we minimize the following Tikhonov functional
\begin{equation}
J_{\gamma }\left( \widehat{v}\right) =\left\Vert \widehat{v}_{t}-L\widehat{v
-p\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( \Phi \right) }^{2}+\gamma \left\Vert \widehat{v
\right\Vert _{H^{4}\left( \Phi \right) }^{2},\widehat{v}\in H_{0}^{4}\left(
\Phi \right) , \label{4.60}
\end{equation
where $\gamma >0$ is the regularization parameter. The requirement $\widehat
v}\in H^{4}\left( \Phi \right) $ is an over-smoothness. This condition is
imposed to ensure that the function $\widehat{v}\in C^{1}\left( \overline
\Phi }\right) $: because of the embedding theorem.\ Indeed, we need the
smoothness $\widehat{v}\in C^{1}\left( \overline{\Phi }\right) $ to apply
theorems 2.2 and 3.1 of \cite{Kltherm}. We imposed in Assumption 4.2 $u\in
C^{12}\left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\times \left[ 0,T\right] \right) ,\forall T>0$
only to guarantee that $\widehat{v}\in H^{4}\left( \Phi \right) \subset
C^{1}\left( \overline{\Phi }\right) .$ However, the author's numerical
experience with QRM has consistently demonstrated that one can significantly
relax the required smoothness in practical computation, see \cit
{KKKN,KPK,KBK}. This is likely because one is not using an overly small grid
step size in finite differences when minimizing functionals like the one in
\ref{4.60}). Hence, one effectively works with a finite dimensional space
with not too many dimensions. This means that one can rely in this case on
the equivalence of all norms in finite dimensional spaces. Thus, most likely
one can replace in real computations $\gamma \left\Vert v\right\Vert
_{H^{4}\left( \Phi \right) }^{2}$ with $\gamma \left\Vert v\right\Vert
_{H^{2,1}\left( \Phi \right) }^{2}$.
Let $\left( ,\right) $ and $\left[ ,\right] $ be scalar products in
L_{2}\left( \Phi \right) $ and $H^{4}\left( \Phi \right) $ respectively.\
Let the function $u_{\gamma }\in H_{0}^{4}\left( \Phi \right) $ be a
minimizer of the functional (\ref{4.60}). Then the variational principle
implies that
\begin{equation*}
\left( \partial _{t}u_{\gamma }-Lu,\partial _{t}w-Lw\right) +\gamma \left[
u,w\right] =\left( p,w_{t}-Lw\right) ,\forall w\in H_{0}^{4}\left( \Phi
\right) .
\end{equation*}
\textbf{Lemma 5.1}. \emph{For every function }$p\in L_{2}\left( \Phi \right)
$\emph{\ and every }$\gamma >0$ \emph{there exists unique minimizer }
u_{\gamma }=u_{\gamma }\left( p\right) \in H_{0}^{4}\left( \Phi \right)
\emph{\ of the functional (\ref{4.60}). Furthermore, there exists a constant
}$M=M\left( L,\Phi \right) $ \emph{such that the following estimate holds }
\left\Vert u_{\gamma }\right\Vert _{H^{4}\left( \Phi \right) }\leq
M_{1}\gamma ^{-1/2}\left\Vert p\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( \Phi \right) }.
\emph{\ }
Lemma 5.1 is an obvious analog of Lemma 2.5. The idea now is that if
u_{\gamma }\left( x,t\right) \in H_{0}^{4}\left( \Phi \right) $ is the
minimizer mentioned in Lemma 5.1, then the approximate solution of IP5.3 is
\begin{equation}
f_{\gamma }\left( x\right) =u_{\gamma }\left( x,0\right) +r\left( x,0\right)
. \label{4.80}
\end{equation
The question of convergence of minimizers of $J_{\gamma }$ to the exact
solution is more difficult than the existence question of Lemma 5.1. To
address the question of convergence, we need first to introduce the exact
solution as well as the error in the data, just as this is always done in
the regularization theory \cite{BKok,BK,EHN,Kab,T}, also, see Theorem 2.7.
We assume that there exists an \textquotedblleft ideal" noiseless data
\varphi _{2}^{\ast }\in C^{12}\left( P_{\infty }\right) $. Following (\re
{1.143}) and (\ref{4.100}), we assume that with a sufficiently small number
\delta \in \left( 0,1\right) $ the following estimate hold
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert \varphi _{2}-\varphi _{2}^{\ast }\right\Vert _{C^{12}\left(
\overline{P}_{T}\right) }\leq \delta e^{dT},\forall T>0. \label{4.110}
\end{equation
Let $\overline{\varphi }_{2}^{\ast }=\mathcal{L}\varphi _{2}^{\ast },$ the
function $f^{\ast }$ satisfying (\ref{1.5}) is the solution of IP5.3 for the
case of the noiseless data $\varphi _{2}^{\ast },$ the function $u^{\ast
}\in C^{12}\left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\times \left[ 0,T\right] \right) ,\forall
T>0 $ satisfying (\ref{4.100}) is the solution of the Cauchy problem (\re
{1.6}), (\ref{1.7}) with $f:=f^{\ast }.$ Following (\ref{1.100}), denote
v^{\ast }=\mathcal{L}u^{\ast }.$ Let functions $\overline{\varphi
_{2}^{\ast },...,p^{\ast }$ have the same meaning as corresponding functions
in (\ref{4.101})-(\ref{4.106}), except that they are generated by the
noiseless data $\varphi _{2}^{\ast }.$ Then (\ref{4.103}) and (\ref{4.110})
imply tha
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert p-p^{\ast }\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( \Phi \right) }\leq
C_{5}\left( \Phi ,L,d\right) \delta , \label{4.113}
\end{equation
where the constant $C_{5}\left( P,\Phi ,L,d\right) >0$ depends only on
listed parameters.
Theorem 5.6 establishes the convergence rate of the QRM. The proof of this
theorem is using (\ref{4.113}) and is similar with the proof of Theorem 3.1
of \cite{Kltherm}.
\textbf{Theorem 5.6}. \emph{Let Assumption 5.2 and condition (\ref{4.110})
be valid. Suppose that the regularization parameter }$\gamma =\gamma \left(
\delta \right) :=\delta \in \left( 0,1\right) .$\emph{\ Let the function }
u_{\gamma }\in H_{0}^{4}\left( \Phi \right) $\emph{\ be the unique minimizer
of the functional (\ref{4.60}) (Lemma 5.1). Then there exists a number }
Y=Y\left( \Phi ,L,B,d\right) >0$ \emph{and} \emph{a sufficiently small
number }$\delta _{0}=\delta _{0}\left( L,\Phi \right) \in \left( 0,1\right)
\emph{\ such that if \ }$\delta \in \left( 0,\delta _{0}\right) ,$\emph{\
then the following logarithmic convergence rate takes place
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert f_{\gamma \left( \delta \right) }-f^{\ast }\right\Vert
_{L_{2}\left( \Omega \right) }\leq \frac{Y}{\sqrt{\ln \left( \delta
^{-1}\right) }}, \label{4.111}
\end{equation
\emph{where the function }$f_{\gamma \left( \delta \right) }\left( x\right)
\emph{\ is defined in (\ref{4.80})}$.$\emph{\ In addition, for every }
\omega \in \left( 0,\omega _{0}\right) $\emph{\ there exists a number }$\rho
=\rho \left( L,\Phi ,B,d\right) \in \left( 0,1/2\right) $\emph{\ such that
the following convergence rate takes place
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert u_{\gamma \left( \eta \right) }-\widehat{v}^{\ast }\right\Vert
_{H^{1,0}\left( D_{1/2}\right) }\leq Y\delta ^{\rho },
\end{equation*
\emph{where the domain }$D_{1/2}=\left\{ \left( x,t\right)
:x_{1}>0,x_{1}+\left\vert \overline{x}\right\vert ^{2}+\left( t-1/2\right)
^{2}<1/4\right\} .$
\subsubsection{QRM for Problem 5.1 of Section 5.1}
\label{sec:5.4.2}
In this section we assume that condition (\ref{4.6}) is in place.\ This
enables us to use the Lipschitz stability estimate (\ref{4.8}) of Theorem
5.1. We consider the problem of the recovery of the function $u\left(
x,t\right) $ from conditions (\ref{4.3}), (\ref{4.4}). We rewrite these
conditions now a
\begin{eqnarray}
Au &:&=u_{tt}-c^{2}\left( x\right) \Delta
u-\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n+1}b_{j}\left( x,t\right) u_{x_{j}}-b_{0}\left(
x,t\right) u=f\left( x,t\right) ,\left( x,t\right) \in Q_{T}^{\pm },
\label{4.112} \\
u &\mid &_{S_{T}^{\pm }}=p\left( x,t\right) ,\partial _{n}u\mid _{S_{T}^{\pm
}}=q\left( x,t\right) , \label{4.114}
\end{eqnarray
where $u_{n+1}:=u_{t}.$ Suppose that there exists a function $F\left(
x,t\right) $ such tha
\begin{equation*}
F\in H^{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) ,F\mid _{S_{T}^{\pm }}=p\left(
x,t\right) ,\partial _{n}F\mid _{S_{T}^{\pm }}=q\left( x,t\right) .
\end{equation*
Denote $w=u-F,G=f-AF.$ Let $H_{0}^{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) =\left\{
U\in H^{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) :U\mid _{S_{T}^{\pm }}=\partial
_{n}U\mid _{S_{T}^{\pm }}=0\right\} .$ Using (\ref{4.112}) and (\ref{4.114
), we obtai
\begin{equation}
Aw=G,\left( x,t\right) \in Q_{T}^{\pm },w\in H_{0}^{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm
}\right) . \label{4.115}
\end{equation
Thus, now we are concerned with finding the function $w$ satisfying (\re
{4.115}). QRM for this problem amounts to the minimization of the following
Tikhonov functiona
\begin{equation}
V_{\gamma }\left( w\right) =\left\Vert Aw-G\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left(
Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}+\gamma \left\Vert w\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left(
Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2},w\in H_{0}^{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) .
\label{4.117}
\end{equation
As usual, $\gamma >0$ is the regularization parameter here. Let $w_{\gamma
}\in H_{0}^{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) $ be a minimizer of the functional
\ref{4.117}), $\left( ,\right) $ be the scalar product in $L_{2}\left(
Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) $ and $\left[ ,\right] $ be the scalar product in
H^{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) .$ Then the variational principle implies
that
\begin{equation}
\left( Aw_{\gamma },Av\right) +\gamma \left[ w_{\gamma },v\right] =\left(
G,Av\right) ,\forall v\in H_{0}^{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) .
\label{4.118}
\end{equation
Lemma 5.2 is again an obvious analog of Lemma 2.5.
\textbf{Lemma 5.2}. \emph{Let the function }$G\in L_{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm
}\right) .$\emph{\ Then for every }$\gamma >0$\emph{\ there exists unique
minimizer }$w_{\gamma }\in H_{0}^{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) $\emph{\ of
the functional (\ref{4.118}). Furthermore, with a constant }
C_{6}=C_{6}\left( A,Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) >0$\emph{\ depending only on listed
parameters the following estimate holds
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert w_{\gamma }\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }\leq
\frac{C}{\sqrt{\gamma }}\left\Vert G\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm
}\right) }.
\end{equation*}
\textbf{Theorem 5.7} (convergence). \emph{Let the domain }$\Omega =\left\{
\left\vert x\right\vert <R\right\} .$\emph{\ Assume that the coefficient }
c\in C^{1}\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) $\emph{\ of the operator }$A
\emph{\ in (\ref{4.112}) satisfies conditions (\ref{4.6}), (\ref{4.6_2}) and
other coefficients of the operator }$A$\emph{\ are such that }$b_{j}\in
C\left( \overline{Q}_{T}^{\pm }\right) ,j\in \left[ 0,n+1\right] .$\emph{\
Let }$T>R/\sqrt{\eta _{0}}$\emph{, where the constant }$\eta _{0}=\eta
_{0}\left( R,d,\alpha \right) \in \left( 0,1\right] $\emph{\ was defined in
Theorem 5.1. Assume that there exists exact solution }$w^{\ast }\in
H_{0}^{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) $\emph{\ of the problem (\ref{4.115})
with the exact data }$G^{\ast }.$\emph{\ Let }$w_{\gamma }\in
H_{0}^{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) $\emph{\ be the unique minimizer of the
functional (\ref{4.117}) (Lemma 5.2). Then there exists a constant }
K=K\left( A,R,T,d,\alpha \right) >0$\emph{\ such that
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert w_{\gamma }-w^{\ast }\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm
}\right) }\leq K\left( \left\Vert G-G^{\ast }\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left(
Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }+\sqrt{\gamma }\left\Vert w^{\ast }\right\Vert
_{H^{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }\right) . \label{4.119}
\end{equation
\emph{In particular, if }$c\left( x\right) \equiv 1,$\emph{\ then it is
sufficient to have }$T>R.$\emph{\ Also, if }$\left\Vert G-G^{\ast
}\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }\leq \delta ,$\emph{\ where
$\delta \in \left( 0,1\right) $\emph{\ is the level of the error in the
data, and if }$\gamma \in \left( 0,\delta ^{2}\right] ,$\emph{\ then }
\left\Vert w_{\gamma }-w^{\ast }\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm
}\right) }\leq K\delta .$
\textbf{Proof}. We have
\begin{equation*}
\left( Aw^{\ast },Av\right) +\gamma \left[ w^{\ast },v\right] =\left(
G^{\ast },Av\right) +\gamma \left[ w^{\ast },v\right] ,\forall v\in
H_{0}^{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) .
\end{equation*
Subtract this equality from (\ref{4.118}) and denote $\widetilde{w
=w_{\gamma }-w^{\ast },\widetilde{G}=G-G^{\ast }.$ Then $\widetilde{w}\in
H_{0}^{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) $ and
\begin{equation*}
\left( A\widetilde{w},Av\right) +\gamma \left[ \widetilde{w},v\right]
=\left( \widetilde{G},Av\right) -\gamma \left[ w^{\ast },v\right] ,\forall
v\in H_{0}^{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) .
\end{equation*
Hence, Cauchy-Bunyakovsky inequality implies tha
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert A\widetilde{w}\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right)
}^{2}+\gamma \left\Vert \widetilde{w}\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm
}\right) }^{2}\leq \left\Vert \widetilde{G}\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left(
Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}+\gamma \left\Vert w^{\ast }\right\Vert
_{H^{2}\left( Q_{T}^{\pm }\right) }^{2}. \label{4.120}
\end{equation
Applying Theorem 5.2 to (\ref{4.120}), we obtain (\ref{4.119}). $\square $
\subsection{Published results}
\label{sec:5.5}
Stability estimates and convergent numerical methods for Problem 5.1,
Problem 5.2, IP5.1, IP5.2 and IP5.3 with an arbitrary time independent
principal part of the operator $L$ in (\ref{1.2}) were not obtained prior to
the work \cite{Kltherm}. The Lipschitz stability estimate (\ref{4.8}) is
important for the control theory, since it is used for proofs of exact
controllability theorems. For the first time, estimate (\ref{4.8}) was
proved in 1986 by Lop Fat Ho \cite{L} for the equation $u_{tt}-\Delta u=0$
with the aim of applying to the control theory. However, the method of
multipliers of \cite{L} cannot handle neither variable lower order terms of
the operator $L$ nor a variable coefficient $c\left( x\right) .$ On the
other hand, Carleman estimates are not sensitive to lower order terms of PDE
operators and also can handle the case of a variable coefficient $c\left(
x\right) .$
For the first time, the Carleman estimate was applied to this problem by
Klibanov and Malinsky \cite{KlibM}. In \cite{KlibM} Theorem 5.1 for equation
(\ref{4.3}) with the lateral Cauchy data (\ref{4.4}) and $c\left( x\right)
\equiv 1$ was proved. Using (\ref{4.8}), an analog of Theorem 5.7 was also
proved in \cite{KlibM}. Next, the result of \cite{KlibM} was extended by
Kazemi and Klibanov \cite{Kaz} and also by the author in \cite{K} to a more
general case of the hyperbolic inequality (\ref{4.5}) with $c\left( x\right)
\equiv 1$. Although in publications \cite{Kaz,KlibM,K} $c\equiv 1,$ it is
clear from them that the key idea is in applying the Carleman estimate,
while a specific form of the principal part of the hyperbolic operator is
less important. This thought is reflected in the proof of Theorem 3.4.8 of
the book of Isakov \cite{Is}. Thus, Theorem 5.1 for the variable coefficient
$c\left( x\right) $ satisfying an analog of (\ref{4.6_1}) was obtained in
section 2.4 of the book\ of Klibanov and Timonov \cite{KT} as well as in the
paper of Clason and Klibanov \cite{ClK}. The idea of \cite{Kaz} was used in
the control theory by Lasiecka, Triggiani and Yao \cite{LT1}, Lasiecka,
Triggiani and Zhang \cite{LT2,LT3,LT4} and by Triggiani and Yao \cite{Trig}.
Isakov and Yamamoto \cite{Y4} used that idea to prove a stronger version of
Theorem 5.1.
To prove Lipschitz stability without condition (\ref{4.6}), one can impose
some conditions of Riemannian geometry on the principal part of the operator
$L$ in (\ref{1.2}), see Bardos, Lebeau and Rauch \cite{Bardos}, Lasiecka,
Triggiani and Yao \cite{LT1,Trig}, Lasiecka, Triggiani and Zhang \cit
{LT2,LT3,LT4}, Romanov \cite{Rom1,Rom2} and Stefanov and Uhlmann \cite{SU}.
In \cite{LT1,LT2,LT3,LT4,Rom1,Rom2,Trig} Carleman estimates were used.
Analogs of Theorem 5.7 about convergence of QRM were proved in Klibanov and
Rakesh \cite{KR}, Clason and Klibanov \cite{ClK} and Klibanov, Kuzhuget,
Kabanikhin and Nechaev \cite{KKKN}.\ Numerical testing of QRM was performed
in these references. This testing has consistently demonstrated a high
degree of robustness. For example, accurate results were obtained in \cit
{KKKN} with up to 50\% noise in the data.
For explicit formulas for the reconstruction of the function $f\left(
x\right) $ for TAT (IP5.1) in the case when in (\ref{1.2}) $L\equiv \Delta $
we refer to Finch, Patch and Rakesh \cite{FPR}, Finch, Haltmeier and Rakesh
\cite{FHR}, the review paper of Kuchment and Kunyansky \cite{Kuch} and
Kunyansky \cite{KY}. These formulas lead to some stability estimates as well
as to numerical methods with good performances. Another numerical method for
TAT was proposed by Agranovsky and Kuchment \cite{AK}.
\section{Approximately Globally Convergent Numerical Method}
\label{sec:6}
The first step of the numerical method outlined in this section is the
elimination of the unknown coefficient from the underlying PDE, which is the
same step as in BK. In this section we briefly outline the recently
developed numerical method of Beilina and Klibanov referring for details to
\cite{AB,BK,BK1,BK2,BK3,BK4,BKK,BK20,JIIP12,KFBPS,KBB,KPK,KBK,KBKSNF,IEEE}.
Numerical tests are not presented here, since they are published in these
works.
Even though the field of Inverse Problems is an applied one and even though
MCIPs have been studied by many researchers since 1960-ies, the topic of
reliable numerical methods for them is still in its infancy. This is because
of \emph{enormous challenges}\textbf{\ }one inevitably faces when trying to
study this topic\textbf{.} Those challenges are caused by two factors
combined: nonlinearity and ill-posedness of MCIPs. In the case of single
measurement the third complicating factor is the minimal amount of available
information. Conventional least squares functionals for MCIPs suffer from
the phenomenon of multiple local minima and ravines. This leads to locally
convergent numerical methods, which require a good first guess about the
solution. However, the latter is impractical.
In the above cited series of recent publications some properties of
underlying PDE operators instead of least squares functionals were used. A
\emph{very important} feature of this numerical method is that it does not
require any knowledge of neither the medium inside of the domain of interest
nor of any point in a small neighborhood of the true solution. For the first
time, the following two goals were \emph{simultaneously} achieved for MCIPs
for a hyperbolic PDE with single measurement data:
\textbf{Goal 1}. The development of such a numerical method, which would
have a rigorous guarantee of obtaining at least one point in a small
neighborhood of the exact solution without any advanced knowledge of that
neighborhood.
\textbf{Goal 2}. This numerical method should have a good performance on
computationally simulated data. In addition, if experimental data are
available, then this method should demonstrate a good performance on these
data.
A \emph{crucial requirement} is to achieve both these goals \emph
simultaneously} rather than just only one of them. Because of the above
mentioned substantial challenges, it is natural to have the rigorous
guarantee of Goal 1 within the framework of a reasonable approximate
mathematical model. Since convergence is guaranteed in the framework of that
model, then we call our numerical method \emph{approximately globally
convergent}. In principle, any mathematical model can be called
\textquotedblleft approximate". Therefore, the validity of our model is
verified via a six-step procedure, see \cite{BK,JIIP12}. Basically this
procedure includes the proof of a convergence theorem and computational
results for both synthetic and experimental data. If convergence theorem
satisfying Goal 1 is proved and computational results are good ones (Goal
2), especially ones for experimental data, then that approximate
mathematical model is proclaimed as a valid one.
On the other hand, nothing works without such an approximate model. Indeed,
the author is unaware about such numerical methods for MCIPs with single
measurement data, which would: (1) simultaneously achieve Goals 1 and 2 and,
at the same time, (2) would not rely on some reasonable approximations,
which cannot be rigorously justified.
\subsection{Outline of the method}
\label{sec:6.1}
Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{3}$ be a convex bounded domain with the
boundary $\partial \Omega \in C^{3}.$ Let $d=const.>2.$ We assume that the
coefficient $c\left( x\right) $ satisfies the following conditions
\begin{equation}
c\left( x\right) \in \lbrack 1,d],~~c\left( x\right) =1\text{ for }x\in
\mathbb{R}^{3}\diagdown \Omega ,c\in C^{\alpha }\left( \mathbb{R}^{3}\right)
. \label{5.0}
\end{equation
We assume \emph{a priori} knowledge of the constant $d,$ which amounts to
the knowledge of the correctness set in the theory of Ill-Posed problems
\cite{BKok,BK,EHN,Kab,T}. Consider the Cauchy problem for the hyperbolic
equation
\begin{eqnarray}
c\left( x\right) u_{tt} &=&\Delta u\text{ in }\mathbb{R}^{3}\times \left(
0,\infty \right) , \label{5.1} \\
u\left( x,0\right) &=&0,\text{ }u_{t}\left( x,0\right) =\delta \left(
x-x_{0}\right) . \label{5.2}
\end{eqnarray
A similar technique can be developed for MCIPs for the parabolic equation
c\left( x\right) v_{t}=\Delta v+a\left( x\right) v,$ where either of
coefficients $c\left( x\right) $ or $a\left( x\right) $ is unknown \cite{BK
. Equation (\ref{5.1}) governs, e.g. propagation of acoustic and
electromagnetic waves. In the acoustical case $c(x)=b^{-2}(x),$ where
b\left( x\right) $ is the sound speed. In the 2-D case of EM waves
propagation, the dimensionless coefficient is $c(x)=\varepsilon _{r}(x),$
where $\varepsilon _{r}(x)$ is the spatially distributed dielectric constant
of the medium. In \ the latter case the assumption $c\left( x\right) =1$ for
$x\in \mathbb{R}^{3}\diagdown \Omega $ in (\ref{5.0}) means that we have air
outside the medium of interest $\Omega .$ And the assumption $c\left(
x\right) \geq 1$ reflects the fact that the dielectric constants of almost
all materials exceed the one of the air. Equation (\ref{5.1}) was
successfully used in \cite{BK,BK4,KFBPS} to work with experimental data,
which are obviously in 3d. The latter was recently explained by Beilina in
\cite{BM}. It was shown in Test 4 of \cite{BM} that the component of the
electric field $E\left( x,t\right) =\left( E_{1},E_{2},E_{3}\right) \left(
x,t\right) ,$ which was originally initialized, strongly dominates two other
components.
\textbf{Multidimensional Coefficient Inverse Problem (MCIP).} \emph{Assume
that the coefficient }$c\left( x\right) $\emph{\ of equation (\ref{5.1})
satisfies condition (\ref{5.0}) and is unknown in the domain }$\Omega $\emph
. Determine the function }$c\left( x\right) $\emph{\ for }$x\in \Omega ,
\emph{\ assuming that the following function }$g\left( x,t\right) $\emph{\
is known for a single source position }$x_{0}\notin \overline{\Omega }$
\emph{in (\ref{5.2})}
\begin{equation}
u\left( x,t\right) =g\left( x,t\right) ,\forall \left( x,t\right) \in
\partial \Omega \times \left( 0,\infty \right) . \label{5.4}
\end{equation}
The function $g\left( x,t\right) $ models time dependent measurements of the
wave field at the boundary of the domain of interest. The assumption of the
infinite time interval in (\ref{5.4}) is not a restrictive one, because we
work with the Laplace transform of the function $u\left( x,t\right) ,$ and
the kernel of this transform decays rapidly as $t\rightarrow \infty .$ In
this MCIP the data $g\left( x,t\right) $ are assumed to be known at the
entire boundary $\partial \Omega .$ The case of backscattering data can be
treated similarly, see Chapter 6 in the book \cite{BK} as well as \cit
{JIIP12,KBKSNF,IEEE}.
Consider the Laplace transform of the function $u$,
\begin{equation}
w(x,s)=\int\limits_{0}^{\infty }u(x,t)e^{-st}dt,\text{ for }s>\underline{s
=const.>0. \label{5.5}
\end{equation
We assume that the number $\underline{s}$ is sufficiently large, so that the
integral (\ref{5.5}) converges absolutely and that the same is valid for the
derivatives $D^{k}u,k=0,1,2$. We call the parameter $s$ \emph{pseudo
frequency}. It can be proven that
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta w-s^{2}c\left( x\right) w &=&-\delta \left( x-x_{0}\right) ,\text{
x\in \mathbb{R}^{3}, \label{5.6} \\
\lim_{\left\vert x\right\vert \rightarrow \infty }w\left( x,s\right) &=&0.
\label{5.7}
\end{eqnarray
Furthermore, for each value of $s>0$ the problem (\ref{5.6}), (\ref{5.7})
has unique solution of the form \cite{BK,JIIP12
\begin{equation}
w\left( x,s\right) =\frac{\exp \left( -s\left\vert x-x_{0}\right\vert
\right) }{4\pi \left\vert x-x_{0}\right\vert }+\overline{w}\left( x,s\right)
,\overline{w}\in C^{2+\alpha }\left( \mathbb{R}^{3}\right) ,\lim_{\left\vert
x\right\vert \rightarrow \infty }\overline{w}\left( x,s\right) =0.
\label{5.71}
\end{equation
Suppose that geodesic lines generated by the function $c\left( x\right) $
are regular and $c\left( x\right) $ is sufficiently smooth. Let $\tau \left(
x,x_{0}\right) $ be the length of the geodesic line connecting points $x$
and $x_{0}.$ Then
\begin{equation}
\left\vert D_{s}^{k}w(x,s)\right\vert _{2+\alpha }=\left\vert
D_{s}^{k}\left\{ \frac{\exp \left[ -s\tau \left( x,x_{0}\right) \right] }
f\left( x,x_{0}\right) }\right\} \right\vert _{2+\alpha }\left[ 1+O\left(
\frac{1}{s}\right) \right] ,s\rightarrow \infty ,k=0,1, \label{5.8}
\end{equation
where $\left\vert \cdot \right\vert _{2+\alpha }=\left\Vert \cdot
\right\Vert _{C^{2+\alpha }\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) }$, $f\left(
x,x_{0}\right) $ is a certain function and $f\left( x,x_{0}\right) \neq 0$
for $x\in \overline{\Omega }.$ It is unclear how to effectively verify the
regularity of geodesic lines for generic functions $c\left( x\right) $.
Therefore, we assume below the asymptotic behavior (\ref{5.8}) without
linking it to the regularity of geodesic lines.
We have $w(x,s)>0$ \cite{BK,JIIP12}. Denote
\begin{equation*}
v\left( x,s\right) :=\frac{\ln w\left( x,s\right) }{s^{2}}.
\end{equation*
Since the source $x_{0}\notin \overline{\Omega }$, then
\begin{equation}
\Delta v+s^{2}\left( \nabla v\right) ^{2}=c(x),x\in \Omega . \label{5.10}
\end{equation
Now we make the same step as the first step of BK. Differentiate both sides
of (\ref{5.10}) with respect to $s.$ Let $q\left( x,s\right) =\partial
_{s}v\left( x,s\right) .$ Then
\begin{eqnarray}
v\left( x,s\right) &=&-\int\limits_{s}^{\overline{s}}q\left( x,\tau \right)
d\tau +V\left( x,\overline{s}\right) , \label{5.11} \\
V\left( x,\overline{s}\right) &=&v\left( x,\overline{s}\right) =\frac{\ln
w\left( x,\overline{s}\right) }{\overline{s}^{2}}. \label{5.12}
\end{eqnarray
Here the truncation pseudo frequency $\overline{s}>\underline{s}$ is a large
number. We call $V\left( x,\overline{s}\right) $ the \emph{tail function}.\
The tail function is unknown. By (\ref{5.8})
\begin{equation}
\left\vert V\left( x,\overline{s}\right) \right\vert _{2+\alpha }=O\left(
\overline{s}^{-1}\right) ,\text{ }\left\vert \partial _{\overline{s}}V\left(
x,\overline{s}\right) \right\vert _{2+\alpha }=O\left( \overline{s
^{-2}\right) ,\overline{s}\rightarrow \infty . \label{5.13}
\end{equation
The number $\overline{s}$ is the main regularization parameter of our
numerical method. In the computational practice $\overline{s}$ is chosen in
numerical experiments\textbf{. }
Thus, we obtain from (\ref{5.10}), (\ref{5.11}) the following nonlinear
integral differential equation
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
& \Delta q-2s^{2}\nabla q\int\limits_{s}^{\overline{s}}\nabla q\left( x,\tau
\right) d\tau +2s\left[ \int\limits_{s}^{\overline{s}}\nabla q\left( x,\tau
\right) d\tau \right] ^{2} \\
& +2s^{2}\nabla q\nabla V-4s\nabla V\int\limits_{s}^{\overline{s}}\nabla
q\left( x,\tau \right) d\tau +2s\left( \nabla V\right) ^{2}=0,x\in \Omega .
\end{split}
\label{5.14}
\end{equation
It follows from (\ref{5.4}) that
\begin{equation}
q\left( x,s\right) =\psi \left( x,s\right) ,\text{ }\forall \left(
x,s\right) \in \partial \Omega \times \left[ \underline{s},\overline{s
\right] , \label{5.15}
\end{equation
where $\psi \left( x,s\right) =s^{-2}\partial _{s}\ln \varphi -2s^{-3}\ln
\varphi $ and $\varphi \left( x,s\right) $ is the Laplace transform (\re
{5.5}) of the function $g\left( x,t\right) $ in (\ref{5.4}). We have two
unknown functions $q$ and $V$ in equation (\ref{5.14}). Therefore, to
approximate both of them, we approximate the function $q$ via
\textquotedblleft inner" iterations and the function $V$ is approximated via
\textquotedblleft outer" iterations. Suppose for a moment that functions $q$
and $V$ are approximated in $\Omega $ together with their derivatives
D_{x}^{\beta }q,D_{x}^{\beta }V,\left\vert \beta \right\vert \leq 2.$ Then
the corresponding approximation for the target coefficient can be found via
\ref{5.10}) as
\begin{equation}
c\left( x\right) =\Delta v+\underline{s}^{2}\left( \nabla v\right) ^{2},x\in
\Omega , \label{5.16}
\end{equation
where the function $v$ is approximated via (\ref{5.11}). We have found in
our numerical experiments that the optimal value of $s$ to use in (\ref{5.16
) is $s:=\underline{s}.$
To solve the problem (\ref{5.14}), (\ref{5.15}), we assume that $q\left(
x,s\right) $ is a piecewise constant function with respect $s.$ Hence, we
assume that there exists a partition $\underline{s
=s_{N}<s_{N-1}<...<s_{1}<s_{0}=\overline{s},s_{i-1}-s_{i}=h$ of the interval
$\left[ \underline{s},\overline{s}\right] $ with a sufficiently small grid
step size $h$ such that
\begin{equation*}
q\left( x,s\right) =q_{n}\left( x\right) \text{ for }s\in
(s_{n},s_{n-1}],q_{0}\equiv 0.
\end{equation*
We approximate the boundary condition (\ref{5.15}) as a piecewise constant
function, $q_{n}\left( x\right) :=\overline{\psi }_{n}\left( x\right) ,x\in
\partial \Omega ,$ where $\overline{\psi }_{n}\left( x\right) $ is the
average of the function $\psi \left( x,s\right) $ over the interval $\left(
s_{n},s_{n-1}\right) .$ Next, a certain system of elliptic equations for
functions $q_{n}\left( x\right) $ is derived from (\ref{5.14}) using the $s-
dependent so-called \textquotedblleft Carleman Weight Function" $\exp \left[
\lambda \left( s-s_{n-1}\right) \right] ,s\in \left( s_{n},s_{n-1}\right) ,$
where $\lambda >>1,\lambda h>1.$ Usually we use $\lambda =50$ in our
computations.
We solve elliptic Dirichlet boundary value problems for functions
q_{n}\left( x\right) $ sequentially, starting from $q_{1}\left( x\right) .$
An important new element of both Section 2.9 of the book \cite{BK} and the
paper \cite{JIIP12} is the choice of the first tail function $V_{1,1}\left(
x\right) ,$ see this section below. Having $V_{1,1}\left( x\right) ,$ we
solve the Dirichlet boundary value problem for the function $q_{1,1}\left(
x\right) .$\ Next, using (\ref{5.11}) with $V:=V_{1,1}$ and substituting it
in (\ref{5.10}), we find the first approximation $c_{1,1}\left( x\right) $
for our target coefficient $c\left( x\right) .$ This is the inner iteration,
i.e. when we work only inside of the domain $\Omega $. To perform the outer
iteration in the entire space $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, we solve the forward problem
(\ref{5.1}), (\ref{5.2}) with $c:=c_{1,1},$ calculate the Laplace transform
\ref{5.5}) at $s:=\overline{s}$ and then obtain an update $V_{1,2}\left(
x\right) $ for the tail function, using (\ref{5.12}). We repeat this
procedure $m$ times until stabilization occurs, thus getting functions
q_{1,i},c_{1,i},V_{1,i},i\in \left[ 1,m\right] .$ The number $m$ is found in
numerical experiments. Next, we set
q_{1}:=q_{1,m},c_{1}:=c_{1,m},V_{2,1}:=V_{1,m}$ \ and repeat the same for
functions $q_{2,i},c_{2,i},V_{2,i},i\in \left[ 1,m\right] .$ Similarly for
functions $q_{n,i},c_{n,i},V_{n,i},i\in \left[ 1,m\right] ,n\in \left[ 1,
\right] .$
We now describe how do we find the first tail function $V_{1,1}\left(
x\right) .$ Again following the Tikhonov concept \cite{BKok,BK,EHN,Kab,T},
we assume that there exists unique exact solution $c^{\ast }\left( x\right) $
of our MCIP with the noiseless data $g^{\ast }\left( x,t\right) $ (\ref{5.4
). We assume that the function $c^{\ast }\left( x\right) $ satisfies
condition (\ref{5.0}). Let $w^{\ast }\left( x,s\right) $ be the solution of
the problem (\ref{5.6})-(\ref{5.7}) satisfying (\ref{5.71}). Using (\re
{5.12}), we define the exact tail $V^{\ast }\left( x,s\right) $ for $s\geq
\overline{s}$ a
\begin{equation*}
V^{\ast }\left( x,s\right) =\frac{\ln w^{\ast }\left( x,s\right) }{s^{2}
,\forall s\geq \overline{s}.
\end{equation*
Assuming that the asymptotic behavior (\ref{5.8}) holds and using (\ref{5.13
), we obtai
\begin{equation}
V^{\ast }\left( x,s\right) =\frac{p^{\ast }\left( x\right) }{s}+O\left(
\frac{1}{s^{2}}\right) ,s\rightarrow \infty ,x\in \overline{\Omega }.
\label{5.300}
\end{equation
for a certain function $p^{\ast }\left( x\right) .$ We truncate the second
term of this asymptotic behavior. Thus, our\textbf{\ }approximate
mathematical model consists of the following assumption.
\textbf{Assumption 6.1. }There exists a function $p^{\ast }\left( x\right)
\in C^{2+\alpha }\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) $ such that the exact tail
function $V^{\ast }\left( x,s\right) $ has the form
\begin{equation}
V^{\ast }\left( x,s\right) :=\frac{p^{\ast }\left( x\right) }{s},\text{
\forall s\geq \overline{s}.\text{ } \label{5.35}
\end{equation
In addition,
\begin{equation}
\frac{p^{\ast }\left( x\right) }{s}=\frac{\ln w^{\ast }\left( x,s\right) }
s^{2}},\text{ }\forall s\geq \overline{s}. \label{5.351}
\end{equation}
Since $q^{\ast }\left( x,s\right) =\partial _{s}V^{\ast }\left( x,s\right) $
for $s\geq \overline{s},$ we derive from (\ref{5.35}) that
\begin{equation}
q^{\ast }\left( x,\overline{s}\right) =-\frac{p^{\ast }\left( x\right) }
\overline{s}^{2}}\text{.} \label{5.36}
\end{equation
Set in (\ref{5.14}) $q:=q^{\ast },V:=V^{\ast },s=\overline{s}$ and use (\re
{5.35}) and (\ref{5.36}). Then we obtain the following Dirichlet boundary
value problem for the function $p^{\ast }\left( x\right) $
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta p^{\ast } &=&0\text{ in }\Omega ,\text{ }p^{\ast }\in C^{2+\alpha
}\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) , \label{5.37} \\
p^{\ast }|_{\partial \Omega } &=&-\overline{s}^{2}\psi ^{\ast }\left( x
\overline{s}\right) , \label{5.38}
\end{eqnarray
where $\psi ^{\ast }\left( x,s\right) $ is the exact function $\psi \left(
x,s\right) ,$ which corresponds to the function $g^{\ast }\left( x,t\right)
. $ The approximate equation (\ref{5.37}) is valid only within the framework
of Assumption 6.1. Although this equation is linear, formula (\ref{5.16})
for the reconstruction of the target coefficient $c^{\ast }$ is nonlinear.
Assuming that the function $\psi \left( x,\overline{s}\right) \in
C^{2+\alpha }\left( \partial \Omega \right) ,$ consider the solution
p\left( x\right) $ of the following boundary value problem
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta p &=&0\text{ in }\Omega ,\text{ }p\in C^{2+\alpha }\left( \overline
\Omega }\right) , \label{5.40} \\
p|_{\partial \Omega } &=&-\overline{s}^{2}\psi \left( x,\overline{s}\right) .
\label{5.41}
\end{eqnarray
We choose the first tail function as
\begin{equation}
V_{1,1}\left( x\right) :=\frac{p\left( x\right) }{\overline{s}}.
\label{5.43}
\end{equation
By the Schauder theorem there exists unique solution $p$ of the problem (\re
{5.40}), (\ref{5.41}), see the book of Ladyzhenskaya and Uralceva \cite{LU}
for Schauder theorem.\ Furthermore, it follows from Schauder theorem as well
as from (\ref{5.37})-(\ref{5.43}) that with a number $M=M\left( \Omega
\right) >0$ the following estimate holds
\begin{equation}
\left\vert \nabla V_{1,1}-\nabla V^{\ast }\right\vert _{1+\alpha }\leq
\overline{s}\left\Vert \psi \left( x,\overline{s}\right) -\psi ^{\ast
}\left( x,\overline{s}\right) \right\Vert _{C^{2+\alpha }\left( \partial
\Omega \right) }. \label{5.42}
\end{equation}
Therefore, our main approximations are (\ref{5.35}) and (\ref{5.351}).\emph
\ }These approximations mean the truncation of the term $O\left(
s^{-2}\right) $ in (\ref{5.300}). The goal of (\ref{5.35}) and (\ref{5.36})
is to obtain the accuracy estimate (\ref{5.42}) for the first tail. We point
out that these approximations are done only on the first iteration of our
method. It follows from (\ref{5.42}) that we obtain an approximation located
in a small neighborhood of the exact solution already on the first iteration
of our method, as long as the error in the boundary data $\psi ^{\ast
}\left( x,\overline{s}\right) $ is small.\ Convergence theorem 2.9.4 of \cit
{BK} and theorem 5.1 of \cite{JIIP12} guarantee that all other solutions
obtained in the iterative process also provide good approximations, as long
as the number of iterations is not too large. This means that we should
develop a stopping criterion numerically. The latter was done in above cited
publications about this method.
Recall that the main point\emph{\ }of any locally convergent numerical
method is to get a good first guess about the solution. And this is exactly
what our approximately globally convergent method delivers. Hence, we can
apply the second stage of our two-stage numerical procedure to refine the
solution \cite{AB,BK,BK2,BK3,BK4,BKK,BK20}. More precisely, a locally
convergent Adaptive Finite Element Method (adaptivity) was applied. A good
numerical performance of this two-stage numerical procedure was demonstrated
in \cite{AB,BK,BK2,BK3,BK4,BKK,BK20}, including the most challenging case of
experimental data \cite{BK,BK4,BK20}. The adaptivity takes the solution
obtained on the globally convergent stage as the first guess for further
iterations. Suppose now that iterations of the first stage are stopped prior
that stopping criterion is in place. Then the adaptivity still refines the
solution quite well. For example, in Tests 2 and 3 on page 278 of \cite{BK}
adaptivity has started from functions $c_{n,i}\left( x\right) $ for those $n$
which were smaller than the number $\overline{N}$ where the stopping
criterion was achieved.\ Nevertheless, images of these tests were quite
accurate ones. Furthermore, this two-stage numerical procedure led to
accurate images from experimental data, see \cite{BK4}\ and Chapter 5 of
\cite{BK}. As to some other works on the adaptivity technique, see, e.g.
Beilina \cite{Beil1,Beil2} and Li, Xie and Zou \cite{Li}.
\subsection{Published non-local numerical methods for MCIPs}
\label{sec:6.2}
In parallel with the above approximately globally convergent method, another
one was developed by the group of researchers from University of Texas at
Arlington in collaboration with the author, see Klibanov, Su, Pantong, Shan
and Liu \cite{bib18}, Pantong, Su, Shan, Klibanov and Liu \cite{bib22},
Shan, Klibanov, Su, Pantong and Liu \cite{bib23}, Su, Shan, Liu and Klibanov
\cite{bib24} and Su, Klibanov, Liu, Lin, Pantong and Liu \cite{KSu2}. A
globally accelerated numerical method for optical tomography with continuous
wave source In this case the 2d MCIP for the elliptic equatio
\begin{equation}
\Delta u-a\left( x\right) u=-\delta \left( x-x_{0}\right) ,x\in \mathbb{R
^{2},\lim_{\left\vert x\right\vert \rightarrow \infty }u\left(
x,x_{0}\right) =0 \label{5.50}
\end{equation
was considered. Let $\Gamma \subset \left( \mathbb{R}^{2}\diagdown \Omega
\right) $ be a straight line. The MCIP consists in the determination of the
unknown coefficient $a\left( x\right) $ for $x\in \Omega $ in (\ref{5.50})
from the function $\varphi \left( x,x_{0}\right) =u\left( x,x_{0}\right)
\mid _{x\in \partial \Omega ,x_{0}\in \Gamma }.$ This is the problem of the
so-called Optical Diffusion Tomography with a direct application in optical
imaging of strokes in brains. In this case $x_{0}$ is the position of the
light source, $u\left( x,x_{0}\right) $ is the light intensity and the
function $a\left( x\right) $ is proportional to the absorption coefficient
of light. The most important difference between this problem and the one
discussed in Section 6.1 is that the asymptotic behavior of tails like the
one in (\ref{5.13}) is not the case here. Thus, tails are treated quite
differently in \cite{bib18,bib22,bib23,bib24,KSu2}. In \cite{KSu2} accurate
images from experimental data for a phantom medium were obtained.
In works of Bikowski, Knudsen and Mueller \cite{Bik}, DeAngelo and Mueller
\cite{Dean}, Hamilton, Herrera, Mueller and Von Herrmann \cite{Hamilton} and
Siltanen, Mueller and Isaacson \cite{Silt} non-local reconstruction
techniques are considered for the 2D problem of Electrical\ Impedance
Tomography. In particular, images from experimental data were obtained in
\cite{Dean}. In papers of Alexeenko, Burov and Rumyantseva \cite{Alex},
Burov, Morozov and Rumyantseva \cite{BMR} and Burov, Alekseenko and
Rumyantsevat \cite{BAR} the non-local reconstruction method of Novikov \cit
{Nov1,Nov2,Nov3,Nov4} for the MCIP for an elliptic PDE with the data given
in the form of the scattering amplitude is implemented. A non-local
numerical method for a 2d MCIP for a hyperbolic PDE was developed by
Kabanikhin and Shishlenin in \cite{KabS1,KabS2}. It is based on a 2d analog
of the Gel'fand-Levitan-Krein equation. Just as the technique of \cite{BK},
algorithms of \cite{Alex,BMR,KabS1,KabS2} also use some reasonable
approximate mathematical models, which are not rigorously justified.
\begin{center}
\textbf{Acknowledgments}
\end{center}
This work was supported by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and U.S. Army
Research Office under the grant number W911NF-11-1-0399 and by the National
Institutes of Health grant number 1R21NS052850-01A1.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Hadrons are composite objects of quark and gluons governed by quantum chromodynamics, QCD. So far hundreds of hadrons have been experimentally observed in spite of only the five (or six) fundamental pieces, up, down, strange, charm, bottom (and top) quarks. The richness of hadron spectrum is a consequence of highly nontrivial dynamics of quarks and gluons confined in hadron. Precise measurement of hadron spectrum is one of the phenomenological ways to view colored dynamics of quarks and gluons inside hadron, and gives us clues of the confinement mechanism. Especially the systematics of energy excitation is a key issue to understand the hadron structure.
A conventional picture of hadron is the quark model, in which one considers constituent quarks as quasi-particles moving in a one-body mean field created by gluon dynamics, and symmetry of the quasi-particles and (weak) residual interaction characterize the hadron structure. Although quark models work well for lowest-lying states, there are a lot of states found which do not match quark model predictions, which are so-called exotic hadrons, and quark models should incorporate hadron dynamics once strong decay channels open. It has been realized that quark models do not give us the universal picture of the hadron structure, and that the constituent quark alone cannot be an effective degree of freedom in hadron. These facts brings us the idea to consider other effective constituents, such as diquark correlation, multiquark component and hadronic composite, which will be the origin of richness of hadron spectrum.
\section{Hadronic composite states}
\label{sec:1}
Hadron composite state can be one of the existence forms of hadron. Its constituents are hadrons governed by hadronic dynamics not inter-quark colored force. Consequently the spacial size is much larger than the typical hadron size which is characterized by the confining force. The typical examples are atomic nuclei which are bound states of nucleons. Mesons also can be constituents of the hadron composite states. Because of no number conservation of mesons, the composite state with mesons has transition modes to lighter mesons, mostly pions, and absorptive decay modes. Therefore, most of hadronic composite states are unstable bound states with decay modes.
Hadron composite state can be a new sample to investigate the confinement mechanism. Most of hadron flavors can be explained by a quark-anitquark pair $\bar qq$ and three quarks $qqq$. So far, very few flavor exotic hadrons have been observed. This is an important question to be solved in hadron physics.
A clue is multiquark state.
Multiquark state always has color singlet clusters. Thus, there is competition between colorful hadron {\it constituent force} inside confinement range and colorless hadron {\it interaction force} in a larger ragne than the typical hadron size. For instance, the $H$-dibaryon composed by $uuddss$ can have a colored three diquark configuration $([ud][ds][su])$ governed by short range color interaction and a colorless two baryon configuration $([\Lambda\Lambda]$ and/or $[\Xi N])$ governed by longer range hadronic interaction. The real state can be a mixture of these configuration. Nevertheless, since the former configuration should be a compact object, while the latter can be a larger object, there is a (small) scale gap between two configurations. These two have also different systematics in excitation modes and flavor symmetry. Thus, it would be very interesting if one could know which systematics is realized in each hadron.
\section{The $\Lambda(1405)$ resonance}
\label{sec:2}
$\Lambda(1405)$ is a baryon resonance with isospin $I=0$ and strangeness $S=-1$ sitting between the $\bar KN$ (1435 MeV) and $\pi\Sigma$ (1331 MeV) thresholds with mass around 1405 MeV and 50 MeV decay width to $\pi\Sigma$. The flavor of $\Lambda(1405)$ can be expressed by the minimal quark contents of $uds$, however, simple quark models have failed to reproduce the $\Lambda(1405)$ mass.
$\Lambda(1405)$ is a historical example of the hadronic composite state. $\Lambda(1405)$ has been considered as a quasibound state of $\bar KN$~\cite{Dalitz:1959dn,Dalitz:1960du}, even before QCD was established. In general, the physically observed state should be given as a mixture of the hadronic composite and quark model type components, it is important to examine the dominant components of hadron resonance states to understand their structure and dynamics, and it would be interesting if one could know the fraction of the components.
For the theoretical description of $\Lambda(1405)$, one needs dynamical study of coupled channels including at least $\bar KN$ and $\pi\Sigma$, because the $\Lambda(1405)$ resonance is located in the 100 MeV window of the $\bar KN$ and $\pi\Sigma$ thresholds. Flavor SU(3) complete treatment of coupled channels, by including $\pi \Sigma$, $\bar KN$, $\pi\Lambda$, $\eta \Lambda$, $\eta \Sigma$ and $K \Xi$, was already done using phenomenological vector-meson exchange potential in Ref.~\cite{Dalitz:1967fp}. Coupled channels calculation of $\pi\Sigma$ and $\bar KN$ based on the cloudy bag model was done in Ref.~\cite{Veit:1984jr}\footnote{In this model, a bare pole term for the $\Lambda(1405)$ resonance was explicitly introduced around 1650 MeV.}. The modern approach based on chiral dynamics and unitary coupled channels was initiated by Ref.~\cite{Kaiser:1995eg}, and the $\Lambda(1405)$ resonance is well described as well as the $K^{-}p$ threshold properties and $K^{-}p$ scatterings. (See Ref.~\cite{Hyodo:2011ur} as a recent review article and Ref.~\cite{Ikeda:2011pi,Ikeda:2012au} for a very recent update including the new SIDDHARTA measurement~\cite{Bazzi:2011zj}.)
One of the most important consequences of the coupled channels approach based on chiral dynamics is that the $\Lambda(1405)$ resonance is a superposition of two states~
\cite{Oller:2000fj,Jido:2003cb}. These two states have different properties~\cite{Jido:2003cb}: one of the states is located at 1426 MeV with a 32 MeV width and couples dominantly to $\bar KN$, while the other is at 1390 MeV with a broader width and couples strongly to $\pi\Sigma$. All of the recent calculations based on chiral interaction suggest the two pole structure of $\Lambda(1405)$ although the pole positions are model dependent slightly. The reason that there are two states around the $\Lambda(1405)$ energy region is that the chiral interaction indicates two attractions with $I=0$ in the flavor SU(3) singlet and octet channels group-theoretically~\cite{Jido:2003cb} or in the $\bar KN$ and $\pi\Sigma$ channels physically~\cite{Hyodo:2007jq}. The latter fact implies that the $\Lambda(1405)$ is essentially described by two dynamical channels of $\bar KN$ and $\pi\Sigma$, and that the higher state is a $\bar KN$ quasibound state decaying to $\pi\Sigma$ and the lower is a $\pi\Sigma$ resonant state~\cite{Hyodo:2007jq}. As a consequence of the double pole nature, the $\Lambda(1405)$ spectrum depends on the initial channel~\cite{Jido:2003cb}. Thus, observing that the $\Lambda(1405)$ spectrum in the $\bar KN \to \pi\Sigma$ channel is different from that in $\pi\Sigma \to \pi\Sigma$, one can confirm that $\Lambda(1405)$ is a dynamical object of $\bar KN$ and $\pi\Sigma$. For this purpose, since $\Lambda(1405)$ is located below the threshold of $\bar KN$, one needs indirect production of $\Lambda(1405)$ from $\bar KN$. It has been found in Refs.~\cite{Jido:2009jf,Jido:2010rx} that in the $K^{-}d \to \Lambda(1405) n$ reaction $\Lambda(1405)$ is selectively produced by $\bar KN$, thus this reaction is one of the suitable reactions to investigate the nature of $\Lambda(1405)$. An experiment of this reaction at J-PARC is proposed~\cite{Noumi} observing neutrons in the forward direction.
\section{Compositeness of hadron}
Compositeness of hadron had been discussed before QCD was established in order to find fundamental or elementary hadrons. But this trial was certainly failed, since all of the hadrons are composite objects of quarks and gluons. Here we discuss the compositeness of hadron resonances in terms of quark originated state and hadronic composite state. To discuss the compositeness of the hadron resonances, first of all, we need to define elementary hadrons. The elementary hadrons may be the ground state hadrons stable against strong interactions, or one may take hadrons which survive in the large $N_{c}$ limit. Once one defines the elementary hadrons, one can discuss the compositeness of hadron quantitatively. The elementary components are expressed in the free Hamiltonian $H_{0}$ and the composite states are dynamically generated as a consequence of the interaction of the elementary components $V$ out of the full Hamiltonian of the system $H=H_{0}+V$. The compositeness index can be written as $1-Z$ where $Z = \sum_{n} | \langle n | d \rangle |^{2}$ with the eigenstates $|n\rangle $ of $H_{0}$ and the dynamically generated state $|d \rangle$ as an eigenstate of $H$~\cite{Weinberg:1965aa}. This definition of the compositeness can be extended in field theory by introduction the Lagrangian of the system as $L=L_{0}+L_{\rm int}$ in which $L_{0}$ is the free Lagrangian of the elementary component and $L_{\rm int}$ represents their interaction. The field renormalization constant $Z$ is shown in a reside of the full propagator $\Delta$ satisfying Dyson equation at the pole position, of which normalization is given by the free propagator $\Delta_{0}(E) = 1/(E-M_{0})$ with the bare mass $M_{0}$~\cite{PhysRev.136.B816}. An application for chiral dynamics is discussed in Ref.~\cite{Hyodo:2011qc}. For the resonance state, the compositeness index can be a complex number. Thus, one needs its appropriate interpretation, which is an open issue yet.
Here we would like to discuss the compositeness of $\Lambda(1405)$ in a different way within the chiral unitary approach~\cite{Hyodo:2008xr}. In the chiral unitary approach, one solves Lippmann-Schwinger equation $T=V+VGT$, in which $V$ is the interaction kernel, while $G$ is the loop function which guarantees unitarity and specifies the model space. Thus, in the chiral unitary approach, the elementary components are given in the loop function. In the present case for $\Lambda(1405)$, they are the lowest lying octet baryons and mesons. The interactions among the elementary components are given by the chiral effective theory. In the context of the discussion of compositeness, one has to take care of the interaction kernel, since in the interaction kernel sources of the resonances can be hidden. It is well-known that the $s$-channel resonance contributions are involved in the contact interactions of the elementary component~\cite{Ecker:1988te}. Nevertheless, the Weinberg-Tomozawa interaction may be free from the $s$-wave resonance contributions since it comes from the $t$-channel vector meson exchange. For the discussion of the compositeness of the resonance, let us take only the Weinberg-Tomozawa interaction as the interaction kernel. Since the Weinberg-Tomozawa interaction is a short range contact force, one needs to regularize the loop integral. In the regularization procedure, one fixes high-momentum behavior which is not controlled in the present model space. Therefore, even though one takes only hadronic interaction in interaction kernel, some contributions coming from outside of the model space can be hidden in the regularization parameters~\cite{Hyodo:2008xr}. In the chiral unitary model, this parameter is fixed phenomenologically so as to reproduce observed scattering cross section. Thus, if necessary, nature will request the components which come from the outside of the model space, namely, quark originated component.
We have a choice of the parameter in which the hidden contribution can be excluded from formulation by theoretical requirement on the renormalization constant (natural renormalization scheme)~\cite{Hyodo:2008xr}.
If resonances can be reproduced by the chiral unitary approach with
the Weinberg-Tomozawa interaction in the natural renormalization scheme,
the resonances can be regarded as composite objects of meson and baryon
constituents. In Ref.~\cite{Hyodo:2008xr} it has been found that the pole positions
of $\Lambda(1405)$ is well reproduced by the natural renormalization scheme,
while $N(1535)$ is not. This suggests that $\Lambda(1405)$ is mostly a composite
state of the ground state mesons and baryons. In contrast, for $N(1535)$ one needs
some components other than hadronic composites, such as quark originated states.
This twofold character of $N(1535)$, meson cloud and valense quark,
can be seen also in the transition form factors of $\gamma^{*} N \to N(1535)$
(helicity amplitudes)~\cite{Ramalho:2012im}.
In Ref.~\cite{Ramalho:2012im}, the $N(1535)$ transition form factors obtained
by two different approaches, the chiral unitary approach~\cite{Jido:2007sm} and
the spectator quark model~\cite{Ramalho:2011ae,Ramalho:2011fa}, are compared.
The quark model calculation of the transition form factors tells that the $F^{*}_{1}$
form factor is produced well, while the $F^{*}_{2}$ amplitude is overestimated
in higher $Q^{2}$, where the quark model may be applicable. It is very interesting
that the meson cloud components calculated by the chiral unitary model compensates
the disagreement of the quark model calculation as seen Fig.~\ref{fig:FF}.
In the chiral unitary approach, one can calculate the diagonal component of the electromagnetic form factor, and in Ref.~\cite{Sekihara:2010uz} the first moment
of the $\Lambda(1405)$ form factor, which corresponds to the spatial radius if
the particle is stable, and it has been found that $\Lambda(1405)$ has a
substantially large size compared to the typical hadron. The ``radius''
of unstable particles are obtained as a complex number and its interpretation
should be done carefully.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth,bb=0 0 1003 345]{FFS11_h.pdf}
\caption{Transition form factors of $\gamma^{*} p \to N(1535)$ calculated by the chiral unitary model (meson cloud)~\cite{Jido:2007sm} and spectator quark model (valence quark)~\cite{Ramalho:2011ae,Ramalho:2011fa}. The plots are taken from Ref. ~\cite{Ramalho:2012im}.}
\label{fig:FF}
\end{figure}
\section{Kaonic few-body systems}
\begin{wrapfigure}[10]{r}{0.45\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,bb=0 0 794 340]{family.pdf}
\caption{Family of kaonic few-body states. \label{fig:family} }
\end{wrapfigure}
Let us consider hadronic composite states with kaon and nucleon constituents
as an extension of the $\Lambda(1405)$ resonance of a quasibound state
of $\bar KN$.
For hadronic composite states, pion has a too light mass to form bound states
with other hadrons by hadronic interaction, since the pion kinetic energy in
a hadronic composite system
overcomes attractive potential energy.
In contrast, kaon has a unique feature in hadronic composite state.
The mass of kaon is so moderately heavy
that kaon kinetic energy in hadronic bound systems can be smaller.
In kaonic few-body systems, hadronic molecular states are unavoidably resonances
decaying into pionic channels.
The interaction of kaon as a Nambu-Goldstone boson is described well chiral effective theory.
It suggests that
$s$-wave interactions in the $\bar KN$ and $\bar KK$ channels are attractive
enough to form two-body quasibound states.
The Tomozawa-Weinberg interaction is a driving force
of the hadronic molecular system. It is very interesting that the strength of the
Tomozawa-Weinberg interaction is fixed by SU(3) flavor symmetry and
$K$ and $N$ are classified into the same state vector in the SU(3)
octet representation. Therefore,
considering also that $K$ and $N$ are a similar mass, one finds that
the fundamental
interactions in $s$-wave are very similar in the $\bar KK$ and $\bar KN$ channel.
Consequently these channels with $I=0$ have quasibound states of
$\bar KK$ and $\bar KN$ with a dozen MeV binding energy.
This similarity between $K$ and $N$ is responsible for systematics of three-body
kaonic systems, $\bar KNN$, $\bar KKN$, $\bar K \bar K N$ and $\bar KKK$, as shown
Fig.~\ref{fig:family}. Further few-body systems with kaons and nucleons have been studied, for instance, in $\bar KNNN$ and $\bar K \bar K NN$ systems~\cite{Akaishi:2002bg,Barnea:2012qa}.
The $\bar KKN$ and $\bar K \bar KN$ states with $I=1/2$ and $J^{p}=1/2^{+}$,
which are $N^{*}$ and $\Xi^{*}$ resonances, respectively, were studied
first in Refs.~\cite{Jido:2008kp,KanadaEnyo:2008wm}
with a single-channel non-relativistic potential model. The $\bar KKN$
system was found to be bound with 20 MeV binding
energy~\cite{Jido:2008kp}, and later was investigated in a more
sophisticate calculation~\cite{MartinezTorres:2008kh,MartinezTorres:2010zv}
based on a coupled-channels Faddeev method developed in
Refs.~\cite{MartinezTorres:2007sr},
in which a very similar state to one obtained in the potential model was found.
It was found also in a fixed center approximation
of three-body Faddeev calculation~\cite{Xie:2010ig}. The $\bar KKN$ state is
essentially described by a coexistence of $K \Lambda(1405)$ and
$f_{0}(980)N$~\cite{Jido:2008kp}. An experimental search for $\bar KKN$
was discussed in Ref.~\cite{MartinezTorres:2009cw}.
The $\bar KKK$ state with $I=1/2$ and $J^{p}= 0^{-}$, being an excited state of kaon,
was studied in a two-body $f_{0}K$ and $a_{0}K$ dynamics~\cite{Albaladejo:2010tj},
in the three-body Faddeev calculation~\cite{Torres:2011jt} and in the non-relativistic
potential model~\cite{Torres:2011jt}. The three-body Faddeev calculation was done
in coupled-channels of $\bar K KK$, $K \pi\pi$ and $K\pi\eta$ and a resonance
state was found at 1420 MeV, while the potential model suggested a quasi bound
state with a binding energy 20 MeV. This state is essentially described by
the $\bar KKK$ single channel and its configuration is found to be mostly $f_{0}K$.
Experimentally, Particle Data Group tells that there is a excited kaon around 1460
MeV observed in $K\pi\pi$ partial-wave analysis, although it is omitted
from the summary table.
In the potential model calculations of the $\bar KKN$ and $\bar KKK$ states,
it was found that the root mean-squared radii of these systems are as
large as 1.7 fm, which are similar with the radius of $^{4}$He.
The inter-hadron distances are comparable with an average
nucleon-nucleon distance in nuclei. It was also found that the two-body
subsystems inside the three-body bound state keep their properties in
isolated two-body systems. These features are caused by weakly binding of the
three hadrons.
\section{Conclusion}
There should be hadronic composite states in which hadrons including
mesons are constituents of the state in hadron spectrum as one of the
existence forms of hadrons. These states have spatially larger sizes than the
typical confinement range, because the driving force of the hadronic
composite state is inter-hadron interaction which is out of the confinement
range.
The $\Lambda(1405)$ resonance is one of the strong candidates
of the hadronic composite states. The peculiarity of the $\Lambda(1405)$
resonance is not only being a hadronic composite object but also
being composed of two resonance states. These two states stems
from the presence
of two attractive channels in fundamental meson-baryon interactions.
Eventually the observed $\Lambda(1405)$ resonance is composed by
two pole states.
One of the states is a quasi-bound state of $\bar KN$ located at around
1420 MeV and dominantly couples to the $\bar KN$ channel. Thus, this
is the relevant resonance for the kaon-nucleus interaction.
The double pole structure of $\Lambda(1405)$ can be confirmed experimentally
by observing $K^{-}d \to \Lambda(1405) n$, in which
$\Lambda(1405)$ is produced selectively by the $\bar KN$ channel
and the peak position appears around 1420~MeV.
The idea that $\Lambda(1405)$ is a quasibound state of $\bar KN$
can be extended systematically to further few-body states with kaons
like $\bar KNN$, $\bar KKN$ and $\bar KKK$ having dozens MeV
binding energy.
In these states, a unique role of kaon is responsible for the systematics
of the few-body kaonic states. Kaon has a half mass of nucleon and
a very similar coupling nature to nucleon in the $s$-wave chiral interaction.
This leads to weakly bound systems within the hadronic interaction range.
The hadronic composite state is a concept of weakly binding systems
of hadron constituents. If a resonance state has a large binding energy
measured from the break-up threshold, coupled-channel effects, like
$\pi\Sigma$ against $\bar KN$, and/or shorter range quark dynamics
should be important for the resonance state. In such a case the hadronic
compostite picture is broken down, and one should take into account
coupled channels contributions and quark dynamics.
The hadronic composite configuration is a complemental picture
of hadron structure to constituent quarks, which successfully
describe the structure of the low-lying baryons in a simple way.
Strong diquark configurations inside hadrons can
be effective constituents~\cite{Kim:2011ut},
and mixture of hadronic molecular and quark originated states
is also probable in some hadronic resonances~\cite{Nagahiro:2011jn}.
The hadronic molecular state has a larger
spacial size than the typical low-lying hadrons.
In heavy ion collision, coalescence of hadrons to produce
loosely bound hadronic molecular systems is more probable
than quark coalescence for compact multi-quark
systems~\cite{Cho:2010db,Cho:2011ew}.
Thus, one could extract the structure of hadrons by observing
the production rate in heavy ion collisions.
\begin{acknowledgements}
The author would like to acknowledge his collaborators of this work, T.~Hyodo, A.~Hosaka, A.~Mart\'{i}nez~Toress, Y.~Kanada-En'yo, E.~Oset, T.~Sekihara, J.~Yamagata-Sekihara, J.A.~Oller, A.~Ramos, U.-G.~Meissner, M.~Doring, G.~Ramalho, K.~Tsushima.
This work was partially supported by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No. 24105706), and done in part under the Yukawa International Program for Quark-hadron Sciences (YIPQS).
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
Understanding the phase structure of QCD is one of the major challenges of particle physics \cite{BraunMunzinger:2009zz}. Running and upcoming
high-energy heavy-ion experiments call for a deeper understanding of hadronic matter under extreme conditions. The
central issue is the understanding of the deconfinement phase transition from the confining hadronic phase with
chiral symmetry spontaneously broken to the deconfined quark-gluon plasma with chiral symmetry restored. This transition
is expected to be driven by the gluon dynamics and lattice calculations show that confinement is exclusively determined
by the strongly interacting low-energy gluonic modes \cite{Yamamoto:2009de}. Therefore, understanding the deconfinement phase transition
requires non-perturbative methods. In quenched QCD reliable results on the deconfinement phase transition have been
obtained by means of the lattice approach \cite{Karsch:2001cy}, which, however, fails at large baryon densities due to the notorious
fermion sign problem. Therefore, alternative non-perturbative methods based on the continuum formulation of QCD are
required. In recent years substantial progress has been achieved within continuum approaches to QCD
\cite{Fischer:2008uz,Pawlowski:2010ht,Binosi:2009qm,Feuchter:2004mk}. Among these
is the variational approach to the Hamiltonian formulation of QCD in Coulomb gauge \cite{Feuchter:2004mk,Epple:2006hv}
(see also Refs.~\cite{Schutte:1985sd,Szczepaniak:2001rg} for related
earlier work). In this approach the energy density is minimized using Gaussian type ans\"atze for the Yang--Mills vacuum
wave functional. Within this approach a decent description of the infrared sector of Yang--Mills theory was obtained
\cite{Schleifenbaum:2006bq,CamRei08,Reinhardt:2007wh,Rei08}.
Recently, this approach was extended to finite temperatures by considering the grand canonical ensemble making a
suitable quasi-particle ansatz for the density operator and minimizing the free energy \cite{Reinhardt:2011hq,HefReiCam12}. In this letter we present
an alternative Hamiltonian approach to finite temperature Yang--Mills theory, which does not require an ansatz for
the density operator. The finite-temperature is introduced here by compactifying one spatial dimension.
\section{Order parameter for confinement}
\label{sectionII}
As is well known, Euclidean quantum field theory can be extended to finite temperature $L^{- 1}$ by compactifying the Euclidean
time dimension to an effective length $L$. At temperature $L^{- 1}$ the order parameter for confinement is the expectation value $\langle P [A_0] \rangle$
of the Polyakov loop \cite{Svetitsky:1982gs} ($\cP$ path-odering)
\be
\label{1}
P [A_0] = \frac{1}{N} \tr \cP \e^ { - \int^L_0 \dd x^0 A_0 \lk x^0, \vx \rk} \, .
\ee
This quantity is related to the free energy of a static (infinitely heavy) quark at spatial position $\vx$. In the absence
of fermions Yang--Mills theory is invariant under gauge transformations $U (x^0, \vx) \in \text{SU} (N)$ being periodic up to
a center element $z_k \in \text{Z} (N)$
\be
\label{2}
U (L, \vx) = z_k U (0, \vx) \, .
\ee
Under such a gauge transformation the Polyakov loop transforms as $P [A^U_0] = z_k P [A_0]$ and as a consequence
$\langle P [A_0] \rangle = 0$ in the center symmetric confining phase while $\langle P [A_0] \rangle \neq 0$
in the deconfining phase with center symmetry spontaneously broken. In Polyakov gauge, $\partial_0 A_0 = 0$,
and with $A_0$ residing in the Cartan algebra, in the fundamental modular region $P[A_0]$ is a convex function of $A_0$ and by Jensen's inequality $\langle P [A_0] \rangle \leq P [\langle A_0 \rangle ]$,
instead of $\langle P [A_0] \rangle$, one can alternatively use $P [\langle A_0 \rangle ]$ or $\langle A_0 \rangle$
as order parameter for confinement \cite{Marhauser:2008fz,Braun:2007bx}.
Note however, that by gauge invariance a non-vanishing $\langle A_0 \rangle$ requires the presence of an external background
field $a_0$. Choosing $a_0$ in Polyakov gauge and to satisfy $\langle A_0 \rangle = a_0$ the background field becomes
an order parameter for confinement whose value is determined by the minimum of the effective potential $V \left[
\langle A_0 \rangle = a_0 \right]$.
In Polyakov gauge there are still residual gauge transformations satisfying Eq.~(\ref{2}), which transform $A_0$ to $A^U_0 = A_0 + \mu_k / L$, where $\mu_k$ is a coweight satisfying $\exp (- \mu_k) = z_k$,
and as a consequence of gauge invariance the effective potential of $\langle A_0 \rangle = a_0$ must obey the periodicity
condition
\be
\label{3}
V \left[ a_0 + \mu_k / L \right] = V \left[ a_0 \right] \, .
\ee
This potential was first calculated in Ref.~\cite{Weiss:1980rj} in one-loop perturbation
theory. It was found that $V [a_0]$ is minimal at $a_0 = 0$, so that $\langle P \rangle \simeq P\left[ \langle A_0
\rangle = 0 \right] = 1$ implying that the perturbative theory is in the non-confining phase with center symmetry
broken. This, of course, is the expected behavior at high temperatures, where perturbation theory is reliable. In this letter
we calculate non-perturbativley the effective potential $V [\langle A_0 \rangle]$ in the Hamiltonian approach and
determine from this potential the critical temperature of the deconfinement phase transition.
\section{Finite temperature from compactification of a spatial dimension}
\label{sec3}
Clearly the order parameter $\langle P \rangle \approx P [ \langle A_0 \rangle ]$ or $\langle A_0 \rangle$ is not
directly accessible in Weyl gauge $A_0 = 0$, which is assumed in the canonical quantization. However, by O$(4)$
symmetry, all four Euclidean dimensions are equivalent and instead of compactifying the time, one can equally well
introduce the temperature by compactifying one of the spatial dimension, say the $x_3$-axis, and consider $\langle A_3 \rangle$
as order parameter for confinement.
This can be seen as follows:
Consider Yang-Mills theory at finite temperature $L^{- 1}$, which is defined by the partition function
\be
\label{en-1}
Z (L) = \Tr \e^{- LH (\kvA)} \, .
\ee
Here $H (\vA)$ is the usual Yang-Mills Hamiltonian defined by canonical quantization in Weyl gauge $A^0 = 0$.
The partition function (\ref{en-1}) can be equivalently represented by the Euclidean functional integral, see
for example Ref.~\cite{Reinhardt:1997rm}
\be
\label{en2}
Z (L) = \il_{x^0 - pbc} \prod\limits_\mu \cD A_\mu (x) \, \e^{- S [A]} \, ,
\ee
where
\be
\label{en-3}
S [A] = \il^{L/2}_{- L/2} \dd x^0 \int \dd[3] x \, \cL \lk A^\mu ; x^\mu \rk
\ee
is the Euclidean action and the functional integration is performed over temporally periodic fields
\be
\label{en-190}
A^\mu \lk \frac{L}{2}, \vx \rk = A^\mu \lk - \frac{L}{2}, \vx \rk \, ,
\ee
which is
indicated in Eq.~(\ref{en2}) by the subscript $x^0 - pbc$. This boundary condition is absolutely necessary at finite
$L$ but becomes irrelevant in the zero temperature $(L \to \infty)$ limit.
We perform now the following change of variables
\begin{align}
\label{en-5}
x^0 \to z^3 & \quad \quad A^0 \to C^3 \nonumber\\
x^1 \to z^0 & \quad \quad A^1 \to C^0 \nonumber\\
x^2 \to z^1 & \quad \quad A^2 \to C^1 \nonumber\\
x^3 \to z^2 & \quad \quad A^3 \to C^2 \, .
\end{align}
Due to the $O (4)$ invariance of the Euclidean Lagrangian we have
\be
\label{en-6}
\cL \lk A^\mu, x^\mu \rk = \cL \lk C^\mu, z^\mu \rk
\ee
and the partition function (\ref{en2}) can be rewritten as
\be
\label{en-7}
Z (L) = \il_{z^3 - pbc} \prod_\mu \cD C^\mu (z) \, \e^{- \tilde{S} [C^\mu]} \, ,
\ee
where the action is now given by
\be
\label{en-8}
\tilde{S} [C^\mu] = \int \dd z^0 \dd z^1 \dd z^2 \il^{L/2}_{- L/2} \dd z^3 \cL \lk C^\mu, z^\mu \rk
\ee
and the functional integration runs over fields satisfying periodic boundary condition in the $z^3-$direction
\be
\label{en-9}
C^\mu \lk z^0, z^1, z^2, L/2 \rk = C^\mu \lk z^0, z^1, z^2, - L/2 \rk \, .
\ee
We can now interprete $z^0$ as time and $\vz = \lk z^1, z^2, z^3 \rk$ as space coordinates and perform a usual canonical
quantization in ``Weyl gauge'' $C^0 = 0$, interpreting $\vC = \lk C^1, C^2, C^3 \rk$ as spatial coordinates of the gauge field, which
are defined, however, not on $\mR^3$ but instead on $\mR^2 \times S^1$. We obtain then the usual Yang-Mills Hamiltonian in which, however, the integration over $z^3$ is restricted to the intervall $\left[- \frac{L}{2}, \frac{L}{2} \right]$. Let us denote this Hamiltonian by $\tilde{H}(\vC,L)$. Obviously $\tilde{H}(\vC ,L \to \infty ) =H(\vC)$.
Reversing the steps which lead from (\ref{en-1}) to (\ref{en2}) and taking into account the irrelevance of the temporal
boundary conditions in the functional integral
for an infinite time-interval we obtain from Eq.~(\ref{en-7}) the alternative representation of the partition function
\be
\label{en-232}
Z (L) = \Tr \e^{- \int \dd z^0 \tilde{H}(\vC,L)} = \lim\limits_{T \to \infty} \Tr \e^{- T \tilde{H}(\vC,L)} \, .
\ee
Due to the infinite $z^0$-(time-)interval $T \to \infty$ only the lowest eigenvalue of $\tilde{H}(\vC,L)$ contributes to the partition
function $Z (L)$. The calculation of $Z (L)$ is thus reduced to solving the Schr\"odinger equation $\tilde{H}(\vC,L)\psi (\vC)= E \psi (\vC)$ for the vacuum state on the space manifold $\mR^2 \times S^1 (L)$, where $S^1 (L)$ is a circle with circumference $L$.
Let us illustrate the equivalence between Eqs.~(\ref{en2}) and (\ref{en-232}) by means of the free scalar field theory in $1 + 1$ dimension defined by the
(Euclidean) Lagrangian
\be
\label{242-x1}
\cL = \frac{1}{2} \lk \partial_\mu \phi \rk^2 + \frac{m^2}{2} \phi^2 \, .
\ee
Calculating the partition function for this model from the functional integral (\ref{en2}) with the temporally periodic boundary condition
$\phi (L/2) = \phi (- L/2)$ one finds
\begin{align}
\ln Z (L) &= - \frac{1}{2} \Tr \ln \lk - \partial^2 + m^2 \rk \nonumber\\
&= - \frac{1}{2} \il^L_0 \dd x^0 \int \dd x^1 \frac{1}{L} \sli_n \int \frac{\dd p}{2 \pi} \ln \lk p^2_n + p^2 + m^2 \rk \, ,
\end{align}
where the $p_n = 2 \pi n / L$ are the usual Matsubara frequencies. Representing the logarithm by a proper-time integral, carrying out the
integral over the spatial momentum $p$ and using the proper-time representation of the square root one obtains
\be
\label{254-x3}
\ln Z (L) = - \int \dd x^1 E_0 (L) \, ,
\ee
where
\be
\label{259-x4}
E_0 (L) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_n \sqrt{p^2_n + m^2}
\ee
is identified as the ground state energy (the lowest eigenvalue of the corresponding Hamiltonian) of the
scalar field theory (\ref{242-x1}) defined, however, on a compact spatial manifold $S^1 (L)$. With the
substitution (\ref{en-5}) $x^1 \to z^0$ Eq.~(\ref{254-x3}) is precisely the representation (\ref{en-232}).
The upshot of the above consideration is that finite temperature gauge theory can be described in the Hamiltonian approach
by compactifying a spatial dimension and solving the corresponding Schr\"odinger equation for the vacuum sector.
This equivalence holds in fact for any $O (4)$ invariant quantum field theory.
The above consideration for the partition function can be extended to the finite temperature effective potential $V [\langle A_0 \rangle]$. One finds
that $V [\langle A_0 \rangle = a]$ can be calculated in the Hamiltonian approach from $V [\langle A_3 \rangle = a]$ with the $z^3$-axis
compactified. Furthermore, as shown in Ref.~\cite{WeinbV2}, in the Hamilton approach the effective potential $V [\langle A_3 \rangle = a]$ is
given by the energy density in the state minimizing $\langle H \rangle$ for given $\langle A_3 \rangle$.
Below we calculate the effective potential $V \left[ \langle A_3 \rangle = a_3
\right]$ in the Hamiltonian approache exploiting the representation (\ref{en-232}) of the partition function.
\section{Hamiltonian approach in background gauge}
In the presence of an external constant background field $a$ the Hamiltonian approach turns out to be most conveniently
formulated in the background gauge
\be
\label{4}
\hat{\vd} \cdot \vA = 0 \,, \quad \hat{\vd} = \vec{\partial} + \hat{\va} \, , \quad \hat{\va}^{ab} = f^{acb} \va^c \, ,
\ee
where the hat ``\, $\hat{\phantom{}}$\, '' denotes the adjoint representation. This gauge allows for an explicit
resolution of Gauss' law, which results in the gauge fixed Yang--Mills Hamiltonian
\be
\label{5}
H = \frac{1}{2} \int \dd[3] x \lk J_A^{- 1} \vec{\Pi} (\vx) J_A \cdot \vec{\Pi} (\vx) + \vB^2 (\vx) \rk + H_\text{C} \, ,
\ee
where $\Pi^a_k (\vx) = - \ii\delta / \delta A^a_k (\vx)$ is the ``transversal''
momentum operator ($\hat{\vd} \cdot \vec{\Pi} = 0$) and
\be
\label{6}
J_A = \Det \lk - \hat{\vD} \cdot \hat{\vd} \rk \,, \quad \hat{\vD} = \vec{\partial} + \hat{\vA}
\ee
is the Faddeev-Popov determinant of the gauge (\ref{4}). Furthermore,
\be
\label{7}
H_\text{C} = \frac{g^2}{2} \int \dd[3] x \dd[3] y\,J_A^{- 1} \, \rho^a (\vx) J_A \, F^{ab} (\vx, \vy) \rho^b (\vy)
\ee
arises from the kinetic energy of the ``longitudinal'' part of the momentum operator. Here
\be
\label{8}
\rho^a = - \hat{\vD} \cdot \vec{\Pi} = - \lk \hat{\vA} - \hat{\va} \rk \cdot \vec{\Pi}
\ee
is the color charge density of the gluons, which interacts through the kernel
\be
\label{9}
F = \lk - \hat{\vD} \cdot \hat{\vd} \rk^{- 1} \lk - \hat{\vd} \cdot \hat{\vd} \rk \lk - \hat{\vD} \cdot \hat{\vd} \rk^{- 1}
\, .
\ee
For a vanishing background field $a = 0$ the gauge (\ref{4}) reduces to the ordinary Coulomb gauge and $H$
(\ref{5}) becomes the familiar Yang--Mills Hamiltonian in Coulomb gauge \cite{ChrLee}.
We are interested here in the energy density in the state $\psi_a [A]$ minimizing $\vev{ H }_a = \bra{\psi_a } H \ket{\psi_a }$
under the constraint $\vev{A}_a = a$. For this purpose we perform a variational calculation with the trial
wave functional
\be
\label{10}
\psi_a [A] = J_A^{- 1/2} \tilde{\psi} [A - a]\,,\,\,
\tilde{\psi} [A] = \cN \e^{\,\left[ - \frac{1}{2} \int A \omega
A \right]} \, ,
\ee
which already fulfills the constraint $\vev{A } = a$. For $a = 0$ this ansatz reduces to the trial wave functional used
in Coulomb gauge \cite{Feuchter:2004mk}. However, due to the presence of the colored background field the variational kernel $\omega (\vp)$
is now a non-trivial color matrix. Proceeding as in the variational approach in Coulomb gauge \cite{Feuchter:2004mk}, from
$\langle H \rangle_a \to min$ one derives a set of coupled equations for the gluon and ghost propagators
\begin{align}
\label{11}
\cD &= \langle A A \rangle_0 = \frac{1}{2} \omega ^{-1}\,,\quad G =
- \vev{ \lk ( \hat{\vec{D}} + \hat{\va} ) \hat{\vd} \rk^{- 1} }_0 \, .
\end{align}
Using the same approximation as in Ref.~\cite{HefReiCam12} in Coulomb gauge, i.e. restricting to two loops in the energy, while neglecting $H_\text{C}$ (\ref{7}) and also the tadpole arising from the non-Abelian part of the magnetic energy, one finds from the
minimization of $\langle H \rangle_a$ the gap equation
\be
\label{12}
\omega^2 = - \hat{\vd} \cdot \hat{\vd} + \chi^2
\ee
where\footnote{We use here the compact notation $A (1) \equiv A^{a_1}_{i_1} (\vx_1)$. For Lorentz scalars like the ghost, the index ``$1$'' stands for
the color index $a_1$ and the spatial position $\vx_1$.~Repeated indices are summed/integrated over.}
\be
\label{13}
\chi (1, 2) = - \frac{1}{2} \vev{ \frac{\delta^2 \ln J [A + a]}{\delta A (1) \delta A (2)} }_0
= \frac{1}{2} \Tr \left[ G \Gamma (1) G \Gamma_0 (2) \right]
\ee
is the ghost loop (referred to as ``curvature'') with $\Gamma_0$ and $\Gamma$ being the bare and full ghost-gluon vertex.
The gap equation (\ref{12}) has to be solved together with the Dyson-Schwinger equation (DSE) for the ghost propagator
\be
\label{14}
G^{- 1} = - \hat{\vd} \cdot \hat{\vd} - \Gamma_0 (1) G \Gamma (2) \cD (2, 1)\,.
\ee
Due to the presence of the background field these equations have a non-trivial color structure. Fortunately, due to the choice
of the background gauge (\ref{4}), the background field enters these equations only in form of the covariant derivative $\hat{d} = \partial + \hat{a}$.
Choosing the background field in the Cartan algebra the above equations can be diagonalized in color space. For simplicity, let us
consider the gauge group SU$(2)$ so that $\hat{a} = a \hat{T}_3$ (the extension to SU$(N)$ is straightforward). The eigenvectors $\ket{\sigma =0, \pm 1}$
of $\hat{T}_3 ^{ab} = \varepsilon^{a 3 b}$ are the spin-1 eigenstates, see e.g.~\cite{ReiSch09}.
Since the explicit color dependence is only due to the background field
$a$ the various propagators have to become diagonal in the basis which diagonalizes $\hat{a}$.
Indeed, one can show that the above equations (\ref{12}) and (\ref{14}) can be consistently solved for propagators of the form
(in momentum space)
\be
\label{17}
\cD^{\sigma \tau} (\vp) = \delta^{\sigma \tau} \cD^\sigma (\vp) \,, \quad G^{\sigma \tau} (\vp) = \delta^{\sigma \tau} G^\sigma (\vp) \, .
\ee
In addition, one can show that the propagators $\cD^\sigma (\vp)$, $G^\sigma (\vp)$ are related to the propagators in Coulomb gauge
in the absence of the background field, $\cD (\vp)$, $G (\vp)$, by
\be
\label{18}
\cD^\sigma (\vp) = \cD (\vp^\sigma) \,, \quad G^\sigma (\vp) = G (\vp^\sigma) \, ,
\ee
where
\be
\label{19}
\vp^\sigma = \vp - \sigma \va
\ee
is the momentum shifted by the background field. The relation (\ref{18}) implies $\chi^\sigma(\vp)=\chi(\vp^\sigma)$ and applies also to the transversal projector $t_{kl}(\vp)= \delta_{kl} - p_k p_l$ of the
Lorentz tensors in Coulomb gauge
\be
\label{20}
\cD_{kl} (\vp) = t_{kl} (\vp) \frac{1}{2 \omega (\vp)} \, , \quad \chi_{kl} (\vp) = t_{kl} (\vp) \chi (\vp) \,.
\ee
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{fl_sol.eps}
\caption{The gluon energy $\omega(p)$ and the curvature $\chi(p)$ resulting from the full numerical solution of
the variational approach in Coulomb gauge as described in Ref.~\cite{HefReiCam12}}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
By these relations the gap equation (\ref{12}) and the ghost DSE (\ref{14}) reduces to the ones in Coulomb gauge in the absence of the background field \cite{HefReiCam12}
\be
\label{21}
\omega^2 (\vp) = \vp^2 + \chi^2 (\vp) \, ,
\ee
\begin{gather}
\label{ghostform}
d^{-1}(\vec{p}) = \frac{1}{g}-I_d(\vec{p})\,,\\
I_d (\vp) = N_c \int \frac{\dd^3 q}{(2 \pi)^3} \bigl[ 1 - (\hat{\vp} \cdot \hat{\vq})^2 \bigr] \frac{d(\vp - \vq)}{(\vp - \vq)^2} \frac{1 }{2 \omega (\vq)} \nonumber\,.
\end{gather}
Here $d(\vp)$ is the ghost form factor, defined by
\be
G(\vp) = \frac{d(\vp)}{g \vp^2}\,,
\ee
and we have replaced the full ghost-gluon vertex $\Gamma$ by the bare one $\Gamma_0$, which is known to be a good approximation, see Ref.~\cite{CamRei12}.
Lattice calculation \cite{BurQuaRei09} of the gluon propagator in Coulomb gauge show that the gluon energy can be nicely fitted by Gribov's formula \cite{Gribov78}
\be
\label{22}
\omega (\vp) = \sqrt{\vp^2 + M^4/\vp^2} \, .
\ee
A full self-consistent solution of the gap equation (\ref{21}) and the ghost DSE (\ref{ghostform}) reveals that $\omega (\vp)$ contains in addition sub-leading UV-logs,
which on the lattice are found to be small. Using Gribov's formula (\ref{22}) for $\omega (\vp)$ and solving the gap equation (\ref{21})
for $\chi (\vp)$ yields
\be
\label{23}
\chi (\vp) = M^2 / |\vp| \, ,
\ee
which is indeed the correct IR-behavior obtained in a full solution \cite{HefReiCam12} of the coupled ghost DSE and gap equation show in Fig.~\ref{fig3} but which misses the sub-leading
UV-logs.
\section{The effective potential}
As explained in Sec.~\ref{sectionII} the constant background field residing in the Cartan algebra can serve as order parameter for
confinement when it is directed along a compactified dimension. Choosing $\va = a \ve_3$ and compactifying the 3-axis to a circle with
circumference $L$, the shifted momentum (\ref{19}) becomes
\be
\label{24}
\vp^\sigma = \vp_\perp + \lk p_n - \sigma a \rk \ve_3 \, , \quad p_n = 2 \pi n/L \, ,
\ee
where $\vp_\perp$ is the projection of $\vp$ into the 1-2-plane and $p_n$ is the Matsubara frequency. In the Hamiltonian approach the
effective potential of the constant background field is given by the energy density in the state minimizing $\vev{ H }_a$
under the constraint $\vev{A }_a = a$ \cite{WeinbV2}. Using the gap equation one finds for the energy density per transversal degree of freedom $\langle H \rangle_a / (2 V)$
(V is the spatial volume) in the present approximation
\be
\label{25}
e (a, L) = \sum_\sigma \frac{1}{L} \sum^\infty_{n = - \infty} \int \frac{\dd[2] p_\perp}{(2 \pi)^2} \lk \omega \lk \vp^\sigma \rk -
\chi \lk \vp^\sigma \rk \rk \, .
\ee
By shifting the summation index $n$ one verifies the periodicity
\be
\label{26}
e \lk a + 2 \pi/L , L\rk = e (a, L) \, ,
\ee
which is a necessary property for the effective potential of the confinement order parameter by center symmetry, cf.~Eq.~(\ref{3}).
Neglecting $\chi (\vp)$
Eq.~(\ref{25}) gives the energy of a non-interacting Bose gas with single-particle energy $\omega (\vp)$. This quasi-particle
picture is a consequence of the Gaussian ansatz (\ref{10}) for the wave functional. The quasi-particle energy $\omega (\vp)$ is,
however, highly non-perturbative, see for example Eq.~(\ref{22}). The curvature $\chi (\vp)$ in Eq.~(\ref{25}) arises from the Faddeev-Popov determinant
in the kinetic part of the Yang--Mills Hamiltonian (\ref{5}).
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{fl_wchi.eps}
\caption{The energy density (\ref{25}) as a function of $x=a L/(2\pi)$. $L^{-1}$ was varied from $260$ to $280$ MeV (from bottom to top).}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
In certain limiting cases and for $0 \leq a L / 2 \pi \leq 1$ the energy density (\ref{25}) can be calculated analytically. Neglecting $\chi (\vp)$ and assuming the perturbative
expression for the gluon energy $\omega (\vp) = |\vp|$ one finds from (\ref{25}) the Weiss potential originally obtained in \cite{Weiss:1980rj}
\be
\label{27}
e_\text{UV} (a, L) = \frac{4}{3} \frac{\pi^2}{L^4} \lk \frac{a L}{2 \pi} \rk^2 \lk \frac{a L}{2 \pi} - 1 \rk^2 \, .
\ee
Neglecting $\chi (\vp)$ and using the infrared expression for the gluon energy
$\omega (\vp) = M^2 / |\vp|$ (see Eq.~(\ref{22})), one obtains
\be
\label{28}
e_\text{IR} (a, L) = 2 \frac{M^2}{L^2} \left[ \lk \frac{a L}{2 \pi} \rk^2 - \frac{a L}{2 \pi} \right] \, .
\ee
This expression drastically differs from the Weiss potential (\ref{27}): While $e_\text{UV} (a, L)$ is minimal for $a = 0$, the minimum of
$e_\text{IR} (a, L)$ occurs at $a = \pi / L$ corresponding to a center symmetric ground state. Accordingly $e_\text{UV} (a, L)$ yields for the Polyakov
loop $\langle P \rangle = 1$ while $e_\text{IR} (a, L)$ yields $\langle P \rangle = 0$.
Obviously, the deconfinement phase transition is related to a change of the effective potential from its infrared behavior $e_\text{IR} (a, L)$
(\ref{28}) to its UV-behavior $e_\text{UV} (a, L)$ (\ref{27}). To illustrate this let us approximate the gluon energy $\omega(\vp)$
(\ref{22}) by
\be
\label{29}
\omega (\vp) \approx |\vp| + M^2/|\vp| \, .
\ee
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{fl_polyakovfullOver.eps}
\caption{The Polykav loop $\vev{P[a]}$ evaluated at the minimum $a = a_\text{min}$ of the full effective potential shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2} as a function of $T/T_c$.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
This expression agrees with the Gribov formula (\ref{22}) in both, the IR and UV but deviates from it in the mid-momentum regime, which
influences the deconfinement phase transition. With $\omega (\vp)$ given by Eq.~(\ref{29}) and with $\chi (\vp) = 0$
the energy density (\ref{25}) becomes
\begin{gather}
\label{30}
e (a, L) = e_\text{IR} (a, L) + e_\text{UV} (a, L) = \frac{4}{3} \frac{\pi^2}{L^4} f \lk \frac{a L}{2 \pi} \rk\,, \\
f (x) = x^2 (x -1)^2 + c x (x - 1) , \, c = \frac{3 M^2 L^2}{2 \pi^2} \nonumber \,.
\end{gather}
For small temperatures $L^{- 1}$, $e_\text{IR} (a, L)$ dominates and the system is in the confined phase. As $L^{- 1}$ increases the center symmetric
minimum at $x = 1/2$ eventually turns into a maximum and the system undergoes the deconfinement phase transition. In the deconfined phase
$f (x)$ has two degenerate minima and, starting in the deconfined phase, the phase transition occurs when the three roots of $f' (x)$ degenerate.
This occurs for $c = 1/2$, i.e. for a critical temperature
\be
\label{31}
T_c = L^{- 1} = \sqrt{3} M / \pi \, .
\ee
With the lattice result $M = 880$ MeV this corresponds to a critical temperature of $T_c \simeq 485$ MeV, which is much too high. This, of course,
is not surprising given the approximation used to arrive at (\ref{31}), i.e. neglecting the ghost loop $\chi (\vp)$ and approximating
the Gribov formula by Eq.~(\ref{29}). Using the correct Gribov formula (\ref{22}) instead of the approximation (\ref{29}) only slightly reduces the critical temperature to $T_c \simeq 432$ MeV. It is the neglect of the curvature $\chi(\vp)$ which pushes the deconfinement phase transition to higher temperatures as can be easily seen: From the gap equation (\ref{21}) follows that in the deep IR $\omega(\vp)$ (\ref{22}) approaches $\chi(\vp)$ (\ref{23}). Therefore neglecting $\chi(\vp)$ in Eq.~(\ref{25}) increases the contribution of the confining part $e_\text{IR}(a)$ (\ref{28}) (relative to that of the deconfining part $e_\text{UV}$ (\ref{27})) and thus pushes the deconfinement phase transition to higher temperatures as we will also explicitly see below.
\section{Numerical Results}
We now turn to a full numerical evaluation of the effective potential (\ref{25}) using for $\omega (\vp)$
and $\chi (\vp)$ the numerical solution of the variational approach in Coulomb gauge obtained in Ref.~\cite{HefReiCam12} by solving the gap equation (\ref{21}) and the ghost DSE (\ref{ghostform}). The results for $\omega(\vp)$ and $\chi(\vp)$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}. With these results one finds from Eq.~(\ref{25}) the effective
potential shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}. From this potential one extracts a critical temperature for the deconfinement phase transition of $T_c \simeq 269$ MeV,
which is close to the lattice predictions of $T_c = 290$ MeV.
Let us also mention that if one uses for $\omega (\vp)$
the Gribov formula (\ref{22}) and in accord with the gap equation (\ref{21}) for $\chi (\vp)$ its infrared expression (\ref{23}) one finds a
critical temperature of $T_c \simeq 267$ MeV, which is only slightly smaller than the value $T_c \simeq 269$ MeV obtained above with the full numerical solution for $\omega (\vp)$ and
$\chi (\vp)$. This shows that it is indeed the infrared part of the curvature $\chi(\vp)$ (neglected in Eq.~(\ref{30}), but fully included in Eq.~(\ref{25}) and Fig.~\ref{fig2}), which is crucial for the critical
temperature. In view of the ghost dominance in the IR this is not surprising. Fig.~\ref{fig4} shows the Polyakov loop $P[a]$ calculated from the minimum $a_\text{min}$ of the potential (\ref{25}) shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}. At the phase-transition $P[a_\text{min}]$ rapidly changes from $P=0$ to $P=1$.
The value $T_c =269$ MeV obtained above from the full effective potential, Fig.~\ref{fig2}, is also close to the range of critical temperatures $T_c = 275 \ldots 290$ MeV obtained in Ref.~\cite{HefReiCam12} from the grand canonical ensemble of Yang--Mills theory in Coulomb gauge. It is however not surprising that the critical temperatures found in Ref.~\cite{HefReiCam12} differ somewhat from the value obtained in the present paper. The reason is that in the approach of Ref.~\cite{HefReiCam12} an additional approximation is made by using a singe particle ansatz for the density matrix. Such an approximation is not necessary in the present approach. In this respect the present approach is superior over the variational
treatment of the grand canonical ensemble given in Ref.~\cite{HefReiCam12}.
In Ref.~\cite{Braun:2007bx} the Polyakov loop potential was calculated from a functional renormalization group flow equation approach using the Landau gauge ghost and gluon propagators as input.
For the gauge group SU$(2)$ a critical temperature of $266$ MeV was obtained, which compares well with our result of $269$ MeV.
In the present approach the deconfinement phase transition is entirely determined by the zero-temperature propagators, which are defined as
vacuum expectation values. Consequently, the finite-temperature behavior of the theory and, in particular, the dynamics of the deconfinement
phase transition must be fully encoded in the vacuum wave functional, as should be clear from the considerations of Sec.~\ref{sec3}. The results obtained above are encouraging for an
extension of the present approach to full QCD at finite temperature and baryon density.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
One of the authors (H.R.) acknowledges useful discussion with J.M.~Pawlowski, M.~Quandt and G.~Burgio. We also thank D.~Campagnari and P.~Watson for a critical reading of the manuscript and useful comments. This work was supported by DFG under contract DFG-RE856/9-1 and
by BMBF under contract 06TU7199.
|
\section{Introduction}
NGC 188 is one of the most well studied open clusters, and is a cornerstone of the WIYN Open Cluster Study
\citep[WOCS;][]{mat00}. Its old age ($\sim$7 Gyr; \citealt{sar99}, \citealt{mei09}), rich binary population \citep{gel09,gel12} and
abundance of blue stragglers \citep[BSs;][]{mat09,gel11}, X-ray sources \citep{bel98,gon05}, and other exotic stars \citep[see e.g.,][]{gel08,gel09}
make NGC 188 particularly important for the study of star cluster evolution.
Sophisticated $N$-body codes now incorporate stellar dynamics and stellar evolution self-consistently (e.g., \texttt{NBODY6}; \citealt{aar03}),
enabling models of rich open clusters, like NGC 188, that include up to a few $10^4$ single and multiple stars initially \citep[e.g.,][]{por01,hur05}.
Until recently, the observations needed to test many of the important parameters in these models, and particularly those of the binary population,
have been unavailable, due in part to the decade(s) of multi-epoch observations necessary for detecting and defining the binary stars.
Our comprehensive radial-velocity survey of the single and binary stars in NGC 188 \citep{gel08,gel09,mat09,gel11,gel12}
now provide this essential empirical guidance, permitting us to model NGC 188 with a high level of accuracy.
Perhaps the most detailed $N$-body study of a specific open cluster to date is that of \citet{hur05}.
They aimed to model the open cluster M67, and particularly to match the observed color-magnitude diagram (CMD), with a
focus on the BS population.
Hurley et al.~initialized their binary population so as to maximize the production rate of BSs, and also to attempt to recreate the general
binary properties of the M67 BSs.
In doing so, they managed to nearly match the observed number of BSs in M67 at 4 Gyr in their simulation, and they reproduced the
true cluster CMD quite closely.
As both NGC 188 and M67 are old open clusters (at $\sim$7 and $\sim$4 Gyr, respectively)
and the binary and BS populations of both clusters are remarkably similar, in \citet{gel12} we compare this simulation to
the binary and BS populations observed in NGC 188. We find that the M67 simulation contains far too many short-period binaries
as compared to our observations of NGC 188, and that the binary orbital parameters and hard-binary (periods $<10^4$ days)
frequency of the BSs in the simulation do not match those
of NGC 188 (or M67). These discrepancies are in a large part the result of the unrealistic initial binary population that was
heavily weighted towards short-period systems, inconsistent with observed binary populations in young open clusters, like M35
\citep[e.g.][and see also \citealt{mei05}]{mat08}.
In this paper, we model NGC 188 with a primary goal of matching the observed solar-type binary population.
We employ the observed binary population of the young open cluster M35 (180 Myr) to guide our definition of the initial binary frequency and
distributions of period and eccentricity. Thus here we create the first $N$-body model whose
initial binary population is defined by such detailed observations of a young open cluster.
We first discussed the BSs created in this model in \citet{gel11}. Here we present the NGC 188 model in full detail.
In Section~\ref{method} we discuss the simulation method.
Section~\ref{RVobs} provides a brief outline of the observations used in guiding the model, and
Section~\ref{init} explains the initial conditions of the model, including a detailed discussion of the
initial binary population. In Section~\ref{SOBS} we analyze the 7 Gyr cluster CMD, mass and structure
in comparison to observations of NGC 188. We then compare the binary population and
BSs in the model at
7 Gyr to the observed binaries and BSs in NGC 188 (Sections~\ref{final_binary} and~\ref{final_BS}).
In Section~\ref{final_trips} we analyze the dynamically formed triples within our model as compared
to observations of triples in open clusters and the Galactic field.
Finally in Section~\ref{discuss} we investigate the dynamical evolution of the main-sequence (MS)
binaries and evaluate BS production within our $N$-body model,
and we then provide our conclusions in Section~\ref{conclusion}.
\section{Simulation Method} \label{method}
We use the \texttt{NBODY6} code \citep{aar03} to model the dynamical evolution
within the NGC 188 simulations.
Stellar and binary evolution are included in NBODY6 using the work of \citet{hur00} and \citet{hur02}.
Much of our method is identical to that of \citet{hur05}, with one distinction being
that they used the \texttt{NBODY4} code with GRAPE-6 computing hardware
\citep{mak03} while we use the \texttt{NBODY6} code on the supercomputer at the
Swinburne Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing (without a GRAPE board).
The main difference between the two code versions is that \texttt{NBODY4}
interfaces with the GRAPE hardware for the force calculations while
in \texttt{NBODY6} this is done on a standard CPU or more recently on a
graphics processing unit \citep[GPU;][]{nit12}.
To increase efficiency, \texttt{NBODY6} also has the option to compute force
contributions from distant particles less frequently than from
near neighbors \citep{aar99}.
We modified the \texttt{NBODY6} code to define the initial binary population and output format.
We choose to output stellar evolution parameters, binary orbital properties, positions and velocities for
all stars in snapshot intervals of $\sim$30 Myr.
Individual stars are evolved according to the Single-Star Evolution algorithm \citep[SSE;][]{hur00}.
This code rapidly models all phases of evolution from the zero-age main sequence (ZAMS)
through remnant phases, for stars covering a mass range of 0.1 - 100 M$_{\odot}$~and a wide
range in metallicity. Mass loss through stellar winds is included.
Binary stars are evolved according to the Binary-Star Evolution algorithm \citep[BSE;][]{hur02}.
This code contains prescriptions for tidal circularization and synchronization, angular
momentum loss mechanisms (e.g., magnetic braking and gravitational radiation), mass transfer from
Roche lobe overflow (RLOF), accretion from stellar winds, common-envelope (CE) events, mergers, and
direct collisions. Thus the code contains numerous pathways to create anomalous stars,
such as BSs, even without the aid of dynamical encounters within a star cluster. The additional
considerations that may occur in a cluster environment, such as
perturbations to binary orbits, exchanges, etc., are modeled in \texttt{NBODY6} \citep[][and references therein]{aar03}.
\citet{hur02,hur05} explain the modeling of BSs in detail.
As a goal of this paper is to closely compare the observed and simulated BS populations, we provide a short summary here.
BSs can form in the $N$-body model through three primary mechanisms, namely mass transfer during
RLOF, physical stellar collisions, and mergers of two stars within a binary.
BS formation through wind mass transfer is also possible in principle, but in practice this formation
channel is very infrequent. Therefore for this paper, we will use the term mass transfer to refer specifically
to mass transfer from RLOF.
Mass transfer during RLOF is modeled in \texttt{NBODY6} according to \citet{hur02}. In short,
the stability of mass transfer is determined using the radius-mass exponents $\zeta$ defined
by \citet{web85}, which are used to distinguish between mass transfer that proceeds on a dynamical,
thermal or nuclear time scale. BSs created through mass transfer from RLOF derive from
thermal, and sometimes nuclear mass transfer, and are formed when a
MS star accretes mass from either a MS (Case A), red giant (Case B) or asymptotic giant (Case C) donor.
Case A mass transfer leads to a merger, while Cases B and C generally result in a BS in a detached binary
with a white dwarf (WD) companion.
Dynamical mass transfer
either leads to a CE episode, when mass is transferred from a giant, or a merger, when mass
is transferred from a low-mass ($\lesssim 0.7$ M$_{\odot}$) MS star, neither of which will produce a BS at 7 Gyr.
In practice the criteria to determine whether a binary undergoing
RLOF will enter dynamical mass transfer or thermal/nuclear mass transfer
(e.g., possibly creating a BS) is determined by the critical mass ratio, $q_c$, such that if
$M_{donor}/M_{accretor} > q_c$ the binary undergoes dynamical mass transfer. Both the $q_c$ formulae from
\citet{hur02} and \citet{hje87} are options in the $N$-body code, and we have chosen to implement
the latter. We return to the discussion of CE evolution and the $q_c$ value in Section~\ref{discuss_lPcirc}.
If a MS star gains mass through a mass-transfer episode, merger or collision, it
is presumed to remain on the MS but attain a higher luminosity and effective temperature.
The lifetime of the star is determined based on the fraction of unburned hydrogen in the core of the star,
such that the fraction of MS lifetime remaining is directly
proportional to the fraction of remaining unburned hydrogen in the core.
During thermal and nuclear mass transfer, the rejuvenation procedure is determined based on the structure
of the accretor star's core.
If mass is transferred onto a star with a radiative core ($0.35$~M$_{\odot}$$ \leq M \leq 1.25$~M$_{\odot}$)
the fraction of unburned hydrogen is barely changed. Therefore the fraction of its
MS lifetime that has elapsed is unaffected by the mass transfer, but the
effective age of the star is less than that of other normal stars of similar mass.
If mass is transferred onto a star with a
convective core ($M > 1.25$~M$_{\odot}$) or that is fully convective ($M < 0.35$~M$_{\odot}$), the core
grows and mixes in unburned hydrogen.
It is assumed that the amount of burnt hydrogen is
unchanged, and that the core mass grows directly proportional to the mass of the star, which is increased during
mass transfer. The increase in the fraction of unburned hydrogen in the core increases the remaining
fraction of MS lifetime.
If mass transfer causes a star to move across the radiative/convective-core boundary the treatment simply
switches from one core type to the other.
After the mass-transfer phase, the total MS lifetime of this rejuvenated star (from $t=0$ in the simulation to the time when the star evolves off the MS)
for either stars with convective or radiative cores is equal to the total lifetime of a normal
star of that mass. The rejuvenation process described here ensures that the fraction of MS lifetime remaining for
this star is greater than that of a normal MS star of this mass
(regardless of whether the core is radiative or convective).
If two MS stars undergo a merger or collision, the product is taken to be a new MS star where
the stellar material is fully mixed. A BS formed in this manner
then evolves along the MS similarly to normal MS stars of the same mass until 10\% of the
total hydrogen has been burnt, at which point the BS evolves off of the MS and follows the
standard evolutionary sequence for a star of this mass. As discussed in \citet{hur05} the assumption
of complete mixing here is likely incorrect and may affect the lifetime and appearance of these stars.
We follow this method here in part to aid comparisons with previous models that use similar prescriptions.
Though correcting for this over simplification is highly desired, it is beyond the scope of this project.
We also note that, in the $N$-body code, collision and merger products are assumed to achieve thermal equilibrium rapidly, and these BSs follow
equilibrium models upon creation. However, detailed studies of collision products show that such BSs may not be in
thermal equilibrium, and may be more luminous and have shorter lifetimes than the equilibrium models used here \citep[e.g.][]{gle08}.
We will return to this point briefly in Section~\ref{discuss}.
The processes involved in forming a BS can cause the star to lie above the MS turnoff on
a CMD. Observationally we identify BSs as being generally both brighter and bluer than
the MS turnoff. Therefore here we will also use this definition, and not include any collision, merger, or mass-transfer
products that still remain below the MS turnoff.
This empirical identification procedure necessarily introduces some ambiguity between binaries found near the
turnoff, as a normal equal-mass MS-MS binary could be up to 0.75 magnitudes brighter than
the turnoff (without containing a BS).
Within the simulation we can also identify BSs as being more massive
than a normal MS star at the turnoff, while still maintaining the structure and evolutionary
state of a MS star. Therefore this ambiguity does not effect BS identification in the
$N$-body model.
In order to reduce the stochastic effects present in $N$-body simulations, and especially those
of BS production, we ran twenty simulations, and for much of the analysis we average the results
together. For all twenty simulations, the initial stellar and binary parameters (e.g., positions, velocities,
binary periods and eccentricities, etc.) are all drawn from the same respective distributions, but
each simulation randomizes the parameters to produce a unique initial stellar population.
In this paper we will use the term ``simulation'' to refer to any individual $N$-body simulation (e.g., any one of these twenty realizations),
and we will use the term NGC 188 ``model'' to refer to the combination of these twenty simulations.
We discuss our method for combining these simulations in later sections.
\section{Observed Binary Star Populations} \label{RVobs}
Here we give a brief outline of the observed stellar samples in M35 used to define our initial
binary population and in NGC 188 for comparison with the 7 Gyr binary and BS populations in the $N$-body model.
The M35 radial-velocity sample is discussed in detail in \citet{gel10}.
In short, our M35 sample includes MS solar-type stars within the
magnitude range of $13.0 \leq V \leq 16.5$ (1.6 - 0.8 M$_{\odot}$) and within 30 arcminutes
from the cluster center (7 pc in projection at a distance of 805 pc or $\sim$4 core radii).
The cluster turnoff in M35 is at $V\sim$9.5 ($\sim$4 M$_{\odot}$), and therefore our sample includes
only MS stars.
\citet{gel10} identify 360 single and 55 binary cluster members within this sample;
39 of these binaries have orbital solutions. We use this binary population to define the initial binary
frequency and distributions of binary orbital parameters for the NGC 188 simulations (Section~\ref{init_binary}).
The NGC 188 radial-velocity sample is discussed in detail in \citet{gel08}.
Our stellar sample spans a magnitude range of $10.5 \leq V \leq 16.5$ (1.1 - 0.9 M$_{\odot}$),
and extends to a projected radius of 17 pc ($\sim$13 core radii, or 30 arcminutes).
The sample includes the brightest stars in the cluster down to about two
magnitudes below the MS turnoff, and all NGC 188 BSs.
We identify 358 single and 129 binary cluster members within this sample;
85 of these binaries have orbital solutions.
The distributions of orbital parameters are discussed in detail in \citet{gel12}
and we also show a sample of these results in Section~\ref{final_binary}.
For both clusters we can detect binaries out to periods of order $10^4$ days.
The hard-soft boundary \citep{heg75} in both of these clusters is at periods of order $\sim10^6$ days, and
therefore all detected binaries in these clusters are hard binaries.
Here we will use the term ``hard binary'' to refer specifically to binaries within the period range that
we can detect with our observations.
The observed binary frequencies and distributions of orbital parameters
for M35 and NGC 188 presented here have been corrected for incompleteness using the method of
\citet{gel12}, and importantly, our completeness in binary detection and orbital solutions is roughly
equivalent for both clusters.
\section{Initial Conditions of the Simulations} \label{init}
\subsection{Initial Cluster Structure} \label{init_struct}
NGC 188 is observed to have a solar metallicity and an age of 7 Gyr \citep[][and see also \citealt{mei09} and \citealt{for07}]{sar99}.
Empirical estimates for the mass of NGC 188 range from about 1500~M$_{\odot}$~to~3800~M$_{\odot}$~
\citep{bon05,gel08,chu10}. In order to retain this mass by 7 Gyr, we scale from the results of
the \citet{hur05} simulation to account for mass loss through evaporation and stellar evolution processes.
We find a suitable initial mass of 23600~M$_{\odot}$~(39000 stars). We choose the stellar
masses according to a \citet{kro01} initial-mass function (IMF).
We distribute the stars in space according to a Plummer density profile.
In theory the Plummer model extends to infinite radius; therefore in practice we apply a cut-off
at ten times the half-mass radius to avoid rare cases of stars placed at large distances in the initial distribution.
This initial Plummer
density profile quickly evolves to resemble a King profile within our model (as in other
$N$-body models, e.g. \citealt{hur03,hur05}).
The initial velocities are isotropic and are generated based on the positions and the assumption of dynamical
equilibrium.
The initial size scale of a simulation is defined by the initial half-mass radius, and
we aim to match the observed core and tidal radii of the true cluster at 7 Gyr.
\citet{bon05} find NGC 188 to have a tidal radius of 21$\pm$4 pc and a core radius of 1.3$\pm$0.1 pc,
while \citet{chu10} find a tidal radius of 34.4$\substack{+16 \\ -10}$~pc and a core radius of
2.1$\substack{+0.9 \\ -0.6}$~pc (both using standard \citealt{kin62,kin66} model fits).
We note that \citet{chu10} included only proper-motion members of the cluster in their analysis while
\citet{bon05} used 2MASS photometry without any kinematic membership data, which may account for
the discrepancies between these two results.
For our purposes, we assume that the true core and tidal radii of NGC 188 fall
somewhere between these values.
We ran a number of test simulations with different half-mass radii to attempt to estimate an appropriate
initial half-mass radius that will evolve to match the observed values described above.
We find that using an initial half-mass radius of 4.6~pc results in a reasonable agreement with the observed
core and tidal radii for NGC 188 at the age of 7 Gyr, see Section~\ref{SOBS}, and we use this initial
half-mass radius for our NGC 188 model.
(Also note that \citet{hur05} used an initial half-mass radius of 3.9~pc, and found
a resulting core radius of 0.64 pc at 4 Gyr, much smaller than NGC 188.)
\citet{car94} find NGC 188 to be in a nearly circular orbit ($e = 0.07$) at a distance between 9.4
to 10.8 kpc from the Galactic center.
\citet{chu10} find the cluster to orbit between 6.97 and 9.03 kpc with a mean Galactocentric distance
that is nearly the same as that of the Sun.
They also find the orbit to have a low eccentricity of $e = 0.125$.
The differences between these two results are due to the Galactic models used and some updated
observations used in the \citet{chu10} analysis.
For simplicity we place the cluster in a standard Galactic tidal field for the Solar neighborhood,
having a circular orbit with a speed of 220 km s$^{-1}$~at a distance of 8.5 kpc from the Galactic center.
Adding the non-zero orbital eccentricity suggested by \citet{chu10} would introduce periods of
increased stellar escape rate due to the reduced tidal radius during perigalacticon, as well as
the opposite effect at apogalacticon. \citet{mad12} show that, after a Hubble time,
a cluster in an elliptical orbit with an eccentricity of 0.5 and apogalacticon of 8 kpc will have
$\sim$10\% less mass than the same cluster in a circular orbit at 8 kpc from the Galactic center.
Thus we assume that including the small eccentricity found by \citet{chu10} would result in only a
minimal change to the mass of the model at 7 Gyr.
We also note that NGC 188 is currently out of the plane of our Galaxy, at $b=+22.$\degr$38$,
and its orbit crosses the galactic disk \citep{chu10}. We do not account for any effects related to this disk crossing
(e.g., tidal disk shocks) in our model.
Disk shocks temporarily compress a cluster on a timescale shorter than the internal dynamical timescale, which accelerates all
stars, some to velocities above the escape velocity (mostly those in the outer parts of the cluster).
\citet{ves97} show that for a cluster orbiting at 8.5 kpc, disk shocks produce only a minimal effect on the cluster mass.
This result is confirmed by \citet{kup10} who also show that the lifetime of a cluster on an 8.5 kpc orbit is much more strongly
effected by a highly eccentric orbit than a highly inclined orbit.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{f1a.CMYK.eps} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{f1b.CMYK.eps} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{f1c.CMYK.eps}} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{f1d.CMYK.eps} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{f1e.CMYK.eps} \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\footnotesize
Initial distributions of solar-type binary orbital parameters for the NGC 188 model. The
distributions of period (top-left), eccentricity (top-right),
secondary mass (bottom-left) and mass ratio (bottom-right) are shown in histogram form,
and the eccentricity - log period ($e - \log (P)$) diagram is shown in the center.
Solar-type binaries within our observational limits (primary mass from 0.8 - 1.6 M$_{\odot}$~and $P < 3000$ days)
from the model are shown in the gray (green in the online version) filled histograms and points.
In the period and $e - \log(P)$ distribution plots we also show the
full solar-type (0.8 - 1.6~M$_{\odot}$) sample in the thin-lined histogram and small points, respectively.
The observable sample in the eccentricity distribution plot excludes binaries with
$P < P_{circ}$, where $P_{circ} = 10.2$~days
\citep{mei05}.
Each histogram bin shows the mean value for all simulations included in the model, and the
error bars show one standard deviation above and below the mean. The $e - \log (P)$ figure shows one
representative simulation.
The theoretical functions from which we draw the initial binary periods and eccentricities
in the model are shown in the black curves in the upper two plots (i.e.,
the log-normal period distribution from \citealt{duq91} and the Gaussian fit to the M35 eccentricity distribution).
We describe our method for choosing the initial mass-ratio
distribution in Section~\ref{init_binary}.
Finally the observed M35 period and eccentricity distributions are plotted in thick-black histograms.
\label{initbinfig}
}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Parameters of the Initial Binary Population} \label{init_binary}
The initial parameters defining a binary population in numerical simulations have long been derived from
theoretical analyses and predictions, as we have lacked sufficiently detailed observations
of young open cluster binary populations to define these parameters.
The WOCS survey of M35 \citep{gel10} now allows for a major step forward; we will use these
binaries to empirically guide our choices for the initial binary population in these simulations.
We don't yet know if all clusters, including NGC 188, form with similar binary populations.
However, as we will show in Section~\ref{final_binary}, an initial binary population based on
observations of M35 will indeed match our observations of the NGC 188 binaries at 7 Gyr.
We discuss the implications of this result in Section~\ref{discuss}.
The M35 binaries in our sample show a rising distribution in period that agrees
with the log-normal distribution observed for solar-type binaries in the Galactic field \citep{duq91,rag10}.
As we only detect binaries with periods $< 10^4$ days, we utilize these Galactic field
binaries to extend the period distribution to longer periods. Specifically we input a primordial
binary population with a log-normal period distribution centered on log($P$ [days]) = 4.8
with $\sigma = 2.3$ (as defined by \citealt{duq91}). We don't anticipate the initial soft binary
population to survive long against dynamical encounters, and so our results will be only minimally sensitive to this
extrapolation.
We observe M35 to have a MS binary frequency of 24\%~$\pm$~3\% out to periods of 10$^4$ days
\citep{gel10}.
We choose to set the initial binary frequency in the model to 27\% out to the same period cutoff.
We allow the binaries to initially populate the entire period distribution, which corresponds
to an initial total binary frequency of $\sim$70\% (16000 binaries). However, the initially very long-period soft binaries
($P\gtrsim10^7$ days) are quickly broken up through dynamical interactions.
Thus the total binary frequency drops rapidly to 53\% within the first $\sim$30 Myr (see Figure~\ref{bfreqt}).
The M35 binary eccentricity distribution
(for binaries with $P_{circ} < P < 3000$ days, where $P_{circ} = 10.2\substack{+1.0 \\ -1.5}$ days from \citealt{mei05})
is consistent with a Gaussian distribution centered on $e = 0.38$ with $\sigma = 0.23$.
Thus we draw the initial binary eccentricities from this Gaussian function.
We note that this eccentricity distribution is again similar to that observed for solar-type binaries in the field.
xs
We have not yet performed an analysis of
the observed secondary-mass or mass-ratio distributions for the M35 binaries.
These distributions are generally the least certain observationally, at least for spectroscopic samples,
as the majority of observed spectroscopic binaries are single lined.
Observations of the
Galactic field binary populations show the mass-ratio distribution to be either rising towards
lower mass ratios \citep[e.g.][]{duq91} or uniform \citep[e.g.][]{maz03,rag10}.
There is also evidence for a peak in the mass-ratio distribution at unity \citep{rag10,tok00}.
\citet{reg11} find a mass-ratio distribution in their binary sample that follows a
power law $dN/dq \propto q^\beta$, with $\beta = -0.50 \pm 0.29$, for binaries with primary masses
between 0.25~M$_{\odot}$~and 6.5~M$_{\odot}$.
We choose to define the binary masses by first taking two masses, $M_1$ and $M_2$,
from the \citet{kro01} IMF, both more massive than $0.1$~M$_{\odot}$.
This is approximately the hydrogen-burning limit, and no models below 0.1~M$_{\odot}$~were evolved
for the SSE code.
We then combine these masses ($M_{tot}$) and randomly
choose a new mass ratio from a uniform distribution to define the primary and
secondary masses for the binary, such that $M_1 + M_2 = M_{tot}$ and the secondary star has a mass
$M_2$ in the range $M_1 \leq M_2 < 0.1$~M$_{\odot}$.
The result of this procedure is shown in the bottom panels of Figure~\ref{initbinfig}.
This method does not produce the observed
peak at mass ratios of unity for solar-type binaries; we will investigate here whether this peak
can be produced through dynamical processes throughout the evolution of the cluster.
The solar-type
binary mass-ratio distribution in our model agrees with the results of \citet{duq91}, who studied
solar-type binaries in the field, and also with the results of \citet{reg11} and \citet{met09} who
studied a wider range of binaries in different environments, all of whom find that the distribution of mass
ratios increases towards lower mass ratios.
(Although we note that \citealt{reg11} do not find a variation in the mass-ratio distribution
between different mass samples, which does result from our pairing method.)
We therefore proceed with this method for defining the component masses of the binaries in the NGC 188 model,
but we note that future models may benefit from a more thorough investigation of the effects of different
methods for choosing binary component masses on the evolution of the binary population.
The initial binary distributions are shown in Figure~\ref{initbinfig}.
In this figure, as well as throughout
the paper we distinguish between the ``observable'' and ``total'' samples such that the observable
sample includes only stars that are within the appropriate mass and period range for our radial-velocity
observations of the true cluster(s), and total refers to the entire simulated cluster population.
Here the observable distributions are shown in filled histograms and larger points.
\subsubsection{Tidal Energy Dissipation Rate}
We digress briefly here to discuss the tidal treatment in the $N$-body code and the additional
parameters that we impose on the model to match our observations.
The tidal circularization period is one of our best observational tools to study the effects of
tides on a binary population. \citet{mei05} define the circularization period as the period at which
the best-fit circularization function (equation 1 in \citealt{mei05}) reaches an eccentricity of 0.01.
They use this method to study the circularization period of a number
of binary populations of different ages, and we have reproduced the majority of their Figure~9
here in Figure~\ref{psynthPcirc} with the labeled points. They find a trend
of increasing circularization period with increasing age of the binary population, for ages $\gtrsim$1 Gyr.
In \citet{gel09b} we note that the tidal treatment in the $N$-body model produces circularization
periods that are well below those that are observed in real open clusters. Indeed using the
standard tidal energy dissipation rates in the $N$-body code results in a circularization period
for solar-type binaries at 7 Gyr of $\sim$4 days, as compared to the observed value of 14.5$\substack{+1.4 \\ -2.2}$~days
found by \cite{mei05} for similar binaries in NGC 188. Therefore here we investigate methods for improving
the agreement between the circularization periods derived from the $N$-body model and those from the observed
binary populations through a series of population synthesis simulations using BSE \citep{hur02}.
The solid line in Figure~\ref{psynthPcirc} shows the circularization period as a function of
time for a sample of isolated binaries evolved using the standard tidal prescription from the $N$-body and BSE codes.
We derive all circularization periods from the population synthesis simulations using the same method as \citet{mei05},
and then fit exponential functions to these discreet circularization periods to produce the smooth curves shown here.
The circularization periods from the standard BSE and $N$-body codes fall below those of nearly all observed clusters.
These low circularization periods suggest that the tidal energy dissipation rate may be
underestimated within the model. This has also been noted by \citet{bel08}, who
suggest that the convective tidal damping rate should be increased by a factor of 50.
We find that a factor of 100 increase is necessary in our model to be consistent with the lower limit on the tidal circularization
period of NGC 188 at 7 Gyr (dashed line).
However for ages less than $\sim$4 Gyr the circularization period is still
quite low as compared to observations of M35, the Pleiades and the pre-MS binary population.
Indeed, \citet{zah89} predict that pre-MS tidal circularization will result in
circularization periods between 7.2 and 8.5 days, in agreement with the empirical results of \citet{mei05}.
In order to achieve this early tidal circularization, we add the
pre-MS binary evolution prescription suggested by \citet{kro95b}.\footnote{
In order to better fit the
``envelope'' in observed $e - \log(P)$ distributions of open clusters, we modify the $\lambda$ and $\chi$ values in the \citet{kro95b} algorithm
from 28 and 0.75, to 20 and 15, respectively.
As described in \citet{kro95b}, $\lambda$ measures the length scale over which significant evolution of the orbital elements during
the proto-stellar phase occurs, and $\chi$ measures the ``interaction strength'' between the two protostars in the binary
system.
See \citet{gel12} for a comparison of the $e - \log(P)$ distribution in the \citet{hur05} model resulting from
the $\lambda$ and $\chi$ values from \citet{kro95b} with the observed $e - \log(P)$ distribution of NGC 188.}
The results of this combination of both the increased convective tidal damping coefficient and the \citet{kro95b} pre-MS
binary evolution prescription is shown in the dotted line.
(For comparison, using the pre-MS binary evolution prescription without increasing
the convective tidal strength results in essentially the same $P_{circ}\sim8$~days at all times.)
\begin{figure}[!t]
\plotone{f2.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize
Circularization period as a function of age.
The labeled points reproduce the data from
\citet{mei05}, and we also add in the lower limit for the circularization period of NGC 6819 (2.4 Gyr) found by \citet{mil12}.
The lines show fits of exponential functions to the results from multiple population synthesis studies using the
binary-star evolution \citep[BSE;][]{hur02} algorithm.
Specifically, the solid line shows the default BSE settings.
The dashed line shows the result of increasing the convective damping term by a factor of 100.
The dotted line shows the result of also adding the pre-main-sequence circularization algorithm from
\citet{kro95b}. The default BSE settings result in circularization periods that are consistently less than
observations of real binary population at any age. With the addition of
the pre-main-sequence circularization algorithm as well as the increased convective damping strength, the model
matches the observed circularization periods.
\label{psynthPcirc}
}
\epsscale{1.0}
\end{figure}
We note that this procedure is simply the \textit{ad hoc} addition of two mechanisms, and here we
use them together only to (a) achieve the desired initial form to the $e - \log(P)$ distribution
and (b) maintain a circularization period that is consistent with the observations of \citet{mei05} out to the age of NGC 188.
Future work is necessary to investigate whether such a ``hybrid'' style model can be developed into
a more comprehensive tidal theory (as has also been suggested by \citealt{mat92} and discussed by \citealt{mei05}).
In summary, to initialize the binaries in our NGC 188 model, we first choose orbital parameters independently from the
observationally defined distributions discussed above. In rare cases we modify these initial orbital parameters to
avoid unphysical systems, (e.g. those that would collide or merge in a single orbit).
We then modify the binaries according to the pre-MS binary evolution of
\citet{kro95b}. The resulting distributions of orbital parameters are shown in Figure~\ref{initbinfig}.
As the binaries evolve within the model they are subject to the increased tidal damping factor
described above.
\section{Color-Magnitude Diagram, Mass and Structure of the NGC 188 Model and Observations at 7 Gyr} \label{SOBS}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\plotone{f3.CMYK.eps}
\epsscale{1.0}
\caption{\footnotesize
Color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs) of a representative simulation from the NGC 188 model (left) and observations of the true cluster (right).
For both panels, the detectable binaries ($V < 16.5$ and $P < 10^4$ days) are plotted in the larger filled
circles with the main-sequence binaries in light gray, giant binaries in dark gray and blue straggler
binaries in black (green, red and blue in the online version).
Solar-type binaries with periods longer than $10^4$~days in the simulation are plotted in open circles.
Triples are plotted in crosses. All other stars are plotted in black points.
In the observed CMD, we show all cluster members from the \citet{gel08} survey and extend the sample to
fainter magnitudes using the proper-motion members ($P_{PM} > 50$\%) from \citet{pla03}.
The proper motions extend to a faint limit of $V=21$, but begin to become incomplete at $V \sim 19$.
For the simulation, binaries and triples are plotted as single points,
showing their combined magnitudes and colors. The distance modulus of $(m-M)_V = 11.44$
and reddening of $E(B-V) = 0.09$ of \citet{sar99} are employed to place the simulation at the same
distance and color as NGC 188.
\label{CMD}
}
\end{figure*}
We evolve the stellar population, as defined above, dynamically with the \texttt{NBODY6} code to an age of 7 Gyr to create a simulation of NGC 188.
As discussed above, we ran twenty simulations each with a different realization of the same initial parameter distributions,
and for much of the analysis that we discuss here and in the following sections, we combine the results of these twenty simulations
to form the NGC 188 model.
First we discuss the 7 Gyr CMD, Figure~\ref{CMD}.
In the left panel of this figure, we show one representative simulation; the other 19 simulations
have qualitatively the same features, although the specific numbers of stars in various populations
(e.g. BSs and triples) vary. Here we briefly compare this simulation to the observed CMD for NGC 188, shown in the right panel of same figure.
The magnitudes for each star in a given simulation are calculated in the same manner as in \citet{hur05},
using the bolometric corrections of \citet{kur92} for MS and giant stars and of \citet{ber95} for WDs.
We use the distance modulus $(m-M)_V$ = 11.44 and reddening $E(B-V)$ = 0.09 found by
\citet{sar99} to place the simulation at the appropriate distance and color.
In both CMDs, we show all stars with the small black points and highlight
binaries within our observational detection limits with larger
points, using light gray for MS binaries, dark gray for red giant branch (RGB) binaries, and black for BS binaries
(green, red and blue in the online version).
We use this same gray-scale (color) coding in our analyses of these respective binary populations throughout the paper.
At the distance of NGC 188, the components of a circular binary at the hard-soft boundary
($P \sim 10^{6.5}$ days for solar-type stars at 7 Gyr) would be separated by $\lesssim0.01$ arcseconds on the sky.
Therefore, no binaries (or higher order systems) are resolvable from ground-based
observations, and here we treat all binaries (and higher order systems) in the model as unresolved objects.
The model qualitatively reproduces the MS single and binary sequences quite closely
as compared to the observed CMD. We see a width to
the MS in both CMDs as a result of the rich binary population of the cluster.
(We will discuss the binaries in detail in Section~\ref{final_binary}.) The
cluster turnoff is at $V \sim 14.8$ in both CMDs, which corresponds to a mass of $\sim$1.1~M$_{\odot}$.
The MS luminosity function from the model is also consistent with that of the proper-motion
members from \citet{pla03} in both number and form (for $V \lesssim 19$, below which the \citealt{pla03}
catalog becomes incomplete).
However, there are
two obvious discrepancies between the observed and simulated clusters. First the model
does not predict the large long-known scatter on the RGB observed in NGC 188
\citep[e.g.,][]{mcc77,twa78,gel08}. The source of this observed scatter is not due to
the precision of the photometry. The $BV$ photometry shown here is precise to 0.01 mag \citep{pla03}.
We have not added photometric errors to the simulated CMD.
The origin of this observed scatter on the NGC 188 RGB, also seen in other clusters
(e.g., NGC 6819, \citealt{hol09}), remains unknown.
Second, the model clearly has fewer BSs at 7 Gyr than the true cluster. We will discuss the BSs in
detail in Section~\ref{final_BS}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\plotone{f4.eps}
\epsscale{1.0}
\caption{\footnotesize
Logarithm of the mean total cluster mass as a function of time in the NGC 188 model.
The black line is centered on the mean total mass at a given time from our twenty simulations, and the width of
the line shows one standard deviation above and below the mean.
The light-gray horizontal band shows the range in mass derived empirically for NGC 188 of 1500~M$_{\odot}$~to~3800~M$_{\odot}$~\citep{bon05,gel08,chu10}.
The model begins with a mean total mass of 23610~M$_{\odot}$~(with a standard deviation of 40~M$_{\odot}$~between the simulations),
and at 7 Gyr the mean total mass is reduced to 2850~M$_{\odot}$~(with a standard deviation of 120~M$_{\odot}$) through stellar evolution and evaporation processes.
The mean mass of the model at the age of NGC 188 agrees with the observed mass estimates.
\label{massvtime}
}
\end{figure}
Next, in Figure~\ref{massvtime} we show the mean total mass of the model as a
function of time. The mean initial mass of all twenty simulations is 23610~M$_{\odot}$, with a standard deviation of 40~M$_{\odot}$.
At 7 Gyr the simulated clusters have lost on average $\sim$88\% of this mass through evaporation processes and stellar evolution,
leaving a mean final mass of 2850~M$_{\odot}$, with a standard deviation of 120~M$_{\odot}$.
This value is in good agreement with empirical mass estimates for NGC 188 that range
from 1500~M$_{\odot}$~to~3800~M$_{\odot}$~\citep{bon05,gel08,chu10}.
Next we investigate the cluster structure at 7 Gyr. For this and later analyses we
analyze each simulation in the NGC 188 model as it might appear to an observer on Earth.
NGC 188 has Galactic coordinates of $l=122.$\degr$85$ and $b=+22.$\degr$38$ \citep{pla03}.
Each simulation begins with the X-direction facing away from the Galactic center and the cluster orbits in the X-Y plane.
We rotate each simulation according to the Galactic coordinates such that the transformed $Y'- Z'$ plane becomes the plane of the sky,
and the $X'$ direction is the line-of sight.
We then use this observed line-of-sight to NGC 188 in order to investigate the cluster
structure at 7 Gyr, and for subsequent analyses of the model where appropriate.
In Figure~\ref{Ndensity} we show the stellar surface density as a function of radius from the
cluster center at the age of 7 Gyr. Binaries and higher-order systems are treated as individual objects.
Each point in this figure shows the mean stellar density at the given radius, averaged over all simulations.
The error bars show the standard deviations of these values.
This profile is fit with the empirical three-parameter \citet{kin62} model,
as shown by the solid black line ($\chi^2_{red} = 1.9$). The fit results in a core radius of
$1.52 \pm 0.08$~pc
and a tidal radius of
$25 \pm 3$~pc.
With the dotted and dashed black lines in Figure~\ref{Ndensity}, we show two recent results analyzing the
observed stellar density profile in NGC 188. The dotted line shows the results of
\citet{bon05} who used 2MASS data to derive a core radius of $1.3\pm1$~pc and a tidal radius of
$21\pm4$~pc. The dashed line shows the results of \citet{chu10} who use the NGC 188 proper-motion
members from \citet{pla03} to derive a core radius of $2.1\substack{+0.9 \\ -0.6}$~pc and a tidal
radius of $34.4\substack{+16 \\ -10}$~pc. The values for the NGC 188
$N$-body model fall comfortably between the results of these two studies.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\plotone{f5.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize
Stellar surface density as a function of radius from the cluster center at 7 Gyr in the model, projected into
the true line-of-sight towards NGC 188. Each point shows the mean value for all simulations within
the given radial bin, and the error bars show one standard deviation above and below the mean.
We include only stars (and binaries) from the simulation with $V < 21$, to match the limiting
magnitude of the \citet{pla03} proper-motion study of the true cluster.
The solid black line shows a standard King model fit to these data, which yields a core radius
$r_c = 1.52 \pm 0.08$~pc and a tidal radius of $r_t = 25 \pm 3$~pc.
For comparison we also show two
King model fits from the literature to the observed density profile of NGC 188.
The King model fit of \citet{bon05} is shown in the dotted line, who find NGC 188 to have a $r_c = 1.3$~pc and
$r_t = 21$~pc, and the King model fit of \citet{chu10} is shown with the dashed line, who find $r_c = 2.1$~pc
and $r_t = 34.4$~pc (both normalized to the same central density as our fit to the NGC 188 model).
The vertical line shows the mean half-mass radius of the model at 7 Gyr.
\label{Ndensity}
}
\epsscale{1.0}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{cumR188} we compare the
cumulative radial distributions of the observable single, binary, RGB and BS populations in the model with
those of the true cluster from \citet{gel08}. We include the BS radial profile here for completeness, but we will wait to
discuss the BS population until Section~\ref{final_BS}.
For Figure~\ref{cumR188} and all subsequent cumulative distribution plots presented in this paper, we use the union of
all twenty simulations to construct the cumulative distribution functions for the NGC 188 model.
The solar-type binaries in the model are centrally concentrated with respect to the
solar-type single stars at the $>$99\% confidence level, in agreement with the true cluster.
This result also holds for any individual simulation.
The solar-type binaries are on average more massive than the single stars, and this result reflects the fact
that the model is mass segregated at 7 Gyr, as has also been observed in the true cluster \citep{sar99,kaf03,gel08}.
The RGB stars in the model appear to be more centrally concentrated than the single stars when combining all twenty simulations (as shown in Figure~\ref{cumR188}).
This is in contrast to the observed radial distribution of the RGB stars in NGC 188, which follow a nearly identical radial distribution to
the single stars in the true cluster.
However for any given simulation, a K-S test does not return a significant distinction between the radial distributions
of the RGB and single stars (given the relatively small number of RGB stars per simulation).
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\epsscale{1.0}
\plotone{f6.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize
Radial cumulative distributions of cluster populations from the NGC 188 model (left; in observed line-of-sight projection)
and observations (right; reproduced from \citealt{gel08}).
The cluster is divided into the observable singles (solid line), observable binaries (dotted line), giants (dashed line) and
blue stragglers (dot-dashed line).
The solar-type binaries are centrally concentrated with respect to the solar-type single stars in the model and observations, due to
two-body relaxation processes.
The simulated blue stragglers do not show the same bimodal spatial distribution that is observed in NGC 188.
\label{cumR188}
}
\epsscale{1.0}
\end{figure*}
\section{The 7 Gyr Main-Sequence and Giant Binary Populations} \label{final_binary}
\subsection{Binary Frequency}
At 7 Gyr in the twenty simulations the mean observable MS hard-binary ($P < 10^4$ days) frequency is
33.5\%, with a standard deviation of 2.8\%.
This result is in agreement with the observed MS hard-binary frequency of NGC 188 of 29\%~$\pm$~3\%
\citep[within the same period and mass range;][]{gel12}.
As is clear from Figure~\ref{bfreqt} the model predicts that the binary frequency will change only slightly
over 7 Gyr of evolution. Moreover, a cluster with a binary frequency consistent with that of M35 at 180 Myr will
evolve to have a binary frequency consistent with NGC 188 at 7 Gyr.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\plotone{f7.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize
Binary frequency as a function of time in the NGC 188 model. The total binary frequency is shown with the black line,
the total main-sequence binary frequency with the light-gray line, and the observable main-sequence binary frequency
with the dark-gray line (M$ > 0.9$~M$_{\odot}$~and $P < 10^4$~days).
All lines are centered on the mean values of all twenty simulations, and the widths are one standard deviation above and
below each mean.
Also shown (as points) are the observed main-sequence hard-binary
frequencies of M35 (24\%~$\pm$~3\% at 180 Myr) and NGC 188 (29\%~$\pm$~3\% at 7 Gyr), both for $P<10^4$~day binaries.
The observable main-sequence binary frequency in the model is consistent with those of both clusters at their respective ages.
We also note that the total binary frequency drops below the main-sequence binary frequency as the cluster evolves due to the population of binaries with white-dwarf primaries,
which has a low binary frequency. (In detached binaries, mass-loss on the giant branch increases the orbital separation and thereby increases
the probability for dynamical encounters resulting in exchanges or disruption.)
\label{bfreqt}
}
\epsscale{1.0}
\end{figure}
The mean hard-binary frequency of the RGB stars in the model is 31\% with a standard deviation of 6\%,
indistinguishable from that of the model MS stars. This binary frequency also agrees with that of the true cluster;
\citet{gel12} find the NGC 188 giants to have a hard-binary frequency of 34\%~$\pm$~9\%.
Again we see clear evidence of mass segregation (in both the simulated and true cluster)
when we examine the
hard-binary frequency of the observable MS and RGB populations combined as a function of radius from the cluster center (Figure~\ref{bfreqr}).
We exclude the BSs from the analysis, because the radial dependence of their binary frequency
may be tied to their formation mechanisms.
Here the model is shown in the filled circles and is compared to the result from \citet{gel12} for the true cluster
MS and RGB stars, shown in open circles.
The agreement is remarkable.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\plotone{f8.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize
Binary frequency as a function of radius at 7 Gyr for the NGC 188 model and observations.
For both the model and observations, the sample includes main-sequence and giant stars combined.
Filled circles show the model binary frequencies and open circles show the observed binary frequencies.
Errors bars on the observations
show the Poisson counting uncertainties. The points from the model show the mean values from all simulations,
and the error bars show one standard deviation above and below the means, respectively.
The horizontal bars indicate the range
in radius from the cluster center for which the binary frequency is calculated.
(The bins used for the observed and simulated data are identical; the plotted points are shifted along the x-axis for clarity.)
The binary frequency increases towards the core in the model due to two-body relaxation processes.
Remarkably, the binary frequency in the model matches that of the true cluster at each bin in radius.
\label{bfreqr}
}
\epsscale{1.0}
\end{figure}
\vspace{1em}
\subsection{Distributions of Periods, Eccentricities, Secondary Masses and Mass Ratios} \label{final_binary.dist}
In Figures~\ref{elogPfig}~-~\ref{qfig} we show the eccentricity - log period ($e - \log(P)$) distribution and the distributions of
eccentricities, periods, secondary masses and mass ratios
for the observable solar-type binaries in the model as compared to observations of similar binaries in NGC 188.
In all figures, the MS, RGB and BS binaries from the model are plotted in light gray, dark gray and black (green, red and blue in the online version).
For the selection of the RGB and BS binary populations, only one star must be a
RGB or BS star, respectively.
For completeness, we include the BSs in Figures~\ref{elogPfig}~-~\ref{qfig},
but we wait to discuss the BS population and the selection of the BS sample until Section~\ref{final_BS}.
Here we focus on the MS and RGB binaries.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\plotone{f9.CMYK.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize
Eccentricity plotted against the logarithm of the period for the main-sequence (top), giant (middle)
and blue straggler (bottom) binaries in the model.
For the main-sequence and giant binaries, we show all binaries present in all simulations at 7 Gyr.
The integrated sample of blue stragglers shown in the bottom panel
contains all blue-straggler binaries present in the model at each snapshot interval between 6 and 7.5 Gyr.
The circularization period $P_{circ}=14.5$ days \citep{mei05}
is plotted for reference with the dashed vertical line in the main-sequence panel.
In all three panels, we circle inner binaries of triple systems,
and plot the outer orbital parameters for triples with crosses.
\label{elogPfig}
}
\epsscale{1.0}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\plotone{f10.CMYK.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize
Eccentricity distributions for the main-sequence, giant and blue straggler binaries with $P_{circ}< P < 3000$ days
(where $P_{circ} = 14.5$ days; \citealt{mei05}).
The period limit is set empirically to exclude binaries whose orbits have been circularized by tides, and to extend to
our completeness limit in orbital solutions for the NGC 188 sample.
In the top three panels the model is shown in filled histograms, showing all solar-type main-sequence and giant binaries
present at 7 Gyr and the integrated blue straggler sample.
Each histogram bin represents the mean number of binaries in all twenty simulations
within the given eccentricity range, and the error bars show the standard errors of these means.
For comparison we plot the observed NGC 188 distributions in the thick-lined histograms, respectively.
The observed NGC 188 blue straggler frequency distribution is divided by 5 for clarity, and the true observed frequency is shown on the
right y-axis.
In the bottom panel we plot the cumulative distributions for the main-sequence,
giant and blue straggler samples in the model in light gray, dark gray and black (green, red and blue in the online version).
For comparison we also plot the solar-type main-sequence eccentricity distribution of the initial population (thin solid line) and
that resulting from evolving the same initial binaries in
isolation for 7 Gyr (dashed line).
\label{efig}
}
\epsscale{1.0}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\plotone{f11.CMYK.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize
Period distributions for the main-sequence, giant and blue straggler binaries.
The plots are of the same format as Figure~\ref{efig}, except here we do not limit
the model by period. (The observations extend to a period of 3000 days.)
Additionally we show the full log-normal period distribution from which we chose the initial
binary periods in the top panel, normalized to the 7 Gyr solar-type main-sequence binary frequency.
\label{Pfig}
}
\epsscale{1.0}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\plotone{f12.CMYK.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize
\label{M2fig}
Secondary-mass distributions for the main-sequence, giant and blue straggler binaries.
The plots are of the same format as Figure~\ref{efig}, except here we include
all solar-type observable binaries with $P < 3000$ days. Additionally
in the main-sequence panel we show the distribution excluding the unphysical MS-WD binaries with
the dotted line. Note the plots begin at
0.1~M$_{\odot}$, as this is the minimum initial stellar mass evolved within the $N$-body code.
(\cite{gel12} do not derive a secondary-mass distribution for the giants.)
}
\epsscale{1.0}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\plotone{f13.CMYK.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize
\label{qfig}
Mass-ratio distributions for the main-sequence, giant and blue straggler binaries.
The plots are of the same format as Figure~\ref{M2fig}.
}
\epsscale{1.0}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{elogPfig} we show the $e - \log(P)$ diagram for the observable
MS (top), RGB (middle) and BS (bottom) stellar populations in the model. The MS and RGB $e - \log(P)$ distributions
are in close agreement with the observations (Figure 3 in \citealt{gel12}).
The mean 7 Gyr circularization period over all of our simulations is $17.3 \pm 2.1$~days, consistent with the value of
14.5$\substack{+1.4 \\ -2.2}$~days found by \cite{mei05} for NGC 188.
However, we notice a significant population of circular MS binaries with $P > P_{circ}$ in the model, which is
also seen in the eccentricity distribution shown in Figure~\ref{efig}.
Such binaries are not observed in NGC 188 \citep{gel12}, the Galactic field \citep{duq91,rag10}, or
any of the open cluster binary populations studied by \citet{mei05}. We will return to these binaries in Section~\ref{discuss_lPcirc}.
Here we simply note that on average in a given simulation $<$1 of these long-period circular binaries had an initial
eccentricity $<0.01$.
The vast majority started with non-zero eccentricities, but were circularized
during a CE episode which left a WD secondary star.
If we do not include these post-CE systems, the MS eccentricity distribution of the model is statistically indistinguishable from
the observed distribution.
At 7 Gyr the solar-type MS binary period distribution in the model is also consistent with that observed in NGC 188.
The simulated MS period distribution in Figure~\ref{Pfig} rises towards our observational
detection limit as does the observed distribution.
Including only binaries that are within our observational completeness limit of $P < 3000$ days,
the observed and simulated period distributions are statistically indistinguishable.
The MS secondary-mass and mass-ratio distributions in the model (Figures~\ref{M2fig}~and~\ref{qfig}) have forms somewhat different from
those of the true cluster. Both distributions in the true cluster rise towards lower-mass companions
(although \citealt{gel12} note that they cannot formally distinguish the observed mass-function distribution, the observable quantity, from
a distribution derived by choosing binary component masses from a uniform mass-ratio distribution).
In both the MS secondary-mass and mass-ratio distributions from the model, we see distributions that rise until
$M_2\sim$0.5~M$_{\odot}$~and $q\sim$0.5, followed by a turnover towards lower masses and mass ratios.
The peak in both distributions is in part a result of WD companions, the vast majority of which are members of the unphysical
long-period circular MS-WD binaries discussed briefly above.
If we remove these MS-WD binaries (dotted lines in the MS panels of Figures~\ref{M2fig}~and~\ref{qfig}), the distributions in
secondary-mass and mass-ratio are both consistent with a uniform distribution, respectively.
We see a similar peak at about 0.5~M$_{\odot}$~in the secondary-mass and mass-ratio distributions for the RGB binaries. This peak
is also primarily due to WDs. Furthermore $\sim$60\% of these RGB - WD binaries evolved from post-CE MS - WD binaries with long-periods and
circular orbits, similar to those discussed above. Nearly all of the remaining 40\% are also evolved post-CE MS -WD binaries, but with
$P < P_{circ}$. Again, we will discuss these long-period circular post-CE MS-WD binaries in detail in Section~\ref{discuss_lPcirc}
The observed NGC 188 MS mass-ratio distribution shows a peak at mass-ratios near unity (also seen in the higher-mass MS stars in
the observed secondary-mass distribution), commonly referred to as ``twins'' and also observed in the Galactic field \citep[e.g.][]{rag10}.
The model does not create such equal mass ratio systems, which suggests that these binaries are likely not formed dynamically and instead
are a result of the binary formation process.
Recall that we have not yet derived the secondary-mass and mass-ratio distributions for the solar-type stars in M35. Therefore
these initial distributions are uncertain in our model.
Investigating the cumulative distributions in Figures~\ref{M2fig} and~\ref{qfig} shows that the observable secondary-mass and mass-ratio
distributions in the model have only changed slightly from their respective initial conditions.
These results suggest that NGC 188 may have formed with
a secondary-mass distribution that was more strongly weighted towards lower masses (possibly following the IMF directly),
and also a mass-ratio distribution with a peak at mass ratios near unity.
Finally, we note that the period, eccentricity and secondary-mass distributions of the RGB binaries in the model
are all statistically indistinguishable from the respective MS distributions.
The model is consistent with the observed RGB period and eccentricity distributions, although we note that the small
observed sample size prohibits a precise comparison.
(\citealt{gel12} did not derive the observed RGB secondary-mass or mass-ratio distributions for NGC 188.)
\subsection{The Role of Stellar Dynamics in Shaping the Main-Sequence Binary Population} \label{Sroledyn}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\plotone{f14.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize
\label{evpfig}
Mean eccentricity as a function of orbital period for solar-type main-sequence -- main-sequence binaries in the model (with initial
binaries in light gray and 7 Gyr binaries in dark gray) and observations (black).
We show binaries with $P > P_{circ}$, and plot the mean eccentricity over the bins in period shown in the horizontal
lines. Vertical error bars for the observed data show the standard errors of the mean. For the model, we plot the
mean values across all twenty simulations, and the vertical error bars show one standard deviation above and below these means.
At periods $>$ 1000 days, the 7 Gyr mean eccentricities become significantly larger than the initial eccentricities, due to
stellar encounters. A hint at a similar increase in eccentricity with increasing period is seen in the NGC 188 observations.
}
\epsscale{1.0}
\end{figure}
About 70\% of the MS-MS binaries present in the model at 7 Gyr maintained their primordial periods and eccentricities (both to within 10\%),
despite 7 Gyr of dynamical evolution within the star cluster.
Furthermore, 84\% of the 7 Gyr solar-type MS-MS binaries within our observable mass and period limits ($P < 3000$ days, $M_1 > 0.9$ M$_{\odot}$)
maintained their primordial periods and eccentricities.
In short, the distributions of orbital parameters for the MS binaries, and especially for short-period binaries, were largely maintained throughout
the cluster evolution.
In order to further investigate how dynamics has modified the binary population over the 7 Gyr of cluster evolution,
we compare the initial and 7 Gyr solar-type MS period, eccentricity, secondary-mass and mass-ratio distributions with those
derived by evolving the binaries from the model in isolation for 7 Gyr.
In the cumulative distribution panels of Figures~\ref{efig}~-~\ref{qfig}, the initial distributions are shown in the solid
lines. The 7 Gyr solar-type MS distributions evolved within the cluster are shown in the light-gray (green in the online version) points, and the 7 Gyr
MS distributions evolved in isolation are shown in the dashed lines.
Given the union of twenty simulations, we are able to distinguish the initial and 7 Gyr MS binary period, eccentricity
secondary-mass and mass-ratio distributions, respectively, all at very high confidence. Likewise we can distinguish at
very high confidence these 7 Gyr binary distributions from the respective distributions derived from isolated evolution.
However considering any individual simulation, only the 7 Gyr orbital period distribution has changed significantly from the
initial distribution, with a significance level of $>$99\%. Similarly the 7 Gyr MS period distribution evolved within the cluster
can be distinguished from that evolved in isolation at the $>$99\% confidence level for any given realization of the cluster.
All similar comparisons for the other binary distributions for any single simulation result in significance levels well below 90\%.
Only the longest period binaries experience significant orbital modifications from dynamical encounters.
In the case of the period distribution, we began our model with a fully populated log-normal distribution (solid line Figure~\ref{Pfig}).
Dynamical encounters have the most dramatic effect on the longest period, soft
binaries, which are quickly disrupted by dynamical encounters, imposing a hard-soft boundary at $P \sim 10^{6.5}$ days.
The result is a period distribution at 7 Gyr that can be distinguished from the initial distribution at high confidence.
Conversely, the binaries evolved in isolation maintain the full log-normal period distribution and show no
distinction from the initial distribution.
In the case of the eccentricity distribution, we began with a Gaussian distribution at all periods.
Again, we see that dynamical encounters affect the longest period binaries most severely (Figure~\ref{evpfig}).
The eccentricity distributions for binaries with periods $>1000$ days are shifted to significantly higher eccentricities
than their initial
distributions, and the difference increases with increasing period. Wider binaries have larger cross sections for encounters,
and such encounters (most often fly-by encounters) tend to increase eccentricity. We note, however, that even binaries with periods
very close to the hard-soft boundary do not attain a thermal eccentricity distribution in these simulations.
In Figure~\ref{evpfig} we also compare to observations of the NGC 188 MS binaries (black points). We see a hint of a similar trend towards higher eccentricities
amongst longer period binaries in the observations. However given the relatively small sample size, this possible trend in the observations is not
significant.
As discussed in \citet{gel12}, many of these
higher eccentricity binaries in NGC 188 reside near the cluster core, where dynamical encounters are most frequent.
Stellar dynamical and relaxation processes have also resulted in a modest increase in binary frequency (Figure~\ref{bfreqt}).
The mean 7 Gyr solar-type MS hard-binary frequency over all simulations is 33.5\% (with a standard deviation of 2.8\%),
an increase of about 20\% over the initial MS solar-type hard-binary frequency.
This increase in binary frequency is due to the preferential evaporation of
the lower-mass single stars as compared to the higher-total-mass binary stars in our observable
mass range.
As is clear from this analysis, the agreement between the 7 Gyr solar-type MS hard-binary population in the model with our observations
is largely due to our choice of initial conditions, as most hard-binaries within our observable limit in orbital period
have not been dramatically affected by strong dynamical
encounters over the 7 Gyr of evolution. We return to this point in Section~\ref{discuss_M35NGC188}.
\section{Comparison Between the Observed and Simulated Blue Stragglers} \label{final_BS}
For the BS population in the model, we use an integrated sample that includes all BSs present at each $\sim$30 Myr snapshot interval within the twenty simulations
from 6 to 7.5 Gyr, covering the range in the observed age estimates for NGC 188 \citep[e.g. see][]{for07},
and we will do similarly for the majority the paper.
The use of multiple simulations reduces the stochastic fluctuations in BS production.
The inclusion of all BSs at each snapshot interval weights the BS population by the lifetime that a given
BS spends in each cluster radius, orbital configuration, etc., and essentially provides the likelihood that we will
observe a BS in a given location or with a given orbital configuration, etc.
\citet{gel11} use the BS population from this model to examine the predicted binary orbital parameters of BSs formed through mass transfer
and stellar collisions and to investigate the origins of the long-period BS binaries in NGC 188.
They conclude, based on the long-periods, low eccentricities and particularly the secondary-mass distribution which has a narrow peak at $\sim$0.5M$_{\odot}$, that the
NGC 188 BSs in long-period binaries, which comprise the majority of the BS
population in the cluster, likely have origins through mass-transfer processes.
Here we expand upon their results.
First we examine the radial distribution of the BSs (Figure~\ref{cumR188}).
The observed NGC 188 BSs show a bimodal radial distribution with a centrally concentrated group of 14 BSs near the core and an additional
population of 7 BSs in the halo \citep{gel08}. \citet{gel12} find no significant difference between the binary properties of
these two BS population in NGC 188, suggesting that this bimodal distribution is not a result of two distinct BS formation channels.
Similar bimodal BS radial distributions have been observed in globular clusters
\citep[e.g.][]{fer97} and have been attributed to dynamical friction and mass-segregation processes \citep{map04}.
These same processes act within our NGC 188 model; however the BS population in the model does not show the bimodal spatial
distribution that we observe in the true cluster.
Moreover only 17\% of the simulated BSs are found outside of 5 pc ($\sim$3.5 core radii), as compared to $\sim$33\% in NGC 188.
Later we suggest that this difference is a result of incorrect modeling of BS formation channels (and particularly the mass-transfer channel)
which does not adequately population the halo with BSs.
In Figure~\ref{CMD} we show the 21 BSs observed in NGC 188 at 7 Gyr, 16 of which are in binaries with $P<10^4$ days \citep{mat09}.
At 7 Gyr, the maximum number of BSs produced in
any of the twenty simulations is 11, and the mean number of BSs at 7 Gyr is $6.2 \pm 0.8$.
In Figure~\ref{NBSvtime} we show
the number of BSs (top) and the BS hard-binary frequency ($P<10^4$ bottom) as functions of time for
the NGC 188 model.
We find on average $6.09 \pm 0.05$ BSs between 6 and 7.5 Gyr in our integrated BS sample from the model,
less than one third of the observed number of BSs in NGC 188.
Next we compare the observed and simulated BS binary properties, starting with binary frequency.
The mean BS hard-binary frequency found in the model is also below the observed value of 76\%~$\pm$~19\%.
Between 6 and 7.5 Gyr, the mean detectable BS binary frequency is 14.5\%~$\pm$~0.5\%,
a factor of 5 lower than the BS hard-binary frequency observed in NGC 188.
As is clear from Figure~\ref{NBSvtime}, both the total number of BSs and the BS hard-binary frequency from the model
are well below the observed values for essentially the entire lifetime of the modeled cluster.
Furthermore, the entire BS frequency, independent of period, between
6 and 7.5 Gyr is only 27.0\%~$\pm$~0.4\%, about one third of the observed value (which only included BS binaries with $P < 10^4$ days).
\begin{figure}[!t]
\plotone{f15.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize
Number of blue stragglers (top) and the detectable blue-straggler binary frequency ($P<10^4$ days; bottom) as functions
of time. In both panels, the black line shows the mean values at each snapshot interval found by
averaging the results from all twenty simulations, and the gray region marks one standard deviation
above and below the mean values. In NGC 188, there are
21 observed blue stragglers, 16 of which are in hard binaries, resulting in a blue straggler hard-binary
frequency of 76\%~$\pm$~19\%.
In the model both the number of blue stragglers and the blue straggler binary frequency are significantly lower than the observed
values.
\label{NBSvtime}
}
\epsscale{1.0}
\end{figure}
We now return to Figures~\ref{efig}~-~\ref{qfig}, where we compare the distributions of the orbital parameters
for the integrated sample of BSs with those of the observed BSs in NGC 188.
Importantly, the forms of the distributions of orbital parameters for the detectable BS binaries in the model are
consistent with those that we observe for the true BSs in NGC 188.
A large fraction of the simulated BSs are found in low-eccentricity orbits with long periods, and their
secondary-mass distribution is peaked at $\sim$0.5~M$_{\odot}$.
Respective K-S test show that the BS binary period, eccentricity secondary-mass and mass-ratio distributions in the model can be distinguished from
the associated solar-type MS binary distributions in the model at the $>$99\% confidence levels.
This echos the results of \citet{mat09} and \citet{gel11,gel12} who compared the observed BS and solar-type MS binaries in NGC 188.
They find that the NGC 188 BSs in binaries have significantly longer periods than the MS binaries (at the $>$99\% confidence level), and that
amongst such long-period binaries, the BSs have significantly lower eccentricities (at the 98\% confidence level).
Furthermore, the companion-mass distribution for the long-period BS binaries in NGC 188 is narrowly peaked near
$\sim$0.5~M$_{\odot}$, while the companion-mass distribution of solar-type MS binaries shows no evidence for a similar peak.
\citet{gel11} suggest that these BS binary properties point to an origin in mass-transfer processes, where the companions
would be $\sim$0.5~M$_{\odot}$~white dwarfs.
We note here that $\sim$60\% of the BSs in binaries with $P<3000$ days in the model
derive from mass-transfer processes (and we expand upon this below). Thus the agreement between the observed and simulated distributions of BS binary
parameters is likely a result of both populations having the same dominant BS formation channel.
In the model, we also find BSs in binaries at longer periods than our 3000 day completeness limit for observations (see Figure~\ref{Pfig}).
Currently five BSs in NGC 188 show no detectable radial-velocity variability, and are therefore considered ``single''.
However these NGC 188 BSs may prove to have companions in longer-period orbits (currently beyond our detection limit),
analogous to the longer-period BS binaries in the model.
Next, we analyze the BSs from the model according to formation mechanism.
BSs in the NGC 188 model form through three primary mechanisms, namely direct stellar collisions, mergers and mass-transfer processes.
Here we are concerned with the BS outcome. Therefore in the following we will include within the merger category any binaries that are
in the process of mass transfer and will eventually merge, which are predominantly Case A mass-transfer binaries between two MS stars.
Stellar collisions occur during dynamical encounters involving binaries (or higher-order systems), while mergers
and mass transfer can occur within an isolated binary. In the NGC 188 model
the rates of mergers and mass transfer are also modified by dynamical encounters (as we discuss in Section~\ref{discuss_BS}).
Recently a new BS formation path was proposed \citep{iva08,per09}, where the inner binary in a triple system is driven to a merger
by a combination of \citet{koz62} cycles and tidal friction known as the KCTF mechanism.
This mechanism is available in the $N$-body model through the work of \citet{mar01} who added prescriptions to model
Kozai cycles and tidal friction in triple stars.
In general, we find that binaries and triples contribute significantly to BS formation in the NGC 188 model.
The vast majority of the BSs formed in the model, regardless of the formation mechanism, had origins involving primordial
binaries. Furthermore, nearly half of the BSs present in the NGC 188 model between 6 and 7.5 Gyr were found in dynamically formed
hierarchical triple systems (in many cases with a primordial binary as the inner system) during the snapshot interval prior to becoming a BS.
The wider orbit of the tertiary increases the cross section for stellar encounters, and in nearly all of these systems, the
BSs formed through collisions resulting from dynamical interactions (as was predicted by \citealt{mat09} and \citealt{lei11}).
Thus binaries and triples are key to BS formation in the NGC 188 model.
However, we do not find the KCTF mechanism to form a significant population of BSs in the NGC 188 model, and therefore we will not include
this mechanism in the following discussion of this section.
Importantly, though, we did not include triples in the initial population of the model.
We return to BS formation through KCTF in Section~\ref{discuss_BS}.
In Figure~\ref{NBSvtimevorg} we show the number of BSs as a function of time in the NGC 188 model, separated by formation mechanism,
with BSs formed by collisions in the solid line, mergers
in the dashed line and mass-transfer processes in the dotted line. BS formation early in
the cluster lifetime is dominated by mergers of initially very short-period binaries.
At $\sim$3 Gyr the
cluster core begins to contract, and we see a corresponding rise in the collision rate. At the age of NGC 188
collisions are the dominant BS formation mechanism, followed closely by mergers. The mass-transfer
rate remains roughly constant throughout the lifetime of the cluster, and is in general
significantly lower than either the collision or merger formation rates.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\plotone{f16.eps}
\caption{\footnotesize
Number of blue stragglers as a function of time in the NGC 188 model for blue stragglers formed through collisions
(solid line) mergers (dashed line) and mass transfer (dotted line), binned into 250 Myr intervals.
Each bin is normalized to show the mean number of blue stragglers per simulation at a given time formed
through the respective mechanisms. Mergers dominate early in the cluster lifetime.
At $\sim$3 Gyr collisions begin forming BSs at a rate
equivalent to mergers. This corresponds with the time when the core begins to contract in the model.
The number of blue stragglers formed through mass transfer is always significantly
lower than those created through the other mechanisms.
At the age of NGC 188 collisions and mergers dominate blue straggler formation in the $N$-body model.
\label{NBSvtimevorg}
}
\epsscale{1.0}
\end{figure}
The relative contributions of the different BS formation mechanisms in the \citet{hur05} M67 $N$-body model are
very similar to what we find here \citep[see][]{gel12}.
Of the 20 BSs present at 4 Gyr in the M67 simulation,
eight formed through collisions, ten formed through mergers, and only two formed through mass-transfer processes.
As discussed in \citet{gel12} the M67 simulation contains a hard-binary frequency ($P < 10^4$ days) at 4 Gyr that is about twice that observed
in NGC 188 (or included in our NGC 188 model), and an overabundance of short-period binaries.
This large excess of binaries is responsible
for the higher formation rate of BSs through all mechanisms in the \citet{hur05} simulations.
Next we compare the binary frequencies for BSs (within the integrated sample) formed by each formation mechanism in the NGC 188 model.
Only 4\% of the merger BSs in the NGC 188 model have binary companions with orbital periods below our
observational detection limit. The majority of these are in contact systems that will eventually merge to form single BSs, while a
small fraction have exchanged into detached binaries with wider separations.
Only 12\% of the BSs formed by collisions in the model would be detected as binaries.
Interestingly, even if we consider BS binaries at any period, only 33\% of BSs formed by collisions are found in binaries.
Many of these single collisional BSs formed
with binary companions initially in very wide orbits, near the hard-soft boundary, that were quickly ionized.
Thus the low observable-binary frequency for the BSs in the NGC 188 model reflects the dominant formation channels.
Essentially all of the BSs formed by mass transfer in the NGC 188 model are in binaries that would be detectable observationally.
Only the mass-transfer mechanism can reproduce the large observed BS binary frequency of NGC 188.
Furthermore, about 50\% of the BSs that are detected as binaries in the NGC 188 model derive from mass-transfer processes.
Thus, although the absolute number of BSs formed by mass transfer in the NGC 188 model is low, mass transfer is
the most efficient mechanism at producing BSs in binaries.
As discussed above, the agreement between the distributions of binary parameters for the BSs in the model with the BSs observed in NGC 188
is likely due to the majority of BSs in both samples having origins in mass-transfer processes.
Finally, we note that the NGC 188 model struggles to produce BSs with similar binary characteristics as the two double-lined (SB2) BSs in NGC 188.
Both of these SB2 BSs in NGC 188 have short periods ($P < 10$ days) and companions with masses $M_2>0.9$ M$_{\odot}$, one of which is a
MS star near the turnoff and one of which is itself a BS.
There are no BS binaries with $P < 10$ days and
$M_2 > 0.9$ M$_{\odot}$~present
in the model between 6 and 7.5 Gyr; there are two such systems present at earlier times.
Interestingly, out of the twenty simulations in the NGC 188 model, we find three BS-BS binaries present
between 6 and 7.5 Gyr with short enough periods to be detected as binaries observationally.
All of these systems formed through exchange encounters.
However these BS-BS binaries all have periods much greater than 10 days (specifically, 340, 2750, and 5500 days, respectively), and
two of these three systems were only bound for one snapshot interval. Another 4 BS-BS binaries are present in the integrated sample, but with
periods $>10^4$ days, and therefore not detectable in our observations. To date, no such long-period BS-BS binaries
have been detected in open clusters or the field.
In summary, the deficiency in number of BSs, the low frequency of detectable binaries among those that are formed, and the
lack of a bimodal BS radial distribution are
striking failures of the model compared to the observations of \citet{gel11}.
We return to this point in Section~\ref{discuss_BS}.
Importantly, however, the distributions of orbital periods, eccentricities, companion masses and mass ratios
for the detectable BS binaries in the model (Figures~\ref{efig}-\ref{qfig})
are all consistent with the observed properties of the NGC 188 BSs.
The majority of these detectable BS binaries in the model were formed through mass-transfer processes.
Thus, the agreement between the simulated and observed distributions of BS binary orbital parameters further supports the results of \citet{gel11},
who find that the majority of the true BSs in NGC 188 likely have origins in mass transfer.
\section{Dynamically Formed Triples} \label{final_trips}
Recently triple-star systems have been employed to explain a number of ``anomalous'' star systems
observed in both star clusters and the Galactic field, including certain bright X-ray binaries \citep{mak09},
BSs \citep{iva08,per09}, and some short-period contact binaries \citep{egg06}.
As we did not include any triples initially, all triples discussed here were formed dynamically,
often during binary-binary encounters.
Observationally, the triple populations in star clusters (including NGC 188) are poorly known. Therefore here we mainly compare the triple
frequency and distributions of orbital parameters in the NGC 188 model to those observed in the Galactic field, and
investigate whether dynamical encounters can form triples with the same characteristics as those observed in the field.
\subsection{Frequency of Triples}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\plotone{f17.eps}
\epsscale{1.0}
\caption{\footnotesize
Number of triples (top) and the triple frequency ($N_{trip}/N_{objects}$, bottom) as functions of time.
We include only triples with solar-type primary stars.
The black lines show the mean values at each snapshot interval for the twenty simulations, and
the gray filled area shows one standard deviation above and below the means.
The dotted lines show the mean values for solar-type triples that have outer periods $<10^4$ days
(our spectroscopic detectability limit).
All triples formed dynamically, as we did not include triples initially in the model.
\label{Ntripvt}
}
\end{figure}
We first investigate the number of dynamically formed triples and the triple frequency
($N_{trip}/N_{objects}$, where we treat each single star or system of stars as one object, respectively) as functions of time.
In Figure~\ref{Ntripvt}, the solid black lines show the mean number (top) and frequency (bottom) of triples with solar-type primaries ($0.9\leq M_1 $(M$_{\odot}$)$ \leq 1.1$)
in the model. The dotted lines show the values for solar-type triples that we could potentially detect in our
spectra, namely those with outer periods $<10^4$ days.
The number of solar-type triples increases early on due to initially very long-period binaries near (and beyond) the hard-soft boundary
undergoing binary-binary encounters that result in dynamically formed triples,
as well as an increasing encounter rate in the core due to core contraction.
By $\sim$5 Gyr the number of solar-type triples reaches a maximum of $\sim$10 triples, and
then declines as triples begin to evaporate from the cluster or are destroyed at a rate higher than they are created.
The average lifetime of a given triple in the model is $820 \pm 60$ Myr.
On the other hand, the solar-type triple frequency continues to increase throughout the entire lifetime of the modeled cluster.
These more massive systems are preferentially retained by the cluster as the less massive single stars
are ejected. At 7 Gyr the solar-type triple frequency is 2.10\%~$\pm$~0.13\%. However many of these triples have
outer periods beyond our observational detection limit.
\citet{gel09} report two candidate triples
(and one quadruple system) in their sample of binaries with orbital solutions in NGC 188, placing a lower limit
on the MS triple frequency of 0.5\% (2/375), which certainly suffers from significant incompleteness.
The NGC 188 model produces a detectable solar-type triple frequency of only 0.15\%~$\pm$~0.04\% at 7 Gyr, significantly lower than
even this observed lower limit.
\citet{mer92} find a triple frequency
of 2.3\%~$\pm$~1.6\% (2/88) for F5-K0 stars in the Pleiades ($\sim$150 Myr), and
\citet{mer99} find F5-K0 stars in Praesepe ($\sim$750 Myr) to have a triple frequency of 3.8\%~$\pm$~2.2\% (3/80).
Both of these spectroscopic surveys have a roughly similar completeness limit as our NGC 188 survey.
The NGC 188 model produces essentially zero solar-type detectable triples at the ages of these young clusters (as is clear
from Figure~\ref{Ntripvt}). If we take the full sample of solar-type triples (no longer limited to have $P < 10^4$ days),
we find a solar-type triple frequency of 0.11\%~$\pm$~0.01\% at 150 Myr and 0.31\%~$\pm$~0.03\% at 750 Myr, still well
below the triple frequency detected observationally in these two clusters.
Thus at early times, the model does not form enough triples dynamically to match these observations.
Furthermore the triple frequency in the Galactic field is observed to be significantly higher than
that found for the dynamically formed triples in the NGC 188 model.
\citet{rag10} find a triple frequency of 9\%~$\pm$~2\% in their complete sample of solar-type dwarf and subdwarf Galactic field stars.
This survey combined spectroscopic and astrometric techniques, and is therefore not limited by period; although we note that
a fraction of these triples have outer periods beyond the hard-soft boundary in NGC 188.
The maximum triple frequency reached by any of the twenty simulations in the NGC 188 model is 4.5\% (at 7.2 Gyr).
\citet{tok06} performed a comprehensive survey of short-period ($1 < P < 30 $ days)
solar-type Galactic field binaries within 100 pc, and find a tertiary ($N_{triple}/N_{binary}$) frequency of 65\%~$\pm$~5\%.
(Note that the denominator in this definition of the tertiary frequency is different from that of the triple frequency shown
in Figure~\ref{Ntripvt} and discussed above.) Accounting for triples in the \citet{tok06} sample that have outer periods beyond the hard-soft boundary of
$10^{6.5}$ days reduces this observed frequency to $\sim$40\%.
However, the maximum tertiary frequency reached in the model for this mass and period range is only
10.9\%~$\pm$~1.7\% (at $\sim$7 Gyr), significantly lower than observed by \citet{tok06}.
\cite{tok06} also find the field tertiary frequency to be a strong function of the period of the inner binary, ranging from
96\% ($1 < P $[days]$ < 3$) to 34\% ($12 < P $[days]$ < 30$). For comparison, we find tertiary frequencies of 9\%~$\pm$~2\% and 10\%~$\pm$~3\%,
respectively, at 7 Gyr for these period bins. Thus
we do not find the same increase in the tertiary frequency for shorter-period inner binaries in our model.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\epsscale{0.75}
\plotone{f18.eps}
\epsscale{1.0}
\caption{\footnotesize
Cumulative distributions of inner (left) and outer (right) orbital periods for solar-type dynamically formed triples in the NGC 188 model compared
to the observed field triple population of \citet{tok06} (top) and triples in the Multiple Star Catalogue \citep[MSC;][bottom]{tok97}.
In all plots, the line shows the distributions from the model for triples containing solar-type (0.7~M$_{\odot}$~- 1.1~M$_{\odot}$) primaries
present between 6 and 7.5 Gyr. In the top panels, we limit the model sample to include only triples with inner-binary periods of $P_1<30$ days
(to correspond with the \citealt{tok06} study).
The black points in all plots show the observed samples including only triples with primary masses between
0.7~M$_{\odot}$~and 1.1~M$_{\odot}$, and outer periods of $\log(P_2$ [days]) $< 6.5$ (the hard-soft boundary in the model between 6 and 7.5 Gyr).
Both the inner and outer orbital period distributions from the model are indistinguishable from those of the observed samples, respectively.
\label{Tokfig}
}
\end{figure*}
In conclusion, the frequency of dynamically formed triples produced within the NGC 188 model is significantly lower than triple frequencies
observed in the field and open clusters, suggesting that real open clusters may form with a significant population of primordial triples.
\subsection{Period Distributions of Dynamically Formed Triples}
In Figure~\ref{Tokfig} we compare the orbital periods for the solar-type triples in the NGC 188 model
to those of the \citet{tok06} study (top)
and to those in the Multiple Star Calatogue \citep[MSC;][bottom]{tok97}.
We limit both observational samples to include only triples with solar-type primary stars
and outer periods of $\log(P_2$ [days]$) < 6.5$ (the hard-soft boundary in the model at the age of NGC 188).
For comparison with the \citet{tok06} sample, we only include solar-type triples from the model with $1 < P_1 $(days)$ < 30$.
The MSC contains triple systems of all $P_1$, and therefore we do not limit the solar-type triple sample from the model
for this comparison.
We note that the \citet{tok06} sample is nearly complete. However, the MSC is a compilation of triples observed in various stellar environments
from the literature (including those in \citealt{tok06}), and therefore is not meant to be a complete sample.
Still this is the largest sample of triples in the literature,
and therefore offers a useful comparison.
Remarkably, both the inner and outer orbital period distributions for dynamically formed triples in the model are indistinguishable
from those of the similar triples in \cite{tok06} and the MSC, respectively. Further observations are needed in order define
the distributions of other orbital parameters and component masses for a more in-depth comparison against $N$-body simulations.
\section{Discussion} \label{discuss}
The NGC 188 model matches the observed mass, surface-density profile, MS binary frequency and overall
distributions of MS binary orbital elements of NGC 188 very closely.
We discuss in Section~\ref{discuss_M35NGC188} the implications of this correspondence with NGC 188, given that our
initial binary population was defined empirically based on our observations of M35.
On the other hand, the model creates a population of long-period circular MS-WD binaries not seen
in NGC 188, and also creates too few BSs.
Both of these highlight areas where the model requires improvement.
We discuss these issues in Sections~\ref{discuss_lPcirc} and~\ref{discuss_BS}, respectively.
\vspace{1em}
\subsection{Dynamical Evolution of the NGC 188 Solar-Type Binaries} \label{discuss_M35NGC188}
In Section~\ref{Sroledyn} we found that minimal changes to the solar-type MS binary population
occurred in our NGC 188 model as a result of stellar dynamics, even after 7 Gyr of evolution within the star cluster.
For the solar-type MS binary population, dynamical encounters only significantly affect the long-period binaries.
Most dramatically, strong dynamical encounters truncate the period distribution at the hard-soft boundary (Figure~\ref{Pfig}).
In Figure~\ref{evpfig} we also show that for binaries with $P > 1000$ days, stellar encounters begin to significantly shift the
eccentricity distribution to higher eccentricities.
Stellar dynamical and two-body relaxation processes also result in a modest increase in the global solar-type hard-binary frequency, and
the central concentration of binaries relative to single stars.
However for any single simulation (e.g, any one realization of NGC 188) no distributions of binary orbital
parameters or masses, expect for period, for the solar-type MS binaries at 7 Gyr show statistically
significant changes as a result of dynamical processes.
These results underscore the importance of defining a realistic initial binary population in star cluster simulations, as
the properties of the initial hard-binary population persist throughout many Gyr of dynamical evolution (as was also
discussed in \citealt{gel12}). We suggest that this is best accomplished by comparison to observed binary populations.
Here we use the solar-type hard binaries from the young open cluster M35 as a guide, although all indications to date
suggest that the field binaries are equally appropriate.
The NGC 188 model nearly reproduces the observed
NGC 188 MS solar-type hard-binary population at 7 Gyr. This result
is due to the \textit{lack} of dynamical processing of the binaries, despite having evolved within a fairly massive open cluster for 7 Gyr.
The correspondence between the 7 Gyr MS solar-type hard binaries in the model and observations is
because NGC 188 and M35 themselves have very similar MS binary populations in both frequency and distributions of orbital parameters.
Our results suggest that, at the age of $\sim$180 Myr, NGC 188 likely had a very similar MS binary population as
M35, and indeed both M35 and NGC 188 may have formed with very similar binary populations. The correspondence between
the NGC 188 and M35 binaries with similar binaries in the field (which likely formed in a variety of different environments)
introduces an intriguing possibility that these observed binary properties may be ubiquitous, at least for solar-type stars.
Observations of additional young open clusters, like M35, are essential to determine truly how common these binary properties
are and the degree of scatter in the solar-type binary frequency and distributions of orbital parameters resulting from
binary formation in different environments. Given the results of the
NGC 188 model, we suggest here that even observations of older open clusters can provide valuable information about the
properties of young binary populations.
\subsection{Long-Period Circular Solar-Type-Main-Sequence -- White-Dwarf Binaries} \label{discuss_lPcirc}
In Section~\ref{final_binary} we find a large population of solar-type-MS -- WD binaries in the model
that have periods well beyond the tidal circularization period, but with zero eccentricities (see Figures~\ref{elogPfig}~and~\ref{efig}).
Such binaries are not observed in NGC 188 or any other solar-type binary population in the literature \citep[e.g.][]{gel12,mei05,duq91,rag10}.
Essentially all of these binaries in the model started with non-zero eccentricities, and were later circularized during
a CE episode that began when the primary ascended the RGB or asymptotic-giant branch.
Similar binaries were also seen in the \citet{hur05} simulation, and were noted as an unrealistic population by \citet{gel12} in
their comparison with NGC 188.
Here we examine two general questions in the hopes of resolving this discrepancy with observations: (1) Should
these binaries truly go through CE evolution? And, (2) if they do go through CE evolution, should the products be MS - WD
binaries in circular orbits with periods beyond the circularization period?
We begin by examining whether these binaries should truly go through CE evolution in reality.
In $\texttt{NBODY6}$, as in many binary evolution codes, the decision about whether to send a binary with one member (or both) overfilling
its Roche Lobe through dynamically unstable mass transfer (e.g., CE) of thermal/nuclear mass transfer is controlled by the critical mass ratio $q_c$.
Generally, in simulations utilizing $q_c$, a quantity $q_1 = M_{donor}/M_{accretor}$ is calculated, and binaries with $q_1 > q_c$
undergo CE evolution, while those with $q_1 < q_c$ undergo stable mass transfer.
Here we examine four different methods for calculating $q_c$ from the literature, namely those of \citet{hje87}, \citet{hur02},
\citet{che08} and the StarTrack code from \citet{bel08}.
The \citet{hur02} $q_c$ values are the lowest for any given binary in this sample, followed by the \citet{che08} criteria for conservative
mass transfer, and then the \citet{hje87} values used in our NGC 188 model. Thus these models would send all of these
binaries through CE evolution.
\citet{bel08} use a slightly different procedure to determine when CE evolution will occur, which allows for a delayed dynamical
instability for such binaries above a critical mass ratio $q_{ddi} = 3$ (defined similarly to $q_c$, above).
If we evolve these binaries with StarTrack, $\sim$37\% avoid CE, and $\sim$7\% undergo stable mass transfer
to become BSs.
However, these $q_c$ values (including those used in the $N$-body model) are highly uncertain, and depend on how conservative the
mass transfer is \citep{che08}.
In the $N$-body code, conservative mass transfer is assumed when calculating the exponents for the boundaries between the
dynamical, thermal and nuclear mass-transfer regimes (although non-conservative mass transfer is possible once the regime is determined).
We do not account for the effects of non-conservative mass transfer explicitly in the calculation of $q_c$.
However, \citet{woo12} argue that especially the initial stage of mass transfer from a
giant is likely to be non-conservative due to high mass-loss rates.
Furthermore, \citet{che08} show that non-conservative mass transfer effectively increases the $q_c$ value, which could allow
additional binaries to avoid the CE phase, and potentially undergo stable mass transfer to produce BSs.
Also, enhanced wind mass loss during the primary's giant phase(s) will reduce the primary mass, and may also increase the
secondary mass through wind accretion, both of which will reduce the $q_1$ value and potentially allow for stable mass transfer
in some systems.
In the $N$-body code, we use a Reimers mass loss coefficient of 0.5.
However the true Reimers coefficient for these stars may be as high as $\sim$1.4 \citep{kud78,sac93}, which would
allow additional binaries to avoid the CE phase, and some to become BSs.
There is also growing evidence that this critical mass-ratio parameterization may be too simplistic \citep{woo11,pas11}.
Specifically, \citet{woo11} find that no parameterization based only on $q$ can reliably
determine the onset of unstable mass transfer.
They also find that even for systems that will eventually undergo CE evolution,
5\% - 10\% of the giant donor's mass may be transferred to the companion prior to this phase.
For many of the systems we discuss here, this amount of mass would be sufficient to produce a BS.
Furthermore, \citet{egg06a} shows from an observational sample of detached binaries possibly related to CE evolution that only those
with progenitor mass ratios $\gtrsim 4$ show the significant orbital shrinkage expected from a CE phase.
This may suggest that only systems with large mass ratios undergo typical CE evolution.
All the solar-type-MS -- WD binaries from the NGC 188 model discussed here have $q_1 \lesssim 2.5$.
Therefore perhaps most or even all of these binaries should avoid CE evolution in reality.
In summary, these unrealistic binaries produced in the $N$-body model may result from having incorrectly applied CE evolution to
their progenitors. In this scenario, these binaries could instead be BS-WD binaries at 7 Gyr with very similar orbital parameters
and masses to the majority of the BSs observed in NGC 188.
Next we investigate the second question posed above, namely if CE evolution is truly expected for these binaries, should
the products be MS-WD binaries in long-period circular orbits.
The post-CE orbital periods in the model are determined by the uncertain $\alpha_{CE}$ efficiency parameter \citep[see][]{hur02}.
In our model (as in \citealt{hur05}) we attempt to mimic the treatment of \citet{ibe93} by setting $\alpha_{CE} = 3$.
Doing so in the \texttt{NBODY6} treatment is approximately equivalent to using $\alpha_{CE} = 1$ in the \citet{ibe93} treatment,
as the two approaches use different equations for the orbital and binding energies.
These unrealistic MS-WD binaries may
indicate that the $\alpha_{CE}$ value chosen here is incorrect. Perhaps the $\alpha_{CE}$ value (or values) for these binaries
should result in final periods that are less than $P_{circ}$ or even mergers (potentially producing BSs) after the CE phase.
Finally, in the $N$-body model, we assume that all post-CE binaries are in circular orbits.
However hydrodynamic simulations show that the envelope ejection can by asymmetric, which could impart a non-zero eccentricity to
the system \citep{pas12}.
Additionally, material from the envelope may remain bound to the binary after the ejection phase \citep[e.g.][]{pas12,kas11,san98}.
This material may settle into a circumbinary disk, and such post-CE binaries can gain eccentricity through
disk-binary interactions \citep{kas11,art91}. In this scenario the product of the CE evolution may still be a long-period
MS-WD binary, but with non-zero eccentricity.
To summarize, we identify three potential resolutions to this discrepancy with observations, which can be tested with future detailed
simulations of these specific binaries. First, perhaps the current MS members of these binaries should have gained sufficient mass to become
BSs by either undergoing stable mass transfer rather than CE (possibly by modifying the $q_c$ values) or by gaining mass prior to the CE phase.
Second, the $\alpha_{CE}$ value in the model may be incorrect and perhaps should be modified to shrink the orbits of these binaries
shorter than $P_{circ}$ or even to result in mergers (possibly producing BSs) after the CE phase. Third, if these binaries should indeed undergo CE
evolution and produce long-period MS-WD binaries, perhaps they should have non-zero eccentricity.
In closing, we note that there are roughly 9 such long-period circular binaries per simulation present at 7 Gyr. If all were indeed supposed to become
BSs through mass transfer this would more than double the 7 Gyr BS population in the NGC 188 model, and importantly, these BSs
would have similar binary characteristics to the majority of the NGC 188 BSs. Thus it is intriguing to consider the possibility that
both the paucity of BSs and the overabundance of long-period circular solar-type-MS -- WD binaries may be tied to our incomplete understanding
of the same physical mechanism.
These binaries may provide important test cases for future detailed binary evolution simulations aimed at investigating CE evolution and
mass-transfer processes.
\subsection{The Paucity of Blue Stragglers} \label{discuss_BS}
As discussed in Section~\ref{final_BS}, the NGC 188 model contains on average $\sim$6 BSs at the age of NGC 188
with a detectable binary frequency of $\sim$14.5\% ($P < 10^4$ days). These values are both significantly lower than
those observed in NGC 188, where we find 21 BSs with a binary frequency of 76\%~$\pm$~19\% (within the same period range).
Here we identify potential reasons for the paucity of BSs in the NGC 188 model, and suggest future work that may further
illuminate how BSs form in open clusters.
\subsubsection{Low Mass Transfer Efficiency} \label{lowMT}
\citet{gel11} find that the binary properties of the long-period
NGC 188 BSs (and particularly the companion-mass distribution) are most closely consistent with an origin in mass transfer.
We find above that only the mass-transfer mechanism can reproduce the very large hard-binary frequency and distinctive
distributions of orbital periods and companion masses observed for the NGC 188 BSs.
However, the mass-transfer mechanism is the least efficient at producing BSs in the NGC 188 model.
If we evolve the primordial
binaries from our twenty simulations in isolation (using the \citealt{hur02} BSE code),
we would expect that at 7 Gyr on average $\sim$5 BSs per simulation would
have formed through mass transfer (not accounting for the expected mass loss from the cluster due to
tidal stripping and dynamical ejections).
Therefore the efficiency of the mass-transfer formation mechanism is far too low in the $N$-body model than
would be necessary to produce the $\sim$13 BSs in NGC 188 that we expect are the result of mass-transfer processes.
In fact, these five mass-transfer BSs that results from evolving the binary population from the model in isolation are lost in
a dynamical environment. Dynamical encounters disrupted, modified and/or ejected nearly all of these ``proto-BS'' binaries in the NGC 188 model.
On the other hand dynamical encounters do not efficiently create BSs from mass-transfer processes within the
NGC 188 model. Only on average $\sim$0.4 additional BSs per simulation were formed via mass transfer that were not expected
from the population synthesis analysis.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\plotone{f19.eps}
\epsscale{1.0}
\caption{\footnotesize
Mean number of blue stragglers between 6 and 7.5 Gyr as a function of the number of primordial triples in the $N$-body simulations.
The values at zero primordial triples are from the NGC 188 model. All other values are from the additional simulations described in
Section~\ref{primtrips}. The points connected by the solid line show the mean total number of BSs. The points connected by the
dashed line show the mean total number of hard-binary BSs ($P < 10^4$ days), and the points connected by the dotted line show the
mean total number of single BSs. We find here that the total number of BSs increases
only slightly with an increased number of primordial triples, but the hard-binary frequency among the BSs increases dramatically. Still the
total number of blue stragglers in these simulations are a significantly lower than the number (21) observed in NGC 188.
\label{NBSvtripfig}
}
\end{figure}
In Section~\ref{final_BS} we note that the NGC 188 model lacks the bimodal BS radial distribution of the true cluster, and
instead the BSs in the model are centrally concentrated, with no significant halo population. This discrepancy between the
model and observations may be tied to the inefficient production of BSs through mass transfer, where, in the model, insufficient BSs are
produced in the halo to yield a bimodal distribution.
Additional $N$-body models are necessary to fully understand the implications of
this discrepancy between observations and simulations.
We suggest that the paucity of
BSs in the NGC 188 model reflects upon an incomplete description of the mass-transfer mechanism in the model. The presence of
a population of unrealistic solar-type-MS -- WD binaries with long-periods and circular orbits further highlights our incomplete understanding of
the interface between CE evolution and stable mass transfer. As discussed in Section~\ref{discuss_lPcirc}, if these spurious MS-WD binaries
were instead meant to undergo stable mass transfer to become BSs, the NGC 188 model would roughly match the observed BS number and binary properties.
Our analysis of the BSs produced in the NGC 188 model combined with the results
of \citet{gel11} suggest that the efficiency of stable mass transfer may be significantly underestimated in the $N$-body model (and other codes
that use similar binary evolution prescriptions).
\subsubsection{Effects of Primordial Triples on Blue Straggler Production} \label{primtrips}
Another hypothesis is that the lack of BSs in the model is the result of a missing population of hierarchical triples that could
produce BSs either through mergers of the inner binaries as a result of Kozai cycles and tidal friction \citep{iva08,per09},
known as the KCTF mechanism, or through collisions during dynamical encounters \citep{mat09,lei11}.
Kozai cycles and tidal friction are included in the $N$-body model as in \citet{mar01}. Stellar encounters involving triples that may result
in collisions are also modeled in detail.
We did not include triples in the primordial population of the NGC 188 model, but triples do form dynamically (see Section~\ref{final_trips}).
In Section~\ref{final_BS} we find that many of the BSs in the NGC 188 model that formed through collisions were
members of dynamically formed hierarchical triples prior to the encounter that resulted in the collision.
This is fully consistent with the analytic work of \citet{lei11}, who show that dynamical encounters involving triples may be common in clusters like NGC 188,
and can lead to BS formation through collisions.
We also investigate the NGC 188 model for dynamically formed triples that have appropriate orbital parameters to potentially form BSs through
the KCTF mechanism. Specifically, we search for triples with inner binaries that have a combined mass $>$1.15~M$_{\odot}$~(roughly
the lower mass limit of BSs in NGC 188), inner periods of $<6$ days (as in \citealt{per09}), and outer periods
between 700 and 3000 days (roughly the period range of the long-period NGC 188 BSs). On average, we find $\sim$1 such triple
per simulation at any given time, and no BSs present in our model between 6 and 7.5 Gyr formed through the KCTF mechanism.
Only three BSs present at other times within our twenty simulations formed as a result of Kozai cycles.
However, it may be common for short-period ($P \lesssim 6$ days) binaries to form with tertiary companions \citep{tok06,fab07},
which are conducive to forming BSs through the KCTF mechanism and collisions resulting from dynamical encounters.
Furthermore, in Section~\ref{final_trips}, we find that the triple frequency in the NGC 188 model is lower than expected from observations
of real open clusters (and the Galactic field), suggesting that perhaps triples should be included in the initial population.
As a first step toward investigating the importance of primordial triples for BS production, we generated a few additional simulations using the
same initial conditions as in the NGC 188 model, but also including up to 200 primordial triples.
For simplicity and to emphasize the types of triples that may be important for producing BSs in a cluster like NGC 188 through the KCTF mechanism,
in these simulations we choose the primaries in all initial triples to have
masses of 1 M$_{\odot}$, the secondaries to have masses chosen randomly from a uniform distribution between 0.2~M$_{\odot}$~and 1 M$_{\odot}$, and
the tertiaries to have masses chosen randomly from a uniform distribution between 0.5~M$_{\odot}$~and 2.0~M$_{\odot}$.
We choose the inner periods from the \citet{duq91} log-normal distribution (consistent with the M35 solar-type binaries), but limited
to be between 2 and 50 days.
The cut in inner period at 50 days is motivated by the observations of Galactic field triples by \citet{tok06} who find that the tertiary frequency
falls off quickly with increasing inner binary period.
We impose a lower limit on the inner period of 2 days so that we don't introduce binaries that will quickly merge on their own through Case A mass transfer
(which occurs at periods $\lesssim1.7$ days for solar-type stars in BSE).
The outer periods are chosen randomly between 700 and 3000 days, to reflect the periods of the observed NGC 188 single-lined (SB1) BS binaries.
The eccentricities for both orbits are chosen from the M35 Gaussian distribution. All angles are chosen randomly.
For these simulations, we modify the initial frequency and period distribution of the regular (non-triple) binary population so that when the two components
of the triple systems are combined with the regular binary population, the simulations still begin with the same log-normal period
distribution and the initial binary frequency used in the NGC 188 model. There are $\sim$200 solar-type MS binaries in the initial population
of the NGC 188 model with $2 < P($days$)< 50$, which sets the maximum number of triples that we include in these simulations.
We ran simulations with 50, 100 and 200 primordial triples, and compare the results to our NGC 188 model. In Figure~\ref{NBSvtripfig}
we show the mean number of BSs present in these simulations between 6 and 7.5 Gyr. The points at zero triples come from our ``standard''
NGC 188 model without primordial triples. The points connected by the solid line show the mean total number of BSs in these simulations.
There is a slight increase in the number of BSs with increasing number of triples, but even in the simulation containing 200 primordial triples
(essentially replacing every solar-type binary with $2 < P$[days]$< 50$ in the standard NGC 188 model with a triple)
the simulation still only creates about one-third of the number of BSs that are observed in NGC 188.
The BS hard-binary frequency ($P < 10^4$ days) increases dramatically with increasing number of triples, as more BSs are created
within triples, and therefore retain companions. Also note that this increase in BS hard-binary frequency is in part due to setting the
initial outer orbits to have periods between 700 and 3000 days, which are not easily disrupted.
About half of the BSs in binaries that are present in these simulations
between 6 and 7.5 Gyr have origins from primordial triples.
The majority of these BSs that began within primordial triples were involved in dynamical encounters that
perturbed the system and in many cases exchanged in other stars prior to a collision that formed the BSs.
Only about 25\% of these formed in relative isolation through Kozai-induced BS formation.
Thus, triples do play a significant role in creating BSs through stellar collisions (as was suggested by \citealt{mat09} and \citealt{lei11}),
but the KCTF mechanism is not a significant contributor to the BS population here.
The \texttt{NBODY6} code uses the \citet{mar01} analytic method to model Kozai oscillations and tidal processes in triple stars,
rather than direct integration. This method is used because direct integration of triple (and higher-order) stars
for many Myr within a cluster simulation is computationally very challenging and could also introduce further uncertainties
due to the many necessary integration steps, each with its own computational uncertainty.
It is possible that the \citet{mar01} method underestimates the efficiency of KCTF BS formation, which would affect the results shown here.
Further investigation into
the efficacy of the \citet{mar01} method for KCTF BS formation in $N$-body simulations is desirable, but beyond the scope of this project.
Additionally, further $N$-body simulations with more realistic primordial triple populations are required to fully test this hypothesis.
In summary, our results here suggest that primordial triples may not provide the additional BSs that are required to bring the number of BSs in
the NGC 188 model into agreement with those observed in the true cluster.
Specifically, even replacing all solar-type binaries with $2 < P$(days)$< 50$ in the standard NGC 188 model with triples
does not reproduce the number of
BSs observed in NGC 188. The majority of the BSs produced in these models through triple-mediated mechanisms were produced by collisions.
However \citet{gel11} rule out collisions as the dominant formation mechanism for the majority of the NGC 188 BSs at high confidence (based primarily
on the observed secondary-mass and orbital eccentricity distributions of the NGC 188 BSs).
\subsubsection{Dependence of Blue Straggler Production on the Initial Binary Population and Cluster Structure} \label{primbins}
The BS production rate is sensitive to the initial binary parameters, and certain modifications can increase the
number of model BSs to be consistent with the 21 observed in NGC 188. We describe the results of additional $N$-body simulation
with modified initial conditions below. However none can reproduce the observed binary properties of the NGC 188 BSs.
Adding short-period binaries (e.g., by using an initial period distribution that is flat in log period) is the most efficient method
for increasing the number of BSs.
Here the BS production rate through mergers and collisions are increased, as was also seen in the \citet{hur05} simulation.
However as discussed above such BSs do not match the binary properties of the NGC 188 BSs.
Adding more high-eccentricity binaries (e.g. by using an initially thermal eccentricity distribution) increases the BS production
rate through collisions, as small perturbations to a highly eccentric orbit can cause the components of the binary to collide.
Dramatically increasing the overall hard-binary frequency can also increase the BS production rate through all mechanisms.
However, modifying the initial period or eccentricity distributions or the binary frequency in this manner results in a 7 Gyr MS binary
population that is inconsistent with that observed for NGC 188.
\citet{gel12} find that the NGC 188 MS binaries have a modest abundance of ``twin'' binaries which is not reproduced in
our model. Adding a population of twins to the initial binary population does not significantly increase the BS production rate.
We also ran additional $N$-body simulations to investigate the effect of changing the initial half-mass radius of the cluster
(between 4 and 7 pc) and find no significant effect on
the BS production rate at the age of NGC 188. After 3 - 5 Gyr of evolution, the clusters relax to
similar core radii regardless of the initial values, and by 7 Gyr the core (and tidal) radii in all of these additional simulations are consistent with
that of the NGC 188 model. Since the typical BS lifetime in the model is $\sim$1.6 Gyr, the difference in cluster structure
at a young age does not significantly affect the BS population at the age of NGC 188.
In summary, we are unable to modify the initial conditions of the binary population or the cluster structure
in such a way as to both reproduce the observed BS and MS binary populations.
\subsubsection{Blue Straggler Lifetimes} \label{BSlifetimes}
It is possible that the paucity of BSs in the model are a result of underestimated BS lifetimes.
Numerous uncertainties, including, for example, how efficiently fresh Hydrogen can be mixed into the core, translate into
uncertainties on the BS lifetimes in the NGC 188 model.
For BSs present at 7 Gyr in the NGC 188 model, the
mean BS lifetime is $\sim$1650 Myr (not including prior evolution as a normal MS star).
In order to match the number of BSs observed in NGC 188, we would have to approximately triple the lifetime of all BSs.
However the total lifetime of a normal MS star with a mass of a typical 7 Gyr BS in the model ($\sim$1.46~M$_{\odot}$), is
less than twice that of the mean BS lifetime. Therefore tripling all BS lifetimes would be unphysical.
Furthermore, \citet{gle08} suggest that BSs, and particularly those formed by collisions, will be out of thermal equilibrium and poorly mixed, and
therefore will have \textit{shorter} lifetimes than predicted by the equilibrium models used in the $N$-body code.
Finally, simply increasing the lifetime of all BSs would likely not change the BS binary frequency.
\section{Summary and Conclusions} \label{conclusion}
In this paper we present a sophisticated $N$-body model of the old (7 Gyr) open cluster NGC 188 that
matches the observed MS and RGB binary populations in detail, and thereby allows us to study the formation rate and mechanisms of
the BS population within a realistic theoretical framework.
We take great care to define the initial conditions for the model empirically, where possible.
Importantly, we employ our observations of the solar-type binary population of the young open cluster M35 (180 Myr) to
guide our choices for the initial binary frequency and distributions of period and eccentricity (and we note that these M35 binary
characteristics are consistent with those of solar-type binaries in the Galactic field).
The power of using detailed observations to both guide the choices for initial conditions and test the outcomes of $N$-body open
cluster simulations
is evident in the accuracy with which we reproduce the observations of the NGC 188 solar-type binaries with our model.
The MS binary frequency and distributions of orbital parameters agree in detail with
those observed in the real cluster \citep{gel12}.
Additionally, at the age of NGC 188 the model matches the observed cluster mass as well as the core and tidal radii of the
cluster \citep{bon05,gel08,chu10}.
The MS binaries show very little evidence for modifications by stellar dynamical encounters even after 7 Gyr of evolution within the cluster environment.
Indeed only the long-period binaries show evidence for orbit modifications from stellar encounters.
Specifically, strong dynamical interactions are responsible for breaking up the initially very long-period binaries, and establishing a hard-soft
boundary at $P \sim 10^{6.5}$ days.
Stellar encounter (most often fly-by encounters) begin to shift the eccentricity distribution for MS-MS binaries to higher eccentricities
for binaries with $P > 1000$ days, and this effect increases towards longer periods.
Two-body relaxation processes also result in a $\sim$20\% increase in the detectable binary frequency over the 7 Gyr of evolution and the central
concentration of the MS binaries in the cluster at the age of NGC 188.
However, in general, the short-period MS binaries in the NGC 188 model show little signs of dynamical processing, which further
emphasizes the importance of defining an accurate initial binary population for constructing realistic open cluster models,
as most of the hard-binary characteristics persist throughout the evolution of the cluster.
This finding may also suggest that observations of the present-day binaries in open clusters can provide valuable
information on their primordial binary populations. The similarities between the solar-type binary populations in NGC 188 (at 7 Gyr), M35
(at 180 Myr) and the Galactic field are remarkable, and may indicate that binaries form with similar characteristics within a variety of environments.
Comparable studies of binary populations in additional rich open clusters are necessary to explore this further.
Nevertheless, we suggest that the observationally defined distributions of binary orbital parameters and binary frequency used here should be strongly
considered for use in future open cluster models.
However, despite having matched the observed MS binaries, the NGC 188 model produces only one-third as many BSs, and
these BSs have only one-fifth the hard-binary frequency ($P < 10^4$ days), as compared to the BSs observed in NGC 188.
For the full 7 Gyr of the modeled cluster, mergers and collisions dominate
BS formation, with collisions producing the majority of the BSs at the age of NGC 188. This is in stark contrast to the
observations of \citet{gel11} who show that the secondary-mass distribution of the majority of the BSs in NGC 188 is inconsistent
with the collisionally produced BSs in the model. Rather the binary properties of the NGC 188 BSs, and particularly the secondary-mass distribution,
point to a mass-transfer origin.
A potential explanation for the missing BSs may also resolve a second discrepancy between the model and observations,
namely the population of circular MS-WD binaries with periods well beyond the tidal circularization period created within the model as a result of
CE evolution. Such binaries are not observed in NGC 188, the Galactic field \citep{duq91,rag10} or the many other open cluster surveyed
by \citet{mei05}.
Perhaps the MS stars in these binaries were instead meant to become BSs by entering a phase of stable mass transfer.
This is a compelling solution as the number of unphysical MS-WD binaries in the model is consistent with the number of
missing BSs, and the binary characteristics of these BSs would be consistent with the majority of the NGC 188 BSs.
The creation of these unphysical long-period circular MS-WD binaries in the model highlights our incomplete understanding of CE evolution,
and particularly which binaries should enter a CE phase, which should enter stable mass transfer and what the products of CE evolution should look like.
Improvements may be necessary in the treatment of mass transfer and CE evolution in models like \texttt{NBODY6} and BSE,
which may also have important implications for formation rates of other interacting binary populations,
such as W UMa's, CVs, symbiotic stars, etc.
These specific unphysical binaries created in the NGC 188 model may provide important test cases for future detailed binary evolution
simulations aimed at studying CE evolution and mass-transfer processes.
Missing BSs in the NGC 188 model may also point to a missing population of primordial triples. The Pleiades \citep{mer92}
and Praesepe \citep{mer99} both have significantly higher observed triple frequencies than the NGC 188 model at the respective cluster ages,
as does the Galactic field \citep{duq91,tok06,rag10}. However, our additional simulations (Section~\ref{primtrips}) suggest that
adding primordial triples will not dramatically increase the number of BSs present at 7 Gyr.
Still, additional $N$-body simulations, with more realistic initial triple populations, are required to fully investigate if primordial triples
can contribute significantly to BS production.
In closing, we note that only recently have both the observations and $N$-body simulations matured sufficiently to permit such detailed comparisons as we present here
between true binaries in a dynamically evolved open cluster and analogous binaries simulated in a realistic $N$-body open cluster model.
Open clusters are unique in their accessibility to both detailed comprehensive observational surveys and full-scale sophisticated $N$-body simulations,
opening a window into the dynamical evolution of star clusters that is only now becoming reachable. Furthermore, advances in both hardware and software now
readily allow for multiple large open cluster simulations to run simultaneously (as we have done here), which enable more statistically
robust analyses and a broader exploration of parameter space \citep{mat08}. This capability, combined with the upcoming results
from our WOCS observations of a number of open clusters with a wide range in age, will continue to advance our understanding of star cluster
dynamics, the origins of BSs and the roles that binary and multiple stars play in star cluster evolution.
\acknowledgments
Thanks to R.~Taam and N.~Ivanova for helpful discussions.
This work was funded by the Lindheimer Fellowship at Northwestern University, National Science Foundation (NSF) East Asia and Pacific
Summer Institute (EAPSI) award OISE-0913544, NSF grant AST-0908082 to the University of Wisconsin - Madison, and the Wisconsin Space Grant Consortium.
\bibliographystyle{apj}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The method to solve the Skyrme Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov equations in the
transformed harmonic oscillator basis was presented in \cite{[Sto05]}.
The present paper is a long write-up of the new version of the code HFBTHO.
This extended version contains a number of new capabilities such as the
breaking of reflection symmetry, the calculation of axial multipole moments,
multi-constraint calculations and the readjustment of the corresponding
Lagrange parameters using the cranking approximation of the RPA matrix, the
blocking prescription in odd-even and odd-odd nuclei, the finite-temperature
formalism, and generalized Skyrme-like energy functionals.
In addition to releasing a new version of the solver for general applications
in nuclear science, the goal of this paper is to establish a number of precise
benchmarks for nuclear structure calculations with Skyrme functionals. To
this end, we devote an entire section to comparing various calculations
performed with the spherical HOSPHE version 2.00 \cite{[Car13],[Car10]},
axially-deformed HFBTHO v{2.00d}, and symmetry-unrestricted HFODD
version 2.56 \cite{[Sch13],[Sch12],[Dob09]} nuclear density functional theory
(DFT) solvers. Also, in order to facilitate the development of future versions
of HFBTHO as well as to enable deeper integration with the next releases of
HFODD, backward compatibility of input and output files has been broken between
the version 1.66 of \cite{[Sto05]} and the current version {2.00d}.
Unless indicated otherwise, details about the methods presented in \cite{[Sto05]}
still apply.
In section \ref{sec:modifs}, we review the new capabilities of the code. In
section \ref{sec:benchmarks}, we present a number of numerical benchmarks
between HFBTHO and the aforementioned DFT solvers. Such benchmarks are very
important in view of the future development of these programs.
\section{Modifications introduced in version {2.00d}}
\label{sec:modifs}
\setcounter{mysubsubsection}{0}
We present in this section the major new features added to the code between
version 1.66 and 2.00d. Minor improvements and bug fixes are not
discussed here, the full history of changes can be found in the source code.
\subsection{Modified Broyden Method}
\label{subsec:broyden}
In HFBTHO v{2.00d}, the matrix elements of the HFB matrix are
updated at each iteration using the modified Broyden method, instead of the
traditional linear mixing of version 1.66. Details of the implementation,
results of convergence tests, and comparisons with alternative implementations
can be found in \cite{[Bar08]}.
\subsection{Axial multipole moments}
\label{subsec:moments}
In HFBTHO v{2.00d}, the expectation value of axial multipole moments
$\hat{Q}_{l} \equiv \hat{Q}_{l0} = r^{l}Y_{l0}(\theta,\varphi)$ on the HFB
ground-state is computed for all moments up to $l_{\text{max}} = 8$. We
recall that in spherical coordinates, the multipole moment $\hat{Q}_{l}$
of order $l$ reads
\begin{equation}
\hat{Q}_{l}(r,\theta,\varphi) = r^{l}\sqrt{\frac{2l+1}{4\pi}} P_{l}(\cos\theta),
\end{equation}
where $P_{l}$ is the Legendre polynomial of order $l$ \cite{[Abr64]}. Spherical
and cylindrical coordinate systems are related through $r^{2} = \rho^{2} + z^{2}$
and $r\cos\theta = z$. Recurrence relations on Legendre polynomials give an
analytical expression for $\hat{Q}_{l}(r,z,\varphi)$ for $l=0,\dots,8$
\cite{[Abr64]}. Multipole moments can also be used as constraints. In this
case, the matrix elements of $\hat{Q}_{l}$ in the HO basis need to be computed.
They are evaluated numerically on the Gauss-Laguerre and Gauss-Hermite nodes
of integration used throughout the code \cite{[Sto05]}.
\subsection{Finite-temperature HFB method}
\label{subsec:temperature}
The code HFBTHO v{2.00d} solves the finite temperature HFB (FT-HFB)
equations. The numerical implementation is similar to that of HFODD v2.49t
in \cite{[Sch12]}. Let us recall that the FT-HFB equations take the same
form as the HFB equations at $T=0$, only the one-body density matrix
and pairing tensor now depend on the Fermi-Dirac occupation $f_{\mu}$ of
quasi-particle states $\mu$. Assuming axial- and time-reversal symmetry,
all density matrices are real and read
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\rho = UfU^{T} + V(1-f)V^{T} \medskip\\
\kappa = UfV^{T} + V(1-f)U^{T},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
with $U,V$ the matrices of the Bogolyubov transformation. In HFBTHO, these
matrices are block-diagonal. As in HFODD, the Fermi level $\lambda$ is not
treated explicitly as the Lagrange parameter for the multipole operator
$\hat{Q}_{00}$ alongside other multipole moments $\hat{Q}_{lm}$. Instead,
it is determined directly at each iteration from the conservation
of particle number and is based on the BCS formula
\begin{equation}
N(\lambda) = \sum_{\mu} \left[ v_{\mu}(\lambda)^{2}
+ (u_{\mu}^{2}(\lambda)-v_{\mu}^{2}(\lambda))f_{\mu}(\lambda) \right].
\end{equation}
The BCS occupations are given by the traditional formulae
\begin{equation}
v_{\mu}^{2} = \frac{1}{2}\left[ 1 - \frac{\varepsilon_{\mu} - \lambda}{E_{\mu}^{\text{BCS}}} \right],
\ \ \ u_{\mu}^{2} = 1 - v_{\mu}^{2},
\end{equation}
with $E_{\mu}^{\text{BCS}} = \sqrt{(\varepsilon_{\mu} - \lambda)^{2} + \Delta_{\mu}^{2}}$
and $\varepsilon_{\mu}$ and $\Delta_{\mu}$ are the equivalent single-particle
energies and pairing gaps, see appendix B in \cite{[Dob84]}. The Fermi-Dirac
occupation factors are given by
\begin{equation}
f_{\mu}(\lambda) = \frac{1}{1 + e^{\beta E_{\mu}^{BCS}}}.
\end{equation}
When using the Newton-like method to solve the equation $N(\lambda)=N,Z$ for
each type of particle at $T>0$, one must now include the contribution
$\partial f_{\mu}/\partial\lambda$ in the derivative of the function
$N(\lambda)$.
\subsection{Linear constraints and the RPA method}
\label{subsec:rpa}
Multi-constraint calculations are possible in HFBTHO v{2.00d}.
The code implements the linear constraint method, where the quantity
to be minimized is
\begin{equation}
E' = E - \sum_{a} \lambda_{a} \left( \langle \hat{Q}_{l_{a}} \rangle - Q_{l_{a}} \right),
\end{equation}
where $\hat{Q}_{l_{a}}$ is the multipole moment operator for the
constraint $a$ and $\lambda_{a}$ is the related Lagrange parameter.
Lagrange parameters are readjusted at each iteration according to
the procedure presented in \cite{[You09]} and also used in the latest
release of HFODD \cite{[Sch12]}. The philosophy of the method is to
associate the variation of the Lagrange parameters with a first-order
perturbation of the generalized density matrix.
As a reminder, we start with the variations $\delta\mathcal{R}$ of
the generalized density matrix, which induce variations of the HFB
matrix $\delta\mathcal{H}$ and of the Lagrange parameters
$\delta\gras{\lambda} = (\delta\lambda_{1},\dots,\delta\lambda_{N})$,
(up to first order). Neglecting the variations of the HFB matrix with
respect to the generalized density matrix is equivalent to working
at the so-called cranking approximation, and it reduces the HFB equation
with the perturbed quantities to
\begin{equation}
\left[ \delta\mathcal{R}, \mathcal{H}^{(0)} \right]
-\frac{1}{2} \sum_{a} \delta\lambda_{a}
\left[ \mathcal{R}^{(0)}, \mathcal{Q}_{l_{a}} \right] = 0,
\end{equation}
with $\mathcal{R}^{(0)}$ and $\mathcal{H}^{(0)}$, respectively, the
unperturbed generalized density matrix and HFB Hamiltonian,
$\delta\lambda_{a}$ the perturbation of the Lagrange parameter for the
constraint $a$, and $\mathcal{Q}_{l_{a}}$ the matrix of the constraint
in the doubled s.p.~basis. This equation gives the desired relation
between $\delta\mathcal{R}$ and $\delta\lambda$. The Lagrange parameter
can then be readjusted at each iteration by interpreting the deviation
$\delta Q_{l_{a}} = \langle \hat{Q}_{l_{a}} \rangle - Q_{l_{a}}$ from
the requested value $Q_{l_{a}}$ as caused by a variation of the
generalized density matrix $\delta\mathcal{R}$,
\begin{equation}
\delta Q_{l_{a}} = \frac{1}{2}\text{Tr} \left( \mathcal{Q}_{l_{a}}\delta\mathcal{R} \right).
\end{equation}
Knowing the deviation $\delta Q_{l_{a}}$, we obtain $\delta\mathcal{R}$,
and thereby deduce the $\delta\lambda_{a}$ needed to reproduce the
requested value. Calculations are performed in the q.p.~basis, since the
unperturbed generalized density and HFB matrix take a very simple form.
The computational cost of the method thus comes essentially from transforming
all relevant matrices into this basis. In HFBTHO, this operation can be
performed separately for each $\Omega-$block. The method can also be
extended to finite-temperature in a straightforward manner by using the
Fermi-Dirac occupation factors. Details of this extension are presented
elsewhere \cite{[Sch13]}.
\subsection{Quasi-particle blocking}
\label{subsec:blocking}
Odd-even and odd-odd nuclei can now be computed with HFBTHO v{2.00d}
using the blocking of quasi-particle states \cite{[Sch10]}. Because
time-reversal symmetry is built into the code, the equal filling
approximation (EFA) has to be used \cite{[Per08]}. However, it was shown in
\cite{[Sch10]} that the EFA is an excellent approximation to exact
blocking. The identification of the blocking candidate is done using the
same technique as in HFODD \cite{[Dob09d]}: the mean-field Hamiltonian
$h$ is diagonalized at each iteration and provides a set of equivalent
single-particle states. Based on the Nilsson quantum numbers of the
requested blocked level provided in the input file, the code identifies
the index of the q.p.\ to be blocked by looking at the overlap between
the q.p.~wave-function (both lower and upper component separately) and
the s.p.~wave-function. The maximum overlap specifies the index of the
blocked q.p.
\subsection{Generalized energy density functionals}
\label{subsec:generalized}
The kernel of the HFBTHO solver has been rewritten to enable the use of
generalized Skyrme functionals that are not necessarily derived from an
effective pseudo-potential such as the Skyrme force. Generalized Skyrme
functionals are defined here as being the most general scalar, iso-scalar,
time-even functional $\mathcal{H}$ of the one-body local density matrix
$\rho(\gras{r})$ up to second-order in spatial derivatives of $\rho$
\cite{[Dob95],[Sto10]}. Assuming time-reversal symmetry, such functionals
thus take the form
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}_{t}[\rho] =
C_{t}^{\rho\rho}[\rho] \rho_{t}^{2}
+ C_{t}^{\rho\tau}[\rho] \rho_{t}\tau_{t}
+ C_{t}^{J^{2}}[\rho] \gras{J}_{t}^{2}
+ C_{t}^{\rho\Delta\rho}[\rho] \rho_{t}\Delta\rho_{t}
+ C_{t}^{\rho\nabla J}[\rho] \rho_{t}\gras{\nabla}\cdot\gras{J}_{t},
\end{equation}
where $t$ stands for the isoscalar ($t=0$) or isovector ($t=1$) channel,
and $\tau_{t}$ and $\gras{J}_{t}$ are the kinetic energy and spin current
density in each channel. The terms $C_{t}^{uu'}[\rho]$ are (possibly
arbitrary) functions of the local isoscalar density $\rho_{0}(\gras{r})$.
Note that all commonly used Skyrme forces or functionals fall into this
category because of the phenomenological density-dependent term. Although
most Skyrme functionals have been fitted ``as a force", the recent
parameterizations UNEDF0 and UNEDF1 have looked at the problem more from a
functional perspective \cite{[Kor10],[Kor12]}. Microscopically-derived EDF
obtained, for example, from the density matrix expansion of effective
nuclear potentials, are less trivial examples of these generalized
functionals, since the density-dependence of the coupling constants can
be significant \cite{[Sto10]}.
In the current version, the code only implements 2$^{\text{nd}}$-order
generalized Skyrme functionals and it is left to the user to code more
advanced functionals. The subroutine {\tt calculate\_U\_parameters()} in
module {\tt UNEDF} provides a general template for such an implementation.
Required are the form of the energy functional and at least its first
partial derivatives with respect to the isoscalar $\rho_{0}$ and isovector
$\rho_{1}$ density matrices. Second-order partial derivatives are also
necessary to compute nuclear matter properties.
\subsection{Shared memory parallelism with OpenMP}
\label{subsec:omp}
To facilitate large-scale applications of the HFBTHO solver on leadership
class computers, the original source file has been split into a DFT solver
kernel and a calling program. In version {2.00d}, we have also
parallelized a number of time-intensive routines using OpenMP pragmas. The
routine {\tt hfbdiag} diagonalizes the $\Omega-$blocks of the HFB matrix:
these diagonalizations are now done in parallel. The routine {\tt coulom}
computes the direct Coulomb potential $V_{\text{C}}(\gras{r},\gras{r}')$
at the first iteration: this step is carried out in parallel but saves
time at the first iteration only. The routine {\tt gamdel} reconstructs
the HFB matrix in configuration space for each $\Omega-$block by computing
on-the-fly the various one-dimensional integrals that define the matrix
elements: shared memory parallelism is implemented for the outermost loop
corresponding to the $\Omega-$blocks.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig_openmp.eps}
\caption{Time per iteration of a HFB calculation in a full spherical basis
of $N_{\text{max}} = 20$ shells as a function of the number of threads,
see text for additional details.}
\label{fig:openmp}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:openmp} shows the performance improvement when using
multi-threading. The test was performed on an 8-core Intel Xeon E5-2670 at
2.6 GHz using the Intel Fortran compiler 13.0 and the MKL library 10.3.11
for $^{120}$Sn in a full spherical basis of $N_{\text{max}} = 20$ shells,
with the SLy4 interaction and a cutoff of $E_{\text{cut}} = 60$ MeV for
the q.p. In version 1.66, the number of Gauss-Hermite and Gauss-Laguerre
points are hard-coded in the program and are set to $N_{\text{GH}} =
N_{\text{GL}} = 22$, and the number of Gauss-Legendre points is set to
$N_{\text{GH}} = 30$. We used the same numbers in our test with the
version {2.00d}.
We note that version {2.00d} is slightly slower (per iteration)
than version 1.66 if only one thread is used. This additional overhead
comes from the calculation of the densities and fields required for
generalized Skyrme functionals, combined with the use of the Broyden
method, which uses additional linear algebra at each iteration. In
general, it is difficult to compare directly the overall performance
of the two versions of the code. In version 1.66, calculations at
$N_{\text{max}} > 14$ are warm-started automatically with a preliminary
calculation at $N_{\text{max}} = 14$. On the other hand, version
{2.00d} implements the Broyden method, which reduces the number
of iterations significantly, see \cite{[Bar08]}. We emphasize
that HFBTHO makes use of BLAS and LAPACK routines and benefits from a
threaded implementation of these libraries. Nested parallelism must be
supported by the compiler.
\section{Benchmarks and Accuracy}
\label{sec:benchmarks}
There exist several comparisons of HFBTHO with other DFT solvers in the
literature in both even-even \cite{[Dob04a],[Pei08a]} and odd nuclei
\cite{[Sch09],[Sch10]}. In some cases, these benchmarks compare different
approaches to solving the HFB equations, in others the emphasis is put
on validation of the solver. Here, we want to gather in one place a
comprehensive set of validation and performance evaluations that can be
used as reference in later developments of the code.
\setcounter{mysubsubsection}{0}
\subsection{Benchmarks in spherical nuclei: $^{208}$Pb and $^{120}$Sn}
\label{subsec:test_spherical}
In spherical nuclei, HFBTHO was benchmarked against the spherical DFT solver
HOSPHE (version 2.00 of \cite{[Car13]}) and the symmetry-unrestricted DFT solver
HFODD (version 2.56 of \cite{[Sch13]}). We study the Hartree-Fock approximation
in $^{208}$Pb and the Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov approximation with density-dependent
delta pairing forces in $^{120}$Sn.
\subsubsection{Hartree-Fock computation of $^{208}$Pb}
\label{subsubsec:test_pb}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
& HOSPHE & HFBTHO & HFODD \\ \hline
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{Without Coulomb} \\ \hline
$E_{\text{tot}}$ [MeV] &-2445.93021{\bf\color{blue} 6} &-2445.93021{\bf\color{red} 6} &-2445.93021{\bf\color{db} 5}\\
$E^{\text{(n)}}_{\text{kin}}$ [MeV] & 2614.806852 & 2614.806852 & 2614.806852 \\
$E^{\text{(p)}}_{\text{kin}}$ [MeV] & 1438.160641 & 1438.160641 & 1438.160641 \\
$E_{\text{Skyrme}}$ [MeV] &-6498.8977{\bf\color{blue} 08} &-6498.8977{\bf\color{red} 08} &-6498.8977{\bf\color{db} 06}\\
$E_{\text{SO}}$ [MeV] & -109.091691 & -109.091691 & -109.091691 \\
$r^{\text{(n)}}_{\text{rms}}$ [fm] & 5.519846 & 5.519846 & 5.519846 \\
$r^{\text{(p)}}_{\text{rms}}$ [fm] & 5.2{\bf\color{blue} 49812} & 5.2{\bf\color{red} 50015} & 5.2{\bf\color{db} 50015}\\
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{With Coulomb} \\ \hline
$E_{\text{tot}}$ [MeV] &-1632.5914{\bf\color{blue} 19} &-1632.5914{\bf\color{red} 95} &-1632.5914{\bf\color{db} 54}\\
$E^{\text{(n)}}_{\text{kin}}$ [MeV] & 2535.409{\bf\color{blue} 641} & 2535.409{\bf\color{red} 735} & 2535.409{\bf\color{db} 639}\\
$E^{\text{(p)}}_{\text{kin}}$ [MeV] & 1340.663{\bf\color{blue} 301} & 1340.663{\bf\color{red} 408} & 1340.663{\bf\color{db} 312}\\
$E_{\text{Skyrme}}$ [MeV] &-6306.660{\bf\color{blue} 514} &-6306.660{\bf\color{red} 740} &-6306.660{\bf\color{db} 527}\\
$E_{\text{SO}}$ [MeV] & -98.2933{\bf\color{blue} 31} & -98.2933{\bf\color{red} 40} & -98.2933{\bf\color{db} 31}\\
$E^{\text{(dir)}}_{\text{Cou}}$ [MeV]& 829.308{\bf\color{blue} 809} & 829.308{\bf\color{red} 760} & 829.308{\bf\color{db} 776}\\
$E^{\text{(exc)}}_{\text{Cou}}$ [MeV]& -31.31265{\bf\color{blue} 6} & -31.31265{\bf\color{red} 8} & -31.31265{\bf\color{db} 6}\\
$r^{\text{(n)}}_{\text{rms}}$ [fm] & 5.608237 & 5.608237 & 5.608237 \\
$r^{\text{(p)}}_{\text{rms}}$ [fm] & 5.448{\bf\color{blue} 516} & 5.448{\bf\color{red} 711} & 5.448{\bf\color{db} 711}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Benchmark of the three solvers HOSPHE, HFBTHO and HFODD for a
spherical Hartree-Fock calculation in $^{208}$Pb with the SLy5 Skyrme
functional in a full spherical basis of $N_{\text{max}} = 16$ shells
with oscillator length $b = 2.0$ fm. See introduction of section
\ref{sec:benchmarks} for additional numerical information.}
\label{tab:pb208}
\end{table}
In table \ref{tab:pb208}, we present the results of the benchmarks between the
three solvers for the spherical HF point in $^{208}$Pb for the SLy5 Skyrme
functional of \cite{[Cha98]}. Calculations were performed in $N_{\text{max}}=16$
full spherical oscillator shells with a constant oscillator length of $b = 2.0$
fm. In a spherical basis, the oscillator length is related to the oscillator
frequency by
\begin{equation}
b = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{m\omega}}.
\end{equation}
In the codes HFODD and HOSPHE, the oscillator frequency is set via a multiplicative
factor $f$ such that $\omega = f\omega_{0}$, with $\omega_{0} = 41/A^{1/3}$. The
oscillator length is related to $f$ through
\begin{equation}
f = \frac{1}{b^{2}}\frac{\hbar^{2} c^{2}}{mc^{2}} / \frac{41}{A^{1/3}},
\end{equation}
with $mc^{2} = 938.90590$ MeV, $\hbar c = 197.328910$ MeV.fm. An oscillator length
of $b = 2.0$ fm thus corresponds to $f = 1.49831558$ in $^{208}$Pb. The number of
Gauss-Legendre points for the integration of the Coulomb potential was
$N_{\text{Leg}} = 80$, the number of Gauss-Hermite and Gauss-Laguerre integration
points was $N_{\text{GH}} = N_{\text{GL}} = 40$, and the Coulomb length scale was
$L=50$ fm, see also section \ref{subsec:test_coulomb} below for a detailed
discussion. The Skyrme energy is defined from HFBTHO outputs as
\begin{equation}
E^{\text{Skyrme}} = E^{\text{vol}} + E^{\text{surface}} + E^{\text{SO}} + E^{\text{tensor}}
\end{equation}
Without Coulomb potentials included, we note that the difference with HFODD is
not greater than 2 eV on energies ($E_{\text{Skyrme}}$), and the radii agree
up to at least the 6$^{\text{th}}$ digit. Comparisons with HOSPHE show the
difference in energies is less than 1 eV, while the proton radius differs by
0.0002 fm. This unexpected deviation may be caused by corrections related to
the finite proton size which are first added to the proton radius and then
afterwards subtracted. Let us note that the kinetic energy contribution to the
total energy is probably the most sensitive to the details of the numerical
implementation. With the Coulomb potential included (both direct and exchange),
the discrepancy on the total energy is of the order of 100 eV (see also section
\ref{subsec:test_coulomb} below).
\subsubsection{Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov computation of $^{120}$Sn with the Lipkin-Nogami prescription}
\label{subsubsec:test_sn}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
& HOSPHE & HFBTHO & HFODD \\ \hline
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{Without Coulomb} \\ \hline
$E_{\text{tot}}$ [MeV] &-1374.0876{\bf\color{blue} 78} &-1374.0876{\bf\color{red} 63} &-1374.0876{\bf\color{db} 31} \\
$E^{\text{(n)}}_{\text{kin}}$ [MeV] & 1384.055{\bf\color{blue} 506} & 1384.055{\bf\color{red} 495} & 1384.055{\bf\color{db} 733} \\
$E^{\text{(p)}}_{\text{kin}}$ [MeV] & 885.705{\bf\color{blue} 977} & 885.705{\bf\color{red} 972} & 885.705{\bf\color{db} 875} \\
$E_{\text{Skyrme}}$ [MeV] &-3628.92{\bf\color{blue} 3716} &-3628.92{\bf\color{red} 3682} &-3628.92{\bf\color{db} 4197} \\
$E_{\text{SO}}$ [MeV] & -58.837{\bf\color{blue} 670} & -58.837{\bf\color{red} 667} & -58.837{\bf\color{db} 805} \\
$r^{\text{(n)}}_{\text{rms}}$ [fm] & 4.678179 & 4.678179 & 4.678179 \\
$r^{\text{(p)}}_{\text{rms}}$ [fm] & 4.455{\bf\color{blue} 211} & 4.455{\bf\color{red} 761} & 4.455{\bf\color{db} 760} \\
$E_{\text{pair}}$ [MeV] & -12.64{\bf\color{blue} 6024} & -12.64{\bf\color{red} 6023} & -12.64{\bf\color{db} 5709} \\
$\Delta^{\text{(n)}}$ [MeV] & 0.91007{\bf\color{blue} 1} & 0.91007{\bf\color{red} 1} & 0.91007{\bf\color{db} 2} \\
$\Delta^{\text{(p)}}$ [MeV] & 0.5313{\bf\color{blue} 64} & 0.5313{\bf\color{red} 64} & 0.5313{\bf\color{db} 38} \\
$\lambda^{\text{(n)}}$ [MeV] & -7.3333{\bf\color{blue} 39} & -7.3333{\bf\color{red} 39} & -7.3333{\bf\color{db} 40} \\
$\lambda^{\text{(p)}}$ [MeV] & -21.40606{\bf\color{blue} 9} & -21.40606{\bf\color{red} 9} & -21.40606{\bf\color{db} 3} \\
$\lambda_{2}^{\text{(n)}}$ [MeV] & 0.081422 & 0.081422 & 0.081422 \\
$\lambda_{2}^{\text{(p)}}$ [MeV] & 0.63330{\bf\color{blue} 5} & 0.63330{\bf\color{red} 5} & 0.63330{\bf\color{db} 9} \\ \hline
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{With Coulomb} \\ \hline
$E_{\text{tot}}$ [MeV] &-1021.265{\bf\color{blue} 363} &-1021.265{\bf\color{red} 407} &-1021.265{\bf\color{db} 377} \\
$E^{\text{(n)}}_{\text{kin}}$ [MeV] & 1345.2264{\bf\color{blue} 37} & 1345.2264{\bf\color{red} 97} & 1345.2264{\bf\color{db} 44} \\
$E^{\text{(p)}}_{\text{kin}}$ [MeV] & 837.571{\bf\color{blue} 445} & 837.571{\bf\color{red} 518} & 837.571{\bf\color{db} 444} \\
$E_{\text{Skyrme}}$ [MeV] &-3538.591{\bf\color{blue} 673} &-3538.591{\bf\color{red} 798} &-3538.591{\bf\color{db} 661} \\
$E_{\text{SO}}$ [MeV] & -48.652{\bf\color{blue} 094} & -48.652{\bf\color{red} 102} & -48.652{\bf\color{db} 100} \\
$E^{\text{(dir)}}_{\text{Cou}}$ [MeV]& 367.071{\bf\color{blue} 215} & 367.071{\bf\color{red} 165} & 367.071{\bf\color{db} 184} \\
$E^{\text{(exc)}}_{\text{Cou}}$ [MeV]& -19.14010{\bf\color{blue} 3} & -19.14010{\bf\color{red} 4} & -19.14010{\bf\color{db} 3} \\
$r^{\text{(n)}}_{\text{rms}}$ [fm] & 4.733892 & 4.733892 & 4.733892 \\
$r^{\text{(p)}}_{\text{rms}}$ [fm] & 4.585{\bf\color{blue} 076} & 4.585{\bf\color{red} 610} & 4.585{\bf\color{db} 609} \\
$E_{\text{pair}}$ [MeV] & -11.125231 & -11.125231 & -11.125231 \\
$\Delta^{\text{(n)}}$ [MeV] & 0.864875 & 0.864875 & 0.864875 \\
$\Delta^{\text{(p)}}$ [MeV] & 0.48123{\bf\color{blue} 6} & 0.48123{\bf\color{red} 7} & 0.48123{\bf\color{db} 6} \\
$\lambda^{\text{(n)}}$ [MeV] & -7.98957{\bf\color{blue} 3} & -7.98957{\bf\color{red} 2} & -7.98957{\bf\color{db} 3} \\
$\lambda^{\text{(p)}}$ [MeV] & -8.28670{\bf\color{blue} 3} & -8.28670{\bf\color{red} 3} & -8.28670{\bf\color{db} 4} \\
$\lambda_{2}^{\text{(n)}}$ [MeV] & 0.100481 & 0.100481 & 0.100481 \\
$\lambda_{2}^{\text{(p)}}$ [MeV] & 0.67508{\bf\color{blue} 7} & 0.67508{\bf\color{red} 7} & 0.67508{\bf\color{db} 6} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Benchmark of the three solvers HOSPHE, HFBTHO and HFODD for a
spherical Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov calculation in $^{120}$Sn with the
UNEDF0 functional (thus including the Lipkin-Nogami) prescription with
a spherical basis of $N_{\text{max}} = 16$ shells with oscillator scale
$b = 2.0$ fm ($f = 1.49831558$ in $^{120}$Sn). See introduction of section
\ref{sec:benchmarks} for additional numerical information.}
\label{tab:sn120}
\end{table}
In table \ref{tab:sn120}, we present the results of the benchmarks between the
three solvers for the spherical HFB point in $^{120}$Sn for the UNEDF0 Skyrme
functional of \cite{[Kor10]}. Calculations were performed with the same basis
and integration characteristics as in the previous section. The pairing channel
was parameterized by a density-dependent delta-pairing force with mixed volume
and surface features, of the general type
\begin{equation}
V_{\text{pair}}^{\text{(n,p)}}(\gras{r}) = V_{0}^{\text{(n,p)}}
\left( 1 - \frac{1}{2}\frac{\rho_{0}(\gras{r})}{\rho_{c}} \right) \delta(\gras{r} - \gras{r'}),
\label{eq:vpair}
\end{equation}
with $V_{0}^{\text{(n,p)}}$ the pairing strength for neutrons (n) and protons
(p), $\rho_{0}(\gras{r})$ the isoscalar local density, and $\rho_{c}$ the
saturation density, fixed at $\rho_{c} = 0.16$ fm$^{-3}$. Let us recall that
in the case of the UNEDF parameterizations, the pairing strengths should {\it
not} be adjusted by the user since they were fitted together with the Skyrme
coupling constants. Recommended values are, respectively, $V_{0}^{\text{(n)}}
= -170.374$ MeV and $V_{0}^{\text{(n)}} = -199.202$ MeV. Because of the
zero-range of the pairing force, a cutoff in the q.p.~space has to be
introduced, and we chose $E_{\text{cut}} = 60$ MeV in this example. When
compatibility with HFODD is required, this cutoff is sharp, namely all q.p.
with $E > E_{\text{cut}}$ are discarded from the calculation of the density.
\subsection{Benchmarks in even-even deformed nuclei: $^{240}$Pu}
\label{subsec:test_def}
Next, we present the benchmark of HFBTHO in deformed even-even nuclei
against HFODD. Accurate HFB calculations in deformed nuclei require the
use of a suitably deformed, or stretched, HO basis. Such a basis is
characterized by its oscillator frequencies,
$\omega_{x} \neq \omega_{y} \neq \omega_{z}$ in Cartesian coordinates,
and $\omega_{\perp} \neq \omega_{z}$ in cylindrical coordinates, as well
as by the total number of states retained. The goal of this section is
to compare basis truncation schemes between HFBTHO and HFODD in a
realistic case.
{\bf Stretched basis in HFBTHO - } It is determined by applying the general
prescription given in \cite{[Gir83]} to the particular case of an
axially-deformed prolate basis. Let us recall that the starting point is
an ellipsoid characterized by radii $R_{x}$, $R_{y}$ and $R_{z}$.
Introducing the spherical radius $R_{0}$ and the $(\beta,\gamma)$ Bohr
quadrupole deformation parameters, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
R_{x} = R_{0}\exp \left\{ \sqrt{\frac{5}{4\pi}} \beta\cos\left(\gamma - \frac{2\pi}{3} \right) \right\},
\medskip\\
\displaystyle
R_{y} = R_{0}\exp \left\{ \sqrt{\frac{5}{4\pi}} \beta\cos\left(\gamma + \frac{2\pi}{3} \right) \right\},
\medskip\\
\displaystyle
R_{z} = R_{0}\exp \left\{ \sqrt{\frac{5}{4\pi}} \beta\cos(\gamma) \right\}.
\end{array}
\label{eq:radii_tho}
\end{equation}
The deformation of the basis is characterized, equivalently, by the two
parameters $p$ and $q$ such that
\begin{equation}
q = \frac{b_{z}^{2}}{b_{x}^{2}},\ \ p = \frac{b_{y}^{2}}{b_{x}^{2}},
\end{equation}
with $b_{\mu}$ the oscillator length for coordinate $\mu$. It is then
assumed that
\begin{equation}
q = \frac{R_{z}}{R_{x}},\ \ p = \frac{R_{y}}{R_{x}}.
\end{equation}
In the special case of an axially-deformed basis ($\beta >0$, $\gamma = 0^{\text{o}}$),
we find
\begin{equation}
q = e^{-3\sqrt{\frac{5}{16\pi}}\beta},\ \ p=1.
\label{eq:15}
\end{equation}
From the volume conservation condition ($b_{\perp}^{2}b_{z}=b_{0}^{3}$),
Eq. (\ref{eq:15}) leads to
\begin{equation}
b_{\perp} = b_{0}q^{-1/6},\ \ b_{z} = b_{0}q^{+1/3}.
\label{eq:basis_THO}
\end{equation}
Given a ``spherical'' oscillator length $b_{0}$ and the deformation $\beta$
of the basis, the formula (\ref{eq:basis_THO}) uniquely defines the HO
lengths of the stretched basis.
{\bf Stretched basis in HFODD - } The starting point is a general nuclear
shape parameterized by a surface $\Sigma$ characterized by the deformation
parameters $\alpha_{\lambda\mu}$ through
\begin{equation}
R(\theta,\varphi) = R_{0}\,c(\alpha)\left[ 1 +
\sum_{\lambda=2}^{\lambda_{\text{max}}}\sum_{\mu=-\lambda}^{\lambda}
\alpha_{\lambda\mu}Y_{\lambda\mu}(\theta,\varphi) \right],
\label{eq:surface}
\end{equation}
where $R_{0} = r_{0}A^{1/3}$, $c(\alpha)$ is computed to ensure volume
conservation, $Y_{\lambda\mu}(\theta,\varphi)$ are the spherical harmonics,
and the $\alpha_{\lambda\mu}$ are the deformation parameters. The surface
defined by (\ref{eq:surface}) encloses a volume $V$ and the radius of
this ``ellipsoid'' along the direction $\mu$ (=$x,y,z$) is determined according
to
\begin{equation}
R_{\mu} \equiv \sqrt{\langle x_{\mu}^{2} \rangle} = \frac{1}{V} \int x_{\mu}^{2} d^{3}\gras{r}.
\label{eq:int}
\end{equation}
Frequencies of the HO along each Cartesian direction satisfy
$\omega_{0}^{3} = \omega_{x}\omega_{y}\omega_{z}$ with
\begin{equation}
\omega_{x} = \omega_{0} (R_{xz}R_{yz}), \ \
\omega_{y} = \omega_{0} (R_{xz}/R_{xy})^{-1/3}, \ \
\omega_{z} = \omega_{0} (R_{xy}R_{xz})^{1/3},
\end{equation}
with the geometrical ratios $R_{\mu\nu} = R_{\mu}/R_{\nu}$.
{\bf Discussion - } It is straightforward to see that in the particular
case of a prolate ellipsoid ($\beta >0$, $\gamma = 0^{\text{o}}$,
$R_{xy}=1/p$, $R_{xz}=R_{yz}=1/q$), both HFODD and HFBTHO prescriptions
to choose the oscillator frequencies are in principle identical. In
practice, however, the determination of the radii from Eq.(\ref{eq:int})
in HFODD produce small numerical deviations compared to the analytic
formula (\ref{eq:radii_tho}). This will induce systematic differences
between the HO frequencies computed in the two codes, which will in turn
alter the selection of the basis states. Figure \ref{fig:pu240} quantifies
this statement in an extreme case.
Figure \ref{fig:pu240} shows the numerical difference between the two
codes for the total energy in $^{240}$Pu computed for $N_{\text{max}}=16$
and $N_{\text{states}}=500$ as a function of the deformation $\beta$ of
the basis. Calculations are done with a spherical oscillator length
$b_{0} = 2.3$ fm ($f = 1.18829312$ for $^{240}$Pu), the SLy4
parameterization of the Skyrme functional, identical pairing strengths
of $V_{\text{pair}} = -300$ MeV for both protons and neutrons, and
quadrature precisions of $N_{\text{GL}}=N_{\text{GH}}=40$ and
$N_{\text{Leg}}=80$. The configuration chosen was obtained by putting a
constraint on the quadrupole moment $\langle \hat{Q}_{20}\rangle = 150$~b
and hexadecapole moment $\langle \hat{Q}_{40}\rangle = 30$ b$^{2}$;
expectation values of $\hat{Q}_{60}$ and $\hat{Q}_{80}$ vary with the
deformation of the basis.
For a configuration with such large deformations, a basis with only 500
states and $N_{\text{max}}=16$ is not sufficient to reach convergence.
In particular, important intruder orbitals are missing. As a result, all
physical observables depend quite significantly on basis parameters such
as its deformation or frequencies. It is therefore a good test-bench for
numerical comparisons and is an illustration of the worst-case scenario.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig_pu240.eps}
\caption{Difference between HFBTHO and HFODD total energy for a very
deformed configuration in $^{240}$Pu (see details in text) as a function
of the axial deformation of the basis $\beta$.}
\label{fig:pu240}
\end{figure}
Two sets of results, with and without Coulomb potentials included, are
presented. In contrast to the much simpler cases of section
\ref{subsec:test_spherical}, the difference between the two codes reaches
up to 300 keV, even without Coulomb terms. This discrepancy is entirely
attributable to the slightly different HO frequencies/lengths, the
impact of which is magnified by the large deformation of the requested
configuration combined with the relatively small size of the HO basis.
As an example, for $\beta = 0.7$, the oscillator lengths are
$b_{\perp} = 2.0803$ fm and $b_{z} = 2.8114$ fm in HFODD, to be compared
with $b_{\perp} = 2.0596$ fm and $b_{z} = 2.8682$ fm in HFBTHO. The
Coulomb term does not qualitatively change this picture. Most importantly,
{\em if HO lengths are manually enforced to be numerically identical in
the two codes}, or in the case of a spherical basis, the agreement
between the two sets of calculations without Coulomb goes back to the 1 eV
level as in the previous sections.
\subsection{Benchmark in deformed odd nuclei: $^{159}$Ba}
\label{subsec:test_blocking}
The new version of HFBTHO enables blocking calculations in odd-even or
odd-odd nuclei. Since by construction HFBTHO conserves time-reversal
symmetry, the blocking prescription is implemented in the equal filling
approximation, and the time-odd fields of the Skyrme functional are
identically zero. In \cite{[Sch10]}, a detailed comparison of blocking
calculations between the HFBTHO and HFODD solvers was presented for
the case of $^{121}$Sn, with a spherical HO basis and identical HO
oscillator scales. The goal of this section is to present a benchmark
result for an odd-even nucleus in a deformed basis. As in the previous
section, we do {\em not} manually enforce identical oscillator scales.
Instead, we use the same basis selection rules in their respective
implementations.
Calculations were performed in the nucleus $^{159}$Ba using $^{158}$Ba
as the even-even core, with the SLy4 Skyrme functional, a mixed
surface-volume pairing force with $V_{0} = -300$ MeV for both protons
and neutrons, and a q.p.~cutoff of $E_{\text{cut}} = 60$ MeV. The HO
basis was characterized by the oscillator length $b = 2.2$ fm
($f = 1.13221574$ in $^{159}$Ba), $N_{\text{max}}=16$ shells, a
deformation of $\beta=0.2$, and $N_{\text{States}}=500$. The number
of Gauss-Laguerre and Gauss-Hermite quadrature points was
$N_{\text{GL}} = N_{\text{GH}} = 40$. In HFODD calculations, time-odd
fields were zeroed. Results are presented in Table \ref{tab:blocking}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc}
& \multicolumn{2}{|c}{Total energy [MeV]} \\ \hline
q.p. & HFBTHO & HFODD \\ \hline
$[512]5/2$ & -1236.98{\bf\color{red} 2565} & -1236.98{\bf\color{blue} 5082} \\
$[633]7/2$ & -1237.31{\bf\color{red} 7554} & -1237.31{\bf\color{blue} 6510} \\
$[503]7/2$ & -1236.608{\bf\color{red} 320} & -1236.608{\bf\color{blue} 662} \\
$[510]1/2$ & -1236.44{\bf\color{red} 5682} & -1236.44{\bf\color{blue} 8800} \\
$[521]1/2$ & -1235.72{\bf\color{red} 4052} & -1235.72{\bf\color{blue} 6439} \\
$[523]5/2$ & -1235.44{\bf\color{red} 5642} & -1235.44{\bf\color{blue} 9199} \\
$[660]1/2$ & -1236.293{\bf\color{red} 614} & -1236.293{\bf\color{blue} 434} \\
$[514]7/2$ & -1235.799{\bf\color{red} 601} & -1235.799{\bf\color{blue} 806} \\
$[651]3/2$ & -1235.43{\bf\color{red} 3781} & -1235.43{\bf\color{blue} 4053} \\
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:blocking}
\end{center}
\caption{Results of blocking calculations in HFBTHO and HFODD in
$^{159}$Ba in a stretched HO basis with $\beta=0.2$ (see text for
more details).}
\end{table}
Numerical agreement is of the order of 1 keV, with maximum deviations
of up to 3.6 keV. Such an agreement is in line with the results shown in
the previous two sections. Since the nucleus is not as heavy as $^{240}$Pu
and the requested configuration is much less deformed than the one
considered in \ref{subsec:test_def}, basis truncation effects are
mitigated, and the small discrepancy between the calculated HO oscillator
scales does not have as drastic an effect as in the previous section.
Again, we note that if identical HO scales are manually enforced, the
numerical agreement is of the order of a few eV as shown in \cite{[Sch10]}.
\subsection{Transformed harmonic oscillator basis: $^{90}$Ni}
\label{subsec:test_tho}
One of the characteristic features of HFBTHO is the implementation of the
transformed harmonic oscillator (THO) basis. We recall that the THO basis
functions are generated by applying a local scale transformation (LST)
$f(\mathcal{R})$ to the HO single-particle basis functions. The LST
transforms every point $(\rho,z)$ by
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
\rho \rightarrow \rho' = \rho\frac{f(\mathcal{R})}{\mathcal{R}}, \medskip\\
\displaystyle
z \rightarrow z' = z\frac{f(\mathcal{R})}{\mathcal{R}},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
with the scale $\mathcal{R} = \mathcal{R}(\rho,z)$ defined locally as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R} = \sqrt{\frac{\rho^{2}}{b_{\perp}^{2}} + \frac{z^{2}}{b_{z}^{2}}}.
\end{equation}
The LST function $f$ is chosen in such a way as to enforce the proper
asymptotic conditions (exponential decay) for the density, according to
the general procedure outlined in \cite{[Sto98],[Sto03]}. We refer to
\cite{[Sto05]} for the details of the implementation of the THO method
in HFBTHO.
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc}
& HFBTHO & N. Michel's Code \\ \hline
$E_{\text{Skyrme}}$ [MeV] & -2349.5{\bf\color{red} 47912} & -2349.5{\bf\color{blue} 11233} \\
$E_{\text{SO}}$ [MeV] & -61.590{\bf\color{red} 852} & -61.590{\bf\color{blue} 694} \\
$E^{\text{(n)}}_{\text{kin}}$ [MeV]& 1190.9{\bf\color{red} 62911} & 1190.9{\bf\color{blue} 85716} \\
$E^{\text{(n)}}_{\text{pair}}$[MeV]& -58.{\bf\color{red} 593263} & -58.{\bf\color{blue} 664803} \\
$\Delta^{\text{(n)}}$ [MeV] & 1.91{\bf\color{red} 5093} & 1.91{\bf\color{blue} 6030} \\
$\lambda^{\text{(n)}}$ [MeV] & -0.19{\bf\color{red} 5904} & -0.19{\bf\color{blue} 6557} \\
$r_{\text{rms}}^{\text{(n)}}$ [fm] & 4.7173{\bf\color{red} 31} & 4.7173{\bf\color{blue} 75} \\
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:tho}
\end{center}
\caption{Results of THO calculations in HFBTHO and the spherical code of
\cite{[Mic08]} in $^{90}$Ni (see text for more details).}
\end{table}
The purpose of this section is to complete our collection of benchmarks
by comparing the results obtained in the THO basis produced with HFBTHO with
an independent implementation of the method written by one of us (N. Michel)
and used in particular in \cite{[Sto08],[Mic08]}. This program assumes
spherical symmetry and has been developed independently: comparing the two
implementations is a particularly stringent test. To do it, we used HFBTHO
to generate the LST function $f(\mathcal{R})$ and its partial derivatives
on a spatial mesh $\mathcal{R}_{k}$ with $0\leq \mathcal{R} \leq 40$ fm by
steps of 0.02 fm. These functions were then read numerically by the
spherical code.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig_densities_THO.eps}
\caption{Radial profile of the neutron density in $^{90}$Ni. Black plain line:
results from HFBTHO; red dashed line: results from the spherical code. }
\label{fig:densities}
\end{figure}
The test was carried out in the neutron-rich nucleus $^{90}$Ni, for the
SLy4 Skyrme functional and a pure surface pairing force characterized by
$V_{0}^{(n)} = V_{0}^{(p)} = -519.9$ MeV with a pairing cutoff of
$E_{\text{cut}} = 60$ MeV. Both the HO basis used to generate the THO basis
and the THO basis itself were spherical and contained $N_{\text{max}} = 20$
full shells. The oscillator length was fixed at $b = 2.0$ fm ($f = 1.13326033$
in $^{90}$Ni). The number of Gauss-Laguerre and Gauss-Hermite quadrature
points was $N_{\text{GL}} = N_{\text{GH}} = 40$. Both the direct and exchange
Coulomb terms were neglected in these tests. We present in Table \ref{tab:tho}
various quantities that are good indicators of potential numerical
discrepancies.
Overall, the agreement between the two implementations is very good. Indeed,
we recall that the matrix elements of the Hamiltonian in the THO basis depend
not only on the LST but also on its derivatives $\partial f/\partial\mathcal{R}$.
Using a numerically generated LST in the spherical code is, therefore, bound
to lead to systematic deviations. We show in figure \ref{fig:densities}
the radial profile of the corrected neutron density after the LST in both
HFBTHO and the spherical code. The tiny deviations beyond $r = 8$ fm are the
consequence of quantizing the LST in HFBTHO, and using this numerical function
in the spherical code instead of a native LST.
\subsection{Benchmark at finite temperature: $^{50}$Cr}
\label{subsec:test_temperature}
The new version of HFBTHO implements the finite-temperature HFB equations.
Table \ref{tab:temperature} shows the comparison between HFBTHO and HFODD
for a simple finite-temperature calculation in $^{50}$Cr. The characteristics
of the test run (included with the submitted program) were the following:
the calculation was performed in a full spherical basis of $N_{\text{max}} = 12$
shells, with an oscillator length of $b_{0} = 1.7622146$ fm (equivalent to
$f = 1.2$), for the SLY4 interaction in the particle-hole channel and the
standard surface-volume pairing force of Eq.(\ref{eq:vpair}) with
$V_{0}^{(\text{n})} = V_{0}^{(\text{p})} = -300.0$ MeV and a cutoff of
$E_{\text{cut}} = 60.0 $ MeV. The temperature was set at $T = 1.5$ MeV. We
note that there is a bug in HFODD version 2.49t: the value of the entropy
should be multiplied by a factor 2.
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc}
& HFBTHO & HFODD \\ \hline
$E_{\text{tot}}$ [MeV] & -423.4594{\bf\color{red} 51} & -423.4594{\bf\color{blue} 31} \\
$E^{\text{(n)}}_{\text{kin}}$ [MeV] & 461.5304{\bf\color{red} 78} & 461.5304{\bf\color{blue} 58} \\
$E^{\text{(p)}}_{\text{kin}}$ [MeV] & 402.309{\bf\color{red} 730} & 402.309{\bf\color{blue} 693} \\
$E_{\text{Skyrme}}$ [MeV] &-1386.929{\bf\color{red} 749} &-1386.929{\bf\color{blue} 684} \\
$E_{\text{SO}}$ [MeV] & -36.60007{\bf\color{red} 7} & -36.60007{\bf\color{blue} 1} \\
$r^{\text{(n)}}_{\text{rms}}$ [fm] & 3.591964 & 3.591964 \\
$r^{\text{(p)}}_{\text{rms}}$ [fm] & 3.594830 & 3.594830 \\
$\lambda^{\text{(n)}}$ [MeV] & -11.806442 & -11.806442 \\
$\lambda^{\text{(p)}}$ [MeV] & -6.886468 & -6.886468 \\
$S^{\text{(n)}}$ [MeV] & 6.915625 & 6.91562{\bf\color{blue} 5} \\
$S^{\text{(p)}}$ [MeV] & 6.99515{\bf\color{red} 5} & 6.99515{\bf\color{blue} 8} \\
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:temperature}
\end{center}
\caption{Results of finite-temperature HFB calculations in HFBTHO and
HFODD in $^{50}$Cr in a spherical HO basis of $N_{\text{max}} = 12$ shells
(see text for more details).}
\end{table}
\subsection{Precision of the Coulomb term}
\label{subsec:test_coulomb}
In this section, we discuss in greater detail the precision of the direct term
of the Coulomb potential to the total energy. In HFBTHO, the direct term is
computed by the Gaussian substitution method. A less accurate method based on
the Laplacian substitution method is also available \cite{[Vau73]}.
\subsubsection{The Gaussian substitution method}
The direct term $V_{\text{Cou}}^{\text{(dir)}}(\gras{r})$ of the Coulomb
potential reads
\begin{equation}
V_{\text{Cou}}^{\text{(dir)}}(\gras{r})
= e^{2}\int d^{3}\gras{r}'\; \frac{\rho_{\text{p}}(\gras{r}')}{|\gras{r} - \gras{r}'|} ,
\end{equation}
with $\rho_{\text{p}}$ the proton density. In HFBTHO, the direct term is
computed by introducing the following expansion,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{|\gras{r} - \gras{r}'|}
= \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-(\gras{r} - \gras{r}')^{2}/\mu^{2}}\frac{d\mu}{\mu^{2}}
= \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-(\gras{r} - \gras{r}')^{2}a^{2}} da.
\end{equation}
Denoting
\begin{equation}
I_{a}(\gras{r}) = \int d^{3}\gras{r}'\; e^{-(\gras{r} - \gras{r}')^{2}a^{2}}\rho_{\text{p}}(\gras{r}'),
\end{equation}
we can write
\begin{equation}
V_{\text{Cou}}^{\text{(dir)}}(\gras{r}) = e^{2} \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{0}^{\infty} I_{a}(\gras{r})da.
\label{eq:Vcou_1}
\end{equation}
The integral over the range $a$ can be performed by Gauss-Legendre quadrature if
we introduce the variable $0 \leq \xi < 1$ such that
\begin{equation}
a = \frac{1}{L} \frac{\xi}{\sqrt{1 -\xi^{2}}},
\label{eq:change_variable}
\end{equation}
with $L>0$ an arbitrary length scale. This leads to
\begin{equation}
V_{\text{Cou}}^{\text{(dir)}}(\gras{r})
= e^{2} \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}} \frac{1}{L}
\int_{0}^{1} \frac{I_{a(\xi)}(\gras{r})}{(1 - \xi^{2})^{3/2}}d\xi.
\label{eq:Vcou_2}
\end{equation}
The Coulomb direct energy is then given by
\begin{equation}
E_{\text{Cou}}
= \frac{1}{2}\int d^{3}\gras{r}\; V_{\text{Cou}}^{\text{(dir)}}(\gras{r})\rho_{\text{p}}(\gras{r})
= \int_{0}^{1} E_{\text{Cou}}(\xi)d\xi,
\end{equation}
with the integrand
\begin{equation}
E_{\text{Cou}}(\xi) = e^{2} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}} \frac{1}{L}
\int d^{3}\gras{r}
\frac{I_{a(\xi)}(\gras{r})\rho_{\text{p}}(\gras{r})}{(1 - \xi^{2})^{3/2}},
\label{eq:integrand}
\end{equation}
Let us note that the choice (\ref{eq:change_variable}) for the change
of variables is only a particular case of
\begin{equation}
a = \frac{1}{L} \frac{\xi}{(1 -\xi^{\alpha})^{1/\alpha}},
\end{equation}
with $\alpha$ any positive real number. In principle, $\alpha$ could be
tuned to maximize the convergence of the Coulomb energy with respect to
both the length scale $L$ and/or the number of points in the Legendre
quadrature, see below. In practice, the choice $\alpha = 2$ gives the
best compromise between accuracy and speed.
\subsubsection{Practical implementation in HFBTHO}
In practice, the integral (\ref{eq:Vcou_2}) is computed {\it numerically} by
introducing $N_{\text{Leg}}$ quadrature abscissae $\xi_{\ell}$ and weights
$w_{\ell}$,
\begin{equation}
V_{\text{Cou}}^{\text{(dir)}}(\gras{r})
= e^{2} \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}} \frac{1}{L}
\sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\text{Leg}}} w_{\ell}\frac{I_{a(\xi_{\ell})}(\gras{r})}{(1 - \xi_{\ell}^{2})^{3/2}}.
\label{eq:Vcou_3}
\end{equation}
In HFBTHO, all integrals over $\gras{r} = (\rho,z,\varphi)$ are computed by
Gauss quadrature, with $N_{\text{GL}}$ Gauss-Laguerre points for the coordinate
$\eta=b_{\perp}^{2}\rho^{2}$ and $N_{\text{GH}}$ Gauss-Hermite points for the
coordinate $\xi=b_{z}z$ (see notations in \cite{[Sto05]}). Following the work
of Vautherin \cite{[Vau73]}, the code uses a general method known in electronic
structure theory as the pseudospectral representation of the HFB equations
\cite{[Fri85]}. While the HFB equations are solved in the HO basis, i.e. in Fock
(or spectral) space, the HF and pairing fields, as well as all expectations values
of observables, are computed directly on the quadrature grid, implying constant
transformation from/to Fock to/from coordinate space.
Following this philosophy, the calculation of the Coulomb field and energy
is somewhat accelerated by introducing the following matrix at the first
iteration,
\begin{equation}
V_{ki} = e^{2}\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}} \frac{1}{L}\; \omega_{i}
\sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{\text{Leg}}} w_{\ell}
\frac{e^{-(\gras{r}_{k} - \gras{r}'_{i})^{2}a(\xi_{\ell})^{2}}}{(1-\xi_{\ell}^{2})^{3/2}},
\label{eq:Vcou_disc}
\end{equation}
with $L$ the length scale mentioned in the previous section, $k,i$ compound
indexes running from 1 to $N_{\text{GL}}\times N_{\text{GH}}$, and $\omega_{i}$
the product of the weights for both types of quadrature,
$\omega_{i} \equiv w^{\text{GL}}w^{\text{GH}}$. With this notation, the Coulomb
field on the grid is obtained at each iteration by vector multiplication
$V_{k} = \sum_{i} V_{ki}\rho_{i}$, with $\rho_{i}$ the vector containing the
proton density on the grid. The energy is then obtained by another vector
multiplication $E_{\text{Cou}} = \sum_{k} \omega_{k}V_{k}\rho_{k}$.
It is important to bear in mind that the matrix $V_{ik}$ is a quantized
form of the true potential $1/|\gras{r} - \gras{r}'|$ on the quadrature
grid. When the original potential has a singularity, dealing with such
quantized representations generate a systematic error that can become
arbitrarily large near the singularity. This phenomenon is known as
``aliasing'' in electronic structure theory \cite{[Fri85]}. In principle,
the error should decrease as the grid becomes larger and larger (closer
to the exact integration). In any practical calculation, however, it will
always be non-zero.
\subsubsection{Numerical accuracy}
Mathematically, expressions (\ref{eq:Vcou_1}) and (\ref{eq:Vcou_2}) are
strictly equivalent. In particular, they do not depend on the length
scale $L$. However, the use of finite quadrature for {\it both} the
Gauss-Legendre integration of the $1/|\gras{r} - \gras{r}'|$ function
and the spatial integration over coordinates $\gras{r}$ and $\gras{r}'$
introduce an alias, as mentioned above. In our case, the practical
consequence of having an aliased integration is that the Coulomb energy
will depend, possibly in a significant way, on the length scale $L$ and
the number of Gauss-Legendre quadrature points $N_{\text{Leg}}$, but also on
the number of Gauss-Hermite and Gauss-Laguerre points $N_{\text{GH}}$ and
$N_{\text{GL}}$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig_Coulomb_pb208.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig_Coulomb_pb208_1.eps}
\caption{Left: Direct Coulomb energy as a function of the number of
Gauss-Legendre integration points for different values of the length
scale $L$ (see text). Right: Same for $L=5$ fm and different values
of the Gauss-Hermite and Gauss-Laguerre quadrature points. All
calculations done in $^{208}$Pb for $N_{\text{max}}=16$ shells and
the SLy5 Skyrme functional.}
\label{fig:coulomb}
\end{figure}
In the left panel of figure \ref{fig:coulomb}, we show the direct
Coulomb energy in $^{208}$Pb as a function of the number of
Gauss-Legendre quadrature points for different length scales $L$.
Calculations were done in a full spherical HO basis with
$N_{\text{max}}=16$ oscillator shells and the SLy5 interaction with
$N_{\text{GH}} = N_{\text{GL}} = 30$. The dependence on $L$ is
clearly marked. In particular, there is no asymptotic convergence to
the true value of the Coulomb potential as the number of Legendre
integration points increases. Instead, one observes a plateau
condition, the range of which increases with $L$. In the right panel
of figure \ref{fig:coulomb}, we fix the length scale to $L=5$ fm, and
increase the precision of both Gauss-Hermite and Gauss-Laguerre
integrations (by convenience, we choose $N_{\text{GH}} = N_{\text{GL}}
\equiv N_{\text{G}}$). This clearly mitigates the dependence of the
Coulomb energy on the Legendre quadrature.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig_Coulomb_pb208_2.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig_Coulomb_pb208_3.eps}
\caption{Left: Integrand $E_{\text{Cou}}(\xi)$ of the Coulomb potential
at convergence as function of the Gauss-Legendre integration variable
$\xi$ (see text). Right: Close-up on the $\xi\in [0.9, 1.0[$ interval.}
\label{fig:coulomb1}
\end{figure}
It thus appears that the error is not really related to the Legendre
integration of Eq.(\ref{eq:Vcou_3}) itself. Instead, it seems to be a
consequence of using a finite quadrature for spatial integrations,
i.e. of dealing with a spurious alias. This effect can be visualized
in the behavior of the integrand (\ref{eq:integrand}). In figure
\ref{fig:coulomb1}, we show the integrand as a function of the variable
of integration $\xi$ for two types of quadrature meshes
($N_{\text{G}} =20 $ or $N_{\text{G}} = 70$) and three different
numbers of Legendre integration points ($N_{\text{Leg}} = 10,20,30$).
All calculations were done with a length scale $L=5$ fm. We recall that
the integrand should tend to 0 as $\xi\rightarrow 1$ (equivalent to
$a\rightarrow+\infty$). While the precision of the quadrature mesh does
not really play a role for most of the interval of variation of $\xi$,
we observe that for $\xi \rightarrow 1$, the function begins to bend up
for coarse quadrature grids (see right panel). This behavior is clearly
nonphysical and is the manifestation of the alias. It can be mitigated by
increasing the precision of the quadrature grid, as shown by the dashed
lines.
In HFBTHO, we have set $L=50$ fm and $N_{\text{Leg}} = 80$ as default
values. For calculations of ground-state properties, it is sufficient
to use the default values $N_{\text{GH}} = N_{\text{GL}} = 40$. For
calculations of very deformed configurations such as in fission, it
is recommended to increase the precision of Gauss integrations. In
future releases of the code, we will implement the calculation of both
the direct and exchange Coulomb field in Fock space using Moshinsky
transformations, which will eliminate all aliasing errors.
\section{Input data file}
\label{sec:input}
The input data file format has been entirely changed from version 1.66 to the
current version {2.00d}. The number of additional features in the new
version was the reason to adopt a more flexible format for inputs.
\subsection{Sample input file}
\label{subsec:sample}
The new format uses Fortran namelist structure. An example is shown below,
\begin{verbatim}
&HFBTHO_GENERAL
number_of_shells = 10, oscillator_length = -1.0, basis_deformation = 0.0,
proton_number = 24, neutron_number = 26, type_of_calculation = 1 /
&HFBTHO_ITERATIONS
number_iterations = 100, accuracy = 1.E-5, restart_file = -1 /
&HFBTHO_FUNCTIONAL
functional = 'SLY4', add_initial_pairing = F, type_of_coulomb = 2 /
&HFBTHO_PAIRING
user_pairing = F, vpair_n = -300.0, vpair_p = -300.0,
pairing_cutoff = 60.0, pairing_feature = 0.5 /
&HFBTHO_CONSTRAINTS
lambda_values = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
lambda_active = 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
expectation_values = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 /
&HFBTHO_BLOCKING
proton_blocking = 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, neutron_blocking = 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 /
&HFBTHO_PROJECTION
switch_to_THO = 0, projection_is_on = 0,
gauge_points = 1, delta_Z = 0, delta_N = 0 /
&HFBTHO_TEMPERATURE
set_temperature = F, temperature = 0.0 /
&HFBTHO_DEBUG
number_Gauss = 40, number_Laguerre = 40, number_Legendre = 80,
compatibility_HFODD = F, number_states = 500, force_parity = T,
print_time = 0 /
\end{verbatim}
\subsection{Description of input data}
\label{subsec:description}
We now define the classes of input used in version {2.00d}.
\key{HFBTHO\_GENERAL}
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt number\_of\_shells = 10}: The principal number
of oscillator shells $N$. If the basis is spherical (see below), it is
made of the $N_{\text{states}} = (N+1)(N+2)(N+3)/6$ states
corresponding to $N$ full shells. If the basis is deformed, the code
searches for the lowest $N_{\text{states}}$, with possible intruder
contributions from up to the $N_{\text{max}} = 90$ HO shell. Default:
10.\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt oscillator\_length = -1.0}: The oscillator
length in fm, denoted $b_{0}$ in this manuscript, corresponding
to the spherical basis. It is related to the HO frequency by
$b_{0} = \sqrt{\hbar/m\omega_{0}}$. If the basis is deformed, the code
uses the constant volume condition to define the $b_{z}$ and $b_{\perp}$
oscillator lengths such that $b_{0}^{3} = b_{z}b_{\perp}^{2}$. For negative
values of $b_{0}$, the code automatically sets $b_{0}$ by using
$\hbar\omega_{0} = 1.2\times 41/A^{1/3}$. Default: -1.0.\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt basis\_deformation = 0.0}: The axial deformation
$\beta_{2}$ of the basis. Only axial quadrupole deformations are possible.
Negative values correspond to an oblate basis and are allowed. Default: 0.0.\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt proton\_number = 24}: Number of protons for this
run. Only even values are allowed, see item {\tt proton\_blocking} under
keyword {\tt HFBTHO\_BLOCKING} for dealing with odd-proton nuclei. Default:
24. \\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt neutron\_number = 26}: Number of neutrons for this
run. Only even values are allowed, see item {\tt neutron\_blocking} under
keyword {\tt HFBTHO\_BLOCKING} for dealing with odd-neutron nuclei. Default:
26. \\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt type\_of\_calculation = 1}: Defines the type of
calculation to be performed for this run. If equal to 1, standard HFB
calculations will be performed. If equal to -1, the code will do HFB+LN,
where approximate particle-number projection is handled by the Lipkin-Nogami
prescription in the seniority pairing approximation following \cite{[Sch12]}.
Default: 1.
\key{HFBTHO\_ITERATIONS}
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt number\_iterations = 100}: The maximum number of
iterations in the self-consistent loop. Default: 100. \\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt accuracy = 1.E-5}: Iterations are stopped when
the norm of the HFB matrix between two iterations,
$\text{max}|| \mathcal{H}^{(n)} - \mathcal{H}^{(n-1)}||$, is lower than
{\tt accuracy}, or the number of iterations has exceeded
{\tt number\_iterations}. Default: 1.E-5.\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt restart\_file = -1}: This key can take the
values $\pm 1, \pm 2, \pm 3$. If it is negative, calculations will be restarted
from an existing solution stored in a HBFTHO compatible binary file. The name
of this file will always take the form
{\tt [shape][neutron\_number]\_[proton\_number].[extension]}, where {\tt [shape]}
is `{\tt s}' for the value $\pm 1$, `{\tt p}' for the value $\pm 2$ and `{\tt o}'
for the value $\pm 3$, and {\tt [extension]} is either `{\tt hel}' for regular HO
calculations or `{\tt tel}' for THO calculations. If the value of the key is
positive, calculations will be started from scratch by solving the Schr{\"o}dinger
equation for a Woods-Saxon potential with (possibly) an axial deformation $\beta_{2}$
defined by the value of the constraint on $Q_{2}$, see below. Default: -1.
\key{HFBTHO\_FUNCTIONAL}
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt functional = `SLY4'}: This key with 4 letters
indicates the Skyrme functional to be used. Possible values are: {\tt `SIII'},
{\tt `SKM*'}, {\tt `SKP'}, {\tt `SLY4'}, {\tt `SLY5'}, {\tt `SLY6'}, {\tt `SLY7'},
{\tt `SKI3'}, {\tt `SKO'}, {\tt `SKX'}, {\tt `HFB9'}, {\tt `UNE0'},
{\tt `UNE1'}. Default: {\tt `SLY4'}.\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt add\_initial\_pairing = F}: In restart mode (see
{\tt restart\_file} ), this boolean variable decides if a small number will be added to
all pairing matrix elements. This option can be useful to ensure that
pairing correlations remain non-zero even when restarting from a nucleus
where they have collapsed, such as a doubly-magic nucleus. Default: F. \\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt type\_of\_coulomb = 2}: Chooses how the Coulomb
potential is treated. If 0, both the direct and exchange terms are
neglected. If 1, only the direct Coulomb potential is included in the
calculation. If 2, both the direct and exchange Coulomb potentials are
included, the exchange term being treated in the Slater approximation.
Default: 2.\\
\key{HFBTHO\_PAIRING}
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt user\_pairing = T}: When this keyword is set to
{\tt T}, some characteristics of the pairing interaction can be set by
the user. It is always assumed that the pairing force reads
\begin{equation}
V_{\text{pair}}^{\text{n,p}}(\gras{r}) =
V_{0}^{\text{n,p}}\left( 1 - \alpha \frac{\rho(\gras{r})}{\rho_{c}} \right)
\delta(\gras{r}-\gras{r'}).
\label{eq:Vpair}
\end{equation}
Parameters that can be adjusted are the value of the pairing strength
for protons and neutrons $V_{0}^{\text{n,p}}$ (which can be different),
the cutoff in energies defining the q.p.\ entering the calculation of
the densities, and the type of pairing force defined by the parameter
$\alpha$. When this keyword is set to {\tt F}, a pre-defined pairing
force is used for each Skyrme functional. Default: F.\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt vpair\_n = -300.0}: The value of the pairing
strength (in MeV) for neutrons $V_{0}^{\text{n}}$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:Vpair}).
Default: depends on the Skyrme force.\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt vpair\_p = -300.0}: The value of the pairing
strength (in MeV) for protons $V_{0}^{\text{p}}$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:Vpair}).
Default: depends on the Skyrme force.\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt pairing\_cutoff = 60.0}: The energy cutoff
(in MeV) in q.p.~space: all q.p.\ with energy lower than the cutoff
are taken into account in the calculation of the densities. Default:
60.0 MeV.\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt pairing\_feature = 0.5}: The factor $\alpha$
in Eq.(\ref{eq:Vpair}). This parameter enables one to tune the properties
of the pairing force: If equal to 0, the pairing force has pure volume
character and does not depend on the isoscalar density; if set to 1,
the pairing force is only active at the surface, since in the interior,
$\rho(\gras{r}) \approx \rho_{c}$; if set to 0.5, the pairing force
has mixed volume-surface characteristics. Only values between 0 and 1
are possible. Default: 0.5.\\
\key{HFBTHO\_CONSTRAINTS}
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt lambda\_values = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8}: This
series of 8 integers define the multipolarity of the multipole moment
constraints. It is informational only and is not meant to be changed. \\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt lambda\_active = 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}: This
line defines which of the multipole moments operator $\hat{Q}_{l}$, for
$l=1,\dots,8$, will be used as constraints. When 0, the corresponding
multipole is not used as constraint. When 1 it is used, and the resulting
constrained HFB calculation is initialized from the diagonalization of
the Woods-Saxon potential with the basis deformations. The user can also
set this key to -1, which triggers the kickoff mode: the code first
performs up to 10 iterations with the constraints specified by the keyword
{\tt expectation\_values} below, then releases all constraints so as to
reach the nearest unconstrained solution. Default:
{\tt (/ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 /)} (unconstrained calculations).\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt expectation\_values = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0,
0.0, 0.0, 0.0}: This line complements the preceding one by specifying
the value of the constraint for each multipolarity $l$. Internally, the
units for the multipole moment of order $l$ are 10$^{l}\times$fm$^{l}$.
Example: In order to obtain a constraint value of $Q_{3} = 5$ b$^{3/2} =
5000$ fm$^{3}$, the third number must be set to 5.0. Default:
{\tt (/ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 /)}.\\
\key{HFBTHO\_BLOCKING}
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt proton\_blocking = 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}: This group
of 5 integers defines the blocking configuration for protons. It takes
the form $2\Omega, \pi, N, n_{z}, n_{r}$, where $[N,n_{z},n_{r}]\Omega^{\pi}$
is the traditional Nilsson label. Recall that with time-reversal symmetry,
states $+\Omega$ and $-\Omega$ are degenerate, and HFBTHO only considers
states with positive values of $\Omega$ by default: the sign of $2\Omega$
given above is not related to the actual value of $\Omega$, but to the
nucleus in which the blocking is performed. Specifically,
\begin{itemize}
\item If $2\Omega=0$, the entire group is disregarded (no blocking).
\item If $2\Omega>0$, blocking is carried out in the nucleus with
$Z+1$ protons, where $Z$ is the value given by the flag {\tt proton\_number}.
In practice, it means the resulting HFB solution corresponds to the $(Z+1,N)$
nucleus.
\item If $2\Omega<0$, blocking is carried out in the nucleus with
$Z-1$ protons, where $Z$ is the value given by the flag {\tt proton\_number}.
In practice, it means the HFB solution corresponds to the $(Z-1,N)$
nucleus.
\end{itemize}
Additionally, the user may request all blocking configurations within
2 MeV of the Fermi level in the even-even core to be computed. This
automatization is activated by setting the parity $\pi$ to 0 instead
of $\pm 1$. For example, the line {\tt 1, 0, 0, 0, 0} would compute
all blocking configurations in the $(Z+1,N)$ nucleus, while the line
{\tt -7, -1, 3, 0, 3} would yield the configuration [303]7/2$^{-}$
in the $(Z-1,N)$ nucleus. Refer to the examples included with the program
for a practical application. Default: {\tt (/ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 /)}. \\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt neutron\_blocking = 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}: This group
of 5 integers defines the blocking configuration for neutrons. It obeys
the same rules as for the protons. Default: {\tt (/ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 /)}.\\
\key{HFBTHO\_PROJECTION}
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt switch\_to\_THO = 0}: This switch controls the
use of the transformed harmonic oscillator basis. If equal to 0, then
the traditional HO basis is used; if equal to -1, then the code first
performs a calculation in the HO basis before automatically restarting
the calculation in the THO basis after the local scale transformation
has been determined; if 1, the code runs the calculation in the THO
basis only. Note that the use of the THO option requires a large enough
basis, typically with at least $N_{\text{max}} = 20$. Default: 0.\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt projection\_is\_on = 0}: Particle number
projection (after variation) is activated by switching this integer
to 1. Default: 0.\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt gauge\_points = 1}: The implementation of
particle number projection is based on the discretization of the
integration interval over the gauge angle. The number of gauge points
is given here. Default: 1.\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt delta\_Z = 0}: If particle projection is on,
HFB results will be projected on $Z+\delta Z$, where $Z$ is the actual
number of protons in the nucleus and $\delta Z$ is specified here.
Default: 0\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt delta\_N = 0}: If particle projection is on,
HFB results will be projected on $N+\delta N$, where $N$ is the actual
number of neutrons in the nucleus and $\delta N$ is specified here.
Default: 0\\
\key{HFBTHO\_TEMPERATURE}
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt set\_temperature = F}: For finite-temperature
HFB calculations, {\tt set\_temperature} must be set to T. Default: F.\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt temperature = 0.0}: In finite-temperature
HFB calculations, the value of the nuclear temperature is given here,
in MeV. If {\tt set\_temperature = F}, but the nuclear temperature is
positive, the code overwrites the flag {\tt set\_temperature}. Default:
0.0.\\
\key{HFBTHO\_DEBUG}
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt number\_Gauss = 40}: Number of Gauss-Hermite
integration points for integrations along the z-axis (elongation axis).
Default: 40 (conserved parity), 80 (broken parity).\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt number\_Laguerre = 40}: Number of Gauss-Laguerre
integration points for integrations along the perpendicular axis. Default:
40.\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt number\_Legendre = 80}: Number of Gauss-Legendre
integration points for the calculation of the direct Coulomb potential,
see section 3.8 of \cite{[Sto05]} and section \ref{subsec:test_coulomb} in
this manuscript. If this number is negative, the Laplacian substitution
method is used instead of the Gaussian substitution method, see
\cite{[Vau73]}. Default: 80.\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt compatibility\_HFODD = F}: This boolean flag
enforces the same HO basis as in HFODD. In practice, it is only meaningful
in deformed nuclei. Default: F.\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt number\_states = 500}: When compatibility with
HFODD conventions is enforced, this parameter gives the total number of
states in the basis. Default: Inactive.\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt force\_parity = T}: This boolean flag enforces the
conservation or breaking of parity depending on the multipolarity of
the multipole moments used as constraints. Default: T.\\
\noindent$\bullet$ {\tt print\_time = 0}: If 1, the time taken by
some of the major routines will be printed in the output. Default: 0.
\section{Program HFBTHO v{2.00d}}
\label{sec:program}
The program HFBTHO comes in the form of two files:
\begin{itemize}
\item \tv{hfbtho\_200d.f90} - Main file containing the self-contained
HFBTHO solver. This file contains several Fortran modules, see below.
\item \tv{main\_200d.f90} - Calling program.
\end{itemize}
The programming language of most of the code is Fortran 95, while legacy code
is still written, in part or totally, in Fortran 90 and Fortran 77. The code
\pr{HFBTHO} requires an implementation of the BLAS and LAPACK libraries to
function correctly. Shared memory parallelism is available.
\subsection{Fortran Source Files}
\label{subsec:source}
The main file \tv{hfbtho\_200d.f90} contains the following Fortran
modules:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\tt HFBTHO\_VERSION}: informational module only containing the change
log;
\item {\tt HFBTHO\_utilities}: definition of integer and real number types;
\item {\tt linear\_algebra}: collection of various routines dealing with
interpolation;
\item {\tt UNEDF}: module computing the Skyrme-like energy density and the
corresponding Hartree-Fock fields at a given density $\rho$;
\item {\tt HFBTHO}: module storing all public variables used throughout the
code;
\item {\tt HFBTHO\_gauss}: collection of routines and functions dealing with
the integration meshes (contains several Fortran 77 legacy routines);
\item {\tt HFBTHO\_THO}: module in charge of the THO transformation;
\item {\tt EllipticIntegral}: module that provides the elliptic integral of
the second kind;
\item {\tt bessik}: module that provides the modified Bessel function
of integer order.
\end{itemize}
The rest of the routines are not stacked into a module.
\subsection{Compilation}
\label{subsec:compilation}
The program is shipped with a Makefile that is preset for a number of
Fortran compilers. The user should choose the compiler and set the path
for the BLAS and LAPACK libraries. To compile, type: ``{\tt make}".
\subsection{Code execution}
\label{subsec:execution}
Assuming an executable named {\tt main} and a Linux system, execution is
started by typing
\begin{center}
``{\tt ./main < /dev/null >\& main.out }"
\end{center}
The program will attempt to read the file named {\tt hfbtho\_NAMELIST.dat}
in the current directory. The user is in charge of assuring this file is
present and readable. The code will automatically generate a binary file
of the form {\tt [shape][neutron\_number]\_[proton\_number].[extension]}
where:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\tt [shape]} is one of the letters `s', `p', `o', which refers to
spherical, prolate or oblate shape respectively. The choice of this letter
is left to the user through the keyword {\tt restart\_mode}. This format
remains for backward compatibility;
\item {\tt [neutron\_number]} is a 3-integer number giving the neutron number
(left-padding with zero if necessary);
\item {\tt [proton\_number]} is a 3-integer number giving the proton number
(left-padding with zero if necessary);
\item {\tt [extension]} is either `hel' (normal HO run) or `tel' (THO run).
\end{itemize}
\section{Acknowledgments}
\label{sec:acknowledgments}
\bigskip
Discussions with R. Parrish are very warmly acknowledged.
Support for this work was partly provided through Scientific Discovery
through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) program funded by U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Science, Advanced Scientific Computing Research
and Nuclear Physics; by the the Academy of Finland under the Centre
of Excellence Programme 2012-2017 (Nuclear and Accelerator Based
Physics Programme at JYFL) and FIDIPRO programme, the U.S.\
Department of Energy grant Nos.~DE-FC02-09ER41583, DE-FC02-07ER41457,
DE-FG02-96ER40963 (University of Tennessee), and DE-AC02006CH11357
(Argonne National Laboratory). It was partly performed under the
auspices of the US Department of Energy by the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344 (code release
number: LLNL-CODE-573953, document release number: LLNL-JRNL-587360).
Funding was also provided by the United States Department of Energy
Office of Science, Nuclear Physics Program pursuant to Contract
DE-AC52-07NA27344 Clause B-9999, Clause H-9999 and the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Pub. L. 111-5. An award of computer
time was provided by the Innovative and Novel Computational Impact
on Theory and Experiment (INCITE) program. This research used
resources of the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility located
in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is supported by the
Office of Science of the Department of Energy under Contract
DE-AC05-00OR22725. It also used resources of the National Energy
Research Scientific Computing Center, which is supported by the
Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract
No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. We also acknowledge ``Fusion,''a 320-node
cluster operated by the Laboratory Computing Resource Center at
Argonne National Laboratory, and the CSC-IT Center for Science
Ltd, Finland for the allocation of computational resources.
\bibliographystyle{cpc}
|
\section{\label{sec:introduction}Introduction}
Plasma based accelerators (PBA) use high intensity laser pulses~\cite{bib:tajima_prl_1979}, with intensities above $I\sim10^{18}~\mathrm{W/cm}^2$, or highly charged particle bunch drivers~\cite{bib:chen_prl_1986}, with more than $10^{10}$ charged particles, to excite ultra-relativistic plasma waves. The ideal plasma density
to maximize charge and energy gain
depends on the nature of the driver (i.e. lepton, hadron or laser pulse), typically ranging between $n_0=10^{14}-10^{19}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$. At these plasma densities, charged particle bunches can be accelerated by plasma wakefields to 1-100~GeV in 1-100~cm~\cite{bib:lu_prstab_2007}.
The proof-of-principle of PBA is firmly demonstrated~\cite{bib:leemans_natphys_2006,bib:blumenfeld_nature_2007}. %
Presently,
connection with applications~\cite{bib:patel_nature_2007} is an essential step to further improve this technology. To this end, fine control over the properties of the accelerated electrons is required. Several techniques
were
proposed to control self-trapping. %
Control over charge and energy of accelerated bunches can be reached using
plasma ramps~\cite{bib:geddes_prl_2008}, counter propagating lasers \cite{bib:faure_nature_2006}, to ionization mechanisms~\cite{bib:pak_prl_2010}, and resorting to non-linear optical effects such as self-focusing~\cite{bib:kalmykov_prl_2009}.
A novel technique using transverse magnetic fields to relax self-injection thresholds has been recently proposed~\cite{bib:vieira_prl_2011}. The use of external magnetic fields in plasma acceleration was first proposed to extend the acceleration distances in plasma accelerators in the surfatron model~\cite{bib:katsouleas_prl_1983}. The role of external magnetic fields in PBA was also explored in~\cite{bib:ren_pop_2004}, and the use of longitudinal magnetic fields to enhance the self-injected charge in laser wakefield acceleration was investigated in~\cite{bib:hosokai_prl_2006}.
This paper presents a detailed derivation of the self-trapping threshold condition in the presence of external fields. Using the particle-in-cell (PIC) code Osiris~\cite{bib:fonseca_book}, it is shown that magnetic injection can be used to generate single or multiple off-axis self-injected bunches with well defined radial injection positions. Using the post-processing radiation code JRad~\cite{bib:martins_spie_2009} it is demonstrated that these electrons may emit betatron radiation at well defined frequencies close to the undulator regime. This paper is structured as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:review} describes an analytical trapping condition in the presence of external fields. In Sec.~\ref{sec:simulations}, 3D PIC simulation results are employed to analyze the relevant physical mechanisms of magnetic field assisted self-injection. The use of different B-field geometries to control transverse features of magnetically injected electrons is described in Sec.~\ref{sec:tailor}. Section~\ref{sec:radiation} shows that magnetically assisted injection can lead to the emission of clearly defined betatron radiation harmonics for the first time in PBAs. Finally, conclusions are stated in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{\label{sec:review}Trapping conditions in the presence of external fields}
The dynamics of the electrons in the fields created by an intense laser in the blowout regime can be described using Hamiltonian dynamics~\cite{bib:pak_prl_2010}. A general trapping condition in the presence of external fields can be found by examining the evolution of the Hamiltonian of plasma electrons in the co-moving frame, $(x=x,y=y,\xi=v_{\phi}t-z,s=z)$, given by $\mathcal{H}=H-v_{\phi} P_{\|}$, where $(x,y)$ are the transverse coordinates, $z$ the distance, $v_{\phi}$ the wake phase velocity (determined by the driver group velocity), $P_{\|}$ the longitudinal canonical momentum, $H = \sqrt{m_e^2 c^4+(\mathbf{P}+e \mathbf{A})^2}-e \phi$ the Hamiltonian of a charged particle in the presence of electric and magnetic fields, $m_e$ and $e$ the electron mass and charge, $c$ the speed of light, $\mathbf{A}$ and $\phi$ the vector and scalar potentials, and $\mathbf{P}=\mathbf{p}-e \mathbf{A}$, where $\mathbf{P}$ and $\mathbf{p}$ are the canonical and linear momentum respectively.
Normalized units will be used henceforth unless explicitly stated. Mass and charges are normalized to $m_e$ and $e$, respectively, velocity $v$ to $c$, time to $\omega_p=\sqrt{4 \pi n_0 e^2/m_e}$, momentum to $m_e c$, and density to the background plasma density $n_0$. Vector and scalar potentials are normalized to $e/m_e c^2$ and $e/m_e c$ respectively. Magnetic fields (B) are normalized to $\omega_c/\omega_p$ where $\omega_c=e B /m_e$ is the cyclotron frequency.
In order to derive a trapping threshold condition in the presence of external fields, we consider first the expression for the temporal evolution of $\mathcal{H}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hamilton_1}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathcal{H}}{\mathrm{d} t} = (v_{\phi}-v_{\|}) \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathcal{H}}{\mathrm{d}\xi}=\frac{\partial H}{\partial s } = \left[\mathbf{v}\cdot \frac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial s}-\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial s}\right],
\end{equation}
Integration over the particle trajectory yields:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hamilton_2}
\mathcal{H}_f-\mathcal{H}_i = \int \mathrm{d} t \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathcal{H}}{\mathrm{d} t} = \int \frac{\mathrm{d} \xi}{v_{\phi}-v_{\|}} \frac{\mathrm{d} \mathcal{H}}{\mathrm{d} t},
\end{equation}
where the subscripts '$i$` and '$f$` refer to the initial and final (trapped) electron positions. The integration is performed along the electron trajectory, and $\mathrm{d} t = \mathrm{d} \xi/(v_{\phi}-v_z)$. Combining Eq.~(\ref{eq:hamilton_1}) with Eq.~(\ref{eq:hamilton_2}) gives:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hamilton_3}
\mathcal{H}_f-\mathcal{H}_i = \int \mathrm{d} \xi \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathcal{H}}{\mathrm{d} \xi} = \int \mathrm{d} \xi\left[\mathbf{v}\cdot \frac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial s}-\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial s}\right],
\end{equation}
Using the definition for $\mathcal{H}$, and considering that initially electrons are at rest (i.e. $\mathbf{p}_i = 0$):
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hamilton_4}
\mathcal{H}_f-\mathcal{H}_i = \gamma_{f} -v_{\phi} p_{f\|} - 1 - \left(\phi_f - v_{\phi} A_{f\|} \right) - \left(\phi_i - v_{\phi} A_{i\|} \right),
\end{equation}
with $\phi=\phi^{\mathrm{pl}}+\phi^{\mathrm{ext}}$, $A_{\|}=A_{\|}^{\mathrm{pl}}+A_{\|}^{\mathrm{ext}}$, and where the superscripts '$\mathrm{pl}$` and '$\mathrm{ext}$` refer to the plasma and external fields respectively, and $\gamma=(1-\mathbf{v}^2)^{-1/2}$ is the relativistic factor. Defining the wake potential $\psi=\phi-v_{\phi} A_{\|}$, $\Delta \psi = \psi_f-\psi_i$, and assuming that for trapping the longitudinal velocity of the electron must reach the velocity of the wake i.e. $v_{z}=v_{\phi}$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:hamilton_4}) readily becomes:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hamilton_5}
\mathcal{H}_f-\mathcal{H}_i = \frac{\gamma}{\gamma_{\phi}^2} - 1 - \Delta \psi^{\mathrm{pl}} -\Delta \psi^{\mathrm{ext}}.
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_{\phi}=(1-v_{\phi}^2)^{-1/2}$ is the gamma factor of the plasma wave. Using Eq.~(\ref{eq:hamilton_3}) to express $\mathcal{H}_f-\mathcal{H}_i$ leads to the trapping condition~\cite{bib:vieira_prl_2011}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:btrapping}
1+\Delta \psi^{\mathrm{pl}} = \frac{\gamma}{\gamma_{\phi}^2}-\int\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathcal{H}}{\mathrm{d}\xi}\mathrm{d}\xi-\Delta \psi^{\mathrm{ext}}.
\end{equation}
Equation~(\ref{eq:btrapping}) is a general trapping condition in the presence of external fields, and valid beyond the range of validity of the quasi-static approximation~\cite{bib:sprangle_prl_1990}. Analytical solutions to Eq.~(\ref{eq:btrapping}), however, are not yet known because the calculation of $\Delta \psi^{\mathrm{pl}}$ and $\int\mathrm{d}_{\xi}\mathcal{H} \mathrm{d}{\xi}$ requires accurate prediction of the particle trajectories and field structures at the back of the bubble, where the applicability of the standard analytical models~\cite{bib:lu_prl_2006} is limited.
To retrieve a general trapping threshold in the absence of external fields, and in the conditions where the quasi-static approximation is valid, it should be considered $\Delta \psi^{\mathrm{ext}}=0$, and $\int \mathrm{d}_{\xi}\mathcal{H}\mathrm{d}\xi=0$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:btrapping}). For an ultra-relativistic plasma wave with $\gamma_{\phi}\rightarrow\infty$ trapping occurs when $1+\Delta \psi^{\mathrm{pl}}=0$, or, equivalently, $\Delta \psi^{\mathrm{pl}} = -1$. Generally, this condition can only be met at the back of the plasma wave, in regions of maximum accelerating fields, where $\psi^{\mathrm{pl}}$ is minimum and approaches $\psi^{\mathrm{pl}}=-1$~\cite{bib:pak_prl_2010}. In the presence of static external fields the trapping condition becomes $1+\Delta \psi^{\mathrm{pl}}=-\Delta \psi^{\mathrm{ext}}$. The trapping thresholds are relaxed because they can be met when $\Delta \psi^{\mathrm{pl}}$ is larger than $-1$ provided that $\Delta \psi^{\mathrm{ext}}>0$. In other words, trapping may occur for lower values of peak accelerating gradients. Moreover, trapping may be suppressed if $\Delta \psi^{\mathrm{ext}}<0$.
Trapping can also be relaxed (or suppressed) when the external fields vary spatially in $z$ because of the contribution of finite $\int \mathrm{d}_{\xi}\mathcal{H}\mathrm{d}\xi\ne 0$ to Eq.~(\ref{eq:btrapping}). If the profile of the external fields profile leads to $\int \mathrm{d}_{\xi}\mathcal{H}\mathrm{d}\xi>0$ ($\int \mathrm{d}_{\xi}\mathcal{H}\mathrm{d}\xi<0$) along the electron trajectory then trapping is facilitated (suppressed)~\cite{bib:kalmykov_prl_2009,bib:vieira_prl_2011}. Physically, the fact that $\int \mathrm{d}_{\xi}\mathcal{H}\mathrm{d}\xi>0$ is typically associated with the reduction of the wake phase velocity through the accordion effect, thus facilitating self-injection~\cite{bib:kalmykov_prl_2009,bib:vieira_prl_2011,bib:katsouleas_pra_1986}.
\section{\label{sec:simulations}Magnetically controlled self-injection in LWFAs and PWFAs}
To investigate controlled self-trapping in the presence of external static magnetic fields we present in this section 3D particle-in-cell simulations of laser (LWFA) and plasma (PWFA) wakefield accelerators using the particle-in-cell code Osiris. Figure~\ref{fig:lwfa} illustrates the evolution, and highlights the key mechanisms of injection assisted by external B-fields in the LWFA. The simulation window moves at the speed of light, with dimensions of $24\times24\times 12~(c/\omega_p)^3$, divided into $480\times480\times1200$ cells with $1\times1\times2$ electrons per cell in the $(x,y,z)$ directions respectively. The plasma ions are immobile. A linearly polarized laser pulse with central frequency $\omega_0/\omega_p=20$ was used, with a peak vector potential of $a_0=3$, a duration $\omega_p\tau_{\mathrm{FWHM}}=2\sqrt{a_0}$, and a transverse spot size matched to the pulse duration such that $W_0=c \tau_{\mathrm{FWHM}}$~\cite{bib:lu_prstab_2007}. The plasma density is of the form $n=n_0(z)\left(1+\Delta n r^2\right)$ for $r<\sqrt{10}~c/\omega_p$ and $n=0$ for $r>\sqrt{10}c/\omega_p$ with $\Delta n = \Delta n_c = 4/W_0^4$ (i.e. the normalized matching condition given by $\Delta n_c=4/(\pi r_e W_0^2)$, where $r_e=e^2/m_e c^2$ is the classical electron radius) being the linear guiding condition in the normalized units, and where $n_0(z)$ is a linear function of $z$ which increases from $n_0=0$ to $n_0=1$ for $50~c/\omega_p$ to ensure a smooth vacuum-plasma transition. The channel guides the front of the laser thereby minimizing the evolution of the bubble. A static external B-field pointing in the positive y-direction was used. At the point where the plasma density reaches its maximum value, the external field rises with $B_y^{\mathrm{ext}}=\omega_c/\omega_p = 0.6 \sin^2[\pi z / (2 L^{\mathrm{ramp}})+\Phi_1]$, with $L^{\mathrm{ramp}}=10 c/\omega_p$. It is constant and equal to $B_{y}^{\mathrm{ext}}=0.6$ for $L^{\mathrm{flat}}=40~c/\omega_p$ and then drops back to zero with $B_y^{\mathrm{ext}}=0.6 \sin^2[\pi z /(2 L^{\mathrm{ramp}})+\Phi_2]$. Moreover, $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ are phases chosen to guarantee the continuity of the external B-field profile.
Qualitatively, the longitudinal profile of the magnetic field thus resembles that of~\cite{bib:pollock_rsi_2006}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figure1.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:lwfa} 3D osiris simulation results illustrating the magnetic self-injection mechanisms. (a), (c), and (e) show the electron plasma density in gray, the self-trapped particles in blue, and the laser pulse envelope in red colors at $t=110/\omega_p$, $t=126 /\omega_p$ and $t=159 /\omega_p$. (b), (d), and (f) show the corresponding $p_{\|}-\xi$ phase-space. The magnetic field leads to off-axis self-injection in a narrow angular region. The inset in (f) represents the transverse momentum phase-space of the self-injected electron bunch residing within the bubble. The B-field profile is schematically represented on the top of the figure. The laser driver moves from left to right as indicated by the arrow.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Self-injection is absent from the regions where the B-field rises. In these regions, electrons traveling backwards ($v_z<0$) near the back of the bubble feel an increasing $\mathbf{v}\times \mathbf{B}^{\mathrm{ext}}$ force that rotates electrons anti-clockwise thereby locally decreasing (increasing) the blowout radius for $x>0$ ($x<0$). Then, as the B-field rises, the local wake phase velocity at the back of the bubble increases (decreases) for $x>0$ ($x<0$). For $x>0$, $v_{\phi}$ is superluminal, $\int \mathrm{d}_{\xi}\mathcal{H}\mathrm{d}\xi<0$, and self-injection can not occur. For $x<0$ trapping is precluded because electrons reach the axis in regions where the plasma focusing and accelerating fields are unable to focus and trap electrons. Thus, although for $x<0$ $\int \mathrm{d}_{\xi}\mathcal{H}\mathrm{d}\xi>0$, we have that $\int \mathrm{d}_{\xi}\mathcal{H}\mathrm{d}\xi+\Delta \psi^{\mathrm{ext}}<0$.
Self-trapping occurs in the uniform regions of the external magnetic field where $x>0$. For $x>0$, electrons rotating anti-clockwise reach the axis in regions of maximum focusing and accelerating fields with larger $p_{\|}$ and can be trapped. For $x<0$, electrons reach regions of the axis (where focusing and accelerating fields are lower) with lower $p_{\|}$, and are are lost to the surrounding plasma. A threshold B-field for injection may be retrieved in the limit where $\gamma_{\phi}\rightarrow\infty$. Neglecting the plasma fields ($\Delta\psi^{\mathrm{pl}}=0$), and noting that the external longitudinal vector potential $A_{\|}^{\mathrm{ext}}=-B_y x$ is consistent with the considered magnetic field, leads to a simplified trapping condition $\Delta\psi^{\mathrm{ext}}= - B_y \Delta x = 1$, where $\Delta x=x_f-x_i\simeq -r_b$, where $r_b$ is the blowout radius and where it was considered that the initial (final) trapped electron radial position is $x=r_b$ ($x=0$). It shows that injection is facilitated in the region where $\Delta x<0$ is minimum. As a consequence, injection occurs off-axis (for $x>0$), and in a well defined azimuthal region defined by $- B_y r_b \sin\theta = 1$, where $\theta$ is the angle between the plane of the electron trajectory with the B field~\cite{bib:vieira_prl_2011}. Note, however, that this trapping threshold condition overestimates the threshold B-field for self-injection because it neglects the plasma fields.
There is an upper $B_y$ value, given by $\omega_c/\omega_p\lesssim1$, beyond which injection may be suppressed in regions where the B field is flat. The later condition ensures that the plasma wakefields are nearly undisturbed by the external fields. Simulations then showed that when $\omega_c/\omega_p\gg 1$ there is a suppression of the wakefields that prevents injection. Hence trapping can be relaxed in the regions of uniform B-fields provided that $1/r_b \lesssim B_y\lesssim 1$ or, equivalently $170/r_b[10\mu\mathrm{m}]\lesssim B[\mathrm{T}] \lesssim 32\sqrt{n_0[10^{16}\mathrm{cm}^{-3}]}$.
The above-mentioned upper B-field limit for injection is absent from the downramp regions, where a stronger self-injection burst occurs for $x>0$. Injection occurs within the same angular and radial region as in the uniform B-field section (Fig.~\ref{fig:lwfa}c). For $x>0$, when the B-field lowers $r_b$ increases, $v_{\phi}$ lowers and $\int \mathrm{d}_{\xi}\mathcal{H}\mathrm{d}\xi>0$, facilitating injection. For $x<0$, $v_{\phi}>1$, and trapping is suppressed. The resulting phase space at $t=126 c/\omega_p$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lwfa}d.
After the magnetized plasma region, the magnetically injected electron bunch is clearly detached from the back of the bubble, leading to the generation of a quasi-mono-energetic electron bunch. The magnetic injected electron bunch right after the B-field is shown at $t=159 c/\omega_p$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:lwfa}e, and the corresponding phase-space in Fig.~\ref{fig:lwfa}f. The inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:lwfa}f shows the transverse phase space of the magnetically injected electron bunch residing within the blowout region. The asymmetrical distribution results from the fact that the injection process occurs off-axis. At this location, the emittance of the beam is on the order of 1$\pi$ mm~mrad in both transverse directions. Although comparison of beam emittance with a similar scenario without the B-field is not meaninfull because without the field the amount of self-injected charge is much smaller. However, the measured beam emittance is at the same values or lower than typical emittances of LWFAs.
External magnetic fields also relax the self-trapping thresholds in the PWFA. Figure~\ref{fig:pwfa} shows results from a 3D simulation of a magnetized PWFA. A 30 GeV electron bunch was considered with density profile given by $n_b=n_{b0}\exp\left(-\mathbf{x}_{\perp}^2/(2 \sigma_{\perp}^2)\right)\exp\left(-\xi^2/(2 \sigma_{\xi}^2)\right)$, with $\sigma_{\perp}=0.17~c/\omega_p$, $\sigma_{\xi}=1.95~c/\omega_p$, and $n_b/n_0=19$. These parameters ensure that $r_b$ is similar to the magnetized LWFA investigated above. The simulation window dimensions are $24\times24\times 24~(c/\omega_p)^3$, and it is divided in $480\times480\times640$ cells with $1\times1\times2$ electrons per cell in the $(x,y,z)$ directions respectively. The magnetic field profile is similar to the LWFA case.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure2.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:pwfa} 3D osiris simulation results illustrating magnetic self-injection in the plasma wakefield accelerator using (a) $B^{\mathrm{ext}}=0$, (b) $B^{\mathrm{ext}}=0.2$, and (c) $B^{\mathrm{ext}}=0.6$ at $t=275/\omega_p$. In this scenario the B-field injection mechanism is dominated by the plasma bubble dynamics in the B-field down-ramp. It is clear that the trapped charge increases with the amplitude of the external field. The driver moves from left to right as indicated by the arrow in (c).}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The accelerating structures are similar for the LWFA and PWFA parameters described above since the blowout radius are similar for both cases. However, as shown by Eq.~(\ref{eq:btrapping}), self-injection thresholds are harder to meet in the PWFA than in the LWFA because $\gamma_{\phi}^{\mathrm{PWFA}}\simeq 60000 \gg \gamma_{\phi}^{\mathrm{LWFA}}\simeq 20$. In contrast to the LWFA scenario, injection is then absent in the PWFA in the uniform regions of the B-field, where the larger $p_z$ at the back of the bubble for $x>0$, associated with the additional electrons $\mathbf{v}\times\mathbf{B}$ anti-clockwise rotation, is still below that required for injection. Magnetic self-injection occurs only in the B-field downramp (Fig.~\ref{fig:pwfa}b-c), where the injection mechanism is similar to that ascribed to the LWFA. In general, stronger self-injection bursts occur in the B-field downramp for both LWFA and PWFA.
The amount of self-injected charge can be tuned by changing the B-field amplitude. The inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:pwfa}c shows the spectra of the self-injected charge in the first plasma bucket using $B^{\mathrm{ext}}=0.6$ (red curve), $B^{\mathrm{ext}}=0.2$ (green curve), and $B^{\mathrm{ext}}=0.0$ (blue curve). The amount of trapped charge is negligible in the un-magnetized scenario, and it is roughly 8 times larger for $B^{\mathrm{ext}}=0.6$ than for $B^{\mathrm{ext}}=0.2$ (notice that the plot is logarithmic in the vertical y-direction). These results show that higher B-field amplitudes increase the total amount of injected charge.
Because of beam-loading~\cite{bib:tzoufras_prl_2008}, higher amounts of self-injected charge lead to lower accelerating gradients. Consequently, the maximum energy that can be achieved is lower for self-injected bunches with higher charges. This is consistent with the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:pwfa}c which shows that self-injected bunches with lower charges reach higher energies.
The inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:pwfa}c also shows that the energy spreads of the magnetically injected electrons are on the order of $100\%$. Due to the short duration of the self-injected bunch in comparison to the plasma wavelength, which guarantees uniform acceleration throughout the entire bunch length, the relative energy spread would decrease as the beam accelerates. Moreover, the energy spread would further narrow down near the dephasing length due to the bunch phase-space rotation~\cite{bib:tsung_prl_2004}.
For these parameters the threshold magnetic field for self-injection is $B_y^{\mathrm{ext}}\gtrsim0.2$. To connect these simulations with actual experimental conditions, we take $n_0=10^{17}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ for which the electron beam and plasma parameters match those available at SLAC~\cite{bib:blumenfeld_nature_2007} with $\sigma_{\perp}=50.4~\mu$m, $\sigma_z=84~\mu$m and a total number of $3\times10^{10}$ electrons. For these parameters, $B_y^{\mathrm{ext}}=0.2$ corresponds to 20~T. These magnetic fields could be produced with state-of-the-art magnetic field generation techniques~\cite{bib:pollock_rsi_2006,bib:kumada_pac_2003}. By tuning further the plasma parameters controlled injection with magnetic fields as low as 5~T can also be achieved (cf. Sec.~\ref{sec:radiation}).
\section{\label{sec:tailor}Simultaneous generation of multiple self-injected electron bunches}
The transverse location where self-trapping is relaxed can be selected by adequate choice of the profile of the external magnetic field. As an example, Fig.~\ref{fig:tailor} shows the results from a 2D slab geometry simulation using
a magnetic field which reverses sign at $x=0$ %
(this is equivalent to an azimuthal B-field profile in cylindrical symmetry).
In this case, the magnetic field points outside (inside) the simulation plane for $x>0$ ($x<0$). The 2D simulations use a simulation box that moves at $c$ with dimensions $12\times32~(c/\omega_p)^2$, and is divided into $640\times3000$ cells with $3\times3$ electrons per cell in the $(x,\xi)$ directions respectively. The laser pulse and plasma channel parameters are similar to those of the 3D LWFA simulation (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:lwfa}). The amplitude of the external B-field is $B_y^{\mathrm{ext}}=\omega_c/\omega_p = 0.6 \sin^2[\pi z / (2 L^{\mathrm{ramp}})+\Phi_1] x/|x|$, with $L^{\mathrm{ramp}}=10 c/\omega_p$, it is constant and equal to $B_{y}^{\mathrm{ext}}=0.6$ for $L^{\mathrm{flat}}=50~c/\omega_p$ and drops back to zero with $B_y^{\mathrm{ext}}=0.6 \sin^2[\pi z / (2 L^{\mathrm{ramp}})+\Phi_2] x/|x|$, where the choice of $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ ensures the continuity of the B-field longitudinal profile.
Figure~\ref{fig:tailor}a shows the magnetically injected electrons in the regions where the B-field is uniform. Two off-axis injection bursts occur at well defined transverse positions in the flat B-field regions. The two bunches are then injected symmetrically close to $x=0$. An additional and stronger self-injection burst occurs at the B-field down-ramp (Fig.~\ref{fig:tailor}b). After the magnetized plasma region, the two self-injected electron bunches continuously accelerate in the wakefield (Fig.~\ref{fig:tailor}c). Note that Fig.~\ref{fig:tailor}c refers to the early propagation of the electron bunch, much shorter than the dephasing length. Similarly, the propagation distance is much smaller than the betatron period of oscillation. The physical mechanisms under which self-injection occurs in the present configuration are identical to those presented in Sections~\ref{sec:review} and \ref{sec:simulations}.
Interestingly, Fig.~\ref{fig:tailor} reveals that injection occurs in a highly spatially localized region. Off axis injection from well defined radial and azimuthal regions was observed in Sec.~\ref{sec:simulations} in 3D simulations. Generally, however, this effect is more noticeable in 2D slab geometry simulations than in 3D. These results also suggest that ring like electron bunches could be obtained in 3D. This could be advantageous for radiation generation purposes because bunch particles would perform betatron oscillations with similar amplitudes.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Figure3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:tailor} 2D Osiris simulation of a magnetized LWFA using an azimuthal-like magnetic field. In the upper (lower) simulation mid-plane the B-field is directed outside (inside) the simulation plane. (a) is taken in the B-field flat region at $t = 79/\omega_p$, (b) in the B-field down-ramp at $t=92/\omega_p$, and (c) after the B-field at $t=102/\omega_p$. The B-field profile is schematically represented on the top of the figure. This configuration leads to identical magnetically injected electron bunches in the upper and lower simulation mid-plane. The laser driver moves from left to right as indicated by the arrow. The dark points represent self-injected particles.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{\label{sec:radiation} Emission of betatron radiation at well defined frequencies}
Typical synchrotron radiation experiments in plasma accelerators reveal that radiation emission occurs in the wiggler regime. The wiggler regime enables emission of x-rays with broad spectra~\cite{bib:kneip_nphys_2012}. This contrasts with the undulator regime, where radiation is emitted at well defined harmonics. Although not yet attained experimentally, the undulator regime provides ideal conditions for radiation amplification, being critical for the realization of a ion-channel plasma based laser~\cite{bib:whittum_prl_1990}. This section illustrates how could magnetically injected electrons emit betatron radiation at well defined frequencies, closer to the undulator regime.
The PWFA beam and plasma simulation parameters, presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:simulations}, were tuned in order to lower the required magnetic field for injection, such that it could be more easily reached experimentally, and in order to lower the amplitude of the betatron oscillations in comparison to the plasma skin depth, such that distinguishable betatron radiation harmonics could be emitted. Systematic 3D parameter scans then showed that the threshold magnetic field for injection is 5.5 T at $n_0 = 10^{15}~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$. At this plasma density, $L^{\mathrm{flat}}=40 c/\omega_p = 6.8$~mm, and $L^{\mathrm{ramp}}=10~c/\omega_p = 1.68$~mm, and the maximum B-field amplitude is $B_{y}^{\mathrm{ext}}=0.55~\omega_c/\omega_p$. These parameters are within current technological reach~\cite{bib:pollock_rsi_2006,bib:kumada_pac_2003}. Simulations used a simulation box with $12\times12\times16~(c/\omega_p)^3$, divided into $480\times480\times640$ cells with $2\times2\times1$ particles per cell for the electron beam and background plasma.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figure4.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:tracks_pwfa} (a) B-injected electron bunch trajectories in the plasma wakefield accelerator. The trajectories gentle rise in the $x_2$ direction is due to the subtle transverse velocity shift imprinted on the particle beam driver in the B-field region. The inset represents the distribution of the radiation strength parameter $\alpha_{\beta}$. A significant fraction ($83\%$) of the trajectories are characterized by $\alpha_{\beta}\ll 1$. (b)-(c) Corresponding radiation profile lineouts passing through the center of a virtual detector located $5100 c/\omega_p$ from the end of the plasma. The white dashed lines corresponds to the predictions of Eq.~(\ref{eq:harmonics}) using $\gamma=400$ and $r_{\beta}=0.06$.The location where the spectra were taken in the detector plane is also shown.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Self-trapping occurs off-axis at the B-field downramp. Injection is localized radially and azimuthally, enabling the bunch to perform synchronized betatron oscillations (Fig.~\ref{fig:tracks_pwfa}a). The transverse x-axis shift of the electron trajectories result from the electron beam driver deflection when traversing the magnetized plasma region. The deflection angle is small and could be corrected by adding additional magnetized plasma regions with alternating B-fields along the propagation direction~\cite{bib:vieira_prl_2011}.
The small blowout radius ($r_b \simeq 1.5 c/\omega_p$) ensures that the betatron amplitudes of oscillation $r_{\beta}$ are much smaller than the plasma skin-depth ($\langle r_{\beta}\rangle \simeq 0.06 c/\omega_p$). The corresponding radiation strength parameter ($\alpha_{\beta}=\gamma K_{\beta} r_{\beta} k_p$) distribution, where $K_{\beta}=1/\sqrt{2 \gamma}$ is the normalized betatron frequency, and $k_p$ the plasma wavenumber, is shown in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:tracks_pwfa}a. It shows that a significant portion ($83\%$) of the electrons radiate with $\alpha_{\beta}<1$, an indication that single harmonics could be distinguishable in the emitted radiation spectrum. To retrieve the radiation spectrum, a random sample of the self-injected electrons was post-processed using the radiation code JRad~\cite{bib:martins_spie_2009}. Figure~\ref{fig:tracks_pwfa}b-c shows the radiation spectrum in the transverse central lines of a virtual detector placed at a distance $5100~c/\omega_p$ from the exit of the plasma. The detector lies on the $x-y$ plane.
The asymmetries in the x direction depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:tracks_pwfa}b result from the tilt of the magnetically injected electron trajectories. Figure~\ref{fig:tracks_pwfa}b-c reveal that radiation is emitted at well defined frequencies, which are particularly clear at larger angles, i.e. for larger $|x|$. The width of each harmonic present in Fig.~\ref{fig:tracks_pwfa}b is larger than that expected in an idealized scenario, where radiation would be purely emitted in the undulator regime. This widening is due to the spread on the $\alpha_{\beta}$ distribution (through $\gamma$ and $r_{\beta}$ spreads) and also because some electrons radiate with strength parameters which are larger than unity $\alpha_{\beta}\gtrsim 1$.
For an electron bunch with constant relativistic factor $\gamma$, and constant $r_{\beta}$ in a pure ion-channel, the frequency of the betatron radiation harmonics emitted in the undulator regime are given by~\cite{bib:esarey_pre_2002}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:harmonics}
\frac{\omega_n}{\omega_p} = \frac{2 n \gamma^2 K_{\beta}}{\left(1+\alpha_{\beta}^2/2\right)\cos\theta + 2\gamma^2\left(1-\cos\theta\right)},
\end{equation}
where $n$ corresponds to the $n^{\mathrm{th}}$ emitted harmonic, and $\theta$ to the angle between the velocity vector of the electron and the point in the detector. Radiation collected on-axis only exhibits odd-harmonics. To compare the predictions of Eq.~(\ref{eq:harmonics}) with simulation results we computed the particles trajectories average $\langle\gamma\rangle=400$ and $\langle r_{\beta}\rangle=0.06$. This yields $\alpha_{\beta}\simeq 0.7$, consistent with the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:tracks_pwfa}. The analytical prediction Eq.~(\ref{eq:harmonics}) are shown by the dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:tracks_pwfa}b-c. Eq.~(\ref{eq:harmonics}) is in good agreement with the simulation results specially for larger values of $|x|$. Discrepancies are due to the fact that the beam trajectories are tilted, and that $\alpha_{\beta}$, $r_{\beta}$, and $\gamma$ vary in time and for each electron.
\section{\label{sec:conclusions}Conclusions}
In conclusion, we explored further a recent controlled injection technique that uses transverse, static magnetic fields to tailor transverse properties of self-injection. This scheme leads to off-axis self-injection in well defined radial and azimuthal regions. A configuration consisting of a section of transversely uniform magnetized plasma yielding off-axis self-injection was investigated. It was shown that simultaneous self-injection of electron bunches could be achieved by using transversely non-uniform fields. This work also suggests that a series of magnetized regions could be used to produce a temporal sequence of electron bunches. Moreover, multiple spatially separated electrons could be produced simultaneously with transversely non-uniform B-fields. We showed that this technique could be used to produce electron bunches capable to emit betatron radiation at well defined frequencies with current technology.
\section{Acknowledgments}
Work partially supported by FCT (Portugal) through the grants SFRH/BPD/71166/2010, and PTDC/FIS/111720/2009, by the European community through LaserLab-Europe/Charpac EC FP7 Contract No. 228464. The simulations were performed at the IST Cluster, at Jaguar supercomputer under INCITE and on the JuGENE supercomputer.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Acknowledgments}
This work is supported by the State Key Program for Basic Researches
of China (2010CB923404), the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (11074109 and 11174125), the National "Climbing" Program of China (91021003),
and the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK2010012).\\
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{s:1}
Let $H$ be an infinite dimensional separable Hilbert space
{and let $\mathcal {L}: H \rightarrow H$ be an injective
compact linear operator with non-closed range. We consider the
ill-posed inverse problem of finding $u$ from data $d$, where
\begin{equation}\label{1}
d=\mathcal {L}u+\eta,
\end{equation}
and where $\eta$ represents noise.}
The problem (\ref{1}) is called mildly
or modestly ill-posed if the singular values of the forward mapping
$\mathcal{L}$ decay algebraically, while it is called severely
ill-posed if the singular values of $\mathcal {L}$ decay
exponentially \cite{EHN96}. {Our interest is focussed
on the severely ill-posed case, and on the small
observational noise limit.}
The use of classical (deterministic) regularization methods
for (\ref{1}), and the small-noise limit in particular,
is well-studied in both the mildly ill-posed \cite{EHN96}
and severely ill-posed \cite{Hoh00} cases; nonlinear
inverse problems have also been studied from
this perspective \cite{EHN96}.
However, if we wish to incorporate information
concerning the statistical structure of the unknown and the noise,
then it is natural to adopt a Bayesian perspective. The
Bayesian approach to linear ill-posed inverse problems
was adopted in \cite{Fr70},
in which the severely ill-posed
problem of inverting the heat operator was considered, and
then developed systematically in \cite{Man84,LPS89}. More
recently, nonlinear inverse problems have been given a
Bayesian formulation \cite{La07,Stu10,las12,las12b}.
However, study of the small noise limit, known as posterior
consistency in the Bayesian context, is an under-developed
aspect of the Bayesian methodology for inverse problems.
Our work adds to the growing literature in this area.
For mildly ill-posed linear problems, subject to Gaussian
observational noise, Bayesian posterior consistency is
considered in the recent papers \cite{ALS12, KVZ11}. In
\cite{KVZ11}, sharp contraction rates are obtained for
white observational noise when the forward operator
$\mathcal {L}$ and the prior covariance operator are
simultaneously diagonalizable; this allows the analysis to
proceed through the study of an infinite set of uncoupled
scalar linear inverse problems. In \cite{ALS12} the
setting of \cite{KVZ11} is generalized to allow for
non-white noise and operators which are not simultaneously
diagonalizable, using tools from PDE theory.
The paper \cite{KVZ12} is, to the best of the authors'
knowledge, the first to study Bayesian posterior consistency
for severely ill-posed problems. It concerns the
one-dimensional backward heat equation with white noise,
where the $j$th eigenvalue of the (self-adjoint) forward mapping
decays like $\exp({-j^2})$ and works in the simultaneously
diagonalizable paradigm of \cite{KVZ11}. In this paper,
we generalize the work in \cite{KVZ12} by studying Bayesian
posterior consistency for a class of severely ill-posed inverse
problems in which the $j$th singular value of
$\mathcal{L}$ decays as $\exp({-sj^b})$ for arbitrary positive
$s$ and $b$, again working in the simultaneously
diagonalizable paradigm of \cite{KVZ11}. In addition to the backward heat equation
considered in \cite{KVZ12} ($b=2$), there are a variety of
ill-posed inverse problems covered by our theory.
For instance, the Cauchy problem for the Laplace equation
and the Cauchy problem for the Helmholtz equation or the
modified Helmholtz equation (see \cite{ZFD12} and the references therein):
the eigenvalue decay of the forward mapping for these
three examples corresponds to $b=1$. Our analysis
is inspired by both the problem and techniques used
in \cite{KVZ12}; however our generalized setting leads
to some technical improvements in the proofs, we discuss
new results relating to the equivalence of the prior
and posterior and we include a numerical illustration
for the Helmholtz equation.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In
Section \ref{s:2} we introduce notation and give informal calculations for the
posterior mean and covariance operator. In Section \ref{s:3} we
characterize the posterior distribution rigorously
and show that it is equivalent, in the sense of measures,
to the prior -- see Theorems \ref{t3.1}
and \ref{t3.2}.
In Section \ref{s:4} we present and prove the main results
concerning posterior consistency,
characterizing the error in the mean in
Theorem {\ref{t4.1}, the contraction of the posterior
covariance in Theorem {\ref{t4.2}} and putting these together
to estimate posterior contraction rates in Theorem
{\ref{t4.3}}.} A discussion of the convergence rates obtained in our three main theorems, which includes comments on their minimax optimality, is contained in Remark \ref{ch2:rem}. Some technical lemmas which are essential to
the proof of Theorems {\ref{t4.1}}, {\ref{t4.2}} and
{\ref{t4.3}} are attached at the end of this section. Section \ref{s:5}
concludes the paper with a simple example for which the
theoretical analysis can be applied and includes
a numerical experiment which is consistent with the theory.
\section{Notation and Problem Setting}
\label{s:2}
\subsection{Notation}
Throughout the paper, $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ and $\|\cdot\|$
denote the inner product and norm of the separable infinite dimensional Hilbert space $H$. For a
self-adjoint positive operator $\Gamma$, we define the weighted
inner product and the corresponding norm as follows,
\begin{equation*}
\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{\Gamma}=\langle\Gamma^{-\frac{1}{2}}\cdot,
\Gamma^{-\frac{1}{2}}\cdot\rangle,\quad
\|\cdot\|_{\Gamma}=\|\Gamma^{-\frac{1}{2}}\cdot\|.
\end{equation*}
Let $\{\varphi_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$ denote an orthonormal basis in $H$.
Then we can express $u\in H$ as $u=\sum\limits_{j=1}^\infty
u_j\varphi_j$ with $u_j=\langle u,\varphi_j\rangle$ and for
$\gamma\geq0$ we define the norm $\|.\|_\gamma$ by
\[\|u\|^2_\gamma:=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\infty}u_j^2j^{2\gamma}.\] We use
$H^\gamma, \;\gamma\geq0$ to denote the Sobolev-like space
\begin{equation*}
H^\gamma=\{u\in H: \|u\|_\gamma<\infty\}.
\end{equation*} For $\gamma<0$, we define the spaces $H^\gamma$ by duality: $H^\gamma=(H^{-\gamma})^\ast$.
In the following we consider random variables drawn from Gaussian disrtibutions in $H$,
denoted by $N(\theta,\Sigma)$ where the mean $\theta$ is an element of $H$ and the covariance
operator $\Sigma$ is a positive definite, self-adjoint, trace class, linear operator in $H$.
The operator $\Sigma$ possesses an infinite set of eigenfunctions $\{\varphi_j\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$
which correspond to positive eigenvalues $\{\sigma_j\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ and which form an orthonormal
basis of $H$. One can express a draw $y$ from $N(\theta,\Sigma)$ using the Karhunen-Loeve expansion as
\begin{equation}y=\theta+\sum_j\sqrt{\sigma_j}\xi_j\varphi_j,\end{equation}
where $\xi_j$ are independent and identically distributed $N(0,1)$ real random variables, \cite{Giu06, Stu10}.
In particular, the expansion coefficients $y_j=\theta_j+\sqrt{\sigma_j}\xi_j$ are $N(\theta_j,\sigma_j)$
real variables and it is easy to see that $\mathbb{E}\norm{y}^2=\norm{\theta}^2+\rm Tr(\Sigma)$ and that
for any bounded linear operator $T$ in $H$, $Ty$ is distributed as $N(T\theta, T\Sigma T^\ast)$. {It is also straightforward to check that if $\theta=0$ and $\sigma_j=j^{-2r}$ for some $r\in\mathbb{R},$ then $y\in H^{\gamma}$ almost surely, for any $\gamma<r-\frac12$.}
{For two sequences $k_j$ and $h_j$ of real numbers,
$k_j\asymp h_j$ means
that $\frac{|k_j|}{|h_j|}$ is bounded away from zero and infinity as
$j\rightarrow\infty$, $k_j\lesssim h_j$ means that $\frac{k_j}{h_j}$
is bounded as $j\rightarrow\infty$,
and $k_j\sim h_j$ means that $\frac{k_j}{h_j}\rightarrow
1$ as $j\rightarrow\infty$.}
We will use $M$ to denote a constant which is different from
occurrence to occurrence.
\subsection{Bayesian setting and informal charaterization
of the posterior}
In this subsection we describe the assumptions underlying the
Bayesian formulation of the linear inverse problem.
Furthermore we provide informal calculations which
motivate the expressions for the posterior mean and covariance.
These will be made precise in Section \ref{s:3}.
We place a scaled Gaussian prior on the unknown $u$ of the form
$\mu_0:=N(0,\tau^2\mathcal{C}_0)$, where $\tau>0$ is a scale parameter and
$\mathcal{C}_0$ is a self-adjoint, positive-definite, trace class,
linear operator on $H$. We assume Gaussian observational noise in (\ref{1})
which is independent of $u$.
In particular, we model the data as
\begin{equation}\label{21}
d=\mathcal{L}u+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\xi,
\end{equation}
where $\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}$ is a scale parameter modelling the noise level
and $\xi$ is a random variable independent of $u$ and distributed as $N(0, \mathcal{C}_1)$. The linear operator
$\mathcal{C}_1$ is assumed to be self-adjoint,
positive-definite, bounded, but not necessarily trace class on $H$. This allows for
the possibility of having irregular
noise which is not in $H$. For example, the case where $\xi$
is white noise corresponds to $\mathcal{C}_1=I$, and
can be viewed as a Gaussian random variable in $H^{-r}$
for $r>\frac12$. Under these assumptions, the conditional
distribution of $d|u$, called the \emph{data likelihood},
is the translate of $N(0,\mathcal{C}_1)$ by $\mathcal{L}u$,
which is also Gaussian:
\begin{equation}\label{22}
N(\mathcal{L}u, \frac{1}{n}\mathcal{C}_1).
\end{equation}
In finite dimensions the density of the \emph{posterior} distribution,
that is the conditional distribution of $u|d$, is found
from Bayes rule to be proportional to $\exp(-\Phi(u))$, where
\begin{equation}\label{24}
\Phi(u)=\frac{n}{2}\|d-\mathcal{L}u\|_{\mathcal{C}_1}^2+\frac{1}{2\tau^2}\|u\|_{\mathcal{C}_0}^2.
\end{equation}
This suggests that in our infinite dimensional setting, the posterior distribution is
Gaussian, $\mu^d:=N(m,\mathcal{C})$, where the mean $m$ and covariance $\mathcal{C}$ can be informally
derived from (\ref{24}) using completion of the square:
\begin{equation}\label{26}
\mathcal{C}^{-1}=n\mathcal{L}^*\mathcal{C}_1^{-1}\mathcal{L}+\frac{1}{\tau^2}\mathcal{C}_0^{-1},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{27}
\frac{1}{n}\mathcal{C}^{-1}m=\mathcal{L}^*\mathcal{C}_1^{-1}d.
\end{equation}
{Note that in general the last two formulae need to be interpreted weakly using the Lax-Milgram theory as in \cite{ALS12}. However, in the present paper we work in a diagonal setup which makes the handling of the unbounded inverse covariance operators straightforward.}
Observe that the posterior mean $m$ is the minimizer of the
functional $\Phi(u)$. If we define
$\Phi_0(u)=\frac{1}{n}\Phi(u)$ and denote
\begin{equation}\label{28}
\lambda:=\frac{1}{n\tau^2},
\end{equation}
then $m$ also minimizes the
functional $\Phi_0(u)$, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{29}
m=\arg\min_{u}\Phi_0(u),
\end{equation}
where \[\Phi_0(u)=\frac{1}{2}\|d-\mathcal{L}u\|_{\mathcal{C}_1}^2+
\frac{\lambda}{2}\|u\|_{\mathcal{C}_0}^2.\] {Thus the posterior mean
is a Tikhonov-Phillips regularized solution in the classical sense {(in fact $\Phi_0$ is almost surely infinite and we should really consider $\Psi_0=\Phi_0-\frac12\norm{d}^2_{\mathcal{C}_1}$ which is finite; the minimizer is unaffected)}.}
This reveals {the close} connection between Bayesian and classical
regularization for inverse problems. In the deterministic framework,
$\lambda$ is called the \emph{regularization parameter} which is
carefully chosen in order to balance consistency and stability.
Similarly, for given inverse noise level $n$, the scale parameter
$\tau$ introduced in the prior can be judiciously chosen to
guarantee a small error between the posterior mean and the true
unknown, as we will see in Section \ref{s:4}.
Posterior consistency refers, in statistical inverse problems, to
studying the relationship between the result of the statistical
analysis and the truth which underlies the data in either the small
noise or large data limits; we concentrate on the small noise limit.
We consider the standard Bayesian variant on frequentist posterior
consistency \cite{DF86, GGV00} for our severely ill-posed inverse
problem. To this end we consider observations which are
perturbations of the image of a fixed element $u^\dagger\in H$ by a
scaled Gaussian additive noise, that is, we have data $d=d^\dagger$
of the form
\begin{equation}\label{212}
d^\dagger=\mathcal{L}u^\dagger+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\xi
\end{equation}
where $\xi$ is a single realization of $N(0,\mathcal{C}_1).$
This choice of data model gives the posterior distribution as
$\mu^{d^\dagger}_{\lambda,n}:=N(m^{\dagger},\mathcal{C})$, where
$\mathcal{C}$ is given by (\ref{26}) and $m^{\dagger}$
is given by (\ref{27}) with $d=d^\dagger.$ Similar to the
practice in the deterministic framework, we assume
a-priori known regularity of the true solution and identify
contraction rates of the posterior $\mu_{\lambda, n}^{d^\dagger}$ to
a Dirac measure centered on the true solution, as the noise disappears ($n\to\infty$).
\subsection{Model assumptions}
In this subsection we present our assumptions on the operators appearing in our
framework, that is, on the forward operator $\mathcal{L}$, the prior covariance operator $\mathcal{C}_0$ and the noise
covariance operator $\mathcal{C}_1$.
\begin{assumption}
\label{a2.1}
The operators $\mathcal{L}$, $\mathcal{C}_0$ and $\mathcal{C}_1$
commute with one another, so that $\mathcal{L}^*\mathcal{L}$,
$\mathcal{C}_0$ and $\mathcal{C}_1$ have the same eigenfunctions
$\{\varphi_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$. {The corresponding eigenvalues
$\{l_j^2\}_{j=1}^\infty$, $\{c_{0j}\}_{j=1}^\infty$ and
$\{c_{1j}\}_{j=1}^\infty$ of $\mathcal{L}^*\mathcal{L}$,
$\mathcal{C}_0$ and $\mathcal{C}_1$ are
assumed to satisfy}
\begin{equation}\label{210}
l_j\asymp\exp(-sj^b),\quad c_{0j}=j^{-2\alpha},\quad
c_{1j}=j^{-2\beta},
\end{equation}
for $s>0,b>0,\alpha>\frac{1}{2},\beta\geq 0$. Furthermore, the fixed
true solution $u^\dagger$ belongs to $H^\gamma$ for some $\gamma>0$.
\end{assumption}
\begin{remark}
\label{r2.2}
As is well known in finite dimensions, in the current infinite dimensional
separable Hilbert-space setting, if $\mathcal{L}$, $\mathcal{C}_0$ and $\mathcal{C}_1$
commute with one another, then $\mathcal{L}^*\mathcal{L}$,
$\mathcal{C}_0$ and $\mathcal{C}_1$ have the same eigenfunctions
$\{\varphi_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$ \cite{Lax07, Sch07}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
One can relax the assumptions on the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{C}_0$ and
$\mathcal{C}_1$ to $c_{0j}\asymp j^{-2\alpha}$ and $c_{1j}\asymp j^{-2\beta}$
without affecting any of the subsequent results.
\end{remark}
\section{Characterization of the Posterior}\label{s:3}
In \cite{Man84, LPS89} it is proved in the infinite dimensional setting that the posterior is Gaussian with
covariance and mean given by
\begin{equation}\label{31}
\mathcal{C}=\tau^2\mathcal{C}_0-\tau^2\mathcal{C}_0\mathcal{L}^*
(\mathcal{L}\mathcal{C}_0\mathcal{L}^*+\lambda\mathcal{C}_1)^{-1}\mathcal{L}\mathcal{C}_0
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{32}
m=\mathcal{C}_0\mathcal{L}^*(\mathcal{L}\mathcal{C}_0\mathcal{L}^*+\lambda\mathcal{C}_1)^{-1}d,
\end{equation}
respectively. {In general, the operator $(\mathcal{L}\mathcal{C}_0\mathcal{L}^\ast+\lambda\mathcal{C}_1)^{-1}$ in the last two formulae needs measure theoretic clarification. However, in the simultaneously diagonalizable case considered here, the interpretation is trivial and furthermore
these formulae are equivalent to the formulae (\ref{26}) and (\ref{27})
\cite[Example 6.23]{Stu10}}. Furthermore, since $\mathcal{L}$, $\mathcal{C}_0$ and
$\mathcal{C}_1$ commute with one another, the equations (\ref{31})
and (\ref{32}) can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{33}
\mathcal{C}=\tau^2\mathcal{C}_0-\tau^2\mathcal{A}\mathcal{L}\mathcal{C}_0
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{34}
m=\mathcal{A}d,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{A}: H\rightarrow H$ is the continuous linear
operator
\[\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{C}_0^{\frac{1}{2}}\big(\mathcal{C}_0^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathcal{L}^*
\mathcal{L}\mathcal{C}_0^{\frac{1}{2}}+\lambda\mathcal{C}_1\big)^{-1}\mathcal{C}_0^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathcal{L}^*
=\mathcal{C}_0\mathcal{L}^*(\mathcal{L}\mathcal{C}_0\mathcal{L}^*+\lambda\mathcal{C}_1)^{-1}.\] {In fact even if $d\notin H$, $\mathcal{A} d$ can be defined using the diagonalization.}
In the next two theorems we
show that the Gaussian posterior distribution
$\mu^d$, with covariance and mean given by
(\ref{33}) and (\ref{34}), is a proper conditional Gaussian
distribution on $H$ and is absolutely continuous with
respect to the prior.
\begin{theorem}
\label{t3.1}
Suppose Assumption \ref{a2.1} holds, then: (i) the covariance
operator $\mathcal{C}$ of the conditional distribution $\mu^d$ given
by (\ref{33}) is trace class on $H$; (ii) the mean $m$ of the
conditional posterior distribution given by (\ref{34}) is an element
of $H$, {almost surely with respect to the joint distribution
of $(u,d).$}
Thus $\mu^d(H)=1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The fact that $\mu^d(H)=1$ follows from (i) and (ii)
is well-known \cite{Giu06}. We thus prove these two points.
(i) {Using the basis $\{\varphi_j\}$, by equation (\ref{33})
we have that the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{C}$ are given by}
\begin{equation}\label{35}
c_j=\tau^2c_{0j}-\frac{\tau^2c^2_{0j}l_j^2}{c_{0j}l_j^2+\lambda
c_{1j}}=\frac{\tau^2\lambda c_{0j}c_{1j}}{c_{0j}l_j^2+\lambda
c_{1j}}\leq\tau^2c_{0j}.
\end{equation}
Since $\mathcal{C}_0$ is trace class on $H$, it follows that
$\mathcal{C}$ is trace class on $H$.
(ii) From (\ref{34}) we have that,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{36}
\mathbb{E}\|m\|^2&=&\mathbb{E}\|\mathcal{A}d\|^2
=\mathbb{E}\|\mathcal{A}\mathcal{L}u+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\mathcal{A}\xi\|^2\nonumber\\
&=&\mathbb{E}\|\mathcal{A}\mathcal{L}u\|^2+\frac{1}{n}\mathbb{E}\|\mathcal{A}\xi\|^2
\end{eqnarray}
{since $\xi$ and $u$ are independent and $\xi$ has mean zero.
{In this simultaneously diagonalizable setting it is straightforward to see using the Karhunen-Loeve expansion, that even if $\xi$ is not in $H$ the distribution of
$\mathcal{A}\xi$ is $N(0,\mathcal{A}\mathcal{C}_1\mathcal{A}^*),$ which, due to the smoothness of $\mathcal{A}$, is a random variable in $H$.} It follows, again working in the
basis $\{\varphi_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$,
that
}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{37}
\mathbb{E}\|m\|^2&=&\mathbb{E}\|\mathcal{A}\mathcal{L}u\|^2+
\frac{1}{n}{{\rm Tr}}(\mathcal{A}\mathcal{C}_1\mathcal{A}^*)\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_j\frac{{\tau^2}c_{0j}^3l_j^4}{(l_j^2c_{0j}+\lambda
c_{1j})^2}+\frac{1}{n}\sum_j\frac{c_{0j}^2l_j^2c_{1j}}{(l_j^2c_{0j}+\lambda
c_{1j})^2}\nonumber\\
&\leq&\frac{{\tau^2}}{\lambda^2}\sum_jc_{0j}^3c_{1j}^{-2}l_j^4+
\frac{1}{n\lambda^2}\sum_jc_{0j}^2c_{1j}^{-1}l_j^2\nonumber\\
&\asymp&\frac{{\tau^2}}{\lambda^2}\sum_jj^{4\beta-6\alpha}\exp(-4sj^b)+
\frac{1}{n\lambda^2}\sum_jj^{2\beta-4\alpha}\exp(-2sj^b)\nonumber\\
&<&\infty.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Hence $\|m\|$
is almost surely finite, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
\label{t3.2}
Suppose Assumption \ref{a2.1} holds, then the posterior measure $\mu^d=N(m,\mathcal{C})$ with covariance
and mean given by (\ref{33}) and (\ref{34}), respectively, is
equivalent to the prior measure $\mu_0=N(0,\tau^2\mathcal{C}_0)$, {almost surely with respect to the joint distribution of $(u,d)$.}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By the Feldman-Hajek theorem \cite[Theorem 2.23]{DZ92}, to show that the Gaussian measure
$\mu^d=N(m,\mathcal{C})$ is equivalent to $\mu_0=N(0,\tau^2\mathcal{C}_0)$, it suffices to
show:
(i) The Cameron-Martin spaces associated with $\mu^d$ and $\mu_0$
are equal, that is,
$\mathscr{D}(\mathcal{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}})=\mathscr{D}(\mathcal{C}_0^{-\frac{1}{2}}):=E$.
(ii) The posterior mean $m$ lies in the Cameron-Martin space $E$.
(iii) The operator
$T:=I-\tau^2\mathcal{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathcal{C}_0\mathcal{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}}$
is Hilbert-Schmidt.\\
We now check the validity of the above conditions.
For (i) it is equivalent to show
that there exists a constant $M$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{38}
\langle h, \mathcal{C}h\rangle\leq M\langle h,
\mathcal{C}_0h\rangle, \forall h\in H
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{39}
\langle h, \mathcal{C}_0h\rangle\leq M\langle h,
\mathcal{C}h\rangle, \forall h\in H;
\end{equation}
this follows from \cite[Lemma 6.15]{Stu10} using \cite[Proposition B1]{DZ92}.
Using the eigenbasis expansion, these are equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{310}
c_{j}\leq Mc_{0j}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{311}
c_{0j}\leq M c_j.
\end{equation}
From (\ref{35}), we
know that (\ref{310}) is true with $M=\tau^2$. Again by (\ref{35}),
we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{312}
c_j=\frac{\tau^2c_{0j}}{1+\lambda^{-1}l_j^2c_{0j}c_{1j}^{-1}}
\asymp\frac{\tau^2c_{0j}}{1+\lambda^{-1}\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-2\alpha}}\geq
Mc_{0j},
\end{eqnarray}
where $M=\frac{\tau^2}{1+K}$ and $K$ is a constant.
For (ii), it is easy to check that
$E=\mathscr{D}(\mathcal{C}_0^{-\frac{1}{2}})=H^\alpha$. The
{mean square expectation of the posterior mean $m$ in
$H^\alpha$} can be estimated similarly to (\ref{37}):
\begin{eqnarray}\label{313}
\mathbb{E}\|m\|_{H^\alpha}^2&&=\mathbb{E}\|\mathcal{C}_0^{-\frac{1}{2}}m\|^2=
\mathbb{E}\|\mathcal{C}_0^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathcal{A}d\|^2\nonumber\\
&&=\mathbb{E}\|\mathcal{C}_0^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathcal{A}\mathcal{L}u+
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\mathcal{C}_0^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathcal{A}\xi\|^2\nonumber\\
&&=\mathbb{E}\|\mathcal{C}_0^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathcal{A}\mathcal{L}u\|^2+
\frac{1}{n}{\rm Tr}(\mathcal{C}_0^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathcal{A}
\mathcal{C}_1\mathcal{A}^*\mathcal{C}_0^{-\frac{1}{2}})
\nonumber\\
&&=\sum_j\frac{\tau^2c_{0j}^2l_j^{{4}}}{(l_j^2c_{0j}+\lambda
c_{1j})^2}+{\lambda}\sum_j\frac{c_{0j}l_j^2c_{1j}}{(l_j^2c_{0j}+\lambda
c_{1j})^2}\nonumber\\
&&\leq\frac{\tau^2}{\lambda^2}\sum_jc_{0j}^2c_{1j}^{-2}l_j^{{4}}+
\frac{1}{{\lambda}}\sum_jc_{0j}c_{1j}^{-1}l_j^2\nonumber\\
&&\asymp\frac{\tau^2}{\lambda^2}\sum_jj^{4\beta-4\alpha}\exp(-{4}sj^b)+
\frac{1}{{\lambda}}\sum_jj^{2\beta-2\alpha}\exp(-2sj^b)\nonumber\\
&&<\infty,
\end{eqnarray}
therefore $m\in E$ almost surely.
For (iii), using (\ref{35}) again, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{314}
\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}{\Bigl(}1-\frac{\tau^2c_{0j}}{c_j}{\Bigr)}^2=
{\frac{1}{\lambda^2}}\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}c_{0j}^2l_j^4c_{1j}^{-2}
\asymp\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\exp(-4sj^b)j^{4\beta-4\alpha}<\infty,
\end{eqnarray}
{demonstrating} that the operator $T$ is Hilbert-Schmidt.
\end{proof}
The preceding result is interesting because, without the
assumption that the inverse problem is severely ill-posed,
it is possible to construct
linear inverse problems of the form considered in this
paper, but for which the posterior is not absolutely continuous
with respect to the prior. For example, suppose that
we modify Assumption \ref{a2.1} so that the
forward operator $\mathcal{L}$ has singular values that decay algebraically,
$l_j\asymp j^{-\ell}$, but retain the same assumptions
on the prior and noise covariances. Then the posterior is again Gaussian
with covariance and mean given by the formulae (\ref{31}) and
(\ref{32}). The following proposition shows
that, if the noise is too smooth, then the posterior is not absolutely
continuous with respect to the prior:
\begin{proposition}
If $\beta\geq \alpha+\ell-\frac14$ then the posterior $\mu^d=N(m,\mathcal{C})$ is
not absolutely continuous with respect to the prior $N(0,\tau^2\mathcal{C}_0)$, independently of the data $d$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to show that the third condition of the Feldman-Hajek theorem
fails \cite[Theorem 2.23]{DZ92}. Indeed, $\mathcal{C}$ is diagonalizable in the
basis $\{\varphi_j\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ with eigenvalues $c_j$ such that
\[c_j\asymp \frac{j^{-2\alpha-2\beta}}{j^{-2\beta}+j^{-2\ell-2\alpha}}.\]
Thus, the operator $T:=I-\tau^2\mathcal{C}^{-\frac12}\mathcal{C}_0\mathcal{C}^{-\frac12}$ is also
diagonalizable in $\{\varphi_j\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ with eigenvalues $t_j$,
where \[t_j=1-\frac{\tau^2c_{0j}}{c_j}\asymp j^{-2\alpha-2\ell+2\beta}.\]
Hence, the operator $T$ is Hilbert-Schmidt, if and only if the sequence $\{t_j\}$ is
square summable, that is, if and only if $\beta<\alpha+\ell-\frac14$.
\end{proof}
\section{Posterior Contraction}\label{s:4}
In this section, we study the {limiting} behavior of the
posterior distribution {$\mu^{d^\dagger}_{\lambda,n}$}
as the noise disappears,
$n \to \infty.$ Intuitively, we expect the
mass of the posterior to concentrate in a small ball centered on the
fixed true solution. {As in \cite{ALS12, KVZ11,
KVZ12, PSZ12}, we study this
problem by identifying positive numbers $\epsilon_n$ such that, for
arbitrary positive numbers $M_n\rightarrow \infty$,} there holds
\begin{equation}\label{41}
\mathbb{E}^{d^\dagger}\mu^{d^\dagger}_{\lambda,n}\{u:
\|u-u^\dagger\|\geq M_n\epsilon_n\}\rightarrow 0.
\end{equation}
Here expectation is with respect to the random variable
$d^\dagger$, with probability distribution given by
the data likelihood $N(\mathcal{L}u^\dagger, \frac{1}{n}\mathcal{C}_1)$, and
$\epsilon_n$ is called the contraction rate of the posterior
distribution with respect to the $H$-norm.
By the Chebyshev inequality, we have
\begin{equation}\label{42}
\mathbb{E}^{d^\dagger}\mu^{d^\dagger}_{\lambda,n}\{u:
\|u-u^\dagger\|\geq
M_n\epsilon_n\}\leq\frac{1}{M_n^2\epsilon_n^2}\mathbb{E}^{d^\dagger}
{\Bigl(}\int\|u-u^\dagger\|^2\mu_{\lambda,n}^{d^\dagger}(du){\Bigr)},
\end{equation}
thus if
\begin{equation}\label{43}
\mathbb{E}^{d^\dagger}
{\Bigl(}\int\|u-u^\dagger\|^2\mu_{\lambda,n}^{d^\dagger}(du){\Bigr)}\leq
M_0\epsilon_n^2,
\end{equation}
where $M_0$ is a constant, we get
that (\ref{41}) holds as $M_n\rightarrow
\infty$. The left hand side of (\ref{43}) is the squared posterior
contraction (SPC) which satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{44}
SPC=\mathbb{E}^{d^\dagger}\|m^\dagger-u^\dagger\|^2+{\rm Tr}(\mathcal{C}),
\end{equation}
{and} therefore, it is enough to estimate the mean integrated squared
error (MISE) $\mathbb{E}^{d^\dagger}\|m^\dagger-u^\dagger\|^2$ and
the trace of the posterior covariance operator $\mathcal{C}$.
{By (\ref{34}) we have}
\[m^\dagger=\mathcal{A}d^\dagger=\mathcal{A}\mathcal{L}u^\dagger+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\mathcal{A}\xi.\]
Meanwhile,
\[u^\dagger=\mathcal{A}\mathcal{L}u^\dagger+(I-\mathcal{A}\mathcal{L})u^\dagger\]
so that we get the error equation
\[e:=m^\dagger-u^\dagger=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\mathcal{A}\xi+(\mathcal{A}\mathcal{L}-I)u^\dagger.\]
The first part of the error comes from the noise, while the second
part comes from the regularization. {Note that for $\lambda=0$
formally we have
\[\mathcal{A}\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{C}_0\mathcal{L}^*(\mathcal{L}^*)^{-1}
\mathcal{C}_0^{-1}\mathcal{L}^{-1}\mathcal{L}=I,\] indicating that
we can make the error $e$ small by ensuring that $\lambda \ll 1$ and $n
\gg 1$. Since $\lambda=\frac{1}{n\tau^2}$ this indicates the
possibility of an optimal choice of $\tau:=\tau(n)$ to ensure that
$\lambda=\frac{1}{n\tau(n)^2}\rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$
and to balance the two sources of error. In the next three theorems,
respectively, we estimate the MISE, the trace of the covariance and
the SPC.}
\begin{theorem}[MISE]
\label{t4.1}
Under Assumption \ref{a2.1} the
MISE may be estimated as follows
\begin{eqnarray}\label{45}
\rm MISE\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\asymp\frac{1}{n\lambda}(\ln\lambda^{-\frac{1}{2s}})^{-\frac{2\alpha}{b}}+
(\ln\lambda^{-\frac{1}{2s}})^{-\frac{2\gamma}{b}}, & b\geq 1, \\
\lesssim\frac{1}{n\lambda}(\ln\lambda^{-\frac{1}{2s}})^{-\frac{2\alpha+b-1}{b}}+
(\ln\lambda^{-\frac{1}{2s}})^{-\frac{2\gamma}{b}}, &
b<1.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
{Recalling $d^\dagger=\mathcal{L}u^\dagger+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\xi$ and combining with the expression above for the error $e$}, since $\xi$ is centred Gaussian, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{46}
\mathbb{E}^{d^\dagger}\|m^\dagger-u^\dagger\|^2
=\frac{1}{n}\mathbb{E}\|\mathcal{A}\xi\|^2+\mathbb{E}^{d^\dagger}
\|(\mathcal{A}\mathcal{L}-I)u^\dagger\|^2,
\end{eqnarray}
{from which it follows that}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{47}
&&\mathbb{E}^{d^\dagger}\|m^\dagger-u^\dagger\|^2=\frac{1}{n}{\rm Tr}(\mathcal{A}\mathcal{C}_1\mathcal{A}^*)
+\|(\mathcal{A}\mathcal{L}-I)u^\dagger\|^2\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\frac{j^{-4\alpha-2\beta}l_j^2}{(j^{-2\alpha}l_j^2+
\lambda j^{-2\beta})^2}+\sum_{j=1}^\infty
\frac{\lambda^2j^{-4\beta}(u^{\dagger}_j)^2}{(j^{-2\alpha}l_j^2+\lambda j^{-2\beta})^2}\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{n\lambda^2}\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\frac{l_j^2j^{2\beta-4\alpha}}
{(1+\frac{1}{\lambda}l_j^2j^{2\beta-2\alpha})^2}+\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\frac{(u^{\dagger}_j)^2}
{(1+\frac{1}{\lambda}l_j^2j^{2\beta-2\alpha})^2}\nonumber\\
&&:=\textrm{I}+\textrm{II}.
\end{eqnarray}
By Assumption \ref{a2.1}, it follows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\textrm{I}\asymp\frac{1}{n\lambda^2}\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\frac{\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-4\alpha}}
{(1+\frac{1}{\lambda}\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-2\alpha})^2},
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\textrm{II}\asymp\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\frac{(u^{\dagger}_j)^2}
{(1+\frac{1}{\lambda}\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-2\alpha})^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
To estimate $\textrm{I}$ and $\textrm{II}$ we split the sum
according to the dominating term in the denominator. Define
{\[F(x;\lambda):=\frac{1}{\lambda}\exp(-2sx^b)j^{2\beta-2\alpha}, \;x\in\mathbb{R}, \lambda>0,\] }and
note that $F(1;\lambda)>1$, for $\lambda$ sufficiently small. Since
we are considering a limit in which $\lambda \to 0$ we assume that
$F(1;\lambda)>1$ henceforth. {Let $J_\lambda$ be the unique solution
of the equation $F(x;\lambda)=1$ which exceeds $1$}. By Lemma
\ref{l4.4}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{48}
J_\lambda\sim(\ln\lambda^{-\frac{1}{2s}})^{\frac{1}{b}}.
\end{equation}
For $\textrm{I}$, if $1\leq j\leq J_\lambda$,
\begin{align}\label{485}\frac{1}{\lambda}\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-2\alpha}\leq
1+\frac{1}{\lambda}\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-2\alpha}\leq
2\frac{1}{\lambda}\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-2\alpha},\end{align} therefore
\begin{eqnarray}\label{49}
\frac{1}{n\lambda^2}\sum_{j\leq
J_\lambda}\frac{\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-4\alpha}}
{(1+\frac{1}{\lambda}\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-2\alpha})^2}
\asymp\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j\leq J_\lambda}\exp(2sj^b)j^{-2\beta}.
\end{eqnarray}
{The sum on the} right hand side
is bounded from above by the integral in the same
range, and values at both endpoints.
By Lemma \ref{l4.5}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{410}
&&\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j\leq
J_\lambda}\exp(2sj^b)j^{-2\beta}\nonumber\\
&&\leq\frac{1}{n}\exp(2sJ^b_\lambda)J^{-2\beta}_\lambda+\frac{1}{n}\exp(2s)+
\frac{1}{n}\int_{1}^{J_\lambda}\exp(2sx^b)x^{-2\beta}dx\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{n}\exp(2sJ^b_\lambda)J^{-2\beta}_\lambda+\frac{1}{n}\exp(2s)+
\frac{M}{n}\exp(2sJ^b_\lambda)J^{-2\beta-b+1}_\lambda(1+o(1))\nonumber\\
&&=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{M}{n}\exp(2sJ^b_\lambda)J^{-2\beta}_\lambda(1+o(1)), & b\geq 1, \\
\frac{M}{n}\exp(2sJ^b_\lambda)J^{-2\beta-b+1}_\lambda(1+o(1)), & b<1,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
Since \[\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{j\leq
J_\lambda}\exp(2sj^b)j^{-2\beta}\geq\frac{1}{n}\exp(2sJ^b_\lambda)J^{-2\beta}_\lambda,\]
{we deduce that for, $b\geq 1$},
\begin{eqnarray}\label{new1}
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j\leq
J_\lambda}\exp(2sj^b)j^{-2\beta}\asymp\frac{1}{n}\exp(2sJ^b_\lambda)J^{-2\beta}_\lambda
=\frac{1}{n\lambda}J^{-2\alpha}_\lambda.
\end{eqnarray}
{For $0<b<1$ we have}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{new2}
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j\leq
J_\lambda}\exp(2sj^b)j^{-2\beta}\lesssim\frac{1}{n}\exp(2sJ^b_\lambda)J^{-2\beta-b+1}_\lambda
=\frac{1}{n\lambda}J^{-2\alpha-b+1}_\lambda.
\end{eqnarray}
If $j\geq J_\lambda$, then $1\leq
1+\frac{1}{\lambda}\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-2\alpha}\leq 2$, thus we have \begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{n\lambda^2}\sum_{j>J_\lambda}\frac{\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-4\alpha}}
{(1+\frac{1}{\lambda}\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-2\alpha})^2}
\asymp\frac{1}{n\lambda^2}\sum_{j>J_\lambda}\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-4\alpha}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Under our assumption on $\lambda$ being sufficiently small, we have that $J_\lambda$ is large enough so that
$\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-4\alpha}$ is always
decreasing with respect
to $j$ {and hence} the sum on the right hand side is bounded from above by the
integral in the same range, and the value at the left endpoint.
By Lemma \ref{l4.6}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{411}
&&\frac{1}{n\lambda^2}\sum_{j>J_\lambda}\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-4\alpha}\nonumber\\
&&\leq\frac{1}{n\lambda^2}\exp(-2sJ_\lambda^b)J_\lambda^{2\beta-4\alpha}
+\frac{1}{n\lambda^2}\int_{J_\lambda}^{\infty}\exp(-2sx^b)x^{2\beta-4\alpha}dx\nonumber\\
&&\leq\frac{1}{n\lambda^2}\exp(-2sJ_\lambda^b)J_\lambda^{2\beta-4\alpha}
+\frac{M}{n\lambda^2}\exp(-2sJ_\lambda^b)J_\lambda^{2\beta-4\alpha-b+1}(1+o(1))\nonumber\\
&&=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{M}{n\lambda^2}\exp(-2sJ_\lambda^b)J_\lambda^{2\beta-4\alpha}(1+o(1)), & b\geq 1, \\
\frac{M}{n\lambda^2}\exp(-2sJ_\lambda^b)J_\lambda^{2\beta-4\alpha-b+1}(1+o(1)), & b<1.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
Since
$\frac{1}{n\lambda^2}\sum\limits_{j>J_\lambda}\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-4\alpha}\geq
\frac{1}{n\lambda^2}\exp(-2sJ_\lambda^b)J_\lambda^{2\beta-4\alpha}$,
for $b\geq 1$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{n\lambda^2}\sum\limits_{j>J_\lambda}\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-4\alpha}\asymp
\frac{1}{n\lambda^2}\exp(-2sJ_\lambda^b)J_\lambda^{2\beta-4\alpha}
=\frac{1}{n\lambda}J_\lambda^{-2\alpha},
\end{eqnarray}
and for $0<b<1$,
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{n\lambda^2}\sum\limits_{j>J_\lambda}\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-4\alpha}
\lesssim\frac{1}{n\lambda^2}\exp(-2sJ_\lambda^b)J_\lambda^{2\beta-4\alpha-b+1}
=\frac{1}{n\lambda}J_\lambda^{-2\alpha-b+1}.
\end{align}
{To estimate $\textrm{II}$, we employ an analysis similar to
that applied to $\textrm{I}$}. By (\ref{485}) we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{412}
&&\sum_{j\leq J_\lambda}\frac{(u^{\dagger}_j)^2}
{(1+\frac{1}{\lambda}\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-2\alpha})^2}\asymp\sum_{j\leq
J_\lambda}(u^{\dagger}_j)^2
\lambda^2\exp(4sj^b)j^{4\alpha-4\beta}\nonumber\\
&&=\sum_{j\leq J_\lambda}j^{2\gamma}(u^{\dagger}_j)^2
\lambda^2\exp(4sj^b)j^{4\alpha-4\beta-2\gamma}.
\end{eqnarray}
For $\lambda$ small enough, the terms
$\exp(4sj^b)j^{4\alpha-4\beta-2\gamma}$ for $1\leq j\leq J_\lambda$
are dominated by
$\exp(4sJ_\lambda^b)J_\lambda^{4\alpha-4\beta-2\gamma}$, so we have
the following upper bound for the sum (\ref{412}):
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{j\leq J_\lambda}j^{2\gamma}(u^{\dagger}_j)^2
\lambda^2\exp(4sj^b)j^{4\alpha-4\beta-2\gamma}
\leq\lambda^2\exp(4sJ_\lambda^b)J_\lambda^{4\alpha-4\beta-2\gamma}\|u^\dagger\|_\gamma^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
{Furthermore}
\begin{equation*}
\sum\limits_{j\leq J_\lambda}j^{2\gamma}(u^{\dagger}_j)^2
\lambda^2\exp(4sj^b)j^{4\alpha-4\beta-2\gamma}\geq
(u^\dagger_{J_\lambda})^2\lambda^2\exp(4sJ_\lambda^b)J_\lambda^{4\alpha-4\beta-2\gamma},
\end{equation*}
{implying that, since $\gamma>0$ and $u \in H^{\gamma}$,}
\begin{equation}\label{413}
\sum_{j\leq J_\lambda}j^{2\gamma}(u^{\dagger}_j)^2
\lambda^2\exp(4sj^b)j^{4\alpha-4\beta-2\gamma}\asymp
\lambda^2\exp(4sJ_\lambda^b)J_\lambda^{4\alpha-4\beta-2\gamma}
=J_\lambda^{-2\gamma}.
\end{equation}
The other part of the sum $\textrm{II}$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{j>J_\lambda}\frac{(u^{\dagger}_j)^2}
{(1+\frac{1}{\lambda}\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-2\alpha})^2}\asymp\sum_{j>
J_\lambda}(u^{\dagger}_j)^2=\sum_{j>J_\lambda}j^{2\gamma}(u^{\dagger}_j)^2j^{-2\gamma}.
\end{eqnarray*}
It {follows} that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{414}
\sum_{j>J_\lambda}j^{2\gamma}(u^{\dagger}_j)^2j^{-2\gamma}\asymp
J_\lambda^{-2\gamma},
\end{eqnarray}
since $u \in H^{\gamma}.$
Combining (\ref{46}) - (\ref{414}) completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}[Trace of $\mathcal{C}$]
\label{t4.2}
{Let Assumption \ref{a2.1} hold and consider
the posterior covariance operator
$\mathcal{C}$ given by (\ref{26}), with $\lambda$ as in}
(\ref{28}). Then the trace is estimated as
\begin{equation}\label{415}
{\rm Tr}(\mathcal{C})\asymp\frac{1}{n\lambda}(\ln\lambda^{-\frac{1}{2s}})^{-\frac{2\alpha-1}{b}}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From (\ref{33}) and (\ref{35}) we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{416}
{\rm Tr}(\mathcal{C})=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\frac{\tau^2\lambda
c_{0j}c_{1j}}{c_{0j}l_j^2+\lambda
c_{1j}}\asymp\frac{1}{n\lambda}\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\frac{j^{-2\alpha}}{1+\frac{1}{\lambda}
\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-2\alpha}}.
\end{eqnarray}
As in the proof of Theorem \ref{t4.1} we split the sum according to the
dominating term in the denominator. For the first part, using equation (\ref{485}), we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{417}
\frac{1}{n\lambda}\sum_{j\leq
J_\lambda}\frac{j^{-2\alpha}}{1+\frac{1}{\lambda}\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-2\alpha}}
\asymp\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j\leq J_\lambda}\exp(2sj^b)j^{-2\beta},
\end{eqnarray}
{where the behaviour of the right hand side is given by equations (\ref{new1}) and (\ref{new2}).}
The other part of the sum on the right hand side of (\ref{416}) satisfies
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{n\lambda}\sum_{j>J_\lambda}\frac{j^{-2\alpha}}{1+\frac{1}{\lambda}\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-2\alpha}}
\asymp\frac{1}{n\lambda}\sum_{j>J_\lambda}j^{-2\alpha}.
\end{eqnarray*}
By \cite[Lemma 6.2]{KVZ12}, the last sum can be {estimated} as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{j>J_\lambda}j^{-2\alpha}\asymp J_\lambda^{-2\alpha+1},
\end{eqnarray*}
hence
\begin{eqnarray}\label{418}
\frac{1}{n\lambda}\sum_{j>J_\lambda}\frac{j^{-2\alpha}}{1+\frac{1}{\lambda}\exp(-2sj^b)j^{2\beta-2\alpha}}
\asymp\frac{1}{n\lambda}J_\lambda^{-2\alpha+1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Combining (\ref{48}), (\ref{416})-(\ref{418}) completes the
proof.
\end{proof}
{We combine the two preceding theorems to determine
the overall contraction rate.}
\begin{theorem}[Rate of Contraction]
\label{t4.3}
Suppose that Assumption \ref{a2.1} holds, $\lambda$ is given by (\ref{28}) and $\tau(n)>0$
satisfies $n\tau^2(n)\rightarrow \infty$. Then the posterior
distribution $\mu_{\lambda,n}^{d^\dagger}$ contracts around the true
solution $u^\dagger$ at the rate
\begin{equation}\label{419}
\epsilon_n=\big(\ln(n\tau^2{(n)})\big)^{-\frac{\gamma}{b}}+
\tau(n)\big(\ln(n\tau^2{(n)})\big)^{-\frac{\alpha-\frac{1}{2}}{b}}.
\end{equation}
In particular, since the rate is undetermined up to a multiplicative constant independent of $n$, we may take
\begin{eqnarray}\label{420}
\epsilon_n=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\Big(\ln n\Big)^{-\frac{\gamma\wedge(\alpha-\frac{1}{2})}{b}},
& \tau(n)\equiv 1,\\
\Big(\ln n\Big)^{-\frac{\gamma}{b}},
& n^{-\frac{1}{2}+\sigma}\lesssim\tau(n)\lesssim (\ln
n)^{\frac{\alpha-\gamma-\frac{1}{2}}{b}},
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
where $\sigma>0$ is some constant.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The estimate (\ref{419}) follows by combining (\ref{44}), Theorem
\ref{t4.1} and Theorem \ref{t4.2}. The rate for $\tau(n)\equiv1$ follows immediately.
{In the case of varying $\tau(n)$, observe that in order to balance the contributions of the two terms in (\ref{419}), $\tau(n)$ needs to be large enough so that $n\tau^2(n)\rightarrow\infty$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$, but small enough so that the second term is bounded by the first one. Since the function $\big(\ln(\cdot)\big)^{-\kappa}$, $\kappa>0$ is
decreasing, this can be achieved by choosing $n^{-\frac{1}{2}+\sigma}\lesssim\tau(n)\lesssim (\ln n)^{\frac{\alpha-\gamma-\frac{1}{2}}{b}}$ for some constant $\sigma>0$,
in which case the rate becomes
\begin{eqnarray*}
\epsilon_n&&\lesssim\big(\ln(n\cdot n^{-1+2\sigma})\big)^{-\frac{\gamma}{b}}+
(\ln n)^{\frac{\alpha-\gamma-\frac{1}{2}}{b}}\big(\ln(n\cdot n^{-1+2\sigma})\big)^{-\frac{\alpha-\frac{1}{2}}{b}}\nonumber\\
&&=\big(2\sigma\big)^{-\frac{\gamma}{b}}\big(\ln n\big)^{-\frac{\gamma}{b}}+(2\sigma)^{-\frac{\alpha-\frac{1}{2}}{b}}\big(\ln n\big)^{-\frac{\gamma}{b}}\nonumber\\
&&\lesssim \Big(\ln n\Big)^{-\frac{\gamma}{b}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This completes the proof.}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{ch2:rem}
\item[i)]The rate of the MISE is determined by the regularity of the prior $\alpha$,
the regularity of the truth $\gamma$ and the degree of ill-posedness
as determined by the power $b$ in the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{L}$ ($s$ does
not affect the rate). On the other hand, the rate of the trace of
the posterior covariance is determined by $\alpha$ and $b$ and has
nothing to do with the regularity of the truth $\gamma$. Finally the
rate of contraction is determined by $\alpha, \gamma$ and $b$.
Observe that the regularity of the noise, $\beta$, does not affect
the rate. In the case of mildly ill-posed problems where the
singular values of ${\mathcal L}$ decay algebraically $\beta$ does
appear in the error estimates, but only through the difference in
regularity between the forward operator and the noise covariance
\cite{ALS12}. For our severely ill-posed problem this difference may
be thought of as being infinite, explaining why $\beta$ disappears
from the error estimates here.
\item[ii)] For fixed $\tau=1$, the
rate of contraction is $ \Big(\ln
n\Big)^{-\frac{\gamma\wedge(\alpha-\frac{1}{2})}{b}}$, that is, as
$\gamma$ grows the rate improves until $\gamma=\alpha-\frac12$, at
which point the rate saturates at $ \Big(\ln
n\Big)^{-\frac{\alpha-\frac{1}{2}}{b}}$. {Note that the saturation point $\gamma=\alpha-\frac12$ is also the crossover point between the true solution being in the support of the prior (prior oversmoothing) or not (prior undersmoothing).} On the contrary, for
$n^{-\frac{1}{2}+\sigma}\lesssim\tau\lesssim (\ln
n)^{\frac{\alpha-\gamma-\frac{1}{2}}{b}}$ the rate is
$(\ln n)^{-\frac{\gamma}b}$ and never saturates.
\item[iii)] For the appropriate choice of $\tau=\tau(n)$ the contraction
rate is $\epsilon_n=(\ln n)^{-\frac{\gamma}b},$ which is optimal in the minimax sense with $L^2$-loss \cite{Cav08,
KVZ12}. The minimax rate is also achieved if we have fixed $\tau\equiv1,$ provided the prior is oversmoothing, $\gamma\leq\alpha-\frac12$.
\end{remark}
{
We conclude the section with several technical lemmas
used in the proof of the preceding theorems.}
\begin{lemma}
\label{l4.4}
Let $a,b>0$ and $t\in\mathbb{R}$ be constants. For all
$\lambda$ sufficiently small the equation
\begin{equation}\label{421}
\frac{1}{\lambda}\exp(-ax^b)x^{t}=1,
\end{equation}
has a unique solution $J_{\lambda}$ in $\{x \ge 1\}$
and
$J_\lambda\sim(\ln\lambda^{-\frac{1}{a}})^{\frac{1}{b}}$ as
$\lambda\rightarrow 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Uniqueness of a root in $\{x \ge 1\}$ follows automatically provided
\[\lambda^{-1}\exp(-a)>1,\] since $x \mapsto \exp(-ax^b)x^{t}$ has at
most one maximum in $\{x \ge 0\}.$ From (\ref{421}), it is easy to
{see} that
\begin{equation*}
1=\frac{\ln\lambda^{-\frac{1}{a}}}{J_\lambda^b}+\frac{t}{a}\frac{\ln
J_\lambda}{J_\lambda^b}.
\end{equation*}
{Since we are looking for solutions in $\{x\geq 1\}$, we have that $\ln{J_\lambda}\geq0$ hence $J_\lambda\rightarrow\infty$ as $\lambda\rightarrow
0$.} This implies
$1\sim\frac{\ln\lambda^{-\frac{1}{a}}}{J_\lambda^b}$, which
completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{l4.5}
{
For $a>0, b>0$ and $ c\in\mathbb{R}$, we have as
$J\rightarrow\infty$,
\begin{equation}\label{422}
\int_1^J\exp(ax^b)x^{c}dx\sim\frac{1}{ab}\exp(aJ^b)J^{c-b+1}.
\end{equation}}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
{By variable substitution $x^b=y$ and integration by parts, we get
\begin{eqnarray}\label{423}
&&\int_1^J\exp(ax^b)x^{c}dx\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{ab}(\exp(aJ^b)J^{c-b+1}-\exp(a))-
\frac{c-b+1}{ab^2}\int_1^{J^b}\exp(ay)y^{\frac{c-2b+1}{b}}dy,\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
thus letting $I(J):=\int_1^{J^b}\exp(ay)y^{\frac{c-2b+1}{b}}dy$, we have that it suffices to show that \begin{align}\label{ch2:clim}\lim_{J\to\infty}\frac{I(J)}{\exp(aJ^b)J^{c-b+1}}=0.\end{align}
Indeed, if $c-2b+1\geq0$ then we have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\exp(ay)y^{\frac{c-2b+1}{b}}}{\exp(aJ^b)J^{c-b+1}}\leq\exp(a(y-J^b))J^{-b},
\end{equation*}
and (\ref{ch2:clim}) holds.
If $c-2b+1<0$, we use the variable substitution $e^{ay}=z$ to get that
\begin{align*}I(J)=\frac{1}{a^\frac{c-b+1}{b}}\int_{e^a}^{e^{aJ^b}}(\ln(z))^{\frac{c-2b+1}{b}}dz.\end{align*} By Lemma \ref{ch2:clem} below, we then have that \[I(J)\lesssim{\exp(aJ^b)}{J^{c-2b+1}},\]
hence (\ref{ch2:clim}) holds.}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{l4.6}
For $J>0, a>0, b>0$ and $c\in\mathbb{R}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{424}
\int_J^\infty\exp(-ax^b)x^{c}dx\lesssim\exp(-aJ^b)J^{c-b+1}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By variable substitution $x^b=y$ and integration by parts, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\int_J^\infty\exp(-ax^b)x^{c}dx\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{ab}\exp(-aJ^b)J^{c-b+1}+\frac{c-b+1}{ab^2}\int_{J^b}^\infty\exp(-ay)y^{\frac{c-2b+1}{b}}dy.
\end{eqnarray*}
If $\frac{c-b+1}{ab^2}>0$, then we integrate by parts for $n$ times
until $\frac{c-nb+1}{ab^2}<0$ for the first time. When the constant
in front of the integral finally becomes negative we can ignore the
integral on the right hand side to get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_J^\infty\exp(-ax^b)x^{c}dx\leq\frac{1}{ab}\exp(-aJ^b)(J^{c-b+1}(1+o(1))).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{ch2:clem}
{For any $q, a>0$ we have as $x\to\infty$ \begin{align*}\int_{e^a}^x\frac{dz}{(\ln(z))^q}\leq\frac{x}{(\ln(x))^{q}}(2+o(1)).\end{align*}}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
{We split the integral as follows
\begin{align}\label{eq:claim}\int_{e^a}^x\frac{dz}{(\ln(z))^q}&=\int_{e^a}^{e^{2q}}\frac{dz}{(\ln(z))^q}+\int_{e^{2q}}^x\frac{dz}{(\ln(z))^q}\nonumber\\
&=c(q,a)+\int_{e^{2q}}^x\frac{dz}{(\ln(z))^q},
\end{align}
where $c(q,a)$ is a real constant. For $z\geq e^{2q}$ it holds \begin{align*}\ln(z)\geq 2q,\end{align*} hence
dividing by $(\ln(z))^{q+1}$ and rearranging terms we get that \begin{align}\label{eq:ineq}\frac{q}{(\ln(z))^{q+1}}\leq\frac{1}{2(\ln(z))^q}.\end{align}
Integration by parts in the integral on the right hand side of (\ref{eq:claim}) gives
\begin{align*}\int_{e^{2q}}^x\frac{dz}{(\ln(z))^q}=\frac{x}{(\ln(x))^q}-\frac{e^{2q}}{(2q)^q}+\int_{e^{2q}}^x\frac{q}{(\ln(z))^{q+1}}dz,\end{align*}
hence using (\ref{eq:ineq}) and rearranging terms, we have
\begin{align*}
\int_{e^{2q}}^x\frac{dz}{(\ln(z))^q}&\leq 2\frac{x}{(\ln(x))^q}-2\frac{e^{2q}}{(2q)^q}\\
&=2\frac{x}{(\ln(x))^q}+\tilde{c}(q).
\end{align*}
Concatenating we obtain the result.}
\end{proof}
\section{Example}
\label{s:5}
In this section, we present the Cauchy problem for the
Helmholtz equation as an example to which the
{theoretical} analysis of
this paper can be applied. For simplicity, we only consider the
small wave number case ($0<k<1$) for illustration. For more details
regarding the more general case, we refer to \cite{ZFD12}.
Consider the following {boundary value} problem
for the Helmholtz equation:
\begin{equation}\label{51}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\Delta v(x,y)+k^2 v(x,y)=0,
& (x,y)\in (0,\pi)\times(0,1), \\
v_y(x,0)=0, & x\in [0,\pi], \\
v(x,1)=u(x), & x\in [0,\pi], \\
v(0,y)=v(\pi,y)=0, & y\in [0,1].
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Problem (\ref{51}) is well-posed {since it corresponds to
inversion of a negative-definite ellipic operator with
mixed Dirichlet/Neumann data.}
In fact, by the method of separation of variables,
the solution $v(x,y)$ in domain $(0,\pi)\times (0,1)$ can be
expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{52}
v(x,y)=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\infty}\frac{\cosh(y\sqrt{j^2-k^2})}{\cosh(\sqrt{j^2-k^2})}u_j\varphi_j(x),
\end{equation}
where $\varphi_j(x)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\sin(jx)$ and $u_j=\langle
u, \varphi_j\rangle$.
Define the forward mapping
$\mathcal{L}:\mathscr{D}(\mathcal{L})\subset L^2(0,\pi)\rightarrow
L^2(0,\pi)$ {by} \[\mathcal{L}
u(x)=v(x,0)=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\cosh(\sqrt{j^2-k^2})}u_j
\varphi_j(x),\] {which maps the boundary data of (\ref{51}) on $y=1$
into the solution on $y=0.$ Then $\mathcal{L}$ is a self-adjoint,
positive-definite, linear operator, with eigenvalues behaving as}
\begin{equation}\label{53}
l_j=\frac{1}{\cosh(\sqrt{j^2-k^2})}\sim\exp(-j).
\end{equation}
{The inverse problem is to find the function $u$,
given noisy observations of $v(\cdot,0).$
More precisely the data $d$ is given by
\begin{align*}
d&=v(\cdot,0)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\xi,\\
&={\mathcal L}u+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\xi.
\end{align*}
If we place a Gaussian measure $N(0, \tau^2\mathcal{C}_0)$ as prior on $u$ and
assume that $\xi$ is also Gaussian $N(0,\mathcal{C}_1)$,
then we may apply the theory developed in this paper.}
Under Assumption \ref{a2.1}, Theorem
\ref{t4.3} can be applied to this problem with $b=1$ and $s=1$ to obtain the
contraction rate of the conditional Gaussian posterior distribution.
We now present a numerical simulation for obtaining the rate of the
MISE as the noise disappears ($n\to\infty$), when $\alpha=2,
\gamma=1$ and we have a fixed $\tau=1$. In this case, our theory
predicts that
\[\rm MISE\asymp\big(\ln(\sqrt{n})\big)^{-2(\alpha\wedge\gamma)}=\big(\ln(\sqrt{n})\big)^{-2}.\]
To simulate MISE we average the error over a thousand realizations
of the noise $\xi$, for $n=10^k, \;k=1,...,100$. We denote the
simulated MISE by $\widehat{\rm MISE}$. The true solution
$u^\dagger\in H^\gamma$ is a fixed draw from a Gaussian measure
$N(0,\Sigma)$, where $\Sigma$ has eigenvalues
$\sigma_j=j^{-2\gamma-1-\varepsilon},$ for $\varepsilon=10^{-10}$.
We use the first $10^5$ Fourier modes. In Figure \ref{fig} we plot
$-\frac12\ln\big(\widehat{\rm MISE}\big)$ against
$\ln\big(\ln(\sqrt{n})\big)$ in the case $ \beta=0$. The solid line
is the relation predicted by Theorem \ref{t4.1}, that is, a line
with slope $1$. A least square fit to the simulated points gives a
slope of $1.0341$ with coefficient of determination $0.9884$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{severerate.eps}
\vspace*{-8pt}
\caption{\small{$-\frac12\ln\big(\widehat{\rm MISE}\big)$ plotted against
$\ln\big(\ln(\sqrt{n})\big)$ for $n=10^k, \;k=1,...,100$ in the case
$b=s=1, \alpha=2, \beta=0, \gamma=1$, for fixed $\tau=1$.}}\label{fig}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig2} we have $\beta=2$ and all the other parameters
the same. The least squares fit gives a slope $0.9723$ with
coefficient of determination $0.9916$, confirming that the
regularity of the noise as determined by $\beta$ does not affect the
rate of convergence.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{severerate1.eps}
\vspace*{-8pt}
\caption{\small{$-\frac12\ln\big(\widehat{\rm MISE}\big)$ plotted against
$\ln\big(\ln(\sqrt{n})\big)$ for $n=10^k, \;k=1,...,100$ in the case
$b=s=1, \alpha=2, \beta=2, \gamma=1$, for fixed $\tau=1$.}}\label{fig2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\vspace{4mm}
{\bf Acknowledgmenets.} {The authors are grateful to
Bartek Knapik and Harry Van Zanten for helpful discussions. {The authors are also grateful to two referees for several very useful comments}.}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Far from its source, any freely propagating electromagnetic field can
be considered to a good approximation as a plane wave, with its
electric field lying in a plane perpendicular to the direction of
propagation. This simple observation is the root of the notion of
polarization. At first glance, it may seem rather obvious how to
translate such a concept into the realm of quantum optics. However,
hurdles such as hidden polarization~\cite{Klyshko}, the fact that the
Poincar\'{e} sphere is too small to accommodate states with excitation
larger than one photon~\cite{Muller}, and the difficulties in defining
polarization properties of two-photon entangled
fields~\cite{Sergienko}, to cite only a few examples, show that the
classical theory, mainly based on first-order polarization moments,
is insufficient for quantized fields.
Here, we outline a systematic method for polarization characterization
of quantum fields. The method is based on a simple premise; namely,
that if we can predict the $m$th-order moment of the Stokes operator
in any direction on the Poincar\'{e} sphere, we know all there is to
be known about the state polarization of this order~\cite{BjorkPRA},
including any correlations between the Stokes operators.
A tensor representation of the polarization information is based on
such correlations.
However, expressing the Stokes moments as functions of the measurement
directions gives a more compact representation and provides a natural
visualization. The Stokes profile representation also gives a
relevant characterization for passive interferometry. Our analysis
below makes use of both representations.
As a state's polarization properties do not require the full density
matrix to be determined, it allows polarization tomography to be
more easily performed than full quantum tomography
\cite{RaymerQCM,RaymerPRA,Karassiov}. Considering polarization tomography
with ideal detection, we show that the number of measurement directions
can be made equal to the number of independent parameters.
The remaining material of the article is organized as follows.
After recalling the fundamentals on the quantum description of
polarization in section~\ref{Sec:Background}, we present our scheme
for characterization of quantum polarization properties in
section~\ref{Sec:HigherOrder}. In section~\ref{Sec:Tomography}, we
consider how the necessary data can be obtained experimentally.
We thus arrive at an efficient method, which is feasible for
polarization tomography of few-photon states. In
section~\ref{Sec:Menagerie}, we apply our characterization to
several classes of states. Finally, our conclusions are
presented in section~\ref{Sec:Conclusions}.
\section{Setting the scene}
\label{Sec:Background}
In the following, we consider monochromatic plane waves. Such fields
can be decomposed into two orthogonal
transverse modes, such as the horizontally and vertically polarized
modes. For highly focused beams or waves in a waveguide, the
plane-wave description is often inadequate, as the field is not longer
transverse. It is our belief that the concepts discussed in this paper
can also be extended to
such non-plane waves, and several proposals have already appeared in
the literature \cite{Carozzi,Setala,Luis3D}. However, we shall not
discuss such generalizations here.
The classical theory for the polarization of plane waves was
established by Stokes already more than 150 years ago~\cite{Stokes}.
We shall build on his theory as the basis of our treatment will be
the Stokes operators, whose expectation values are the Stokes
parameters~\cite{Collett}. Following the conventions used in the
quantum theory of angular momentum~\cite{Schwinger} and in quantum
optics~\cite{Yurke,LuisPO}, we define the Stokes operators as
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
\hat{S}_{0} = \hat{a}_{H}^\dagger \hat{a}_{H}
+ \hat{a}_{V}^\dagger \hat{a}_{V} \, , \qquad &
\hat{S}_{1} = \hat{a}_{H} \hat{a}_{V}^\dagger
+ \hat{a}_{H}^\dagger \hat{a}_{V} \, , \\
& \\
\hat{S}_{2} = i ( \hat{a}_{H} \hat{a}_{V}^\dagger -
\hat{a}_{H}^\dagger \hat{a}_{V} ) \, , &
\hat{S}_{3} = \hat{a}_{H}^\dagger \hat{a}_{H} -
\hat{a}_{V}^\dagger \hat{a}_{V} \, ,
\end{array} \label{Stokop}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{a}_{H}$ and $\hat{a}_{V}$ are the annihilation operators
of the modes associated with horizontally and vertically oscillating
fields, respectively. With this choice, the usual ordering of the
Stokes parameters $\mathcal{I} = \langle \hat{S}_{0} \rangle$,
$\mathcal{Q} = \langle \hat{S}_{3} \rangle$,
$\mathcal{U} = \langle \hat{S}_{1} \rangle$, and
$\mathcal{V} = \langle \hat{S}_{2} \rangle$ differs from that of the
indices of the operators. However, as far as the theory below is
concerned, we could just as well have associated any other pair of
orthogonal polarization modes to these operators. That would only
influence the interpretation of the theory and not the theory itself.
As the annihilation and creation operators obey the bosonic
commutation relations $[ \hat{a}_{\alpha}, \hat{a}_{\beta}^\dagger ] =
\delta_{\alpha \beta}$, for $\alpha, \beta \in \{ H, V \}$, the Stokes
operators satisfy the commutation relations of an su(2) algebra
\begin{equation}
\label{ccrsu2}
[ \hat{S}_{j} , \hat{S}_{k} ] = i 2 \, \varepsilon_{j k \ell} \hat{S}_{\ell} \, ,
\end{equation}
where the latin indices run from 1 to 3 and $\varepsilon_{j k \ell}$
is the fully antisymmetric Levi-Civita tensor. The noncommutability of these
operators precludes the simultaneous exact measurement of the corresponding
physical quantities. The variances
$(\Delta S_j)^2 = \langle \hat{S}_j^2 \rangle - \langle \hat{S}_j \rangle^2$
are found to obey the uncertainty relation
\begin{equation}
2 \langle \hat{S}_{0} \rangle \leq
(\Delta S_{1})^2 + (\Delta S_{2})^2 + (\Delta S_{3})^2
\leq \langle \hat{S}_{0} (\hat{S}_{0} + 2) \rangle \, .
\label{UncertRelation}
\end{equation}
Moreover, while the Stokes operators are all Hermitian, the noncommutability
makes ``mixed,'' non-symmetric products (such as $\hat{S}_{1} \hat{S}_{2}$)
non-Hermitian, also precluding their direct measurement.
The standard definition of the degree of polarization for a quantum
state $\hat{\varrho}$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{P1}
\mathbb{P}_S (\hat{\varrho}) =
\frac{| \langle \hat{\mathbf{S}} \rangle |}
{\langle \hat{S}_0 \rangle} =
\frac{\sqrt{\langle \hat{S}_1 \rangle^2
+ \langle \hat{S}_2 \rangle^2
+ \langle \hat{S}_3 \rangle^2}}
{\langle \hat{S}_0 \rangle} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\mathbf{S}} = (\hat{S}_1, \hat{S}_2, \hat{S}_3)$ and
$\langle \hat{\mathbf{S}} \rangle$ is the Stokes vector.
Note that only first-order moments of the Stokes operators
are used in this definition. In a more elaborated characterization,
the degree of polarization can be subdivided into excitation manifolds
according to the total photon number $N$. This makes physical sense
because since the corresponding observable $\hat{S}_0$ commutes with
all the other Stokes operators
\begin{equation}
[\hat{S}_0 , \hat{S}_j] = 0 \, ,
\end{equation}
a complete set of simultaneous eigenstates of $\hat{S}_0$ and any of
$\hat{S}_1$, $\hat{S}_2$, and $\hat{S}_3$ does exist. In fact, the
statistics of the latter three operators is usually determined by a
set of wave plates, a polarizing beam splitter, and two
photodetectors, giving (in the ideal case) information not only about
$\hat{S}_1$, $\hat{S}_2$, or $\hat{S}_3$, but simultaneously of
$\hat{S}_0$.
Let us here take a quick look at excitation manifolds $N = 1$ and $N =
2$. One can readily convince oneself that any pure single-photon
state $| \Psi_1 \rangle$ satisfies $\mathbb{P}_S (| \Psi_1 \rangle) =
1$, i.e., any such state is fully polarized according to the
definition (\ref{P1}). In fact, for an arbitrary single-photon state
$\hat{\varrho}_{1}$, the degree of polarization is related to the
purity $\Tr ( \hat{\varrho}^2 ) $ according to
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{P}_S (\hat{\varrho}_1) = \sqrt{2 \,
\Tr ( \hat{\varrho}_{1}^{2} ) - 1} \, .
\label{P1purity}
\end{equation}
However, this relation does not hold for other excitation manifolds.
For example, any pure state in excitation manifold $N = 2$ of the
form~\cite{BjorkOC}
\begin{equation}
| \Psi (a, \theta) \rangle =
a e^{-i \theta} |2,0 \rangle + i \sqrt{1 - 2 a^2} \, |1,1 \rangle
+ a e^{i \theta} |0,2 \rangle \, ,
\label{2phUnpol}
\end{equation}
where $a$ and $\theta$ are real numbers and $0 \leq a \leq
1/\sqrt{2}$, satisfies $\mathbb{P}_S (| \Psi (a, \theta) \rangle) =
0$, which indicates that it is unpolarized. However, as we shall see
below, these states have polarization structure (they are not
isotropic in the polarization sense) and cannot be regarded as
unpolarized.
\section{Higher-order polarization properties}
\label{Sec:HigherOrder}
In order to characterize the polarization properties of a state, we shall
employ measurements of higher-order moments of the Stokes operators.
This is very close to the Glauber correlation functions in quantum
coherence theory~\cite{Glauber}, and has common grounds with Klyshko
generalized coherence matrices~\cite{Klyshko}. In a recent paper
\cite{BjorkPRA}, we have used the central moments for higher-order
polarization characterization. Whereas the central moments may be
preferred by some readers, the raw moments used in the present work
seem to allow for an easier and more systematic approach.
As we have already discussed, one can perform a measurement of the
total photon number without disturbing the measurement of any other
Stokes operator. In classical optics, this is tantamount to the fact
that the state of polarization is independent of the intensity. This
suggests that the polarization properties are given by
$\hat{\mathbf{S}}$. However, an ideal measurement of polarization
provides some information about the total energy and vice versa. For
example, an even (odd) measured eigenvalue of any of the observables
$\hat{S}_1$, $\hat{S}_2$, and $\hat{S}_3$ implies an even (odd) total
number of photons. Also, determining the probability distribution for
the total number of photons $p_N$ simultaneously sets bounds on the
polarization properties in accordance with the inequalities
(\ref{UncertRelation}).
Taking these observations into account, we distinguish polarization
properties for different numbers of photons, and let full polarization
characterization refer to complete knowledge of the expectation values
of all possible combinations of the Stokes operators. The $r$th-order
polarization information of a state $\hat{\varrho}$ is then given by
$p_N$ and the expectation values of the form
\begin{equation}
T_{j_1 j_2 \ldots j_r}^{(r,N)} =
\langle \hat{S}_{j_1} \hat{S}_{j_2} \ldots \hat{S}_{j_r} \rangle_N =
\Tr ( \hat{\varrho}_N \hat{S}_{j_1} \hat{S}_{j_2} \ldots \hat{S}_{j_r} ) \, ,
\label{rthOrderExpectationValues}
\end{equation}
where $j_k \in \{ 1 , 2, 3 \}$ and $\hat{\varrho}_{N}$ denotes the
normalized two-mode, $N$-photon state obtained by projecting
$\hat{\varrho}$ onto the $N$th excitation manifold
\begin{equation}
\hat{\varrho}_N = \frac{\hat{\leavevmode\hbox{\small1\normalsize\kern-.33em1}}_{N} \hat{\varrho}
\hat{\leavevmode\hbox{\small1\normalsize\kern-.33em1}}_{N}}{p_{N}} \, . \label{rhoN}
\end{equation}
Using the Fock basis, the projector can thus be expressed as
$\hat{\leavevmode\hbox{\small1\normalsize\kern-.33em1}}_N = \sum_{n=0}^N | n , N - n \rangle \langle n , N - n |$
and $p_{N} = \Tr (\hat{\leavevmode\hbox{\small1\normalsize\kern-.33em1}}_{N} \hat{\varrho})$. For any given order
$r$ and excitation manifold $N$, the elements
(\ref{rthOrderExpectationValues}) form a Cartesian tensor
$\mathbf{T}^{(r,N)} (\hat{\varrho})$ of rank $r$. Due to the
Hermiticity of the Stokes operators, theses tensors satisfy
\begin{equation}
T_{j_1 \ldots j_r}^{(r,N)} = [T_{j_r \ldots j_1}^{(r,N)} ]^\ast \, .
\label{TensorHermiticity}
\end{equation}
We leave $\hat{\varrho}_N$ and $\mathbf{T}^{(r,N)}$ undefined for
any $N$ such that $p_N = 0$, and employ the convention that they then
do not contribute to sums.
When $(\mu,\nu,j_k)$ is a cyclic permutation of $(1,2,3)$,
the commutation relation~(\ref{ccrsu2}) implies that polarization
tensor elements of neighboring ranks are related according to
\begin{equation}
T_{j_{1} \ldots \mu \nu \ldots j_{r-1}}^{(r,N)} -
T_{j_{1} \ldots \nu \mu \ldots j_{r-1}}^{(r,N)} =
i 2 \, T_{j_{1} \ldots j_{k} \ldots j_{r-1}}^{(r-1,N)} \, .
\label{TensorElementRelation}
\end{equation}
Hence, $\mathbf{T}^{(r-1,N)}$ can be determined from
$\mathbf{T}^{(r,N)}$ and, consequently, $\mathbf{T}^{(R,N)}$
determines all $\mathbf{T}^{(r,N)}$ such that $r < R$. Complete
polarization information of order $R$ is thus equivalent to complete
polarization information of all orders $r \leq R$.
Using the relations (\ref{Stokop}) and (\ref{ccrsu2}), it is also
straightforward to show that the polarization information carried by
$\mathbf{T}^{(R,N)}$ is equivalent to that contained in the set of
generalized coherence matrices of orders $2 r$ ($r \leq R$), whose
elements are of the form~\cite{Klyshko} $ \langle
(\hat{a}_{H}^\dagger)^j (\hat{a}_{V}^\dagger)^{r-j} \hat{a}_{H}^k
\hat{a}_{V}^{r-k} \rangle_N$. Having complete polarization
information of all orders about a state $\hat{\varrho}$ is therefore
equivalent to knowing its block-diagonal
projection~\cite{BjorkOC,RaymerQCM,Karassiov,Korolkova}
\begin{equation}
\hat{\varrho}_{\mathrm{pol}} =
\sum_{N=0}^\infty p_{N} \hat{\varrho}_{N} \, ,
\label{Brho} \\
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\varrho}_N$ is given by (\ref{rhoN}). This is the so
called the polarization sector (or polarization density matrix).
The number of parameters characterizing a block-diagonal state
limited to the excitation manifolds $N_1,N_2,\ldots,N_\nu$ is
\begin{equation}
- 1 + \sum_{k=1}^\nu (N_k + 1)^2 . \label{ParametersForArbitraryManifolds}
\end{equation}
In particular, when a state is limited to the manifolds
$0,1,\ldots,\widetilde{N}$, the number of parameters simplifies to
\begin{equation}
- 1 + \sum_{N=0}^{\widetilde{N}} (N + 1)^2 = \frac{\widetilde{N}
(2 \widetilde{N}^2 + 9 \widetilde{N} + 13)}{6} . \label{ParametersBrho}
\end{equation}
For such a state, complete polarization information of order
$\widetilde{N}$ is sufficient to determine its block-diagonal
projection (\ref{Brho}). The general density matrix for a state with
no more than $\widetilde{N}$ photons is determined by $\widetilde{N}
(\widetilde{N} + 3) (\widetilde{N}^2 + 3 \widetilde{N} + 4)/4$
independent real numbers. Hence, the polarization share of this
information quickly decreases with $\widetilde{N}$.
\section{Polarization tomography}
\label{Sec:Tomography}
We now turn to the question of how to characterize polarization
properties experimentally. Since our interest is limited to the
information contained in the block-diagonal projection~(\ref{Brho}),
it is clear that we are not required to do full quantum state
tomography~\cite{RaymerQCM,Karassiov,RaymerPRA}. As complete
polarization information corresponds to doing quantum tomography of
all $N$-photon Hilbert spaces excited by the considered state, one can
make use of the methods developed for finite-dimensional
systems~\cite{Newton,Leonhardt,Weigert}. However, some recently
proposed higher-order intensity measurements~\cite{Schilling} seem to
be closest related to the ones we present below.
We will assume ideal measurements and that the total photon number and
its probability distribution $p_N$ can be determined. This is
obviously a severe restriction apart from the lowest excitation
manifolds. However, the situation where no information about the
total photon number can be obtained is described by simply summing
over the different manifolds as discussed in
section~\ref{Sec:PolPropAlone}.
Below, we also treat the experimental determination of different
moments of an observable as different measurements. In principle,
each moment requires an infinite number of measurement runs in order
to be determined exactly. This would also give us the full
probability distribution of the eigenvalues and thus all the moments.
However, for the vast majority of realistic probability distributions,
a lower moment requires fewer runs to be accurately determined.
\subsection{Moment measurements}
\label{Sec:MomentMeasurements}
The fact that the classical Stokes parameters are easily determined
experimentally makes them highly practical. Also in quantum optics,
the measurement setups corresponding to the fundamental Stokes
operators are simple. These setups are composed only by phase
shifters, beam splitters and photon-number measurements. The effects
of linear optical devices are described by SU(2)
transformations~\cite{Yurke}, which can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\hat{U} (\Phi,\Theta,\Xi) = e^{-i \Phi \hat{S}_3/2}
e^{-i \Theta \hat{S}_2/2} e^{-i \Xi \hat{S}_3/2} ,
\label{GeneralSU2Transformation}
\end{equation}
where $\Phi$, $\Theta$, and $\Xi$ are the Euler angles.
Any such transformation can be easily realized using linear optics~\cite{Simon}
and they are lossless, so they leave $\hat{S}_0$ unaffected.
Let us now introduce the Stokes operator in an arbitrary direction
characterized by the unit vector $\mathbf{n} \in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ as
\begin{equation}
\hat{S}_\mathbf{n} \equiv \mathbf{n} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{S}} =
\sum_{k=1}^3 n_k \hat{S}_k .
\end{equation}
The effect of an arbitrary SU(2) transformation on $\hat{S}_\mathbf{n}$,
can then be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{U} (\Phi,\Theta,\Xi) \, \hat{S}_\mathbf{n} \, \hat{U}^\dagger
(\Phi,\Theta,\Xi) = \hat{S}_{\mathbf{R}_3 (\Phi) \cdot
\mathbf{R}_2 (\Theta) \cdot \mathbf{R}_3 (\Xi) \cdot \mathbf{n}} ,
\qquad \label{USnUdagger}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{R}_k (\phi)$ denotes the matrix describing a rotation of
$\phi$ around the $\mathbf{e}_k$-axis, e.g.
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{R}_1 (\phi) = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 &
\cos \phi & - \sin \phi \cr 0 & \sin \phi & \cos \phi \end{array} \right] .
\end{equation}
Hence, any SU(2) transformation corresponds to a proper rotation in
$\mathbb{R}^3$ \cite{Yurke}. We note that $\hat{S}_3$, which gives
the photon-number difference, is transformed according to
\begin{equation}
\fl
\hat{U} (\Phi,\Theta,\Xi) \, \hat{S}_3 \, \hat{U}^\dagger (\Phi,\Theta,\Xi)
= \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}} , \quad \quad \quad
\mathbf{n} = (\sin \Theta \cos \Phi , \sin \Theta \sin \Phi , \cos \Theta) .
\label{US3Udagger}
\end{equation}
That is, $\hat{U} (\Phi,\Theta, 0)$ is the standard displacement on the sphere
and the transformation parameters $\Theta$ and $\Phi$ equal the spherical
coordinates of the vector $\mathbf{n}$ characterizing the transformed
Stokes operator. We see that any $\hat{S}_\mathbf{n}$ is related to
$\hat{S}_3$ by an SU(2) transformation corresponding to a polarization
rotation of $\Theta/2$ followed by a differential phase shift of $\Phi/2$.
Expectation values of the form $\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r \rangle$ can
thus be straightforwardly determined experimentally.
Ideally, we can simultaneously measure the total photon number $N$,
so that also expectation values of the form
$\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r \rangle_N$ can be determined.
The tensor $\mathbf{T}^{(r,N)}$ gives any expectation value of the
form
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_1} \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_2} \ldots
\hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_r} \rangle_N =
\sum_{j_1=1}^3 \ldots \sum_{j_r=1}^3
n_{j_1}^{(1)} \ldots n_{j_r}^{(r)} T_{j_1 \ldots j_r}^{(r,N)} \, .
\label{GeneralSumOverT}
\end{equation}
When all vectors are the same, (\ref{GeneralSumOverT}) simplifies
considerably. For a given state, the relation between
$\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r \rangle_N$ and the direction
$\mathbf{n}$ will be referred to as the $N$-photon Stokes moment
profile of order $r$. These profiles can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r \rangle_N = \sum_{k=0}^r
\sum_{\ell=0}^{r-k}
n_1^k n_2^\ell n_3^{r-k-\ell} M_{k,\ell}^{(r,N)} \ , \label{SnrMean}
\end{equation}
where the moment component $M_{k,\ell}^{(r,N)}$ is the sum of all
tensor elements of the form $T_{j_1 \ldots j_r}^{(r,N)}$ that have
$k$ ones and $\ell$ twos as subscripts. Due to
(\ref{rthOrderExpectationValues}), every moment component is thus
the expectation value of the Hermitian operator formed by the sum
of the Stokes-operator products corresponding to its tensor elements.
The number of such elements is given by the trinomial coefficient
\begin{equation}
(k,\ell,r - k - \ell)! = \frac{r!}{k! \ell! (r - k - \ell)!} .
\label{trinomial}
\end{equation}
For example, we have $M_ {1,1}^{(3,N)} = T_{123}^{(3,N)} +
T_{132}^{(3,N)} + T_{213}^{(3,N)} + T_{231}^{(3,N)} + T_{312}^{(3,N)}
+ T_{321}^{(3,N)}$. We note that the sum of all tensor elements of
order $r$ in excitation manifold $N$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j_1=1}^3 \ldots \sum_{j_r=1}^3 T_{j_1 \ldots j_r}^{(r,N)} =
\sum_{k=0}^r \sum_{\ell=0}^{r-k} M_{k,\ell}^{(r,N)} =
3^{r/2} \langle \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_\mathrm{diag}}^r \rangle_N \, ,
\label{SumOfTensorElements}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{n}_\mathrm{diag} = (1,1,1)/\sqrt{3}$.
Since the polarization tensor satisfies the Hermiticity condition
(\ref{TensorHermiticity}), the moment components are real, and
consequently the real part of $\mathbf{T}^{(r,N)}$ is sufficient to
determine $\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r \rangle_N$ in any direction
$\mathbf{n}$. Naturally, knowing the Stokes moment profile
(\ref{SnrMean}) is equivalent to knowing the
\begin{equation}
m_r = \frac{(r + 1) (r + 2)}{2}
\end{equation}
moment components $M_{k,\ell}^{(r,N)}$.
Moreover, using the commutation relation (\ref{ccrsu2}), it is
possible to determine the differences between the tensor elements
belonging to the same moment component $M_{k,\ell}^{(r,N)}$ from
$\mathbf{T}^{(r-1,N)}$. Since every element of $\mathbf{T}^{(r,N)}$
belongs to such a moment component, it thus follows that
$\mathbf{T}^{(r-1,N)}$ together with all $M_{k,\ell}^{(r,N)}$
determine $\mathbf{T}^{(r,N)}$.
Let us now introduce a standard ordering of the Stokes operators
according to
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathcal{O}}_{k,\ell}^{(r)} =
\hat{S}_1^k \hat{S}_2^\ell \hat{S}_3^{r-k-\ell} .
\end{equation}
Making repeated use of the commutation relation (\ref{ccrsu2}), the
moment components can then be expressed as
\begin{equation}
M_{k,\ell}^{(r,N)} = (k,\ell,r - k - \ell)! \,
\langle \hat{\mathcal{O}}_{k,\ell}^{(r)} \rangle_N +
\langle \hat{\mathcal{C}}_{k,\ell}^{(r)} \rangle_N \, , \label{MOC}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\mathcal{C}}_{k,\ell}^{(r)}$ is a sum over
Stokes-operator products of orders smaller than $r$. The
Casimir operator
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mathbf{S}}^2 = \sum_{k=1}^3 \hat{S}_k^2 =
\hat{S}_0 (\hat{S}_0 + 2) \label{Casimir}
\end{equation}
implies that, for $r \geq 2$, we have
\begin{equation}
\fl
\langle \hat{\mathcal{O}}_{k+2,\ell}^{(r)} \rangle_N +
\langle \hat{\mathcal{O}}_{k,\ell+2}^{(r)} \rangle_N +
\langle \hat{\mathcal{O}}_{k,\ell}^{(r)} \rangle_N =
N (N + 2) \langle \hat{\mathcal{O}}_{k,\ell}^{(r-2)} \rangle_N +
\langle \hat{S}_1^k [ \hat{S}_1^2 , \hat{S}_2^\ell ]
\hat{S}_3^{r-k-\ell-2} \rangle_N \, ,
\label{InvariantOrelation}
\end{equation}
where the last term can again be written as a sum over
Stokes-operator products of orders smaller than $r$. Equations
(\ref{MOC}) and (\ref{InvariantOrelation}) show that there is a
relation between moment components of orders $r$ and $r - 2$, and
that the number of independent moment components of order $r$ is $
m_r - m_{r-2} = 2 r + 1$. For a general $N$-photon state, the number
of independent moment components to determine is thus $\sum_{r=1}^N
(2 r + 1) = N (N + 2)$. For a general block-diagonal state, we also
have to determine the probability distribution for the total number
of photons. Assuming that the excited manifolds are known to be
limited to $N_1,N_2,\ldots,N_\nu$, we find the number of independent
parameters to be $\nu - 1 + \sum_{k=1}^\nu N_k (N_k + 2)$, which is
in agreement with (\ref{ParametersForArbitraryManifolds}).
\subsubsection{General single-photon state}
In the basis $(|1,0 \rangle , |0,1 \rangle )$, the density matrix of a
general single-photon state can be written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{\varrho}_1 = \left (
\begin{array}{cc}
\pi_0 & R + i I \cr R - i I & 1 - \pi_0
\end{array}
\right ) ,
\end{equation}
where $R^2 + I^2 \leq \pi_0 (1 - \pi_0)$. Using a superscript to
identify state-specific average values, the first-order Stokes moment
profile is given by
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n} \rangle_1^{\hat{\varrho}_1} =
2 R n_1 - 2 I n_2 + (2 \pi_0 - 1) n_3 .
\end{equation}
Hence, the three moment components are seen to be independent.
\subsubsection{General two-photon state}
Using the basis $(|2,0 \rangle , |1,1 \rangle , |0,2 \rangle )$, the
density matrix of a general two-photon state can be written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{\varrho}_2 = \left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
\pi_1 & R_1 + i I_1 & R_2 + i I_2 \cr R_1 - i I_1 & \pi_2 & R_3 + i I_3 \\
R_2 - i I_2 & R_3 - i I_3 & 1 - \pi_1 - \pi_2
\end{array}
\right ) \, .
\end{equation}
The first- and second-order Stokes moment profiles can then be
expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n} \rangle_2^{\hat{\varrho}_2} & = & 2
\sqrt{2} \, [(R_1 + R_3) n_1 - (I_1 + I_3) n_2] + 2 \, (2 \pi_1 +
\pi_2 - 1) n_3 , \\
& & \nonumber \\
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^2 \rangle_2^{\hat{\varrho}_2} & = &
2 \, (1 + \pi_2 + 2 R_2) n_1^2 + 2 \, (1 + \pi_2 - 2 R_2) n_2^2 +
4 \, (1 - \pi_2) n_3^2 - 8 I_2 n_1 n_2 \nonumber \\
& + & 4 \sqrt{2} \, n_3 [(R_1 - R_3) n_1 - (I_1 - I_3) n_2] ,
\label{2ph2ndOrder}
\end{eqnarray}
which makes it easy to identify the moment components.
As implied by (\ref{Casimir}), the moment components of the three
first terms of (\ref{2ph2ndOrder}) are determined by two parameters.
Hence, there are only five independent second-order moment components.
\subsection{Choosing measurement directions}
We have seen that the information content of the moment components
allows us to do polarization tomography by only measuring moments.
Performing the moment measurements in increasing order, the $2 r + 1$
independent moment components for each order $r$ and manifold $N$ can
be determined by choosing equally many directions $\mathbf{n}$ such
that (\ref{SnrMean}) gives linearly independent equations for the
unknown moment components.
\subsubsection{First order}
Quite naturally, both the first-order moment components and the
first-order polarization tensors are given by the manifold-specific
Stokes parameters
\begin{equation}
M_{\delta_{1 j},\delta_{2 j}}^{(1,N)} = T_j^{(1,N)} =
\langle \hat{S}_j \rangle_N \, . \label{FirstOrderMTS}
\end{equation}
The three sets of information are hence identical and are obtained by
determining the expectation value $\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}
\rangle_N$ for the directions $\mathbf{n} = (1,0,0)$, $(0,1,0)$, and
$(0,0,1)$. As the operators $\hat{S}_\mathbf{n}$ and
$\hat{S}_{-\mathbf{n}}$ only differ by the signs of their eigenvalues,
the corresponding measurements will give the same information. Hence,
equivalent measurements correspond to a line through the origin.
Choosing three orthogonal directions as above thus results in a
uniform distribution of the measurements on the Poincar\'{e} sphere.
\subsubsection{Second order}
\label{Sec:SecondOrder}
We have seen that there are five independent moment components of
second order. Thinking of the measurements as lines, we choose the
directions as
\begin{equation}
\fl \displaystyle
\mathbf{n}_{1,2} = \frac{(0 , \pm 2 , 1 + \sqrt{5})}
{\sqrt{10 + 2 \sqrt{5}}} ,
\qquad
\mathbf{n}_{3,4} = \frac{(\pm 2 , 1 + \sqrt{5} , 0)}
{\sqrt{10 + 2 \sqrt{5}}} ,
\qquad
\mathbf{n}_5 = \frac{(1 + \sqrt{5} , 0 , 2)}
{\sqrt{10 + 2 \sqrt{5}}} \, ,
\end{equation}
which maximizes the minimum angle between the
lines~\cite{FejesToth,Conway} and thus in some sense spreads out the
measurements over the Poincar\'{e} sphere as much as possible. The
six second-order moment components are then given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\fl
M_{0,1}^{(2,N)} = \frac{\sqrt{5}}{2}
\langle \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_1}^2 - \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_2}^2 \rangle_N , \\
\fl
M_{1,1}^{(2,N)} = \frac{\sqrt{5}}{2} \langle \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_3}^2
- \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_4}^2 \rangle_N , \\
\fl
M_{1,0}^{(2,N)} = \frac{\sqrt{5}}{2} \langle \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_1}^2
+ \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_2}^2 + \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_3}^2 +
\hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_4}^2 + 2 \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_5}^2 \rangle_N
- \sqrt{5} N (N + 2) , \label{M102N} \\
\fl
M_{0,0}^{(2,N)} = \frac{(15 + 7 \sqrt{5})
\langle \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_1}^2 +
\hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_2}^2 \rangle_N
- (10 + 4 \sqrt{5}) \langle \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_3}^2 +
\hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_4}^2 \rangle_N + (6 + 2 \sqrt{5}) N (N + 2)}{4 (7 + 3 \sqrt{5})} , \\
\fl
M_{0,2}^{(2,N)} = \frac{(10 + 4 \sqrt{5}) \langle
\hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_1}^2
+ \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_2}^2 \rangle_N + (25 + 11 \sqrt{5}) \langle
\hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_3}^2 +
\hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_4}^2 \rangle_N - (14 + 6 \sqrt{5}) N (N + 2)}{4 (7 + 3 \sqrt{5})} , \\
\fl
M_{2,0}^{(2,N)} = \frac{(36 + 16 \sqrt{5}) N (N + 2) -
(25 + 11 \sqrt{5}) \langle \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_1}^2 +
\hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_2}^2 \rangle_N - (15 + 7 \sqrt{5}) \langle
\hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_3}^2 +
\hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_4}^2 \rangle_N}{4 (7 + 3 \sqrt{5})} .
\end{eqnarray}
Note that their determination does not require any first-order
measurement. The second-order polarization tensors can be expressed
in the first- and second-order moment components as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{T}^{(2,N)} =
\left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
M_{2,0}^{(2,N)} &
\frac{M_{1,1}^{(2,N)}}{2} + i \langle \hat{S}_3 \rangle_N &
\frac{M_{1,0}^{(2,N)}}{2} - i \langle \hat{S}_2 \rangle_N \\
\frac{M_{1,1}^{(2,N)}}{2} - i \langle \hat{S}_3 \rangle_N &
M_{0,2}^{(2,N)} &
\frac{M_{0,1}^{(2,N)}}{2} + i \langle \hat{S}_1 \rangle_N \\
\frac{M_{1,0}^{(2,N)}}{2} + i \langle \hat{S}_2 \rangle_N &
\frac{M_{0,1}^{(2,N)}}{2} + i \langle \hat{S}_1 \rangle_N &
M_{0,0}^{(2,N)}
\end{array}
\right ) .
\label{2ndOrderTensorM}
\end{eqnarray}
When writing tensors, we let larger entities and rows correspond to
tensor indices placed to the left of those corresponding to smaller
entities and columns.
As an aside, we decompose the Stokes-operator covariance matrix into
different excitation manifolds
$\bm{\Gamma} = \sum_{N=0}^\infty p_N \bm{\Gamma}_N$
and note that the matrix elements are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\fl
\Gamma_{jk,N} \equiv \frac{\langle \hat{S}_j \hat{S}_k \rangle_N +
\langle \hat{S}_k \hat{S}_j \rangle_N}{2} -
\langle \hat{S}_j \rangle_N \langle \hat{S}_k \rangle_N =
\mathrm{Re} ( T_{jk}^{(2,N)} ) - T_j^{(1,N)} T_k^{(1,N)} .
\end{eqnarray}
For any state that satisfies $\mathbb{P}_S = 0$, we thus have
$\bm{\Gamma}_N = \mathrm{Re} ( \mathbf{T}^{(2,N)} )$.
\subsubsection{Third order}
\label{Sec:ThirdOrder}
We know that there are seven independent
third-order moment components. Maximizing the minimum angle between
seven lines~\cite{Conway}, we find that the measurements should
correspond to $\hat{S}_1$, $\hat{S}_2$, $\hat{S}_3$, and the
directions
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{n}_{4,5} = \frac{(\pm 1 , 1 , 1)}{\sqrt{3}} ,
\quad \quad \quad
\mathbf{n}_{6,7} = \frac{(\pm 1 , -1 , 1)}{\sqrt{3}} .
\end{equation}
However, this choice gives only four independent measurements, since
we have
\begin{equation}
\hat{S}_1^3 = \frac{3 \sqrt{3}}{8} \, ( - \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_4}^3 +
\hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_5}^3 - \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_6}^3 +
\hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}_7}^3 )
+ \frac{3 N (N + 2) - 4}{2} \, \hat{S}_1
\end{equation}
and similar relations for $\hat{S}_2^3$ and $\hat{S}_3^3$. By
choosing directions close to $\hat{S}_1$, $\hat{S}_2$, and
$\hat{S}_3$, it is possible to determine all third-order moment
components. However, this choice would make it hard to obtain the
necessary data, since the corresponding expectation values differ only
slightly from the known $\langle \hat{S}_1^3 \rangle_N$, $\langle
\hat{S}_2^3 \rangle_N$, and $\langle \hat{S}_3^3 \rangle_N$.
Consequently, although highly symmetric polyhedrons have been
successfully applied in protocols for tomography of multi-qubit
states \cite{Bogdanov}, the related method considered here fails.
How to optimally choose the measurement directions
for higher-order polarization tomography thus appears to be a
complicated problem. This notwithstanding, the third-order
polarization tensors can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\fl \mathbf{T}^{(3,N)} = \left ( \begingroup \everymath{\scriptstyle}
\begin{array}{ccc}
M_{3,0}^{(3,N)} & \frac{M_{2,1}^{(3,N)} + i 4 T_{1,3}^{(2,N)} +
i 2 T_{3,1}^{(2,N)}}{3} & \frac{M_{2,0}^{(3,N)} - i 4 T_{1,2}^{(2,N)}
- i 2 T_{2,1}^{(2,N)}}{3} \cr \frac{M_{2,1}^{(3,N)} -
i 2 T_{1,3}^{(2,N)} + i 2 T_{3,1}^{(2,N)}}{3} & \frac{M_{1,2}^{(3,N)}
+ i 2 T_{2,3}^{(2,N)} + i 4 T_{3,2}^{(2,N)}}{3} &
\frac{M_{1,1}^{(3,N)}}{6} + i T_{1,1}^{(2,N)} - i T_{2,2}^{(2,N)} +
i T_{3,3}^{(2,N)} \cr \frac{M_{2,0}^{(3,N)} + i 2 T_{1,2}^{(2,N)} -
i 2 T_{2,1}^{(2,N)}}{3} & \frac{M_{1,1}^{(3,N)}}{6} -
i T_{1,1}^{(2,N)} - i T_{2,2}^{(2,N)} + i T_{3,3}^{(2,N)} &
\frac{M_{1,0}^{(3,N)} - i 2 T_{3,2}^{(2,N)} - i 4 T_{2,3}^{(2,N)}}{3}
\cr \hline \frac{M_{2,1}^{(3,N)} - i 2 T_{1,3}^{(2,N)} -
i 4 T_{3,1}^{(2,N)}}{3} & \frac{M_{1,2}^{(3,N)} + i 2 T_{2,3}^{(2,N)}
- i 2 T_{3,2}^{(2,N)}}{3} & \frac{M_{1,1}^{(3,N)}}{6} +
i T_{1,1}^{(2,N)} - i T_{2,2}^{(2,N)} - i T_{3,3}^{(2,N)}
\cr \frac{M_{1,2}^{(3,N)} - i 4 T_{2,3}^{(2,N)} -
i 2 T_{3,2}^{(2,N)}}{3} & M_{0,3}^{(3,N)} & \frac{M_{0,2}^{(3,N)} +
i 4 T_{2,1}^{(2,N)} + i 2 T_{1,2}^{(2,N)}}{3} \cr
\frac{M_{1,1}^{(3,N)}}{6} + i T_{1,1}^{(2,N)} + i T_{2,2}^{(2,N)} -
i T_{3,3}^{(2,N)} & \frac{M_{0,2}^{(3,N)} - i 2 T_{2,1}^{(2,N)} +
i 2 T_{1,2}^{(2,N)}}{3} & \frac{M_{0,1}^{(3,N)} +
i 2 T_{3,1}^{(2,N)} + i 4 T_{1,3}^{(2,N)}}{3} \cr \hline
\frac{M_{2,0}^{(3,N)} + i 2 T_{1,2}^{(2,N)} +
i 4 T_{2,1}^{(2,N)}}{3} & \frac{M_{1,1}^{(3,N)}}{6} -
i T_{1,1}^{(2,N)} + i T_{2,2}^{(2,N)} + i T_{3,3}^{(2,N)} &
\frac{M_{1,0}^{(3,N)} - i 2 T_{3,2}^{(2,N)} +
i 2 T_{2,3}^{(2,N)}}{3} \cr \frac{M_{1,1}^{(3,N)}}{6} -
i T_{1,1}^{(2,N)} + i T_{2,2}^{(2,N)} - i T_{3,3}^{(2,N)} &
\frac{M_{0,2}^{(3,N)} - i 2 T_{2,1}^{(2,N)} -
i 4 T_{1,2}^{(2,N)}}{3} & \frac{M_{0,1}^{(3,N)} +
i 2 T_{3,1}^{(2,N)} - i 2 T_{1,3}^{(2,N)}}{3} \cr
\frac{M_{1,0}^{(3,N)} + i 4 T_{3,2}^{(2,N)} + i 2 T_{2,3}^{(2,N)}}{3}
& \frac{M_{0,1}^{(3,N)} - i 4 T_{3,1}^{(2,N)} -
i 2 T_{1,3}^{(2,N)}}{3} & M_{0,0}^{(3,N)}
\end{array} \endgroup \right) . \label{3rdOrderTensorM}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Recurrence relation for Stokes moment profiles}
Above, we have seen that the $N$ lowest-order Stokes moment profiles
$\{ \langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r \rangle_N \}_{r=1}^N$ contain all
polarization information of an $N$-photon state. In particular, we
show in the appendix that the higher-order profiles are determined by
the recurrence relation
\begin{equation}
\fl
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^{N + 1 + \mu} \rangle_N =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle - \sum_{j=1}^{N/2} 4^{N/2 + 1 - j} f (N + 2, 2 j)
\, \langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^{2 j - 1 + \mu} \rangle_N ,
& N \ \mathrm{even,} \\
\displaystyle - \sum_{j=0}^{\frac{N-1}{2}} 4^{\frac{N + 1}{2} - j}
f (N + 2, 2 j + 1) \, \langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^{2 j + \mu}
\rangle_N , & N \ \mathrm{odd,}
\end{array}
\right. \label{Srecurrence}
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is a non-negative integer and $f (n,k)$ are the central
factorial numbers of the first kind given by~\cite{Butzer}
\begin{equation}
\fl f (n,k) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 , & n < k , \\
\delta_{n,0} , & k = 0 , \\
\displaystyle \binom{2 n - k}{k} k \sum_{j=0}^{n-k}
\frac{(-1)^j}{j! (n+j)} \binom{2 n - 2 k}{n-k-j}
\sum_{m=0}^j (-1)^m \binom{j}{m} \left( \frac{j}{2} - m \right)^{n-k+j}
, & 1 \leq k \leq n .
\end{array}
\right .
\end{equation}
For the lowest excitation manifolds, we thus get
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{ll}
\fl \langle \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}}^r \rangle_0 = 0 , &
\langle \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}}^r \rangle_1 = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 , & r \ \mathrm{even,} \\
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n} \rangle_1 , & r \ \mathrm{odd,}
\end{array}
\right. \\[0.6cm]
\fl \langle \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}}^r \rangle_2 = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
2^{r-2} \langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^2 \rangle_2 , & r \ \mathrm{even,} \\
2^{r-1} \langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n} \rangle_2 , & r \ \mathrm{odd,}
\end{array}
\right. \qquad &
\langle \hat{S}_{\mathbf{n}}^r \rangle_3 = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{9 - 3^{r} + (3^r - 1) \langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^2
\rangle_3}{8} , & r \ \mathrm{even,} \\
\frac{(9 - 3^{r-1}) \langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n} \rangle_3 +
(3^{r-1} - 1) \langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^3 \rangle_3}{8} ,
& r \ \mathrm{odd.}
\end{array}
\right. \end{array}
\label{StokesProfiles0to3}
\end{eqnarray}
The above relations for $N = 1$ and $N = 2$ can also be established
from the general property
\begin{equation}
\hat{S}_{-\mathbf{n}}^r = \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r , & r \ \mathrm{even,} \\
- \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r , & r \ \mathrm{odd.}
\end{array}
\right. \label{SnrEvenOdd}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Non-resolved photon numbers}
\label{Sec:PolPropAlone}
As pointed out above, apart from the few lowest excitation manifolds, it
is difficult to distinguish different excitation manifolds
experimentally. In case there is no information about the total
photon number available, the measured expectation values are weighted
averages over the manifolds of the form $\langle \hat{A} \rangle =
\sum_{N=0}^\infty p_N \langle \hat{A} \rangle_N$. Due to linearity,
it is clear that the corresponding polarization tensors, Stokes moment
profiles, and moment components, which are given by
\begin{equation}
\fl
\mathbf{T}^{(r)} = \sum_{N=0}^\infty p_N \mathbf{T}^{(r,N)} ,
\qquad
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r \rangle =
\sum_{N=0}^\infty p_N \langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r \rangle_N ,
\qquad
M_{k,\ell}^{(r)} = \sum_{N=0}^\infty p_N M_{k,\ell}^{(r,N)} ,
\label{SumN}
\end{equation}
respectively, enjoy most of the properties of their manifold-specific
counterparts. However, due to the factor $N (N + 2)$ appearing in
(\ref{InvariantOrelation}), the relations between moment components of
different orders depend on the excitation manifold. In general, this
makes all photon-number-averaged moment components $M_{k,\ell}^{(r)}$
independent and $R$th-order polarization tomography then requires
$\sum_{r=1}^R m_r = R (R^2 + 6 R + 11)/6$ parameters to be determined.
However, the knowledge of the average photon number
$\langle \hat{S}_0 \rangle$ and its variance
$\langle \hat{S}_0^2 \rangle - \langle \hat{S}_0 \rangle^2$ is
sufficient to remove the redundancy for the second order, since we
then know the right-hand side of the relation
$M_{2,0}^{(2)} + M_{0,2}^{(2)} + M_{0,0}^{(2)} = \langle \hat{S}_0
(\hat{S}_0 + 2) \rangle$ obtained from (\ref{Casimir}).
With this partial knowledge about the photon distribution,
we can thus determine the second-order moment components using the
five measurement settings given in section~\ref{Sec:SecondOrder}.
Now, assume that we know that a state is limited to the first three
manifolds, i.e., that the number of photons cannot exceed two. In
this case, the determination of $\langle \hat{S}_0 \rangle$, $\langle
\hat{S}_0^2 \rangle$, and the three lowest-order Stokes moment
profiles is sufficient for complete photon-resolved polarization
characterization. Explicitly, we have $p_1 = 2 \langle \hat{S}_0
\rangle - \langle \hat{S}_0^2 \rangle$ and $p_2 = (\langle \hat{S}_0^2
\rangle - \langle \hat{S}_0 \rangle)/2$, which together with
(\ref{StokesProfiles0to3}) give
\begin{equation}
\fl \displaystyle
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n} \rangle_1 =
\frac{4 \langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n} \rangle -
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^3 \rangle}
{6 \langle \hat{S}_0 \rangle - 3 \langle \hat{S}_0^2 \rangle} \, ,
\quad
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n} \rangle_2 =
\frac{\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^3 \rangle -
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n} \rangle}{3} \, ,
\quad
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^2 \rangle_2 =
\frac{2 (\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^2 \rangle +
\langle \hat{S}_0^2 \rangle -
2 \langle \hat{S}_0 \rangle)}
{\langle \hat{S}_0^2 \rangle - \langle \hat{S}_0 \rangle} .
\end{equation}
\section{A menagerie of states and their polarization properties}
\label{Sec:Menagerie}
We next apply the characterization developed above to some classes of
states. In most cases, we give only the Stokes moment profiles for
the states, as these provide the most compact presentation of the
polarization properties. It should be straightforward to obtain the
moment components and polarization tensors if needed.
Using (\ref{US3Udagger}), we can write the Stokes moment profiles of
an arbitrary state $\hat{\varrho}$ as
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r \rangle_N = \mathrm{Tr} [ \hat{U}
(\Phi,\Theta,\Xi) \, \hat{S}_3^r \, \hat{U}^\dagger
(\Phi,\Theta,\Xi) \hat{\varrho} ] ,
\end{equation}
where the SU(2) transformation $\hat{U} (\Phi,\Theta,\Xi)$ is given
by (\ref{GeneralSU2Transformation}). Now, consider the state
$\hat{\varrho}^\prime$ obtained by applying an SU(2) transformation
to $\hat{\varrho}$ according to
\begin{equation}
\hat{\varrho}^\prime = \hat{U} (\varphi,\vartheta,\xi)
\hat{\varrho} \, \hat{U}^\dagger (\varphi,\vartheta,\xi) .
\end{equation}
As the trace of a product is invariant under cyclic permutations,
(\ref{USnUdagger}) ensures that the Stokes moment profiles of the
state $\hat{\varrho}^\prime$ are related to those of
$\hat{\varrho}$ by rotations. Indeed, we find that
$\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r \rangle_N^{\hat{\varrho}^\prime}$
is obtained from
$\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r \rangle_N^{\hat{\varrho}}$ by
rotating the latter $\xi$ around the $\mathbf{e}_3$-axis,
followed by a rotation of $\vartheta$ around the
$\mathbf{e}_2$-axis and another of $\varphi$ around the
$\mathbf{e}_3$-axis. That is, we have
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r \rangle_N^{\hat{\varrho}^\prime} =
\langle \hat{S}_{\mathbf{R}_3 (-\xi) \cdot \mathbf{R}_2 (-\vartheta)
\cdot \mathbf{R}_3 (-\varphi) \cdot \mathbf{n}}^r
\rangle_N^{\hat{\varrho}} . \label{SU2relationForProfiles}
\end{equation}
Naturally, the sequence of rotations appearing in
(\ref{SU2relationForProfiles}) is the inverse of the one described
above. Because of these simple rotations, the determination of the
polarization properties of a state $\hat{\varrho}$, implicitly gives
the polarization properties of all states related to $\hat{\varrho}$
by an SU(2) transformation, although these states may appear very
different. We note that common, passive, two-mode interferometers are
described by SU(2) transformations too. The considerations below are
therefore relevant to interferometry.
\subsection{SU(2) coherent states}
The SU(2) coherent states are the eigenstates of the operators
$\hat{S}_\mathbf{n}$. They are also the only states that minimize the
variance sum, i.e., that saturate the left inequality in the
uncertainty relation (\ref{UncertRelation}). Using the spherical
coordinates (\ref{US3Udagger}), we have the eigenequation
$\hat{S}_\mathbf{n} | N ; \Theta , \Phi \rangle = N | N ; \Theta ,
\Phi \rangle$. The $N$-photon, SU(2) coherent states are of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
| N ; \Theta , \Phi \rangle & = & \sum_{n=0}^N e^{-i n \Phi}
\sqrt{\binom{N}{n}} \sin^{N-n} \left ( \frac{\Theta}{2} \right )
\cos^n \left ( \frac{\Theta}{2} \right ) \, | n , N - n \rangle
\nonumber \\
& = & e^{-i N \Phi/2} \, \hat{U} (\Phi,\Theta,0) \, | N , 0 \rangle .
\end{eqnarray}
Since an overall phase factor does not have any physical significance,
they are thus all related to the state $|N,0 \rangle$ by an SU(2)
transformation (\ref{GeneralSU2Transformation}). As discussed above,
such transformations correspond to simple rotations of the
Poincar\'{e} sphere, so we limit our explicit treatment to the states
$|N,0 \rangle$. Making use of well-known results for the beam
splitter, we easily find the Stokes moment profiles to be
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r \rangle_N^{|N,0 \rangle} = \sum_{k=0}^N
(N - 2 k)^r \binom{N}{k}
\sin^{2 k} \left ( \frac{\Theta}{2} \right ) \cos^{2 (N - k)} \left (
\frac{\Theta}{2} \right ) .
\end{equation}
The lowest-order polarization tensors are
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{T}^{(1,N)} (|N,0\rangle) =
\left (
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
0 \\
N
\end{array}
\right) ,
\quad \quad
\mathbf{T}^{(2,N)} (|N,0\rangle) =
\left ( \begin{array}{ccc}
N & i N & 0 \\
-i N & N & 0 \\
0 & 0 & N^2
\end{array}
\right ) , \\
\mathbf{T}^{(3,N)} (|N,0\rangle) =
\left ( \begingroup \everymath{\scriptstyle}
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & N^2 \\
0 & 0 & i N^2 \\
N (N-2) & i N (N-2) & 0 \\ \hline
0 & 0 & -i N^2 \\
0 & 0 & N^2 \\
-i N (N-2) & N (N-2) & 0 \\ \hline
N^2 & i N^2 & 0 \\
-i N^2 & N^2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & N^3 \end{array} \endgroup \right ) .
\end{eqnarray}
For $N > 0$, the SU(2) coherent states thus satisfy
$\mathbb{P}_S = 1$.
\subsection{Two-mode coherent states}
Since any pair of two-mode coherent states with the same average total
energy are related by an SU(2) transformation, it suffices to study
states of the form
\begin{equation}
|\alpha,0 \rangle = e^{-|\alpha|^2/2} \sum_{N=0}^\infty
\frac{\alpha^N}{\sqrt{N!}} \, |N,0 \rangle .
\end{equation}
The block-diagonal projection is clearly independent of the phase of
$\alpha$, and is given by a Poissonian mixture of SU(2) coherent
states that all belong to different excitation manifolds. Hence, the
manifold-specific expectation values coincide with those of the SU(2)
coherent states, and the manifold-averaged Stokes momentum profiles
(\ref{SumN}) become
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r \rangle^{|\alpha,0 \rangle} =
\sum_{N=0}^\infty \frac{\bar{N}^N e^{-\bar{N}}}{N!} \,
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r \rangle_N^{|N,0 \rangle} ,
\end{equation}
where $\bar{N} = |\alpha|^2$. Using the corresponding tensor relation
(\ref{SumN}) and results for the states $|N,0 \rangle$, we easily
obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\fl \langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n} \rangle^{|\alpha,0 \rangle} =
\bar{N} n_3 ,
\qquad
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^2 \rangle^{|\alpha,0 \rangle} =
\bar{N} (1 + \bar{N} n_3^2) ,
\qquad
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^3 \rangle^{|\alpha,0 \rangle} =
\bar{N} n_3 (1 + 3 \bar{N} + \bar{N}^2 n_3^2) , \label{Scoh} \\
\fl \mathbf{T}^{(1)} (|\alpha,0\rangle) =
\left ( \begin{array}{c}
0 \cr 0 \cr \bar{N}
\end{array}
\right ) ,
\; \;
\mathbf{T}^{(2)} (|\alpha,0\rangle) =
\left ( \begin{array}{ccc}
\bar{N} & i \bar{N} & 0 \\
-i \bar{N} & \bar{N} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \bar{N} (\bar{N} + 1)
\end{array}
\right ) , \\
\fl \mathbf{T}^{(3)} (|\alpha,0\rangle) =
\left ( \begingroup \everymath{\scriptstyle} \begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & \bar{N} (\bar{N} + 1) \\
0 & 0 & i \bar{N} (\bar{N} + 1) \\
\bar{N} (\bar{N} - 1) & i \bar{N} (\bar{N} - 1) & 0 \\ \hline
0 & 0 & -i \bar{N} (\bar{N} + 1) \\
0 & 0 & \bar{N} (\bar{N} + 1) \\
-i \bar{N} (\bar{N} - 1) & \bar{N} (\bar{N} - 1) & 0 \\ \hline
\bar{N} (\bar{N} + 1) & i \bar{N} (\bar{N} + 1) & 0 \\
-i \bar{N} (\bar{N} + 1) & \bar{N} (\bar{N} + 1) & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \bar{N} (\bar{N}^2 + 3 \bar{N} + 1)
\end{array} \endgroup \right ) .
\end{eqnarray}
In accordance with classical optics, $\mathbb{P}_S = 1$ for any
two-mode coherent state with a finite average photon number $\bar{N}$.
We note that when $\bar{N} \gg 1$, the lowest Stokes moments satisfy
$\left. \langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r \rangle^{|\alpha,0 \rangle}
\right|_{n_3=1} \approx (\bar{N} n_3)^r$. For $n_3 = 1$, the Stokes
moments (\ref{Scoh}) are directly given by the Poissonian photon
distribution, and the approximation corresponds to the classical
deterministic limit. The $n_3$ dependence of the approximation
describes the transmission through a classical beam splitter or
linear polarizer. In particular, Malus' law is obtained for $r = 1$.
\subsection{$|m,m \rangle$ states}
When considering the two-mode Fock states $|m,m \rangle$, which allow
for Heisenberg-limited interferometry~\cite{Holland}, we implicitly
treat all states obtained from these by SU(2) transformations. The
latter states can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hat{U} (\varphi,\vartheta,\xi) | m , m \rangle =
\frac{\sin^m \vartheta}{m! \, 2^m} \sum_{k=0}^{2 m}
\frac{2^k \sqrt{(2 m - k)! \, k!}}{\tan^k \vartheta}} & & \nonumber \\
& & \times \sum_{j=0}^{\lfloor \frac{k}{2} \rfloor} \binom{m}{j}
\binom{m - j}{j + m - k} \left( - \frac{\tan^2 \vartheta}{4} \right)^j
| 2 m - k , k \rangle .
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lfloor x \rfloor$ denotes the largest integer that is smaller
than or equal to $x$. We have also assumed that the binomial
coefficients are defined through the gamma function, so that negative
integers are allowed as arguments. The Stokes moment profiles of the
states $|m,m \rangle$ are given by
\begin{equation}
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r \rangle_{2 m}^{|m,m\rangle} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle 2^r \sum_{j=0}^{r/2} [(2 j - 1)!!]^2 F (r , 2 j)
\binom{m + j}{2 j} \sin^{2 j} \Theta , & r \ \mathrm{even,} \\
0 , & r \ \mathrm{odd,}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $F (n, k)$ denotes the central factorial numbers of the second
kind (\ref{CentralFactorialNumbersDef}). As both arguments are even
in our case, we have \cite{Butzer}
\begin{equation}
F (r, 2 j) = 2 \sum_{k=1}^j \frac{(-1)^{j+k} k^r}{(j + k)! (j - k)!} .
\end{equation}
In particular, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^2
\rangle_N^{|\frac{N}{2},\frac{N}{2}\rangle}
& = & \frac{N (N + 2) \sin^2 \Theta}{2} , \label{S2mm} \\
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^4
\rangle_N^{|\frac{N}{2},\frac{N}{2}\rangle} & = &
N (N + 2) \sin^2 \Theta \, \frac{16 + 3 (N - 2) (N + 4) \sin^2
\Theta}{8} . \label{S4mm}
\end{eqnarray}
The photon-number symmetry makes all odd-order Stokes profiles
vanish. This is in stark contrast to the states $|N,0 \rangle$ and
$|\alpha,0 \rangle$, and makes $\mathbb{P}_S = 0$.
However, the so-called hidden polarization of the $|m,m \rangle$
states appears in the even-order Stokes profiles.
As $\sin^2 \Theta = 1 - n_3^2$, these profiles
have common features with rotated ones for $|2 m,0 \rangle$.
This is in agreement with the fact that more elaborate
measurements than those considered here are required
to achieve Heisenberg resolution when employing the
$|m,m \rangle$ states \cite{Holland2}.
\subsection{Two-mode squeezed vacuum}
Using the process of spontaneous parametric down-conversion, one can
straightforwardly generate two-mode squeezed vacuum states. These
have thermal photon-pair distributions and take the form
\begin{equation}
| \Psi_\mathrm{TMSV} \rangle = \sum_{m=0}^\infty e^{i \phi_m}
\sqrt{\frac{2 \bar{N}^m}{(2 + \bar{N})^{m+1}}} \, |m,m \rangle ,
\end{equation}
where $\bar{N}$ denotes the average number of photons. From
(\ref{SumN}), (\ref{S2mm}) and (\ref{S4mm}), we thus get
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^2 \rangle^\mathrm{TMSV} & = &
\frac{\bar{N} (2 \bar{N} + 3) \sin^2 \Theta}{2} , \\
\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^4 \rangle^\mathrm{TMSV} & = &
\bar{N} \sin^2 \Theta \, \frac{32 \bar{N} + 48 + 9 \,
(8 \bar{N}^3 + 20 \bar{N}^2 + 10 \bar{N} - 5) \sin^2 \Theta}{8} .
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.90\columnwidth]{NOONplots.eps}
\caption{The Stokes moment profiles
$\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^N \rangle_N$ for the $N$-photon
NOON states with $1 \leq N \leq 6$. Dark and light surfaces
indicate the directions for which
$\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^N \rangle_N$ takes positive and
negative values, respectively.}
\label{Fig:NOONplots}
\end{figure}
\subsection{NOON states}
Finally, let us consider the NOON states $(| N , 0 \rangle + | 0 , N
\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, where $N > 0$. These are in some sense optimal
for interferometry~\cite{SoderholmPRA}. Their Stokes moment profiles
are found to be
\begin{equation}
\fl \langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^r \rangle_N^\mathrm{NOON} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 , & r \ \mathrm{odd,} \ N \ \mathrm{even,} \\
\displaystyle
\frac{\cos (N \Phi) \sin^N \Theta}{4^{(N - 1)/2}}
\sum_{k=0}^{\frac{N - 1}{2}} (N - 2 k)^r \binom{N}{k} (-1)^k , &
r \ \mathrm{and} \ N \ \mathrm{odd,} \\
\displaystyle \sum_{k=0}^N (N - 2 k)^r \binom{N}{k} \left[
\cos^{2 k} \left ( \frac{\Theta}{2} \right ) \sin^{2 (N - k)}
\left ( \frac{\Theta}{2} \right ) \right . & \\
\displaystyle \left . + (-1)^k \cos (N \Phi) \cos^N \left (
\frac{\Theta}{2} \right ) \sin^N \left ( \frac{\Theta}{2}
\right ) \right ] , & r \ \mathrm{even.}
\end{array} \right .
\end{equation}
We note that when $r$ is even and $N$ is odd, the effect of the second
term within square brackets vanishes. For each of the first six NOON
states, we have plotted the Stokes moment profile $\langle
\hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^N \rangle_N$ in figure~\ref{Fig:NOONplots}. In the
horizontal plane $n_3 = 0$, we have
\begin{equation}
\left. \langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^N \rangle_N^\mathrm{NOON}
\right|_{\Theta=\pi/2} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle N! \cos (N \Phi) + 2^{N/2} Q_{N/2} ( N/2 ) , & N \
\mathrm{even,} \\
& \\
\displaystyle N! \cos ( N \Phi) , & N \ \mathrm{odd,}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where the polynomial \cite{Tuenter}
\begin{equation}
Q_j (n) = 2^{j - 2 n} \sum_{k=0}^{2 n} \binom{2 n}{k} (n - k)^{2 j}
\end{equation}
satisfies $Q_0 (n) = 1$ and the recurrence relation $Q_{j+1} (n) = 2
n^2 Q_j (n) - n (2 n - 1) Q_j (n-1)$. Hence, the de Broglie
wavelength of the NOON states, which scales as $N^{-1}$ and is the
reason for their superiority~\cite{Jacobson}, can be seen in these
measurements.
Let us now return to the pure two-photon states that satisfy
$\mathbb{P}_S = 0$. These are given in (\ref{2phUnpol}) and are found
to be related to the two-photon NOON state by appropriate SU(2)
transformations according to
\begin{equation}
| \Psi (a, \theta) \rangle = \hat{U} \left( \frac{\pi}{2} + \theta ,
\arccos (\sqrt{2} a) , - \frac{\pi}{2} \right)
\frac{| 2, 0 \rangle + | 0, 2 \rangle}{\sqrt{2}} .
\end{equation}
Hence, any Stokes moment profile of the state $| \Psi (a, \theta)
\rangle$ is related to the corresponding NOON profile by simple
rotations. Since $\mathbf{R}_3 (\pi/2+\theta) \cdot \mathbf{R}_2
(\chi) \cdot \mathbf{R}_3 (-\pi/2) = \mathbf{R}_3 (\theta) \cdot
\mathbf{R}_1 (-\chi)$, $\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^2 \rangle_2^{| \Psi
(a, \theta) \rangle}$ is obtained from $\langle \hat{S}_\mathbf{n}^2
\rangle_2^\mathrm{NOON}$ in figure~\ref{Fig:NOONplots} by applying a
rotation of $-\arccos (\sqrt{2} a)$ around $\mathbf{e}_1$ followed by
a rotation of $\theta$ around $\mathbf{e}_3$. Since $\langle
\hat{S}_\mathbf{n} \rangle_2^{| \Psi (a, \theta) \rangle} = 0$ is
independent of $\mathbf{n}$, the states $| \Psi (a, \theta) \rangle$
lack first-order polarization structure. However, they do all have a
second-order polarization structure.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{Sec:Conclusions}
Using expectation values of Stokes-operator products, we have
developed a systematic scheme for characterizing higher-order
polarization properties of two-mode quantized fields.
Polarization tensors and Stokes moment profiles were introduced
as two representations of the polarization information.
The latter show how passive interferometry affects the moments
of photon difference. This viewpoint was taken as
polarization properties of different states were compared.
Other possible representations of the polarization information
include central moments \cite{BjorkPRA}, quasi-probability
distributions \cite{Marquardt} and excitation-specific
generalized coherence matrices. Complete polarization
characterization requires the excitation manifolds to be
addressed separately. For situations where this cannot be
achieved, our characterization coincide with the one provided
by Klyshko's generalized coherence matrices \cite{Klyshko}.
Assuming ideal photon-number resolving detectors, we have
shown that it is possible to efficiently collect the data
through Stokes moment measurements in different directions.
In an experiment, it may be more practical to use more
measurement directions than the minimum required, but our
method should serve as a guide. In particular, we expect
the introduced moment components to be useful.
Another advantage of the described method is that it treats
the Stokes moments order by order. Hence, if only the first
few polarization orders are of interest,
it makes the measurements easier.
Since the different excitation manifolds are treated separately,
losses have drastic consequences in that
higher excitation manifolds then contribute to the lower ones.
Furthermore, whereas linear losses often model imperfections of
single-photon detectors well, photon-number resolving
detectors, which are required for full polarization
characterization, are more complex and may call for
nonlinear modeling.
On the other hand, the separation of data into excitation
manifolds and moment orders may be useful when developing
methods for efficient determination of polarization
characteristics. For example, one can take into account that
all state projections $\hat{\varrho}_N$ in the different
excitation manifolds must be physical states.
In this way, it should be possible to develop efficient
maximum likelihood methods similar to those regularly
employed in common quantum tomography.
\ack
Financial support from the Swedish Foundation for International
Cooperation in Research and Higher Education (STINT), the Swedish
Research Council (VR) through its Linn{\ae}us Center of Excellence
ADOPT and contract No.\ 621-2011-4575, the CONACyT (Grant No.
106525), the Spanish DGI (Grants FIS2008-04356 and FIS2011-26786), and
the UCM-BSCH program (Grant GR- 920992) is gratefully acknowledged.
|
\section{Introduction}
Deployment of semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) in the active region of optical devices offers unique electronic and optical properties which can be exploited to design several optoelectronic technologies ranging from lasers\cite{Salhi_1} to semiconductor optical amplifiers (SOAs)\cite{Akiyama_1} or single photon sources\cite{Dousse_1}, where they have successfully overcome critical challenges such as extremely low threshold, high speed response, or entangled photon emission, respectively. However, in these applications, a critical design parameter is the polarization response of QDs, typically characterized in terms of either degree of polarization [DOP = (TE-TM)/(TE+TM)]\cite{Usman_1, Usman_2} or TM/TE ratio\cite{Fortunato_1, Usman_6}, where TE-mode is measured along a direction in the plane of the QD, and TM-mode is measured along the growth [001] direction for the GaAs(001) QDs. Engineering of QD nanostrcutures to achieve isotropic polarization (DOP $\sim$ 0) is critical for the implementation of several optoelectronic devices, for example semiconductor optical amplifiers (SOA's).
InAs QDs grown by the Stranski-Krastonov (SK) self-assembly growth process typically exhibit very poor polarization response (DOP close to 1.0) due to the large compressive biaxial strain surrounding the flat shapes of the QDs. The strain induced splitting between the heavy hole (HH) and the light hole (LH) valence bands leads to a dominant HH character in the few top most valence band states, thus significantly suppressing the TM-mode. Therefore, previous studies of the single InAs QDs have reported very high values of the DOP, typically larger than 0.8.\cite{Usman_1, Fortunato_1, Saito_1, Inoue_1}
The polarization response of InAs QDs is influenced by several parameters such as crystal/atomic symmetry, QD shape, composition profile etc. The atomistic asymmetry of the underlying zincblende crystals implies that the [110] and [$\overline{1}$10] directions are inequivalent. This lowers the overall symmetry of a perfectly circular dome-shaped QD from C$_{\infty v}$ to C$_{2v}$. As a result, TE-mode in the plane of the QD does not remain symmetric and significant in-plane anisotropy may be observed even for an ideal circular-base InAs QD.\cite{Usman_5} Therefore, a single value of the DOP is not sufficient to characterize the polarization response of the QD systems. This, in the past studies\cite{Usman_1, Usman_5, Usman_6}, has lead us to define a direction-dependent value of the DOP,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dop}
\begin{array}{cc}
DOP_{[\overrightarrow{n}]} = \frac{(TE_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}-TM_{[001]})}{(TE_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}+TM_{[001]})} \end{array}
\end{equation}
\\
where the direction, [$\overrightarrow{n}$] = [110] or [$\overline{1}$10], associated with the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ is same as the direction of the TE$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$-mode in the plane of the QD.
The value of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ also strongly depends on the shape of the QDs, which is significantly affected by the growth dynamics of the self-assembly process during the growth of the capping layers and the post-growth annealing processes\cite{Biasoil_1}. As a result, the shape of a SK self-assembled QD is far from being perfectly circular or square, as typically assumed in the past theoretical studies of the polarization properties. Several experimental investigations have suggested that the actual shape of the QDs significantly deviates from the ideal circular-base (for dome or lens) or square-base (for pyramid), and usually tends to elongate along the [110]\cite{Stevenson_1, Plumhof_1, Pryor_1, Fricke_1} or along the [$\overline{1}$10]\cite{Krapek_1, Hospodkova_1, Songmuang_1, Favero_1} directions.
Furthermore, recent advancements in the growth techniques have allowed to control the shape of QDs, leading to the fabrication of strongly elongated QD like nano-structures.\cite{Dusanowski_1} These offer an enhanced exciton oscillator strength and allow the realization of single exciton-single photon coupling to build the fundamental blocks for the solid state quantum information.\cite{Favero_1} Such elongations of the QDs along the [$\overrightarrow{n}$] = [110] or [$\overline{1}$10] direction can significantly alter the value of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ and may be exploited to achieve tailored polarization response for a desired operation.
\textbf{\textit{Brief overview of the past theoretical studies:}} Despite significant experimental evidence for the elongation of the QD shapes and its prospective potential to tune the polarization properties, the impact of the base elongations on the value of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ is only barely known. The previous theoretical investigations of the QD elongations are focused on the study and design of the fine structure splitting (FSS = energetic difference between the two bright excitons, e$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ - e$_{[110]}$)~\cite{Schliwa_1, Young_1, Krapek_1, Seguin_1, Plumhof_1, Singh_1, Singh_2} or the spin polarization~\cite{Pryor_1}, with very little emphasis given to the study of the polarization properties (comparison of the magnitudes of the TE and TM modes).\cite{Schliwa_1, Sheng_1, Mlinar_1}
Sheng \textit{et al.}\cite{Sheng_1} applied an effective bond-orbital model and discussed the impact of the base elongations on the in-plane polarization anisotropy of the InGaAs QDs defined as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pol}
\begin{array}{cc}
Pol_{||} = \frac{(TE_{[\overline{1}10]}-TE_{[110]})}{(TE_{[\overline{1}10]}+TE_{[110]})} \end{array}
\end{equation}
\\
and they concluded that the electron-electron interactions and the alloy intermixing have very little contributions in determining the polarization properties of the QDs.
Mlinar \textit{et al.}\cite{Mlinar_1}, using an atomistic pseudo-potential model, focused on the InGaAs QDs and studied the impact of the (In,Ga)As alloy randomness on the polarization properties. They concluded that the alloy composition fluctuations can significantly change the in-plane polarization anisotropy and therefore the experimentally measured polarization anisotropy may not be considered as a reliable measure of the QD shape asymmetry.
Schliwa \textit{et al.}~\cite{Schliwa_1}, based on their \textbf{k}$\centerdot$\textbf{p} calculations, studied the impact of piezoelectricity on the QD optical properties. Although they provided a detailed investigation of the electronic and optical properties of the dome and pyramidal shaped QDs as a function of their vertical aspect ratio (height/base), only one case of the pyramidal shaped QDs (series D in their paper) was investigated for the study of the base elongations (lateral aspect ratio). Furthermore, in their study of the lateral aspect ratios of the pyramidal QDs, they kept the overall volume of the QDs unchanged by altering both the heights and the base diameters of the QDs. Since the QD energies are strongly influenced by a change in their height parameter\cite{Usman_3}, so the reported results did not isolate the impact of the QD base elongations.
Nevertheless, a comprehensive quantitative analysis of the impact of the QD base elongations on the polarization dependent room temperature ground state optical emissions still remain unavailable. This paper, therefore, aims to bridge this gap by providing a detailed study of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ and Pol$_{||}$ for the [110]- and [$\overline{1}$10]-elongated QDs. For the calculation of the polarization dependent optical modes (TE and TM), we take into account the highest five valence band states, instead of just a single top most valence band state, in accordance with the recent studies~\cite{Usman_2, Usman_5} where it has been shown that the calculation of the room temperature ground state optical spectra must involve multiple closely spaced valence band states to accurately model the in-plane polarizability and to avoid discrepancy between the theory and experiments. Our calculations show that despite tuning of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ over a wide range, the elliptical shapes of the single QDs do not lead to an isotropic polarization. Therefore, we extend our study to multi-layer QD stacks.
\textbf{\textit{Isotropic polarization from multi-layer stacks:}} Past theoretical\cite{Usman_1, Saito_1} and experimental\cite{Inoue_1, Alonso_1, Ikeuchi_1} studies have shown that the polarization response of the QDs can be drastically improved by growing large vertical stacks of QDs (VSQDs), consisting of many closely spaced QD layers to exploit inter-dot strain and electronic couplings. A recent experimental study~\cite{Inoue_1} has shown that a vertical stack of nine QDs (9-VSQDs) exhibits DOP$_{[110]}$ = -0.6; however the measured PL spectra showed a large anisotropy in the in-plane polarization modes: TE$_{[\overline{1}10]} \gg$ TE$_{[110]}$. our atomistic calculations~\cite{Usman_1}, based on an assumption of ideal circular-base dome-shape for the QD layers, reported TE$_{[\overline{1}10]} \gg$ TE$_{[110]}$ in agreement with experimental PL spectra. We attributed this large in-plane polarization anisotropy to a small increase in the TM$_{[001]}$-mode (coming from an enhanced HH/LH intermixing) and a large decrease in the TE$_{[110]}$-mode due to the [$\overline{1}$10]-oriented hole wave function confinements.
A good qualitative agreement of our calculations with the experimental results assuming ideal circular-base for the QDs leads to a fundamental question that how much is the contribution from the QD shape asymmetry in the polarization anisotropy for the 9-VSQDs? This work, based on multi-million-atom calculations, provides the answer that the interfacial hole wave function confinements have major contribution in the experimentally measured in-plane polarization anisotropy, which is counter-intuitive to the common notion where the shape asymmetry is considered mainly response for such anisotropies.\cite{Humlicek_1, Alonso_1}
Furthermore, as an [110]-elongation increases DOP$_{[110]}$ and reduces DOP$_{[\overline{1}10]}$, so we investigate the possibility to exploit it to balance the built-in in-plane anisotropy such that to achieve DOP$_{[110]} \sim$ 0 and DOP$_{[\overline{1}10]} \sim$ 0? This would lead to the design of the QD based SOAs independent of the in-plane direction. Our study reveals an interesting property of the 9-VSQDs that its polarization response is very sensitive to the orientation of its elongation and both TE-modes can not be reduced below TM-mode. Therefore, either DOP$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ or DOP$_{[110]}$ can be tuned for an isotropic polarization, and not both of them simultaneously.
Finally, the quantitative study of the elongation dependent DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ also helps us to determine the geometry of the 9-VSQDs. Our theoretical calculations accurately predict [$\overline{1}$10] elongation of the 9-VSQDs in the experiment, which is also consistent with the TEM images\cite{Kita_1}.
The remainder of the paper is organized in the following sections: section II defines QD geometry parameters and describes the three types of elliptical shapes that we study in this paper. Section III documents our methodologies. Our results for two different AR single QDs are presented in sections IV-A and IV-B. Section IV-C is about the vertical stack of nine QD layers (9-VSQDs). The sections IV-A, IV-B, and IV-C are written as self-contained sections so that a reader interested in only one type of QDs may only require to read the corresponding section. Finally, we provide an overall summary and main conclusions of our results in section V.
\section{Simulated Quantum Dot Systems}
\subsection{Geometry Parameters}
Figs.\ref{fig:Fig1}(a), (b), and (c) show three quantum dot geometries simulated in this study. The InAs quantum dots are embedded inside large GaAs buffers comprised of $\approx$ 15 million atoms (60$\times$60$\times$60 nm$^3$) for (a) and (b), and $\approx$ 25 million atoms (60$\times$60$\times$106 nm$^3$) for (c). The quantum dots are placed on top of 0.5 nm thick InAs wetting layers.
We study three dome-shaped quantum dot systems: (i) a low aspect ratio (AR) InAs QD with 20 nm diameter (d) and 4.5 nm height (h), (AR = h/d = 0.225); (ii) a high AR InAs QD with d = 20 nm and h = 8.0 nm (AR = h/d = 0.40); (iii) a vertical stack comprised of nine QD layers (9-VSQDs) separated by 5 nm thick GaAs spacer layers, where each layer consists of an InAs QD with d = 20 nm and h = 4 nm. The geometrical parameters of this 9-VSQDs are taken from the recent experimental\cite{Inoue_1, Ikeuchi_1} and theoretical~\cite{Usman_1} studies where it has shown great technological relevance for achieving isotropic polarization response.
In remainder of this paper, we label the single QD with AR = 0.225 as a "flat" QD and the single QD with AR = 0.40 as a "tall" QD. In a previous study~\cite{Usman_5}, it has been shown that the flat and tall QDs with an ideal circular-base exhibit drastically different electronic and polarization properties. The hole wave functions tend to reside in the HH pockets for the tall QDs, when the AR $\gtrsim$ 0.25. This introduces a large anisotropy in the in-plane polarization (Pol$_{||}$). Therefore, this paper analyses the impact of the base elongations for both types of the QDs. Furthermore, as the 9-VSQDs consists of strongly coupled QDs so it can essentially be considered as an extension of the single tall QD with a very large AR $\cong$ 45/20 = 2.25. Our calculations presented in the section (IV) confirm that the two single QDs (flat and tall) exhibit drastically different polarization properties as a function of their base elongations, and the 9-VSQDs overall exhibiting many similar characteristics as that of the tall QD.
Note that a typical SK growth of a large vertical QD stack generally results in an increase in the size of the upper layer QDs\cite{Xie_1}, however, no such increase in the QD dimensions is reported in the experimental study\cite{Inoue_1}. Therefore, we keep the size of the QDs uniform for the 9-VSQDs.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{Figure1.png}
\caption{Schematic of quantum dots are shown for theoretical modeling. (a) A low aspect ratio (flat) dome-shaped InAs quantum dot with the base diameter and height of 20 nm and 4.5 nm, respectively. (b) A high aspect ratio (tall) dome-shaped InAs quantum dot with the base diameter and height of 20 nm and 8 nm, respectively. (c) A vertical stack consisting of nine InAs QDs (9-VSQDs), each with the base diameter and height of 20 nm and 4 nm, respectively. The geometry parameters are directly taken from the experimental study\cite{Inoue_1}. (d) Top view illustrating the base elongations for the Type-I elongation. The elliptical shape is formed by decreasing the diameter either along the [110] or along the [-110] direction. (e) Top view illustrating the base elongations for the Type-II and Type-IIv elongations. The elliptical shape is formed by simultaneously decreasing (increasing) the base diameter along the [110] direction and increasing (decreasing) the base diameter along the [-110] direction. For the Type-IIv elongation, we select values for the d$_{[110]}$ and d$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ such that to keep the overall volume of the QD fixed. (f) Plots of the products of the QD diameters along the [110] and the [$\overline{1}$10] directions, d$_{[110]} \times$d$_{[\overline{1}10]}$, as a function of the elongation factor ($\eta$). For the fixed QD height, this product is directly proportional to the volume of the QD.}
\label{fig:Fig1}
\end{figure}
\vspace{1mm}
\subsection{Elongation along High Symmetry Axis}
In order to study the impact of the base elongations of the three QD systems described above along the high symmetry crystallographic directions ([110] and [$\overline{1}$10]) on their electronic and polarization properties, we consider three types of the elliptical shapes, defined by an elongation factor $\eta$ = d$_{[110]}$/d$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ which is a ratio of the QD lateral diameters along the [110] and [$\overline{1}$10] directions, for the above mentioned three QD systems: \\ \\ Type-I: As schematically shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig1}(d), the diameter d$_{[110]}$ (d$_{[\overline{1}10]}$) is reduced by $\bigtriangleup$d for [110] ([$\overline{1}$10]) elongation, while keeping the other diameter d$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ (d$_{[110]}$) fixed at 20 nm. This will reduce the overall volume of the QD. \\ \\ Type-II: For this type of elongation, as schematically shown in the Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig1}(e), we simultaneously change both d$_{[110]}$ and d$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ diameters by equal amounts $\bigtriangleup$d (one diameter is increased by $\bigtriangleup$d and the other diameter is decreased by $\bigtriangleup$d). Once again, the volume of the QD decreases, however, at much slower rate compared to the Type-I case. \\ \\ Type-IIv: As a special case of the Type-II elongation, we again change the QD diameters along the [110] and [$\overline{1}$10] directions similar to the Type-II case, but keep the overall QD volume unchanged. Most of the previous theoretical studies\cite{Schliwa_1, Singh_1, Singh_2, Pryor_1, Sheng_1, Mlinar_1} have only analysed this type of elongation, so it allows us to make a direct comparison with the existing results. For a circular-base dome-shape QD with d = 20 nm and h = 4.5 nm, the volume of the QD is (1/3)$\pi$d$^2$h $\propto$ d$^2$ $\propto$ 20$^2$. Now to keep the volume unchanged, the other reasonable choice for the diameters d$_{[110]}$ and d$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ is 25 nm and 16 nm that results in d$_{[110]} \times$d$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ = 400. Therefore for the Type-IIv elongation, we choose between 25 nm and 16 nm for the diameters d$_{[110]}$ and d$_{[\overline{1}10]}$.
As the volume of an ellipsoidal QD is proportional to the product of diameters along its major and minor axes (d$_{[110]}$ and d$_{[\overline{1}10]}$), we plot this product as a function of the elongation factor $\eta$ for the three types of elongations in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig1}(f), quantitatively showing the decrease in the QD volume for the three types of elongations. As it will become clear in the later sections, the large decrease in the QD volume ($\bigtriangleup$V) for the Type-I elongation will significantly impact the electronic and the optical properties, even dominating impact of the diameter changes. For the Type-II elongation, relatively much smaller decrease in the volume will compete with the changes in the diameter and the net impact will be from $\bigtriangleup$d for the small values of $\eta$, and from the $\bigtriangleup$V for the large values of $\eta$.
It should be noted that in all of the three types of elongations, we keep the height of the QDs fixed. It has been shown\cite{Usman_3} that the electronic and optical properties are very sensitive to the height of the QDs, so by keeping it unchanged, we eliminate its contribution and only focus on the impact of the base elongations. We also specify that the previous theoretical investigations\cite{Schliwa_1, Sheng_1} of the QD elongations have used the term "lateral aspect ratio" for the ratio of the QD base diameters, which is equivalent to the elongation factor $\eta$ defined in this study. In order to avoid confusion, we use aspect ratio for the ratio of the QD height and base diameter; and use elongation factor for the ratio of the base diameters. Finally, by definition, the elongation factor $\eta$ is = 1.0, $>$1.0, and $<$1.0 for the circular, [110]-elongated, and $[\overline{1}10]$-elongated QDs, respectively.
\section{Methodologies}
The atomistic simulations are performed using NEMO 3-D simulator\cite{Klimeck_1, Klimeck_2, Klimeck_3}, which is based on strain energy minimization by using the valence force field (VFF) model\cite{Keating_1, Olga_1} and electronic structure calculations by solving a twenty-band \textit{sp$^3$d$^5$s$^*$} tight binding Hamiltonian\cite{Boykin_1}. Both linear and quadratic piezoelectric potentials are calculated by using the published recipe\cite{Usman_4, Schliwa_1} and included in the Hamiltonian. The polarization dependent optical transitions are computed from Fermi's golden rule by absolute values of the optical matrix elements, summed over the spin degenerate states\cite{Usman_1, Usman_5}. The polarization dependent ground state optical transition intensity modes (TE$_{[110]}$, TE$_{[\overline{1}10]}$, and TM$_{[001]}$) are computed as a cumulative sum of the optical transitions between the lowest conduction band state (e1) and the highest five valence band states (h1, h2, h3, h4, and h5)\cite{Usman_1}.
We want to emphasize here that all of the simulations are performed over very large GaAs buffers surrounding the QDs to properly accommodate the impact of long-range strain and piezoelectric potentials in the electronic structure and the optical transition calculations. For the strain relaxation, we use mixed boundary conditions: bottom fixed, periodic in the lateral directions, and the top free to relax. For the electronic structure calculations, we use closed boundary conditions. The dangling bonds at the surface atoms are passivated according to the published model~\cite{Lee_1}.
\section{Results and Discussions}
In the next two subsections, A and B, we present our results for the flat and tall QDs, respectively, and quantitatively analyse the impact of the elliptical shapes on their electronic and polarization properties. The subsequent subsection C presents results for the vertical stack of nine quantum dot layers (9-VSQDs).
\textit{\textbf{Factors that shifts the electron and hole energies:}} Before we start our analysis of the three QD systems under investigation, we specify the factors that shift the electron and hole energies as the base diameters of the QDs are increased or decreased. We identify four major factors as follows: \\ \\(i) Change in QD Volume ($\bigtriangleup$V): Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig1}(f) provides a quantitative estimate of the changes in the QD volume as a function of the elongation factor $\eta$ for the three types of the elongations. Since the volume only decreases for the Type-I and Type-II elongations, so it will result in an increase of the electron energies and a decrease of the hole energies. \\(ii) Change in QD Diameter ($\bigtriangleup$d): The QD base elongations are based on the increase/decrease of the QD diameters along the [110] and [$\overline{1}$10] directions. While this decrease/increase in the diameters will have very little impact on the ground state electron energy e1 (due to its s-type symmetrical wave function), it will affect the electron and hole p-states energies due to their orientation along these directions. The increase (decrease) in the diameters will produce corresponding increase (decrease) in the electron energies and decrease (increase) in the hole energies, oriented along their directions. \\(iii) Strain: The strain directly modifies the band edges and thus impacts the electron and hole confinement energies. The electron energies are shifted by changes in the hydrostatic strain ($\epsilon_{xx}+\epsilon_{yy}+\epsilon_{zz}$) only, whereas the hole energies are affected by changes in both the hydrostatic and the biaxial strain ($\epsilon_{xx}+\epsilon_{yy}-2\epsilon_{zz}$). Simple analytical relations based on the deformation potential theory can be applied to estimate these changes\cite{Usman_3}. \\(iv) Piezoelectric Potential: InAs/GaAs systems are strongly piezoelectric: the orientation and the magnitude of the piezoelectric potentials significantly impacts the orientation and the splitting of the electron and hole excited states. It should be noted that although the piezoelectric potentials do not directly shift the electron and hole p-state energies, but they determine the $\bigtriangleup$d induced changes by controlling the orientation of the p-states.
Overall for the Type-I elongation, $\bigtriangleup$V is large whereas $\bigtriangleup$d is small since we keep one diameter unchanged and only reduce the other diameter by $\bigtriangleup$d, so the impact of $\bigtriangleup$V dominates. For the Type-II elongation, the QD volume only slightly decreases, so the impact of $\bigtriangleup$V is small. However, we increase one diameter by $\bigtriangleup$d and decrease the other diameter by $\bigtriangleup$d, so the overall impact of $\bigtriangleup$d is much stronger. Finally, for the Type-IIv elongation, $\bigtriangleup$V=0, and $\bigtriangleup$d is roughly same as for the Type-II elongation.
\subsection{Flat Quantum Dot (AR=0.225)}
In this subsection, we study the impact of the elongations on the electronic and polarization properties of a flat QD as shown by the schematic in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig1}(a). The QD has a base diameter of 20 nm and a height of 4.5 nm (AR = 5/20 = 0.225). Such low AR QDs are more commonly obtained from the strain-driven SK self-assembly growth process and their electronic properties have been widely studied in the literature.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{Figure2.png}
\caption{(a, b, c) The lowest three conduction band energy levels (e1, e2, and e3) are plotted as a function of the elongation factor ($\eta$) for the (a) Type-I, (b) Type-IIv, and (c) Type-II elongations. (c, d, e) The highest five valence band energy levels (h1, h2, h3, h4, and h5) are plotted as a function of the QD elongation factor ($\eta$) for the (a) Type-I, (b) Type-IIv, and (c) Type-II elongations. The corresponding increase/decrease in the optical gap energy (E$_{g}$) is also specified in each case by using the vertical arrows.}
\label{fig:Fig2}
\end{figure*}
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.16]{Figure3.png}
\caption{The top view of the wave function plots for the lowest three conduction band (e1, e2, and e3) and the highest five valence band (h1, h2, h3, h4, and h5) states are shown for the circular-base QD and for the selected elongations of the QD. The intensity of the colors in the plots represent the magnitude of the wave functions, with the dark red color indicating the largest magnitude and the light blue color indicating the smallest magnitude. The boundaries of the QDs are also shown to guide the eye.}
\label{fig:Fig3}
\end{figure*}
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{SCfigure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{Figure4.png}
\caption{The plots of the total piezoelectric potentials (linear+quadratic) are shown for (a) circular-base QD, (b, d, f) [110]-elongated QDs, and (c, e, g) [$\overline{1}$10]-elongated QDs. In each case, the type and magnitude of elongation is specified. The solid red lines are plotted along the [$\overline{1}$10] direction through the center of the QD, 0.5 nm above its base. The dotted (broken) black lines are plotted along the [110] direction through the center of the QD, 0.5 nm above its base. The boundaries of the QD region are also marked in each case by specifying the lengths of QD along the [110] and [$\overline{1}$10] directions, d$_{[110]}$ and d$_{[\overline{1}10]}$.}
\label{fig:Fig4}
\end{SCfigure*}
\vspace{1mm}
\subsubsection{Electronic properties of the flat QD}
Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig2} plots the lowest three conduction band energy levels (e1, e2, e3) and the highest five valence band energy levels (h1, h2, h3, h4, h5) for the three types of elongations: (a, d) Type-I, (b, e) Type-IIv, and (c, f) Type-II. The figures are plotted using the same scale to facilitate mutual comparison. In order to understand the shifts in the energies, we also plot wave functions and piezoelectric potentials for the few selected cases. Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig3} shows the top view of the wave function plots for the circular-base QD and for the few selected [110] and [$\overline{1}$10] elongations. The QD boundaries and dimensions are also marked in each case.
Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig4} plots the total (linear+quadratic) piezoelectric potentials along the [110] (dotted lines) and [$\overline{1}$10] (solid lines) directions through the center of the QDs, $\approx$0.5 nm above their base. The quadruple nature of the potentials is clearly evident which has been well established in the literature\cite{Usman_4, Schliwa_1, Islam_1} and is shown to strongly influence the orientation of the electron and hole p-states. In this case of the flat QD with AR=0.225, we find that the quadratic component of the piezoelectric potential does not fully cancel the linear component inside the QD region in contrast to the previous \textbf{k}$\centerdot$\textbf{p} study~\cite{Schliwa_1}, where the quadratic and the linear components were found to fully cancel each other for the AR $<$ 0.5. Since the piezoelectric potentials are a strong function of the QD shape and composition, so we find that their results cannot be generalized to all types of QDs. Theoretical studies by Usman \textit{et al}.\cite{Usman_4} and Islam \textit{et al}.\cite{Islam_1} have also shown non-zero values of the net piezoelectric potentials for the similar QDs.
Our calculations show that the piezoelectric potential plots have two peaks at the QD interfaces, one just outside the QD region and one just inside the QD region. The electron and hole wave functions are found to be more influenced by the piezoelectric potential peaks inside the QD, which causes the lower electron p-state (e2) to align along the [$\overline{1}$10] direction and the ground hole state (h1) to slightly elongate along the [110] direction for the circular-base QD (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig3} for $\eta$ = 1.0). The alignment of the lower electron p-state (e2) along the [$\overline{1}$10] direction is in agreement with the experimental reports for the similar QDs.\cite{Boucaud_1, Maltezopoulos_1}
\textbf{\textit{Lowest three conduction band energies:}} From our atomistic relaxations, we find that the hydrostatic component ($\epsilon_{xx}+\epsilon_{yy}+\epsilon_{zz}$) of the strain remains unchanged for both the [110] and the [$\overline{1}$10] elongations. Since the electron energies are only affected by the hydrostatic strain, so the strain does not contribute in the shifts of the conduction band energies. Also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig4} that the piezoelectric potentials do not exhibit any significant change for the elongated QDs. The peaks outside the QD regions are only changed by 1 to 2 meV and the peaks inside the QD region are decreased by 2 to 4 meV. These relatively small changes in the potentials will not result in any noticeable effects on the e2 and e3 energies. Therefore, we conclude that the electron energies are mainly affected by the changes in the diameters ($\bigtriangleup$d) and the volume ($\bigtriangleup$V) of the flat QD, while the strain and the piezoelectric fields have only minor contributions as a function of $\eta$.
The lowest electron energy level (e1) has s-type symmetrical wave function and is mainly affected by the decrease in the QD volume ($\bigtriangleup$V). The QD diameter change ($\bigtriangleup$d) does not have any noticeable impact on its energy. In Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig2}(a), as the QD volume decreases for the [110] and the [$\overline{1}$10] elongations, a nearly symmetric increase in the e1 energy is calculated. When the volume of the QD is kept fixed as in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig2}(b), e1 energy is almost unchanged confirming that $\bigtriangleup$d has only minor impact on e1. Finally, for the Type-II elongation (Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig2}(c)), $\bigtriangleup$V is very small and a corresponding small increase in the e1 energy is observed. Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig3} shows that the wave function for the e1 state also retains its s-type symmetry, with only slight elongation along the direction in which the QD is being elongated.
The excited conduction band states (e2 and e3) have p-type symmetry and thus gets strongly affected by all of the three types of elongations. The $\bigtriangleup$V is once again a dominant factor, which pushes these energy levels towards higher values. This is evident from Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig2}(a) where both e2 and e3 increase in energy irrespective of the elongation direction. However, if $\bigtriangleup$V=0 as in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig2}(b), the increase in the QD diameter reduces the energy of the state aligned along its direction and vice versa.
The type-II elongation is an interesting case where the two factors, $\bigtriangleup$V and $\bigtriangleup$d, compete as the QD diameters along the [110] and [$\overline{1}$10] directions are changed by equal values. Since the lower p-state (e2) is always oriented along the major-axis of the elliptical shape, so any increase in the corresponding diameter tends to reduce its energy while the decrease in the QD volume pushes it towards the higher energies. For the small values of the elongation factor ($\eta$ = 0.67, 0.82, 1.22, and 1.5), e2 decreases due to dominance of $\bigtriangleup$d induced shift. However, for the larger values of the elongation factor ($\eta$ = 0.54 and 1.86), the $\bigtriangleup$V induced upward shift overcomes the $\bigtriangleup$d induced downward shift and hence the energy of e2 increases.
The energy of the higher p-state, e3, always increases as a function of $\eta$ because it is oriented along the shorter diameter direction and hence an increase in its energy is supported by both, $\bigtriangleup$V and $\bigtriangleup$d.
\textbf{\textit{Electron p-state splitting:}} The energy difference between the p-states ($\bigtriangleup$e$_p$ = e3-e2) is an important parameter of interest as it provides a measure of the confinement anisotropy between the [110] and [$\overline{1}$10] directions\cite{Schliwa_1} and is sometimes used to characterize the fine structure splitting (FSS)\cite{Singh_2}. We find that $\bigtriangleup$e$_p$ is always larger for the [$\overline{1}$10]-elongations as compared to the [110]-elongations for the same of $\eta$. This is because for the circular-base QD ($\eta$ = 1.0), the cumulative effect of the underline zincblende crystal asymmetry, strain, and piezoelectricity results in $\bigtriangleup$e$_{p} \approx$ 2.4 meV and favours [$\overline{1}$10] direction for the e2 state (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig3} for $\eta$ = 1.0). Therefore, any [$\overline{1}$10] elongation merely enhances this asymmetry, whereas a [110] elongation first needs to overcome this inherent $\approx$2.4 meV splitting in order to flip the orientation of e2 state and hence results in overall lower values of $\bigtriangleup$e$_p$.
\textbf{\textit{Separation between the lowest two electron energies:}} Another parameter of interest for the laser design is the difference between the lowest two conduction band energy levels ($\bigtriangleup$e$_{21}$ = e2-e1) which should be large to avoid undesirable occupancy of the excited states\cite{Usman_3}. The largest reductions in $\bigtriangleup$e$_{21}$ are calculated to be $\approx$1 meV, $\approx$8 meV, and $\approx$10 meV for the Type-I, Type-IIv, and Type-II elongations, respectively. These small variations in $\bigtriangleup$e$_{21}$ suggest that the elongations of a flat QD does not deteriorate this parameter for the implementation of laser operation.
\textbf{\textit{Highest five valence band energies:}} Figs.~\ref{fig:Fig2}(d), (e), and (f) plot the highest five valence band energy levels (h1, h2, h3, h4, h5) for the three types of the elongations. The shifts in the valence band energy levels are more complicated to understand due to their intermixed HH/LH characters and much stronger confinements within the QD region. The changes in their energies exhibit drastic differences for the three types of the elongations.
Due to the heavier effective mass and stronger confinement inside the QD region, the orientation of the hole wave functions are mainly determined by the piezoelectric potential peaks inside the QD region. In the case of the circular-base QD as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig3}, h1 and h2 are slightly elongated towards the [110]-direction due to the negative peaks of the piezoelectric potentials along this direction inside the QD region.
For the [110]-elongations, the piezoelectric potential inside the QD region slightly reduces and the decrease in d$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ diameter results in an enhanced impact of the larger negative peaks of the potential outside the QD along the [$\overline{1}$10] direction. These two factors favour forces the hole wave functions to align along the [$\overline{1}$10] direction as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig3}. When the QD is elliptical with its major-axis along the [$\overline{1}$10] direction, the internal negative piezoelectric potential slightly increases and dominate to align the hole wave functions along the [110] direction. Overall, we find that the hole wave functions always tend to align along the minor-axis of the elliptical flat QD.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Figure5.png}
\caption{The polarization dependent optical transition modes TE$_{[110]}$, TE$_{[\overline{1}10]}$, and TM$_{[001]}$ are plotted as a function of the (a) Type-I, (b) Type-IIv, and (c) Type-II QD elongations. The figures are plotted using the same scales to facilitate easy mutual comparison. (d) The plots of the in-plane polarization anisotropy (Pol$_{||}$) as defined by Eq.~\ref{eq:pol} are shown for the three types of elongations, exhibiting an inverse quadratic dependence on $\eta$, consistent with the Sheng \textit{et al.}\cite{Sheng_1}. Four cases are marked by using green ovals indicating that the two different types of elongations, with roughly similar values of $\eta$, exhibiting similar values of the Pol$_{||}$.}
\label{fig:Fig5}
\end{figure*}
\vspace{1mm}
The biaxial strain for the Type-I elongation slightly relaxes and along with large $\bigtriangleup$V, it dominates the upward shift induced by $\bigtriangleup$d and pushes the hole energies towards lower values. This is clearly evident for the [110] elongations. However for the [$\overline{1}$10] elongations, since the hole wave functions exhibit stronger alignment along the [110] direction , the increase in energies coming from $\bigtriangleup$d is enhanced and therefore some of the hole energies can be observed shifting slightly upward in the Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig2}(d).
For the Type-IIv elongation in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig2}(e), $\bigtriangleup$V = 0 and thus the impact of $\bigtriangleup$d, which is much larger than for the Type-I elongation, dominates. We also find that the biaxial strain relaxation is much weaker in this case, and thus its downward shift is also very small. As a result, the hole energies shift towards larger values.
Finally, $\bigtriangleup$V is very small for the Type-II elongation, and $\bigtriangleup$d is very large, so overall its impact dominates and shifts all the hole energies towards higher values. The impact of the biaxial strain relaxation is again very small downward shift.
As a summary, for the flat QD under elongations, the shifts in the electron and hole energies are mainly governed by $\bigtriangleup$V and $\bigtriangleup$d, whereas the direct impact of the strain remains negligibly small.
\textbf{\textit{Optical gap energy, E$_{g}$:}} The optical gap energy (E$_g$ = e1-h1) increases for both, the [110] and the [$\overline{1}$10], Type-I elongations, thus blue shifting the ground state optical wavelength mainly due to a large decrease in the QD volume. However, if the QD volume is fixed or only slightly decreased as for the Type-IIv and Type-II elongations, respectively, E$_{g}$ decreases as a function of the elongation and hence results in a red shift of the ground state optical transition wavelength.
\subsubsection{Polarization properties of the flat QD}
Figs.~\ref{fig:Fig5}(a), (b), and (c) compare polarization dependent TE and TM modes for the three QD elongations under study. The elliptical shape of the QD, irrespective of the orientation of its major-axis, tends to increase the TE-mode along its major-axis and decreases the TE-mode along its minor-axis. This can be understood as follows: the few top most valence band states have dominant heavy hole (HH) character due to the strain induced large splitting between the HH and LH bands. These heavy hole states are mainly comprised of $|X\rangle$ and $|Y\rangle$ symmetry wave functions, where $X$ and $Y$ are selected along the high symmetry [110] and [$\overline{1}$10] directions, respectively. The lowest electron state (e1) is mainly symmetric $|S\rangle$ type wave function (as a good approximation). The elongation of QD along, for example, the $X$-direction will have negligible impact on the $|S\rangle$ type wave function, but it will increase (decrease) $|X \rangle$ ($|Y\rangle$) component of the valence band states. Therefore, the TE$_{X} \propto |\langle X|S\rangle|^2$ component of the electron-holes transition will increase and the TE$_{Y} \propto |\langle Y|S\rangle|^2$ component will decrease as evident from Figs.~\ref{fig:Fig5}(a), (b), and (c).
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{tab:table1} The ratio of the LH components in the highest five valence band states (h1, h2, h3, h4, h5) of the elliptical-shaped flat QD with respect to the LH components of the corresponding valence band states of the circular-base ($\eta$) QD for a few selected values of the elongation factor, $\eta$. For each case, the corresponding ratio of the electron-hole wave function spatial overlap along the $\vec{z}$ = [001] direction given by e1hi = $| \langle \psi_{e1} | \vec{z} | \psi_{hi} \rangle |$ is also provided.}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\multicolumn{7}{c}{} \\%[3pt]
\cline{1-7}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{Elongation type}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{$\pmb{\eta}$}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{h1 (e1h1)}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{h2 (e1h2)}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{h3 (e1h3)}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{h4 (e1h4)}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{h5 (e1h5)}} \\
\cline{1-7}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Type-I}}} & 1.25 & 1.38 (4.12) & 1.49 (12.88) & 1.15 (1.49) & 0.97 (1.07) & 0.90 (0.57) \\
\cline{2-7}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & 0.80 & 1.62 (5.05) & 1.19 (13.59) & 1.27 (0.99) & 1.11 (11.53) & 1.04 (2.49) \\
\cline{1-7}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Type-IIv}}} & 1.565 & 1.31 (7.59) & 1.29 (2.76) & 1.33 (0.22) & 0.96 (1.31) & 1.14 (0.34) \\
\cline{2-7}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & 0.64 & 1.56 (7.71) & 1.05 (17.76) & 1.09 (1.48) & 0.97 (3.96) & 0.90 (1.96) \\
\cline{1-7}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Type-II}}} & 1.86 & 1.68 (9.59) & 1.39 (4.94) & 1.45 (0.77) & 1.00 (0.93) & 1.20 (1.96) \\
\cline{2-7}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & 0.54 & 1.81 (9.71) & 1.12 (23.76) & 1.15 (2.00) & 1.05 (2.38) & 0.94 (0.81) \\
\cline{1-7}
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
The analysis of the calculated TM$_{[001]}$ component reveals that it also increases for the elliptical QDs. The dominant contribution in the ground state optical intensity for the flat-shaped QDs comes from the highest valence band state (h1), with the lower valence band states (h2, h3, h4, and h5) only adding weak transition strengths\cite{Usman_5}. The strength of the TM$_{[001]}$ component is directly related to the LH mixing in the valence band states and its magnitude is proportional to the electron-hole wave function spatial overlap along the growth ([001]) direction, given by e1hi = $| \langle \psi_{e1} | \overrightarrow{z} | \psi_{hi} \rangle |$. Here $\psi_{e1}$ is the ground electron state, $\psi_{hi}$ is the $i$th valence band state where $i \in \{$ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5$\}$, and $\overrightarrow{z}$ is along the [001]-direction.
Table~\ref{tab:table1} provides values of the ratios of the LH component in the top five valence band states for the few selected elliptical shapes with respect to the circular-base shape. For each case, the corresponding ratio of the spatial overlap (e1hi) is also provided with in the (). Our calculations show an increasing LH mixing in the valence band states for the elliptical QDs with respect to the circular-base QD, in particular for the h1 state which gives dominant e1-h1 transition. The spatial overlap between electron and hole wave funcitons also increases and therefore, a net increase in the TM$_{[001]}$ mode is calculated as a function of $\eta$. This characteristic of the pure InAs QDs is in contrast to the In$_{0.5}$Ga$_{0.5}$As ordered and disordered QDs reported by Singh \textit{et al.}\cite{Singh_1}, where they have shown that the LH character of the h1 valence band state remains unchanged as a function of the QD elongation. Based on these results, we predict that the elliptical shape has a stronger impact on the polarization response of the pure InAs QDs, as compared to the alloyed InGaAs QDs.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{Figure6.png}
\caption{The plots of the DOP$_{[110]}$ and DOP$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ are shown as a function of the (a) Type-I, (b) Type-IIv, and (c) Type-II QD elongations. The values of the DOP decrease irrespective of the direction of the QD elongation.}
\label{fig:Fig6}
\end{figure*}
\vspace{1mm}
\textbf{\textit{In-plane polarization anisotropy:}} Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig5}(d) plots the in-plane polarization anisotropy (Pol$_{||}$) as defined by Eq.~\ref{eq:pol} for the three types of the elongations. We find that our results for Pol$_{||}$ are overall in agreement with the findings of Sheng \textit{et al.}\cite{Sheng_1}, that when the height of the QD is kept fixed, similar elongations ($\eta$) results in nearly similar values of the in-plane anisotropy. We highlight four such cases in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig5}(d) using green dotted circles where nearly same values of Pol$_{||}$ are calculated for the following sets of values of $\eta$: (1) 0.64 in Type-IIv and 0.67 in Type-II, (2) 0.82 in Type-II and 0.8 in Type-I, (3) 1.22 in Type-II and 1.25 in Type-I, and (4) 1.565 in Type-IIv and 1.50 in Type-II. Therefore, we conclude that the in-plane polarization anisotropy (Pol$_{||}$) only depends on the value of $\eta$, irrespective of the type of the elongation provided that the height of the QD is kept fixed. We also find that our calculated values of Pol$_{||}$ for all of the three type of the elongations roughly follow an inverse quadratic dependence on the elongation factor ($\eta$), in agreement with the quadratic dependence on the lateral aspect ratio ($\beta$) reported by Sheng \textit{et al.}\cite{Sheng_1}, as by definition $\eta$ = $\beta^{-1}$.
\textbf{\textit{Tuning of DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$:}} Figs.~\ref{fig:Fig6}(a), (b), and (c) investigate the changes in the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ for the three types of the elliptical shapes. Significant changes in the values of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ are observed as a function of $\eta$. More interestingly, it is found that both DOP$_{[110]}$ and DOP$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ decrease irrespective of the type and direction of the elongation. This implies that the elliptical-shape, in general, improves the polarization response compared to the circular-base for the flat QD. The largest decrease ($\approx$23\%) in the value of the DOP$_{[110]}$ (from 97$\%$ to 74.5$\%$) is calculated for the [$\overline{1}$10] elongation ($\eta$ = 0.54).
\subsection{Tall Quantum Dot (AR=0.40)}
In this subsection, we study the impact of elliptical shapes on the electronic and polarization properties of a tall InAs QD, having the same base diameter (20 nm) as of the flat QD of the previous subsection, but with a height of 8 nm (AR = h/d = 8/20 = 0.40). Such high AR QDs are obtained using special growth conditions (very slow growth rate and high temperatures)\cite{Bimberg_1}, or are typically found in the optically active upper layers of the weakly coupled bilayer QD stacks\cite{Usman_2}, where the presence of strain from the lower QD layers results in the larger size of the upper layer QDs. To our knowledge, no detailed theoretical investigation of the polarization properties of such tall elliptical dome-shaped QDs is available in the literature, as the previous theoretical studies have only focused on the flat shapes of the QDs with low ARs: AR = 2/20 = 0.1~\cite{Favero_1}, AR $\approx$ 0.17~\cite{Pryor_1}, AR = 3.5/20 = 0.175~\cite{Singh_2}, AR = 2/25 = 0.08~\cite{Mlinar_1}, and AR = 4.5/28.8 = 0.16~\cite{Sheng_1}.
Schliwa \textit{et al}.~\cite{Schliwa_1} applied \textbf{k}$\centerdot$\textbf{p} theory to study the electronic and optical properties of the QDs by varying their AR from 0.17 to 0.5. However in order to vary the AR, they choose to keep the QD volume constant by simultaneously changing both the base diameter and the height of the QD. Therefore their results do not isolate the impact of only varying the lateral aspect ratio. Their study of the base elongations which is focused at the pyramidal-shaped QDs shows that the linear and quadratic piezoelectric potentials fully cancel each other for all values of the AR $<$ 0.5, whereas our atomistic simulations presented in the previous subsection have already shown a non-zero net piezoelectric potential in the interior of a dome-shaped QD with the AR = 0.225. We therefore conclude that their result can not be generalized for all types of the QDs. In order to extend our study of the previous subsection, here we investigate a tall QD by just increasing the height of the QD from 4.5 nm to 8 nm, keeping its base diameter same (20 nm) as for the flat QD. This allows us to make a direct comparison between the results for the flat and the tall QDs. Once again, for all types of the elongations, the height of the QD is kept constant at 8 nm.
\subsubsection{Electronic properties of the tall QD}
Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig7} plots the lowest three conduction band energies (e1, e2, e3) and the highest five valence band energies (h1, h2, h3, h4, h5) as a function of the elongation factor ($\eta$) for all of the three types of elongations: (a, d) Type-I, (b, e) Type-IIv, and (c, f) Type-II. In order to develop an understanding of these energy shifts, we also plot the wave functions and the piezoelectric potentials for a few selected values of $\eta$ in Figs.~\ref{fig:Fig8} and ~\ref{fig:Fig9}, respectively.
The piezoelectric potential plots in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig9} show familiar quadrupole symmetry, but exhibit three noticeable differences when compared to the plots for the flat QD (Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig4}):
\begin{description}
\item [(i)] The interior of the QD is nearly field free, with only one peak at the QD interfaces. This is in agreement with Schliwa \textit{et al.}\cite{Schliwa_1} indicating a cancellation between the linear and the quadratic components inside the QD region.
\item [(ii)] A much larger magnitude of the fields (nearly twice).
\item [(iii)] A flip in the sign of the fields. The potential peaks are positive along the [$\overline{1}$10] direction and negative along the [110] direction.
\end{description}
It is interesting to note here that although the piezoelectric potential profiles are drastically different for the flat and the tall QDs, but the electron and hole states for the circular-base case ($\eta$ = 1.0) align in the same direction for both cases: e2 along the [$\overline{1}$10] direction and all hole states along the [110] direction, as shown in the Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig8}. Thus, an experimental measurement on a circular-base dome-shaped QD would not indicate any sign difference for the e$_{[110]}$-e$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ as a function of QD AR, despite the underlying physical details are quite different and require atomistic modeling with realistic simulation domains and physical parameters.
We also find that the wave functions of the hole states for the tall QD are localized close to the QD interfaces due to the presence of the heavy hole (HH) pockets in the valence band edges. In our previous study\cite{Usman_5}, we have shown that such interfacial localization of the hole wave functions for a pure InAs QD starts when the AR is increased above 0.25. Similar results were presented by Narvaez \textit{et al.}\cite{Narvaez_1} for the InAs QDs using pseudo-potential calculations, where they varied the QD AR from (5/25.2) 0.198 to (7.5/25.2) 0.298 and showed that the hole states tend to confine in the HH pockets at the QD interfaces for the tall QDs.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{Figure7.png}
\caption{(a, b, c) The lowest three conduction band energy levels (e1, e2, and e3) are plotted as a function of the elongation factor ($\eta$) for the (a) Type-I, (b) Type-IIv, and (c) Type-II elongations. (c, d, e) The highest five valence band energy levels (h1, h2, h3, h4, and h5) are plotted as a function of the QD elongation factor ($\eta$) for the (a) Type-I, (b) Type-IIv, and (c) Type-II elongations. The corresponding increase/decrease in the optical gap energy (E$_{g}$) is also specified in each case by using the vertical arrows.}
\label{fig:Fig7}
\end{figure*}
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.15]{Figure8.png}
\caption{The top view of the wave function plots for the lowest three conduction band (e1, e2, and e3) and the highest five valence band (h1, h2, h3, h4, and h5) states are shown for the circular-base of the QD and for the selected elongations of the QD. The intensity of the colors in the plots represent the magnitude of the wave functions, with the dark red color indicating the largest magnitude and the light blue color indicating the smallest magnitude. The boundaries of the QDs are also shown to guide the eye.}
\label{fig:Fig8}
\end{figure*}
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{SCfigure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{Figure9.png}
\caption{The plots of the total (linear+quadratic) piezoelectric potentials are shown for (a) circular-base QD, (b, d, f) [110]-elongated QDs, and (c, e, g) [$\overline{1}$10]-elongated QDs. In each case, the type and the magnitude of the elongation is specified. The solid red lines are plotted along the [$\overline{1}$10] direction through the center of the QD, 0.5 nm above its base. The dotted (broken) black lines are plotted along the [110] direction through the center of the QD, 0.5nm above its base. The boundary of the QD region is also marked in each case by specifying the lengths of QD along the [110] and [$\overline{1}$10] directions, d$_{[110]}$ and d$_{[\overline{1}10]}$.}
\label{fig:Fig9}
\end{SCfigure*}
\vspace{1mm}
\textit{\textbf{Lowest three conduction band states:}} As for the flat QD of the previous subsection, the hydrostatic strain component does not change as a function of $\eta$, thus the strain contribution in the conduction band energy shifts is negligible because they are only affected by the hydrostatic strain. The piezoelectric fields also only slightly change when the QD is elongated (Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig9}), so the contribution from the changes in the piezoelectric fields in the shifts of the electron energies is minor, with dominating contributions coming from $\bigtriangleup$V and $\bigtriangleup$d.
The lowest conduction band state e1 has s-type symmetry and the impact of $\bigtriangleup$d on its energy is negligible. The Type-I elongation considerably reduces the QD volume (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig1}(f)), and therefore e1 energy increases. When the QD volume is unchanged as in the case of the Type-IIv elongation or is only slightly decreased as in the case of the Type-II elongation, e1 shows a very small change. The wave function plots for the e1 state indicate s-type symmetry with only slight elongation, mainly for the [$\overline{1}$10] oriented Type-IIv and Type-II elongations.
The excited electron states, e2 and e3, are separated by $\approx$8.8 meV for the circular-base QD ($\eta$=1.0), which is around four times larger than the $\approx$2.4 meV splitting for the flat QD. This larger splitting is mainly due to the larger (nearly twice) magnitude of the piezoelectric potentials as evident from the comparison of Figs.~\ref{fig:Fig4} and ~\ref{fig:Fig9}.
For the Type-I elongation (Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig7}(a)), the large reduction in the QD volume shifts both, e2 and e3, towards the higher energies. The energy difference $\bigtriangleup$e$_p$ = e3-e2 increases for the [$\overline{1}$10]-elongation and decreases for the [110]-elongation, which is in agreement with what Schliwa \textit{et al.}~\cite{Schliwa_1} also calculated for the square-base pyramidal-shaped QDs. They reported electron p-state degeneracy towards the [110] base elongation.
When the overall QD volume is fixed in the [$\overline{1}$10] Type-IIv elongation, the $\bigtriangleup$d induced shift lowers the energy of the [$\overline{1}$10]-oriented e2 and increases the energy of the [110]-oriented e3, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig7}(b). Since e2 and e3 go through a flip of their orientations for the [110] Type-IIv elongation, so only a very small change in their energies is observed (from 8.8 meV to 9.3 meV).
Finally, the changes in the energies of e2 and e3 for the Type-II elongations (Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig7}(c)) follow the similar trends as previously calculated for the flat QD (Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig2}(c)). The two competing factors ($\bigtriangleup$V and $\bigtriangleup$d) contribute to the energy shifts, where $\bigtriangleup$d being dominant for the small elongations ($\eta$ = 0.67, 0.82, 1.22, and 1.5) and $\bigtriangleup$V taking charge for the large elongations ($\eta$ = 0.54 and 1.86).
\textbf{\textit{Separation between the lowest two electron energies:}} The difference between the lowest two conduction band energy levels ($\bigtriangleup$e$_{21}$ = e2-e1) which is important for the laser design robustness increases for the Type-I elongations, with largest increase being $\approx$8 meV calculated for the [110]-elongation. For the Type-II and Type-IIv elongations, only minor reductions in the $\bigtriangleup$e$_{21}$ are calculated. Therefore, we extend our conclusion of the previous subsection that the elongations of both, the flat and the tall QDs, do not deteriorate $\bigtriangleup$e$_{21}$ for the implementation of laser operation.
\textit{\textbf{Highest five valence band energies:}} While the conduction band energy level shifts for the tall QD quite resemble with the corresponding shifts for the flat QD, the hole energy level shifts show significant contrasts. The main reason for this different behavior is the dissimilarity of the net piezoelectric potential profiles for the two types of the QDs as evident from the comparison of Figs.~\ref{fig:Fig4} and ~\ref{fig:Fig9}, which leads to very different confinements of the hole wave functions (see Figs.~\ref{fig:Fig3} and ~\ref{fig:Fig8}). The large negative peaks of the potentials at the QD interfaces along the [110] direction and nearly field free interior of the tall QD result in the hole wave functions being oriented along the [110] direction irrespective of the type and the direction of the elongations as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig8}. Furthermore, the HH pockets at the QD interfaces results in the hole wave function confinements at the QD interfaces.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{Figure10.png}
\caption{The polarization dependent optical transition modes TE$_{[110]}$, TE$_{[\overline{1}10}]$, and TM$_{[001]}$ are drawn as a function of the (a) Type-I, (b) Type-IIv, and (c) Type-II QD elongations. The figures are plotted using the same scales to facilitate easy mutual comparison. (d) The plots of the in-plane polarization anisotropy (Pol$_{||}$) as defined by Eq.~\ref{eq:pol} are shown for the three type of the elongations, exhibiting an inverse quadratic dependence on $\eta$, consistent with the Sheng \textit{et al.}\cite{Sheng_1}. Four cases are also marked by using green ovals indicating that the two different types of elongations, with roughly similar values of $\eta$, exhibit similar values of the Pol$_{||}$.}
\label{fig:Fig10}
\end{figure*}
\vspace{1mm}
For the Type-I elongation (Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig7}(d)), both a large decrease in the QD volume ($\bigtriangleup$V) and a small relaxation of the biaxial strain pushes the hole energy levels towards the lower energies. When the QD is elliptical along the [110] direction, the hole wave functions also being oriented along this direction experience a downward shift in their energies. Thus all of the three factors add to result in a stronger reduction in the hole energy levels. In the case of the [$\overline{1}$10] elongation, d$_{[110]}$ is reduced which pushes the hole energy levels upward. Although the cumulative downward shift from $\bigtriangleup$V and biaxial strain relaxation overall remains dominant, however for some values of $\eta$, $\bigtriangleup$d induced upward shift is evident.
As $\bigtriangleup$V=0 for the Type-IIv elongation and the biaxial strain relaxation is much weaker as compared to the Type-I case, so only $\bigtriangleup$d induced shifts are observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig7}(e): the increase in d$_{[110]}$ decreases the hole energies (for the [110] elongation) and the decrease in d$_{[110]}$ increases the hole energies (for the [$\overline{1}$10] elongation).
Finally, for the Type-II elongation in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig7}(f), $\bigtriangleup$V is quite small. The biaxial strain relaxation again causes a small downward shift in the hole energies. However, the dominant shift comes from the $\bigtriangleup$d. Therefore, the hole energies move towards the lower values for the [110] elongation and shifts towards the higher values for the [$\overline{1}$10] elongation.
\textit{\textbf{Optical gap energy, E$_{g}$:}} The changes in the optical gap energy, E$_{g}$ = e1 - h1, are also marked with the help of vertical arrows (using red color) for the three types of the elongations in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig7}. For the Type-I elongation, the increase in e1 energy and the decrease in h1 energy implies a blue shift of E$_{g}$ irrespective of the orientation of the elongation. This is same as earlier calculated for the flat QD. However, whereas for the flat QD, E$_{g}$ red shifts for both the Type-II and the Type-IIv elongations independent of their orientations, in this case of the tall QD, the changes in E$_{g}$ depend on the orientation of the elongation. For the [$\overline{1}$10] elongations, E$_{g}$ red shifts, whereas it blue shifts for the [110] oriented elongations.
\subsubsection{Polarization properties of the tall QD}
The polarization properties of the tall QD are significantly different from the flat QD of the previous subsection because of the two major differences in the hole wave functions even for the circular-base case, as evident from the comparison of Figs.~\ref{fig:Fig3} and ~\ref{fig:Fig8}: all of the hole wave functions for the tall QD are oriented along the [110] direction and are confined inside HH pockets at the QD interfaces in contrast to the flat QD where the hole wave functions are either nearly symmetric at the QD center or [$\overline{1}$10] oriented. Thus, for the circular-base tall QD, we calculate TE$_{[110]} <$ TE$_{[\overline{1}10]}$, and overall TE and TM modes have smaller magnitudes compared to the flat QD due to the relatively smaller spatial overlaps between the electron and the hole wave functions.
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{tab:table2} The ratio of the LH components in the highest five valence band states (h1, h2, h3, h4, h5) of the elliptical-shaped tall QD with respect to the LH components of the corresponding valence band states of the circular-base ($\eta$) QD for a few selected values of the elongation factor, $\eta$. For each case, the corresponding ratio of the electron-hole wave function spatial overlap along the $\vec{z}$ = [001] direction given by e1hi = $| \langle \psi_{e1} | \vec{z} | \psi_{hi} \rangle |$ is also provided.}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\multicolumn{7}{c}{} \\%[3pt]
\cline{1-7}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{Elongation type}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{$\pmb{\eta}$}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{h1 (e1h1)}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{h2 (e1h2)}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{h3 (e1h3)}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{h4 (e1h4)}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{h5 (e1h5)}} \\
\cline{1-7}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Type-I}}} & 1.25 & 1.17 (1.42) & 1.18 (1.28) & 1.21 (1.40) & 1.21 (1.53) & 1.12 (1.25) \\
\cline{2-7}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & 0.80 & 1.07 (1.84) & 1.05 (1.89) & 1.04 (1.32) & 1.06 (1.50) & 1.00 (1.64) \\
\cline{1-7}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Type-IIv}}} & 1.565 & 1.17 (1.45) & 1.15 (1.63) & 1.18 (1.73) & 1.15 (3.00) & 1.10 (3.89) \\
\cline{2-7}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & 0.64 & 0.93 (2.92) & 0.93 (3.34) & 0.85 (1.85) & 0.86 (2.14) & 0.86 (2.66) \\
\cline{1-7}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Type-II}}} & 1.86 & 1.27 (3.29) & 1.26 (4.95) & 1.00 (5.80) & 1.08 (3.86) & 1.15 (4.39) \\
\cline{2-7}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & 0.54 & 1.00 (5.88) & 1.00 (6.17) & 0.86 (3.07) & 0.89 (3.19) & 0.90 (4.06) \\
\cline{1-7}
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.32]{Figure11.png}
\caption{The plots of the DOP$_{[110]}$ and DOP$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ are shown as a function of the (a) Type-I, (b) Type-IIv, and (c) Type-II elongations. A large decrease in the value of the DOP$_{[\vec{n}]}$ along the minor-axis of the elliptical QDs is calculated.}
\label{fig:Fig11}
\end{figure*}
\vspace{1mm}
We also want to specify that for the tall QD, the lower lying hole wave functions have larger contribution in the ground state optical transition intensity when compared to the flat QDs where mainly e1-h1 transition is dominant\cite{Usman_5}. The dependence on the elongation factor is also quite different with all the polarization modes TE$_{[110]}$, TE$_{[\overline{1}10]}$, and TM$_{[001]}$ increasing irrespective of the type and the orientation of the elongation. The large increase in the TE$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ mode for the elongation along the [$\overrightarrow{n}$] is same as also calculated for the flat QD and is explained in the section IV-A-2. However, the small increase in the other TE mode is attributed to an increased electron-hole spatial overlap because of elliptical shape of the QD.
Table~\ref{tab:table2} provides the ratio of the LH components in the top five valence band states for the elliptical QDs with respect to the circular-base QD. In each case, we also provide the corresponding ratio of the spatial overlap between the electron and hole wave functions (e1hi) along the [001]-direction as defined earlier for the flat QD. The increase in the TM$_{[001]}$ mode is directly related to an increase in the LH mixing of the valence band states. However for a giving LH mixing the magnitude of the TM$_{[001]}$ is proportional to the spatial overlap between the electron and hole wave functions along the [001] direction.
As the shape of the QD is elongated, the electron wave function e1 also gets elongated along the major axis of the ellipse as evident from Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig8}. This increased spread of e1 wave function results in a relative increase in its spatial overlap with the hole wave functions for the elliptical QDs with respect to the circular-base QD as also noticeable from the values of e1hi provided in Table~\ref{tab:table2}. For $\eta >$ 1.0 ([110] elongation), the LH mixing increases and along with an increase in e1hi is responsible for the enhanced TM$_{[001]}$ mode. The [$\overline{1}$10] elongation ($\eta <$ 1.0) slightly reduces the LH character of the valence band states, however as the hole wave functions are oriented along the minor-axis, so a large increase in the electron-hole wave function spatial overlap overcomes a small ($<$ 15\%) decrease in the LH component and therefore causes a net increase in the TM$_{[001]}$ mode strength. It should also be noted that for the same amount of elongation, $\eta >$ 1.0 results in larger TM$_{[001]}$ mode when compared to $\eta <$ 1.0. This is because of the fact that for the $\eta >$ 1.0, both the LH mixing and the spatial overlap increase, whereas for the $\eta <$ 1.0 the LH mixing decreases and only the spatial overlap increases.
\textbf{\textit{In-plane polarization anisotropy:}} As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig10}(d), the dependence of Pol$_{||}$ on the elongation factor ($\eta$) for the tall QD is also quite similar to the case of the flat QD. The calculated values of Pol$_{||}$ for all of the three types of the elongations again follow inverse quadratic dependence. Furthermore, for the fixed height of the QD, similar values of $\eta$ exhibit nearly same in-plane anisotropy. We highlight four such cases in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig5}(d) using green dotted circles where nearly same values of the Pol$_{||}$ are calculated for the following sets of the values of $\eta$: (1) 0.64 in Type-IIv and 0.67 in Type-II, (2) 0.82 in Type-II and 0.8 in Type-I, (3) 1.22 in Type-II and 1.25 in Type-I, and (4) 1.565 in Type-IIv and 1.50 in Type-II. Therefore, we extend our conclusion of the previous subsection that the in-plane polarization anisotropy (Pol$_{||}$) only depends on the value of the $\eta$, irrespective of the type and orientation of the elongation for both flat and tall QDs, provided the height of the QDs is kept fixed.
\textbf{\textit{Tuning of DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$:}} To conclude this discussion about the polarization response of the tall QD, we compare the values of the DOP$_{[110]}$ and DOP$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ for the three types of elongations in Figs.~\ref{fig:Fig11}(a), (b), and (c). Since TE$_{[110]} >$ TE$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ for the circular-base ($\eta$ = 1.0), so a much larger difference ($\approx$13$\%$) is present between the DOP$_{[110]}$ and DOP$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ for $\eta$ = 1.0, as compared to only $\approx$0.2$\%$ difference for the flat QD. This difference is in agreement with the previous comparison\cite{Usman_5} between the similar flat and tall QDs and is attributed to the stronger orientation and confinements of the hole wave functions for the tall QDs.
The elliptical shape of the tall QD once again reduces the value of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ along its minor-axis. This is mainly because the TM$_{[001]}$-mode increases for the elongated QDs whereas the corresponding TE-mode along the minor-axis does not increase much. In contrast to the case of the flat QD, the elliptical shape, however, does not reduce the value of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ along the major-axis which in fact first slightly increases and then remains nearly constant. This is because for the flat QD, the TE-mode is much larger than the TM-mode and hence the values of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ are not very sensitive to changes in the TM-mode. However, for the tall QD, the TE-modes are comparatively smaller in magnitude due to the smaller electron-hole spatial overlaps, so the values of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ become more sensitive to the changes in the TE- and TM-modes. For the small values of $\eta$, a larger increase in the TE-mode produces slight increase in the values of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$. For the large values of $\eta$, the increase in the TM-mode also becomes important and hence the values of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ do not show any further increase.
To summarize this subsection, we find that overall a much larger tuning of the polarization response is possible by elongating the tall QDs. The largest reduction ($\approx$51$\%$) in the value of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ is calculated for the Type-II elongation at $\eta$ = 0.54. Since the red shift of the optical wavelength and the isotropic polarization response, both, are desired for the design of the optical devices operating at telecommunication wavelengths (1.3-1.5 $\mu$m), our model calculations suggest that the Type-II [$\overline{1}$10] elongations are more suitable as they fulfil both requirements (see Figs.~\ref{fig:Fig7}(c), (f) and Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig11}(c)). It should also be noted that the confinements of the hole wave functions at the interfaces for the circular-base tall QDs reduce the oscillator strengths by an order of magnitude when compared to the circular-base flat QDs. However, with the elliptical shapes, the oscillator strengths increase and even become comparable to the flat QDs, in particular for the large Type-II elongations.
\subsection{Vertical Stack of Nine QDs (9-VQDS)}
Vertical stacks of QDs (VSQDs) have shown great potential for tuning of the polarization properties. Recent experiments~\cite{Inoue_1, Alonso_1, Humlicek_1, Fortunato_1} and theoretical investigations~\cite{Usman_1, Saito_1} have demonstrated that an isotropic polarization response can be realized by geometrical engineering of the VSQDs. In this subsection, we study a vertical stack of closely spaced nine QD layers (9-VSQDs) as shown by the schematic diagram of Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig1}(c). This 9-VSQDs has been a topic of the recent studies ~\cite{Usman_1, Inoue_1, Saito_1} due to its significant technological relevance to achieve isotropic polarization for the implementation of the QD based SOA's. The optimized geometrical parameters of the 9-VSQDs are chosen directly from the experiment~\cite{Inoue_1}, so that our results remain relevant to the experimental community.
We have recently shown\cite{Usman_1} by experimental PL measurements and theoretical calculations that the 9-VSQDs can exhibit TM$_{[001]} >$ TE$_{[110]}$ leading to DOP$_{[110]} < 0$. However, a significant anisotropy in the in-plane TE-mode was measured resulting in TE$_{[\overline{1}10]} >$ TM$_{[001]}$ and DOP$_{[\overline{1}10]} >$ 0. Similar anisotropies in the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ were independently measured by alonso-Alvarez \textit{et al.}~\cite{Alonso_1} and Humlicek \textit{et al.}~\cite{Humlicek_1}, which they were unable to explain. Our multi-million atom simulations~\cite{Usman_1} assuming circular-base for the QDs qualitatively explained that this anisotropy (DOP$_{[110]} \neq$ DOP$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ ) is due to a strong confinement of the hole wave functions at the interfaces of QDs (similar to the case of the tall QD of the previous subsection) which tend to align along the [$\overline{1}10]$-direction, and thus significantly reduce the TE$_{[110]}$-mode. The TE$_{[\overline{1}10]}$-mode, on the other hand, does not observe any such decrease. The small increase in the TM$_{[001]}$ mode due to the relaxation of the biaxial strain, in particular around the center of the 9-VSQDs\cite{Usman_1, Saito_1}, is also not sufficient to overcome the TE$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ mode and thus the DOP$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ remains considerably larger than zero.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{Figure12.png}
\caption{The plots of (a) the lowest three conduction band energies (e1, e2, e3) and (b) the highest five valence band energies (h1, h2, h3, h4, h5) for the 9-VSQDs as a function of the Type-II elongation factor, $\eta$. All of the energies increase irrespective of the orientation of the elongation. (c, d) The plots of the electron and hole energies as in (a) and (b), but without including the effect of strain. In the absence of strain, only $\bigtriangleup$d and $\bigtriangleup$V contribute in the energy shifts. (e) The plots of the biaxial strain component ($\epsilon_{xx}+\epsilon_{yy}-2\epsilon_{zz}$) along the [110] direction through the center of the 9-VSQDs with circular-base ($\eta$=1) and the [110] elongated base ($\eta$=1.75). (f) The plots of the biaxial strain component ($\epsilon_{xx}+\epsilon_{yy}-2\epsilon_{zz}$) along the [$\overline{1}$10] direction through the center of the 9-VSQDs with circular-base ($\eta$=1) and the [$\overline{1}$10] elongated base ($\eta$=0.57).}
\label{fig:Fig12}
\end{figure*}
\vspace{1mm}
The good agreement of our theoretical results with the experimental PL measurements even for an ideal circular-base 9-VSQDs shape leads to a fundamental question that how much is the contribution from the realistic shapes which are normally elongated. Here we systematically elongate the QD layers inside the 9-VSQDs base and analyse its impact on the electronic and polarization properties. In contrast to the single QDs of the previous two subsections, where the QD base elongations result in a significant tuning of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$, the magnitude of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ for the 9-VSQDs is relatively insensitive to the value of $\eta$. However, the sign of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ is a strong function of the orientation of the elongation, and even a very small elongation (0.5-1.0 nm) is sufficient to control the sign of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$. Furthermore, we explore the possibility to achieve DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]} <$ 0 for both $[\overrightarrow{n}]$ = [110] and [$\overline{1}$10] by elongating the 9-VSQDs along the [110] direction. Our calculations predict that such a scenario is not possible due to a very high sensitivity of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ with the value of $\eta$, and therefore the value of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ may be reduced below zero for only one of the two spatial directions.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{Figure13.png}
\caption{Top views of the wave function plots for the lowest three conduction band (e1, e2, and e3) and the highest five valence band (h1, h2, h3, h4, and h5) states are shown for the circular-base 9-VSQDs and the two selected Type-II elongations of the 9-VSQD. The intensity of the colors in the plots represent the magnitude of the wave functions, with the dark color color indicating the smallest magnitude and the light green color indicating the largest magnitude. The boundaries of the QDs are also shown to guide the eye. }
\label{fig:Fig13}
\end{figure*}
\vspace{1mm}
\subsubsection{Electronic properties of the 9-VSQDs}
\textbf{\textit{Lowest three conduction band energies:}} Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig12}(a) plots the lowest three conduction band energies (e1, e2, e3) as a function of the elongation factor ($\eta$) for the Type-II elongation. The corresponding wave functions are also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig13}, indicating that all of the lowest three conduction band states have s-type symmetry. Due to the strong coupling between the closely spaced QD layers, these electron states are hybridized over multiple QD layers\cite{Usman_1}. Only a very small increase (less than 10 meV) in the energies of e1, e2, and e3 is calculated as the 9-VSQDs is elongated. Due to the s-type symmetry, the effect of the $\bigtriangleup$d is negligible. We also find that in contrast to the single QDs, the energies of these molecular electron states are insensitive to the $\bigtriangleup$V, as also confirmed by Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig12}(c) where no shift in the e1, e2, and e3 energies is calculated when the impact of strain is excluded. This is due to the fact that the electron energies are spread over multiple QD layers as well as occupies the GaAs spacers in between them, so a small decrease in the QD volume due to the Type-II elongation only negligibly impact their energies. Our calculations find that the hydrostatic component of the strain ($\epsilon_{xx}+\epsilon_{yy}+\epsilon_{zz}$) slightly increases for the elongated 9-VSQDs and results in a small upward shift in the conduction band energies. Also, the shifts in the energies are nearly equal for e1, e2, and e3, and therefore the separation between them remains nearly unchanged.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{Figure14.png}
\caption{(a) The plots of the polarization dependent TE and TM modes as a function of the Type-II elongation factor $\eta$ for the 9-VSQDs. (b) Plot of the POl$_{||}$ as a function of the Type-II elongation factor for the 9-VSQDs. The plots indicate a high degree of in-plane anisotropy for the 9-VSQDs, which is very sensitive to the elongation factor. (c) Plots of the DOP$_{[110]}$ and DOP$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ as a function of the Type-II elongation factor for the 9-VSQDs. For the circular-base 9-VSQDs, $\eta$=1.0, the DOP$_{[110]}$ is negative and the DOP$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ is positive. As we [110]-elongate the 9-VSQDs by 1 nm (marked by blue oval), the DOP$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ becomes close to zero, however the DOP$_{[110]}$ drastically increases to +0.60, suggesting that it is not possible to simultaneously engineer both DOPs below or close to zero for this 9-VSQDs using [110] elongation engineering.}
\label{fig:Fig14}
\end{figure*}
\vspace{1mm}
\textbf{\textit{Highest five valence band energies:}} Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig12}(b) plots the energies for the highest five valence band states (h1, h2, h3, h4, and h5) as a function of the Type-II elongation. All of the hole energies increase for both, the [110] and the [$\overline{1}10$], elongations. Fig~\ref{fig:Fig13} shows the top view of the hole wave functions for $\eta$=0.57, 1.0, and 1.75. For the circular-base 9-VSQDs, all the hole wave functions are aligned along the [$\overline{1}$10] direction due to the presence of the HH pockets, similar to the case of the single QDs with large aspect ratios\cite{Usman_5, Narvaez_1} and the bilayer QDs.\cite{Usman_2}
For the elliptical 9-VSQDs, the hole wave functions align along the major-axis. This is due to the larger biaxial strain along these directions which pushes the HH pockets towards higher energies and hence the hole wave functions residing in these pockets also move towards higher energies. Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig12}(e) and (f) plots the biaxial strain components ($\epsilon_{xx}+\epsilon_{yy}-2\epsilon_{zz}$) through the center of the 9-VSQDs along the [110] and the [$\overline{1}$10] directions, respectively. The large increase in the biaxial strain is clearly evident for the elliptical 9-VSQDs when compared to the circular-base case. Since the hole energies are pushed up by an increase in the biaxial strain component, this shift dominates the small downward shift due to a small increase in the hydrostatic component ($\epsilon_{xx}+\epsilon_{yy}+\epsilon_{zz}$). As a result, all of the hole energies are shifted towards the higher values as evident from the Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig12}(b). The contributions from $\bigtriangleup$d and $\bigtriangleup$V are also very small, which is confirmed from Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig12}(d), where the strain effect is excluded, and the hole energies move towards lower values due to the combined shift induced by $\bigtriangleup$d and $\bigtriangleup$V.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig12}(b), a relatively smaller increase in the hole energies for the [110] elongation as compared to the [$\overline{1}$10] elongations is due to the fact that all of the hole wave functions are initially oriented along the [$\overline{1}$10] direction for the circular-base ($\eta$ = 1.0), and they go through a 90$^\circ$ rotation to align along the [110] direction for the [110] elongation. It should also be noted that the hole energy separations reduce as a function of the elongation factor ($\eta$) for the 9-VSQDs, suggesting even enhanced contributions from the lower lying valence band states in the ground state optical intensity measured at the room temperature for the elliptical 9-VSQDs.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.33]{Figure15.png}
\caption{Normalized Polar plots for the 9-VSQDs system with (a) circular-base, (b) Type-II [110]-elongation ($\eta$=1.095), and (c) Type-I [110]-elongation ($\eta$=1.047). In each case, the polarization direction
of the incident light (n) is kept along the [110]-direction (red squares) for the TE$_{[\overline{1}10]}$-mode and along the [$\overline{1}$10]-direction (blue circles) for the TE$_{[110]}$-mode. The polar plots based on the cumulative sum of the optical transition strengths between the lowest conduction band state and the highest five valence band states are drawn with respect to the angle $\theta$ between the [001]-direction and either the [110] or the [$\overline{1}$10] directions.}
\label{fig:Fig15}
\end{figure*}
\vspace{1mm}
\textbf{\textit{Optical gap energy, E$_{g}$:}} From Figs.~\ref{fig:Fig12}(a) and (b), both the electron and hole energies increase as a function of the elongation, however the hole energies have larger slope and therefore the optical gap energy, E$_{g}$ = e$_{1}$ - h$_{1}$, decreases as a function of the elongation factor ($\eta$). We calculate a maximum red shift of $\approx$30 meV in E$_g$ for $\eta$ = 0.57.
\subsubsection{Polarization properties of the 9-VSQDs}
Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig14}(a) plots the polarization dependent TE$_{[110]}$, TE$_{[\overline{1}10]}$, and TM$_{[001]}$-modes as a function of the Type-II elongation. For the circular-base ($\eta$=1.0) case, TE$_{[110]} <$ TM$_{[001]}$ and TE$_{[\overline{1}10]} >$ TE$_{[110]}$.
When the base of the 9-VSQDs is elongated, the increase in the biaxial strain component (see Figs.~\ref{fig:Fig12}(e) and (f)) increases the splitting between the LH and the HH bands, which will decrease the TM$_{[001]}$-mode. However, the small increase in the TM$_{[001]}$-mode as plotted in the Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig14}(a), is due to the hole wave functions confining towards the middle of the 9-VSQDs for the elliptical shapes where the HH/LH intermixing is larger as compared to its edges\cite{Usman_1}. For example, by comparing the $\eta$=1.0 and $\eta$=0.57 cases, we find following shifts in the spatial positions of the top-most five hole wave functions within the 9-VSQDs: h1 moves from the QD layer 2 to the QD layer 3, h2 moves from the QD layer 3 to the QD layer 5, h3 moves from the QD layer 2 to the QD layer 4, h4 stays in the QD layer 8, and h5 moves from the QD layer 3 to the QD layer 5; here the QD layers in the 9-VSQDs are numbered from 1 to 9 starting from the bottom towards the top, as mentioned in the schematic diagram of Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig1}(c). Similar trends in the spatial confinements of the hole wave functions are observed for other values of $\eta$ which are responsible for the small increase in the TM$_{[001]}$-mode as a function of $\eta$.
The magnitude of the TE$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ modes is calculated to be very sensitive to the elongation of the 9-VSQDs. Even for a very small [110] elongations ($\leq$ 1 nm), the TE$_{[110]}$ mode quickly increases above the TM$_{[001]}$-mode. For example, for $\eta$=1.095, the TE$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ reduces to become close to the TM$_{[001]}$, but the TE$_{[110]}$ has already increased by a factor of $\approx$13.
It should also be noted that while the elliptical shape increases the TE$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ mode along its major-axis, it has only very little impact on the TE-mode along its minor-axis. When the 9-VSQDs is elongated along the [$\overline{1}$10] direction, the TE$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ increases, but the TE$_{[110]}$ mode remains nearly unchanged. Similarly for the [110] elongation, the TE$_{[\overline{1}10]}$-mode quickly decreases and then remains nearly unchanged for $\eta >$ 1.2.
\textbf{\textit{In-plane polarization anisotropy:}} Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig14}(b) plots the in-plane polarization (Pol$_{||}$) defined by Eq.~\ref{eq:pol} as a function of the Type-II elongation factor ($\eta$). The large magnitudes of the Pol$_{||}$ for both [110] and [$\overline{1}10$] elongations suggest a high degree of the in-plane polarization anisotropy for the 9-VSQDs. Even for the perfectly circular-base ($\eta$=1.0), Pol$_{||}$ is $\approx$0.82, indicating that TE$_{[\overline{1}10]} \gg$ TE$_{[110]}$. Any elongation along the [$\overline{1}10$]-direction further increases this anisotropy. The [110]-elongation sharply increases TE$_{[110]}$-mode and changes the sign of Pol$_{||}$. This is because of the 90$^\circ$ rotation of the hole wave functions (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig13}). Even an elongation as small as of 1 nm along the [110]-direction can change the value of the Pol$_{||}$ from +0.82 to -0.51. Therefore, we conclude that the 9-VSQDs exhibits highly anisotropic in-plane polarizations. Similar in-plane polarization anisotropies were measured by Alonso-Alvarez \textit{et al.}\cite{Alonso_1} and Humlicek \textit{et al.}\cite{Humlicek_1} for the vertical QD stacks.
It should also be noted that whereas the in-plane polarization (Pol$_{||}$) for the single QDs, irrespective of their AR, exhibits an inverse quadratic relation with respect to $\eta$ (see Figs.~\ref{fig:Fig5}(d) and ~\ref{fig:Fig10}(d)), it demonstrates nearly a step function like dependence on $\eta$ for the strongly coupled 9-VSQDs.
\textbf{\textit{Tuning of DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$:}} Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig14}(c) plots the DOP$_{[110]}$ and DOP$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ as a function of the Type-II elongation. For the ideal circular-base case ($\eta$ = 1.0), DOP$_{[110]}$ and DOP$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ have values of -0.45 and +0.6. This is in qualitative agreement with the experimental PL measurements\citep{Inoue_1} and leads to a question that how much impact would be from a realistic elliptical shape. Our calculations show that the orientation of the base elongation determines the sign of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$, whereas the magnitude of the elongation (value of $\eta$) has a very little impact on the magnitude of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$. This is clearly evident from Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig14}(c) for $\eta \leq$ 1.0 and for $\eta \geq$ 1.2, where a very small change in the magnitude of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ is observed as the value of $\eta$ is changed.
The strong dependence of the sign of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ on the orientation of the elongation is highlighted by using an oval in the Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig14}(c), where even for a 1 nm [110]-elongation, the DOP$_{[110]}$ drastically changes its sign from -0.45 to +0.6. This large change in the value of DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ for 1.0 $< \eta <$ 1.2 is remarkable as it indicated that only a very small shape asymmetry is capable of overcoming the effect of atomistic symmtery lowering effect. This also implies that the elliptical shape of the 9-VSQDs can not be exploited to simultaneously engineer both DOP$_{[110]}$ and DOP$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ below zero.
We want to highlight that although a tuning of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ over a wide range of values is possible by the elongation of the single QDs, it remains relatively insensitive with respect to the magnitude of $\eta$ for the 9-VSQDs. Therefore, we expect that the elongation of the 9-VSQDs would not offer much improvement in its polarization response.
\textit{\textbf{Polar plots:}} The strong impact of the [110]-elongations on the polarization properties of the 9-VSQDs is further confirmed in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig15} by comparing the normalized polar plots for (a) circular-base ($\eta$=1.0), (b) Type-II 1 nm [110]-elongation ($\eta$=1.095), and (c) Type-I 1 nm [110]-elongation ($\eta$=1.047). In each case, two polar plots are drawn: (i) as a function of the angle $\theta$ between the [001]-direction and the [110]-direction for the TE$_{[110]}$ (blue circles); (ii) as a function of the angle $\theta$ between the [001]-direction and the [$\overline{1}10$]-direction for the TE$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ (red squares).
As the 9-VSQDs is elongated, a 90$^\circ$ rotation of the polar plots is calculated for the TE$_{[110]}$-modes in both the Type-I and the Type-II cases. This clearly suggests that both [110] elongations will result in TE$_{[110]}$-mode $>$ TM$_{[001]}$-mode. For TE$_{[\overline{1}10]}$-mode, the polar plot rotates anti-clockwise by $\approx$30$^\circ$ and $\approx$45$^\circ$ for the Type-II and the Type-I elongations, respectively. This causes a reduction between the relative magnitudes of the TE$_{[\overline{1}10]}$-mode and the TM$_{[001]}$-modes, thus reducing DOP$_{[\overline{1}10]}$ from +0.6 to 0.102 in (b) and to -0.07 in (c).
\textit{\textbf{Geometry of the experimentally grown 9-VSQDs:}} The above discussion about the strong dependence of the polarization properties on the [110]-elongations allows us to theoretically probe the geometrical shape of the 9-VSQDs as grown by Inoue \textit{et al.}\cite{Inoue_1}. It was reported that the 9-VSQDs are not isotropic and the TEM images suggested very little anisotropy in the lateral extent\cite{Ikeuchi_1}, possibly a [$\overline{1}10$]-elongation~\cite{Kita_1}. Our multi-million-atom calculations show that the polarization response is very sensitive to the elongation factor ($\eta$) and even a 0.5-1.0 nm [110]-elongation increases DOP$_{[110]}$ above zero. Therefore according to our model results, the experimentally measured DOP$_{[110]}$ = -0.6 implies that the shape of the 9-VSQDs can only have [$\overline{1}$10] elongated base which confirms the findings from the TEM images~\cite{Kita_1}. It should also be noted that as the 9-VSQDs studied here has pure InAs QD layers, so our finding does not contradict with the conclusions of Mlinar \textit{et al.}\cite{Mlinar_1} where they report that for the alloyed InGaAs QDs, the alloy random configurations may significantly impact the polarization properties and make the correlation between the measured polarization response and the QD geometry unreliable.
\section{Summary and Conclusions}
We have performed multi-million-atom simulations to understand the impact of the elliptical shapes on the electronic and polarization properties of the single and the multi-layer vertical stacks of InAs QDs. The comparison between a flat QD and a tall QD, having aspect ratios of 0.225 and 0.40 respectively, reveals drastically different electronic and polarization properties as a function of their base elongation. The key outcomes of the comparison are:
\begin{description}
\item [(i)] The quadratic component of the piezoelectric potential completely cancel the linear component inside the tall QD region, whereas only partial cancellation occurs for the flat QD.
\item [(ii)] Although the stain and the piezoelectric potentials are drastically different for the flat and tall QDs, the lower electron p-state (e2) is oriented along the [$\overline{1}$10] direction for both systems.
\item [(iii)] The hole wave functions are confined inside the flat QD mainly at its center, whereas they are confined at the QD interfaces inside the HH pockets for the tall QD. This leads to a reduction of the oscillator strengths for the circular-base tall QD by approximately an order of the magnitude due to smaller electron-hole wave function spatial overlaps. For the elliptical-shaped tall QDs, the oscillator strengths increase and even become comparable to the flat QD for some values of the elongation factor ($\eta$).
\item [(iv)] The Type-I elongation, irrespective of its orientation, blue shifts the optical gap energy (E$_{g}$) for both, the flat and the tall QDs. The Type-II and Type-IIv elongations red shift E$_{g}$ for the flat QD irrespective of the elongation direction, whereas for the tall QD the shift in E$_{g}$ strongly depends on the orientation of the elongation: red shift of E$_{g}$ for the [$\overline{1}$10] elongation and blue shift for the [110] elongation.
\item [(v)] The elliptical shape of the flat QD always improves its polarization properties by reducing the value of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$, whereas it only reduces the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ along the minor-axis for the tall QD.
\item [(vi)] The elliptical shape of the tall QD allows a tuning of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ over a much wider range, when compared to the flat QD. This property can be further exploited in large stacks of strongly coupled QD layers, where essentially very high values of the ARs can be achieved.
\end{description}
Although the understanding of the single layers of the QDs provides significant physical insight of the impact of the shape asymmetry, they do not lead to isotropic polarization response (DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]} \sim$ 0) for the QD base elongations of up to 6 nm studied in this paper. Therefore, we prbextend our study of the elliptical shapes to the experimentally reported vertical stack of nine QDs (9-VSQDs) which has demonstrated DOP$_{[110]}$ $<$ 0. The key features of our analysis about the elliptical 9-VSQDs are:
\begin{description}
\item [(i)] In contrast to the single QD layers where the elliptical shape only very slightly reduces the magnitude of the biaxial stain, a significant increase in the magnitude of the biaxial strain is calculated for the 9-VSQDs. Therefore, the shifts in the hole energies are dominated by the changes in the biaxial strain, rather than $\bigtriangleup$V and $\bigtriangleup$d.
\item [(ii)] The hole wave functions are confined inside the HH pockets at the interfaces of the 9-VSQDs, similar to the case of the tall QD. This introduces a large in-plane polarization anisotropy.
\item [(iii)] While the elongations of the single QDs result in the tuning of DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ over a wide range, the magnitude of DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ is largely insensitive to the magnitude of $\eta$ for the 9-VSQDs. Therefore, we conclude that the elliptical shapes of the 9-VSQDs do not provide any noticeable improvement in the polarization response. This is clearly evident from Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig14}(c) for $\eta \leq$ 1.0 and for $\eta \geq$ 1.2.
\item [(iv)] Our calculations show that the sign of DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ is very sensitive to the orientation of the elongation. Even a very small variation of $\eta$ from 1.0 is capable of controlling the sign of the DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$. We find that the in-plane polarization (Pol$_{||}$) roughly follows a step function like abrupt dependence on $\eta$, as compared to an inverse quadratic dependence for the single QDs. Such a large in-plane anisotropy of the polarization allows to accurately predict the shape elongation of the 9-VSQDs studied in this paper, in agreement with the TEM findings.
\end{description}
In summary, we have presented a detailed analysis of the dependence of the polarization properties as a function of the elongation factor $\eta$ that would serve as a guidance to engineer the geometry parameters for the tuning of DOP$_{[\overrightarrow{n}]}$ from semiconductor QDs, which is a critical design parameter for several challenging applications.
\textbf{\textit{Acknowledgements:}} The author gratefully acknowledges Stefan Schulz (Tyndall National Institute) for critically reading the manuscript and providing valuable suggestions. Computational resources are acknowledged from National Science Foundation (NSF) funded Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN) through \url{http://nanohub.org}. NEMO 3D simulator was developed in parts at NASA JPL/Caltech and Purdue University by a number of researchers supervised by Prof. Gerhard Klimeck (Purdue University), whom work have been cited in the corresponding references\cite{Klimeck_1, Klimeck_2, Klimeck_3}. NEMO 3D based open source tools are available at: \url{https://nanohub.org/groups/nemo_3d_distribution}.
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
|
\section{Introduction}
The merger of a \bbh{} system has long been considered a
strong source of gravitational waves for ground and space based
gravitational wave observatories. These mergers are characterized by
15 parameters, 9 intrinsic to the black-hole systems (2 black-hole
masses, 2 spin vectors and eccentricity) and 6 extrinsic to the source (binary orientation vector, sky position and distance). The LIGO
and Virgo detectors have recently completed a joint run during which
inspiral horizon distances exceeded 40 Mpc~\cite{LIGO:2012aa} and
new upper limits have been placed on the rates of such
events~\cite{PhysRevD.85.082002}. These observatories are currently
being upgraded and when the new design sensitivities are achieved they
will have ranges up to ten times greater and hence volumes 1000 times
greater. By the end of this decade LIGO and Virgo, along with GEO,
will be joined by KAGRA in Japan and possibly the proposed LIGO India,
greatly increasing not only the range of the global network but also
the ability to recover information about the
sources~\cite{Fairhurst:2012tf}.
When the theoretical model of the gravitational waveform is well
understood, the most effective method to search and recover a
gravitational wave signal is matched filtering against a library of
model waveforms called a {\it template bank} \cite{Thorne1987}.
The ability of such a templated search to detect signals is dependent
on four factors:
\begin{itemize}
\item The frequency-dependent sensitivity of the detector. Throughout
this paper we use the targeted aLIGO \emph{zero-detuned,
high-power}~\cite{T0900288} sensitivity curve.
\item The direction-dependent sensitivity of the detector. This is
a fixed property of interferometric instruments and the orientation
on the Earth's surface. Any one detector will have blind spots, one
motivation for constructing a network of detectors is to provide more
complete coverage of the sky. We will not consider multi-detector
searches in this paper.
\item The total energy radiated by the source from the time it enters
the sensitive band of the detectors. This provides an upper limit on
the ability to detect different signals; a source that radiates less
energy will be visible out to a smaller distance than one that
radiates more energy, all other factors being equal.
\item The ability of the templates to extract signal power from the
background noise.
\end{itemize}
In this paper we will be concerned with the last two points.
For the
\bbh{} systems potentially observable by ground-based detectors,
astrophysical processes place few constraints on the intrinsic
physical parameters that characterize the emission of radiation from
these cataclysmic events, thus placing the burden on source models to
cover nearly the full compliment of physical parameters. Rigorous
requirements from matched filtering place an additional burden on the
source models. In order for the model waveforms to match potential
signals to within a given tolerance, we need not only enough waveforms
to cover the parameter space but also each waveform must represent
nature effectually enough to
ensure the signal does not fall through cracks in the template bank and faithfully enough to recover the source parameters.
One source of mismatch with nature is the truncation of the spherical harmonic series in which we have decomposed the model waveform.
Current template waveforms are only of the dominant, quadrupole mode, although we know that generic signals will have many excited harmonics present when detected. Fig.(\ref{fig:modeAmplitudes}) shows the ratio of several non-dominant modes to the dominant mode for two non-spinning systems, note that for the system where the masses of the component holes are not equal the
next-to-leading mode is within an order of magnitude of the quadrupole
mode, suggesting that accounting for additional modes may be important
for detection, especially as the mass-ratio strongly deviates from one and generic spins are explored.
This paper builds on previous work by ourselves and other authors.
In~\cite{Shoemaker:2008pe,Vaishnav:2007nm}, we conducted a preliminary study on higher modes for spinning, equal-mass systems comparing numerical relativity waveforms containing the largest five harmonics to an equal-mass non-spinning system of just the dominant mode. We found that for low spins, the non-spinning dominant mode was an effective model waveform. McWilliams et al \cite{McWilliams:2010eq} found that over a range of the source orientations, the equal-mass waveform was effective at detecting moderate mass ratios over source orientations. Brown et al\cite{Brown2012} is exploring the value added of higher modes in EOBNR models of unequal-mass waveforms.
In this paper we investigate the degree to which inclusion of
additional terms of the spherical harmonic series to template
waveforms could improve matched-filter based searches. We use \nr{}
waveforms as both signal and template, and we consider both unequal
masses and some generic spins generated by the \textsc{Maya} code. We
study how well the quadrupole-only model waveform matches the signal
as a function of the inclination and orientation of the source and
determine how the volume reach of advanced LIGO depends on the
inclusion/exclusion of non-dominant harmonics in the model waveforms.
We concentrate on system masses greater than $100 M_\odot$ to give the
NR portion of the waveform prominence and negating the need for
post-Newtonian information. Our findings show that for non-precessing
signals up to 65\% of source orientations can be missed when using
only the quadrupole mode, implying a 30\% gain in detection volume
which could be achieved by including higher modes. For our most
precessing case when using the quadrupole mode only the loss of source
orientations is 83\% and the potential gain in volume over which such
systems could be detected is again 30\%. These potential gains in
volume are mitigated by the fact that the mismatch is largest for
signals which radiate the least energy and to which, therefore, the
search is therefore least sensitive. Likewise, the mismatch is largest
in directions from the source along which the least energy is
radiated. Finally, we do a preliminary investigation into how the
series truncation might impact parameter estimation by exploring a
potential degeneracy between mass and inclination for full waveforms
in the last section of this paper.
\begin{figure}[h]
\hbox{
\includegraphics[width=.52\linewidth]{Figures/q1_amplitudes.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.52\linewidth]{Figures/q4_amplitudes.pdf}
}
\caption{Relative amplitude of higher modes for non-spinning {\bf
Left}: $q=1$ and {\bf Right}: $q=4$ systems. For the $q=1$ system the
(4,4) and (3,2) modes are about two orders of magnitude smaller than
the (2,2). All others are less than $10^{-3}$. For the $q=4$ the
(3,3) mode is within a factor of 10 of the dominant (2,2) mode, and several
other modes are within another factor of ten.
}
\label{fig:modeAmplitudes}
\end{figure}
We proceed as follows: in $\S~\ref{sec:matchedfilter}$ we introduce
our methodology for matched filtering, and in
$\S~\ref{sec:bbhWaveforms}$ the \nr{} waveforms used in all of our
studies. In $\S$~\ref{sec:preliminaryInvestigations} we consider
various aspects of the overlaps between the dominant mode and the higher modes. In $\S$~\ref{sec:results} we examine the
volume of the universe accessible to advanced detectors using quadrupole-only waveforms and hypothetical ideal
waveforms containing most of the modes, for several cases. We conclude in
$\S$~\ref{sec:conclusions} that the smallest overlaps are obtained for
systems and source orientations which radiate the least total power,
and hence have the smallest accessible volumes even when an ideal waveform is used. In this section we also present a first look at the
implications of higher modes for parameter estimation.
\emph{Conventions:} Throughout this paper we adopt the following
conventions. We denote the Fourier transform of a function $g(t)$
with a tilde, as $\tilde{g}(f)$. We characterize the mass ratio of a
\bbh{} system by $q=m_1/m_2$ with $m_1 \ge m_2$. The relation of the
source to the detector is specified by five angles. Two ($\iota,
\phi$) place the detector in coordinates centered at the source, it is
these angles in which the decomposition into spherical harmonics is
performed. Two ($\theta, \varphi$) place the source in the sky of the
detector. The final angle, $\psi$, determines the relative rotation
between these two coordinate systems, we associate $\psi$ with the
source because in what follows we will treat it similarly to $\iota$
and $\phi$. We define these angles in fig.(\ref{fig:angles}). The
final parameter connecting the source and detector is the distance
between them, we will be concerned with the maximum distance at which
the source can be detected and will determine this value in what
follows.
\begin{figure}[h]
{\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.44\linewidth]{Figures/detector_centric.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.44\linewidth]{Figures/source_centric.pdf}
}
\caption{
Definition of angles used in this paper. {\bf Left}: the angles used
at the detector, looking at the source. Although $\psi$ refers to a
rotation of the plane containing the source, we associate it with the
detector because it enters the analysis though the antenna pattern.
{\bf Right}: the angles used at the source, looking towards the
detector. These are the angles in which the spherical harmonics are
written.}
\label{fig:angles}
\end{figure}
\section{Matched-filter searches for Gravitational Waves}
\label{sec:matchedfilter}
\input{matchedfilter}
\input{waveforms}
\section{Overlap}
\label{sec:preliminaryInvestigations}
\input{prelim}
\section{SNR and Volume}
\label{sec:results}
\input{results}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
\input{conclusions}
\section{Acknowledgments:} Work supported by NSF grants 0914553,
\label{sec:acknowledgements}
0941417, 0903973, 0955825. Computations at Teragrid TG-PHY120016,
CRA Cygnus cluster and the Syracuse University Gravitation and
Relativity cluster, which is supported by NSF awards PHY-1040231,
PHY-0600953 and PHY-1104371. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF PHY11-25915. We also would like to thank Stephen
Fairhurst and Duncan Brown for their comments.
\subsection{Error analysis}
Because we choose random values in evaluating the average
eqn.(\ref{eq:snrAvg}) we are able to determine the error in the
results as the standard deviation between several runs. Due to the
computational expense of complete runs we instead estimate this by
choosing one sky position. We show the SNR histograms obtained by 900
runs of $\theta=\varphi=\pi/3$ for two waveforms in
fig.(\ref{fig:snrAvg}). In both cases the error is on order of
$0.5\%$. Since $V=r^3$ and $r$ has an error $\delta r$, then $ \delta
V = \sqrt{ \left( (dV/dr) \delta r \right)^2 }$. Here we have $\delta
V / V = 3 \delta r / r $. The error for the results in
tab.(\ref{tab:results}) is then on order $1.5\%$. There are also
uncertainties associated with the choice of extraction radius and
resolution. We show the volumes obtained using the $q=4$ systems and
$h_{ideal}$ template for several value of both parameters in
tab.(\ref{tab:resAndRad}). The variation is on the order of $1.5\%$,
and our two sources of uncertainty are comparable, and small enough
that they do not effect our conclusions.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\hbox{
\includegraphics[width=.45\linewidth]{Figures/q1_err_hist.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.45\linewidth]{Figures/q7_err_hist.pdf}
}
\caption{
Histograms showing variation in distance along the $\theta=\varphi=0$
sky direction for {\bf Left} q=1 and {\bf Right} q=7 systems. For
$q=1$ the mean is 30.80, corresponding to a distance of 5.6 Gpc, and
the standard deviation is 0.17. For $q=7$ the mean is 13.79,
corresponding to 2.51 Gpc, and the standard deviation is 0.08.
}
\label{fig:snrAvg}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l||r|r|r|}
\hline
\backslashbox{Extraction r.}{Resolution} & M/160 & M/180 & M/200 \\
\hline
\hline
60 M & 69.59 & 69.62 & 69.64 \\
75 M & 69.12 & 69.14 & 69.16 \\
100 M & 68.57 & 68.59 & 68.61 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption[TOADD]{
\label{tab:resAndRad}
Volumes obtained using the $q=4$ system and $h_{ideal}$ template
for various extraction radii and simulation resolutions. All
values are in Gpc${}^3$. All of these runs used the same set of
points. There is a general trend downward with decreased
resolution and increased extraction radius. The latter effect is
due to the fact that the late inspiral, merger and ringdown portions
of the waveform get smaller as $r\to\infty$. Although the inspiral portion
actually increases as $r\to\infty$, since the majority of the power
radiated is in the last orbits and merger the volume decreases.
As the variation is small we expect the difference from the true value
to be small as well.}
\end{table}
\section{The Binary Black Hole Coalescence Waveforms}
\label{sec:bbhWaveforms}
This paper uses \nr{} waveforms covering the late inspiral, merger and ringdown for a variety of mass ratios and spins.
All of the \nr{} simulations used in this study were produced with
GATech's \textsc{Maya} code~\cite{Haas:2012bk,Healy:2011ef,Bode:2011xz,Bode:2011tq,Bode:2009mt,Healy:2009zm}. The
\textsc{Maya} code uses the \texttt{Einstein Toolkit} \cite{et-web}
which is based on the \texttt{CACTUS} \cite{cactus-web} infrastructure
and \texttt{CARPET} \cite{Schnetter-etal-03b} mesh refinement.
We use sixth-order spatial finite differencing and extract the waveforms
at a finite radius of $75M$, where $M$ is a code unit set to unity
and can be scaled to any physical mass scale. All grids have 10 levels of
refinements unless noted below.
We use 28 simulations in this paper
and group them according to their initial parameters in Table \ref{tab:NR}.
Grid details, including outer boundary and resolution on the finest are
also shown. The simulations can be separated into three groups: non-spinning,
equal-mass with aligned spin, or unequal-mass with precessing spin.
For the simulations with $q>4$, we
used the coordinate-dependent gauge term as described in Refs.
\cite{Muller:2010zze} and \cite{Schnetter:2010cz}. For the $q=10$ and
$q=15$ simulations, initial parameters in Ref. \cite{Nakano:2011pb}
were used. These simulations ($q>4$) have an extra level of refinement
for 11 levels total, with the exception of $q=6$ and $q=15$.
These have 10 levels and
12 levels, respectfully.
The output of all simulations is the Weyl Scalar, $\Psi_4$,
decomposed into spin-weighted spherical harmonics. Simulations are
performed in a coordinate system which we will denote the {\it
source-centric} frame, to distinguish it from the {\it
detector-centric} frame we will employ subsequently. See
fig.(\ref{fig:angles}) for the definition of the angles used in this
frame. In terms of these angles the decomposition is:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Psi4Decomposition}
r M \Psi_4(\iota,\phi,t) = \sum_{l,m} {}_{-2} Y_{\ell m}(\iota,\phi) C_{\ell m}(t)\,.
\end{equation}
This is related to the strain measured by gravitational-wave
observatories as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:StrainDecomposition}
\Psi_4(\iota,\phi,t) &=& -(\ddot{h}_+(\iota,\phi,t) - i
\ddot{h}_\times(\iota,\phi,t)) \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{\ell m} {}_{-2} Y_{\ell m}(\iota,\phi) \ddot{h}^\star_{\ell m}(t)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The quadrupole mode is given by $(\ell,|m|)=(2,2)\,.$
Throughout this paper we work in the frequency domain, and
therefore avoid the integration to strain since
$\tilde{h} = \tilde{\Psi}_4 / (-4\pi^2f^2)$.
\begin{table*}
\include{runs-table}
\caption{\label{tab:NR}\textbf{Simulations Used}: The 28 simulations' initial parameters and grid structures are listed. The table is split into three groups: non-spinning, equal-mass with spin, and precessing spins. The table contains $q=m_+/m_-$, the bare puncture masses $m_{b+}/M$ and $m_{b-}/M$, the non-dimensional spins, $\chi_i = S_i/m_i^2$, the initial momentum, $p_+/M$, the initial separation, $d/M$, the outer boundary, $R_b/M$, and the resolution on the finest refinement level $M/h_{fine}$. If only one spin value is listed, the spin is aligned with the initial angular momentum. }
\end{table*}
|
\section{Introduction}
Given an algebra $\mathcal{A},$ a linear operator
$D:\mathcal{A}\rightarrow \mathcal{A}$ is called a
\textit{derivation}, if $D(xy)=D(x)y+xD(y)$ for all $x, y\in
\mathcal{A}$ (the Leibniz rule). Each element $a\in \mathcal{A}$
implements a derivation $D_a$ on $\mathcal{A}$ defined as
$D_a(x)=[a, x]=ax-xa,$ $x\in \mathcal{A}.$ Such derivations $D_a$
are said to be \textit{inner derivations}. If the element $a,$
implementing the derivation $D_a,$ belongs to a larger algebra
$\mathcal{B}$ containing $\mathcal{A},$ then $D_a$ is called
\textit{a spatial derivation} on $\mathcal{A}.$
If the algebra $\mathcal{A}$ is commutative, then it is clear that
all inner derivations are trivial, i.e. identically zero. One of
the main problems concerning derivations is to prove that every
derivation on a certain algebra is inner or spatial, or to show
the existence on a given algebra of non inner (resp. non spatial)
derivations, in particular the existence of non trivial
derivations in the commutative case.
In the paper \cite{Ber} A. F. Ber, V. I. Chilin and F. A. Sukochev
obtained necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of
non trivial derivations on regular commutative algebras. In
particular they have proved that the algebra $L^{0}(0,1)$ of all
(equivalence classes of) complex measurable function on the
$(0,1)$ interval admits non trivial derivations. It is clear that
such derivations are discontinuous and non inner. We have
conjectured in \cite{Alb2} that the existence of such "exotic"
examples of derivations is closely connected with the commutative
nature of these algebras. This was confirmed for the particular
case of type I von Neumann algebras in \cite{Alb2},
moreover we have investigated and completely described
derivations on the algebra $LS(M)$ of all locally measurable
operators affiliated with a type I or a type III von Neumann
algebra $M$ and on its various subalgebras \cite{AKop}.
There exist various types of linear operators which are close to
derivations \cite{Kad, Lar, Sem1}. In particular R.~Kadison
\cite{Kad} has introduced and investigated so-called local
derivations on von Neumann algebras and some polynomial algebras.
A linear operator $\Delta$ on an algebra $\mathcal{A}$ is called a
\textit{local derivation} if given any $x\in \mathcal{A}$ there
exists a derivation $D$ (depending on $x$) such that
$\Delta(x)=D(x).$ The main problems concerning this notion are to
find conditions under which local derivations become derivations
and to present examples of algebras with local derivations that
are not derivations. In particular Kadison \cite{Kad} has proved
that each continuous local derivation from a von Neumann algebra
$M$ into a dual $M$-bimodule is a derivation. In \cite{Bre1} it
was proved that every local derivation on the algebra $M_{n}(R)$
is a derivation, where $M_{n}(R)$ is the algebra of $n\times n$
matrices over a unital ring $R$ containing $1/2.$
In \cite{John}, B.~E.~Johnson has extended Kadison's result and
proved that every local derivation from a $C^{\ast}$-algebra
$\mathcal{A}$ into any Banach $\mathcal{A}$-bimodule is a
derivation. He also showed that every local derivation from
a $C^{\ast}$-algebra $\mathcal{A}$ into any Banach $\mathcal{A}$-bimodule is continuous.
In \cite{Nur} local derivations have been investigated on the
algebra $S(M)$ of all measurable operators with respect to a von
Neumann algebra $M$.
In particular, it was proved
that for finite type I von Neumann algebras without abelian direct summands every local derivation
on $S(M)$ is a derivation. Moreover, in the case of abelian von Neumann algebra $M$
necessary
and sufficient conditions have been obtained for the algebra
$S(M)$ to admit local derivations which are not derivations.
In 1997, P. Semrl \cite{Sem1} introduced the concepts of
$2$-local derivations and $2$-local automorphisms. A map
$\Delta:\mathcal{A}\rightarrow\mathcal{A}$ (not linear in
general) is called a
$2$-\emph{local derivation} if for every $x, y\in \mathcal{A},$ there exists
a derivation $D_{x, y}:\mathcal{A}\rightarrow\mathcal{A}$
such that $\Delta(x)=D_{x, y}(x)$ and $\Delta(y)=D_{x, y}(y).$
Local and $2$-local maps have been studied on different operator
algebras by many authors \cite{Nur, AyAr, JMAA, AKNA, AKA, Bre1,
John, Kad, Kim, Lar, Lin, Liu, Mol, Sem1, Sem2, Zhang}.
In \cite{Sem1}, P. Semrl described $2$-local derivations and
automorphisms on the algebra $B(H)$ of
all bounded linear operators on the infinite-dimensional
separable Hilbert space $H.$ A similar description for the
finite-dimensional case appeared later in \cite{Kim}. Recently in
\cite{JMAA} we have considered $2$-local derivations on the
algebra $B(H)$ of all linear bounded operators on an arbitrary (no
separability is assumed) Hilbert space $H$ and proved that every
$2$-local derivation on $B(H)$ is a derivation. This result has
been extended to arbitrary semi-finite von Neumann algebras in
\cite{AyAr}. J.~H.~Zhang and H.~X.~Li \cite{Zhang} described
$2$-local derivations on symmetric
digraph algebras and constructed a $2$-local derivation
which is not a derivation on the algebra
of all upper triangular complex $2\times 2$-matrices.
All algebras $\mathcal{A}$ considered in the present paper are
semi-prime, i.e. $a\mathcal{A}a=\{0\},\, a\in \mathcal{A},$
implies that $a = 0.$ If $\Delta:\mathcal{A}\rightarrow
\mathcal{A}$ is a $2$-local derivation then it is easy to see that
$\Delta$ is homogeneous and $\Delta(x^2)=\Delta(x)x+x\Delta(x) $
for all $x\in \mathcal{A}.$ A linear map satisfying the above
identity is called a Jordan derivation. It is proved in
\cite[Theorem 1]{Bre2} that any Jordan derivation on a semi-prime
algebra is a derivation. So in order to prove that a $2$-local
derivation $\Delta$ on a semi-prime algebra $\mathcal{A}$ is a
derivation it is sufficient to show that the map $\Delta$ is
additive.
This paper is devoted to $2$-local derivations on matrix algebras
over commutative regular algebras.
In Section 2 we give some basic results about regular commutative
algebras and their derivations.
Section 3 is devoted the problem of existence of $2$-local
derivations which are not derivations on a class of commutative
regular algebras, which include the algebras of measurable
functions on a finite measure space (Theorem~\ref{maincom}).
In section 4 we consider $2$-local derivations on matrix
algebras over commutative regular algebras.
We prove that every $2$-local derivation on
the matrix algebra $M_n(\mathcal{A})$ $(n\geq 2$) over a
commutative regular algebra $\mathcal{A}$ is a derivation
(Theorem~\ref{Main}).
The main results of the Sections 3 and 4 are applied to study
$2$-local derivations on algebras of measurable and locally
measurable operators affiliated with abelian von Neumann algebras
and with type I von Neumann algebras without abelian direct
summands respectively.
\section{Commutative regular algebras}
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be a commutative algebra with the unit
$\mathbf{1}$ over the field $\mathbf{C}$ of complex numbers. We
denote by $\nabla$ the set $\{e\in \mathcal{A}: e^2=e\}$ of all
idempotents in $\mathcal{A}.$ For $e,f\in \nabla$ we set $e\leq f$
if $ef=e.$ With respect to this partial order, to the lattice
operations $e\vee f=e+f-ef, \ e\wedge f=ef$ and the complement
$e^{\bot}=\mathbf{1}-e,$ the set $\nabla$ forms a Boolean algebra.
A non zero element $q$ from the Boolean algebra $\nabla$ is called
an \textit{atom} if $0\neq e\leq q, \ e\in \nabla,$ imply that
$e=q.$ If given any nonzero $e\in \nabla$ there exists an atom $q$
such that $q\leq e,$ then the Boolean algebra $\nabla$ is said to
be \textit{atomic}.
An algebra $\mathcal{A}$ is called \textit{regular} (in the sense
of von Neumann) if for any $a\in \mathcal{A}$ there exists $b \in
\mathcal{A}$ such that $a = aba.$
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be a unital commutative regular algebra over
$\mathbf{C},$ and let $\nabla$ be the Boolean algebra of all its
idempotents. In this case given any element $a\in \mathcal{A}$
there exists an idempotent $e\in \nabla$ such that $ea=a,$ and if
$ga=a, g\in \nabla,$ then $e\leq g.$ This idempotent is called the
\textit{support} of $a$ and denoted by $s(a).$
Recall that the Boolean algebra $\nabla$ is called
\textit{complete}, if for any subset $S$ there exists the least
upper bound $\sup S\in \nabla.$ We say that a Boolean algebra
$\nabla$ is
\textit{of countable type}, if every family of
pairwise disjoint nonzero elements from $\nabla$ is at most
countable.
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be a commutative unital regular algebra, and let
$\mu$ be a strictly positive countably additive finite measure on
the Boolean algebra $\nabla$ of all idempotents from
$\mathcal{A},$ $\rho(a,b)=\mu(s(a-b)),\ a,b\in \mathcal{A}.$ If
$(\mathcal{A}, \rho)$ is a complete metric space, then $\nabla$ is
a complete Boolean algebra of the countable type (see
\cite[Proposition 2.7]{Ber}).
\begin{example}\label{exam}
The most important example of a complete commutative regular
algebra $(\mathcal{A},\rho)$ is the algebra
$\mathcal{A}=L^0(\Omega)=L^0(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu)$ of all (classes
of equivalence of) measurable complex functions on a measure space
$(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu),$ where $\mu$ is finite countably additive
measure on $\Sigma,$ and $\rho(a,b)=\mu(s(a-b))=\mu(\{\omega\in
\Omega:a(\omega)\neq b(\omega)\})$ (see for details
\cite[Lemma]{Ayu1} and \cite[Example 2.5]{Ber}).
\end{example}
\begin{remark} \label{rem}
If $(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu)$ is a general localizable measure space,
i.e. the measure $\mu$ (not finite in general) has the finite
sum property, then the algebra $L^0(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu)$ is a
unital regular algebra, but $\rho(a,b)=\mu(s(a-b))$
is not a metric in general. But one can
represent $\Omega$ as a union of pair-wise disjoint measurable
sets with finite measures and thus this algebra is a direct sum
of commutative regular complete metrizable algebras from the above
example. \end{remark}
From now on we
shall assume that $(\mathcal{A},\rho)$ is a complete metric space
(cf. \cite{Ber}).
Following \cite{Ber} we say that an element $a \in \mathcal{A}$ is
\textit{finitely valued} (respectively, \textit{countably valued})
if $a = \sum\limits_{k =1}^n {\alpha _k e_k}$, where $\alpha _k
\in \mathbf{C}$, $e_k \in \nabla, \ e_k e_j=0, \ k\neq j,\ k,j
=1,...,n, \ n\in \mathbf{N}$ (respectively, $a = \sum\limits_{k
=1}^\omega {\alpha _k e_k}$, where $\alpha_k \in \mathbf{C}$, $e_k
\in \nabla, \ e_k e_j=0, \ k\neq j, \ k,j =1,...,\omega,$ where
$\omega$ is a natural number or $\infty$ (in the latter case the
convergence of series is understood with respect to the metric
$\rho$)). We denote by $K(\nabla)$ (respectively, by
$K_c(\nabla)$) the set of all finitely valued (respectively,
countably valued) elements in $\mathcal{A}.$ It is known that
$\nabla \subset K(\nabla) \subset K_c(\nabla),$ both $K(\nabla)$
and $K_c(\nabla)$ are regular subalgebras in $\mathcal{A},$ and
moreover the closure of $K(\nabla)$ in $(\mathcal{A},\rho)$
coincides with $K_c(\nabla),$ in particular, $K_c(\nabla)$ is a
$\rho$-complete (see \cite[Proposition 2.8]{Ber}).
Further everywhere we assume that $\mathcal{A}$ is a unital
commutative regular algebra over $\mathbf{C}$ and $\mu$ is a
strictly positive countably additive finite measure on the Boolean
algebra $\nabla$ of all idempotents in $\mathcal{A}.$ Suppose that
$\mathcal{A}$ is complete in the metric $\rho(a, b)=\mu(s(a-b)),\
a,b\in \mathcal{A}.$
First we recall some further notions from the paper \cite{Ber}.
Let $\mathcal{B}$ be a unital subalgebra in the algebra
$\mathcal{A}.$ An element $a\in \mathcal{A}$ is called:
-- \textit{algebraic with respect to} $\mathcal{B},$ if there
exists a polynomial $p\in \mathcal{B}[x]$ (i.e. a polynomial on
$x$ with the coefficients from $\mathcal{B}$), such that $p(a)=0$;
-- \textit{integral with respect to} $\mathcal{B},$ if there
exists a unitary polynomial $p\in \mathcal{B}[x]$ (i.e. the
coefficient of the largest degree of $x$ in $p(x)$ is equal to
$\mathbf{1}\in \mathcal{B}$), such that $p(a)=0;$
-- \textit{transcendental with respect to} $\mathcal{B},$ if $a$
is not algebraic with respect to $\mathcal{B};$
-- \textit{weakly transcendental with respect to} $\mathcal{A},$
if $a\neq 0$ and for any non-zero idempotent $e\leq s(a)$ the
element $ea$ is not integral with respect to $\mathcal{B}.$
Integral closure of a subalgebra $\mathcal{B}$ is the set of all
integral elements in $\mathcal{A}$ with respect to $\mathcal{B};$
it is denoted as $\mathcal{B}^{(i)}$. It is known (see e.g.
\cite{ber-mt}) that $\mathcal{B}^{(i)}$ is also a subalgebra in
$\mathcal{A}.$
\begin{lemma}\label{trans}
Let $\mathcal{B}$ be a regular $\rho$-closed subalgebra in
$\mathcal{A}$ such that
$\nabla\subset\mathcal{B}=\mathcal{B}^{(i)},$ where
$\mathcal{B}^{(i)}$ is the integral closure of $\mathcal{B}.$ Then
for every $a\in \mathcal{A}$ there exists an idempotent
$e_a\in\nabla$ such that
i) $e_a a\in \mathcal{B};$
ii) if $e_a\neq \mathbf{1}$ then $(\mathbf{1}-e_a) a$ is a
weakly transcendental element with respect to $\mathcal{B}.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Put
$$
\nabla_a=\{e\in\nabla: e a\in \mathcal{B}\}.
$$
Take $e_1, e_2\in \nabla_a,$ i.e. $e_1 a, e_2 a\in
\mathcal{B}.$ Since $\nabla\subset\mathcal{B}$ it follows that
$(e_1^\perp\wedge e_2) a\in \mathcal{B}.$ Further $\mathcal{B}$ is
a subalgebra and therefore
$$
(e_1\vee e_2)a=e_1 a+(e_1^\perp\wedge e_2)a\in \mathcal{B},
$$
i.e. $e_1\vee e_2\in \nabla_a.$
Denote
$$
e_a=\bigvee\nabla_a.
$$
Since $\nabla$ is a Boolean algebra with a strictly positive
finite measure $\mu$ there exists a sequence of idempotents
$\{e_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ in $\nabla_a$ such that
$\bigvee\limits_{n\in\mathbb{N}} e_n=e_a.$ Since $e_n a\in
\mathcal{B}$ it follows that $\bigvee\limits_{n=1}^{m}e_na \in
\mathcal{B}$ for all $m\in \mathbb{N}.$ It is clear that
$$
\lim\limits_{m\rightarrow\infty}
\rho\left(\bigvee\limits_{n=1}^{m}e_n a, e_a a\right)\rightarrow
0.
$$
Since $\mathcal{B}$ is $\rho$-closed it follows that
$e_a a\in \mathcal{B}.$
Now we suppose that $e_a\neq \mathbf{1}.$ Let $0\neq e\leq
e_a^{\perp}.$ If $e a$ is an integral element with respect to
$\mathcal{B}$ then by the equality $\mathcal{B}=\mathcal{B}^{(i)}$
we have that $e a\in \mathcal{B},$ i.e. $e\leq e_a,$ which
contradicts with $0\neq e\leq e_a^{\perp}.$ Thus $e_a^{\perp}a$
is
weakly transcendental with respect to $\mathcal{B}.$ The
proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Below we list some results from \cite{Ber}, \cite{ber-mt} which
are necessary in the next section.
\begin{proposition} (see \cite[Proposition 2.3 (iv)]{Ber}).
\label{lfirst} If $\mathcal{B}$ is a subalgebra in $\mathcal{A}$
and $\delta:\mathcal{B}\rightarrow \mathcal{A}$
is a derivation, then
$s(\delta(b))\leq s(b)$ for all $b\in \mathcal{B}.$
\end{proposition}
Recall (see \cite{Ber}) that for every element $a$ in the regular
algebra $\mathcal{A}$ there is a unique element $i(a)\in
\mathcal{A}$ such that $ai(a)=s(a).$ In particular, $\mathcal{A}$
is semi-prime. Indeed, if $a\mathcal{A}a=\{0\},$ then
$$
0=ai(a)a=s(a)a=a.
$$
\begin{proposition} (see \cite[Proposition 2.5]{Ber}).
\label{lsec} Let $\mathcal{B}$ be a subalgebra in $\mathcal{A}$
such that $\nabla\subset \mathcal{B}$ and let
$\delta:\mathcal{B}\rightarrow \mathcal{A}$ be a derivation. If
$\mathcal{B}(i)=\{a\cdot i(b): a, b\in \mathcal{B}\},$ then
$\mathcal{B}(i)$ is the smallest regular subalgebra in
$\mathcal{A}$ containing $\mathcal{B},$ and there exists a unique
derivation $\delta_1:\mathcal{B}(i)\rightarrow \mathcal{A}$ such
that $\delta_1(b) = \delta(b)$ for all $b\in \mathcal{B}.$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition} (see \cite[Proposition 2.6 (vi)]{Ber}).
\label{lthir} If $\mathcal{B}$ is a subalgebra (respectively, a
regular subalgebra) in $\mathcal{A},$ such that $\nabla\subset
\mathcal{B}$ and if $\delta:\mathcal{B}\rightarrow \mathcal{A}$
is a derivation, then the closure $\overline{\mathcal{B}}$ of the
algebra $\mathcal{B}$ in $(\mathcal{A}, \rho)$ is a subalgebra
(respectively, a regular subalgebra) in $\mathcal{A},$ and there
exists a unique derivation
$\delta_1:\overline{\mathcal{B}}\rightarrow \mathcal{A}$ such that
$\delta_1(b) = \delta(b)$ for all $b\in \mathcal{B}.$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition} (see \cite[Proposition 2]{ber-mt}).
\label{lfour} Suppose that $\mathcal{B}$ is a regular
$\rho$-closed subalgebra in $\mathcal{A},$ $\nabla\subset
\mathcal{B}$ and $\delta:\mathcal{B}\rightarrow \mathcal{A}$ is a
derivation. Let $\mathcal{B}^{(i)}$ be the integral closure of
$\mathcal{B}$ in $\mathcal{A}.$ Then $\mathcal{B}^{(i)}$ is a
regular subalgebra in $\mathcal{A}$ and there exists a unique
derivation $\delta_1:\mathcal{B}^{(i)}\rightarrow \mathcal{A}$
such that $\delta_1(b) = \delta(b)$ for all $b\in \mathcal{B}.$
\end{proposition}
We note also that for any element $a\in \mathcal{A},$ the set
$\mathcal{B}(a)=\{p(a): p\in \mathcal{B}[x]\}$ (of all polynomials
on $a$ with the coefficients from $\mathcal{B}$) is a subalgebra
in $\mathcal{A},$ which is generated by the subalgebra
$\mathcal{B}$ and the element $a.$
\begin{proposition} (see \cite[Proposition 3.6]{Ber}).
\label{lin} Let $\mathcal{B}\subseteq \mathcal{A}$ be a regular
$\rho$-closed subalgebra such that $\nabla\subset \mathcal{B}$
and let $\delta:\mathcal{B}\rightarrow \mathcal{A}$ be a
derivation.
If $a$ is an integral element
with respect to $\mathcal{B},$ then there exists a unique
derivation $\delta_1:\mathcal{B}(a)\rightarrow \mathcal{A}$ such
that $\delta_1(b)=\delta(b)$ for all $b\in \mathcal{B}.$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition} (see \cite[Proposition 3.7]{Ber}).
\label{lfiv} Let $\mathcal{B}$ be a regular subalgebra in
$\mathcal{A}$ such that $\nabla\subset \mathcal{B}$ and let
$\delta:\mathcal{B}\rightarrow \mathcal{A}$ be a derivation. If
$a\in \mathcal{A}$ is a weakly transcendental
element
with respect to $\mathcal{B},$ then for every $c\in \mathcal{A},$
such that $s(c)\leq s(a),$ there exists
a unique derivation $\delta_1:\mathcal{B}(a)\rightarrow \mathcal{A},$
such that $\delta_1(b)=\delta(b)$ for all $b\in \mathcal{B}$ and
$\delta_1(a)=c.$
\end{proposition}
The following theorem provides a sufficient condition
for a derivation initially defined on a subalgebra of a commutative
regular algebra to have an extension to the whole algebra (see
\cite{Ber}).
\begin{theorem} (see \cite[Theorem 3.1]{Ber}).
\label{mfirst} Let $\mathcal{B}$ be a subalgebra of
$\mathcal{A}.$ Then for any derivation
$\delta:\mathcal{B}\rightarrow \mathcal{A}$ for which
$s(\delta(b))\leq s(b)$ for all $a, b\in \mathcal{B}$, there
exists a derivation $\delta_0: \mathcal{A}\rightarrow
\mathcal{A},$
such that $\delta_0(b) = \delta(b)$
for all $b\in \mathcal{B}.$
\end{theorem}
The main result of \cite{Ber} (Theorem 3.2) asserts that the
algebra $\mathcal{A}$ admits a non-zero derivation if and only if
$K_c(\nabla)\neq \mathcal{A}$
Now recall the definition of algebraically independent subset over
commutative regular algebras (see for details~\cite{ber-mt}).
Let $F[x_1,\ldots, x_n]$ be the algebra of all polynomials of
$n$ variables over a field $F.$ A monomial $q(x_1,\ldots, x_n)$
is said to be included to a polynomial
$p(x_1, \ldots, x_n)\in F[x_1,\ldots, x_n],$
if the natural representation of $p(x_1, \ldots, x_n)$ as a
sum of monomials with non zero coefficients contains the monomial
$q.$ Natural representation means such representation
that any two different monomials have different degrees of corresponding variables.
For example, for the polynomial $p(x_1,
x_2)=4x_1^3x_2^4+5x_1^2x_2^3-3x_1^2x_2^3+2$ of two variables the
natural representation is $p(x_1, x_2)=4x_1^3x_2^4+2x_1^2x_2^3+2$.
Let $\mathcal{A}$
be a commutative regular algebra over the field $F.$ A subset
$\mathcal{M}$ is called algebraically independent if for any $a_1,
\ldots, a_n\in \mathcal{M},$ $e\in \nabla,$ $p\in F[x_1,\ldots,
x_n]$ the equality $ep(a_1,\ldots, a_n)=0$ implies that
$eq(a_1,\ldots, a_n)=0,$ where $q\in F[x_1,\ldots, x_n]$ is an
arbitrary monomial included to the polynomial $p.$
If $\mathcal{A}$ is a field then this definition coincides with
the well-known definition algebraically independence of subsets
over the field.
Note that in the case of $f$-algebras the notion of algebraic
independence of subsets coincides with the algebraic independence
of subsets introduced by A.G. Kusraev in \cite{Kus1}.
We need the following result from \cite[Proposition 4]{ber-mt}.
\begin{proposition}\label{trakri}
For a subset $\{a_i: i\in I\}\subset \mathcal{A}$ the following
assertions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\{a_i: i\in I\}$ is an algebraically independent subset in
$\mathcal{A};$
\item for every $i\in I$ the element $a_i$ is weakly transcendental with
respect to the algebra $\mathcal{A}_i,$ generated by $\nabla$ and
$\{a_j: j\in I, j\neq i\}.$
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{lemma}\label{indep} Let $a, b\in \mathcal{A}$ and let
$s(a)=s(b)=\mathbf{1}.$ If the subset
$\{a, b\}$ is algebraically independent then the subset
$\{a, a+b\}$ is also algebraically independent.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $\{a, a+b\}$ is not algebraically independent. Then
by Proposition~\ref{trakri} it follows that $a+b$ is not weakly
transcendental element with respect to the subalgebra $F(a,
\nabla),$ generated by the element $a$ and $\nabla.$ Therefore
there exists a non zero idempotent $e\leq s(a+b)$ such that
$e(a+b)$ is an integral element with respect to $F(a, \nabla),$
i.e. there are elements
$c_1, c_2,\ldots, c_n\in F(a, \nabla)$
such that
$$
(e(a+b))^n+c_1(e(a+b))^{n-1}+\ldots+c_{n-1}(e(a+b))+c_n=0.
$$
By decomposing $(e(a+b))^k,$ $k=\overline{1, n},$ the last
equality can be represented in the form
$$
(eb)^n+d_1(eb)^{n-1}+\ldots+d_{n-1}(eb)+d_n=0,
$$
where
$d_1, d_2,\ldots, d_n\in F(a, \nabla).$
This means that $eb$ is an integral element with respect to $F(a,
\nabla).$ Since $s(a)=\mathbf{1}$ it follows that $b$ is not
weakly transcendental with respect to $F(a, \nabla).$
On other hand, since $\{a, b\}$ is an algebraically independent
subset, by
\cite[Proposition~4]{ber-mt} we have that
$b$ is weakly transcendental with respect to $F(a, \nabla).$
From this contradiction we have that $\{a, a+b\}$ is an
algebraically independent subset. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Denote by $Der(\mathcal{A})$ the set of all derivations from
$\mathcal{A}$ into $\mathcal{A}$. Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a maximal
algebraically independent subset in $\mathcal{A}$ and denote by
$K(\mathcal{M}, \mathcal{A})$ the set of all mapping
$f:\mathcal{M}\rightarrow \mathcal{A}$ such that $s(f(a))\leq
s(a)$ for every $a\in \mathcal{M}.$ The sets $Der(\mathcal{A})$
and $K(\mathcal{M}, \mathcal{A})$ equipped with natural algebraic
operations form linear spaces over $\mathbb{C}.$
\begin{theorem} (see \cite[Theorem 1]{ber-mt}) \label{mtm}
The map $\delta\rightarrow \delta|_{\mathcal{M}}$
gives a linear isomorphism between $Der(\mathcal{A})$ and $K(\mathcal{M}, \mathcal{A}).$
\end{theorem}
\section{$2$-Local derivations on commutative regular algebras}
In this section $\mathcal{A}$ is a unital commutative regular
algebra over $\mathbf{C},$ $\nabla$ is the Boolean algebra of all
its idempotents and $\mu$ is a strictly positive countably
additive finite measure on $\nabla$. Consider the metric
$\rho(a,b)=\mu(s(a-b)),\ a,b\in \mathcal{A},$ on the algebra
$\mathcal{A}$ and from now on we shall assume that
$(\mathcal{A},\rho)$ is a complete metric space (cf. \cite{Ber}).
\begin{definition}\label{re}
For $x\in \mathcal{A}$ denote:
--- $\mathcal{A}_0=F(x, \nabla)$ is the subalgebra in $\mathcal{A},$
generated by $x$ and $\nabla;$
--- $\mathcal{A}_1$ is the smallest regular subalgebra in
$\mathcal{A},$ contained $\mathcal{A}_0;$
--- $\mathcal{A}_2$ is the closure of $\mathcal{A}_1$ by the metric
$\rho;$
--- $\mathcal{A}_3$ is the integral closure of $\mathcal{A}_2;$
--- $\mathcal{A}_x$ is the closure of $\mathcal{A}_3$ by the metric
$\rho.$
\end{definition}
Note that Proposition~\ref{lsec} provides the existence of the
subalgebra $\mathcal{A}_1.$
\begin{lemma}\label{der} If there is an element
$a\in\mathcal{A} $ weakly transcendental with respect to
$K_c(\nabla)$ such that $\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{A}_a,$ where
$\mathcal{A}_a$ is the
subalgebra constructed with respect to $a$ by
definition~\ref{re}, then any $2$-local derivation on $\mathcal{A}$
is a derivation.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $a$ be a weakly transcendental element with respect to
$K_c(\nabla)$ such that $\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{A}_a$ and let
$\Delta$ be a $2$-local derivation on $\mathcal{A}.$ Since any
derivation on regular commutative algebra $\mathcal{A}$ does not
expand the support of elements (see Proposition~\ref{lfirst}), we
have that $s(\Delta(x))\leq s(x), x\in \mathcal{A}$.
Let us show that there exists a unique derivation $D$ on
$\mathcal{A}$ such that $D(a)=\Delta(a).$ First consider the
trivial (identically zero) derivation $D$ on $K_c(\nabla).$ Since
$a$ is weakly transcendental with respect to $K_c(\nabla)$ and
$s(\Delta(a))\leq s(a),$ Proposition~\ref{lfiv} implies that $D$
has a unique extension (which is also denoted by $D$) onto
$\mathcal{A}_0$ such that $D(a)=\Delta(a);$ Further following
Proposition~\ref{lsec} we can extend $D$ in a unique way onto
$\mathcal{A}_1;$ and then by Proposition~\ref{lthir} it can be
uniquely extended onto $\mathcal{A}_2.$ Further, in view of
Proposition~\ref{lfour} $D$ has a unique extension onto
$\mathcal{A}_3;$ and finally, applying Proposition~\ref{lthir}
once more we extend it (uniquely) onto
$\mathcal{A}_a=\mathcal{A}.$
Now let $x$ be
an arbitrary element from $\mathcal{A}.$ Since $\Delta$ is a
$2$-local derivation there is derivation $\delta$ (depending on
$x$ and $a$) such that
$$
\Delta(x)=\delta(x),\, \Delta(a)=\delta(a).
$$
Thus $\delta(a)=\Delta(a)=D(a).$ Since $D$ is a unique
derivation on $\mathcal{A}$ with $\Delta(a)=D(a),$ it follows
that $\delta\equiv D.$ In particular,
$$
\Delta(x)=\delta(x)=D(x),
$$
i.e. $\Delta\equiv D.$ This means that $\Delta$ is a derivation.
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{locder} If there exist two algebraically independent
elements $a, b\in \mathcal{A}$ with $s(a)=s(b),$ then the
algebra $\mathcal{A}$ admits a $2$-local derivation which is not
a derivation.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Suppose that there exist algebraically
independent elements $a, b$ such that $s(a)=s(b)=\mathbf{1}.$
Denote by $\mathcal{A}_a$ and $\mathcal{A}_b$ of the subalgebras
in $\mathcal{A},$ constructed with respect to elements $x=a$ and
$x= b,$ respectively, by definition~\ref{re}.
Since $a, b$ are algebraically independent elements,
Proposition~\ref{trakri} implies that the element $a$ is a weakly
transcendental element with respect to $K_c(\nabla).$ Similarly to
the proof of Lemma~\ref{der} we can find a derivation $D$ on
$\mathcal{A}_a$ such that $\Delta(a)=\mathbf{1}.$ Algebraic
independence of the subset
$\{a, b\}$ and Proposition~\ref{trakri} imply that $b$ is a
weakly
transcendental element with respect to
the subalgebra $\mathcal{A}_a.$
Therefore, using Proposition~\ref{lfour} once more we can extend
the derivation $D$ with value $D(b)=\mathbf{1}$ to the subalgebra
generated by $\mathcal{A}_a$ and $b.$ Now using
Theorem~\ref{mfirst} we can extend the derivation $D$ onto the
whole $\mathcal{A}.$ Hence there is a derivation $D$ on
$\mathcal{A}$ such that
$$
D(a)=D(b)=\mathbf{1}.
$$
Now on the algebra $\mathcal{A}$ define the operator $\Delta$ as
follows:
$$
\Delta(x)=(e_a(x)\vee e_b(x))D(x),\, x\in \mathcal{A},
$$
where $e_a(x)$ (respectively $e_b(x)$) is the largest
idempotent such that
$e_a(x) x\in \mathcal{A}_a$
(respectively $e_b(x)\in \mathcal{A}_b$) (see Lemma~\ref{trans}).
Let us show that $\Delta$ is a $2$-local derivation on
$\mathcal{A}$ which is not a derivation.
First we check that $\Delta$ is a $2$-local derivation.
Take $x, y\in \mathcal{A}.$ Consider the following three cases.
Case 1. $e_a(x)\vee e_b(x)=\mathbf{1}, e_a(y)\vee
e_b(y)=\mathbf{1}.$ Then
$$
\Delta(x)=D(x),\, \Delta(y)=D(y).
$$
Case 2. $e_a(x)\vee e_b(x)=0, e_a(y)\vee e_b(y)=0.$ Then
$$
\Delta(x)=0,\, \Delta(y)=0.
$$
Therefore for trivial derivation $D_0$ we have that
$$
\Delta(x)=D_0(x),\, \Delta(y)=D_0(y).
$$
Case 3. $e_a(x)\vee e_b(x)=\mathbf{1}, e_a(y)\vee e_b(y)=0.$
Without loss of generality we can assume that
$e_a(x)\neq 0.$ Since $e_a(y)=0,$
Lemma \ref{trans}
implies that the element $e_a(x) y$ is weakly transcendental with
respect to $e_a(x)\mathcal{A}_a.$ Therefore by
Proposition~\ref{lfiv} there exists a derivation $D_1$ on the
subalgebra generated by $e_a(x)\mathcal{A}_a$ and $e_a(x)y$ such
that
$$
D_1|_{e_a(x)\mathcal{A}_a}= D|_{e_a(x)\mathcal{A}_a},\,
D_1(e_a(x)y)=0.
$$
Now by Theorem~\ref{mfirst}
we extend this derivation
onto the whole $\mathcal{A},$ and denote the extension also by
$D_1.$
Similarly there exists a derivation $D_2$ on $\mathcal{A}$ such
that
$$
D_2|_{e_b(x)\mathcal{A}_b}= D|_{e_b(x)\mathcal{A}_b},\,
D_2(e_b(x)y)=0.
$$
Put $D_3=e_a(x)D_1+e_a(x)^{\perp}D_2.$ Then
$$
\Delta(x)=D(x)=D(e_a(x)x+e_a(x)^{\perp}x)=
$$
$$
=e_a(x)D(x)+e_a(x)^{\perp}D(x)=
e_a(x)D_1(x)+e_a(x)^{\perp}D_2(x)=D_3(x)
$$
and
$$
\Delta(y)=0=e_a(x)D_1(y)+e_b(x)^{\perp}D_2(y)= D_3(y).
$$
Thus
$$
\Delta(x)=D_3(x),\, \Delta(y)=D_3(y).
$$
Now let $x$ and $y$ be arbitrary elements of $\mathcal{A}.$ Put
$$
e_1=e_a(x)\vee e_b(x),\, e_2=e_a(y)\vee e_b(y)
$$
and
$$
p_1=e_1\wedge e_2,\, p_2=e_1\wedge e_2^{\perp},\,
p_3=e_1^{\perp}\wedge e_1,\, p_4=(e_1\vee e_2)^{\perp}.
$$
Then $p_1+p_2+p_3+p_4=\mathbf{1}.$ Consider the restriction
$\Delta_i$ of the $2$-local derivation $\Delta$ on
$p_i\mathcal{A},$ $i=\overline{1, 4}.$ The idempotents $e_{p_1
a}(p_1 x)\vee e_{p_1 b}(p_1 x)$ and $e_{p_1 a}(p_1 y)\vee e_{p_1
b}(p_1 y),$ corresponding to the elements $p_1x$ and $p_1y,$ by
Lemma \ref{trans}, with respect to the subalgebras
$p_1\mathcal{A}_{p_1 a},\, p_1\mathcal{A}_{p_1 b}$ are equal to
$p_1$ ($p_1$ is the unit in $p_1\mathcal{A}$).
Therefore by the case 1 there exists a derivation
$D_1$ on $p_1\mathcal{A}$ such that
$$
p_1\Delta(p_1x)=p_1D_1(p_1x),\, p_1\Delta(p_1y)=p_1D_1(p_1y).
$$
Similarly we consider the $2$-local derivations $p_2\Delta$ and
$p_3\Delta,$ which correspond to the case 3,
and the 2-local
derivation $p_4\Delta$ which corresponds to the case 2. Take the
corresponding derivations $D_i$ on $p_i\mathcal{A},$
$i=\overline{1, 4}$ with
$$
p_i\Delta(p_ix)=p_iD_i(p_ix),\, p_i\Delta(p_iy)=p_iD_i(p_iy).
$$
Put $D_5=D_1+D_2+D_3+D_4.$ Then
$$
\Delta(x)=D_5(x),\, \Delta(y)=D_5(y).
$$
Now we show that $\Delta$ is not a derivation. It is sufficient
show that $\Delta$ is not an additive. Indeed, by Lemma
\ref{indep} the subset $\{a, a+b\}$ is an algebraically
independent subset. Hence $a+b$ is a weakly transcendental element
with respect to the subalgebra generated by $a$ and $\nabla.$ Thus
$e_a(a+b)=0.$ In the same way we can show that $e_b(a+b)=0.$
Therefore
$$
\Delta(a+b)=(e_a(a+b)\vee e_b(a+b))D(x)=0.
$$
On other hand,
$$
\Delta(a)=\Delta(b)=\mathbf{1}.
$$
Thus
$$
\Delta(a)+\Delta(b)\neq \Delta(a+b).
$$
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
The following theorem is the main result of this section.
\begin{theorem}\label{maincom}
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be a unital commutative
regular algebra over $\mathbf{C}$ and let $\mu$ be a strictly
positive countably additive finite measure on the Boolean algebra
$\nabla$ of all idempotents in $\mathcal{A}.$ Suppose that
$\mathcal{A}$ is complete in the metric $\rho(a,b)=\mu(s(a-b)),\
a,b\in \mathcal{A}.$ Then the following conditions are equivalent:
i) any $2$-local derivation on $\mathcal{A}$ is a derivation;
ii) either $\mathcal{A}=K_c(\nabla)$ or there exists an element
$a$ weakly transcendental with respect to $K_c(\nabla)$ such that
$\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{A}_a,$ where $\mathcal{A}_a$ is the
subalgebra constructed with respect to $a$ by
definition~\ref{re}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
$ii)\Rightarrow i).$ First let us consider the case when
$\mathcal{A}=K_c(\nabla).$ Since each derivation on $K_c(\nabla)$
is identically zero, it follows that each $2$-local derivation on
$\mathcal{A}=K_c(\nabla)$ is also trivial. Therefore every
$2$-local derivation on $\mathcal{A}$ is a derivation.
Now suppose that there exists an element $a\in\mathcal{A} $ weakly
transcendental with respect to $K_c(\nabla)$ such that
$\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{A}_a.$ Then by Lemma~\ref{der} each
$2$-local derivation on $\mathcal{A}$ is a derivation.
$i)\Rightarrow ii).$ Suppose that $ii)$ is not true. Then
$\mathcal{A}\neq K_c(\nabla).$ For arbitrary $x\notin K_c(\nabla)$
put
$$
e(x)=\mathbf{1}-\bigvee\{e\in \nabla: ex\in K_c(\nabla)\}.
$$
Then
$$
ex\notin K_c(\nabla),\, \forall\, 0\neq
e\leq e(x).
$$
Denote
$$
e_t=\bigvee\{e(x)\in \nabla: x\notin K_c(\nabla)\}.
$$
Let us show that
$$
e_t^{\perp}\mathcal{A}=e_t^{\perp}K_c(\nabla).
$$
Let $x\in \mathcal{A}$ be an arbitrary element. Taking into
account that $K_c(\nabla)$ is $\rho$-complete (see Section 2),
by the definition of the idempotent $e(x)$ we have that
$e(x)^\perp x\in K_c(\nabla).$ Since $e_t^\perp \leq e(x)^\perp$
we have $e_t^\perp x\in K_c(\nabla).$
This means that $e_t^{\perp}\mathcal{A}=e_t^{\perp}K_c(\nabla).$
Since $\nabla$ -- is a Boolean algebra with a finite measure,
there exists a sequence $\{e(x_n)\}_{n\geq 1}$ such that
$$
e_t=\bigvee\limits_{n\geq 1} e(x_n).
$$
Put
$$
e_1=e(x_1),\, e_n=e(x_n)\wedge (e_1\vee\cdots\vee
e_{n-1})^{\perp},\, n\geq 2
$$
and consider the element
$$
x_t=\sum\limits_{n\geq 1}e_nx_n.
$$
Then we have that
$$
ex_t\notin K_c(\nabla),\, \forall\, 0\neq e\leq e_t.
$$
Indeed, let $e\leq e_t$ be an arbitrary non zero idempotent. Take
a number $n\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $e e_n\neq 0.$ Since $e_n\leq
e(x_n),$ it follows that $ee_n x_n\notin K_c(\nabla).$ Further,
by the equality $ee_nx_t=ee_nx_n$ we get $ee_n x_t\notin
K_c(\nabla)$ and hence $ex_t\notin K_c(\nabla).$
Since we assumed that $ii)$ is
false, this implies that
$$
\mathcal{A}\neq \mathcal{A}_{x_{t}}.
$$
Take $y\in \mathcal{A}\setminus \mathcal{A}_{x_{t}}.$ By
Lemma~\ref{trans} there exists the largest idempotent
$e_y$ such that $e_y y\in \mathcal{A}_{x_t}.$ Since $y\in
\mathcal{A}\setminus \mathcal{A}_{x_{t}},$ it follows that
$e_0=\mathbf{1}-e_y\neq 0.$ Again Lemma~\ref{trans} implies that
$e_0y$ is a
weakly
transcendental element with respect to
$\mathcal{A}_{x_t}.$
Denote
$$
a=e_0x_t,\, b=e_0 y.
$$
Then $s(a)=s(b).$ By construction $b$ is weakly transcendental
with respect to $\mathcal{A}_{x_{t}},$ and hence
Proposition~\ref{trakri} implies that the set $\{a, b\}$ is
algebraically independent. Therefore Lemma~\ref{locder} implies
that the algebra $\mathcal{A}$ admits $2$-local derivation
which is not a derivation. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Now we can consider the problem of existence of $2$-local
derivations which are not derivations on algebras of measurable
operators affiliated with abelian von Neumann algebras.
It is well known that if $M$ is an abelian von Neumann algebra
with a faithful normal semifinite trace $\tau$, then $M$ is
$\ast$-isomorphic to the algebra $L^{\infty}(\Omega)=L^{\infty}
(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu)$ of all essentially bounded measurable complex
valued function on an appropriate localizable measure space
$(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu)$ and $\tau(f)=\int
\limits_{\Omega}f(t)d\mu(t)$ for $f\in L^{\infty}
(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu).$ In this case the algebra $S(M)$ of all
measurable operators affiliated with $M$ may be identified with
the algebra $L^0(\Omega)=L^0(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu)$ of all measurable
complex valued functions on $(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu).$ In general the
algebra $S(M)$ is not metrizable. But considering $\Omega$ as a
union of pairwise disjoint measurable sets with finite measures we
obtain that $S(M)$ is a direct sum of commutative regular
algebras metrizable in the above sense (see Remark \ref{rem}).
Therefore using Theorem \ref{maincom} we obtain the following
solution of the problem concerning the existence of $2$-local
derivations which are not derivations on algebras of measurable
operator in the abelian case.
\begin{theorem}\label{vonab}
Let $M$ be an abelian von Neumann algebra. The following
conditions are equivalent:
(i) the lattice $P(M)$ of projections in $M$ is not atomic;
(ii) the algebra $S(M)$ admits a $2$-local derivation which is not
a derivation.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
$i)\Rightarrow ii).$ Suppose that $P(M)$ is not atomic. Then the
algebra
$S(M)$ contains a $\ast$-subalgebra
$\mathcal{B}$ which is $\ast$-isomorphic with the
$\ast$-algebra $L^0(0, 1)$ of all measurable complex
valued functions on $(0, 1).$ Without loss of generality
we may assume that $\mathcal{B}$ contains the unit of $S(M).$ By
\cite[Lemma 2]{ber-mt} the algebra $L^0(0, 1)$ contains an
uncountable set of algebraically independent elements, and
therefore the algebra $\mathcal{B}$ contains algebraically
independent elements $a, b$ with $s(a)=s(b)=\mathbf{1}.$ By
Theorem~\ref{mtm}
there exists a derivation $D$ on $\mathcal{B}$ such that
$D(a)=0,\, D(b)=\mathbf{1}.$
Following Theorem~\ref{mfirst}
we extend $D$ onto $S(M),$ the extension is also denoted by $D.$
Now let us show that $\{a, b\}$ is an
algebraically independent subset in $S(M).$
Suppose the converse, i.e. $\{a, b\}$ is not
algebraically independent in $S(M).$ Then by
Proposition~\ref{trakri} $b$ is not weakly transcendental with
respect to $R(a, \nabla),$ where $R(a, \nabla)$ is the smallest
regular $\rho$-closed
subalgebra in $S(M),$ generated by $a$ and
$\nabla.$ This means that there exists an idempotent $e$ with
$0\neq e\leq s(b)=\mathbf{1}$ such that $eb$ is an integral
element with respect to $R(a, \nabla).$ Consider the subalgebra
$F(eb, R(a, \nabla)),$ generated by $eb$ and $R(a, \nabla).$ Let
$\delta$ denote the trivial derivation on $F(eb, R(a, \nabla)).$
By Proposition~\ref{lin} $\delta$ is the unique derivation on
$F(eb, R(a, \nabla))$ with $\delta|_{R(a,
\nabla)}=0.$ Since $D(a)=0,$ it follows that $D|_{R(a,
\nabla)}=0.$ Therefore $\delta=D|_{F(eb, R(a, \nabla))},$ and in
particular, $D(eb)=0.$
This is a contradiction with $D(eb)=eD(b)=e\neq0.$ This
contradiction shows that $\{a, b\}$ is an
algebraically independent set in $S(M).$ Now
Theorem~\ref{maincom} implies that the algebra $S(M)$ admits a
$2$-local derivation which is not a derivation.
$ii)\Rightarrow i).$ Suppose that $P(M)$ is atomic. Then by
\cite[Theorem 3.4]{Ber} every derivation on $S(M)$ is identically
zero. Therefore each $2$-local derivation on $S(M)$ is also
trivial, i.e. a derivation. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\section{$2$-Local derivations
on matrix algebras}
In this section we shall investigate $2$-local derivations on
matrix algebras over commutative regular algebras.
As in the previous section let $\mathcal{A}$ be a unital
commutative regular algebra over $\mathbf{C}$ and let $\mu$ be a
strictly positive countably additive finite measure on the Boolean
algebra $\nabla$ of all idempotents in $\mathcal{A}.$ Suppose that
$\mathcal{A}$ is complete in the metric $\rho(a, b)=\mu(s(a-b)),\
a,b\in \mathcal{A}.$
Let $M_n(\mathcal{A})$
be the algebra of $n\times n$ matrices over $\mathcal{A}.$
We identify the center of the algebra $M_n(\mathcal{A})$ with
$\mathcal{A}.$ If $e_{i,j},\,i,j=\overline{1, n},$ are the matrix
units in $M_n(\mathcal{A}),$ then each element $x\in
M_n(\mathcal{A})$ has the form
$$x=\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{n}f_{i j}e_{i j},
\,f_{ij}\in \mathcal{A},\,i,j=\overline{1, n}.
$$
Let $\delta:\mathcal{A}\rightarrow \mathcal{A}$ be a derivation.
Setting
\begin{equation}
\label{1}
D_{\delta}\left(\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{n}f_{i j}e_{i j}\right)=
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{n}\delta(f_{i j})e_{i j}
\end{equation}
we obtain a well-defined linear operator
$D_\delta$ on the algebra $M_n(\mathcal{A}).$ Moreover
$D_\delta$ is a derivation on the algebra $M_n(\mathcal{A})$
and its restriction onto the center
of the algebra $M_n(\mathcal{A})$ coincides with the given $\delta.$
\begin{lemma}\label{str}
Let $M_n(\mathcal{A})$
be the algebra of $n\times n$ matrices over $\mathcal{A}.$
Every derivation $D$ on the algebra $M_n(\mathcal{A})$ can be
uniquely represented as a sum
$$
D=D_{a}+D_\delta,
$$
where $D_{a}$ is an inner derivation implemented by an element
$a\in M_n(\mathcal{A})$ while $D_\delta$ is the derivation of the
form \eqref{1} generated by a derivation $\delta$ on
$\mathcal{A}.$
\end{lemma}
In \cite[Lemma 2.2]{Alb2} this assertion has been proved for the
case of algebras $\mathcal{A}=L^0(\Omega),$
but the proof is the same for general commutative regular algebras
$\mathcal{A}.$
The proof of the following result directly follows from the
definition of $2$-local derivations.
\begin{lemma}\label{H}
Let $\mathcal{B}$ be an algebra with the center $Z(\mathcal{B})$
and let $\Delta: \mathcal{B}\rightarrow \mathcal{B}$ be a
$2$-local derivation. Then $\Delta(zx)=z\Delta(x)$ for all
central idempotent $z\in Z(\mathcal{B})$ and $x\in \mathcal{B}.$
\end{lemma}
The following theorem is the main result of this section.
\begin{theorem}\label{Main}
Every $2$-local derivation $\Delta: M_n(\mathcal{A})\rightarrow
M_n(\mathcal{A}),$ $n\geq2$, is a derivation.
\end{theorem}
For the proof of the Theorem \ref{Main} we need several Lemmata.
For $x\in M_n(\mathcal{A})$ by $x_{ij}$ we denote the $(i,
j)$-entry of $x,$ i.e. $e_{ii}xe_{jj}=x_{ij}e_{ij},$ where $1\leq
i,j\leq n.$
\begin{lemma}\label{A} For every
$2$-local derivation $\Delta$ on $M_n(\mathcal{A}),$ $n\geq2,$
there exists a derivation $D$
such that $\Delta(e_{i j})=D(e_{i j})$ for all $i, j \in \overline{1, n}.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} (cf. \cite[Theorem 3]{Kim}). We define two matrices
$d, q\in M_n(\mathcal{A})$ by
$$
d=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{2^i}e_{ii},\,
q=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n-1} e_{i, i+1}.
$$
It is easy to see that an element $x\in M_n(\mathcal{A})$
commutes with $d$ if and only if it is diagonal,
and if an element
$u$ commutes with $q,$ then $u$ is of the form
$$
u=\left
\begin{array}{cccccc}
u_1 & u_2 & u_3 & . & . & u_n \\
0 & u_1 & u_2 & . & . & u_{n-1} \\
0 & 0 & u_1 & . & . & u_{n-2} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
\ldots & \ldots & \ldots & . & u_1 & u_2 \\
0 & 0 & \ldots & .& 0 & u_1 \\
\end{array
\right).
$$
Take a derivation $D$ on $M_n(\mathcal{A})$ such that
$$
\Delta(d)=D(d),\, \Delta(q)=D(q).
$$
Replacing $\Delta$ by $\Delta-D$ if necessary, we can assume
that $\Delta(d)=\Delta(q)=0.$
Let $i, j\in \overline{1, n}.$ Take a derivation
$D=D_h+D_\delta$ represented as in Lemma \ref{str} and such that
$$
\Delta(e_{ij})=D(e_{ij}),\,\Delta(d)=D(d).
$$
Since $\Delta(d)=0$ and $D_\delta(d)=0$ it follows that
$0=D_h(d)=hd-dh.$ Therefore $h$ has diagonal form, i.e.
$h=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n h_ie_{ii}.$ So we have
$$
\Delta(e_{ij})=he_{ij}-e_{ij}h.
$$
In the same way starting with the element $q$ instead of $d$, we
obtain
$$
\Delta(e_{ij})=ue_{ij}-e_{ij}u,
$$
where $u$ is of the above form, depending on $e_{ij}.$ So
$$
\Delta(e_{ij})=he_{ij}-e_{ij} h=u e_{ij}-e_{ij} u.
$$
Since
$$
he_{ij} - e_{ij} h= (h_i-h_j)e_{ij}
$$
and
$$
[u e_{ij}- e_{ij} u]_{ij}=0
$$
it follows that $\Delta(e_{ij})=0.$
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Further in Lemmata \ref{compo}--\ref{ma} we assume that $\Delta$
is a $2$-local derivation on the algebra $M_n(\mathcal{A}),$
$n\geq2,$ such that
$\Delta(e_{ij})=0$ for all $i, j\in \overline{1, n}.$
\begin{lemma}\label{compo}
For every $x\in M_n(\mathcal{A})$ there exist derivations
$\delta_{i j}:\mathcal{A}\rightarrow \mathcal{A},$ $i, j\in
\overline{1, n},$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{com}
\Delta(x)=\sum\limits_{i, j=1}^n\delta_{i j}(x_{i j})e_{i j}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $D_{x, e_{i j}}$ be a derivation on $M_n(\mathcal{A})$ such
that
$$
\Delta(x)=D_{x, e_{i j}}(x),\, \Delta(e_{i j})=D_{x, e_{i j}}(e_{i
j}).
$$
Then
\[
e_{i j}\Delta(x)e_{i j}= e_{i j}D_{x, e_{i j}}(x)e_{i j}=
\]
\[
=D_{x, e_{i j}}(e_{i j} x e_{i j})-D_{x, e_{i j}}(e_{i j}) x e_{i
j}- e_{i j} x D_{x, e_{i j}}(e_{i j})=
\]
\[
=D_{x, e_{i j}}(x_{j i} e_{i j})= D_{x, e_{i j}}(x_{j i})e_{i j}+
x_{j i} D_{x, e_{i j}}(e_{i j})=
\]
\[
=\delta_{j i}(x_{j i}) e_{i j},
\]
i.e.
\begin{equation*}
e_{i j}\Delta(x)e_{i j}= \delta_{j i}(x_{j i}) e_{i j}.
\end{equation*}
Multiplying the last equality from the left side by $e_{j i}$ and
from the right side by $e_{j i}$ we obtain
\begin{equation*}
e_{j j}\Delta(x)e_{i i}= \delta_{j i}(x_{j i}) e_{j i}
\end{equation*}
for all $i, j\in \overline{1, n}.$ Summing these equalities for
all $i, j\in \overline{1, n},$ we get
\begin{equation*}
\Delta(x)=\sum\limits_{i, j=1}^n\delta_{i j}(x_{i j})e_{i j}.
\end{equation*}
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{cent}
Consider the elements
$$
x=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n f_{i}e_{i i},\, y=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n
g_{i}e_{i i},
$$
where $f_i, g_i\in \mathcal{A}$ for all $i\in \overline{1, n}.$
Then there exists a derivation $\delta$ on $\mathcal{A}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{two}
\Delta(x)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n \delta(f_{i})e_{i i},\,
\Delta(y)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n \delta(g_{i})e_{i i}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} By \eqref{com} for $i\neq j$ we obtain that
$$
\Delta(x)_{i j}=\Delta(y)_{i j}=0.
$$
Take a derivation $D$ on $M_n(\mathcal{A})$ such that
$$
\Delta(x)=D(x),\, \Delta(y)=D(y).
$$
By Lemma \ref{str} there exist an element $a\in M_n(\mathcal{A})$
and a derivation $\delta:\mathcal{A}\rightarrow \mathcal{A}$ such that $D=D_a+D_\delta.$
Then
$$
\Delta(x)_{ii}=D(x)_{ii}=D_a(x)_{ii}+D_\delta(x)_{ii}=
$$
$$
=[ax-xa]_{ii}+\delta(f_{i})=\delta(f_{i})
$$
and
$$
\Delta(y)_{ii}=D(y)_{ii}=D_a(y)_{ii}+D_\delta(y)_{ii}=
$$
$$
=[ay-ya]_{ii}+\delta(g_{i})=\delta(g_{i}),
$$
because $x,\, y$ are diagonal matrices, and therefore
$$
[ax-xa]_{ii}=[ay-ya]_{ii}=0.
$$
So
\[
\Delta(x)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n \delta(f_{i})e_{i i},\,
\Delta(y)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n \delta(g_{i})e_{i i}.
\]
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{DER}
The restriction $\Delta|_{\mathcal{A}}$ is a derivation.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Put
$$
x=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n f e_{i i},\, y=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n g e_{i
i},
$$
$$
z=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n (f+g) e_{i i},\,
w=fe_{11}+\sum\limits_{i=2}^n g e_{i i},
$$
where $f, g\in \mathcal{A}.$ Using \eqref{two} we can find
derivations $\delta_{x,w}, \delta_{y,w}, \delta_{z, w}$ on
$M_n(\mathcal{A})$ such that
$$
\Delta(x)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n \delta_{x, w}(f)e_{i i}, \,
\Delta(y)= \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \delta_{y, w}(g)e_{i i},\,
\Delta(z)= \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \delta_{z, w}(f+g)e_{i i},
$$
$$
\Delta(w)= \delta_{x, w}(f)e_{11}+\sum\limits_{i=2}^n \delta_{x,
w}(g)e_{i i} =
$$
$$
=\delta_{y, w}(f)e_{11}+\sum\limits_{i=2}^n \delta_{y, w}(g)e_{i
i}= \delta_{z, w}(f)e_{11}+\sum\limits_{i=2}^n \delta_{z,
w}(g)e_{i i}.
$$
Then
$$
\Delta(x+y)=\Delta(z)= \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \delta_{z, w}(f+g)e_{i
i}=
$$
$$
=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n \delta_{z, w}(f)e_{i i}+ \sum\limits_{i=1}^n
\delta_{z, w}(g)e_{i i}=
$$
$$
= \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \delta_{x, w}(f)e_{i i}+ \sum\limits_{i=1}^n
\delta_{y, w}(g)e_{i i}= \Delta(x)+\Delta(y).$$ Hence
$$
\Delta(x+y)=\Delta(x)+\Delta(y).
$$
So the restriction of $\Delta$ on the $\mathcal{A}$ is an additive
and therefore, $\Delta|_\mathcal{A}$ is a derivation.
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Further in Lemmata \ref{dia}--\ref{ma} we assume that
$\Delta|_{\mathcal{A}}=0.$
\begin{lemma}\label{dia}
Let
\[
x=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n f_i e_{i i},
\]
where $f_i\in \mathcal{A},\, 1\leq i\leq n.$ Then $\Delta(x)=0.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We fix a number $k$ and take the element $y=f_k.$ By Lemma
\ref{cent} there exists a derivation $\delta$ on $\mathcal{A}$
such that
\[
\Delta(x)=D_\delta(x),\,
\Delta(y)=D_\delta(y).
\]
Since $\Delta(y)=0$ it follows that
$$
0=\Delta(y)_{11}=\delta(f_k).
$$
i.e. $\delta(f_k)=0.$ Further
$$
\Delta(x)_{kk}=\delta(f_k)=0.
$$
Since $k$ is an arbitrary number, it follows that
$\Delta(x)=0.$
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
In Lemmata \ref{ii}-\ref{jikk} let $x$ be an arbitrary element
from $M_n(\mathcal{A}).$
\begin{lemma}\label{ii}
$\Delta(x)_{kk}=0$ for every $k\in\overline{1, n}.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $k\in\overline{1, n}$ be a
fixed number. Put
$$
f_1=x_{kk},\, f_i=i(f_1+\mathbf{1}-s\left(f_1\right)),\, 2\leq
i\leq n.
$$
Let us verify that
$s(f_i-f_j)=\mathbf{1},\, i\neq j.$
Note that
$$
f_i-f_1=(i-1)f_1+i(\mathbf{1}-s(f_1)),\, i>1
$$
and
$$
f_i-f_j=(i-j)(f_1+(\mathbf{1}-s(f_1))),\, i,j>1.
$$
Taking into account that $f_1$ and $\mathbf{1}-s(f_1)$ are
orthogonal we obtain
$$
s(f_i-f_j)=s(f_1)+s(\mathbf{1}-s(f_1))=s(f_1)+\mathbf{1}-s(f_1)=\mathbf{1}
$$
for all $i\neq j.$
Now consider the element
\begin{equation}\label{diael}
y=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n f_i e_{i i},
\end{equation}
Choose a derivation
$D=D_a+D_\delta$ such that
$$
\Delta(x)=D(x),\,\Delta(y)=D(y).
$$
By Lemma \ref{dia} we have that $\Delta(y)=0.$ Then
$$
0=\Delta(y)_{11}=D_a(y)_{11}+D_\delta(y)_{11}=
$$
$$
=[ay-ya]_{11}+\delta(x_{kk})=a_{11}f_1-f_1a_{11}+\delta(x_{kk})=
\delta(x_{kk}),
$$
i.e. $\delta(x_{kk})=0.$ If $i\neq j$ then
$$
\Delta(y)_{i j}=(f_i-f_j)a_{i j}.
$$
Therefore
$$
(f_i-f_j)a_{i j}=0.
$$ Since
$s(f_i-f_j)=\mathbf{1}$ it follows that $a_{i j}=0.$ So $a$ has a
diagonal form, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{diag}
a=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n a_{i i}e_{i i}.
\end{equation}
Thus
$$
\Delta(x)_{kk}=[ax-xa]_{kk}+\delta(x_{kk})=
$$
$$
=a_{kk}x_{kk}- x_{kk}a_{kk}=0,
$$
i.e.
$$
\Delta(x)_{kk}=0.
$$
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
In following two lemmata we assume that the indices $i$ and $j$
are fixed.
\begin{lemma}\label{unizero}
If $x_{ji}=\mathbf{1}\, (i\neq j)$ then $\Delta(x)_{ij}=0.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Choose an element $y\in M_n(\mathcal{A})$ of the form
\eqref{diael} with $f_1=x_{ij}$ and a derivation $D=D_a+D_\delta$
such that
$$
\Delta(x)=D(x),\,\Delta(y)=D(y).
$$
Since $\Delta(y)=0$ it follows that $a$ has the form \eqref{diag}
and $\delta(x_{ij})=0.$ Then
$$
\Delta(x)_{ji}=(a_{jj}-a_{ii})x_{ji}+\delta(x_{ji})=
(a_{jj}-a_{ii})+\delta(\mathbf{1})=a_{jj}-a_{ii},
$$
i.e.
$$
\Delta(x)_{ji}=a_{jj}-a_{ii}.
$$
On the other hand by the equality \eqref{com} we have that
$$
\Delta(x)_{ji}=\delta_{ji}(x_{ji})=\delta_{ji}(\mathbf{1})=0.
$$
Thus $a_{jj}=a_{ii}.$ Since $\delta(x_{ij})=0$ it follows that
$$
\Delta(x)_{ij}=(a_{ii}-a_{jj})x_{ij}+\delta(x_{ij})=0,
$$
i.e. $ \Delta(x)_{ij}=0. $
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{jikk}
If $i\neq j$ then $\Delta(x)_{ij}=0.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix a pair $(i,j)$ and take the matrix $y\in M_n(\mathcal{A})$
such that $y_{k s}=x_{k s}$ for all $(k, s)\neq (j, i)$ and with
$y_{j i}=\mathbf{1}.$ Then
by Lemma~\ref{unizero} it follows that $\Delta(y)_{i j}=0.$
Consider a derivation $D=D_a+D_\delta$ on $M_n(\mathcal{A})$
represented as in Lemma~\ref{str} such that
$$
\Delta(x)=D(x),\,\Delta(y)=D(y).
$$
Then
$$
\Delta(x)_{ij}=\sum\limits_{s=1}^n (a_{i s} x_{s j}-x_{i s} a_{s
j})+\delta(x_{i j})
$$
and
$$
\Delta(y)_{ij}=\sum\limits_{s=1}^n (a_{i s} y_{s j}-y_{i s} a_{s
j})+\delta(y_{i j}).
$$
By construction $y_{k s}=x_{k s}$ for all $(k, s)\neq (j, i),$ and
therefore
$$
\Delta(x)_{ij} =\Delta(y)_{ij}.
$$
But $\Delta(y)_{i j}=0,$ therefore $\Delta(x)_{i j}=0.$
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Now Lemmata~\ref{ii} and~\ref{jikk} imply the following
\begin{lemma}\label{ma}
$\Delta\equiv 0.$
\end{lemma}
\textit{Proof of the Theorem \ref{Main}}. Let $\Delta$ be an
arbitrary $2$-local derivation on $M_n(\mathcal{A}).$ By
Lemma~\ref{A} there exists a derivation $D$ on $M_n(\mathcal{A})$
such that
$$
(\Delta-D)(e_{ij})=0
$$ for all $i, j\in \overline{1, n}.$
Therefore by Lemma \ref{DER} $\delta=(\Delta-D)|_{\mathcal{A}}$ is
a derivation. Consider the $2$-local derivation
$\Delta_0=\Delta-D-D_\delta.$ Then $\Delta_0(e_{ij})=0$ for all
$i,j$ and $\Delta_0|_{\mathcal{A}}=0.$ Therefore by Lemma~\ref{ma}
we get $\Delta_0=0,$ i.e. $\Delta=D+D_\delta.$
Thus
$\Delta$ is a derivation.
The proof of Theorem 4.3 is complete.
Let $M$ be a von Neumann algebra and denote by $S(M)$ the algebra
of all measurable operators and by $LS(M)$ - the algebra of all
locally measurable operators affiliated with $M.$ If $M$ is of
type I$_\infty$ we have proved in \cite{AKA} that every $2$-local
derivation on $LS(M)$ is a derivation. Theorem~\ref{Main} enables
us to extend this result for general type I case.
\begin{theorem}
Let $M$ be a finite von Neumann algebra of type I without
abelian direct summands. Then every $2$-local derivation on the
algebra $LS(M)=S(M)$ is a derivation.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $M$ be an arbitrary finite von Neumann algebra of type I
without abelian direct summands. Then there exists a family
$\{z_n\}_{n\in F}, F\subseteq \mathbb{N} \setminus \{1\},$ of
central projections from $M$ with $\sup z_n=\mathbf{1},$ such that
the algebra $M$ is $\ast$-isomorphic with the $C^\ast$-product of
von Neumann algebras $z_n M$ of type I$_n,$ respectively ($n\in
F$). Then
$$
z_nLS(M)=z_nS(M)=S(z_nM)\cong M_n(L^0(\Omega_n)),
$$
for appropriate measure spaces $(\Omega_n, \Sigma_n, \mu_n),$
$n\in F.$ By Lemma~\ref{H}
we have that
$$
\Delta(z_{n}x)=z_{n}\Delta(x)
$$
for all $x\in S(M)$ and for each $n\in F.$ This implies that
$\Delta$ maps each $z_{n}S(M)$ into itself and hence induces a
$2$-local derivation $\Delta_{n}=\Delta|_{z_{n}S(M)}$ on the
algebra $S(z_nM)\cong M_n(L^0(\Omega_n))$ for each $n\in F.$ By
Theorem~\ref{Main} it follows that the operator $\Delta_{n}$ is a
derivation for each $n\in F.$ Therefore for $x, y \in S(M)$ we
have that
$$
\Delta_n(z_n x+z_n y)=\Delta_{n}(z_n x) +\Delta_n(z_n y)
$$
for all $n\in F.$ Again using Lemma~\ref{H} we obtain that
$$
z_n \Delta(x+y)=\Delta_n(z_n x+z_n y)=\Delta_{n}(z_n x)
+\Delta_n(z_n y)=z_n[\Delta(x)+\Delta(y)]
$$
i.e.
$$
z_n \Delta(x+y)=z_n[\Delta(x)+\Delta(y)]
$$
for all $n\in F.$ Since $\sup z_n=\mathbf{1}$ we get
$$
\Delta(x + y)=\Delta(x) + \Delta(y).
$$
This means that the operator $\Delta$ is an additive on $S(M)$
and therefore is a derivation. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Now combining this theorem with the mentioned result of \cite{AKA}
we obtain
\begin{corollary}\label{finit}
If $M$ is a type I von Neumann algebra without abelian direct
summands then every $2$-local derivation on the algebra $LS(M)$
is a derivation.
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark} \label{rel}
The results of the previous Section 3 (see Theorem~\ref{vonab})
show that in the abelian case the properties of $2$-local
derivations on the algebra $LS(M) = S(M)$ are essentially
different.
\end{remark}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The second named author would like to acknowledge the hospitality
of the Chern Institute of Mathematics, Nankai University (China).
The authors are indebted to the referee for valuable comments and
suggestions.
|
\section{Introduction}
Improving the fundamental scientific understanding of lithium ion
batteries\cite{book2,book,review} is critical for electric vehicles
and other energy storage technologies. A key feature that enables the use
of negative electrodes (graphite, Li metal, Si, Sn) operating below the
reduction voltage of current commercial electrolytes is the formation of an
electronically passivating but Li$^+$-conducting solid electrolyte interphase
(SEI) film on electrode surfaces.\cite{book2,book,review,intro1,intro2}
Battery performance, irreversible capacity ``loss,'' power fade,
durability, exfoliation of graphite, and safety are highly dependent on the
quality of the SEI. Therefore understanding the nature, formation
composition, structure, and property of SEI is of great interest for
Li-ion batteries. In this work, we apply computational and experimental
techniques to analyze the success of the conformal atomic layer deposition
(ALD) strategy for creating a passivating layer (``artificial SEI'') on
electrodes,\cite{dillon0,dillon1,dillon3,dillon4,dillon2} focusing on
graphitic carbon anodes.\cite{dillon}
It is generally accepted that, upon the first charge of uncoated graphitic
anodes, the negative potential applied to induce Li$^+$ intercalation into
graphite decomposes ethylene carbonate (EC) molecules in the solvent, yielding
a self-limiting,
3-10~nm thick, passivating SEI layer containing Li$_2$CO$_3$, lithium
ethylene dicarbonate ((CH$_2$CO$_3$Li)$_2$),\cite{book,intro1,intro2} and salt
decomposition products. Early modeling work on organic solvent breakdown has
focused on reactions inside bulk liquid regions, with an excess electron already
injected.\cite{bal01,bal,han,vollmer} While providing extremely useful
predictions pertinent to that regime, such models necessarily ignore the
possibility of surface-assisted reactions and effects arising
from electron transfer from electrodes.
A more rigorous if costly technique, {\it ab initio} molecular dynamics
(AIMD), has recently been applied to simulate chemical reactions at
several explicit solid-liquid interfaces.\cite{marx,silica,sprik,sulpizi,car}
One of the authors' previous AIMD works follows chemical reactions in
real time at the pristine graphitic anodes/liquid EC interface.\cite{ec,aimd}
It is found that, at the initial stage of SEI formation, fast $e^-$ transfer
and kinetically-controlled EC electrochemical reactions occur to
form either CO or C$_2$H$_4$ gas,\cite{onuki,ota,aurbach_co,gachot}
mostly right at the oxidized edges of graphite sheets.\cite{ein,peled}
As electrolyte decomposition proceeds, $e^-$ transfer
becomes impeded by the intervening and partially-formed
SEI layer between the solvent and electrode, and the decomposed solvent
fragments can no longer anchor directly to the pristine electrode surface.
This important next stage should figure equally prominently in the overall
solvent breakdown mechanism and the structure of naturally-formed SEI.
The electron tunneling blockage by SEI layers is a {\it kinetic}
(not thermodynamic) phenomenon, akin to stoppage of electron leakage
through gate-oxide dielectric in semiconductor devices.\cite{high-k}
Theoretical study there is hindered by the substantial thickness,
possibly porous/gel-like nature, and heterogeneous composition of
natural SEI.\cite{book2,review,book,iddir}
Recently, it has been demonstrated that a sub-nanometer thick alumina layer
created by the conformal ALD technique on
graphite drastically diminishes solvent decomposition but permits lithium
ion transport.\cite{dillon} This promising ALD strategy even enables the
cycling of low-melting-point propylene carbonate (PC), which otherwise
exfoliates and destroys uncoated graphitic anodes.
The mechanism of this ALD electrode passivation has not been completely
understood. While expected to block or slow down electron transfer
from the electrode to the solvent, it also appears to enhance the mechanical
properties of the electrodes,\cite{dillon0} and likely hinders solvent
intercalation between graphite sheets, thus preventing exfoliation. Apart
from the technological implications, the unprecedented control over coating
thickness and chemistry means that the ALD strategy also provides
robust platforms for basic science studies of interfacial solvent decomposition
reaction mechanisms, and for electron tunneling through the insulating
layer which is a pre-requisite for electrolyte breakdown.
In particular, the extreme thinness of ALD coatings lends itself to the
present, predominantly first principles computational study of
electrode/solvent interfaces comprising up to 850~atoms. Using
crystalline, hydroxylated LiAlO$_2$ layers as models of ALD
coatings, we apply DFT and related theoretical techniques to show that ALD
oxide films yield varying energetic, kinetic, and electron-tunneling impedence
towards EC breakdown depending on the surface Li content and oxide thickness.
We also provide evidence that $e^-$ transfer occurs to
EC molecules immediately next to electrode surfaces. Because these molecules
are deep within the electric double layer (EDL), screening of electric fields
by the EDL is less effective. In this sense,
EC decomposition at battery anodes can differ fundamentally from
classic electrochemical redox paradigms, where well-solvated transition
metal complexes are separated by several Angstroms from the electrodes
and ``outer-shell'' $e^-$ tunneling dominates.\cite{marcus}
The solvent decomposition processes on ALD coatings provide insights that may
be extrapolated to other passivation strategies, including natural SEI formed
from electrolyte breakdown.
Two limiting regimes of electron transfer, and two corresponding
computational methods, are emphasized.
Rigorously, DFT deals with the electronic ground state, with
nuclear trajectories ``adiabatic'' to electronic configurations (i.e.,
ionic motions are slow compared with electron transfer). EC breakdown on Li
(100) metal surface is in this adiabatic regime. DFT should be
adequate for such processes, provided that the desired electronic
configuration is the ground state and the self-interaction
error of the approximate functional used is not critical to the
properties being investigated.\cite{wtyang,wtyang1,na,na1,deloc_ex}
In the opposite, non-adiabatic
regime,\cite{tully,voor,voor1,newton,ulstrup} $e^-$ transfer
or tunneling is slow on the time scale of nuclear motion, and one must
keep track of two electronic surfaces.\cite{marcus} The oxide-coated model
electrodes considered in this work pertains to this latter limit, where the
electron transfer rate between two discrete orbitals is given by\cite{dupuis}
\begin{equation}
k_{\rm et} = \frac{\sqrt{\pi}|V_{\rm AB}|^2 }{ \hbar
\sqrt { \lambda k_{\rm B}T} }
\exp \bigg[ -\frac{(\Delta G_o + \lambda)^2}{4 \lambda k_{\rm B}T }\bigg].
\label{nonadiab}
\end{equation}
$\lambda$ is the reorganization (free) energy, $V_{\rm AB}$ is the coupling
matrix element connecting the two electronic surfaces, and $\Delta G_o$ is
the reaction free energy. $\lambda$ indicates the energy cost
associated with molecular deformation needed to take on an extra electron
(EC $\rightarrow$ EC$^-$). $V_{\rm AB}$ is the familiar prefactor
that depends on the overlap between two many-body
wavefunctions associated with the two electronic surfaces (Fig.~\ref{fig1}a).
Small $V_{\rm AB}$ correlates with non-adiabatic $e^-$ tunneling.
Neither $V_{\rm AB}$ nor $\lambda$ can be directly obtained using
standard DFT methods. In this work, $\lambda$ is estimated using the
constrained DFT (cDFT) approach\cite{voor,voor2} and Marcus theory
harmonic construction (Fig.~\ref{fig1}a) under both ultra-high
vacuum (UHV) and liquid state\cite{blumberger2010,marzari} configurations.
cDFT is also applied to estimate $V_{\rm AB}$.\cite{voor1}. While cDFT and
related methods have been applied to molecules on metal
surfaces,\cite{scheffler2008,scheffler2007,tully2009} calculating
$V_{\rm AB}$ between a metallic electrode and an $e^-$-accepting molecule,
or for that matter the total $e^-$ tunneling rate, has relied on simplified
models.\cite{dodonadze1968,schmickler1986,halley1988,sebastian1989,voth1995,voth1999,tanaka1999}
When augmented using a Fermi Golden-rule expression (Fig.~\ref{fig1}b),
we argue that the our $V_{\rm AB}$ value yields a well-defined
kinetic prefactor for electron transfer from a metallic electrode. Our
prefactor prediction is a preliminary estimate, and fundamental studies to
extend cDFT to $e^-$ transfer from metallic electrodes are needed. However,
this is sufficient for our goal of order-of-magnitude estimates of $e^-$
transfer rates. When the insulating layer (ALD oxide or natural SEI,
or their combination) grows thicker, $V_{\rm AB}$ starts to decay with
oxide thickness, and its magnitude is examined via extrapolation in a way
analogous to the one-dimensional Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin (WKB) formula.
An alternative to this cDFT formulation may be Greens function/time-dependent
DFT.\cite{rubio,sugino,roth} To our knowledge, TDDFT methods have not
been successfully applied to predict orbital-to-orbital $V_{\rm AB}$
values that involve metallic electrodes.
With these computational techniques, we show that the sub-nanometer
oxide coating,\cite{dillon,dillon1} generally not considered sufficiently
thick for complete electron blockage in, say, gate oxide dielectric
applications,\cite{high-k} causes $\lambda$ (much neglected in previous
battery studies) to play a significant role in ALD-assisted passivation.
Electron tunneling to EC, not bond-breaking
within the adsorbed molecule, is generally found to be the rate-determining
step for breakdown of EC adsorbed on the ALD-coated electrode.
In terms of experiments, microgravimetric measurements that confirm
the presence of solvent decomposition products on the surface are presented
to corroborate aspects of our predictions.
This paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{method} describes
the methods used. Adiabatic electron-transfer induced EC reactions with Li
metal surfaces is discussed in Sec.~\ref{lithium}. The long-range electron
transfer formalism is shown to be inapplicable here. Section~\ref{oxide}
describes the non-adiabatic electron tunneling from oxide-coated electrodes
to EC molecules adsorbed on their surfaces, and addresses the subsequent
EC bond-breaking events. Adiabatic DFT/PBE calculations are shown to
underestimate the electron tunneling barrier in this regime.
Section~\ref{expt} reports the experimental results, and
Sec.~\ref{conclude} briefly summarizes this work.
\section{Methods}
\label{method}
\subsection{Model systems}
The casual reader is encouraged to skip forward to Sec.~\ref{lithium}
for the results.
The key model systems are $\sim$7.0~\AA\, (``thin'') and $\sim$10~\AA\,
(``thick'') layers of LiAlO$_2$ in $\beta$-NaAlO$_2$ structure with (100)
surface terminations, coated on narrow strips of Li$_x$C$_6$ electrodes
(Table~\ref{table1}; Fig.~\ref{fig2}; more details of this oxide phase
is provided in the supporting information (S.I.) document). Undercoordinated
Al atoms on outer surfaces are terminated with OH groups, ensuring that
surface states are removed. The oxide thickness is measured from Al
to Al and excludes the surface hydroxyl groups or the C=O edge
atoms originally residing on Li$_x$C$_6$. Crystalline LiAlO$_2$ is a
solid-state electrolyte candidate material.\cite{lialoh} LiAlO$_2$ is used
instead of Al$_2$O$_3$ to cover the possibility that the native Al$_2$O$_3$
layers deposited during ALD may have incorporated Li ions during the first
charging half cycle. For example, some AlOH groups may be deprotonated at
low voltages, causing Li$^+$ to coordinate to the AlO$^-$ and become
part of the surface. The LiAlO$_2$ mixed oxide
thus allows us to examine surface composition effects on EC breakdown. The
stochiometry of the coating is such that their formal charges sum to zero.
Another research group has found LiAlO$_2$ signature on the surface
of 5~nm thick ALD oxide films on Si anodes after power cycling using X-ray
photo-electron spectroscopy.\cite{xcx} Further computational evidence
for Li-incorporation into Al$_2$O$_3$ films is presented
in the S.I. If such Li$^+$ incorporation indeed occurs,
the ALD layer will expand beyond its original Al$_2$O$_3$ thickness.
The simulation cell, which provides a modest system size for AIMD simulations,
is chosen so that the oxide is fairly well-matched to the Li$_x$C$_6$
surface cell, with oxide compressive strains of 1.8~\% and 5.7\% in the
two lateral dimensions. The crystalline models are idealized;
as in gate-oxide dielectric materials, insulating oxides should be amorphous
to minimize cracks. The amount of Li present in the graphite region is
determined by tuning the Li chemical potential to 2.1~eV. Upon geometry
optimization, Li ions initially residing at the C=O
edges become strongly coordinated to the bottom surface of the oxide coating.
Another model, with a single 10~\AA\, thick layer of LiAlO$_2$ hydroxylated
on both sides but no Li$_x$C$_6$ component, is used to examine post
$e^-$-transfer EC$^-$ bond-breaking.
To emphasize the influence of surface groups, we also include a model
with a $\sim$5.0~\AA\, thick layer of $\alpha$-Al$_2$O$_3$ coated on both
sides of the Li$_x$C$_6$ strip. The oxide layers have (0001) terminations
with AlOH surface groups (Table~\ref{table1}).
It has been predicted that $\gamma$-Al$_2$O$_3$ is more
stable than the $\alpha$ phase for film thickness below 36~\AA.\cite{ouyang}
However, this estimate was made without accounting for surface hydroxylation.
Since our thin Al$_2$O$_3$ film contains only two Al-O layers (not counting
the C=O edge groups), the oxygen positions are arguably consistent with
both $\alpha$-Al$_2$O$_3$ with closed
packed oxygen in ABAB stacking, and cubic $\gamma$-Al$_2$O$_3$ with ABCABC
stacking. In $\alpha$-Al$_2$O$_3$, all Al are in octahedral sites while
Al occupy both octohedral and tetrahedral sites in $\gamma$-Al$_2$O$_3$.
Upon applying geometry optimization to the initial ``$\alpha$-Al$_2$O$_3$''
film, some Al ions are found to migrate to tetrahedral sites, especially
those coordinated to graphite-edge C=O groups. Thus our
``$\alpha$-Al$_2$O$_3$'' film arguably exhibits both $\alpha$ and $\gamma$
character, consistent with experimental ALD coatings which are considered
amorphous without long-range order.
Finally, a thin slab of lithium metal truncated along (100) surfaces is
considered. Even though Li metal itself cannot currently be used as
rechargeable anodes, EC breakdown products on Li are qualitatively
similar to those on LiC$_6$ surfaces.\cite{book2,bridel} Under open circuit
conditions, Li metal should be at a well defined $\sim -3$~V versus
the standard hydrogen potential.\cite{solvation_li} Furthermore,
EC decomposition on Li surface is free of the ambiguity associated
with solvent co-intercalation into graphite.\cite{besenhard} Thus
Li metal provides an useful baseline with which to interpret predictions
for the oxide-coated surfaces.
\begin{table}\centering
\begin{tabular}{||l|l|l|l|l|l||} \hline
system/coating & method & Figure & stochiometry & cell size & N$_{\rm EC}$
\\ \hline
thin LiAlO$_2$ & NEB & Fig.~\ref{fig4}c-d,~\ref{fig6} &
Al$_{48}$Li$_{96}$O$_{148}$C$_{92}$H$_{24}$
& 40.00$\times$12.47$\times$15.06 & 1\\
thick LiAlO$_2$ & NEB & NA &
Al$_{72}$Li$_{118}$O$_{208}$C$_{92}$H$_{24}$
& 46.0$\times$12.47$\times$15.06 & 1\\
thick LiAlO$_2$ & AIMD & Fig.~\ref{fig2}d &
Al$_{72}$Li$_{118}$O$_{208}$C$_{92}$H$_{24}$
& 48.5$\times$12.47$\times$15.06 & 36\\
thin LiAlO$_2$ & AIMD & Fig.~\ref{fig2}e &
Al$_{48}$Li$_{96}$O$_{148}$C$_{92}$H$_{24}$
& 43.00$\times$12.47$\times$15.06 & 36\\ \hline
only LiAlO$_2$ & NEB & NA &
Al$_{36}$Li$_{36}$O$_{84}$H$_{24}$
& 24.00$\times$12.47$\times$15.06 & 1\\ \hline
Al$_2$O$_3$ & AIMD & Fig.~\ref{fig2}f &
Al$_{72}$O$_{204}$C$_{120}$H$_{72}$Li$_{51}$
& 33.34$\times$14.97$\times$18.82 & 36 \\ \hline
Li (100) & AIMD & Fig.~\ref{fig2}b & Li$_{96}$ &
30.35$\times$14.63$\times$14.63 & 32\\
Li (100) & NEB & Fig.~\ref{fig2}c & Li$_{96}$ &
30.35$\times$14.63$\times$14.63 & 1\\
Li (100) & NEB & Fig.~\ref{fig3}b-d & Li$_{48}$ &
24.00$\times$9.75$\times$9.75 & 1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[]
{\label{table1} \noindent
Details of systems used in AIMD and geometry optimization-plus-NEB
barrier calculations. The spatial dimensions are in \AA.
``Stochiometry'' omits ethylene carbonate atoms in the liquid region.
}
\end{table}
\subsection{Adiabatic regime: DFT, AIMD simulations}
All calculations are performed using the Vienna
Atomic Simulation Package version 4.6 (VASP)\cite{vasp,vasp1}
and the PBE functional.\cite{pbe} AIMD simulations apply
$\Gamma$-point Brillouin zone sampling, a 400~eV planewave
energy cutoff, and a 10$^{-5}$~eV or 10$^{-6}$~eV convergence
criterion at each Born-Oppenheimer time step. The trajectories
are kept at an average temperature of T=450~K using Nose thermostats,
except for the EC/Li metal simulation where T=350~K is enforced.
Tritium masses are substituted for protons to enable a time
step of 1~fs. Under these conditions, the trajectories
exhibit drifts of less than 1~K/ps. Due to the approximate
nature of DFT functionals and the simulation protocol (tritium
masses and thermostat used), the predicted reaction time scales
should be treated as relative, not absolute. AIMD simulations
reported do not account for spin-polarization. Our previous
work has revealed no qualitative difference between
restricted singlet and spin-triplet DFT/AIMD simulations.\cite{ec}
Molecular configurations are pre-equilibrated using Monte Carlo
simulations and simple molecular force fields, as described in
an earlier work.\cite{ec} Representative AIMD snapshots are depicted
in Fig.~\ref{fig2}.
The AIMD liquid/solid interfacial simulations are akin to dipping
electrodes fully pre-intercalated with Li into the organic solvent.
In principle, it may be possible to intercalate Li$^+$ in the electrolyte,
remove the anodes from solution, clean off possible decomposition
products in inert environments, and re-insert in solution to measure
the open circuit voltage. Such experiments have not been performed
but can be attempted in the future. In Sec.~\ref{work_func},
we further discuss the electrochemical potential of these electrode models.
T=0~K geometry optimizations and climbing image nudged elastic band
(NEB)\cite{neb} barrier calculations (e.g., Fig.~\ref{fig3}) are performed
with spin-polarization, a 10$^{-4}$~eV convergence criterion, and a linear
potential correction applied in the direction perpendicular to the surface
to remove dipole-image interactions.\cite{scheffler_sur} $\Gamma$-point
sampling is generally applied, except for calculations involving Li metal
slabs where 1$\times$2$\times$2 Brillouin zone sampling is used. Even there,
$\Gamma$-point NEB calculations yield a C-O bond-breaking barrier
only 0.1~eV higher than the more dense Brillouin grid result. It is
also found that the geometry and net charge of an adsorbed, intact EC$^-$ on
LiAlO$_2$ surface is unchanged whether $\Gamma$-point or 1$\times$2$\times$2
grids are used. Comparing restricted singlet and spin-polarization results,
no difference is discernable in the EC on Li metal calculations, where the
bond-breaking barrier is small ($<0.1$~eV, Sec.~\ref{lithium}) and adiabatic
electron transfer from the electrode and the bond-breaking event occur
simultaneously. These are the conditions under which spontaneously EC
decompositions are observed in picosecond AIMD simulations, justifying
the use of non-spin-polarized DFT there. Higher bond-breaking barriers,
like those on the 10~\AA\, thick LiAlO$_2$ surface (see the S.I.), are
reduced when spin polarization is allowed.
A spot check shows that spin-unrestricted DFT calculations reduce the
C$_{\rm C}$-O cleavage barrier by 0.15~eV on this surface. Even with this
reduction, the barrier is high enough to prevent observation of EC breakdown
in picosecond time scale, and therefore using non-spin-polarized DFT in
AIMD simulations does not affect the conclusion that no reactions occur
within the 7~ps trajectories in high barrier cases. Further details on NEB
calculations are discussed in the S.I.
\subsection{Non-adiabatic regime: Constrained DFT}
A version of the constrained DFT (cDFT) method\cite{voor,voor1}
is implemented into VASP. The constraining potential is chosen to be
\begin{eqnarray}
W({\bf r}) &=& V_o [ 1- \Pi_i f_i({\bf r}) ] \, , \label{v_o} \\
f_i({\bf r}) &=& [1+ \tanh ( \kappa (|{\bf r}-{\bf r}_i|-w_i)]/2 ,
\end{eqnarray}
Here $V_o$ is a constant to be self-consistently determined, $\kappa$ is
6\AA$^{-1}$, $i$ labels the atoms in the selected EC participating in
electron transfer, ${\bf r}_i$ is the atom position on that EC, and $w_i$
is an element-specific radius. $w_i$ amounts to 1.65~\AA\, for C and O
and 1.25~\AA\, for H. These values are similar to Lennard-Jones radii
in simple atomic force fields. A more stringent wavefunction convergence
criterion of 10$^{-6}$~eV or smaller is enforced in self-consistent cDFT
calculations. The $W({\bf r})$ functional form does not
double-count electron density on adjacent atoms and appears pertinent
when bond-breaking can occur.
Normalized, atomic orbital-based charge projection operators used in
the literature\cite{voor,marzari,blumberger} may be less applicable for
electron transfer coupled to bond-breaking, but they can be tested
for the present application in the future.
The total electronic charge on the selected EC is determined by projecting
$W({\bf r})/V_o$ on to the DFT electron density. With the $w_i$ values
mentioned above, unconstrained DFT predicts that a charge-neutral EC
molecule adsorbed on the thin LiAlO$_2$ surface (Fig.~\ref{fig4}c)
exhibits a slight $+0.20|e|$ ``net charge,'' while $-0.60$$\pm$0.1$|e|$
resides on the EC$^-$ (Fig.~\ref{fig4}d). The adsorbed EC$^-$ exhibits a
similar $-0.67|e|$ charge on the LiAlO$_2$ oxide slab without any
conductive Li$_x$C$_6$ component (Table~\ref{table1}). The non-integer values
arise because of residual charge densities at the edge of EC molecules
beyond the range of $W({\bf r})/V_o$. (The net spin on EC$^-$ is
about $0.9|e|$, and is more centered on EC than the net charge.)
Increasing $w_i$ is ruled out because of the close proximity of
adsorbed EC to the surface hydroxyl groups. For example, using larger
$w_i$ has been found to lead to abstraction of protons from surface
hydroxyls. The protons then bind to the negatively charged EC molecule.
Such reactions are not seen in unconstrained AIMD simulations and are deemed
unphysical. We have therefore defined $+0.20|e|$ and $-0.60|e|$ to be
the net charges of flat, intact EC (Fig.~\ref{fig4}c) and EC$^-$
(Fig.~\ref{fig4}d) when using self-consistent cDFT calculations to
impose charges on the molecule.
Increasing $|V_o|$ to increase the charge on adsorbed EC$^-$ to $-0.80|e|$
is found to yield only a 10\% change on the coupling matrix element
$V_{\rm AB}$, but can increase $\lambda$ by a fraction of an electron volt.
The more important parameter, the barrier in Eq.~\ref{nonadiab},
is only affected by $\sim \delta \lambda$/4 in the harmonic approximation
used in this work. In the S.I., the predicted $\lambda$ for adsorbed
EC is shown to be comparable to that for EC in liquid EC, computed using
cluster calculations, localized orbitals, and a dielectric continuum
approximation.
Coupling matrix elements $V_{\rm AB}$ between the two different adiabatic
surfaces (Fig.~\ref{fig1}a) are computed using the cDFT formalism for
discrete orbital levels,\cite{voor1} which is implemented into VASP within the
projector-augmented wave formalism.\cite{vasp1} The same atomic configuration
must be used for both electronic surfaces, and this is chosen to be the
optimized atomic configuration where no excess electron resides on the flat,
adsorbed EC. $V_{\rm AB}$ is generally assumed to be relatively independent of
atomic positions with the ``Franck-Condon'' approximation, although molecular
orientation dependence has been demonstrated.\cite{blumberger2010}
$V_{\rm AB}$ emerges from the 2$\times$2 Hamiltonian matrix $H$
connecting the donor ($|\Phi_A\rangle$, in our case from unconstrained DFT
calculations) and acceptor ($|\Phi_B\rangle$) single determinantal
wavefunctions.\cite{voor1,blumberger} $|\Phi_B\rangle$ features an excess
electron on one EC molecule and is generated using cDFT. $H$ contains the
overlap matrix element $\langle \Phi_A | \Phi_B \rangle$ as well as
$\langle \Phi_A | \sum_e W(r_e)| \Phi_B \rangle$, where $e$ labels all
occupied electronic levels.\cite{voor1} These calculations are fairly
costly and are performed at T=0~K in this work.
This cDFT-based $V_{\rm AB}$ formulation was originally devised for electron
transfer between ground state cDFT donar and acceptor electronic configurations,
with the implicit assumption that the relevant density-of-state is discrete.
In the limit of non-interacting electrons residing on a metal electrode, this
formalism reflects only the top curve on the left side of Fig.~\ref{fig1}b
and does not reduce to the well-known Fermi Golden Rule formula for tunneling
from a continuum of donor states. Consider, in this limit, a band of
single-particle energy levels $E$ characterized by a density-of-state
$D(E)$ of orbitals $\phi(E)$, Fermi distribution function $f(E)$, Fermi
level $E_{\rm F}$, and an isolated acceptor orbital $\phi_a$ with energy
$E_a$. The Golden Rule rate, associated with multiple level crossings
illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig1}b, is
\begin{equation}
k_{\rm GR} \propto \bigg\langle \int dE |\langle \phi(E) | v(E) |
\phi_a \rangle |^2 D(E) f(E-E_{\rm F}) \delta (E-E_a) \bigg\rangle_{\bf R},
\label{golden}
\end{equation}
where $v(E)$ is the single-particle coupling matrix element and $\langle O
\rangle_R$ denotes averaging over nuclear degrees of freedom $R$ on which
all quantities implicitly depend. This formula allows many-electron acceptor
$|\Phi_{B'}\rangle$ states that involve $\phi_a$ but not the HOMO of
$|\Phi_A\rangle $, which represent electron-hole
excitations.\cite{sebastian1989} In contrast, cDFT can only generate
the electron-acceptor manifold $|\Phi_{B'}\rangle $ which is the ground
electronic states within the applied constraint.
To incorporate the effect of Eq.~\ref{golden}, we make the common assumption
that $V_{\rm AB}$ is constant over the relevant range of density-of-
state.\cite{scheffler2008,tully2009,dodonadze1968,schmickler1986,halley1988,sebastian1989,voth1995,voth1999,tanaka1999}
Then an empirical Golden Rule-like expression can be proposed:
\begin{equation}
k_{\rm et}^{\rm GR} = \sum_{a'} f_{a'} \frac{\sqrt{\pi}|V_{\rm AB}|^2 }{ \hbar
\sqrt {\lambda k_{\rm B}T} }
\exp \bigg[ -\frac{(\Delta E_o + \Delta E_{a'}+ \lambda)^2}
{4 \lambda k_{\rm B}T }\bigg]
\label{et_final}
\end{equation}
Here $\Delta E_o$ is used in place of $\Delta G_o$ because we ignore
entropy changes in T=0~K, UHV-setting calculations, $f_{a'}$ is the Fermi
and/or symmetry weight of Kohn-Sham orbital $a'$, and $\Delta E_{a'}$ is the
difference in energy between the Fermi energy and each Kohn Sham orbital
level $a'$, $e_{\rm F}$$-$$e_{a'}$. $a'$ deep within the occupied
manifold does not contribute due to the $\Delta E_{a'}$ factor.
The self-consistent $\Gamma$-point electronic density is used to generate
a dense grid of occupied states $\phi_{a'}$ using a 1$\times$4$\times$4
Monkhorst-Pack Brillouin sampling.\cite{schultz}
To converge to the infinite size limit for $e^-$ transfer to a single
EC molecule, the correct approach is not to increase
$k$-point sampling, but to increase all spatial dimensions of the
model electrode. If the Li$_x$C$_6$ component of the electrode
is doubled in size in any one direction, the orbital donor
wavefunction $\phi_{a'}$ delocalized over the electrode is scaled
down by $\sim 1/\sqrt{2}$, and $|V_{\rm AB}|^2$ decreases 2-fold.
This underscores the fact that $V_{\rm AB}$ is not a measurable quantity
in finite-sized electrode models, but changes with the system size. However,
the density-of-state $D(E_{a'})$ increases proportionately with system size,
and the sum over all orbital contributions (Eq.~\ref{et_final}) should be
well-defined in that infinite size limit.
\subsection{Experimental Details}
Carbon films deposited onto Cu were used as electrodes to explore the
passivating role of the ALD-derived alumina coatings with respect to
electrolyte reductive decomposition. Polished AT-cut quartz crystals
patterned with Cu electrodes (9~MHz, Inficion) were used as the base
current collector for conducting both voltammetry and gravimetry.
50 nm thick carbon films were deposited onto these crystals using a
pulsed laser deposition method.\cite{zavadil1,zavadil2} Conformal
alumina coatings were deposited onto
both carbon films and bare Cu electrodes at a substrate temperature of
180~$^o$C using alternate cycles of trimethylaluminum and water to
produce amorphous Al$_2$O$_3$ films of either 0.55 or 1.1~nm
thickness.\cite{dillon,ald1,ald2} Cycles of NO$_2$ and TMA pre-exposure
were used to ensure the nucleation and growth of a continuous alumina
film.\cite{ald3}
Electrochemical measurements were conducted under argon in a glove box
(Vacuum Atmospheres, $<$100~ppb~H$_2$O, $<$1~ppm O$_2$) in 1~M LiPF6
in a 1:1 volume mixture of ethylene carbonate and diethylcarbonate (Hoshimoto
and Kishida Chemical). A Solartron 1287 potentiostat coupled with a
Maxtek RQCM controller were used for simultaneous voltammetric and
gravimetric measurements.
\section{Results: adiabatic AIMD/DFT predictions of EC/Li(100) reactions}
\label{lithium}
Adiabatic DFT/PBE calculations should be pertinent for the EC/Li(100)
interface, where EC and the metallic electrode are in close contact and
fast $e^-$ transfer is expected.
\subsection{Liquid EC on Li (100)}
Liquid EC has been previously predicted to decompose at the C=O edges
of LiC$_6$ electrodes within 7~ps at T=450~K in AIMD/PBE simulations.\cite{ec}
This timescale is used to qualitatively gauge the DFT/PBE predicted
reactivity of other surfaces towards liquid EC.
Figure~\ref{fig2}b shows that liquid EC decomposes readily on Li (100).
Within 15~ps, all 12 EC molecules adjacent to the Li metal, out of 32~EC
in the simulation cell, have accepted electrons and decomposed. 11 out
of these 12 exhibit two broken C$_{\rm C}$-O bonds to form CO +
OC$_2$H$_4$O$^{2-}$;\cite{onuki,ota,aurbach_co,gachot} only one EC decomposes
in the classic C$_2$H$_4$ + CO$_3^{2-}$ route hitherto widely accepted in
the literature, cleaving both C$_{\rm E}$-O bonds.\cite{book2,book}
Here C$_{\rm C}$ and C$_{\rm E}$ are the carbonyl and ethylene carbon atoms,
respectively. This finding is consistent with those in Ref.~\onlinecite{ec},
where both CO and CO$_3^{2-}$ products emerge at the interface between
liquid EC and pristine LiC$_6$ with oxidized edge groups. This agreement
is significant because, by construction, the models used in
Ref.~\onlinecite{ec} exclude solvent co-intercalation cited in the
``3-dimensional'' SEI formation pathway.\cite{besenhard} Nevertheless,
fast EC decomposition and identical products are predicted on both pristine
graphite and Li metal surfaces, showing that such co-intercalation is
not necessary for SEI initiation.
In the EC/Li trajectory, the temperature is thermostat at T=350~K, not
T=450~K, to avoid melting the solid Li. Despite this, the heat generated by
the reactions and the incorporation of CO into the metal slab have caused
significant amorphization. In Ref.~\onlinecite{bal}, the initial 200~fs of
this trajectory is examined in detail. The bent EC geometry, with the carbonyl
C=O displacing out of the EC plane, is shown to be correlated with electron
transfer to EC, just like for the isolated EC$^-$ in solution
(Fig.~\ref{fig1}d).\cite{bal01,bal} This bent geometry plays a
critical role in electron transfer and reorganization energy
calculations in LiAlO$_2$-coated surfaces (see below).
Our AIMD simulations have shown that OC$_2$H$_4$O$^{2-}$ can react with
2 CO$_2$ to form the main SEI organic product ethylene dicarbonate.
Whether this product is deposited at the initial stage of SEI growth
depends on the availability of CO$_2$ and the solubility of the
decomposition fragments.\cite{harris}
\subsection{Isolated EC on Li (100)}
\label{uhv}
Remarkably, even a single EC molecule, in the absence of the liquid
environment which stabilizes its ionic breakdown products, still
decomposes on Li (100) surfaces to form CO + OC$_2$H$_4$O$^{2-}$ within
picoseconds. (Fig.~\ref{fig2}c) This suggests that a simple T=0~K energy
profile calculation is relevant to EC decomposition.\cite{liquid}
Figure~\ref{fig3}a compares the T=0~K energy profiles of the two modes
of excess electron-induced EC breakdown on Li metal. They show that cleaving
the C$_{\rm C}$-O bond to form the precursor to carbon monoxide,
OC$_2$H$_4$OCO$^{2-}$, is thermodynamically less favorable than the
ethylene carbon-oxygen bonds to form CO$_3^{2-}$ and C$_2$H$_4$ by
a substantial 1.53~eV. Cleaving the remaining C$_{\rm C}$-O bond
in the CO route only leads to another 0.16~eV stabilization. The barriers
associated with both types of bond-breaking are vanishingly small. Applying
the HSE06 truncated hybrid functional,\cite{hse06,hse06a} which exhibits
far less self-interaction errors\cite{wtyang,wtyang1,na} than PBE,
increases the C$_{\rm C}$-O breaking barrier, but only to
0.16~eV (not shown, but consistent with the similar short time dynamics
predicted with the PBE and HSE06 functionals\cite{bal}). This suggests
that adiabatic DFT/PBE barrier predictions are reasonably accurate for EC
in contact with Li metal. The small barrier explains why both product
channels are available in picosecond time scales at explicit liquid
EC/electrode interfaces (Fig.~\ref{fig2}b, Ref.~\onlinecite{bal}).
We speculate that the kinetic prefactor favors the CO-route and makes it the
majority product in liquid-solid interface simulations (Fig.~\ref{fig2}b).
\subsection{Long-range e$^-$ transfer formalism is not applicable to EC/Li(100)}
\label{li_nonadiab}
For $e^-$ transfer to EC directly adsorbed on uncoated electrode surfaces,
the close contact should render the cDFT method for non-adiabatic
long-range electron transfer\cite{voor1,voor2} inapplicable.
If one insists on calculating $V_{\rm AB}$ using cDFT and
and the simulation cell described in Table~\ref{table1},
$V_{\rm AB}$ is found to be $0.23$~eV for a flat EC adsorbed on Li
(Fig.~\ref{fig3}b). This large $V_{\rm AB}$ is consistent with
the significant, 56\% overlap between the acceptor and donor many-electron
wavefunctions, and should put the system in the adiabatic electron
transfer regime --- even with the caveat about the system size dependence
of $V_{\rm AB}$.\cite{landau} (For comparison, a theoretical work on NO
molecules adsorbed on Ag(111), not using cDFT, has also yielded fraction-of-eV
$V_{\rm AB}$.\cite{tully2009}) We conclude that the adiabatic DFT/PBE
treatment should suffice in this case.
\section{Results: Non-adiabatic electron transfer to EC on oxide surfaces}
\label{oxide}
This section focuses on a UHV-like model consisting of an
isolated EC adsorbed on the lithium-intercalated graphitic carbon strip
coated with LiAlO$_2$. A 0.4~V/\AA\, electric
field is applied. For this model, $e^-$ tunneling resides in the
non-adiabatic regime where cDFT calculations are pertinent.
The relevance of this model to the liquid EC/electrode interfacial
environment will be clarified below.
\subsection{Two metastable EC charge states on 7~\AA\, thick oxide surface}
The Li$_x$C$_6$ model with a 7~\AA\, thick LiAlO$_2$ coating
proves especially useful for examining the details of electron
transfer from the electrode to an adsorbed EC, which either precedes
or takes place simultaneously with EC$^-$ decomposition. Two
(meta)-stable adsorbed EC configurations can be stabilized (Fig.~\ref{fig4}).
One is a flat, charge-neutral EC coordinated to a surface site (an
AlOH group) via its carbonyl oxygen atom (Fig.~\ref{fig4}c).
Figure~\ref{fig4}a depicts the local electronic density-of-state
(DOS) for this system. The Li$_x$C$_6$ region contains partially
occupied states near the Fermi level ($E_{\rm F}$). The insulating
oxide spans a substantial band gap, although there are surface states
in the interface with Li$_x$C$_6$ that reduce the effective insulating
thickness. The highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) of EC is below
$-2.5$~eV while the LUMO lies above $E_{\rm F}$. This DOS is consistent
with a charge-neutral EC weakly interacting with the oxide surface.
The other configuration has an intact EC$^-$ which adopts a bent geometry
with the C=O bond protruding out of the EC plane (Fig.~\ref{fig4}d).
This is reminiscent of the first stage of liquid EC decomposition on
Li (100) surface, where the $e^-$-accepting EC adopts a similar bent
configuration.\cite{bal,note1} The excess charge on the EC is centered
around the carbonyl oxygen atom which is coordinated to two AlOH groups
and a Li surface atom. The system exhibits a DOS
(Fig.~\ref{fig4}b) substantially different from Fig.~\ref{fig4}a. The
majority spin, highest occupied state of the EC molecule now lies below
the Fermi level. The shift in the LUMO upon $e^-$ addition serves as
a caveat against using the LUMO of the neutral molecule as a figure-of-merit
in assessing electrochemical reduction tendencies.
The bent EC$^-$ is almost iso-energetic with the flat EC. Its slight
exothermicity, $\Delta E_o=-0.02$~eV, does not depend on whether the electron
transfer is adiabatic or non-adiabatic. It should not be affected by the
periodic images imposed by the simulation cell because the dipole correction is
applied.\cite{scheffler_sur} In fact, despite the transfer of an $e^-$ across
a 7- or 10-\AA\, thick oxide layer, the overall dipole moment of the
simulation cell changes by less than $1.0~|e|$\AA, apparently because the
electron density in the metallic Li$_x$C$_6$ strip can rearrange itself to
accommodate the electron transfer.
The total charge in the simulation cell is conserved in these
calculations and the large correction due to periodic boundary conditions
for isolated ions in solutions is not needed.\cite{seealso,sprik1}
Note that $\Delta E_o$ is used in place of $\Delta G_o$ because the
calculation is performed at T=0~K.
\subsection{Non-adiabatic electron transfer on oxide surface}
\label{nonadiab1}
We apply the cDFT method
to calculate $\lambda$ and $V_{\rm AB}$ required to estimate the electron
transfer rate $k_{\rm et}$ (Eqs.~\ref{nonadiab} \&~\ref{et_final}). We
stress that the flat EC absorbed on the oxide coatings is treated using
unconstrained DFT/PBE. The highest-occupied orbitals of the 7~\AA\, and
10~\AA\, thick coatings reside in the Li$_x$C$_6$ region, and exhibit
integrated electron densities of less than 10$^{-4}$ and
5$\times$10$^{-8}$~$|e|$ on the EC molecule, respectively. This shows that
the unconstrained DFT method already gives a reasonable description of
the neutral EC electronic configuration.
$\lambda$ is computed for the optimized, flat EC geometry adsorbed on the
thin LiAlO$_2$ coating (i.e. image~0 in Fig.~\ref{fig5}a).
cDFT imposes an extra electron on the EC molecule. On the 7~\AA\, thick
coating, it yields a vertical
excitation energy $\Delta E_{\rm vert}$=$\lambda+\Delta E_o$=2.04~eV,
where $\Delta E_o$ is the aforementioned $-0.02$~eV offset between donor
and acceptor. Alternatively, an electron can be removed from the
frozen bent EC$^-$ configuration (image~5), which
leads to $\lambda'+\Delta E_o$=1.80~eV. $\lambda$ and $\lambda'$
agree to within 14\%. This is qualitatively consistent with the Marcus
theory postulate that the polarization degrees of freedom respond
harmonically (Eq.~\ref{nonadiab}), yielding a single reorganization
energy that governs electron transfer reactions.\cite{marcus}
With $\lambda$=2.06~eV for EC adsorbed on the thin LiAlO$_2$ surface, the
non-adiabatic barrier becomes 0.51~eV from a simple Marcus construction
(Eq.~\ref{nonadiab}). This barrier is much higher than the $\sim$0.1~eV
adiabatic DFT/PBE activation energies for both the C$_{\rm C}$-O and
C$_{\rm E}$-O bond breaking pathways on this surface (Sec.~\ref{new_sec}),
and is therefore the rate-limiting step in EC breakdown on the surface of
the thin LiAlO$_2$ coating.
In the S.I., an EC with a dielectric approximation of the liquid EC solvent
medium is found to exhibit an average of $\lambda=1.76$~eV, similar to EC
adsorbed on the thin LiAlO$_2$ coating. The co-solvent dimethyl carbonate (DMC)
exhibits only slightly smaller $\lambda$ values. Therefore the substantial
$\lambda$, large compared to many organic molecules,\cite{bredas}
is intrinsic to out-of-plane bending of the C=O group as the
carbonyl carbon atom adopts a $sp^3$-like geometry to accommodate an $e^-$.
The S.I. further presents results on vertical excitation energy,
$\Delta E_{\rm vert}=\lambda+\Delta E_o$ (Fig.~\ref{fig1}a),
computed in several AIMD snapshots, to suggest that the Arrhenius term
in Eq.~\ref{nonadiab} favors $e^-$ transfer to EC molecules at the interface
over EC in the bulk liquid region. In such AIMD simulations, we are limited
to the first choice of $\lambda$, i.e., instantaneously adding an electron
to EC, because EC$^-$ in liquid EC can have short lifetimes.\cite{ec}
Hence we will focus on this first choice throughout this work.
As this is a T=0~K calculation in a UHV-like setting, we have simply used the
$(\Delta E_o +\lambda)^2/(4 \lambda)$ expression in Eq.~\ref{nonadiab}
as the tunneling barrier,\cite{voor1,dupuis} and have not traced out the
two adiabatic curves as a function of the energy gap using liquid state
potential-of-mean-force simulations.\cite{wtyang2,blumberger1}
We have however checked that, when relaxing EC$^-$
frozen in the flat geometry (Fig.~\ref{fig4}c) with a constrained charge,
it reverts to the stable bent EC$^-$
(Fig.~\ref{fig4}d) configuration, showing that the cDFT approach puts
the system on the correct electron-acceptor potential surface.
In the future, we plan to perform direct cDFT calculation of the barrier
height at T=0~K by simultaneously optimizing the same atomic configuration
on both energy surfaces.
The cDFT coupling matrix element is estimated to be $V_{\rm AB}$=0.022~eV
at the flat EC geometry.
Fig.~\ref{fig5}c depicts the highest-occupied DFT and cDFT orbitals,
integrated over the lateral dimensions, for the systems with flat EC
and flat EC$^-$ respectively. The overlap between them,
$\langle \phi_{\rm EC}^{\rm HOMO}|\phi_{\rm EC-}^{\rm HOMO}\rangle$, is
0.0125, or within 2\% of that between the respective determinantal
wavefunctions $\langle \Phi_{\rm A}|\Phi_{\rm B}\rangle$ (Sec.~\ref{method})
which includes many-electron contributions. Therefore the relaxation of
other electrons (``polarization effect'') does not strongly influence
the overlap integral when using $\Gamma$-point sampling.
This estimate of $V_{\rm AB}$ does not reflect the classic Fermi Golden
rule phenomenology (Sec.~\ref{method}). Applying Eq.~\ref{et_final} to
approximately account for the finite density-of-state on the electrode, we
obtain a 1.63$\times$10$^4$/s electron transfer rate. Simply using the cDFT
definition of $V_{\rm AB}$ in Eq.~\ref{nonadiab}, which represents a single
point integration quadrature, merely underestimates this rate by a factor of
1.68. Using DFT/PBE rather than more accurate but costly hybrid functionals
has been known to overestimate $V_{\rm AB}$ by almost a factor of
10.\cite{blumberger2010} In the present case, the DFT/PBE underestimation of
the band gap of the insulating oxide layer may lead to some overestimation of
the electron tunneling rate. Despite the approximations and
assumptions involved, this is to our knowledge the first DFT-based estimate
of the tunneling rates from an electrode, through an oxide layer, to an
adsorbed EC molecule. The value may potentially be compared with UHV
measurements. After electron transfer, EC$^-$ decomposes, and the negatively
charged EC fragments will most likely complex with Li$^+$ from the
electrolyte and be incorporated into the SEI layer on top of the ALD film.
\begin{table}\centering
\begin{tabular}{||l|l|l|l|||} \hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{coated electrode} &
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{uncoated electrode} \\ \hline
system & work func. & system & work func. \\ \hline
thin LiAlO$_2$ (OH) & 2.47 & Li(100) & 3.05 \\
thick LiAlO$_2$ (OH) & 2.90 & graphite edge & 4.57 \\
thin LiAlO$_2$ (OLi) & 2.25 & LiAlO$_2$ & 5.42 \\
Al2O3 (OH) & 4.10 & Al$_2$O$_3$ (0001) & 6.22 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[]
{\label{table2} \noindent
Work function of model systems used in this work
computed using the PBE functional, in eV. The left column
describes the oxide coatings on Li$_x$C$_6$; the right column
refers to work functions of pure crystals. The Al$_2$O$_3$ (0001)
model is Al-terminated. The graphite slab has dangling bonds.
}
\end{table}
On the thicker LiAlO$_2$ coating, $\Delta E_o$=0.77~eV.
$\lambda$=1.98~eV is predicted in the flat EC geometry. Removing
an $e^-$ from the bent geometry yields $\lambda'=1.69$~eV.
The asymmetry is 15\%. We again adopt the first choice of $\lambda$.
$V_{\rm AB}$ is estimated at 0.0128~eV, about half that of the 7~\AA\,
thick LiAlO$_2$ coating.\cite{note77} As discussed in Sec.~\ref{oxide},
the thinner coating exhibits substantial surface relaxation which is absent
in the 10~\AA\, layer, making a purely thickness-based comparison of
$V_{\rm AB}$ difficult. Fig.~\ref{fig5}d depicts the donor and acceptor
Kohn-Sham and cDFT orbitals. The overlap between them,
$\langle \phi_{\rm EC}|\phi_{\rm EC-}\rangle$,
is about 0.004, a factor of 3 less than that across the 7~\AA\, thick coating.
Including the contributions of Eq.~\ref{et_final}, $k_{\rm et}$ becomes
extremely small (2.8$\times$10$^{-5}$/s) due to the larger $\Delta E_o$.
The overall $k_{\rm et}$ is clearly very sensitive to $\Delta E_o$ or
$\Delta G_o$. In UHV settings, $\Delta E_o$ depends on both the electric
field and surface heterogeneity at atomic lengscales (see below). At
electrode/liquid electrolyte interfaces, $k_{\rm et}$ is a function of the
applied voltage as well as the local EC reduction potential via
$\Delta G_o$ (Eq.~\ref{nonadiab}), which may be a function of the distance
from the electrode. Direct measurement of the reduction potential of
an intact EC is unavailable because EC decomposition occurs faster
than cyclic voltammetry time scales. If one adopts a theoretical
$\Delta G_o$=$-0.15$~eV for $e^-$ transfer to intact EC molecules
in EC liquid in at Li(s)/Li$^+$ voltages (S.I.), the predicted initial
electron transfer rates $k_{\rm et}$ through the 7-\AA\, and 10-\AA\, thick
oxide coatings ($\sim 1.7$$\times$$10^5$/s and $8.3$$\times$$10^4$/s),
will permit electrolyte breakdown, even if we assume that these rates are
overestimated by 100~times due to the use of the PBE functional discussed
above. Indeed, our gravimetric measurements reveal electrolyte decomposition
on the coated electrodes --- consistent with ready availability of electrons
--- albeit in much less quantity than on uncoated electrodes (Sec.~\ref{expt}).
The electrolyte decomposition product then yields an additional insulating
layer that prevents further electron tunneling.
Our main point in this section is not to predict exact $k_{\rm et}$
values, but to highlight the previously neglected role of the EC reorganization
energy ($\lambda$) on electrode coated with an insulating layer. An immediate
implication is that different solvent molecules/salt components may exhibit
different $\lambda$ and $e^-$-transfer rates.
\subsection{DFT/PBE treatment of electron transfer on oxide surface is
inadequate}
\label{new_sec}
We next demonstrate that adiabatic DFT/PBE calculations are inadequate
when dealing with $e^-$ tunneling through insulating oxide layers.
The electron transfer barrier strongly depends on whether the $e^-$ transfer
is adiabatic or not, and on the accuracy of the DFT method used.
Figure~\ref{fig5}a depicts a climbing-image NEB calculation with
4~images along the reaction coordinate linking the flat EC and the bent EC$^-$
to examine the DFT/PBE adiabatic energy landscape in the 0.4~V/\AA\, electric
field. DFT/PBE predicts a 0.09~eV barrier associated with electron transfer
through the thin LiAlO$_2$ layer.
This small 0.09~eV value gives the strongest indication that
DFT/PBE grossly underestimates the $e^-$ transfer barrier.
In classical electron transfer paradigm (Fig.~\ref{fig1}a), the
parabolic intersection which yields the non-adiabatic barrier in the
exponential term in Eq.~\ref{nonadiab} is expected to differ from an
adiabatic prediction of barrier by $V_{\rm AB}$. Instead, the former is
0.51~eV and the latter is 0.09~eV (Fig~\ref{fig5}a); their difference far
exceeds $V_{\rm AB}$=0.022~eV before considering system size
dependence. The discrepancy is most likely due to the
self-interaction error in the DFT/PBE functional,\cite{wtyang,na}
a point already alluded to in Ref.~\onlinecite{voor1}. The widely used PBE
functional, along with others, do not sufficiently penalize configurations
where an electron occupies both the electrode and the EC molecule. Indeed,
in image~2 of Fig.~\ref{fig5}a, a fractional $-0.2$~$|e|$ charge
develops on the EC, which should be considered unphysical for a molecule
separated from the electrode by at least 7~\AA. Hybrid DFT functionals
exhibit less self-interaction errors than DFT/PBE, but are currently
too costly for computing barriers in interfacial systems of
this size.\cite{na1}
The 10~\AA\,-thick oxide-coated electrode exhibits a monotonic
DFT/PBE energy profile for electron transfer. There is no DFT/PBE
adiabatic barrier between the flat EC and bent EC$^-$ beyond the minimal
0.77~eV mandated by the endothermicity (Fig.~\ref{fig5}b), suggesting that
the electron tunneling barrier is again severely underestimated. Using
the conjugate gradient geometry minimizer in VASP, the bent EC$^-$
geometry on this surface is in fact on the verge of instability, about to lose
electron density to the electrode and relax to the flat EC$^0$ geometry.
Therefore the depicted energy profile actually reflects an optimized
geometry subject to a charge constrained via cDFT with a small $V_o=-0.2$~eV.
\subsection{Work function and electrochemical potential}
\label{work_func}
The electron tunneling rate at electrolyte-electrode interfaces depends on
the electrochemical potential ($\Phi$) of the electrode. In the coated
graphite model systems, $\Phi$ is not precisely known. Directly calculating
$\Phi$ involves averaging the electrostatic potential difference between
the conductive (inner) region of the electrodes and a distant point in
the bulk liquid beyond the thickness of the electric double layer,\cite{halley}
and involves consideration of image charge and surface potential
effects.\cite{sprik1,lynden1,pratt,sur_pot} These are beyond the time and
length scales of current AIMD simulations. Fortunately, the EC/Li(100)
interface mimics immersing freshly prepared Li metal into liquid EC,
and reflects an unambigous open-circuit voltage below the threshold at
which EC becomes electrochemically decomposed (+0.8~V vs.~Li$^+$/Li(s)).
This is a major reason Li is considered in this work.
If we consider the energy of an $e^-$ in the bulk electrolyte to be a
constant, independent of electrode surfaces, the energy for ejecting an
electron from different electrodes into the
bulk electrolyte will only be shifted by the work function\cite{lang}
(where an $e^-$ goes into vacuum). Thus, we have
computed the work functions of coated and uncoated electrode surface
and some crystal planes of ALD coating materials (Table~\ref{table2}).
The -OH and -OLi terminated LiAlO$_2$ coating work functions
are within 0.5~eV of the Li metal value, indicating that similar
energies are required to remove an electron from these surfaces.
The Al$_2$O$_3$ coated surface has a much higher work function
(Table~\ref{table2}), consistent with our observation that Al$_2$O$_3$
is a more insulating material than LiAlO$_2$ (see below).
Even though our DFT calculations show that placing these oxides in contact
with Li metal surfaces leads to immediate Li metal oxidation, we use Li(100)
as a reference because its voltage is similar to that of LiC$_6$.
Aligning the work functions of Li(100) and the oxide materials
(Table~\ref{table2}), it is clear that the valence and conduction bands
of the ALD phase lies below and above the Fermi energy ($E_{\rm F}$)
of Li metal, respectively. Electron tunneling from the Li $E_{\rm F}$
to the conduction bands of Al-terminated Al$_2$O$_3$ (0001) and LiAlO$_2$
(100) exhibit 1.43~eV and 1.13~eV offsets (barriers, $\Delta E$), respectively.
According to the 1D WKB formula, the tunneling prefactor is
\begin{equation}
k_{\rm et} \propto \exp (-2 \sqrt{2 m_e \Delta E} R/\hbar),
\end{equation}
where $m_e$ is the electron mass. If we take a tunneling transmission
probability of e$^{-40}$ as the limit of vanishing electron tunneling,
3.7nm thick LiAlO$_2$ and 3.2nm thick Al$_2$O$_3$ are required to stop
total SEI growth using DFT/PBE predicted $\Delta E$. The work
function is only one contribution to $\Phi$ and does not contain
solvent orientation and electric double layer effects\cite{note67}
(which should be less important for our inner-shell redox reduction of
solvent compared to the classical paradigm of electron transfer to
well-solvated outer-shell ions). Nevertheless, it gives a simple
guidance for comparing different insulating ALD coating materials.
As $e^-$ transfer slows down and becomes rate-limiting, the
composition of SEI films formed from electrolyte decomposition will likely
change. This is because solvent molecules (other than EC), the
counter ions (PF$_6^-$) in the salt, and other partially decomposed
products may exhibit smaller electron transfer barriers (reorganization
energies) and start dominating the product channel.
\subsection{EC bond-breaking on ALD coating after $e^-$ transfer}
\label{break}
On the 10~\AA\, thick LiAlO$_2$-coated Li$_x$C$_6$ strip (Fig.~\ref{fig2}f),
no EC decomposes within 7~ps. The limited duration of the AIMD trajectory
does not permit an estimate of the adiabatic AIMD/PBE free energy barrier.
While this barrier can be computed using the AIMD/potential-of-mean-force
method,\cite{silica} it will be underestimated due to PBE
self-interaction errors and underestimation of the electron tunneling barrier.
However, on the 7~\AA\, thick LiAlO2$_2$ layer, a C$_{\rm C}$-O bond
on one EC molecule is spontaneously broken within 1~ps (Fig.~\ref{fig2}e),
yielding OCOC$_2$H$_4$O$^{-}$, the majority predicted product on Li metal
surfaces (Fig.~\ref{fig2}b) and a precursor to CO. Here the monovalent anion
intermediate is stabilized by hydrogen bond donation from several AlOH
groups and by coordination to two surface Li atoms. Since the DFT/PBE method
erroneously underestimates the 0.51~eV $e^-$ tunneling barrier associated
with molecular reorganization (Fig.~\ref{fig4}a) which precedes bond-breaking,
it {\it vastly overestimates the overall bond-breaking rate}.
Indeed, the EC decomposition timescale predicted with DFT/PBE is similar
similar to the timescale predicted in the {\it absence} of the ALD
layer.\cite{ec} This is in disagreement with our experimental measurements
which reveals far less solvent decomposition products when an ALD layer is
present (Sec.~\ref{expt}). Instead, 0.51~eV should be taken as the overall
activation energy in these bond-breaking events. With this barrier, the
bond-breaking rate should occur in millisecond, not picosecond, timescales
at room temperature. Nevertheless, this PBE-based AIMD calculation is
valuable because it identifies the most reactive
surface site. An EC adsorbed at this site is used in the $e^-$ transfer
calculation of the previous section (Fig.~\ref{fig4}). Under UHV-like
conditions, an isolated EC molecule adsorbed at this site exhibits $<0.05$~eV
adiabatic DFT/PBE C-O bond-breaking barriers provided a 0.4~V/\AA\,
electric field is applied (Fig.~\ref{fig6}). The qualitative correspondence
between adiabatic AIMD/PBE decomposition rate and UHV barrierless reaction
is the reason this model is adopted for $e^-$ transfer studies in
Sec.~\ref{nonadiab1}.
Because of its extreme thinness, optimizing the 7~\AA\,-thick LiAlO$_2$
film coated on to Li$_x$C$_6$ has caused 2~Li atoms per surface to migrate
outwards (Fig.~\ref{fig2}e).
These outlying Li coordinate to the surface hydroxyl groups, polarizing
them. The EC that undergoes breakdown (Fig.~\ref{fig6}d) is indeed hydrogen
bonded to an OH group coordinated to a surface Li$^+$. Such
Li migration to the surface does not occur in the thicker LiAlO$_2$ coating.
Hence the faster adiabatic AIMD/PBE EC decomposition dynamics on the thin
LiAlO$_2$ coating is not just a consequence of oxide thickness, but
is partly due to active site chemical specificity. This anomaly may
also be the reason the predicted $V_{\rm AB}$ value does not strongly
decrease with increasing the oxide thickness from 7~\AA\, to 10~\AA,
and may further explain the difference in work functions between Li$_x$C$_6$
coated with 7~\AA\, and 10~\AA\, thick LiAlO$_2$ films (Table~\ref{table2}).
The 10~\AA\,-thick LiAlO$_2$ coating does not exhibit outward Li atom
migration. Here the DFT/PBE bond-breaking barriers of adsorbed EC are not
readily deconvolved from $e^-$ transfer (S.I.). For simplicity, we consider
a model with just one 10~\AA\, thick LiAlO$_2$ layer hydroxylated on both sides
(Table~\ref{table1}), add one excess $e^-$ that now {\it always} resides
on the EC because of the Li$_x$C$_6$ $e^-$ sink has been removed, and
compute EC$^-$ decomposition energetics without applied electric fields.
C$_{\rm E}$-O bond-breaking to form CO$_3^{2-}$ precurors remain
barrierless and exothermic. However, the C$_{\rm C}$-O cleavage route to
form CO precurors becomes endothermic and exhibits a 0.71~eV barrier.
This indicates a product channel cross-over as the oxide thickness
increases and/or the reactivity of the surface site decreases. The expected
reaction pathyways transition from a mixture of C$_{\rm E}$-O and C$_{\rm C}$-O
bond breaking to predominantly C$_{\rm E}$-O cleavage (CO$_3^{2-}$ precursor).
While the liquid solvent environment is not included here, we speculate
that this finding may be extrapolated to other coating surfaces, including
natural SEI films, as the surface sites become less reactive. In the
future, we will also examine EC decomposition reactions on Li$_2$CO$_3$
surfaces to see if similar trends persist on that crystalline
material, recently adopted as a theoretical model for organic solvent
decomposition SEI film, and the decomposition of other solvent/salt
molecules.\cite{iddir}
We have also conducted AIMD simulations of graphitic anodes coated
with 5~\AA\, thick hydroxylated Al$_2$O$_3$ layers (Fig.~\ref{fig2}f).
No Li ions reside near the interface region, and no solvent decomposition
is observed within 7~ps, despite the thinness of the oxide. This
emphasizes the importance of surface heterogeneity at atomic lengthscales.
Replacing all surface AlOH groups with AlOLi dramatically increases
the decomposition rate; this will be discussed in future publications.
\section{Experimental Results}
\label{expt}
Figure~\ref{fig8} shows the combined voltammetric and microgravimetric
responses of the uncoated and alumina coated PLD carbon films as the electrode
potential is decreased to a value slightly above the threshold for Li$^+$
intercalation in the carbon. The uncoated carbon electrode (Fig.~\ref{fig8}a)
exhibits a continuously increasing current response, with several discrete
maxima. One maximum reaches a value of 4~$\mu$A/cm$^2$ with a mass increase of
2~$\mu$g/cm$^2$ at a potential of 2~V. The
other maximum reaches 11~$\mu$/cm$^2$ at a potential of 1~V. The
decomposition of the electrolyte and deposition of byproducts at 2~V
is catalyzed by the Cu substrate, as evidenced by the
similar current and mass changes on a control Cu electrode (Fig.~\ref{fig8}b),
and demonstrate that the carbon films possess porosity and allow electrolyte
penetration. As seen in the limiting current and mass profiles of
Fig.~\ref{fig8}b,
electrolyte decomposition results in Cu passivation beyond 2~V, arguing
that the majority of the current and mass changes measured above 2~V for the
porous carbon films (Fig.~\ref{fig8}a) are due to electrolyte decomposition
on Cu; only the signal below 1~V is associated with
solid electrolyte interphase formation (SEI) on the carbon surface. The
porous and therefore higher area carbon surface exhibits a continuous
increase in both current and mass uptake as the potential is further
reduced from 2 to 0.2~V and the onset of Li$^+$ intercalation is approached.
With an approach to 0.2~V, the rate of current change increases
substantially over the rate of mass change, signaling a point where
Li$^+$ intercalation has initiated, where the lighter mass Li (compared
to an fragment of ethylene carbonate or diethyl carbonate) accounts for
a growing fraction of the measured current. The possibility exists that
current increase could also be related to solvent reduction without
mass addition to the surface (soluble byproduct formation), but note
that the mass decrease upon reversal of the potential sweep clearly
argues for the onset of Li$^+$ ion intercalation into the carbon.
We note that the scan rate of 1~mV/s is sufficiently fast to
produce only modest extraction of Li during this reverse partial
half cycle.
The alumina coating acts as a kinetic barrier to prevent electron transfer to
the organic carbonate molecules of the electrolyte. Figures~\ref{fig8}c,~d
show the response of a 0.55 and 1.1~nm thick coated carbon films to
the onset of electrolyte reductive decomposition. Comparison of the
uncoated (Cu subtracted) and coated carbon films shows that a higher
overpotential is required to drive solvent decomposition and a
lower quantity of mass addition takes place with the alumina coating
present. A Cu current and mass uptake response is eliminated for
these coated electrodes because the alumina nucleating agent and film
precursors fully penetrate the porous carbon, conformally coating
both the carbon network and the underlying exposed regions of the
Cu substrate. The onset for significant current density and mass
increase occurs at approximately 1.2~V and 0.8~V for the 0.55~nm
and 1.1~nm alumina coatings, compared to 1.5~V for the uncoated
carbon. Mass increases measured at 0.8~V are 6, 1.3~and
0.5~$\mu$g/cm$^2$ for the uncoated (Cu subtracted), 0.55~nm and~1.1~nm
alumina sample, respectively. The greater overpotential and reduced
mass uptake of the 1.1~nm coating relative to the thinner 0.55~nm
coating argue that the thicker film provides a more effective kinetic
barrier for reducing the extent of both reductive solvent decomposition
and byproduct deposition on the electrode. The thicker alumina film
would be expected to present a lower electron tunneling rate resulting
in a slower rate of solvent decomposition and retarded SEI formation.
The fact that mass addition is observed in the presence of these
alumina coatings is a clear indicator that alumina serves to retard
and limit the extent of but does not prevent electrolyte reduction and
resulting byproduct film formation.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{conclude}
In this work, we compare EC decomposition on Li metal and on models of
oxide-coated electrodes. The latter mimics recent experimental work using ALD
technique to passivate anodes. This ALD strategy carries significant
technological promise,\cite{dillon,dillon0,dillon1,dillon3,dillon4,dillon2}
and it also provides an ideal robust platform for theoretical and experimental
study of passivating mechanisms. These two systems represent two electron
transfer regimes.
On pristine Li (100) surfaces, liquid EC and even isolated adsorbed EC
molecules are predicted to undergo decomposition in picosecond time scales.
CO is the dominant product from EC, possibly because of favorable kinetic
prefactors, even though both the CO and CO$_3^{2-}$ reaction pathways
are almost barrierless and the CO$_3^{2-}$ product is more thermodynamically
stable. EC molecules and the electrode are in close contact and
strongly coupled. Adiabatic DFT/PBE and AIMD/PBE simulations should
be accurate in this regime.
In contrast, electron transfer through an oxide layer should be slow
compared to nuclear motion. We find evidence that tunneling through
even a 7~\AA\, thick oxide layer belongs to the non-adiabatic regime.
Applying constrained DFT (cDFT) calculations, such thin coatings are
found to slow down $e^-$ transfer because the solvent
reorganization energy $\lambda$ now figures prominently in electron
tunneling through the oxide. $\lambda$, largely neglected in previous
studies of electrolyte decomposition in batteries, is estimated to be
$\sim 2$~eV for adsorbed EC molecules in ultra-high vacuum-like
conditions. This translates into a $\sim 0.5$~eV electron tunneling
barrier within the harmonic approximation when the $e^-$ transfer
free energy change is small.
cDFT calculations show that the 7~\AA\,- and 10~\AA\,-thick LiAlO$_2$
coated Li$_x$C$_6$ exhibit electron transfer rates of $\sim 10^5$/s
at the Li$^+$/Li(s) applied voltage. The predicted $e^-$ transfer
rate is not free of ambiguities and assumptions, and is of order-of-magnitude
utility; further fundamental research is needed for a more rigorous
treatment. Despite this caveat, this work respresents the first
first-principles estimate of the $e^-$ tunneling rate between an
electrode and an EC molecule across an insulating oxide layer. Such
predictions are critical for understanding ALD-hindered SEI growth in
lithium ion batteries.
The overall electron transfer rate (Eq.~\ref{nonadiab} or Eq.~\ref{et_final})
also depends on the offset $\Delta G_o$ between $e^-$ donor and acceptor
species. $\Delta G_o$ in turn depends on the applied voltage. AIMD estimates
of $\Delta G_o$ in an explicit liquid solvent environment is currently
lacking, and we have relied on dielectric continuum treatments of the
liquid environment. Nevertheless, our analysis yields useful insights.
With any reasonable estimate of $\Delta G_o$, the electron
transfer rate to EC at the surface is predicted to be faster than 1/s,
and solvent breakdown on the ALD oxide is expected. This is confirmed by
our gravimetric measurements on ALD-coated anodes, although the amount of
solvent decomposition product is significantly less than that on uncoated
graphite electrodes.
In the case of oxide-coated electrodes, AIMD/PBE and DFT/PBE calculations
without electronic constraints vastly underestimate the electron
transfer barrier. The reason is most likely the self-interaction error,
which unphysically favors a split electron partially localized on the
EC and partially delocalized on the electrode. This defect exists in
many DFT functionals and has been known to yield errors in when a molecular
is split into two fragments.\cite{wtyang} As a result, direct AIMD/PBE
simulations overestimate EC decomposition rates at oxide-coated electrode
surfaces by many orders of magnitude. However, AIMD/PBE and DFT/PBE
calculations still provide a wealth of information about structure and
relative energetics, and they form the basis of Marcus theory considerations
and non-adiabatic electron transfer studies which are key aspects of this work.
Taking advantage of the qualitative correspondence between AIMD liquid
state reaction rates and ultra-high vacuum-like DFT calculations of
barrier heights at T=0~K in an electric field, we have applied calculations
in UHV-like settings to suggest that the dominant product may shift from
a mixture of CO and CO$_3^{2-}$ to mainly CO$_3^{2-}$ as the binding
of ionic decomposition products becomes less favorable (e.g., on
thicker oxide coatings). This prediction may be transferrable to natural
SEI films arising entirely from electrolyte decomposition.
Atomic-scale surface heterogeneity is found to affect EC decomposition,
with Li$^+$ ions at the surface playing a facilitating or ``catalytic'' role.
Our work paves the way for novel future experimental studies in UHV settings.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
We thank John Sullivan, Steve Harris, Na Sai, Anatole von Lilienfeld, and
David Rogers for useful discussions, Michael Siegal and Donald Overmyer
for the nanoporous carbon samples, and Xingcheng Xiao for sharing
Ref.~\onlinecite{xcx} prior to publication. Sandia National Laboratories
is a multiprogram laboratory
managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S.~Deparment of Energy's National
Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.
KL (apart from the work on lithium metal modeling)
was supported by Nanostructures for Electrical Energy Storage (NEES), an Energy
Frontier Research Center funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences under Award Number DESC0001160.
\section*{Supporting Information Available}
Further information are available regarding reorganization energies of
EC in bulk liquid, vertical excitation energies of EC at LiAlO$_2$/liquid EC
interfaces, DFT/PBE predictions of adiabatic bond-breaking barriers, and
discussions of possible LiAlO$_2$ stoichiometry on ALD Al$_2$O$_3$ coatings
upon cycling power. This information is available free of charge via the
Internet at {\tt http://pubs.acs.org/}.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
In a recent paper \cite{Brychkov}, using generating functions,
Yu. A. Brychkov derived the following identity
\begin{gather}
\sum_{k_{1}+\dots+k_{m}=n}\prod_{i=1}^{m}\frac{1}{k_{i}!}\left[I_{-k_{i}-\frac{1}{2}}\left(z\right)-I_{k_{i}+\frac{1}{2}}\left(z\right)\right]=\left(-1\right)^{n}\frac{m^{\frac{1}{2}}}{n!}\pi^{\frac{1-m}{2}}\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)^{\frac{1-m}{2}-n}\label{eq:Brychkov}\\
\times\sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{n}{k}\left(\frac{m-1}{2}\right)_{n-k}\left(-\frac{mz}{2}\right)^{k}\left[I_{-k-\frac{1}{2}}\left(mz\right)-I_{k+\frac{1}{2}}\left(mz\right)\right].\nonumber
\end{gather}
where $I_{k}\left(z\right)$ is the modified Bessel function of the
first kind. Our aim here is to show that this formula is equivalent to several simple identities involving various kinds of Bessel polynomials, and to provide some
extended versions of it. Our approach involves a probabilistic interpretation of these identities which does not require the computation of any generating function.
Let us first remark that, from \cite[p. 675]{Brychkovbook},
\[
I_{-k-\frac{1}{2}}\left(z\right)-I_{k+\frac{1}{2}}\left(z\right)=\frac{2}{\pi}\left(-1\right)^{k}K_{k+\frac{1}{2}}\left(z\right)
\]
where $K_{k}\left(z\right)$ is the modified Bessel function of the
third kind or Macdonald function. For $k$ integer, this function
is related to the Bessel polynomial $q_{k}\left(z\right)$ of degree $k$ as follows
\begin{equation}
\exp\left(-z\right)q_{k}\left(z\right)=\frac{2^{\frac{1}{2}-k}}{\Gamma\left(k+\frac{1}{2}\right)}z^{k+\frac{1}{2}}K_{k+\frac{1}{2}}\left(z\right);\,\, z\ge0\label{eq:Bessel}
\end{equation}
where the Bessel polynomial $q_{k}\left(z\right)$ is defined by
\[
q_{k}\left(z\right)=\sum_{l=0}^{k}\frac{\binom{k}{l}}{\binom{2k}{l}}\frac{\left(2z\right)^{l}}{l!}.
\]
First examples of these Bessel polynomials are
\[
q_{0}\left(z\right)=1,\,\, q_{1}\left(z\right)=1+z,\,\, q_{2}\left(z\right)=1+z+\frac{z^{2}}{3}.
\]
These polynomials satisfy the normalization constraint
\[
q_{n}\left(0\right)=1.
\]
Replacing the Bessel functions $I_{k}\left(z\right)$ by their expression
in terms of Bessel polynomials yields, after some elementary algebra, the equivalent
and more compact version of identity (\ref{eq:Brychkov})
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k_{1}+\dots+k_{m}=n}\prod_{i=1}^{m}\binom{2k_{i}}{k_{i}}q_{k_{i}}\left(z\right)=\sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{2k}{k}2^{2n-2k}\frac{\left(\frac{m-1}{2}\right)_{n-k}}{\left(n-k\right)!}q_{k}\left(mz\right).\label{eq:convolutionform}
\end{equation}
Moreover, replacing the Bessel functions $I_{k}\left(z\right)$ by
their expression in terms of Bessel $K_{k}\left(z\right)$ functions
yields the equivalent identity
\[
\sum_{k_{1}+\dots+k_{m}=n}\prod_{i=1}^{m}\frac{z^{k_{i}+\frac{1}{2}}K_{k_{i}+\frac{1}{2}}(z)}{k_{i}!}=\left(\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2}\right)^{m-1}\sum_{k=0}^{n}\frac{\left(\frac{m-1}{2}\right)_{n-k}}{\left(n-k\right)!}\frac{\left(\frac{mz}{2}\right)^{k+\frac{1}{2}}K_{k+\frac{1}{2}}\left(mz\right)}{k!}.
\]
\section{A probabilistic approach to identity (\ref{eq:convolutionform})}
We show here that identity (\ref{eq:convolutionform}) can be interpreted
in a probabilistic setting; this interpretation relies on
properties of the generalized inverse Gaussian distribution, defined as \cite{Jorgensen}
\begin{equation}
f\left(x;\psi,\chi,\lambda\right)=\frac{\left(\frac{\psi}{\chi}\right)^{\frac{\lambda}{2}}}{2K_{\lambda}\left(\sqrt{\psi\chi}\right)}x^{\lambda-1}\exp\left(-\frac{\chi}{2} x^{-1}-\frac{\psi}{2} x\right),\,\, x,\psi,\chi>0,\,\,\lambda>-1.\label{eq:GIG}
\end{equation}
In order to explicit this probabilistic interpretation, we need the following preliminary results.
This first lemma can be found in \cite{Jorgensen}.
\begin{lemma}
\cite{Jorgensen}\label{lem:stability} Let $X_{-\frac{1}{2},z_{1}}$
and $X_{-\frac{1}{2},z_{2}}$ two independent random variables with
generalized inverse distribution as in (\ref{eq:GIG}) with parameters
$\psi=1,\,\,\chi=z^{2}$ and $lambda=-\frac{1}{2},$ then
\begin{equation}
X_{-\frac{1}{2},z_{1}}+X_{-\frac{1}{2},z_{2}}\sim X_{-\frac{1}{2},z_{1}+z_{2}}.\label{eq:stability}
\end{equation} where the sign $\sim$ denotes identity in distribution.
Moreover,
\begin{equation}
X_{-\frac{1}{2},z}+X_{\frac{1}{2},0}\sim X_{\frac{1}{2},z}.\label{eq:decomposition}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
From these two results, we can deduce the following identity, that
can also be found in \cite{Jorgensen}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:samedistribution}Let $X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{1}}$ and $X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{2}}$
two independent random variables with generalized inverse Gaussian
distribution as in (\ref{eq:GIG}) with parameters $\psi=1,\,\,\chi=z^{2},\,\,\lambda=\frac{1}{2},$
then the identity in distribution
\begin{equation}
X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{1}}+X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{2}}\sim X_{\frac{1}{2},0}+X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{1}+z_{2}}\label{eq:convolution1/2}
\end{equation}
holds, where $X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{1}+z_{2}}$ is independent of $X_{\frac{1}{2},0}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We remark from (\ref{eq:decomposition}) that
\[
X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{1}}+X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{2}}\sim\left(X_{-\frac{1}{2},z_{1}}+X_{\frac{1}{2},0}\right)+\left(X_{-\frac{1}{2},z_{2}}+\tilde{X}_{\frac{1}{2},0}\right)
\]
where the random variables on the right-hand side are mutually independent.
By the stability property (\ref{eq:stability}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{1}}+X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{2}} & \sim & X_{-\frac{1}{2},z_{1}+z_{2}}+X_{\frac{1}{2},0}+\tilde{X}_{\frac{1}{2},0}\\
& \sim & X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{1}+z_{2}}+X_{\frac{1}{2},0}
\end{eqnarray*}
where we have used again the property (\ref{eq:decomposition}), hence
the result.
\end{proof}
We note that the probability density of $X_{\frac{1}{2},0}$ is chi-square density with one degree of freedom, or equivalently a Gamma density with scale parameter $2$ and shape parameter $1/2$:
\[
f_{X_{\frac{1}{2},0}}(x)=\frac{1}{2 \sqrt{\pi}} \left(\frac{x}{2}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \exp\left(-\frac{x}{2}\right).
\]
The link between the Generalized Inverse Gaussian random variables
and the Bessel polynomials is characterized as follows.
\begin{lemma}
Given $\nu \in \mathbb{R}$, the $\nu-$th moment of $X_{\frac{1}{2},z}$ is
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}X_{\frac{1}{2},z}^{\nu}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\exp\left(z\right)z^{\nu+\frac{1}{2}}K_{\nu+\frac{1}{2}}\left(z\right).\label{eq:moment-2}
\end{equation}
When $\nu=n$ is an integer, this formula simplifies to
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}X_{\frac{1}{2},z}^{n}=\frac{1}{2^{n}}\frac{\left(2n\right)!}{n!}q_{n}\left(z\right)\label{eq:moment}
\end{equation}
where $q_{n}\left(z\right)$ is the Bessel polynomial of degree $n.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The $\nu-$th moment is easily computed as the integral
\[
\int_{0}^{+\infty}x^{\nu}f\left(x;1,z^{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)dx=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\exp\left(z\right)z^{\nu+\frac{1}{2}}K_{\nu+\frac{1}{2}}\left(z\right)
\]
where $K_{k}$ is the Bessel function of the second kind of order
$k.$ In the case where $\nu=n$ is an integer, using the expression
(\ref{eq:Bessel}) of the Bessel function $K_{n+\frac{1}{2}}$ in
terms of the Bessel polynomial $q_{n}$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}X_{\frac{1}{2},z}^{n} & = & \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\exp\left(z\right)z^{n+\frac{1}{2}}K_{n+\frac{1}{2}}\left(z\right)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\exp\left(z\right)\Gamma\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)2^{n-\frac{1}{2}}\exp\left(-z\right)q_{n}\left(z\right)\\
& = & \frac{2^{n}}{\sqrt{\pi}}\Gamma\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)q_{n}\left(z\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
with $\frac{\Gamma\left(n+1/2\right)}{\Gamma\left(1/2\right)}=\frac{1}{2^{2n}}\frac{\left(2n\right)!}{n!},$
hence the result.
\end{proof}
We now have the necessary tools to prove the following extension of
identity (\ref{eq:convolutionform}).
\begin{theorem}
If $\left\{ z_{i},\,1\le i\le m;\, m\ge2\right\} $ are complex numbers
then, with $z=\sum_{i=1}^{m}z_{i},$
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k_{1}+\dots+k_{m}=n}\prod_{i=1}^{m}\binom{2k_{i}}{k_{i}}q_{k_{i}}\left(z_{i}\right)=\sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{2k}{k}\frac{2^{2n-2k}\left(\frac{m-1}{2}\right)_{n-k}}{\left(n-k\right)!}q_{k}\left(z\right).\label{eq:general Bessel}
\end{equation}
The special case where all $z_{i}$ are equal reads Brychkov's identity
(\ref{eq:convolutionform}).
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We consider first the case $m=2.$ As a consequence of Lemma \ref{lem:samedistribution},
the moments of $X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{1}}+X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{2}}$ are
the same as the moments of $X_{\frac{1}{2},0}+X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{1}+z_{2}}.$
Using the binomial expansion, the moment of order $n$ of $X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{1}}+X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{2}}$
yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}\left(X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{1}}+X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{2}}\right)^{n} & = & \sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{n}{k}\mathbb{E}\left(X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{1}}\right)^{k}\mathbb{E}\left(X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{2}}\right)^{n-k}\\
& = & \sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{n}{k}\frac{1}{2^{k}}\frac{\left(2k\right)!}{k!}q_{k}\left(z_{1}\right)\frac{1}{2^{n-k}}\frac{\left(2n-2k\right)!}{\left(n-k\right)!}q_{n-k}\left(z_{2}\right)\\
& = & \frac{n!}{2^{n}}\sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{2k}{k}\binom{2n-2k}{n-k}q_{k}\left(z_{1}\right)q_{n-k}\left(z_{2}\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
The same approach applied to $X_{\frac{1}{2},0}+X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{1}+z_{2}}$
gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}\left(X_{\frac{1}{2},0}+X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{1}+z_{2}}\right)^{n} & = & \sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{n}{k}2^{k}\frac{\Gamma\left(k+\frac{1}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)}\frac{1}{2^{n-k}}\frac{\left(2n-2k\right)!}{\left(n-k\right)!}q_{n-k}\left(z_{1}+z_{2}\right)\\
& = & \frac{1}{2^{n}}\sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{n}{k}2^{2k}\frac{1}{2^{2k}}\frac{\left(2k\right)!}{k!}\frac{\left(2n-2k\right)!}{\left(n-k\right)!}q_{n-k}\left(z_{1}+z_{2}\right)\\
& = & \frac{n!}{2^{n}}\sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{2k}{k}\binom{2n-2k}{n-k}q_{k}\left(z_{1}+z_{2}\right),
\end{eqnarray*}
which yields the result. The extension to the case of an arbitrary
integer value $m>2$ is left to the reader, using the following elementary
extension of identity (\ref{eq:convolution1/2}):
\begin{lemma}
If $\left\{ z_{i},\,1\le i\le m;\, m\ge2\right\} $ are real positive
numbers and $X_{i}$ are independent random variables, then the following
identity in distribution holds
\[
\sum_{i=1}^{m}X_{\frac{1}{2},z_{i}}\sim X_{\frac{1}{2},\sum_{i=1}^{m}z_{i}}+X_{\frac{m-1}{2},0}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\end{proof}
We remark that $X_{\frac{m-1}{2},0}$ is distributed as a Gamma random
variable with scale parameter $2$ and shape parameter $\frac{m-1}{2}$ (or equivalently a chi random variable with $m-1$ degrees of freedom).
\section{links to Laguerre polynomials}
We note that the Laguerre polynomials $L_{n}^{\left(\mu\right)}\left(z\right)$
are related to the Bessel polynomials $q_{n}\left(z\right)$ as
\[
q_{n}\left(z\right)=\frac{\left(-1\right)^{n}}{\binom{2n}{n}}L_{n}^{\left(-2n-1\right)}\left(2z\right);
\]
as a consequence, an equivalent statement of identity (\ref{eq:general Bessel})
in terms of Laguerre polynomials reads, with $z=\sum_{i=1}^{m} z_{i},$
\[
\sum_{k_{1}+\dots+k_{m}=n}\prod_{i=1}^{m}L_{k_{i}}^{\left(-2k_{i}-1\right)}\left(z_{i}\right)=\sum_{k=0}^{n}2^{2n-2k}\frac{\left(\frac{m-1}{2}\right)_{n-k}}{\left(n-k\right)!}\left(-4\right)^{n-k}L_{k}^{\left(-2k-1\right)}\left(z\right).
\]
The special case $m=2$ and $z_{1}=-z_{2}=z$ of this identity can
be found in \cite[4.4.2.9]{Prudnikov} as
\[
\sum_{k=0}^{n}L_{k}^{\left(-2k-1\right)}\left(z\right)L_{n-k}^{\left(-2n+2k-1\right)}\left(-z\right)=\left(-4\right)^{n}.
\]
\section{links to other Bessel polynomials}
In this section, we show that two other families of Bessel polynomials
can be interpreted as moments in the same way as identity (\ref{eq:moment}).
We deduce from these representations some identities equivalent to
(\ref{eq:general Bessel}) but that have a more simple form.
\subsection{Bessel $\theta_{n}$ polynomials}
In his textbook \cite{Grosswald}, Grosswald considers the following
Bessel polynomials, called \textit{reverse Bessel polynomials}
\begin{equation}
\theta_{n}\left(z\right)=\frac{\left(2n\right)!}{n!}2^{-n}q_{n}\left(z\right).\label{eq:theta_q}
\end{equation}
For example,
\[
\theta_{0}\left(z\right)=1,\,\,\theta_{1}\left(z\right)=1+z,\,\,\theta_{2}\left(z\right)=3+3z+z^{2}.
\]
From identity (\ref{eq:moment}), we deduce
\[
\theta_{n}\left(z\right)=\mathbb{E}X_{\frac{1}{2},z}^{n}.
\]
Moreover, the identity (\ref{eq:general Bessel}) reads in terms of
these polynomials
\[
\sum_{k_{1}+\dots+k_{m}=n}\prod_{i=1}^{m}\frac{\theta_{k_{i}}\left(z_{i}\right)}{k_{i}!}=\sum_{k=0}^{n}\frac{2^{n-k}\left(\frac{m-1}{2}\right)_{n-k}}{\left(n-k\right)!}\frac{\theta_{k}\left(z\right)}{k!}.
\]
with $z=\sum_{i=1}^{m} z_{i}.$
The case $m=2$ appears in \cite[eqn. (5.4)]{Carlitz}.
\subsection{Bessel $f_{n}$ polynomials}
The third family of Bessel polynomials $f_{n}$ is defined by L. Carlitz
\cite{Carlitz} as
\begin{equation}
f_{n}\left(z\right)=z\theta_{n-1}\left(z\right);\,\, n\ge1,\label{eq:f_theta}
\end{equation}
and $f_{0}\left(z\right)=1.$ First examples are
\[
f_{1}\left(z\right)=z;\,\, f_{2}\left(z\right)=z+z^{2};\,\, f_{3}\left(z\right)=3z+3z^{2}+z^{3}.
\]
Note that as in the case of the reverse Bessel polynomials, these
polynomials have their highest degree coefficient equal to $1.$
Since it can be easily checked from (\ref{eq:GIG}) that the Generalized Inverse Gaussian density satisfies the functional equation
\[
xf\left(x;1,z^{2},-\frac{1}{2}\right)=zf\left(x;1,z^{2},+\frac{1}{2}\right),
\]
we deduce
\[
z\mathbb{E}X_{\frac{1}{2},z}^{n-1}=\mathbb{E}X_{-\frac{1}{2},z}^{n}
\]
so that
\[
f_{n}\left(z\right)=\mathbb{E}X_{-\frac{1}{2},z}^{n},\,\,\forall n\ge1.
\]
Since moreover $f_{0}\left(z\right)=1,$ this representation holds
in fact $\forall n\ge0.$ By the stability property (\ref{eq:stability}),
we deduce that the polynomials $f_{n}$ satisfy the multinomial property
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k_{1}+\dots+k_{m}=n}\prod_{i=1}^{m}\frac{f_{k_{i}}\left(z_{i}\right)}{k_{i}!}=\frac{f_{n}\left(z\right)}{n!}
\label{eq:f_multi}
\end{equation}
with $z=\sum_{i=1}^{m} z_{i}.$
The case $m=2$ is given in \cite[eqn. (2.7)]{Carlitz}.
Moreover, since, by
(\ref{eq:f_theta}), (\ref{eq:theta_q}) and (\ref{eq:Bessel}), the
polynomials $f_{n}$ are related to the Bessel functions $K_{n}$
as
\[
f_{n}\left(z\right)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}z^{n+\frac{1}{2}}K_{n-\frac{1}{2}}\left(z\right),
\]
we deduce an equivalent version of (\ref{eq:f_multi})
\[
\sum_{k_{1}+\dots+k_{m}=n}\prod_{i=1}^{m}\frac{z_{i}^{k_{i}+\frac{1}{2}}}{k_{i}!}K_{k_{i}-\frac{1}{2}}\left(z_{i}\right)=\left(\frac{2}{\pi}\right)^{\frac{1-m}{2}}\frac{\left(z\right)^{n+\frac{1}{2}}}{n!}K_{n-\frac{1}{2}}\left(z\right)
\]
with $z=\sum_{i=1}^{m} z_{i},$
which can be found in \cite[5.18.1.3]{Brychkovbook}.
\section{Conclusion}
We have shown that an identity introduced by Brychkov using generating
functions can be interpreted as a multiplication identity for several types of Bessel polynomials.
Moreover, we have given a probabilistic background to this identity
and exhibited its relationship with the Generalized Inverse Gaussian density.
Other tools, such that generating functions, can certainly replace this probabilistic approach; however, we found that it is particularly convenient in this context.
As a final illustration of this efficiency of this tool, we derive a quick proof of a famous Tur\'{a}n-type inequality for Bessel $K_{\nu}$ functions: in \cite{Ismail}, Ismail and Muldoon proved that the function
\[
\nu \mapsto \frac{K_{\nu+b}\left(z \right)}{K_{\nu}\left(z \right)}
\]
is increasing, implying that the function
\[
\nu \mapsto K_{\nu}\left(z \right)
\]
is log-convex. As a consequence,
the following Tur\'{a}n-type inequality - as named
by Karlin and Szeg\"{o} - for Bessel functions holds: for $\frac{x}{p}$ and
$\frac{y}{q}>-\frac{1}{2},$ and with $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1,$
\[
K_{\frac{x}{p}+\frac{y}{q}}\left(z\right) \le K_{x}\left(z\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}K_{y}\left(z\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}.
\]
The case $p=q=2$ of this inequality is also derived in \cite{Laforgia} from the following generalization of the
Cauchy-Schwarz inequality
\[
\int_{a}^{b} g(t)f^{m}(t)dt\,\, \times \int_{a}^{b} g(t)f^{n}(t)dt \ge \left(\int_{a}^{b} g(t)f^{\frac{m+n}{2}}(t)dt\right)^{2}
\]
The probabilistic approach based on the moment representation
(\ref{eq:moment-2}) allows to derive a straightforward proof
of this result that does not require such a refinement:
choosing a random variable $X_{\frac{1}{2},z}$
and applying the standard H\"{o}lder inequality
\[
\mathbb{E}\left(Z_{1}Z_{2}\right) \le \left[ \mathbb{E}Z_{1}^{p}\right]^{\frac{1}{p}} \left[ \mathbb{E}Z_{2}^{q}\right]^{\frac{1}{q}}
\]
with $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1$ and $Z_{1}=X_{\frac{1}{2},z}^{\nu/2-1/4}$ and $Z_{2}=X_{\frac{1}{2},z}^{\mu/2-1/4},$
we deduce the result.
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the unsolved problems related to the accretion of matter onto
a rotating star with a dipole magnetic field is identifying the mechanism that
guides the plasma from the disk into the funnel flow (FF)
(see Ghosh \& Lamb 1978; Pringle \& Rees 1972; Romanova et
al. 2002). The basic picture of the disk-magnetosphere interaction
in magnetized stars is generally described as follows: It is
commonly assumed that the accretion flow is disrupted within the
magnetospheric boundary layer where the magnetic forces become
dominant in determining the motion of the plasma, then the plasma is
funneled onto the polar caps of the star. However, the interaction
between the disk and the magnetosphere is exceedingly complicated.
Over the last few decades, there have been a number of theoretical
efforts to understand the nature of the disk-magnetosphere
interaction in a magnetized star (e.g. Pringle \& Rees 1972; Lamb et
al. 1973; Ghosh \& Lamb 1978; Camenzind 1990; K\"{o}nigl 1991;
Spruit \& Taam 1993; Shu et al. 1994; Lovelace et al. 1995; Li et
al. 1996.). The magnetospheric accretion models were proposed first for
neutron stars and black holes. Then, these models were adopted
and developed for magnetic T Tauri stars. Johns-Krull \& Gafford
(2002) examined three analytic theories assuming that accretion is
controlled by magnetosphere in classical T Tauri stars (CTTSs). They
claim that while the surface magnetic fields of BP Tau and TW Hya
are not dipolar, it is likely that the dipole component dominates at
the inner disk-magnetosphere boundary. They suggest that the disk
truncation radii in CTTSs is in the stellar radius range of
3R$_{*}$ - 6R$_{*}$,where the dipole component governs the
disk-magnetospheric interaction. K\"{u}ker, Henning \& R\"{u}diger
(2003) also studied the disk dipolar magnetic field interaction in
CTTSs. They found the critical field strength for the disk disruption
to lie between 1 and 10 kG. They also consider the
possibility of the drainage at the inner parts of the disk by
magnetically enhanced accretion.
In recent years, several authors presented observational evidences
for the magnetospheric funnels on to CTTSs. Muzerolle et al. (1998) used the model favouring
magnetospheric accretion through dipole magnetic field lines and
successfully explained the observed spectral line shapes. Stempels \& Piskunov
(2002) presented the results of observations done with UVES/VLT on
one of the CTTSs RU Lup. Their main interest was to reveal the
properties and geometry of the accretion process. The authors reported
that the observational results were in agreement with the
magnetospheric accretion model. Stempels \& Piskunov (2002) argue
that magnetic accretion model proved itself to be consistent with
some of the emission lines' radiative transfer calculations.
Magnetospheric accretion model for neutron stars
introduced by Ghosh \& Lamb (1979) later applied to T Tauri stars
by Uchida \& Shibata (1985) and K\"{o}nigl (1991) is regarded as
consistent with complex observational picture in CTTSs case by
Stempels \& Piskunov (2002). By using Doppler imaging technique,
Strassmeier et al. (2005) investigated one of the weak-lined T Tauri
star (WTTS), MN Lupi in order to tell the spectral signatures of the
accretion flow from the chromospheric and photospheric magnetic
activity. They obtained Doppler images of hot spots at high stellar
latitude and related it to the accretion shocks produced by the disk
material funneling along the magnetic field lines. Donati et al.
(2011) studied one of the CTTSs, TW Hya, and recently reported the
results of spectropolarimetric observations. They observed a
near-polar region of accretion-powered excess Ca II and He I
emission which coincides with the main magnetic pole of TW Hya and
they claimed that the accretion occurs mostly polewards at the
stellar surface.
Many numerical simulations have also been made of accretion onto a
magnetized star (e.g., Miller \& Stone 1997; Romanova et al. 2002,
2011; Kulkarni \& Romanova 2005; Long et al. 2008). Romanova et al.
(2002) investigated disk accretion onto a rotating magnetized star
and the associated funnel flows by performing a set of simulations
for different stellar magnetic moments and rotation rates. In their
investigation, they found that the dominant force driving plasma
into FF is the pressure gradient force. Although they made numerical
applications to T Tauri stars only, they claimed that their results
are also valid for cataclysmic variables and neutron stars in X-ray
binaries. Romanova et al. (2011) also performed axisymmetric MHD
simulations of accretion onto magnetized stars from
magnetorotational instability (MRI)-driven disks. Close to the star,
they observed that the disk is stopped by the magnetic pressure of
magnetosphere and matter is lifted through a funnel stream.
Plasma entry into magnetospheres is generally explained by plasma
instabilities at the disk-magnetosphere interface in the radial flow
case. A Rayleigh-Taylor instability is expected to occur at the
interface, since the magnetic field may act as a light fluid
supporting a heavy fluid, i.e. plasma (Elsner \& Lamb 1977, Arons
\& Lea 1976). In addition, the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability is
expected to have a role in plasma entry, because of the relative
motion of the plasma with respect to the magnetosphere (Arons \& Lea
1976). Plasma entry via diffusion, magnetic reconnection and
loss-cone mechanism have also been discussed by Elsner \& Lamb
(1984). Varniere \& Tagger (2002) studied the accretion-ejection
instability in magnetized disks. The authors claim that the
instability can produce slow magnetosonic waves and they expect that
these waves will lift the plasma above disk. Recently, Fu \&
Lai (2012) studied the dynamics of the innermost accretion flows
around compact objects. Their investigation includes a comprehensive
study of the large scale Rayleigh-Taylor and Kelvin-Helmholtz
instabilities associated with the disk-magnetosphere interface of a
rotating magnetized system.
The goal of this paper is to present the role of MRI in the
interaction between the inner disk and the magnetosphere of CTTSs.
Balbus \& Hawley (1991, hereafter BH91) showed that Keplerian disks
with a weak field which fulfills the frozen in condition are
dynamically unstable. If the magnetic field is weak, the
perturbations generate an unstable mode which is non-propagating and
evanescent. The importance of MRI lies in the generality in its
applicability. After BH91 established the importance of MRI
in the dynamics of the accretion disks, this instability has been
received much attention and studied by many investigators over the
last two decades. Most of these authors drew attention on the
necessity of considering the non-ideal MHD effects in
protoplanetary disks (PPDs). For example,Wardle (1999)
found that the Hall effect modifies the growth rate of the
instability. When the Hall current is dominated by the negative
(positive) species, the parallel case becomes less (more) unstable.
Balbus \& Terquem (2001) analysed the Hall effect in
protostellar disks and found that the inclusion of the Hall effect
destabilizes the disk with any differential rotation law.
R\"{u}diger \& Shalybkov (2004) investigated the linear instability
in a magnetic Taylor-Couette (TC) flow with Hall effect. One of
the major conclusions they had drawn was that while the shear in
disk is negative, the Hall instability combines with the MRI.
Although their main interest was the TC flow they also commented on the
Hall effect on the MRI in astrophysical objects (white dwarfs,
neutron stars and protoplanetary disks).
More recently, Armitage (2011) argued that since the gas in
PPDs is cool, dense and has a very low ionization fraction, one
needs to take into consideration the non-ideal MHD effects, like
Ohmic resistivity, Hall effect and ambipolar diffusion. Besides,
these non-ideal terms are effective at different radial and
vertical distances (z) in the disk. In that part of the
disk where magnetic field is strongly coupled to electrons but not
to the ions, the Hall effect is the most important one (Armitage
2011). He also clearly states that the conductivity and ionization
fraction of the innermost disk fluid are high. Thus, non-ideal MHD
effects play an important role at transporting angular momentum
outward. Under these conditions the disk fluid interacts with the
stellar magnetosphere and MRI is highly likely to set in. One of the
most important conclusions Armitage (2011) draws is the absence of
the non-linear solutions covering the non-ideal conditions, the Hall
effect and the Ohmic and ambipolar diffusion in PPDs. He points to
the future works which are to take into account of the global
effects over long time scales. Besides, Bai (2011)
investigated the MRI-driven accretion in protoplanetary
disks (PPDs) by considering the non-ideal MHD effects
including the Ohmic resistivity, the Hall effect and the ambipolar
diffusion. Bai (2011) also warns the reader about the
necessity of careful exploration of the Hall regime with numerical
simulations which is yet to be done. If the Elsasser number, which
measures the relative importance of the Lorentz force and the
Coriolis force is less than unity, then the non-ideal MHD terms
dominates in the MRI active region and the linear properties of MRI
change considerably (Bai 2011). In this region, the Hall effect and
the ambipolar diffusion are the dominant ones. In our investigation
we take only the Hall effect into consideration.
In the present investigation we are interested in the diamagnetic
effect and its consequences as the gradient in the magnetic field
and the perpendicular velocity (to the magnetic field) at the
disk-magnetosphere boundary of CTTS. We investigate the instability
of the mode with a wave vector perpendicular to the disk. We improve
a model including the effect of diamagnetism on numerical
growth rates of the unstable mode. The paper is structured as
follows: In the following section, we briefly review the diamagnetic
behaviour of the disk, then we present the mathematical formalism of
diamagnetism. We also present the linearized form of the basic MHD
equations and obtain the general form of the dispersion relation in
section 2. In section 3, a detailed analysis of the effect of the
magnetic field and perpendicular velocity gradients produced by
magnetization on the numerical growth rates of the unstable mode is
carried out. Finally in section 4, we summarize our conclusions from
this work.
\section{Basics}
\subsection{Theoretical background on diamagnetism}
The diamagnetic effect arises when particles moving in an external
magnetic field create their own field. In this investigation, we
assume that the charged particles are frozen into the magnetic field. If
charged particles gyrating around the magnetic field lines produce a net
current at the boundary of a closed circuit, this current in turn
produces a new magnetic field (Singal 1986, Bodo et al. 1992). The
direction of this new and local magnetic field will be the same as
the global magnetic field outside the circuit and the opposite
within the circuit. The net magnetic field inside the region will
therefore be lower than that of outside and a gradient in the magnetic
field will be produced. Electrically charged particles gyrating under the influence of
\textquotedblleft $\nabla B$ \textquotedblright~and \textquotedblleft $\nabla \times \vec{B}$ \textquotedblright~will give rise to a drift
current at the border of the region (see Fig.1).
Because the magnetic moment ($\mu=mv_{\bot}^{2}/2B$), the first
adiabatic invariant is conserved, we expect the magnetic field
gradient to produce a gradient in the perpendicular velocity
($v_{\bot}$) of the particles.
The counterfield produced by particles can be expressed by
magnetization, defined as the magnetic moment per unit volume
(Singal 1986):
\begin{equation}
\emph{\textbf{M}}=\int \limits_{4\pi} \int \limits^\infty \limits_0
N(E,\theta) \mu (E,\theta)\,dE\,d\Omega.
\end{equation}
Here, $N(E,\theta)\,dE\,d\Omega$ is the number density of charged
particles having velocity within $d\Omega$ around pitch angle
$\theta$ and energy within $dE$ around E. By using the definition of the magnetic moment, the magnetization is found as
\begin{equation}
\emph{\textbf{M}}=-\frac {\emph{\textbf{B}}}{3B^{2}}(W_{\rm
r}+2W_{\rm nr})
\end{equation}
where $W_{\rm r}$ and $W_{\rm nr}$ are the energy densities of the
relativistic and non-relativistic particles, respectively (Singal
1986; Bodo et al.1992). In our investigation we discarded the
relativistic electrons flowing in the currents. Therefore, Eq. (2)
can be rewritten in terms of the perpendicular component of the
kinetic energy density of non-relativistic electrons as
\begin{equation}
\emph{\textbf{M}}=-\frac {2\emph{\textbf{B}}}{3B^{2}}W_{\rm k}
\end{equation}
where $W_{\rm k}=nmv^{2}_{\perp}/2$, with \emph{n} the particle density. In the close neighborhood of
the magnetization current carrying circuit, the net magnetic field
may be written as
\begin{equation}
\emph{\textbf{B}}=\emph{\textbf{H}}+4\pi
\emph{\textbf{M}}=\emph{\textbf{H}}-\frac{8\pi}{3}\frac
{\emph{\textbf{B}}}{B^{2}}W_{\rm k}=\emph{\textbf{H}}-\frac
{1}{3}\frac{W_{\rm k}}{W_{\rm
B}}\emph{\textbf{B}}=\emph{\textbf{H}}-\varepsilon \emph{\textbf{B}}
\end{equation}
where $W_{\rm B}=B^{2}/8\pi$ is the magnetic field energy density
and $\varepsilon=W_{\rm k}/3W_{\rm B}$, which is called the
\textquotedblleft magnetization parameter\textquotedblright in
Devlen \& Pek\"{u}nl\"{u} (2007, hereafter DP07).
In the presence of diamagnetism, the total current density may be
written as
\begin{equation}
\emph{\textbf{J}}=\textbf{\emph{J}}_{\rm ext}+\textbf{\emph{J}}_{\rm
mag}=\frac{c}{4\pi }\nabla \times \emph{\textbf{H}}+c\nabla \times
\emph{\textbf{M}}=\frac{c}{4\pi }\nabla \times \emph{\textbf{H}}-c
\nabla \times \frac {2W_{\rm k}}{3B^2}\textbf{\emph{B}}.
\end{equation}
After some vector operations the current density is found as below
(DP07):
\begin{equation}
\emph{\textbf{J}}=\frac{c}{4\pi } \left[{\rm (}1-\varepsilon {\rm
)}\nabla \times \emph{\textbf{B}}+2\varepsilon \frac{\nabla B}{B}
\times \emph{\textbf{B}}-2\varepsilon \frac{\nabla {\rm v}_{\bot }
}{{\rm v}_{\bot } } \times \emph{\textbf{B}}\right].
\end{equation}
MRI is shown to be the source of turbulence in disks (BH91,
Balbus \& Hawley 1998, hereafter BH98). If fluid elements with outwardly decreasing velocity field
couple with the magnetic field then a torque is produced which
causes enhanced outward angular momentum transport.
In the present study, we intend to seek a solution to the cause of
funnel flow departing from the inner boundary of the disk.
The equilibrium magnetic field at the above mentioned location is assumed to be in the z-direction and perpendicular
to the disk. If the angular velocity of the inner portion of the
differentially rotating disk is more or less equal to that of the
last closed field line of the co-rotating magnetosphere, we may
expect the disk material be trapped at this border. Then, the
positively and the negatively charged particles will acquire drift
velocities in the opposite senses perpendicular to the local
magnetic field due to the curl and the gradient of the dipole magnetic field, the latter of
which is inversely proportional to the third power of the radial
distance. This will bring about a local current flowing at the
border of the inner disk and the co-rotating magnetosphere. This
local current will generate its own magnetic field in such a way as
to increase the magnetic field intensity outside and to decrease it
inside the circuit. So called diamagnetic effect will generate a
magnetic field gradient in the radial direction. The weaker magnetic
field, necessary for the MRI to set in, within the circuit may
trigger the perturbations at the border. If the gradient of the
magnetic field is steep enough then the magnetic pressure force will
be exerted upon the disk material in the negative radial direction.
Assuming that the diamagnetic current lasts long enough to maintain
the magnetic field gradient which through the magnetic pressure
force pushes the disk material into the diamagnetic current
circuit and thus the condition between the sound speed ($c_{\rm s}$) and the Alfv\'{e}n speed ($v_{\rm A}$), $c_{\rm s}^{2}>v_{\rm A}^{2}$ is fulfilled which is a necessary condition for MRI to set in.
The magnetic field which was in the z-direction at
equilibrium, now, by the push of the frozen-in trapped particles at
the neighbourhood of the border will acquire a curly shape.
Contribution to the drift velocity, originally produced by the
magnetic field gradient, of the electrons from the curvature of the
field lines will enhance the diamagnetic current which in turn
weakens the magnetic field within the circuit. This is an additional
agent to cause MRI to set in. The direction of the electron drift
velocity is in the opposite sense to the motion induced by the
stabilizing Coriolis force (see, e.g. DP07). The frozen-in
electrons' motion which has destabilizing effect on the disk fluid
is in the same sense of the induced whistler circular motion of the
field lines (Balbus \& Terquem 2001, hereafter BT01). It was pointed
out by BT01 and DP07 that the drifting electrons impart a circularly
polarized component to the velocity response which damps the
Coriolis force and suppresses the stabilizing dynamical epicyclic
motion.
In the analysis of the diamagnetic effect on MRI, DP07 found that the magnetic field gradient
generated by the magnetization current produces a new unstable mode.
They also showed that the maximum growth rates and the parameter
spaces for the unstable modes depend strongly on the magnitude of
the magnetization and the magnetic field gradient it produces. In
their investigation, they assumed that the perpendicular velocity
$v_{\perp}$ does not vary in space around the fiducial radius R.
Therefore, they consider the effect of magnetic field gradient only.
Formally speaking, they dropped the third term on the right-hand
side of Eq. (6) containing $\nabla v_{\perp}$. In this study, we
will include the effects of both the magnetic field and
perpendicular velocity gradients for the first time.
\subsection{The geometry of disk-magnetosphere boundary}
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1}
\plotone{f1.eps}
\caption{Top view of the border between the inner magnetosphere and
the accretion disk (not to scale). Symbols $\odot$ and
$\otimes$ represent the magnetic field vectors opposite and the same direction
to the \emph{los} respectively. Cycloids at the inner radius of the disk represent the electron
and proton trajectories. Drift motions of the trapped particles with a velocity
$\vec{V}_{\nabla B+R_{\rm c}}$ generate diamagnetic current \textbf{J}. This current produces its own magnetic field in
such a way as to produce a magnetic field gradient $\nabla B$ at the border. Generated
magnetic pressure force combined with the tension force due to the curved field
lines exert Lorentz force $\vec{F}_{\rm L}$ to the particles. Epicyclic motion of the disk fluid
is also shown at the bottom right of the figure.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.1}
\plotone{f2.eps}
\caption{The inner boundary of the accretion disk is assumed to be
co-rotating with the last closed field line of the magnetosphere.
The amplitude of an unstable standing wave which is generated by
\emph{diamagnetic current modifed MRI} at this border grows by time (see section 3) and
pushes the disk fluid along the magnetic field lines with approximately
zero pitch angle. As a result of this combination, i.e., gravitational
pull by the central object and magnetic field guidance, funnel flow
towards the magnetic polar regions becomes possible. Growing unstable
wave amplitude is represented by a sinusoidal curve. As the unstable standing wave
amplitude grows, disk fluid is channeled upward (continuous curve) and downward (dotted curve) directions
towards the magnetic polar regions.}
\end{figure}
We assume a differentially rotating disk which manifests
itself in $\kappa$ (=4$\Omega^{2}$d$\Omega^{2}$/d $\ln$ R) epicyclic
frequency and the dimensionless parameter $\emph{T}$ (=d $\ln$
$\Omega^2$/d $\ln$ R) where $\Omega$ is the angular velocity
of the disk. Next, we also assume that the disk fluid
to be coupled to the weakly magnetized disk. These
two assumptions indicate that if an instability arises it is highly
likely to be MRI. We have taken neither self - gravity of the
disk nor the gravitational force of the CTTS into account.
Otherwise, one may argue the role of Rayleigh - Taylor instability.
The kinetic energy of the relative motions of drifting electrons and
positively charged particles is fed into a plasma wave of the
suitable phase velocity. The amplitude of this properly selected
wave may grow and result in instability (Somov 2006). We assume that
the last closed field lines co-rotate both with the star and the
inner boundary of the accretion disk. If this assumption is
justifiable then we may proceed as follows. Since the disk
fluid at the inner boundary is expected to be highly ionized and
transfer angular momentum outwards from the star, particles move
inward (BH91, BH98). They eventually become trapped in the
magnetosphere of the star and simultaneously acquire drift
velocities. Due to the curvature and the gradient of the magnetic
field, electrons and positively charged particles drift in the
opposite directions and thus produce a current flowing along the
inner boundary, just like the ring current that flows in the
terrestrial magnetosphere. This current generates its own magnetic
field and causes diamagnetism at the inner disk boundary.
The width of the region where this current flows is of the
order of the ions' average Larmor radius ($r_L=mv_{\perp}c/qB$)
which is found to be $200$ cm for CTTS. The net magnetic field
within that part of the magnetosphere that is neighboring the
diamagnetic current circuit is weaker than that of just outside the
current carrying circuit. Thus, a gradient of a magnetic field is
produced across the disk-magnetosphere boundary pointing
radially out from the star. If we assume that the magnetic
moment, ($\mu=mv_{\bot}^{2}/2B$) is conserved for the particles,
the particles$'$ perpendicular velocities, vary while they enter
into and exit from the higher magnitude field regions.
When the magnetic and rotation axes are not aligned,
the drifting disk fluid particles will spend half the
\emph{drift period} on the northern magnetic hemisphere and
the other half on the southern one. Let us try to depict the
magnetic course of the drifting particles. We assume that
positively charged particles, starting from the magnetic
equator, are drifting towards the magnetic northern latitudes.
They would encounter higher and higher magnetic field intensity
through a \emph{quarter-drift-period} (\emph{qdp}). The next
\emph{qdp} would be the time to descend towards the magnetic
equator. The drifting particles would encounter a similar
ascend and descend towards the southern magnetic pole at the
second half of the \emph{drift period}. During this periodic
ascending and descending from the magnetic polar regions, drifting
particles would encounter magnetic field gradients in the
azimuthal direction, in addition to the radial one generated
by the diamagnetic current. In this study, we will not consider
the non-aligned case and will put it off until a future study.
Let us consider a simple case wherein the rotation axis and
the magnetic moment axis are coincident, i.e., $\vec{\Omega}$
$\uparrow \uparrow$ $\vec{B}$ (see Fig. 1). In the \emph{top view}
outer circle represents the CTTS projected on a ($\emph{R}$, $\phi$)
plane in cylindrical coordinates; inner circle represents the
latitude of the last closed field lines on the star. The innermost circular arc is
the inner boundary of the disk; the symbols $\odot$ and $\otimes$
stand for the magnetic field vectors the directions of which are the
opposite and the same, respectively, to the \emph{los} of the
reader. Cycloid which is not drawn to the scale represents the
stabilizing epicyclic motions of the disk fluid. Diamagnetic current produced magnetic field
adds to the stellar field outside the circuit and subtracts at the inside
and thus brings about a magnetic field gradient which points in the
$\emph{R}$ direction. The Lorentz force due to the magnetic pressure
is in the negative $\emph{R}$ direction. At the same location, the
direction of the magnetic tension force is also in the negative
$\emph{R}$ direction and thus net force is strengthened.
If the drift velocity, \textbf{$V_{\nabla B+R_{\rm c}} \propto
R_{\rm c}\times B$} where $R_{c}$ is the radius of curvature of the magnetic field at the inner border of the disk, persists which in turn keeps the diamagnetic
current flow in the same sense as the induced whistler circular
motion then the diamagnetic effect destabilizes the disk just like
the whistler circular motion (DP07).
Diamagnetic-current-producing drifts may be described as
a self-organization process. It is argued that these kind of processes
keep their presence even at the turbulent stage (e.g. Fridman et al. 2006,
Prigogine \& Stengers 1984). disk-magnetosphere
interaction region may be defined as an open non-linear
magnetohydrodynamic system. This system can generate macroscopic
dissipative structures with various spatial and temporal scales by
an internal self organization like diamagnetic current. One may argue that this
current can maintain itself even at the onset of the
turbulence. But here, we make no claims as to the nonlinear regime
which is to be explored by numerical simulations. Our argument about
the diamagnetic currents is valid only in the linear regime.
Finally, let us imagine a slow and/or standing unstable wave
produced at the inner edge of the disk (see Fig. 2). In the next section we
will show that the solution of the dispersion relation reveals the
existence of an unstable standing wave. Therefore we deem it
necessary to visualize the physical process at the
disk-magnetosphere boundary by drawing the Fig. 2. The disk fluid is
forced by gravity which manifests itself by Keplerian velocity
profile, towards a CTTS and guided by the magnetic field. Now, the
growing amplitude of the unstable mode is highly likely to push the
disk matter parallel to the local magnetic field lines, i.e., with
an approximately zero pitch angle. This means that species of the
disk fluid, under this condition, will seek their respective mirror
points at the stronger parts of the magnetic field and eventually
hit the magnetic polar regions.
If the above assumptions we make are justifiable then we expect the
physical processes described above to take place. The
different drift velocities acquired by electrons and ions may bring
about the Hall currents as well. By taking into account all these
probabilities we set ourselves to the task of investigating the
possible role of MRI in producing slow or standing wave modes which may
guide the disk fluid along the magnetic field lines and thus cause
the precipitation of the plasma towards the magnetic poles of the
star.
\subsection{Equations}
The fundamental equations are mass conservation, the equation of
motion and the induction equation, given below, respectively:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial \, t} +\nabla \cdot \left(\rho \,
\textbf{\emph{v}}\right)=0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\rho \frac{\partial \, \textbf{\emph{v}}}{\partial \, t} +\left(\rho
\textbf{\emph{v}}\cdot \nabla \right)\textbf{\emph{v}}=-\nabla
P+\frac{1}{c} \textbf{\emph{J}}\times \textbf{\emph{B}}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \textbf{\emph{B}}}{\partial t} =\nabla \times
\left[\emph{\textbf{v}}\times \textbf{\emph{B}}-\eta \frac{4\pi }{c}
\textbf{\emph{J}}-\frac{\textbf{\emph{J}}\times
\textbf{\emph{B}}}{en_{e} } \right].
\end{equation}
Current density (\emph{\textbf{J}}) which is given by Eq. (6) will
be substituted into Eqs. (8) and (9) in order to analyse
the influence of the diamagnetism on MRI. As a result, the equations
of modified momentum conservation and magnetic induction turn out to
be
\begin{equation}
\rho \frac{\partial \, \emph{\textbf{v}}}{\partial \, t} +\left(\rho
\emph{\textbf{v}}\cdot \nabla \right)\emph{\textbf{v}}=-\nabla
P+\frac{1}{4\pi } \left[{\rm (}1-\varepsilon {\rm )}\left(\nabla
\times \emph{\textbf{B}}\right)\times \emph{\textbf{B}}+2\varepsilon
\left(\frac{\nabla B}{B} \times\emph{\textbf{ B}}\right)\times
\emph{\textbf{B}}-2\varepsilon \left(\frac{\nabla {\rm v}_{\bot }
}{{\rm v}_{\bot } } \times \emph{\textbf{B}}\right)\times
\emph{\textbf{B}}\right]
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \emph{\textbf{B}}}{\partial t} =\nabla \times
\left[\begin{array}{l} {\emph{\textbf{v}}\times
\emph{\textbf{B}}-\eta {\rm (}1-\varepsilon {\rm )}\nabla \times
\emph{\textbf{B}}-2\varepsilon \eta \frac{\nabla B}{B} \times
\emph{\textbf{B}}+2\varepsilon \eta \frac{\nabla {\rm v}_{\bot }
}{{\rm v}_{\bot } } \times \emph{\textbf{B}}-{\rm (}1-\varepsilon
{\rm )}\frac{c\left(\nabla \times \emph{\textbf{B}}\right)\times
\emph{\textbf{B}}}{4\pi en_{e} } } \\
\\
{-2\varepsilon \frac{c}{4\pi en_{e} } \left(\frac{\nabla B}{B}
\times \emph{\textbf{B}}\right)\times \emph{\textbf{B}}+2\varepsilon
\frac{c}{4\pi en_{e} } \left(\frac{\nabla {\rm v}_{\bot } }{{\rm
v}_{\bot } } \times \emph{\textbf{B}}\right)\times
\emph{\textbf{B}}}
\end{array}\right].
\end{equation}
We consider the local stability of a differentially rotating disk
threaded by a vertical field with a gradient in the radial
direction, $\emph{\textbf{B}} = B(R)\hat{z}$. Therefore the gradient
of the magnetic field can be expressed by $\nabla B= (d B/d
R)\hat{\textbf{R}}$. The perpendicular velocity of the particles
also has a gradient in the radial direction, i.e. $\nabla v_{\bot}=
(d v_{\bot}/d R)\hat{\textbf{R}}$. We assume that finite resistivity
and Hall currents are both present. We shall work in the Boussinesq
limit. The Boussinesq approximation is frequently used in
descriptions of the nature of accretion disk transport. For
instance, BH98 argue that velocity field in accretion disks may be
taken as incompressible ($\nabla\cdot\textbf{u}=0$) for the
turbulent flows. They also warn the reader that the disk fluid
\textquotedblleft is not exactly but nearly\textquotedblright\,\,
incompressible. In detail, they say that
$(\nabla\cdot\textbf{u})^{2}$ is negligible compared to
$\mid\nabla\times \textbf{u}\mid^{2}$ and also
$\bigtriangledown(\bigtriangledown\cdot\textbf{u})$is negligible
compared to $\bigtriangledown^{2}\textbf{u}$, but
$P\bigtriangledown\cdot\textbf{u}$ is to be kept in the thermal
equation. This is how the Boussinesq approximation defined in the
context of accretion disks. We use standard cylindrical coordinates
(\emph{R},$\phi$,\emph{z}) with the origin at the disk center.
Finally, we assume that the perturbed quantities' variation in space
and time is like a plane wave, i.e., $\exp(ikz+\omega t)$, where
\emph{k} is the wave number perpendicular to the disk and
$\omega$ is the angular frequency. This form keeps the coefficients
of the dispersion relation real and a positive real root $\omega$
implies unstable exponential growth of the mode. Since we are
interested in plasma motion perpendicular to the disk plane,
we investigate the instability of the mode with a wave vector perpendicular
to the disk. Under these circumstances, the linearized form of Eq.
(7), (10) and (11) are found as:
\begin{equation}
\omega \delta v_{R} -2\Omega \delta v_{\phi }^{}
-\left(1-\varepsilon \right)\frac{ik_{z} }{4\pi \rho } B_{z} \delta
B_{R} +\frac{1}{4\pi \rho } \left[\left(1+3\varepsilon \right)\nabla
B-4\varepsilon B_{z} \frac{\nabla \Omega }{\Omega } \right]\delta
B_{z} =0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\omega \delta v_{\phi } +\frac{\kappa ^{2} }{2\Omega } \delta v_{R}
-\left(1-\varepsilon \right)\frac{ik_{z} }{4\pi \rho } B_{z} \delta
B_{\phi } =0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{ik_{z} \delta P}{\rho } -\frac{1}{4\pi \rho }
\left[\left(1+\varepsilon \right)\nabla B-2\varepsilon B_{z}
\frac{\nabla \Omega }{\Omega } \right]\delta B_{R} =0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
ik_{z} B_{z} \delta v_{R} -\left[\omega +\eta {\rm (}1-\varepsilon
{\rm )}k_{z}^{2} \right]\delta B_{R} -{\rm (}1-\varepsilon {\rm
)}\frac{c}{4\pi en_{e} } B_{z} k_{z}^{2} \delta B_{\phi } =0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l} {\left\{\frac{d\Omega }{d{\it ln}R} +\frac{c}{4\pi en_{e} } \left[{\rm (}1-\varepsilon {\rm )}k_{z}^{2} B_{z} {\rm +(}1+\varepsilon {\rm )}\nabla ^{2} B-2\varepsilon \left(B_{z} \frac{\nabla ^{2} \Omega }{\Omega } +\nabla B\frac{\nabla \Omega }{\Omega } -B_{z} {\rm (}\frac{\nabla \Omega }{\Omega } {\rm )}{\kern 1pt} ^{2} \right)\right]\right\}\delta B_{R}}\\
\\
{ -\left[\omega +\eta {\rm (}1-\varepsilon {\rm )}k_{z}^{{\rm 2}}
-2\varepsilon \eta \left(\frac{\nabla ^{2} B}{B} -{\rm
(}\frac{\nabla B}{B} {\rm )}^{2} -\frac{\nabla ^{2} \Omega }{\Omega
} +{\rm (}\frac{\nabla \Omega }{\Omega } {\rm )}{\kern 1pt} ^{2}
\right)\right]\delta B_{\phi } }\\
\\
{+ik_{z} B_{z} \delta v_{\phi }+\frac{c}{4\pi en_{e} }
2\varepsilon \left[ ik_{z} \nabla B-ik_{z} B_{z} \frac{\nabla \Omega
}{\Omega } \right]\delta B_{z} =0}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l} {\nabla B\delta v_{R} +2\varepsilon \eta ik_{z} B_{z} \frac{\nabla
\Omega }{\Omega } \delta v_{\phi } -\frac{c}{4\pi en_{e} } \left[\,
{\rm (}1+\varepsilon {\rm )}ik_{z} \nabla B-2\varepsilon ik_{z}
B_{z} \frac{\nabla \Omega }{\Omega } \right]\delta B_{\phi }}\\
\\
{-\left[\omega +\eta {\rm (}1-\varepsilon {\rm )}k_{z}^{{\rm 2}}
+2\varepsilon \eta \left(ik_{z} \frac{\nabla B}{B} -\frac{\nabla
^{2} B}{B} {\rm +(}\frac{\nabla B}{B} {\rm )}^{2} -\frac{\nabla ^{2}
\Omega }{\Omega } +{\rm (}\frac{\nabla \Omega }{\Omega } {\rm
)}{\kern 1pt} ^{2} \right)\, \right]\delta B_{z} =0.} \end{array}
\end{equation}
where $\kappa=4\Omega^{2}d\Omega^{2}/d\ln R $ is the epicyclic
frequency and $\Omega$ is the angular velocity of the disk. The
linearized Eqs. (12)-(17) give a $\rm 5^{\rm th}$-order
dispersion relation that emerges after a very lengthy effort. This
describes five low-frequency modes. However, in the limit of zero
resistivity, the analysis is reduced to finding the roots of a
quartic. In this case, the dispersion relation in dimensionless form
is found as
\begin{equation}
s^4+\mathscr{C}_2s^2+\mathscr{C}_0=0
\end{equation}
where s = $\omega/\Omega$. The coefficients $\mathscr{C}_{2}$ and
$\mathscr{C}_{0}$ are found as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l} {\mathscr{C}_2={\widetilde{\kappa }}^2{\rm +2}{\rm X}\left({\rm 1-}
\varepsilon \right)+\frac{{\rm Y}}{4}\left({\rm 1-}\varepsilon
\right) \left[{\rm Y}\left({\rm 1-}\varepsilon \right){\rm
+T}\right]{\rm +} {{{\rm G}}^2\rm M}^{-2}_A\left[\left({\rm
1+3}\varepsilon \right)- \chi {\rm Y}\varepsilon \left({\rm
1+}\varepsilon \right)\right] }\\
{~~~~~~~~~{\rm +}\frac{{\rm 3}}{4} {\rm GT}\rm M^{-2}_A\chi {\rm
Y}\varepsilon \left({\rm 1+3}\varepsilon \right){\rm +}\frac{{{\rm
T}}^2}{8} \rm M^{-2}_A\chi {\rm Y}\varepsilon {\rm (8-9}\varepsilon
{\rm )}}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l} {\mathscr{C}_0=\rm G^2 \rm M^{-2}_A \{(1-\varepsilon)\left[\rm
X(1+3\varepsilon)+4\chi \rm X \varepsilon+\frac{\rm
Y^2}{2}(1-\varepsilon)\right]+(1+\varepsilon)\chi
\tilde{\kappa}^{2}\left[\rm Y\varepsilon-\frac{\rm
X}{4}(1+3\varepsilon)\right]\}}\\
{~~~~~~~~~~\rm +GTM^{-2}_A\left\{\begin{array}{l}{\frac{\rm \chi}{2}
\tilde{\kappa}^{2}(\rm X-\rm Y)\varepsilon (1+\varepsilon)-2(3\chi-2)
\varepsilon(1-\varepsilon)}\\
{-\frac{\rm \chi}{8}\rm XT\varepsilon(7+5\varepsilon)+\frac{\rm Y^2}{4}
\varepsilon^2(1-\varepsilon)^2
+\frac{\rm \chi}{2}\rm XG(1+3\varepsilon)(1+\varepsilon)}\\
{+\rm M^{-2}_A \chi \rm Y\left[\frac{\rm GT}{4}\varepsilon^2(1+3\varepsilon)
-2\varepsilon(1-\varepsilon)-\frac{\rm T^2}{8}\varepsilon^2
(11+3\varepsilon)-\frac{\rm G^2}{2}\varepsilon(1+3\varepsilon)\right]}\end{array}\right\}}\\
~~~~~~~~~~~{-\rm T^2\rm M^{-2}_A\left\{\begin{array}{l}{\frac{\rm \chi}{8}\rm Y
\tilde{\kappa}^{2}\varepsilon (1+3\varepsilon)+\frac{\chi}{2}\rm X\varepsilon
\left[(1-\varepsilon)-\tilde{\kappa}^{2}\varepsilon+\rm T\varepsilon\right]}\\
{+\frac{\rm \chi}{4}\rm M^{-2}_A\varepsilon^2\left[\rm T^2\varepsilon^2+2(1-\varepsilon)\right]
-\frac{\rm Y^2}{8}\varepsilon^2(1-\varepsilon))}
\end{array}\right\}}\\
~~~~~~~~~~~{+\left[\rm T(1-\varepsilon)+\rm Y(1-\varepsilon)^2+\rm X(1-\varepsilon)^2\right]
(\frac{\tilde{\kappa}^{2}\rm Y}{4}+\rm X)}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Here the dimensionless parameters are defined as s =
$\omega/\Omega$, X = $(kv_{A}/\Omega)^{2}$, Y =
$(kv_{H}/\Omega)^{2}$, $\tilde{\kappa}= \kappa/\Omega$, G = d ln B/d
ln R, T = d ln $\Omega^2$/d ln R and $\chi \equiv
v_{H}^{2}/v_{A}^{2}$. The Hall and the Alfv\'{e}n speeds are
defined as $v_{\rm H}^{2}=\Omega Bc/2\pi en_{\rm e}$ and $v_{\rm
A}^{2}=B^{2}/4\pi \rho$. The Alfv\'{e}n Mach number of Keplerian
(orbital) motion $M_{A} = v_{\phi}/v_{A}$ measures the relative
strength between the kinetic energy and the magnetic energy. We can
rewrite the Alfv\'{e}n Mach number in terms of $\varepsilon$ as
$M^{2}_{A} = 3\varepsilon$.
In this case, the dispersion relation gives two fast and two slow
modes which are labeled depending on the magnitude of their phase
velocities. Besides, in Figs. 3-5 which are given in the next
section, ridges of the growth rates correspond to the sites (in X,Y)
of standing waves, i.e., the solution of dispersion relation gives
real $\omega$. No harm in repeating that we assumed the
phasor factor of the waves as $\exp(ikz+\omega t)$. Therefore, the
slow mode turns into non-propagating, i.e. standing mode in the
(X,Y) regions of instability, since $\omega_i=0$. disk fluid will be
pushed up and down along the magnetic field while the magnitude of
the standing wave grows through instability. This, we believe, is
the way to lift the material from the disk into funnel flow. The
disk material gains momentum in this way and
enters into the magnetic field with almost zero pitch angle
and be guided towards the magnetic poles of the star under
gravitational force.
We seek the solution at a fiducial radius (R).
In this investigation, the fiducial radius corresponds to the close neighbourhood of the
\emph{Alfv\'{e}n radius} where plasma pressure is slightly bigger than the magnetic pressure.
Eq. (18) is the general form of the dispersion relation,
wherein the gradient in the magnetic field ($\nabla B$) and
the perpendicular velocity ($\nabla v_{\bot}$) are both considered.
This amounts to saying that the magnetization currents are
persistent and strong in the disk-magnetosphere boundary. Therefore,
the long-lasting currents can produce a gradient in the magnetic
field and perpendicular velocity in turn. In the next section, we
will compare our results for three cases: \emph{i)} $\nabla B=0,
\nabla v_{\bot}=0$; \emph{ii)} $\nabla B\neq0, \nabla v_{\bot}=0$;
\emph{iii)} $\nabla B\neq0, \nabla v_{\bot}\neq0$.
\section{Numerical Growth Rates of the Unstable Mode}
The graphical solutions of Eq. (18), the numerical growth rates (s),
are thus shown in (X,Y) plane in Figs. (3)-(5). Here we present the
results for three cases. First we assume that
the magnetization current is not persistent but fluctuates, so that
the magnetic field and perpendicular velocity gradients produced at
the disk-magnetosphere boundary can be neglected. Formally speaking,
the second and the third term on the right-hand side of Eq. (6) will
be dropped, i.e. $\nabla B=0$ and $\nabla v_{\bot}=0$. Then, we
consider a long-lasting current and take the magnetic field gradient
into account, but the perpendicular velocity still remains constant
in space around the fiducial radius R, i.e. $\nabla B\neq0$ and
$\nabla v_{\bot}=0$. Finally, we consider the effects of both the
magnetic field and perpendicular velocity gradients, i.e. $\nabla
B\neq0$ and $\nabla v_{\bot}\neq0$. Therefore we can compare the
results for these three cases.
\begin{table*}
\caption{The maximum numerical growth rates found from Solution I and II.}
\begin{tabular}{llcccc}
&& \multicolumn{4}{c}{$s_{\rm m}$}\\
\hline
&&\multicolumn{2}{c}{$\varepsilon=0.1$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\varepsilon=0.5$}\\
& & FUR & SUR & FUR & SUR \\
\hline
& & & & & \\
Solution I &G=0.0&0.75&-&0.75&-\\
& & & & & \\
Solution II&G=0.1&0.78&0.22&0.79&0.10\\
&G=0.5&1.37&1.02&1.58&0.82\\
&G=1.0&2.43&2.21&4.42&2.65\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\medskip
The Solution I (G=0, T=0) reveals one unstable region. The Solution
II (G$\neq$0,T=0) reveals two unstable regions. We label them as FUR
(First Unstable Region), and SUR (Second Unstable Region).
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{The maximum growth rates for Solution III.}
\begin{tabular}{llcc}
&&\multicolumn{2}{c}{$s_{\rm m}$}\\
\hline
&& FUR & SUR \\
\hline
Solution III&G=0.1, $\varepsilon=0.1$, T=-3 &1.41&1.52\\
&G=0.5, $\varepsilon=0.4$, T=-3.5&-&14.78\\
&G=1.0, $\varepsilon=0.7$, T=-4&-&29.13\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
BT01 discussed the Hall effect on MRI in protostellar disks
from a dynamical point of view. Although they focused on
protostellar disks only, they claimed that their results are broadly
applicable. They analyzed the relative importance of the Hall term
both for gases with a low-ionization fraction and for fully ionized
plasma. One of the important conclusions of their analysis is that
the temperature and density regimes of ionized accretion disks imply
that the Hall effect cannot be ignored. Bearing this analysis in
mind, we choose to take the Hall effect into account.
We can estimate the Hall parameter for TT disks as follows: TT disks are
expected to be truncated at distances of several stellar radii from
the star (Johns-Krull 2007). Bouvier et al. (2007) found the truncation
radius where the stellar magnetic field starts to control the motion
of the accreting plasma as about 7 stellar radii for $B_*$= 1 kG.
Then at $R_{\rm M}=7 R_{*} $ the magnetic field strength is found as
$B_{\rm M}=B_{*}(R_{*}/R_{\rm M})^{3}\approx 2.9$ G. Typical
midplane gas density in TT disks is given as $\rho_g=10^{-9} \rm
gcm^{-3}$ (Alexander 2008). Glassgold et al. (2007) found the
electron number density as $10^5 \rm cm^{-3}$ from Neon fine
structure line emission of a TT disk. For a typical period $P \sim
8^{\rm d}$, the $\chi$ value is found as 4. We will use this value for the Hall
parameter in our numerical solutions.
\subsection{Growth rates in case of $\nabla B=0$ and $\nabla
v_{\bot}=0$}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\centering
{\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.6]{f3a.eps}}&
{\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.6]{f3b.eps}}\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Growth rates found from Solution I. Only regions of instability are shown, with
the height proportional to the growth rate. The regions of
instability are seen as \textquotedblleft ridges\textquotedblright
above the X,Y plane (see text for definitions). The maximum growth
rate of the \textquotedblleft ridge\textquotedblright is $ 0.75$ for
both cases: (a) weak magnetization $(\varepsilon=0.1)$; (b) strong
magnetization $(\varepsilon=0.5)$. However, the unstable region
slightly widens with increasing $\varepsilon$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
As we mentioned above, in our first solution (Solution I) we neglect
the gradients of the magnetic field and the perpendicular
velocity generated by the magnetization current at the
disk-magnetosphere boundary. We assume a uniform vertical magnetic
field, $\textbf{B}=B\hat{z}$.
The graphical solutions are given
in Fig. 3. In order to see the effect of
magnetization on growth rates, we plot our graphs for a weak
$(\varepsilon=0.1)$ and strong $(\varepsilon=0.5)$ magnetization.
For both cases, the maximum value of the growth rate is 0.75 and
independent of the value of $\varepsilon$. However, it is apparent
that the region of instability which is seen as a ridge, slightly
widens when we increase the value of $\varepsilon$ (see Fig.
3b).
We should mention that when $\varepsilon=0$, the dispersion
relation is reduced to Eq. (57) of BT01 and the graphs of Solution I
are clearly similar to that of BT01, as they should be.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
{\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.6]{f4a.eps}}&{\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.6]{f4d.eps}}\\
{\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.6]{f4b.eps}}&
{\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.6]{f4e.eps}}\\
{\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.6]{f4c.eps}}&{\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.6]{f4f.eps}}\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Growth rates found from Solution II for TT disks.
In order to see the effect of $\nabla B$ on growth rates, we keep
$\varepsilon$ constant and change the value of G from
arbitrarily chosen values of 0.1, 0.5 and 1 (see text for definitions).
Left panels are for weak magnetization $(\varepsilon=0.1)$;
the right panels are for strong magnetization $(\varepsilon=0.5)$.
A new unstable mode comes into existence with the inclusion of
$\nabla B$. See Table 1 for maximum values of the growth rates
($s_{\rm m}$).}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
{\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.4]{f5a.eps}}&
{\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.4]{f5b.eps}}&{\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=.4]{f5c.eps}}\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Growth rates found from Solution III. With the inclusion of $\nabla
v_{\bot}$ the maximum values of the growth rates increase and the
unstable regions widen in the X,Y plane. See Table 2 for maximum values of the growth rates. }
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Growth rates in case of $\nabla B\neq0$ and $\nabla
v_{\bot}=0$}
In our second solution (Solution II), we consider a strong,
long-lasting magnetization current that can produce a gradient in
the magnetic field at the disk-magnetosphere boundary. The
equilibrium vertical magnetic field is assumed to vary in the radial
direction, i.e. $\emph{\textbf{B}}=B(R)\hat{\textbf{z}}$. Therefore
the gradient of the magnetic field can be expressed by $\nabla B= (d
B/d R)\hat{\textbf{R}}$. We still assume that the perpendicular
velocity does not vary in space at the disk-magnetosphere boundary
(i.e. $\nabla v_{\bot}=0$).
The results of Solution II are presented in Fig. 4. A new
unstable region comes into existence with the inclusion of $\nabla
B$. From now on, we refer to this new region of instability as the
\emph{second unstable region} (SUR) and the one which was found in
Solution I as the \emph{first unstable region} (FUR). We again
present the roots for a weak (see the left panel in Fig. 4)
and strong (see the right panel in Fig. 4) magnetization
respectively. In order to see the effect of $\nabla B$ on growth
rate, we keep $\varepsilon$ constant and change the value of G from
arbitrarily chosen values of 0.1, 0.5 and 1. In Figs 4a, b and c, we
keep $\varepsilon=0.1$ and increase the value of G. It is apparent
that when the value of G increases, the SUR becomes wider and the
maximum value of the growth rates becomes higher. For G=1, the
maximum growth rate which is included in the SUR, turns out to be
2.43 (see Fig. 4c). The maximum growth rates of the SUR and the FUR
are listed in Table 1 for different values of $\varepsilon$ and G.
In Figs 4d, e and f we keep $\varepsilon=0.5$ and increase
the value of G again. When we compare the results for weak
($\varepsilon=0.1$) and strong ($\varepsilon=0.5$) magnetization, we
see that the maximum values of the growth rates turn out to be
higher in the presence of strong magnetization. The maximum growth
rate reaches a value of 4.42 for G=1 and for $\varepsilon=0.5$. The
unstable regions (both FUR and SUR) again spread over a larger space
in the X,Y plane for $\varepsilon=0.5$ than they do for
$\varepsilon=0.1$.
We should mention that the results of Solution II are clearly
similar to that of DP07, since the inclusion of magnetic field gradient
is the same case considered in DP07. However, the maximum values of the
growth rates are found to be slightly lower than that of DP07. This is
highly probably a result of the Hall effect. The low value of the Hall parameter
decreases the growth rates.
\subsection{Growth rates in case of $\nabla B\neq0$ and $\nabla
v_{\bot}\neq0$}
In the previous solution, we assumed that the magnetization
current produces a gradient in magnetic field at the
disk-magnetosphere boundary. If the magnetic moment
($\mu=mv_{\bot}^{2}/2B$), is conserved for drifting
particles, the perpendicular velocity of the particles vary while
they enter into and exit from the higher magnetic field regions.
Therefore, a gradient in particles$'$ perpendicular velocity is
produced. In Solution III, we shall not omit the third term which
includes $\nabla v_{\bot}$ in Eq. (6). The graphical solutions
(Solution III) are presented in Fig. 5.
Fig. 5a shows the results for Keplerian rotation. Therefore
T = d ln $\Omega^{2}$/d ln R=-3. The inclusion of the term
containing $\nabla v_{\bot}$ both increases the maximum values of
the growth rates and widens the unstable regions in the X,Y plane. If we compare Fig. 4a and 5a, we
see that the maximum value of the FUR increases from 0.78 (see
Fig.3a) to 1.41, and also the maximum value of the SUR increases from
0.10 to 1.52 with the inclusion of the $\nabla v_{\bot}$. In Figs
5b and 5c, we investigate the case of deviation from Keplerian
rotation as a result of gradient in magnetic field and the
perpendicular velocities. If the gradient in magnetic field strength
and perpendicular velocity cause a change in Keplerian velocity
profile of the inner disk, T should deviate from the value of \textquotedblleft$-3$\textquotedblright.
Since the values of $\epsilon$, G and T are proportional to each
other, we increase the value of $\epsilon$ and G with increasing T
in Figs 5b and 5c. It is clearly seen that both the maximum values
of the growth rates become higher and the regions of instability
become wider with increasing $\epsilon$, G and T (see Table 2).
\section{Conclusion}
We investigated the stability of a disk around CTTS by
taking the diamagnetic effect into account. Plasma entry into the
magnetosphere was explained by various types of plasma instabilities
(e.g. the Rayleigh-Taylor instability, Kelvin-Helmholtz
instability), diffusion and magnetic reconnection processes, and
loss-cone mechanism in previous investigations. In this
study, we investigated the perpendicular unstable mode produced by
MRI which may be an alternative mechanism in guiding the plasma
above the disk at the magnetospheric boundary. The main conclusions
of our study can be summarized as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item MRI produces an unstable mode which can raise the plasma
from the disk towards the vertical magnetic field lines. The
diamagnetic effect modifies the growth rate and the wavelength
range of the unstable mode. In the simplest case, when the field and velocity
gradients produced by magnetization are not included, the region of instability
widens in the (X,Y) plane with increasing
magnetization parameter ($\epsilon$).
\item A new unstable region comes into existence with the
inclusion of the gradient in the magnetic field (G). The maximum growth
rate of the unstable mode, $s_{m}$, depends more strongly on G than
on $\epsilon$. When we keep $\epsilon$ constant and change G, the maximum growth rate of the unstable mode
increases with increasing values of G. On the other hand, the
unstable region widens for higher values of $\epsilon$.
\item The inclusion of the perpendicular velocity gradient
in addition to the field gradient, increases the maximum
growth rates and widens the regions of the instability. Moreover,
the maximum value of the growth
rates increase with increasing gradient in perpendicular
velocity. As a result, MRI becomes more powerful when we include the gradients in magnetic field and perpendicular velocity.
\end{enumerate}
In the Hall-dominated regime electrons are frozen-into the magnetic field
but ions are coupled to the neutrals. At the inner radius of the disk
this situation enhances the diamagnetic current density, in turn,
sharpens the magnetic field gradient. The modification to the growth rate
by the magnetic field gradient may be seen in Figs. 3-5. The higher
the magnitude of the gradient the greater the growth rate. In this respect,
Wardle \& Salmeron (2012) investigated the effect of the Hall diffusion on
the stability of the Keplerian disk. They argue that in PPDs Ohm and ambipolar
diffusion have a stabilizing role while the Hall effect either stabilizes or
destabilizes the disk depending on the orientations of the magnetic field
and the rotation axes. And they warn the reader that small dust grains may
remove the electrons through recombination and the MRI-active column density
reduces and MRI becomes irrelevant in PPDs.
As a result of the growing amplitude of the slow and/or
standing waves produced in the disk-magnetosphere boundary of the
magnetized star, we may expect that the disk fluid can be lifted
towards the magnetic field lines with an approximately zero pitch
angle. Zero pitch angle means that the plasma particles will seek
their magnetic mirrors at the regions of higher magnetic field. It
is highly probable that the particles will not be reflected until
they reach the magnetic polar regions. Therefore, they will
eventually hit the polar caps. The amplitude of the wave and the
velocity of the disk fluid along the magnetic field lines determine
the effectiveness of the lifting process. But this may be a subject
of a study of non-linear regimes.
Romanova et al. (2011) stress on the fact that ``the
turbulence in the disk is initiated and supported by the
magneto-rotational instability". This means that MRI producing
conditions, i.e., diamagnetic current etc. are continuous.
Turbulence should not be considered as noise or disorder. At the
macroscopic scale it may appear as chaotic but at microscopic scale
turbulence reveals itself as highly organized. Drifting charged
particles at the closed field lines of the magnetosphere move in a
coherent way so that the diamagnetic current persists within the
multiple time and length scales of turbulence. We may qualitatively
argue that diamagnetic current and the magnetic field it produces
may bring about a magnetic field gradient which in return triggers
MRI and causes the laminar flow go turbulent. We should emphasize
that in this study we work in the linear regime not in the
non-linear one. So that we are not in a position to claim that the
MRI will lead to turbulence at the non-linear regime.
Above all, it is yet to be seen as to whether the instability grows
into turbulence. This requires a numerical simulation which will be
the subject of a future study.
\acknowledgments
Our special thanks go to A. R. King and R. Lovelace for helpful
suggestions and B. Kalomeni and G. James for reading the manuscript. SD appreciates
the Theoretical Astrophysics Group for their hospitality. We dedicate
this study to the honorable scientific and organizational effort given
to the Turkish Astronomy by Prof. Dr. Zeki Aslan. This work
is supported by Turkish Academy of Sciences (T\"{U}BA) Doctoral
Fellowship. This study is a part of PhD project of SD.
|
\section{Introduction}
The two dimensional projective linear group over a finite field with $p$ elements, $\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$ has been extensively studied since Galois, who constructed them and showed their simplicity for $p>3$~\cite{Wilson}. One of their nice properties is due to a theorem by E. Dickson, which shows that there are only a small number of possibilities for the isomorphism types of maximal subgroups. There are two possibilities: ones that exist for all $p$ and ones that exist for exceptional primes. A more recent proof of Dickson's Theorem can be found in~\cite{MS} and a complete proof due to Dickson is in~\cite{LD}.
\begin{thm}[Dickson] The maximal subgroups of $\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$ are isomorphic to one of the following groups:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $G_p$
\item $\mathrm{D}_{p-1}$, the Dihedral Group of order $p-1$
\item $\mathrm{D}_{p+1}$
\item $\mathrm{A}_4,$ $\mathrm{S_4}$ or $\mathrm{A_5}$,
\end{enumerate}
where $G_p$ is the Frobenius group of order $p(p-1)/2$ that has a natural description as
the semi-direct product $\mathbb{Z}_p \rtimes (\mathbb{Z}_p^*)^2$. Moreover, while subgroups of types $(1),(2)$ and $(3)$ always exist for $p\neq 2$ (then only (2) and (3) exist), a maximal subgroup isomorphic to $\mathrm{S_4}$ exists if and only if $p\equiv \pm 1\mod 8$, subgroups isomorphic to $\mathrm{A_5}$ exist if and only if $p\equiv\pm 1\mod 10$ and subgroups isomorphic to $\mathrm{A}_4$ are maximal if and only if $p\equiv 3,13,27,37\mod 40$.
\end{thm}
The exceptional maximal subgroups are thus $\mathrm{A}_4$, $\mathrm{S_4}$ and $\mathrm{A_5}$. Whiston and Saxl~\cite{W&S} have shown that these exceptional groups play a crucial role in describing the size of generating sets. A generating set $\{g_i\}$ or sequence $\{g_i\}_{i\in I}$ for the group $G$ is called {\it irredundant}\footnote{In other places in the literature, this same property is called {\it independent}.} if after removing any $g_j$ from the set or sequence, the new collection no longer generates $G$. We will denote\footnote{This function has also been denoted $\mu(G)$.} by $m(G)$ the maximum length of an irredundant generating set of $G$. In response to Whiston's description of $m(G)$ for $\mathrm{S}_n$~\cite{JW}, Cameron and Cara described the irredundant generating sequences of maximal length~\cite{CC}. In the same spirit, we will describe which elements can appear in generating sequences of any length up to the maximal length in $\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$ in most cases. This size has been determined by Whiston and Saxl~\cite{W&S} for all primes such that the exceptional groups $\mathrm{S_4}$ and $\mathrm{A_5}$ are not maximal in $\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$.
\begin{thm}[Whiston and Saxl] Let $G=\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$, $p$ prime. Then, $m(G)=3$ or $4$. If $p\neq \pm 1\mod 10$ and $p\neq \pm 1\mod 8$, then $m(G)=3$.
\end{thm}
In their paper~\cite{W&S}, Whiston and Saxl note that $m(\mathrm{PSL(2,7)})=m(\mathrm{PSL(2,11)})=4$. Since then, various computations have been made to show that the maximal length is also four when $p=19$ and $p=31$. The conjecture in~\cite{NachmanThesis} is that this small list of primes constitutes the entire collection. The strategy presented here does not easily extend to the case of $p\equiv\pm 1\mod 10$, but a large part of this suprising conjecture is proved in this paper, summarized in the following theorem.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:main}
Let $G=\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$, $p$ prime. If $p\not\equiv\pm 1\mod 10$, then, $m(G)=3$ unless $p=7$, in which case $m(G)=4$.
\end{thm}
To begin, we introduce the idea of the replacement property for groups and show how it is useful for constructing irredundant generating sequences.
\section{Irredundant Generating Sets and the Replacement Property}
Linear algebra often forms a concrete base upon which intuition is built for studying more general objects. Understanding generating sequences of groups is no exception -- the idea of an irredundant generating set is an analogy to a basis of a vector space. In the case of vector spaces, the classification of bases is easy -- they all have the same length. This is not the case for groups. If we denote by $r(G)$ the minimum length of an irredundant generating sequence, then clearly $m(G)\geq r(G)$ and in general this inequality is strict. For example, one can easily show based on elementary linear algebra that $G=\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$ can be generated by two elements so $r(G)=2$ since $G$ is not cyclic. On the other hand for $p>2$, $|G|$ must be even since its order is $p(p-1)(p+1)/2$. Therefore, there exist nontrivial elements of order $2$. Let $H$ be the subgroup generated by all such elements. Then, $1<H\unlhd G$ and so $H=G$ because $\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$ is simple. Furthermore, two elements of order $2$ generate a dihedral group and so there must exist an irredundant generating sequence of length at least $3$ (with elements all of order $2$) and so $r(G)<m(G)$ for $p>2$.
In addition, for a vector space $V$, every linearly independent subset has length at most $\mathrm{dim}(V)$. For a group, it is not the case that for $H< G$, $m(H)< m(G)$. For example, for $G=\mathrm{PSL(2,17)},$ $m(G)=3$ but $G$ has maximal subgroups isomorphic to $\mathrm{S}_4$, for which $m=3$ as well. A group which does have the property that for all subgroups $H< G$, $m(H)<m(G)$ is called {\it strongly flat}. Two important examples are $\mathrm{S_4}$~ and ~$\mathrm{A_5}$. In fact, all the symmetric groups, for which $m(\mathrm{S}_n)=n-1$, are strongly flat~\cite{W&S}.
Another important aspect of vector spaces is the elementary fact that any linearly independent set can replace a segment of a basis. The idea is to generalize this notion to arbitrary groups. Instead of looking at bases, the generalization is generating sets. Also, instead of replacing many elements of the generating set, the focus will be on replacing a single element. This led D. Collins and R. K. Dennis to make the following definition:
\begin{defn}[Replacement Property] A group $G$ satisfies the {\it replacement property} for the generating sequence $s = (g_1,...,g_k)$ if for any $\mathrm{id}\neq g\in G$, there exists an $i$ so that $s' = (g_1,...,g_{i-1},g,g_{i+1}...,g_k)$ generates $G$.
\end{defn}
A group $G$ is said to satisfy the replacement property if it satisfies the replacement property for all irredundant sequences of length $m(G)$. Vector spaces satisfy the replacement property, but this is not true for all groups. For example, consider $G=Q_8$, the Quaternion group. If we think of $G$ as the elements $\{\pm1,\pm i,\pm j\pm k\}$, then it is clear that $i,j$ is a generating sequence of $G$. However, we cannot replace either of $i$ or $j$ in this sequence with $-1$. More generally if the Frattini subgroup of a group is nontrivial, then the nontrivial non-generating elements will cause $G$ to fail the replacement property. For $Q_8$, $\{\pm 1\}$ is the Frattini subgroup and so it fails the replacement property. One could modify the definition of the replacement property to exclude such cases. Either way, there are examples of groups which are Frattini free and still fail the replacement property. For example, when $p\equiv +1\mod 8$, $\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$~is such a group. Before showing this, the definition of replacement property must be reworked slightly. This property has been phrased in terms of generating sequences, but it can be restated in terms of certain sets of maximal subgroups.
Let $(M_1,...,M_n)$ be a sequence of maximal subgroups of a finite group $G$ and let $(g_1,...,g_n)$ be a sequence of elements of $G$. These two sequences are said to correspond to each other if $g_i\not\in M_i$ for any $i\in \{1,...,n\}$ but $g_j\in M_i$ whenever $j\neq i$. With this connection, there is a relationship between maximal subgroups and irredundant generating sequences:
\begin{prop}[D. Collins and R. K. Dennis]
If $(g_1,...,g_n)$ is an irredundant generating sequence, then it corresponds to a sequence of maximal subgroups $(M_1,...,M_n)$ and $\cap_{i\in J} M_i\subsetneq\cap_{i\in K} M_i $ for all $J,K\subset I=\{1,...,n\}$ and $K\subsetneq J$. We say that subgroups with this last property are in general position.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $H_i=\langle g_1,...,g_{i-1},g_{i+1},...,g_n\rangle$. Since $(g_1,...,g_n)$ is an irredundant generating sequence, $H_i$ is a proper subgroup of $G$. Therefore, there exists a maximal subgroup $H_i\leq M_i$. Note that $g_i\not\in M_i$, since $M_i$ is also a proper subgroup, but $g_j\in M_i$ for all $j\neq i$ by construction. Therefore, $(M_1,...,M_n)$ corresponds to $(g_1,...,g_n)$. Now, one needs to show that the maximal subgroups are in general position. By construction, for $J\subset I=\{1,...,n\}$ then $g_j\in \cap _{i\in J} M_i$ if and only if $j\not\in J$. Therefore, the subgroups $\cap_{i\in J} M_i$ are all distinct as no two of them intersect $\{g_1,...,g_n\}$ in the same way.
\end{proof}
Now that a relationship exists between irredundant generating sequences and maximal subgroups in general position, one can construct a criteria on maximal subgroups for establishing the replacement property. Using the same ideas as in the previous proposition, one can prove the following:
\begin{prop}[D. Collins and R. K. Dennis]
Let $s=(g_1,...,g_n)$ be an irredundant generating sequence of the group $G$. If every sequence of maximal subgroups $(M_1,...,M_n)$ corresponding to $s$ intersects trivially, then $s$ satisfies the replacement property.
\label{important}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We prove the contraposition. If $s$ fails the replacement property for $g$, then for each $i$, the sequence $(g_1,...,g_{i-1},g,g_{i+1},...,g_n)$ generates a proper subgroup $H_i$ of $G$. Pick a maximal subgroup $H_i\leq M_i$. Then, $(M_1,...,M_n)$ corresponds to $s$ by definition and furthermore, $g\in\cap M_i$ by construction.
\end{proof}
Now, we will focus on irredundant generating sequences of $\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$~which will eventually lead us to study how this group behaves with respect to the replacement property.
\section{Irredundant Sequences of Maximal Length in~$G=\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$}
The general strategy for proving that $m(G)=3$ for most cases is to take irredundant generating sequences and try to `glue them together' and see what possibilities exist for the resulting group. We will make this procedure more quantitative as the discussion progresses. In this process, we will switch back and forth between considering elements and (maximal) subgroups corresponding to the elements. Let $g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4\in G$ be an irredundant generating set. Let $H_1,H_2,H_3,H_4$ be the corresponding family of subgroups in general position, (e.g. $H_1=\langle g_2,g_3,g_4\rangle$) and let $M_1,M_2,M_3,M_4$ be a corresponding set of maximal subgroups in general position, i.e. $H_i\leq M_i$, $i=1,...,4$. Let $p\equiv\pm 1\mod 10$ or $p\equiv \pm 1\mod 8$. In the course of their proof, Whiston and Saxl~\cite{W&S} show that in the case $m(G)=4$, it must be that there exists an $i$ such that $H_i\cong\mathrm{S}_4$ or $H_i\cong\mathrm{A}_5$. In fact, one can learn even more in general about the $g_i$ and the $H_i$. Another proposition in Whiston and Saxl's paper~\cite{W&S} says the following:
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:twoS}
No more than three $H_i$ can be of the form $\mathrm{D}_{p\pm 1}$ or $G_p$. If three of the $H_i$ are of this form, then $m(G)=3$.
\end{prop}
This means that when $m(G)=4$ at least {\it two} of the $H_i$ must be isomorphic to $\mathrm{A}_5$ or $\mathrm{S}_4$. To proceed, it is important to understand the generating sequences of $\mathrm{S}_4$ and $\mathrm{A}_5$. First of all, from Whiston's thesis~\cite{WPhD}, $m(\mathrm{S}_n)=n-1$ which is $3$ for $\mathrm{S}_4$ and since $\mathrm{A}_5\cong \mathrm{PSL(2,5)}$, $m(\mathrm{A}_5)=3$. Next, note the following.
\begin{lemma}
\label{prop:mustgen}
Every irredundant sequence of length $3$ in $\mathrm{S}_4$ or $\mathrm{A}_5$ must generate. As was remarked earlier, $\mathrm{S_4}$~and $\mathrm{A_5}$~are strongly flat.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This follows from a careful consideration of the lattice of subgroups. The union of the sets of possible subgroups for these two groups have isomorphism classes $\{\mathrm{A}_4,\mathrm{D}_{10},\mathrm{D}_8,\mathrm{S}_3,\mathbb{Z}_5,\mathbb{Z}_2^2,\mathbb{Z}_4,\mathbb{Z}_2,\{e\}\}$. All of these groups have $m(H)\leq 2$.
\end{proof}
Since two of the $H_i$ must be isomorphic to $\mathrm{S}_4$ or $\mathrm{A}_5$, without loss of generality, suppose that $H_1$ and $H_2$ satisfy this condition. From the maximality of $\mathrm{S}_4$ and $\mathrm{A}_5$, we can further deduce that $M_1\cong H_1$ and $M_2\cong H_2$. The only possibilities for $M_3$ and $M_4$ by Dickson's Theorem are $\mathrm{S}_4,D_{p\pm 1}$ and $G_p$. In fact, for length four sequences, this last subgroup is not possible.
\begin{lemma}
\label{funnysubgroup}
Suppose that $p\equiv \pm 1\mod 10$ or $p\equiv\pm 1\mod 8$. Suppose that $m(G)=4$. Then, $H_3$ and $H_4$ are not isomorphic to a subgroup of $G_p$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose on the contrary that $M_4\cong G_p$. The subgroups $L\leq M_4$ are isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_p,C$ or $\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes C$, where $C$ is a cyclic subgroup of one of the isomorphic copies of $\mathbb{Z}_{(p-1)/2}\leq M_4$. Since $p>5$, the only type which will have a potentially nontrivial intersection with $H_1$ is the cyclic subgroups. Thus, to be in general position, $H_1\cap H_4$ must be cyclic. The only cyclic subgroups of $\mathrm{S}_4$ and $\mathrm{A}_5$ have order $2,3$ or $4$, but $m(\mathbb{Z}_2)=m(\mathbb{Z}_3)=m(\mathbb{Z}_4)=1$. Therefore, $|H_1\cap H_4\cap H_2|=1$. This contradicts the fact that these subgroups are in general position.
\end{proof}
Now, we can now begin to quantify what is meant by `gluing' sequences. Since $H_1$ and $H_2$ are isomorphic to either $\mathrm{S}_4$ or $\mathrm{A}_5$, every length four irredundant generating sequence in $G$ is the composite of two length three irredundant generating sequences from $\mathrm{S_4}$~ or $\mathrm{A_5}$. From this fact, it is clear that the next step is to study the length $3$ irredundant generating sets of $\mathrm{S_4}$~ and $\mathrm{A_5}$. In their paper~\cite{CC}, Cameron and Cara determine all the length $n-1$ irredundant generating sets of $\mathrm{S}_n$ except when $n=4$ and $6$. As they suggest, we approach $n=4$ with a computation using GAP~\cite{GAP}, which reveals that elements in length three irredundant (generating) sequences have order $2$ or $3$.
Now, we turn our attention back to $H_1$ and $H_2$; $g_2,g_3,g_4$ is an irredundant generating sequence of length $3$ in $\mathrm{S_4}$~ or $\mathrm{A_5}$. Thus, $g_2,g_3,g_4$ have orders $2$ or $3$. Repeating this same argument for $g_1,g_3,g_4$ reveals that $g_1$ also must have order $2$ or $3$. Therefore,
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:orders}
If $m(G)=4$, the possible orders of elements in an irredundant generating sequence of length $4$ in $\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$~are $2$ and $3$.
\end{prop}
Now, we will specialize to the case $p\not\equiv\pm 1\mod 10$ and begin the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}. First, we consider a special case of Prop.~\ref{prop:orders}.
\begin{cor}
If $p\equiv\pm 1\mod 8$ but $p\not\equiv\pm 1\mod 10$ and $m(G)=4$ then all the elements of an irredundant generating sequence of maximal length have order $2$.
\label{allorder2}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
First, note that $\langle g_i\rangle\leq (M_1\cap M_j)\cap (M_1\cap M_k)$, where $1,i,j,k$ are all different. The only way for $g_i$ to have order $3$ is for $3$ to divide the orders of both $L_j=M_1\cap M_j$ and $L_k=M_1\cap M_k$. The only subgroups of $\mathrm{S}_4$ with this property are isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_3,\mathrm{S}_3$ or $\mathrm{A}_4$. The intersections $L_j$ and $L_k$ cannot be cyclic of prime order because then the $H_i$ will not be in general position (the intersection of three will be trivial). First, suppose that both $L_j$ and $L_k$ are isomorphic to $\mathrm{S}_3$. Further suppose that $g_i$ has order $3$ and $g_i\in L_j\cap L_k$. The subgroup generated by $g_i$ is normal in $L_j$ and $L_k$. However, since $\mathrm{S}_3$ is maximal in $\mathrm{S}_4$, the normalizer in $\mathrm{S}_4$ of $\langle g_i\rangle$ is $\mathrm{S}_3$, i.e. there is a unique $\mathrm{S}_3$ which contains $\langle g_i\rangle$. This contradicts the fact that both $L_j$ and $L_k$ contain $\langle g_i\rangle$. We cannot have the intersection of two copies of $\mathrm{A}_4$ since a given $\mathrm{S}_4$ has only one of these subgroups.\\
\\All that remains is to show that one cannot have the intersection of an $\mathrm{S}_3$ and a $\mathrm{A}_4$. In order for one of $L_j,L_k$ to be $\mathrm{A}_4$, it must be that one of $H_j,H_k$ is $\mathrm{S}_4$, since this is the only subgroup of $\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$ which could contain an $\mathrm{A}_4$ (it is not cyclic or dihedral). Therefore, we can apply the same argument as we used for two copies of $\mathrm{S}_3$. In particular, $\mathrm{A}_4$ is normal in $\mathrm{S}_4$, which is maximal in $\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$. Thus, there is a unique $\mathrm{S}_4$ which contains the $\mathrm{A}_4$, a contradiction. Thus, by Cor.~\ref{prop:orders}, $g_2,g_3,g_4$ have order $2$. Clearly, we could have switched $g_1$ and $g_2$, which shows that $g_1$ also has order $2$.
\end{proof}
The general strategy for combining generating sequences and proving Theorem 3 is now as follows. Generically, consider
\begin{align}
\label{biggroup}
Q_R=\langle x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4 | x_i^2=1,R\rangle,
\end{align}
\noindent where $R$ is a set of relations. By Cor.~\ref{allorder2}, when $R=\emptyset$ and $m(G)=4$, $G$ is a quotient of $Q_R$. In particular, we have an explicit map which sends $x_i\mapsto g_i$. The strategy now is to make $R$ as big as possible. Quantitatively, we choose $R$ to contain all the information we know about the generating sequences of $\mathrm{S}_4$ and the ways in which dihedral groups can intersect with $\mathrm{S}_4$ and each other. First, we consider how to include information about generating sequences of $\mathrm{S}_4$. Let $s=(s_1,s_2,s_3)$ be an irredundant generating sequence of $\mathrm{S}_4$. Let
\begin{align}
\Lambda_n^s=\left\{(\alpha,\beta)\in (1,2,3)^n\times\mathbb{Z}^n\Bigg|\prod_{i=1}^n s^{\beta_i}_{\alpha_i}=1\right\}.
\end{align}
\noindent For $\lambda\in\Lambda_n^s$, define $f_\lambda:\{\text{three letters}\}\rightarrow\{\text{words from three letters}\}$:
\begin{align}
f_\lambda(x_1,x_2,x_3)=\prod_{i=1}^n x^{\beta_i}_{\alpha_i}.
\end{align}
\noindent Now, for a given $s$, we construct an object $R_s(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ which carries all the information in $s$ needed to build $\mathrm{S}_4$ from a free group such that there is a sequence isomorphic to $s$ as an irredundant generating sequence. More precisely, let
\begin{align}
\tilde{R}_s(x_1,x_2,x_3)=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\bigcup_{\lambda\in\Lambda_n^s}\{f_\lambda (x_1,x_2,x_3)=1\}.
\end{align}
\noindent By construction $\langle x_1,x_2,x_3|\tilde{R}_s(x_1,x_2,x_3)\rangle \cong \mathrm{S}_4$ and the image of $x_1,x_2,x_3$ under the canonical map is isomorphic to $s$. In practice, one picks $R_s\subseteq \tilde{R}_s$ such that $|R_s|<\infty$. An $R_s$ exists because $\mathrm{S}_4$ is finite and a group is uniquely defined by its complete multiplication table. Thus, for example, one can construct $R_s$ by enumerating the $24$ elements of $\mathrm{S}_4$ in words of elements of $s$ and then encoding the $24\times 24$ multiplication table in terms of relations. For example, write $\mathrm{S}_4=\{w_i(s_1,s_2,s_3),i=1,...,24\}$ for $w_i$ some functions that send $s_1,s_2,s_3$ to elements of $\mathrm{S}_4$ built from these generators. If $w_i(s)w_j(s)=w_k(s)$, then one would include in $R_s$ the term $w_i(x)w_j(x)w_k(x)^{-1}=1$ for $x=(x_1,x_2,x_3)$. One can construct an $R_s$ explicitly in GAP and often it is possible to choose $R_s$ with a size much smaller than $24^2$. For instance, if $s=((23),(14),(12))$, then for
\begin{align*}
R_s(x_1,x_2,x_3)=\{x_i^2&=(x_1x_2)^2=(x_2x_3)^3=(x_1x_3)^3=(x_1x_2x_3)^4\\
&=(x_1x_2x_3x_2)^3=1\},
\end{align*}
\noindent we get that $\langle x_1,x_2,x_3|R_s(x_1,x_2,x_3)\rangle \cong \mathrm{S}_4$ and the image of $x_1,x_2,x_3$ under the canonical map is isomorphic to $s$.
Now, we return to the task of considering $Q_R$ from Eq.~\ref{biggroup}. There will be three cases, depending on the group type of $M_3$ and $M_4$. Let $S$ be the set of length $3$ irredundant generating sequences of $\mathrm{S}_4$. One can easily compute $S$ from GAP.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $M_3\cong M_4\cong\mathrm{S}_4$. For $s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4\in S$, we consider
\begin{align*}
Q=\langle x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4 | &R_{s_1}(x_1,x_2,x_3),R_{s_2}(x_1,x_2,x_4),\\
&R_{s_3}(x_1,x_3,x_4),R_{s_4}(x_2,x_3,x_4)\rangle.
\end{align*}
A general strategy for determining if a finitely presented group is finite is to use the {\it Todd-Coxeter} algorithm~\cite{TC}. For example, consider the case $s_1=s_2=s_3=s_4=s=((23),(14),(12))$ from above. Then, we find -- using the GAP implementation of the Todd-Coxeter algorithm -- that $|Q|=6$ and thus $Q$ is too small to have $G$ as a quotient. Repeating this calculation for all sets of four elements of $S$, we find that either $|Q|\leq 192$ or the Todd-Coxeter algorithm does not terminate in a reasonable amount of time. In all the latter cases, there exists $R'\subseteq R$ with $R'=\{(x_ix_j)^{m_{ij}}=1\}$ where
\begin{align*}
m=\begin{pmatrix}2&3&2&3\cr 3&2&3&2\cr 2&3&2&3\cr 3&2&3&2\end{pmatrix},
\end{align*}
and thus $Q$ is a quotient of the Coxeter group $Q'=\langle x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4|R'\rangle$. This Coxeter group is well known -- $Q' \cong \tilde{A}_3\cong \mathbb{Z}^3\rtimes \mathrm{S}_4$~\cite{KB} which is solvable and thus cannot have the simple group $G$ as a quotient. In the case $|Q|<192$, $Q$ is only big enough to have $G$ as a quotient if $p=7$. A direct computation shows that $G=\mathrm{PSL}(2,7)$ does in fact have $m(G)=4$.
\vspace{3mm}
\item Without loss of generality, $M_3\cong \mathrm{S}_4$ and $M_4$ is dihedral. We lose one constraint $R_{s_1}(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ and so we will need additional information, from the intersection of dihedral groups and $\mathrm{S}_4$:
\begin{lemma}
Let $K_1=H_1\cap H_4,K_2=H_2\cap H_4$ and $K_3=H_3\cap H_4$. If $H_3\cong\mathrm{S}_4$ and $H_4$ is dihedral, then no two of the $K_i$ can be isomorphic to $\mathrm{S}_3$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, we note that $H_4$ has a unique cyclic subgroup $L$ of order $3$ since it is dihedral. Suppose that $K_1\cong K_2\cong \mathrm{S}_3$. Since the $H_i$ are in general position, $K_1\neq K_2$ and so $L=H_1\cap H_2\cap H_4$. However, $\langle g_3\rangle \leq H_1\cap H_2\cap H_4$ which means that $g_3$ has order dividing $3$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:notwo}
No two of $Order(g_1g_2),Order(g_1g_3),Order(g_2g_3)$ can be $3$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By the lemma, no two of the $K_i$ can be isomorphic to $\mathrm{S}_3$. This means no two of $\{\langle g_1,g_2\rangle,\langle g_1,g_3\rangle$,$\langle g_2,g_3\rangle\}$ can be isomorphic to $\mathrm{S}_3$. All the $g_i$ have order $2$, so no two of $\{Order(g_1g_2)$, $Order(g_1g_3)$, $Order(g_2g_3)\}$ can be $3$.
\end{proof}
A similar result is true for $\mathrm{D_8}$.
\begin{lemma}
No two of $Order(g_1g_2),Order(g_1g_3)$ and $Order(g_2g_3)$ can be 4.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose without loss of generality that $Order(g_1g_2)=Order(g_1g_3)=4$. Then, $H_3\cap H_4\cong H_2\cap H_4\cong \mathrm D_8$. To see this, note for example that $\langle g_1,g_2\rangle\leq H_3\cap H_4$, but $\langle g_1,g_2\rangle\cong D_8$, which is maximal and so this is equality. Next, note that $H_4$ has a unique cyclic group of order $4$ which is in common to both of $H_3\cap H_4$ and $H_2\cap H_4$. Therefore, $H_2\cap H_3\cap H_4$ is cyclic of order $4$ (it cannot be all of $D_8$ since then the $H_i$ would not be in general position). In $H_2\cap H_4$, the cyclic group of order four is $\langle g_1g_3\rangle$ and in $H_3\cap H_4$, the cyclic group of order four is $\langle g_1 g_2\rangle$. The fact that these are the same means $g_1g_2=g_1g_3$ or $g_1g_2=(g_1g_3)^3$. Then, we can write $g_2=g_1(g_1g_3)^x$, where $x=1$ or $3$. This contradicts the irredundantcy of the $g_i$.
\end{proof}
Imposing the conditions $R_{s_2}(x_1,x_2,x_4),R_{s_3}(x_1,x_3,x_4)$, and $R_{s_4}(x_2,x_3,x_4)$ alongside those in the previous two lemmas, the Todd-Coxeter algorithm gives $|Q|<1344$. After $p=7$, the next prime $\pm 1\mod 8$ is $p=17$, but $|\mathrm{PSL}(2,17)|=2448$. A direct computation shows that in fact, all the length four irredundant generating sequences of $\mathrm{PSL}(2,7)$ correspond to $M_i\cong \mathrm{S}_4$ for all $i=1,...,4$ and so this case cannot occur.
\vspace{3mm}
\item $M_3$ and $M_4$ are dihedral. We only have $R_{s_3}(x_1,x_3,x_4)$ and $R_{s_4}(x_2,x_3,x_4)$ by requiring $M_1$ and $M_2$ to be isomorphic to $\mathrm{S}_4$. Thus, we need further constraints from the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}
If $M_3$ and $M_4$ are dihedral groups, then $M_1\cap M_2\cong\mathbb{Z}_2^2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $M_3$ and $M_4$ are dihedral, $H=M_3\cap M_4$ must be cyclic or dihedral. Suppose that $H$ is cyclic and let $K$ be an index two cyclic subgroup of $M_3$. Because the $M_i$ are in general position, $H$ cannot have order $2$. Therefore, $H\unlhd K$. However, every subgroup of a cyclic subgroup is characteristic and so $H\unlhd M_3$. Since $M_3$ is maximal in $G$, it must be that $M_3=N_G(H)$. However, the same argument shows that $M_4=N_G(H)$. Therefore, $M_3=M_4$, a contradiction. Therefore, $H$ must be dihedral. Let $L\leq H$ be the cyclic subgroup of index $2$. By our previous discussion, if $|L|>2$, there would be a unique dihedral group in $G$ which contains $L$, which is a contradiction. Therefore, we must have $|L|=2$ and so $H\cong\mathbb{Z}_2^2$.
\end{proof}
Imposing the conditions $R_{s_3}(x_1,x_3,x_4)$ and $R_{s_4}(x_2,x_3,x_4)$ alongside the constraint form the above lemma gives two outcomes. When the Todd-Coxeter algorithm terminates in a reasonable amount of time, $|Q|<1344$ which has already been ruled out. There are two configurations of $Q$ for which the Todd-Coxeter algorithm does not terminate in a reasonable amount of time. In one case, $Q$ is a quotient of $\tilde{A}_3$, which we have already discussed is not possible by solvability (Coxeter diagram on the left below). In the second case, $Q$ is a quotient of the Coxeter group represented by the diagram on the right, below:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.2]
\draw (0,0.87) -- (-1,0);
\draw (1,0) -- (0,0.87);
\draw (-1,0) -- (0,1.73);
\draw (1,0) -- (0,1.73);
\draw [fill] (0,1.73) circle [radius=0.05];
\draw [fill] (-1,0) circle [radius=0.05];
\draw [fill] (0,0.87) circle [radius=0.05];
\draw [fill] (1,0) circle [radius=0.05];
\begin{scope}[shift={(3,0)}]
\draw (0,0.87) -- (-1,0);
\draw (1,0) -- (0,0.87);
\draw (-1,0) -- (0,1.73);
\draw (1,0) -- (0,1.73);
\draw [fill] (0,1.73) circle [radius=0.05];
\draw [fill] (-1,0) circle [radius=0.05];
\draw [fill] (0,0.87) circle [radius=0.05];
\draw [fill] (1,0) circle [radius=0.05];
\node at (-0.3,0.6) {$4$};
\node at (-0.5,0.9) {$4$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
Let $C$ denote the Coxteter group corresponding to the diagram on the right. Even though the Todd-Coxeter algorithm does not terminate, it can be used to determine subgroups of finite index. One finds that $C$ has a subgroup $C'\unlhd C$ such that $C/C'\cong\mathrm{S}_4$. Furthermore, a straightforward application of the relations shows that $C'$ is generated by three elements which mutually commute. Since $C'$ is abelian and $C/C'$ is solvable, $C$ is also solvable and thus $G$ cannot be a quotient.
\end{enumerate}
\section{$\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$~and the Replacement Property}
While it is not known in general if $G=\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$ satisfies the replacement property, in some special cases, we can say whether $G$ has this property or not.
\begin{thm}
(R. K. Dennis) Let $G$ be a finite group, $m=m(G)$ and $s=(g_1,...,g_m)$ is an irredundant generating sequence of length $m$. Let $F=\{M_1,...,M_m\}$ be an associated family of maximal subgroups in general position. Assume that for any such $F$, there exists one of the maximal subgroups, say $M_m$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $M_m=\langle g_1,...,g_{m-1}\rangle$
\item $m(M_m)=m-1$
\item $M_m$ satisfies the replacement property.
\end{enumerate}
Then, $G$ satisfies the replacement property
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Note that for $j\neq m$ we have $M_m\cap M_j\neq M_m$ since $F$ is in general position. Thus, there exists $N_j\in \mathrm{Max}(M_m)$ (the set of maximal subgroups of $M_m$) with $N_j\geq M_m\cap M_j$. Hence, $F'=\{N_1,...,N_{m-1}\}$ is a family of maximal subgroups of $M_m$ in general position associated to the irredundant generating sequence $s'=(g_1,...,g_{m-1})$, since $M_m\cap M_j\geq \langle s(\hat{m},\hat{j})\rangle$ (the sequence generated by all the $g_i$ for $i$ not $m$ and not $j$). Since $M_m$ satisfies the replacement property, we have that $N_1\cap\cdots\cap N_{m-1}$ is trivial. Thus, $M_1\cap \cdots \cap M_m=(M_m\cap M_1)\cap\cdots\cap (M_m\cap M_{m-1})\leq N_1\cap \cdots\cap N_{m-1}=\{e\}$. Therefore, $G$ satisfies the replacement property.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
Let $G=\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$, $p$ prime and $m(G)=4$. Then, $G$ satisfies the replacement property.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We know that every $F$ must contain a group isomorphic to either $\mathrm{S}_4$ or $\mathrm{A}_5$. By Lemma~\ref{prop:mustgen}, length 3 irredundant sequences must generate. Both $\mathrm{S}_4$ and $\mathrm{A}_5$ satisfy the replacement property, so $G$ does as well by the theorem.
\end{proof}
It turns out that the theorem can also be applied to $M_{11}$, the sporadic group since $\mathrm{PSL(2,7)}$ is in every $F$, $m(M_{11})=5$, and we just showed that $\mathrm{PSL(2,7)}$ satisfied the replacement property. However, $\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$ does not satisfy the replacement property in general:
\begin{thm}
Let p be a prime with $p\equiv +1 \mod 8$. Let $G=\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$. If $m(G)=3$, then $G$ fails the replacement property.
\label{thesistheorem}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
In order to show that $G$ fails the replacement property, this proof produces an explicit example of an element $w\in G$ and a length three generating set $\{g_1,g_2,g_3\}$ such that replacing any $g_i$ by $w$ will result in a set which no longer generates $G$. Since it is easier to work with matrices than with elements in $\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$, often, elements in $\mathrm{SL}(2,p)$ will be used instead of their projections into $G$. For the sake of clarity, capital letters will denote elements in $\mathrm{SL}(2,p)$ and lower case letters will denote their projections in $G$.
\vspace{5mm}
Let $a,b,c,w\in G$ and for the canonical projection, $\pi:$ $\mathrm{SL}(2,p)$$\rightarrow G$, let $\pi(A)=a,\pi(B)=b, \pi(C)=c$ and $\pi(W)=w$. We will construct $a,b,c,w$ such that $\{wa,wb,wc\}$ is a length $3$ irredundant generating set of $G$, but the element $w$ will be such that it cannot replace any of these elements to recover a generating sequence. For $r,s,t,u\in\mathbb{F}_p$ let
\begin{align}
A=\begin{pmatrix}r & s\cr s & -r\end{pmatrix}\hspace{5mm}B=\begin{pmatrix}t & u\cr u & -t\end{pmatrix}\hspace{5mm}W=\begin{pmatrix}0 & -1\cr 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align}
Since $A$ and $B$ have determinant $1$, $r^2+s^2=t^2+u^2=-1$. Note that $A,B$ and $W$ are traceless. A standard result~\cite{MS} then says that $A,B$ and $W$ have order $4$ and $a,b$ and $w$ have order $2$. Furthermore, notice that
\begin{align}
WA=\begin{pmatrix}-s & r\cr r & s\end{pmatrix}\hspace{5mm}WB=\begin{pmatrix}-u & t\cr t & u\end{pmatrix}\hspace{5mm}AW=\begin{pmatrix}s & -r\cr -r & -s\end{pmatrix}\hspace{5mm}BW=\begin{pmatrix}u & -t\cr -t & -u\end{pmatrix},
\end{align}
and so $AW=-WA$ and $BW=-WB$. Since $AW,AB$ are still traceless, $aw$ and $bw$ also have order $2$. Therefore, $\langle a,w\rangle = \{a,w,aw,\mathrm{id}\}\cong\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2$ and likewise, $\langle b,w\rangle\cong \mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2$. Now, generically write
\begin{align}
C=\begin{pmatrix}\alpha & \beta\cr \gamma & \delta\end{pmatrix},
\end{align}
where $\alpha\delta-\beta\gamma=1$. Let $\alpha+\delta=0$ so that $c$ has order $2$. Furthermore, $\mathrm{Tr}(WC)=+1$ which means that the order of $wc$ is $3$~\cite{MS}. Note that
\begin{align}
WC=\begin{pmatrix}-\gamma & -\delta\cr \alpha& \beta\end{pmatrix},
\end{align}
and so the condition $\mathrm{Tr}(WC)=+1$ becomes $\beta-\gamma=+1$. Choose $\beta=0$ so that $\gamma=-1$. Furthermore since $\alpha\delta-\beta\gamma=1$, $\beta=0$ implies that $\alpha=\delta^{-1}$ and since the trace of $C$ is zero, $\alpha=-\delta$. Thus, $\alpha^{-1}=-\alpha$, or $\alpha$ has order $4$ in $\mathbb{F}_p$. Does such an element exist? Since $p\equiv 1\mod 8$, $8|(p-1)$, which is the order of the cyclic group $\mathbb{F}_p^*$. Therefore, $\mathbb{F}_p^*$ has an element of order $8$ and so also has an element of order $4$. Fix such an element and call it $i$. Then,
\begin{align}
C=\begin{pmatrix}-i & 0\cr -1 & i\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align}
Note that $w(cw)w^{-1}=wcww=wc$. However, since $(cw)(wc)=1$, $w(cw)w^{-1}=(cw)^{-1}$. Therefore, $\langle c,w\rangle=\langle w,wc\rangle=\langle x,y|x^2=y^3=1,xyx^{-1}=y^{-1}\rangle\cong \mathrm{S}_3$. The next step is to show that $\langle aw,cw\rangle\cong\mathrm{S}_4$. The idea is to use the trace technology laid out in~\cite{DM}. The trace of $WA$ is $0$ and the trace of $WC=+1$. The Main Theorem in~\cite{DM} requires that $WCWA$ has a particular trace. Multiplying these elements gives rise to the following matrix:
\begin{align}
WCWA=\begin{pmatrix}-s-i r&r-i s\cr i s&-i r\end{pmatrix},
\end{align}
so that $\mathrm{tr}(WCWA)=-s-2i r$. The required constraint from the Theorem is that $(s+2ir)^2=2$. If this holds, then $\langle aw,cw\rangle\cong\mathrm{S}_4$ if $\mathrm{tr}\left([WA,WC]\right)=+1$. Simple arithmetic using the forms of $A,C$ and $W$ shows that $\mathrm{tr}\left([WA,WC]\right)=2 s^2+4i s r-3 r^2$. Setting this expression equal to $1$ and using the constraint that $s^2+r^2=-1$ (from the determinant), one finds that $3s^2+4isr-2r^2=0$, which has solution $r=\left(i\pm 1/\sqrt{2}\right)s$. Inserting this back into $s^2+r^2=-1$ yields
\begin{align}
\label{eq:answer}
s^2=-\frac{2}{9}\pm\frac{4}{9}i\sqrt{2}=\left[\frac{1}{3}\left(2i\pm\sqrt{2}\right)\right]^2,
\end{align}
and so the question has simply boiled down to the existence of an element $\zeta\in\mathbb{F}_p$ such that $\zeta^2=2$ (and $p\neq 3$, so $3^{-1}$ makes sense). It is a standard result in elementary number theory (c.f.~\cite{KZ}) that $2$ has a square root if $p\equiv \pm 1\mod 8$ (fix one and call it $\sqrt{2}$). Using the expressions for $r$ and $s$ above, a quick computation shows that $-s-2i r=\sqrt{2}$, as required by the theorem. Therefore, $\langle wa,wc\rangle\cong\mathrm{S}_4$. An analogous discussion shows that if one fixes $s$ as one solution to Eq.~\ref{eq:answer}, then picking the other solution for $u$ and constructing $t$ as was done for $r$ will give $\langle wb,wc\rangle\cong\mathrm{S}_4$ as well.
\vspace{5mm}
The strategy to demonstrate that $w$ cannot replace $wa,wb$ or $wc$ will be to show that $w$ is in the subgroups generated by (maximal subgroups containing) $\langle wa,wc\rangle$, $\langle wb,wc\rangle$ and $\langle wa,wb\rangle$. The first step in this process is to prove that $\langle wa,wc\rangle=\langle a,c,w\rangle$. Note that $WAWC=-AWWC=AC$, and since $(ac)(ca)=1$, $ac,ca\in \langle wa,wc\rangle$. Furthermore, since $(wc)(cw)=(aw)(wa)=1$, $cw,wc,aw,wa\in \langle wa,wc\rangle$. Now, take any element $x\in\langle a,c,w\rangle$. By construction, such an element can be written as a string in the alphabet $a,c,w,a^{-1}=a,c^{-1}=c,w^{-1}=w$ (no need to worry about uniqueness). Suppose that $x$ can be written with an even number of letters in the string. Then, this element is in $\langle wa,wc\rangle$ because every possible pairing of letters from the above alphabet is in $\langle wa,wc\rangle$.
Instead of an even number of letters, suppose that $x$ can be written as a string with an odd number of letters from the alphabet. Then, one can form $x$ from a string in $\langle wa,wc\rangle$ by adding one of $a,b,w$. This is clear because if there are $n$ letters that make up $x$, then $n-1$ will be an even number and so the substring of the first $n-1$ letters will be in $\langle wa,wc\rangle$ by the preceding argument. Thus, every element in $\langle a,c,w\rangle$ can be formed from an element in $\langle wa,wc\rangle$ by adding one of $a,c,w$ or $\mathrm{id}$. This means that $|\langle a,c,w\rangle|\leq 4|\langle wa,wc\rangle|$.
However, from above, $\langle wa,wc\rangle\cong \mathrm{S}_4$ so $|\langle a,c,w\rangle|\leq 96$. Furthermore, by Dickson's Theorem, $\mathrm{S}_4$ is maximal in $G$ and so no proper subgroup can contain $\langle wa,wc\rangle$. Therefore, either $\langle a,c,w\rangle=\langle wa,wc\rangle$ or $\langle a,c,w\rangle=G$. Since $p\equiv 1\mod 8$, $p\geq 17$ so $|G|\geq 2448>96$ and thus $\langle a,c,w\rangle=\langle wa,wc\rangle$. By an analogous argument, $\langle b,c,w\rangle=\langle wb,wc\rangle$. The last consideration is to study $\langle wa,wb\rangle$. This group is generated by two elements of order $2$ and so must be dihedral. To see how large it is, one needs to know the order of $wawb=awwb=ab$. This amounts to computing the trace of $AB$, which is
\begin{align}
\mathrm{tr}(AB)=2(rt+su)=-8i/3.
\end{align}
This is certainly not zero and a quick arithmetic computation shows that it is also not $\pm 1$ or $\pm\sqrt{2}$. Therefore, from a characterization of element orders based on traces, the order of $ab$ is more than $4$ and so $ab\not\in\mathrm{S}_4$. It is also clear that $\langle wa,wb\rangle\neq G$ because $G$ is not dihedral. The final step before concluding is to show that $\langle a,b,w\rangle$ is a proper subgroup of $G$. This procedure is similar to the one above by considering the index of $\langle wa,wb\rangle$ in $\langle a,b,w\rangle$. Since $wawb=ab\in \langle wa,wb\rangle$, as before, every possible pair of letters in $\langle a,b,w\rangle$ is in $\langle wa,wb\rangle$ and therefore, one arrives at the same bound as earlier $|\langle a,b,w\rangle|\leq 4|\langle wa,wb\rangle|$.
Recall that $\langle wa,wb\rangle$ is dihedral. From Dickson's Theorem, the largest dihedral subgroup of $G$ has order $p+1$. Therefore
\begin{align}
|\langle a,b,w\rangle|\leq 4|\langle wa,wb\rangle|\leq 4(p+1)<p(p+1)(p-1)/2.
\end{align}
Since for $p\geq 17$, $p(p-1)/2=136$. Let $\langle wa,wb\rangle\leq M<G$ be maximal. Since $\langle a,b,w\rangle$ is proper and contains $\langle wa,wb\rangle$, $w\in M$.
\vspace{5mm}
Now, all the machinery is in place to conclude. The set $\{wa,wb,wc\}$ will generate $G$ because $wb\not\in \langle wa,wc\rangle$ and $\langle wa,wc\rangle$ is maximal, so the subgroup generated by all three elements, which contains a maximal subgroup, must be all of $G$. Furthermore, it is clear that $w$ cannot replace any of $wa,wb,wc$ because $w$ is in the maximal subgroup containing each pair. Explicitly, the set $\{w,wb,wc\}$ cannot generate $G$ because $w\in \langle wb,wc\rangle\cong\mathrm{S}_4$. The same holds for replacing $wb$. Finally, $w$ cannot replace $wc$ because the maximal subgroup which contains $\langle wa,wb\rangle$ also contains $w$ and so $\langle w,wa,wb\rangle\leq M<G$. Therefore $G$ fails the replacement property if $m(G)=3$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
If $p\not\equiv\pm 1\mod 10$ and $p\neq 7$ but $p\equiv+ 1\mod 8$, then $G$ fails the replacement property.
\end{cor}
\begin{question}
What are all the cases for which $G$ satisfies the replacement property when $m(G)=3$?
\end{question}
\section{Elements of Irredundant Generating Sequences, $\iota_n(G)$}
Define $\iota_n(G)$ to be the set of orders of elements which appear in length $n$ generating sequences. Clearly, for $n>m(G)$, $\iota_n(G)$ is the empty set. For $G=\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$, $\iota_1(G)$ is also the empty set as $G$ is not cyclic. R. Guralnick~\cite{RG} proved a powerful theorem for length 2 generating sets of simple groups\footnote{This proof invokes the classification of finite simple groups.}:
\begin{thm}[3/2 Generation] Given any $x\in G$, there exists $y\in G$ so that $G=\langle x,y\rangle$. In particular, $r(G)=2$ for $G$ a non-abelian finite simple group.
\end{thm}
Therefore, by the $3/2$ Generation Theorem, $\iota_2(G)=\{d|\text{$d$ divides $|G|$ and $d$ is not $1$}\}$, i.e. every non-identity element is in a length $2$ irredundant generating sequence. Thus, all that remains to be determined is $\iota_3(G)$ and $\iota_4(G)$. For finite vector spaces $\mathbb{F}_p^n$, $p$ prime, it is clear that all elements of a generating sequence of maximal length (basis) have prime order. For non-abelian simple groups, this is not necessarily true. We can see this as a result of the following proposition:
\begin{prop}
For $G=$$\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$, there is always a length $3$ irredundant generating sequence were all three elements have order $(p-1)/2$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\pi: \mathrm{SL}(2,p)\rightarrow G$ be the canonical projection. Let $a,b,c$ be elements of $G$ and $A,B,C$ be lifts to matrices in $\mathrm{SL}(2,p)$. Define:
\begin{align}
A=\begin{pmatrix}x&0\cr 0&\frac{1}{x}\end{pmatrix}\hspace{5mm}B=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{1}{x}&0\cr x&x\end{pmatrix}\hspace{5mm}C=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{1}{x}&y\cr 0&x\end{pmatrix},
\end{align}
where $x\in \mathbb{F}_p^*$ and $y=-x+2/x-1/x^3$. Note that $A,B$ and $C$ have order $p-1$ and so $a,b$ and $c$ have order $(p-1)/2$. We claim that $a,b,c$ is the sequence we seek. First, we note that
\begin{align}
AB=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\cr 1&1\end{pmatrix}\hspace{5mm}AC=\begin{pmatrix}1&xy\cr 0&1\end{pmatrix}\hspace{5mm}BC=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{1}{x^2}&\frac{y}{x}\cr 1&xy+x^2\end{pmatrix},
\end{align}
which all have trace $2$ and thus have order $p$. It is clear that $A$ is not in $\langle B\rangle \cup\langle C\rangle$, $B$ is not in $\langle A\rangle \cup\langle C\rangle$ and $C$ is not in $\langle A\rangle \cup\langle B\rangle$, since $A$ is diagonal, $B$ is upper triangular and $C$ is lower triangular. Furthermore, it is clear that $\langle a,b\rangle$, $\langle a,c\rangle$ are not all of $G$ because there will always be a zero in the upper right (lower left) position. Since each of these groups contain an element of order $p$ and one of order $(p-1)/2$, they are contained in an $H_i$ and thus must exactly generate the $H_i$. All that remains to show is that $\langle b,c\rangle$ is not all of $G$. To do this, we will observe that $\langle bc\rangle\unlhd\langle b,c\rangle$. This will give us the desired result, since $G$ is simple and so has no normal subgroups (and $bc$ has order $p$, so is a proper nontrivial subgroup). First, a simple computation shows that
\begin{align}
(BC)^n=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{n-(n-1)x^2}{x^2}&\frac{-n(-2x^2+1+x^4)}{x^4}\cr n&\frac{-n+(n+1)x^2}{x^2}\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align}
In order to show that $BC$ is normal, we need to show that conjugating by $B,B^{-1},C,C^{-1}$ takes $BC$ to another power of $BC$. Given $(BC)^n$ as above, $(BC)^{x^2}=CB$, which means that $CB=C(BC)C^{-1}\in \langle BC\rangle$ and similarly $CB=B^{-1}(BC)B\in \langle BC\rangle$. Finally, note that
\begin{align}
(BC)^{x^{-2}}=B(CB)B^{-1}=C^{-1}(BC)C.
\end{align}
Therefore, $\langle BC\rangle$ is normal in $\langle B,C\rangle$ since any power of $BC$ conjugates to another power of $BC$ by the generators of $\langle B,C\rangle$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
The elements of length $m(G)$ irredundant generating sequences of $G$ need not have prime order if $G$ is not solvable.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
For $G=\mathrm{PSL(2,13)}$, $m(G)=3$. By Proposition 22, there exists a length 3 irredundant generating sequence such that all the elements have order $6$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:p-1}
Every divisor of $(p-1)/2$ is in $\iota_3(G)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let $g_1,g_2,g_3$ be a length three irredundant generating set as in the proposition. Take any $x\in\langle g_1\rangle$ (i.e. an element whose order divides the order of $g_1$, which is $(p-1)/2$). Since the intersection of all the subgroups $\langle g_i,g_j\rangle$ is trivial, this sequence satisfies the replacement property by Prop.~\ref{important}. Therefore, $x$ can replace one of the $g_i$ to arrive at a new generating sequence. Clearly, it can only replace $g_1$. This new generating set $x,g_2,g_3$ is still irredundant because the set of maximal subgroups in general position associated to the set is the same as it was for the original set of the $g_i$.
\end{proof}
Now, we consider the elements with order dividing $p+1$ or equal to $p$. To proceed, we will need the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}
\label{unique}
Let $x\in G=\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$, $p>5$. If $x$ has order $p$ or order $>5$ dividing $p+1$, then there is a unique maximal subgroup of $G$ containing $x$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, we note that a dihedral group $D$ of order $2n=p+1$ has a unique cyclic subgroup of order $q$ for every $q>2$ which divides $n$. This subgroup will be contained in the index two characteristic cyclic subgroup of $D$. Therefore, the cyclic subgroup $Q$ of order $q$ is normal in $D$. Since $G$ is simple, $N_G(Q)\neq G$. Suppose that $Q$ is contained in some maximal subgroup $M\geq N_G(Q)$. Note that $N_D(Q)=D$ since $Q$ is normal in $D$. Therefore, $D\leq N_G(D)$, but $D$ is maximal in $G$, so $N_G(D)=D$, i.e. $M=D$; there is a unique maximal subgroup of $G$ which contains $Q$, namely $N_G(Q)$.\\
\\
Now, suppose that $x$ has order $p$. Since $p>5$, the only maximal subgroup which can contain $\langle x\rangle$ is one isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_{(p-1)/2}$. However, $\langle x\rangle$ is normal in such a subgroup. Therefore, the same argument as above applies; there is a unique maximal subgroup which contains $\langle x\rangle$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:p+1}
If $x\in\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$ has order $>5$ that divides $p+1$ or has order $p$, then $x$ is not in a length $3$ irredundant generating sequence.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $\langle g_1,g_2,g_3\rangle$ is an irredundant generating sequence of length $3$ and suppose that $g_1$ has order which divides $p+1$ or has order $p$. Then, there is a unique maximal subgroup which contains $g_1$. Let $M_1,M_2,M_3$ be the associated set of maximal subgroups in general position. Since there is a unique maximal subgroup which contains $g_1$, $M_2=M_3$, which contradicts the fact that they are in general position. Thus, the sequence of the $g_i$ cannot be irredundant.
\end{proof}
Note that because of the factor of $2$ in Cor.~\ref{cor:p-1}, we do not necessarily know if $2\in\iota_3(G)$. From our discussion introducing the replacement property, we observed that $G$ always has an irredundant generating sequence of elements all of order $2$ which has length at least $3$. If $m(G)=3$, then we immediately get that $2\in\iota_3(G)$. If $m(G)=4$, then the irredundant generating sequence from the introduction may have length $4$ and then we need additional information to determine if $2\in\iota_3(g)$. We need a lemma for when $m(G)=4$:
\begin{lemma}
Let $m(G)=4$. Then, $2\in\iota_3(G)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From the introduction to the replacement property, we know that there exists an irredundant generating sequence with at least $3$ elements all of which have order $2$. If the length of one such sequence is $3$, then we are done. Instead suppose that we have a length four irredundant generating sequence $g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4\in G$ with $g_i^2=1$. Without loss of generality, by Whiston and Saxl, we know that at least two of the corresponding maximal subgroups in general position will be isomorphic to $\mathrm{S}_4$ or $\mathrm{A}_5$. There are two cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item One of the maximal subgroups is isomorphic to $\mathrm{A}_5$. Without loss of generality, assume that $\langle g_1,g_2,g_3\rangle\cong \mathrm{A}_5$. A calculation with GAP shows that all length three irredundant generating sequences of $\mathrm{A}_5$ composed of elements of order 2 have at least one pair whose product has order 5. Without loss of generality, suppose that the order of $h=g_1g_2$ is $5$. The sequence $h,g_2,g_3,g_4$ is clearly still a generating sequence of $G$. However, by Prop. 10, this sequence cannot be irredundant. By the irredundancy of the original sequence, $(g_2,g_3,g_4)$, $(h,g_2,g_4)$, and $(h,g_2,g_3)$ cannot generate $G$. Therefore, we must have that $h,g_3,g_4$ generates $G$. Since $(g_3,g_4)$ and $(h,g_3)$ do not generate $G$, all we need to check in order to prove irredundancy of $h,g_3,g_4$ is that $h$ and $g_4$ do not generate $G$. If $\langle h,g_4\rangle = G$, then $g_3\in \langle h,g_4\rangle\leq \langle g_1,g_2,g_4\rangle$, which contradicts the irredundancy of the original sequence.
\item None of the maximal subgroups are isomorphic to $\mathrm{A}_5$. Assume that $\langle g_1,g_2,g_3\rangle\cong \mathrm{S}_4$. A GAP calculation shows that for all length three irredundant generating sequences composed of elements of order 2, either there is a pair whose product has order 4 or there is a pair whose product has order 3. In either case, the same logic from the $\mathrm{A}_5$ case applies via Cor. 11 which works even though we have made no assumption about $p$ since there is no $\mathrm{A}_5$ and thus the case is equivalent to $p\not\equiv\pm 1\mod 10$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
The results about $2\in\iota_3(G)$ mean that Cor.~\ref{cor:p-1} extends to every divisor of $p-1$. Now, we are ready to summarize what we know about $\iota_n(G)$ using the above results and the properties from Dickson's Theorem:
\begin{thm}
Let $G=\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$. Then, for $n>4$, $\iota_1(G)=\iota_n(G)=\emptyset$. In addition, $\iota_2(G)=\{d|\text{$d$ divides $|G|$ and $d$ is not $1$}\}$. Furthermore, $\{d|\text{$d$ divides $p-1$}\}=\iota_3(G)$ and $\iota_4=\emptyset$ with the following exceptions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $p\equiv -1\mod 10$. Then, $5$ may also be in $\iota_3(G)$ and $\iota_4(G)\subseteq\{2,3\}$.
\item $p\equiv -1\mod 8$. Then, $4$ may be in $\iota_3(G)$. If $p=7$ then $\iota_4(G)=\{2\}$.
\item $p\equiv -1\mod 3$ and $\left( p\equiv 3,13,27,37\mod 40,p\equiv\pm 1\mod 8\text{ or }p\equiv\pm 1\mod 10\right)$. Then, $3$ may also be in $\iota_3(G)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{question}
What are $\iota_3(G)\cap\{3,4,5\}$ and $\iota_4(G)$ in general?
\end{question}
Answering this may require discovering new methods. For example, the proof may be achievable with a variation on Hall's 1936 paper~\cite{Hall} which gives the lattice of subgroups, Moebius function, and a formula for $\phi_n(G)$. Without additional information, the following conjecture about $\iota_4(G)$ might be true:
\begin{conjecture}
For $G=\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$, $\iota_4(G)=\emptyset$ unless $p=7,11,19,$ or $31$. In these exceptional cases, $\iota_4(G)=\{2\}$ unless $p=11$ in which case $\iota_4(G)=\{2,3\}$.
\end{conjecture}
The fact that $m(G)=4$ only in these four exceptional cases was verified computationally for primes up to 300~\cite{NachmanThesis} and in the exceptional cases, some important properties of the length four irredundant generating sequences have been computed and are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Determining $m(G)$ for the final case of $p\equiv -1\mod 10$ will be very interesting as it either confirms or denies the surprising finite list of cases for length four irredundant generating sequences in $\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$.
\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c| }
\hline
& $p=7$ & $p=11$ \\
\hline
Length $4$ irredundant generating sets & 252&11935 \\
Conjugacy classes of sets& 2&22\\
Automorphism classes of sets& 2&14\\
Possible Orders of Elements &2&2,3\\
Families of Maximal Subgroups &\{$\mathrm{S}_4,\mathrm{S}_4,\mathrm{S}_4,\mathrm{S}_4\}$&$\{\mathrm{A}_5,\mathrm{A}_5,\mathrm{A}_5,\mathrm{A}_{5}\}$\\
&&$\{\mathrm{A}_5,\mathrm{A}_5,\mathrm{A}_5,\mathrm{D}_{12}\}$\\
&&$\{\mathrm{A}_5,\mathrm{A}_5,\mathrm{D}_{12},\mathrm{D}_{12}\}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{tab:res11}
\caption{Properties of length four irredundant generating sequences of $\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$ for $p=7$ and $p=11$.}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|}
\hline
& $p=19$ & $p=31$ \\
\hline
Length $4$ irredundant generating sets &7695&14880 \\
Conjugacy classes of sets& 4&1 \\
Automorphism classes of sets& 3&1 \\
Possible Orders of Elements &2&2\\
Families of Maximal Subgroups &$\{\mathrm{A}_5,\mathrm{A}_5,\mathrm{A}_5,\mathrm{A}_{5}\}$&$\{\mathrm{S}_4,\mathrm{S}_4,\mathrm{A}_5,\mathrm{A}_5\}$\\
&$\{\mathrm{A}_5,\mathrm{A}_5,\mathrm{A}_5,\mathrm{D}_{20}\}$&\\
&$\{\mathrm{A}_5,\mathrm{A}_5,\mathrm{D}_{20},\mathrm{D}_{20}\}$&\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Properties of length four irredundant generating sequences of $\mathrm{PSL}(2,p)$ for $p=19$ and $p=31$.}
\label{tab:res22}
\end{table}
\section{Acknowledgements}
This work would not have been possible without countless discussions with R. K. Dennis. In particular, Lemmas~\ref{funnysubgroup},~\ref{unique}, and Cor.~\ref{cor:p+1} were directly discovered during such discussions and others were byproducts. The author is grateful for R. K. Dennis' encouragement and academic support.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
|
\section{Introduction}
The main subject of the research presented here is the generalization of topological invariants and index theorem of \cite{VZ2012} to the case when the fermion Green function may contain zeros and nonanalytical exceptional points (see also \cite{Z2012}). We expect that models with such unusual properties may be relevant for the description of the new TeV scale physics expected to appear at the LHC. A unified field theory that works somewhere above TeV, may have the Green functions with zeros, our world may live at the position of the phase transition within a model of this kind. The massless fermions and the generalized unparticles appear at the position of this transition. Their numbers are related to the jumps of the topological invariants across the transition.
In the vicinity of non - analytical
exceptional point the excitations appear that
do not look like ordinary particles. We call them generalized unparticles.
This notion is more wide than
the notion of usual fermionic unparticles. Namely, the generalized unparticle
has the propagator with non - analyticity of general form while in
\cite{fermion_unparticle, fermion_unparticle2} the particular forms of the
propagator were derived in accordance with the given scaling dimension $d_U$.
For the general consideration of momentum space topology see also
\cite{NielsenNinomiya1981,So1985,IshikawaMatsuyama1986,Horava2005,Creutz2008,Kaplan2011,Kaplan1992,Golterman1993,Volovik2003}
and \cite{Volovik2011,HasanKane2010,Xiao-LiangQi2011,Wen2012}.
Below momentum space topology of the fermionic system with zeros of the Green
function and generalized unparticles is illustrated by the example of the
lattice model with overlap fermions \cite{Creutz2011,Overlap,Shrock}.
There are critical values of mass parameter
$m_0 = 2$, $4$, $6$ and $8$, at which for $m \ne 0$ the topological quantum
phase transitions occur between the insulators with different values of
$\tilde{\cal N}_4$ and $\tilde{\cal N}_5$ (more on topological phase
transitions, at which the topological charge of the vacuum changes while the
symmetry does not, see \cite{Volovik2007}). At these values of $m_0$ the vacuum
states contain the generalized unparticles. At the same time both in these
intermediate states and in the insulator states the zeros of the Green function
are present in momentum space. The total number of topologically
protected unparticles at the transition point is $n^u_F=\Delta \tilde{\cal N}_4
$.
For the values of $m_0 \ne 0,2,4,6,8$ at the phase transition between the
states with different signs of $m$ there are no unparticles but massless
fermion excitations appear. The number of topologically protected massless
fermions $n_f^0$ is related to the jump of $\tilde{\cal N}_5$: $n_f^0 = \Delta
\tilde{\cal N}_5/2$.
\section{Green functions without zeros and poles}
As well as in \cite{VZ2012} we consider the fermion systems with
the Green function in Euclidean momentum space of the form
\begin{equation}
{\cal G} = \frac{Z[p^2]}{g^i[p] \gamma^i -
im[p]}, \quad i = 1,2,3,4 \label{G_}
\end{equation}
Here $Z(p^2)$ is the wave function renormalization function, while $m(p^2)$ is
the effective mass term, $g_a[p]$ are real functions. $Z$, $g$, and $m$ may be
though of as the diagonal matrices if several flavors of Dirac fermions are
present.
Let us consider the Euclidean Green's function on the 4D lattice ${\cal G}$ as
the inverse Hamiltonian in 4D momentum space and introduce the 5D Green's
function:
\begin{equation}
\label{Green5}
G^{-1}(p_5,p_4,{\bf p})= p_5 \gamma^5 + {\cal G}^{-1}(p_4,{\bf p}) = (i p_5 + {\cal Q}^{-1}(p_4,{\bf
p}))(-i \gamma^5)
\,.
\end{equation}
Then one can introduce the topological invariant as the 5-form (see also
\cite{Kaplan2011,Kaplan1992,Golterman1993,Volovik2003,SilaevVolovik2010,ZhongWang2010}):
\begin{definition}
\begin{equation}
\label{N_5} {\cal N}_5 = \frac{1}{2 \pi^3 5! i} {\rm Tr}\, \int G d G^{-1}
\wedge G d G^{-1}\wedge G d G^{-1} \wedge G d G^{-1}\wedge G d G^{-1} \,,
\end{equation}
where the integration is over the Brillouin zone in 4D momentum space
$(p_4,{\bf p})$ and over the whole $p_5$ axis.
\end{definition}
The properties of this invariant are summarized in the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}
Eq. (\ref{N_5}) defines the topological invariant for the gapped $4D$ system
with momentum space $\cal M$ if the following equation holds:
\begin{equation}
\int_{\partial [{\cal M}\otimes R]} \, {\bf tr} \left( [\delta {\cal G}^{-1}]
{ G} \,
d { G}^{-1}\wedge
d { G}\wedge d { G}^{-1}\wedge
d { G}\right)=0,\quad p_5^2 \rightarrow \infty \label{dN5}
\end{equation}
This requirement is satisfied, in particular, for the system with compact closed
$\cal M$.
For the system with the Green function of the form (\ref{G_}) expression for
the topological invariant is reduced to
\begin{equation}
\label{N_51} \tilde{\cal N}_5 = \frac{3}{4 \pi^2 4!} \epsilon_{abcde}\, \int
\hat{g}^a\, d \hat{g}^b \wedge d \hat{g}^c \wedge d \hat{g}^d \wedge d
\hat{g}^e,\quad \hat{g}^a = \frac{g^a}{\sqrt{g^cg^c}}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
(This lemma corresponds to the Theorem from Sect. 4.3 of \cite{VZ2012}.)
In addition to the invariant $\tilde{\cal N}_5$ let us also consider a
different construction that coincides with $\tilde{\cal N}_5$ for the case of
free fermions
\begin{definition}
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\cal N}_4 &=& \frac{1}{48 \pi^2} {\rm Tr}\, \gamma^5 \int_{\cal M}
d{\cal G}^{-1}\wedge d {\cal G} \wedge d {\cal G}^{-1} \wedge d {\cal G}
\label{N40}
\end{eqnarray}
Here the integration is over the whole $4D$ space $\cal M$.
\end{definition}
The expression in
this integral is the full derivative. That's why the given invariant can be
reduced to the integral over the $3D$ hypersurface $\partial {\cal M}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\cal N}_4 & = & \frac{1}{48 \pi^2} {\rm Tr}\, \gamma^5 \int_{\partial
{\cal M}} {\cal G}^{-1} d {\cal G} \wedge d {\cal G}^{-1} \wedge d {\cal
G}\label{N40_}
\end{eqnarray}
The
last equation is identical to that of for the invariant ${\cal N}_3$ for
massless fermions. Therefore, Eq. (\ref{N40}) defines the topological invariant
if the Green function anticommutes with $\gamma^5$ on the boundary of momentum
space. In particular, for the noninteracting fermions
$\tilde{\cal N}_4 = {\rm Sp}\, {\bf 1}$ (the number of Dirac
fermions).
The following lemma allows to calculate invariant $\tilde{\cal N}_4$ in general
case:
\begin{lemma}
\label{calcN4} For the Green function of the form (\ref{G_}) with
$\frac{m[p]}{\sqrt{g_a g_a+m^2}} = 0\, (a = 1,2,3,4)$ on $\partial{\cal M}$ we
have:
\begin{equation}
\label{N_41} \tilde{\cal N}_4 = \frac{1}{2 \pi^2 3!} \epsilon_{abcd}\,
\int_{\partial{\cal M}} \hat{g}^a\, d \hat{g}^b \wedge d \hat{g}^c \wedge d
\hat{g}^d,\quad \hat{g}^a = \frac{g^a}{\sqrt{g^cg^c}}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
(This Lemma follows when one substitutes Eq. (\ref{G_}) to Eq. (\ref{N40_}).)
\label{N5calc}
Let us introduce the following parametrization
\begin{equation}
\hat{g}_5 = {\rm cos} 2 \alpha, \quad \hat{g}_a = k_a {\rm sin} 2 \alpha
\end{equation}
Vector $k$ may be undefined at the points of momentum space ${\cal M}$, where
$\hat{g}^a = 0, a = 1,2,3,4$. In nondegenerate case this occurs on points $y_i,
i = 1, ...$. Further we call these points the pseudo - poles of the Green
function.
\begin{definition}
The point $y_i$ in momentum space, where $g^a = 0,\, a = 1,2,3,4$ and,
therefore, ${\cal G}^{-1}[p] = m[p]$, is called pseudo - pole of the Green
function.
\end{definition}
Actually, in the majority of cases at these points massive fermion excitations
appear. This is because in these cases (free continuum fermions, lattice Wilson
fermions, overlap fermions, etc) for infinitely small $m[y_i]$ needed to
approach continuum limit, the Green function behaves as
\begin{equation}
{\cal G} \sim \frac{1}{\lambda \,\sum_a (-1)^{n_a} q_a \gamma^a - i m},
\end{equation}
where $q_a = p_a - y_i$, $\lambda$ is a real constant, $n_a$ are integer
constants. Therefore, in Minkowsky space the usual dispersion relation is
recovered: $E = \sqrt{q^2 + m^2/\lambda^2}$. We formulate this as the following
lemma:
\begin{lemma}
If $g^a \sim \lambda \sum_a (-1)^{n_a} (p^a - y^a)$ while $m\ne 0$ in the small
vicinity of $y \in {\cal M}$, then at this point massive fermion excitation
appears.
\end{lemma}
Let us denote a small vicinity of the pseudo - pole $y_i$ by $\Omega(y_i)$.
According to \cite{VZ2012} we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\cal N}_5 &=& \frac{1}{ \pi^2 4!} \epsilon_{abcd}\, \int_{\sum_{i =
0,1,...}\partial \Omega(y_i)-\partial {\cal M}} (3 \hat{g}_5 - \hat{g}_5^3 )
k^a\, d k^b \wedge d k^c \wedge d k^d \label{N5p}
\end{eqnarray}
Let us define the $3D$ analogue of the residue.
\begin{definition}
We denote by ${\bf Res}(p)$ the degree of mapping $\{\hat{g}^a: S^3 \rightarrow
S^3\}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Res}(p) &=& \frac{1}{ 2 \pi^2 3!} \epsilon_{abcd}\, \int_{\partial
\Omega(p)} \hat{g}^a\, d \hat{g}^b \wedge d \hat{g}^c \wedge d
\hat{g}^d,\nonumber\\ && p \in \Omega, \quad |\Omega| \rightarrow 0
\label{CI}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{definition}
Let us also denote
\begin{equation}
{\bf s}(p) = {\rm sign}\, m[p]
\end{equation}
The lemma follows:
\begin{lemma}
\label{calcN5} Consider the system with the Green function of the form
(\ref{G_}), with $\frac{m[p]}{\sqrt{g_a g_a+m^2}} = 0\, (a = 1,2,3,4)$ on the
boundary of momentum space. Let us denote by $y_i$ the points in momentum
space, where $g^a = 0, \, a = 1,2,3,4$. Then the topological invariant
$\tilde{\cal N}_5$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\cal N}_5 &=& \sum_{i = 0,1,...} {\bf s}(y_i) {\bf Res}(y_i)
\label{N5f}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
(This is Eq. (31) of \cite{VZ2012}.)
For the details of the proofs of the lemmas presented in this section see \cite{VZ2012}.
\section{Green functions with zeros and poles } \label{SectIndTheor}
Here we generalize the definition of the topological invariants to the case, when the Green function may have
zeros or poles. Construction of invariants $\tilde{\cal N}_4$ and $\tilde{\cal N}_5$ in
this case requires some care. The correct definition implies that
first we consider momentum space without some vicinities $\Omega (z_i), \Omega (p_i)$ of the points $z_i$, where
$\cal G$ has zeros and points $p_i$, where there are poles of the Green function.
Then all statements of the previous section (proved in \cite{VZ2012}) are valid if we consider the Green function in Momentum space without $\Omega (z_i), \Omega (p_i)$. That's why, say, in Eq. (\ref{N5p}) and Eq. (\ref{N_41}) of the previous section we must add $-\sum_i\partial \Omega (z_i) -\sum_j\partial \Omega (p_j)$ to $\partial {\cal M}$.
Next, the limit is considered when the sizes of these
vicinities tend to zero $|\Omega(p_i)|,|\Omega(z_i)| \rightarrow 0$. In order for such a limit to exist the model must
obey some requirements.
\begin{remark}
In this paper we consider only the cases, when exceptional points of the Green
function are indeed point - like. We do not consider the situation when
exceptional lines or surfaces of the Green function are present. (The case of
the exceptional surface may correspond, in particular, to the Fermi surface.)
\end{remark}
For example, if the Green function has the form Eq. (\ref{G_}) and $\hat{g}_5 = \frac{m}{\sqrt{g_a g_a+m^2}} = 0\, (a =
1,2,3,4)$ at $z_i,p_i$, then the boundaries $\partial \Omega(p_i), \partial \Omega(z_i)$ do not
contribute to the sum in (\ref{N5p}) at $|\Omega(p_i)|, |\Omega(z_i)| \rightarrow 0$. This
means that the mentioned above limit exists for $\tilde{\cal N}_5$. At the same time under the same
conditions $\tilde{\cal N}_4$ is the topological invariant at $|\Omega(p_i)|,|\Omega(z_i)| \rightarrow 0$ and
the points $p_i, z_i$ contribute the sum in Eq. (\ref{N_41}).
In order to make formulas more simple let us also introduce the $3D$ residue at
"infinity":
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Res}(\infty) &=& -\frac{1}{ 2 \pi^2 3!} \epsilon_{abcd}\, \int_{\partial
{\cal M}} \hat{g}^a\, d \hat{g}^b \wedge d \hat{g}^c \wedge d \hat{g}^d
\end{eqnarray}
Taking into account Lemma \ref{calcN5} and Lemma \ref{calcN4}, we come to the following
\begin{theorem}
\label{N54theorem} Suppose the Green function has the form (\ref{G_}) and at
its poles and zeros as well as on the boundary of momentum space
$\frac{m[p]}{\sqrt{g_a g_a+m^2}} = 0\, (a = 1,2,3,4)$. We denote by $y_i$ the
points, where ${\cal G}^{-1}(y_i) = m(y_i)$ (pseudo - poles of $\cal G$), by
$z_i$ the points, where ${\cal G}(z_i) = 0$, by $p_i$ the points, where ${\cal
G}^{-1}(z_i) = 0$. Then $\tilde{\cal N}_4$ and $\tilde{\cal N}_5$ are well
defined topological invariants. (This means that $\tilde{\cal N}_4$ and $\tilde{\cal N}_5$ are not changed
under the smooth deformation of $\cal G$ that keeps the listed above conditions.) As a result we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\cal N}_5 &=& \sum_{i = 0,1,...} {\bf s}(y_i) {\bf Res}(y_i)
\label{N5f__}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\cal N}_4 &=& - \sum_{i = 0,1,...} {\bf Res}(z_i) - \sum_{i = 0,1,...}
{\bf Res}(p_i) - {\bf Res}(\infty)\label{N4f_}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{theorem}
In addition to zeros and poles in general case momentum space may contain non -
analytical exceptional points $q_i$, where $\cal G$ is not defined but, say,
${\cal G}^{-1}$ may differ from zero.
\begin{definition}
The point $q_i$ in momentum space represents generalized unparticle if in its
small vicinity both $\cal G$ and ${\cal G}^{-1}$ are not analytical as
functions of momenta.
\end{definition}
As usual, poles $p_i$ of $\cal G$ (such points that ${\cal G}^{-1}$ is zero at
$p_i$ but remains analytical in its vicinity) represent massless particles.
\begin{remark} If momentum space contains generalized unparticles, then both $\tilde{\cal N}_5$ and
$\tilde{\cal N}_4$ are not well - defined.
\end{remark}
The pattern of the transition from the state at $\beta> \beta_c$ to the state
at $\beta < \beta_c$ can be described in terms of the flow of exceptional
points of $g^a$. Namely, in general there are zeros $y_i$ of $g^a$, where
${\cal G}^{-1} = m$ (we call them pseudo - poles, some of these points become
poles $p_i = y_i$ of ${\cal G}$ if, in addition, $m[y_i] = 0$). Also there are
zeros $z_i$ of ${\cal G}$, where $g^a \rightarrow \infty$. These points cannot
simply disappear when the system is changed smoothly with no phase transition encountered.
They may annihilate each other if this is allowed by the
momentum space topology. Namely, two zeros $z_i$, $z_j$ may annihilate if ${\bf
Res}(z_i) + {\bf Res}(z_j) = 0$ because in this case they do not contribute the
sum in Eq. (\ref{N4f_}). For the same reason two poles $p_i$, $p_j$ may
annihilate if ${\bf Res}(p_i) + {\bf Res}(p_j) = 0$. Two pseudo - poles $y_i,
y_j$ may annihilate each other if ${\bf s}(y_i){\bf Res}(y_i) + {\bf
s}(y_i){\bf Res}(y_j) = 0$ because in this case they do not contribute the sum
in Eq. (\ref{N5f__}).
Now we are ready to formulate the generalized index theorem:
\begin{theorem}
\label{indextheorem} Suppose that the $4D$ system with the Green function of
the form (\ref{G_}) depends on parameter $\beta$ and there is a phase
transition at $\beta_c$ with changing of $\tilde{\cal N}_4$ and $\tilde{\cal
N}_5$. At $\beta \ne \beta_c$ the system does not contain generalized
unparticles and massless excitations. $\cal G$ as a function of $\beta$ is
smooth everywhere except for the points, where it is not defined (even at the phase transition). Green
function may have zeros $z_i$, and $m[z_i] \ne \infty$. Momentum space $\cal
M$ of the $4D$ model is supposed to be either compact and closed or open. In
the latter case we need that $\cal G$ does not depend on $\beta$ on $\partial
{\cal M}$. Then at $\beta = \beta_c$ the number of topologically protected
generalized unparticles is
\begin{equation}
n^u_f = \Delta \tilde{\cal N}_4 \label{nuz}
\end{equation}
The number of topologically protected massless excitations at $\beta_c$ is
\begin{equation}
n^0_f = \frac{1}{2}\Delta \tilde{\cal N}_5 - \frac{1}{2} \{\sum_{i: z_j
\rightarrow y_i} {\bf s}(y_i) \, {\bf Res}(y_i)|_{\beta > \beta_c} -\sum_{i:
y_i \rightarrow z_j} {\bf s}(y_j) \, {\bf Res}(y_j)|_{\beta < \beta_c}
\}\label{nfz}
\end{equation}
Here the first sum is over the pseudo - poles that are transformed to zeros at
$\beta_c$ while the second sum is over the zeros that become pseudo - poles.
\end{theorem}
The {\bf Proof} is given in \cite{Z2012}.
\begin{remark}
There are two important particular cases:
1. If zeros are not transformed to pseudo - poles and vice versa, then
\begin{equation}
n^0_f = \frac{1}{2}\Delta \tilde{\cal N}_5 \label{nfz0}
\end{equation}
2. If ${\rm sign} (m)$ remains constant on $\cal M$ and as a function of
$\beta$, then $n^0_f = 0$ and
\begin{equation}
n^0_f = \frac{1}{2}\Delta \{ \tilde{\cal N}_5 - {\bf s} \tilde{\cal N}_4\} =
0\label{nfz1}
\end{equation}
From here we obtain $\Delta \tilde{\cal N}_5 = {\rm sign}( m) \, \Delta
\tilde{\cal N}_4$ if ${\rm sign}(m) = const$. In the other words,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta\{ \sum_{i = 0,1,...} {\bf Res}(z_i) + \sum_{i = 0,1,...} {\bf
Res}(y_i)\} & = & 0 \label{C0}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The total observed number of generalized unparticles and massless fermions may
be larger than $n_f^u$ and $n_f^0$. In this case some of these excitations may
annihilate each other without a phase transition.
\end{remark}
In a similar way the following theorem may be proved
\begin{theorem}
\label{indextheorem2} Suppose that the $4D$ system with the Green function of
the form (\ref{G_}) depends on parameter $\beta$ and there is a phase
transition at $\beta_c$ with changing of $\tilde{\cal N}_4$ and $\tilde{\cal
N}_5$. At $\beta \ne \beta_c$ all excitations are massless. $\cal G$ as a
function of $\beta$ is smooth everywhere except for the points, where it is not
defined. Green function may have zeros $z_i$, and $m[z_i] \ne \infty$. Momentum
space $\cal M$ of the $4D$ model is supposed to be either compact and closed or
open. In the latter case we need that $\cal G$ does not depend on $\beta$ on
$\partial {\cal M}$. Then at $\beta = \beta_c$ the number of topologically
protected generalized unparticles is
\begin{equation}
n^u_f = \Delta \tilde{\cal N}_4 \label{nuz}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\section{An example: overlap fermions}
\label{lattice}
In lattice regularization the periodic boundary conditions are used
in space direction and antiperiodic boundary conditions are used in the
imaginary time direction. The momenta to be considered, therefore, also belong
to a lattice:
\begin{equation}
p_a = \frac{2\pi K_a}{N_a}\, \quad p_4 = \frac{2\pi K_4+\pi}{N_t}, \quad
K_a,K_4 \in Z\quad a = 1,2,3
\end{equation}
Here $N_a, N_t$ are the lattice sizes in $x$, $y$, $z$, and imaginary time
directions, correspondingly.
For the free Wilson fermions the Green function has the form \cite{Montvay}:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal G}& = & \Bigl( \sum_a \gamma_a {\rm sin}\, p_a - i (m + \sum_a (1 - {\rm
cos}\, p_a)) \Bigr)^{-1}\nonumber\\ & = & \frac{ \sum_a \gamma_a {\rm sin}\,
p_a + i (m + \sum_a (1 - {\rm cos}\, p_a)) }{\sum_a {\rm sin}^2\, p_a + (m +
\sum_a (1 - {\rm cos}\, p_a))^2}, \quad a = 1,2,3,4
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$m$ & $\tilde{\cal N}_4$ & $\tilde{\cal N}_5$ \\
\hline
$m>0 $ & $0$ & $0$ \\
\hline
$-2 < m < 0$ & $0$ & $-2$ \\
\hline
$-4 < m < -2 $ & $0$ & $6$ \\
\hline
$-6 < m < -4$ & $0$ & $-6$ \\
\hline
$-8 < m < -6 $ & $0$ & $2$ \\
\hline
$ m < -8 $ & $0$ & $0$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\caption{The values of topological invariants $\tilde{\cal N}_4$ and
$\tilde{\cal N}_5$ for free Wilson fermions. } \label{table2}
\end{table}
In Table \ref{table2} the values of $\tilde{\cal N}_5$ for the Wilson fermions
calculated in \cite{VZ2012} are presented. The index theorem states that the
total number $n_F$ of gapless fermions emerging at the critical values of mass
$m$ is determined by the jump in $\tilde{\cal N}_5$:
\begin{equation}
\label{IndexTheorem} n_F=\frac{1}{2}\Delta\tilde{\cal N}_5
\end{equation}
It is worth mentioning that
$\tilde{\cal N}_4 = 0$ for Wilson fermions.
When the interaction of Wilson fermions with the lattice gauge field ${\cal U}
= e^{i {\cal A}}$ defined on links is turned on, we have (in coordinate space):
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\cal G}(x,y) = \frac{i}{Z} \int D{\cal U}\, {\rm exp} \Bigl( - S_G[{\cal
U}] \Bigr) \, {\rm Det} ({\cal D}[{\cal U},m]) {\cal D}_{x,y}^{-1}[{\cal U},m]
\label{Gr}
\end{eqnarray}
where $S_G$ is the gauge field action while
\begin{equation}
{\cal D}_{x,y}[{\cal U},m] = - \frac{1}{2}\sum_i [(1 +
\gamma^i)\delta_{x+{\bf e}_i, y} {\cal U}_{x+{\bf e}_i, y} + (1 -
\gamma^i)\delta_{x-{\bf e}_i, y} {\cal U}_{x-{\bf e}_i, y}] + (m + 4)
\delta_{xy}
\end{equation}
Here ${\bf e}_i$ is the unity vector in the $i$ - th direction. Again, the
Green function in momentum space is expected to have the form \cite{Shrock} of
Eq. (\ref{G_}).
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$m_0 < 0 $ & - & - & - & - & - \\
\hline
$2 > m_0 > 0 $ & $1\otimes m$ & - & - & - & - \\
\hline
$4 > m_0 > 2$ & $1\otimes m$ & $4\otimes [m(1 - \frac{2}{m_0} )]$ & - & - & - \\
\hline
$6 > m_0 > 4$ & $1\otimes m$ & $4\otimes [m(1 - \frac{2}{m_0} )]$ & $6\otimes [m(1 - \frac{4}{m_0} )]$ & - & - \\
\hline
$8 > m_0 > 6$ & $1 \otimes m$ & $4 \otimes [m(1 - \frac{2}{m_0} )]$ & $6\otimes [m(1 - \frac{4}{m_0} )]$ & $4\otimes [m(1 - \frac{6}{m_0} )]$ & - \\
\hline
$m_0 > 8$ & $1\otimes m$ & $4\otimes [m(1 - \frac{2}{m_0} )]$ & $6\otimes [m(1 - \frac{4}{m_0} )]$ & $4\otimes [m(1 - \frac{6}{m_0} )]$ & $1\otimes [m(1 - \frac{8}{m_0} )]$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center} \caption{The spectrum of the system with free overlap fermions. In the first column the values of $m_0$ are specified. In
the other columns masses of the doublers are listed. Expression $x \otimes {v}$ means
$x$ states with the masses equal to $v$. } \label{table5}
\end{table}
Let us consider briefly the properties of overlap fermions.
In this regularization the propagator has the form:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\cal G}(x,y) = \frac{1}{Z} \int D D{\cal U}\, {\rm exp} \Bigl( -
\tilde{S}_G[{\cal U}] \Bigr) \, \{-i{\bf D}[{\cal U}] - i m\}_{x,y}^{-1}
\label{Gr}
\end{eqnarray}
Here the effective action $\tilde{S}_G$ includes also the fermion determinant,
the overlap operator is defined as
\begin{equation}
{\bf D} = \frac{2m_0}{{\cal O}^{-1}-1}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal O}_{x,y}[{\cal U}] & = & \frac{1}{2}\Bigl( 1 + \frac{{\cal D}[{\cal
U},-m_0]}{\sqrt{{\cal D}^+[{\cal U}, - m_0] {\cal D}[{\cal U},-m_0]}}\Bigr)
\end{eqnarray}
Here $m_0$ and $m$ are bare mass parameters \cite{Overlap}. The parameter $m$
represents bare physical mass.
In spite of a rather complicated form of the expression for the overlap
operator it is commonly believed that the Green function in momentum space has
the same form (\ref{G_}) as the Green function for Wilson fermions
\cite{Overlap}. In particular, for the free overlap fermions the Green function
has the form:
\begin{equation}
{\cal G}(p) = \frac{1}{g^i[p] \gamma^i - im}
\end{equation}
with (see Appendix in \cite{Overlap}):
\begin{eqnarray}
g^i[p] & = & 2 m_0 \, {\rm sin}\, p^i \, \frac{A(p) + \sqrt{A(p)^2+\sum_i{\rm
sin}^2 \, p^i}}{\sum_i {\rm sin}^2 \,
p^i}, \nonumber\\
A(p) &=& -m_0 + \sum_i [1 - {\rm cos}\, p^i]
\end{eqnarray}
In Table \ref{table5} we represent the spectrum of the model for different
values of $m_0$. For $0 < m_0 < 2$ one obtains that $\hat{g}^a$ have the only
zero at $p = 0$. However, there are poles of $\hat{g}^a$ at $p_{n_i} = (\pi
n_1, \pi n_2, \pi n_3, \pi n_4), \quad n_i = 0,1, \, \sum n^2 \ne 0$. The
values of $\hat{g}_5$ at these points vanish.
In general case some of the poles of $\hat{g}^a$ may become zeros depending on the value of $m_0$.
For positive $A(p_{n_i})$ we obtain $g^i[p_{n_i}+\delta p] \sim 4 m_0
\,A(p_{n_i}) (-1)^{n_i} \, \frac{\delta p^i}{|\delta p|^2} $, where $|\delta
p|^2 = \sum_i [\delta p^i]^2 $ and
\begin{equation}
{\cal G}(p_{n_i}+\delta p) \sim \frac{\frac{1}{4 m_0 \,A(p_{n_i})} |\delta
p|^2}{\sum_i (-1)^{n_i} \, \delta p^i \, \gamma^i - i \frac{m}{4 m_0
\,A(p_{n_i})} |\delta p|^2}\sim \frac{1}{4 m_0 \,A(p_{n_i})} \sum_i (-1)^{n_i}
\, \delta p^i \, \gamma^i \label{A+}
\end{equation}
We have zeros of the Green function at these points.
For negative $A(p_{n_i})$ we obtain $g^i[p_{n_i}+\delta p] \sim
\frac{m_0}{|A(p_{n_i})|} (-1)^{n_i} \, \delta p^i$ and
\begin{equation}
{\cal G}(p_{n_i}+\delta p) \sim \frac{\frac{|A(p_{n_i})|}{ m_0 }}{\sum_i
(-1)^{n_i} \, \delta p^i \, \gamma^i - i m \frac{|A(p_{n_i})|}{ m_0
}}\label{A-}
\end{equation}
The values $A(p_{n_i}) = -m_0 + 2 \sum_i n_i$ at these points are related to
the values of the masses of the doublers: ${\bf m}_{n_i} = m ( 1 -
\frac{2}{m_0} \sum_i n_i ) $.
The special situation appears if $A(p_{n_i}) = 0$ (this occurs for the
intermediate values $m_0 = 2,4,6,8$):
\begin{equation}
{\cal G}(p_{n_i}+\delta p) \sim \frac{\frac{1}{ 2m_0 }}{\sum_i (-1)^{n_i} \,
\frac{\delta p^i}{|\delta p|} \, \gamma^i - i \frac{m}{2 m_0 }},\quad |\delta
p| = \sqrt{\sum_i [\delta p^i]^2}\label{A0}
\end{equation}
In this case the Green function is not defined at $p_{n_i}$ and the
unparticles appear with the propagator equal (up to the normalization constant)
to that of presented in \cite{fermion_unparticle} (follows from Eq. (8) of
\cite{fermion_unparticle} with $\alpha = \beta = 0, \zeta \ne 0, d_U = 2$). At
$m = 0$ we arrive at the propagator given in Eq. (10) of
\cite{fermion_unparticle} with $\alpha = 0, d_U =2$.
It is worth mentioning that for the overlap fermions unlike the Wilson fermions
there are zeros of the Green function at some points in momentum space (see Eq.
(\ref{A+})). Moreover, at the intermediate values of $m_0$ the Green function
is undefined at some points (see Eq. (\ref{A0} ) ). As a result, we need to
consider momentum space without small vicinities of both mentioned types of the
points in order to calculate $\tilde{\cal N}_5$ and $\tilde{\cal N}_4$.
Momentum space, therefore, becomes open. At $m_0 \ne 0,2,4,6,8$ we have at the
points, where $\cal G$ has zeros $\hat{g}_5 = 0$ due to Eq. (\ref{A+}).
Therefore, the conditions of Theorem \ref{N54theorem} are satisfied. For the
intermediate values of $m_0$ this theorem cannot be applied.
The values of $\tilde{\cal N}_4$ and $\tilde{\cal N}_5$ for overlap fermions
versus parameter $m_0$ are represented in Table \ref{table4}. Let us remind
that unlike the free Wilson fermions at intermediate values of the mass
parameter $m_0 = 0, 2, 4, 6 ,8$ there exist exceptional points in momentum
space such that the Green function is undefined at these points. Due to this
the invariants $\tilde{\cal N}_4$ and $\tilde{\cal N}_5$ are not well defined
in the intermediate states.
When the interaction with the gauge fields is turned on, it is necessary to
check that $\tilde{\cal N}_4$ and $\tilde{\cal N}_5$ remain topological
invariants. Our check shows that both expressions remain the topological invariants.
In the intermediate states at $m_0 = 2,4,6,8, m\ne 0$ there are no true
massless states. Using data of Table \ref{table4} one finds that this is in
accordance with Eq. (\ref{nfz1}) of the index theorem.
However, there are the generalized unparticles with the Green
function given by Eq. (\ref{A0}) (see the definition in Section
\ref{SectIndTheor}). The number of generalized unparticles is related to the
jump in $\tilde{\cal N}_4$:
\begin{equation}
n_f^u = \Delta \tilde{\cal N}_4
\end{equation}
This relation can easily be checked and is also in accordance with theorem
\ref{indextheorem}.
In the intermediate state with $m = 0, m_0 \ne 0,2,4,5,8$ the generalized
unparticles are absent. Zeros of $\cal G$ remain zeros across the transition.
However, there are massless fermions. Their number is: $0$ for $m_0 < 0$, $1$
for $2 > m_0 > 0$, $5$ for $4
> m_0 > 2$, $11$ for $6 > m_0
> 4$, $15$ for $8 > m_0 > 6$, $16$ for $ m_0 > 8$. At the same time the number
of topologically protected massless fermions given by Eq. (\ref{nfz0}) is:
\begin{equation}
n_f = \frac{1}{2} \Delta \tilde{\cal N}_5
\end{equation}
This is $0$ for $m_0 < 0$, $1$ for $2
> m_0
> 0$, $-3$ for $4
> m_0
> 2$, $3$ for $6
> m_0 > 4$, $1$ for $8 > m_0 > 6$, $0$ for $ m_0 > 8$. Therefore, except for
the conventional case $2 > m_0 >0$ there are massless fermions in the
intermediate states that are not protected by momentum space topology. When the
interaction with the gauge field is turned on some of them may annihilate each
other so that the total number of massless fermions is reduced without the
phase transition.
There are also mixed intermediate states $m = 0, m_0 = 2,4,6,8$, where both
massless fermions and generalized unparticles are present. The corresponding
transitions satisfy the conditions of Theorem \ref{indextheorem2}. All pseudo
- poles of the Green function become true poles. The zeros of the Green
function may be transformed to the massless excitations across the transition
points at $m = 2,4,6,8$. At the corresponding points the generalized
unparticles appear. Their number is equal to the jump of $\tilde{\cal N}_4$.
The corresponding values are listed in Table \ref{table4}.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$m_0$ & $\tilde{\cal N}_4$ & $\tilde{\cal N}_5$ \\
\hline
$-m_0 > 0 $ & $0$ & $0$ \\
\hline
$-2 < -m_0 < 0$ & $1$ & ${\rm sign}\, m$ \\
\hline
$-4 < -m_0 < -2 $ & $-3$ & $-3\,{\rm sign}\, m$ \\
\hline
$-6 < -m_0 < -4$ & $3$ & $3\,{\rm sign}\, m$ \\
\hline
$-8 < -m_0 < -6 $ & $-1$ & $-{\rm sign}\, m$ \\
\hline
$ -m_0 < -8 $ & $0$ & $0$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\caption{The values of topological invariants $\tilde{\cal N}_4$ and
$\tilde{\cal N}_5$ for free overlap fermions. } \label{table4}
\end{table}
\section{Discussion}
\label{Conclusions}
The topological invariants do not feel smooth changes of the model. Only a phase transition may lead to the change of the topological invariant. Therefore, if the free system (without gauge fields) and the interacting system (with gauge fields) belong to the same phase, then the values of the topological invariants are the same. So, we may calculate the topological invariant for the free fermions and it will be equal to the same value for the complicated interacting system that is related to the free system by a smooth transformation.
The vacuum
states of lattice models with fully gapped fermions but with zeros in Green
function (insulating vacua) in 4D space-time are characterized by two
topological invariants, $\tilde{\cal N}_4$ and $\tilde{\cal N}_5$. They are
responsible for the number of generalized unparticles and gapless fermions
which appear at the topological transitions between the massive states with
different topological charges.
The continuum limit of the model with overlap fermions considered in Section \ref{lattice} at $m = 0, m_0 = 2,4,6,8$ may be
taken seriously. In such limit a continuum theory appears that contains the
unparticle excitations. At the same time, the general properties of the quantum
phase transition with change of $\tilde{\cal N}_4$, $\tilde{\cal N}_5$ can be
applied to the relativistic field theories with fermions. So, we may have the
new look at the high energy field theoretical models. The entireties, that are
new for the high energy physics, appear. These are the zeros and the non -
analytical exceptional points of the Green function. We relate the latter
points to the generalized unparticles.
The author kindly acknowledges discussions with G.E.Volovik who initiated this research. This work was partly supported by RFBR grant 11-02-01227, by the Federal Special-Purpose
Programme 'Cadres' of the Russian Ministry of Science and Education, by Federal
Special-Purpose Programme 07.514.12.4028.
|
\section{Introduction}
In \cite{CEF}, the first three authors investigated the theory of {\em FI-modules}, which encode sequences of representations of symmetric groups connected by families of linear maps. The category of FI-modules defined in \cite{CEF} admits a natural notion of {\em finite generation}, which is central to the story told there. In particular, finitely-generated FI-modules over a field of characteristic $0$ correspond to sequences of representations whose dimensions and characters behave ``eventually polynomially." This turns out to be essentially equivalent to the phenomenon that was called ``representation stability" in the earlier work of the first and third authors~\cite{CF}.
In much of \cite{CEF} it was critical that we consider FI-modules over a field of characteristic 0. Most notably, this was used in the proof there that the category of FI-modules over a field of characteristic 0 is {\em Noetherian}; that is, any sub-FI-module of a finitely-generated FI-module is again finitely generated. This property is essential for many of the applications in \cite{CEF}. The main purpose of the present paper is to prove the Noetherian property for FI-modules over \emph{arbitrary Noetherian rings} $R$.
This allows us to generalize many of the applications in \cite{CEF} beyond the case of fields of characteristic $0$, and to produce new applications as well. We discuss three such results in this paper:
\begin{itemize}
\item We prove new theorems about the integral and mod $p$ cohomology of configuration spaces on manifolds, generalizing results in \S 4 of \cite{CEF};
\item We characterize the dimensions of diagonal coinvariant algebras over fields of positive characteristic, generalizing results in \S 3.2 of \cite{CEF};
\item We prove a complement to a recent theorem of Putman \cite{P} on the homology groups of congruence subgroups. Putman shows that the mod $p$ homology of these subgroups satisfies a version of representation stability, with an explicit stable range, for all primes $p$ above a certain explicit threshold. We prove a similar theorem, which does not provide an explicit range, but which
holds for coefficients of any characteristic, even when the coefficients are not a field.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{The Noetherian property}
Let $\FI$ be the category whose objects are finite sets and whose morphisms are injections. The category $\FI$ is equivalent to its full subcategory whose objects are the sets $\{1,\ldots, n\}$ as $n$ ranges over natural numbers $n\geq 0$. For simplicity we denote $\{1,\ldots, n\}$ by $[n]$ hereafter, with $[0]\coloneq \emptyset$.
Let $R$ be a commutative ring.\footnote{The restriction to commutative rings is probably not essential; see for instance the discussion of $\FI[G]$-modules by Jimenez Rolland in \cite{RJR}.} An \emph{FI-module over $R$} is a covariant functor $V$ from $\FI$ to the category of $R$-modules. Given a finite set $S$ we denote the $R$-module $V(S)$ by $V_S$, and in particular we denote $V([n])$ by $V_n$. Since $\End_{\FI}([n])=S_n$, any FI-module $V$ determines for each $n\geq 0$ an $S_n$-representation $V_n$ (that is, an $R[S_n]$-module). Moreover, the FI-module $V$ determines linear maps $V_m\to V_n$ corresponding to the injections $[m]\inj [n]$. The FI-module structure imposes no maps from $V_m$ to $V_n$ when $n < m$. The usual notions from the theory of modules, such as submodule and quotient module, carry over to FI-modules.
The applications in this paper are all based on the notion of finite generation of an FI-module. An FI-module $V$ is \emph{finitely generated} if there is a finite set $S$ of elements in $\coprod_iV_i$ so that no proper sub-FI-module of $V$ contains $S$. This condition was put to much use in \cite{CEF}; in particular, over a field of characteristic 0, finite generation of $V$ implies representation stability in the sense of \cite{CF} for the sequence $\{V_n\}$ of $S_n$-representations.
This paper has three main results; all three are proved in \S\ref{section:noetherian} below.
When $k$ is a field of characteristic $0$, Theorem~\ref{thm:noetherian} was proved earlier in \cite[Theorem~2.3]{Snowden} and \cite[Theorem~2.60]{CEF}, and Theorem~\ref{thm:polynomial} was proved in \cite[Theorem~2.67]{CEF}.
\begin{maintheorem}[{\bf Noetherian property}]
\label{thm:noetherian}
If $V$ is a finitely-generated FI-module over a Noetherian ring $R$, and $W$ is a sub-FI-module of $V$, then $W$ is finitely generated.
\end{maintheorem}
\begin{maintheorem}[{\bf Polynomial dimension}]
\label{thm:polynomial}
Let $k$ be any field, and let $V$ be a finitely-generated FI-module over $k$. Then there exists an integer-valued polynomial $P(T)\in \Q[T]$ so that for all sufficiently large $n$, \[\dim_k V_n = P(n).\]
\end{maintheorem}
\begin{maintheorem}[{\bf Inductive description}]
\label{thm:inductive}
Let $V$ be a finitely-generated FI-module over a Noetherian ring $R$. Then there exists some $N\geq 0$ such that for all $n\in \N$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:colim}
V_n=\ \colim_{\substack{S\subset [n]\\\abs{S}\leq N}}\ V_S
\end{equation}
\end{maintheorem}
We emphasize that the colimit in \eqref{eq:colim} is taken over the \emph{poset} of subsets $S\subset [n]$ satisfying $\abs{S}\leq N$ under inclusion. In particular, the permutations do not play a role in defining the right side of \eqref{eq:colim}. However, $S_n$ does act naturally on the right side, and thus Theorem~\ref{thm:inductive} does determine $V_n$ as an $S_n$-representation.
The condition \eqref{eq:colim} in Theorem~\ref{thm:inductive} can be viewed as a reformulation of Putman's ``central stability'' condition \cite[\S1]{P}. One difference is that we have formulated it as a global condition on the entire FI-module $V$, while Putman defines central stability as a local condition on the adjacent terms $V_{n-1},V_n,V_{n+1}$ separately for each $n$.
Nevertheless, the notions are equivalent.
\begin{remark} FI-modules were originally introduced in order to study various sequences $\{V_n\}$ of $S_n$-representations arising from algebra, combinatorics, and geometry, about which little explicit information is known. For instance, one often lacks even a formula for the dimension of $V_n$.
The reason that Theorems~\ref{thm:noetherian}, \ref{thm:polynomial}, and \ref{thm:inductive} are so useful in practice is because many examples arise as sub-FI-modules of FI-modules which are readily seen to be finitely generated. In many cases we know nothing more about them except that they admit such an embedding. Nonetheless, Theorem~\ref{thm:noetherian} and Theorem~\ref{thm:polynomial} tell us their dimensions are eventually polynomial in $n$, and Theorem~\ref{thm:inductive} guarantees that they can be built up inductively from a finite amount of data.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} When $\chr k=0$, we proved in \cite[Theorem~2.67]{CEF} that not only the dimensions but also the characters of $V_n$ are eventually polynomial. In the situation of Theorem~\ref{thm:polynomial}, it is reasonable to expect that when $k$ is a field of positive characteristic the Brauer characters of $V_n$ similarly have polynomial behavior. We do not pursue this question here.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The analogue of Theorem~\ref{thm:noetherian} with $\FI$ replaced by a \emph{finite} category was proved by L\"{u}ck \cite[Lemma 16.10b]{Lueck}. However, his methods cannot be extended to infinite categories such as $\FI$.
\end{remark}
The category of FI-modules over a commutative ring $R$ naturally forms an abelian category \cite[\S2.1]{CEF}. As a consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:noetherian}, the same is true if we restrict to finitely-generated FI-modules.
\begin{corollary}
If $R$ is a Noetherian ring, the category of finitely-generated FI-modules over $R$ is an abelian category.
\end{corollary}
When $R=\C$, this property has already been exploited in Sam--Snowden \cite{SS}, where the abelian category of finitely-generated FI-modules over $\C$ is studied extensively.
\subsection{Applications}
Theorems~\ref{thm:noetherian}, \ref{thm:polynomial}, and \ref{thm:inductive} can be applied to a variety of examples. In this paper we concentrate on three important examples of FI-modules from algebra, topology and combinatorics. We will prove that each is a finitely-generated FI-module.
As a notational convention, we prepend ``FI'' to the name of a category to denote the category of functors from FI to that category; so an \emph{FI-group} is a functor from FI to the category of groups, an \emph{FI-simplicial complex} is a functor from FI to simplicial complexes, and so forth. Similarly, a \emph{co-FI-space} is a functor from $\FI^{\op}$ to the category of topological spaces, and so on.
\para{Application 1: Congruence subgroups}
Let $R$ be a commutative ring and let $\GL_n(R)$ be the group of automorphisms of $R^n$.
We can regard $\GL_\bullet(R)$ as an FI-group, where an inclusion $f\colon [n]\hookrightarrow [m]$ induces the homomorphism $f_*\colon \GL_n(R)\to \GL_m(R)$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:GLFIgroup}
(f_*M)_{ij}=\begin{cases}
M_{ab}&i=f(a),\ j=f(b) \\
\delta_{ij}&\{i,j\}\not\subset f([n])
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
For any ideal $\p\subset R$, the \emph{congruence subgroup} $\Gamma_n(\p)$ is the kernel of the natural reduction map $\GL_n(R)\to \GL_n(R/\p)$; in other words, $\Gamma_n(\p)$ consists of those invertible matrices that are congruent to the identity matrix modulo $\p$. The map \eqref{eq:GLFIgroup} satisfies $f_*(\Gamma_n(\p))\subset \Gamma_m(\p)$, so these congruence subgroups also define an FI-group $\Gamma_\bullet(\p)$. In particular, for any coefficient ring $A$ and any $m\geq 0$, the homology groups $H_m(\Gamma_n(\p);A)$ form an FI-module $\mathcal{H}_m(\Gamma_\bullet(\p);A)$ over $A$.
It is known for a wide class of rings $R$ that $\GL_n(R)$ satisfies \emph{homological stability}; that is, $H_m(\GL_n(R);A)\approx H_m(\GL_{n+1}(R);A)$ for $n\gg m$. The corresponding statement is false for $\Gamma_n(\p)$, whose homology with certain coefficient modules grows as $n\to \infty$; this phenomenon is identified as accounting for the ``failure of excision in $K$-theory'' by Charney~\cite{Charney}. However, the striking results of Putman \cite{P} show that in many cases the FI-module $\mathcal{H}_m(\Gamma_\bullet(\p);A)$ is nevertheless finitely generated. Our results on $\mathcal{H}_m(\Gamma_\bullet(\p);A)$ complement, and were inspired by, the results of Putman in \cite{P}.
\begin{maintheorem}
\label{thm:congruencefg}
Let $K$ be a number field, let $\O_K$ be its ring of integers, and let $\p\subsetneq \O_K$ be a proper ideal. Fix $m\geq 0$ and a Noetherian ring $A$. Then the FI-module $\mathcal{H}_m(\Gamma_\bullet(\p);A)$ is finitely generated.
\end{maintheorem}
The following two theorems are immediate corollaries of Theorem~\ref{thm:congruencefg}, by applying Theorem~\ref{thm:polynomial} and Theorem~\ref{thm:inductive} respectively.
\begin{theorem}[{\bf Betti numbers of congruence subgroups}]
\label{thm:congruencepoly}
Let $K$ be a number field with ring of integers $\O_K$, and fix a proper ideal $\p\subsetneq \O_K$. For any $m\geq 0$ and any field $k$, there exists a polynomial $P(T)=P_{\p,m,k}(T)\in\Q[T]$ so that
for all sufficiently large $n$,
\[\dim_k H_m(\Gamma_n(\p);k) = P(n).\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}[{\bf An inductive description of $H_m(\Gamma_n(\p);\Z)$}]
\label{thm:congruenceinductive}
Let $K$ be a number field with ring of integers $\O_K$, and fix a proper ideal $\p\subsetneq \O_K$. For any $m\geq 0$, there exists $N=N_{\p,m}\geq 0$ such that for all $n$:
\[H_m(\Gamma_n(\p);\Z)=\, \colim_{\substack{S\subset [n]\\\abs{S}\leq N}}\, H_m(\Gamma_S(\p);\Z).\]
\end{theorem}
Under the hypothesis that the characteristic of the coefficient field $k$ is either $0$ or at least $9\cdot 2^{m-1} - 3$, Putman proved that Theorem~\ref{thm:congruencepoly} and a version of Theorem~\ref{thm:congruenceinductive} hold for all $n\geq 9\cdot 2^{m}-7$ \cite[Theorems~B and D]{P}.
One of the key tools used by Putman is the representation theory of the symmetric groups, especially the parallels between representations over fields of characteristic 0 and over fields of positive characteristic. It is the use of this theory that requires the exclusion of fields $k$ of small characteristic. The structural analysis of FI-modules behind Theorem~\ref{thm:noetherian} can be regarded as studying the ``stable representation theory of $S_n$ over $\Z$'', at least to such a degree as this is possible.
\begin{remark}
The restriction to number rings $\O_K$ was not present in \cite{P}, where the corresponding theorem was proved for arbitrary commutative Noetherian rings of finite Krull dimension. But for us this restriction is essential. The reason is that we need to know \emph{a priori} that $H_m(\Gamma_n(\p);k)$ is a finitely-generated $k$-module for all $m\geq 0$ and $n\geq 0$.
For finite-index subgroups of $\GL_n(\O_K)$ such as $\Gamma_n(\p)$, this is guaranteed by the existence of the Borel--Serre compactification. For more general rings it is simply false; for example, for $R=\C[T]$ and $\p=(T)\subset R$, the first homology $H_1(\Gamma_n(\p);\Z)$ surjects to $\sl_n(\p/\p^2)=\sl_n \C$, which is definitely not a finitely-generated abelian group. See the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:congruencefg} in Section~\ref{sec:congruence} for more details on how this assumption is used.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Theorem~\ref{thm:noetherian} allows us to extend Putman's results to
coefficients in an abitrary Noetherian ring; in particular, this confirms the conjecture in \cite{P} that the restriction on characteristic is unnecessary. But there is a cost\,---\,the argument presented here does not provide an explicit stable range, as Putman's does, so that neither theorem implies the other. Furthermore, the methods in this paper only apply to number rings. We remove these shortcomings, while maintaining Putman's exponential stable range, in the forthcoming paper \cite{CE}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Calegari~\cite{Ca} has recently determined the rate of growth of the mod-$p$ Betti numbers of level-$p^k$ congruence subgroup of $SL_n(\O_K)$. For example, for $p>3$ and the congruence subgroup $\Gamma_n(p^k)\subset \SL_n(\Z)$, he proves \cite[Lemma~3.5]{Ca} that
\[\dim_{\FF_p}H_m(\Gamma_n(p^k);\FF_p)=\binom{n^2-1}{m}+O(n^{2m-4}).\]
This result complements Theorem~\ref{thm:congruencepoly}: we show that the dimension is exactly some polynomial in $n$ (for
large enough $n$), while Calegari's result gives the degree of this polynomial and its leading terms.
For other number rings $\O_K$ of degree $[K:\Q]=d$, he obtains a similar estimate (subject to some assumptions on how $p$ splits in $\O_K$) for $\Gamma_n(p^k)\subset \SL_n(\O_K)$ in \cite[Remark~3.6]{Ca}:\[\dim_{\FF_p}H_m(\Gamma_n(p^k);\FF_p)=\frac{n^{2md}}{m!}+O(n^{2d(m-1)}).\]
\end{remark}
\para{Application 2: Configuration spaces}
Let $M$ be any connected, oriented manifold.
For any finite set $S$, let $\Conf_S(M)$ denote the space $\Inj(S,M)$ of injections $S\hookrightarrow M$. An inclusion $f\colon S\hookrightarrow T$ induces a restriction map $f^*\colon \Conf_T(M)\to \Conf_S(M)$; this is nothing more than the composition of injections $\Inj(S,T)\times \Inj(T,M)\to \Inj(S,M)$. We can therefore regard $\Conf(M)$ as a \emph{co-FI-space}, i.e.\ a contravariant functor from FI to topological spaces.
When $S=[n]$, the space of injections $[n]\hookrightarrow M$ can be identified with the classical configuration space $\Conf_n(M)$ of ordered $n$-tuples of distinct points in $M$: \[\Conf_n(M)\coloneq \big\{(p_1,\ldots,p_n)\in M^n\,\big|\, p_i\neq p_j\big\}\]
Understanding the cohomology of configuration spaces, and in particular its behavior as ${n\to \infty}$, is a fundamental problem in topology.
Since cohomology is contravariantly functorial, the cohomology groups $H^m(\Conf_n(M);R)$ together form an FI-module $H^m(\Conf(M);R)$ over $R$. Our main theorem on the cohomology of configuration spaces states that this FI-module is finitely generated.
\begin{maintheorem}
\label{thm:configurationsfg}
Let $R$ be a Noetherian ring, and let $M$ be a connected orientable manifold of dimension $\geq 2$ with the homotopy type of a finite CW complex (e.g.\ $M$ compact). For any $m\geq 0$, the FI-module $H^m(\Conf(M);R)$ is finitely generated.
\end{maintheorem}
Applying Theorem~\ref{thm:polynomial} and Theorem~\ref{thm:inductive}, respectively, we obtain the following two corollaries.
\begin{theorem}[{\bf Betti numbers of configuration spaces}]
\label{thm:configurationspoly}
Let $k$ be any field, and let $M$ be an connected orientable manifold of dimension $\geq 2$ with the homotopy type of a finite CW complex. For any $m\geq 0$ there exists a polynomial $P(T)=P_{M,m,k}(T)\in\Q[T]$ so that for all sufficiently large $n$, \[\dim_k H^m(\Conf_n(M);k) = P(n).\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}[{\bf An inductive description of $H_m(\Conf_n(M);R)$}]
\label{thm:configurationsinductive}
Let $R$ be a Noetherian ring, and let $M$ be a connected orientable manifold of dimension $\geq 2$ with the homotopy type of a finite CW complex. For any $m\geq 0$, there exists $N=N_{M,m}\geq 0$ such that for all $n$:
\[H_m(\Conf_n(M);R)= \colim_{\substack{S\subset [n]\\\abs{S}\leq N}} H_m(\Conf_S(M);R).\]
\end{theorem}
When $k$ has characteristic $0$, Theorem~\ref{thm:configurationspoly} follows from \cite[Theorem~1.9]{CEF}; see Jimenez Rolland \cite[Theorem~1.1]{RJR} for the case $\dim M = 2$.
When $M$ is an open manifold, stronger results hold. In this case Theorem~\ref{thm:configurationspoly} was proved in \cite[Theorem~4.8]{CEF}, in the stronger form that $\dim H^m(\Conf_n(M);k)=P(n)$ for \emph{all} $n\geq 0$. Similarly, when $M$ is open, Theorem~\ref{thm:configurationsinductive} can be deduced from \cite[Theorems~2.24 and 4.7]{CEF}; moreover in this case we can take $N_{M,m}=m$ if $\dim M\geq 3$ \cite[Theorem~4.2]{CEF} and $N_{M,m}=2m$ if $\dim M=2$ \cite[Remark~4.4]{CEF}.
\para{Application 3: Diagonal coinvariant algebras}
Let $k$ be an arbitrary field, let $r$ and $n$ be positive integers, and consider the algebra
\[k[\XX^{(r)}(n)]\coloneq k[x_1^{(1)},\ldots ,x_n^{(1)},\ldots ,x_1^{(r)},\ldots ,x_n^{(r)}]\] of polynomials in $r$ sets of $n$ variables. The permutation group $S_n$ acts on $k[\XX^{(r)}(n)]$ diagonally. Let $I_n$ be the ideal of $k[\XX^{(r)}(n)]$ generated by $S_n$-invariant
polynomials with vanishing constant term. The \emph{$r$-diagonal coinvariant algebra} is the $k$-algebra
\[R^{(r)}(n)\coloneq k[\XX^{(r)}(n)]/I_n.\]
The polynomial algebra $k[\XX^{(r)}(n)]$ is naturally endowed with an $r$-fold multi-grading, where a monomial has multi-grading $J=(j_1,\ldots,j_r)$ if its total degree in the variables $x_1^{(i)},\ldots,x_n^{(i)}$ is $j_i$. This multi-grading is $S_n$-invariant, and thus
descends to an $S_n$-invariant multi-grading
\[R^{(r)}(n)=\bigoplus_JR^{(r)}_J(n)\]
on the $r$-diagonal coinvariant algebra $R^{(r)}(n)$.
When $k$ has characteristic $0$, the $S_n$-representations $R^{(r)}_J(n)$ have been intensively studied. However, when $r>1$ very little is \emph{explicitly} known about the representations $R^{(r)}_J(n)$, or even their dimensions, except for small $J$ or $n$; see, e.g.\ \cite[\S1]{CEF} for a brief summary. In \cite[Theorem~1.12]{CEF} it was proved that when $\chr k=0$, the dimension
$\dim_k(R^{(r)}_J(n))$ is a polynomial in $n$ for $n$ sufficiently large. We are not aware of any
literature on diagonal coinvariant algebras over fields of positive characteristic. In this paper, we show that the polynomial behavior of dimension extends to this context.
The key fact which allows us to apply the results of this paper is that for fixed $r$, the coinvariant algebras $R^{(r)}(n)$ can be viewed as forming a co-FI-algebra $R^{(r)}$, as follows. Fix a commutative Noetherian ring $A$ and a positive integer $r$.
If $T$ is a finite set, write $A[\XX^{(r)}(T)]$ for the free commutative $A$-algebra on generators indexed by $[r] \times T$. This algebra naturally has a $\Z_{\geq 0}^r$-valued grading, where the $i$th component records the total degree in the generators $x_{(i,t)}$.
An injection $f\colon S\inj T$ induces a ring homomorphism $f^*\colon A[\XX^{(r)}(T)] \ra A[\XX^{(r)}(S)]$ defined by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:polycoFI}
f^*(x_{(i,t)})= \begin{cases}x_{(i,s)}&\text{ if }f(s)=t\\0&\text{ if }t\not\in \im f\end{cases}
\end{equation}
In other words, $A[\XX^{(r)}]$ can be regarded as a $\Z_{\geq 0}^r$-graded co-FI-algebra, i.e.\ a contravariant functor from $\FI$ to graded $A$-algebras.
Noting that $\End_{\FI^{\op}}(T)$ is the group of permutations $S_T$, we have an action of $S_T$ on the graded algebra $A[\XX^{(r)}(T)]$. Define $I_T$ to be the ideal of $S_T$-invariant polynomials with zero constant term, and define $R^{(r)}(T)$ to be the quotient of $A[\XX^{(r)}(T)]$ by $I_T$. Since $I_T$ is a homogeneous ideal, the grading on $A[\XX^{(r)}(T)]$ descends to a $\Z_{\geq 0}^r$-valued grading on $R^{(r)}(T)$. The homomorphisms $f^*$ of \eqref{eq:polycoFI} satisfy $f^*(I_T)\subset I_S$, so they descend to ring homomorphisms $f^*\colon R^{(r)}(T)\to R^{(r)}(S)$. We obtain a $\Z_{\geq 0}^r$-graded co-FI-algebra $R^{(r)}$, which sends the finite set $\{1,\ldots,n\}$ to the usual coinvariant algebra $R^{(r)}(n)$.
We denote by $(R^{(r)})^\vee$ the graded dual of $R^{(r)}$; that is,
for any $J \in \Z_{\geq 0}^r$ and any finite set $T$, take $(R^{(r)}_J)^\vee(T)$ to be the dual $R$-module $R^{(r)}_J(T)^\vee=\Hom(R^{(r)}_J(T),R)$. Since $R^{(r)}_J$ is a co-FI-module over $A$, $(R^{(r)}_J)^\vee$ is an FI-module over $A$. Our main theorem on diagonal coinvariant algebras is the following.
\begin{maintheorem}
Let $A$ be a commutative Noetherian ring, and fix $r\geq 1$. For any $J\in\Z_{\geq 0}^r$, the FI-module $(R^{(r)}_J)^\vee$ is finitely generated.
\label{thm:coinvariantsfg}
\end{maintheorem}
Applying Theorem~\ref{thm:polynomial} and Theorem~\ref{thm:inductive}, respectively, we obtain the following two corollaries.
\begin{theorem}[{\bf Multi-graded Betti numbers of diagonal coinvariant algebras}]
\label{thm:coinvariantsdim}
Let $k$ be any field. For each fixed $r\geq 1$ and fixed $r$-multigrading $J$, there is an integer-valued polynomial $P(T)=P_{r,J,k}(T)\in\Q[T]$ so that for all sufficiently large $n$, the dimension of the $J$-graded piece of the $r$-diagonal coinvariant algebra is given by \[\dim_k R^{(r)}_J(n)= P(n).\]
\end{theorem}
We do not know any of these polynomials explicitly, except in trivial cases, and it would be very interesting to compute them. It would be intriguing to understand their connection to problems in combinatorics, which has been so fruitful in the characteristic $0$ case.
\begin{theorem}[{\bf An inductive description of $(R^{(r)}_J)^\vee$}]
\label{thm:coinvariantsinductive}
Let $A$ be a commutative Noetherian ring, and fix $r\geq 1$. For each $J\in\Z_{\geq 0}^r$, there exists $N=N_{r,J,A}\geq 0$ such that for all $n$:
\[R^{(r)}_J(n)^\vee= \colim_{\substack{S\subset [n]\\\abs{S}\leq N}}\, R^{(r)}_J(S)^\vee\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Finally, we remark that Theorem~\ref{thm:noetherian} has recently been used by the first author and Putman in \cite{CP}. The main result of that paper is that the Johnson filtration of the mapping class group is ``finitely generated'' in a certain sense (more precisely, generated by elements supported on subsurfaces of uniformly bounded genus). Theorem~\ref{thm:noetherian} is a key technical tool in the proof, and without it the result would not be possible.
\end{remark}
\para{Acknowledgements} We are grateful to Wolfgang L\"{u}ck for helpful conversations regarding this paper and its relation to \cite[\S16]{Lueck}, to Jesper Grodal for suggesting that Theorem~\ref{thm:inductive} could be formulated as in \eqref{eq:colim}, and to Rita Jimenez Rolland for useful comments and corrections. We are very grateful to the anonymous referee for their thorough and careful reading, and for thoughtful suggestions that greatly improved the organization of the paper.
\section{Noetherian and polynomial properties of FI-modules}
\label{section:noetherian}
To make this portion of the paper self-contained, we will recall all necessary definitions from our earlier paper \cite{CEF}, and all results that we will use in \S\ref{section:noetherian} will be proved.
\subsection{General results on FI-modules}
Fix a commutative ring $R$, and let $\FIMod$ denote the category of FI-modules over $R$, i.e.\ the category of functors $V\colon \FI\to \RMod$. The category $\FIMod$ is an abelian category, with kernels and cokernels computed pointwise; that is, given $F\colon V\to W$, the FI-modules $\ker(F)$ and $\coker(F)$ satisfy $\ker(F)_S=\ker(F\colon V_S\to W_S)$ and $\coker(F)_S=\coker(F\coloneq V_S\to W_S)$.
If $V$ is an FI-module, we a \emph{sub-FI-module} of $V$ is an FI-module $W$ endowed with an injection $W\inj V$. Identifying $W$ with its image, such a sub-FI-module consists of sub-$R$-modules $W_S\subset V_S$ for each finite set $S$, with the property that $f_*\colon V_S\to V_T$ satisfies $f_*(W_S)\subset W_T$ for all $f\in \Hom_{\FI}(S,T)$.
\para{Finite generation} We recall the characterizations of finitely-generated FI-modules that we will use in this paper.
\begin{definition}[{\bf Finitely generated FI-modules}]
\label{def:fg}
Let $V$ be an FI-module. As in \cite[Definitions~2.14 and 2.15]{CEF}, we define an FI-module $V$
to be {\em finitely generated} (resp.\ {\em generated in degree $\leq d$}) if there exists a finite set $\{v_1,\ldots,v_k\}\subset \coprod_{n\geq 0}V_n$ (resp.\ a set
$\{v_i|i\in I\}\subset \coprod_{n\leq d}V_n$) contained in no proper sub-FI-module of $V$. We say that $V$ is {\em generated in finite degree} if it is generated in degree $\leq d$ for some finite $d$.
\end{definition}
It is useful in practice to understand finite generation in terms of ``free'' objects. To this end we make the following definition; see \cite[Definition~2.5]{CEF}.
\begin{definition}[{\bf Free FI-modules}]
\label{def:Md}
For any $d\geq 0$, the FI-module $M(d)$ takes a finite set $S$ to the free $R$-module $M(d)_S$ on the set of injections $[d]\inj S$. In other words, $M(d)=R[\Hom_{\FI}([d],{-})]$; by the Yoneda lemma, $M(d)$ is uniquely determined by the natural identification
\[\Hom_{\FIMod}(M(d),V)\cong V_d.\]
An FI-module is \emph{free} if it is isomorphic to a direct sum $\bigoplus_{i\in I} M(d_i)$.
\end{definition}
Given $v\in V_d$, we denote by $F_v\colon M(d)\to V$ the homomorphism corresponding to $v$ under this identification; conversely, given $F\colon M(d)\to V$ we denote by $v_F\in V_d$ the image of $\id\in M(d)_d$ under $F$. By the Yoneda lemma, the image $\im(F_v)$ is the sub-FI-module of $V$ defined by $\im(F_v)_S=\spn\{f_*(v)|f\in \Hom_{\FI}([d],S)\}$; this is the smallest sub-FI-module $W\subset V$ for which $v\in W_d$.
\begin{proposition}[{\bf Characterization of finite generation}]
\label{proposition:fg}
Let $V$ be an FI-module. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $V$ is finitely generated if and only if there exists a surjection
\[\bigoplus_{i=1}^k M(d_i)\surj V\] for some integers $d_i\geq 0$.
\item $V$ is generated in degree $\leq d$ if and only if there exists a surjection
\[\bigoplus_{i\in I} M(d_i)\surj V\qquad\text{ with all }d_i\leq d.\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
The direct sum in the second part of the proposition may be
infinite, as long as the integers $d_i$ are uniformly bounded by $d$.
\begin{proof}
The Yoneda lemma guarantees that $M(d)$ is finitely generated by the element $\id\in M(d)_d$. Therefore the free FI-module $\bigoplus_{i\in I} M(d_i)$ is finitely generated if $I$ is finite, and is generated in degree $\leq d$ if $d_i\leq d$ for all $i\in I$. Conversely, a subset $\{v_i|i\in I\}\subset \coprod_{n\geq 0} V_n$ detemines a canonical map $F=\bigoplus F_{v_i}\colon \bigoplus_{i\in I} M(d_i)\to V$. The image of $F$ is the smallest sub-FI-module of $V$ containing $\{v_i|i\in I\}$. The proposition follows.
\end{proof}
In particular, Proposition~\ref{proposition:fg} implies that the quotient of a finitely-generated FI-module is finitely generated, and similarly for generation in degree $\leq d$.
\begin{definition}[{\bf The functor $H_0$} {\cite[Definition~2.18]{CEF}}]
\label{def:H0}
Given an FI-module $V$, the FI-module $H_0(V)$ is the quotient of $V$ defined by:
\[H_0(V)_S\coloneq V_S\ /\ \big\langle \im(f_*\colon V_T\to V_S) \,\big|\ f\colon T\inj S, \,\abs{T}<\abs{S}\big\rangle\]
In other words, the FI-module $H_0(V)$ is the largest quotient of $V$ with the property that for all $f\colon T\inj S$ with $\abs{T}<\abs{S}$, the map $f_*\colon H_0(V)_T\to H_0(V)_S$ is the zero map.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:H0reflects}
If $H_0(V)=0$ then $V=0$. Furthermore, the functor $H_0\colon \FIMod\to \FIMod$ reflects surjections: a homomorphism $F\colon V\to W$ is a surjection if and only if $H_0(F)\colon H_0(V)\to H_0(W)$ is a surjection.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To prove the first claim, assume that $V\neq 0$, and let $n=\inf\{n\in \N|V_n\neq 0\}$. Since $V_T=0$ for any $T$ with $\abs{T}<n$, the quotient defining $H_0(V)_n$ is the quotient by the zero submodule, and thus $H_0(V)_n=V_n\neq 0$.
For the second claim, if $F\colon V\to W$ is surjective, the canonical surjections $V\surj H_0(V)$ and $W\surj H_0(W)$ show that $H_0(F)$ is surjective. In other words, $H_0$ is right-exact. For the converse, right-exactness implies that $\coker H_0(F)=H_0(\coker F)$. If $H_0(F)$ is a surjection we thus have $H_0(\coker F)=\coker H_0(F)=0$. Applying the first claim, we conclude that $\coker F=0$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\
\label{lem:cokerfg}
Let $V$ be an FI-module.
\begin{enumerate}[1.]
\item In each row below, the conditions (a), (b), and (c) are equivalent.
\noindent \begin{tabular}{lll}
(a) $V$ is f.g.\ FI-module&(b) $H_0(V)$ is f.g.\ FI-module&(c) $\bigoplus_{n=0}^\infty H_0(V)_n$ is f.g.\ $R$-module\\
(a) $V$ gen.\ in deg.\ $\leq d$&(b) $H_0(V)$ gen.\ in deg.\ $\leq d$&(c) $H_0(V)_n=0$ for all $n>d$\\
(a) $V$ gen.\ in finite deg.&(b) $H_0(V)$ gen.\ in finite deg.&(c) $H_0(V)_n=0$ for $n\gg 0$
\end{tabular}
\item Assume that $V_n$ is a finitely-generated $R$-module for all $n\geq 0$. Then $V$ is finitely generated if and only if $V$ is generated in finite degree.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\textbf{Part 1.} To start, we observe that each condition in the third row simply asserts that the corresponding condition in the second row holds for some $d\in \N$. Therefore the equivalence of the third row follows from the equivalence of the second row.
\textbf{(a) $\implies$ (b):} If $V$ is finitely generated or generated in degree $\leq d$, the same is true of any quotient of $V$ by definition. Since $H_0(V)$ is a quotient of $V$, (a) implies (b).
\textbf{(b) $\implies$ (c):} Let $M=\bigoplus_{i\in I} M(d_i)$ be a free module, and consider a surjection $M\surj H_0(V)$. By the defining property of $H_0(M)$, this map factors through $M\surj H_0(M)\surj H_0(V)$. We have $H_0(M)=\bigoplus_{i\in I} H_0(M(d_i))$. Each summand $H_0(M(d))$ has the property that $H_0(M(d))_T$ vanishes unless $\abs{T}=d$, in which case $H_0(M(d))_T=M(d)_T$ is a free $R$-module of rank $d!$.
If $H_0(V)$ is finitely generated, we can take $I$ to be finite, so $\bigoplus_{n=0}^\infty H_0(M)_n$ is a free $R$-module of rank $\sum_{i\in I}{d_i}!$. In particular this $R$-module is finitely generated, and so the same is true of its quotient $\bigoplus_{n=0}^\infty H_0(V)_n$. This shows that (b) implies (c) in the first row. If $H_0(V)$ is generated in degree $\leq d$, we can assume that $d_i\leq d$ for all $i\in I$. In this case $H_0(M)_n=0$ for $n>d$, and so the same is true of its quotient $H_0(V)_n$. This shows that (b) implies (c) in the second row.
\textbf{(c) $\implies$ (a):} Let $w_i\in \coprod_n H_0(V)_n$ be generators for $\bigoplus_{n=0}^\infty H_0(V)_n$ indexed by $i\in I$, and define $d_i\in \N$ so that $w_i\in H_0(V)_{d_i}$. Set $M\coloneq \bigoplus_{i\in I}M(d_i)$, and define the homomorphism $\pi\colon \bigoplus_{i\in I}M(d_i)\to V$ by sending $\id_{[d_i]}\in M(d_i)_{d_i}$ to any element of $V_{d_i}$ lifting $w_i$. By construction, $H_0(\pi)$ sends $\id_{[d_i]}\in H_0(M(d_i))_{d_i}$ to $w_i\in H_0(V)_{d_i}$. Since $H_0(V)_d$ is generated by the elements $w_i$ for which $d_i=d$, we see that $H_0(\pi)_d\colon H_0(M)_d\to H_0(V)_d$ is surjective for all $d$, i.e.\ $H_0(\pi)$ is surjective. By Lemma~\ref{lem:H0reflects}, the homomorphism $\pi\colon M=\bigoplus_{i\in I}M(d_i)\to V$ is surjective itself.
If $\bigoplus_{n=0}^\infty H_0(V)$ is finitely generated, we can assume that $I$ is finite; in this case, the surjection $\pi\colon M\surj V$ verifies that $V$ is finitely generated. Similarly if $H_0(V)_n=0$ for $n>d$, we can assume that $d_i\leq d$ for all $i\in I$, so $\pi\colon M\surj V$ demonstrates that $V$ is generated in degree $\leq d$. Therefore (c) implies (a).
\textbf{Part 2.}
If $V$ is finitely generated, it is automatically generated in finite degree. Conversely, assume that $V_n$ is a finitely-generated $R$-module for all $n\geq 0$. Since $H_0(V)_n$ is a quotient of $V_n$, it is also a finitely-generated $R$-module. If $V$ is generated in finite degree, then $H_0(V)\sim 0$ by the equivalence of the third row, i.e.\ for some $d\geq 0$ we have $H_0(V)_n=0$ for $n>d$. Therefore the sum $\bigoplus_{n=0}^\infty H_0(V)_n=\bigoplus_{n=0}^d H_0(V)_d$ is finite. It follows that $\bigoplus_{n=0}^\infty H_0(V)_n$ is finitely generated as an $R$-module, so by the equivalence of the first row, $V$ is finitely generated.
\end{proof}
\para{Positive shifts} The following ``shift functors'' on FI-modules will be essential in the proofs of Theorems~\ref{thm:noetherian}, \ref{thm:polynomial}, and \ref{thm:inductive}. Unlike some other parts of the FI-module formalism, these functors would \emph{not} exist if $\FI$ were replaced with an arbitrary diagram category; they depend on the symmetric monoidal structure that comes from taking the disjoint union of finite sets.
We recall from \cite[Definition~2.30]{CEF} the definition of the ``positive shift'' functors \[S_{+a}\colon \FIMod\to\FIMod.\] Let the functor $\disjoint\colon \Sets\times \Sets\to \Sets$ be the coproduct in the category of sets, i.e.\ the disjoint union of sets. This should be formalized in some fixed functorial way; for example, we could take $S\disjoint T\coloneq (\{0\}\times S)\cup (\{1\}\times T)$. But since the coproduct is unique up to canonical isomorphism, nothing will depend on the details of this definition.
Since $f\disjoint g\colon S\disjoint S'\to T\disjoint T'$ is injective if $f\colon S\to T$ and $g\colon S'\to T'$ are injective, $\disjoint$ restricts to a functor $\disjoint\colon \FI\times \FI\to \FI$. Since $S$ and $T$ are canonically identified with subsets of $S\disjoint T$, we will often abuse notation and treat $S$ and $T$ as subsets of $S\disjoint T$.
\begin{definition} For $a\geq 0$, let $[-a]$ denote the set $\{-1,\ldots,-a\}$, and let $\Xia\colon \FI\to\FI$ be the functor \[\Xia\colon \FI\to \FI\qquad\qquad \Xia\coloneq{-}\disjoint [-a].\] Explicitly, $\Xia S$ is the finite set $S\disjoint [-a]$, and $\Xia f\colon \Xia S\inj \Xia T$ is $f\disjoint \id_{[-a]}$, the extension of $f$ by the identity on $[-a]$. Let $i_{-a}\colon [-a]\inj [-(a+1)]$ be the standard inclusion $i_{-a}\colon \{-1,\ldots,-a\}\inj \{-1,\ldots,-a,-(a+1)\}$.
\end{definition} Our choice of the set $\{-1,\ldots,-a\}$ for $[-a]$ is irrelevant, since the disjoint union $S\disjoint T$ is defined even if $S$ and $T$ are not disjoint; it is chosen just for psychological purposes, to minimize collision with the sets the reader likely has in mind. Any other set of cardinality $a$ would work equally well.
\begin{definition}[{\bf Positive shift functor $S_{+a}$}]
\label{def:shiftpos}
Given an FI-module $V$ and an integer $a\geq 1$, the functor $S_{+a}\colon \FIMod\to \FIMod$ is defined by $S_{+a}={-}\circ \Xia$; that is, the FI-module $S_{+a}V$ is the composition \[S_{+a}V\coloneq V \circ \Xia\colon \FI\overset{\Xia}{\longrightarrow} \FI\overset{V}{\longrightarrow} \RMod.\]
Since kernels and cokernels are computed pointwise, $S_{+a}$ is an exact functor.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}Comparing the $S_n$-representation $(S_{+a}V)_n$ with the $S_{n+a}$-representation $V_{n+a}$, we have an isomorphism of $S_n$-representations
\[(S_{+a}V)_n\cong \Res^{S_{n+a}}_{S_n} V_{n+a}.\] Indeed, the effect of the functor $S_{+a}$ is to perform this restriction consistently for all $n$, in such a way that the resulting representations still form an FI-module.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}[{\bf The morphism $X_a\colon V\to S_{+a}V$}]
\label{def:Xa}
The natural inclusion $\iota_T$ of $T$ into $\Xia T = T\disjoint [-a]$ induces a natural transformation $\id_{\FI}\implies \Xia$. For any FI-module $V$, this yields a natural homomorphism of FI-modules
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SVV}
\X_a\colon V\to S_{+a}V.
\end{equation}
Explicitly, $\X_a$ is defined by
\[\X_a\colon V_T\overset{V(\iota_T)}{\longrightarrow}V_{T\disjoint[-a]}=(S_{+a}V)_T.\]
Similarly, the inclusion $\id\disjoint i_{-a}\colon T\disjoint [-a]\inj T\disjoint [-(a+1)]$ induces a natural homomorphism $\Y_a\colon S_{+a}V \to S_{+(a+1)}V$ satisfying $\X_{a+1}=\Y_a\circ \X_a\colon V\to S_{+(a+1)}V$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[{\boldmath$V\approxeq W$}] If $V$ and $W$ are FI-modules, we write $V\approxeq W$ if $S_{+a} V \cong S_{+a} W$ for some $a \geq 0$. This notation is most often used in this paper in the form $V \approxeq 0$, which simply means that $V_n$ vanishes for all sufficiently large $n$. For example, in this language Lemma~\ref{lem:cokerfg}.1 states that $V$ is generated in finite degree if and only if $H_0(V)\approxeq 0$. If $X$ and $Y$ are FI-simplicial complexes, we write $X\approxeq Y$ if for each $k$, the $k$-skeleta satisfy $S_{+a} X^{(k)}\cong S_{+a} Y^{(k)}$ for some $a$ depending on $k$.
\end{definition}
\subsection{The Noetherian property (Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:noetherian})}
The shift functors $S_{+a}$ take on a particularly simple form when applied to the FI-modules $M(d)$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{pr:SaMd}
For any $a\geq 0$ and any $d\geq 0$, there is a natural decomposition
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Mderivative}
S_{+a}M(d)=M(d)\oplus Q_a
\end{equation}
where $Q_a$ is a free FI-module finitely generated in degree $\leq d-1$.
\end{proposition} Although this proposition appears unassuming, this is the key combinatorial fact about the category $\FI$ that makes possible our approach to the Noetherian property for $\FI$-modules. For comparison, if $\FI$ were replaced by the category of finite-dimensional $\FF$--vector spaces and linear injections for some field $\FF$, the analogous proposition would not hold (even if the field $\FF$ were finite), and so our proof of the Noetherian property does not extend to this case.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{pr:SaMd}]
Recall that a basis for $M(d)_S$ is given by $\Hom_{\FI}([d],S)$, so a basis for $(S_{+a}M(d))_S$ consists of the injections $f\colon [d]\hookrightarrow S\disjoint [-a]$.
We can stratify these according to the subset $T=f^{-1}([-a])\subset [d]$ and the restriction $f|_T\colon T\hookrightarrow [-a]$. Given $g\colon S\inj S'$, the map $g_*\colon S_{+a}M(d)_S\to S_{+a}M(d)_{S'}$ is induced by the composition \[g_*f=(g\disjoint \id_{[-a]})\circ f,\] so the subset $f^{-1}([-a])=T$ and the restriction $f|_T$ are not changed by the composition $f\mapsto g_*f$. Therefore our stratification of $S_{+a}M(d)_S$ in fact defines a decomposition of $S_{+a}M(d)$ as a direct sum of FI-modules.
For fixed $T\subset [d]$ and $h\colon T\hookrightarrow [-a]$, let $M^{T,h}\subset S_{+a} M(d)$ be spanned by those $f\colon [d]\inj S\disjoint [-a]$ satisfying $f^{-1}([-a])=T$ and $f|_T=h$. These injections $f$ are distinguished by the restrictions $f|_{[d]-T}\colon [d]-T\inj S$, and we have $(g_*f)|_{[d]-T}=g\circ f|_{[d]-T}$. Choosing a bijection $[d]-T\cong [d-\abs{T}]$, we obtain an isomorphism $M^{T,h}\cong M(d-\abs{T})$, and thus a decomposition
\[S_{+a}M(d)=\bigoplus_{T\subset [d]} M(d-\abs{T})\tensor_R R[\Hom_{\FI}(T,[-a])]\] which is natural up to the choice of identifications $[d]-T\cong [d-\abs{T}]$. In particular, the summand with $T=\emptyset$ is canonically isomorphic to $M(d)$; singling out this factor gives the claimed decomposition.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}[{\cite[Proposition~2.31]{CEF}}]
\label{cor:shiftgeneration}
If $V$ is generated in degree $\leq d$, then $S_{+a}V$ is generated in degree $\leq d$. Conversely, if $S_{+a}V$ is generated in degree $\leq d$, then $V$ is generated in degree $\leq d+a$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Choosing a surjection $\bigoplus M(d_i)\surj V$ with $d_i\leq d$, and given that $S_{+a}V$ is exact, it suffices to prove the first claim for $V=M(d_i)$. This follows immediately from Proposition~\ref{pr:SaMd}.
For the second claim we use Lemma~\ref{lem:cokerfg}.1, which says that $S_{+a}V$ is generated in degree $\leq d$ if and only if $H_0(S_{+a}V)_n=0$ whenever $n>d$. We will exhibit in the next paragraph a surjection of $R$-modules $H_0(S_{+a}V)_n\surj H_0(V)_{n+a}$. From this surjection we deduce that $H_0(V)_m=0$ for all $m>d+a$; applying Lemma~\ref{lem:cokerfg}.1 again, we conclude that $V$ is generated in degree $\leq d+a$ as desired.
We now exhibit the claimed surjection, in the form $H_0(S_{+a}V)_T\surj H_0(V)_{T\disjoint [-a]}$. By Definition~\ref{def:H0}, $H_0(S_{+a}V)_T$ is the quotient of $(S_{+a}V)_T=V_{T\disjoint [-a]}$ by \[
\big\langle \im (f\sqcup \id_{[-a]})_*\colon V _{S\disjoint [-a]}\to V_{T\disjoint [-a]}\,\ \big|\,\qquad f\colon S\inj T, \abs{S}<\abs{T}\big\rangle\] while $H_0(V)_{T\disjoint [-a]}$ is the quotient of $V_{T\disjoint [-a]}$ by \[
\big\langle \im g_*\colon V_{S'}\to V_{T\disjoint [-a]}\qquad\quad\,\big|\,\ g\colon S'\inj T\disjoint [-a], \abs{S'}<\abs{T}+a\big\rangle.\]
The former is contained in the latter, so $H_0(V)_{T\disjoint [-a]}$ is a quotient of $H_0(S_{+a}V)_T$ as claimed.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
\label{def:pia}
We define
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:shiftprojection}
\pi_a\colon S_{+a}M(d)\twoheadrightarrow M(d)
\end{equation}
to be the projection determined by \eqref{eq:Mderivative}. Concretely, a basis for $(S_{+a}M(d))_T$ consists of injections $[d]\hookrightarrow T\disjoint[-a]$, and the projection
$\pi_a$ simply sends to 0 any injection whose image is not contained in $T$.
\end{definition}
The projection $\pi_a$ is related to the decomposition of $M(d)_n$ given by splitting up the injections $\{1,\ldots,d\}\hookrightarrow\{1,\ldots,n\}$ according to their image. Each $d$-element subset $S$ of $\{1,\ldots,n\}$ gives a summand isomorphic to $M(d)_d$, yielding the decomposition as $R$-modules
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Mdsplitting}
M(d)_n\simeq M(d)_d^{\oplus \binom{n}{d}}.
\end{equation}
In degree $d$, the projection $\pi_a$ yields a map from $(S_{+(n-d)}M(d))_d\simeq M(d)_n$ to $M(d)_d$; this is just the projection of \eqref{eq:Mdsplitting} onto a single factor of the right side.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:noetherian}]
We prove by induction on $d\in \N$ that if $V$ is a FI-module finitely generated in degree $\leq d$, then every sub-FI-module of $V$ is finitely generated. Such an FI-module $V$ is a quotient of a finite direct sum of FI-modules $\bigoplus_{i=1}^k M(d_i)$ with $d_i\leq d$. Since the Noetherian property descends to quotients and is preserved under direct sum, it suffices to prove the theorem for $V=M(d_i)$, and by induction it suffices to prove it for $V=M(d)$.
\para{Reduction to $W^a$}
Fix a sub-FI-module $W$ of $M(d)$; our goal is to prove that $W$ is finitely generated. For each $n\in \N$ we have that $M(d)_n$ is a finitely-generated $R$-module; since $R$ is a Noetherian ring, its submodule $W_n$ is also finitely generated as an $R$-module. Therefore by Lemma~\ref{lem:cokerfg}.2 it suffices to prove that $W$ is generated in finite degree. By Corollary~\ref{cor:shiftgeneration} it suffices to prove that $S_{+a}W$ is finitely generated for some $a\geq 0$.
Let us therefore consider the FI-module $S_{+a}W$.
For any $a\geq 0$, the decomposition from Proposition~\ref{pr:SaMd} gives an exact sequence
\[0\to Q_a\to S_{+a}M(d)\to M(d)\to 0.\] Since $S_{+a}$ is exact, we can think of $S_{+a}W$ as a sub-FI-module of $S_{+a}M(d)$. Thus the above induces an exact sequence
\[0\to W_{Q,a}\to S_{+a}W\to W^a\to 0\]
where $W_{Q,a}\coloneq Q_a\cap(S_{+a}W)$ and $W^a\coloneq \pi_a(S_{+a}W)\subset M(d)$.
For any $a$ we know that $W_{Q,a}$ is a sub-FI-module of $Q_a$, which is finitely generated in degree $\leq d-1$ by Proposition~\ref{pr:SaMd}. Therefore we can apply the inductive hypothesis to conclude that $W_{Q,a}$ is finitely generated for any $a$. To prove that $S_{+a}W$ is finitely generated, it thus suffices to show that $W^a$ is finitely generated. We will do this, and thus prove the theorem, by showing that there exists some $N\geq 0$ such that $W^N$ is finitely generated in degree $\leq d$.
\para{Finding $N$ such that $W^N$ is generated in degree $\leq d$} The sequence of sub-FI-modules $W^a\subset M(d)$ is increasing: $W^a\subset W^{a+1}$. Indeed, the map $\Y_a\colon S_{+a} M(d) \ra S_{+(a+1)} M(d)$ of Definition~\ref{def:Xa} satisfies $\pi_{a+1}\circ \Y_a=\pi_a$ and $\Y_a(S_{+a} W) \subset S_{+(a+1)}(W)$, from which it follows that $W^a \subset W^{a+1}$. Let $W^\infty$ denote the sub-FI-module $\bigcup_a W^a \subset M(d)$.
We will show below that $W^\infty$ is generated by $W^\infty_d$ (that is, the only submodule $X\subset W^\infty$ with $X_d=W^\infty_d$ is $X=W^\infty$). Since $W^\infty_d$ is a sub-$R$-module of $M(d)_d \cong R[S_d]$, it is itself finitely generated as an $R$-module, so the claim implies that $W^\infty$ is finitely generated in degree $\leq d$.
Moreover, the chain
\beq
W_d = W^0_d \subset W^1_d \subset W^2_d \subset \ldots \subset W^\infty_d=\bigcup_a W^a_d
\eeq
is a chain of $R[S_d]$-submodules of $M(d)_d \cong R[S_d]$. Since $R[S_d]$ is a finitely-generated $R$-module and $R$ itself is Noetherian, there must be some $N$ such that $W^N_d = W^\infty_d$. Since $W^\infty$ is generated by $W^\infty_d$, it follows that $W^N=W^\infty$, and thus that $W^N$ is finitely generated in degree $\leq d$ as desired.
\para{Proving that $W^\infty$ is generated by $W^\infty_d$} Let us investigate the sub-FI-modules $W^a\subset M(d)$. Expanding the definition of $W^a$, we have the following concrete condition: an element
\beq
x = \sum_{f\colon [d] \inj T} r_f f \in M(d)_T
\eeq
lies in $W^a$ if and only if there is an element
\begin{equation} \label{eq:witness}
\phantom{\subset M(d)_{T\disjoint [-a]}}w = \sum_{g\colon [d] \inj T\disjoint [-a]} r'_g g \in W_{T\disjoint [-a]}\subset M(d)_{T\disjoint [-a]}
\end{equation}
such that $r'_g = r_g$ whenever the image of $g$ lies in $T$. The element $x\in M(d)_T$ lies in $W^\infty$ if there is \emph{some} $a\geq 0$ and some $w\in W_{T\disjoint [-a]}$ for which \eqref{eq:witness} holds.
For each $a\geq 0$, let $U^{a}$ be the smallest sub-FI-module of $W^a$ containing $W^a_d$. We will show that for any $a\geq 0$ and any $n\leq a+d$ we have \[W^{a+d-n}_n\subset U^{a}_n\subset M(d)_n.\]
Given $x \in W^{a+d-n}_n\subset M(d)_n$, write $x=\sum_{f\colon [d]\inj [n]} r_f f$ as above, and for each subset $S\subset [n]$ of cardinality $d$, denote by $x_S$ the sum
\beq
x_S\coloneq \sum_{\im f = S} r_f f\in M(d)_S.
\eeq We have $x=\sum_S i_S(x_S)$, where $i_S\colon S\inj [n]$ is the natural inclusion.
Since $x\in W^{a+d-n}_n$, there exists $w\in W_{[n]\disjoint [-(a+d-n)]}$ so that, writing \[w=\sum_{g\colon [d]\inj[n]\disjoint[-(a+d-n)]}r'_g g\] as in \eqref{eq:witness}, we have $r'_g=r_g$ for all $g$ with image contained in $[n]$. But then it is \emph{a fortiori} true that $r'_g=r_g$ for all $g$ with $\im g=S$. Choosing a bijection between $([n]-S)\disjoint [-(a+d-n)]$ and $[-a]$, we can think of $w$ as an element of $W_{S\disjoint [-a]}$ which witnesses that $x_S\in W^a_S$ as in \eqref{eq:witness}.
Since $\abs{S}=d$, we have $W^a_S=U^a_S$ by definition. Since $x=\sum_S i_S(x_S)$, we conclude that $x\in U^a$. Since this holds for all $x\in W^{a+d-n}_n$, we see that $W^{a+d-n}_n$ is contained in $U^a$, as claimed above. Passing to the limit as $a\to \infty$ and setting $U^\infty\coloneq \bigcup_a U^a$, we see that $W^\infty_n$ is contained in $U^\infty_n$ for all $n\in \N$. Since $U^\infty$ is contained in $W^\infty$ by definition, this shows that $U^\infty=W^\infty$; in other words, $W^\infty$ is generated by $W^\infty_d$, which was the remaining claim to be proved.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Dimensions of f.g.\ FI-modules (Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:polynomial})}
Let $V$ be an FI-module. The {\em torsion submodule} of $V$, denoted $T(V)$, consists of those $v\in V_S$ for which $f_*(v)=0$ for some finite set $S'$ and some (whence every) $f\in \Hom_{\FI}(S,S')$. Alternatively, it can be written as
\beq
T(V) = \bigcup_{a \geq 0} \ker( \X_a\colon V \ra S_{+a} V).
\eeq
We say that $V$ is {\em torsion free} if $T(V) = 0$. It is clear that $V/T(V)$ is always torsion free. When $k = \C$, the functor $T$ is discussed by Sam and Snowden~\cite[\S 4.4]{SS}, where it appears as the left exact functor $H^0_{\mathfrak{m}}$ whose derived functors provide a local cohomology theory for FI-modules.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:torsion}
If $V$ is a finitely-generated FI-module over a Noetherian ring, then $T(V) \approxeq 0$; in other words, $T(V)_n=0$ for all sufficiently large $n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:noetherian}, the submodule $T(V)$ is finitely generated, say by $v_1,\ldots,v_k$ with $v_i\in V_{d_i}$. Therefore $T(V)_S$ is spanned by $\bigcup_i\{f_*(v_i)|f\colon [d_i]\to S\}$ for every finite set $S$.
For each $i$ there exists some $a_i$ for which $v_i\in \ker(X_{a_i}\colon V\to S_{+a_i}V)$. Setting $M_i=d_i+a_i$, this implies that $f_*(v_i) = 0$ for any $f\in \Hom([n_i],S)$ with $\abs{S} \geq M_i$.
Taking $M\coloneq \max M_i$, we see that as long as $\abs{S}\geq M$ we have $f_*(v_i)=0$ for any $i$ and any $f\in \Hom([n_i],S)$. Since these elements generate $T(V)_S$, this implies that $T(V)_S=0$ whenever $\abs{S}\geq M$. Therefore $T(V)\approxeq 0$ as desired.\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:polynomial}]
We will prove the stronger statement that if $V$ is finitely generated in degree $\leq d$, then $\dim_k V_n$ is eventually equal to an integer-valued polynomial of degree $\leq d$. The proof is by induction on $d$. We say that $V$ is generated in degree $\leq -1$ if $V=0$, and that a polynomial is of degree $\leq -1$ if it vanishes; we can thus take as our base case $d=-1$.
It follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:torsion} that the torsion-free quotient $V' = V/T(V)$ has $\dim_k V'_n = \dim_k V_n$ for $n \gg 0$, and being a quotient of $V$ we know that $V'$ is still generated in degree $\leq d$. Thus we can assume without loss of generality that $V$ is torsion-free. Under this assumption, the natural map $\X_1\colon V\to S_{+1}V$ is injective. Let $DV$ denote the cokernel of this map.
We show that $DV$ is finitely generated in degree $\leq d-1$.
First, if $V=M(m)$ for some $m\leq d$, then Proposition~\ref{pr:SaMd} shows that $DV=Q_1$ is finitely generated in degree $\leq m-1$. A general FI-module $V$ is finitely generated in degree $\leq d$ if there is a surjection $M\coloneq \bigoplus_{i=1}^k M(d_i)\surj V$ with $d_i\leq d$. Since $S_{+1}$ is exact, $S_{+1}M\surj S_{+1}V$ is surjective. We conclude that the quotient $DM$ surjects to $DV$, so the general claim follows from the special case $V=M(m)$ proved above.
By induction, we can conclude that $\dim_k DV_n$ is eventually a polynomial of degree at most $d-1$.
But if we write $f(n)$ for $\dim_k V_n$, we have
\beq
\dim DV_n = \dim (S_{+1}V)_n-\dim V_n = f(n+1) - f(n)
\eeq
Therefore we have just proved that the discrete derivative $f(n+1) - f(n)$ is eventually a polynomial of degree at most $d-1$. It follows that $f(n)$ is eventually a polynomial of degree at most $d$, which is the statement to be proved.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Inductive description of f.g.\ FI-modules (Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:inductive})}
Our goal in this section is to understand when an FI-module $V$ admits an inductive description
\[V_n=\colim_{S\subsetneq [n]} V_S,\] at least for large enough $n$. As we will see, such a description is equivalent to the exactness of the sequence
\[\tSminus{2}V\to \tSminus{1}V\to V\to 0,\] where $\tSminus{2}$ and $\tSminus{1}$ are certain functors defined below. In fact, we will define an entire complex
\begin{equation*}
\tSminus{\ast}V=\quad\cdots\to\tSminus{a}V\to\tSminus{(a-1)}\to \cdots\to \tSminus{2}V\to \tSminus{1}V\to V\to 0.
\end{equation*}
This complex also appeared in \cite[\S4]{P}, where it arose in a very different way, and will be used in Section~\ref{sec:congruence}.
\para{Ordered negative shifts $B_a$}
We begin by defining functors $B_a\colon \FIMod\to \FIMod$, and a complex \begin{equation*}
B_{*}V=\quad\cdots\to B_aV\to B_{a-1}V\to \cdots\to B_2V\to B_1V\to V\to 0
\end{equation*}
We will then define $\tSminus{a}V$ as a quotient of $B_aV$, in such a way that the complex $B_{*}V$ descends to the desired complex $\tSminus{\ast}V$.
\begin{definition}[\textbf{Ordered negative shift functor $B_a$}]
\label{def:ordnegshift}
Given an FI-module $V$ and an integer $a\geq 0$, we define $B_a V$ to be the FI-module which maps a set $S$ to the direct sum \begin{equation}
\label{eq:tempnegshift}
(B_a V)_S = \bigoplus_{f\colon [a]\hookrightarrow S}V_{S-f([a])}.
\end{equation}
We denote by $(B_a V)_{S,f}$ the summand corresponding to $f$ in the decomposition \eqref{eq:tempnegshift}.
The map $g_*\colon (B_aV)_S\to (B_aV)_T$ induced by $g\colon S\inj T$ takes the factor $(B_aV)_{S,f}$ to the factor $(B_aV)_{T,g\circ f}$ by the map $(g|_{S-f([a])})_*\colon V_{S-f([a])}\to V_{T-g\circ f([a])}$. The assignment $V\mapsto B_aV$ defines the exact functor $B_a\colon \FIMod\to \FIMod$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:BaMd}
For any $d\geq0$ and any $a\geq 0$ there is a natural isomorphism $B_aM(d)\simeq M(a+d)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Given an injection $f\colon[a]\inj S$, a basis for the summand $(B_aM(d))_{S,f}=M(d)_{S-f([a])}$ consists of the injections $f'\colon [d]\inj S-f([a])$. Therefore a basis for $(B_aM(d))_S$ consists of pairs $(f\colon [a]\inj S, f'\colon [d]\inj S)$ with $f([a])\cap f'([d])=\emptyset$. Fixing an isomorphism $[a]\disjoint [d]\simeq [a+d]$, the isomorphism $B_aM(d)\to M(a+d)$ is defined by sending $(f,f')\in B_aM(d)_S$ to $f\disjoint f'\colon [a+d]\inj S$. An injection $g\colon S\inj T$ acts on $B_aM(d)$ by $g_*(f,f')=(g\circ f,g\circ f')$, so since $(g\circ f)\disjoint (g\circ f')=g\circ(f\disjoint f')$, we indeed have an isomorphism of FI-modules $B_aM(d)\simeq M(a+d)$.
\end{proof}
Since $B_a$ is exact, it follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:BaMd} that if $V$ is generated in degree $\leq d$, then $B_aV$ is generated in degree $\leq a+d$. In particular, we have the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:BVfg}
If $V$ is finitely generated, then $B_a V$ is finitely generated for any $a\geq 0$.
\end{corollary}
\para{The complex $B_\ast V$}
We can package all the $B_a V$ together as a single object $B_V$. Given an FI-module $V$, let $B_V$ be the functor $B_V\colon\FI^{\op}\times \FI\to \RMod$ defined by:
\beq
B_V(U,S) = \bigoplus_{f\colon U \inj S} V_{S-f(U)}
\eeq
Write $B_V(U,S,f)$ for the corresponding factor of $B_V(U,S)$. For a morphism $g\in \Hom_{\FI}(S,T)$, the map $g_*\colon B_V(U,S)\to B_V(U,T)$ is given on factors $B_V(U,S,f)\to B_V(U,T,g\circ f)$ as described in Definition~\ref{def:ordnegshift}. To a morphism $h\in \Hom_{\FI^{\op}}(U,Z)$, i.e.\ an injection $h\colon Z\inj U$, we associate the map $h^*\colon B_V(U,S)\to B_V(Z,S)$ is given on factors $B_V(U,S,f)\to B_V(Z,S,f|_Z)$ by the map map $i_*\colon V_{S-f(U)}\to V_{S-f(Z)}$, where $i$ denotes the inclusion of the subset $S-f(U)$ into $S-f(Z)$.
Then $B_a V$ is the FI-module $B_V([a],{-})$.
For $1\leq i\leq a$, let $s_i$ be the order-preserving inclusion from $[a-1]$ to $[a]$ whose image misses $i$. Considering $s_i$ as a morphism in $\FI^{\op}$ from $[a]$ to $[a-1]$, it naturally induces a map of FI-modules $B_V([a],{-})\to B_V([a-1],{-})$, i.e. a map $d_i\colon B_a V\to B_{a-1} V$.
The functors $B_a V$ fit together into a natural complex of FI-modules
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Bcomplex}
B_{*}V\coloneq\qquad \cdots\to B_{3} V\to B_{2} V\to B_{1}V\to V\to 0
\end{equation}
with differential $d\colon B_{a}V\to B_{(a-1)}V$ given by the alternating sum $\sum (-1)^i d_i$.
The familiar identity $s_i\circ s_j=s_{j+1}\circ s_i$ of inclusions $[a-2]\inj [a]$ (for $1\leq i\leq j<a$) implies that $d_j\circ d_i=d_i\circ d_{j+1}$, from which it follows that $d^2=0$.
\para{Twisted negative shifts $\tSminus{a}$}
We defined $B_V\colon \FI^{\op}\times \FI\to \RMod$ above, and noted that $B_aV$ is given by $B_V([a],{-})$. Therefore the group of automorphisms $\Aut_{\FI^{\op}}([a])$ gives a natural action of $S_a$ on $B_aV$ by FI-module automorphisms; explicitly, this action permutes the factors $(B_aV)_{S,f}$ by precomposing the injections $f\colon [a]\inj S$ with permutations of $[a]$.
\begin{definition}[\textbf{Negative shift functor $\tSminus{a}$}]
\label{def:negshift}
Let $\epsilon_a$ denote the \emph{sign representation} of $S_a$; that is, the $R[S_a]$-module which as an $R$-module is simply $R$, and on which a permutation $\sigma$ acts by $(-1)^\sigma$.
We define
\beq
\tSminus{a} V = B_a V \tensor_{R[S_a]} \epsilon_a.
\eeq
\end{definition}
The effect is that $(\tSminus{a}V)_S$ has one summand $V_T$ for each subset $T\subset S$ with $\abs{T}=\abs{S}-a$, on which permutations of $T$ act as they usually do on $V_T$, and on which permutations of $S-T$ act by their sign. The surjection $R[S_a]\twoheadrightarrow \epsilon_a$ induces a surjection $B_a V\twoheadrightarrow \tSminus{a} V$, so as a consequence of Corollary~\ref{cor:BVfg} we obtain the following.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:shiftfg}
If $V$ is finitely generated, then $\tSminus{a}V$ is finitely generated for any $a\geq 1$.
\end{lemma}
\para{The complex $\tSminus{*}V$}
Since the differential $d\colon B_aV\to B_{a-1}V$ was defined as the alternating sum $\sum (-1)^i d_i$, it descends to a differential $d\colon\tSminus{a}V\to \tSminus{(a-1)}V$. We thus obtain a natural complex of FI-modules
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:shiftcomplex}
\tSminus{*}V\coloneq\qquad \cdots\to \tSminus{3} V\to \tSminus{2} V\to \tSminus{1}V\to V\to 0.
\end{equation}
\begin{remark} In a sequel to this paper~\cite{CE} we interpret the homology $H_a(\tSminus{*}V)$ of this complex as the ``FI-module homology'' of $V$, and use this to give quantitative bounds on the stable range in Theorems~\ref{thm:congruencepoly} and \ref{thm:congruenceinductive}. We point out that the same complex was considered independently by Putman~\cite{P}, where the degree-wise slices $(\tSminus{*}V)_M$ appear as the ``$M$-central stability chain complex'' \cite[Lemma 4.4]{P} in the context of central stability for representations of $S_n$ over a field.
In fact, the complex $\tSminus{*}V$ seems to arise naturally from \emph{three} independent perspectives: 1) as the ``central stability chain complex'' which governs the central stability of a sequence of $S_n$-representations \cite{P}; 2) as the Koszul resolution which computes the FI-module homology $H_i^{\FI}$ of an FI-module $V$ \cite{CE}; and 3) from the equivariant chains of the complex of split unimodular sequences constructed by Charney in \cite{Charney}. The approach of Putman~\cite{P} rests on the relation between the first and third, while the approach of \cite{CE} is based on the second and third.
In a sense, the present paper uses all three perspectives on the complex $\tSminus{*}V$: the first in Lemmas~\ref{lem:H0identify} and \ref{lem:H1identify} and the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:inductive}, the second in Proposition~\ref{prop:homologygraded}, and the third in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:congruencefg}. However, to keep this paper self-contained, we will derive all necessary properties of $H_a(\tSminus{*}V)$ from their definition in terms of the complex $\tSminus{*}V$ of \eqref{eq:shiftcomplex}.
\end{remark}
\para{Identifying $H_0(\tSminus{*}V)$ and $H_1(\tSminus{*}V)$}
For a finite set $T$, let $C^{\subseteq T}$ denote the poset of subsets $S\subset T$ under inclusion. We can consider $C^{\subseteq T}$ as a subcategory of $\FI$, and in fact the inclusions $i^S\colon S\inj T$ let us consider $C^{\subseteq T}$ as a subcategory of the over-category $\FI/T$. Therefore for any FI-module $V$ and any sub-poset $D\subset C^{\subseteq T}$, we have a $D$-indexed diagram $V_S$, and the maps $i^S_*\colon V_S\to V_T$ induce a canonical homomorphism \[\colim_D V_S\to V_T.\]
In general, this homomorphism of $R$-modules will be neither injective or surjective. However, the following lemmas demonstrate that when $D=C^{\subsetneq T}$, the injectivity and surjectivity of the homomorphism
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:colimmap}
\colim_{S\subsetneq T}V_S\to V_T
\end{equation}
are computed by $H_1(\tSminus{*}V)$ and $H_0(\tSminus{*}V)$ respectively.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:H0identify}
Let $V$ be an FI-module. Then $H_0(\tSminus{\ast}V)=H_0(V)$; moreover, for each finite set $T$ we have \[H_0(\tSminus{\ast}V)_T=\coker\big(\colim_{S\subsetneq T}V_S\to V_T\big)=H_0(V)_T.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Comparing the definitions of the three $R$-modules in question, we have by definition that $H_0(\tSminus{\ast}V)_T=\coker(\tSminus{1}V\to V)_T$ is the quotient of $V_T$ by the submodule
\[\big\langle \im i^S_*\colon V_S\to V_T\,\big|\, S\subset T,\ \abs{S}=\abs{T}-1\big\rangle,\]
while $\coker\big(\colim_{S\subsetneq T}V_S\to V_T\big)$ is the quotient of $V_T$ by the submodule
\[\big\langle \im i^S_*\colon V_S\to V_T\,\big|\, S\subset T,\ \abs{S}<\abs{T}\big\rangle,\]
and $H_0(V)_T$ is the quotient of $V_T$ by the submodule
\[\big\langle \im f_*\colon V_U\to V_T\,\big|\, f\colon U\inj T,\ \abs{U}< \abs{T}\big\rangle.\]
Therefore it suffices to prove that these three submodules coincide.
By definition, the first submodule is contained in the second, and the second submodule is contained in the third. Conversely, for any $f\colon U\inj T$ with $\abs{U}<\abs{T}$, set $S=f(U)$. Then $f$ factors as $i^S\circ f'$, where $f'\colon U\to f(U)=S$ is the co-restriction of $f$. It follows that $\im f_*$ is contained in $\im i^S_*$, demonstrating that the third submodule is contained in the second. Similarly, for any $S\subset T$ with $\abs{S}<\abs{T}$, choose $S'$ such that $S\subset S'\subset T$ and $\abs{S'}=\abs{T}-1$. Then $i^S=i^{S'}\circ i^{S,S'}$, demonstrating that the second submodule is contained in the first.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:H1identify}
Let $V$ be an FI-module. For each finite set $T$,
\[H_1(\tSminus{*}V)_T=\ker\big(\colim_{S\subsetneq T}V_S\to V_T\big).\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $C^{\subsetneq T}$ be the poset of proper subsets $S\subsetneq T$ under inclusion, and let $D^T$ be the poset of subsets $S\subset T$ with $\abs{T}-2\leq \abs{S}\leq \abs{T}-1$. We begin by observing that the inclusion of categories $D^T\subset C^{\subsetneq T}$ is \emph{final}, which means that for any $C^{\subsetneq T}$-indexed diagram $F$, the natural map
\[\colim_{D^T} F\to \colim_{C^{\subsetneq T}} F\] is an isomorphism \cite[Definition~8.3.2]{Riehl}.
By the standard characterization of final functors (see Riehl~\cite[Lemma~8.3.4]{Riehl}), the inclusion $D^T\subset C^{\subsetneq T}$ is final if and only if for every object $U\in C^{\subsetneq T}$, the under-category $U/D^T$ is non-empty and connected.
In our case, $U$ is a proper subset $U\subsetneq T$, and $U/D^T$ is simply the poset of subsets $S$ such that $U\subset S\subset T$ and $\abs{T}-2\leq \abs{S}\leq \abs{T}-1$. If $U$ lies in $D^T$, it is initial in $U/D^T$, so $U/D^T$ is not just connected but contractible. Otherwise, since $U\subsetneq T$, there exists some $S_0\supset U$ with $\abs{S_0}=\abs{T}-2$, so $U/D^T$ is nonempty. For any other $S\in U/D^T$ with $\abs{S\Delta S_0}\leq 2k$, there exists a chain $S_0\subset S'_0\supset S_1\subset \cdots\supset S_k\subset S$ in $U/D^T$ with $\abs{S_i}=\abs{T}-2$ and $\abs{S'_i}=\abs{T}-1$, so $U/D^T$ is connected. Therefore $D^T\subset C^{\subsetneq T}$ is final as claimed, and so $\colim_{S\subsetneq T}V_S$ can be computed instead as $\colim_{S\in D^T} V_S$.
Consider the standard coequalizer formula for the colimit over $D^T$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:coequalizer}
\colim_{S\in D^T}V_S=\bigoplus_{S\in D^T} V_S\ /\ \big\langle u-f_*(u)\,\big|\,f\in \Hom_{D^T}(U,S), u\in V_U\big\rangle
\end{equation}
Since $u-\id_*u=0$, we can restrict in \eqref{eq:coequalizer} to non-identity morphisms $f\in \Hom_{D^T}(U,S)$. Such morphisms exist only when $\abs{U}=\abs{T}-2$, in which case there exist precisely two subsets $S^1_U,S^2_U$ for which there exist non-identity morphisms $i^1_U\colon U \to S^1_U$ and $i^2_U\colon U\to S^2_U$. Using the relations $u\equiv (i^2_U)_*(u)$ we can remove those $U\in D^T$ with $\abs{U}=\abs{T}-2$ from the sum \eqref{eq:coequalizer}, reducing it to
\begin{align*}
\colim_{S\in D^T}V_S &= \bigoplus_{\substack{S\subset T\\\abs{S}=\abs{T}-1}}V_S\ /\ \big\langle (i^1_U)_*(u)-(i^2_U)_*(u)\,|\, U\subset T, \abs{U}=\abs{T}-2,u\in V_U\big\rangle\\
&= (\tSminus{1}V)_T / \im(d\colon (\tSminus{2}V)_T\to (\tSminus{1}V)_T) = \coker(d\colon \tSminus{2}V\to \tSminus{1}V)_T
\end{align*}
By definition, $H_1(\tSminus{*}V)_T$ is the kernel of the map $\coker(d\colon \tSminus{2}V\to \tSminus{1}V)_T
\to V_T$ induced by $d\colon \tSminus{1}V\to \tSminus {0}V=V$. Since $d$ sends the factor $V_S$ of $\tSminus{1}V$ to $V_T$ by $i^S_*$, this induced map coincides with the universal map $\colim_{S\in D^T}V_S\to V_T$ of \eqref{eq:colimmap}. Since $\colim_{S\subsetneq T}V_S=\colim_{S\in D^T}V_S$, we conclude that $H_1(\tSminus{*}V)_T=\ker(\colim_{S\in D^T}V_S\to V_T)$ as claimed.\end{proof}
Since $T$ is terminal in the poset $C^{\subseteq T}$, the map $\colim_{S\subseteq T} V_S\to V_T$ is always an isomorphism. Therefore as a consequence of Lemmas~\ref{lem:H0identify} and \ref{lem:H1identify}, we have the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:H0H1}
Let $V$ be an FI-module. Then for each finite set $T$,
\[H_0(\tSminus{*}V)_T=0\text{ and }H_1(\tSminus{*}V)_T=0\qquad\iff\qquad \colim_{S\subsetneq T}V_S=V_T.\]
\end{corollary}
\para{The homology $H_a(\tSminus{*}V)$}
The FI-module $H_0(V)$ has the property that the natural map $\X_1\colon H_0(V)\to S_{+1} H_0(V)$ {\em vanishes}; in fact, from Definition~\ref{def:H0} we see that $H_0(V)$ is the largest quotient of $V$ with this property. In particular, $H_0(V)$ is a torsion FI-module. The main content of the following proposition is that the homology groups $H_a(\tSminus{*}V)$ enjoy the same property for every $a$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:homologygraded}
Let $V$ be an FI-module. Then $H_a(\tSminus{*}V)$ is a torsion FI-module for any $a \geq 0$. If $V$ is a finitely-generated FI-module over a Noetherian ring, we have furthermore that $H_a(\tSminus{*}V)\approxeq 0$ for each $a\geq 0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We begin by proving that $H_a(\tSminus{*}V)$ is torsion; in fact, we will prove the stronger assertion that the map $\X_1\colon H_a(\tSminus{*}V)\to S_{+1}H_a(\tSminus{*}V)$ is zero for all $a\geq 0$.
The naturality of $\X_1$ implies that this map is induced by a map of FI-complexes
\beq
\X_1\colon \tSminus{*}V \to S_{+1} \tSminus{*}V.
\eeq
We will show that $X_1$ induces the zero map on homology by exhibiting an explicit chain homotopy from $X_1$ to 0.
If $f\colon [a] \inj S$ is an injection of finite sets, we let $\overline{f}\colon [a+1]\inj S \disjoint \set{-1}$ be the map defined
by
\[\overline{f}(i)=\begin{cases}-1&\text{ if }i=1\\f(i-1)&\text{ otherwise}\end{cases}\]
We then define $\widetilde{G}\colon B_a V \ra S_{+1} B_{a+1} V$ by \[\widetilde{G}\colon B_V([a],S,f)=V_{S - f([a])}\overset{=}{\longrightarrow}V_{S\disjoint [-1] - \overline{f}([a+1])}= B_V([a+1], S \disjoint \set{-1}, \overline{f}).\] We have
\beq
d\widetilde{G}\colon B_V([a],S,f) \ra B_V([a+1], S \disjoint \set{-1}, \overline{f}) \overset{\bigoplus (-1)^i d_i}{\longrightarrow}\bigoplus_{i=1}^{a+1} B_V([a], S \disjoint \set{-1}, \overline{f} \circ s_i)
\eeq
and
\beq
\widetilde{G}d\colon B_V([a],S,f) \ra \bigoplus_{i=1}^a B_V([a-1],S,f \circ s_i) \overset{\bigoplus (-1)^i d_i}{\longrightarrow}\bigoplus_{i=1}^{a} B_V([a], S \disjoint \set{-1}, \overline{f \circ s_i})
\eeq
where the summands labeled by $i$ are twisted by $(-1)^i$ coming from $d=\sum (-1)^i d_i$.
We have the identity $\overline{f \circ s_i} = \overline{f} \circ s_{i+1}$ for $1\leq i\leq a$, so in the sum $d\widetilde{G}+\widetilde{G}d$ these terms cancel, leaving us with the map
\beq
d\widetilde{G}+\widetilde{G}d\colon B_V([a],S,f) \ra B_V([a], S \disjoint \set{-1}, \overline{f} \circ s_{1})
\eeq
But $\overline{f} \circ s_{1}\colon [a] \inj S \disjoint \set{-1}$ is just the composition $\overline{f} \circ s_{1}=i_{[-1]}\circ f$ of $f\colon [a]\inj S$ with the natural inclusion $i_{[-1]}\colon S\inj S \disjoint \set{-1}$. By definition, $X_1$ is the map induced by $i_{[-1]}$, so we conclude that \[d\widetilde{G} + \widetilde{G}d = (-1)^1 X_1=-X_1\colon B_aV\to S_{+1}B_{a+1}V.\]
Since the inclusion of $S_a$ into $S_{a+1}$ defined by $[a]\inj [a]\disjoint [-1]$ preserves $(-1)^\sigma$, the map $\widetilde{G}$ descends to a map $G\colon \tSminus{a}V\to S_{+1}\tSminus{(a+1)}V$. The computation above descends to the identity \[dG + Gd = -X_1\colon \tSminus{*}V \to S_{+1} \tSminus{*}V.\] Therefore $G$ exhibits a chain homotopy from $X_1$ to $0$ on $\tSminus{*}V$.
It follows that $X_1\colon H_a(\tSminus{*}V)\to S_{+1}H_a(\tSminus{*}V)$ is 0, and thus in particular that $H_a(\tSminus{*}V)$ is torsion.
Now suppose $V$ is a finitely-generated FI-module over a Noetherian ring. By Lemma~\ref{lem:shiftfg} we know that $\tSminus{a}V$ is finitely generated, so Theorem~\ref{thm:noetherian} implies that its subquotient $H_a(\tSminus{*}V)$ is finitely generated as well. Since $H_a(\tSminus{*}V)$ is torsion, this implies that $H_a(\tSminus{*}V) \approxeq 0$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:torsion}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
A version of Proposition~\ref{prop:homologygraded} (with the additional assumptions that $V$ is finitely presented in some sense, and also that $V$ is an FI-module over a field whose characteristic is larger than the location of the ``relations'' of $V$) is proved by Putman in \cite[Proposition~4.5]{P}.
\end{remark}
We are now ready to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:inductive}, whose statement we recall. \begin{theoremC}
Let $V$ be a finitely-generated FI-module over a Noetherian ring $R$. Then there exists some $N\geq 0$ such that for all $n\in \N$:
\begin{equation*}
V_n=\ \colim_{\substack{S\subseteq [n]\\\abs{S}\leq N}}\ V_S
\end{equation*}
\end{theoremC}
We will prove the equivalent statement that for any finite set $T$:
\begin{equation}
\tag{\astT{T}}
\label{eq:astT}
\text{The natural map }\colim_{\substack{S\subseteq T\\\abs{S}\leq N}} V_S\to V_T \text{ is an isomorphism.}
\end{equation}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:inductive}]
Under our assumptions, Proposition~\ref{prop:homologygraded} states that $H_a(\tSminus{*}V)\approxeq 0$ for all $a\geq 0$.
In particular, we can fix some $N\geq 0$ such that $H_0(V)_n=0$ and $H_1(V)_n=0$ for all $n>N$. We will prove that for this $N$ the claim \eqref{eq:astT} holds for all finite sets $T$, by induction on $\abs{T}$. Our base case is $\abs{T}\leq N$. In this case the condition $\abs{S}\leq N$ is vacuous, and the claim \eqref{eq:astT} asserts that the natural map $\colim_{S\subseteq T} V_S\to V_T$ is an isomorphism. This is true for any $V$, since $T$ is terminal in the poset $\{S\subset T\}$.
Fix a finite set $T$ with $\abs{T}>N$, and assume that (\astT{U}) holds whenever $\abs{U}<\abs{T}$.
For any map of posets $g\colon P\to Q$ and any $P$-indexed diagram $F$, it holds that \[\colim_{p\in P} F(p)=\colim_{q\in Q} \colim_{\substack{p\in P\\g(p)\leq q}} F(p).\] Applying this to the inclusion of $\{S\subset T|\abs{S}\leq N\}$ into $\{U\subsetneq T\}$, we find that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:colimcolim}
\colim_{\substack{S\subseteq T\\\abs{S}\leq N}} V_S
=\colim_{U\subsetneq T}\colim_{\substack{S\subseteq U\\\abs{S}\leq N}}V_S.
\end{equation} Applying the inductive assumption $(\astT{U})$ gives $\colim_{\substack{S\subset U\\\abs{S}\leq N}}V_S=V_U$ for each $U\subsetneq T$. Therefore \eqref{eq:colimcolim} simplifies to $\colim_{U\subsetneq T}V_U$.
Since $\abs{T}>N$ we have $H_0(V)_T=H_1(V)_T=0$, so Corollary~\ref{cor:H0H1} states that $\colim_{U\subsetneq T}V_U=V_T$. Summing up, we have
\[\colim_{\substack{S\subseteq T\\\abs{S}\leq N}} V_S
=\colim_{U\subsetneq T}\colim_{\substack{S\subseteq U\\\abs{S}\leq N}}V_S
=\colim_{U\subsetneq T}V_U=V_T.\] This concludes the proof of \eqref{eq:astT}.
\end{proof}
\section{Congruence FI-groups (Proof of Theorem~D)}
\label{sec:congruence}
In this section we will prove Theorem~\ref{thm:congruencefg}, on the homology of the congruence FI-group $\Gamma_\bullet(\p)$.
\para{The congruence FI-group $\Gamma_\bullet(\p)$} Given a commutative ring $R$, let $M(1)=M(1)_{/R}$ denote the FI-module taking a finite set $S$ to the free $R$-module with basis $\{e_s|s\in S\}$, and let $M(1)^*$ denote the FI-module taking a finite set $S$ to $\Hom_R(M(1)_S,R)$.
Their tensor product is the endomorphism FI-algebra $\End M(1)=M(1)\otimes M(1)^*$, and the invertible endomorphisms form the FI-group $\GL(M(1))$; this definition agrees with the FI-group $\GL_\bullet(R)$ defined by \eqref{eq:GLFIgroup} in the introduction.
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:M1M1dual}
There is an isomorphism of FI-modules from $M(1)$ to $M(1)^*$ which sends $e_s$ to the functional $\lambda_s\colon M(1)_S\to R$ defined by $\lambda_s(e_t)=\delta_{st}$. Nevertheless, we maintain the distinction because the natural actions of $\GL(M(1))$ on $M(1)$ and on $M(1)^*$ are not equivalent. Taking $S=[n]$, we have canonical isomorphisms $M(1)_n\simeq M(1)^*_n\simeq R^n$ and $\GL(M(1))_n\simeq \GL_n(R)$; the action on $M(1)$ is by the standard representation of $\GL_n(R)$ on $R^n$, while the action on $M(1)^*$ is by the dual representation $g\mapsto (g^{-1})^\top$.
\end{remark}
For any ideal $\p\subset R$, the natural reduction map from $R$ to $\FF\coloneq R/\p$ induces maps $M(1)_{/R} \to M(1)_{/\FF}$ and $\GL(M(1)_{/R})\to \GL(M(1)_{/\FF})$.
As in the introduction, the {\em congruence FI-group $\Gamma_\bullet(\p)$} is defined by the short exact sequence of FI-groups:
\[1\to \Gamma_\bullet(\p)\to \GL(M(1)_{/R})\to \GL(M(1)_{/\FF})\]
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:congruencefg}]
Fix a number field $K$ with ring of integers $\O_K$, and let $\p\subsetneq \O_K$ be a proper ideal. Fix also a Noetherian ring $A$, and consider the FI-module $\mathcal{H}_m\coloneq \mathcal{H}_q(\Gamma_\bullet(\p);A)$ over $A$; our goal is to prove that $\mathcal{H}_m$ is finitely generated.
We work with a more naive version of the complex used by Putman in \cite{P}. Consider $M(1)\times M(1)^*=M(1)_{/\O_K}\times M(1)_{/\O_K}^*$ as an FI-set (ignoring any additive strucure). Our complex $X_\bullet$ will be an FI-simplicial complex with vertex set contained in $M(1)\times M(1)^*$.
Consider the FI-simplicial complex $\Delta^{\bullet-1}$ which assigns to any finite set $S$ the full simplicial complex $\Delta^{\bullet-1}(S)$ with vertex set $S$. Thus $\Delta^{\bullet-1}(n)$ is the standard $(n-1)$-simplex $\Delta^{n-1}$, its FI-endomorphisms act by the standard action of $S_n$ on $\Delta^{n-1}$, and any injective map $S\hookrightarrow T$ of sets induces a simplicial inclusion
$\Delta^{\bullet-1}(S)\to\Delta^{\bullet-1}(T)$. See \cite[Example 2.11]{CEF} for more on this FI-simplicial complex.
Let $D_\bullet$ denote the FI-simplex $\Delta^{\bullet-1}$, considered as embedded in $M(1)\times M(1)^*$ as the full simplex on the elements
$\{(e_s, \lambda_s)|s\in S\} \subset M(1)_S\times M(1)_S^*$. We define the FI-simplicial complex $X_\bullet$ to be
\[X_\bullet\coloneq \Gamma_\bullet(\p)\cdot D_\bullet.\] In other words, $X_\bullet$ is the simplicial complex with vertex set contained in $M(1)\times M(1)^*$ consisting of all of those simplices lying in the $\Gamma_\bullet(\p)$-orbit of $D_\bullet$.
No element of $\Gamma_\bullet(\p)$ takes any simplex of $D_\bullet$ to a different simplex of $D_\bullet$, as these simplices are distinguished by their reduction in $M(1)_{/\FF}\times M(1)_{/\FF}^*$, which is preserved by the action of $\Gamma_\bullet(\p)$. (This is where we use that $\p$ is a \emph{proper} ideal of $\O_K$.) Thus $D_\bullet$ is by definition a fundamental domain for the action of $\Gamma_\bullet(\p)$ on $X_\bullet$, and we have a canonical identification
\[X_\bullet/\Gamma_\bullet(\p)\simeq D_\bullet.\]
From such an action we obtain in the usual way (see \cite[Equation~VII.7.2]{B}) a spectral sequence converging to the equivariant homology $H_*^{\Gamma_\bullet(\p)}(X_\bullet)$. Although our complex $X_\bullet$ differs from the complex $\mathcal{SB}_n(\O_K,\p)$ considered by Putman, he notes in \cite[Lemma~3.2]{P} that $X_\bullet \approxeq \mathcal{SB}_\bullet(\O_K,\p)$ since $\O_K$ satisfies Bass's stable range condition $S_3$. In particular, Putman deduces from Charney \cite[Theorem~3.5]{Charney} that the complex $\mathcal{SB}_n(\O_K,\p)$ is $(\frac{n}{2}-2)$-acyclic \cite[Lemma~3.1]{P}, so we have $\widetilde{H}_m(X_\bullet)\approxeq 0$ for all $m\geq 0$. This implies (see \cite[Proposition~VII.7.3]{B}) that \[H_m^{\Gamma_\bullet(\p)}(X_\bullet)\approxeq H_m(\Gamma_\bullet(\p))=\mathcal{H}_m;\] in other words, the equivariant homology computed by the spectral sequence is asymptotically identical with the ordinary homology FI-module $\mathcal{H}_m$ that is our object of study here.
Let us consider the $E^1$ page of this spectral sequence more closely. Since $D_\bullet$ is a fundamental domain for the action, we have (see \cite[Equation~VII.7.7]{B}):
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:E1first}
E^1_{pq}=\bigoplus_{\substack{\sigma \text{ a $p$-simplex}\\\text{of }D_\bullet}}H_q(\Stab_{\Gamma_\bullet(\p)}(\sigma);R)\qquad\implies\ H_m^{\Gamma_\bullet(\p)}(X_\bullet)\approxeq\mathcal{H}_{p+q}
\end{equation}
Each $p$-simplex $\sigma$ of $D_S$ is the full simplex on $\{(e_u, \lambda_u)|u\in U\} \subset M(1)_S\times M(1)_S^*$ for some $U\subset S$ with $\abs{U}=p+1$. Let $T=S-U$. The FI-group structure on $\Gamma_\bullet(\p)$ yields an inclusion $\Gamma_T(\p) \inj \Gamma_S(\p)$, and the stabilizer in $\Gamma_S(\p)$ of the simplex $\sigma_U$ is precisely the subgroup $\Gamma_T(\p)$. This shows that \[(E^1_{pq})_S=\bigoplus_{\substack{T\subset S\\\abs{T}=\abs{S}-p-1}}H_q(\Gamma_T(\p);R).\] Since a permutation of $U=S-T$ acts on the orientation of the $p$-simplex $\sigma_U$ according to its sign, comparing with Definition~\ref{def:negshift}, we see that we can identify $E^1_{pq}$ with $\tSminus{p-1}(\mathcal{H}_q)$; more than this, we can identify the $q$th row ($E^1_{\ast,q},d^1)$ with the complex
$\tSminus{*-1}\mathcal{H}_q$
from \eqref{eq:shiftcomplex}, excluding the last term $\tSminus{0}\mathcal{H}_q=\mathcal{H}_q$.
We have in particular $E^1_{0,m}=\tSminus{1}\mathcal{H}_m$, and the edge map $E^1_{0,m}\to H_{m}^{\Gamma_\bullet(\p)}(X_\bullet)$ factors as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:abut}
\tSminus{1}(\mathcal{H}_m)=E^1_{0,m}\twoheadrightarrow E^\infty_{0,m}\hookrightarrow H_{m}^{\Gamma_\bullet(\p)}(X_\bullet)\approxeq \mathcal{H}_m.
\end{equation}
The composition of these maps is just the boundary map $\tSminus{1}(\mathcal{H}_m) \ra \mathcal{H}_m$ appearing in \eqref{eq:shiftcomplex}.
We now prove by induction on $m$ that $\mathcal{H}_m$ is a finitely-generated FI-module. For the base case, we have $\mathcal{H}_0=M(0)$, which is finitely generated by definition.
Suppose we know that $\mathcal{H}_{q}$ is finitely generated for all $q < m$. The cokernel of the map $E^\infty_{0,m}\to H_{m}^{\Gamma_\bullet(\p)}(X_\bullet)$ has a filtration whose graded quotients are isomorphic to $E^\infty_{p,m-p}$ for $1\leq p \leq m$. Since $E^2_{pq}=H_p(\tSminus{*}\mathcal{H}_q)$ and $R$ is Noetherian, Proposition~\ref{prop:homologygraded} tells us that $E^2_{pq} \approxeq 0$ for all $p\geq 0$ and all $q < m$. Since $E^\infty_{pq}$ is a subquotient of $E^2_{pq}$, it follows that $E^\infty_{pq} \approxeq 0$ for all $p\geq 0$ and all $q < m$. This shows that $\coker(E^\infty_{0,m} \ra H_{m}^{\Gamma_\bullet(\p)}(X_\bullet))\approx 0$. Via \eqref{eq:abut}, this implies that $\coker(\tSminus{1}(\mathcal{H}_m)\to \mathcal{H}_m) \approxeq 0$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:H0identify} this says that $H_0(\mathcal{H}_m)\approxeq 0$, which by Lemma~\ref{lem:cokerfg}.1 is equivalent to saying that $\mathcal{H}_m$ is generated in finite degree.
The existence of the Borel--Serre compactification \cite{BS} implies that $H_m(\Gamma_n(\p);R)$ is a finitely-generated $R$-module for all $m\geq 0$ and all $n\geq 0$. Therefore by Lemma~\ref{lem:cokerfg}.2, $\mathcal{H}_m$ is generated in finite degree if and only if $\mathcal{H}_m$ is finitely generated. This shows that $\mathcal{H}_m$ is finitely generated, completing the inductive step of the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} The homology groups $H_m(\Gamma_n(\p);\Z)$ do not merely carry an action of $S_n$, but of the larger linear group $\SL_n(\FF)$, in which $S_n$ is contained as a subgroup. (This uses the nontrivial result that the mod-$\p$ reduction $\SL_n\O_K\to \SL_n\FF$ is actually surjective.) In keeping with the philosophy of \cite[\S8]{CF} one might ask whether the groups $H_m(\Gamma_n(\p);\Z)$ obey an appropriate notion of ``representation stability" with respect to the action of the family $\{\SL_n\FF\}$.
\end{remark}
\section{Configuration co-FI-spaces (Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:configurationsfg})}
Let $R$ be a Noetherian ring and let $M$ be a connected orientable manifold of dimension $\geq 2$ with $H^*(M;R)$ finitely generated.
We recall from the introduction that $\Conf(M)$ is the co-FI-space sending a finite set $S$ to the space $\Inj(S,M)$ of injections of $S$ into $M$. Let $M^\bullet$ be the co-FI-space defined by $M^S=\Map(S,M)$. There is a natural inclusion $i\colon \Conf(M)\inj M^\bullet$ as co-FI-spaces.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:cohoMbullet}
Let $M$ be a connected space with the homotopy type of a CW complex with finitely many cells in each dimension. Then for all $m\geq 0$, the FI-module $H^m(M^\bullet;R)$ is generated in finite degree.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} When $R$ is a field $k$, the lemma can be deduced without difficulty from the K\"{u}nneth theorem and the results of \cite{CEF}, since $H^*(M^\bullet;k)=H^*(M;k)^{\otimes\bullet}$. However for general $R$, the relation between the cohomology of $M^n$ and that of $M$ is more complicated; we handle this by working directly at the level of cochains.
We have assumed that $M$ is homotopy equivalent to a CW complex; since $M$ is connected, we may assume that this CW complex has only a single $0$-cell. Let $\CC_*$ be the corresponding cellular chain complex over $R$; this is a bounded-below chain complex of finitely generated projective $R$-modules with $\CC_0=R$.
We recall from \cite[Definition 2.71]{CEF} the definition of the co-FI-chain complex $\CC_*^{\otimes \bullet}$. By definition, in degree $n$ it is $(\CC_*^{\otimes \bullet})_{[n]}\coloneq\CC_*^{\otimes n}$, which is a bounded-below chain complex of finitely generated projective $R$-modules. An injection $f\colon [n]\hookrightarrow [m]$ induces the map $f^*\colon \CC_*^{\otimes m}\hookrightarrow \CC_*^{\otimes n}$ which on each factor lying in $[m]-f([n])$ is the projection onto $\CC_0=R$, and permutes the remaining factors according to $f^{-1}$ (with appropriate sign based on the grading).
The Eilenberg--Zilber theorem states that the singular chain complex $C_*(M^n)$ of $M^n$ is quasi-isomorphic to the $n$-fold derived tensor product $C_*(M)^{\tensor^{\mathbb{L}} n}$. Since $\CC_*$ is quasi-isomorphic to $C_*(M)$ we have $C_*(M)^{\tensor^{\mathbb{L}} n}=(\CC_*)^{\tensor^{\mathbb{L}} n}$. But $(\CC_*)^{\tensor^{\mathbb{L}} n}=(\CC_*)^{\tensor n}$, since $\CC_*$ is a complex of projective $R$-modules. Therefore $(\CC_*)^{\otimes n}$ is quasi-isomorphic to $C_*(M^n)$. In other words, since $\CC_*$ consists of projective modules and coincides with $C_*(M)$ in the derived category $D^b(R)$, the co-FI-chain complexes $(\CC_*)^{\tensor \bullet}$ and $C_*(M^\bullet)$ define the same co-FI-object of $D^b(R)$.
In particular, the cohomology $H^*(M^\bullet;R)=\Ext^*(C_*(M^\bullet),R)$ can be computed as the cohomology of the complex $\Hom((\CC_*)^{\tensor \bullet},R)$, which is now an FI-chain complex of finitely generated projective $R$-modules.
Denote the piece of this complex in grading $m$ by $\Hom((\CC_*)^{\tensor \bullet},R)^{m}$:
\[\Hom((\CC_*)^{\tensor n},R)^m=\bigoplus_{m_1+\cdots+m_n=m} \Hom(\CC_{m_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes \CC_{m_n},R)\] When $n>m$ every such factor must have $m_i=0$ for some $i$, and thus lies in the image of $f_*$ for some $f\colon [n-1]\hookrightarrow [n]$. Therefore the FI-module $\Hom((\CC_*)^{\tensor \bullet},R)^{m}$ is finitely generated in degree $m$.
Since $H^m(M^\bullet)$ is a subquotient of this finitely generated FI-module, it is finitely generated by Theorem~\ref{thm:noetherian}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:configurationsfg}]
We consider the inclusion of co-FI-spaces $i\colon \Conf(M)\inj M^\bullet$, and the resulting Leray spectral sequence of FI-modules over $R$: \[E_2^{p,q}=H^p(M^\bullet;R^qi_*(\underline{R}))\implies H^{p+q}(\Conf(M);R)\] Our first goal is to verify that $E_2^{p,q}$ is finitely generated as an FI-module for each $p,q\geq 0$.
Over $\Q$ this argument was given in the proof of \cite[Theorem~4.1]{CEF}, and the same outline works here; the main difference over a general Noetherian ring $R$ was in Lemma~\ref{lemma:cohoMbullet}.
Totaro describes the $E_2$ page of this spectral sequence \cite[Theorem 1]{To}, and in particular he shows that $E_2^{*,*}$ is generated by the subalgebras $E_2^{*,0}$ and $E_2^{0,*}$ (see the proof of \cite[Theorem~4.1]{CEF} for more details). The former is isomorphic to $H^*(M^\bullet;R)$, which is finitely generated by Lemma~\ref{lemma:cohoMbullet}.
Totaro proves that the subalgebra $E_2^{0,*}$ is generated by $E_2^{0,d-1}$, which is generated in degree 2 (by the element ``$G_{12}$'', in Totaro's notation). Since this is a first-quadrant spectral sequence, only finitely many terms along each axis can multiply to any given entry. Each entry $E_2^{p,q}$ is thus the quotient of a finite direct sum of finite tensor products of finitely-generated FI-modules. By the basic proposition \cite[Proposition~2.61]{CEF}, such a finite tensor product is itself finitely generated. It follows that $E_2^{p,q}$ is finitely generated as well.
Since $E_\infty^{p,q}$ is a subquotient of $E_2^{p,q}$, Theorem~\ref{thm:noetherian} implies that $E_{\infty}^{p,q}$ is finitely generated for each $p\geq 0$ and $q\geq 0$. The cohomology FI-module $H^m(\Conf(M);R)$ has a finite-length filtration whose graded quotients are of this form, so by \cite[Proposition~2.17]{CEF} the FI-module $H^m(\Conf(M);R)$ is itself finitely generated, as desired.
\end{proof}
\section{Coinvariant co-FI-algebras (Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:coinvariantsfg})}
Fix a commutative Noetherian ring $A$, and fix an integer $r\geq 1$. We recall from the introduction that $A[\XX^{(r)}]$ is the $\Z_{\geq 0}^r$-graded co-FI-algebra which sends a finite set $S$ to the free commutative $A$-algebra on generators indexed by $[r]\times S$. Its quotient by the ideal of $\Aut(S)$-invariant polynomials with zero constant term defines the $\Z_{\geq 0}^r$-graded co-FI-algebra $R^{(r)}$, the \emph{$r$-diagonal coinvariant co-FI-algebra}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:coinvariantsfg}]
The co-FI-algebra $A[\XX^{(r)}]$ is the free commutative $A$-algebra generated by the co-FI-module $M(1)^\vee$, so the FI-algebra $A[\XX^{(r)}]^\vee$ is the free commutative $A$-algebra generated by the FI-module $M(1)$. In particular, if $J=(j_1,\ldots,j_r)$, the graded piece $A[\XX^{(r)}]^\vee_J$ is isomorphic to $\Sym^{j_1}M(1)\otimes \cdots \otimes \Sym^{j_r}M(1)$. This is a quotient of $M(1)^{\tensor \abs{J}}$, which is finitely generated by \cite[Proposition~2.61]{CEF}, so $A[\XX^{(r)}]^\vee_J$ is a finitely generated FI-module over $A$.
Since $R^{(r)}_J$ is a quotient of $A[\XX^{(r)}]_J$, its dual $(R^{(r)}_J)^\vee$ naturally embeds as a sub-FI-module of $A[\XX^{(r)}]_J^\vee$. Theorem~\ref{thm:noetherian} therefore implies that $(R^{(r)}_J)^\vee$ is finitely generated as desired.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Quantum computing using anyons was introduced by Kitaev in his seminal paper~\cite{Kitaev:Anyon}. He showed how to construct a \emph{fault tolerant} computer based on anyons where unitary transformations are performed by braiding the anyons with each other. The anyons considered in the paper arise from quantum doubles of finite groups. Due to the topological nature of braiding, this model is called topological quantum computing. \citet{OgburnPreskill} showed how to perform \emph{universal} quantum computation in this model using simple groups. In particular, they showed how to simulate a gate set using the alternating group $A_5$. \citet{Mochon2} (see also~\cite{Mochon1}) showed that groups which are solvable but not nilpotent can also be used for universal quantum computation.
In a series of papers, Freedman, Kitaev, Larsen and Wang laid the mathematical foundations of topological quantum computing. In \cite{FKLW} and \cite{Freedman:SimulationTQFT}, it was shown that quantum computers based on the circuit model can simulate topological quantum field theories (TQFT) and hence that topological quantum computers can be simulated using the standard circuit model. This, implicitly, gives an algorithm to approximate the Jones polynomial of knots and links. Aharonov, Jones and Landau~\cite{AJL} later gave an explicit combinatorial algorithm to additively approximate the Jones polynomial. Wocjan and Yard~\cite{WY} also present an efficient algorithm which is based on irreducible representations of Hecke algebras (which give rise to representations of the braid group). In the other direction, Freedman, Kitaev and Wang~\cite{Freedman:modular} show that topological quantum computers based on certain TQFTs can simulate conventional quantum computers. This implies that approximating (additively) the Jones polynomial and plat closures of braids is $\mathsf{BQP}$-complete. In \cite{Freedman:modular}, $\mathsf{BQP}$-completeness was shown when the TQFT was defined at a fixed root of unity $k$. However, the algorithm in \cite{AJL} works for an asymptotically growing $k$ as well. This gap was closed when \citet{AharonovArad} showed that even when $k$ grows asymptotically, the complexity of approximating the link invariants is $\mathsf{BQP}$-complete. All the hardness results are based on one central fact. The representations of the braid group in all these models have the property that their image is dense in the unitary group. In \cite{Kuperberg:density}, Kuperberg showed that this is the case in general: whenever the image of the link invariant is dense, additive approximation is $\mathsf{BQP}$-complete and multiplicative approximation is $\mathsf{SBQP}$-complete. Using Aaronson's result \cite{Aaronson:PostBQP}, multiplicative approximations are also $\mathsf{\#P}$-hard.
However, very little is known about the complexity of non-dense invariants such as those arising from quantum doubles of finite groups. In this paper, we prove some analogous results for computation with anyons arising from quantum doubles of finite groups (denoted $\mathsf{D}(G)$). We provide algorithms and hardness results for approximating link invariants in this model. The main difference between the model in this paper and those referred to above is that the image of the representations of the braid group in this model is not dense (in fact, it is a finite group \cite{FiniteImage}). This means that none of the techniques developed for dense invariants automatically carry over to this model and we develop them in this paper. On the side of algorithms, we first give an efficient circuit for the Fourier transform over the regular representation of $\mathsf{D}(G)$. We then present quantum algorithms to approximate link invariants arising from irreps of $\mathsf{D}(G)$. For certain kinds of irreps, namely those associated with a conjugacy class of $G$ (``fluxon" irreps), we also give classical randomized algorithms to approximate link invariants. For general irreps, there may not exist efficient classical algorithms.
Then turning to hardness results, we show that additive approximations to link invariants for certain groups $G$ which satisfy certain properties are $\mathsf{BPP}$-hard and that multiplicative approximations are $\mathsf{SBP}$-hard and exact evaluations are $\mathsf{\#P}$-hard. All the algorithms presented in the paper are efficient in $\log(|G|)$ as well as the number of crossings of the link, where $|G|$ is the size of the group. However, our hardness results require that the group be of constant size.
Finally, we address the question of simulating anyonic quantum computation. Here, we assume that $G$ is in a sequence of groups of asymptotically growing size (since if $G$ is a fixed group, simulation has already been shown \cite{PreskillNotes}). In order to perform an efficient simulation, one needs to perform an efficient Clebsch-Gordan transform. Here, we make partial progress on this issue. In particular, we give the Clebsch-Gordan transform for fluxon irreps of $\mathsf{D}(G)$. For general irreps i.e., those characterized by a conjugacy class of $G$ and an irrep of the centralizer, we give an efficient Clebsch-Gordan transform under certain conditions. If we can
\begin{enumerate}
\item perform efficient QFT and the Clebsch-Gordan transform over every $Z(g)$ and $Z(g)\cap Z(h)$ and,
\item block diagonalize irreps of centralizers restricted to intersections of centralizers.
\end{enumerate}
To explain the last condition, note that if $\rho$ is an irrep of $Z(g)$, then when restricted to $Z(g)\cap Z(h)$ (a subgroup of $Z(g)$), it breaks up into irreps of the latter group. The last condition, then, says that we must be able to perform the transform that block diagonalizes $\rho$ into blocks of irreps of $Z(g)\cap Z(h)$. This (rather technical) condition can probably be removed. However, in certain groups it can be quite challenging to satisfy the above two conditions. Indeed, as pointed to us by an anonymous referee, it may be quite hard to even find the intersections $Z(g)\cap Z(h)$ in some groups. If the Fourier and Clebsch-Gordan transforms can be performed efficiently, then one can simulate anyonic quantum computation efficiently inside even exponentially large irreps of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ in the circuit model.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{QuantumDoubles}, we introduce the quantum doubles of finite groups in terms of Hopf algebras. Following this, in Section~\ref{Fourier}, we derive their irreducible representations and describe the action of the associated $R$-matrices, which are relevant for braiding. We then describe a quantum circuit for the Fourier transform over $\mathsf{D}(G)$, and show how its complexity relates to the quantum Fourier transform over subgroups of $G$. In Section~\ref{algorithms}, we use this Fourier transform to give quantum algorithms to additively approximate link invariants arising from irreps of $\mathsf{D}(G)$. We also give a classical randomized algorithm for fluxon irreps. Then in Section~\ref{complexity}, we show that additive approximations of these link invariants are $\mathsf{BPP}$-hard, multiplicative approximations are $\mathsf{SBP}$-hard, and exact evaluations are $\mathsf{\#P}$-hard. In Section~\ref{QC:anyons} we address the question of simulation of anyonic quantum computation. In Section~\ref{sec:CG}, we describe quantum algorithms for the Clebsch-Gordan transform over $D(G)$. Finally, in Section~\ref{conclusions} we present our conclusions and some open problems.
\paragraph{Related work on finite image representations of the braid group.}
Finite image representations have been considered in recent papers. In \cite{Rowell}, there is a discussion of two paradigms, one involving dense images of the braid group and the other involving finite images, along with conjectures on the complexity of link invariants. In \cite{RW}, Rowell and Wang show how to ``localize'' certain finite image representations of the braid group. In \cite{HNW2} (see also \cite{HNW1}), Hastings, Nayak and Wang show that link invariants coming from certain finite image representations of the braid group discussed in \cite{RW} are $\mathsf{\#P}$ hard to evaluate exactly (and to evaluate a sufficiently good multiplicative approximation). In \cite{FRW}, the image of the Ising anyon representation has been studied.
\section{Quantum doubles of finite groups}\label{QuantumDoubles}
\subsection{Quantum doubles as Hopf algebras}\label{Hopf}
We recall the notion of Hopf algebra; more complete descriptions can be found in accounts by \citet{Kassel} and \citet{Majid}. A $\mathbb{C}$-vector space $A$ is a \emph{Hopf algebra} if it possesses consistent algebra and coalgebra structure augmented with an \emph{antipode} map that yields a natural notion of ``inversion.'' To be more precise, a Hopf algebra possesses the following structure:
\begin{description}
\item[Algebra structure] A multiplication map $\mu:A \otimes A \rightarrow A$ and a unit map $\eta:\mathbb{C} \rightarrow A$ which satisfy
\begin{description}
\item[(Associativity)] $\mu(\mu\otimes\mathds 1)(a\otimes b\otimes c)=\mu(\mathds 1 \otimes\mu)(a\otimes b\otimes c)$ for all $a,b,c\in A$, and
\item[(Unit)] $\mu(a\otimes \mathds 1)=\mu(\mathds 1\otimes a)=a$, for all $a \in A$, where $\mathds 1$ is the unique element of $A$ for which $\eta(c) = c\mathds 1$ for $c \in \mathbb{C}$.
\end{description}
\item[Coalgebra structure] A comultiplication rule $\Delta:A\rightarrow A\otimes A$ and a counit $\epsilon:A\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ which satisfy
\begin{description}
\item[(Coassociativity)] $(\mathds 1\otimes\Delta)\Delta=(\Delta\otimes\mathds 1)\Delta$, and
\item[(Counit)] $(\mathds 1\otimes\epsilon)\Delta= (\epsilon\otimes \mathds 1)\Delta = \mathds 1$.
\end{description}
\item[Coherence and an antipode] The algebra and coalgebra structure are related by the following two axioms:
\begin{description}
\item[(Coherence)] The comultiplication map $\Delta$ and the counit $\epsilon$ are algebra homomorphisms (where $A \otimes A$ is given the natural tensor product algebra structure) and $\eta(\epsilon(a)) = \epsilon(a) \mathds 1$.
\item[(Antipode)] An \emph{antipode} map $S: A \rightarrow A$ satisfying
\[
\mu(S\otimes\mathds 1)\Delta(a)=\mu(\mathds 1\otimes S)\Delta(a)=\epsilon(a)\mathds 1 \,.
\]
\end{description}
\end{description}
We will denote $\mu(a\otimes b)$ as $ab$. It follows from the axioms above that the antipode map $S: H \rightarrow H$ is an antihomomorphism:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:S-antihomomorphism}
S(a)S(b) = S(ba)\,.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, when $H$ is finite-dimensional (the only case we shall consider), $S$ is invertible as a linear operator.
One perspective on the role played by the coalgebra and antipode structure afforded by a Hopf algebra is that it provides ring structure to the family of representations of the underlying algebra. Specifically, the comultiplication operator provides the structure of a representation to the tensor product of two representations $X$ and $Y$ of $A$ by defining the action of $a \in A$ to be that of $\Delta(a)$. The coherence axiom $\Delta(a)\Delta(b) = \Delta(ab)$ guarantees that this yields representation structure; the coassociativity axiom yields a canonical isomorphism between the representation $(X \otimes Y) \otimes Z$ and $X \otimes (Y \otimes Z)$. With this notion of tensor product of representations, the counit axiom guarantees that the map $\epsilon: A \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$, a one-dimensional representation of $A$, is a unit under tensor product: $X \otimes \epsilon \cong X = \epsilon \otimes X$. Finally, the antipode map gives the structure of a representation to $\operatorname{Hom}(X, \mathbb{C})$ for any representation $X$: the action of $a \in A$ on an element $f \in \operatorname{Hom}(X, \mathbb{C})$ is given by $(af)(x) = f(S(a)x)$. The fact that this definition defines a representation depends on~\eqref{eq:S-antihomomorphism}.
A finite group $G$ is naturally associated with two, generally distinct, Hopf algebras. The first is the group algebra, the algebra of formal $\mathbb{C}$-linear combinations of group elements denoted $\mathbb{C}[G] = \{ \sum_g \alpha_g g \mid g \in \mathbb{C}\}$. The second is the dual of this algebra, the set of maps from $G$ to $\mathbb{C}$. A natural basis for this space is given by the delta functions $g^*$, where $g^*(h)=\delta_{g,h}$. We denote this algebra $\mathbb{C} G$ (without brackets).
Algebra structure on $\mathbb{C}[G]$ is given by linearly extending the group multiplication rule; Hopf algebra structure on $\mathbb{C}[G]$ is defined by adopting the maps
\[
\Delta(g)=g\otimes g, \quad \epsilon(g)=1 \quad \text{and} \quad S(g)=g^{-1} \,.
\]
Observe that these choices correspond to the familiar notions of tensor product of representations, the trivial representation, and representation of dual spaces. It is easy to check that when $G$ is non-abelian, this Hopf algebra is non-commutative. Its comultiplication structure, however, is \emph{cocommutative}, which is to say that
\begin{equation}
T^{-1}\Delta(g)T=\Delta(g)\,,
\end{equation}
where $T$ is the linear operator that swaps the two tensor copies $A\otimes A$.
Now consider the dual algebra $\mathbb{C} G$; the algebra structure is given by the rules
\[
g_1^*g_2^* = \delta_{g_1,g_2} \quad \text{and} \quad \mathds 1 = \sum_g g^*\,.
\]
The coalgebra structure is given by the maps
\[
\Delta(g^*)=\sum_{g_1g_2=g}g_2^*\otimes g_1^*, \quad \epsilon(g^*)=\delta_{g,e} \quad\text{and}\quad S(g^*)=(g^{-1})^* ,
\]
where $e$ is the identity element of $G$. For any nonabelian finite group $G$, $\mathbb{C} G$ is a commutative, non-cocommutative Hopf algebra.
With any finite-dimensional Hopf algebra $H$ one may associate a natural dual Hopf algebra $H^*$: each map $\phi: V \rightarrow W$ in the definition of $H$ yields a dual map $\phi^*: \operatorname{Hom}(W, \mathbb{C}) \rightarrow \operatorname{Hom}(V, \mathbb{C})$. One can check that this process carries the algebra structure of $H$ to the coalgebra structure of $H^*$, the coalgebra structure of $H$ to the algebra structure of $H^*$, and that the resulting maps satisfy the axioms. The two algebras described above are duals of one another.
The \emph{quantum double} $\mathsf{D}(G)$ is an algebra defined on the vector space $\mathbb{C}[G] \otimes \mathbb{C} G$; we write the element $g \otimes h^*$ simply as $gh^*$, letting the superscript on the $h$ remind us that this is an element of the dual algebra. The Hopf algebra structure on $\mathsf{D}(G)$ is obtained by stitching together the $\mathbb{C}[G]$ and $\mathbb{C} G$ structures as follows:
\[
(g_1h_1^*)(g_2h_2^*) = g_1g_2(h_1^{g_2})^*h_2^* = \delta_{h_1^{g_2},h_2}g_1g_2h_2^* \quad \text{and} \quad \mathds 1 = e\sum_h h^*
\]
where $x^y = y^{-1}xy$ denotes the conjugation of $x$ by $y$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:double-definition}
\Delta(gh^*)=\sum_{h_1h_2=h}gh_2^*\otimes gh_1^*, \quad \epsilon(gh^*)=\delta_{h,e} \quad\text{and}\quad S(gh^*)=(g^{-1})(gh^{-1}g^{-1})^* \,.
\end{equation}
\newcommand{\operatorname{cop}}{\operatorname{cop}}
\paragraph{Remarks.} If $H$ is a Hopf algebra with comultiplication rule $\Delta$, one obtains the \emph{coopposite} of this algebra, denoted $H^{\operatorname{cop}}$, by \emph{reversing} the comultiplication rule: specifically, the comultiplication structure of $H^{\operatorname{cop}}$ is given by $T \circ \Delta$, where $T: H \otimes H \rightarrow H \otimes H$ is the exchange operator (that linearly extends the rule $T: \alpha \otimes \beta \mapsto \beta \otimes \alpha$). All other algebraic structure is inherited from $H$. In fact, it is this reversed comultiplication structure of $\mathbb{C} G^{\operatorname{cop}}$ featured in the definition~\eqref{eq:double-definition} of the quantum double construction. $\mathsf{D}(G)$ is generated, as an algebra, by the elements $\{ \sum_h gh^* \mid g \in G\}$, an embedded copy of $\mathbb{C}[G]$, and $\{ 1h^* \mid h \in G\}$, an embedded copy of $\mathbb{C} G^{\operatorname{cop}}$.
If $G$ is non-commutative, then the quantum double $\mathsf{D}(G)$ is a non-commutative, non-cocommutative Hopf algebra. The construction is a rough analogue of the semidirect product construction of two groups: specifically, observe that one can interpret the multiplication rule
$$
(g_1h_1^*)(g_2h_2^*) = g_1 g_2 (h_1^{g_2})^* h_2^* = \delta_{h_1^{g_2},h_2}g_1g_2h_2^*
$$
as a consequence of the familiar ``commutation relation'' $h g = g (h^g)$ where, as above, we adopt the notation $h^g = ghg^{-1}$.
Physically, one can think of the elements of the group as creation operators and the elements of the dual as annihilation operators.
The multiplication rule, then, expresses a natural commutation relation typically more exotic than the usual one for bosons ($aa^\dag=a^\dag a$) or fermions ($a a^\dag = -a^\dag a$).
\subsection{Quasi-triangularity and braiding}\label{sec:braiding}
Quantum doubles of finite groups possess a further property of interest: they are \emph{quasi-triangular}
(or \emph{braided}). Specifically, there is an invertible element $R$ of $A \otimes A$ that imparts a ``near cocommutativity'' property on $\Delta$,
\begin{equation}
R\Delta(a)R^{-1}=T\Delta(a)\,,\label{eq:R-commutation}
\end{equation}
and satisfies the braiding relations on $\mathsf{D}(G)^{\otimes 3} = \mathsf{D}(G) \otimes \mathsf{D}(G) \otimes \mathsf{D}(G)$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:YB}
(\Delta\otimes \vec{1})(R)=R_{13}R_{23}\,,\qquad (\vec{1}\otimes\Delta)(R)=R_{13}R_{12}\,,
\end{equation}
where $R_{12}$ (and $R_{23}$, respectively) denotes the element $R$ acting on the first two (last two, respectively) tensor copies. (As above, $T: \alpha \otimes \beta \mapsto \beta \otimes \alpha$ is the exchange operator.)
The element $R$ is traditionally called an ``$R$-matrix,'' and immediately yields a solution to the Yang-Baxter equations: if we define $s_1=TR_{12}\otimes I$ (and likewise for $s_2$ and $s_3$), then it can also be shown from~\eqref{eq:YB} that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:double-braid}
s_1s_2s_1=s_2s_1s_2\,.
\end{equation}
In the algebra $\mathsf{D}(G)^{\otimes n}$, we generalize this notation by analogously defining $s_i$, for $1 \leq i < n$, as $I \otimes TR \otimes I$, the operator $TR$ acting on the $i$th and $i+1$st factors of $\mathsf{D}(G)$.
A generalization of the quantum double construction described above for finite groups can be applied to generic Hopf algebras (and their dual) to yield a quasi-triangular Hopf algebra with an explicit expression for the $R$ matrices. For the finite group double $\mathsf{D}(G)$, the $R$ matrix is given by
\[
R=\sum_g g\otimes g^* \in \mathsf{D}(G) \otimes \mathsf{D}(G)\,,
\]
where we embed $g\in G$ into $\mathsf{D}(G)$ as $\sum_h gh^*$ and $g^*$ as $eg^*$.
\paragraph{The braid group}
Recall that the braid group on $n$ strands, $B_n$, is an infinite, discrete group generated by the elements $\{ \sigma_1, \ldots, \sigma_{n-1}\}$ with the following relations:
\begin{align}
\sigma_i\sigma_j &=\sigma_j\sigma_i &&\text{for $|i-j|\geq 2$}\,, \nonumber \\
\sigma_i\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_i &=\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_i\sigma_{i+1} &&\text{for $i\in [1,n-1]$}\,. \label{eq:braid-YB}
\end{align}
With the natural topological realization of the braid group as equivalence classes of braids under ambient isotopy, the generator $\sigma_i$ can be naturally associated with the topological braid of Figure~\ref{fig:generator-topological} and the relations~\eqref{eq:braid-YB} correspond to the topological equivalence of Figure~\ref{fig:Yang-Baxter}.
\paragraph{Representations of the braid group via the quantum double} As the elements $s_i$ of~\eqref{eq:double-braid} above satisfy the relations~\eqref{eq:braid-YB}, it follows that if $\rho: \mathsf{D}(G) \rightarrow \textsf{GL}(V)$ is a representation of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ we can obtain a representation $\tau = \rho^{\otimes n}$ of $B_n$ on $V^{\otimes n}$ by letting $\tau(\sigma_i)=\rho^{\otimes n}(s_i)$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.45\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[style=stangle,scale=.6]
\draw[double] (-8,6) -- (-8,0);
\draw[double] (-6,3) node {$\ldots$};
\draw[double] (-4,6) -- (-4,0);
\draw[double] (-2,6) -- (-2,5);
\draw[double] (0,6) -- (0,5);
\draw[double] (-2,5) .. controls +(0,-2) and +(0,2) .. (0,1);
\draw[double] (0,5) .. controls +(0,-2) and +(0,2) .. (-2,1);
\draw[double] (-2,1) -- (-2,0);
\draw[double] (0,1) -- (0,0);
\draw[double] (2,6) -- (2,0);
\draw[double] (4,3) node {$\ldots$};
\draw[double] (6,6) -- (6,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\smallskip
\caption{The topological realization of the element $\sigma_i$, involving strands $i$ and $i+1$.}
\label{fig:generator-topological}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.45\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[style=stangle,scale=.6]
\draw[double] (-2,4) .. controls (-2,3) and (0,3) .. (0,2);
\draw[double] (0,4) .. controls (0,3) and (-2,3) .. (-2,2);
\draw[double] (-2,2) -- (-2,0);
\draw[double] (0,2) .. controls (0,1) and (2,1) .. (2,0);
\draw[double] (2,2) .. controls (2,1) and (0,1) .. (0,0);
\draw[double] (2,4) -- (2,2);
\draw[double] (-2,0) .. controls (-2,-1) and (0,-1) .. (0,-2);
\draw[double] (0,0) .. controls (0,-1) and (-2,-1) .. (-2,-2);
\draw[double] (2,0) -- (2,-2);
\draw (4,0.5) node {$=$};
\draw[double] (8,4) .. controls (8,3) and (10,3) .. (10,2);
\draw[double] (10,4) .. controls (10,3) and (8,3) .. (8,2);
\draw[double] (6,4) -- (6,2);
\draw[double] (6,2) .. controls (6,1) and (8,1) .. (8,0);
\draw[double] (8,2) .. controls (8,1) and (6,1) .. (6,0);
\draw[double] (10,2) -- (10,0);
\draw[double] (8,0) .. controls (8,-1) and (10,-1) .. (10,-2);
\draw[double] (10,0) .. controls (10,-1) and (8,-1) .. (8,-2);
\draw[double] (6,0) -- (6,-2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\smallskip
\caption{The topological interpretation of the Yang-Baxter relations: $\sigma_i\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_i = \sigma_{i+1}\sigma_i\sigma_{i+1}$.}
\label{fig:Yang-Baxter}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Topological realization of the braid group.}
\label{fig:braid-topological}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{The Quantum Fourier transform over \texorpdfstring{$\mathsf{D}(G)$}{D(G)}}\label{Fourier}
\subsection{Background in representation theory}
We assume that the reader is familiar with the representation theory of finite groups and merely set down notation below, following~\citet{Serre1977linear}.
Let $G$ be a finite group. A representation $\rho$ of $G$ is a homomorphism $\rho: G \rightarrow \textsf{U}(V)$, where $V$ is a finite-dimensional complex Hilbert space and $\textsf{U}(V)$ denotes the unitary group on $V$. In this unitary case, it is convenient to work with a \emph{$G$-invariant} inner product, one for which $\langle \vec{u}, \vec{v}\rangle = \langle \rho(g) \vec{u}, \rho(g)\vec{v}\rangle$. By symmetrizing an arbitrary inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ on $V$, one can define a new, $G$-invariant inner product by the rule
\[
\langle \vec{u}, \vec{v}\rangle' = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g \in G} \langle \rho(g)\vec{u}, \rho(g)\vec{v}\rangle\,;
\]
thus we work under this assumption without loss of generality.
To be concise, we will simply say that \emph{$V$ is a representation} of $G$ (omitting reference to the map $\rho$) and let $g\vec{v}$ denote $\rho(g) \vec{v}$, the linear action of an element $g \in G$ on a vector $\vec{v} \in V$. Two representations $V$ and $V'$ are isomorphic if there is a linear isomorphism $\phi: V \rightarrow V'$ for which $g\phi(\vec{v}) = \phi(g \vec{v})$ for all $g$ and $\vec{v}$. We say that a subspace $W$ of a representation $V$ is \emph{invariant} if $g\vec{w} \in W$ for all $g \in G$ and $\vec{w} \in W$. Such an invariant subspace is a representation itself under the restricted action. Of course, both $\{ 0\}$ and $V$ are invariant; if these are the only invariant subspaces, $V$ is \emph{irreducible}. When $V$ is not irreducible, there is a nontrivial invariant subspace $W \subset V$ and it is easy to check that $W^\perp$ is likewise invariant. This realizes $V$ as the direct sum of two, orthogonal invariant subspaces, each a representation of $G$. When a representation $\rho: G \rightarrow \textsf{U}(V)$ can be decomposed in this way so that $V = W_1 \oplus W_2$, we write $\rho = \sigma_1 \oplus \sigma_2$, where $\sigma_i: G \rightarrow \textsf{U}(W_i)$ is the restricted action on $W_i$. This process allows one to decompose any finite-dimensional representation into an orthogonal direct sum of irreducible representations. While this decomposition is not, in general, unique, the number of appearances of representations of each isomorphism class is determined uniquely.
For a finite group $G$, the vector space $\mathbb{C}[G]$ can be naturally given the structure of a representation by linearly extending the left multiplication map $g: h \mapsto gh$; this is a representation of degree $|G|$ called the \emph{regular} representation which we will alternately denote $\text{Reg}_G$. Likewise, the one-dimensional vector space $\mathbb{C}$ can be given the structure of a representation by linearly extending the rule $g: 1 \mapsto 1$; this is the \emph{trivial} representation. The regular representation $\mathbb{C}[G]$ has a remarkable, canonical decomposition into irreducible representations of $G$: each irreducible representation of $G$ appears with multiplicity equal to its dimension. We write
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:reg-decomp}
\mathbb{C}[G] = \bigoplus_{\rho} \rho^{\oplus d_\rho}\,,
\end{equation}
where this sum extended over all (isomorphism classes of) irreducible representations $\rho: G \rightarrow \textsf{U}(V_\rho)$ and $d_\rho$ denotes $\dim V_\rho$.
A (unitary) linear operator on $\mathbb{C}[G]$ that carries the basis $\{ g \mid g \in G\}$ to a basis consistent with the decomposition~\eqref{eq:reg-decomp} is called a \emph{Fourier transform} (over $G$). When convenient, we adopt the Dirac vector notation to avoid lengthy subscripts and write target basis for $\bigoplus_\rho \rho^{\oplus d_\rho}$ in the form $\ket{\rho, i, j}$, where $\rho$ is a representation of $G$, and $i, j \in \{1, \ldots, d_\rho\}$. Here we treat $j$ as indexing one of the $d_\rho$ copies of $\rho$ in $\mathbb{C}[G]$; thus, for each $\rho$ and $j$, the space spanned by $\{ \ket{\rho, i, j} \mid i \in \{1, \ldots, d_\rho\}\}$ is an irreducible subspace isomorphic to $\rho$.
Given a subgroup $H$ of $G$ and a representation $(\rho,V)$ of $H$, one can construct a representation of $G$ from $\rho$ by a process called \emph{induction} which plays an important role in the representation theory of $\mathsf{D}(G)$. In this subsection, we describe the construction in general. As a $G$ module, the induced representation can be neatly expressed as a tensor product (over the noncommutative ring $\mathbb{C}[H]$)
\[
\mathbb{C}[G]\otimes_{\mathbb{C}[H]}V\,,
\]
where $\otimes_{\mathbb{C}[H]}$ indicates that this tensor product is $\mathbb{C}[H]$-linear, i.\,e., $gh\otimes \vec{v} = g\otimes \rho(h)\vec{v}$, for $h\in H$ and $\vec{v}\in V$. In order to give an explicit construction in terms of a basis, let us pick a transversal $T=\{t_1,t_2,\dots ,t_k\}$ for $H$ in $G$ (so that $k=|G|/|H|$) and fix a basis $\{\ket{v_1},\dots ,\ket{v_d}\}$ for the representation space $V$. The induced representation, which we denote $\uparrow_H^G\rho$ or simply $\uparrow^G\rho$ when $H$ is understood, acts on the vector space $\mathbb{C}[T] \otimes V$, where $\mathbb{C}[T] = \{ \sum_i a_i \ket{t_i} \mid a_i \in \mathbb{C}\}$ is the (Hilbert) space of formal $\mathbb{C}$-linear combinations of elements of $T$ with the inner product $\langle{t_i}\mid{t_j}\rangle = \delta_{ij}$. (The tensor product in this case is the conventional tensor product over $\mathbb{C}$.) In this basis, $(\uparrow_H^G \rho)(g)$ is given by linearly extending the rule
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:induced-action}
g: \ket{t} \otimes \ket{v} \mapsto \ket{t'} \otimes h\ket{v}
\end{equation}
where
$t' \in T$ and $h \in H$ are the unique elements for which $gt = t'h$.
There are two facts about induced representations which we use later.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Induction is transitive: if $H\leq K\leq G$ then
\begin{equation}
[\uparrow_K^G (\uparrow_H^K \rho)] \cong \;\uparrow_H^G \rho\,.
\end{equation}
\item The regular representation of $G$ is an induced representation from the trivial representation of the trivial subgroup $\{e\}$.
\begin{equation}
\text{Reg}_G=\uparrow_{\{e\}}^G \vec{1}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
Combining the above two facts, we can write
\begin{equation}
\text{Reg}_G= \uparrow_H^G (\uparrow_{\{e\}}^H \vec{1}) = \uparrow_H^G \text{Reg}_H\,.
\end{equation}
\subsection{\texorpdfstring{Irreducible representations and Fourier analysis over $\mathsf{D}(G)$}{Irreducible representations and Fourier analysis over D(G)}}
A \emph{representation} of a Hopf algebra $H$ is a representation of its algebra structure. Specifically, a representation $(\rho, V)$ of the Hopf algebra $H$ is a homomorphism
$$
\rho: H \rightarrow \textsf{End}(V)\,.
$$
As above, the algebra $\mathsf{D}(G)$ can be given the structure of a representation using left-multiplication. The irreducible representations of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ have been worked out by \citet{DPR} in the physics literature and by \citet{Gould:qd-reps} in the mathematics literature. In the article~\cite{Gould:qd-reps}, Gould established that the algebra $\mathsf{D}(G)$ is semi-simple (when $G$ is a finite group), described the irreducible representations of $\mathsf{D}(G)$, and developed an associated character theory. In this section, we briefly describe his construction of the irreducible representations of $\mathsf{D}(G)$, indicate how the regular representation can be broken down into irreducible representations, and proceed to construct quantum circuits for the associated quantum Fourier transform.
To simplify the notation in what follows, we adopt Dirac notation for the algebras $\mathbb{C}[G]$ and $\mathbb{C} G$, treating them as spanned by the orthonormal bases $\{ \ket{g} \mid g \in G\}$ and $\{ \ket{h^*} \mid h \in G\}$, respectively. Writing $\ket{gh^\ast}$ as shorthand for the tensor product $\ket{g,h^\ast}$, the action of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ on the regular representation, spanned by the $\ket{gh^*}$, is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:DG-action}
g^\prime (h^\prime)^\ast \ket{g,h^\ast} = \delta_{(h^\prime)^g,h}\ket{g^\prime g, h^\ast}\,.
\end{equation}
We see that $g' (h^\prime)^\ast$ takes $\ket{g,h^\ast}$ to zero unless $h$ and $h^\prime$ are conjugates (under the action of $g$); in the case where $g' (h^\prime)^\ast$ does not annihilate $\ket{g,h^\ast}$, it acts by the left $G$ action in the first coordinate. It follows immediately that each of the subspaces
\[
V_h=\text{span}(\{\ket{g,h^*},g\in G\})
\]
is invariant under the left action of $\mathsf{D}(G)$; this provides an initial orthogonal decomposition $\mathsf{D}(G) = \bigoplus_h V_h$ into invariant subspaces. Observe, also, that the action of $\sum_{h \in g} g h^\ast$ on $V_h$ is precisely left multiplication by $g$ on the first component; this gives $V_h$ the structure of a $G$-representation isomorphic to $\mathbb{C}[G]$. As the action of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ on $V_h$ is at least as rich as the action of $\mathbb{C}[G]$ on $V_h$, the irreducible subspaces of $V_h$ under the $\mathsf{D}(G)$ action are direct sums of irreducible subspaces under the $G$ action.\footnote{The map $g \mapsto \sum_h gh^*$ is a one-to-one algebra homomorphism from $\mathbb{C}[G]$ into $\mathsf{D}(G)$; thus any $\mathsf{D}(G)$ representation can be given the structure of a $G$ representation.} Remarkably, we will see that these representations arise directly as induced representations from the centralizer subgroup $Z(h) = \{ g \in G \mid gh = hg\}$.
Fixing an $h \in G$, let $T_h$ be a transversal for $Z(h)$ in $G$; then we may write each basis vector of $V_h$ uniquely:
\[
\ket{g,h^*}=\ket{tz , h^*}\,,
\]
where $t\in T_h$ and $z\in Z(h)$. In particular, we have the straightforward isometric isomorphism $\mathbb{C}[G] \equiv \mathbb{C}[T_h] \otimes \mathbb{C}[Z(h)]$ given by the map $\ket{g} \mapsto \ket{t} \otimes \ket{z}$. With this isomorphism, we shall work with the basis
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:coset-basis}
\bigl\{ \ket{t, z, h^*} \bigr\}
\end{equation}
(for $V_h$). Recall from the discussion of induction, above, that $\mathbb{C}[G] \cong\; \uparrow_{Z(h)}^G\text{Reg}_{Z(h)}$. Indeed, this $\ket{t, z, h^*}$ basis is precisely the basis described in the explicit formulation of induction given in~\eqref{eq:induced-action}.
It is easy to check that induction commutes with decomposition: when $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $\rho$ and $\tau$ are two $H$-representations we have a natural isomorphism between the two $G$-representations $\uparrow_H^G (\rho \oplus \tau)$ and $\uparrow_H^G \rho \;\oplus \uparrow_H^G \tau$. According to~\eqref{eq:reg-decomp}, the group algebra $\mathbb{C}[Z(h)]$ decomposes into the orthogonal sum $\bigoplus_{\rho} \rho^{\oplus d_\rho}$, in which each irreducible representation $\rho$ of $Z(h)$ appears $d_\rho = \dim \rho$ times. We conclude that $\mathbb{C}[G] = \bigoplus_\rho \uparrow_{Z_h}^G \rho$, this sum extended over all irreducible representations of $Z(h)$. We remark that when $\rho$ is an irreducible representation of $Z(h)$, the representation $\uparrow_{Z(h)}^G \rho$ is not, in general, irreducible as a $G$ representation. We shall see, however, that the natural $\mathsf{D}(G)$ action on $\uparrow_{Z(h)}^G \rho$ is irreducible; in fact, all irreducible $\mathsf{D}(G)$ representations arise in this way. Carrying out the Fourier transform on the component corresponding to $Z(h)$, we finally arrive at the basis
\(\ket{t,\rho,i,j,h^\ast}\); for convenience, we reorder the components and work with the basis
\begin{equation}
\bigl\{\ket{h^\ast,\rho,j,t,i}\bigr\}\,.
\label{eq:DG-F-basis}
\end{equation}
For a given $\rho$, $h$, and $j$, the vectors $\ket{h^\ast,\rho,j,t,i}$ span an induced representation of $\rho$ to $G$; we denote this space as $V_{h,\rho,j}$. The action of $G$ on these vectors is that of $\uparrow_{Z(h)}^G \rho$; in particular, $G$ leaves this space invariant. Though the space is not irreducible, in general, under the $G$ action, it is under the richer action afforded by $\mathsf{D}(G)$. In light of~\eqref{eq:DG-action}, the action of any $(h^\prime)^\ast$ preserves this space; specifically,
\begin{itemize}
\item
if $h^\prime$ is not a conjugate of $h$, it annihilates $V_h$ and hence $V_{h, \rho, j}$;
\item if $h'$ is conjugate to $h$, the action of $h^*$ on the space $V_{h}$ is the projection onto the span of
\[
\{ \ket{g, h^*} \mid h' = h^g\}\,.
\]
Note, however, that $h^{zg} = h^g$ for any $z \in Z(h)$ and hence $\{ g \mid h' = g^h\}$ is a left coset of $Z(h)$. Evidently, there is an element $t' \in T_h$ for which $h^* \ket{t, z, h^*} = \delta_{t, t'} \ket{t, z, h^*}$ (in the basis of~\eqref{eq:coset-basis} above) and we conclude that on the space $V_{h, \rho, j}$ the action of $h^*$ projects onto the span of the vectors
\[
\{ \ket{h, \rho, j, t', i} \mid i \in \{ 1, \ldots, d_\rho\}\}\,.
\]
We let $V_{h, \rho, j}^{t'}$ denote this subspace.
\end{itemize}
Note that $V_{h, \rho, j} = \bigoplus_{t \in T_h} V_{h, \rho, j}^t$, an orthogonal direct sum. To see that this space is irreducible under the $\mathsf{D}(G)$ action, consider a $\mathsf{D}(G)$-invariant subspace $W \subset V_{h, \rho, j}$. As described above, the $\mathsf{D}(G)$ action contains the orthogonal projection operators onto each $V_{h, \rho, j}^t$; it follows that
\[
W = \bigoplus_{t \in T_h} W_t\quad \text{where each $W_t = W \cap V_{h, \rho, j}^t$.}
\]
Now we turn our attention to the $G$ action. For concreteness, we assume that $1 \in T_h$ is the representative for the coset $Z(h)$; then note that the subspace $V_{h, \rho, j}^1$ is invariant and, moreover, irreducible under the $Z(h)$ action as it is isomorphic to the irreducible $Z(h)$-representation $\rho$. It follows that $W_1$ is either $0$ or $V_{h, \rho, j}^1$. As $V_{h, \rho, j}$ has the structure of an induced representation (it is isomorphic to $\textrm{Ind}_{Z(h)}^G \rho$), the $G$ action is transitive on the spaces $V_{h, \rho, j}^t$: in particular, for any $t_1, t_2 \in T_h$, there is an element $g \in G$ so that $g(T_{h, \rho, j}^{t_1}) \subset T_{h, \rho, j}^{t_2}$ and, hence, $g(W_{t_1}) \subset g(W_{t_2})$. We conclude that $\dim W_{t_1} = \dim W_{t_2}$ for each $t_1, t_2$ and, finally, that $W = 0$ or $V_{h, \rho, j}$, as desired.
This yields an orthogonal decomposition
\[
\mathsf{D}(G) = \bigoplus_{h \in G} \bigoplus_{\rho \in \widehat{Z(h)}} \bigoplus_{j \in \{ 1, \ldots, d_\rho\}} V_{h, \rho, j}
\]
into irreducible subspaces. Here the notation $\widehat{Z(h)}$ denotes the collection of irreducible representations of $Z(h)$ (upto isomorphism). As $\mathsf{D}(G)$ is semisimple~\cite{Gould:qd-reps}, all irreducible representations appear in this decomposition. This decomposition will be sufficient to describe the quantum Fourier transform over $\mathsf{D}(G)$.
To complete the representation-theoretic picture, however, we discuss a few more details. It is not difficult to show that the $\mathsf{D}(G)$ representations $V_{h, \rho, j}$ and $V_{h', \rho', j'}$ are isomorphic whenever the pair $(h, \rho)$ and $(h',\rho')$ are conjugate in the sense that there is a group element $g$ so that $h' = h^g$ and the $Z(h')$ representation $(\rho')^g: z \mapsto \rho'(z^g)$ is isomorphic to $\rho$.
In order to describe an explicit action of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ on its constituent irreducible representations, note that for a transversal we can pick elements $k_g$ such that $(k_g)^{-1} g k_g =h$, where $g$ is a conjugate of $h$. The the action of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ can then be written as
\[
gh^\ast \ket{k_{g^\prime}, v} = \delta_{h,g^\prime}\ket{k_{gg^\prime g^{-1}}, \rho(k_{gg^\prime g^{-1}}^{-1}g^\prime k_{g^\prime})v} \,.
\]
For notational simplicity, we denote the transversal element $k_g$ by $g$ in the first register and write the above equation as
\begin{equation}\label{R:InsideIrrep}
g h^\ast \ket{g^\prime, v} = \delta_{h,g^\prime}\ket{g g^\prime g^{-1}, \rho(k_{g g^\prime g^{-1}}^{-1}g^\prime k_{g^\prime})v}\,.
\end{equation}
Finally, a remark about conjugate (contragredient) representations over $\mathsf{D}(G)$. If $\rho: \mathsf{D}(G) \rightarrow \textsf{GL}(V)$ is a representation of $\mathsf{D}(G)$, its conjugate representation $\rho^*: \mathsf{D}(G) \rightarrow \textsf{GL}(V^*)$ is defined by the rule
$\rho^*(\alpha)f: v \mapsto f(\rho(S\alpha) v)$. It follows that the conjugate of the irreducible representation $\textrm{Ind}_{Z(h)} \rho$ is the representation $\textrm{Ind}_{Z(h^{-1})} \rho^*$. Self-dual representations will play a special rule in our applications to knot theory; see Section~\ref{sec:plat}.
\subsection{The quantum Fourier transform over \texorpdfstring{$\mathsf{D}(G)$}{D(G)}}
The quantum Fourier transform (QFT) over $\mathsf{D}(G)$ is a unitary matrix which transforms the $\{\ket{g,h^\ast}\}$ basis to the $\{ \ket{h^\ast,\rho,j,t,i} \}$ basis (using the notation defined in the previous section). The discussion above yields an explicit decomposition of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ into irreducible representations assuming such a decomposition for each group algebra $\mathbb{C}[Z(h)]$. It follows that one can efficiently carry out the quantum Fourier transform over $\mathsf{D}(G)$ if
\begin{itemize}
\item given $h$, one can efficiently carry out the QFT over $Z(h)$; and
\item given $h$ and $g$, one can efficiently express $g = t z$, where $z \in Z(h)$ and $t$ is an element of a fixed transversal $T_h$ of $Z(h)$. (Here ``fixed'' means that $T_h$ may depend on $h$, but not on $g$.)
\end{itemize}
We remark that the first condition is stronger than merely insisting that there be an efficient quantum Fourier transform over the group $Z(h)$: the circuit must be efficiently computable from $h$ in time $\operatorname{polylog}(|G|)$. Note that the algorithm promised in the second condition implicitly determines a transversal $T_h$ for each $Z(h)$. In the following section, we show that these conditions are satisfied for $S_n$, the symmetric group.
With such algorithms, the QFT itself is straightforward:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Convert the basis $\ket{g,h^\ast}$ to $\ket{t,z,h^\ast}$, where $t\in T_h$ and $z\in Z(h)$.
\item Rewriting it as $\ket{h^\ast,t,z}$, apply the QFT over $Z(h)$ on the third register conditioned on $h^\ast$ in the first register. We obtain the basis $\ket{h^\ast,t,\rho,i,j}$, where $\rho\in\widehat{Z(h)}$. Reordering again yields the basis of~\eqref{eq:DG-F-basis} above.
\end{enumerate}
This gives us the QFT over $\mathsf{D}(G)$.
\revise{
Clearly, efficient QFT over each $Z(h)$ is sufficient to construct the QFT over $\mathsf{D}(G)$. Now, we show that this condition is also necessary. More precisely, we show that if one can perform a QFT over $\mathsf{D}(G)$, then one can use it to implement a QFT over any $Z(h)$. Suppose we have a state $\sum_z f(z)\ket{z}$, where $z\in Z(h)$, for some $h\in G$. We would like to obtain the state $\sum_{\rho ,i,j} \hat{f}(\rho,i,j) \ket{\rho,i,j}$, where $\hat{f}$ is the Fourier transform of $f$. First, we embed this state into $\mathsf{D}(G)$ as $\sum_z f(z)\ket{h^\ast,t,z}$, for some $t\in T_h$. Now we can perform a QFT over $\mathsf{D}(G)$ and obtain $\sum_{\rho ,i,j,t,h} \hat{g}(\rho,i,j,t,h)\ket{h^\ast,\rho,t,i,j}$, where $g(h^\prime,t^\prime,z)=f(z) \delta_{t,t^\prime} \delta_{h,h^\prime}$. Since $h$ and $t$ are unaffected, we have that $\hat{g}(\rho,i,j,t,h)=\hat{f}(\rho,i,j) \delta_{t,t^\prime} \delta_{h,h^\prime}$. Now throwing away the registers containing $t$ and $h^\ast$, we obtain the QFT over $Z(h)$. This shows that performing a QFT over each $Z(h)$ is necessary and sufficient to perform a QFT over $\mathsf{D}(G)$. Finally, note that having an efficient QFT over each centralizer $Z(h)$ implies that one has an efficient QFT over $G$ since $Z(e)=G$, where $e$ is the identity element of $G$.
}
\subsubsection{An efficient QFT over \texorpdfstring{$\mathsf{D}(S_n)$}{the quantum double of the symmetric group}}
In light of the discussion above, we show that one can uniformly compute the quantum Fourier transform over centralizers in $S_n$ and, additionally, uniformly factor along a canonical transversal of each centralizer. It follows that we can compute the QFT over $\mathsf{D}(S_n)$.
First, let us determine the centralizer of an element $\sigma$ of $S_n$ consisting of $c_1$ one cycles, $c_2$ two cycles, etc. For an element $\tau \in Z(\sigma)$, we have $\tau \sigma = \sigma \tau$ and hence $\tau \sigma \tau^{-1} = \sigma$: $\tau$ fixes $\sigma$ under conjugation. Recall that the conjugation action by $\tau$ is given by the permutation action of $\tau$ on the labels of the cycle representation of $\sigma$; thus, for each $k$, the $k$-cycles of $\sigma$ are fixed under the action $(a_1\,\ldots\,a_k) \mapsto (\tau(a_1)\,\ldots\,\tau(a_k))$. At a coarser level, the permutation $\tau$ fixes, as a set, the elements of
\[
W_k = \{ t \in \{1, \ldots, n\} \mid \text{$t$ lies in a $k$-cycle of $\sigma$}\}\,,
\]
and it follows that $Z(\sigma)$ is the direct product $Z(\sigma_1) \times \cdots \times Z(\sigma_n)$, where $\sigma_k$ is the product of the $c_k$ cycles of length $k$ appearing in $\sigma$ and $Z(\sigma_k)$ is the centralizer of $\sigma_k$ (in the subgroup of permutations on $W_k$). Observe that when $(\tau(a_1) \,\ldots\, \tau(a_t)) = (a_1\, \ldots\, a_t)$, the element $\tau$ (restricted to $\{ a_1, \ldots, a_t\}$) lies in the cyclic subgroup generated by $(a_1, \ldots, a_t)$. It follows that on $W_k$ the element $\tau$ can be written as the product of two permutations, one which cyclicly permutes each $k$-cycle, and one which permutes the $k$-cycles. This subgroup of permutations on $W_k$ is isomorphic to the wreath product $S_{c_k} \wr \mathbb{Z}_k = S_{c_k} \ltimes \mathbb{Z}_k^{c_k}$ and we conclude that
\[
Z(\sigma) \cong \bigoplus_{k=1}^n S_{c_k} \ltimes \mathbb{Z}_k^{c_k}\,.
\]
\paragraph{Coset factorization}
Let $H$ be a subgroup of $G$ and $T$ a transversal of $H$ in $G$ (that is, a set containing one representative from each left coset of $H$ in $G$). \emph{$(H,G)$-coset factorization} is the problem of expressing an arbitrary element $g$ of $G$ as a product $th$, where $h \in H$ and $t \in T$. Observe that if $K < H < G$ is a tower of subgroups and $T_K$ and $T_H$ are transversals of $K$ in $H$ and $H$ in $G$, respectively, then $T_K T_H$ is a transversal of $K$ in $G$ and $(K,G)$-coset factorization along this transversal reduces to $(K,H)$-coset factorization and $(H, G)$-coset factorization.
The induced bases we use to describe the Fourier transform above rely on coset factorization of an element along arbitrary, but fixed transversals $T_\sigma$ of the various centralizers $Z(\sigma)$. To see that these can be computed effectively in the symmetric groups, let $\sigma \in S_n$ and
\[
Z(\sigma) \cong \bigoplus_{k=1}^n S_{c_k} \ltimes \mathbb{Z}_k^{c_k}\,,
\]
its centralizer, as discussed above. Our goal is to effectively decompose an arbitrary element $\pi \in S_n$ as a product $\pi = t z$, where $z \in Z(\sigma)$ and $t$ lies in a transversal $T_\sigma$ (which may be determined implicitly by the algorithm). We consider the subgroup chain
\newcommand{\subsetnumbered}[1]{\subset_{(#1)}}
\[
\bigoplus_k S_{c_k} \ltimes \mathbb{Z}_k^{c_k} \quad \subsetnumbered{1} \quad \bigoplus_k S_{c_k} \ltimes S_k^{c_k} \quad \subsetnumbered{2} \quad \bigoplus_k S_{c_k \times k} \quad \subsetnumbered{3} \quad S_n\,.
\]
It is an easy exercise to identify natural transversals for the inclusions $\subsetnumbered{1}$ and $\subsetnumbered{3}$ that permit efficient factorization. As for the factorization corresponding to $\subsetnumbered{2}$, it suffices to handle individual terms in the direct sum of the form
\[
S_k \ltimes S_\ell^k \quad \subset \quad S_{k\ell}\,.
\]
For this purpose, we consider an associated action of $S_{k\ell}$. We say that a family of sets $(A_1, \ldots, A_\ell)$ is a $(k, \ell)$-partition if their disjoint union is the set $\{1, \ldots, k\ell\}$ and each $A_i$ has size $k$. Then consider the action of $S_{k\ell}$ on the set
\[
X_{k,\ell} = \bigl\{ \{ A_1, \ldots, A_k\} \mid \text{$(A_1, \ldots, A_k)$ is a $(k,\ell)$-partition of $\{1, \ldots, k\ell\}$} \bigr\}\,.
\]
The stabilizer of the element
\[
x_0 = \{ \{1, \ldots, k\}, \{ k+1, \ldots, 2k\}, \ldots\}
\]
is precisely a subgroup of the form $S_\ell \ltimes S_k^\ell$ so we identify a left transversal of $S_\ell \ltimes S_k^\ell$ in $S_{k\ell}$ by identifying, for each element $x$ of $X_{k,\ell}$, a permutation that carries $x_0$ to $x$. This can be obtained by ``sorting'' the sets of $x$ according to their smallest element, ``sorting'' the elements of each individual set, and selecting the permutation that carries $x_0$, expressed in the order above, to $x$, in this sorted order. Factorization along this transversal is straightforward by identifying the result of a permutation $\pi$ on $x_0$.
\paragraph{QFTs over the centralizers}
It is enough to describe how to perform a QFT over wreath products of the form $W=\mathbb{Z}_k \operatorname{wr} S_\ell = (\mathbb{Z}_k)^{\ell} \rtimes S_\ell$.
The irreps of such groups are easily obtained using Clifford theory (see~\cite{CurtisAndReiner}). Pick an irrep of $(\mathbb{Z}_k)^\ell$, say $\omega=(\omega_1,\dots,\omega_\ell)$ where each $\omega_i$ is an irrep of $\mathbb{Z}_k$, and consider the action of the symmetric group $S_\ell$ on the components $\omega_i$. Define $S_\omega$ to be the subgroup of $S_\ell$ that fixes this irrep, i.\,e., the subgroup whose elements permute components which are the equal. Thus $S_\ell$ is a Young subgroup, equal to a product of symmetric groups (each of which acts on a collection of equal indices). If $\lambda$ is an irrep of $S_\omega$, then $\omega\otimes\lambda$ is an irrep of $W_\omega=(\mathbb{Z}_k)^\ell\rtimes S_\omega$. Clifford theory asserts that the irreps of the wreath product are of the form
\[
\uparrow_{W_\omega}^W(\omega\otimes\lambda)\,.
\]
$W_\omega$ is traditionally called the \emph{inertia group} of the irrep $\omega$.
The QFT over this group can now be constructed using this structure of the irreps. We need to construct a transformation which takes us from the basis $\ket{(z_1,\dots,z_\ell),\pi}\in W$ to the basis $\ket{t,\omega,\lambda}$, where $t$ is an element of a fixed transversal for $W_\omega$ in $W$. In order to do this, we first perform a QFT over $(\mathbb{Z}_k)^\ell$ to obtain the basis $\ket{\omega,\pi}$. Now conditioned on $\ket{\omega}$, we re-write this basis as $\ket{\omega, t,\pi^\prime}$, where $t$ is an element of a transversal for this Young subgroup and $\pi^\prime$ is an element of $W_\omega$. Again, conditioned on $\omega$, we perform a QFT over $W_\omega$ on the third register to obtain the basis $\ket{\omega,t,\lambda,i,j}$, where $\lambda$ is an irrep of $S_\omega$ and $i$ and $j$ label its rows and columns. This step may be carried out by Beals's algorithm~\cite{Beals:1997:QCF:258533.258548} for the QFT over the symmetric group. This gives the required basis.
\section{Algorithms for approximating link invariants}\label{algorithms}
\subsection{Link invariants}
A \emph{knot} is a closed (smooth) curve in $\mathbb{R}^3$ with no self intersections; a \emph{link} is a finite collection of non-intersecting knots. We study knots and links upto deformation; in several cases, we work with oriented variants. In particular, recall that a continuous map $D: \mathbb{R}^3 \times [0,1] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$ is an \emph{isotopy} of $\mathbb{R}^3$ if each $D_t(x) = D(x,t)$ is a homeomorphism and $D_0$ is the identity map. We then identify two knots (or links) if there is an isotopy that carries the first onto the second; in this case we say that they are \emph{ambient isotopic}.
A \emph{link invariant} is association of links to algebraic objects (numbers, groups, modules, etc.) that respects the equivalence relation of ambient isotopy: equivalent links must be associated with the same object. One well-studied framework for studying links is to represent them as certain canonical ``closures'' of braids and explore the algebraic properties of braids that preserve link equivalence in this representation. We consider two such closures here: trace closure and plat closure.
\subsubsection{Trace closure}
Trace closure of a braid is obtained by joining the ends (top to bottom) as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:trace-closure}; Alexander's theorem~\cite{Alexander} asserts that any link can be obtained in this fashion. Of course, a given link can be represented as the closure of many different braids.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[style=stangle,scale=.2]
\draw[draw=red,semithick,scale=0.75] (-10,-5) rectangle (10,5);
\draw[double] (-7,4) -- (-7,6);
\draw[double] (-7,-4) -- (-7,-6);
\draw[double] (-9,6) -- (-9,-6);
\draw[double] (-7,-6) .. controls (-7,-8) and (-9,-8) .. (-9,-6);
\draw[double] (-7,6) .. controls (-7,8) and (-9,8) .. (-9,6);
\draw[double] (-5,4) -- (-5,6);
\draw[double] (-5,-4) -- (-5,-6);
\draw[double] (-11,6) -- (-11,-6);
\draw[double] (-5,-6) .. controls (-5,-10) and (-11,-10) .. (-11,-6);
\draw[double] (-5,6) .. controls (-5,10) and (-11,10) .. (-11,6);
\draw[double] (7,4) -- (7,6);
\draw[double] (7,-4) -- (7,-6);
\draw[double] (-21,6) -- (-21,-6);
\draw[double] (7,-6) .. controls (7,-14) and (-21,-14) .. (-21,-6);
\draw[double] (7,6) .. controls (7,14) and (-21,14) .. (-21,6);
\draw[basic] (-3,6) circle (4pt);
\draw[basic] (0,6) circle (4pt);
\draw[basic] (3,6) circle (4pt);
\draw[basic] (6,6) circle (4pt);
\draw[basic] (-3,-6) circle (4pt);
\draw[basic] (0,-6) circle (4pt);
\draw[basic] (3,-6) circle (4pt);
\draw[basic] (6,-6) circle (4pt);
\draw[basic] (-17,0) circle (4pt);
\draw[basic] (-20,0) circle (4pt);
\draw[basic] (-23,0) circle (4pt);
\draw[basic] (-26,0) circle (4pt);
\draw (0,0) node {\textsl{braid}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The trace closure.}\label{fig:trace-closure}
\end{subfigure}\quad
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[style=stangle,scale=.2]
\draw[draw=red,semithick,scale=0.75] (-10,-5) rectangle (10,5);
\draw[double] (-7,4) -- (-7,6);
\draw[double] (-5,4) -- (-5,6);
\draw[double] (-7,6) .. controls (-7,8) and (-5, 8) .. (-5,6);
\draw[double] (-7,-4) -- (-7,-6);
\draw[double] (-5,-4) -- (-5,-6);
\draw[double] (-7,-6) .. controls (-7,-8) and (-5, -8) .. (-5,-6);
\draw[double] (7,4) -- (7,6);
\draw[double] (5,4) -- (5,6);
\draw[double] (7,6) .. controls (7,8) and (5, 8) .. (5,6);
\draw[double] (7,-4) -- (7,-6);
\draw[double] (5,-4) -- (5,-6);
\draw[double] (7,-6) .. controls (7,-8) and (5, -8) .. (5,-6);
\draw[basic] (-3,6) circle (4pt);
\draw[basic] (0,6) circle (4pt);
\draw[basic] (3,6) circle (4pt);
\draw[basic] (-3,-6) circle (4pt);
\draw[basic] (0,-6) circle (4pt);
\draw[basic] (3,-6) circle (4pt);
\draw (0,0) node {\textsl{braid}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{9mm}
\caption{The plat closure.}
\label{fig:plat-closure}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Braid closures.}
\end{figure}
It has been shown by Markov~\cite{Markov} that braids that yield equivalent knots under the trace closure are related by the \emph{Markov moves}. These moves are
\begin{align*}
\theta\eta&\longleftrightarrow \eta\theta, &&\theta,\eta\in B_n\,, \text{and} \\
\theta&\longleftrightarrow \theta \sigma_{n-1}^{\pm 1}, &&\theta\in B_{n-1}\subset B_n\,.
\end{align*}
A \emph{Markov trace} is a map $\phi:B_n\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ that is well-behaved with respect to these moves:
\[
\phi(\theta\eta)=\phi(\eta\theta)\,, \quad
\phi(\theta \sigma_{n-1})=z\phi(\theta)\,, \quad
\phi(\theta \sigma_{n-1}^{-1})=\bar{z}\phi(\theta)\,,
\]
where $z=\phi(\sigma_{n-1})$ and $\bar{z}=\phi(\sigma_{n-1}^{-1})$. With such a trace map, one can construct a link invariant by defining, for any braid $\theta$ that realizes the link, the quantity
\begin{equation}L(\theta)=(z\bar{z})^{-(n-1)/2} \left(\frac{\bar{z}}{z}\right)^{e(\theta)/2}\phi(\theta) \,,
\end{equation}
where the linking number, $e(\theta)$, is the sum of the exponents of the generators $\sigma_i$ appearing in $\theta$.
It was shown by~\citet{TsohantjisG:qd-links} that the quantum doubles of finite groups yield link invariants by this approach. Specifically, let $(\rho, h)$ be an irrep of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ acting on the Hilbert space $V$ and let $\tau$ denote the natural representation of the braid group $B_n$, described in Section~\ref{sec:braiding} above, on the space $V^{\otimes n}$. Then the quantity
\begin{equation}
L_{\rho,h}(\theta)=(d_{\rho,h})^{-1} \langle h\rangle_\rho^{-e(\theta)}\tr(\tau(\theta))
\end{equation}
is a link invariant, where $\langle h\rangle_\rho=\chi_{\rho}(h)/d_\rho$ and $\chi_\rho, d_\rho$ are the character and dimension of the irrep $\rho$ of $Z(h)$.
\subsubsection{Plat closure}\label{sec:plat}
A related method to represent links by braids is the \emph{plat closure}. This is defined on braids with an even number of strands where one takes pairs of adjacent strands on the top (and bottom) and joins them as in Figure~\ref{fig:plat-closure}. Similar to trace closure, it can be shown that any link can be represented as the plat closure of some braid.
\citet{Birman:Plat} proved an analogue of Markov's theorem for the plat closure.
\begin{theorem}[{\citet{Birman:Plat}}]
Given two braids in $B_{2n}$ with the same plat closure, there exists a sequence of moves from one to the other such that each move is one of the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item(Double coset move) $\theta\longleftrightarrow h_1\theta h_2$, where $h_1,h_2 \in H_{2n}$ (defined below) and,
\item(Stabilization move) $\theta\longleftrightarrow \sigma_{2n}\theta$.
\end{itemize}
Here, $H_{2n}$ denotes the \emph{Hilden group}, the subgroup of the braid group $B_{2n}$ generated by
\[
\sigma_1\,,\quad \sigma_2\sigma_1^2\sigma_2, \quad\text{and} \quad \sigma_{2i}\sigma_{2i-1}\sigma_{2i+1}\sigma_{2i}\,, \quad \forall i\in\{1,\dots ,n-1\}\,.
\]
\end{theorem}
The quantum double of a finite group $G$ likewise yields link invariants by this approach. Consider the $2n$-fold tensor power of an irrep $\Lambda$ for which $\bar{\Lambda}=\Lambda$, i.\,e., $\Lambda$ is its own conjugate. For adjacent pairs $\Lambda^{\otimes 2}$, define the state
\begin{equation}
\label{phi}
\ket{\Phi} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{d_{\Lambda}}}\sum_{v}\ket{v,v}\,,
\end{equation}
where the sum runs over all the elements of an orthonormal basis of $V_{\Lambda}$ and $d_\Lambda$ is its dimension. This maximally entangled state is the copy of the trivial representation in the tensor product. Now, define the state
\begin{equation}\label{alpha}
\ket{\alpha} = \ket{\Phi}^{\otimes n}
\end{equation}
and, given a braid $\theta \in B_{2n}$ that realizes the desired link under the Plat closure, let the representation of $\theta$ in the above tensor power be $\tau_{\Lambda}(\theta)$. The plat closure yields a link invariant:
\begin{equation}\label{Plat}
\textsl{Pl}_{\Lambda}(\theta) = \bra{\alpha}\tau_{\Lambda}(\theta)\ket{\alpha}\,.
\end{equation}
Physically, one can view the plat closure as follows: particle-antiparticle pairs are created, their world lines are braided and then they are annihilated. The plat closure is the amplitude of obtaining the vacuum at the end of this process. One also requires that the particle be its own antiparticle since we need the representation to be its own conjugate.
\subsection{Quantum algorithms for link invariants}\label{QuantumAlg}
In this section, we present quantum algorithms to additively approximate the trace and plat closures of braids in some irrep $\Lambda$ of $\mathsf{D}(G)$. We use the QFT over $\mathsf{D}(G)$ to accomplish this: critically, the $R$ matrices can be implemented efficiently in the regular, combinatorial representation so we may use the QFT over $\mathsf{D}(G)$ to implement it inside the irreps. Then we take the trace over the irrep of choice. We describe this in more detail below. First, we need the definition of additive approximation (see~\citet{ApproximateCounting}).
\begin{definition}
Given any function $f:D\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ and a normalization $u:\mathbb{Z}^{+}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{+}$, an \textbf{additive approximation} for the pair $(f,u)$ is a probabilistic algorithm which given any $x\in D$ and $\epsilon>0$ produces an output $g(x)$, such that
\[
\Pr[|f(x)-g(x)|>\epsilon u(|x|)]<1/4\,,
\]
in time polynomial in $|x|$ and $\epsilon^{-1}$.
\end{definition}
In order to approximate the trace closure of some braid $\theta$ written as a word in the generators $\sigma_i$, we first construct the representation of $\theta$ in $\mathsf{D}(G)^{\otimes n}$ by implementing the $R$ matrices in $\mathsf{D}(G)$. In the case of finite group doubles, the $R$ matrix is a unitary operator and, in fact, a permutation operator in the standard basis. Recall that it is defined as
\[
R=\sum_g g\otimes g^\ast \,;
\]
thus its action on a basis element $\ket{g_1h_1^\ast}\otimes \ket{g_2h_2^\ast}$ is given by
\[
R\ket{g_1h_1^\ast,g_2h_2^\ast} = \sum_{g} \ket{gg_1h_1^\ast, g_2(g^{g_2}h_2)^\ast} = \ket{h_2^{g_2^{-1}}g_1h_1^\ast, g_2h_2^\ast} .
\]
Therefore, the action of $\sigma_1=TR$ is
\[
\sigma_1\ket{g_1h_1^\ast,g_2h_2^\ast} = \ket{g_2h_2^\ast,h_2^{g_2^{-1}}g_1h_1^\ast} .
\]
This operator is a left multiplication by a group element followed by a swap which can be efficiently implemented.
In order to take the trace, we must be able to produce random basis vectors in the irrep $\Lambda$ embedded in $V_{\mathsf{D}(G)}$. The basis vectors inside the irrep $(h,\rho)$ can be constructed using the fact that it is an induced representation. If $\{w_1,\dots ,w_d\}$ are a basis for $V_\rho$, then $\{t_1\otimes w_1,\dots t_k\otimes w_d\}$ is a basis for $V_{\rho,h}$, where $t_i\in T_h$ as before. Assuming that we can embed the vectors $\ket{w_i}$ in the vector space $V_{Z(h)}$, then the vectors $\ket{h^\ast,t_j,w_i}$ are basis vectors of the irrep $(h,\rho)$ embedded in $V_{\mathsf{D}(G)}$. Now, using the Hadamard test, we can find the inner product
\[
\bra{v_i}F\tau_{\Lambda}(\theta) F^{-1}\ket{v_i}\,,
\]
for any given $v_i$, where $F$ is the QFT over $\mathsf{D}(G)$. The Hadamard test is a standard tool in quantum computing used to estimate the matrix entries of a unitary operator. The description below follows \cite{WY} (see also \cite{AJL}).
\begin{description}
\item[Hadamard test] Suppose that $U$ is a unitary operator that can be implemented efficiently, i.\,e., in $O(\text{poly}(n))$ time and $\ket{\psi}$ is a pure state on $n$ qubits which can be prepared efficiently, then one can efficiently sample from random variables $X,Y\in \{-1,1\}$, where
\[
\mathbb{E}[X+iY] = \bra{\psi}U\ket{\psi}\,.
\]
\end{description}
Finally, the Chernoff bound shows that choosing $v_i$ uniformly at random from the orthonormal basis and computing the inner product $\bra{v_i}F\tau_{\Lambda}(\theta) F^{-1}\ket{v_i}$ is enough to give an additive approximation.
\begin{description}
\item[Chernoff bound] If $\{X_1,\dots ,X_k\}$ are real-valued random variables such that $|X_i|\leq 1$ and $\mathbb{E}[X_i]=\mu$ for all $i$, then
\[
\Pr\left[\left|\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^k X_i - \mu \right|>\epsilon\right]\leq 2\exp\left(-\frac{k\epsilon^2}{4}\right)\,.
\]
\end{description}
In order to apply this to complex numbers $Z_j=X_j+iY_j$, we need the union bound along with the Chernoff bound.
\[
\Pr\left[\left|\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^k Z_i - \mathbb{E}Z_i \right|>\epsilon\right] \leq \Pr\left[\left|\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^k X_i - \mathbb{E}X_i \right|>\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{2}}\right] +\Pr\left[\left|\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^k Y_i - \mathbb{E}Y_i \right|>\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{2}}\right] \leq 4\exp \left(-\frac{k\epsilon^2}{8}\right)\,.
\]
To determine $k$ (the number of times we need to run the algorithm), let $Z_i=X_i+i Y_i$ where $X_i$ and $Y_i$ are obtained from the Hadamard test. Let $\hat{Z}_i=(d_{\rho,h})^{-1} \langle h\rangle_\rho^{-e(\theta)}Z_i$. Then for any $\epsilon$, the probability that the average of $\hat{Z}_i$ over $k$ trials differs from the trace closure by more than $\epsilon$ is less than $4\exp(-k\epsilon^2/8)$. In order to make this quantity less than $1/4$, we need $k> 32\log 2/\epsilon^2$.
The algorithm to additively approximate plat closure is similar. We must prepare the state $\ket{\alpha}$ from \eqref{alpha} efficiently. In order to do this, it is enough to prepare the state $\ket{\Phi}$ efficiently. Once we do this, we can perform the Hadamard test to estimate the inner product $\bra{\alpha}\tau_{\Lambda}(\theta)\ket{\alpha}$ and use the Chernoff bound to find the additive approximation to plat closure of $\theta$. The state $\ket{\Phi}$ is the maximally entangled state over the irrep $\Lambda\otimes\Lambda$ embedded in $\mathsf{D}(G)\otimes\mathsf{D}(G)$. This can be prepared by first creating a maximally entangled state over a space of dimension $V_{\Lambda}^{\otimes 2}$. Then we apply the embedding isometry to embed this state into $\mathbb{C}[\mathsf{D}(G)]^{\otimes 2}$.
\begin{theorem}
Given a braid $b\in B_n$ of size $m$, a finite group $G$ and any irrep $([g],\rho)$ of $\mathsf{D}(G)$, there exists a quantum algorithm to additively approximate the trace and plat closures of the braid when the strands are colored by the irrep $([g],\rho)$ of $\mathsf{D}(G)$, in time O(poly($m,n,\log|G|,1/\epsilon$)), where $\epsilon$ is the error in approximation.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Classical algorithm for fluxon irreps of \texorpdfstring{$\mathsf{D}(G)$}{D(G)}}\label{ClassicalAlg}
In this subsection, we observe that there is a classical randomized algorithm to additively approximate link invariants for certain, combinatorial irreps of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ called ``fluxon" irreps. When the strands are colored by irreps of the type $\Lambda=(h,\text{tr})$, where tr is the trivial irrep of $Z(h)$, then it is possible to approximate the link invariants classically. In these irreps the $R$ matrix has the action of a permutation matrix.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fluxon-permutation}
R\ket{g_1}\otimes\ket{g_2} = \ket{g_2g_1g_2^{-1}}\otimes\ket{g_2}\,.
\end{equation}
This means that for any braid $\theta$, $\tau_{\Lambda}(\theta)$ is a permutation matrix whose matrix entry can be determined efficiently classically (efficient in the number of crossings in $\theta$). Therefore, we can take elements uniformly at random from the basis vectors of $V_\Lambda^{\otimes n}$ and compute the inner product with $\tau_{\Lambda}(\theta)$. Then, by the Chernoff bound, we obtain an additive approximation to the trace closure. The difference between the classical and quantum algorithms is that, in the quantum case, one has the Hadamard test to efficiently estimate the matrix entries of a unitary operator. Here since the $R$ matrix is a permutation matrix, its entries are easy to determine classically. Therefore, we have
\begin{theorem}
Given a braid $b\in B_n$ of size $m$, a finite group $G$ and any conjugacy class $[g]$ of $G$, there exists a classical algorithm to additively approximate the trace and plat closures of the braid when the strands are colored by the irrep $([g],id)$ of $\mathsf{D}(G)$, in time O(poly($m,n,\log|G|,1/\epsilon$)), where $\epsilon$ is the error in approximation.
\end{theorem}
\paragraph{Remark.}
While the quantum algorithm above is efficient for all irreps, the classical algorithm is efficient only for invariants coming from ``fluxon" irreps. It may well be the case that there are no classical algorithms for general irreps since this problem is related to approximating elements of irreducible representations of finite groups. For groups like $S_n$, no efficient classical algorithms are known.
\section{Computational complexity of approximating link invariants}\label{complexity}
\newcommand{\operatorname{Aut}}{\operatorname{Aut}}
For this section alone, we assume that the group $G$ is fixed. In this section, we show that providing an additive approximation to the plat closure of a braid (when the strands are colored by an irrep of $\mathsf{D}(G)$) is $\mathsf{BPP}$-hard; likewise, we show that providing a multiplicative approximation is $\mathsf{SBP}$-hard. For the case of fluxons, however, since we have a randomized classical algorithm (presented in Section~\ref{ClassicalAlg}) to additively approximate plat closure, this problem is $\mathsf{BPP}$-complete.\footnote{When we say $\mathsf{BQP}$-complete ($\mathsf{BPP}$-complete, respectively), we mean Promise$\mathsf{BQP}$-complete (Promise$\mathsf{BPP}$-complete, respectively). There are no known problems which are $\mathsf{BQP}$-complete ($\mathsf{BPP}$-complete, respectively).} Our results also imply that computing the plat closure exactly is $\mathsf{\#P}$-complete. In the case of link invariants arising from the quantum group $\textsf{U}_q(\textsf{SU}(2))$ such as the Jones polynomial, it has been shown that approximating them additively is $\mathsf{BQP}$-complete and approximating them multiplicatively is $\mathsf{\#P}$-hard. The complexity of these $\textsf{U}_q(\textsf{SU}(2))$ invariants appears to be closely related to the fact that the image of the braid group representations is dense (in the unitary group). Indeed, \citet{Kuperberg:density} shows that denseness is a sufficient condition for $\mathsf{BQP}$-completeness, i.\,e., if the image of the braid group is dense, then this implies the $\mathsf{BQP}$-completeness of additive approximations and $\mathsf{\#P}$-completeness of multiplicative approximations. By contrast, as mentioned above, the image of the braid group representations arising from $\mathsf{D}(G)$ is finite \cite{FiniteImage}, which may explain the difference in complexity. A conjecture along these lines is made by Rowell \cite{Rowell}.
To establish our results, we first show that given any randomized computation on $n$ bits, there exists a braid on $\text{poly}(n)$ strands such that the probability of success of the randomized computation is arbitrarily close to the plat closure of the braid. From this, it follows that approximating the plat closure additively is $\mathsf{BPP}$-hard and approximating it multiplicatively is $\mathsf{SBP}$-hard. It also follows that computing it exactly is $\mathsf{\#P}$-complete. The notion of additive approximation was defined in Section~\ref{QuantumAlg}; we reproduce it here for convenience along with the definition of multiplicative approximation~\cite{ApproximateCounting}.
\begin{definition}
Given any function $f:D\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ and a normalization $u:\mathbb{Z}^{+}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{+}$, an \textbf{additive approximation} for the pair $(f,u)$ is a probabilistic algorithm which given any $x\in D$ and $\epsilon>0$ produces an output $g(x)$, such that
\[
\Pr[|f(x)-g(x)|>\epsilon u(|x|)]<1/4\,,
\]
in time polynomial in $|x|$ and $\epsilon^{-1}$.
\end{definition}
A multiplicative approximation is a special case of a more general value-dependent approximation defined by \citet{Kuperberg:density}. A probabilistic algorithm to multiplicatively approximate a function is called an $\mathsf{FPRAS}$ (fully polynomial randomized approximation scheme).
\begin{definition}
Given $f:D\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$, a \textbf{multiplicative approximation} or an $\mathsf{FPRAS}$ is a probabilistic algorithm which, given any $x\in D$ and $\epsilon>0$, produces an output $g(x)$ such that
\[
\Pr[|f(x)-g(x)|>\epsilon f(x)]<1/4\,,
\]
in time polynomial in $|x|$ and $\epsilon^{-1}$.
\end{definition}
If the algorithm is deterministic, then we have an $\mathsf{FPTAS}$ (fully polynomial time approximation scheme). Next, we define the class $\mathsf{SBP}$.
\begin{definition}
A language $L$ is in $\mathsf{SBP}$ if there exists a polynomial $p$, a constant $\epsilon>0$, and a polynomial time probabilistic algorithm such that for any input $x$
\[
x\in L \quad\Longrightarrow \quad \Pr[\text{$A(x)$ accepts}]>(1+\epsilon)2^{-p(|x|)}\,,
\]
\[
x\notin L \quad\Longrightarrow\quad \Pr[\text{$A(x)$ accepts}] <(1-\epsilon)2^{-p(|x|)}\,.
\]
\end{definition}
The class $\mathsf{SBP}$ (small bounded probabilistic $\mathsf{P}$) was defined in \citet{SBP}, which also established several fundamental properties of the class. It was shown that $\mathsf{SBP}$ contains $\mathsf{NP}$ and, in fact, lies between $\mathsf{MA}$ and $\mathsf{AM}$. From the definitions of multiplicative approximation and $\mathsf{SBP}$, we can see that multiplicatively approximating the success probability of an arbitrary randomized computation is (precisely) $\mathsf{SBP}$-hard.
We now state and prove the main theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{Thm}
Let $\textsl{Pl}(b)$ be the plat closure of a braid where the strands are colored by any conjugacy class of the alternating group $A_m$, $m\geq 5$, which has at least $4$ fixed points. Then, additively approximating the plat closure is $\mathsf{BPP}$-complete, multiplicative approximation is $\mathsf{SBP}$-complete and exact evaluation is $\mathsf{\#P}$-complete.
\end{theorem}
The next lemma is the principal simulation result from which the hardness results will follow.
\begin{lemma}
Given a randomized computation on $n$ bits and any $\epsilon >0$, there exists a braid on poly$(n,{1}/{\epsilon})$ strands and $\text{poly}(n,{1}/{\epsilon})$ crossings with the strands colored by the conjugacy class irrep of the alternating group ($A_m$, $m\geq 6$) with at least $4$ fixed points, such that if the the plat closure of the braid is $\textsl{Pl}$ and the probability of success of the randomized computation is $\text{P}_s$ then we have
\[
|\text{P}_s - \textsl{Pl}| < \epsilon \,.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We use the following model for randomized computation. Let $n$ be the input size. We consider $\text{poly}(n)$ $d$-level systems ($d$its), where $d$ could be exponential in $n$; we label the levels $0$ through $d-1$. The computation begins with $k=\text{poly}(n)$ $d$its in the $0$ state and $\ell=\text{poly}(n)$ random $d$its. Reversible computation is then carried out on this input state using the Toffoli gate. We may organize the computation so that acceptance is indicated by the final value of the first $d$it, adopting the convention that the value $0$ corresponds to acceptance. Following the computation, we involve a untouched ``conclusion'' $d$it in the $0$ state and XOR the first $d$it onto it. This is followed by reversing the computation to recover the initial state (without touching the ``conclusion'' $d$it). With these conventions, the computation accepts precisely when the final state is the same as the initial state. Let the deterministic reversible circuit be represented by the matrix $M$ and the random $d$its be $r_1\dots r_\ell$. Then the probability of success is
\[
\Pr[\text{Accept}]=\frac{1}{d^\ell}\sum_{r_1,\dots, r_\ell}\bra{0^kr_1\dots r_\ell} M \ket{0^kr_1\dots r_\ell}\,.
\]
Since $M$ is deterministic, it is a permutation matrix and we can rewrite the probability of success as
\[
\Pr[\text{Accept}]=\frac{1}{d^\ell}\sum_{\substack{r_1,\dots, r_\ell\\ s_1,\dots, s_\ell}}\bra{0^kr_1\dots r_\ell} M \ket{0^ks_1\dots s_\ell}=\bra{\phi}M\ket{\phi}\,,
\]
where $\ket{\phi}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{d^\ell}}\sum_{r_1\dots r_\ell}\ket{0^kr_1\dots r_\ell}$.
In order to relate the success probability to plat closure of a braid where the strands are colored by fluxon irreps (or conjugacy classes of $G$), we use the Ogburn-Preskill encoding~\cite{OgburnPreskill}. We take as the $d$ level system a pair of strands closed in a plat, so that the state on the pair is $\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\sum_{g\in C}\ket{g,g^{-1}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\sum_r \ket{r}$ if the conjugacy class $C$ is of size $d$. Therefore, pairs of wires closed in a plat can be used as random $d$its. With this encoding, we have that the probability of success is
\[
\Pr[\text{Accept}]=\frac{1}{d^\ell}\sum_{\substack{g_1,\dots, g_\ell\\h_1,\dots ,h_\ell}}\bra{(c_1,c_1^{-1})^kg_1g_1^{-1}\dots g_\ell g_\ell^{-1}} M \ket{(c_1,c_1^{-1})^k h_1 h_1^{-1}\dots h_\ell h_\ell^{-1}}\,,
\]
where the $g_i$ and the $h_i$ run over the entire conjugacy class and $\ket{c,c^{-1}}$ represents the $\ket{0}$ state. These can be thought of as variables and the $d$its in the zero state as group constants since they need to be in a specific state. If there were no need for $d$its in the zero state and if $M$ could be realized as a braid, then it is easy to see that the above expression is exactly the plat closure. In order to realize $M$ as a braid, however, we will need to have access to group constants. Therefore, group constants will be necessary for both implementing the circuit and for enforcing an appropriate starting state. Now, if group constants are available, then $M$ can be realized as a braid if the group is sufficiently strong (such as a simple group). It has been shown by \citet{MaurerRhodes} that in simple groups, any function can be realized as a word in the variables and group constants. To construct only the Toffoli gate, less rich groups might work as well (see \cite{Barrington}).
In order to produce group constants with plat closure, our strategy is to introduce more strands and braid them so that when they are closed in a plat, the only solution to the resultant set of equations over the group, is the set of group constants we need. We can then normalize the plat closure so that this part of the braid contributes unity. Assume that the constants needed are $c_1, c_1^{-1}, \dots c_m, c_m^{-1}, (c_1, c_1^{-1})^k$, where $c_1, \dots , c_m$ generate the group (we assume that $G$ has a conjugacy class which contains its own inverses and can generate the group).
The remainder of the proof focuses on the issue of generating group constants. We begin with a brief discussion of the Wirtinger presentation of the knot group and its relationship to the invariants associated with fluxon irreps.
\paragraph{The invariant at a fluxon irrep}
Recall the Wirtinger presentation of the knot group $\mathcal{K}(K) = \pi_1(\mathbb{R}^3
\setminus K)$ of a knot $K$ (or link): beginning with a knot
diagram\footnote{Recall that a \emph{knot diagram} is a 2-dimensional
projection of a knot in general position, so that no three lines
intersect at a point, with explicit annotations that determine, for
each crossing, which line occludes the other.
Figure~\ref{fig:stroke} is a knot diagram of the
unknot. Figure~\ref{fig:crossing} is an example of the typical
indication of a crossing.} for $K$,
one introduces an orientation for the knot and a generator $x_s$ for
each \emph{stroke} of the diagram (that is, each connected arc of the
diagram, such as the red component of the knot diagram of
Figure~\ref{fig:stroke}). With each crossing of the diagram, such as
the one pictured in Figure~\ref{fig:crossing} involving the labeled
strokes $x_t$, $x_a$, and
$x_b$, one introduces the relation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Wirtinger-relation}
x_b = x_t^{-1}\,
x_a \,x_t \,.
\end{equation}
(One can recover this relation by associating each variable $x_s$ with
the path from a fixed base point that travels around the stroke $s$ in
a direction consistent with the right-hand rule and recording the
effect of ``pushing'' a loop underneath the top strand.) The quotient
of the free group generated by the $\{ x_s\}$ by these generators is
isomorphic to the knot group.
As the knot group is an invariant of the knot, one can immediately
obtain other (weaker) invariants as functions of the knot group. We focus
on
\[
h(K,G) = \bigl| H(K,G)\bigr| \quad\text{where}\quad H(K,G) = \{ \phi : \mathcal{K}(K) \rightarrow G \mid
\text{$\phi$ a homomorphism}\}\,,
\]
the number of homomorphisms of $\mathcal{K}(K)$ into the group
$G$. With the Wirtinger presentation described above, the quantity
$h(K,G)$ can be expressed as the number of maps $h: \{ x_s \}
\rightarrow G$ that satisfy the
relations~\eqref{eq:Wirtinger-relation} in the sense that
\[
\phi(x_c) = \phi(x_t)^{-1} \phi(x_c) \phi(x_t)
\]
for each crossing. Observe that any such map necessarily carries the
generators $\{ x_s\}$ into a single conjugacy class of $G$, and we refine the notation above by focusing on those maps associated with a particular conjugacy class $C$ of $G$:
\[
h(K; C, G) = \bigl| H(K; C, G) \bigr| \quad \text{where}\quad H(K; C, G) = \{ \phi : \mathcal{K}(K) \rightarrow G \mid
\text{$\phi$ a homomorphism, $\forall x_s, \phi(x_s) \in C$}\} \,,
\]
which we abbreviate $h(K,C)$ (and $H(K,C)$) when $G$ can be inferred from context.
As discussed above, a braid $b \in B_{2n}$ induces a link $L(b)$ via
the plat closure, and any (efficiently presented) knot can be given
such a description (as the knot induced from the plat closure of a braid) in a
straightforward fashion. For a group $G$, and the
fluxon representation $\Lambda = (C,1)$ of $D(G)$, this yields the knot
invariant $\textsl{Pl}_\Lambda(\theta)$ (where $\theta$ is a braid that yields the knot under the plat closure). For this combinatorial case (arising for a fluxon representation), we have
\[
\textsl{Pl}_\Lambda = h(\mathcal{K}(K); C, G)\,.
\]
With this equality in place, we shall argue about $h(\mathcal{K}(K); C)$ rather than $\textsl{Pl}_\Lambda$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.2]
\draw[tanglea] (-8,-8) -- (8,8);
\draw[tanglea] (-8,8) -- (8,-8);
\draw[tangle] (6,-3) node {$x_t$};
\draw[tangle] (6,3) node {$x_b$};
\draw[tangle] (-6.5,-3) node {$x_a$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A crossing in a (oriented) knot diagram.}
\label{fig:crossing}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[style=tangle,scale=.1]
\draw[double] (-10,0) -- (10,0); \draw[double] (-10,0) -- (0,17.3); \draw[double] (0,17.3) -- (10,0);
\draw[double,style=tanglered] (10.5,0) .. controls +(20.5,0) and +(10,17.3) .. (0.5,17.8);
\draw[double] (-10.5,0) .. controls +(-20,0) and +(-10,17.3) .. (0,17.3);
\draw[double] (10,0) .. controls +(10,-17.3) and (-20,-17.3) .. (-10,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A stroke in a knot diagram.}
\label{fig:stroke}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Knot diagrams, strokes, and the Wirtinger presentation.}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Generating groups constants}
As mentioned above, we assume that $G$ is a finite group and that $C = \{ h^g \mid g \in G\}$ is a conjugacy class that generates $G$. We begin by showing how to construct a knot that---with controlled error---permits us to distinguish a particular set of generators of $G$ (up to automorphism).
Let $\vec{c} = (c_1, \ldots, c_t)$ denote a sequence of elements of $C$ that generate $G$ and
\[
[\vec{c}] = \{ \phi(\vec{c}) = (\phi(c_1), \ldots, \phi(c_k)) \mid \phi \in \operatorname{Aut}(G)\}\,.
\]
Our goal is to construct a knot $k_{\vec{c}}$, together with a distinguished collection of strokes $(s_1, \ldots, s_k)$, with the property that uniform selection of a homomorphism $\psi$ from $H(k,C)$, with overwhelming probability, yields one for which $\psi(s) = (\psi(s_1), \ldots, \psi(s_k)) \in [\vec{c}]$. (Observe that $\operatorname{Aut}(G)$ acts on the collection of legal homomorphisms, so our demand---that the resulting knot distinguish a particular orbit under the $\operatorname{Aut}(G)$ action---is the strongest requirement of this type on which we can insist upon.)
The construction begins with a collection of $k$ (oriented) circles; see Figure~\ref{fig:circles}. Without further constraints, the knot group of this link is free: legal maps $\psi$ may assign arbitrary elements of $C$ to each circle. We introduce constraints among the circles with \emph{band connections}; see Figure~\ref{fig:band-connection}. A \emph{band} is a pair of strands that are constrained to be equal (under any homomorphism into $C$), but are oppositely oriented. They are convenient because of the simple effect they have upon crossing other strokes:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Should a band cross beneath another stroke, as in Figure~\ref{fig:band-under}, the constraints of~\eqref{fig:crossing} preserve the band condition: if the pair of strokes on the left side form a band (are constrained to take equal values under any homomorphism), the same is true of the two strokes on the right. Furthermore, the values assumed by these two bands are related by conjugation of the value of the stroke under which they cross.
\item Should a band cross over another stroke, effectively dividing it into three strokes as in Figure~\ref{fig:band-under}, the constraints of~\eqref{fig:crossing} demand that the ``incoming'' and ``outgoing'' values assumed by the stroke so crossed over are the same, as though the crossing had never happened. The small interior stroke will take on another (conjugate) value, but we shall never allow these to interact with other strokes.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.2]
\draw[tangle] (0,2.5) node {$x$};
\draw[tangle] (0,-2.5) node {$x$};
\draw[tanglea] (-10,1) -- (10,1);
\draw[tanglea] (10,-1) -- (-10,-1);
\phantom{\draw[double] (0,-10) -- (0,-10);}
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{5mm}
\caption{A band.}
\label{fig:band}
\end{subfigure}\qquad
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.2]
\draw[tangle] (-6,2.5) node {$x$};
\draw[tangle] (-6,-2.5) node {$x$};
\draw[tangle] (1,7) node {$y$};
\draw[tangle] (6,2.5) node {$y x y^{-1}$};
\draw[tangle] (6,-2.5) node {$y x y^{-1}$};
\draw[tanglea] (-10,1) -- (10,1);
\draw[tanglea] (10,-1) -- (-10,-1);
\draw[tanglea] (0,10) -- (0,-10);
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{5mm}
\caption{A band crosses beneath a stroke.}
\label{fig:band-under}
\end{subfigure}\qquad
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.2]
\draw[tangle] (-6,2.5) node {$x$};
\draw[tangle] (-6,-2.5) node {$x$};
\draw[tangle] (1,7) node {$y$};
\draw[tangle] (1,-7) node {$y$};
\draw[tanglea] (0,10) -- (0,-10);
\draw[tanglea] (10,-1) -- (-10,-1);
\draw[tanglea] (-10,1) -- (10,1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{5mm}
\caption{A band crosses over a stroke.}
\label{fig:band-over}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Bands and band crossings.}
\end{figure}
Since $c_1, \dots ,c_m$ are conjugates, we can write each $c_i$ as $g^{-1}c_1g$, for a group element $g$. As the $c_i$ generate the group, however, $g$ may be written as a word in the $c_i$ and we have, for each $i$ an equation
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:conjugates}
c_i=c_1^{v_i}\,,
\end{equation}
where $v_i$ is a word in the $c_i$ and their inverses. Introducing a family of indeterminates $x_1, \ldots, x_k$ and replacing each appearance of $c_i$ in~\eqref{eqn:conjugates} with the variable $x_i$, we conclude that the $c_i$ satisfy the equations
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:variable-conjugates}
x_i=x_1^{w_i}\,,
\end{equation}
where $w_i$ is the word in the $x_i$ and their inverses obtained from $v_i$. We now adopt a construction of \citet{Homomorphs}, who shows how to construct a knot that imposes these relations. Each such equation $x_i = x_1^{w_i}$ is imposed by introducing a band between the circle associated with $x_1$ and the circle associated with $x_i$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:band-connection}) and passing it through the circles associated with the variables appearing in $w_i$; by passing such a band ``through'' such a circle---one over and once under as in Figure~\ref{fig:relation}---the generator associated with the circle operates on the band value by conjugation while leaving the generator associated with the circle unaffected. In general, the words $w_i$ may contain references to the variable $x_i$, in which case one passes the band through the circle associated with $x_i$, as in Figure~\ref{fig:self-equation}.
This construction produces a knot we call $K_c^1$. By construction, associating the strokes the $k$ original circles with the variables $x_i$, there is a homomorphism $\psi$ of $\mathcal{K}(K_c^1)$ into $C \subset G$ for which $\psi: x_i \mapsto c_i$. As remarked above, if $\phi \in \operatorname{Aut}(G)$ which fixes the conjugacy class $C$, then $\phi \circ\psi$ is also an element of $H(K_c^1, C)$. However, there will, in general, be other solutions to the equations~\eqref{eqn:variable-conjugates}: in particular, the map which carries all strokes of the knot to a particular, fixed element $c \in C$ satisfies the equations~\eqref{eqn:variable-conjugates}. Our goal is to add some strands to the knot so as to ``amplify'' the solution of interest---the map $\psi: x_s \mapsto c_i$---so that it appears with overwhelming majority if an element of selected at random from $H(\cdot, C)$.
\begin{figure}[ht]\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.15,radius=5]
\draw[tanglea] (-25,0) arc[start angle=0, end angle=360];
\draw[tangle] (-30,0) node {\textsl{$x_1$}};
\draw[tanglea] (-10,0) arc[start angle=0, end angle=360];
\draw[tangle] (-15,0) node {\textsl{$x_2$}};
\draw[tangle] (-4,0) node {\textsl{$\cdots$}};
\draw[tanglea] (10,0) arc[start angle=0, end angle=360];
\draw[tangle] (5,0) node {\textsl{$x_k$}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{8mm}
\caption{Initial circles.}
\label{fig:circles}
\end{subfigure}
\qquad
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.15,radius=5,style=tangle]
\draw[tanglea] (-10,0) arc[start angle=0, end angle=270];
\draw[double] (15,5) arc[start angle=90, end angle=-180];
\draw[double] (-15, -5) .. controls +(5,0) and +(-5,-9) .. (0,-1);
\draw[double] (0, -1) .. controls +(5,9) and +(0,6) .. (10,0);
\draw[double] (-10,0) .. controls +(0,-6) and +(-5,-9) .. (0,1);
\draw[double] (0,1) .. controls +(5,9) and +(-5,0) .. (15,5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A band between two circles.}
\label{fig:band-connection}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{1cm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.15,radius=5,style=tangle]
\draw[tanglea] (-15,0) arc[start angle=0, end angle=270];
\draw (-20,0) node {\textsl{$x$}};
\draw[double] (-0,0) arc[start angle=0, end angle=270];
\draw (-5,0) node {\textsl{$y$}};
\draw[double] (-20, -5) .. controls (-15,-5) and (-10,-11) .. (10,-11);
\draw[double] (-15,0) .. controls (-15,-5) and (-10,-10) .. (10,-10);
\draw[double] (0,0) .. controls (0,-5) and (5,-2) .. (10,-2);
\draw[double] (-5,-5) .. controls (-3,-5) and (8,-3) .. (10,-3);
\draw[tanglea] (15,0) arc[start angle=0, end angle=360];
\draw (10,0) node {\textsl{$z$}};
\draw[double] (10,-2) .. controls (16.25,-2) and (16.25,-11) .. (10,-11);
\draw[double] (10,-3) .. controls (15,-3) and (15,-10) .. (10,-10);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A simple relation: $x^z = y$.}
\label{fig:relation}
\end{subfigure}
\qquad
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.15,radius=5,style=tangle]
\draw[tanglea] (-15,0) arc[start angle=0, end angle=270];
\draw (-20,0) node {\textsl{$x$}};
\draw[double] (-0,0) arc[start angle=0, end angle=270];
\draw (-5,0) node {\textsl{$y$}};
\draw[double] (-20, -5) .. controls (-15,-5) and (-10,-3) .. (-5,-3);
\draw[double] (-15,0) .. controls (-15,-5) and (-10,-2) .. (-5,-2);
\draw[double] (-5, -3) .. controls (.5,-3) and (-2,-11) .. (10,-11);
\draw[double] (-5,-2) .. controls (2,-2) and (-2,-10) .. (10,-10);
\draw[double] (0,0) .. controls (0,-5) and (5,-2) .. (10,-2);
\draw[double] (-5,-5) .. controls (-3,-5) and (8,-3) .. (10,-3);
\draw[tanglea] (15,0) arc[start angle=0, end angle=360];
\draw (10,0) node {\textsl{$z$}};
\draw[double] (10,-2) .. controls (16.25,-2) and (16.25,-11) .. (10,-11);
\draw[double] (10,-3) .. controls (15,-3) and (15,-10) .. (10,-10);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The equation $x^{zy} = y$.}
\label{fig:self-equation}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Building a set of generators.}
\end{figure}
\newcommand{\operatorname{new}}{\operatorname{new}}
To minimize the contribution from solutions not related by an automorphism, consider a undesirable solution $\vec{d} = (d_1, \ldots, d_k)$ (for which there is an homomorphism $\psi': x_i \mapsto d_i$ and yet $d \not\in [c]$). We now introduce a new circle, associated with the variable $y_{\operatorname{new}}$, and as before introduce an equation of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eq-suppress}
y_{\operatorname{new}}=x_1^{w(\vec{x}) y_{\operatorname{new}}}\,,
\end{equation}
where $w(\vec{x})$ is a word in the $x_i$. In order to ``suppress'' the homomorphism associated with $\vec{d}$, we shall choose $w$ in such a way that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $w(\vec{d}) = 1$: thus any homomorphism $\psi'$ which carries $x_i$ to $d_i$ must necessarily carry $y_{\operatorname{new}}$ to the same value as $x_1 = d_1$. (Specifically, the only solution to the equation $y_{\operatorname{new}} = x_1^{w(d)y_{\operatorname{new}}} = x_1^{y_{\operatorname{new}}}$ is $y_{\operatorname{new}} = x_1$.)
\item\label{item:multiple} $w(\vec{c}) = \alpha$, a group constant for which the equation $y_{\operatorname{new}} = x_1^{\alpha y_{\operatorname{new}}}$ has multiple solutions. In this case, the homomorphism $\psi: x_i \mapsto c_i$ may be extended in multiple ways with an assignment to $y_{\operatorname{new}}$ (any solution to $y_{\operatorname{new}} = x_1^{\alpha y_{\operatorname{new}}}$ will suffice).
\end{enumerate}
Lemma~\ref{lem:alternating} below guarantees that there is a nontrivial element $\alpha \in A_n, n \geq 6$ satisfying item~\ref{item:multiple} above. Lemma~\ref{lem:solutions} below guarantees that when $G$ is simple (i.e., has no nontrivial normal subgroups), there is a word $w$ in the variables $x_1, \ldots, x_k$ so that $w(d) = 1$ and $w(c) = \alpha$ for any fixed $\alpha \in G$. Focusing now on a specific group $G = A_n, n \geq 6$, let $\alpha$ be the element which maximizes the number of solutions to the equation $y = c_1^{\alpha y}$. It follows immediately that, for the new knot $K'$ induced from this process,
\[
|\{ \phi \in H(\mathcal{K}(K'); C, G) \mid \psi(x_i) = c_i \}| \geq 2\,|\{ \phi \in H(\mathcal{K}(K'); C, G) \mid \psi(x_i) = d_i \}|\,.
\]
Repeating this process $\ell$ times for each of the offending vectors $\vec{d}$ induces a knot $K_c^\ell$ so that for any $\vec{d} \not\in [\vec{c}]$ we have
\[
|\{ \phi \in H(\mathcal{K}(K^\ell_c); C, G) \mid \psi(x_i) = c_i \}| \geq 2^\ell\,|\{ \phi \in H(\mathcal{K}(K^\ell_c); C, G) \rightarrow C \mid \psi(x_i) = d_i \}|\,.
\]
(Observe that, as presented, this is only efficient if $G = A_n$ has constant size.)
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:alternating}
Consider the alternating group on $m$ symbols $A_m$ and consider any conjugacy class with at least $4$ fixed points, say, $m-3$, $m-2$, $m-1$ and $m$. Since the conjugacy class is non-trivial, it has a $k$ cycle with $k\geq 2$. Pick $\alpha$ in this class to have $(1\,2\,\dots\,k)$ in that $k$ cycle. Now, consider the equation $y=\alpha^{(1\,k)(m-2\,m-3)y}$. This equation has at least two solutions.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It can easily be checked that two solutions are given by elements that differ from $\alpha$ only in the $k$ cycle. The first one contains $(1\,2\,\dots\,k-1\,m)$ and the second $(1\,2\,\dots\,k-1\,m-1)$ in that $k$ cycle.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:solutions}
Let $G$ be a finite group and $F_k$ be the free group on $k$ generators $\{x_1, \ldots, x_k\}$. For an element $\vec{d} = (d_1, \ldots, d_k) \in G^k$, let $\phi_\vec{d}$ be the evaluation homomorphism that carries $x_i$ to $d_i$ and define
\[
A_\vec{d} = \ker \phi_\vec{d} = \{ w \in F_k \mid \phi_\vec{d}(w) = 1 \}\,.
\]
For two elements $\vec{c}, \vec{d} \in G^k$, define $C$ to be the subgroup generated by the $c_i$, $D$ to be the subgroup generated by the $d_i$, and
\[
A_\vec{d}(\vec{c}) = \{ \phi_\vec{c}(w) \mid w \in A_{\vec{d}}\}\,.
\]
Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{part:normal} $A_\vec{d}(\vec{c})$ is normal in $C$. In particular, when the $c_i$ generate $G$, $A_\vec{d}(\vec{c})$ is normal in $G$.
\item \label{part:nontrivial} If $\vec{c}$ and $\vec{d}$ are not related by a homomorphism of $G$ (which is to say that no homomorphism from $D$ to $C$ carries each $c_i$ to $d_i$) then $A_\vec{d}(\vec{c}) \neq 1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For part~\ref{part:normal}, $\ker(\phi_\vec{d})$ is certainly normal in $F_k$ since $\phi_\vec{d}$ is a group homomorphism. Let $C$ be the subgroup of $G$ generated by the $c_i$, and $g \in C$; we wish to show that $g^{-1}A_\vec{d}(\vec{c})g = A_\vec{d}(\vec{c})$. If $w \in F_k$ is a word in the free group for which $\phi_\vec{c}(w) = g$, we have $w^{-1} A_\vec{d} w = A_\vec{d}$ and hence that
\[
g^{-1} A_{\vec{d}}(\vec{c}) g = \phi_{\vec{c}}(w^{-1} A_\vec{d} w) = \phi_{\vec{c}}(A_\vec{d}) = A_{\vec{d}}(\vec{c})\,,
\]
as desired.
As for part~\ref{part:nontrivial}, let $C$ denote the subgroup generated by $\{ c_i\}$ and $D$ the subgroup generated by $\{ d_i\}$. Observe that if $A_\vec{d}(\vec{c})$ is trivial we have $\ker \phi_\vec{d} \subset \ker \phi_\vec{c}$. In this case, the natural quotient map
\[
q_{\vec{c}}: D \cong F/\ker \phi_\vec{d} \rightarrow C \cong F/\ker \phi_\vec{c}
\]
yields a homomorphism $\psi: D \rightarrow C$ for which $\psi: d_i \mapsto c_i$. To be precise, let $q_\vec{c}$ denote the quotient map $q_{\vec{c}}: F/\ker \phi_\vec{d} \rightarrow F/\ker \phi_\vec{c}$ and let $i_\vec{d}$ denote the inverse of the isomorphism $\phi_\vec{d}$ induces from $F/\ker \phi_{\vec{d}}$ to $D$; observe that $i_\vec{d}(d_i) = x_i \;(\ker \phi_\vec{d})$. Then the map $\psi = \phi_\vec{c} \circ q_{\vec{c}} \circ i_{\vec{d}}$ is a homomorphism of $D$ onto $C$ that carries each $d_i$ onto $c_i$; see Figure~\ref{fig:homomorphism}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (D) at (0,0) {$D$};
\node (quotient-D) at (3,0) {$F/\ker \phi_\vec{d}$};
\node (quotient-C) at (6,0) {$F/\ker \phi_\vec{c}$};
\node (C) at (9,0) {$C$};
\path[->] (D) edge [bend right] node [below] {$i_{\vec{d}}$} (quotient-D);
\path[->] (quotient-D) edge [bend right] node [above] {$\phi_\vec{d}$} (D);
\path[->] (quotient-D) edge node [above] {$q_\vec{c}$} (quotient-C);
\path[->] (quotient-C) edge node [above] {$\phi_\vec{c}$} (C);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{The homomorphism $\psi: d_i \mapsto c_i$.}
\label{fig:homomorphism}
\end{figure}
\end{proof}
The above lemma implies that if $G$ is simple then $H_1=G$ ($H_1$ cannot be trivial because $\vec{c}$ and $\vec{d}$ are not related by an automorphism). This means that there exists a word $w$ in variables $x_i$ such that $w(\vec{c})=z$ and $w(\vec{d})=1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{Thm}]
The first two follow from the definitions of $\mathsf{BPP}$ and $\mathsf{SBP}$ and the following lemmas. The $\mathsf{\#P}$-completeness follows from the fact that exact evaluation of the success probability of a randomized computation is $\mathsf{\#P}$-complete.
\end{proof}
\section{Quantum computation with anyons}\label{QC:anyons}
Anyons are particles which exist in two dimensions and have exotic statistics. Anyons are useful for quantum computation because quantum information can be stored on a system of anyons in a non-local fashion. This means that local errors do not corrupt the quantum information and a computer based on anyons will be inherently fault tolerant to local errors. For a tutorial on quantum computation using anyons, see the notes by Preskill~\cite{PreskillNotes}. In this section, we give short introduction to anyons described by $\mathsf{D}(G)$ for a finite group $G$. Then we show how one can use the QFT over $\mathsf{D}(G)$ to simulate an anyon computer efficiently. This has been shown in \cite{PreskillNotes, Mochon1}, but it was assumed that the dimension of the irreps of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ are of constant size. Here we use the QFT over $\mathsf{D}(G)$ to simulate an anyon computer in potentially large irreps of $\mathsf{D}(G)$.
The Hilbert space of an anyon (whose symmetries are described by $\mathsf{D}(G)$) is an irreducible representation of $\mathsf{D}(G)$. Recall that irreps of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ are characterized as $(h,\rho)$, where $h$ is a representative element of a conjugacy class and $\rho$ is an irrep of $Z(h)$. The group elements $h$ are called fluxes and the irreps $\rho$ are called charges. An anyon, in general, has both flux and charge. Anyons which transform as $(h,\text{tr})$, where tr is the trivial irrep of $Z(h)$, are called \emph{fluxons}. On the other hand, if we pick $h$ to be the identity element of the group, then $Z(h)=Z(e)=G$. Anyons described by the irreps $(e,\rho)$, where $\rho$ is an irrep of $G$, are called \emph{chargeons}. Recall from \eqref{R:InsideIrrep} that the action of the $R$ matrix on a pair of anyons is
\begin{equation}R\ket{g_1,v_1}\otimes\ket{g_2,v_2} = \ket{g_2g_1g_2^{-1}, \rho(k_{g_2g_1g_2^{-1}}^{-1}g_2k_{g_1})v_1}\otimes\ket{g_2,v_2}.
\end{equation}
In the special case of fluxons, this action reduces to
\begin{equation}R\ket{g_1}\otimes\ket{g_2} = \ket{g_2g_1g_2^{-1}}\otimes\ket{g_2} .
\end{equation}
This is the action when we wind the first anyon around the second in the anticlockwise direction. The braid operator $TR$ is given by
\begin{equation}B\ket{g_1}\otimes\ket{g_2} = \ket{g_2}\otimes\ket{g_2g_1g_2^{-1}} .
\end{equation}
The action on chargeons can be determined similarly. Given an irrep $(g,\rho)$, the conjugate irrep is $(g^{-1},\bar{\rho})$, where $\bar{\rho}$ is the conjugate irrep of $\rho$. The action of $\bar{\rho}$ is simply the complex conjugation of the action of $\rho$. Given two anyons in conjugate irreps, the state of trivial total flux and charge is the maximally entangled state
\[
\ket{\Phi} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{|C|d_\rho}}\sum_{g,v} \ket{g,v}\otimes\ket{g^{-1},v^\ast},
\]
where the sum is over all $g$ in the conjugacy class $C$ and all $v$ in the irrep $\rho$.
\subsection*{Simulation of anyons}
As described in~\cite{PreskillNotes}, in order to perform universal quantum computation, we need to be able to
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textit{Prepare any state in the Hilbert space of a pair of anyons which correspond to conjugate irreps.}
\item \textit{Perform braiding of anyons around each other and around ancillas.}
\item \textit{Fuse pairs of anyons and measure the flux and charge of the resulting particle.}
\end{enumerate}
It can be seen easily that in order to simulate each of these steps, one needs the Fourier transform and the Clebsch-Gordan transform over $\mathsf{D}(G)$. Initial state preparation can be carried out if we can construct states which lie inside pairs of irreps of $\mathsf{D}(G)$. To do this, we can use the Clebsch-Gordan transform. First we embed the state in the direct sum of the CG decomposition and then perform the inverse CG transform. Next, in order to perform braiding on the states, we need to implement the $R$ matrix inside the irrep. We use the same trick as before and implement the $R$ matrix in the regular representation of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ and use the QFT\@. Finally, in order to simulate fusion, we again make use of the CG transform since fusion of anyons is a CG transform followed by a measurement in the computational basis. Since we know how to perform a Fourier transform over some groups, we now focus on the CG transform.
\iffalse
\subsection{Universality}
It has been shown in \citet{OgburnPreskill, Mochon2}, that quantum computation using anyons from certain finite group doubles is universal. This was done by explicitly simulating each gate and measurement in a universal set. In this simulation, one has to perform measurements and post-select on the outcome. One might think that a simulation without post-selection is possible for anyons. However, we show here that this is not possible because the image of the braid group representation is finite. First, we recall the notions of universality of a gate set.
\begin{definition}
\textbf{Strict Universality.} A gate set $S$ is called strictly universal, if $S$ generates the unitary group acting on $n$ qubits.
\end{definition}
The Solovay-Kitaev theorem applies to strict universality and states that such a gate set can $\epsilon$-approximate any unitary in O($1/\epsilon$) steps. One can relax this notion to define
\begin{definition}
\textbf{Encoded Universality.} A gate set is universal in this sense if it generates all unitaries inside a subspace of the Hilbert space of $n$ qubits.
\end{definition}
Note that this definition does not require one to be able to generate all unitaries on $n$ qubits. However, this gate set would generate a dense subset of the unitary group. This was used by \citet{BernsteinVazirani} where it was shown that quantum computing with real numbers is enough for universal computation. Another example of encoded universality is demonstrated in \citet{Shi} (see also \cite{Aharonov:Toffoli}), where it was shown that Hadamard and Toffoli gates are universal. These gates generate the orthogonal group \cite{Shi}, a subgroup of the unitary group. However, when applied along with ancilla qubits, they generate the unitary group on the computational qubits. Finally, we can relax the definition even further.
\begin{definition}
\textbf{Post-selected Universality.} A gate set is universal after post-selection if after applying gates from the set on $n+k$ qubits, performing a projective measurement on the $k$ qubits and conditioning on a particular outcome (or outcomes), any unitary $U$ can be applied on the $n$ qubits.
\end{definition}
This notion of universality does not require that the gate set generate a dense subgroup of the unitary group. In fact, as in the case of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ the gate set may generate a finite group. This notion of universality is relevant for quantum computation using anyons. We show below that the image of the braid group representation is finite (this was shown for the more general case of twisted quantum doubles in \cite{FiniteImage}) and hence we cannot construct a gate set that is strictly universal or encoded universal, but only universal after post-selection. In particular, this means that post-selection on measurement outcomes is necessary for universality for anyons arising from finite groups. However, since we do not reuse the wires on which we perform measurements for post-selection, we can postpone all measurements and post-selection to the end of the computation.
We now show that the image of the braid group in the representation $\Lambda^{\otimes n}$, where $\Lambda$ is an irrep of $\mathsf{D}(G)$, is finite (when $G$ is a finite group). Consider the regular representation of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ and the action of the $R$ matrix on the tensor product of two vectors in $\mathsf{D}(G)$
\[
R\ket{g_1h_1^\ast}\otimes\ket{g_2h_2^\ast} = \ket{(h_2)^{g_2^{-1}}g_1h_1^\ast}\otimes\ket{g_2h_2^\ast}\,.
\]
This means that any element of the braid group, which can be written as a word in the Coxeter generators $\sigma_i=TR_{i,i+1}$, has the effect of permuting the copies and left multiplying each element by some word in the $g_i$s. Therefore, the image of the braid group is contained in $G\text{wr}S_n$. Since this is a finite group, the image is of the representation $\tau_{R}$ is finite, where $R$ is the regular representation of $\mathsf{D}(G)$. Since any irrep of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ factors through the regular representation, this shows that for every irrep $\Lambda$, the representation $\tau_{\Lambda}$ has a finite image. This is in contrast to the denseness of the image of the braid group in the tensor product of irreps of quantum $\textsf{SU}(2)$ (as in the case of the Jones' polynomial).
\fi
\section{Clebsch-Gordan decomposition}\label{sec:CG}
In this section, we first describe an efficient algorithm to perform the Clebsch-Gordan decomposition over $\mathsf{D}(G)$ for fluxon irreps. Then we give an efficient algorithm for general irreps under certain conditions. The following theorem from Curtis and Reiner \cite{CurtisAndReiner} is useful to understand the Clebsch-Gordan transform.
\begin{theorem}
Suppose we have two subgroups $H$ and $K$ of $G$ and two representations $\rho$ and $\sigma$ of $H$ and $K$ respectively. Suppose that we induce these two representations to $G$, then the tensor product of the two $G$ representations can be decomposed into a direct sum of induced representations as
\[
\rho\uparrow^G\otimes \sigma\uparrow^G \cong \bigoplus_d \left(\rho\downarrow_{H\cap K^d} \otimes \sigma\downarrow_{H\cap K^d}\right)\uparrow^{G} \,,
\]
where $d$ runs over all $(H,K)$ double coset representatives.
\end{theorem}
We can apply this theorem to irreps of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ since they are all induced representations from centralizer subgroups. Suppose that we have the tensor product of two irreps of $\mathsf{D}(G)$, say $([g],\rho)$ and $([h],\sigma)$, then the theorem implies that we can write this as
\begin{equation}\label{CG1}
\rho\uparrow^G\otimes \sigma\uparrow^G \cong \bigoplus_d \left(\rho\downarrow_{Z(g)\cap Z(h)^d} \otimes \sigma\downarrow_{Z(g)\cap Z(h)^d}\right)\uparrow^{G} \,.
\end{equation}
However, this is still not in the form that we want. In order to obtain it, we need to understand the double coset representatives. We show that the $(Z(g),Z(h))$ double coset representatives also label the different conjugacy classes that appear in the product $[g]\cdot [h]$ in the conjugacy class algebra. To see this let the conjugacy class of $g$ be $\{g, k_1gk_1^{-1},\dots , k_n g k_n^{-1}\}$ and that of $h$ be $\{h, l_1 h l_1^{-1}, \dots , l_m h l_m^{-1}\}$, where $k_i$ and $l_i$ label the complete set of coset representatives of $Z(g)$ and $Z(h)$ respectively. Now consider all possible products of the elements of the two sets. In order to determine the different conjugacy classes that appear in the products, we only need to consider elements of the form $g l_i h l_i^{-1}$ since anything of the form $k_j g k_j^{-1} l_i h l_i^{-1}$ can be conjugated by $k_j^{-1}$ to get the former type.
This is still not enough since two elements $g l_i h l_i^{-1}$ and $g l_j h l_j^{-1}$ could be conjugates. In that case, there must be an element $z$ of $Z(g)$ such that $z (g l_i h l_i^{-1}) z^{-1}=g (z l_i) h (z l_i)^{-1}=g l_j h l_j^{-1}$. This means that $l_j$ is in the same double coset of $(Z(g),Z(h))$ as $l_i$. In other words, the right action of $Z(g)$ on left cosets of $Z(h)$ determines the different conjugacy classes which is exactly the different $(Z(g),Z(h))$ double coset representatives. Picking a set of double coset representatives $d$, we can say that the different conjugacy classes that appear in the product $[g]\cdot [h]$ are $[g h^d]$ for all the different double coset representatives $d$.
We now need to determine the number of times each $[g h^d]$ appears in $[g]\cdot [h]$ since this determines (some of the) multiplicities in the Clebsch-Gordan decomposition. It is enough to determine the number of times $[gh]$ appears in the product $[g]\cdot [h]$ since its entire conjugacy class would appear the same number of times (for any other $d$ the procedure is the same). In order to count this, consider the two groups $Z(gh)$ and $Z(g)\cap Z(h)$. It is easy to see that the latter is a subgroup of the former. If it is a strict subgroup, then there exist elements in $Z(gh)$ which do not commute with either $g$ or $h$ or both. It turns out that in fact, any element of $Z(gh)$ either commutes with both $g$ and $h$ or does not commute with both. To see this, notice that if $s$ is an element not in $Z(g)\cap Z(h)$ and it commutes with $g$ but not $h$, then we have that $gh=(gh)^s=g^sh^s=gh^s$. But this implies that $h^s=h$ and so $s$ commutes with $h$. This means that any element in $Z(gh)$ that does not commute with $g$, also does not commute with $h$ and vice versa.
Now for any non-trivial coset representative $s$ of $Z(g)\cap Z(h)$ in $Z(gh)$, we have that $gh=s gh s^{-1} = g^s h^s$. Since $s$ does not commute with $g$ and $h$, we have produced a pair $(g^s, h^s)$ distinct from $(g,h)$ such that their product is the same. For distinct coset representatives $s$ and $t$, the pairs $(g^s,h^s)$ and $(g^t,h^t)$ are distinct since if not, then $g^s=g^t$ and $h^s=h^t$. This means that $st^{-1}\in Z(g)\cap Z(h)$ which is not possible since $s$ and $t$ are in distinct cosets of $Z(g)\cap Z(h)$. Therefore, for each distinct coset representative $s$ of $Z(g)\cap Z(h)$ in $Z(gh)$, we get a distinct pair $(g^s,h^s)$ such that $g^s h^s= g h$. The same argument holds for any non-trivial $d$. To show that these are all the possible pairs, we make use of the above theorem. When $\rho$ and $\sigma$ are both trivial, equation~\eqref{CG1} takes the form
\[
([g],\text{tr})\otimes ([h],\text{tr}) \cong \bigoplus_d \left(\text{tr}\uparrow_{Z(g)\cap Z(h^d)}^{Z(gh^d)}\right) \uparrow^G\,.
\]
This shows that the number of times $[gh^d]$ appears in $[g]\cdot [h^d]$ is the index of $Z(g)\cap Z(h^d)$ in $Z(gh^d)$.
With all this in hand, we can determine the Clebsch-Gordan decomposition. We can re-write equation~\eqref{CG1} to get
\[
\rho\uparrow^G\otimes \sigma\uparrow^G \cong \bigoplus_d \left(\left(\rho\downarrow_{Z(g)\cap Z(h)^d} \otimes \sigma\downarrow_{Z(g)\cap Z(h)^d}\right)\uparrow^{Z(gh^d)}\right)\uparrow^G \,,
\]
by taking the induction in two stages. Now suppose that $\left(\rho\downarrow_{Z(g)\cap Z(h)^d} \otimes \sigma\downarrow_{Z(g)\cap Z(h)^d}\right)\uparrow^{Z(gh^d)}$ breaks up into irreps of $Z(gh^d)$ as
\[
\left(\rho\downarrow_{Z(g)\cap Z(h)^d} \otimes \sigma\downarrow_{Z(g)\cap Z(h)^d}\right)\uparrow^{Z(gh^d)} \cong \bigoplus_{\mu\in \widehat{Z(gh^d)}} m_{\rho,\sigma,\mu}\mu\,,
\]
where $m_{\rho,\sigma,\mu}$ is the multiplicity of the irrep $\mu$. We now obtain the Clebsch-Gordan decomposition as
\begin{equation}\label{CG2}
\rho\uparrow^G\otimes \sigma\uparrow^G \cong \bigoplus_d \bigoplus_{\mu\in \widehat{Z(gh^d)}} m_{\rho,\sigma,\mu}(\mu\uparrow^{G}) \,.
\end{equation}
Since this decomposition is obtained by considering the action of $G$ alone, we need to check if the action of $h^\ast$ is consistent with it. We do this in the next section as we develop the transform.
\subsection{Clebsch-Gordan transform}
\subsubsection{Fluxon irreps}
We first describe the Clebsch-Gordan transform for irreps of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ of the type $([g],\text{tr})$ (fluxon irreps). For this case, we give an efficient transform for any finite group. For two fluxon irreps, the Clebsch-Gordan decomposition states that
\[
([h],\text{tr})\otimes ([g],\text{tr}) \cong \bigoplus_d \left(\text{tr}\uparrow_{Z(g)\cap Z(h^d)}^{Z(gh^d)}\right) \uparrow^G\cong \bigoplus_d\bigoplus_{\mu\in\widehat{Z(gh^d)}}m_{\text{tr},\text{tr},\mu}(\mu\uparrow^G)\,.
\]
We give the transform in two steps, one for each of the above two isomorphisms. In the first step, we need to convert from the basis $\ket{h^a,g^b}$ to $\ket{(gh^d)^k,t}$, where $t$ is an element of the transversal $T_d$ of $Z(g)\cap Z(h^d)$ in $Z(gh^d)$. Once we fix the double coset representatives $d$ and the transversal $t$ (for each $d$), this transformation is straightforward. Given $\ket{h^\prime,g^\prime}$, we determine their product and the double coset representative $d$ that this product belongs to. Recall that for each element $t$ in $T_d$, we have that $g^t (h^d)^t= g h ^d$ and that each such $t$ gives a distinct pair $(g^t, (h^d)^t)$. Therefore, we can determine $t$ after ordering the pairs. This gives us the first transformation. It is also clear from this that the co-algebra action is consistent across the both sides. Indeed, the action of any $c^\ast$ on a state of the form $\ket{t_1,v_1}\otimes\ket{t_2,v_2}$ is
\[
c^\ast (\ket{t_1,v_1}\otimes\ket{t_2,v_2})=\sum_{h_2h_1=c}h_1^\ast\ket{t_1,v_1}\otimes h_2^\ast\ket{t_2,v_2} = \delta_{\{t_2t_1=c\}}\ket{t_1,v_1}\otimes\ket{t_2,v_2} \,.
\]
Under the Clebsch-Gordan transform, this state is taken to $\ket{t_2t_1,v_3}$, where $v_3$ is a state determined by $v_1$ and $v_2$. This state is given by the second transformation described below. Therefore, the action of $c^\ast$ is
\[
c^\ast\ket{t_2t_1,v_3}=\delta_{\{t_2t_1=c\}}\ket{t_2t_1,v_3}\,.
\]
This shows that the coalgebra action is consistent with this decomposition.
For the second transformation, we need to block diagonalize the induced representation of the trivial irrep of $Z(g)\cap Z(h^d)$ to $Z(gh^d)$. We show how to do this if we can perform efficient QFT over both groups. Suppose that $\rho$ is an irrep of a group $B$ which is a subgroup of the group $A$ and suppose that we can perform a QFT over $A$ and $B$, then we show how to use these QFTs to give an efficient way to block diagonalize the induced representation $\rho \uparrow^A$. We first embed the induced representation into $\mathbb{C}[A]$ in the following way. The induced representation consists of vectors of the form $\ket{t,v}$, where $t$ is an element of the transversal of $B$ in $A$ and $v$ is a vector in the irrep space $\rho$. We embed $\ket{v}$ into $\mathbb{C}[B]$ by taking an ancilla of size $|B|/d_\rho$, where $d_\rho$ is the dimension of $\rho$. This is possible if we know how to perform the QFT over $\mathbb{C}[B]$. Now that we have an embedding into $\mathbb{C}[A]$, we can perform the QFT over $A$ and obtain a basis $\ket{\rho,i,j}$ where only some irreps $\rho$ appear. Since we know which ones do not appear at all, we can label the irreps of $A$ such that the state is $\ket{0}\otimes \ket{\rho,i,j}$ where the first register is of size $|H|/d_\rho$. We can now discard this register and we obtain the required block diagonalization. Using this technique when $\rho$ is a trivial representation of $B=Z(g)\cap Z(h^d)$ and $A=Z(gh^d)$ gives us a way to decompose the induced representation from the trivial representation of a subgroup. This gives us the second transformation and completes the Clebsch-Gordan transform for fluxon irreps. We have thus shown that if we can perform an efficient QFT over $Z(g)$ and over $Z(g)\cap Z(h)$ for all $g,h\in G$, then we can perform an efficient Clebsch-Gordan transform over $\mathsf{D}(G)$.
\subsubsection{General irreps}
For the more general irreps, we show that one can perform efficient Clebsch-Gordan transform if we can
\begin{enumerate}
\item perform QFT and CG transforms over $Z(h)$ and $Z(g)\cap Z(h)$ for all $g,h\in G$ and,
\item block diagonalize irreps of centralizers restricted to intersections of centralizers.
\end{enumerate}
The procedure can be split into three steps in the following way.
\begin{align}
([h],\rho)\otimes ([g],\sigma) &\cong \bigoplus_d \left(\left(\rho\downarrow_{Z(g)\cap Z(h^d)}\otimes\sigma\downarrow_{Z(g)\cap Z(h^d)} \right)\uparrow^{Z(gh^d)}\right) \uparrow^G \nonumber \\
&\cong \bigoplus_d \left(\left(\bigoplus_{\nu\in \widehat{Z(g)\cap Z(h^d)}} n_{\nu}\nu \right)\uparrow^{Z(gh^d)}\right) \uparrow^G \nonumber \\
&\cong \bigoplus_d\bigoplus_{\mu\in\widehat{Z(gh^d)}}m_{\mu}(\mu\uparrow^G)\,.
\end{align}
In the above, $n_\nu$ is the multiplicity of $\nu$ (an irrep of $Z(g)\cap Z(h)$) in the tensor product decomposition of $\rho$ and $\sigma$ restricted to $Z(g)\cap Z(h^d)$ and $m_\mu$ is the multiplicity of $\mu$ (an irrep of $Z(gh^d)$) when $\nu$ is induced to $Z(gh^d)$ and decomposed into irreps of $Z(gh^d)$. These multiplicities depend on $\rho$, $\sigma$ and $d$ in general.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The first step takes us from the basis $\ket{h^a,v_1,g^b,v_2}$ to the basis $\ket{(gh^d)^k, t, v_1,v_2}$, where $v_1$ and $v_2$ are vectors in the irrep spaces of $\rho$ and $\sigma$. This step is the same as in the previous case (for fluxon irreps) since we do not operate on the vectors $v_1$ and $v_2$. The transversal is picked in the way described above.
\item The second step can be done if we know how to decompose any irrep of $Z(g)$ and $Z(h^d)$ into irreps of $Z(g)\cap Z(h)^d$ and then perform Clebsch-Gordan transform over the group $Z(g)\cap Z(h)^d$. This step may be done for particular groups.
\item The third step can be done using the procedure described above for decomposing induced irreps, since $\nu$ is an irrep of $Z(g)\cap Z(h^d)$ (the group $B$ above) and it is induced to $Z(gh^d)$ (the group $A$ above).
\end{enumerate}
This gives an efficient algorithm for the CG transform under certain conditions. Next, we show how these conditions are satisfied for $\mathsf{D}(\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_q)$ which is sufficient for universal quantum computation \cite{Mochon2}.
\subsection{Fourier and Clebsch-Gordan transforms over \texorpdfstring{$\mathsf{D}(\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_q)$}{metabelian groups}}
It is shown in \cite{Mochon2}, that the group $G=\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_q$ can be used to perform universal quantum computation when $p$ and $q$ are prime and $q|(p-1)$. Here we show how to perform the Fourier and Clebsch-Gordan transforms over $\mathsf{D}(G)$. First, in order to fully describe the group, we have to pick the homomorphism from $\mathbb{Z}_q$ to $\text{Aut}(\mathbb{Z}_p)$. Such homomorphisms are characterized by elements $\alpha$ such that $\alpha^q=0$ mod $p$. Having picked such an $\alpha$, we see that the group multiplication in $G$ is $(a_1,b_1)(a_2,b_2)=(a_1+a_2 \alpha^{b_1},b_1+b_2)$. Notice that when $\alpha=1$, we obtain the direct product of $\mathbb{Z}_p$ and $\mathbb{Z}_q$.
We now describe its irreps. There are $q$ one dimensional irreps and $(p-1)/q$, $q$ dimensional irreps. The one dimensional irreps are obtained as the extension of the trivial irrep of $\mathbb{Z}_p$ to $G$ and tensored with each of the $q$ irreps of $\mathbb{Z}_q$. The $q$ higher dimensional irreps are obtained as induced representations from a non-trivial irrep of $\mathbb{Z}_p$. The irreps of $\mathbb{Z}_p$ are characterized by $k$ and are of the form $\exp(2\pi ika/p)=\omega_p^{ka}$ for a group element $a$. All those $k$ in the orbit of $k\alpha^b$ for $b\in \mathbb{Z}_q$ will be induced to the same irrep of $G$. The induction can be given as
\[
\rho_k(a,b) = \sum_{s\in \mathbb{Z}_q} \omega_p^{ka\alpha^{-s}} \ket{s}\bra{s-b}\,.
\]
We now describe the centralizers of $G$. The centralizer of the identity element $(0,0)$ is $G$. The centralizer of any element $(a,b)$, where $a\neq 0$ is $\mathbb{Z}_p$. The centralizer of $(0,b)$, where $b\neq 0$ is $\mathbb{Z}_q$.
The Fourier transform is now easy to construct. Notice that since two of the centralizers are abelian, their QFT is efficient. For the QFT over $G$, first take the group basis $\ket{a,b}$ and convert it into the basis $\ket{z,t}$, where $z\in \mathbb{Z}_p$ and $t$ is a transversal which can be picked to be an element of $\mathbb{Z}_q$. Now perform a QFT over $\mathbb{Z}_p$ in the first register. Then conditioned on the value in the first register perform a second transform as follows. If the value in the first register is a non-trivial irrep of $\mathbb{Z}_p$, then do nothing since we already have an irrep of $G$. If the first register has a trivial irrep of $\mathbb{Z}_p$, then perform a QFT over $\mathbb{Z}_q$ in the second register. This gives us a QFT over $G$. Since we can now perform efficient QFTs over all the centralizers, we can perform efficient QFT over $\mathsf{D}(G)$.
For the Clebsch-Gordan transform, as the first condition, we need to perform CG transforms over all centralizers and their intersections. Since all intersections and two of the centralizers are abelian, their CG transforms are efficient. For the CG transform over $G$, we only have to consider the case of high dimensional irreps. For these irreps, the tensor product looks like
\[
(\rho_k\otimes\rho_l) (a,b) = \sum_{s,t} \omega_p^{a(k\alpha^{-s}+l\alpha^{-t})}\ket{s,t}\bra{s-b,t-b}\,.
\]
The Clebsch-Gordan transform, if $k+l\neq 0$, is
\[
\ket{s,t}\longrightarrow\ket{t-s,t}\,.
\]
This produces the state
\[
\sum_{s,t} \omega_p^{a(k\alpha^{-t+s}+l\alpha^{-t})}\ket{s,t}\bra{s,t-b} = \sum_{s,t} \omega_p^{a\alpha^{-t}(k\alpha^{s}+l)}\ket{s,t}\bra{s,t-b}\,,
\]
which is a direct sum of $q$ irreps $\rho_{k\alpha^{s}+l}$ for $s\in\mathbb{Z}_q$. Now, if $k+l=0$, then again we first perform the above transform to get
\[
\sum_{s,t} \omega_p^{a\alpha^{-t}(k\alpha^{s}-k)}\ket{s,t}\bra{s,t-b}\,.
\]
Notice that when $s=0$, this is the regular representation of $\mathbb{Z}_q$. Therefore, we have to perform a conditional QFT (conditioned on $s=0$) additionally. Then we would obtain a direct sum of the $q$ one dimensional irreps and $q-1$ high dimensional irreps $\rho_{k(\alpha^{s}-1)}$ for $s\in \mathbb{Z}_q$, $s\neq 0$. This completes the CG transform over $G$. We can now perform QFT and CG transforms over centralizers and intersections of centralizers.
To complete the conditions for CG transform over $\mathsf{D}(G)$, we need to block diagonalize $\rho_k$ restricted to intersections of centralizers i.e., block diagonalize $\rho_k$ when restricted to $\mathbb{Z}_p$ and $\mathbb{Z}_q$. From the structure of $\rho_k$, it is easy to see that when restricted to $\mathbb{Z}_p$, it is already diagonal and when restricted to $\mathbb{Z}_q$, it is the regular representation of $\mathbb{Z}_q$. Therefore, a QFT over $\mathbb{Z}_q$ would diagonalize it. Thus we can perform efficient QFT and CG transforms over $\mathsf{D}(G)$.
\section{Conclusions}\label{conclusions}
In this paper, we gave an efficient circuit for the quantum Fourier transform over $\mathsf{D}(G)$, the quantum double of a finite group $G$ and show how to apply it to $\mathsf{D}(S_n)$. We used this circuit to give efficient algorithms for approximating link invariants. We then showed some hardness results for approximating and exact evaluation of link invariants arising from $\mathsf{D}(G)$. We showed that additive approximations of link invariants arising from irreps of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ are $\mathsf{BPP}$-hard and multiplicative approximations are $\mathsf{SBP}$-hard and exact evaluations are $\mathsf{\#P}$-hard. We also gave an efficient randomized algorithm to additively approximate the link invariants when the conjugacy class (or fluxon) irrep is used. This shows that for the fluxon irrep the problem is $\mathsf{BPP}$-complete. We then gave an efficient circuit for the Clebsch-Gordan transform for fluxon irreps of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ and, under certain conditions, for general irreps. We gave an example of a quantum group, namely $\mathsf{D}(\mathbb{Z}_p\rtimes\mathbb{Z}_q)$ (which is powerful enough to do universal quantum computation) for which we show how to perform the QFT and CG transforms. We also showed how to simulate topological quantum computation inside exponentially large irreps of $\mathsf{D}(G)$ efficiently using the Fourier and Clebsch-Gordan transforms.
In our hardness results, we need that the size of $G$ be constant. An immediate question is how to extend this to asymptotically growing group sizes. One way is to make the procedure to kill unwanted solutions in our proof more efficient. Another question is - to which groups can these hardness results be extended. It is possible that the hardness results proved here for $A_n$ are also true for certain non-solvable groups which are not simple. For example, it is immediately true for $S_n$ by restricting to conjugacy classes which are also in $A_n$. But it could be true for a more general class of non-solvable groups. It would also be interesting to develop the Clebsch-Gordan transform over other groups $G$ for arbitrary irreps of $\mathsf{D}(G)$. This would be useful from the point of view of simulation of anyons and for the development of quantum circuits. Finally, it would be interesting to determine the power of a $\mathsf{D}(G)$ computer where we do not use post-selection (since with post-selection, it is universal for quantum computation for certain groups). Another interesting question regarding post selection is, what class of operations or gates can be extended to universal quantum computation when post selection is used.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Greg Kuperberg for useful discussions, especially for telling us about the class $\mathsf{SBP}$ and for suggesting that multiplicative approximations to $\mathsf{D}(G)$ invariants might be $\mathsf{SBP}$ complete. We also thank one of the anonymous referees of QIP for valuable suggestions. We thank Gorjan Alagic for telling us about \cite{RW} and \cite{FRW}. We acknowledge the support of NSF grants 1117427 and 0829917 and ARO contract W911NF-04-R-0009 at the University of Connecticut.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
Modern cosmology describes a Universe in accelerated expansion, with 73\% of its energy density today consisting of an unknown substance dubbed ``dark energy'', and the remaining 27\% consisting primarily of matter, with a very minor contribution from radiation. It is remarkable that of the whole matter content, only 17\% of it can be accounted for by known particles described by the standard model of particle physics, whereas the remainder is of unknown nature, only (at most) weakly interacting with its surroundings. The nature of this dark matter (DM) is still unknown, and theories such as supersymmetry that extend the standard model and provide candidates for the particle making up the DM are currently being tested at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.
In spite of the unknown nature of the basic constituents of our Universe, its description within the standard cosmological model holds solidly. The growth of structure is predicted to take place in a hierarchical fashion. Smaller DM and gas structures (halos) are predicted to collapse gravitationally at earlier times than more massive ones, and evidence for this is indeed observed.
So far, however, the first generation of stars to have formed in the Universe, after the long period of cosmic silence and darkness known as the cosmic ``dark ages'' has not been observed. The formation of stars from this first generation -- Population III stars -- is harboured in the bosom of the very first DM and gas halos to undergo gravitational collapse: structures of masses 10$^5 \mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}} $~M/M$_\odot\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}$~10$^7$ which become nonlinear at redshifts $30 \mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}} z \mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}} 20$. These stars are too distant to be observed directly with any current telescope, and so their nature must be probed theoretically. Originally, it was thought that isolated, extremely massive stars \citep{Abel00,Abel02,Yoshida08} would be formed from such primordial halos as they have high temperatures and only simple molecules such as H$_2$ and HD to provide the necessary cooling \citep[e.g.][]{Glover05,Omukai05}. However, recent work has shown even in these conditions small stellar systems may be formed due to fragmentation occurring in protostellar discs around Population III stars \citep{Clark08,Turk09,Stacy10,Clark11a,Clark11b,Greif11,Greif12}. Such systems are predicted to have masses ranging from a few tenths to a few tens of a solar mass, with a mass spectrum that is presumably flat \citep{Dopcke12}.
Interestingly enough, the story of the first stars could be intimately related to that of the DM. One popular class of candidates for the DM particle are the weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). These are the lightest supersymmetric partners in supersymmetry theories conserving $R$-parity, or the lightest mode in extra dimension theories under $T$-parity conservation. They are stable and they ``naturally'' comply with all the phenomenological requirements of DM \citep{Taoso07}. Although we refer the reader to \citet{Bertone04} for a detailed review of WIMPs, we note here that they have two very important properties: they are self-annihilating Majorana particles (i.e.\ they are their own anti-particles) and they interact only weakly with baryons.
While the effects of WIMPs on stellar formation in the local Universe are suppressed \citep{Ascasibar06}, \citet{Spolyar08} noted that the annihilation of WIMPs accumulated by gas-driven gravitational drag into the center of a collapsing halo would strongly heat the gas at the center of the halo. In the absence of metals -- i.e.\ in a halo forming Population III stars -- the energy input could potentially be so large as to overcome the cooling provided by H$_{2}$ molecules. The authors speculated that this could halt the collapse of the gas, and form what they dubbed a ``dark star'': a pseudo-star with a size of an AU or more powered by DMA rather than by nuclear fusion. It was also soon realised that if a canonical protostar were to be formed, it could capture DM through weak scattering between the WIMPs and the baryons constituting the star, and that this could in principle affect the main sequence (MS) evolution of the newly formed star \citep{Iocco08a}.
Several studies have since addressed these processes in more detail. \citet{Freese08} and \citet{Spolyar09} proposed that the accretion of infalling gas could be sustained by DMA indefinitely up to the formation of objects of masses of 10$^5$M$_\odot$. However, \citet{Iocco08b} found that such a phase could not last for longer than 10$^4$ yr before reaching the Hayashi track, and the findings in \citet{Hirano11} were intermediate between these extremes. The results of those studying the capture of DM onto a hydrostatic object mediated via weak interaction, are more homogenous. It is found that weakly captured DM can in principle indefinitely power the star as it is sustained not by nuclear reactions but by DMA, leading to a prolongation of the star's life \citep{Iocco08b, Yoon08, Taoso08}. It is not clear, however, how much DM can be consumed in the pre-MS process, and therefore how much is available to be captured during the main sequence \citep{Sivertsson10}. Indeed, some of the more extreme models of dark star formation create problems in standard reionisation scenarios due to their predictions of very high stellar masses or very long lifetimes \citep{Schleicher08,Schleicher09}. However, in some cases dark stars may delay rather than accelerate the reionisation process \citep{Scott11}. Direct observation seems challenging for most models of dark stars, \cite{Zackrisson10b}, whereas the most extreme objects can already be ruled out with the use of HST observations, \citep{Zackrisson10a}.
Regardless of the efficiencies of these processes, DMA takes place throughout the halo. The effects of DMA will be felt most keenly when the halo has collapsed to high central gas densities, but subtle effects due to the influence of annihilation upon the gas chemistry can take place even earlier in the halo's life. This has been addressed in \citet{Ripamonti10}, who used a one-dimensional code to self-consistently solve for the chemical, thermal and dynamical evolution of the cloud in the presence of DMA. Intriguingly, the authors found that DMA had little effect on the gas prior to its collapse to near-stellar densities. However, the scope of these results was limited as the maximum resolvable density in the \citet{Ripamonti10} study was reached {\it before} a hydrostatic object was formed. In complementary work, \citet{Stacy12} addressed the phases {\it after} the formation of a hydrostatic object, adopting an ad-hoc prescription for the earlier phase. These authors found that if multiple protostars were present, dynamical interactions would displace them from the DM density peak, thereby removing them from the region where DMA would have the most influence.
In this paper we bridge the gap before and after star formation in one continuous three-dimensional simulation that fully accounts for the effects of DMA, primordial gas chemistry and time-dependent heating and cooling. This allows us to determine at which stage, if any, DMA plays a role in the formation of a Population III star. Our paper is structured as follows: Section \ref{method} outlines the method, Section \ref{ics} describes the initial conditions, Sections \ref{results1} and \ref{results2} present our results, Section \ref{discussion} discusses the results, and finally Section \ref{conclusion} summarises our conclusions.
\section{Method}\label{method}
\subsection{Basic approach}
\label{basic}
We perform the calculations for this paper using the smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) code {\sc gadget 2} \citep{Springel05}. We have substantially modified this code to include a fully time-dependent chemical network, details of which can be found in the Appendix of \citet[][]{Clark11a}. Our treatment includes: H$_2$ line cooling \citep{Glover08}, which is treated in the optically thick regime using the Sobolev approximation \citep{Yoshida06,Clark11a}; collision-induced emission from very high density H$_{2}$ \citep{Ripamonti04}; cooling due to the collisional ionisation and recombination of hydrogen and helium \citep{Glover07a}; as well as heating and cooling arising due to changes in the molecular fraction, shock heating, compressional heating and cooling due to rarefactions. \citet{Turk11} showed that the choice of the H$_2$ three-body formation rate coefficient influences the resulting dynamics of the gas within the halo. In this work we use the three-body H$_2$ formation rate of \citet{Glover08b} which is intermediate within the range of the published rates.
To treat gas which collapses to scales smaller than the resolution limit of our simulations, we use a sink particle approach. We create sinks using the standard \citet{Bate95} algorithm. Our particular implementation of this is the same as that used in \citet{Jappsen05}. The minimum number density for sink particle creation is $10^{16} \:{\rm cm^{-3}}$, but it is important to note that candidate regions must also satisfy a series of tests to ensure that they are unambiguously collapsing. The ratio of thermal energy and rotational energy to the magnitude of the gravitational potential energy ($\alpha$ and $\beta$ respectively) for the particles that will be turned into the sink must satisfy the conditions
\begin{equation}
\alpha \leq \frac{1}{2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\alpha + \beta \leq 1.
\end{equation}
In addition, the total energy of the particles must be negative, and the divergence of their accelerations must be zero in order to prevent structures that are likely to bounce or be tidally disrupted being turned into sinks. Consequently sink particle formation often occurs above this density threshold.
We set the outer accretion radius of the sink particles, $r_{\rm out}$, to 6~AU and the inner accretion radius, $r_{\rm in}$, to 4~AU. SPH particles that come within a distance $r_{\rm out} > r > r_{\rm in}$ of a sink are accreted only if they are gravitationally bound to that sink. SPH particles that come closer than $r_{\rm in}$ are always accreted. Once sinks have formed, we account for the accretion luminosity produced by the ongoing accretion of gas onto the sinks using the scheme described in \citet{Smith11b}, which assumes that all of the protostars that form are normal Population III protostars, and not dark stars. We would expect the heating produced by accretion onto dark stars to be smaller, owing to their larger radii, and so this procedure gives us an upper limit on the effect of the accretion luminosity.
\subsection{Treatment of dark matter annihilation}
Most current simulations have insufficient resolution to follow the DM contraction within a primordial halo with the same resolution as that used for the baryons. For example, \citet{Abel02} had a DM mass resolution of 1.1 \,M$_{\odot}$ which meant they could not determine the DM profile at radii smaller than around 0.05~pc. Instead, the method of adiabatic contraction developed by \citet{Blumenthal86} has been used by various authors \citep[e.g.][]{Spolyar08,Ripamonti10} to calculate how the DM distribution will respond to changes in the gravitational potential of the gas. \citet{Spolyar08} applied this method to the collapsing halo simulations of \citet{Abel02} and \citet{Gao07} and found that the DM density at the outer edge of the baryonic core after adiabatic contraction was well-fit by the expression
\begin{equation}\label{dmpeak}
\rho_{xc} \approx 5 n_{\rm p}^{0.81} \: {\rm GeV \: cm^{-3}},
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{xc}$ is the DM density at the edge of the core and $n_p$ is the number density of hydrogen nuclei in the core.\footnote{To convert from the DM density in energy units to the value in the more familiar mass density units, one simply multiplies by a factor of $c^{2}$. Moreover, it is also possible to express the gas density in energy units; for a gas with primordial composition, we have $\rho_{g} \simeq 1.24 \, n \: {\rm GeV} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$, where $n$ is the number density of hydrogen nuclei.}
Given the considerable technical challenges involved if one attempts to follow the evolution of the DM density profile directly, we do not attempt to do so. Instead, we parameterise its effects, with the help of the adiabatic contraction results of \citet{Spolyar08}. The DM density profile is calculated within the code as follows. At each time-step, the point of maximum gravitational potential energy in the halo is found, which we assume to be the point at which the DM density has its maximum value. Next, the maximum baryon density of the halo is found and the DM density at the outer edge of the core calculated from it using Equation \ref{dmpeak}. Its radial dependence is then described by a two-part power law fit, using power-law slopes drawn from the calculations of \citet{Ripamonti10}. In the outer halo, at distances $r > r_{c}$ from the centre of the density profile, we have
\begin{equation}\label{dmprofile}
\rho_{x} = \rho_0 \left(\frac{r}{1 \mathrm{pc}} \right)^{-1.8} \: {\rm GeV \: cm^{-3}},
\end{equation}
where $r$ is the radial distance from the centre and $\rho_{0} = 5 \times 10^{4} \: {\rm GeV \: cm^{-3}}$ is a normalising constant that is equal to the DM density at $r = 1 \: {\rm pc}$. The size of the central DM core, $r_{c}$, is determined by finding the radius at which the DM densities given by Equations~\ref{dmpeak} and \ref{dmprofile} are equal, which yields
\begin{equation}
r_{c} = 16.7 \left(\frac{n_{\rm p}}{10^{14} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}} \right)^{-0.81/1.8} \: {\rm AU}.
\end{equation}
Finally, the DM density profile within the core, at radii $r < r_{c}$, is given by
\begin{equation}\label{dmcore}
\rho_{x} = \rho_{xc} \left(\frac{r}{r_c} \right)^{-0.5}.
\end{equation}
It is unclear how efficient adiabatic contraction will be within the central regions of the DM halo, given that gravitational collapse of the gas in these regions occurs rapidly. Our adoption of a peaked DM profile within the core may therefore be an overestimate; see, for instance, the discussion of the validity of the adiabatic contraction approximation given in \citet{Ripamonti10}.
Given the DM density profile, the contribution of DMA to the halo energy budget is computed as follows. We follow \citet{Spolyar08} and adopt the standard DMA cross section of $\langle\sigma v\rangle = 3\times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$s$^{-1}$. For the DM particle mass, $m_{x}$, we note that astrophysical constraints require that $m_{x} \ge 10 \: {\rm GeV}$ \citep[see e.g.][]{Ackermann11,Galli11}. Additionally the desire to avoid fine-tuning while still explaining the gauge hierarchy problem argues for an upper limit $m_{x} \sim \mbox{a few} \: {\rm TeV}$. We therefore adopt a DM particle mass of $m_x=100$ GeV for our fiducial case, close to the middle of this range of values, but we also explore the effect of varying $m_x$. Following \citet{Valdes08}, we assume that one third of the energy from DMA is immediately carried away by neutrinos and that the remaining energy is split between direct heating of the gas, ionisation and dissociation of the constituents of the gas, and the excitation of H, He and H$_{2}$. The fraction that is deposited as heat is given by
\begin{equation}\label{fheat}
f_h=1-0.875(1-x_{\rm e}^{0.4052}),
\end{equation}
and the fraction that goes into ionisation is given by
\begin{equation}\label{fion}
f_i=0.384(1-x_{\rm e}^{0.542})^{1.1952},
\end{equation}
where $x_e \equiv n_{\rm e} / n$ is the fractional abundance of electrons.
The remaining energy is radiated away in electronic transitions from H, He and H$_{2}$ and plays no direct role in the evolution of the gas. The total power per unit volume injected by DMA is
\begin{equation}
W_{\rm ann}=2 m_x \dot{N}_{\rm ann},
\end{equation}
where $\dot{N}_{\rm ann}$ is the number of DMAs per unit volume per unit time. This is given by
\begin{equation}\label{Nann}
\dot{N}_{\rm ann}=\frac{1}{2} n_x^2 \langle\sigma v\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $n_x=\rho_x/m_x$ is the number density of DM particles.
The resulting energy injection rates per unit volume for heating ($Q_h$) and ionisation ($Q_i$) are
\begin{equation}\label{Qheat}
Q_h=2 f_a \dot{N}_{\rm ann} (1-e^{-\tau_x})f_h m_x,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{Qion}
Q_i=2 f_a \dot{N}_{\rm ann} (1-e^{-\tau_x})f_i m_x,
\end{equation}
where $f_a=2/3$ is the fraction of the total energy that affects the gas (one third of the energy escapes in the form of neutrinos).
We estimate the optical depth of the gas to the annihilation products, $\tau_x$, by assuming that the
baryonic density profile is flat within the DM core and declines as a power-law
$\rho \propto r^{-2}$ at larger radii. For a profile of this form, the column density of gas, measured
radially outwards from a point $r$, is given at $r \leq r_{c}$ by
\begin{equation}
\Sigma(r) = \rho(r) \left[(r_{c} - r) + \left(r_{c} - \frac{r_{c}^2}{r_{h}}\right) \right]
\end{equation}
and at $r > r_{c}$ by
\begin{equation}
\Sigma(r) = \rho(r) \left(r - \frac{r^2}{r_{h}}\right),
\end{equation}
where $r_{\rm h}$ is the virial radius of the halo, which we take to mark the edge of the gas distribution.
If we follow \citet{Ripamonti10} and adopt a constant gas opacity of $\kappa=0.01$ cm$^2$g$^{-1}$,
and also restrict our attention to scales small compared to $r_{h}$, then we can write the optical depth as
\begin{equation}
\tau_x \equiv \kappa \Sigma(r) = \left \{ \begin{array}{lr}
\kappa \rho(r) (2r_{c} - r) & r \leq r_{c} \\
\kappa \rho(r) r & r > r_{c}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
In practice, this expression for $\tau_x$ is an underestimate, for a couple of reasons. First, it assumes
that the optical depth in any direction from point $r$ is the same as the value that we measure along a
ray passing radially outwards, when in reality the optical depths in other directions will be somewhat
larger. Second, the baryonic density profiles that we recover in our simulations do not completely match
up with the profile we assumed to derive $\tau_x$. Our assumed profiles and the real profiles both
have power-law slopes $\rho \propto r^{-2}$ in their outer regions, but the real profiles do not have the
completely flat core that we assume within $r_{c}$. Our estimate of $\tau_x$ is therefore too small at
distances $r \ll r_c$, meaning that our derived heating and ionisation rates may also be too small.
In practice, we do not expect this to be a major source of error, as in the regime where DMA becomes important, gas with $r \ll r_c$ will typical have $\tau_x \gg 1$, meaning that
the heating and ionisation rates are insensitive to the precise value of $\tau_x$.
To convert from $Q_{i}$, the total energy per unit time per unit volume that goes into ionisations, to the
ionisation rates of the individual chemical species present in the gas, we follow the procedure outlined in \citet{Ripamonti07a}. They identified seven main reactions that can be caused by DMA: the ionisation of H, He, He$^+$ and D, and the dissociation of H$_2$, HD and H$_2^+$. Between them, these seven reactions account for the bulk of the energy lost in the form of ionisations or dissociations, and we follow \citet{Ripamonti07a} and split the energy available for ionisation between these seven species according to their relative abundances.
\section{Initial Conditions}\label{ics}
\begin{table}
\caption{Overview of simulations}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l c c}
\hline
\hline
Simulation & Annihilation & DM particle mass [GeV] \\
\hline
H1-ref & no & 0\\
H1-lm & yes & 10\\
H1 & yes & 100 \\
H1-hm & yes & 1000\\
\hline H2-ref & no & 0 \\
H2 & yes & 100 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{sims}
\end{table}
We take our initial conditions from the cosmological simulations and resimulations by \citet{Greif11}. These simulations made use of the novel moving mesh code {\sc arepo} \citep{Springel10} to fully resolve the formation of five minihalos from cosmological initial conditions. Cells were refined during the evolution to ensure that the Jeans length was always resolved by at least 128 mesh points, up until the point at which the maximum number density in the collapsing gas reached $n = 10^{9} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$. All of the halos modelled by \citet{Greif11} formed multiple protostars with a range of masses.
For this work we cut out the central two parsecs of the \citet{Greif11} simulations and continue their evolution using our modified version of {\sc gadget 2} with DMA, implemented as discussed in the previous section. The halos were selected at the point where their central gas number density reached $n = 10^6 \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$ for the first time. We selected this point to begin our resimulation because preliminary modelling using simplified initial conditions showed that this was the point at which indirect feedback from DMA-induced ionisation first becomes important.
Each mesh point in {\sc arepo} is converted to an SPH particle with the same properties (mass, momentum, etc.) as the original mesh cell associated with that mesh point. As the network for primordial chemistry that is implemented in {\sc arepo} was derived from the network that we use in {\sc gadget}, both codes evolve the same set of chemical species and it is straightforward to transfer the chemical abundances from one code to the other. The formation of the first protostar occurs in the central region of the halos where the SPH particle masses are $10^{-4} \: {\rm M_{\odot}}$, giving us a mass resolution of around $10^{-2}$ \,M$_{\odot}$ \citep{Bate97}. For a test of the effectiveness of using {\sc arepo} initial conditions for {\sc gadget 2} see \citet{Smith11b}.
\citet{Greif11} simulated the evolution of five different DM halos. In this work, however, we focus on only two of these five: Halo 1 (in the notation of \citealt{Greif11}), which in the original calculation rapidly fragments into a multiple system, and Halo 2, which undergoes a phase of HD-dominated cooling, which ultimately leads to less fragmentation \citep[c.f.][]{Clark11a}. Halo 1 has a mass of 1810 \,M$_{\odot}$ within its central 2~pc and we denote it in our study as H1. Halo 2 has a mass of 1240 \,M$_{\odot}$ within its central 2~pc, and will be referred to as H2. Halo 1 has only $\sim 6.9\times 10^5$ SPH particles and Halo 2 $\sim 6.3\times 10^5$ particles, but due to the on-the-fly refinement used in {\sc arepo} the particle mass in the central regions of the halo is only $10^{-4}$ \,M$_{\odot}$ as mentioned above. We did not include any traditional dark matter particles, but instead treated the dark matter analytically as described in the previous section.
For both halos, we run one simulation in which the effects of DMA are not included (H1-ref, H2-ref) and a second which assumes a DM particle mass of 100~GeV (H1, H2). For Halo 1, we also run two simulations with different values of $m_{x}$: one in which we set $m_{x} = 10$~GeV (H1-lm) and a second in which we set $m_{x} = 1000$~GeV (H1-hm). As the power produced per unit volume by DMA scales as $m_{x} n_{x}^{2} \propto m_{x} \rho_{x}^{2} / m_{x}^{2} \propto \rho_{x}^{2} / m_{x}$, these two runs correspond to cases in which the energy input rate is increased or decreased by an order of magnitude, respectively. As astrophysical constraints strongly disfavour DM masses smaller than $m_{x} = 10 \: {\rm GeV}$, \citep{Schleicher09b,Ackermann11,Galli11}, our H1-lm model should give an indication of the largest effect that we can reasonably expect to obtain from DMA. Details of our simulations are summarised in Table~\ref{sims}.
\section{Collapse to near stellar densities}\label{results1}
\subsection{Densities and temperatures}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7in]{./fig1_rad-rho3.eps}
\caption{Density profiles of the gas and the DM at the point at which the hydrogen nuclei number density of the gas at the centre of the collapsing core first reached
$5 \times 10^{14} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$. The solid line shows the radially-averaged baryon density and the dotted line shows the DM density. The background grey scale shows the baryon density profile before averaging. The dashed line shows the radially-averaged baryon density in the reference case without DMA. The main effect of DMA is to create an enhancement in the density profile in the region between 100~AU and 1000~AU.}
\label{density}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7in]{./fig2_n_temp3.eps}
\caption{Temperature of the gas as a function of density, plotted for the time when the hydrogen nuclei number density of the gas at the
centre of the core first reached $5 \times 10^{14} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$. The solid line shows the radially-averaged gas temperature at each density and the background grey scale shows the gas temperature before averaging. The dashed line shows the radially-averaged gas temperature in the reference case without DMA. With DMA, the gas is cooler in the outer, less dense regions of the halo, but much hotter in the dense interior.}
\label{temp}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}
\caption{Time taken to form first sink}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l c}
\hline
\hline
Simulation & Time ($10^5$~yr) \\
\hline
H1-ref & $3.57$ \\
H1 & $2.38$ \\
H1-lm & $2.70$\\
H1-hm & $2.57$\\
\hline
H2-ref & $3.59$ \\
H2 & $2.36$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{time_c}
\end{table}
In Figure \ref{density}, we show the density profiles of gas and DM for simulations H1, H1-lm, and H2, plus the two reference models. The simulations are compared when the hydrogen nuclei number density at the centre of the halo first reaches $5 \times 10^{14} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$, which corresponds to a dark matter core radius of $r_c\sim8$ AU and a time of roughly 6 years before the formation of the first protostar. It is immediately apparent that the gas in each halo is able to collapse to high densities, regardless of the strength of the DMA feedback. This is true even in our maximal feedback model, H1-lm, where the DM particle mass was only 10~GeV. For reference, in \citet{Spolyar08} it was predicted that collapse would stop at densities of $10^{13}$ \,cm$^{-3}$\ for a DM mass of 100~GeV, and at densities of $10^9$ \,cm$^{-3}$\ for a DM mass of 10~GeV. We find no evidence for this in our simulations. On the other hand, our results are in good agreement with the 1D results of \citet{Ripamonti10}, who found that the gas could collapse to densities of $10^{13}$--$10^{14} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$ in all of their models. We also found collapse up to high densities in run H1-hm, performed with a DM particle mass of 1000~GeV, but as the effects of DMA in this case are much smaller than in our fiducial case, we do not discuss this run further in this section.
The main effect that DMA has on the density profile of the gas is the clear density enhancement at radii of 100--1000~AU. We also find that in the runs with DMA, the time taken for the gas to collapse to protostellar densities is shorter than in the reference runs (see Table~\ref{time_c}). Both of these effects can be understood by an analysis of the temperature structure of the gas. In Figure \ref{temp}, we show how the temperature of the gas varies as a function of the gas number density. In the outer regions of the halo, the gas is cooler than in the reference case. At higher densities, however, there is a sharp rise in the gas temperature, taking it above the value in the reference case. Comparison of Figures~\ref{density} and \ref{temp} shows that the density at which this temperature increase occurs is the same as the density at which we first see the bump in the density profile.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ c c}
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{./fig3a_n-abund_h1.eps}
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{./fig3b_n-abund_h1lm.eps}\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Fractional abundances of H$_2$ and electrons in Halo~1 in the fiducial case (run H1; \textit{left panel}) and the 10 GeV DM particle mass case (run H1-lm; \textit{right panel}). The solid lines show the radially-averaged fractional abundances at each density and the background grey scale shows the abundances before averaging. The dashed lines show the radially-averaged abundances in the reference case without DMA. DMA-induced ionisation increases the electron abundance of the gas at all densities, which in turn leads to an increase in the rate of H$_{2}$ formation at low densities. At high densities, there is a drop in the H$_2$ abundance due to DMA-induced dissociation of H$_{2}$.}
\label{abund}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
In Figure~\ref{abund}, we show how the fractional abundances\footnote{Note that these are defined here as the ratio of the number density of the species of interest to the number density of hydrogen nuclei. This means that gas in which all of the hydrogen is in molecular form has an H$_{2}$ fractional abundance $x_{\rm H_{2}} = 0.5$.} of H$_2$ and e$^-$ vary as a function of density within our different models. At low densities, DMA-induced ionisation enhances the number of electrons by two or more orders of magnitude. This increases the rate of H$_{2}$ formation relative to the case without DMA by increasing the effectiveness
of the following reaction chain:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm H}+e^- & \rightarrow & {\rm H}^- + \gamma, \\
{\rm H}^- + {\rm H} & \rightarrow & {\rm H}_2 +e^{-}.
\end{eqnarray}
As H$_2$ is the main coolant of the gas at these densities, the enhanced H$_{2}$ abundance leads to more efficient cooling. We therefore find, counter-intuitively, that this lower density gas is cooler in the case with DMA than in the case without DMA. This is in agreement with the results of the 1D simulations of \citet{Ripamonti10}, and provides an explanation for the shorter collapse times of the halos in which DMA is occurring, as for the majority of its lifetime, the gas has less thermal support.
Once the gas reaches a density of around $10^{12} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$, however, the H$_2$ fraction decreases sharply in the runs with DMA. By comparing this Figure with the temperature distribution shown in Figure~\ref{temp}, we see that this sharp decrease occurs once the gas temperature reaches $T \sim 2000$~K. It occurs because at this temperature, collisional dissociation of H$_{2}$ by the reactions
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm H_{2}} + {\rm H} & \rightarrow & {\rm H} + {\rm H} + {\rm H}, \label{colldiss1} \\
{\rm H_{2}} + {\rm H_{2}} & \rightarrow & {\rm H} + {\rm H} + {\rm H_{2}}, \label{colldiss2} \\
{\rm H_{2}} + {\rm He} & \rightarrow & {\rm H} + {\rm H} + {\rm He}, \label{colldiss3}
\end{eqnarray}
and by the charge transfer reaction
\begin{equation}
{\rm H_{2}} + {\rm H^{+}} \rightarrow {\rm H_{2}^{+}} + {\rm H}, \label{ct}
\end{equation}
becomes effective. The increased temperature leads to an increased thermal pressure, which slows the collapse of the gas at these densities and leads to a ``pile-up'' of material visible as a pronounced bump in the gas density profile. It is also clear from Figure~\ref{abund} that not all of the H$_{2}$ is destroyed at this density. The H$_{2}$ that survives in the higher density gas enables it to dissipate much of the energy introduced into the gas by the DMA, and hence allows it to maintain its temperature at close to 2000~K. This allows gravitational collapse to continue past the point at which DMA heating first outstrips H$_{2}$ cooling. We examine the physics of this in more detail in the next
section.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3in]{./fig4_n-abund_h1_evo.eps}
\caption{Radially-averaged fractional abundance of H$_{2}$ as a function of density in run H1 at three different output times, corresponding to peak densities of approximately $10^{12} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$ (dashed line), $10^{13} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$ (dotted line) and $5 \times 10^{14} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$ (solid line). We see that as time goes on, the gas loses an increasingly large fraction of its H$_{2}$ content once it reaches $n \sim 10^{12} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$. The increase in the H$_{2}$ fraction at higher densities is therefore a consequence of the fact that gas which collapsed earlier lost less H$_{2}$ than gas which collapsed later, and does not indicate reformation of H$_{2}$ within the densest gas.}
\label{abund-time}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Finally, we note that one must take care in interpreting the behaviour of the H$_{2}$ abundances shown in Figure~\ref{abund}. It is all too easy to think of the evolution of $x_{\rm H_{2}}$ with density as a time history of the H$_{2}$ abundance. In this picture, the H$_{2}$ abundance first increases as the gas collapses, then sharply decreases once the number density reaches $10^{12} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$, before increasing once more at higher gas densities. However, this is incorrect, as Figure~\ref{abund-time} demonstrates. The rise in the H$_{2}$ abundance in the densest gas that we see if we look at a single snapshot is not due to the reformation of H$_{2}$ in this gas. Instead, it occurs because the amount of H$_{2}$ that the gas loses once it reaches a density of around $10^{12} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$ increases as the collapse proceeds. The first gas to collapse -- the material that is now at densities above $10^{14} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$ -- loses only a relatively small fraction of its H$_2$, while the material falling in later loses much more of its molecular content. In part, this behaviour is due to an increase in the DM number density associated with the $n = 10^{12} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$ gas, caused by the increasing concentration of the halo. However, an additional contribution comes from the fact that gas falling in at later times will generally have a higher infall velocity, and hence will shock more strongly once it reaches this density.
\subsection{Heating and cooling rates}
\subsubsection{Fiducial case}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4.5in]{./fig5_rates_h1_p38_rsk.eps}
\caption{Rates of the major heating and cooling processes active in run H1 at the time when the central density first reaches $n = 5 \times 10^{14} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$. DMA heating is an important contributor to the net heating between densities of $10^8$--$10^{12} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$. However, over most of this range, it is largely balanced by H$_{2}$ line cooling, and provides insufficient heating to halt the collapse. Above $n \sim 10^{12} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$, H$_{2}$ line cooling becomes ineffective, and most of the energy introduced into the gas by DMA heating is dissipated by H$_{2}$ collisional dissociation and the destruction of H$_{2}$ by charge transfer.}
\label{rates_stand1}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Figure \ref{rates_stand1} shows the main heating and cooling processes acting in run H1 shortly before the formation of the first protostar, at the time when the central number density first reached $5 \times 10^{14} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$. At low densities, compressional heating and H$_{2}$ formation heating are the two most important heat sources, although even at densities as low as $10^{6} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$, DMA heating is beginning to contribute to the total heating rate at the level of a few percent or more. The cooling of the gas at these densities is dominated by H$_{2}$ line cooling. Once the gas density reaches $n \sim 10^{8} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$, compressional heating starts to become unimportant, and DMA heating catches up with H$_{2}$ formation heating, with both subsequently playing important roles in the thermal balance of the gas. The heating produced by these two processes raises the gas temperature, but this enables H$_{2}$ line cooling to become more effective, and this is able to offset much of the additional heat input from the DMA at densities $n < 10^{12} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$. Above this density, H$_{2}$ line cooling becomes relatively ineffective, both because the H$_{2}$ is starting to dissociate and also because the H$_{2}$ emission lines become optically thick at high densities. The heating rate due to DMA therefore outstrips the H$_{2}$ line cooling rate, in agreement with the prediction of \citet{Spolyar08}. However, we see from Figure~\ref{rates_stand1} that this is not the whole story. As the temperature rises, H$_{2}$ collisional dissociation (reactions~\ref{colldiss1}--\ref{colldiss3}) and the destruction of H$_{2}$ by charge transfer with H$^{+}$ (reaction~\ref{ct}) become increasingly effective. These reactions are endothermic, and hence remove thermal energy from the gas. If H$_{2}$ subsequently reforms, then the associated H$_{2}$ formation heating will return some of this energy to the gas, but if more H$_{2}$ is destroyed than can reform, then the overall effect is to dissipate energy. This effect should not be regarded as ``cooling'' in the same sense as H$_{2}$ line cooling or CIE cooling, as it will not bring about a decrease in the gas temperature. Instead, it acts more like a thermostat, preventing the temperature from increasing significantly until all of the H$_{2}$ has been consumed.
The importance of this effect can be appreciated if we compare the time required to destroy all of the H$_{2}$ at the centre of the halo with the free-fall collapse time of the gas. By considering the energy budget of the gas in this way we can obtain a rough estimate of whether collapse is likely to be halted at densities close to our resolution limit. From Figure~\ref{rates_stand1}, we see that at a density $n = 5 \times 10^{14} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$, the DMA heating rate per unit volume at the centre of the halo is roughly $5 \times 10^{-6} \: {\rm erg} \: {\rm s^{-1}} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$. If we take the H$_{2}$ fractional abundance in this gas to be $x_{\rm H_{2}} = 0.4$, which is a conservative estimate, then the total amount of energy per unit volume that can be dissipated by dissociating H$_{2}$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{\rm H_{2}} & = & 4.48 {\rm eV} \times x_{\rm H_{2}} n, \\
& \simeq & 1400 \left(\frac{n}{5 \times 10^{14} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}}\right) \: {\rm erg} \: {\rm cm^{-3}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $4.48 \: {\rm eV}$ is the binding energy of a single H$_{2}$ molecule. The time required to destroy all of the H$_{2}$ is therefore $t_{\rm dis} = 1400 / 5 \times 10^{-6} \sim 3 \times 10^{8} \: {\rm s}$, or around 10~years. In comparison, the free-fall time of the gas at this density is around 2~years. The energy input from the DM therefore cannot destroy the H$_{2}$ rapidly enough to prevent the gas from collapsing. At even higher densities, the DMA heating rate will be larger. However, the heating rate per unit volume within the core of the DM density profile scales with the central gas density as $n^{1.62}$, and hence $t_{\rm dis} \propto n^{-0.62}$. In comparison, the free-fall timescale scales as $t_{\rm ff} \propto n^{-0.5}$. Therefore, a large increase in density is required in order to significantly alter the ratio of the H$_{2}$ dissociation timescale to the free-fall timescale.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4.5in]{./fig6_rates_h1ref_62_rsk.eps}
\caption{Rates for the major heating and cooling processes acting in simulation H1-ref at a point just before the formation of the first protostar. We show the rates at a later time than in Figure~\ref{rates_stand1} so that the behaviour in the high density regime dominated by H$_{2}$ dissociation cooling is clear. If we compare the results here with those in Figure~\ref{rates_stand1}, we see that H$_{2}$ dissociation cooling only becomes important at $n \sim 10^{14} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$, in contrast to $n \sim 10^{11} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$ in run H1. This is because the gas temperature at these densities is lower in run H1-ref than in run H1, owing to the absence of DMA heating.}
\label{rates_ref1}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
In reality collapse of the dense gas is likely to occur on a timescale that could be a factor of a few longer than the free fall timescale. However, even in this case the collapse timescale is shorter than the H$_2$ dissociation timescale, and will remain so until the density increases significantly. It therefore seems unlikely that collapse will halt at a density just above our sink creation threshold, although we cannot say at exactly what point the collapse will halt without performing much higher resolution simulations.
Figure~\ref{rates_ref1} shows the main heating and cooling processes acting in the reference case, run H1-ref. In the absence of DMA heating, the main heating term is compressional heating over most of the range of densities examined, with H$_{2}$ formation heating becoming important at densities between $10^{10} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$ and $10^{12} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$, and at $n > 10^{14} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$. The main source of cooling at $n < 10^{14} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$ is H$_{2}$ line cooling, while at higher densities, H$_{2}$ collisional dissociation plays an important role in regulating the temperature of the gas. This is in reasonable agreement with the results of other models; for instance, \citet{Yoshida06} find that H$_2$ dissociation becomes significant at densities of $\sim10^{15} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$, at which point the gas temperature is roughly 2000~K. The main effect of the DMA heating seems to be simply to bring the gas to this state at an earlier point in its evolution.
\subsubsection{Maximal Case}
The previous analysis is for the fiducial case where the DM particle mass was 100~GeV. However, even in our maximal case, where the DM particle mass was 10~GeV, we find broadly similar behaviour. In Figure~\ref{rates_lm1}, we show the rates of the main heating and cooling processes in run H1-lm shortly before the formation of the first protostar. In this case, we see that DMA heating becomes important at an earlier time and that H$_{2}$ dissociation becomes the dominant energy dissipation mechanism once the gas density reaches a lower density, $n \sim 10^{10} \: {\rm cm^{-3}}$, than in the fiducial model. This is consistent with the results plotted in Figure~\ref{temp}, which show that the gas reaches $T \sim 2000$~K slightly earlier in its evolution. However, the subsequent behaviour of the gas is very similar in both models. H$_{2}$ dissociation is such an effective thermostat that an increase in the heating rate by a factor of ten produces only a small increase in the gas temperature. Repeating our previous analysis of the H$_{2}$ dissociation timescale, we find that in this case $t_{\rm dis} \sim t_{\rm ff}$, meaning that the gas will probably lose most of its H$_{2}$ before it collapses to protostellar densities. It is therefore possible that in this extreme case, a ``dark star'' will form, but if so, then its size will be smaller than our minimum spatial resolution of a few AU. For comparison, \citet{Spolyar08} predict that even in the 100~GeV case, a dark star of size $\sim 20$~AU should form, and expect that reducing the DM particle mass will lead to an even larger dark star. We find no evidence for such large DMA supported structures in our simulations.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4.5in]{./fig7_rates_h1lm_79_rsk.eps}
\caption{As Figure \ref{rates_stand1}, but for run H1-lm. In this case, the heating from DMA is important at all densities.}
\label{rates_lm1}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\section{Secondary Fragmentation}\label{results2}
So far we have only considered the initial collapse of the halo to stellar densities. However, \citet{Stacy10} and
\citet{Clark11b} have shown that the protostellar accretion disc that builds up around the first protostar rapidly
becomes unstable and fragments. The natural implication is that the first stars to form were generally part of multiple systems, which has profound consequences for our understanding of primordial star formation. It raises the possibility of the first stars being ejected while they were still low mass \citep{Greif11} or growing in mass through mergers \citep{Smith12b,Greif12}. Evolving close binary systems are also a potential mechanism for creating early gamma ray bursts \citep{Bromm06}. It is therefore important to discover whether primordial accretion discs are still unstable in the presence of DMA.
In order to enable us to follow the evolution of our simulated halos beyond the point at which the first protostar forms, we use a sink particle treatment, as outlined in Section~\ref{basic}. During the evolution of the halo with sink particles we fix the location of the DM peak to exactly coincide with the first sink formed. This mimics the effect of the DM being `locked in' to the first star to form.
Figure \ref{frag_2panel} shows a comparison of the column density of the disc in run H1 and in the corresponding reference case without DMA, run H1-ref, at a time 500~years after the formation of the first protostar. In the reference case, the disc has already fragmented, forming four additional protostars. In the case with DMA heating, however, the disc has not fragmented. We continued run H1 until the primary mass reached $15 \: {\rm M_{\odot}}$, which occurred at a time $t = 17,527$~years after the formation of the first protostar, but saw no disc fragmentation during the whole of this period. As our models do not include the effects of ionisation feedback from massive stars, we stopped our simulation at this point. However, we note that studies that have investigated the effect of this ionisation feedback find that it rapidly shuts off the supply of material to the disc, and hence will act to suppress fragmentation at later times \citep{Stacy12,Hosokawa11b}.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7in]{./fig8_Image_2panel_mh1_slice.eps}
\caption{Column density of a slice through the midplane of the disc in the central regions of runs H1 and H1-ref at a time 500 years after the first sink formed in each case. The slice is 1000 AU thick. In the reference case without DMA, four fragments are formed. In the DMA case, there is no secondary fragmentation even at later stages of the evolution.}
\label{frag_2panel}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
An indication of disc stability is given by the Toomre Q parameter \citep{Toomre64}, which has the form
\begin{equation}
Q= \frac{c_s \kappa}{\pi G \Sigma}
\end{equation}
,where $c_s$ is the sound speed, $\kappa$ is the epicyclic frequency, and $\Sigma$ is the surface density of the disc. In the classical Toomre analysis, discs are stable if they have $Q > 1$. Such an analysis is technically only valid when the disc mass is much smaller than that of the central protostar, and the disc is infinitely thin, neither of which are the case here. However, $Q$ still proves to be a reliable guide as to whether or not the disc is stable, and helps to demonstrate why the inclusion of DMA heating has a large effect on the disc stability. Figure \ref{Q} shows the radially averaged properties of the disc surrounding the central protostar for Halo 1. We plot three cases, the reference case without DMA (H1-ref), the fiducial case with DMA (H1), and the ``minimal'' case with a high DM particle mass (H1-hm). The comparison between the disc properties is made at a time of 217~yr after the first sink particle forms in each simulation. For the reference case, this corresponds to a time just before disc fragmentation. (The model of low DM mass, H1-lm, shall be discussed in more detail later.)
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4.5in]{./fig9_Qh1.eps}
\caption{Properties of the disc 200 years after the first sink forms. The solid line shows the reference case H1-ref, the dashed line our fiducial case H1, and the dotted line shows our minimal case H1-hm. In the reference case, the disc has become Toomre unstable, but in the two cases with DMA, the disc remains stable. Note that the low DM mass case, H1-lm does fragment at radii of order 1,000 AU later in the simulation.}
\label{Q}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
All of our discs rotate at a similar rate, for instance H1 has a mean radial velocity of 4.9 \,kms$^{-1}$\ in the gas denser than $1\times 10^{10}$ \,cm$^{-3}$\ and H1-ref has a mean radial velocity of 4.2 \,kms$^{-1}$ in the gas at this density. Consequently, the most relevant terms are the surface density of the disc and the sound speed. Figure \ref{Q} shows that the surface density of the disc is not substantially changed by the DMA. However, the disc temperature is considerably increased in the DM case compared to the reference case. This raises the sound speed and causes the Q value to rise above 1 in the DM cases, whereas in the reference case it falls below one and the disc fragments. Figure \ref{Q} also shows the H$_2$ fraction within the disc. In the reference case, the disc is fully molecular, but in the DM cases the disc is partially dissociated. As the disc evolves the H$_2$ fraction further decreases until all the molecular gas is destroyed. After this point the energy can no longer be absorbed by the destruction of H$_2$ and the temperature of the disc will rapidly rise. Thus it becomes increasingly difficult for the disc to fragment as it evolves, which explains why we see no fragmentation in run H1 despite running the simulation to a central primary mass of $15 \: {\rm M_{\odot}}$.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7in]{./fig10_Image_multi_mh2_slice.eps}
\caption{Column density projections of a slice through the midplane of the disc in the central regions of run H2. The slice is 1000 AU thick. In this case a secondary protostar is formed, but at a very large separation from the central protostar. In the second panel, the image is centred on the original position of the first protostar. It is currently unclear how the movement of the protostar after its formation will affect the DM profile.}
\label{H2frag}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Figure \ref{H2frag} shows a column density projection for a slice through the centre of run H2 at three different output times. In this case, a second sink forms at large radii where the gas is cooler. The fragmentation in run H2 is substantially different from that seen in the reference model. Without DMA, a secondary sink forms within 155 years at a distance of 14.8 AU from the primary. This is followed by additional fragmentation such that when the simulation has run for a thousand years, there are 7 sinks. In contrast to this, the DM simulation does not form a secondary object until $t = 6090 \: {\rm years}$, and the fragmentation occurs at a distance of 1012 AU from the primary. The two stars then form a wide binary system.
\begin{table}
\caption{Protostellar separation and primary mass at the point when a secondary protostar forms}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l c c}
\hline
\hline
Simulation & Separation [AU] & Primary Mass [${\rm M_{\odot}}$] \\
\hline
H1-ref & 31.7 & 1.63\\
H1 & - & -\\
H1-lm & 1629 & 11.8\\
H1-hm & - & -\\
\hline
H2-ref & 14.8 & 0.68 \\
H2 & 1012 & 10.3 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{secondary}
\end{table}
Table \ref{secondary} summarises the secondary fragmentation in all of our simulations. It is interesting that secondary fragmentation occurs in run H2 but not in run H1 for our fiducial DM mass case. Figure \ref{density} shows that in run H2, a larger bump forms in the density profile than in run H1. Similarly, there is also secondary fragmentation in H1-lm at distances of around a thousand AU where there was a significant enhancement in the density profile. At such large radii the gas is far enough away from the peak DM density that DMA cannot dissociate H$_2$ and the gas remains fully molecular, allowing it to cool effectively. Runs H1-lm and H2 both had higher DMA levels than H1 and H1-hm and consequently a greater density enhancement outside the DM core. (Our normalisation of the DM in Halo 2 meant that the ratio of baryonic matter to DM was slightly lower in this case.) Consequently it can be concluded that DMA suppresses fragmentation in the disc close to the primary but it can actually encourage fragmentation in spiral arms at distances of a few thousand AU.
Another striking difference between the cases with and without DMA is the mass of the primary at the time that the disc first fragments. In the reference case, the primary is a low mass object which is evolving adiabatically. Its internal structure is that of an extended ball of gas \citep{Omukai03} and it will be prone to interactions with close neighbours. With DMA, however, the primary is around ten solar masses at the point of fragmentation, at which point it undergoes an expansion as it redistributes its internal entropy and will shortly thereafter begin contracting to the main sequence. The later evolutionary stage of the primary and greater distance from the secondary in the DMA case mean it is unlikely that the stars will influence each other significantly during their formation.
The left and middle panels of Figure \ref{H2frag} are centred on the original position at which the sink particle is originally formed. It can be seen that there is some drift in the position of the sink after the first few thousand years. As our DM halo is analytic and cannot dynamically respond to the baryons we assume that the DM is locked into the first protostar and follows this centre as its position migrates. Similarly our idealised DM halo is oblivious to the formation of spiral arms in the baryonic component of the halo. It is conceivable that both the drift of the sink particle and the transfer of energy from the spiral arms to the DM distribution could heat the central DM distribution and somewhat decrease the DM central density. Studies with a highly resolved live DM halo and high resolution baryonic component would be needed to fully address this issue.
\section{Discussion}\label{discussion}
\subsection{Do dark stars form?}
In their original study, \citet{Spolyar08} made the simple assumption that the gravitational collapse of the gas would come to a halt as soon as the heating rate produced by DMA exceeded the H$_{2}$ cooling rate. As a result, they predicted the formation of large ($\sim 20$~AU or more) protostellar objects supported by DMA heating, the so-called ``dark stars''. However, their assumption is incorrect. \citet{Ripamonti10} first showed, using 1D spherically-symmetric models, that the collapse does not halt once the DM heating rate exceeds the H$_{2}$ cooling rate, and in our present study we confirm their results. The key factor that allows collapse to continue is the collisional dissociation of H$_{2}$. This acts as a thermostat, preventing the gas temperature from increasing significantly above 2000~K until all of the H$_{2}$ is destroyed. A simple estimate of the timescale on which the H$_{2}$ is destroyed shows that even in the most extreme case, it is comparable to the free-fall time of the gas, meaning that the gas can reach much higher densities (and hence smaller length scales) than anticipated in the \citet{Spolyar08} study. As a result, we find no evidence for the formation of dark stars within our simulations, although we note that we cannot rule out the formation of such objects if they form above densities of $10^{16}$ \,cm$^{-3}$, have initial masses of less than 0.01 \,M$_{\odot}$ and radii of less than an AU, as this is below our resolution limit.
\subsection{Stellar Multiplicity}
Perhaps the most striking finding of our work is the large reduction of the level of fragmentation within the protostellar accretion disc. Of our four simulations with DM, secondary fragmentation occurred in only two cases and then only at large radii. Much of the recent focus of studies of Population III star formation has been on the fragmentation of protostellar discs \citep[see e.g.][]{Clark11b, Greif11,Smith11b}. \citet{Greif12} have shown that fragmentation occurs on scales of 10 AU or smaller, and that mergers between protostars should be common. The possibility of mergers and interactions between protostars was also highlighted by \citet{Smith12b}, who show that the high
accretion rates experienced by the young protostars lead to large, extended, ``fluffy'' objects that have a higher probability of interacting than more conventional protostars.
Such scenarios are far less likely when the effects of DMA are taken into account. In this picture either a single massive star forms at the centre of the halo, or a secondary forms in a wide binary with a separation of around 1,000 AU. Fragmentation on such scales was also seen by \citet{Stacy10} in lower resolution studies which focussed on scales larger than the inner disc around the protostar. In our model, when secondary fragmentation begins the mass of the primary protostar is already greater than 10 solar masses. \citet{McKee08} find that for an accretion rate of $10^{-3}$ \,M$_{\odot}$\,yr$^{-1}$\ an ionised HII region will form around the protostar after it obtains a mass of around 20 \,M$_{\odot}$ , depending upon its rotation. Such an ionised region is likely to form even earlier in our model due to the additional ionisation of hydrogen from DMA. Thus it is possible that at the point when secondary stars form the original protostar will already be surrounded by an HII region and any further growth of the primary will be determined by the balance of radiative transfer effects. \citet{Hosokawa12} find that UV radiation from primordial protostars would photo-evaporate their accretion discs once they achieved a mass of around 43 \,M$_{\odot}$ . We note however that similar claims for present day high-mass star formation \citep{Yorke02} have not borne out in detailed 3D calculations \citep{Krumholz09,Peters10,Kuiper12}.
\subsection{Accuracy of DM model}
The biggest assumption in our model is the adoption of an analytic DM halo rather than a live halo. No calculation has yet been able to fully follow the contraction and fragmentation of baryonic matter down to AU scales with a comparable resolution in DM. Simulations by \citet{Abel02} followed the collapse of a minihalo with a mass resolution of 1.1 \,M$_{\odot}$ for the DM component and confirmed that the DM had a peaked profile to radii as small as $\sim 1,500$ AU. Previous work by \citet{Ripamonti10} and \citet{Spolyar08} adopt the method proposed by \citet{Blumenthal86} to model the contraction of a DM halo due to baryonic collapse, and upon these results we base our DM profile. In the Appendix of \citet{Ripamonti10}, the applicability of this method is discussed and found to be in better agreement with the current numerical findings than alternative models \citet[e.g.][]{Steigman78}. We are therefore confident that our model for increasing the DM density with increasing baryon density is reasonable. If anything such a profile may give a slight overestimate of DM density at the centre of the halo. This would further reduce the effective of DMA heating, and make it even less likely that any ``dark stars'' are formed.
A bigger potential uncertainty in our adopted DM profile, however, is the assumption of spherical symmetry. Before the formation of the first sink particle this is a reasonable simplification, as the baryon profile itself is smooth and centrally concentrated. However, after the first sink particle is formed, this rapidly changes within the central regions of the halo. A disc quickly develops, and strong spiral arm features develop within the disc. It is possible that interactions between these high asymmetric features and inhomogeneities in the DM density distribution could lead to a transfer of energy to the DM component and a flattening of the central DM distribution, in a similar manner to that thought to occur from a rotating bar in disc galaxies \citep{Weinberg02}. To fully resolve these issues, calculations with a live three-dimensional halo component would be needed.
Another important issue is whether the central protostar remains within the centre of the DM distribution, as this affects the amount of DM that can be captured by the protostar by particle scattering, which strongly influences the lifetime of any dark star phase \citep{Iocco08b,Taoso07,Yoon08}. In our calculations, we find that the central protostar moves by a significant amount after its formation, as a result of the fact that accretion onto the protostar does not occur in a perfectly symmetrical fashion, and also because it is being acted on by torques from the asymmetrical gas distribution in the protostellar accretion disc. We have assumed that the DM responds in a similar fashion, and that the peak in the DM distribution follows the central protostar. However, if an offset were to develop between the DM cusp and the baryon peak, dynamical heating of the DM would occur and the resulting reduction in the DM density would reduce the amount of annihilation.
This issue has been addressed recently by \citet{Stacy12}, who performed a calculation in which they re-simulated the inner regions of a halo with a live DM halo of similar resolution to that of the gas after the formation of an initial sink particle. The effects of DMA were not, however, included. They formed additional sink particles at around 1,000 AU and found that the motion of the star-disc system became displaced from the DM density peak and that after 5,000 yr there was insufficient DM to influence the formation and evolution of the protostars. However, \citet{Stacy12} do not resolve protostar formation in the inner disc around the central object and do not include DMA and so cannot comment on fragmentation in this regime. In our runs without DMA, secondary fragmentation occurred on timescales of only a few hundred years. It is therefore likely that there will be sufficient DM during the period in which the inner disc is prone to fragmentation to maintain the findings of this paper.
\section{Conclusions}\label{conclusion}
We have for the first time included the effects of dark matter annihilation into 3D simulations of the collapse and fragmentation of cosmological minihalos. We used the SPH code {\sc gadget 2}, which has been modified to include a time-dependent chemical network which includes the effects of dark matter annihilations. The dark matter distribution was modelled analytically based on the predictions of adiabatic contraction \citep{Blumenthal86} and the results of \citet{Spolyar08} and \citet{Ripamonti10}. We adopted a fiducial dark matter particle mass of 100~GeV but also ran simulations with particles masses an order of magnitude larger and smaller to account for uncertainties in our knowledge of the true dark matter particle mass and annihilation cross-section.
Our main findings are as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Dark matter annihilation does not halt the gravitational collapse of the gas on the scales considered here, contrary to the suggestion made by \citet{Spolyar08}. The reason for this is that collisional dissociation of H$_{2}$ provides an effective way to dissipate large amounts of energy even in the regime where H$_{2}$ line cooling is ineffective, and
hence prevents the gas temperature from increasing much above 2000~K. The timescale for H$_2$ destruction is typically longer than the free-fall time of the gas, even at high
gas densities, and so the central protostar should be able to reach very high densities. This is true even when a dark matter particle mass of only 10~GeV is adopted, which gives
a maximal effect for dark matter annihilation. It is therefore plausible that a conventional star will form, rather than a ``dark star'', although confirmation of this point awaits a simulation able to follow the collapse of the gas all the way up to protostellar densities.
\item Dark matter annihilation prevents subsequent fragmentation in the disc around the central protostar within a radius 1,000~AU, regardless of whether this central object is a ``dark star'' or a normal protostar. This is primarily due to the dark matter annihilation heating raising the temperature of the dense gas to a level at which the protostellar accretion disc becomes stable.
Over time, dark matter annihilation will destroy all of the H$_2$ within the vicinity of the central protostar, making further fragmentation impossible. At distances larger than around 1,000~AU, however, the effects of dark matter annihilation are less pronounced and fragmentation can occur in some cases, typically resulting in the formation of a wide binary
system.
\end{enumerate}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We gratefully acknowledge Thomas Greif for providing the initial conditions used for this work. R.J.S, DRGS and R.S.K.\ acknowledge support from the DFG via the SPP 1573 {\em Physics of the ISM} (grants SM321/1-1, KL 1358/14-1 \& SCHL 1964/1-1). R.J.S. and R.S.K. \ also acknowledges the support of the Landesstiftung Baden-W\"urttemberg under research contract P-LS-SPll/18 ({\em Internationale Spitzenforschung ll}) and the SFB 881 {\em The Milky Way System} subprojects B1, B2 and B4. DRGS thanks for funding via the SFB 963/1 ''Astrophysical Flow Instabilities and Turbulence".
|
\section{Supplemental Material}
\subsection{An equivalent version of the QIC game}
\emph{The QIC game (version II)}. This version is similar to version I, presented in the main text, with the following differences. Charlie does not prepare singlet states. Instead, Charlie prepares $n$ qubits in the pure states $\lbrace\lvert\psi_j\rangle\rbrace_{j=0}^{n-1}$, completely randomly. Charlie sends Alice the qubit $A_j$ in the quantum state $\lvert\psi_j\rangle$, for $j = 0, 1,\ldots, n-1$, and keeps a classical record of the states. We denote the global system that Alice receives from Charlie as $A \equiv A_0A_1\cdots A_{n-1}$. Bob gives Charlie a qubit $B_k$ in the state $\rho_k$, which must be as close as possible to $\lvert\psi_k\rangle$. Charlie measures the received state $\rho_k$ in the orthonormal basis $\lbrace\lvert\psi_k\rangle,\lvert\psi_k^\bot\rangle\rbrace$, where $\lvert\psi_k^\bot\rangle$ is the qubit state with Bloch vector antiparallel to that one of $\lvert\psi_k\rangle$. Alice and Bob win the game if Charlie's measurement outcome corresponds to the state $\lvert\psi_k\rangle$. The success probability is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:m1}
p\equiv \int d\mu_0 \int d\mu_1 \cdots \int d\mu_{n-1} \biggl(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\langle\psi_k\rvert\rho_k\lvert\psi_k\rangle\biggr),
\end{equation}
where $\int d\mu_j$ is the normalized integral over the Bloch sphere corresponding to the state $\lvert\psi_j\rangle$.
Now we show that both versions of the QIC game are equivalent and that their success probabilities satisfy the relation $p = (1 + 2P)/3$. More precisely, we show that if Alice and Bob play a strategy in version I of the QIC game that achieves a success probability $P$, the same strategy applied to version II achieves a success probability $p$ that satisfies the relation $p = (1 + 2P)/3$, for any strategy that they may play, and vice versa.
We change to a more convenient notation, $\lvert\psi_k\rangle\equiv\lvert\uparrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle$, $\lvert\psi_k^\bot\rangle\equiv\lvert\downarrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle$, in order to make clear that $\lvert\psi_k\rangle$ and $\lvert\psi_k^\bot\rangle$ correspond to pure qubit states with Bloch vectors $\vec{r}_k$ and $-\vec{r}_k$, respectively.
Version II of the QIC game is equivalent to the following. Charlie initially prepares the pair of qubits $A_j$ and $C_j$ in the singlet state $\lvert\Psi^-\rangle$, he gives Alice the qubit $A_j$ and keeps the qubit $C_j$, for $j = 0, 1, \ldots, n-1$. Charlie generates a random integer $k\in\lbrace 0, 1, \ldots, n-1\rbrace$ and gives it to Bob. Charlie measures the joint state $\omega_k$ of his qubit $C_k$ and the one received by Bob $B_k$ in the orthonormal basis $\mathcal{B}_{\vec{r}_k}\equiv\lbrace\lvert\uparrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle\lvert\uparrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle,\lvert\downarrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle\lvert\downarrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle,\lvert\uparrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle\lvert\downarrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle,\lvert\downarrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle\lvert\uparrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle\rbrace$ for some vector $\vec{r}_k$ that he chooses completely randomly from the Bloch sphere. Opposite outcomes correspond to success. Therefore, the success probability $p$ that Alice and Bob achieve in version II of the QIC game, given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:m1}), equals the following in this version:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:1}
p=&\int\!\! d\mu_0\!\int\!\! d\mu_1\cdots\!\int\!\! d\mu_{n-1}\!\biggl[\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\bigl(\langle\uparrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rvert\langle\downarrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rvert\omega_k\lvert\uparrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle\lvert\downarrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle \biggr. \biggr.\nonumber\\
&\qquad \biggl. \bigl. +\langle\downarrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rvert\langle\uparrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rvert\omega_k\lvert\downarrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle\lvert\uparrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle\bigr)\biggr],
\end{align}
where $\int\! d\mu_j$ is the normalized integral over the Bloch sphere corresponding to the Bloch vector $\vec{r}_j$.
The Bell states defined in the basis $\mathcal{B}_{\vec{r}_k}$ are
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lvert\Phi_{\vec{r}_k}^\pm\rangle&\equiv&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\bigl(\lvert\uparrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle\lvert\uparrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle\pm\lvert\downarrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle\lvert\downarrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle\bigr),\\
\lvert\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^\pm\rangle&\equiv&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\bigl(\lvert\uparrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle\lvert\downarrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle\pm\lvert\downarrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle\lvert\uparrow_{\vec{r}_k}\rangle\bigr).
\end{eqnarray*}
Consider that instead of measuring the state $\omega_k$ in the basis $\mathcal{B}_{\vec{r}_k}$, Charlie measures it in this Bell basis. Since the singlet state is the same in any basis, this corresponds to version I of the QIC game. Therefore, versions I and II of the QIC game are equivalent. Below we show that their success probabilities satisfy the claimed relation.
Using the Bell basis, we obtain from Eq.~(\ref{eq:1}) that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:2}
p=&\int\!\! d\mu_0\!\int\!\! d\mu_1\cdots\!\int\!\! d\mu_{n-1}\!\biggl[\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\bigl(\langle\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^-\rvert\omega_k\lvert\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^-\rangle \bigr. \biggr.\nonumber\\
&\qquad \biggl. \bigl. +\langle\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^+\rvert\omega_k\lvert\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^+\rangle\bigr)\biggr].
\end{align}
Since the singlet state $\lvert\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^-\rangle$ is the same in any basis, by the definition of $P$ (Eq.~(\ref{eq:m2}) of the main text), we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:3}
\int\!\! d\mu_0\!\int\!\! d\mu_1\cdots\!\int\!\! d\mu_{n-1}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\langle\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^-\rvert\omega_k\lvert\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^-\rangle=P.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, we have that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:4}
\lefteqn{\int\!\! d\mu_0\!\int\!\! d\mu_1\cdots\!\int\!\! d\mu_{n-1}\langle\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^+\rvert\omega_k\lvert\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^+\rangle}\nonumber\\
&=& \int\!\! d\mu_0\!\int\!\! d\mu_1\cdots\!\int\!\! d\mu_{n-1}\text{Tr}\bigl(\omega_k\lvert\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^+\rangle\langle\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^+\lvert\bigr)\nonumber\\
&=&\text{Tr}\biggl(\int\!\! d\mu_0\!\int\!\! d\mu_1\cdots\!\int\!\! d\mu_{n-1}\omega_k\lvert\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^+\rangle\langle\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^+\lvert\biggr)\nonumber\\
&=&\text{Tr}\biggl(\omega_k\int\!\! d\mu_0\!\int\!\! d\mu_1\cdots\!\int\!\! d\mu_{n-1}\lvert\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^+\rangle\langle\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^+\lvert\biggr)\nonumber\\
&=&\text{Tr}\biggl(\omega_k\int\!\! d\mu_k\lvert\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^+\rangle\langle\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^+\lvert\biggr),
\end{eqnarray}
where in the third line we have used the linearity of the trace; in the fourth line we have used the fact that $\omega_k$ does not depend on the Bloch vector $\vec{r}_k$ because Charlie chooses it completely randomly to define the measurement basis $\mathcal{B}_{\vec{r}_k}$, and can do so after Bob gives him the qubit $B_k$, and naturally does not depend on the Bloch vectors $\vec{r}_j$ with $j\ne k$ for the same reason; and in the last line we have used that the state $\lvert\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^+\rangle$ is defined in terms of the Bloch vector $\vec{r}_k$, which is parameterized by $\mu_k$, and so is independent of the parameters $\mu_j$ with $j\neq k$.
It is easy to obtain that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:5}
\int\!\! d\mu_k\lvert\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^+\rangle\langle\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^+\rvert=\frac{1}{3}\left(I-\lvert\Psi^-\rangle\langle\Psi^-\rvert\right),
\end{equation}
where $\lvert\Psi^-\rangle\equiv\bigl(\lvert 01\rangle-\lvert 10\rangle\bigr)/\sqrt{2}$ is the singlet state in the computational basis and $I$ is the identity operator acting on $\mathbb{C}^4$. From Eqs.~(\ref{eq:4}) and (\ref{eq:5}) and the definition of $P$ we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:6}
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\int\!\! d\mu_0\!\int\!\! d\mu_1\cdots\!\int\!\! d\mu_{n-1}\langle\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^+\rvert\omega_k\lvert\Psi_{\vec{r}_k}^+\rangle=\frac{1}{3}-\frac{1}{3}P.
\end{equation}
Finally, we substitute Eqs.~(\ref{eq:3}) and~(\ref{eq:6}) into Eq.~(\ref{eq:2}) to obtain that $p = (1 + 2P)/3$, as claimed.
\subsection{Achievability of the quantum information causality bound}
We show that equality in Eq.~(\ref{eq:m4}) of the main text, $\Delta I(C:B)\leq 2m$, requires that the transmitted system $T$ is maximally entangled with Charlie's system $C$.
Following the proof of Eq.~(\ref{eq:m4}) of the main text, we note that equality requires the following conditions to be satisfied. The transmitted system $T$ cannot be entangled with Bob's system $B$ in order to satisfy $S(BT)=S(B)+S(T)$. The system $T$ can only be entangled with the joint system $CB$ so that we have $-S(CBT)=S(T)-S(CB)$, as shown below. The state of the system $T$ has to be completely mixed so that its entropy is maximum: $S(T)=m$. This means that $T$ has to be maximally entangled with the system that purifies it. Together, these conditions imply that $T$ has to be maximally entangled with $C$. We also require that the quantum mutual information between $BT$ and $C$ does not decrease by Bob's operations: $I(C:B') = I(C:BT)$.
Now we show that satisfaction of the equation $-S(CBT)=S(T)-S(CB)$ is achieved if and only if $T$ is entangled only with the joint system $CB$ \cite{NielsenandChuangbook}. Let $A$ be the quantum system that Charlie gives Alice, and hence is initially maximally entangled with $C$. Let any other physical system that Alice has to be denoted by $A'$. In particular, $A'$ can be entangled with Bob's system $B$, but not with Charlie's system $C$. Let $T$ be the system that Alice sends Bob. Since the systems $A'$ and $B$ are arbitrarily big, without loss of generality, we can consider that the global system $AA'CBT$ is in a pure state. Alice applies some quantum operation on the system $TAA'$, which in general can be represented by a unitary operation followed by a projective measurement. Thus, after Alice's operation, the global system $AA'CBT$ remains in a pure state. Due to the Schmidt decomposition of a bipartite pure state, we have that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:7}
S(CB)&&=S(TAA'),\nonumber\\
S(AA')&&=S(CBT).
\end{eqnarray}
We apply the subadditivity property to obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:8}
S(TAA')\leq S(AA')+S(T),
\end{equation}
which from Eq.~(\ref{eq:7}) implies that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:9}
S(CB)\leq S(CBT)+S(T).
\end{equation}
Equality in Eq.~(\ref{eq:9}) is achieved if and only if equality in Eq.~(\ref{eq:8}) is satisfied, which occurs if and only if $T$ is in a product state with $AA'$. Therefore, the relation $-S(CBT)=S(T)- S(CB)$ is satisfied if and only if $T$ is entangled only with the system $CB$, as claimed.
\subsection{The information causality bound}
If the transmitted system $T$ is classical, equality in Eq.~(\ref{eq:m4}) of the main text, $\Delta I(C:B)\leq2m$, can no longer be achieved. If $T$ represents a classical variable of $m$ bits then the smaller upper bound $\Delta I(C:B)\leq m$ is satisfied. The only difference in the proof of this bound compared to the one of $\Delta I(C:B)\leq2m$ is that if $T$ is classical then the bound $-S(CBT)\leq S(T)-S(CB)$ can no longer be saturated. In fact, in this case the smaller upper bound $-S(CBT)\leq-S(CB)$ is satisfied. A way to see this is that, if $T$ is a classical variable, the state of the joint system $CBT$ is a distribution over all possible values $x$ of $T$ and states of $CB$ for each $x$. Therefore, there exists a transformation $x\rightarrow(CB)_x$. From the data-processing inequality we have that $I(CB:T)\leq I(T:T)$. Hence, since $I(CB:T)=S(CB)+S(T)-S(CBT)$ and $I(T:T)=S(T)$, we obtain $S(CB)\leq S(CBT)$ \cite{ic}.
\subsection{Reduction of a general strategy in the QIC game to a covariant strategy}
For convenience, consider version II of the QIC game in which Charlie gives Alice $n$ pure qubits in the product state $\vec{\psi}\equiv\otimes_{j=0}^{n-1}\bigl(\lvert\psi_j\rangle\langle\psi_j\rvert\bigr)_{A_j}\in\mathcal{D}\Bigl(\bigl(\mathbb{C}^2\bigr)^{\otimes n}\Bigr)$, where we define $\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H})$ to be the set of density operators acting on the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. Let $\Gamma_k:\mathcal{D}\Bigl(\bigl(\mathbb{C}^2\bigr)^{\otimes n}\Bigr)\rightarrow\mathcal{D}\bigl(\mathbb{C}^2\bigr)$ be the map that Alice and Bob apply to the state $\vec{\psi}$, which outputs the state $\rho_k\equiv\Gamma_k\bigl(\vec{\psi}\!~\bigr)$ that Bob gives Charlie. Recall that $k$ is the number that Charlie gives Bob. After averaging over all possible input pure product states of qubits with index $j\neq k$, the output only depends on the state $\psi_k\equiv\lvert\psi_k\rangle\langle\psi_k\rvert$, which we identify with the map
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:10}
\bar{\Gamma}_k(\psi_k)\\
\equiv\!\int\!\!\! d\mu_0\!\!\int\!\!\! d\mu_1\!\cdots\!\!\int\!\!\! d\mu_{k-1}\!\!\int\!\!\! d\mu_{k+1}\!\!\int\!\!\! d\mu_{k+2}\!\cdots\!\!\int\!\!\! d\mu_{n-1}\Gamma_k\bigl(\vec{\psi}\!~\bigr),
\end{multline}
where $\int\!\! d\mu_j$ is the normalized integral over the Bloch sphere corresponding to the state $\lvert\psi_j\rangle$.
We define the map
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:11}
\bar{\Gamma}_k^{\text{cov}}(\phi)\equiv\int\!\! d\nu U_{\nu}^{\dagger}\bar{\Gamma}_k\bigl(U_{\nu}\phi U_{\nu}^{\dagger}\bigr)U_{\nu},
\end{equation}
where $\phi\in\mathcal{D}\bigl(\mathbb{C}^2\bigr)$, $U_\nu\in\text{SU}(2)$ and $d\nu$ is the Haar measure on SU(2). It is easy to see that this map is covariant, that is, $\bar{\Gamma}_k^{\text{cov}}\bigl(U\phi U^\dagger\bigr)=U\bar{\Gamma}_k^{\text{cov}}(\phi)U^\dagger$, for all $\phi\in\mathcal{D}\bigl(\mathbb{C}^2\bigr)$ and $U\in\text{SU}(2)$.
In principle, for any map $\Gamma_k$ that Alice and Bob perform, they can implement the covariant map $\bar{\Gamma}_k^{\text{cov}}$ as follows. Alice and Bob initially share randomness. With uniform probability, they obtain the random number $\nu$ in the range $d\nu$ that corresponds to an, ideally, infinitesimal region of the Haar measure on SU(2). This can be done, for example, if Alice and Bob share a maximally entangled state of arbitrarily big dimension and they both apply a local projective measurement in the Schmidt basis on their part of the state; their measurement outcome indicates the number $\nu$. Alice applies the unitary operation $U_\nu$ parameterized by the obtained number $\nu$ on each of her input qubit states $\lvert\psi_j\rangle$. Then, Alice and Bob apply the map $\Gamma_k$ to the input state $\otimes_{j=0}^{n-1}\bigl(U_\nu\lvert\psi_j\rangle\langle\psi_j\rvert U_\nu^\dagger\bigr)_{A_j}$. Finally, Bob applies the unitary $U_\nu^\dagger$ to his output qubit. From Eq.~(\ref{eq:10}) we obtain that, after averaging over all possible input pure qubits states with index distinct to $k$ and after Bob's final unitary operation $U_\nu^\dagger$, Bob's output state is $U_\nu^\dagger\bar{\Gamma}_k\bigl(U_\nu\psi_kU_\nu^\dagger\bigr)U_\nu$. Averaging over all shared random numbers $\nu$, we obtain $\bar{\Gamma}_k^\text{cov}(\psi_k)$, as defined by Eq.~(\ref{eq:11}).
It is straightforward to see that the map $\bar{\Gamma}_k^\text{cov}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\int\!\! d\mu_k\langle\psi_k\rvert\bar{\Gamma}_k^{\text{cov}}(\psi_k)\lvert\psi_k\rangle=\int\!\! d\mu_k \langle\psi_k\rvert\bar{\Gamma}_k(\psi_k)\lvert\psi_k\rangle.\nonumber
\end{equation}
Therefore, it achieves the same value of $p$ (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:m1})) as $\bar{\Gamma}_k$. Thus, by convenience we consider that Alice and Bob implement the covariant map $\bar{\Gamma}_k^{\text{cov}}(\psi_k)$. In general, this is the depolarizing map \cite{NielsenandChuangbook}:
\begin{equation}
\bar{\Gamma}_k^{\text{cov}}(\phi)=\sum_{i=0}^{3}E_i\phi E_i^\dagger,\nonumber
\end{equation}
where $\phi\in\mathcal{D}\bigl(\mathbb{C}^2\bigr)$, $E_0=\lambda_k I$, $E_i=((1-\lambda_k)/3)\sigma_i$, $1/4\leq \lambda_k\leq 1$ and $\sigma_i$ are the Pauli matrices, for $i = 1, 2, 3$. Application of the depolarizing map to a qubit that is in the singlet state with another qubit, as in version I of the QIC game, gives as output the state $\omega_k$ given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:m7}) of the main text.
\subsection{A useful bound}
We show the bound
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:12}
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}I\left(C_k:B_k\right)\leq I\left(C:B'\right),
\end{equation}
which will be useful to deduce an upper bound on $P$. The proof is equivalent to the one for classical bits \cite{ic}.
We notice that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:13}
I\left(C:B'\right)&\equiv& I\left(C_0C_1\cdots C_{n-1}:B'\right)\nonumber\\
&=&I\left(C_0:B'\right)+I\left(C_1C_2\cdots C_{n-1}:B'C_0\right)\nonumber\\
&&-\: I\left(C_1C_2\cdots C_{n-1}:C_0\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Since Charlie's qubits are in a product state with each other, we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:14}
I\left(C_1C_2\cdots C_{n-1}:C_0\right)=0.
\end{equation}
The data-processing inequality implies that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:15}
I\left(C_1C_2\cdots C_{n-1}:B'C_0\right)\geq I\left(C_1C_2\cdots C_{n-1}:B'\right).
\end{equation}
From Eqs.~(\ref{eq:13})--(\ref{eq:15}) we obtain that
\begin{multline}
I\left(C_0C_1\cdots C_{n-1}:B'\right)\\
\geq I\left(C_0:B'\right)+I\left(C_1C_2\cdots C_{n-1}:B'\right).\nonumber
\end{multline}
After iterating these steps $n-1$ times, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:16}
I\left(C:B'\right)\geq \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}I\left(C_k:B'\right).
\end{equation}
Since the system $B_k$ is output by Bob after local operations on his system $B'$, applying the data-processing inequality, we obtain $I(C_k:B')\geq I(C_k:B_k )$, which from Eq.~(\ref{eq:16}) implies Eq.~(\ref{eq:12}).
\subsection{Upper bound on $P$ from quantum information causality}
We show an upper bound on the success probability $P$ in the QIC game from quantum information causality:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:17}
P\leq P',
\end{equation}
where we define $P'$ to be the maximum solution of the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:18}
h(P')+(1-P')\log_23=2\left(1-\frac{m}{n}\right),
\end{equation}
and $h(x)=-x\log_2x-(1-x)\log_2(1-x)$ denotes the binary entropy. Some values of $P'$ are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig2}.
We notice that since Charlie's and Bob's systems are initially uncorrelated, the quantum information causality bound (Eq.~(\ref{eq:m4}) of the main text) reduces to $I(C:B')\leq 2m$. Thus, from the bound given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:12}) we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:19}
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}I(C_k:B_k)\leq 2m.
\end{equation}
Charlie initially prepares the qubits $C_k$ and $A_k$ in the singlet state $\lvert\Psi^-\rangle_{C_kA_k }$, which after Alice's and Bob's operations is transformed into some state $\omega_k$, now in the joint system $C_kB_k$. We have shown that in general we can consider $\omega_k$ to be of the form given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:m7}) of the main text:
\begin{equation}
\omega_k=\lambda_k\Psi^-+\frac{1-\lambda_k}{3}\bigl(\Psi^++\Phi^++\Phi^-\bigr).\nonumber
\end{equation}
Thus, we have that $I(C_k:B_k)=2-S(\omega_k)$. Hence, from Eq.~(\ref{eq:19}) we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:20}
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}S(\omega_k)\geq 2\left(1-\frac{m}{n}\right).
\end{equation}
We define the state $\omega\equiv\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\omega_k/n$. From the concavity of the von Neumann entropy \cite{NielsenandChuangbook}, we obtain $S(\omega)\geq \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}S(\omega_k)/n$, which together with Eq.~(\ref{eq:20}) implies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:21}
S(\omega)\geq 2\left(1-\frac{m}{n}\right).
\end{equation}
From the definitions of $P$ (Eq.~(\ref{eq:m2}) of the main text) and $\omega$, and the form of $\omega_k$ (Eq.~(\ref{eq:m7}) of the main text) we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:22}
\omega=P\Psi^-+\frac{1-P}{3}\bigl(\Psi^++\Phi^++\Phi^-\bigr),
\end{equation}
which has von Neumann entropy $S(\omega)=h(P)+(1-P)\log_23$, where $h(x)=-x\log_2x-(1-x)\log_2(1-x)$ is the binary entropy. Thus, from Eq.~(\ref{eq:21}) we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:23}
h(P)+(1-P)\log_23\geq 2\left(1-\frac{m}{n}\right),
\end{equation}
which implies Eq.~(\ref{eq:17}). This can be seen as follows. The function $h(P)+(1-P)\log_23$ corresponds to the Shannon entropy of a random variable taking four values, one with probability $P$ and the others with probability $(1-P)/3$ \cite{NielsenandChuangbook}. It is a strictly increasing function of $P$ in the range $[0,1/4]$ and a strictly decreasing function in the range $[1/4,1]$. It takes the values $\log_23$ at $P=0$ and $P=0.609$, 2 at $P=1/4$ and 0 at $P=1$. If $2(1-m/n)\geq \log_23$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:18}) has two solutions, one in the range $[0, 1/4]$ and the other one in the range $[1/4,0.609]$. Otherwise, Eq.~(\ref{eq:18}) has a single solution in the range $(0.609, 1]$. Therefore, the maximum solution of Eq.~(\ref{eq:18}) is in the range $[1/4, 1]$. Since in this range the function $h(P)+(1-P)\log_23$ is strictly decreasing, Eq.~(\ref{eq:23}) implies Eq.~(\ref{eq:17}).
In particular, we can easily see from Eq.~(\ref{eq:21}) that if $m< n$ then $S(\omega)>0$. Therefore, in this case $\omega$ cannot be a perfect singlet, which from Eq.~(\ref{eq:22}) implies that $P<1$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\includegraphics{Figure2.EPS}
\caption{\label{fig2}Success probability ($P$) in the QIC game for ${m=1}$ achieved with the naive strategy, $P_{\text{N}}$ (circles), and with the best teleportation strategy that we have found, $P_{\text{T}}$ (triangles). The upper bound on $P$ obtained from quantum information causality, $P'$ (squares), is plotted too.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Upper bound on $Q$ for nonlocal strategies}
We have obtained an upper bound on the success probability $Q$ in the IC-2 game, defined in the main text, for a particular class of strategies in the case $m=1$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:24}
Q\leq Q',
\end{equation}
where $Q'\equiv\bigl(1 + 3n^{-1/2}\bigr)/4$. The considered class of strategies is the following.
\emph{Nonlocal strategies in the IC-2 game}. Alice and Bob share an entangled state $\lvert\psi\rangle\in\mathcal{H}$. They perform a local projective measurement on their part of $\lvert\psi\rangle$. Alice chooses her measurement according to her value of $x\equiv(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})$. Recall that $x_j\equiv (x_j^0,x_j^1)$, for $j=0, 1, \ldots, n-1$. Bob chooses his measurement according to his number $k$. Their measurement outcomes are the two bit numbers $(a_k^0,a_k^1)$ and $(b_k^0,b_k^1)$, respectively. Alice sends Bob her outcome. Bob outputs the two bit value $y_k\equiv (y_k^0,y_k^1)$, where $y_k^j=a_k^j\oplus b_k^j$, for $j = 0, 1$, and $\oplus$ denotes sum modulo 2. The success probability is
\begin{equation}
Q=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}P\left(y_k^0=x_k^0,y_k^1=x_k^1\right).\nonumber
\end{equation}
This class of strategies is not general. For example, a more general strategy would be one in which Bob uses Alice's message in order to choose his measurement.
It can easily be computed that for $m = 1$ and $n \geq 50$, $P' < Q',$ where $P'$ is defined by Eq.~(\ref{eq:18}). Therefore, the bound given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:24}) cannot be achieved for $n \geq 50$, otherwise Eq.~(\ref{eq:m5}) of the main text, and hence quantum information causality, could be violated by a teleportation strategy achieving $P = Q'$.
Now we present the proof of Eq.~(\ref{eq:24}). This is an extension of the one given in Ref.~\cite{AS11} for the IC-1 game. Let $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_A\otimes\mathcal{H}_B$. Alice and Bob measure their respective systems, $A$ and $B$, in the orthonormal bases $\lbrace\lvert\nu_{r,s}^{x}\rangle\rbrace_{r,s=0}^1$ and $\lbrace\lvert w_{t,u}^{k}\rangle\rbrace_{t,u=0}^1$. After the measurement is completed, the state $\lvert\psi\rangle$ projects into the state $\lvert\nu_{a_k^0,a_k^1}^{x}\rangle\lvert w_{b_k^0,b_k^1}^{k}\rangle$. We define the Hermitian operators
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{A}_x&\equiv &\sum_{r=0}^1\sum_{s=0}^1(-1)^{r+s}\lvert\nu_{r,s}^x\rangle\langle\nu_{r,s}^x\rvert,\nonumber\\
\hat{B}_k&\equiv &\sum_{t=0}^1\sum_{u=0}^1(-1)^{t+u}\lvert w_{t,u}^k\rangle\langle w_{t,u}^k\rvert, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
acting on $\mathcal{H}_A$ and $\mathcal{H}_B$, respectively. We also define $E_{x,k}\equiv(-1)^{x_k^0+x_k^1}\langle\psi\rvert\hat{A}_x\hat{B}_k\lvert\psi\rangle$. Writing the state $\lvert\psi\rangle$ in the basis $\lbrace\lvert\nu_{r,s}^{x}\rangle\lvert w_{t,u}^{k}\rangle\rbrace_{r,s,t,u=0}^1$, using that $y_k^j=a_k^j\oplus b_k^j$, for $j=0,1$, and noticing that $x$ is a completely random variable of $4^n$ possible values, it is easy to obtain that
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:25}
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\left[P\left(y_k^0=x_k^0,y_k^1=x_k^1\right)+P\left(y_k^0\neq x_k^0,y_k^1\neq x_k^1\right)\right]\\
=\frac{1}{2}\biggl(1+\frac{1}{n4^n}\sum_{x,k}E_{x,k}\biggr).
\end{multline}
Following the procedure of Ref.~\cite{AS11}, it is obtained that
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}\biggl(1+\frac{1}{n4^n}\sum_{x,k}E_{x,k}\biggr)\leq\frac{1}{2}\biggl(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\biggr),\nonumber
\end{equation}
which from Eq.~(\ref{eq:25}) implies
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:26}
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\left[P\left(y_k^0=x_k^0,y_k^1=x_k^1\right)+P\left(y_k^0\neq x_k^0,y_k^1\neq x_k^1\right)\right]\\
\leq\frac{1}{2}\biggl(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\biggr).
\end{multline}
Following a similar procedure, by defining $E_{x,k}^j\equiv(-1)^{x_k^j}\langle\psi\rvert\hat{A}_x^j\hat{B}_k^j\lvert\psi\rangle$, for $j = 0, 1$, in terms of the operators
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{A}_x^0&\equiv&\sum_{r=0}^1\sum_{s=0}^1(-1)^{r}\lvert\nu_{r,s}^x\rangle\langle\nu_{r,s}^x\rvert,\nonumber\\
\hat{B}_k^0&\equiv&\sum_{t=0}^1\sum_{u=0}^1(-1)^{t}\lvert w_{t,u}^k\rangle\langle w_{t,u}^k\rvert,
\nonumber\\
\hat{A}_x^1&\equiv&\sum_{r=0}^1\sum_{s=0}^1(-1)^{s}\lvert\nu_{r,s}^x\rangle\langle\nu_{r,s}^x\rvert,\nonumber\\
\hat{B}_k^1&\equiv&\sum_{t=0}^1\sum_{u=0}^1(-1)^{u}\lvert w_{t,u}^k\rangle\langle w_{t,u}^k\rvert,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
it can be shown that
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:27}
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\left[P\left(y_k^0=x_k^0,y_k^1=x_k^1\right)+P\left(y_k^0=x_k^0,y_k^1\neq x_k^1\right)\right]\\
\leq\frac{1}{2}\biggl(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\biggr),
\end{multline}
and that
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:28}
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\left[P\left(y_k^0=x_k^0,y_k^1=x_k^1\right)+P\left(y_k^0\neq x_k^0,y_k^1= x_k^1\right)\right]\\
\leq\frac{1}{2}\biggl(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\biggr).
\end{multline}
Adding Eqs.~(\ref{eq:26})--(\ref{eq:28}), using normalization of probabilities and arranging terms we obtain that
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}P\left(y_k^0=x_k^0,y_k^1=x_k^1\right)\leq\frac{1}{4}\biggl(1+\frac{3}{\sqrt{n}}\biggr),\nonumber
\end{equation}
as claimed.
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{lemma}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
\setcounter{corollary}{0}
\setcounter{remark}{0}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{conjecture}{0}
Let $p_n$ denote the $n$-th prime for each $n\in\Z^+=\{1,2,3,\ldots\}$. In number theory, Firoozbakht's conjecture asserts that
$$\root n\of{p_n}>\root{n+1}\of {p_{n+1}}\quad\t{for all}\ n=1,2,3,\ldots,$$
i.e., the sequence $(\root{n}\of {p_n})_{n\gs1}$ is strictly
decreasing (cf. \cite[p.\,185]{R}). Though this remains unsolved, recently the author \cite{S} was able to show that
$(\root{n}\of {S_n})_{n\gs2}$ is strictly decreasing
and moreover the sequence $(\root{n+1}\of{S_{n+1}}/\root{n}\of
{S_n})_{n\gs5}$ is strictly increasing, where $S_n$ is the sum of the first $n$ primes.
Let $q>1$ be a prime power and let $\Bbb F_q$ be the finite field of order $q$.
For each $n\in\Z^+$ we use $N_n(q)$ to denote the number of monic irreducible polynomials over $\Bbb F_q$.
In this paper we establish the following new result.
\begin{theorem}\label{Th1.1} Let $q>1$ be any prime power. Then $(\sqrt[n]{N_n(q)})_{n>e^{3+7/(q-1)^2}}$
is strictly increasing, and the sequence
$$(\sqrt[n+1]{N_{n+1}(q)}/\sqrt[n]{N_n(q)})_{n\gs5.835\times10^{14}}$$ is strictly decreasing.
Also,
$(N_{n+1}(q)/N_n(q))_{n\gs1}$ is strictly increasing if $q\gs9$, and
$(N_{n+1}(q)/N_n(q))_{n\gs19}$ is strictly increasing if $q<9$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{Rem1.1} Our computation suggests that $(\sqrt[n]{N_n(q)})_{n\gs2}$ is strictly increasing
and the sequence $(\sqrt[n+1]{N_{n+1}(q)}/\sqrt[n]{N_n(q)})_{n\gs n_0(q)}$ is strictly decreasing, where $n_0(2)=14$, $n_0(3)=8$,
$n_0(4)=n_0(5)=6$ and $n_0(q)=4$ for $q>5$.
\end{remark}
\section{Proof of Theorem 1.1}
\setcounter{lemma}{0}
\setcounter{theorem}{0}
\setcounter{corollary}{0}
\setcounter{remark}{0}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{conjecture}{0}
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem2.1} For any integer $n>1$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{2.1}|nN_n(q)-q^n|<\f{q^{n/p(n)+1}}{q-1},
\end{equation}
where $p(n)$ denotes the least prime divisor of $n$.
\end{lemma}
\Proof. It is well known that
$$N_n(q)=\f1n\sum_{d\mid n}\mu(d)q^{n/d}$$
(see, e.g., \cite[p.\,84]{IR}), where $\mu$ denotes the M\"obius function. So
\begin{align*}|nN_n(q)-q^n|=&\bigg|\sum_{d\mid n\atop d\gs p(n)}\mu(d)q^{n/d}\bigg|
\\\ls&\sum_{d=p(n)}^nq^{n/d}\ls\sum_{k=1}^{n/p(n)}q^k=q\f{q^{n/p(n)}-1}{q-1}<\f{q^{n/p(n)+1}}{q-1}.
\end{align*}
This concludes the proof. \qed
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem2.2} Let $n>1$ be an integer and set $L_n(q)=(q-1)q^{n-n/p(n)-1}$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{2.2}\l|\log N_n(q)-\log\f{q^n}n\r|<\f2{L_n(q)}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\Proof. Clearly $N_2(2)=1$ and hence (\ref{2.2}) holds in the case $q=n=2$.
Below we assume that $q>2$ or $n>2$. If $n>2$ then $n-n/p(n)\gs2$. So $L_n(q)\gs2$.
Write $nN_n(q)=q^n(1+r_n(q))$. By Lemma 2.1, $|r_n(q)|<1/L_n(q)\ls1/2$.
If $r_n(q)\gs0$, then
$$0\ls\log N_n(q)-\log\f{q^n}n=\log(1+r_n(q))\ls r_n(q)<\f1{L_n(q)}.$$
As $\log(1-x)>-2x$ for $x\in(0,1/2)$, when $r_n(q)<0$ we have
$$0>\log N_n(q)-\log\f{q^n}n=\log(1-|r_n(q)|)>-2|r_n(q)|>\f{-2}{L_n(q)}.$$
Therefore (\ref{2.2}) always holds. \qed
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem2.3} Let $n>4$ be an integer. We have
\begin{equation}\label{2.3}L_n(q)\gs q-1+\f{n-2}2(q-1)^2+\f{(n-2)(n-4)}8(q-1)^3>\f{(n-1)^2}8.
\end{equation}
If $n\gs6$, then
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}L_n(q)\gs &q-1+\f{n-2}2(q-1)^2+\f{n^2-6n+8}{8}(q-1)^3
\\&+\f{n^3-12n^2+44n-48}{48}(q-1)^4.\end{aligned}\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\Proof. As $n-n/p(n)-1\gs2$, we have
\begin{align*}&\f{L_n(q)}{q-1}=(1+(q-1))^{n-n/p(n)-1}
\\\gs&1+\l(n-\f n{p(n)}-1\r)(q-1)+\l(n-\f n{p(n)}-1\r)\l(n-\f n{p(n)}-2\r)\f{(q-1)^2}2
\\\gs&1+\l(\f n2-1\r)(q-1)+\l(\f n2-1\r)\l(\f n2-2\r)\f{(q-1)^2}2
\end{align*}
and hence
\begin{align*}L_n(q)\gs& q-1+\f{n-2}2(q-1)^2+\f{(n-2)(n-4)}8(q-1)^3
\\\gs&1+\f{n-2}2+\f{n^2-6n+8}8>\f{(n-1)^2}8.
\end{align*}
Similarly, if $n\gs6$ then
\begin{align*}&\f{L_n(q)}{q-1}=(1+(q-1))^{n-n/p(n)-1}
\\\gs&1+\l(n-\f n{p(n)}-1\r)(q-1)+\l(n-\f n{p(n)}-1\r)\l(n-\f n{p(n)}-2\r)\f{(q-1)^2}2
\\&+\l(n-\f n{p(n)}-1\r)\l(n-\f n{p(n)}-2\r)\l(n-\f n{p(n)}-3\r)\f{(q-1)^3}{3!}
\\\gs&1+\l(\f n2-1\r)(q-1)+\l(\f n2-1\r)\l(\f n2-2\r)\f{(q-1)^2}2
\\&+\l(\f n2-1\r)\l(\f n2-2\r)\l(\f n2-3\r)\f{(q-1)^3}6
\end{align*}
which gives the desired (2.4). \qed
\medskip
\noindent{\it Proof of Theorem 1.1}. By Lemma 2.2, for $n=2,3,\ldots$ we may write $\log N_n(q)-\log(q^n/n)=c_n/L_n(q)$ with $|c_n|<2$.
(i) Now let $n>\lfloor e^3\rfloor=20$. Observe that
\begin{align*}&\f{\log N_{n+1}(q)}{n+1}-\f{\log N_n(q)}n
\\=&\f1{n+1}\l(\log\f{q^{n+1}}{n+1}+\f{c_{n+1}}{L_{n+1}(q)}\r)-\f1n\l(\log\f{q^n}n+\f{c_n}{L_n(q)}\r)
\\=&\f{\log n}n-\f{\log(n+1)}{n+1}+\f{c_{n+1}}{(n+1)L_{n+1}(q)}-\f{c_n}{nL_n(q)}
\\>&\f{\log n}{n(n+1)}-\f{\log(1+1/n)}{n+1}-\f2{(n+1)L_{n+1}(q)}-\f2{nL_n(q)}
\\>&\f{\log n}{n(n+1)}-\f1{n(n+1)}-\f2{(n+1)L_{n+1}(q)}-\f2{nL_n(q)}.
\end{align*}
In view of Lemma 2.3,
$$nL_n(q)>\f{n(n-2)}2(q-1)^2>\f 37n(n+1)(q-1)^2$$
and
$$(n+1)L_{n+1}(q)>\f{(n+1)(n-1)}2(q-1)^2\gs\f{10}{21}n(n+1)(q-1)^2.$$
Therefore
\begin{align*}\log\f{\sqrt[n+1]{N_{n+1}(q)}}{\sqrt[n]{N_n(q)}}>&\f{\log n-1-2(7/3+21/10)/(q-1)^2}{n(n+1)}
\\>&\f{\log n-1-9/(q-1)^2}{n(n+1)}.
\end{align*}
If $n>e^{3+7/(q-1)^2}$, then $\log n>1+9/(q-1)^2$ and hence
$\sqrt[n+1]{N_{n+1}(q)}>\sqrt[n]{N_n(q)}$.
(ii) Now we fix an integer $n\gs 5.835\times 10^{14}$ and set
$$\Delta_n(q):=\f2{n+1}\log N_{n+1}(q)-\f{\log N_{n}(q)}{n}-\f{\log N_{n+2}(q)}{n+2}.$$
Observe that
\begin{align*}\Delta_n(q)=&\f2{n+1}\l(\log\f{q^{n+1}}{n+1}+\f{c_{n+1}}{L_{n+1}(q)}\r)
-\f1{n}\l(\log\f{q^{n}}{n}+\f{c_{n}}{L_{n}(q)}\r)
\\&-\f1{n+2}\l(\log\f{q^{n+2}}{n+2}+\f{c_{n+2}}{L_{n+2}(q)}\r)
\\=&\f{\log n}{n}+\f{\log(n+2)}{n+2}-\f2{n+1}\log (n+1)
\\&+\f{2c_{n+1}}{(n+1)L_{n+1}(q)}-\f{c_{n}}{nL_{n}(q)}-\f{c_{n+2}}{(n+2)L_{n+2}(q)}
\end{align*}
and hence
\begin{align*}\Delta_n(q)>&\l(\f1{n}+\f1{n+2}-\f2{n+1}\r)\log n+\f{\log(1+2/n)}{n+2}-\f2{n+1}\log\l(1+\f1n\r)
\\&-\f{4}{(n+1)L_{n+1}(q)}-\f{2}{nL_{n}(q)}-\f2{(n+2)L_{n+2}(q)}
\\>&\f{2\log n}{n(n+1)(n+2)}+\f1{n+2}\l(\f2n-\f2{n^2}\r)-\f2{n+1}\cdot\f1n
\\&-\f{4}{(n+1)L_{n+1}(q)}-\f{2}{nL_{n}(q)}-\f2{(n+2)L_{n+2}(q)}.
\end{align*}
Therefore
\begin{equation}\label{2.5}\begin{aligned}\f{\Delta_n(q)}2>&\f{\log n-1}{n(n+1)(n+2)}-\f1{n^2(n+2)}
\\&-\f{2}{(n+1)L_{n+1}(q)}-\f{1}{nL_{n}(q)}-\f1{(n+2)L_{n+2}(q)}.
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
As $n>58\times 10^{13}$, by Lemma 2.3 we have
\begin{gather*}\f1{n^2(n+2)}<\f{1+10^{-14}}{n(n+1)(n+2)},
\\\f1{nL_n(q)}<\f 8{n(n-1)^2}<\f{8+10^{-13}}{n(n+1)(n+2)},
\\\f1{(n+1)L_{n+1}(q)}<\f 8{(n+1)n^2}<\f{8+10^{-13}}{n(n+1)(n+2)},
\\\f1{(n+2)L_{n+2}(q)}<\f{8}{(n+2)(n+1)^2}<\f{8}{n(n+1)(n+2)}.
\end{gather*}
Combining these with (2.5) we obtain
\begin{align*}\f{n(n+1)(n+2)}2\Delta_n(q)>&\log n-1-(1+10^{-14})-3(8+10^{-13})-8
\\=&\log n-(34+31\times10^{-14})>0
\end{align*}
since $n\gs 5.835\times 10^{14}>e^{34+31/10^{14}}$.
Thus
$$\log\f{\sqrt[n+1]{N_{n+1}(q)}}{\sqrt[n]{N_n(q)}}>\log\f{\sqrt[n+2]{N_{n+2}(q)}}{\sqrt[n+1]{N_{n+1}(q)}}$$
as desired.
(iii) Observe that
\begin{align*}&2\log N_{n+1}(q)-\log N_n(q)-\log N_{n+2}(q)
\\=&2\l(\log\f{q^{n+1}}{n+1}+\f{c_{n+1}}{L_{n+1}(q)}\r)-\l(\log\f{q^n}n+\f{c_n}{L_n(q)}\r)-\l(\log\f{q^{n+2}}{n+2}+\f{c_{n+2}}{L_{n+2}(q)}\r)
\\=&\log\l(1-\f1{(n+1)^2}\r)+\f{2c_{n+1}}{L_{n+1}(q)}-\f{c_n}{L_n(q)}-\f{c_{n+2}}{L_{n+2}(q)}
\\<&-\f1{(n+1)^2}+\f{4}{L_{n+1}(q)}+\f{2}{L_n(q)}+\f{2}{L_{n+2}(q)}
\end{align*}
If $n\gs6$ and $q\gs9$, then by (2.4) we have
$$L_n(q)\gs8+\f{n-2}2 8^2+\f{n^2-6n+8}88^3+\f{n^3-12n^2+44n-48}{48}8^4=\f83P(n),$$
where $$P(n)=32n^3-360n^2+1276n-1365.$$
Thus, when $n\gs6$ and $q\gs9$, we have
\begin{align*}&2\log N_{n+1}(q)-\log N_n(q)-\log N_{n+2}(q)
\\<&-\f1{(n+1)^2}+\f{4\times 3}{8P(n+1)}+\f{2\times 3}{8P(n)}+\f{2\times 3}{8P(n+2)}<0.
\end{align*}
Since
\begin{gather*}N_1(q)=q,\ N_2(q)=\f{q(q-1)}2,
\ N_3(q)=\f{q(q^2-1)}3,\ N_4(q)=\f{q^2(q^2-1)}4,
\\N_5(q)=\f{q(q^4-1)}5,\ N_6(q)=\f{q^6-q^3-q^2+q}6,\ N_7(q)=\f{q^7-q}7,
\end{gather*}
we can easily verify that $N_{n+1}(q)^2<N_n(q)N_{n+2}(q)$ for $n=1,2,3,4,5$.
If $n\gs6$ and $q\ls8$, then by (2.4) we have
\begin{align*}L_n(q)\gs&1+\f{n-2}2 +\f{n^2-6n+8}8+\f{n^3-12n^2+44n-48}{48}
\\=&\f n{48}(n^2-6n+32);
\end{align*}
similarly,
$$L_{n+1}(q)\gs\f{n+1}{48}(n^2-4n+27)\ \ \t{and}\ \ L_{n+2}(q)\gs\f{n+2}{48}(n^2-2n+24).$$
Thus, when $n\gs389$ and $q\ls8$, we have
\begin{align*}&2\log N_{n+1}(q)-\log N_n(q)-\log N_{n+2}(q)
\\<&-\f1{(n+1)^2}+\f{4\times 48}{(n+1)(n^2-4n+27)}
\\&+\f{2\times 48}{n(n^2-6n+32)}+\f{2\times 48}{(n+2)((n^2-2n+24)}
\\<&0.
\end{align*}
If $q\ls8$ and $19\ls n\ls 388$, then it is easy to verify $N_{n+1}(q)^2<N_n(q)N_{n+2}(q)$ via computer.
In view of the above, we have completed the proof of Theorem 1.1. \qed
|
\section{Introduction}
In many respects, the quantum physics of superconducting circuits\cite{makhlin_quantum-state_2001,devoret_implementing_2004,clarke_superconducting_2008} resembles that of atoms: both systems feature a set of discrete, non-equidistant energy levels, and both can be probed by virtue of their interaction with photons. Within circuit QED\cite{blais_cavity_2004,wallraff_strong_2004,schoelkopf_wiring_2008}, this interaction is harnessed to manipulate and measure the quantum state of the superconducting circuit with great success.
In many realizations of the circuit QED architecture, the dispersive regime plays a particularly important role for implementing the readout and gate operations required for a universal quantum computer. The general idea behind the dispersive regime is simple: when detuning the qubit frequency far from the frequency of the resonator, the interaction-induced conversion of a qubit excitation into a photon becomes ineffective. Specifically, the probability amplitude for the conversion is proportional to the small parameter $g/\Delta$, where $g$ denotes the coupling strength and $\Delta$ the detuning between the qubit and photon frequency. Accordingly, the dispersive regime is the primary setting for performing qubit gates.\cite{blais_cavity_2004,schuster_ac_2005,wallraff_approaching_2005,blais_quantum-information_2007,gywat_dynamics_2006,majer_coupling_2007}
In the dispersive regime, the qubit-photon coupling manifests in the form of energy shifts of Lamb and ac-Stark type.\cite{blais_cavity_2004,schuster_ac_2005,wallraff_approaching_2005,gambetta_qubit-photon_2006,gambetta_protocols_2007,tornberg_dispersive_2007,serban_crossoverweak-_2007,boissonneault_nonlinear_2008,boissonneault_dispersive_2009,zueco_qubit-oscillator_2009,filipp_two-qubit_2009} Here, ac-Stark shifts correspond to \emph{state-dependent} energy shifts which, in the simplest case, take on the form $\chi a^\dag a\sigma_z$. This expression can be interpreted as a
frequency shift of the resonator, with the size of the shift depending on the state of the qubit, or alternatively, as a shift of the qubit transition frequency, with the size of the shift depending on the photon state of the resonator. Consequently, the dispersive regime provides both a convenient means of qubit readout.\cite{schuster_ac_2005,wallraff_approaching_2005,gambetta_qubit-photon_2006,Siddiqi2006,gambetta_protocols_2007,tornberg_dispersive_2007,serban_crossoverweak-_2007,blais_quantum-information_2007,filipp_two-qubit_2009,Reed2010,Wirth2010}, as well as a measurement tool for investigating the resonator state.\cite{gambetta_qubit-photon_2006,schuster_resolving_2007} Possible limitations to this simple picture due to corrections of higher order in the parameter $g/\Delta$ have recently been studied by Boissonneault et al.\cite{boissonneault_nonlinear_2008,boissonneault_dispersive_2009}
The physics of the dispersive regime becomes richer when higher levels of the superconducting circuit (which we hence refer to as \emph{qudit}) participate in the virtual transitions that contribute to the dispersive shifts. The simplest manifestation of this is the contribution of the third level of the transmon to the dispersive shift, even under conditions when real occupation of this level is negligible. For specific level configurations relative to the resonator frequency, the two partial contributions to $\chi$ add up constructively and give rise to the straddling regime with characteristically large dispersive shifts.\cite{koch_charge-insensitive_2007,Boissonneault2012} Recently, enhanced dispersive shifts have also been predicted and confirmed experimentally for a flux qubit coupled to a resonator.\cite{Inomata2012} Similar to the transmon straddling regime, higher levels of the flux qubit are responsible for the observed shift enhancement.
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figure1.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) (a) General scheme of circuit quantum electrodynamics with capacitive coupling between one (or several) resonant mode(s) and a superconducting circuit acting as a qudit. Examples of superconducting qudits are atoms are (b) the Cooper pair box in the charging and transmon regime, and (c) the fluxonium circuit. \label{fig:circuitQED}}
\end{figure}
In this paper, we present theory that systematically describes the dispersive regime for a generic circuit QED system consisting of a multi-level qudit coupled capacitively to one or multiple harmonic modes. In Section \ref{sect-general}, we derive the general expression of the effective Hamiltonian governing the dispersive regime up to (and including) terms of fourth order in the coupling between the qudit and the harmonic modes. We verify that our results correctly reproduce the well-known expressions for the dispersive regime of the Cooper pair box in the charging and transmon regime. In Section \ref{fluxoniumcase} we then apply our results to the fluxonium system\cite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009,koch_charging_2009,phase_slip_2012} where, different from the Cooper pair box case, the lack of selection rules allows for a large number of terms to contribute to the dispersive shifts.
We compare our theoretical predictions with the data from reflection and spectroscopy experiments obtained previously by the Yale group,\cite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009,phase_slip_2012, Vlad-thesis} and summarize our findings and conclusions in Section \ref{conclusions}.
\section{Dispersive regime of charge-coupled circuit QED systems\label{sect-general}}
\subsection{General Model}
We consider a charge-coupled circuit QED system\cite{blais_cavity_2004,wallraff_strong_2004,schoelkopf_wiring_2008} as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:circuitQED}. The system contains a superconducting circuit\cite{makhlin_quantum-state_2001,devoret_superconducting_2003,clarke_superconducting_2008} acting as a quantum system with a discrete and anharmonic energy spectrum. Honoring the multi-level nature, we will refer to it as a qudit and denote its eigenstates and corresponding energies as $\ket{l}$ and $\epsilon_l$, respectively. Here, $l$ enumerates the eigenstates starting with $l=0$ for the qudit ground state. The qudit is coupled to microwave photons inside one or several\cite{johnson_quantum_2010}
superconducting transmission line resonator(s) with normal mode frequencies $\omega_j$. We consider a finite number of such modes enumerated by $j=1,2,\ldots$ The inclusion of the infinite set of higher modes inside each resonator is beyond the scope of the present paper, but has been subject of recent studies\cite{Filipp2011,blais-unpublished} indicating that the qubit size provides a natural cutoff in $j$.
The generic model Hamiltonian $H= H_0+ V$ describing the coupled circuit QED system thus captures the bare qudit and harmonic modes,
\begin{align}
H_0=&\sum_{j}\omega_j a^\dag_j a^{\phantom{\dag}}_j + \sum_l \epsilon_l \ket{l}\bra{l}
\label{Hamiltonian1}
\end{align}
and the interaction between them,
\begin{align}
{V}=&\sum_j\sum_{l,l'} g_{j;ll'} \ket{l}\bra{l'}(a_j+a_j^\dag).
\label{Hamiltonian2}
\end{align}
Here, $a_j$ ($a_j^\dag$) is the usual annihilation (creation) operator for a photon in mode $j$.
The interaction term describes the coupling between the relevant charge variable of the qudit, $(2e)\mathsf{N}$, and the electric voltage of the resonator at the qudit position, $V_j=V^\text{rms}_j(a_j^\dag+a_j)$. The resulting coupling coefficients are given by
\begin{equation}
g_{j;ll'} = g_j \boket{l}{ \mathsf{N}}{l'},
\end{equation}
where $g_j= 2e \beta_j V^\text{rms}_j$ abbreviates the qudit-independent part of the coupling strength and $\beta_j$ is a dimensionless capacitance ratio, typically of order unity.\cite{koch_charge-insensitive_2007} We set $\hbar=1$ and, in the following, only deviate from this convention when discussing concrete experimental parameters and observables.
The above Hamiltonian provides a generic model for simple, charge-coupled circuit QED systems. Adopting the appropriate qudit energy spectrum $\{\epsilon_l\}$ and coupling parameters $g_{j;ll'}$, Equations \eqref{Hamiltonian1} and \eqref{Hamiltonian2} may model, for instance, circuit QED systems based on the Cooper pair box, the transmon,\cite{koch_charge-insensitive_2007,schreier_suppressing_2008} or the recently developed fluxonium device.\cite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009} All three examples are summarized in Table \ref{table1}. Note that the interaction, in general, does \emph{not} conserve the overall excitation number $\sum_j a_j^\dag a_j+\sum_l l\ketbra{l}$ unless special selection rules restrict the coupling $g_{j;ll'}$ to nearest-neighbor qudit levels and rotating wave approximation (RWA) is assumed.
\begin{table}[b]
\centering
\caption{Level structure and selection rules for three different superconducting (sc) qubits, capacitively coupled to a single resonator mode. The frequency $\omega_p=\sqrt{8E_JE_C}$ denotes the plasma oscillation frequency, and $E_J$ and $E_C$ are the Josephson and charging energy, respectively. For the Cooper pair box in both the charging ($E_J\ll E_C$) and transmon $(E_J\gg E_C)$ regime, simplifying selection rules apply. No simple selection rules exist for the fluxonium device. (Abbreviations used: TLS -- two-level system, MLS -- multi-level system.)\label{table1}}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\textbf{sc qubit} & \textbf{level structure} & \textbf{selection rules} \\\hline\hline
CPB/charge & $\epsilon_0=0,\,\epsilon_{1}$ & $g_{10}=g_{01}=g$\\
& (treated as TLS) & other $g_{ll'}=0$ \\\hline
CPB/transmon & $\epsilon_{l}\simeq l\,\omega_p$ & $g_{l,l\pm1}$\\
& $\qquad-E_C(l^2+l)/2$ &other $g_{ll'}\simeq0$ \\
& (weakly anharmonic MLS) \\\hline
fluxonium & $\epsilon_{l}$ & no simple \\
& (anharmonic MLS) & selection rules
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Effective Hamiltonian for the Dispersive Regime}
The qudit-photon interaction $V$ facilitates transitions $\ket{l}\to\ket{l'}$ between qudit states which are accompanied by the emission or absorption of photons. The dispersive regime of circuit QED\cite{blais_cavity_2004,boissonneault_nonlinear_2008,boissonneault_dispersive_2009,zueco_qubit-oscillator_2009,Ong2011} describes the situation when such transitions are suppressed due to large detuning between the qudit transition frequencies and the relevant mode frequencies. The adiabatic elimination of the coupling $V$, appropriate when the energy mismatch is large compared to the coupling strength, has found many applications in different branches of physics and, depending on context, is known under several names including van-Vleck perturbation theory\cite{vanVleck_1926} and Schrieffer-Wolff transformation.\cite{schrieffer_1966}
Adiabatic elimination is illustrated most simply for an energy spectrum featuring a large gap between two groups of unperturbed states. By construction of an appropriate canonical transformation, one obtains an effective Hamiltonian in which the weak interaction of states above the gap with states below, is eliminated in favor of dressed states with energies slightly shifted relative to the unperturbed ones. The setting of two subspaces separated by a single large gap, however, is not a necessary requirement for the approach. The typical situation of the dispersive limit in circuit QED indeed differs from that simple setting: each unperturbed state $\ket{\vc{n}l}_0$ forms its individual subspace as long as transitions from one qudit state to another remain sufficiently detuned from the photon frequencies. Here, stats are labeled by the set of photon numbers $\vc{n}=(n_1,n_2,\ldots)$ and qudit states $l=0,1,\;ldots$ The contribution of \emph{several} virtual transitions to each energy level shift can make the physics of the dispersive regime quite rich. In part, this is already true for transmon-based circuit QED systems, where the $l=2$ state gives rise to enhanced level shifts in the straddling regime.\cite{koch_charge-insensitive_2007} Even more interesting features emerge in the dispersive regime of the fluxonium device, which we discuss in detail in Section \ref{fluxoniumcase}. Based on the lucid description given by Cohen-Tannoudji et al.,\cite{cohen-tannoudji_atom-photon_1998}
we next summarize the systematic procedure for obtaining the effective dispersive Hamiltonian of the circuit QED model specified in Eqs.\ \eqref{Hamiltonian1} and \eqref{Hamiltonian2}.
As a necessary condition for the validity of the dispersive approximation, all one-photon transitions among low-lying qudit states must be strongly detuned from the harmonic mode frequencies. To formulate this condition quantitatively, we introduce compact notation for transition energies and detunings: $\epsilon_{ll'}\equiv\epsilon_{l}-\epsilon_{l'}$ abbreviates the energy released in the qudit transition $l$$\to$$ l'$ (note that $\epsilon_{ll'}$ is negative when $l'>l$), and $\Delta_{j;ll'} \equiv\epsilon_{ll'}-\omega_j$ denotes the detuning between this transition and resonator mode $j$. In this notation, the condition for the dispersive regime reads
\begin{equation}\label{dispersivecondition}
|\Delta_{j;ll'}|\gg |g_{j;ll'}|\sqrt{n_j+1},
\end{equation}
where the photon number is typically restricted to $n_j=0$ when assuming dilution refrigerator temperatures $k_{\!B}T\ll\omega_j$, but may reach higher values when the system is driven with microwave tones.
Condition \eqref{dispersivecondition} motivates the perturbative treatment of the interaction $V$ which couples the unperturbed $H_0$ eigenstates $\ket{\vc{n}l}_0$.\footnote{Note that the subscript ``0'' for bare states is suppressed in the text up to Eq.\ \eqref{dispersivecondition}, but is stated explicitly from here on to distinguish bare from dressed states.} Each eigenstate of $H$ is a dressed state with the majority of all probability amplitudes in a single state $\ket{\vc{n}l}_0$. As a result, the labeling of bare states can be maintained for the dressed eigenstates $\ket{\vc{n}l}=e^{-iS}\ket{\vc{n}l}_0$. The diagonalization of $H$, up to a specified order in $V$, is achieved by the unitary transformation ${H}'=e^{i {S}} H e^{-i {S}}$. Note that, by construction, eigenstates of $H'$ are just the unperturbed states $\ket{\vc{n}l}_0$.
The procedure\cite{cohen-tannoudji_atom-photon_1998} for obtaining the required hermitean generator $S$ now follows from the two conditions that $H'$ be diagonal and the generator $S$ be off-diagonal in the unperturbed basis:
\begin{equation}\label{diagonalcondition}
P_{\vc{n}l}\,H'P_{\vc{n}'l'}\sim\delta_{\vc{n}\vc{n}'}\delta_{ll'} \quad\text{and}\quad
P_{\vc{n}l}\,SP_{\vc{n}l}=0.
\end{equation}
Here, $P_{\vc{n}l}\equiv\ket{\vc{n}l}_0{_0\bra{\vc{n}l}}$ is the projector onto a single unperturbed state. Introducing an auxiliary parameter $\lambda$ for counting powers in $V$, one constructs
$S= \sum_{m=1}^{\infty}{\lambda}^m {S}_m$ and $ H'={H}_0+ \sum_{m=1}^{\infty}{\lambda}^m {H}'_m$ order by order, by comparing with the nested commutator series
\begin{equation}
{H}'=e^{i {S}} H e^{-i {S}}=\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{m!}[i {S}, {H}]_m
\end{equation}
and enforcing the conditions \eqref{diagonalcondition}. (For further details, see Appendix \ref{adiabatic}.)
In practice, this procedure quickly becomes cumbersome for terms beyond second order. Since terms of fourth order in the interaction will turn out to be relevant for the dispersive regime of fluxonium, we devise a way to bypass the evaluation of fourth-order nested commutators as follows. Note that there is a natural equivalence between the construction of the generator $S$ on one hand, and the ordinary form of time-independent perturbation theory (yielding corrections to energies and states) on the other hand. The two approaches merely differ in whether the basis change to the approximate eigenbasis is carried out as an active or passive transformation. In the first approach, the perturbation determines the generator $S$ which brings the Hamiltonian $H$ into the diagonal form of $H'$. In the second approach, the perturbation affects the dressed states which one constructs explicitly in the unperturbed basis as $\ket{\vc{n}l}=e^{-iS}\ket{\vc{n}l}_0$. Fortunately, obtaining higher-order corrections for eigenenergies in the second approach generally does not involve nested commutators. Thus, we first establish the generic structure of $H'$ up to the desired order, leaving all energy coefficients of individual terms to be determined. We then apply the inverse unitary transformation (cut off at the same order) and obtain the effective Hamiltonian $H_\text{eff}=e^{-iS}H'e^{iS}$. Finally, we employ ordinary perturbation theory to find the eigenenergy corrections and extract from them the undetermined energy coefficients to complete the effective Hamiltonian.
The generic form of $H'$ is dictated by the conditions from Eq.\ \eqref{diagonalcondition}, and is easily obtained as follows. Since Eq.\ \eqref{diagonalcondition} excludes all coupling between different subspaces, $H'$ can be expressed as
\begin{align}
{H}'=&\sum_{\vc{n},l} {P}_{\vc{n}l} {H}' {P}_{\vc{n}l}= \sum_{\vc{n},l} E_{\vc{n}l}{P}_{\vc{n}l}.
\end{align}
Any operator contributing to $H'=\sum_kH_k'$ must be diagonal in the unperturbed basis, i.e., ${P}_{\vc{n}l} {H_k'} {P}_{\vc{n}l} \neq 0$.
Evidently, each such contribution can only consist of harmonic-mode number operators and qudit projectors. The resulting general form, after performing the inverse unitary transformation, is
\begin{equation}\label{hkprime}
H_{\text{eff};k}=\alpha_k \prod_j (\mathsf{a}_j^\dag \mathsf{a}_j)^{N_{jk}}\ketbra{l_k}.
\end{equation}
Here $N_{jk}\ge 0$ are integer exponents, $\alpha_k$ is an energy coefficient, and the harmonic oscillator and projection operators are dressed-state operators, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{a}_j=e^{iS}a_j\,e^{-iS} \quad \text{and} \quad \ketbra{l_k}=e^{iS}\ket{l_k}_0{_0\bra{l_k}}e^{-iS}.
\end{equation}
Since the interaction ${V}$ is of order one and consists of a sum over operator terms with only one harmonic ladder operator each, the perturbation order $\lambda^m$ of any contribution~\eqref{hkprime} cannot be smaller than the number of ladder operators, i.e, $m\ge 2\sum_j N_{jk}$. This provides us with the necessary information to obtain the generic structure of the effective Hamiltonian.
\emph{Second-order terms.}---The generic structure of the effective Hamiltonian in second-order perturbation theory is
\begin{align}\label{second}
\nonumber H_{\text{eff}}=& \sum_{j}\omega_j \mathsf{a}^\dag_j \mathsf{a}_j + \sum_l \epsilon_l \ket{l}\bra{l} \\
& +\sum_{j,l} \chi_{j;l} \mathsf{a}_{j}^{\dag} \mathsf{a}_j \ketbra{l} +\sum_l\kappa_l\ketbra{l}.
\end{align}
Here, the third and fourth terms describe dispersive shifts of ac-Stark type and qudit level shifts of Lamb type. As usual, the ac-Stark shifts may manifest as harmonic-mode frequency shifts which depend on the occupied qudit level $l$, $\omega_{j} \to \omega_j+\chi_{j;l}$, or as qudit energy shifts which depend on photon numbers, $\epsilon_{l}\to\epsilon_l + \sum_j \chi_{j;l}\mathsf{a}^\dag_j \mathsf{a}_j$.\cite{gambetta_qubit-photon_2006,schuster_resolving_2007}
Note that terms of the form $\Delta\omega_j \mathsf{a}_{j}^{\dag} \mathsf{a}_j$ corresponding to pure shifts of resonant mode frequencies may be absorbed by letting $\chi_{j;l}\to\chi_{j;l}+\Delta\omega_j$. To determine the coefficients $\chi_{j;l}$ and $\kappa_l$ we use the ordinary expression for the second-order energy correction:
\begin{align}\label{secondorderenergy}
E_{\vc{n}l}^{(2)}
= {\sum_{\vc{n}'l'}}' \frac{{_0\boket{\vc{n}l}{V}{\vc{n}'l'}}_0{_0\boket{\vc{n}'l'}{V}{\vc{n}l}}_0}{E_{\vc{n}l}^{(0)}-E_{\vc{n}'l'}^{(0)}},
\end{align}
where the primed sum indicates that the term $\vc{n}'l'=\vc{n}l$ is to be omitted. For further evaluation, we separate the interaction into photon creation and annihilation terms of the individual modes, $V=\sum_j(V_j^++V_j^-)$ where
\begin{align}\label{vpm}
{V}_j^+ = \sum_{l,l'}g_{j;l'l}\mathsf{a}_j^\dag \ket{l'}\bra{l} \quad \text{and} \quad V_j^-=(V_j^+)^\dag.
\end{align}
The product of transition matrix elements in the numerator of Eq.\ \eqref{secondorderenergy} selects the combinations $V_j^+V_j^-$ and $V_j^-V_j^+$, which change the photon number by one and subsequently undo this change. The virtual transitions affecting photon number and qudit levels are illustrated conveniently in the ladder diagram shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig-ladder1}. They yield
\[\textstyle
E_{\vc{n}l}^{(2)}=\sum_{j,l'}(n_j[\chi_{j;ll'}-\chi_{j;l'l}]+\chi_{j;ll'})
\]
for the second-order energy correction, where
\begin{equation}
\chi_{j;ll'} \equiv {\smash |g_{j;ll'}}|^2/\Delta_{j;ll'}
\end{equation}
abbreviates partial dispersive shifts. The wanted energy coefficients in Eq.~\eqref{second} can now be read off. The resulting expressions are given by
\begin{align}\label{coeffs1}
\chi_{j;l}
= \sum_{l'}(\chi_{j;ll'} - \chi_{j;l'l}) \quad \text{and} \quad
\kappa_l
= \sum_{j,l'} \chi_{j;ll'}.
\end{align}
Note that both expressions include a summation over all qudit levels $l'$. Thus, higher qudit levels -- even when unoccupied -- may contribute substantially to the dispersive shifts of photon frequencies and lower qudit levels. This fact is also clearly illustrated with the level diagram shown in Fig.\ \ref{haroche}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figure2.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Second-order ladder diagram showing the contribution of harmonic mode $j$ to the eigenenergy correction for state $\ket{\vc{n},l}$. The two interfering paths correspond to virtual transitions which intermediately decrease ($V_j^+V_j^-$) and increase ($V_j^-V_j^+$) the photon number in mode $j$. Without selection rules, summation includes all qudit levels $l_1$. $\vc{e}_j$ denotes the unit vector with ``direction'' $j$. \label{fig-ladder1}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figure3.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Level diagram illustrating the second-order dispersive shifts for a multi-level qudit coupled to a single photon mode. For each column (definite photon number), solid lines show the bare energy levels with $l=0, 1 \ \text{and}\ 2$ qudit excitations. Diagonal dashed lines show the relevant couplings between the $l=0, 1$ levels with $n_a$ photons (middle column) to states with $n_a\pm1$ photons (red lines: coupling $l=0,1$ states, blue lines: coupling to higher states). Note that higher levels (e.g.\ $l=2$) participate in the couplings and affect the dispersive shifts. The shifted levels for the $l=0,1$ states are shown as horizontal dashed lines. In this particular example, the qudit transition $\epsilon_{21}$ is nearly resonant with the photon frequency $\omega_a$ leading to a large shift of the $l=1$ level.
\label{haroche}}
\end{figure}
We have verified that the same expressions are obtained with the active transformation method (see Appendix \ref{adiabatic}). In addition,
one can readily confirm that Eqs.~\eqref{second} and \eqref{coeffs1} correctly reproduce the following well-known results. First, for the Jaynes-Cummings model with a two-level system (TLS) coupled to a single resonator mode
we have $g_{1;ll'}=g$ for $(l,l')=(1,0)$ or $(0,1)$. For all other choices, $g_{1;ll'}$ vanishes. We thus obtain
\begin{align}
H_\text{eff; JC}
=& \omega \mathsf{a}^\dag \mathsf{a} + \frac{\epsilon_{10}+\chi_{01}}{2}\sigma_z +\chi_{01}\mathsf{a}^\dag \mathsf{a}\sigma_z+\text{const.}
\end{align}
which agrees with the known result.\cite{blais_cavity_2004} Second, we consider the multi-level transmon device coupled to one resonator mode.\cite{koch_charge-insensitive_2007} In this case, there is a selection rule allowing only for coupling of nearest-neighbor transmon levels, i.e. $g_{1;ll'}=0$ for $l'\not=l\pm1$. With this, we recover
\begin{align}
&H_\text{eff; transmon}=\omega \mathsf{a}^\dag \mathsf{a} + \sum_l \epsilon_l \ket{l}\bra{l}\\\nonumber
&\qquad+ \sum_{l>0} (\chi_{l,l-1}-\chi_{l+1,l})\mathsf{a}^\dag \mathsf{a}\ket{l}\bra{l} + \sum_{l>0} \chi_{l,l-1}\ket{l}\bra{l},
\end{align}
which correctly leads to the expression $(\chi_{01}-\chi_{12}/2)\mathsf{a}^\dag \mathsf{a}\sigma_z$ for the ac-Stark term upon projection onto the subspace spanned by the $l=0$ and $1$ qudit states.\cite{koch_charge-insensitive_2007}
\emph{Fourth-order terms.}---The fourth-order terms of the Hamiltonian take the form
\begin{align}\label{gen4}
\nonumber
&H_{\text{eff}}=[\text{Eq}.\ \eqref{second}]+\sum_{j,l} \chi'_{j;l} \mathsf{a}_j^\dag \mathsf{a}_j \ketbra{l} +\sum_l \kappa'_l\ketbra{l}\\
&+ \sum_{j,l}\eta_{j;l} (\mathsf{a}_j^\dag \mathsf{a}_j)^2 \ketbra{l}
+ \sum_{i\not=j,l}\xi_{ij;l} \mathsf{a}_i^\dag \mathsf{a}_i \mathsf{a}_j^\dag \mathsf{a}_j \ketbra{l}.
\end{align}
Beyond additional corrections to terms already present in second order [first line of Eq.\ \eqref{gen4}], the fourth-order terms also introduce interaction among harmonic modes of self-Kerr and cross-Kerr type. We denote the corresponding coefficients by $\eta_{j;l}$ and $\xi_{ij;l}$, respectively. For simplicity (and also motivated by the experimental data to be discussed in Section \ref{fluxoniumcase}), we focus our discussion on a set of two harmonic modes and refer to them as $\mathsf{a}$ and $\mathsf{b}$ mode.
The fourth-order corrections to the eigenenergies are given by\cite{fourthorder}
\begin{align}\label{4thorderenergy}
E^{(4)}_\textsc{n} ={ \sum_{\textsc{m},\textsc{p},\textsc{q}}}' \frac{V_\textsc{nm}V_\textsc{mp}V_\textsc{pq}V_\textsc{qn}}{E_\textsc{nm} E_\textsc{np} E_\textsc{nq}}
- { \sum_\textsc{m}}' \frac{\abs{V_\textsc{nm}}^2}{E_\textsc{nm}^2}
{ \sum_\textsc{p}}' \frac{\abs{V_\textsc{np}}^2}{E_\textsc{np}} .
\end{align}
Here, $\textsc{n}$, $\textsc{m}$, $\textsc{p}$ and $\textsc{q}$ are multi-indices of the form $\{\vc{n},l\}$. Energy differences in the denominators are given by $E_{\textsc{nm}}\equiv E^{(0)}_\textsc{n} - E^{(0)}_\textsc{m}$. Matrix elements are abbreviated by $V_\textsc{nn'}\equiv \langle \textsc{n} | V | \textsc{n}'\rangle$.
Terms involving diagonal matrix elements have been dropped in Eq.\ \eqref{4thorderenergy} since $V_\textsc{nn}=0$ in the cases of interest. We next sketch the evaluation of the fourth-order corrections and provide the relevant ladder diagrams.
We denote the two terms on the right-hand side of Eq.\ \eqref{4thorderenergy} by (\textsc{i}) and (\textsc{ii}) and start with discussing the latter. Term (\textsc{ii}) is the product of two factors with a structure nearly identical to the second-order expression \eqref{secondorderenergy} and thus evaluates to
\begin{align}\nonumber
E^{(4)\textsc{(ii)}}_{\vc{n}l}=-&\sum_{j,l_1}{\smash |g_{j;ll_1}}|^2\bigg(n_j[\Delta_{j;ll_1}^{-2}-\Delta_{j;l_1l}^{-2}]+\Delta_{j;ll_1}^{-2}\bigg)\\
\times&\sum_{j',l_2}(n_{j'}[\chi_{j';ll_2}-\chi_{j';l_2l}]+\chi_{j';ll_2}).
\end{align}
By expanding this expression, we identify contributions to each of the fourth-order terms given in Eq.\ \eqref{gen4}. In addition to the simple poles like $(\epsilon_{ll'}-\omega_j)^{-1}$ which already appear in the second-order energy coefficients, new double and triple poles with the same denominators $(\epsilon_{ll'}-\omega_j)$ emerge.
Next, we turn to term (\textsc{i}) in Eq.\ \eqref{4thorderenergy} which cannot be factorized. We classify the contributions from (\textsc{i}) in terms of ladder diagrams. The rules governing these ladder diagrams are as follows:
\begin{enumerate
\item Each ladder step is labeled by a multi-index $(\vc{n}_m,l_m)$ specifying the occupation of the harmonic modes and the qudit level.
\item Starting from the right, each subsequent ladder step is related to the previous one by a virtual transition effected by the operator $V_j^\pm$ (label on the arrow).
\item The set of all possible paths is constrained by the condition that the left-most state must coincide with the right-most state $(\vc{n},l)$. Thus, each path must contain as many $V_j^+$ as $V_j^-$.
\item Each path traversing from right to left gives a contribution involving summation over all intermediate qudit levels $l_1,l_2,l_3$.
\item The product of matrix elements in the numerator of each term is determined by the sequence of arrow labels in each path. For example, the sequence $V_1^-V_2^- V_2^+ V_1^+$ results in the product $g_{1;ll_3}g_{2;l_3l_2}g_{2;l_2l_1}g_{1;ll_1}$.
\item The denominator of each term consists of a product of three energy differences of the form $E^{(0)}_{\vc{n}l}-E^{(0)}_{\vc{n}'l'}$ where $(\vc{n}',l')$ labels the virtual intermediate states on the inner three ladder steps.
\end{enumerate}
The extraction of the various energy coefficients can further be simplified by noting that the ladder diagrams also directly specify the operator structure of the resulting terms in the effective Hamiltonian. For example, the numerator $V^-_1V^+_2V^-_2V^+_1$ is associated with terms of the structure $\mathsf{a}_1\mathsf{a}_2^\dag \mathsf{a}_2 \mathsf{a}_1^\dag=( \mathsf{a}_1^\dag \mathsf{a}_1+1) \mathsf{a}_2^\dag \mathsf{a}_2$.
We first treat the single-mode contributions shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig3}(a). For each given mode $j$, the diagram gives rise to six different paths resulting in terms of the form
\begin{equation}\label{ladder1}
\sum_l {\sum_{l_1,l_2,l_3}} \frac{g_{j;ll_3}g_{j;l_3l_2}g_{j;l_2l_1}g_{j;l_1l}}{E_3E_2E_1} \mathsf{op}(\mathsf{a}_j,\mathsf{a}_j^\dag)\ketbra{l}.
\end{equation}
The corresponding energy denominators and operators are specified in the table accompanying Fig.\ \ref{fig3}. The first and fourth terms in Fig.\ \ref{fig3}(b) exhibit new poles absent in second-order perturbation theory. In frequency space, these poles occur when the conditions $\epsilon_{ll_2}\pm 2\omega_j=0$ are met and thus signal additional resonances when qudit transitions match the energy of \emph{two} photons in mode $j$. We will argue below that such resonances have indeed been observed in previous experiments.\cite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009,phase_slip_2012,Vlad-thesis}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figure4.pdf}\\[-0.4cm]
{\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l|l}
& $E_3$ & $E_2$ & $E_1$ & $\mathsf{op}$ \\\hline\hline
$V_j^+V_j^+V_j^-V_j^-$ & $\epsilon_{ll_3}+\omega_j$ & $\epsilon_{ll_2}+2\omega_j$ & $\epsilon_{ll_1}+\omega_j$ & $\mathsf{n}_j(\mathsf{n}_j-1)$\\
$V_j^+V_j^-V_j^+V_j^-$ & $\epsilon_{ll_3}+\omega_j$ & $(\epsilon_{ll_2})'$ & $\epsilon_{ll_1}+\omega_j$ & $(\mathsf{n}_j)^2$\\
$V_j^+V_j^-V_j^-V_j^+$ & $\epsilon_{ll_3}+\omega_j$ & $(\epsilon_{ll_2})'$ & $\epsilon_{ll_1}-\omega_j$ & $\mathsf{n}_j(\mathsf{n}_j+1)$\\
$V_j^-V_j^-V_j^+V_j^+$ & $\epsilon_{ll_3}-\omega_j$ & $\epsilon_{ll_2}-2\omega_j$ & $\epsilon_{ll_1}-\omega_j$ & $(\mathsf{n}_j+2)(\mathsf{n}_j+1)$\\
$V_j^+V_j^-V_j^+V_j^-$ & $\epsilon_{ll_3}-\omega_j$ & $(\epsilon_{ll_2})'$ & $\epsilon_{ll_1}+\omega_j$ & $(\mathsf{n}_j+1)^2$\\
$V_j^+V_j^-V_j^-V_j^+$ & $\epsilon_{ll_3}-\omega_j$ & $(\epsilon_{ll_2})'$ & $\epsilon_{ll_1}-\omega_j$ & $\mathsf{n}_j(\mathsf{n}_j+1)$\\
\end{tabular}}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Single-mode ladder diagram involving only virtual excitations of mode $j$. (b) The corresponding table specifies terms according to Eq.\ \eqref{ladder1}. An additional prime on $E_2$ signals exclusion of the term $l_2=l$ from the sum over $l_2$. \label{fig3}}
\end{figure}
With this motivation in mind, we turn to the remaining fourth-order contributions shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig456}. All of them are of dual-mode type, i.e., they include participation of two different harmonic modes in the virtual transitions. For clarity, we label the two modes $j=a$ and $j'=b\not=a$ in the following. All resulting contributions can be cast into the form
\begin{equation}\label{dual-mode}
\sum_l {\sum_{l_1,l_2,l_3}} \frac{g_4g_3g_2g_1}{E_3E_2E_1} \mathsf{op}(\mathsf{a},\mathsf{a}^\dag,\mathsf{b},\mathsf{b}^\dag)\ketbra{l}.
\end{equation}
where $g_\nu=g_{j_\nu;l_\nu l_{\nu-1}}$ with $j_\nu\in\{a,b\}$ and $l_4\equiv l_0\equiv l$. The harmonic lowering operators for the two modes are now simply denoted by $\mathsf{a}$, $\mathsf{b}$. All the possible paths are listed in Fig.\ \ref{fig456}, and the corresponding coefficients and operators are summarized in Fig.\ \ref{fig456}(d).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figure5.pdf}\\[-0.4cm]
{\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l|l}
& $E_3$ & $E_2$ & $E_1$ & $\mathsf{op}$ \\\hline\hline
$V_b^-V_b^+V_a^-V_a^+$ & $\epsilon_{ll_3}-\omega_b$ & $(\epsilon_{ll_2})'$ & $\epsilon_{ll_1}-\omega_a$ & $(\mathsf{n}_a+1)(\mathsf{n}_b+1)$\\
$V_b^+V_b^-V_a^+V_a^-$ & $\epsilon_{ll_3}+\omega_b$ & $(\epsilon_{ll_2})'$ & $\epsilon_{ll_1}-\omega_a$ & $(\mathsf{n}_a+1)\mathsf{n}_b$\\
$V_b^-V_b^+V_a^+V_a^-$ & $\epsilon_{ll_3}-\omega_b$ & $(\epsilon_{ll_2})'$ & $\epsilon_{ll_1}+\omega_a$ & $\mathsf{n}_a(\mathsf{n}_b+1)$\\
$V_b^+V_b^-V_a^+V_a^-$ & $\epsilon_{ll_3}+\omega_b$ & $(\epsilon_{ll_2})'$ & $\epsilon_{ll_1}+\omega_a$ & $\mathsf{n}_a \mathsf{n}_b$\\\hline
$V_a^-V_b^-V_b^+V_a^+$ & $\epsilon_{ll_3}-\omega_a$ & $\epsilon_{ll_2}-\omega_a-\omega_b$ & $\epsilon_{ll_1}-\omega_a$ & $(\mathsf{n}_a+1)(\mathsf{n}_b+1)$\\
$V_a^-V_b^+V_b^-V_a^+$ & $\epsilon_{ll_3}-\omega_a$ & $\epsilon_{ll_2}-\omega_a+\omega_b$ & $\epsilon_{ll_1}-\omega_a$ & $(\mathsf{n}_a+1)\mathsf{n}_b$\\
$V_a^+V_b^-V_b^+V_a^-$ & $\epsilon_{ll_3}+\omega_a$ & $\epsilon_{ll_2}+\omega_a-\omega_b$ & $\epsilon_{ll_1}+\omega_a$ & $\mathsf{n}_a(\mathsf{n}_b+1)$\\
$V_a^+V_b^+V_b^-V_a^-$ & $\epsilon_{ll_3}+\omega_a$ & $\epsilon_{ll_2}+\omega_a+\omega_b$ & $\epsilon_{ll_1}+\omega_a$ & $\mathsf{n}_a \mathsf{n}_b$\\\hline
$V_b^-V_a^-V_b^+V_a^+$ & $\epsilon_{ll_3}-\omega_b$ & $\epsilon_{ll_2}-\omega_a-\omega_b$ & $\epsilon_{ll_1}-\omega_a$ & $(\mathsf{n}_a+1)(\mathsf{n}_b+1)$\\
$V_b^+V_a^-V_b^-V_a^+$ & $\epsilon_{ll_3}+\omega_b$ & $\epsilon_{ll_2}-\omega_a+\omega_b$ & $\epsilon_{ll_1}-\omega_a$ & $(\mathsf{n}_a+1)\mathsf{n}_b$\\
$V_b^-V_a^+V_b^+V_a^-$ & $\epsilon_{ll_3}-\omega_b$ & $\epsilon_{ll_2}+\omega_a-\omega_b$ & $\epsilon_{ll_1}+\omega_a$ & $\mathsf{n}_a(\mathsf{n}_b+1)$\\
$V_b^+V_a^+V_b^-V_a^-$ & $\epsilon_{ll_3}+\omega_b$ & $\epsilon_{ll_2}+\omega_a+\omega_b$ & $\epsilon_{ll_1}+\omega_a$ & $\mathsf{n}_a\mathsf{n}_b$
\end{tabular}}
\caption{(Color online) (a)--(c) Dual-mode ladder diagrams contributing to fourth-order eigenenergy corrections. For a given selection of two modes, labeled $a$ and $b$, each diagram has an associated diagram obtained by interchanging the roles of $a$ and $b$. Only for (a) one finds that label interchange ($a\leftrightarrow b$) yields an identical expression for the resulting contribution. (d) Table detailing the resulting contributions according to Eq.\ \eqref{dual-mode}.\label{fig456}}
\end{figure}
New types of poles arise in the ladder diagrams of Fig. \ref{fig456}(b) and (c) when one of the resonance conditions
\[ \epsilon_{ll_2} \pm (\omega_a+\omega_b)=0 \quad\text{or} \quad \epsilon_{ll_2} \pm (\omega_b- \omega_a)=0\]
is met. Such resonances occur whenever a qudit transition matches either the energy required for placing one photon each in mode $a$ and mode $b$, or the energy required to convert an $a$ photon into a $b$ photon. We find that these additional resonances lead to observable effects and can be pinpointed in the data from previous experiments,\cite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009,phase_slip_2012,Vlad-thesis} as we will discuss in the following section.
\section{Application: dispersive regime of the fluxonium device\label{fluxoniumcase}}
Equipped with the general expressions for the effective Hamiltonian, we now study their concrete application to the fluxonium circuit.\cite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009} The fluxonium device is of particular interest in this context since experiments have shown surprisingly large dispersive shifts\cite{phase_slip_2012} and, as we will see, transitions between fluxonium states are not strongly restricted by selection rules. The simplest model of fluxonium is obtained by shunting a small Josephson junction with the large kinetic inductance from a Josephson junction array [see Fig.\ \ref{fig:circuitQED}(c)]. For fluxonium, the flux-dependent eigenenergies $\epsilon_l(\Phi_\text{ext})$ and corresponding eigenstates $\{\ket{l}\}$ are thus determined by the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}\label{Hf}
H_\text{f} = 4E_C {\mathsf{N}}^2 -E_J \cos(\varphi-2\pi\Phi_{\text{ext}}/\Phi_0)+\frac{1}{2}E_L{\varphi}^2.
\end{equation}
Here, the operator $ \mathsf{N}= {Q}/2e$ describes the charge on the junction capacitance (in units of the Cooper pair charge) . Its conjugate operator $ {\varphi}=2\pi {\Phi}/\Phi_0$ describes the loop flux in such units that $\varphi$ coincides with the phase difference across the junction. Circuit quantization imposes the commutation relation $[ {\varphi}, \mathsf{N}]= i$ between the two operators. Analogous to the usual relation between position and momentum operators, the charge operator $ \mathsf{N}$ thus takes the form $ \mathsf{N}=-i\frac{d}{d\varphi}$ in $\varphi$ representation. The Hamiltonian $H_\text{f}$ is accompanied by the usual boundary condition $\lim_{\varphi \rightarrow \pm \infty} \psi_l(\varphi) =0$.
While analytical expressions can be obtained in the limit of very small inductive energies $E_L$,\cite{koch_charging_2009} numerical diagonalization remains the most useful approach for the intermediate parameter values realized in the experiments.\cite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009, phase_slip_2012, exp_parameters} Employing the harmonic oscillator basis (which diagonalizes $H_\text{f}$ for $E_J=0$) and taking the necessary precautions for convergence with respect to the basis truncation, we obtain the energy spectrum and eigenstates and calculate the charge matrix elements $\boket{l}{ \mathsf{N}}{l'}$ entering the coupling parameters $g_{j;ll'}$. For the interested reader, we provide details of the numerical diagonalization scheme in Appendix \ref{app:diag}.
Figure \ref{chargematrix} shows representative results for the charge matrix elements obtained in this way, using model parameters which match the experimental values.\cite{exp_parameters} For the example of magnetic flux $\Phi_{\text{ext}}=0.4 \Phi_0$, Fig.\ \ref{chargematrix}(a) shows a broad distribution for $\boket{l}{ \mathsf{N}}{l'}$m indicating that no strict selection rules apply for the off-diagonal charge matrix elements in the case of fluxonium. Only at special points where the external flux in units of the flux quantum, $\Phi_{\text{ext}}/\Phi_0$, is integer or half-integer, we recover an odd-even selection rule caused by the reflection symmetry of the potential with respect to $\varphi=0$. Away from these special points, reflection symmetry is broken and strict selection rules disappear. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that certain matrix elements are about an order of magnitude larger than others. The underlying regularity can be explained by quasi-selection rules that can be derived analytically \footnote{Guanyu Zhu et al. (in preparation).}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{figure6.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Magnitude of the charge matrix elements $|\boket{l}{\mathsf{N}}{l'}|$ between fluxonium states $l$ and $l'$, for external magnetic flux $\Phi_{\text{ext}}=0.4 \Phi_0$. The parameters used match the experimental valuest.\cite{exp_parameters} Note the absence of a nearest-neighbor selection rule.
(b) The magnitude of the charge matrix elements between ground state and low-lying excited states, plotted as a function of external magnetic flux. An even/odd selection rule holds for zero and half-integer flux quantum due to parity. Away from these special flux values, simple selection rules are absent. The vertical line marks the flux value $0.4 \Phi_0$ used in (a).}
\label{chargematrix}
\end{figure}
In circuit QED experiments,\cite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009, phase_slip_2012} the fluxonium circuit is coupled capacitively to a microwave resonator. To account for an additional harmonic mode observed in the experiment \footnote{We speculate that this mode in fact represents one of the difference modes of the Josephson junction array, see D.~G.~Ferguson et al., arXiv:1208.5747 (2012).} we include coupling to two relevant harmonic modes within a generalized JC Hamiltonian. The first, associated with raising and lowering operators $\mathsf{a}^\dag,\mathsf{a}$, describes the fundamental mode of the resonator, with frequency $\omega_a$. In the experiment, the resonator supports quarter-wavelength modes only. The lowest harmonic thus has a much higher frequency of $3\omega_a$, and we will neglect the corrections due to higher harmonics in the following. The second mode represents an observed array mode with frequency $\omega_b$ and coupling strength $g_b$. Both parameters are obtained from a fit to the spectrum in Fig.\ \ref{artificialspectrum}(a).\cite{exp_parameters}
The generic form of the effective Hamiltonian derived in the previous section [see Eq.\ \eqref{gen4}] now takes the concrete form
\begin{align}\label{4thordereffective}
&H_\text{eff}=\omega_a\mathsf{a}^\dag \mathsf{a} + \omega_b \mathsf{b}^\dag \mathsf{b} + \sum_l(\epsilon_l +\kappa_l+\kappa_l')\ketbra{l}\\
\nonumber & +\sum_l \ketbra{l} \bigg[ (\chi_{a;l}+\chi'_{a;l}) \mathsf{a}^\dag \mathsf{a} + (\chi_{b;l}+\chi'_{b;l}) \mathsf{b}^\dag \mathsf{b}\\
\nonumber &\qquad\qquad\quad+\eta_{a;l} (\mathsf{a}^\dag \mathsf{a})^2 + \eta_{b;l} (\mathsf{b}^\dag \mathsf{b})^2 + \xi_{ab;l} \mathsf{a}^\dag \mathsf{a} \mathsf{b}^\dag \mathsf{b}\bigg],
\end{align}
where the energies of fluxonium levels as well as their coupling strengths are tunable by the external magnetic flux, $\epsilon_l=\epsilon_l(\Phi_\text{ext})$ and $g_{j;ll'}=g_{j;ll'}(\Phi_\text{ext})$. The ordinary ac-Stark shifts $\chi_{a;l}$ given in Eq.\ \eqref{coeffs1} are now acquire fourth-order contributions. Fourth-order terms are also responsible for the interaction terms given by $\eta_{a;l} (\mathsf{a}^\dag \mathsf{a})^2 \ketbra{l}$ (self-Kerr) and $\xi_{ab;l} \mathsf{a}^\dag \mathsf{a} \mathsf{b}^\dag \mathsf{b}\ketbra{l}$ (cross-Kerr). These terms induce additional nonlinearity and result in dependence of the photon frequencies on the occupation numbers $n_a$ and $n_b$. The effective Hamiltonian for the dispersive regime of the fluxonium circuit enables us to study the two central types of measurements performed in Refs.~\onlinecite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009,phase_slip_2012}, and \onlinecite{Vlad-thesis}.
\subsection{Measurements in the dispersive regime\label{sec:measurements}}
The first measurement type is the direct homodyne detection of the reflected amplitude of a single microwave tone. The frequency of this tone is fixed close to the bare resonator frequency, and the voltage of the reflected signal is recorded as a function of magnetic flux. This measurement primarily probes the dispersive shift of the resonator frequency (i.e., the $\mathsf{a}$ mode) given by $\chi_{a;l}$ to second order, and by
\begin{align}\label{nonlinearshifts}
\mu_{a;l}(n_a, n_b) \equiv\,&E_{n_a+1,n_b;l}-E_{n_a,n_b;l}-\omega_a\\\nonumber
=&\chi_{a;l} + \chi'_{a;l}+(2n_a+1)\eta_{a;l}+n_b \xi_{ab; l}
\end{align}
when including fourth order corrections. Here, the energies $E_{n_a,n_b;l}$ are obtained as the eigenvalues of the effective Hamiltonian, Eq.~\eqref{4thordereffective}. We assume that the fluxonium circuit occupies a fixed level $l$, where usually the ground state $l=0$ is the appropriate state maintained during the measurement. Note that the Kerr terms in fourth order lead to an additional dependence of dispersive shifts on the excitations numbers $n_a$ and $n_b$.
Two-tone spectroscopy is the second measurement type and probes the fluxonium transition frequencies via the $l$ dependence of the resonator shift. The first tone with frequency $\omega_{d1}$ close to the bare resonator frequency acts in a way similar to the one used in the first measurement type. (As an alternative to the reflected amplitude, the phase shift $\theta$ of the reflected tone may be recorded.) A second drive tone is applied and its frequency $\omega_{d2}$ varied over a wide range with the goal of inducing Rabi oscillations between the ground state and an excited state of the fluxonium circuit. The transfer of probability amplitude to higher levels is accompanied by a change in the dispersive shift of the resonator. In the simplest case, spectroscopy thus probes the corresponding change in the dispersive shift given by $\chi_{a;l} - \chi_{a;0}$ and $\mu_{a;l} - \mu_{a;0}$ in second and fourth order, respectively.
The detected phase shift $\theta_l$ has a characteristic dependence on the detuning between drive frequency $\omega_d$ and the effective resonator frequency $\omega_a+\chi_{a;l}$ (or $\mu_{a;l}$). To leading order, it follows the characteristic form\cite{phase_slip_2012}
\begin{equation}\label{arctanfunction}
\theta_l \approx 2 \ \text{arctan}\bigg[ \frac{2 Q}{\omega_a}(\omega_d-\omega_a-\chi_{a;l})\bigg].
\end{equation}
Here, $Q$ is the quality factor of the resonator and $\chi$ may be replaced by $\mu$ when considering fourth-order corrections.
In our subsequent discussion of direct homodyne detection and spectroscopy, the pole structure of the shifts $\chi_{a;l}$ and $\mu_{a;l}$ will play a crucial role. Poles are associated with resonances between fluxonium transitions and harmonic mode excitations, and signal the breakdown of perturbation theory within some frequency window centered at the pole. Since fluxonium levels are tuned by varying the external magnetic flux $\Phi_\text{ext}$, frequency windows will correspond to flux windows in the experiments to be discussed next.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figure7.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Dispersive shift $\chi_{a;0}$ of the resonator frequency for fluxonium ground state, obtained by second-order perturbation theory. For convenient comparison with panel (b), the negative shift $-\chi_{a;0}$ is shown. (b) Comparison between experimental data for direct homodyne detection of the reflected amplitude (red/light gray curve; data as published in Ref.~\onlinecite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009}) with theory fit according to Eq.\ \eqref{homodyne_fit} (blue/dark gray curve). The fit parameters are determined as: $ A=0.0094, B=0.0887\text{GHz}^{-1},C=10.3052,\theta_0=-4.543$.
\label{dispersive_shifts}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Direct homodyne detection of reflected signal}
The specific quantity observed in direct homodyne detection is the quadrature voltage of the reflected signal.\cite{Vlad-thesis} This voltage can be expressed in terms of the phase shift via
\begin{align}\label{homodyne_fit}
V=A \cos(\theta+\theta'_0)+C
\approx A \cos(B\chi_{a;l}+\theta_0)+C.
\end{align}
Here, $\theta_0$ and $\theta_0'$ are offset phase shifts which may be present in experimental data, $A$ is the amplitude of the reflected signal and $C$ a constant voltage offset. The approximation in the second step of Eq.~\eqref{homodyne_fit} is obtained by Taylor expansion of Eq.~\eqref{arctanfunction} for the drive close to resonance, i.e., $\abs{\omega_d-\omega_a-\chi_{a;0}}\ll\omega_a$.
We begin our comparison of theory with the experimental data from Ref.~\onlinecite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009} with the expressions obtained in second-order perturbation theory. The predicted dispersive shift of the resonator $\chi_{a;0}$ (while maintaining the $l=0$ ground state) is shown in Fig.~\ref{dispersive_shifts}(a). Its magnitude is of order $1$ to $10\,\text{MHz}$ except in the immediate vicinity of the poles where the fluxonium $0$-$1$ transition crosses the resonator frequency (at flux values $\Phi_\text{ext}/\Phi_0\approx\pm0.06$).
Using Eq.~\eqref{homodyne_fit}, the dispersive shift is converted to homodyne voltage. We adjust the parameters $A$, $B$, $C$ and $\theta_0$ to minimize the mean-square deviations over the magnetic flux range $\Phi_{\text{ext}}/\Phi_0 \in [-0.3,0]$, again assuming occupation of the fluxonium ground state only. We compare the resulting fit with the experimental data in Fig.\ \ref{dispersive_shifts}(b) and find good agreement in the mentioned flux range with the exception of the small peak-dip structure at $\Phi_\text{ext}/\Phi_0\approx \pm 0.15$. Fourth-order corrections considered below will account for this feature. More significant deviations occur in the flux ranges close to half-integer $\Phi_\text{ext}/\Phi_0$. As we will see, fourth-order corrections from the effective Hamiltonian \eqref{4thordereffective} alone do not lead to a satisfactory resolution, and we will discuss possible culprits for the persistence of deviations in this region.
As one cause for deviations, we note that the fluxonium $0$-$1$ transition reaches a minimum frequency close to $300\,\text{MHz}$ at half-integer flux [see Fig.~\ref{panel2}(d)]. For a typical temperature of $T=20\,\text{mK}=0.42\,h\,\text{GHz}/k_{\!B} $, thermal excitation of the $l\!=\!1$ level indeed becomes relevant. (Thermal occupation of higher states $l > 1$ remains negligibly small.) We account for thermal excitation under the simplifying assumption that the measurement probes a statistical mixture of the lowest two fluxonium states with simple Boltzmann weights. In this case, the thermally averaged value of the dispersive shift of the resonator is given by
\begin{equation}\label{Boltzman}
\langle\mu_{a;l}(n_a, n_b)\rangle=\frac{\mu_{a;0}(n_a, n_b)+e^{-\epsilon_{10}/k_{\!B} T}\mu_{a;1}(n_a, n_b)}{1+e^{-\epsilon_{10}/k_{\!B} T}},
\end{equation}
which we use for the remainder of this subsection. We expect thermal effects only to be significant for the flux range $0.35 \alt \abs{\Phi_\text{ext}/\Phi_0} \le 0.5$; outside this range, $\epsilon_{10}$ exceeds $2\,\text{GHz}$ and thermal excitations of the fluxonium device should be negligible.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figure8.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Homodyne voltage of a reflected microwave tone: comparison between experimental data from Ref.~\cite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009} and fourth-order theory for dispersive shifts, thermal averaging over fluxonium levels according to Eq.~\eqref{Boltzman} included ($T=20\,\text{mK}$). (a) Theory curves show dispersive shifts of the resonator frequency for occupation numbers $n_a\!=\!n_b\!=\!0$ and $n_a\!=\!1,\,n_b\!=\!0$ as indicated. The position of the additional pole at $\Phi_\text{ext}/\Phi_0\approx \pm 0.15$ is in good agreement with that of the peak-dip structure observed in the experiment. (b) For mean photon number $\bar{n}_a=0.05$ the theory prediction based on Eq.~\eqref{mean photon} also reasonably matches the amplitude of the peak-dip feature. (c) Additional poles are predicted if the $\mathsf{b}$ mode (associated with the array) is occupied. In each panel (a)--(c), significant deviations persist close to half-integer $\Phi_\text{ext}/\Phi_0$. (d) Fluxonium transition and harmonic mode frequencies, as specified by labels. Vertical dashed lines show alignment of resonances with corresponding poles in dispersive shifts and experimental features.}
\label{panel2}
\end{figure}
We now turn to the discussion of fourth-order corrections to the dispersive shifts.
In Fig.\ \ref{panel2}(a), (b) and (c),
we compare the same experimental data for the homodyne signal with the theoretical calculations now including all fourth-order corrections and taking into account thermal averaging. Specifically, we calculate the homodyne voltage [Eq.\ \eqref{homodyne_fit}] using the same fit parameters as above and replace $\chi\to\langle \mu\rangle$. For easy reference of resonances, panel (d) shows the fluxonium transition frequencies as well as integer combinations of the harmonic frequencies $\omega_a$ and $\omega_b$. Relevant resonances are circled and labeled by roman numerals. Their alignment with the corresponding poles in (a)--(c) is indicated by vertical dashed lines.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{figure9.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Level diagram illustrating a two-photon vacuum Rabi splitting. In this diagram, horizontal solid lines represent bare fluxonium levels which are coupled via a single photon mode. Here, the bare states with $n_a=0$, $l=4$ and $n_a=2$, $l=0$ are degenerate and coupled by an effective two-photon transition. The resulting two-photon vacuum Rabi splitting is represented by the dashed lines.}
\label{towphotonrabi}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{panel2}(a) shows the thermally averaged homodyne voltage for the case of negligible harmonic mode excitations, $n_a=0, n_b=0$, and for the case of one initial excitation in the resonator mode, $n_a=1, n_b=0$. This choice of occupation numbers is motivated by the estimate of $\langle n_a \rangle \approx 0.01$ as given in Ref.\ \onlinecite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009}. In the flux region $0\le|\Phi_\text{ext}/\Phi_0|\alt0.35$, fourth-order contributions to the dispersive shift with initial state $n_a=0$ have no significant effect as compared to the second order results [Fig.\ \ref{dispersive_shifts}(b)].
The dispersive shift applicable to the $n_a=1$ state, however, does show an additional pole close to $|\Phi_\text{ext}/\Phi_0|\approx 0.15$ labeled by \{v\} in Fig.~\ref{panel2}(a). As indicated in panel (d), this pole occurs due to a resonance between two resonator photons, $2\omega_a$, and the 0-4 fluxonium transition, $\epsilon_{40}$ which we illustrate in Fig.\ \ref{towphotonrabi}. Specifically, the pole in $\mu$ originates from a fourth-order term in the effective Hamiltonian, which is associated with the $V^+_aV^+_aV^-_aV^-_a$ path of the ladder diagram [Fig.\ \ref{fig3}]:
\begin{equation}\label{pole1}
\sum_{l_1,l_3}\frac{g_{a;0l_1}g_{a;l_14}g_{a;4l_3}g_{a;l_30}}{(\omega_a+\epsilon_{0l_3} )(2\omega_a-\epsilon_{40})(\omega_a+\epsilon_{0l_1})} \mathsf{n}_a(\mathsf{n}_a-1) \ketbra{0}.
\end{equation}
Note that this term vanishes for $n_a=0$ or $n_a=1$. Hence, according to Eq.~\eqref{nonlinearshifts} it contributes to $\mu_{a;0}(n_a=1, n_b)$ which involves photon absorption $n_a=1\to2$ but not to $\mu_{a;0}(n_a=0, n_b)$ where photon absorption occurs as $n_a=0\to1$. This fact is easily visible in the two theory curves shown in Fig.~\ref{panel2}(a). The flux position of the pole is in excellent agreement with a similar feature in the experimental data. We note that this resonance also manifests as the two-photon vacuum Rabi splitting illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{towphotonrabi}, with splitting size $2\sqrt{2}\sum_{l'}g_{a; 0l'}g_{a; l'4}/\Delta_{a; 0l'}$ (see Appendix \ref{twophotonrabi} for derivation). As opposed to the usual vacuum Rabi splitting, the two-photon splitting is proportional to $g_{a}^2$ rather than $g_{a}$. As a direct consequence of the absence of strict selection rules for fluxonium, the summation of contributions from multiple intermediate states $l'$ can lead to a sizable splitting.
To compare the amplitude of the pole feature with the experimental reflection data, we show the weighted average of the dispersive shifts for $n_a=0$ and $n_a=1$ in Fig.~\ref{panel2}(b). We parametrize the respective weights $P_0$ and $P_1=1-P_0$ (probabilities for the two initial resonator states) in terms of the mean photon number $\bar{n}_a=1-P_0$. The weighted average is given by
\begin{align}\label{mean photon}
\bar{\mu}_{a}(\bar{n}_a)=&P_0 \langle\mu_{a;l}(0,0)\rangle + (1-P_0)\langle \mu_{a;l}(1,0)\rangle.
\end{align}
For a mean photon number of $\bar{n}_a=0.05$ (slightly higher than the value $0.01$ reported in Ref.~\onlinecite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009}), we find good agreement between theory and experiment for the amplitude of the resonance \{v\}.
In summary, for the flux region $0 < |\Phi_\text{ext}/\Phi_0| \alt 0.3 $ we find very good agreement between theoretical prediction and the experimental data for the dispersive shifts, including the positions and amplitudes of the two resonances \{v\} and \{vi\}. In the flux region closer to half-integer $\Phi_\text{ext}/\Phi_0$, however, agreement between experimental data and theory is weaker. As seen in Fig.~\ref{panel2}(a) and (b), the poles \{ii\} and \{iii\} due to resonances of $\epsilon_{40}$ and $\epsilon_{10}$ with $2\omega_a$ and $\omega_b-\omega_a$, respectively, do not quantitatively match the experimental data in this flux region, which are dominated by a pronounced minimum at $|\Phi_\text{ext}/\Phi_0|\approx0.38$. The resonance features in the experimental data near $|\Phi_\text{ext}/\Phi_0|\approx0.325$ and $0.44$ are absent in the calculated dispersive shifts of panels (a) and (b). Vice versa, the pole \{i\} predicted by theory has no correspondence in the experimental data. We next discuss the effects of $\mathsf{b}$ mode occupations, which may give partial explanations for some of the mismatches.
In panels (a) and (b) of Fig.\ \ref{panel2}, amplitudes predicted for the resonances \{ii\} and \{iii\} are dramatically smaller than features observed in the experiment at corresponding flux values. While thermal excitation of the $\mathsf{b}$ mode can be ruled out due to the large gap between the resonant frequency $\omega_b/2\pi=10.79\,\text{GHz}$ and the frequency $0.42\,\text{GHz}$ associated with a temperature of $T\sim 20\,\text{mK}$, it is instructive to inspect the effects of nonequilibrium excitations of this mode. For this purpose, Fig.~\ref{panel2}(c) shows the homodyne voltage in the presence of one $\mathsf{b}$ mode excitation, as obtained from the dispersive shift $\langle\mu_{a;l}(0,n_b=1)\rangle$. As an important result of this excitation, the amplitude of resonance \{iii\} is amplified significantly. The enhancement of the resonance stems from four terms associated with the dual-mode ladder diagrams in Fig.\ \ref{fig456}(b) and (c). As an example, we give the expression for one of them:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{l_ 1,l_3}\frac{g_{a; 0l_1}g_{b; l_11}g_{b; 1 l_3}g_{a; l_30} (\mathsf{n}_a+1)\mathsf{n}_b}{(-\omega_a+\epsilon_{0l_3} )(\omega_b-\omega_a-\epsilon_{10})(-\omega_a+\epsilon_{0l_1})} \ketbra{0},
\end{equation}
which corresponds to the $V^-_aV^+_bV^-_bV^+_a$ path. The other three terms arise from the paths $V^+_bV^-_aV^+_aV^-_b$, $V^+_b V^-_a V^-_b V^+_a$, and $V^-_a V^+_b V^+_a V^-_b$. They lead to the contributions to the effective Hamiltonian of the form $(\mathsf{n}_a+1)\mathsf{n}_b \ketbra{0}$ and involve the denominator $(\omega_b-\omega_a-\epsilon_{10})$. All of these terms indeed vanish for $n_b=0$ and hence do not contribute to the previous results in panels (a) and (b). It is thus possible that nonequilibrium $\mathsf{b}$ mode excitations are partly responsible for the deviations between theory and experiment in the half-integer flux region.
By a similar mechanism, $\mathsf{b}$ mode excitations also lead to an additional predicted resonance \{iv\} at a flux position fairly close to the resonance feature in the experimental data at $|\Phi_\text{ext}/\Phi_0|\approx 0.325$. According to theory, this resonance occurs whenever the array mode excitation $\omega_b$ matches the fluxonium 1-3 transition $\epsilon_{31}$. The corresponding term in the effective Hamiltonian is
\begin{equation}
\sum_{l_2, l_3}\frac{2g_{a; 13}g_{a; 3l_2}g_{b; l_2l_3}g_{b; l_31}}{(-\omega_a+\epsilon_{1l_3} )\epsilon_{1l_2}(\omega_b-\epsilon_{31})} (\mathsf{n}_a+1)\mathsf{n}_b \ketbra{1},
\end{equation}
associated with the $V^+_bV^-_bV^+_aV^-_a$ and $V^+_aV^-_aV^+_bV^-_b$ paths in the dual-mode ladder diagram of Fig.\ \ref{fig456}(a). We have verified that a further increase in the $\mathsf{b}$ photon number beyond $n_b=1$ [shown in Fig.~\ref{panel2}(c)] does not improve the fit.
In summary, we find that nonequilibrium array-mode excitations may produce significant changes in the dispersive shifts, some of which may point to resonance features observed in the experiment. Without a detailed understanding of the underlying nonequilibrium distribution and its dependence on magnetic flux, however, it is difficult to assess whether this explanation could ultimately give a quantitative match or whether additional array degrees of freedom, breakdown of perturbation theory, or dynamical effects under continuous driving are responsible for the observed deviations.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figure10.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Two-tone spectrum. The vertical axis represents the frequency of the sweeping tone, $\omega_{d2}$, and the horizontal axis represents the external magnetic flux. The color-scale represents the phase difference between the ground state and the state $l$ excited by the sweeping tone, namely $\theta_l-\theta_0$, where red represents positive value and blue negative. The three types of color changing, I, II and III are illustrated by magnified insets. The color change marked by the dashed box corresponds to a spurious phase wrapping (see text). (b) Plot of the nonlinear dispersive shifts $\mu_{a;1}(n_a, n_b)-\mu_{a;0}(n_a, n_b)$, where $n_b=0$ for all three curves, representing shifts with photon numbers $n_a=0,4,9$ respectively. (c) Plot of the nonlinear dispersive shifts $\mu_{a;2}(n_a, n_b)-\mu_{a;0}(n_a, n_b)$ with photon numbers $n_a$ and $n_b$ as in (b). (d) Plot of qudit transition frequencies and harmonic mode frequencies. Horizontal dashed lines show harmonic frequencies. Solid curves represent qudit frequency differences and coloring distinguishes transitions starting from $l$$=$$0$, $1$, and $2$. Circles and squares mark zero points, resonances (and corresponding poles) and their alignment with experimental data.}
\label{artificialspectrum}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Two-tone spectroscopy}
As explained in subsection \ref{sec:measurements}, two-tone spectroscopy probes the change in the dispersive resonator shift due to induced Rabi oscillations between the fluxonium ground state and another fluxonium state (level $l$). When detected via the change in the phase of the reflected homodyne signal, the relevant observable is given by $\theta_{l0} \equiv \theta_l-\theta_0$ as obtained from Eq.~\eqref{arctanfunction}. This phase difference is encoded by the color scale in Fig.\ \ref{artificialspectrum}(a), which shows experimental data from Refs.\ \onlinecite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009, phase_slip_2012,Vlad-thesis}. The observed transition lines correspond to the fluxonium 0--1, 0-2, and 0-3 transitions and to an array-mode with frequency $\omega_b=10.79\,\text{GHz}$.
Interestingly, the spectroscopy data does not only reveal the frequencies of relevant transitions but also contains several distinct phase changes along these transition lines. In particular, the phase changes observed in the experiment can be classified into four types. We use the 0-2 transition line for illustrating these types and refer to the labels and magnified insets in Fig.~\ref{artificialspectrum}(a): type I is an \textbf{abrupt red-blue change}, corresponding to a sudden jump from positive to negative phase difference $\theta_{l0}$; type II is a \textbf{gradual blue-white-red change}, corresponding to a continuous change of the phase difference from negative to positive values (or vice versa); type III is a \textbf{gradual blue-white-blue change}, corresponding to a the phase difference approaching zero and recovering without changing its sign. In principle, \textbf{red-white-red color changes} may also occur (type IV) but are not realized in this instance of data.
In the following, we show that fourth-order contributions to the dispersive shifts explain these phase changes.
The relation between the dispersive shift and the phase difference is given by
\begin{align}
\theta_{l0}=&2 \ \text{arctan}\bigg( \frac{2 Q}{\omega_a}[\omega_{d1}-\omega_a-\mu_{a;l}]\bigg)\nonumber\\
&-2 \ \text{arctan}\bigg( \frac{2 Q}{\omega_a}[\omega_{d1}-\omega_a-\mu_{a;0}]\bigg).
\label{phasedifference}
\end{align}
This expression follows from Eq.\ \eqref{arctanfunction} when setting $\omega_d=\omega_{d1}$. Our discussion of the different types of phase changes will be based on identifying magnetic flux values where the phase difference vanishes, $\theta_{l0}=0$ (type II and III), and flux values where the dispersive shifts have poles such that the phase difference may jump from $\pi$ to $-\pi$ (type I). The first condition is satisfied whenever $\mu_{a;l}-\mu_{a;0}=0$, the second condition whenever appropriate resonances between fluxonium transitions and harmonic modes occur.
We note that in the linear regime of the two $\arctan$ functions, the phase difference is simply given by
\begin{equation}\label{phasesign}
\theta_{l0} = -4Q(\mu_{a;l}-\mu_{a;0})/\omega_a.
\end{equation}
Thus, in the linear regime, the two-tone spectroscopy serves as a direct probe of the dispersive shifts.
For comparison with the experimental data, we calculate the nonlinear shifts for the fluxonium transitions $l$$=$$0$$\to$$1$ and $l$$=$$0$$\to$$2$, and show the corresponding differences $\mu_{a;1}-\mu_{a;0}$ and $\mu_{a;2}-\mu_{a;0}$ in Fig.\ \ref{artificialspectrum}(b) and (c), respectively. In each case, we consider dispersive shifts for different photon numbers $n_a=0, 4, 9$ to illustrate the dependence of the detected phase response on the power of the microwave probe tone. We use vertical dashed lines with labels to emphasize the alignment of poles and zero points with the corresponding phase changes. According to Eq.\ \eqref{phasesign}, the color-encoded sign of the phase difference in panel (a) thus corresponds to the sign of $-(\mu_{a;l}-\mu_{a;0})$ in panels (b) and (c), respectively. We compare theoretical and experimental results for the 0-1 and 0-2 transitions in the flux regions $-0.22\Phi_0 \le \Phi_\text{ext} \le 0$ and $-0.5\Phi_0 \le \Phi_\text{ext} \le 0$ where experimental data is available.\cite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009, phase_slip_2012, Vlad-thesis} The following discussion is organized according to the three observed types of phase changes.
\subsubsection{Type I -- abrupt red-blue phase change}
The only type I phase change in Fig.\ \ref{artificialspectrum} is marked by the vertical line with label \{4\}, and occurs due to a pole appearing in both $\mu_{a;1}-\mu_{a;0}$ and $\mu_{a;2}-\mu_{a;0}$. This pole originates from the fourth order contribution to $\mu_{a;0}$ given in Eq.\ \eqref{pole1} and corresponds to a resonance between two resonator photons and the fluxonium 0-4 transition, $2\omega_a=\epsilon_{40}$, see Fig.\ \ref{artificialspectrum}(d). (This is the same resonance that also gives rise to the two-photon vacuum Rabi splitting illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{towphotonrabi}.) As noted before, this pole only occurs when $n_a \ge 1$. As a result, the $n_a=0$ curves in panels (b) and (c) do not exhibit this pole, and the pole becomes more pronounced as the photon number increases. We thus conclude that spectroscopy of the fluxonium transitions, in this case, also reveals information about photon population in the resonator.
Two clarifications are in order. First, the absence of a type I phase change in the 0-2 transition due to the pole in $\mu_{a;2}-\mu_{a;0}$ marked by the vertical line \{2\} falls outside our current discussion: at this flux value, the 0-1 transition is resonant with $\omega_a$ and the discussion of the phase shift would need to include the hybridization of photon and fluxonium excitation. Second, we note that the abrupt phase change close to $\Phi_\text{ext}=-0.4\Phi_0$, marked by a dashed box in panel (a), is not associated with a pole and hence \emph{not} of type I. Since phase changes in the experiment are defined in the interval $[-\pi,\pi]$, such additional phase jumps may simply occur when dispersive shifts become sufficiently large so that the magnitude of $\theta_{l0}$ exceeds $\pi$. These phase discontinuities do not involve sign changes in the dispersive shifts $\mu_{a;l}-\mu_{a;0}$. Indeed, the occurrence of such a phase discontinuity close to half-integer $\Phi_\text{ext}/\Phi_0$ is consistent with the large magnitude of the dispersive shifts $\mu_{a;2}-\mu_{a;0}$ predicted by theory in this region. The theoretically predicted pole corresponding to the resonance between $\epsilon_{21}$ and $\omega_a$ is slightly on the left of the dashed box. Close to $\Phi_\text{ext}=-0.41\Phi_0$, experimental evidence for the avoided crossing of the two spectral lines (the 0-2 transition and the 0-1 transition shifted by the photon frequency $\omega_a$) with better resolution can be found in Ref.\ \onlinecite{phase_slip_2012}.
\subsubsection{Type II -- gradual blue-white-red change}
Gradual phase changes of type II are present in both the 0-1 and the 0-2 transitions and are marked by the vertical line with label \{5\}. In both cases, the dispersive shift $\mu_{a;l}-\mu_{a;0}$ ($l=1,2$) smoothly crosses through zero so that the phase change is negative for flux values $<-0.18\Phi_0$, reaches zero, and then assumes positive values as $\mu_{a;l}-\mu_{a;0}$ approaches the pole at position \{4\}. As shown in panels (b) and (c), the precise zero-point crossing is, in fact, photon-number dependent. We note that the alignment between the predicted crossings for photon numbers as large as $n_a=9$ is not perfect. Quite likely, this can be attributed to the breakdown of perturbation theory in the immediate vicinity of poles and hence especially applies to the zero-crossing for $\mu_{a;2}-\mu_{a;0}$. As for the absence of pole \{4\} for $n_a=0$ discussed above, we also expect the crossing \{5\} to disappear if no resonator photons are present.
An additional phase change of type II is present only in the fluxonium 0-1 transition and is marked by line \{3\} and can be interpreted in a similar manner. Again, we find alignment of the zero crossing with the experimental feature only for rather large photon numbers, see the $``n_a=9"$ curve in panel (b). An experimental study of the power dependence of this phase change could help shed more light on the quantitative comparison with theory.
\subsubsection{Type III: gradual blue-white-blue color change}
Type III phase changes occur for both the 0-1 and 0-2 transitions, and instances are marked by the vertical dashed lines labeled by \{1\} and \{3\} respectively. In both cases, we observe alignment with poles occurring in the corresponding dispersive shifts. A definite prediction for type III phase changes, however, appears difficult based on the perturbative results. In general, perturbation theory will break down at the position of the pole and will remain unreliable in a certain flux window in its vicinity. As a result, predictions in this case must likely be based on non-perturbative methods and may possibly also have to take into account the dynamical aspect of the two-tone measurement (which are beyond the scope of this paper). Qualitatively, the type III phase changes are at least plausible given that the dispersive shifts $\mu_{a;l}-\mu_{a;0}$ are predominantly positive in the direct vicinity of both poles.
\section{Conclusion\label{conclusions}}
In summary, we have presented a systematic treatment of fourth-order corrections to the dispersive regime of circuit QED. Our results, developed in Section II, are valid for a generic system consisting of a multi-level qudit capacitively coupled to one or several harmonic modes, and hence apply to a wide class of circuit QED systems. Our treatment, in particular, enables the description of dispersive shifts in systems lacking simplifying selection rules.
We have applied our results to the concrete case of the fluxonium device as realized in recent experiments.\cite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009,phase_slip_2012, Vlad-thesis}
Using numerical diagonalization, we have obtained the relevant charge matrix elements which confirm the lack of selection rules, and have incorporated them in the perturbative treatment of the dispersive regime, including corrections up to fourth order. The calculated dispersive shifts allow us to compare theoretical predictions with experimental data for homodyne reflection measurements and two-tone spectroscopy from Refs.~\onlinecite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009, phase_slip_2012,Vlad-thesis}.
The absence of selection rules is an important mechanism for producing sizable dispersive shifts, even if the transition of interest is far detuned from the resonator used for readout. For the fluxonium system studied in Section III, our calculations show that dispersive shifts can indeed be as large as $10$ MHz even when the corresponding 0-1 fluxonium transition is detuned by almost $8$\,GHz from the resonator. The lack of selection rules enables a multitude of virtual transitions to contribute to the dispersive shifts. Especially if such higher transition frequencies match photon resonance conditions, dispersive shifts can be surprisingly large.
We also note that the magnitudes of matrix elements are tunable with external magnetic flux, which in turn leads to the tunability of dispersive shifts.
Away from half-integer $\Phi_\text{ext}/\Phi_0$, we find good quantitative agreement for the homodyne reflection data with our theory prediction. This agreement also includes a resonance feature in the data which previously remained unexplained. The presence of this resonance indicates a small probability of a photon occupying the resonator, so that its amplitude may be used for extracting the mean photon number. Close to half-integer $\Phi_\text{ext}/\Phi_0$, even though we find tentative agreement between the flux positions of several resonance features in experimental data and theory, our calculation does not give a quantitative match. We note that the flux position coincidence of resonances points to nonequilibrium array-mode excitations of unknown origin.
Spectroscopy data of fluxonium samples\cite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009, phase_slip_2012,Vlad-thesis} show unusual phase changes along the transition lines. We have identified three different types of phase changes, according to abrupt and gradual variations of the phase with or without sign change. Our calculations show that these phase changes are closely related to poles and zero points in the dispersive shifts and that their occurrence may sensitively depend on photon numbers in the resonator. Experimental studies of the power dependence of spectroscopy measurements are an interesting subject for future study and may shed additional light on the origin of quantitative deviations between experiment and theory. Our results for spectroscopic phase changes show generally good agreement for the flux positions of such resonances. The prediction of the specific type of the phase change remains challenging since perturbative calculations break down at the positions where resonances occur. Nonperturbative calculations, and taking into account the dynamics of the measurement protocol in a Master equation description, may be necessary to obtain such type of predictions and to improve quantitative agreement. An additional source of quantitative deviations may lie in the presence of additional array modes not included in our description. The spectroscopy data indeed shows additional levels, especially close to $|\Phi_\text{ext}/\Phi_0|\simeq \tfrac{1}{2}$, which warrant further investigation.
For both types of experiments, we have identified a two-photon resonance near $\pm 0.14\Phi_\text{ext}/\Phi_0$ which manifests in the dispersive shifts in fourth order of perturbation theory and which should also lead to a two-photon vacuum Rabi splitting. Experimental verification would involve tuning the drive frequency $\omega_d$ close to the $\epsilon_{40}$ transition and directly observing the level splitting. (In previous experiments the $\epsilon_{40}$ transition was outside the measured frequency range.) Further experimental verification could be achieved by detecting the correlated emission of photon pairs under vacuum Rabi oscillation.
The accumulation of contributions to dispersive shifts in the absence of selection rules does not only affect ac-Stark shifts but can, similarly, lead to surprisingly large self-Kerr and cross-Kerr coefficients in fourth order which are tunable with magnetic flux. Making photon-photon interaction terms large while keeping the fundamental qudit transition off resonance, is particularly appealing for circuit QED lattices which have been discussed as quantum simulator architecture\cite{hartmann_quantum_2008,houck2012} and for which the first experimental realizations are now underway.\cite{underwood2012}
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank Michel Devoret and Leonid Glazman for numerous insightful discussions. We further acknowledge Archana Kamal, Nicholas Masluk, James Sauls, Anupam Garg, Joshua Dempster and Andy Li for valuable discussions. We thank all authors of Refs.\ \onlinecite{manucharyan_fluxonium:_2009, phase_slip_2012} for providing the previously unpublished data shown in Figs.\ \ref{panel2} and \ref{artificialspectrum}. Our research was supported by the NSF under Grant PHY-1055993.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
In this work, along with the companion work \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe}, we propose a novel approach to the problem of gauge choice for the \emph{Yang-Mills equations}
\begin{equation*}
{\bf D}^{\mu} F_{\nu \mu} =0
\end{equation*}
on the Minkowski space $\mathbb R^{1+3}$ with a non-abelian structural group $\mathfrak{G}$. (For the notations, we refer the reader to \S \ref{subsec:intro:bg}.) An essential ingredient of our approach is the celebrated \emph{Yang-Mills heat flow}
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{s} A_{i} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i},
\end{equation*}
which, first proposed by Donaldson \cite{Donaldson:1985vh}, is a well-studied equation in the field of geometric analysis. (See \cite{Rade:1992tu}, \cite{Charalambous:2010vt} and etc.) The idea of using the associated heat flow to deal with the problem of gauge choice had been first put forth by Tao \cite{Tao:2004tm}, \cite{Tao:2008wn} in the context of energy critical wave maps on $\mathbb R^{1+2}$, and has been also adapted to the related energy critical Schr\"odinger maps by \cite{Bejenaru:2011wy}, \cite{Smith:2011ef}, \cite{Smith:2011ty}.
The novel approach using the Yang-Mills heat flow does not possess the drawbacks of the previous choices of gauge. As such, it is expected to be more robust and easily applicable to other problems. Building on the results proved in \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe} (where, in particular, a new proof of $H^{1}_{x}$ local well-posedness of the Yang-Mills equations has been given), we will provide in this paper an alternative proof of \emph{finite energy global well-posedness} of the Yang-Mills equations on $\mathbb R^{1+3}$, a classical result of S. Klainerman and M. Machedon \cite{Klainerman:1995hz}, as one of the first demonstrations of the power of the new approach.
\subsection{Background: The Yang-Mills equations on $\mathbb R^{1+3}$} \label{subsec:intro:bg}
We will work on the Minkowski space $\mathbb R^{1+3}$, equipped with the Minkowski metric of signature $(-+++)$. All tensorial indices will be raised and lowered by using the Minkowski metric. Moreover, we will adopt the Einstein summation convention of summing up repeated upper and lower indices. Greek indices, such as $\mu, \nu, \lambda$, will run over $x^{0}, x^{1}, x^{2}, x^{3}$, whereas latin indices, such as $i, j, k, \ell$, will run \emph{only} over the spatial indices $x^{1}, x^{2}, x^{3}$. We will often use $t$ for $x^{0}$.
Let $\mathfrak{G}$ be a Lie group with the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$, which is equipped with a bi-invariant inner product\footnote{A \emph{bi-invariant inner product} is an inner product on $\mathfrak{g}$ invariant under the adjoint map. A sufficient condition for the existence of such an inner product is that $\mathfrak{G}$ is a product of an abelian and a semi-simple Lie groups.} $(\cdot, \cdot) : \mathfrak{g} \times \mathfrak{g} \to [0, \infty)$. The bi-invariant inner produt will be used to define the absolute value of elements in $\mathfrak{g}$, and moreover will be used in turn to define the $L^{p}_{x}$-norm of $\mathfrak{g}$-valued functions.
For simplicity, we will assume that $\mathfrak{G}$ is a matrix group. An explicit example which is useful to keep in mind is the group of special unitary matrices $\mathfrak{G} = \mathrm{SU}(n)$, in which case $\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{su}(n)$ is the set of complex traceless anti-hermitian matrices and the bi-invariant metric is given by $(A, B) := \textrm{tr}(A B^{\star})$.
Consider a $\mathfrak{g}$-valued 1-form $A_{\mu}$ on $\mathbb R^{1+3}$, which we will call a \emph{connection 1-form}, or \emph{connection coefficients}\footnote{We take a fairly pragmatic point of view towards the definitions of geometric concepts (such as connection and curvature), for the sake of simplicity. For more information on the geometric background of the concepts introduced here (involving principal bundles, associated vector bundles and etc.), we recommend the reader the standard references \cite{Bleeker:2005uj}, \cite{Kobayashi:1963uh}, \cite{Kobayashi:1969ub} and etc.}. For any $\mathfrak{g}$-valued tensor field $B$ on $\mathbb R^{1+3}$, we define the associated \emph{covariant derivative} ${\bf D} = {}^{(A)} {\bf D}$ by
\begin{equation*}
{\bf D}_{\mu} B := \partial_{\mu} B + \LieBr{A_{\mu}}{B}, \quad \mu = 0,1,2,3
\end{equation*}
where $\partial_{\mu}$ is the ordinary directional derivative on $\mathbb R^{1+3}$.
The commutator of two covariant derivatives gives rise to a $\mathfrak{g}$-valued 2-form $F_{\mu \nu}$, called the \emph{curvature 2-form} associated to $A_{\mu}$, in the following fashion.
\begin{equation*}
{\bf D}_{\mu} {\bf D}_{\nu} B - {\bf D}_{\nu} {\bf D}_{\mu} B = \LieBr{F_{\mu \nu}}{B}.
\end{equation*}
Using the definition, it is not difficult to verify that $F_{\mu \nu}$ is expressed directly in terms of $A_{\mu}$ by the formula
\begin{equation*}
F_{\mu \nu} = \partial_{\mu} A_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu} A_{\mu} + \LieBr{A_{\mu}}{A_{\nu}}.
\end{equation*}
From the way $F_{\mu \nu}$ arises from $A_{\mu}$, it follows that the following \emph{Bianchi identity} holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:intro:bianchi} \tag{Bianchi}
{\bf D}_{\mu} F_{\nu \lambda} + {\bf D}_{\nu} F_{\lambda \nu} + {\bf D}_{\lambda} F_{\mu \nu} = 0.
\end{equation}
A connection 1-form $A_{\mu}$ is said to be a solution to the \emph{Yang-Mills equations} \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} on $\mathbb R^{1+3}$ if the following equation holds for $\nu = 0,1,2,3$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:hyperbolicYM} \tag{YM}
{\bf D}^{\mu} F_{\mu \nu} = 0.
\end{equation}
Note the similarity of \eqref{eq:intro:bianchi} and \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} with the Maxwell equations $\mathrm{d} F =0$ and $\partial^{\mu} F_{\nu \mu} = 0$. In fact, the Maxwell equations are a special case of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the case $\mathfrak{G} = \mathrm{SU}(1)$.
An essential feature of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} is the \emph{gauge structure}, which we explain now. Let $U$ be a smooth $\mathfrak{G}$-valued function. This $U$ may act on $A, {\bf D}, F$ as a \emph{gauge transform} according to the following rules:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{A}_{\mu} = U A_{\mu} U^{-1} - \partial_{\mu} U U^{-1}, \qquad
\widetilde{{\bf D}}_{\mu} = U {\bf D}_{\mu} U^{-1}, \qquad
\widetilde{F}_{\mu \nu} = U F_{\mu \nu} U^{-1}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
If a $\mathfrak{g}$-valued tensor transforms in the fashion $\widetilde{B} = U B U^{-1}$, then we say that it is \emph{gauge covariant}, or \emph{covariant under gauge transforms}. Note that the curvature 2-form is gauge covariant. Given a gauge covariant $B$, its covariant derivative ${\bf D}_{\mu} B$ is also gauge covariant, as the following formula shows:
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{{\bf D}}_{\mu} \widetilde{B} = U {\bf D}_{\mu} B U^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
Due to bi-invariance, we furthermore have $(\widetilde{B},\widetilde{B}) = (B, B)$.
Note that \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} is evidently covariant under gauge transforms. It has the implication that a solution to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} makes sense only as a class of gauge equivalent connection 1-forms. Accordingly, we make the following definition.
\begin{definition}
A \emph{classical solution} to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} is a class of gauge equivalent smooth connection 1-forms $A$ satisfying \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}. A \emph{generalized solution} to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} is defined to be a class of gauge equivalent connection 1-forms $A$ for which there exists a sufficiently smooth representative $A$ (say $\partial_{t,x} A \in C_{t} L^{2}_{x}, A \in C_{t} L^{3}_{x}$) which satisfies \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the sense of distributions.
\end{definition}
A choice of a particular representative will be referred to as a \emph{gauge choice}. A gauge is usually chosen by imposing a condition, called a \emph{gauge condition}, on the representative. Some classical examples of gauge conditions are the \emph{temporal gauge} $A_{0} = 0$, or the \emph{Coulomb gauge }$\partial^{\ell} A_{\ell} = 0$, where $\ell$, being a latin index, is summed only over the spatial indices $1,2,3$.
In this work, as well as the companion paper \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe}, we study the Cauchy problem associated to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}. As in the case of Maxwell equations, the initial data set consists of $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ for $i=1,2,3$, where $\overline{A}_{i} = A_{i}(t=0)$ (magnetic potential) and $\overline{E}_{i} = F_{0i}(t=0)$ (electric field). Note that one component of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}, namely $\nu = 0$, imposes the following \emph{constraint equation} on the possible initial data set $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:YMconstraint}
\partial^{\ell} \overline{E}_{\ell} + \LieBr{\overline{A}^{\ell}}{\overline{E}_{\ell}} = 0.
\end{equation}
The system \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} possesses a positive definite conserved quantity ${\bf E}[F_{\mu \nu}](t)$, called the \emph{conserved energy} of $F_{\mu \nu}$ at time $t$, defined by
\begin{equation*}
{\bf E}[F_{\mu \nu}](t) := \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb R^{3}} \sum_{\ell=1,2,3} (F_{0\ell}(t,x), F_{0\ell}(t,x)) + \sum_{k, \ell=1,2,3} (F_{k \ell}(t,x), F_{k \ell}(t,x)) \, \mathrm{d} x
\end{equation*}
Note that \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} remain invariant under the scaling
\begin{equation} \label{eq:YMscaling}
x^{\alpha} \to \lambda x^{\alpha}, \quad A \to \lambda^{-1} A, \quad F \to \lambda^{-2} F.
\end{equation}
We remark that the conserved energy ${\bf E}(t)$ and also the norms $\nrm{\partial_{x} \overline{A}_{i}}_{L^{2}_{x}}$, $\nrm{\overline{E}_{i}}_{L^{2}_{x}}$ \emph{decrease} as $\lambda$ increases according to the above scaling. This reflects the \emph{sub-criticality} of these quantities compared to the scaling property of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}.
\subsection{The problem of gauge choice and previous approaches} \label{subsec:intro:motivation}
We will begin with a discussion on the importance and difficulty of the problem of choosing an appropriate gauge in the study of the Yang-Mills equations. Our discussion will revolve around the following concrete example, which is a classical result of Klainerman-Machedon \cite{Klainerman:1995hz}, stated in a simplified form.
\begin{theorem}[Klainerman-Machedon \cite{Klainerman:1995hz}] \label{thm:intro:KM}
Let $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ be a smooth initial data set satisfying the constraint equation \eqref{eq:YMconstraint}. Consider the Cauchy problem for these data.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{($H^{1}_{x}$ local well-posedness)} There exists a classical solution $A_{\mu}$ to the Cauchy problem for \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} on a time interval $(-T^{\star}, T^{\star})$, where $T^{\star} > 0$ depends only on $\nrm{\overline{A}_{i}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}, \nrm{\overline{E}_{i}}_{L^{2}_{x}}$. The solution is unique in an appropriate gauge, e.g. in the temporal gauge $A_{0} = 0$.
\item \emph{(Finite energy global well-posedness)} Furthermore, if the initial data set possesses finite conserved energy ${\bf E}(0) < \infty$, then the solution $A_{\mu}$ extends globally.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
After explaining the importance of gauge choice for proving Theorem \ref{thm:intro:KM}, we will briefly summarize the previous approaches to the problem of gauge choice, namely the \emph{(local) Coulomb gauge} \cite{Klainerman:1995hz} and the \emph{temporal gauge} \cite{Segal:1979hg}, \cite{Eardley:1982fb}, \cite{Tao:2000vba}. It will be seen that each has its own set of drawbacks, which in fact makes Theorem \ref{thm:intro:KM} the best result so far in terms of the regularity condition on the initial data, concerning local and global well-posedness of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} for possibly \emph{large}\footnote{We remark that there are better results in the case of \emph{small} initial data, for the reasons to be explained below. See \cite{Tao:2000vba}.} initial data. This will motivate us to propose a novel approach to the problem of gauge choice in \S \ref{subsec:intro:mainIdea}
\subsubsection*{Importance of gauge choice}
There are at least three reasons why a judicious choice of gauge is needed in order to prove Theorem \ref{thm:intro:KM}:
\begin{enumerate}[\qquad A.]
\item To reveal the \emph{hyperbolicity}\footnote{In this work, we will interpret the notion of \emph{hyperbolicity} in a practical fashion and say that a PDE is \emph{hyperbolic} if its principal part is the wave equation. By `revealing the hyperbolicity of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}', we mean reducing the dynamics of the Yang-Mills system to that of a system of wave equations. As we shall see below, this may involve solving elliptic, parabolic and/or transport equations for some variables.} of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM};
\item To exhibit the `special structure' (namely, the \emph{null structure}) of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM};
\item To utilize the conserved energy ${\bf E}(t)$ to control $\nrm{\partial_{x} A_{i}(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}$.
\end{enumerate}
In the future, we will refer to these as Issues A, B and C. Let us discuss each of the further.
Concerning Issue A, observe that the top order terms of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} at the level of $A_{\mu}$ have the form
\begin{equation*}
\Box A_{\nu} - \partial^{\mu} \partial_{\nu} A_{\mu} = (\hbox{lower order terms}).
\end{equation*}
In an arbitrary gauge, due to the presence of the undesirable second order term $-\partial^{\mu} \partial_{\nu} A_{\mu}$, it is even unclear whether the equation for $A_{\mu}$ is hyperbolic (i.e. a wave equation). Therefore, in order to study \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} as a hyperbolic system of equations, the gauge should be chosen, at the very least, in a way to reveal the hyperbolicity of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}. We remark that this is analogous to the issue that the Yang-Mills heat flow is only \emph{weakly-parabolic}, to be discussed in \S \ref{subsec:intro:YMHF}.
Resolution of Issue A suffices to prove local well-posedness of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} for sufficiently regular initial data (see \cite{Segal:1979hg}, \cite{Eardley:1982fb}). However, it is still insufficient for Theorem \ref{thm:intro:KM}, because of Issue B. After an appropriate choice of gauge, which does not have to be precise for the purpose of this heuristic discussion, the wave equation for the connection 1-form $A$ satisfying \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} becomes of the form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:intro:naiveModel}
\Box A = \mathcal O(A, \partial A) + (\hbox{cubic and higher})
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal O(A, \partial A)$ refers to a linear combination of bilinear terms in $A$ and $\partial_{t,x} A$.
At this point, we encounter an important difficulty of proving Theorem \ref{thm:intro:KM}: Strichartz estimates (barely, but in an essential way) fall short of proving $H^{1}_{x}$ local well-posedness of \eqref{eq:intro:naiveModel}, due to the well-known failure of the endpoint $L^{2}_{t} L^{\infty}_{x}$ estimate on $\mathbb R^{1+3}$. In fact, a counterexample, given by Lindblad \cite{Lindblad:1996ws}, demonstrates that even local existence may fail at this regularity for a general equation of the form \eqref{eq:intro:naiveModel}. Such considerations indicate that a proof of Theorem \ref{thm:intro:KM} necessarily has to exploit the `special structure' of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}, which distinguishes \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} from a general system of semi-linear equations of the similar form. As we will see in sequel, this `special structure' will go under the name \emph{null form}. Since the precise form of the wave equation for the connection 1-form $A$ is highly dependent on the gauge, it is crucial to make a suitable choice of gauge so as to reveal the structure needed to establish Theorem \ref{thm:intro:KM}.
Once Issues A and B are addressed, low regularity local well-posedness of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} (in particular, Part (1) of Theorem \ref{thm:intro:KM}) can, in principle, be established. However, yet another difficulty remains in proving Part (2) of Theorem \ref{thm:intro:KM}, namely Issue C. Had the conserved energy ${\bf E}(t)$ directly controlled $\nrm{\partial_{x}A_{i}(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}$, finite energy global well-posedness would have followed immediately from $H^{1}_{x}$ local well-posedness. However, recalling the expression for the conserved energy
\begin{equation*}
{\bf E}(t) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\mu, \nu} \nrm{\partial_{\mu} A_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu} A_{\mu} + \LieBr{A_{\mu}}{A_{\nu}}}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{2},
\end{equation*}
we see that in an arbitrary gauge, ${\bf E}(t)$ can only control a part of the full gradient of $A_{i}$: Namely, the curl of $A_{i}$, or $\nrm{\partial_{i} A_{j} - \partial_{j} A_{i}}_{L^{2}_{x}}$. Therefore, in order to prove Part (2) of Theorem \ref{thm:intro:KM} as well, the chosen gauge must have a structure which allows for utilizing ${\bf E}(t)$ to control the $L^{2}_{x}$ norm of the full gradient $\partial_{x} A_{i}(t)$.
\subsubsection*{Approach using the (local) Coulomb gauge: Proof of Klainerman-Machedon \cite{Klainerman:1995hz}}
We will now discuss the approach of Klainerman-Machedon \cite{Klainerman:1995hz} using the \emph{local Coulomb gauge}. As we will see, this approach addresses all of the issues A--C, but possesses the drawback of requiring localization in space-time, causing technical difficulties on the boundaries.
A key observation of Klainerman-Machedon \cite{Klainerman:1995hz} (which in fact goes back to the previous work \cite{Klainerman:1994jb} of Klainerman-Machedon on the related Maxwell-Klein-Gordon equations) was that under the (global) \emph{Coulomb gauge} $\partial^{\ell} A_{\ell} = 0$ imposed everywhere on $\mathbb R^{1+3}$, Issues A and B are simultaneously resolved. That is:
\begin{itemize}
\item After solving elliptic equations for $A_{0}$ and $\partial_{0} A_{0}$, \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} reduce to a system of wave equations for $A_{i}$, and
\item The most dangerous quadratic nonlinearities of the wave equations can be shown to be composed of \emph{null forms}.
\end{itemize}
More precisely, the wave equation for $A_{i}$ takes the form
\begin{equation*}
\Box A_{i} = \mathcal Q(\abs{\partial_{x}}^{-1} A ,A) + \abs{\partial_{x}}^{-1} \mathcal Q(A, A) + \hbox{(Less dangerous terms)},
\end{equation*}
where each $\mathcal Q$ is a linear combination of bilinear forms
\begin{equation*}
Q_{jk}(\phi_{1}, \phi_{2}) = \partial_{j} \phi_{1} \partial_{k} \phi_{2} - \partial_{k} \phi_{1} \partial_{j} \phi_{2}, \quad 1 \leq j < k \leq 3,
\end{equation*}
which are particular examples of a \emph{null form}, introduced by Klainerman \cite{Klainerman:tc} and Christodoulou \cite{MR820070} in the context of small data global existence problem for nonlinear wave equations, and first used by Klainerman-Machedon \cite{Klainerman:ei} in the context of low regularity well-posedness. Improved estimates are available for such class of bilinear interactions (see \cite{Klainerman:ei}, \cite{Klainerman:1995vs} and etc.), and therefore the desired local well-posedness can be proved.
The Coulomb gauge has an additional benefit that $\nrm{\partial_{x} A_{i}(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}$ may be estimated by ${\bf E}(t)$ (provided that $A_{i}$ is sufficiently regular to start with), as the the Coulomb gauge condition $\partial^{\ell} A_{\ell} = 0$ sets the part of $\partial_{x} A_{i}$ which is not controlled by ${\bf E}(t)$ (namely the \emph{divergence} of $A$, or $\partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$, according to Hodge decomposition) to be exactly zero. In other words, the Coulomb gauge settles Issue C as well.
Unfortunately, when the structural group $\mathfrak{G}$ is \emph{non-abelian}, there is a fundamental difficulty in imposing the Coulomb gauge globally in space (i.e. on $\mathbb R^{3}$ for each fixed $t$). Roughly speaking, it is because when $\mathfrak{G}$ is non-abelian, a gauge transform into the Coulomb gauge is given as a solution to a nonlinear elliptic system of PDEs, for which no good regularity theory is available in the large\footnote{In fact, it is possible to show, by a variational argument, that any $A_{i} \in L^{2}_{x}$ may be gauge transformed to a weak solution $\widetilde{A} \in L^{2}_{x}$ to the Coulomb gauge equation $\partial^{\ell} \widetilde{A}_{\ell} = 0$; see \cite{DellAntonio:1991ih}. The problem is that no further regularity of the gauge transform and $\widetilde{A}$ may be inferred, due to the lack of an appropriate regularity theory.}. A closely related phenomenon is \emph {the Gribov ambiguity} \cite{Gribov:1978eh}, which asserts non-uniqueness of representative satisfying the Coulomb gauge equation $\partial^{\ell} A_{\ell} = 0$ in some equivalence class of connection 1-forms on $\mathbb R^{3}$ when $\mathfrak{G}$ is non-abelian.
At a more technical level, this difficulty manifests in the fact that \emph{Uhlenbeck's lemma} \cite{Uhlenbeck:1982vna}, which is a standard result asserting the existence of a gauge transform (possessing sufficient regularity) into the Coulomb gauge, requires the the curvature $F$ to be small in $L^{3/2}_{x}$. Note that this norm is invariant under the scaling \eqref{eq:YMscaling}, and therefore cannot be assumed to be small by scaling, unlike the energy ${\bf E}[\overline{{\bf F}}]$. To get around this problem, the authors of \cite{Klainerman:1995hz} work in what they call \emph{local Coulomb gauges} in small domains of dependence (in which the required norm of $F$ can be assumed small), and glue the local solutions together by exploiting the finite speed of propagation. The execution of this strategy is quite involved due to the presence of the constraint equations \eqref{eq:YMconstraint}. In particular, it requires a delicate boundary condition for $\Box A_{i}$ in order to mesh the analyses of the elliptic and hyperbolic equations arising from \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the local Coulomb gauge.
\subsubsection*{Approach using the temporal gauge}
A different route to the problem of gauge choice in the context of low regularity well-posedness has been suggested by Tao in his paper \cite{Tao:2000vba}, where he proved $H^{s}_{x}$ local well-posedness for $s > 3/4$ (thus going even below the energy regularity) by working in the \emph{temporal gauge} $A_{0} = 0$, under the restriction that the $H^{s}_{x} \times H^{s-1}_{x}$ norm of $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ is \emph{small}. This gauge has the advantage of being easy to impose globally (as gauge transforms into the temporal gauge can be found by solving an ODE), and thus does not have the problem that the Coulomb gauge possesses. Indeed, it had been used by other authors, including Segal \cite{Segal:1979hg} and Eardley-Moncrief \cite{Eardley:1982fb}, to prove local and global well-posedness of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} for (large) initial data with higher regularity (namely, $s \geq 2$). To reiterate this discussion in our framework, the temporal gauge resolves Issues A and B\footnote{However, Issue B is not addressed fully in the sense that smallness of the initial data is needed.} raised above.
However, this gauge possesses its own drawback that it fails to cope with initial data sets with a large $H^{s}_{x}$ norm, when $3/4 < s \leq 1$\footnote{One reason is that it still relies on a Uhlenbeck-type lemma to set $\partial^{\ell} A_{\ell} = 0$ at $t=0$, which requires some sort of smallness of the initial data. There is also a technical difficulty in the Picard iteration argument which does not allow one to use the smallness of the length of the time-interval; ultimately, this originates from the presence of a time derivative on the right-hand side of the equation $\partial_{t} (\partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}) = - \LieBr{A^{\ell}}{\partial_{t} A_{\ell}}$ (which is equivalent to the equation ${\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell 0} = 0$). See \cite{Tao:2000vba} for more details.}. Moreover, another drawback is that it is unclear how to deal with Issue C, namely how $\nrm{\partial_{x} A_{i}(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}$ may be controlled for every $t$ using the conserved energy ${\bf E}$.
\subsection{Main idea of the novel approach} \label{subsec:intro:mainIdea}
The purpose of this paper, along with the companion paper \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe}, is to present a novel approach to the problem of gauge choice, which does not possess the drawbacks of the previous methods. As such, this approach does not involve localization in space-time and works well for large initial data. Nevertheless, it is (at the very least) as effective as the previous choices of gauge, as we will see that it addresses all of the issues A--C discussed above. As a demonstration of the power of the novel approach, we provide a new proof of \emph{finite energy global well-posedness} of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in this work. This, combined\footnote{We remark, however, that this work will rely on results proved in \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe} other than $H^{1}$ local well-posedness as well. On the other hand, \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe} may be read independently of the present paper.} with the new proof of \emph{$H^{1}_{x}$ local well-posedness} of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} given in \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe}, will constitute an alternative proof of Theorem \ref{thm:intro:KM}.
Heuristically speaking, the key idea of the novel approach is to \emph{`smooth out'} the problem at hand in a \emph{`geometric fashion'}. The expectation is that the problem of gauge choice for the `smoothed out problem' would be much easier thanks to the additional regularity. All the difficulties, then, are shifted to the problem of controlling the error generated by the smoothing procedure. That this is possible for a certain choice of smoothing procedure, based on a geometric (weakly-)parabolic PDE called the \emph{Yang-Mills heat flow}, is the main thesis of this work and \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe}.
In the following three subsections (\S \ref{subsec:intro:YMHF}--\S \ref{subsec:overview4GWP}), we will discuss how the novel approach deals with Issues A--C listed above. After a discussion on the Yang-Mills heat flow in \S \ref{subsec:intro:YMHF}, we will give a summary of the companion paper \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe} in \S \ref{subsec:intro:lwp}, in which we explain how Issues A and B are resolved. Then an overview of the main ideas of the present paper in \S \ref{subsec:overview4GWP} will follow, addressing Issue C.
\begin{remark}
The present work advances a relatively new idea in the field of hyperbolic PDEs, which is to use a geometric parabolic equation to better understand a hyperbolic equation.
To the author's knowledge, the first instance of this idea occurred in the work of Klainerman-Rodnianski \cite{MR2221254}, in which the linear heat equation on a compact 2-manifold was used to develop an invariant form of Littlewood-Paley theory. This was applied in \cite{MR2125732} and \cite{MR2221255} to study the causal geometry of solutions to the Einstein's equations under very weak hypotheses.
Such idea was carried further by Tao \cite{Tao:2004tm}, who proposed to use a nonlinear geometric heat flow to deal with the problem of gauge choice in the context of the energy critical wave map problem. This was put into use in the series of preprints \cite{Tao:2008wn} to develop a large energy theory of wave maps into a hyperbolic space $\mathbb H^{n}$. In this setting, one begins by solving the associated heat flow, in this case the \emph{harmonic map flow}, starting from a wave map restricted to a fixed $t$-slice. Then the key idea is that the harmonic map flow converges (under appropriate conditions) to a single point, same for every $t$, in the target as the heat parameter goes to $\infty$. For this trivial map at infinity, the canonical choice of gauge is clear\footnote{Namely, one chooses the same orthonormal frame at each point on the domain.}; this choice is then parallel-transported back along the harmonic map flow. The resulting gauge is dubbed the \emph{caloric gauge}. This gauge proved to be quite useful, and the use of such gauge has also been successfully extended to the related problem of energy critical Schr\"odinger maps as well, through the works \cite{Bejenaru:2011wy}, \cite{Smith:2011ef} and \cite{Smith:2011ty}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The Yang-Mills heat flow} \label{subsec:intro:YMHF}
Before delving into a more detailed exposition of our approach, let us first introduce the \emph{Yang-Mills heat flow} (or (YMHF) in short), which will play an important role in this series of works. Consider a spatial connection 1-form $A_{i}(s)$ ($i=1,2,3$) on $\mathbb R^{3}$ parametrized by $s \in [0,s_{0}]$ ($s_{0} > 0$). We say that $A_{i}(s)$ is a \emph{Yang-Mills heat flow} if it satisfies the equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:YMHF} \tag{YMHF}
\partial_{s} A_{i} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i} , \quad i=1,2,3.
\end{equation}
First introduced by Donaldson \cite{Donaldson:1985vh}, the Yang-Mills heat flow is the gradient flow for the \emph{Yang-Mills energy} on $\mathbb R^{3}$ (also referred to as the \emph{magnetic energy})
\begin{equation*}
{\bf B}[A_{i}] := \frac{1}{2} \sum_{1 \leq i < j \leq 3} \nrm{F_{ij}}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{2},
\end{equation*}
and plays an important role in differential geometry. It has been a subject of an extensive research by itself; see, for example, \cite{Donaldson:1985vh}, \cite{Rade:1992tu}, \cite{Charalambous:2010vt} and etc.
Our intention is to use \eqref{eq:YMHF} as a geometric smoothing device for \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}. One must be careful, however, since \eqref{eq:YMHF} is \emph{not} strictly parabolic as it stands at the level of $A_{i}$. Indeed, expanding \eqref{eq:YMHF} in terms of $A_{i}$, the top order terms look like
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{s} A_{i} = \triangle A_{i} - \partial^{\ell} \partial_{i} A_{\ell} + (\hbox{lower order terms}),
\end{equation*}
where $\triangle A_{i} - \partial_{i} \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$ possesses non-trivial kernel (any $A_{i} = \partial_{i} \phi$, for $\phi$ a $\mathfrak{g}$-valued function). Due to this fact, the Yang-Mills heat flow is said to be only \emph{weakly-parabolic}.
The culprit of the non-parabolicity of \eqref{eq:YMHF} turns out to be the gauge covariance of the term ${\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i}$, which suggests that it can be remedied by studying the gauge structure of the Yang-Mills heat flow in detail. Upon inspection, we see that the gauge structure of the equations \eqref{eq:YMHF} is somewhat restrained, as it is covariant only under gauge transforms that are \emph{independent} of $s$. To deal with the problem of non-parabolicity, we will begin by fixing this issue, i.e. reformulating the Yang-Mills heat flow in a way that is covariant under gauge transforms which may as well depend on the $s$-variable.
Along with $A_{i}$, let us also add a component $A_{s}$ and consider $A_{a}$ ($a = x^{1}, x^{2}, x^{3}, s$), which is a connection 1-form on the product manifold $\mathbb R^{3} \times [0,s_{0}]$. Corresponding to $A_{s}$, we also introduce the \emph{covariant derivative} along the $\partial_{s}$-direction
\begin{equation*}
{\bf D}_{s} := \partial_{s} + \LieBr{A_{s}}{\cdot}.
\end{equation*}
A \emph{covariant Yang-Mills heat flow} is a solution $A_{a}$ to the following system of equations.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cYMHF} \tag{cYMHF}
F_{si} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i}, \quad i = 1,2,3,
\end{equation}
where $F_{si}$ is the commutator between ${\bf D}_{s}$ and ${\bf D}_{i}$, given by the formula
\begin{equation} \label{eq:intro:Fsi}
F_{si} = \partial_{s} A_{i} - \partial_{i} A_{s} + \LieBr{A_{s}}{A_{i}}.
\end{equation}
The system \eqref{eq:cYMHF} is underdetermined for $A_{a}$, and therefore requires an additional gauge condition (typically on $A_{s}$) in order to be solved. Note that the original Yang-Mills heat flow \eqref{eq:YMHF} is a special case of \eqref{eq:cYMHF}, namely when $A_{s} = 0$. On the other hand, choosing $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$, the top order terms of \eqref{eq:cYMHF} becomes
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{s} A_{i} - \partial_{i} \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell} = \triangle A_{i} - \partial^{\ell} \partial_{i} A_{\ell} +(\hbox{lower order terms}).
\end{equation*}
The term $\partial^{\ell} \partial_{i} A_{\ell}$ on each side are cancelled, and we are consequently left with a \emph{strictly} parabolic system of equations for $A_{i}$. In other words, the weakly-parabolic system \eqref{eq:YMHF} is equivalent to a strictly parabolic system of equations, connected via gauge transforms for \eqref{eq:cYMHF} back and forth $A_{s} = 0$ and $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$.
Henceforth, the gauge condition $A_{s} = 0$ will be referred to as the \emph{caloric gauge}, in deference to the term introduced by Tao in his work \cite{Tao:2004tm}. The condition $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$ will be dubbed the \emph{DeTurck gauge}, as the procedure outlined above may be viewed as a geometric reformulation of the standard DeTurck's trick, introduced first by DeTurck \cite{DeTurck:1983ts} in the context of the Ricci flow and adapted to the Yang-Mills heat flow by Donaldson \cite{Donaldson:1985vh}.
\subsection{Overview of \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe}: Proof of local-wellposedness} \label{subsec:intro:lwp}
Acquainted with the covariant formulation of the Yang-Mills heat flow, we are ready to return to the task of describing our approach in more detail. We will begin by providing a short overview of \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe}, in which local well-posedness is proved for initial data sets with $\dot{H}^{1}_{x}$ regularity; for a more precise statement, see Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YM}. In particular, we will explain how Issues A, B raised in \S \ref{subsec:intro:motivation} are resolved in the novel approach.
To avoid too much technical details, we will treat here the simpler problem of proving an {\it a priori} bound of a solution to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the temporal gauge. That is, for some interval $I := (-T_{0}, T_{0}) \subset \mathbb R$, we will presuppose the existence of a solution $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the temporal gauge on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$ and aim to establish an estimate of the form
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\partial_{t,x} A^{\dagger}_{\mu}}_{C_{t} (I, L^{2}_{x})} \leq C \sum_{i=1,2,3} \nrm{(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \times L^{2}_{x}}
\end{equation*}
where $A^{\dagger}_{i} (t=0) = \overline{A}_{i}, \partial_{t} A^{\dagger}_{i} (t=0) = \overline{E}_{i}$.
\subsubsection*{Geometric smoothing of $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ by the (dynamic) Yang-Mills heat flow}
The first step of the proof is to smooth out the solution $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$, essentially using the covariant Yang-Mills heat flow. Let us introduce a new variable $s \in [0,s_{0}]$, and extend $A^{\dagger}_{\mu} = A^{\dagger}_{\mu}(t,x)$ to $A_{{\bf a}} = A_{{\bf a}} (t,x,s)$ (where ${\bf a} = x^{0},x^{1}, x^{2}, x^{3}, s$) on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times (0,s_{0}]$ by solving the equations
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dYMHF} \tag{dYMHF}
F_{s \mu} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell \mu}, \quad \mu = 0,1,2,3
\end{equation}
with an appropriate choice of $A_{s}$, starting with $A_{\mu} (s=0) = A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$. Note that that this system is \eqref{eq:cYMHF} appended with the equation $F_{s0} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell 0}$ for $A_{0}$; it will be referred to as the \emph{dynamic Yang-Mills heat flow} or, in short, (dYMHF). Using Picard iteration, these equations can be solved provided that $s_{0} > 0$ is small enough.
\subsubsection*{The hyperbolic-parabolic-Yang-Mills system}
As a result, we arrive at a connection 1-form $A_{{\bf a}}$ (where ${\bf a} = x^{0}, x^{1}, x^{2}, x^{3}, s$) on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,s_{0}]$ which solves the following system of equations.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:HPYM} \tag{HPYM}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
F_{s \mu} &= {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell \mu} \hspace{.25in} \hbox{ on } \hspace{.1in} I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,s_{0}], \\
{\bf D}^{\mu} F_{\mu \nu} &= 0 \hspace{.5in} \hbox{ along } I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times \set{0}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
We will refer to this as the \emph{Hyperbolic-Parabolic-Yang-Mills system} or, in short, \eqref{eq:HPYM}. This will be the system of equations that we will mainly work with in place of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}. Accordingly, instead of $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$, we will estimate $\underline{A}_{\mu} := A_{\mu}(s=s_{0})$, which may be viewed as a smoothed-out version of $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$, and the error $\partial_{s} A_{\mu}(s)$ (for $s \in (0, s_{0})$) in between.
\subsubsection*{Gauge choices for \eqref{eq:HPYM}: DeTurck and caloric-temporal gauges}
The next step consists of estimating $\partial_{s} A_{\mu}$ and $\underline{A}_{\mu}$ by using the equations arising from \eqref{eq:HPYM}. Basically, the strategy is to first use the parabolic (in the $s$-direction) equations to estimate the new variables $\partial_{s} A_{\mu}, \underline{A}_{\mu}$ at $t=0$, and then to use the hyperbolic (in the $t$-directions) equations to estimate their evolution in $t$. As \eqref{eq:HPYM} is manifestly gauge covariant (under gauge transforms fully dependent on all the variables $x^{0}, x^{1}, x^{2}, x^{3}, s$), we need to fix a gauge in order to carry out such analyses.
As it turns out, a different gauge choice is needed to achieve each goal. For the purpose of deriving estimates at $t=0$, which should be compatible with the analysis of the $t$-evolution to follow, it is essential to exploit the smoothing property of \eqref{eq:dYMHF}. As such, the gauge of choice here is the \emph{DeTurck gauge} $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$. On the other hand, completely different considerations are required for estimating the $t$-evolution, and here the gauge condition we impose is
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&A_{s} = 0 \quad \hbox{ on } I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times (0,s_{0}), \\
&\underline{A}_{0} = 0 \quad \hbox{ on } I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times \set{s_{0}}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
which will be referred to as the \emph{caloric-temporal gauge}. In practice, the DeTurck gauge will be first used to obtain estimates at $t=0$, and then we will perform a gauge transformation\footnote{A technical remark: Performing a gauge transformation $U = U(t,x,s)$ from the DeTurck gauge to the caloric gauge, with the additional condition that $U(t=0, s=0) = \mathrm{Id}$, corresponds exactly to carrying out the standard DeTurck trick \cite{Donaldson:1985vh}. However, this is inappropriate for our purposes, as it turns out that this gauge transform is not bounded on $H^{m}_{x}$ for $m > 1$. As such, it cannot retain the smoothing estimates proved in the DeTurck gauge. Instead, we will use the gauge transform for which $U(t=0, s=1) = \mathrm{Id}$. Under such gauge transform, $\underline{A}_{i}(t=0)$ remains the same, and thus smooth, at the cost of introducing a non-trivial gauge transform for the initial data at $t=0, s=0$. In some sense, this procedure is an analogue of the Uhlenbeck's lemma in our approach.} into the caloric-temporal gauge to carry out the analysis of the evolution in $t$. We remark that finding such gauge transform is always possible, as it amounts to simply solving a hierarchy of ODEs.
A brief discussion on the motivation behind our choice of the \emph{caloric-temporal gauge} is in order. For $\partial_{s} A_{\mu}$ on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times (0, s_{0})$, let us begin by considering the following rearrangement of the formula \eqref{eq:intro:Fsi} for $F_{si}$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:intro:covHodge}
\partial_{s} A_{i} = F_{si} + {\bf D}_{i} A_{s}.
\end{equation}
A simple computation\footnote{The identity ${\bf D}^{\ell} F_{s \ell} = 0$ follows from \eqref{eq:cYMHF} and ${\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}^{k} F_{\ell k} = 0$, which is proved simply by anti-symmetrizing the indices $\ell, k$.} shows that $F_{si}$ is \emph{covariant-divergence-free}, i.e. ${\bf D}^{\ell} F_{s \ell} = 0$. This suggests that \eqref{eq:intro:covHodge} may be viewed (heuristically) as a \emph{covariant Hodge decomposition} of $\partial_{s} A_{i}$, where $F_{si}$ is the covariant-divergence-free part and ${\bf D}_{i} A_{s}$, being a pure covariant-gradient term, may be regarded as the `covariant-curl-free part' (although, strictly speaking, the covariant-curl does not vanish but is only of lower order for this term). Recall that the Coulomb gauge condition, which had a plenty of good properties as discussed earlier, is equivalent to having zero curl-free part. Therefore, to imitate the Coulomb gauge as closely as possible, we are motivated to set $A_{s} = 0$ on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times (0,s_{0})$; incidentally, this turns out to be the \emph{caloric} gauge condition discussed earlier.
On the other hand, at $s=s_{0}$, the idea is that $\underline{A}_{\mu}$ possesses \emph{smooth} initial data $(\underline{A}_{i}, \underline{F}_{0i})(t=0)$, thanks to the smoothing property of \eqref{eq:dYMHF}. Therefore, we expect that the problem of gauge choice for $\underline{A}_{\mu}$ is not as delicate as the original problem; as such, we choose the temporal gauge condition $\underline{A}_{0} = 0$, which is easy to impose yet sufficient for the analogous problem with smoother initial data, as the previous works \cite{Segal:1979hg}, \cite{Eardley:1982fb} had shown.
\subsubsection*{Resolution of Issues A and B}
With the caloric-temporal gauge, we are finally ready to describe how Issues A and B are resolved in the novel approach. Let us begin by introducing the \emph{Yang-Mills tension field} $w_{\nu} (s):= {\bf D}^{\mu} F_{\nu \mu}(s)$, which measures the extent of failure of $A_{\mu}(s)$ to satisfy \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}. Then we may derive the following system of equations \cite[Appendix A]{Oh:6stz7nRe}:
\begin{align}
{\bf D}_s w_\nu
= & {\bf D}^\ell {\bf D}_\ell w_\nu + 2 \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_\nu^\ell}}{w_\ell} + 2 \LieBr{F^{\mu \ell}}{{\bf D}_{\mu} F_{\nu \ell} + {\bf D}_{\ell} F_{\nu \mu}},
\label{eq:covParabolic4w} \\
{\bf D}^\mu {\bf D}_\mu F_{s i}
= & 2 \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_s^\mu}}{F_{i \mu}} - 2 \LieBr{F^{\mu \ell}}{{\bf D}_\mu F_{i \ell} + {\bf D}_\ell F_{i \mu}}
- {\bf D}^\ell {\bf D}_\ell w_i + {\bf D}_i {\bf D}^\ell w_\ell - 2 \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_i^\ell}}{w_\ell},
\label{eq:hyperbolic4F} \\
\underline{\covD}^{\mu}\underline{F}_{\nu \mu} = & \underline{w}_{\nu}.
\label{eq:hyperbolic4Alow}
\end{align}
The underlines of \eqref{eq:hyperbolic4Alow} signify that each variable is restricted to $\set{s=s_{0}}$. Furthermore, $w_{\nu} \equiv 0$ at $s=0$, for all $\nu = 0,1,2,3$.
The parabolic equation \eqref{eq:covParabolic4w} can be used to derive estimates for the Yang-Mills tension field $w_{\mu}$. It is important to note that its data at $s=0$ is \emph{zero}, thanks to the fact that $A_{\mu}(s=0)$ satisfies \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}. Moreover, note that $w_{0} = -F_{s0}$, which is equal to $- \partial_{s} A_{0}$ thanks to the caloric gauge condition $A_{s} = 0$. In conclusion, after solving the parabolic equation \eqref{eq:covParabolic4w}, the dynamics of \eqref{eq:HPYM} is reduced to that of the variables $F_{si} = \partial_{s} A_{i}$ (again due to $A_{s} = 0$) and $\underline{A}_{i}$. These are, in turn, estimated by \eqref{eq:hyperbolic4F}, which is a wave equation for $F_{si}$, and \eqref{eq:hyperbolic4Alow}, which is the Yang-Mills equation with a source $\underline{w}_{\nu}$ for $\underline{A}_{\mu}$ under the temporal gauge $\underline{A}_{0} = 0$. This shows the hyperbolicity of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}, which takes care of Issue A.
Next, let us address the issue of exhibiting null forms (i.e. Issue B). Let us begin by observing that for \eqref{eq:hyperbolic4Alow}, \emph{no null form is needed} to close the estimates; this is because $(\underline{A}_{i}, \underline{F}_{0i})(t=0)$ has been smoothed out by \eqref{eq:dYMHF} as mentioned earlier. For \eqref{eq:hyperbolic4F}, on the other hand, there turns out to be a single term which cannot be dealt with simply by Strichartz estimates, namely
\begin{equation*}
2\LieBr{A_{\ell} - \underline{A}_{\ell}}{\partial^{\ell} F_{si}}.
\end{equation*}
If $A_{\ell} - \underline{A}_{\ell}$ were divergence-free, i.e. $\partial^{\ell} (A_{\ell} - \underline{A}_{\ell}) = 0$, then an argument of Klainerman-Machedon \cite{Klainerman:1994jb}, \cite{Klainerman:1995hz} would show that this nonlinearity may be rewritten in as a linear combination of null forms $Q_{jk}(\abs{\partial_{x}}^{-1} (A- \underline{A}), F_{si})$. Although this is not strictly true, we have
\begin{equation*}
A_{\ell} - \underline{A}_{\ell} = - \int_{0}^{s_{0}} F_{s\ell} (s) \, \mathrm{d} s
\end{equation*}
thanks to the condition $A_{s} = 0$, where $F_{s\ell}$ is \emph{covariant-divergence-free}, i.e. ${\bf D}^{\ell} F_{s \ell} = 0$. This suffices for a variant of the argument of Klainerman-Machedon to work, settling Issue B.
Provided that $s_{0}, \abs{I}$ are sufficiently small\footnote{In the Coulomb gauge, the equation for $A_{0}$ is elliptic and therefore smallness of the time interval $I$ cannot be utilized to solve for $A_{0}$ using perturbation; in \cite{Klainerman:1995hz}, the authors exploits the spatial localization to overcome this issue. For \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge, $A_{0}$ estimated by integrating $F_{s0} = \partial_{s} A_{0}$, where the latter variable satisfies a parabolic equation. For this, smallness of $s_{0}$ can be used, and thus the estimates are still global on $\mathbb R^{3}$.}, an analysis of \eqref{eq:HPYM} using the gauge conditions indicated above leads to estimates for $\partial_{s} A_{i}, \underline{A}_{i}$ in the caloric-temporal gauge, such as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:intro:est4HPYM}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\sup_{0 < s < s_{0}} s^{-(m+1)/2} \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(m-1)} \partial_{t,x} (\partial_{s} A_{i})(s)}_{C_{t} (I, L^{2}_{x})}
\leq C_{m} \sum_{j=1,2,3} \nrm{(\overline{A}_{j}, \overline{E}_{j})}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \times L^{2}_{x}} \\
\Big( \int_{0}^{s_{0}} s^{-(m+1)} \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(m-1)} \partial_{t,x} (\partial_{s} A_{i})(s)}_{C_{t} (I, L^{2}_{x})}^{2} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \Big)^{1/2}
\leq C_{m} \sum_{j=1,2,3} \nrm{(\overline{A}_{j}, \overline{E}_{j})}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \times L^{2}_{x}} \\
s_{0}^{-(k-1)/2} \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k-1)} \partial_{t,x} \underline{A}_{i}}_{C_{t} (I, L^{2}_{x})}
\leq C_{k} \sum_{j=1,2,3} \nrm{(\overline{A}_{j}, \overline{E}_{j})}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \times L^{2}_{x}}
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
up to some integers $m_{0}, k_{0} > 1$, i.e. $1 \leq m \leq m_{0}$, $1 \leq k \leq k_{0}$. We remark that the weights of $s$ are dictated by scaling.
\subsubsection*{Returning to $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$} The only remaining step is to translate \eqref{eq:intro:est4HPYM} to the desired estimate for $\nrm{\partial_{t,x} A^{\dagger}_{\mu}}_{C_{t} (I, L^{2}_{x})}$. The first issue arising in this step is that the naive approach of integrating the estimates \eqref{eq:intro:est4HPYM} in $s$ \emph{fails} to bound $\nrm{\partial_{t,x} A^{\dagger}_{\mu}}_{C_{t} (I, L^{2}_{x})}$, albeit only by a logarithm. To resolve this issue, we take the weakly-parabolic equations
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{s} A_{i} = \triangle A_{i} - \partial^{\ell} \partial_{i} A_{\ell} + (\hbox{lower order terms}).
\end{equation*}
differentiate by $\partial_{t,x}$, multiply by $\partial_{t,x} A_{i}$ and then integrate the highest order terms by parts over $\mathbb R^{3} \times [0, s_{0}]$. This procedure, combined with the $L^{2}_{s}$-type estimates of \eqref{eq:intro:est4HPYM}, overcome the logarithmic divergence.
Another issue is that \eqref{eq:intro:est4HPYM}, being in the caloric-temporal gauge, is in a different gauge from the temporal gauge along $s=0$. Therefore, we are required to control the gauge transform back to the temporal gauge along $s=0$, for which appropriate estimates for $A_{0}(s=0)$ in the caloric-temporal gauge are needed. These are obtained ultimately as a consequence of the analysis of the hyperbolic equations of \eqref{eq:HPYM} (Strichartz estimates, in particular, are used).
\subsection{Overview of the present paper: Finite energy global well-posedness} \label{subsec:overview4GWP}
In the work of Klainerman-Machedon \cite{Klainerman:1995hz}, as pointed out earlier, finite energy global well-posedness was a rather easy corollary of the $H^{1}_{x}$ local well-posedness proof thanks to the fact that in the (local) Coulomb gauge, the conserved energy ${\bf E}(t)$ essentially controls $\nrm{(A_{i}, F_{0i})(t)}_{H^{1}_{x} \times L^{2}_{x}}$. However, in the temporal gauge, making use of the conserved energy ${\bf E}(t)$ is not as straightforward since ${\bf E}(t)$ only controls certain components (namely, the curl) of the full gradient of $A_{i}(t)$. We remind the reader that this was referred to as Issue C in \S \ref{subsec:intro:motivation}.
Nevertheless, it is another remarkable property of the novel approach that Issue C can also be resolved, and therefore finite energy global well-posedness of \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} can be proved. Our proof proceeds roughly in three steps, each of which uses the conserved energy ${\bf E}(t)$ in a crucial way.
\subsubsection*{Step 1} Let us start with a solution $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the temporal gauge on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3}$. As in the proof of local well-posedness, the first step is to solve \eqref{eq:dYMHF} to extend $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ to a solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM}. {\it A priori}, however, it is not clear whether this is possible when $T_{0}$ is large.
To illustrate, suppose that $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ does not extend past the time $T_{0}$. Then from the local well-posedness statement, it is necessary that
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\partial_{t,x} A^{\dagger}_{\mu}(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \to \infty \quad \hbox{ as } t \to T_{0}.
\end{equation*}
Because of this, the size of the $s$-interval on which \eqref{eq:dYMHF} can be solved by perturbative methods shrinks as $t \to T_{0}$. As a consequence, there might not exist a non-trivial interval $[0,s_{0}]$ on which \eqref{eq:dYMHF} can be solved for every $t \in (-T_{0}, T_{0})$.
However, such a scenario is ruled out, thanks to the conserved energy ${\bf E}(t)$, and \eqref{eq:dYMHF} can be solved in a uniform manner globally in time. More precisely, it is possible to show that there exists $s_{0} > 0$ depending only on ${\bf E}(t)$ such that \eqref{eq:dYMHF} on a fixed $t$-slice can be solved on an interval $[0,s_{0}]$. As ${\bf E}(t)$ is conserved, this shows that $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ can be extended to a solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$.
\subsubsection*{Step 2} With a solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ of \eqref{eq:HPYM} in hand, let us impose the caloric-temporal gauge condition via an appropriate gauge transform. We wish to demonstrate that the conserved energy\footnote{For a solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM}, ${\bf E}(t)$ is defined to be the conserved energy of $A_{\mu}$ at $(t, s=0)$. We remark that this is a gauge-invariant quantity.} ${\bf E}(t)$ controls the appropriate fixed-time norms of the dynamic variables, which in this case are $\underline{A}_{i}$ and $F_{si} = \partial_{s} A_{i}$.
The key observation is that $\nrm{{\bf D}_{x}^{(k)} F_{\mu \nu}(t, s)}_{L^{2}_{x}}$ is estimated (with an appropriate weight of $s$) by ${\bf E}(t)$, thanks to covariant parabolic estimates. In particular, $\nrm{{\bf D}_{x}^{(k)} \underline{F}_{0i}(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}$ is under control, where $\underline{F}_{\mu \nu}$ is the connection 2-form restricted to $\set{s=s_{0}}$. As the temporal gauge condition $\underline{A}_{0} = 0$ is enforced, we have $\underline{F}_{0i} = \partial_{t} \underline{A}_{i}$; therefore, the preceding norm may be integrated in $t$ to control the size of $\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k)} \underline{A}_{i}(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}$ for $t \in (-T_{0}, T_{0})$. On the other hand, as $F_{si} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i}$ is already of the form ${\bf D}_{x} F_{\mu \nu}$, we can use the conserved energy ${\bf E}(t)$ to control the appropriate (fixed-time) norms of $F_{si}(t)$ as well, for each $t \in (-T_{0}, T_{0})$.
\subsubsection*{Step 3} Finally, we must unwind all the gauge transformations which have been done and return to $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$. As in the last step of the proof of local well-posedness, this requires estimating $A_{0}$ along $s=0$ in the caloric-temporal gauge, where an important ingredient for the latter is the estimates obtained from the hyperbolic equations of \eqref{eq:HPYM}. Iterating the techniques developed in \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe} for proving local well-posedness on a short time interval, coupled with some new estimates arising from the conserved energy ${\bf E}$, leads to the desired estimates.
For a more rigorous overview of the whole argument of the present paper, we refer the reader to Section \ref{sec:reduction}. There, the Main Theorem is reduced to Theorems \ref{thm:idEst}--\ref{thm:dynEst}, which essentially correspond to Steps 1--3 in the respective order.
\subsection{Statement of the Main Theorem}
We will now give the precise statement of our main result. Let us begin by defining the class of initial data sets of interest.
\begin{definition}[Admissible $H^{1}$ initial data set] \label{def:admID}
We say that a pair $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ of 1-forms on $\mathbb R^{3}$ is an \emph{admissible $H^{1}$ initial data set} for the Yang-Mills equations if the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\overline{A}_{i} \in \dot{H}_{x}^{1} \cap L^{3}_{x}$ and $\overline{E}_{i} \in L^{2}$,
\item The \emph{constraint equation}
\begin{equation*}
\partial^{\ell} \overline{E}_{\ell} + \LieBr{\overline{A}^{\ell}}{\overline{E}_{\ell}} = 0,
\end{equation*}
holds in the distributional sense.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Let us also define the notion of \emph{admissible solutions.}
\begin{definition}[Admissible solutions] \label{def:admSol}
Let $I \subset \mathbb R$. We say that a generalized solution $A_{\mu}$ to the Yang-Mills equations \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the temporal gauge $A_{0} = 0$ defined on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$ is \emph{admissible} if
\begin{equation*}
A_{\mu} \in C_{t}(I, \dot{H}^{1}_{x} \cap L^{3}_{x}), \quad \partial_{t} A_{\mu} \in C_{t}(I, L^{2}_{x})
\end{equation*}
and $A_{\mu}$ can be approximated by classical solutions in the temporal gauge in the above topology.
\end{definition}
We begin with a $H^{1}_{x}$ local well-posedness theorem, whose proof using the Yang-Mills heat flow has been given in the companion paper \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe}.
\begin{theorem}[$H^{1}_{x}$ local well-posedness {\cite[Main Theorem]{Oh:6stz7nRe}}] \label{thm:lwp4YM}
Let $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ be an admissible $H^{1}$ initial data set, and define $\overline{\mathcal I} := \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} + \nrm{\overline{E}}_{L^{2}_{x}}$. Consider the initial value problem (IVP) for \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} with $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ as the initial data. Then the following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists $T^{\star} = T^{\star}(\overline{\mathcal I})> 0$, which is non-increasing in $\overline{\mathcal I}$, such that a unique admissible solution $A_{\mu} = A_{\mu} (t,x)$ to the IVP in the temporal gauge $A_{0} = 0$ exists on the $t$-interval $I := (-T^{\star}, T^{\star})$. Furthermore, the following estimates hold.
\begin{align*}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\partial_{t,x} A_{i}}_{C_{t} (I,L^{2}_{x})} \leq C \, \overline{\mathcal I}, \qquad
\sup_{i} \nrm{A_{i}}_{C_{t} (I, L^{3}_{x})} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal I}} \cdot \sup_{i} \nrm{\overline{A}_{i}}_{L^{3}_{x}}.
\end{align*}
\item Let $(\overline{A}'_{i}, \overline{E}'_{i})$ be another admissible $H^{1}$ initial data set such that $\nrm{\overline{A}'}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} + \nrm{\overline{E}'}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq \overline{\mathcal I}$, and let $A'_{\mu}$ be the corresponding solution given by (1). Then the following estimates for the difference hold.
\begin{align*}
\sup_{i} \nrm{\partial_{t,x} A_{i}- \partial_{t,x} A'_{i}}_{C_{t} (I,L^{2}_{x})}
\leq & C_{\overline{\mathcal I}} (\sup_{i} \nrm{\overline{A}_{i} - \overline{A}'_{i}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} +\sup_{i} \nrm{\overline{E}_{i} - \overline{E}_{i}'}_{L^{2}_{x}} ), \\
\sup_{i} \nrm{A_{i}- A'_{i}}_{C_{t} (I, L^{3}_{x})}
\leq & C_{\overline{\mathcal I}} (\sup_{i} \nrm{\overline{A}_{i} - \overline{A}'_{i}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \cap L^{3}_{x}} +\sup_{i} \nrm{\overline{E}_{i} - \overline{E}_{i}'}_{L^{2}_{x}} ).
\end{align*}
\item Finally, the following version of \emph{persistence of regularity} holds: if $\partial_{x} \overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i} \in H^{m}_{x}$ for an integer $m \geq 0$, then the corresponding solution given by (1) satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{t,x} A_{i} \in C^{k_{1}}_{t} ((-T^{\star}, T^{\star}), H^{k_{2}}_{x})
\end{equation*}
for every pair $(k_{1}, k_{2})$ of nonnegative integers such that $k_{1} + k_{2} \leq m$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
The Main Theorem of this paper is a global well-posedness statement, which (in essence) says that the solution given by Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YM} can be extended globally in time. It uses crucially the fact that an admissible initial data set always possesses finite \emph{conserved energy}, which whose precise definition is as follows. Given a space-time 2-form ${\bf F} = F_{\mu \nu}$, we define its \emph{conserved energy} to be
\begin{equation*}
{\bf E}[{\bf F}] := \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\mu < \nu} \nrm{F_{\mu \nu}}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{2}.
\end{equation*}
We are ready to state our Main Theorem.
\begin{MainTheorem}[Finite energy global well-posedness]
Let $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ be an admissible $H^{1}$ initial data set, and consider the initial value problem (IVP) for \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} with $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ as the initial data. Note that by admissibility, $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ always possesses finite conserved energy, i.e. ${\bf E}[\overline{{\bf F}}] < \infty$. Then the following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The admissible solution given by Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YM} extends globally in time, uniquely as an admissible solution in the temporal gauge $A_{0} = 0$.
\item Moreover, if $\overline{A}_{i}$, $\overline{E}_{i}$ are smooth and $\partial_{x} \overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i} \in H^{m}_{x}$ for an integer $m \geq 0$, then the corresponding solution given by (1) is also smooth and satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{t,x} A_{i} \in C^{k_{1}}_{t} (\mathbb R, H^{k_{2}}_{x})
\end{equation*}
for every pair $(k_{1}, k_{2})$ of nonnegative integers such that $k_{1} + k_{2} \leq m$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{MainTheorem}
We remark that quantitative estimates as in Parts (1), (2) of Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YM} can be obtained by applying Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YM} repeatedly. We have omitted these statements for the sake of brevity.
\begin{remark}
The temporal gauge in the statements of Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YM} and the Main Theorem does not play an essential role. We have used this mainly because it is a well-known gauge condition that is easy to impose. In fact, most of the analysis in this paper takes place under the caloric-temporal gauge condition which has been introduced above.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Outline of the paper}
After setting up the notations and conventions in Section \ref{sec:notations}, we begin the proof of the Main Theorem in Section \ref{sec:reduction} by reducing it to establishing Theorems \ref{thm:idEst}, \ref{thm:ctrlByE} and \ref{thm:dynEst}, all of which concern the system \eqref{eq:HPYM}. We remark that Theorems \ref{thm:idEst}, \ref{thm:ctrlByE} and \ref{thm:dynEst} will correspond to Steps 1, 2 and 3 which have been discussed in \S \ref{subsec:overview4GWP}, in the respective order.
The rest of the paper is devoted to proofs of Theorems \ref{thm:idEst}, \ref{thm:ctrlByE} and \ref{thm:dynEst}. In Section \ref{sec:prelim}, we gather some preliminary definitions and results needed in the remainder of the paper. In particular, we present an array of techniques for dealing with covariant parabolic equations in \S \ref{subsec:covTech}. These techniques is put into use in the following section (Section \ref{sec:covParabolic}), where we study the covariant parabolic equations satisfied by the curvature 2-form $F$ of a solution to \eqref{eq:cYMHF} or \eqref{eq:dYMHF}. As a result, we derive \emph{covariant parabolic estimates}, on which the whole paper is based. Then in Section \ref{sec:YMHF}, we study the systems \eqref{eq:cYMHF} and \eqref{eq:dYMHF} themselves under the caloric gauge condition $A_{s} = 0$\footnote{As a byproduct of our analysis, we obtain an independent proof of global existence of solutions to the original Yang-Mills heat flow $\partial_{s} A_{i} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i}$ with finite Yang-Mills energy, which is a result originally due to R{\aa}de \cite{Rade:1992tu}. See Corollary \ref{cor:gwp4YMHF}.}. Then in the final three sections of this paper, we finally give proofs of Theorems \ref{thm:idEst}, \ref{thm:ctrlByE} and \ref{thm:dynEst} in order.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
The author is deeply indebted to his Ph.D. advisor Sergiu Klainerman, without whose support and constructive criticisms this work would not have been possible. Also, the author would like to thank Jonathan Luk for reading an earlier version of the paper and providing numerous suggestions, which all helped to improve the manuscript. He would also like to express gratitude to l'ENS d'Ulm for hospitality, where a major part of this work was done. The author was supported by the Samsung Scholarship.
\section{Notations and Conventions} \label{sec:notations}
In this paper, we will use bold kernel letters to refer to all space-time components; more precisely, ${\bf F}$ denotes any of the 6 components of $F_{\mu \nu}$, and ${\bf A}$, ${\bf F}_{s}$ denote any of the 4 components of $A_{\nu}$, $F_{s\nu}$, respectively. On the other hand, plain kernel letters will refer to \emph{only} spatial components, i.e. $F = F_{ij}$, $A = A_{i}$, and $F_{s} = F_{si}$ for $i, j= 1,2,3$. A norm of such an expression, such as $\nrm{{\bf A}}$ or $\nrm{A}$, is to be understood as the maximum over the respective range of indices, i.e. $\nrm{{\bf A}} = \sup_{\mu=0,1,2,3} \nrm{A_{\mu}}$, $\nrm{A} = \sup_{i=1,2,3} \nrm{A_{i}}$ and etc.
We will use the notation $\mathcal O(\phi_{1}, \ldots, \phi_{k})$ to denote a $k$-linear expression in the \emph{values} of $\phi_{1}, \ldots, \phi_{k}$. For example, when $\phi_{i}$ and the expression itself are scalar-valued, then $\mathcal O(\phi_{1}, \ldots, \phi_{k}) = C \phi_{1} \phi_{2} \cdots \phi_{k}$ for some constant $C$. In many cases, however, each $\phi_{i}$ and the expression $\mathcal O(\phi_{1}, \ldots, \phi_{k})$ will actually be matrix-valued. In such case, $\mathcal O(\phi_{1}, \ldots, \phi_{k})$ will be a matrix, whose each entry is a $k$-linear functional of the matrices $\phi_{i}$.
In stating various estimates, we will adopt the standard convention of denoting finite positive constants which are different, possibly line to line, by the same letter $C$. Dependence of $C$ on other parameters will be made explicit by subscripts. Furthermore, we will adopt the convention that $C$ \emph{always} depends in a non-decreasing manner with respect to each of its parameters, in its respective range, unless otherwise specified. For example, $C_{{\bf E}, {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I}$, where ${\bf E}, {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I$ range over positive real numbers, is a positive, non-decreasing function of both ${\bf E}$ and ${}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I$.
Finally, in addition to plain greek and latin indices, we will utilize bold latin indices, such as ${\bf a}, {\bf b}$, which will refer to all possible indices $x^{0}, x^{1}, x^{2}, x^{3}, s$.
\section{Reduction of the Main Theorem} \label{sec:reduction}
\subsection{Preliminaries}
Before we begin, let us borrow a few definitions and lemmas from \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe}, which will be useful in the proof of the Main Theorem. We start with the notion of \emph{regular} functions and initial data sets.
\begin{definition}[Regular functions] \label{def:regFtns}
Let $I \subset \mathbb R$, $J \subset [0, \infty)$ be intervals.
\begin{enumerate}
\item A function $\phi = \phi(x)$ defined on $\mathbb R^{3}$ is \emph{regular} if $\phi \in H^{\infty}_{x} := \cap_{m=0}^{\infty} H^{m}_{x}$.
\item A function $\phi = \phi(t, x)$ defined on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$ is \emph{regular} if $\phi \in C^{\infty}_{t}(I, H^{\infty}_{x}) := \cap_{k,m=0}^{\infty} C^{k}_{t}(I, H^{m}_{x})$.
\item A function $\psi = \psi(t, x,s)$ defined on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times J$ is \emph{regular} if $\phi \in C^{\infty}_{t,s}(I \times J, H^{\infty}_{x}):= \cap_{k,m=0}^{\infty} C^{k}_{t,s}(I \times J, H^{m}_{x})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Regular initial data sets] \label{def:reg4id}
We say that an initial data set $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} is \emph{regular} if, in addition to satisfying the constraint equation \eqref{eq:YMconstraint}, $\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i}$ are smooth and $\partial_{x} \overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i}$ are regular.
\end{definition}
The first lemma tells us that an admissible initial data set may be approximated by a sequence of regular initial data sets.
\begin{lemma}[Approximation lemma {\cite[Lemma 4.5]{Oh:6stz7nRe}}] \label{lem:regApprox}
Any admissible $H^{1}$ initial data set $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i}) \in (\dot{H}^{1}_{x} \cap L^{3}_{x}) \times L^{2}_{x}$ can be approximated by a sequence of regular initial data sets $(\overline{A}_{(n) i}, \overline{E}_{(n) i})$ satisfying the constraint equation \eqref{eq:YMconstraint}. More precisely, the initial data sets $(\overline{A}_{(n) i}, \overline{E}_{(n) i})$ may be taken to satisfy the following properties.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\overline{A}_{(n)}$ is smooth, compactly supported, and
\item $\overline{E}_{(n)}$ is regular, i.e. $\overline{E}_{(n)} \in H^{k}_{x}$ for every integer $k \geq 0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
The idea is that a regular initial data set leads to, by persistence of regularity, a \emph{regular solution} to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} and \eqref{eq:HPYM}, which is defined as follows.
\begin{definition}[Regular solutions] \label{def:mainThm:reg4YM}
We say that a representative $A_{\mu}$ of a classical solution to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} is \emph{regular} if $A_{\mu}$ is smooth and $\partial_{t,x} A_{\mu}$ is regular. Furthermore, we say that a smooth solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} is \emph{regular} if $A_{{\bf a}}$ is smooth and $\partial_{t,x} A_{\mu}, A_{s}$ are regular.
\end{definition}
Related to the notion of a regular solution, we also introduce the definition of a \emph{regular gauge transform}.
\begin{definition}[Regular gauge transform] \label{def:reg4gt}
We say that a gauge transform $U$ on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times J$ is a \emph{regular gauge transform} if $U$, $U^{-1}$ are smooth and furthermore
\begin{equation*}
U, U^{-1} \in C^{\infty}_{t,s}(I \times J, L^{\infty}_{x}), \quad
\partial_{t,x} U, \partial_{t,x} U^{-1} \in C^{\infty}_{t,s}(I \times J, L^{3}_{x}), \quad
\partial_{t,x}^{(2)} U, \partial_{t,x}^{(2)} U^{-1} \in C^{\infty}_{t,s}(I \times J, H^{\infty}_{x}).
\end{equation*}
A gauge transform $U$ defined on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$ is a \emph{regular gauge transform} if it is a regular gauge transform viewed as an $s$-independent gauge transform on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times J$ for some $J \subset [0, \infty)$.
\end{definition}
Note that a regular solution (either to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} or to \eqref{eq:HPYM}) remains regular under a regular gauge transform.
Let us also define a norm $\mathcal A_{0}[A_{0}](I)$ (for $I \subset \mathbb R$ an interval) for a $\mathfrak{g}$-valued function $A_{0}$ on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$ as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal A_{0}[A_{0}](I) := \nrm{A_{0}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{3}_{x}(I)} + \nrm{\partial_{x} A_{0}}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}(I)} + \nrm{A_{0}}_{L^{1}_{t} L^{\infty}_{x}(I)} + \nrm{\partial_{x} A_{0}}_{L^{1}_{t} L^{3}_{x}(I)} + \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(2)} A_{0}}_{L^{1}_{t} L^{2}_{x}(I)}.
\end{equation*}
The next lemma shows that this norm is exactly what one needs in order to estimate gauge transforms into the temporal gauge.
\begin{lemma}[Estimates for gauge transform to temporal gauge {\cite[Lemma 4.6]{Oh:6stz7nRe}}] \label{lem:est4gt2temporal}
Let $T_{0} > 0$, and consider the following ODE on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3}$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:est4gt2temporal:0}
\left \{
\begin{aligned}
& \partial_{t} V = V A_{0} \\
& V(t=0) = \overline{V},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where we assume that $A_{0}$ is smooth and $\mathcal A_{0}(-T_{0}, T_{0}) < \infty$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Suppose that $\overline{V} = \overline{V}(x)$ is a smooth $\mathfrak{G}$-valued function on $\set{t=0} \times \mathbb R^{3}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\overline{V}, \overline{V}^{-1} \in L^{\infty}_{x}, \quad \partial_{x} \overline{V}, \partial_{x} \overline{V}^{-1} \in L^{3}_{x}, \quad \partial_{x}^{(2)} \overline{V}, \partial_{x}^{(2)} \overline{V}^{-1} \in H^{m}_{x}
\end{equation*}
for all integers $m \geq 0$.
Then there exists a unique solution $V$ to the ODE, which obeys the following estimates.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:est4gt2temporal:V}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{V}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{\infty}_{x} (-T_{0}, T_{0})}
\leq & C_{\mathcal A_{0}(-T_{0}, T_{0})} \cdot \nrm{\overline{V}}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}, \\
\nrm{\partial_{t,x} V}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{3}_{x} (-T_{0}, T_{0})}
\leq & C_{\mathcal A_{0}(-T_{0}, T_{0})} \cdot (\nrm{\partial_{x} \overline{V}}_{L^{3}_{x}} +\mathcal A_{0}(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \nrm{\overline{V}}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}), \\
\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(2)} V}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x} (-T_{0}, T_{0})}
\leq & C_{\mathcal A_{0}(-T_{0}, T_{0})} \cdot (\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(2)} \overline{V}}_{L^{2}_{x}} +\mathcal A_{0}(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \nrm{\overline{V}}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}).
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
These estimates remain true with $V$, $\overline{V}$ replaced by $V^{-1}$, $\overline{V}^{-1}$, respectively.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Reduction of the Main Theorem to Theorems \ref{thm:idEst}, \ref{thm:ctrlByE} and \ref{thm:dynEst}}
The theorem we present below concerns two points: A) After scaling, it ensures that \eqref{eq:dYMHF} can always be solved (from which we obtain a solution to \eqref{eq:HPYM}) on the unit $s$-interval provided that the conserved energy is small, and B) It gives a quantitative estimate for the data for \eqref{eq:HPYM} at $t=0$ (namely $\mathcal I(0)$) in terms of the size $\overline{\mathcal I}$ of the initial data set $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$.
Given a solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$, we assert the existence of a norm $\mathcal I(t)$ $(t \in I)$ of $\partial_{t,x} F_{si}(t,s)$ $(0 < s < 1)$ and $\partial_{t,x}\underline{A}_{i}(t)$, for which the following theorem holds. The precise definition will be given in Section \ref{sec:pfOfIdEst}.
\begin{bigTheorem}[Transformation into the caloric-temporal gauge and estimates at $t=0$] \label{thm:idEst}
Consider a regular initial data set $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} which satisfies\footnote{We remind the reader the notation $\overline{{\bf F}} = F_{\mu \nu}(t=0, s=0)$.}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:idEst:hyp}
\nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}} < \delta_{P}, \quad {\bf E}[\overline{{\bf F}}] < \delta.
\end{equation}
where $\delta_{P}, \delta > 0$ are small absolute constants. Let $A^{\dagger}_{i}$ be the corresponding regular solution to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the temporal gauge given by Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YM}, which we assume to exist on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3}$ for some $T_{0} > 0$. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists a regular gauge transform $V = V(t,x)$ on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3}$ and a regular solution $A_{{\bf a}} = A_{{\bf a}}(t,x,s)$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ such that $F_{\mu \nu}$ is regular and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:idEst:0}
A_{\mu}(s=0) = V A^{\dagger}_{\mu} V^{-1} - \partial_{\mu} V V^{-1}.
\end{equation}
\item With the notation $\overline{\mathcal I} := \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} + \nrm{\overline{E}}_{L^{2}_{x}}$, the following estimates hold.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:idEst:1}
\mathcal I(0) \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal I}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal I}, \quad
\nrm{\overline{V}}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal I}}, \quad
\nrm{\partial_{x} \overline{V}}_{L^{3}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(2)} \overline{V}}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal I}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal I}.
\end{equation}
The identical estimates as the last two hold for $\overline{V}$ replaced by $\overline{V}^{-1}$ as well.
\end{enumerate}
\end{bigTheorem}
The non-trivial initial gauge transform $\overline{V}$ has been introduced to ensure that $\underline{A}_{i}$ is smoother than $A^{\dagger}_{i}$. It can be thought of as a substitute for the Uhlenbeck's lemma in our setting; for more details, we refer the reader to \cite[Proof of Theorem A]{Oh:6stz7nRe}. The quantitative estimates \eqref{eq:idEst:1}, as well as the existence of $\overline{V}$, follows from \cite[Theorem A]{Oh:6stz7nRe}.
The next theorem basically says that the conserved energy ${\bf E}(t)$ can be used to control $\mathcal I(t)$ for every $t \in (-T_{0}, T_{0})$; we refer the reader to Step 2 in \S \ref{subsec:overview4GWP} for the basic idea behind the theorem.
\begin{bigTheorem} [Fixed time estimates by ${\bf E}$] \label{thm:ctrlByE}
Let $T_{0} > 0$, and consider a regular solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ satisfying $\mathcal I(0) < \infty$ and ${\bf E}[\overline{{\bf F}}] < \infty$.
Then for $t \in (-T_{0}, T_{0})$, $\mathcal I(t)$ can be bounded in terms of the initial data and $T_{0}$, i.e.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ctryByE:0}
\sup_{t \in (-T_{0}, T_{0})} \mathcal I(t) \leq C_{\mathcal I(0), {\bf E}[\overline{{\bf F}}], T_{0}} < \infty.
\end{equation}
\end{bigTheorem}
From Theorems \ref{thm:idEst} and \ref{thm:ctrlByE}, we obtain {\it a priori} estimates on each fixed-time slice $\set{t} \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$. In order to estimate the gauge transform back to the temporal gauge, however, one needs to control $\mathcal A_{0}$ (recall Lemma \ref{lem:est4gt2temporal}), and for this purpose it turns out that these fixed-time estimates are insufficient. In order to estimate $\mathcal A_{0}$ we need to take advantage of the fact that the dynamic variables $F_{s}, \underline{A}$ satisfy wave equations, which is exactly what the next theorem achieves.
\begin{bigTheorem}[Short time estimates for \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge] \label{thm:dynEst}
Let $T_{0} > 0$, and consider a regular solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ such that ${\bf F} = F_{\mu \nu}$ is regular on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$. Suppose furthermore that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dynEst:hyp}
\sup_{t \in (-T_{0}, T_{0})} {\bf E}[{\bf F}(t, s=0)] < \delta, \quad \sup_{t \in (-T_{0}, T_{0})} \mathcal I(t) \leq D,
\end{equation}
where $D > 0$ is an arbitrarily large finite number and $\delta > 0$ is an absolute small constant independent of $D$.
Then there exists a number $d = d(D, \delta)$, which depends on $D, \delta$ in a non-increasing fashion, such that on every subinterval $I_{0} \subset I$ of length $d$, the following estimate holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dynEst:0}
\sup_{s \in [0,1]} \nrm{\partial_{t,x} {\bf A}(s)}_{C_{t}(I_{0}, L^{2}_{x})} + \sup_{s \in [0,1]} \mathcal A_{0}[A_{0}(s=0)](I_{0}) \leq C_{D, \delta}.
\end{equation}
\end{bigTheorem}
In essence, Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst} is a result of a fairly standard local-in-time analysis of the wave equations of \eqref{eq:HPYM}. However, there is a little twist, which necessitates the extra hypotheses \eqref{eq:dynEst:hyp} and demands an explanation. Among the equations of \eqref{eq:HPYM} is an equation for $F_{s0}$ which, unlike the other components $F_{si}$, is parabolic. As such, smallness of the time interval \emph{cannot} be utilized to solve this equation in a perturbative manner\footnote{In \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe}, this issue is bypassed by keeping the lengths of the $s$- and the time intervals fixed and requiring the size of the data to be small by scaling. If one unwinds the scaling, this amounts to taking the length of both the $s$- and the time intervals small.}. What saves us is the fact that the parabolic equation for $F_{s0}$ is \emph{covariant}, and therefore can be analyzed using the covariant techniques presented in \S \ref{subsec:covTech}. The first inequality of \eqref{eq:dynEst:hyp} provides the necessary smallness for this analysis, whereas the second one is needed to estimate the errors arising from switching covariant derivatives to usual derivatives. A rigorous proof will be given in Section \ref{sec:pfOfDynEst}.
We are now prepared to give a proof of the Main Theorem, under the assumption that Theorems \ref{thm:idEst}, \ref{thm:ctrlByE} and \ref{thm:dynEst} are true.
\begin{proof} [Proof of the Main Theorem, assuming Theorems \ref{thm:idEst}, \ref{thm:ctrlByE} and \ref{thm:dynEst}]
To begin with, let us consider a \emph{regular} initial data set with finite conserved energy, i.e. $\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i}$ are smooth, $\partial_{x} \overline{A}_{i}$, $\overline{E}_{i}$ are regular and ${\bf E}(\overline{{\bf F}}) < \infty$. Applying Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YM} to $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$, there exists a unique regular solution to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the temporal gauge on some time interval centered at $0$, which we will denote by $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$. We will first show this solution exists globally in time.
For the purpose of contradiction, suppose that the solution $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ cannot be extended globally as a unique regular solution to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the temporal gauge. Then there exists a positive finite number $0 < T_{0} < \infty$, which is the largest positive number for which the solution $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ can be extend as a regular solution on $(-T_{0}, T_{0})$. We claim that there exists a finite positive constant $C = C_{\overline{\mathcal I}, {\bf E}[\overline{{\bf F}}], T_{0}}$, which depends only on the initial data and $T_{0}$, such that the following inequality holds.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mainThm:pf:0}
\sup_{t \in (-T_{0}, T_{0})} \nrm{A^{\dagger}_{\mu}(t)}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal I}, {\bf E}[\overline{{\bf F}}], T_{0}} < \infty.
\end{equation}
Let us complete the proof of the Main Theorem first, under the assumption that the claim is true. If the claim were true, then the solution may be extended as a unique regular solution to $(-T_{0}-\epsilon, T_{0}+\epsilon)$ for some $\epsilon >0$ by Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YM}, which is a contradiction. It follows that $T_{0} = \infty$, and thus $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ can be extended globally in time as a unique regular solution to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the temporal gauge. Observe that the estimate \eqref{eq:mainThm:pf:0} still holds for the global solution $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ for every $T_{0} > 0$.
Next, Lemma \ref{lem:regApprox} implies that an admissible initial data can be approximated by a sequence of regular initial data sets $(\overline{A}_{(n) i}, \overline{E}_{(n) i})$. Let us denote the corresponding unique global regular solutions by $A_{(n)\mu}$. Using Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YM} repeatedly (with the help of \eqref{eq:mainThm:pf:0}), the following statement may be proved: For every $T_{0} > 0$, the sequence of regular solutions $A_{(n)\mu}$ restricted to the time interval $(-T_{0}, T_{0})$ is a Cauchy sequence in the topology $C_{t}((-T_{0}, T_{0}), \dot{H}^{1}_{x} \cap L^{3}_{x})$. Hence a limit $A_{\mu}$ exists on $(-T_{0}, T_{0})$. Moreover, it is also possible to show that $\partial_{t} A_{(n)\mu} \to \partial_{t} A_{\mu}$ in $C_{t}((-T_{0}, T_{0}), L^{2}_{x})$. Thus it follows that $A_{\mu}$ is an admissible solution to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the temporal gauge on $(-T_{0}, T_{0})$. Uniqueness among the class of admissible solutions follows from the corresponding statement for regular solutions. As $T_{0} > 0$ is arbitrary, $A_{\mu}$ is global, and the Main Theorem follows.
We are only left to establish the claim, which is a rather straightforward application of Theorems \ref{thm:idEst}, \ref{thm:ctrlByE} and \ref{thm:dynEst}. First, by scaling, we may assume that $\nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}} < \delta_{P}$ and ${\bf E}[\overline{{\bf F}}] < \delta$, i.e. \eqref{eq:idEst:hyp} holds. This allows us to apply Theorem \ref{thm:idEst}, from which we obtain a regular gauge transform $V$ and a regular solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ such that \eqref{eq:idEst:0} holds. By Theorem \ref{thm:ctrlByE}, along with the estimate for $\mathcal I(0)$ in \eqref{eq:idEst:1}, we see that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{t \in (-T_{0}, T_{0})} \mathcal I(t) \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal I}, {\bf E}[\overline{{\bf F}}], T_{0}} < \infty.
\end{equation*}
To use Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst}, let us cover $(-T_{0}, T_{0})$ by subintervals of length $d$; the number of subintervals required can be bounded from above by, say, $10 (T_{0}/d)$. Applying Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst} on each subinterval, we are led to the estimate
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{s \in [0,1]} \nrm{\partial_{t,x} {\bf A}(s)}_{C_{t}(I_{0}, L^{2}_{x})} + \sup_{s \in [0,1]} \mathcal A_{0}[A_{0}(s=0)](I_{0}) \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal I}, {\bf E}[\overline{{\bf F}}], T_{0}} < \infty.
\end{equation*}
The only remaining step is to transfer the above estimate to $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$; for this purpose, observe from \eqref{eq:idEst:0} that $V$ satisfies $\partial_{t} V = V A_{0}(s=0)$. Using Lemma \ref{lem:est4gt2temporal}, along with the previous estimates for $\mathcal A_{0}$ and $\overline{V}$, we are led to the following estimate for the gauge transform $V$:
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{V}_{L^{\infty}_{t,x}} + \nrm{\partial_{t,x} V}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{3}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(2)} V}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal I}, {\bf E}[\overline{{\bf F}}], T_{0}} < \infty.
\end{equation*}
Here, all norms have been taken over $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3}$. The preceding estimate, applied to the formula \eqref{eq:idEst:0}, implies \eqref{eq:mainThm:pf:0} as desired. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:prelim}
\subsection{p-normalized norms and the Correspondence Principle}
For the purpose of studying parabolic equations, it is quite convenient to utilize norms that are \emph{normalized} according to the scaling properties of these equations. An estimate concerning homogeneous norms can be easily translated to the corresponding estimate in terms of the normalized norms, via a simple principle we dub the \emph{Correspondence Principle}. For a more detailed discussion, we refer the reader to \cite[\S 3.3 -- 3.5]{Oh:6stz7nRe}; here, we will only give a brief summary which will suffice for the use in the present paper.
The basic idea is that $s^{1/2}$ scales like $x$, where $s$ is the time parameter for the parabolic equation. Therefore, whatever `dimension of $x$' a norm has, we will normalize by compensating it with the appropriate factor of $s^{-1/2}$.
To be more precise, consider a norm $\nrm{\cdot}_{X}$ defined for functions on $\mathbb R^{3}$, which is homogeneous of degree $2 \ell$ in the sense that $\nrm{\phi(\cdot)}_{X} = \lambda^{2 \ell} \nrm{\phi(\cdot / \lambda)}_{X}$. This indicates that the norm $\nrm{\cdot}_{X}$ has the `dimension of $x^{2 \ell}$', and therefore we shall normalize it by multiplying by $s^{-\ell}$. Accordingly, we define the \emph{p-normalization} of $X$ at $s$ (denoted by the calligraphic typeface $\mathcal X(s)$) as
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\cdot}_{\mathcal X(s)} := s^{-\ell} \nrm{\cdot}_{X}.
\end{equation*}
Some examples of homogeneous norms which will be p-normalized are $L^{q}_{x}$, $\dot{H}^{m}_{x}$, whose p-normalizations will be denoted by $\mathcal L^{q}_{x}(s)$ and $\dot{\mathcal H}^{m}_{x}(s)$, respectively. These are, in fact, the only norms whose p-normalizations will be considered in this paper.
A derivative, such as $\partial_{i}$ or ${\bf D}_{i}$, has the `dimension of $x^{-1}$'. Therefore, the \emph{p-normalizations} of $\partial_{i}$ and ${\bf D}_{i}$ at $s$ (denoted by $\nabla_{i}(s)$ and $\mathcal D_{i}(s)$, respectively) are defined as
\begin{equation*}
\nabla_{i}(s) := s^{1/2} \partial_{i}, \quad \mathcal D_{i}(s) := s^{1/2} {\bf D}_{i}.
\end{equation*}
An estimate concerning homogeneous norms (e.g. H\"older, Sobolev Gagliardo-Nirenberg and etc.) naturally leads to a corresponding estimate in terms of the respective p-normalized norms; we will refer to this process as the \emph{Correspondence Principle}. We will not make any effort to formulate a rigorous version of the principle, as it would be unpractical and overly complicated; instead, we will be satisfied with the following `cookbook-recipe' type formulation, whose validity should be obvious every time the principle is invoked.
\begin{corrPrinciple}
Suppose that we are given an estimate in terms of norms $X_{i}$ of scalar- or $\mathfrak{g}$-valued functions $\sigma_{i} = \sigma_{i}(x)$, all of which are homogeneous. Suppose furthermore that the estimate is scale-invariant, in the sense that both sides transform the same under scaling.
Starting from such an estimate, make the following substitutions on both sides:
\begin{equation*}
\sigma_{i} \to G_{i}(s), \quad \partial_{x} \to \nabla_{x}(s), \quad {\bf D}_{x} \to \mathcal D_{x}(s), \quad X_{i} \to \mathcal X_{i}(s).
\end{equation*}
Then the resulting estimate still holds with the same constant for every $s \in J$.
\end{corrPrinciple}
The `proof' of this principle is quite simple; it amounts to the observation that the weight of $s$ required to p-normalize each side is the same.
Next, let us define some norms with respect to the $s$-variable. Let $J \subset [0,\infty)$ be an interval, and consider a measurable function $f = f(s)$ defined on $J$. For $\ell \in \mathbb R$ and $1 \leq p \leq \infty$, we define the norm $\mathcal L^{\ell,p}_{s}(J)$ by
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{f}_{\mathcal L^{\ell,p}_{s}(J)} := \Big( \int_{J} (s^{\ell} f(s))^{p} \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \Big)^{1/p}.
\end{equation*}
The following lemma, which is nothing but the H\"older inequality in the $s$-variable, is quite useful.
\begin{lemma} [H\"older for $\mathcal L^{\ell,p}_{s}$] \label{lem:Holder4Ls}
Let $\ell, \ell_{1}, \ell_{2} \geq 0$, $1 \leq p, p_{1}, p_{2} \leq \infty$ and $f, g$ functions on $J = (0,s_{0})$ (or $J = (0, s_{0}]$) such that $\nrm{f}_{\mathcal L^{\ell_{1}, p_{1}}_{s}}, \nrm{g}_{\mathcal L^{\ell_{2}, p_{2}}_{s}} < \infty$. Then we have
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{fg}_{\mathcal L^{\ell,p}_{s}(J)} \leq C s_{0}^{\ell-\ell_{1}-\ell_{2}} \nrm{f}_{\mathcal L^{\ell_{1},p_{1}}_{s}(J)} \nrm{g}_{\mathcal L^{\ell_{2},p_{2}}_{s}(J)}
\end{equation*}
provided that either $\ell = \ell_{1} + \ell_{2}$ and $\frac{1}{p} = \frac{1}{p_{1}} + \frac{1}{p_{2}}$, or $\ell > \ell_{1} + \ell_{2}$ and $\frac{1}{p} \geq \frac{1}{p_{1}} + \frac{1}{p_{2}}$. In the former case, $C = 1$, while in the latter case, $C$ depends on $\ell-\ell_{1}-\ell_{2}$ and $\frac{1}{p} - \frac{1}{p_{1}} - \frac{1}{p_{2}}$.
\end{lemma}
Finally, let us consider a mix of the preceding two types of norms. For a function $\psi = \psi(x, s)$ defined on $\mathbb R^{3}\times J$ such that $s \to \nrm{\psi(s)}_{\mathcal X(s)}$ is measurable on $J$, we define the norm $\mathcal L^{\ell, p}_{s} \mathcal X(J)$ to be
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\psi}_{\mathcal L^{\ell,p}_{s} \mathcal X(J)} := \nrm{\nrm{\psi(s)}_{\mathcal X(s)}}_{\mathcal L^{\ell, p}_{s} (J)}.
\end{equation*}
In order to derive estimates in terms of such norms, we will often use the Correspondence Principle and Lemma \ref{lem:Holder4Ls} in tandem. Let us demonstrate this with an example. Starting with a homogeneous estimate (which follows from H\"older and Corollary \ref{cor:covSob})
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\mathcal O(\sigma_{1}, \sigma_{2})}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq C \nrm{\sigma_{1}}_{L^{3}_{x}} \nrm{\sigma_{2}}_{L^{6}_{x}}
\leq C \nrm{\sigma_{1}}^{1/2}_{L^{2}_{x}} \nrm{{\bf D}_{x} \sigma_{1}}^{1/2}_{L^{2}_{x}} \nrm{{\bf D}_{x} \sigma_{2}}_{L^{2}_{x}},
\end{equation*}
applying the Correspondence Principle, taking the $\mathcal L^{\ell, p}_{s}(0, s_{0})$ norm and using Lemma \ref{lem:Holder4Ls}, we arrive at
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\mathcal O(G_{1}, G_{2})}_{\mathcal L^{\ell, p}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0, s_{0})}
\leq C s_{0}^{\ell-\ell_{1}-\ell_{2}} \nrm{G_{1}}_{\mathcal L^{\ell_{1}, p_{1}}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0, s_{0})}^{1/2}
\nrm{\mathcal D_{x} G_{1}}_{\mathcal L^{\ell_{1}, p_{1}}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0, s_{0})}^{1/2}
\nrm{\mathcal D_{x} G_{2}}_{\mathcal L^{\ell_{2}, p_{2}}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0, s_{0})},
\end{equation*}
where $C, \ell, \ell_{1}, \ell_{2}, p, p_{1}, p_{2}$ are as in Lemma \ref{lem:Holder4Ls}.
\subsection{Covariant techniques} \label{subsec:covTech}
Here, we collect some techniques which are applicable to the study of \emph{covariant} parabolic equations. The use of such techniques, instead of those for handling the usual scalar heat equation, is the key analytic difference between this paper and \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe}.
\begin{lemma}[Kato's inequality] \label{lem:kato}
Let $\sigma$ be a $\mathfrak{g}$-valued function. Then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:kato:1}
\abs{\partial_{x} \abs{\sigma}} \leq \abs{{\bf D}_{x} \sigma}
\end{equation}
in the distributional sense.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\epsilon > 0$. We compute
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{x} \sqrt{(\sigma, \sigma) + \epsilon} = \frac{(\sigma, {\bf D}_{x} \sigma)}{\sqrt{(\sigma, \sigma) + \epsilon}} \leq \abs{\frac{\sqrt{(\sigma, \sigma)}}{\sqrt{(\sigma, \sigma) + \epsilon}}}\cdot \abs{{\bf D}_{x} \sigma} \leq \abs{{\bf D}_{x} \sigma}.
\end{equation*}
Testing against a positive test function and taking $\epsilon \to 0$, we see that $\partial_{x} \abs{\sigma} \leq \abs{{\bf D}_{x} \sigma}$ in the distributional sense. Repeating the same argument to $- \partial_{x} \sqrt{(\sigma, \sigma) + \epsilon}$, we obtain \eqref{eq:kato:1}.
\end{proof}
The following Sobolev inequalities for covariant derivatives are easy consequences of Kato's inequality.
\begin{corollary}[Sobolev and Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities for covariant derivatives] \label{cor:covSob}
For a regular $\mathfrak{g}$-valued function $\sigma$, the following estimates hold.
\begin{align}
&\nrm{\sigma}_{L^{3}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\sigma}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{1/2} \nrm{{\bf D}_{x} \sigma}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{1/2}, \label{eq:covSob:1} \\
&\nrm{\sigma}_{L^{6}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{{\bf D}_{x} \sigma}_{L^{2}_{x}}, \label{eq:covSob:2} \\
&\nrm{\sigma}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{{\bf D}_{x} \sigma}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{1/2} \nrm{{\bf D}_{x}^{(2)} \sigma}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{1/2}. \label{eq:covSob:3}
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
Next, consider a inhomogeneous covariant heat equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:covHeat}
({\bf D}_{s} - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell})\sigma = \mathcal N.
\end{equation}
Adapting the usual proof of the energy integral inequality (integration by parts) for the ordinary heat equation to \eqref{eq:covHeat}, we obtain the following gauge-invariant version of the energy integral inequality.
\begin{lemma}[Energy integral inequality] \label{lem:pEst4covHeat}
Let $\ell \in \mathbb R$, $(s_{1}, s_{2}] \subset (0, \infty)$ and suppose that $\sigma$ and $A_{i}$ are `sufficiently nice\footnote{A sufficient condition for \eqref{eq:pEst4covHeat:1} to hold, which will be verifiable in applications below, is that $\sigma$ is smooth and the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:pEst4covHeat:1} is finite.}'. Then the following estimate holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4covHeat:1}
\begin{aligned}
&\nrm{\sigma}_{\mathcal L^{\ell, \infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(s_{1}, s_{2}]} + \nrm{\mathcal D_{x} \sigma}_{\mathcal L^{\ell, 2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(s_{1}, s_{2}]} \\
& \qquad \leq C s_{1}^{\ell} \nrm{\sigma(s_{1})}_{\mathcal L^{2}_{x}(s_{1})} + C (\ell - 3/4) \nrm{\sigma}_{\mathcal L^{\ell,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(s_{1}, s_{2}]}
+ C \nrm{\mathcal N}_{\mathcal L^{\ell + 1, 1}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x} (s_{1}, s_{2}]}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will carry out a formal computation, discarding all boundary terms at the spatial infinity which arise; it is easy to verify that for `sufficiently nice' $\sigma$ and $A_{i}$, this can be made into a rigorous proof.
Let $\overline{s} \in (s_{1}, s_{2}]$. Taking the bi-invariant inner product of the equation $({\bf D}_{s} - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell})\sigma = \mathcal N$ with $s^{2\ell - 3/2} \sigma$ and integrating by parts over $(s_{1}, \overline{s}]$, we arrive at
\begin{align*}
& \frac{1}{2} \overline{s}^{2\ell - 3/2} \int (\sigma, \sigma)(\overline{s}) \, \mathrm{d} x + \int_{s_{1}}^{\overline{s}} \int s^{2 \ell - 1/2} ({\bf D}^{\ell} \sigma, {\bf D}_{\ell} \sigma)(s) \, \mathrm{d} x \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \\
& \quad = \frac{1}{2} s_{1}^{2\ell - 3/2} \int (\sigma, \sigma)(s_{1}) \, \mathrm{d} x + (\ell - 3/4) \int_{s_{1}}^{\overline{s}} \int s^{2\ell - 3/2} (\sigma, \sigma)(s) \, \mathrm{d} x \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \\
& \qquad + \int_{s_{1}}^{\overline{s}} s^{2\ell - 1/2} (\mathcal N(s), \sigma(s)) \, \mathrm{d} x \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s}.
\end{align*}
Taking the supremum over $s_{1} < \overline{s} \leq s_{2}$ and rewriting in terms of p-normalized norms, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2} \nrm{\sigma}_{\mathcal L^{\ell, \infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(s_{1}, s_{2}]}^{2} + \nrm{\sigma}_{\mathcal L^{\ell,2}_{s} \dot{\mathcal H}^{1}_{x}(s_{1}, s_{2}]}^{2}
\leq & \frac{1}{2} s_{1}^{2\ell} \nrm{\sigma(s_{1})}_{\mathcal L^{2}_{x}(s_{1})}^{2} + (\ell - \ell_{0}) \nrm{\sigma}_{\mathcal L^{\ell,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x} (s_{1}, s_{2}]}^{2} \\
& + \nrm{(\mathcal N, \sigma)}_{\mathcal L^{2\ell+1,1}_{s} \mathcal L^{1}_{x}(s_{1}, s_{2}]}.
\end{align*}
By H\"older, Lemma \ref{lem:Holder4Ls} and Cauchy-Schwarz, the last term can be estimated by $\nrm{\mathcal N}_{\mathcal L^{\ell+1,1}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x} (s_{1}, s_{2}]}^{2} + \frac{1}{4} \nrm{\sigma}_{\mathcal L^{\ell, \infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(s_{1}, s_{2}]}^{2}$, where the latter can be absorbed into the left-hand side. Then taking the square root of both sides, we obtain \eqref{eq:pEst4covHeat:1}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
Proceeding as in the proof of Kato's inequality, we can derive the following parabolic inequality for $\abs{\sigma}$.
\begin{lemma} [Bochner-Weitzenb\"ock-type inequality] \label{lem:heatIneq4abs}
The following inequality holds in the distributional sense.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:heatIneq4abs}
(\partial_{s} - \triangle) \abs{\sigma} \leq \abs{\mathcal N}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This lemma was essentially proved in \cite{Tao:2008wn}; we shall give a proof nevertheless for completeness. Let $\epsilon > 0$. We compute
\begin{align*}
&\partial_{s} \sqrt{(\sigma, \sigma) + \epsilon} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{(\sigma, \sigma) + \epsilon}} (\sigma, {\bf D}_{s} \sigma), \\
&\triangle \sqrt{(\sigma, \sigma) + \epsilon} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{(\sigma, \sigma) + \epsilon}} \Big( (\sigma, {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell} \sigma) + ({\bf D}^{\ell} \sigma , {\bf D}_{\ell} \sigma) - \frac{(\sigma, {\bf D}^{\ell} \sigma) (\sigma, {\bf D}_{\ell} \sigma)}{(\sigma, \sigma)+\epsilon} \Big).
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
(\partial_{s} - \triangle) \sqrt{(\sigma, \sigma) + \epsilon}
= &\frac{1}{\sqrt{(\sigma, \sigma)+\epsilon}} \Big( (\sigma, \mathcal N) - ({\bf D}^{\ell} \sigma , {\bf D}_{\ell} \sigma) + \frac{(\sigma, {\bf D}^{\ell} \sigma) (\sigma, {\bf D}_{\ell} \sigma)}{(\sigma, \sigma)+\epsilon} \Big) \\
\leq & \frac{1}{\sqrt{(\sigma, \sigma) + \epsilon}} (\sigma, \mathcal N) \leq \abs{\mathcal N}.
\end{align*}
Testing against a positive test function and taking $\epsilon \to 0$, we obtain \eqref{eq:heatIneq4abs}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
The virtue of \eqref{eq:heatIneq4abs} is that it allows us to use estimates arising from the (standard) heat kernel. Before we continue, let us briefly recap the definition and basic properties of the heat kernel.
Let $e^{s\triangle}$ denote the solution operator for the free heat equation. It is an integral operator, defined by.
\begin{equation*}
e^{s \triangle} \psi_0(x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{4 \pi s}^3} \int e^{- \abs{x - y}^2/{4 s}} \psi_0 (y) \, \mathrm{d} y.
\end{equation*}
The kernel on the right hand side is called the \emph{heat kernel} on $\mathbb R^3$. Using Young's inequality, it is easy to derive the following basic inequality for the heat kernel:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:est4heatkernel}
\nrm{e^{s \triangle} \psi_0 }_{L^r_x} \leq C_{p,r} \, s^{-3/(2p) + 3/(2r)} \nrm{\psi_0 }_{L^p_x},
\end{equation}
where $1 \leq p \leq r$.
Now consider the initial value problem for the inhomogeneous heat equation $(\partial_{s} - \triangle) \psi = N$. Duhamel's principle tells us that this problem can be equivalently formulated in an integral form as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\psi(s) = e^{s \triangle} \psi(s=0) + \int_{0}^{s} e^{(s - \overline{s})\triangle} N(\overline{s}) \, \mathrm{d} \overline{s}.
\end{equation*}
With these prerequisites, we are ready to derive a simple comparison principle for $\abs{\sigma}$, along with a simple weak maximum principle; both statements are easily proved using basic properties of the heat kernel.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:heatIneq4Duhamel}
Let $\overline{\sigma} := \sigma(s=0)$. Then the following point-wise inequality holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:heatIneq4Duhamel:1}
\abs{\sigma}(x, s) \leq e^{s \triangle} \abs{\overline{\sigma}}(x) + \int_{0}^{s} e^{(s-\overline{s}) \triangle} \abs{\mathcal N(\overline{s})}(x) \, \mathrm{d} \overline{s},
\end{equation}
As a consequence, the following \emph{weak maximum principle} holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:heatIneq4Duhamel:2}
\sup_{0 \leq \overline{s} \leq s}\nrm{\sigma(\overline{s})}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}
\leq \nrm{\sigma(s=0)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} + \int_{0}^{s} \nrm{\mathcal N(\overline{s})}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \, \mathrm{d} \overline{s}.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The first inequality is an immediate consequence of \eqref{eq:heatIneq4abs}, Duhamel's principle, and the fact that the heat kernel $K(x,y) = \frac{1}{(4 \pi s)^{3/2} }e^{-\abs{x-y}^{2}/ 4 s}$ is everywhere positive. The second one follows by taking the $L^{\infty}_{x}$ norm of \eqref{eq:heatIneq4Duhamel:1} and using \eqref{eq:est4heatkernel}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
For later use, we need the following lemma for the Duhamel integral, whose proof utilizes the basic inequality \eqref{eq:est4heatkernel} for the heat kernel.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:est4Duhamel}
The following estimate holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:est4Duhamel:1}
\nrm{\int_{0}^{s} e^{(s-\overline{s})\triangle} \mathcal N(\overline{s}) \, \mathrm{d} \overline{s}}_{\mathcal L^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,s_{0}]} \leq C \nrm{\mathcal N}_{\mathcal L^{1+1,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{1}_{x}(0,s_{0}]}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Unwinding the definitions of p-normalized norms, \eqref{eq:est4Duhamel:1} is equivalent to
\begin{equation} \label{eq:est4Duhamel:pf:1}
\Big( \int_{0}^{s_{0}} s^{1/2} \nrm{\int_{0}^{s} e^{(s-\overline{s})\triangle} \mathcal N(\overline{s}) \, \mathrm{d} \overline{s}}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{2} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \Big)^{1/2} \leq C \Big( \int_{0}^{s_{0}} s \nrm{\mathcal N(s)}_{L^{1}_{x}}^{2} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \Big)^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
Let us put $f(s) = s^{1/2} \nrm{\mathcal N(s)}_{L^{1}_{x}}$; then it suffices to estimate the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:est4Duhamel:pf:1} by $C \nrm{f}_{\mathcal L^{2}_{s}(0, s_{0}]}$. By Minkowski and \eqref{eq:est4heatkernel}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\int_{0}^{s} e^{(s-\overline{s})\triangle} \mathcal N(\overline{s}) \, \mathrm{d} \overline{s}}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq C \int_{0}^{s} (s-\overline{s})^{-3/4} (\overline{s})^{1/2} f(\overline{s}) \, \frac{\mathrm{d} \overline{s}}{\overline{s}}
\end{equation*}
Therefore the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:est4Duhamel:pf:1} is bounded from above by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:est4Duhamel:pf:2}
C \Big( \int_{0}^{s_{0}} \Big(\int_{0}^{s} s^{1/4} (s-\overline{s})^{-3/4} (\overline{s})^{1/2} f(\overline{s}) \, \frac{\mathrm{d} \overline{s}}{\overline{s}} \Big)^{2} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s}\Big)^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
Observe that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{s \in (0, s_{0}]} \int_{0}^{s} s^{1/4} (s-\overline{s})^{-3/4} (\overline{s})^{1/2} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} \overline{s}}{\overline{s}} \leq C, \quad \sup_{\overline{s} \in (0, s_{0}]} \int_{\overline{s}}^{s_{0}} s^{1/4} (s-\overline{s})^{-3/4} (\overline{s})^{1/2} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s}{s} \leq C.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, by Schur's test, \eqref{eq:est4Duhamel:pf:2} is estimated by $\nrm{f(s)}_{\mathcal L^{2}_{s}(0, s_{0}]}$ as desired. \qedhere
\end{proof}
Finally, we end this section with a simple lemma which is useful for substituting covariant derivatives by usual derivatives and vice versa.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:dSub}
For $k \geq 1$, and $\alpha$ be a multi-index of order $k$. Then the following schematic algebraic identities hold.
\begin{align}
{\bf D}^{(\alpha)}_{x} \sigma
=& \partial_{x}^{(\alpha)} \sigma + \sum_{\star} \mathcal O_{\alpha} (\partial_{x}^{(\ell_{1})} A, \partial_{x}^{(\ell_{2})} A, \cdots, \partial_{x}^{(\ell_{j})} A, \partial_{x}^{(\ell)} \sigma), \label{eq:dSub:cov2u} \\
\partial_{x}^{(\alpha)} \sigma
=& {\bf D}^{(\alpha)}_{x} \sigma + \sum_{\star} \mathcal O_{\alpha} (\partial_{x}^{(\ell_{1})} A, \partial_{x}^{(\ell_{2})} A, \cdots, \partial_{x}^{(\ell_{j})} A, {\bf D}_{x}^{(\ell)} \sigma).\label{eq:dSub:u2cov}
\end{align}
In both cases, the summation is over all $1 \leq j \leq k$ and $0 \leq \ell_{1}, \ldots, \ell_{j} ,\ell \leq k-1$ such that
\begin{equation*}
j + \ell_{1} + \cdots \ell_{j} + \ell = k.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In the case $k=1$, both \eqref{eq:dSub:cov2u} and \eqref{eq:dSub:u2cov} follow from the simple identity
\begin{equation*}
{\bf D}_{i} \sigma = \partial_{i} \sigma + \LieBr{A_{i}}{\sigma}.
\end{equation*}
The cases of higher $k$ follow from a simple induction argument, using Leibniz's rule. We leave the easy detail to the reader. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\section{Analysis of covariant parabolic equations} \label{sec:covParabolic}
\subsection{Covariant parabolic equations of \eqref{eq:dYMHF}}
Let $I \subset \mathbb R$ be an interval, and consider a smooth solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to the \emph{dynamic Yang-Mills heat flow}
\begin{equation*} \tag{dYMHF}
F_{s \mu} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell \mu}, \quad \mu = 0, 1, 2, 3,
\end{equation*}
on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$. Note that these equations are a part of \eqref{eq:HPYM}\footnote{One could say that these are parabolic equations of the Hyperbolic-\emph{Parabolic}-Yang-Mills system.}.
Let us first derive the following parabolic equation satisfied by $F_{\mu \nu}$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:covParabolic4F}
{\bf D}_{s} F_{\mu \nu} - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell} F_{\mu \nu} = - 2 \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{\mu}^{\ell}}}{F_{\nu \ell}}.
\end{equation}
We start with the \emph{Bianchi identity}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fullBianchi}
{\bf D}_{{\bf a}} F_{{\bf b} {\bf c}} + {\bf D}_{{\bf b}} F_{{\bf c} {\bf a}} + {\bf D}_{{\bf c}} F_{{\bf a} {\bf b}} = 0,
\end{equation}
which easily follows from the formula $F_{{\bf a} {\bf b}} = \partial_{{\bf a}} A_{{\bf b}} - \partial_{{\bf b}} A_{{\bf a}} + \LieBr{A_{{\bf a}}}{A_{{\bf b}}}$. Taking the case ${\bf a} = s$, ${\bf b} = \mu$ and ${\bf c} = \nu$, we arrive at the identity
\begin{equation*}
{\bf D}_{s} F_{\mu \nu} = {\bf D}_{\mu} F_{s \nu} - {\bf D}_{\nu} F_{s \mu}.
\end{equation*}
Since we are considering a solution to \eqref{eq:dYMHF}, the right-hand side is equal to ${\bf D}_{\mu} {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell \nu} - {\bf D}_{\nu} {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell \mu}$. Commuting the covariant derivatives and applying
\begin{equation*}
{\bf D}_{\mu} F_{\ell \nu} - {\bf D}_{\nu} F_{\ell \mu} = {\bf D}_{\ell} F_{\mu \nu},
\end{equation*}
(which is again a consequence of the Bianchi identity) we arrive at \eqref{eq:covParabolic4F}.
Next, let us derive covariant parabolic equations satisfied by higher \emph{covariant} derivatives of ${\bf F}$. Given a $\mathfrak{g}$-valued tensor $B$, we compute
\begin{align*}
{\bf D}_{i} {\bf D}_{s} B - {\bf D}_{i} {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell} B
= & {\bf D}_{s} {\bf D}_{i} B - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell} {\bf D}_{i} B - 2 \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{i}^{\ell}}}{{\bf D}_{\ell} B}.
\end{align*}
Concisely, $\LieBr{{\bf D}_{i}}{{\bf D}_{s} - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell}} B = \mathcal O(F, {\bf D}_{x} B)$. Using this, it is not difficult to prove the following proposition.
\begin{proposition} [Covariant parabolic equations of \eqref{eq:dYMHF}] \label{prop:covParabolic}
Let $A_{{\bf a}}$ be a solution to \eqref{eq:dYMHF}. Then the curvature $2$-form $F_{\mu \nu}$ satisfies the following parabolic equation.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:BWeq:1}
({\bf D}_{s} - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell}) F_{\mu \nu} = - 2 \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{\mu}^{\ell}}}{F_{\nu \ell}}.
\end{equation}
The covariant derivatives of $F_{\mu \nu}$ satisfy the following schematic equation.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:BWeq:2}
({\bf D}_{s} - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell}) ({\bf D}_{x}^{(k)} {\bf F}) = \sum_{j =0}^{k} \mathcal O({\bf D}^{(j)}_{x} {\bf F}, {\bf D}^{(k-j)}_{x} {\bf F}).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
Proceeding in the same manner for a solution $A_{a}$ ($a=x^{1}, x^{2}, x^{3}, s$) to \eqref{eq:cYMHF}, we may derive the following equation for ${\bf D}_{x}^{(k)} F_{ij}$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:BWeq:3}
({\bf D}_{s} - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell}) ({\bf D}_{x}^{(k)} F) = \sum_{j =0}^{k} \mathcal O({\bf D}^{(j)}_{x} F, {\bf D}^{(k-j)}_{x} F).
\end{equation}
\subsection{Estimates for the covariant parabolic equations}
Let us fix a time $t \in I$. Let us denote the Yang-Mills energy of ${\bf F}(t)$ at $s=0$ by ${\bf E}(t)$, i.e.
\begin{equation*}
{\bf E}(t) := {\bf E}[{\bf F}(t, s=0)] = \sum_{\mu <\nu} \frac{1}{2} \nrm{F_{\mu \nu}(t, s=0)}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{2}.
\end{equation*}
Recall that $\mathcal D_{i} := s^{1/2} {\bf D}_{i}$. The following proposition, which is proved by applying covariant techniques to \eqref{eq:BWeq:2}, is the analytic heart of this paper.
\begin{proposition}[Covariant parabolic estimates for ${\bf F}$] \label{prop:pEst4covF}
Let $I \subset \mathbb R$ be an interval, and $t \in I$. Suppose that $A_{{\bf a}}$ is a smooth solution to \eqref{eq:dYMHF} on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ such that ${\bf F} = F_{\mu \nu}$ is regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$. There exists $\delta > 0 $ such that if ${\bf E}(t) < \delta$, then the following estimate holds for each integer $k \geq 1$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4covF:1}
\nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k-1)} {\bf F}(t)}_{\mathcal L^{3/4, \infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k)} {\bf F}(t)}_{\mathcal L^{3/4, 2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,1]} \leq C_{k, {\bf E}(t)} \cdot \sqrt{{\bf E}(t)}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let us start with the cases $k = 1, 2$. Let $\underline{s} \in (0, 1]$. Applying the energy integral estimate \eqref{eq:pEst4covHeat:1} with $\ell = 3/4$ to \eqref{eq:BWeq:1} and and $\ell = 3/4 + 1/2$ to \eqref{eq:BWeq:2} for ${\bf D}_{x} {\bf F}$, we have
\begin{align*}
&\nrm{{\bf F}}_{\mathcal L^{3/4, \infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,\underline{s}]} + \nrm{\mathcal D_{x} {\bf F}}_{\mathcal L^{3/4, 2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,\underline{s}]}
\leq C \sqrt{{\bf E}} + C\nrm{\mathcal O({\bf F}, {\bf F})}_{\mathcal L^{3/4+1, 1}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]}. \\
&\nrm{\mathcal D_{x} {\bf F}}_{\mathcal L^{3/4, \infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,\underline{s}]} + \nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(2)} {\bf F}}_{\mathcal L^{3/4, 2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,\underline{s}]}
\leq C \nrm{\mathcal D_{x} {\bf F}}_{\mathcal L^{3/4, 2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,\underline{s}]} + C \nrm{\mathcal O(\mathcal D_{x} {\bf F}, {\bf F} )}_{\mathcal L^{3/4+1, 1}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]}.
\end{align*}
No term at $s=0$ arises for the second estimate, as we have $\liminf_{s \to 0} s^{3/4} \nrm{\mathcal D_{x} {\bf F} (s)}_{\mathcal L^{2}_{x}(s)} = 0$ for a regular ${\bf F}$.
Combining the two inequalities, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal B_{2}(\underline{s}) \leq C \sqrt{{\bf E}} + C (\nrm{\mathcal O({\bf F}, {\bf F})}_{\mathcal L^{3/4+1, 1}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]} + \nrm{\mathcal O(\mathcal D_{x} {\bf F}, {\bf F})}_{\mathcal L^{3/4+1, 1}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]}).
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal B_{2}(\underline{s}) := \sum_{k=1,2} (\nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k-1)} {\bf F}}_{\mathcal L^{3/4, \infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,\underline{s}]} + \nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k)} {\bf F}}_{\mathcal L^{3/4, 2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,\underline{s}]} ).
\end{equation*}
Using H\"older and Corollary \ref{cor:covSob}, we see that
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\mathcal O(\sigma_{1}, \sigma_{2})}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\sigma_{1}}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{1/2} \nrm{{\bf D}_{x} \sigma_{1}}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{1/2} \nrm{{\bf D}_{x} \sigma_{2}}_{L^{2}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
By the Correspondence Principle, Lemma \ref{lem:Holder4Ls} and the fact that $\underline{s} \leq 1$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{\mathcal O({\bf F}, {\bf F})}_{\mathcal L^{3/4+1,1}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]}
\leq & C \underline{s}^{1/4} \nrm{{\bf F}}_{\mathcal L^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]}^{1/2} \nrm{\mathcal D_{x} {\bf F}}_{\mathcal L^{3/4,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]}^{3/2}
\leq C \mathcal B_{2}(\underline{s})^{2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Similarly, we also have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{\mathcal O(\mathcal D_{x} {\bf F}, {\bf F})}_{\mathcal L^{3/4+1,1}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0, \underline{s}]}
\leq & C \mathcal B_{2}(\underline{s})^{2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Therefore, we obtain a bound of the form $\mathcal B_{2}(\underline{s}) \leq C \sqrt{{\bf E}} + C \mathcal B_{2}(\underline{s})^{2}$, for every $\underline{s} \in (0,1]$. Then by a simple bootstrap argument, the bound $\mathcal B_{2}(1) \leq C \sqrt{{\bf E}}$ follows, which implies the desired estimate.
Let us turn to the case $k \geq 3$, which is proved by induction. Fix $k \geq 3$, and suppose, for the purpose of induction, that \eqref{eq:pEst4covF:1} holds for up to $k-1$. That is, defining
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal B_{k-1} := \sum_{j=1}^{k-1} \Big[ \nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(j-1)} {\bf F}}_{\mathcal L^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(j)} {\bf F}}_{\mathcal L^{3/4,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,1]} \Big],
\end{equation*}
we will assume that $\mathcal B_{k-1} \leq C_{k, {\bf E}} \cdot \sqrt{{\bf E}}$.
Applying the energy integral estimate \eqref{eq:pEst4covHeat:1} with $\ell = \frac{3}{4} + \frac{k-1}{2}$ to \eqref{eq:BWeq:2} for ${\bf D}_{x}^{(k-1)} {\bf F}$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k-1)} {\bf F}}_{\mathcal L^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k)} {\bf F}}_{\mathcal L^{3/4,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}}
\leq C\nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k-1)} {\bf F}}_{\mathcal L^{3/4,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}} + C \sum_{j=0}^{k-1} \nrm{\mathcal O(\mathcal D_{x}^{(j)} {\bf F}, \mathcal D_{x}^{(k-1-j)} {\bf F})}_{\mathcal L^{3/4+1,1}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
where we used the fact that $\liminf_{s \to 0} s^{3/4} \nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k-1)} {\bf F}(s)}_{\mathcal L^{2}(s)} = 0$.
The first term is bounded by $\mathcal B_{k-1}$; therefore, \eqref{eq:pEst4covF:1} for $k$ will follow once we establish
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4covF:pf:1}
\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} \nrm{\mathcal O(\mathcal D_{x}^{(j)} {\bf F}, \mathcal D_{x}^{(k-1-j)} {\bf F})}_{\mathcal L^{3/4+1,1}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}} \leq C \mathcal B_{k-1}^{2}.
\end{equation}
By Leibniz's rule, we see that \eqref{eq:pEst4covF:pf:1} follows once we establish the estimates
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4covF:pf:2}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \nrm{\mathcal O(\mathcal D_{x} G_{1}, \mathcal D_{x} G_{2})}_{\mathcal L^{3/4+1,1}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}} \leq C \mathcal B_{2}^{2} \\
& \nrm{\mathcal O(G_{1}, \mathcal D_{x}^{(2)} G_{2})}_{\mathcal L^{3/4+1,1}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\mathcal O(\mathcal D_{x}^{(2)}G_{1}, G_{2})}_{\mathcal L^{3/4+1,1}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}}
\leq C \mathcal B_{2}^{2},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
for any $\mathfrak{g}$-valued 2-forms $G_{i} = G_{i}(x, s)$. Note that these roughly correspond to the case $k=3$ of \eqref{eq:pEst4covF:pf:1}.
Using the Correspondence Principle, Lemma \ref{lem:Holder4Ls}, and recalling the definition of $\mathcal B_{k-1}$, it suffices to prove the estimates
\begin{align*}
\nrm{\mathcal O({\bf D}_{x} \sigma_{1}, {\bf D}_{x} \sigma_{2})}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq & C \nrm{{\bf D}_{x} \sigma_{1}}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{1/2} \nrm{{\bf D}_{x}^{(2)} \sigma_{1}}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{1/2} \nrm{{\bf D}_{x}^{(2)} \sigma_{2}}_{L^{2}_{x}}, \\
\nrm{\mathcal O(\sigma_{1}, {\bf D}_{x}^{(2)} \sigma_{2})}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq & C \nrm{{\bf D}_{x} \sigma_{1}}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{1/2} \nrm{{\bf D}_{x}^{(2)} \sigma_{1}}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{1/2} \nrm{{\bf D}_{x}^{(2)} \sigma_{2}}_{L^{2}_{x}}.
\end{align*}
The former is an easy consequence of H\"older, \eqref{eq:covSob:1} and \eqref{eq:covSob:2}, whereas the latter is proved similarly by applying H\"older, \eqref{eq:covSob:2} and \eqref{eq:covSob:3}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
Recalling $F_{s\nu} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell \nu}$, we obtain the following estimates for $F_{s\nu}$.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:pEst4covFs}
Under the same hypotheses as Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covF}, the following estimates hold for every integer $k \geq 0$.
\begin{align}
\nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k)} {\bf F}_{s}}_{\mathcal L^{5/4, \infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k)} {\bf F}_{s}}_{\mathcal L^{5/4, 2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq & C_{k, {\bf E}} \cdot \sqrt{{\bf E}}, \label{eq:pEst4covFs:1} \\
\nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k)} {\bf F}_{s}}_{\mathcal L^{5/4, \infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{\infty}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k)} {\bf F}_{s}}_{\mathcal L^{5/4, 2}_{s} \mathcal L^{\infty}_{x}(0,1]}
\leq & C_{k, {\bf E}} \cdot \sqrt{{\bf E}}. \label{eq:pEst4covFs:2}
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The $L^{2}$-type estimate \eqref{eq:pEst4covFs:1} follows immediately from Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covF} by the relation $F_{s\nu} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell \nu}$. The $L^{\infty}$-type estimate \eqref{eq:pEst4covFs:2} then follows from \eqref{eq:pEst4covFs:1} by \eqref{eq:covSob:3} of Corollary \ref{cor:covSob} (covariant Gagliardo-Nirenberg) and the Correspondence Principle. \qedhere
\end{proof}
The above discussion may be easily restricted to spatial connection 1-form $A_{i}$ satisfying \eqref{eq:cYMHF}. Given a spatial 2-form $F = F_{ij}$ ($i,j=1,2,3$), let us define the \emph{magnetic energy} ${\bf B}[F]$ by
\begin{equation*}
{\bf B}[F] := \sum_{i < j} \frac{1}{2} \nrm{F_{ij}(s=0)}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{2}.
\end{equation*}
Repeating the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covF}, the following proposition easily follows.
\begin{proposition}[Covariant parabolic estimates for $F$] \label{prop:pEst4covFij}
Let $\delta > 0$ be as in Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covF}, and consider a smooth solution $(A_{i}, A_{s})$ to the covariant Yang-Mills heat flow $F_{si} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i}$ on $\mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ such that $F = F_{ij}$ is regular on $\mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$. If ${\bf B} := {\bf B}[F(s=0)] < \delta$, then the following estimate holds for every integer $k \geq 1$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4covFij:1}
\nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k-1)} F}_{\mathcal L^{3/4, \infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k)} F}_{\mathcal L^{3/4, 2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,1]} \leq C_{k, {\bf B}} \cdot \sqrt{{\bf B}}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\section{Analysis of Yang-Mills heat flows in the caloric gauge} \label{sec:YMHF}
\subsection{Analysis of the Yang-Mills heat flow} \label{subsec:YMHF}
In this subsection, we will consider the following IVP for \eqref{eq:cYMHF} in the caloric gauge $A_{s} = 0$, for $s_{0} > 0$.
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \partial_{s} A_{i} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i}, \quad \hbox{ on } \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,s_{0}] \\
& A_{i}(s=0) = \overline{A}_{i}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
As this system is simply the original Yang-Mills heat flow \eqref{eq:YMHF}, we will refer to it simply as \eqref{eq:YMHF}. We will mainly be concerned with the class of \emph{regular initial data sets} and \emph{regular solutions} to \eqref{eq:YMHF}, which are defined as follows.
\begin{definition} \label{def:reg4YMHF}
We say that a connection 1-form $\overline{A}_{i}$ on $\mathbb R^{3}$ is a \emph{regular initial data set} for \eqref{eq:YMHF} if $\partial_{x} \overline{A}_{i}$ is regular on $\mathbb R^{3}$. Furthermore, we say that a smooth solution $A_{i}$ to \eqref{eq:YMHF} defined on $\mathbb R^{3} \times [0,s_{0}]$ is a \emph{regular solution} to \eqref{eq:YMHF} if $\partial_{x} A_{i}$ is regular on $\mathbb R^{3} \times [0, s_{0}]$.
\end{definition}
Our immediate goal is to establish a local well-posedness theorem (Theorem \ref{thm:implwp4YMHF}), where the interval of existence depends \emph{only} on the magnetic energy ${\bf B}[\overline{F}]$ of the initial data. The starting point of our analysis is Theorem C from \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe}, which is a $\dot{H}^{1}_{x}$ local existence statement. We restate the theorem below for the convenience of the reader.
\begin{theorem}[{\cite[Theorem C]{Oh:6stz7nRe}}] \label{thm:lwp4YMHF}
Consider the above IVP for \eqref{eq:YMHF} with initial data $\overline{A}_{i} \in \dot{H}^{1}_{x}$ at $s=0$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists a number $s^{\star} = s^{\star} (\nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}) > 0$, non-increasing in $\nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}$, such that there exists a solution $A_{i} \in C_{s} ([0,s^{\star}], \dot{H}^{1}_{x})$ to the IVP satisfying
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lwp4YMHF:1}
\sup_{s \in [0,s^{\star}]} \nrm{A(s)}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
\item Let $\overline{A}'_{i} \in \dot{H}^{1}_{x}$ be another initial data set such that $\nrm{\overline{A}'}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \leq \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}$, and $A'_{i}$ the corresponding solution to the IVP on $[0, s^{\star}]$ given in (1). Then the following estimate for the difference $\delta A := A - A'$ holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lwp4YMHF:2}
\sup_{s \in [0,s^{\star}]} \nrm{\partial_{x}( \delta A) (s)}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\delta \overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
\item If $\overline{A}_{i}$ is smooth and $\partial_{x} \overline{A}_{i}$, $\overline{F}_{ij} := \partial_{i} \overline{A}_{j} -\partial_{j} \overline{A}_{i} + \LieBr{\overline{A}_{i}}{\overline{A}_{j}}$ are regular, then the solution $A_{i} = A_{i}(x,s)$ given in (1) is smooth and $\partial_{x} A_{i}$, $F_{ij}$ are regular on $[0,s^{\star}]$.
Furthermore, if $\overline{A}_{i}(t)$ ($t \in I$) is a one parameter family of initial data such that $\partial_{t, x} \overline{A}_{i}$, $\overline{F}_{ij}$ are regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$, then $A_{i} = A_{i}(t,x,s)$ is smooth and $\partial_{t, x} A_{i}$, $F_{ij}$ are regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0, s^{\star}]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
According to our definition, the first statement of Part (3) of Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YMHF} states that if $\overline{A}_{i}$ is a regular initial data set for \eqref{eq:YMHF}, then there exists a solution $A_{i}$ to \eqref{eq:YMHF} which is \emph{regular} in the sense of Definition \ref{def:reg4YMHF}.
\begin{remark}[Remark on the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YMHF}] \label{}
Let us return to the perspective of viewing \eqref{eq:YMHF} as the system \eqref{eq:cYMHF} with the caloric gauge condition imposed. The problem with the caloric gauge is that the equations for $A_{i}$ are not strictly parabolic, but only weakly-parabolic. As discussed in the introduction, we can make the system \eqref{eq:cYMHF} strictly parabolic by choosing a different gauge, namely the DeTurck gauge $A_{s} = \partial^{\ell} A_{\ell}$. Local well-posedness for $\dot{H}^{1}_{x}$ data (on some $s$-interval $[0, s^{\star}]$) then follows by a rather standard parabolic theory. To come back to the caloric gauge $A_{s} = 0$, however, we must perform a gauge transform. The desired gauge transform can be obtained by solving the following ODE.
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\partial_{s} U =& U A_{s} \quad \hbox{ on } \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,s^{\star}], \\
U(s=0) =& \mathrm{Id}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
This ODE can be easily derived by the gauge transform formula $\widetilde{A}_{s} = U A_{s} U^{-1} - \partial_{s} U U^{-1}$. The initial condition $U(s=0) = \mathrm{Id}$ has been chosen to leave the initial data the same. It is then possible to show that the gauge transform is bounded on $C_{s}([0, s^{\star}], \dot{H}^{1}_{x})$, which proves Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YMHF}.
We add that this procedure ends up being the standard DeTurck trick, as in \cite{Donaldson:1985vh}, applied to \eqref{eq:YMHF}.
\end{remark}
As a first step, we complement Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YMHF} with the following uniqueness statement in the class of regular solutions.
\begin{lemma}[Uniqueness of regular solution to \eqref{eq:YMHF}] \label{lem:uni4YMHF}
Let $A_{i}, A'_{i}$ be two regular solutions to \eqref{eq:YMHF} on a common $s$-interval $J = [0, s_{0}]$. If their initial data coincide, i.e. $\overline{A}_{i}= \overline{A}'_{i}$, then so do the solutions, i.e. $A_{i} = A'_{i}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By taking the difference between the parabolic equations satisfiesd by $F_{ij}$ and $F'_{ij}$, we obtain the following equation for $\delta F_{ij} = F_{ij} - F'_{ij}$ :
\begin{equation} \label{eq:uni4YMHF:pf:1}
(\partial_{s} - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell}) (\delta F_{ij}) = - 2\LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{i}^{\ell}}}{\delta F_{j \ell}} - 2 \LieBr{\tensor{\delta F}{_{i}^{\ell}}}{F'_{j \ell}} + (\delta {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell}) F'_{ij},
\end{equation}
where $\delta {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell}$ is defined by
\begin{equation*}
(\delta {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell}) B := 2 \LieBr{\delta A^{\ell}}{\partial_{\ell} B} + \LieBr{\partial^{\ell} (\delta A_{\ell})}{B} + \LieBr{A^{\ell}}{\LieBr{\delta A_{\ell}}{B}} + \LieBr{\delta A^{\ell}}{\LieBr{A'_{\ell}}{B}}.
\end{equation*}
Next, recall that $F_{si} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i}$ satisfies the equation
\begin{equation*}
(\partial_{s} - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell}) F_{si} = - 2\LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{s}^{\ell}}}{F_{i\ell}}.
\end{equation*}
Taking the difference between the equations for $F_{si}$ and $F'_{si}$, we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{eq:uni4YMHF:pf:2}
(\partial_{s} - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell}) (\delta F_{si}) = - 2\LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{s}^{\ell}}}{\delta F_{i\ell}} - 2\LieBr{\tensor{\delta F}{_{s}^{\ell}}}{F'_{i\ell}} + (\delta {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell}) F'_{si}.
\end{equation}
As $F_{si} = \partial_{s} A_{i}$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:uni4YMHF:pf:3}
\partial_{s} (\delta A_{i}) = \delta F_{si}.
\end{equation}
Finally, thanks to the special identity ${\bf D}^{\ell} F_{s\ell} = 0$, we have the following equation for $\partial^{\ell} (\delta A_{\ell})$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:uni4YMHF:pf:4}
\partial_{s} \partial^{\ell} (\delta A_{\ell}) = - \LieBr{A^{\ell}}{\delta F_{s\ell}} - \LieBr{\delta A^{\ell}}{F'_{s\ell}}.
\end{equation}
Now for each $s \in J$, let us define $\delta \mathcal B(s)$ to be
\begin{equation*}
\delta \mathcal B(s) := \max_{i,j} \Big( \nrm{\delta A_{i}(s)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial^{\ell}(\delta A)_{\ell}(s)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}+ \nrm{\delta F_{ij}(s)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} + \nrm{\delta F_{si}(s)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \Big).
\end{equation*}
Let $\epsilon > 0$. Applying the weak maximum principle \eqref{eq:heatIneq4Duhamel:2} of Corollary \ref{cor:heatIneq4Duhamel} to \eqref{eq:uni4YMHF:pf:1}, \eqref{eq:uni4YMHF:pf:2} and integrating \eqref{eq:uni4YMHF:pf:3}, \eqref{eq:uni4YMHF:pf:4}, for each $s \in [0, s_{0} - \epsilon]$ we arrive at
\begin{equation*}
\delta \mathcal B(s) < \delta \mathcal B(0) + (C+C^{2}) \int_{0}^{s} \delta \mathcal B(s) \, \mathrm{d} s.
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
C = \max_{ij}(\nrm{A_{i}}_{L^{\infty}_{t,x,s}} + \nrm{F_{ij}}_{L^{\infty}_{t,x,s}} + \nrm{F_{si}}_{L^{\infty}_{t,x,s}}),
\end{equation*}
with all norms taken over $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0, s_{0}-\epsilon]$. Note that $C < \infty$, since $A_{\mu}, A'_{\mu}$ are regular. Then as $\delta \mathcal B(0) = 0$, by Gronwall's inequality, it follows that $\delta \mathcal B(s) = 0$ for all $[0, s_{0} -\epsilon]$. Taking $\epsilon \to 0$, we see that $A_{i} = A'_{i}$ on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0, s_{0})$. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem} [Improved local well-posedness for \eqref{eq:YMHF}] \label{thm:implwp4YMHF}
Consider the above IVP for \eqref{eq:YMHF} with a regular initial data set $\overline{A}_{i}$ (in the sense of Definition \ref{def:reg4YMHF}). Suppose furthermore that $\overline{F}_{ij} := \partial_{i} \overline{A}_{j} -\partial_{j} \overline{A}_{i} + \LieBr{\overline{A}_{i}}{\overline{A}_{j}}$ belongs to $L^{2}_{x}$ and the norm is sufficiently small, i.e.
\begin{equation*}
{\bf B}[\overline{F}] = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i < j} \nrm{\overline{F}_{ij}}^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}} < \delta,
\end{equation*}
where $\delta > 0$ is the the positive number as in Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covF}.
Then there exists a unique regular solution $A_{i}$ to the IVP on $\mathbb R^{3} \times [0, 1]$. Furthermore, this solution has the additional property that $F_{ij}$ is regular on $\mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark} \label{}
Other constituents of a local well-posedness statement, such as continuous dependence on the data, can be proved by a minor modification of the proof below. Also, the statement can be extended to a rougher class of initial data and solutions by an approximation argument. We shall not provide proofs for these as they are not needed in the sequel; we welcome the interested reader to fill in the details.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YMHF} and Lemma \ref{lem:uni4YMHF}, there exists $s^{\star} > 0$ such that a unique regular solution $A_{i}$ to the IVP for \eqref{eq:YMHF} exists on $[0,s^{\star}]$ and obeys
\begin{equation} \label{eq:implwp4YMHF:pf:0}
\sup_{0 \leq s \leq s^{\star}}\nrm{A(s)}_{L^{6}_{x}} \leq C \sup_{0 \leq s \leq s^{\star}} \nrm{A(s)}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \leq C \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
We remark that the first inequality holds by Sobolev embedding.
Let us denote by $s_{\max}$ the largest $s$-parameter for which $A_{i}$ extends as a unique regular solution on $[0, s_{\max})$. We claim that under the hypothesis that ${\bf B}[\overline{F}] < \delta$, the following statement holds:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:implwp4YMHF:pf:1}
\hbox{If } s_{\max} \leq 1\hbox{ then } \sup_{s \in [0, s_{\max})} \nrm{A_{i}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} < \infty.
\end{equation}
If this claim were true, then we may apply Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YMHF} and Lemma \ref{lem:uni4YMHF} to extend $A_{i}$ past $s_{\max}$ if $s_{\max} \leq 1$. Therefore, it would follow that $s_{\max} > 1$.
Let us establish \eqref{eq:implwp4YMHF:pf:1}. The first step is to show that $\nrm{A(s)}_{L^{6}_{x}}$ does not blow up on $[0, s_{\max})$. By \eqref{eq:implwp4YMHF:pf:0}, it suffices to restrict our attention to $s > s^{\star}$; therefore, $s \in (s^{\star}, s_{\max})$. Since $s_{\max } \leq 1$, by Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covFij} and Corollary \ref{cor:covSob}, we see that
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\partial_{s} A_{i}(s)}_{L^{6}_{x}} = \nrm{{\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i}(s)}_{L^{6}_{x}} \leq s^{-1} C_{{\bf B}} \cdot \sqrt{{\bf B}}.
\end{equation*}
Integrating from $s=s^{\star}$ and using \eqref{eq:implwp4YMHF:pf:0}, we arrive at\footnote{Note that integrating from $s^{\star}$ allows us to bypass the issue of logarithmic divergence at $s=0$.}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:implwp4YMHF:pf:2}
\sup_{s^{\star} < s < s_{\max}} \nrm{A(s)}_{L^{6}_{x}} \leq \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} + C_{{\bf B}} \cdot \abs{\log s^{\star}} \sqrt{{\bf B}} < \infty.
\end{equation}
Next, let us show that $\nrm{A_{i}(s)}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}$ does not blow up on $[0, s_{\max})$. Again, it suffices to consider $s \in (s^{\star}, s_{\max})$. Recall that ${\bf D}_{x} {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i} = \partial_{x} {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i} + \LieBr{A}{{\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i}}$; thus by triangle and H\"older,
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\partial_{s} A_{i}(s)}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} \leq \nrm{{\bf D}_{x} {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i}(s)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{A(s)}_{L^{6}_{x}} \nrm{{\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell i}(s)}_{L^{3}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
Using Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covFij} and Corollary \ref{cor:covSob}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\partial_{s} A_{i}(s)}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}
\leq s^{-1} C_{{\bf B}} \cdot \sqrt{{\bf B}} + s^{-3/4} C_{{\bf B}} \cdot \sqrt{{\bf B}} \, \Big( \sup_{s^{\star} < s < s_{\max}} \nrm{A(s)}_{L^{6}_{x}} \Big).
\end{equation*}
Recalling \eqref{eq:implwp4YMHF:pf:1} and integrating from $s^{\star}$, we see that $\sup_{s^{\star} < s < s_{\max}}\nrm{A_{i}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} < \infty$, as desired. \qedhere
\end{proof}
For any regular initial data with finite magnetic energy, we can use scaling to make ${\bf B}(s=0) < \delta$; thus, Theorem \ref{thm:implwp4YMHF} applies also to initial data with large magnetic energy. Furthermore, using the fact that the magnetic energy ${\bf B}(s)$ is non-increasing in $s$ under the Yang-Mills heat flow (which is formally obvious, as the Yang-Mills heat flow is the gradient flow of ${\bf B}$; see \cite{Rade:1992tu}), we can in fact iterate Theorem \ref{thm:implwp4YMHF} to obtain a unique global solution to the IVP, leading to an independent proof of the following classical result of \cite{Rade:1992tu}.
\begin{corollary}[R{\aa}de \cite{Rade:1992tu}] \label{cor:gwp4YMHF}
Consider the IVP for \eqref{eq:YMHF} with a regular initial data set $\overline{A}_{i}$ which possesses finite magnetic energy, i.e. ${\bf B}[\overline{F}] := (1/2) \sum_{i < j} \nrm{\overline{F}_{ij}}_{L^{2}_{x}} < \infty$. Then there exists a unique global regular solution $A_{i}$ to the IVP on $\mathbb R^{3} \times [0, \infty)$, with the additional property that $F_{ij}$ is regular on $\mathbb R^{3} \times [0, \infty)$.
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Analysis of the dynamic Yang-Mills heat flow in the caloric gauge} \label{subsec:dYMHF}
Hereafter, we shall study the dynamic Yang-Mills heat flow \eqref{eq:dYMHF} in the caloric gauge $A_{s} = 0$. Writing out the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:dYMHF}, we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dYMHFcal}
\partial_{s} A_{\mu} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell \mu}, \quad \mu = 0,1,2,3.
\end{equation}
Let $I \subset \mathbb R$ be an interval. We will study the IVP associated to \eqref{eq:dYMHFcal} on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$, with the initial data given by
\begin{equation}
A_{\mu} (t,x, 0) = \overline{A}_{\mu} (t,x) \quad \hbox{ on } I \times \mathbb R^{3}.
\end{equation}
As in \S \ref{subsec:YMHF}, we will be focusing on \emph{regular} initial data sets and solutions to \eqref{eq:dYMHFcal}, whose definitions we give below.
\begin{definition} \label{def:reg4dYMHF}
Let $I \subset \mathbb R$ be an interval. We say that a connection 1-form $\overline{A}_{\mu} = \overline{A}_{\mu}(t,x)$ defined on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$ is a \emph{regular initial data set} for \eqref{eq:dYMHF} in the caloric gauge if $\partial_{t, x} \overline{A}_{i}$ is regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$. Furthermore, we say that a smooth solution $A_{\mu}$ to \eqref{eq:dYMHFcal} defined on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,s_{0}]$ is a \emph{regular solution} to \eqref{eq:dYMHF} in the caloric gauge if $\partial_{t, x} A_{\mu}$ is regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0, s_{0}]$.
\end{definition}
We begin with a uniqueness lemma for a regular solution to \eqref{eq:dYMHF} in the caloric gauge.
\begin{lemma}[Uniqueness of regular solution to \eqref{eq:dYMHF} in the caloric gauge] \label{lem:uni4dYMHF}
Let $A_{\mu}, A'_{\mu}$ be two regular solutions to \eqref{eq:dYMHF} in the caloric gauge on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0, s_{0}]$ for some $I \subset \mathbb R$ and $s_{0} > 0$. If their initial data coincide, i.e. $A_{\mu}(s=0)= A'_{\mu}(s=0)$ on $I \times \mathbb R^{3}$, then so do the solutions, i.e. $A_{\mu} = A'_{\mu}$ on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0, s_{0}]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that the spatial components $A_{i}(t)$ satisfy \eqref{eq:YMHF} for each fixed $t$; therefore, by Lemma \ref{lem:uni4YMHF}, it follows that $A_{i} = A'_{i}$. As a consequence, we are only left to show $A_{0} = A'_{0}$.
As we already know that $A_{i} = A'_{i}$, observe that $\delta F_{0i} = F_{0i} - F'_{0i}$ now obeys the simple equation
\begin{equation*}
(\partial_{s} - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell}) (\delta F_{0i}) = -2 \LieBr{\tensor{\delta F}{_{0}^{\ell}}}{F_{i\ell}}.
\end{equation*}
Note furthermore that $\delta F_{0i}(s=0) = 0$. Applying the weak maximum principle \eqref{eq:heatIneq4Duhamel:2} and using the Gronwall's inequality as before, we see that $F_{0i} = F'_{0i}$ on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0, s_{0})$. Then, by the dynamic Yang-Mills heat flow, $\partial_{s} A_{0} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell 0} = \partial_{s} A'_{0}$ everywhere. Since $A_{0} (s=0) = A'_{0}(s=0)$, it follows that $A_{0} = A'_{0}$ on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0, s_{0})$, which concludes the proof. \qedhere
\end{proof}
We end this section with a `well-posedness statement' (by which we mean existence and uniqueness here) for the IVP for \eqref{eq:dYMHF} in the caloric gauge with regular initial data set possessing finite energy\footnote{The theorem itself concerns the case of small energy, but by scaling, of course, the theorem extends to the large energy case as well.} ${\bf E}[0] < \infty$.
\begin{theorem} [Local well-posedness for \eqref{eq:dYMHF} in the caloric gauge] \label{thm:impLWP4dYMHF}
Let $I \subset \mathbb R$ be an interval and consider the above IVP for \eqref{eq:dYMHF} in the caloric gauge with a regular initial data set $\overline{A}_{\mu}$ (in the sense of Definition \ref{def:reg4dYMHF}). Suppose furthermore that $\overline{A}_{0} \in L^{\infty}_{t} L^{3}_{x}$, $\overline{F}_{\mu \nu} := \partial_{\mu} \overline{A}_{\nu} -\partial_{\mu} \overline{A}_{\nu} + \LieBr{\overline{A}_{\mu}}{\overline{A}_{\nu}} \in L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x}$, and the energy is uniformly small on $I$, i.e.
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{t \in I} {\bf E}[\overline{{\bf F}}(t)] = \sup_{t \in I} \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\mu < \nu} \nrm{\overline{F}_{\mu \nu}(t)}^{2}_{L^{2}_{x}} < \delta,
\end{equation*}
where $\delta > 0$ is the the positive number as in Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covF}.
Then there exists a unique regular solution $A_{\mu}$ to the IVP on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0, 1]$. Furthermore, this solution has the additional property that $A_{0} \in C^{\infty}_{t,x} (I \times [0,1], L^{3}_{x})$ and $F_{\mu \nu}$ is regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
As in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:uni4dYMHF}, we begin with the observation that the spatial components $A_{i}(t)$ satisfy \eqref{eq:YMHF} for each fixed $t$. Observe furthermore that ${\bf B}[\overline{F}(t)] \leq {\bf E}[\overline{{\bf F}}(t)] < \delta$, where $\delta > 0$ is the common small constant occurring in Propositions \ref{prop:pEst4covF} and \ref{prop:pEst4covFij}. Repeating the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:implwp4YMHF} (but this time making use of the second statement of Part (3) of Theorem \ref{thm:lwp4YMHF}), we obtain a smooth spatial 1-form $A_{i}$ on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ solving \eqref{eq:YMHF} for each fixed $t$, such that $\partial_{t, x} A_{i}$, $F_{ij}$ are regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$. At this point, we are left to solve for $A_{0}$, making use of the equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:impLWP4dYMHF:pf:0}
\partial_{s} A_{0} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell 0}.
\end{equation}
Here, we follow Step 1 of \cite[Proof of Theorem A]{Oh:6stz7nRe}. Note that $F_{0i}$ satisfies the covariant parabolic equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:impLWP4dYMHF:pf:1}
\partial_{s} F_{0i} - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell} F_{0i} = 2 \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{i}^{\ell}}}{F_{0\ell}}
\end{equation}
Since $A_{i}$ and $F_{ij}$ have already been solved, we may view this as a linear system of parabolic equation for $F_{0 i}$ with smooth coefficients, which should be amenable to standard techniques. Indeed, applying \cite[Proposition 5.6]{Oh:6stz7nRe}, there exists a unique regular solution $F'_{0i} = - F'_{i0}$ to \eqref{eq:impLWP4dYMHF:pf:1} on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ with $F'_{0i}(s=0) = \overline{F}_{0i}$. Then motivated by \eqref{eq:impLWP4dYMHF:pf:0}, we extend $\overline{A}_{0}$ to $A_{0}$ on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ by solving
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \partial_{s} A_{0} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F'_{\ell 0}\quad \hbox{ on } I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1], \\
&A_{0}(s=0) = \overline{A}_{0} \quad \hbox{ on } I \times \mathbb R^{3}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
By construction, it is easy to verify that $A_{0}$ is smooth, $\partial_{t,x} A_{0}$ is regular and $A_{0} \in C^{\infty}_{t,s} (I \times [0,1], L^{3}_{x})$. With $A_{0}$ defined on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$, we may define the curvature components $F_{0i} = \partial_{0} A_{i} - \partial_{i} A_{0} + \LieBr{A_{0}}{A_{i}}$ and ask whether $F_{0i} = F'_{0i}$. This is indeed the case, by \cite[Lemma 6.1]{Oh:6stz7nRe}, from which it follows that $A_{0}$ satisfies \eqref{eq:impLWP4dYMHF:pf:0}. Combined with Lemma \ref{lem:uni4dYMHF}, we conclude that $A_{\mu}$ is the desired solution to \eqref{eq:dYMHF} in the caloric gauge. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\subsection{Substitution of covariant derivatives by usual derivatives} \label{subsec:dSub}
At several points below, we will need to transfer estimates for covariant derivatives to the corresponding estimates for usual derivatives. The purpose of this part is to develop a general technique for carrying out such procedures. Our starting point is the following proposition, which concerns estimates for the $L^{\infty}_{x}$ norm of ${\bf A}$.
To state the following proposition, we need the following definition.
\begin{equation*}
{}^{(\underline{A})}\mathcal I(t) := \sum_{k=1}^{31} \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}(t)}_{\dot{H}^{k-1}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
In fact, this is a part of a larger norm $\mathcal I(t)$, whose definition will be given in Section \ref{sec:pfOfIdEst}.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:intEst4A:s}
Let $I \subset \mathbb R$ be an interval, $t \in I$, and consider a regular solution $A_{\mu}$ to \eqref{eq:dYMHF} in the caloric gauge $A_{s} = 0$ on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$. Suppose that ${\bf F} = F_{\mu \nu}$ is regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$, and ${\bf E}(t) := {\bf E}[{\bf F}(t, s=0)] < \delta$, where $\delta > 0$ is the small constant in Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covF}. Then the following estimate holds for all $0 \leq k \leq 29$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:intEst4A:s:0}
\nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(k)} {\bf A}(t)}_{\mathcal L^{1/4, \infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{\infty}_{x}(0,1]} \leq {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I + C_{k, {\bf E}(t), {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I(t)} \cdot \sqrt{{\bf E}(t)}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Henceforth, we shall fix $t \in I$ and omit writing $t$. By the caloric gauge condition $A_{s} = 0$, we have the relation $\partial_{s} A_{\nu} = F_{s \nu}$, where the latter can be controlled by Corollary \ref{cor:pEst4covFs}. Observe furthermore that
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k)} \underline{{\bf A}}}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \leq C \, {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I
\end{equation*}
for $0 \leq k \leq 29$, by Sobolev (or Gagliardo-Nirenberg). Now, the idea is to use the fundamental theorem of calculus of control $\partial_{x}^{(k)} {\bf A}(s)$ for $0 < s \leq 1$.
We will proceed by induction on $k$. Let us start with the case $k=0$. By the fundamental theorem of calculus and Minkowski's inequality, we have
\begin{equation*}
s^{1/4} \nrm{{\bf A}(s)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \leq s^{1/4} \nrm{\underline{{\bf A}}}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} + \int_{s}^{1} (s/s')^{1/4} (s')^{5/4} \nrm{{\bf F}_{s}(s')}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'}.
\end{equation*}
As remarked earlier, the first term on the right-hand side may be estimated by ${}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I$ uniformly in $s \in (0,1]$. For the second term, we apply \eqref{eq:pEst4covFs:2} of Corollary \ref{cor:pEst4covFs} and estimate $(s')^{5/4} \nrm{{\bf F}_{s}(s')}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}$ by $C_{k, {\bf E}} \cdot \sqrt{{\bf E}}$. The case $k=0$ of \eqref{eq:intEst4A:s:0} follows, since
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{0 < s \leq 1} \int_{s}^{1} (s/s')^{1/4} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'} \leq C < \infty.
\end{equation*}
Next, for the purpose of induction, assume that \eqref{eq:intEst4A:s:0} holds for $0, 1, \ldots, k-1$, where $1 \leq k \leq 29$. Taking $\partial^{(k)}_{x}$ of $\partial_{s} A_{\nu} = F_{s \nu}$, using the fundamental theorem of calculus, Minkowski's inequality and multiplying both sides by $s^{1/4+k/2}$, we arrive at
\begin{equation*}
s^{1/4} \nrm{\nabla^{(k)}_{x} {\bf A}(s)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}
\leq s^{1/4+k/2} \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k)} \underline{{\bf A}}}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}
+ \int_{s}^{1} (s/s')^{1/4+k/2} (s')^{5/4} \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(k)} {\bf F}_{s}(s')}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \, \frac{\mathrm{d} s'}{s'}.
\end{equation*}
Once we establish
\begin{equation} \label{eq:intEst4A:s:pf:1}
\sup_{0 < s \leq 1} \nrm{s^{5/4} \nabla_{x}^{(k)} {\bf F}_{s}}_{\mathcal L^{\infty}_{x}} \leq C_{k, {\bf E}, {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I} \cdot \sqrt{{\bf E}},
\end{equation}
then proceeding as in the previous case, \eqref{eq:intEst4A:s:0} for $k$ will follow, which completes the induction.
Fix $0 < s \leq 1$. Applying \eqref{eq:dSub:u2cov} of Lemma \ref{lem:dSub} and multiplying both sides by $s^{5/4+ k/2}$, we see that
\begin{equation*}
s^{5/4} \nabla_{x}^{(k)} {\bf F}_{s}(s) = s^{5/4} \mathcal D_{x}^{(k)} {\bf F}_{s}(s) + \sum_{\star} s^{j/4} \mathcal O(s^{1/4} \nabla_{x}^{(\ell_{1})} A, \cdots, s^{1/4} \nabla_{x}^{(\ell_{j})} A, s^{5/4} \mathcal D_{x}^{(\ell)} {\bf F}_{s}),
\end{equation*}
where the range of the summation is as specified in Lemma \ref{lem:dSub}. Let us take the $L^{\infty}_{x}$-norm of both sides; by the triangle inequality and \eqref{eq:pEst4covFs:2} of Corollary \ref{cor:pEst4covFs}, it suffices to control
\begin{equation*}
s^{j/4} \nrm{\mathcal O(s^{1/4} \nabla_{x}^{(\ell_{1})} A, \cdots, s^{1/4} \nabla_{x}^{(\ell_{j})} A, s^{5/4} \mathcal D_{x}^{(\ell)} {\bf F}_{s})}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}
\end{equation*}
for each summand of $\sum_{\star}$. Let us throw away the extra power $s^{j/4}$ (which is okay as $0 < s \leq 1$) \footnote{We gain an extra power of $s^{1/4}$ for each factor of $A_{i}$ replacing $\partial_{i}$, thanks to the subcriticality of the problem at hand.}. Observe that $0 \leq \ell_{1}, \ldots, \ell_{j} \leq k-1$; therefore, by the induction hypothesis, we have
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{s^{1/4} \nabla_{x}^{(\ell_{1})} A(s)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}, \cdots, \nrm{s^{1/4} \nabla_{x}^{(\ell_{j})} A(s)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \leq C_{k, {\bf E}, {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I}.
\end{equation*}
Note furthermore that $\nrm{s^{5/4} \mathcal D_{x}^{(\ell)} {\bf F}_{s}(s)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \leq C_{\ell, {\bf E}} \cdot \sqrt{{\bf E}}$ by Corollary \ref{cor:pEst4covFs}. Hence, by H\"older, each summand may be estimated by $C_{k, {\bf E}, {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I}$, and thus \eqref{eq:intEst4A:s:pf:1} follows.
\end{proof}
As a consequence, we obtain the following corollary which allows us to easily switch estimates for covariant derivatives to those for usual derivatives.
\begin{corollary} [Substitution of covariant derivatives by usual derivatives] \label{cor:cov2u}
Assume that the hypotheses of Proposition \ref{prop:intEst4A:s} holds. Let $\sigma$ be a $\mathfrak{g}$-valued function on $\set{t} \times \mathbb R^{3} \times (0,1]$, $m \geq 0$ an integer, $b \geq 0, 1 \leq p, r \leq \infty$. Suppose that there exists $D > 0$ such that the estimate
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cov2u:0}
\nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k)} \sigma}_{\mathcal L^{b, p}_{s} \mathcal L^{r}_{x}} \leq D
\end{equation}
holds for $0 \leq k \leq m$. Then we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cov2u:1}
\nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(k)} \sigma}_{\mathcal L^{b, p}_{s} \mathcal L^{r}_{x}} \leq C_{{}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I(t), {\bf E}(t)} \cdot D
\end{equation}
for $0 \leq k \leq \min(m, 30)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We will again omit $t$ in this proof. The case $k = 0$ is obvious; we thus fix $1 \leq k \leq \min(m, 30)$. Using \eqref{eq:dSub:u2cov} of Lemma \ref{lem:dSub} to $\sigma$ and multiplying by $s^{b+k/2}$, we get
\begin{equation*}
s^{b} \nabla_{x}^{(k)} \sigma(s) = s^{b} \mathcal D_{x}^{(k)} \sigma(s) + \sum_{\star} s^{j/4} \mathcal O(s^{1/4} \nabla_{x}^{(\ell_{1})} A(s), \cdots, s^{1/4} \nabla_{x}^{(\ell_{j})} A(s), s^{b} \mathcal D_{x}^{(\ell)} \sigma(s)),
\end{equation*}
where the range of summation $\sum_{\star}$ is as specified in Lemma \ref{lem:dSub}. Taking the $\mathcal L^{p}_{s} \mathcal L^{r}_{x}$ norm of both sides, applying triangle and using \eqref{eq:cov2u:0} to estimate $\nrm{s^{b} \mathcal D_{x}^{(k)} \sigma(s)}_{\mathcal L^{p}_{s} \mathcal L^{r}_{x}} = \nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k)} \sigma}_{\mathcal L^{b, p}_{s} \mathcal L^{r}_{x}} \leq D$, we are left to establish
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cov2u:pf:1}
s^{j/4} \nrm{\mathcal O(s^{1/4} \nabla_{x}^{(\ell_{1})} A(s), \cdots, s^{1/4} \nabla_{x}^{(\ell_{j})} A(s), s^{b} \mathcal D_{x}^{(\ell)} \sigma(s))}_{\mathcal L^{p}_{s} \mathcal L^{r}_{x}} \leq C_{{}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I} \cdot D
\end{equation}
for each summand in $\sum_{\star}$. Note that we have an extra power of $s^{j/4}$, which we can just throw away (as $0 < s \leq 1$). Let us use H\"older to put each $s^{1/4} \nabla_{x}^{(\ell_{i})} A(s)$ in $\mathcal L^{\infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{\infty}_{x}$ and $s^{b} \mathcal D_{x}^{(\ell)} \sigma(s)$ in $\mathcal L^{p}_{s} \mathcal L^{r}_{x}$. Then using Proposition \ref{prop:intEst4A:s} (This is possible since $k \leq 30$) and \eqref{eq:cov2u:0} to control the respective norms, we obtain \eqref{eq:cov2u:pf:1}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\section{Transformation to the caloric-temporal gauge and estimates at $t=0$: \\ Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:idEst}} \label{sec:pfOfIdEst}
The purpose of this section is to prove Theorem \ref{thm:idEst}. Let us begin by giving the precise definition of the norm $\mathcal I(t)$, which was alluded in Section \ref{sec:reduction}.
For a solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$, define $\mathcal I(t) := {}^{(F_{s})} \mathcal I(t) + {}^{(\underline{A})} \mathcal I(t)$ $(t \in I)$, where
\begin{align*}
& {}^{(F_{s})} \mathcal I(t) := \sum_{k=1}^{10} \Big[ \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} F_{s}(t)}_{\mathcal L^{5/4,\infty}_{s} \dot{H}^{k-1}_{x}} + \nrm{\nabla_{t,x} F_{s}(t)}_{\mathcal L^{5/4,2}_{s} \dot{H}^{k-1}_{x}}\Big], \\
& {}^{(\underline{A})}\mathcal I(t) := \sum_{k=1}^{31} \nrm{\partial_{t,x} \underline{A}(t)}_{\dot{H}^{k-1}_{x}}.
\end{align*}
A key ingredient for proving Theorem \ref{thm:idEst} is Theorem \ref{thm:impLWP4dYMHF}, which has been proved in the previous section. The remaining analytic drudgery, on the other hand, is mostly contained in \cite[Theorem A]{Oh:6stz7nRe}. Let us give a simplified version of \cite[Theorem A]{Oh:6stz7nRe}, which suffices for our purpose and can be easily read off from the original version.
\begin{theorem}[{\cite[Theorem A]{Oh:6stz7nRe}}, simplified] \label{thm:oldIdEst}
Let $0 < T \leq 1$, and $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ a regular solution to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM} in the temporal gauge $A^{\dagger}_{0} = 0$ on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3}$ with the initial data $(\overline{A}_{i}, \overline{E}_{i})$ at $t=0$. Define $\overline{\mathcal I} := \nrm{\overline{A}}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} + \nrm{\overline{E}}_{L^{2}_{x}}$. If
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ThmA:hypothesis}
\sup_{t \in (-T, T)} \nrm{A^{\dagger}(t)}_{\dot{H}^{1}_{x}} < \delta_{P}
\end{equation}
where $\delta_{P}$ is a small absolute constant, then the following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists a regular gauge transform $V = V(t,x)$ on $(-T, T) \times \mathbb R^{3}$ (in the sense of Definition \ref{def:reg4gt}) and a regular solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ThmA:0}
A_{\mu}(s=0) = V (A^{\dagger}_{\mu}) V^{-1} - \partial_{\mu} V V^{-1}.
\end{equation}
\item Furthermore, the solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ satisfies the caloric-temporal gauge condition, i.e. $A_{s} = 0$ everywhere and $\underline{A}_{0} = 0$.
\item The following initial data estimate holds.
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal I(0) \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal I}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal I}.
\end{equation*}
\item For $\overline{V} := V(t=0)$, the following estimates hold.
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\overline{V}}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal I}}, \quad \nrm{\partial_{x} \overline{V}}_{L^{3}_{x}} + \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(2)} \overline{V}}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq C_{\overline{\mathcal I}} \cdot \overline{\mathcal I}.
\end{equation*}
The same estimates with $\overline{V}$ replaced by $\overline{V}^{-1}$, respectively, also hold.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
With Theorem \ref{thm:oldIdEst} in hand, we are ready to give a proof of \ref{thm:idEst}.
\begin{proof} [Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:idEst}]
We begin with a regular solution $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ to the hyperbolic Yang-Mills equations in the temporal gauge, defined on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3}$. Thanks to the regularity assumption, note that $\partial_{t,x} A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ and $F^{\dagger}_{\mu \nu}$ are regular on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3}$.
\pfstep{Step 1. Construction of regular solution to \eqref{eq:HPYM} in caloric-temporal gauge}
Recall the hypothesis \eqref{eq:idEst:hyp}. By smoothness in $t$ and conservation of energy, respectively, it follows that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:idEst:pf:0}
\sup_{t \in (- \epsilon_{0}, \epsilon_{0})} \nrm{A^{\dagger}}_{\dot{H}^{1}} < \delta_{P}, \quad \sup_{t \in (-T_{0}, T_{0})}{\bf E}[{\bf F}^{\dagger}(t)] < \delta,
\end{equation}
for some small $\epsilon_{0} > 0$. The second smallness condition allows us to apply Theorem \ref{thm:impLWP4dYMHF}, from which we obtain a unique regular solution $\widetilde{A}_{\mu}$ to \eqref{eq:dYMHFcal} on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$.
Supplied with $\widetilde{A}_{s} = 0$, $\widetilde{A}_{{\bf a}} = (\widetilde{A}_{\mu}, \widetilde{A}_{s})$ is a solution to \eqref{eq:HPYM}. We will apply a gauge transform $V = V(t,x,s)$ to $\widetilde{A}_{{\bf a}}$ to enforce the caloric-temporal gauge condition. Let us denote the resulting connection coeffients $A_{{\bf a}}$, i.e.
\begin{equation*}
A_{{\bf a}} := V \widetilde{A}_{{\bf a}} V^{-1} - \partial_{{\bf a}} V V^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
In order for $A_{{\bf a}}$ to be in the caloric-temporal gauge, we need a gauge transform $V$ which is A) independent of $s$ (to keep $A_{s} =0$) and B) makes $\underline{A}_{0} = 0$. These two requirements are in fact equivalent (once one assumes enough regularity of $V$) to $V$ solving the ODE
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \partial_{t} V = V \, \widetilde{\underline{A}}_{0}, \\
& V(t=0) = \overline{V},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
where $\widetilde{\underline{A}}_{0} := \widetilde{A}_{0}(s=1)$ and $\overline{V}$ is a gauge transform on $\mathbb R^{3}$, to be specified in Step 2 in accordance to Theorem \ref{thm:oldIdEst}.
\pfstep{Step 2. Application of Theorem \ref{thm:oldIdEst}}
The next step of the proof is to apply Theorem \ref{thm:oldIdEst} to choose $\overline{V}$ and furthermore obtain a quantitative estimate for ${}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I(0)$. Thanks to the first inequality of \eqref{eq:idEst:pf:0}, we may apply Theorem \ref{thm:oldIdEst} on the time interval $(-\epsilon_{0}, \epsilon_{0})$. Let us mark the objects obtained from Theorem \ref{thm:oldIdEst} with a prime, i.e. $A'_{\mu}$, $V'$ and $\overline{V}'$. Consider $\widetilde{A}'_{\mu} = \widetilde{A}'_{\mu}(t,x,s)$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{A}'_{\mu} := (V')^{-1} A'_{\mu} V' - \partial_{\mu} (V')^{-1} V',
\end{equation*}
where we remind the reader that $V' = V'(t,x)$, $(V')^{-1} = (V')^{-1}(t,x)$ are independent of $s$.
Note that $\widetilde{A}'_{\mu}$ is a regular solution to \eqref{eq:dYMHF} in the caloric gauge, as is $\widetilde{A}_{\mu}$. Moreover, their initial data sets coincide (both being $A^{\dagger}_{\mu}$). By the uniqueness lemma (Lemma \ref{lem:uni4dYMHF}), we conclude that $\widetilde{A}_{\mu} = \widetilde{A}'_{\mu}$ on the set on which $\widetilde{A}'_{\mu}$ is defined, i.e.
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{A}_{\mu} = (V')^{-1} A'_{\mu} V' - \partial_{\mu} (V')^{-1} V'
\end{equation*}
on $(-\epsilon_{0}, \epsilon_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$. As $\underline{A}'_{0} =0$, we also see that
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \partial_{t} V' = V' \widetilde{\underline{A}}_{0}, \\
& V'(t=0) = \overline{V}'.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
on $(-\epsilon_{0}, \epsilon_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3}$.
At this point, let us make the choice $\overline{V} = \overline{V}'$. Then the previous ODE is exactly that satisfied by $V$. Therefore, by uniqueness for ODE with smooth coefficients, $V = V'$ on $(-\epsilon_{0}, \epsilon_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3}$, and hence we conclude that
\begin{equation*}
A_{\mu} = A'_{\mu}
\end{equation*}
on $(-\epsilon_{0}, \epsilon_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$. From Parts (3), (4) of Theorem \ref{thm:oldIdEst}, the quantitative estimates in \eqref{eq:idEst:1} follow.
Moreover, it is not difficult to show that $V$ is a regular gauge transform on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3}$. It also follows that $\partial_{t,x} A_{\mu}$ and $F_{\mu \nu}$ are regular on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$, since $\widetilde{A}_{\mu}$ and $\widetilde{F}_{\mu \nu}$ were regular. This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:idEst}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\section{Fixed-time estimates by ${\bf E}$ : Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:ctrlByE}}
Our aim in this section is to prove Theorem \ref{thm:ctrlByE}. Splitting $\mathcal I(t) = {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I(t) + {}^{(F_{s})} \mathcal I(t)$, we will reduce the theorem to establishing two inequalities, namely \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:0} and \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Fs:0} of Propositions \ref{prop:ctrlByE:Alw} and \ref{prop:ctrlByE:Fs}, respectively.
Throughout this section, we will be concerned with a regular solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ ($T_{0} > 0$), which satisfies $\mathcal I(0) = {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I(0) + {}^{(F_{s})} \mathcal I(0) < \infty$ and ${\bf E}[\overline{{\bf F}}] < \infty$. Then by conservation of energy for the hyperbolic Yang-Mills equations at $s=0$, we see that
\begin{equation*}
{\bf E}[{\bf F}(t, s=0)] = {\bf E}[\overline{{\bf F}}] \quad \forall t \in (-T_{0}, T_{0}).
\end{equation*}
We will denote the common value of ${\bf E}[{\bf F}(t, s=0)]$ by ${\bf E}$.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:ctrlByE:Alw}
There exists\footnote{In the course of the proof, it will be clear that $N$ may be chosen to depend only on the number of derivatives of $\underline{A}_{i}$ controlled. In our case, in which we control up to 31 derivatives of $\underline{A}_{i}$, we may choose $N = 32$.} $N > 0$ such that for any $t \in (-T_{0}, T_{0})$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:0}
{}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I(t) \leq C_{{}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I(0), {\bf E}} \, (1+\abs{t})^{N}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By symmetry, it suffices to consider $t > 0$. The main idea is to use the relation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:0}
\underline{F}_{0i} = \partial_{t} \underline{A}_{i},
\end{equation}
which holds thanks to the fact that we are in the temporal gauge $\underline{A}_{0} = 0$ along $s=1$, and proceed as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:intEst4A:s}.
Let us begin by estimating the $L^{\infty}_{x}$ norms. We claim that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:1}
\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k)} \underline{A}(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \leq C_{k, {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I(0), {\bf E}} \, (1+t)^{k+1}.
\end{equation}
for $0 \leq k \leq 29$.
Let us begin with the case $k=0$ and proceed by induction. Note the inequality
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\underline{A}_{i}(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}
\leq \nrm{\underline{A}_{i}(t=0)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} + \int_{0}^{t} \nrm{\underline{F}_{0i}(t')}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \, \mathrm{d} t'.
\end{equation*}
Using Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covF}, we may estimate the last term by $C_{{\bf E}} \, t$; from this, the $k=0$ case of \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:1} follows.
Next, to carry out the induction, let us assume that \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:1} holds for $0, 1, \ldots, k-1$, where $1 \leq k \leq 29$. Taking $\partial_{x}^{(k)}$ of both sides of \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:0} and using the fundamental theorem of calculus, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k)} \underline{A}_{i}(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}
\leq \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k)} \underline{A}_{i}(t=0)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} + \int_{0}^{t} \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k)} \underline{F}_{0i}(t')}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \, \mathrm{d} t'.
\end{equation*}
The first term is estimated by ${}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I(t=0)$, as $1 \leq k \leq 29$. For the second term, we apply \eqref{eq:dSub:u2cov} of Lemma \ref{lem:dSub}. Then it suffices to estimate
\begin{equation*}
\int_{0}^{t} \Big( \nrm{{\bf D}_{x}^{(k)} \underline{F}_{0i}(t')}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} + \sum_{\star} \nrm{\mathcal O(\partial_{x}^{(\ell_{1})} A, \ldots, \partial_{x}^{(\ell_{j})} A, {\bf D}_{x}^{(\ell)} \underline{F}_{0i})(t')}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \Big) \, \mathrm{d} t'
\end{equation*}
where the range of the summation $\sum_{\star}$ is as in Lemma \ref{lem:dSub}. In particular, $\ell_{1}, \ldots, \ell_{j}, \ell \leq k-1$. Let us use H\"older to estimate each factor in $L^{\infty}_{x}$, and estimate the derivatives of $A$ and $\underline{F}_{0i}$ by the induction hypothesis and Propostion \ref{prop:pEst4covF}, respectively. Then it is not difficult to see that the worst term (in terms of growth in $t$) is of the size
\begin{equation*}
C_{k, {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I(0), {\bf E}} \int_{0}^{t} (1+t')^{k} \, \mathrm{d} t' = C_{k, {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I(0), {\bf E}} \, (1+t)^{k+1}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:1} for $k$ follows. By induction, this establishes the claim.
With \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:1} in hand, we now proceed to prove
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:2}
\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k)} \underline{A}(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq C_{k, {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I(0), {\bf E}} \, (1+t)^{k+1}.
\end{equation}
for $1 \leq k \leq 31$.
Arguing as in the proof of \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:1}, we arrive at the inequality
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k)} \underline{A}_{i}(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq & \nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k)} \underline{A}_{i}(t=0)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \\
& + \int_{0}^{t} \Big( \nrm{{\bf D}_{x}^{(k)} \underline{F}_{0i}(t')}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \sum_{\star} \nrm{\mathcal O(\partial_{x}^{(\ell_{1})} A, \ldots, \partial_{x}^{(\ell_{j})} A, {\bf D}_{x}^{(\ell)} \underline{F}_{0i})(t')}_{L^{2}_{x}} \Big) \, \mathrm{d} t'.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
It suffices to estimate the $t'$-integral. For $1 \leq k \leq 30$, let us use H\"older to estimate each $\partial_{x}^{(\ell_{i})} A$ in $L^{\infty}_{x}$ and ${\bf D}^{(\ell)}_{x} \underline{F}_{0i}$ in $L^{2}_{x}$. Then we estimate these by \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:1} and Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covF}, respectively, from which \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:2} follows immediately for $1 \leq k \leq 30$.
Next, proceeding similarly in the case $k=31$, all terms are easily seen to be okay except
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\mathcal O(\partial_{x}^{(30)} A, \underline{F}_{0i})(t')}_{L^{2}_{x}},
\end{equation*}
for which we cannot use \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:1}. In this case, however, we may put $\partial_{x}^{(30)} A$ in $L^{2}_{x}$ and $\underline{F}_{0i}$ in $L^{\infty}_{x}$. Then the former can be estimated by using the case $k=30$ of \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:2} that we have just established, whereas the estimate for the latter follows from Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covF}. It follows that this term is of size $C_{k, {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I(0), {\bf E}} \, (1+t')^{31}$. Integrating over $[0,t]$ gives the growth $C_{k, {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I(0), {\bf E}} \, (1+t)^{32}$.
Finally, we are left to prove estimates for $\partial_{t} \underline{A}_{i}$. For this purpose, we claim
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:3}
\nrm{\partial_{x}^{(k-1)} \partial_{t} \underline{A}(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \leq C_{k, {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I(0), {\bf E}} \, (1+t)^{k-1}.
\end{equation}
for $1 \leq k \leq 30$.
To prove \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:3}, recall that $\partial_{t} \underline{A}_{i} = \underline{F}_{0i}$; therefore, the case $k=1$ follows immediately from Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covF}. For $k > 1$, we take $\partial_{x}^{(k-1)}$ and use Lemma \ref{lem:dSub} to substitute the usual derivatives by covariant derivatives. Then by \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:1}, \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:2} and Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covF}, \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:3} follows.
Combining \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:2} and \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:pf:3}, we obtain \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Alw:0} with $N = 32$. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:ctrlByE:Fs}
For any $t \in (-T_{0}, T_{0})$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ctrlByE:Fs:0}
{}^{(F_{s})} \mathcal I(t) \leq C_{{}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I(t), {\bf E}} \cdot \sqrt{{\bf E}}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Throughout the proof, the time $t \in (-T_{0}, T_{0})$ will be fixed and thus be omitted.
Recalling the definition of ${}^{(F_{s})} \mathcal I$, establishing \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Fs:0} reduces to proving
\begin{align}
\nrm{\nabla_{x} F_{s}}_{\mathcal L^{5/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal H}^{k-1}_{x}} \leq & C_{k, {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I, {\bf E}} \cdot \sqrt{{\bf E}}, \label{eq:ctrlByE:Fs:pf:1} \\
\nrm{\nabla_{0} F_{s}}_{\mathcal L^{5/4,p}_{s} \dot{\mathcal H}^{k-1}_{x}} \leq & C_{k, {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I, {\bf E}} \cdot \sqrt{{\bf E}} \label{eq:ctrlByE:Fs:pf:2}
\end{align}
for $1 \leq k \leq 10$ and $p=2, \infty$.
The estimate \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Fs:pf:1} is an easy consequence of \eqref{eq:pEst4covFs:1} of Corollary \ref{cor:pEst4covFs} and Corollary \ref{cor:cov2u}. On the other hand, to prove \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Fs:pf:2}, we use the formula
\begin{equation*}
\nabla_{0} F_{si} = s^{-1/2} \mathcal D^{\ell} \mathcal D_{\ell} F_{0i} - 2 s^{1/2} \LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{0}^{\ell}}}{F_{i\ell}} + \mathcal D_{i} F_{s0} - s^{1/2} \LieBr{A_{0}}{F_{si}},
\end{equation*}
which is an easy consequence of the Bianchi identity \eqref{eq:fullBianchi} and the parabolic equation for ${\bf D}_{s} F_{0i}$. Taking ${\bf D}_{x}^{(k-1)}$ of both sides and using Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covF}, Corollary \ref{cor:pEst4covFs} and Proposition \ref{prop:intEst4A:s}, we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4covD0Fsi}
\nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k-1)} \nabla_{0} F_{s i}}_{\mathcal L^{5/4, \infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k-1)} \nabla_{t} F_{s i}}_{\mathcal L^{5/4, 2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,1]} \leq C_{k, {\bf E}} \cdot \sqrt{{\bf E}}
\end{equation}
for $k \geq 1$. At this point, applying Corollary \ref{cor:cov2u}, we obtain \eqref{eq:ctrlByE:Fs:pf:2}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
Combining Propositions \ref{prop:ctrlByE:Alw} and \ref{prop:ctrlByE:Fs}, Theorem \ref{thm:ctrlByE} follows.
\section{Short time estimates for (HPYM) in the caloric-temporal gauge: \\ Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst}} \label{sec:pfOfDynEst}
The goal of this section is to prove Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst}. As discussed in Section \ref{sec:reduction}, this theorem follows from a local-in-time analysis of the wave equations of \eqref{eq:HPYM}. As such, its proof will follow closely that of \cite[Theorem B]{Oh:6stz7nRe}, which is essentially a `$H^{1}_{x}$ local well-posedness (in time)' statement for \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge.
To begin with, let us borrow the following definition from \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe}.
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal E(t) := \sum_{m=1}^{3} \Big( \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(m-1)} F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal L^{1, \infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(m)} F_{s0}(t)}_{\mathcal L^{1, 2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,1]} \Big).
\end{equation*}
Given a time interval $I \subset \mathbb R$, we define $\mathcal E(I)$ to be $\sup_{t \in I} \mathcal E(t)$.
Moreover, also borrowing from \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe}, we assert the existence of the norms $\mathcal F(I), \underline{\mathcal A}(I)$ of $F_{si}, \underline{A}_{i}$, respectively, such that the following lemma holds.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:ingr4dynEst}
Let $I \subset \mathbb R$ be a finite open interval centered at $t=0$, and $A_{{\bf a}}$ a regular solution to \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The following estimates hold.
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal A_{0}[A_{0}(s=0)](I) \leq C_{\mathcal F(I), \underline{\mathcal A}(I)} \cdot \mathcal E(I) + C_{\mathcal F(I), \underline{\mathcal A}(I)} \cdot (\mathcal F(I) + \underline{\mathcal A}(I))^{2},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{i} \sup_{s \in [0,1]} \nrm{A_{i}(s)}_{L^{\infty}_{t} L^{2}_{x} (I)} \leq C_{\mathcal F(I), \underline{\mathcal A}(I)} \cdot (\mathcal F(I) + \underline{\mathcal A}(I)).
\end{equation*}
\item The norms $\mathcal F{(-T, T)}$ and $\underline{\mathcal A}{(-T, T)}$ are continuous as a function of $T$ (where $0 < T < T_{0}$). Furthermore, we have
\begin{align*}
\limsup_{T \to 0+} \Big( \mathcal F{(-T, T)} + \underline{\mathcal A}{(-T, T)} \Big) \leq C \, \mathcal I, \\
\limsup_{T \to 0+} \Big( \delta \mathcal F{(-T, T)} + \delta \underline{\mathcal A}{(-T, T)} \Big) \leq C \, \delta \mathcal I.
\end{align*}
\item The following estimates hold for $\underline{\mathcal A}$:
\begin{equation*}
\underline{\mathcal A}(I) \leq C \mathcal I(0) + \abs{I} \Big( C_{\mathcal F(I), \underline{\mathcal A}(I)} \cdot \mathcal E(I) + C_{\mathcal E(I), \mathcal F(I), \underline{\mathcal A}(I)} \cdot (\mathcal E(I) + \mathcal F(I) + \underline{\mathcal A}(I))^{2} \Big).
\end{equation*}
\item The following estimates hold for $\mathcal F$:
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal F(I) \leq C \mathcal I(0) + \abs{I}^{1/2} C_{\mathcal E(I), \mathcal F(I), \underline{\mathcal A}(I)} \cdot (\mathcal E(I) + \mathcal F(I) + \underline{\mathcal A}(I))^{2}
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is essentially a summary of \cite[Propositions 7.1, 7.2, 7.4]{Oh:6stz7nRe} and \cite[Theorems D, E]{Oh:6stz7nRe}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
The main reason why the analysis in \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe} is insufficient to prove Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst} is because of \cite[Proposition 7.3]{Oh:6stz7nRe}, which gives an estimate for $\mathcal E(t)$ \emph{only under the hypothesis} that either the size of the initial data or the $s$-interval is small\footnote{The latter case is not explicitly treated in \cite{Oh:6stz7nRe}, but follows essentially by a scaling argument.}. The following proposition is a replacement of \cite[Proposition 7.3]{Oh:6stz7nRe}, which utilizes the smallness of the conserved energy ${\bf E}(t)$ instead, based on the covariant parabolic estimates derived in Section \ref{sec:covParabolic}.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:impEst4Fs0}
Let $I \subset \mathbb R$ be an open interval and $t \in I$. Consider a regular solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} in the caloric-temporal gauge on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ such that ${\bf F} = F_{\mu \nu}$ is regular on $I \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ and satisfies
\begin{equation*}
{\bf E}(t) := {\bf E}[{\bf F}(t, s=0)] < \delta, \quad {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I(t) \leq D,
\end{equation*}
where $D > 0$ is an arbitrarily large number and $\delta > 0$ is the small constant in Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covF}. Then the following estimate holds.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:a0First:low:0}
\mathcal E(t) \leq C_{D, \delta}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
In \S \ref{subsec:impEst4Fs0}, we will give a proof of Proposition \ref{prop:impEst4Fs0}. Assuming Proposition \ref{prop:impEst4Fs0}, the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst} is a straightforward adaptation of \cite[Proof of Theorem B]{Oh:6stz7nRe}. We shall present a sketch in \S \ref{subsec:pfOfDynEst}.
\subsection{Improvement of estimates for $F_{s0}$ : Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:impEst4Fs0}} \label{subsec:impEst4Fs0}
The goal of this subsection is to prove Proposition \ref{prop:impEst4Fs0}. Consider a regular solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ ($T_{0} > 0$) such that ${\bf F}$ is regular. From Proposition \ref{prop:covParabolic} and the fact that $F_{s0} = {\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell 0}$, it is not difficult to verify that $F_{s0}$ satisfies the covariant parabolic equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:covParabolic4Fs0}
({\bf D}_{s} - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell}) F_{s0} = 2\LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{0}^{\ell}}}{F_{s\ell}}.
\end{equation}
Recall furthermore that $\LieBr{{\bf D}_{i}}{({\bf D}_{s} - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell})} B = \mathcal O(F, {\bf D}_{x} B)$. This implies that ${\bf D}_{x}^{(k)} F_{s0}$ for $k \geq 1$ satisfies the following schematic parabolic equation.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:covParabolic4DFs0}
({\bf D}_{s} - {\bf D}^{\ell} {\bf D}_{\ell}) ({\bf D}_{x}^{(k)} F_{s0}) = \sum_{j=0}^{k} \mathcal O( {\bf D}_{x}^{(j)} {\bf F}, {\bf D}_{x}^{(k-j)} {\bf F}_{s}).
\end{equation}
Now recall that the hyperbolic Yang-Mills equation holds along $s=0$. In particular, the constraint equation ${\bf D}^{\ell} F_{\ell 0}(s=0) = 0$ holds, which is equivalent to $F_{s0}(s=0) = 0$. Taking this extra ingredient into account, It follows that $F_{s0}$ obeys an \emph{improved bound} compared to the one proved in Section \ref{sec:covParabolic}, as we state below.
\begin{proposition}[Improved estimate for $F_{s0}$, with covariant derivatives] \label{prop:pEst4covFs0}
Let $T_{0} > 0$, $t \in (-T_{0}, T_{0})$, and consider a regular solution $A_{{\bf a}}$ to \eqref{eq:HPYM} on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ such that ${\bf F} = F_{\mu \nu}$ is regular on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$. If ${\bf E}(t) := {\bf E}[{\bf F}(t, s=0)] < \delta$, where $\delta > 0$ is the small constant in Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covF}, then the following estimate holds for each integer $k \geq 0$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4covFs0:1}
\nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k-1)} F_{s 0}(t)}_{\mathcal L^{1, \infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k)} F_{s 0}(t)}_{\mathcal L^{1, 2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,1]} \leq C_{k, {\bf E}(t)} \cdot {\bf E}(t),
\end{equation}
When $k=0$, we omit the first term on the left-hand side.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We shall fix $t \in (-T_{0}, T_{0})$ and therefore omit writing $t$. Let us begin with the case $k=0$. Applying Lemma \ref{lem:est4Duhamel} to the covariant parabolic equation for $F_{s0}$, along with the fact that $F_{s0} = 0$ at $s=0$ thanks to \eqref{eq:hyperbolicYM}, it follows that
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{F_{s0}}_{\mathcal L^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}} \leq 2\nrm{\int_{0}^{s} e^{(s-\overline{s}) \triangle} \abs{\LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{0}^{\ell}}}{F_{s\ell}}}(\overline{s}) \, \mathrm{d} \overline{s}}_{\mathcal L^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
Using Lemma \ref{lem:est4Duhamel}, H\"older, \eqref{eq:pEst4covF:1} (Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covF}) and \eqref{eq:pEst4covFs:1} (Corollary \ref{cor:pEst4covFs}), we have
\begin{align*}
\nrm{\int_{0}^{s} e^{(s-\overline{s}) \triangle} \abs{\LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{0}^{\ell}}}{F_{s\ell}}}(\overline{s}) \, \mathrm{d} \overline{s}}_{\mathcal L^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}}
\leq & \nrm{\LieBr{\tensor{F}{_{0}^{\ell}}}{F_{s\ell}}}_{\mathcal L^{1+1,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{1}_{x}} \\
\leq & \nrm{\tensor{F}{_{0}^{\ell}}}_{\mathcal L^{3/4,\infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}} \nrm{F_{s\ell}}_{\mathcal L^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}}
\leq C_{{\bf E}} \cdot {\bf E}.
\end{align*}
Therefore, we have proved $\nrm{F_{s0}}_{\mathcal L^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}} \leq C_{{\bf E}} \cdot {\bf E}$.
For $k \geq 1$, we proceed by induction. Suppose, for the purpose of induction, that the cases $0, \cdots, k-1$ has already been established. Using the energy integral estimate \eqref{eq:pEst4covHeat:1} with $\ell =1 + \frac{k-1}{2}$ to \eqref{eq:covParabolic4DFs0} for ${\bf D}_{x}^{(k-1)} F_{s0}$, we see that
\begin{align*}
&\nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k-1)} F_{s0}}_{\mathcal L^{1,\infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k)} F_{s0}}_{\mathcal L^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}} \\
&\quad \leq C \nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k-1)}F_{s0}}_{\mathcal L^{1,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}} + C \sum_{j=0}^{k-1} \nrm{\mathcal O( \mathcal D_{x}^{(j)} {\bf F}, \mathcal D_{x}^{(k-1-j)} {\bf F}_{s})}_{\mathcal L^{1,1}_{x} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}}.
\end{align*}
The first term on the right-hand side is acceptable by the induction hypothesis; we therefore focus on the second term. Let us use H\"older to estimate $\mathcal D^{(j)}_{x} {\bf F}$ in $\mathcal L^{3/4,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{6}_{x}$ and $\mathcal D^{(k-1-j)}_{x} {\bf F}_{s}$ in $\mathcal L^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{3}_{x}$. Next, we apply Corollary \ref{cor:covSob} to each. Then using Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covF} and Corollary \ref{cor:pEst4covFs}, the sum is estimated by
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} \nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(j+1)} {\bf F}}_{\mathcal L^{3/4,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}} \nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k-1-j)} {\bf F}_{s}}_{\mathcal L^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}}^{1/2} \nrm{\mathcal D_{x}^{(k-j)} {\bf F}_{s}}_{\mathcal L^{5/4,2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}}^{1/2} \leq C_{k, {\bf E}} \cdot {\bf E},
\end{equation*}
Therefore, \eqref{eq:pEst4covFs0:1} holds for the case $k$, which completes the induction. \qedhere
\end{proof}
Suppose furthermore that $A_{{\bf a}}$ is in the caloric-temporal gauge, so that $A_{s} =0$ in particular. Combining Proposition \ref{prop:pEst4covFs0} and Corollary \ref{cor:cov2u}, the covariant derivative estimate \eqref{eq:pEst4covFs0:1} leads to the corresponding estimate for usual derivatives. This is the content of the following corollary, whose easy proof we omit.
\begin{corollary}[Improved estimate for $F_{s0}$, with usual derivatives] \label{cor:pEst4Fs0}
Assume that the hypotheses of Proposition \ref{prop:impEst4Fs0} hold. Furthermore, assume that $A_{{\bf a}}$ satisfies the caloric-temporal gauge condition. Then the following estimate holds for $0 \leq k \leq 29$.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pEst4Fs0:0}
\nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(k)} F_{s 0}(t)}_{\mathcal L^{1, \infty}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,1]} + \nrm{\nabla_{x}^{(k)} F_{s 0}(t)}_{\mathcal L^{1, 2}_{s} \mathcal L^{2}_{x}(0,1]} \leq C_{k, {}^{(\Alow)} \mathcal I(t), {\bf E}(t)} \cdot {\bf E}(t).
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
The estimate \eqref{eq:pEst4Fs0:0} is more than sufficient to prove Proposition \ref{prop:impEst4Fs0}.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst}} \label{subsec:pfOfDynEst}
With Proposition \ref{prop:impEst4Fs0}, we are ready to give a proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst}. We shall basically follow \cite[Proof of Theorem B]{Oh:6stz7nRe}, replacing \cite[Proposition 7.3]{Oh:6stz7nRe} by Proposition \ref{prop:impEst4Fs0}.
\begin{proof} [Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst}]
Let $A_{{\bf a}}$ be a regular solution to the hyperbolic-parabolic Yang-Mills equation in the caloric-temporal gauge on $(-T_{0}, T_{0}) \times \mathbb R^{3} \times [0,1]$ such that ${\bf F}$ is regular and \eqref{eq:dynEst:hyp} is satisfied. For simplicity, we will consider the case in which $I_{0}$ is centered at $t=0$, i.e. $I_{0} = (-d/2, d/2)$ for $d > 0$ to be determined. As we shall see, the proof only utilizes the hypotheses \eqref{eq:dynEst:hyp} on $I_{0}$; therefore, the same proof applies to other $I_{0} \subset (-T_{0}, T_{0})$ as well.
We claim that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:dynEst:pf:0}
\mathcal F(I_{0}) + \underline{\mathcal A}(I_{0}) \leq B D,
\end{equation}
for a large enough absolute constant $B$, to be determined later, provided that $\abs{I_{0}} = d$ is small enough. Note that Theorem \ref{thm:dynEst} then follows immediately from the claim, thanks to Part (1) of Lemma \ref{lem:ingr4dynEst}.
We will use a bootstrap argument. The starting point is provided by Part (2) of Lemma \ref{lem:ingr4dynEst}, which implies
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal F(I'_{0}) + \underline{\mathcal A}(I'_{0}) \leq 2 \mathcal I(0),
\end{equation*}
for some subinterval $I'_{0} \subset I$ containing $0$ such that $\abs{I'_{0}} > 0$ is sufficiently small (by upper semi-continuity of $\mathcal F, \underline{\mathcal A}$ at $0$). Note that the right-hand side is estimated by $B D$, provided we choose $B \geq 2$.
Next, let us assume the following \emph{bootstrap assumption}:
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal F(I'_{0}) + \underline{\mathcal A}(I'_{0}) \leq 2 B D
\end{equation*}
for $I'_{0} := (-T', T') \subset I$. Applying Parts (3), (4) of Lemma \ref{lem:ingr4dynEst}, and using Proposition \ref{prop:impEst4Fs0} to control $\mathcal E(I'_{0})$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathcal F(I'_{0}) + \mathcal A(I'_{0})
\leq & C \mathcal I + (T')^{1/2} C_{C_{D, \delta}, \mathcal F(I'_{0}), \underline{\mathcal A}(I'_{0})} (C_{D, \delta} + \mathcal F(I'_{0}) + \underline{\mathcal A}(I'_{0}))^{2} \\
& + (T') \Big( C_{\mathcal F(I'_{0}), \underline{\mathcal A}(I'_{0})} C_{D, \delta} + C_{C_{D, \delta}, \mathcal F(I'_{0}), \underline{\mathcal A}(I'_{0})} (C_{D, \delta} + \mathcal F(I'_{0}) + \underline{\mathcal A}(I'_{0})^{2} \Big).
\end{align*}
Here, we used the hypotheses \eqref{eq:dynEst:hyp} on $I'_{0} \subset I_{0}$. Using the bootstrap assumption and choosing $d$ small enough depending on $D, \delta$ and $B$ (note that $T' \leq d$), we can make the second and third terms on the right-hand $\leq \frac{B}{2} D$. Then choosing $B > 2 C$, we see that
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal F(I'_{0}) + \mathcal A(I'_{0}) \leq B D,
\end{equation*}
which `beats' the bootstrap assumption. By a standard continuity argument, \eqref{eq:dynEst:pf:0} then follows. \qedhere
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
In these notes, we review some recent results concerning an important question in non-equilibrium statistical mechanics which is the derivation of effective evolution equations approximating the dynamics of many body quantum systems.
When studying systems of interest in physics one typically has to choose between two different approaches. On the one hand, one can opt for a description based on the fundamental laws of physics.
In this case, one would describe the system in terms of its elementary components and their interactions. So a chemical sample would be described as a system of many atoms, interacting through the laws of quantum mechanics. A galaxy could instead be described as a system of many stars interacting through Newtonian or Einstein gravitation.
One can opt, alternatively, for an effective description of the system, which does not resolve the single components, but instead focus on their collective behavior. For example, the motion of a fluid would then be described by the Euler or the Navier-Stokes equations, a superconductor through the Ginzburg-Landau theory.
Of course the first approach is more precise, and typically relies on very few assumptions. The second approach, on the other hand, is less precise, it only has a small range of validity, but it is much more accessible to computations and focus exactly on those quantities which are measurable and
of interest for the observers.
The importance of developing simple effective theories, approximating the behavior of systems of interest has always been clear to physicists. In 1929, just after the development of quantum mechanics and of the Dirac equation, Dirac wrote: ``The underlying physical laws necessary for the mathematical theory of a large part of physics and the whole of chemistry are thus completely known and the difficulty is only that the exact application of these laws leads to equations {\it much too complicated to be soluble}. It therefore becomes desirable that {\it approximate practical methods} of applying quantum mechanics should be developed, which can lead to an explanation of the main features of complex atomic systems without too much computation''.
Given their practical importance, a major challenge of mathematical physics is the rigorous derivation of effective equations starting from fundamental theories in appropriate limiting regimes.
This should first of all justify the use of the effective equations, which are often introduced on the basis of heuristics or phenomenological arguments. Most importantly, a rigorous derivation should clarify the limits of applicability of the effective theories and should give bounds on the error of the approximation.
We start our investigation from many body quantum mechanics. We consider systems of $N$ identical particles which can be described by a wave function $\psi_N \in L^2 ({\mathbb R}^{3N})$. We are going to assume the particles to obey bosonic statistics. We will assume, in other words, the wave function $\psi_N$ to be symmetric with respect to any permutation of the $N$ particles, i.e.
\[ \psi_N (x_{\pi 1}, \dots , x_{\pi N}) = \psi_N (x_1, \dots , x_N) \]
for all permutation $\pi \in S_N$. The wave function, normalized so that $\| \psi_N \|_2 = 1$, determines the probability density $|\psi_N (x_1, \dots , x_N)|^2$ for finding particles close to $x_1, \dots , x_N$.
More generally, an arbitrary observable, given as a self-adjoint operator on the Hilbert space $L^2 ({\mathbb R}^{3N})$, can be interpreted as a random variable with probability law determined by $\psi_N$ through the spectral theorem.
The dynamics of many body quantum systems is governed by the Schr\"odinger equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:schr1} i \partial_t \psi_{N,t} = H_N \psi_{N,t} \end{equation}
for the evolution of the wave function $\psi_{N,t}$. On the r.h.s. of (\ref{eq:schr1}), $H_N$ is a self-adjoint operator on $L^2 ({\mathbb R}^{3N})$, known as the Hamilton operator (or simply the Hamiltonian). We will restrict our attention to Hamilton operators with two-body interaction, having the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ham0} H_N = \sum_{j=1}^N \left(-\Delta_{x_j} + V_{\text{ext}} (x_j) \right) +
\lambda \sum_{i<j}^N V (x_i -x_j) \, . \end{equation}
The sum of the Laplace operators is the kinetic part of the Hamiltonian, generating the evolution of free particles. $V_{\text{ext}}$ is an external potential and $V$ describes the (two-body) interaction among the particles (the parameter $\lambda \in {\mathbb R}$ is a coupling constant, introduced here for later convenience). The Schr\"odinger equation is a linear equation, and it always has a unique global solution in $L^2 ({\mathbb R}^{3N})$, obtained by applying the one-parameter group of unitary transformations generated by $H_N$ to the initial wave function $\psi_{N,0}$, i.e. $\psi_{N,t} = e^{-i H_N t} \psi_{N,0}$. What makes the Schr\"odinger equation interesting and challenging, is the fact that the number of particles $N$ involved in the dynamics is typically very large; $N$ ranges from values of the order $10^3$ in extremely dilute samples of Bose-Einstein condensates, up to value of the order $10^{23}$ in chemistry , up to even much larger values in astrophysics. For such values of $N$, it is usually impossible to extract information from the many-body Schr\"odinger equation which go beyond its
well-posedness. For this reason it is important to find effective equations which, on the one hand, are simple to solve, either analytically or numerically, and which, on the other hand, approximate the solution of the Schr\"odinger equation in the interesting regimes.
A simple but non trivial regime, where it is possible to obtain an effective description of the dynamics, is the so called mean field regime, which is characterized by the fact that particles experience a large number of very weak collisions. The mean field regime is realized by the Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:ham0}), when $N \gg 1$ and $|\lambda| \ll 1$, so that $N \lambda$ remains fixed, of order one. This last condition makes sure that the total force acting on each particle, resulting from the many weak collisions, is of order one and therefore comparable with the inertia of the particle. Hence, to study the mean field regime, we will consider the dynamics generated by the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ham-mf} H_N^{\text{mf}} = \sum_{j=1}^N \left(-\Delta_{x_j} + V_{\text{ext}} (x_j) \right) +
\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i<j}^N V (x_i -x_j) \end{equation}
in the limit of large $N$.
To understand the emergence of a simple effective equation approximating the many body dynamics in the mean field regime, consider the evolution of a factorized (or an approximately factorized) wave function \[ \psi_{N,0} (x_1, \dots , x_N) \simeq \prod_{j=1}^N \varphi (x_j) \]
for a $\varphi \in L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3)$. Since particles interact, factorization cannot be preserved by the time evolution. Nevertheless, because of the mean-field nature of the interaction, one can still expect factorization to be approximately restored in the limit of large $N$. We can expect, in other words, that, in the limit of large $N$, the solution of the Schr\"odinger equation $\psi_{N,t} = e^{-i H_N^{\text{mf}} t} \psi_{N,0}$ can still be approximated, in an appropriate sense, by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:conv} \psi_{N,t} (x_1, \dots , x_N) \simeq \prod_{j=1}^N \varphi_t (x_j) \, .\end{equation}
Under this assumption, it is then simple to obtain a self-consistent equation for the evolution of $\varphi_t$. In fact, (\ref{eq:conv}) implies that particles are approximately independent throughout the evolution. The law of large numbers then implies that the total potential experienced by the $j$-th particles can be approximated by the average of the potential w.r.t. the distribution $|\varphi_t|^2$, i.e.
\[ \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i \not = j}^N V (x_i -x_j) \simeq \int dy \, V (x_j - y) |\varphi_t (y)|^2 = (V* |\varphi_t|^2) (x_j) \, . \]
Hence, if factorization is preserved in the limit of large $N$, the one-particle orbital $\varphi_t$ has to evolve according to the self-consistent nonlinear Hartree equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hartree1}
i\partial_t \varphi_t = \left(-\Delta+ V_{\text{ext}} \right) \varphi_t + \left( V * |\varphi_t|^2 \right) \varphi_t .\end{equation}
In order to obtain precise mathematical statements about the relation between the many body Schr\"odinger evolution and the nonlinear Hartree dynamics, we need to clarify in which sense factorization is approximately preserved in the limit of large $N$. To this end, let me introduce the notion of reduced densities. For $k=1, \dots , N$, we define the $k$-particle reduced density $\gamma^{(k)}_{N,t}$ associated with the solution $\psi_{N,t} = e^{-i H_N^{\text{mf}} t} \psi_{N,0}$ of the Schr\"odinger equation by taking the partial trace of the orthogonal projection onto $\psi_{N,t}$ over the last $(N-k)$ particles. In other words, $\gamma^{(k)}_{N,t}$ is defined as a non-negative trace class operator on $L^2 ({\mathbb R}^{3k})$ with integral kernel given by
\[ \begin{split} \gamma^{(k)}_{N,t} (x_1, \dots , x_k ; x'_1, \dots , x'_k) = \; &\int dx_{k+1} \dots dx_N \; \psi_{N,t} (x_1, \dots , x_k , x_{k+1}, \dots, x_N) \\ & \hspace{2cm} \times \overline{\psi}_{N,t} (x'_1, \dots, x'_k , x_{k+1}, \dots , x_N) \, . \end{split} \]
We use here the convention $\mbox{Tr} \, \gamma^{(k)}_{N,t} = 1$, for all $k =1, \dots , N$. For $k < N$, it is clear that the $k$-particle reduced density $\gamma^{(k)}_{N,t}$ does not contain the full information about the system. Still, knowledge of $\gamma^{(k)}_{N,t}$ is sufficient to compute the expectation of any $k$-particle observable, i.e. of any observable acting non-trivially on at most $k$ particles. In fact, if $O^{(k)}$ is a self-adjoint operator on $L^2 ({\mathbb R}^{3k})$ and if $O^{(k)} \otimes 1^{(N-k)}$ denotes the operator acting as $O^{(k)}$ on the first $k$ particles and as the identity on the last $(N-k)$ particles, we find
\[ \left\langle \psi_{N,t} , \left( O^{(k)} \otimes 1^{(N-k)} \right) \psi_{N,t} \right\rangle = \mbox{Tr} \; \left( O^{(k)} \otimes 1^{(N-k)} \right) \, |\psi_{N,t} \rangle \langle \psi_{N,t}| = \mbox{Tr} \; O^{(k)} \, \gamma^{(k)}_{N,t} .\]
It turns out that the language of the reduced densities is the correct language to describe the convergence of the many body evolution towards the Hartree dynamics.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:mf}
Let $V$ be regular enough (see discussion below). Let $\psi_N = \varphi^{\otimes N}$, for a $\varphi \in H^1 ({\mathbb R}^3)$. Let $\psi_{N,t} = e^{-iH^{\text{mf}}_N t} \psi_N$ be the evolution of $\psi_N$, as generated by the mean field Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:ham-mf}). Then, for every $k\in {\mathbb N}$, $t \in {\mathbb R}$,
\[ \gamma^{(k)}_{N,t} \to |\varphi_t \rangle \langle \varphi_t |^{\otimes k} \]
as $N \to \infty$, where $\varphi_t$ is the solution of the nonlinear Hartree equation (\ref{eq:hartree1}), with initial data $\varphi_{t=0} = \varphi$.
\end{theorem}
The first proof of this theorem was obtained by Spohn \cite{Sp} , for bounded interactions $\| V \|_\infty < \infty$. Spohn's approach was extended to potentials with a Coulomb singularity by Erd\H os and Yau \cite{EY} . These proofs were based on the direct analysis of the time-evolution of the reduced densities. {F}rom the Schr\"odinger equation for $\psi_{N,t}$, it is simple to derive a hierarchy of $N$ equations, commonly known as the BBGKY hierarchy, describing the evolution of the reduced densities:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:BBGKY} \begin{split} i\partial_t \gamma^{(k)}_{N,t} = \; &\sum_{j=1}^k \left[ -\Delta + V_{\text{ext}} (x) , \gamma^{(k)}_{N,t} \right] + \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i<j}^k \left[ V (x_i -x_j) , \gamma^{(k)}_{N,t} \right] \\ &+ \frac{N-k}{N} \sum_{j=1}^k \mbox{Tr}_{k+1} \, \left[ V (x_j - x_{k+1}) , \gamma^{(k+1)}_{N,t} \right] \, . \end{split} \end{equation}
As $N \to \infty$, the BBGKY hierarchy formally converges to the infinite hierarchy of equations
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inf-hier} \begin{split} i\partial_t \gamma_{\infty,t}^{(k)} = \sum_{j=1}^k \left[ -\Delta + V_{\text{ext}} (x) , \gamma^{(k)}_{\infty,t} \right] + \sum_{j=1}^k \mbox{Tr}_{k+1} \, \left[ V (x_j - x_{k+1}) , \gamma^{(k+1)}_{\infty,t} \right] \end{split} \end{equation}
for all $k \in {\mathbb N}$. It is then simple to check that this infinite hierarchy of equations has a factorized solution $\gamma^{(k)}_{\infty,t} = |\varphi_t \rangle \langle \varphi_t|^{\otimes k}$, given by products of solutions of the Hartree equation (\ref{eq:hartree1}). This observation suggests a strategy to obtain a proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:mf}. First, one has to show the compactness of the sequence of families $\{ \gamma_{N,t}^{(k)} \}_{k=1}^N$ with respect to an appropriate topology. Secondly, one characterizes the limit points $\{ \gamma^{(k)}_{\infty,t} \}_{k \geq 1}$ of the sequence of reduced densities as solutions of the infinite hierarchy~(\ref{eq:inf-hier}). Finally, one shows the uniqueness of the solution of the infinite hierarchy.
This technique is very powerful, but it has few downsides. In particular, it does not give much information about the rate of the convergence towards the Hartree dynamics; this is an important point, if one is interested in applications to real physical systems, where the number of particles $N$ is very large, but of course finite. Without a bound on the rate of the convergence, it is impossible to know whether $N$ is large enough for the Hartree equation to be a good approximation.
Motivated by these considerations, in a joint work with I. Rodnianski \cite{RS} , we gave a new proof of the convergence towards the Hartree dynamics for potentials with Coulomb singularities. Our proof was based on ideas introduced in a work of Hepp \cite{H} and then extended by Ginibre-Velo \cite{GV} . It had the advantage, compared with previous proofs, of giving precise bounds on the rate of the convergence (the technique was generalized in a joint work with L. Chen and J.-O. Lee \cite{CLS} , to obtain optimal bounds).
More recently, Knowles and Pickl \cite{KP} developed a different approach which also covered more singular potentials. Fr\"ohlich, Knowles and Schwarz \cite{FKS} proposed an alternative point of view, expressing the convergence towards the Hartree dynamics as a Egorov-type theorem. Grillakis, Machedon and Margetis \cite{GMM1, GMM2} obtained a stronger convergence by considering a more general approximation of the full evolution in the mean field limit.
\section{The coherent states approach to mean field evolution}
\label{sec:coh}
In this section, we are going to briefly review the approach developed in collaboration with I. Rodnianski \cite{RS} . The starting point of the analysis are ideas introduced by Hepp \cite{H} to study the classical limit of quantum mechanics, which are based on the analysis of the evolution of coherent states in the Fock space.
The bosonic Fock space ${\cal F}$ over $L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3)$ is defined as the direct sum \[ {\cal F} = \bigoplus_{n \geq 1} L^2_s ({\mathbb R}^{3n}) \] where $L^2_s ({\mathbb R}^{3n})$ denotes the subspace of $L^2 ({\mathbb R}^{3n})$ consisting of all functions symmetric with respect to permutations of the $n$ particles. Vectors in ${\cal F}$ are hence sequences $\{ \psi^{(n)} \}_{n \geq 1}$, with $\psi^{(n)} \in L^2_s ({\mathbb R}^{3n})$. On ${\cal F}$ we can describe states where the number of particles is not fixed. We introduce the number of particles operator ${\cal N}$, which is defined by
\[ ({\cal N}\Psi)^{(n)} = n \psi^{(n)} \, \quad \text{if } \Psi = \{ \psi^{(n)} \}_{n \geq 0} \, . \]
Eigenvectors of ${\cal N}$ have the form $\{ 0, \dots , 0 , \psi^{(n)}, 0, \dots \}$ with only one non-vanishing entry; these vectors describe states with fixed number of particles $n$. An important example of such a state is the vacuum vector $\Omega = \{ 1, 0 , \dots \}$, describing a state with no particles at all.
It is very useful to introduce creation and annihilation operators. For $f \in L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3)$, we define the creation operator $a^* (f)$ and the annihilation operator $a(f)$ by
\[ \begin{split} (a^* (f) \Psi)^{(n)} (x_1, \dots , x_n) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{j=1}^n f(x_j) \psi^{(n-1)} (x_1, \dots , x_{j-1}, x_{j+1}, \dots , x_n) \, , \\ (a (f) \Psi)^{(n)} (x_1, \dots , x_n) &= \sqrt{n+1} \int dx \, f(x) \, \psi^{(n+1)} (x, x_1, \dots, x_n) \, \end{split} \]
for $\Psi = \{ \psi^{(n)} \}_{n \geq 0}\in {\cal F}$. It is easy to check that $a(f)$ is the adjoint of $a^*(f)$. Creation and annihilation operators satisfy canonical commutation relations
\[ [a(f), a^* (g)] = \langle f,g \rangle_{L^2}
\quad [ a(f), a(g)] = [a^* (f) , a^* (g)] = 0 \,. \]
We also introduce operator valued distributions $a_x^*, a_x$, defined so that
\[ a^* (f) = \int dx \, f(x) \, a_x^* \quad \text{ and } \quad a(f) = \int dx \, \overline{f} (x) \, a_x \]
for all $f \in L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3)$. Expressed in terms of these operator valued distributions, the number of particles operator is given by
\[ {\cal N} = \int dx \, a_x^* a_x \, . \]
It is important to observe that, although creation and annihilation operators are unbounded, they can be bounded with respect to the square root of ${\cal N}$. More precisely, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bda}
\| a(f) \Psi \| \leq \int dx \, |f(x)| \, \| a_x \Psi \| \leq \| f \|_2 \left( \int dx \, \| a_x \Psi \|^2 \right)^{1/2} = \| f \|_2 \, \| {\cal N}^{1/2} \Psi \| \end{equation}
and similarly
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bda*}
\| a^* (f) \Psi \| \leq \| f \|_2 \, \|( {\cal N} + 1)^{1/2} \Psi \| \, . \end{equation}
Next, we introduce a Hamilton operator ${\cal H}_N$ on the Fock space ${\cal F}$. To simplify a bit the notation we will neglect the external potential and let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ham-Fock} {\cal H}_N = \int dx \, \nabla_x a_x^* \nabla_x a_x + \frac{1}{2N} \int dx dy \, V(x-y) \, a_x^* a_y^* a_y a_x \, . \end{equation}
Since every term in ${\cal H}_N$ has the same number of annihilation and creation operators, ${\cal H}_N$ commutes with the number of particles operator ${\cal N}$. This implies that ${\cal H}_N$ leaves each sector with fixed number of particles invariant. It is simple to compute the action of ${\cal H}_N$ on these sectors. If $\Psi = \{ \psi^{(n)} \}_{n \geq 0}$, we have
\[ ({\cal H}_N \Psi)^{(n)} = {\cal H}_N^{(n)} \psi^{(n)} \]
with
\[ {\cal H}_N^{(n)} = \sum_{j=1}^n -\Delta_{x_j} + \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i<j}^n V(x_i - x_j) \, .\]
In particular, we observe that, when restricted on the $N$-particle sector, the Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_N$ coincide exactly with the mean field Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:ham-mf}) (with $V_{\text{ext}} = 0$). This implies that the evolution of a Fock space vector $\Psi = \{ 0,\dots,0 , \psi_N , 0, \dots \}$ is exactly the mean field evolution discussed in the previous section, i.e.
\[ e^{-i {\cal H}_N t} \{ 0, \dots , 0 , \psi_N , 0, \dots \} = \{ 0, \dots , e^{-iH^{\text{mf}}_N t} \psi_N , 0 , \dots \} \,. \] The advantage of a Fock space representation is that we can consider more general initial states. In particular, we want to study the evolution of so called coherent states.
For a $\varphi$ in $L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3)$, we define the Weyl operator \[ W(\varphi) = e^{a^* (\varphi) - a(\varphi)} \, . \]
The coherent state with wave function $\varphi$ is then described by the Fock space vector $W(\varphi) \Omega$. A simple computation shows that
\[ W(\varphi) \Omega = e^{-\|
\varphi \|^2/2} \left\{ 1 \, , \, \varphi \, , \, \frac{\varphi^{\otimes 2}}{\sqrt{2!}} \, , \, \frac{\varphi^{\otimes 3}}{\sqrt{3!}} \, , \dots \right\} \, .
\]
Hence coherent states do not have a fixed number of particles. Instead they are given by linear combinations of states with all possible number of particles. Since $W^* (\varphi) = W(-\varphi) = W^{-1} (\varphi)$, Weyl operators are unitary, and therefore coherent states are always normalized $\| W(\varphi) \Omega \| =1$. An important observation is that coherent states are eigenvectors of all annihilation operators. In fact, it is simple to check that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inter} W^* (\varphi) a_x W(\varphi) = a_x + \varphi (x), \quad \text{ and } \quad W^* (\varphi) a^*_x W(\varphi) = a_x^* + \overline{\varphi} (x) \end{equation}
and therefore that
\[ W^*(\varphi) a(f) W(\varphi) = a(f) + \langle f, \varphi \rangle, \quad \text{ and } \quad W^* (\varphi) a^* (f) W(\varphi) = a^* (f) + \langle \varphi , f \rangle \]
for every $f \in L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3)$. Since $a(f) \Omega = 0$ for all $f \in L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3)$,
these equations imply that
\[ a (f) W (\varphi) \Omega = W(\varphi) W^* (\varphi) a (f) W(\varphi) \Omega = W(\varphi) (a (f) + \langle f , \varphi \rangle) \Omega = \langle f, \varphi \rangle W(\varphi) \Omega \]
confirming that $W(\varphi) \Omega$ is an eigenvector of $a(f)$, with eigenvalue $\langle f, \varphi \rangle$, for any $f \in L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3)$. As we will see shortly, the algebraic properties of coherent states and Weyl operators substantially simplify the study of their dynamics. Using (\ref{eq:inter}), we can also compute the expectation of the number of particles in the coherent state $W(\varphi) \Omega$. In fact
\begin{equation}\label{eq:NW} \langle W(\varphi) \Omega, {\cal N} W(\varphi) \Omega \rangle = \int dx \langle \Omega, (a^*_x + \overline{\varphi} (x)) ( a_x + \varphi (x)) \Omega \rangle = \| \varphi \|_2^2 \,. \end{equation}
Similar computations show that the number of particles in the coherent state $W(\varphi) \Omega$ is a Poisson random variable with mean and variance $\| \varphi \|^2$.
Next, we study the time-evolution of initial coherent states, as generated by the Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:ham-Fock}). In order to recover the mean field limit discussed in the previous section, the number of particles must be related with the parameter $N$ appearing in (\ref{eq:ham-Fock}). Although we cannot ask the initial coherent state to have exactly $N$ particles, we can at least require the expectation of the number of particles to be $N$. We fix therefore a $\varphi \in L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3)$, with $\| \varphi \|_2 =1$, and we consider the time evolution
\[ \Psi_{N,t} = e^{-i {\cal H}_N t} W(\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Omega \]
of the initial coherent state $W(\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Omega$. By (\ref{eq:NW}), the expected number of particles is given by $N \| \varphi \|^2_2 = N$, as desired. In particular, we are interested in the reduced densities associated with $\Psi_{N,t}$. To make the presentation simpler, let us focus on the one-particle reduced matrix $\Gamma^{(1)}_{N,t}$ associated with $\Psi_{N,t}$. It turns out, that the integral kernel of $\Gamma^{(1)}_{N,t}$ is given by
\[ \Gamma^{(1)}_{N,t} (x;y) = \frac{1}{\langle \Psi_{N,t} , {\cal N} \Psi_{N,t} \rangle} \, \langle \Psi_{N,t} , a_y^* a_x \Psi_{N,t} \rangle \,. \]
Since ${\cal N}$ is preserved by the time evolution, we have
\[ \langle \Psi_{N,t} , {\cal N} \Psi_{N,t} \rangle = N \]
for all $t \in {\mathbb R}$. Hence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Gamma1} \Gamma^{(1)}_{N,t} (x;y) = \frac{1}{N} \, \langle a_y e^{-i {\cal H}_N t} W (\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Omega , a_x e^{-i {\cal H}_N t} W(\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Omega \rangle\,. \end{equation}
Because of the mean field character of the interaction, we may expect the evolution of the initial coherent state to be again approximately coherent, with an evolved wave function $\varphi_t$, obtained by the solution of the Hartree equation (\ref{eq:hartree1}), i.e.
\[ e^{-i {\cal H}_N t} W(\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Omega \simeq W (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \Omega \,. \]
If this is true, $e^{-i {\cal H}_N t} W (\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Omega$ should be approximately an eigenstate of the annihilation operators $a_x, a_y$, with eigenvalues $\sqrt{N} \varphi_t (x), \sqrt{N} \varphi_t (y)$. Motivated by this observation, we expand the annihilation operators $a_x, a_y$ on the r.h.s. of (\ref{eq:Gamma1}), around their mean field values. We find
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Gamma2} \begin{split} \Gamma^{(1)}_{N,t} &(x;y) \\ = \; &\varphi_t (x) \overline{\varphi}_t (y) \\&+ \frac{1}{N} \left\langle (a_y - \sqrt{N} \varphi_t (y)) \, e^{-i {\cal H}_N t} W (\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Omega , (a_x -\sqrt{N} \varphi_t (x)) \, e^{-i {\cal H}_N t} W(\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Omega \right\rangle \\ &+ \frac{\varphi_t (x)}{\sqrt{N}} \left\langle (a_y - \sqrt{N} \varphi_t (y)) \, e^{-i {\cal H}_N t} W (\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Omega , \, e^{-i {\cal H}_N t} W(\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Omega \right\rangle \\ &+ \frac{\overline{\varphi}_t (y)}{\sqrt{N}} \left\langle e^{-i {\cal H}_N t} W (\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Omega , (a_x -\sqrt{N} \varphi_t (x)) \, e^{-i {\cal H}_N t} W(\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Omega \right\rangle \,.\end{split} \end{equation}
We observe now that the fluctuations $(a_x - \sqrt{N} \varphi_t (x))$ and $(a_y - \sqrt{N} \varphi_t (y))$ can be obtained by conjugating $a_x$ and $a_y$ with evolved Weyl operators, i.e.
\[ (a_x - \sqrt{N} \varphi_t (x)) = W(\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) a_x W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) , \]
and similarly for the fluctuations of $a_y$. We define the fluctuation dynamics as the two-parameter group of unitary transformations
\[ {\cal U}_N (t;s) = W^*(\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) e^{-i {\cal H}_N (t-s)} W(\sqrt{N} \varphi_s)\,. \]
Then (\ref{eq:Gamma2}) can be written in the compact form
\[ \begin{split}
\Gamma^{(1)}_{N,t} &(x;y) - \varphi_t (x) \overline{\varphi}_t (y) \\ = \; & \frac{1}{N} \langle \Omega , {\cal U}_N^* (t;0) \, a_y^* a_x \, {\cal U}_N (t;0) \Omega \rangle \\ &+ \frac{\varphi_t (x)}{\sqrt{N}} \langle \Omega, {\cal U}_N^* (t;0) \, a_y^* \, {\cal U}_N (t;0) \Omega \rangle + \frac{\overline{\varphi}_t (y)}{\sqrt{N}} \langle \Omega, {\cal U}_N^* (t;0) \, a_x \, {\cal U}_N (t;0) \Omega \rangle \,.
\end{split} \]
The term $\varphi_t (x) \overline{\varphi}_t (y)$ on the l.h.s. is just the integral kernel of the orthogonal projection $|\varphi_t \rangle \langle \varphi_t|$. Hence, to show the convergence $\Gamma^{(1)}_{N,t} \to |\varphi_t \rangle \langle \varphi_t|$, it is enough to bound the error terms on the r.h.s., and prove that they vanish in the limit of large $N$. To this end, we recall from (\ref{eq:bda}) and (\ref{eq:bda*}) that creation and annihilation operators can be bounded with respect to the square root of the number of particles operator ${\cal N}$. The problem of proving the convergence $\Gamma^{(1)}_{N,t} \to |\varphi_t \rangle \langle \varphi_t|$, in the trace norm topology and with an explicit bound on the rate of the convergence, reduces therefore to establishing bounds on the growth of the expectation
\[ \langle \Omega, {\cal U}_N^* (t;0) \, {\cal N} {\cal U}_N (t;0) \Omega \rangle \]
holding uniformly in $N$.
To this end, we observe that the fluctuation dynamics ${\cal U}_N (t;s)$ satisfies the Schr\"odinger equation
\[ i\partial_t {\cal U}_N (t;s) = {\cal L}_N (t) \, {\cal U}_N (t;s) \]
with the initial condition ${\cal U}_N (s;s) = 1$ and with the time-dependent generator
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cL} \begin{split} {\cal L}_N (t) = \; & \int {\rm d} x \; \nabla_x a^*_x \nabla_x a_x + \int dx \, (V * |\varphi_t|^2) (x) a_x^* a_x \\ &+ \int {\rm d} x {\rm d} y \; V (x-y) \varphi_t (x) \overline{\varphi}_t (y) \,
a_x^* a_y \\ &+ \frac{1}{2} \int {\rm d} x {\rm d} y \; V (x-y) \left(\varphi_t (x) \varphi_t
(y) \, a_x^* a^*_y + \overline{\varphi}_t (x) \overline{\varphi}_t (y) a_x
a_y \right) \\ &+\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \int {\rm d} x {\rm d} y \, V(x-y) \,
a_x^* \left( \overline{\varphi}_t (y) a_y + \varphi_t (y) a_y^* \right) a_x \\
&+\frac{1}{2N} \int {\rm d} x {\rm d} y \, V(x-y) \, a^*_x a^*_y a_y a_x \, . \end{split}\end{equation}
In contrast with the original Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:ham-Fock}), the generator ${\cal L}_N (t)$ contains terms where the number of creation operators does not match the number of annihilation operators. These terms do not commute with the number of particles operator ${\cal N}$. As a consequence, the expectation of ${\cal N}$ is not preserved along the evolution ${\cal U}_N$. This is hardly surprising, since ${\cal U}_N$ defines a fluctuation dynamics, and fluctuations are expected to grow during the evolution. Although the expectation of the number of particles ${\cal N}$ is not constant, under appropriate assumptions on the regularity of the potential, which are for example satisfied for the Coulomb case $V(x) = \pm 1/|x|$, it was shown in the paper with I. Rodnianski \cite{RS} that, for every $k \in {\mathbb N}$, there exists $C,K > 0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:no-bd} \left\langle \Psi , {\cal U}_N^* (t;0) \, ({\cal N}+1)^k \, {\cal U} (t;0) \Psi \right\rangle \leq C e^{K |t|} \langle \Psi, ({\cal N}+1)^{2k+2} \, \Psi \rangle \end{equation}
for all $t \in {\mathbb R}, \Psi \in {\cal F}$. The convergence towards the Hartree dynamics for the evolution of coherent states is then a simple corollary.
\begin{theorem}[Mean field evolution of coherent states] \label{thm:mf-coh}
Suppose the potential $V$ satisfies the operator inequality
\[ V^2 (x) \leq D (1-\Delta) \]
for a constant $D >0$. Let $\varphi \in H^1 ({\mathbb R}^3)$ and $\Psi_{N,t} = e^{-i{\cal H}_N t} W(\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Omega$. Let $\Gamma^{(1)}_{N,t}$ denote the reduced density matrix associated with $\Psi_{N,t}$. Then there exist $C,K > 0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Ga-conv} \mbox{Tr} \; \left| \Gamma^{(1)}_{N,t} - |\varphi_t \rangle \langle \varphi_t| \right| \leq \frac{C e^K |t|}{N} \end{equation}
for all $t \in {\mathbb R}$.
\end{theorem}
{\it Remarks:}
\begin{itemize}
\item Since (\ref{eq:no-bd}) bounds the growth of every power of the number of particles operator, we also find, similarly to (\ref{eq:Ga-conv}), that for every $k \in {\mathbb N}$ there exist $C,K > 0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Gak-conv} \mbox{Tr} \; \left| \Gamma^{(k)}_{N,t} - |\varphi_t \rangle \langle \varphi_t|^{\otimes k} \right| \leq \frac{C e^K |t|}{N} \end{equation}
for all $t \in {\mathbb R}$.
\item {F}rom (\ref{eq:no-bd}), we see that the convergence (\ref{eq:Gak-conv}) can be extended to the evolution of initial data of the form $W(\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Psi$, for arbitrary $\Psi \in {\cal F}$ with $\langle \Psi , ({\cal N}+1)^{2k+2} \Psi \rangle < \infty$.
\item Writing
\[ \varphi^{\otimes N} = \frac{P_N W(\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Omega}{\| P_N W(\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Omega \|} \]
where $P_N$ is the orthogonal projection onto the $N$-particle sector, the bound (\ref{eq:no-bd}) can also be used to show the convergence towards the Hartree dynamics for factorized initial data. In this case, the analysis is a bit more complicated; optimal bounds on the rate of the convergence have been obtained in collaboration with L. Chen and J.-O. Lee \cite{CLS} . The same techniques can be applied to initial $N$-particle states of the form $P_N W(\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Psi / \| P_N W(\sqrt{N} \varphi) \Psi \|$, for arbitrary $\Psi \in {\cal F}$ with $a(\varphi) \Psi = 0$.
\end{itemize}
It is worth observing that the coherent state approach discussed above not only implies the convergence towards the limiting Hartree evolution; instead it also give information about the behavior of the fluctuation dynamics in the limit of large $N$. In fact, it was already proven by Hepp \cite{H} and Ginibre-Velo \cite{GV} that, as $N \to \infty$, ${\cal U}_N (t;s) \to {\cal U}_\infty (t;s)$ strongly, where the limiting fluctuation dynamics ${\cal U}_\infty (t;s)$ is defined by the Schr\"odinger equation \[ i\partial_t {\cal U}_\infty (t;s) = {\cal L}_\infty (t) {\cal U}_\infty (t;s) \] with ${\cal U}_\infty (s;s) = 1$ and with the time dependent generator
\[ \begin{split} {\cal L}_\infty (t) = \; & \int {\rm d} x \; \nabla_x a^*_x \nabla_x a_x + \int dx \, (V * |\varphi_t|^2) (x) a_x^* a_x \\ &+ \int {\rm d} x {\rm d} y \; V (x-y) \varphi_t (x) \overline{\varphi}_t (y) \,
a_x^* a_y \\ &+ \frac{1}{2} \int {\rm d} x {\rm d} y \; V (x-y) \left(\varphi_t (x) \varphi_t
(y) \, a_x^* a^*_y + \overline{\varphi}_t (x) \overline{\varphi}_t (y) a_x
a_y \right) \, . \end{split} \]
The fact that ${\cal L}_\infty (t)$ is quadratic in creation and annihilation operators implies that the limiting fluctuation dynamics ${\cal U}_\infty (t;s)$ acts as a Bogoliubov transformation. For $f,g \in L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3)$, we let $A(f,g) = a (f) + a^* (\overline{g})$. Then we have
\[ A^* (f,g) = A ({\cal J} (f,g)), \quad \text{with } \quad {\cal J} = \left( \begin{array}{ll} 0 & J \\ J & 0 \end{array} \right) \]
where $J: L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3) \to L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3)$ is the antilinear map defined by $J f = \overline{f}$. The canonical commutation relations take the form
\[ \left[ A(f_1, g_1) , A^* (f_2 ,g_2) \right] = \langle (f_1 , g_1), {\cal S} (f_2 , g_2) \rangle_{L^2 \oplus L^2} \qquad \text{with } S = \left( \begin{array}{ll} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{array} \right) \, . \]
A Bogoliubov transformation is a linear map $\theta : L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3) \oplus L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3) \to L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3) \oplus L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3)$ with the properties $\theta {\cal J} = {\cal J} \theta$ and $S = \theta^* S \theta$. These conditions imply that, with $B(f,g) := A (\theta (f,g))$, we have \[ B^* (f,g) = B ({\cal J} (f,g)) \quad \text{ and } \quad [ B(f_1, g_1), B^* (f_2, g_2)] = \langle (f_1, g_1) , S (f_2 , g_2) \rangle.\]
One can show the existence of a two-parameter group of Bogoliubov transformations $\theta (t;s) : L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3) \oplus L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3) \to L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3) \oplus L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3)$, such that
\[ {\cal U}_\infty^* (t;s) A(f,g) {\cal U}_\infty (t;s) = A (\theta (t;s) (f,g)) \, . \]
These maps satisfy the evolution equation
\[ i\partial_t \theta (t;s) = \theta (t;s) {\cal A} (t) \]
with $\theta (s;s) = 1$ and with the time-dependent generator
\[ {\cal A} (t) = \left( \begin{array}{ll} D_t & -J B_t J \\ B_t & -J D_t J \end{array} \right) \]
where the linear operators $D_t, B_t : L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3) \to L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3)$ are defined by
\[ \begin{split}
D_t f & = -\Delta f + (V * |\varphi_t|^2) f + (V * \overline{\varphi}_t f ) \varphi_t \\
B_t f & = (V * \overline{\varphi}_t f ) \overline{\varphi}_t \, . \end{split} \]
Using this information about the limiting dynamics ${\cal U}_\infty (t;s)$, it is possible to prove a central limit theorem for the quantum fluctuations around the mean field evolution. Consider a factorized $N$-particle initial data $\psi_N = \varphi^{\otimes N}$, for some $\varphi \in L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3)$, and let $\psi_{N,t} = e^{-iH^{\text{mf}}_N t} \psi_N$ be its time evolution, as generated by the mean field Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:ham-mf}), with $V_{\text{ext}} = 0$ for simplicity. Let $O$ be a self-adjoint operator on $L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3)$, and denote by $O^{(j)}$, for $j =1 , \dots , N$, the operator on $L^2 ({\mathbb R}^{3N})$ acting as $O$ on the $j$-th particle and as the identity on the other $(N-1)$ particles. At
time $t=0$, the observables $O^{(1)}, \dots , O^{(N)}$ define a family of independent and identically distributed random variables. For $t \not = 0$, on the other hand, $O^{(1)}, \dots , O^{(N)}$ are no longer independent. The convergence (\ref{eq:Ga-conv}) easily implies that they still satisfy a law of large numbers. In a joint work with G. Ben Arous and K. Kirchpatrick \cite{BKS} , we proved that, for every $t \in {\mathbb R}$, the random variables $O^{(k)}$, $k=1, \dots , N$, also satisfy a central limit theorem:
\[ \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_{j=1}^r \left( O^{(j)} - \langle \varphi_t , O \varphi_t \rangle \right) \to \text{Gauss } (0, \sigma_t^2) \]
in distribution, as $N \to \infty$. So, the fluctuations around the mean field evolution are Gaussian, with a variance
\[ \sigma_t^2 = \, \left[ \left\langle \Theta_t \left(J\varphi_t , \overline{J \varphi_t} \right) , \Theta_t \left(J \varphi_t , \overline{J}\varphi_t \right) \right\rangle - \left| \left\langle \Theta_t \left(J \varphi_t , \overline{J \varphi_t} \right) , \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \, \left(\varphi, \overline{\varphi} \right) \right\rangle \right|^2 \right] \]
which can be expressed in terms of the Bogoliubov transfomrmation $\theta (t;s)$ discussed above.
\section{The Gross-Pitaevskii regime}
In this section, we are going to consider a different regime in which effective equations can be derived from many body quantum dynamics. The motivation comes here from the study of the time-evolution of initially trapped Bose Einstein condensates. In typical experimental settings, the condensate is initially trapped by strong magnetic field. After cooling the gas at very low temperatures, the traps are switched off and one observes the resulting evolution. The goal is to provide an effective description of the dynamics of the initially trapped condensate.
On the microscopic level, trapped Bose Einstein condensates can be described as systems of $N$ bosons with the Hamilton operator
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Htrap} H^{\text{trap}}_N = \sum_{j=1}^N \left(-\Delta_{x_j} + V_{\text{ext}} (x_j) \right) + \sum_{i<j}^N N^2 V (N (x_i -x_j)) \end{equation}
where $V_{\text{ext}}$ describe the trapping potential while the interaction potential $V$ is assumed to be short range and repulsive (meaning that $V \geq 0$). The interaction in (\ref{eq:Htrap}) scales with the number of particles, so that its scattering length is of the order $1/N$. Recall that the scattering length of the potential $V$ is defined through the solution of the zero-energy scattering equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:0en} \left( - \Delta + \frac{1}{2} V \right) f = 0 \end{equation}
with the boundary condition $f (x) \to 1$ as $|x| \to \infty$. Since $V$ has short range, it is clear that for large $|x|$, \[ f (x) \simeq 1- \frac{a_0}{|x|} \]
for a constant $a_0 >0$ which is defined to be the scattering length of $V$. Equivalently,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fV} 8 \pi a_0 = \int V(x) f(x) dx \, . \end{equation}
A simple scaling argument implies that $f(Nx)$ is the solution of the zero-energy scattering equation for the rescaled potential $N^2 V (Nx)$; in particular, this shows that the scattering length of $N^2 V(Nx)$ is given by $a_0 /N$.
Lieb, Yngvason and Seiringer \cite{LSY} proved that the ground state energy $E_N$ of the Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:Htrap}) is such that
\[ \lim_{N\to \infty} \frac{E_N}{N} = \min_{\varphi \in L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3): \| \varphi \|_2 = 1} {\cal E}_{\text{GP}} (\varphi) \]
where we introduced the Gross-Pitaevskii energy functional
\begin{equation}\label{eq:GPen} {\cal E}_{\text{GP}} (\varphi) = \int dx \left[ |\nabla \varphi (x)|^2 + V_{\text{ext}} (x) |\varphi (x)|^2 + 4 \pi a_0 \, |\varphi (x)|^4 \right] \, . \end{equation}
Hence, in the leading order, the ground state energy depends on the interaction potential only through its scattering length. Lieb and Seiringer \cite{LS} also showed that the ground state of $H_N^{\text{trap}}$ exhibits complete Bose-Einstein condensation in the minimizer $\phi_{\text{GP}}$ of the Gross-Pitaevskii energy functional (\ref{eq:GPen}). In other words, the one particle reduced density $\gamma^{(1)}_N$ associated with the ground state of (\ref{eq:Htrap}) is so that
\[ \gamma^{(1)}_{N} \to |\phi_{\text{GP}} \rangle \langle \phi_{\text{GP}} | \]
as $N \to \infty$ (in the trace norm topology). Hence, in the ground state of (\ref{eq:Htrap}) almost all particles, up to a fraction vanishing in the limit of large $N$, are in the one-particle state described by the minimizer $\phi_{\text{GP}}$ of (\ref{eq:GPen}).
Suppose now that the boson gas is prepared in the ground state of $H^{\text{trap}}_{N}$ (by cooling the gas to almost zero temperature) and that afterwards the magnetic traps are switched off. It turns out that the Gross-Pitaevskii theory can also be used to describe the resulting evolution of the condensate, as generated by the translation invariant Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ham-GP} H_N = \sum_{j=1}^N -\Delta_{x_j} + \sum_{i<j}^N N^2 V (N (x_i - x_j)) \, . \end{equation}
In fact, it was proven in a series of works with L. Erd\H os and H.-T. Yau \cite{ESY1,ESY2,ESY3,ESY4} that, for any family of $N$-particle wave functions $\psi_N \in L^2_s ({\mathbb R}^{3N})$, with finite energy per particle
\[ \langle \psi_N, H_N \psi_N \rangle \leq C N \]
and exhibiting complete Bose-Einstein condensation
\[ \gamma^{(1)}_N \to |\varphi \rangle \langle \varphi| \]
for a $\varphi \in L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3)$, the evolved $N$-particle wave function $\psi_{N,t} = e^{-i H_N t} \psi_N$ still exhibits complete condensation, in the sense that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:conv-GP} \gamma^{(1)}_{N,t} \to |\varphi_t \rangle \langle \varphi_t | \end{equation}
as $N \to \infty$, where the dynamics of the condensate wave function $\varphi_t$ is determined by the solution of the time-dependent Gross-Pitaevskii equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:GP} i\partial_t \varphi_t = -\Delta \varphi_t + 8 \pi a_0 |\varphi_t|^2 \varphi_t \end{equation}
with initial data $\varphi_{t=0} = \varphi$. Another approach to show (\ref{eq:conv-GP}) has been recently proposed by Pickl \cite{P} .
The Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:ham-GP}) can be written as a mean field Hamiltonian
\[ H_N = \sum_{j=1}^N -\Delta_{x_j} + \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i<j}^N N^3 V (N (x_i -x_j)) \]
with an interaction $N^3 V (N x)$. As $N \to \infty$, at least formally,
\[ N^3 V (N x) \to b_0 \delta (x) \qquad \text{where } \quad b_0 = \int dx V(x) \, . \]
Inserting the limiting potential $b_0 \delta (x)$ into the nonlinear Hartree equation approximating the many body dynamics in the mean field limit, we find an equation similar to (\ref{eq:GP}), but with a different coupling constant in front of the nonlinearity ($b_0$ instead of $8 \pi a_0$). The reason for the failure of the mean field analogy is that the two limits, the mean field regime on the one hand, and the Gross-Pitaevskii regime on the other hand, are very different from the physical point of view. In the mean field regime, there is a large number of very weak interactions among the particles. In the regime described by $H_N$, on the other hand, collisions are rare (particles only interact when they are very close to each others, at distances of the order $1/N$) and, at the same time, very strong. As a result, the many body evolution generated by $H_N$ produces a singular correlation structure varying on the same
$1/N$ length scale characterizing the interaction potential. Correlations, which are negligible in the mean field limit, play here a crucial role; in particular, they are responsible for the emergence of the scattering length in the Gross-Pitaevskii equation (\ref{eq:GP}).
To better explain this point, let us consider the first equation in the BBGKY hierarchy for the evolution of the one-particle reduced density associated with the solution of the Schr\"odinger equation $\psi_{N,t}$. Expressed in terms of the integral kernels of $\gamma^{(1)}_{N,t}$ and $\gamma^{(2)}_{N,t}$, this equation takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:BBG1}
\begin{split} i \partial_t & \gamma^{(1)}_{N,t} (x;x') \\ = &\left( -\Delta_x + \Delta_{x'} \right) \gamma^{(1)}_{N,t} (x;x') \\ &+ (N-1) \int dx_2 \left( N^2 V (N (x-x_2)) - N^2 V (N (x'-x_2)) \right) \gamma^{(2)}_{N,t} (x,x_2 ; x' , x_2) \, . \end{split} \end{equation}
If we assume that condensation is preserved by the time evolution, the kernels of the reduced densities $\gamma^{(1)}_{N,t}$ and $\gamma^{(2)}_{N,t}$ should be approximately factorized. However, for large but finite $N$, the kernel of $\gamma^{(2)}_{N,t}$ should also contain short scale correlations between particles one and two. Assuming that these correlations can be described by the solution of the zero energy scattering equation, we obtain the ansatz
\[ \begin{split} \gamma^{(1)}_{N,t} (x_1;x'_1) &= \varphi_t (x_1) \overline{\varphi}_t (x'_1) \, , \\
\gamma^{(2)}_{N,t} (x_1,x_2 ; x'_1 , x'_2) &= f (N (x_1 - x_2)) f (N (x'_1 - x'_2)) \, \varphi_t (x_1) \varphi_t (x_2) \overline{\varphi}_t (x'_1) \overline{\varphi}_t (x'_2) \, . \end{split} \]
Inserting this ansatz in (\ref{eq:BBG1}), we obtain a self consistent equation for $\varphi_t$, given by
\[i\partial_t \varphi_t = -\Delta \varphi_t + \left( (N-1) N^2 V (N.) f (N.) * |\varphi_t|^2 \right) \varphi_t \, . \]
As $N \to \infty$, (\ref{eq:fV}) implies that $(N-1)N^2 V(N.) f(N.) \to 8\pi a_0 \delta$, and we indeed obtain the correct Gross-Pitaevskii equation (\ref{eq:GP}). The presence of the correlation structure makes the proof of the convergence (\ref{eq:conv-GP}) substantially more difficult, compared with the mean field regime. Although the original strategy proposed by Spohn \cite{Sp} could still be applied, the arguments had to be modified in several points.
The difficulty of the analysis developed in the papers with L. Erd\H os and H.-T. Yau \cite{ESY1,ESY2, ESY3}~, together with the fact that it did not provide any control on the rate of the convergence, motivated us to look for a different approach and, in particular, to understand whether the coherent states approach discussed in Section \ref{sec:coh} could also be applied in the Gross-Pitaevskii regime. Following naively the arguments presented in Section \ref{sec:coh}, we define the Fock space Hamiltonian
\[ {\cal H}_N = \int dx \nabla_x a_x^* \nabla_x a_x + \frac{1}{2} \int dx dy \, N^2 V (N (x-y)) \, a_x^* a_y^* a_y a_x \, . \]
We would like to compare the evolution generated by ${\cal H}_N$ with the Gross-Pitaevskii dynamics (\ref{eq:GP}). For technical reasons, it is more convenient to compare it with the modified Gross-Pitaevskii dynamics governed by the equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:GP-mod} i\partial_t \widetilde{\varphi}_t = -\Delta \widetilde{\varphi}_t + \left( N^3 V (N.) f (N.) * |\widetilde{\varphi}_t|^2 \right) \widetilde{\varphi}_t \, .\end{equation}
As $N \to \infty$, it is then simple to show the convergence of the solution of (\ref{eq:GP-mod})
towards the solution of the original Gross-Pitaevskii equation (\ref{eq:GP}), with an error of the order $N^{-1}$ for every fixed time.
Proceeding as in the mean field case, the comparison of the many body evolution with (\ref{eq:GP-mod}) leads to the fluctuation dynamics
\[ {\cal U}_N (t;s) = W^* (\sqrt{N} \widetilde{\varphi}_t) e^{-i {\cal H}_N (t-s)} W(\sqrt{N} \widetilde{\varphi}_s) \, . \]
As explained in Section \ref{sec:coh}, the problem of showing the convergence towards the effective evolution reduces to the problem of controlling the growth of the number of particles with respect to the evolution ${\cal U}_N$. Computing the generator of ${\cal U}_N$, we find the two terms
\[ {\cal L}_N (t) = \; \left[ i \partial_t W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \right] W (\sqrt{N} \varphi) + W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) {\cal H}_N W (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \, . \]
In (\ref{eq:cL}), the linear (in the creation and annihilation operators) terms arising from \[ W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) {\cal H}_N W (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t)\] cancelled exactly with $\left[ i \partial_t W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \right] W (\sqrt{N} \varphi)$. Because of the factor $f(N.)$ in the nonlinearity of (\ref{eq:GP-mod}), the cancellation is now not complete. We find, with $\omega = 1-f$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cL-old} \begin{split}
{\cal L}_N (t) = & \; \sqrt{N} \int dx \Big( a_x^* \left[ N^3 \omega (N.) V(N.) * |\varphi_t|^2 \right] (x) \varphi_t (x) \\
& \hspace{3cm} + a_x \left[ N^3 \omega (N.) V(N.) * |\varphi_t|^2 \right] (x) \overline{\varphi}_t (x) \Big) \\
&+ \text{higher order terms in $a, a^*$} .
\end{split} \end{equation}
Hence, the generator ${\cal L}_N (t)$ contains a large term, of order $\sqrt{N}$, which does not commute with the number of particles operator ${\cal N}$. Because of this contribution, it is impossible to prove bounds similar to (\ref{eq:no-bd}) on the growth of the expectation of the number of particles holding uniformly in $N$.
The reason for the failure of this naive approach is that we are effectively trying to approximate the many body evolution through an evolved coherent state, where correlations are completely absent. In other words, we are trying to bound fluctuations around the wrong correlation-free state. To control the fluctuations, we have to improve our ansatz for the many body evolution, taking in particular into account the correlation structure produced by the many body evolution.
To this end, we introduce the integral kernel
\[ k_t (x,y) = - N \omega (N (x-y)) \, \varphi_t (x) \, \varphi_t (y) \]
where $\omega = 1 - f$, and $f$ is the solution of the zero energy scattering equation (\ref{eq:0en}).
For $|x-y| \gg 1/N$, we have $N \omega (N (x-y)) \simeq a_0/ |x-y|$ and therefore
\[ k_t (x,y) \simeq -\frac{a_0}{|x-y|} \varphi_t (x) \varphi_t (y) \, . \]
Note that $k_t$ is the kernel of a Hilbert-Schmidt operator. Using $k_t$, we define
\[ T(t) = e^{\int dx dy \, \left( k_t (x,y) a_x^* a_y^* - \overline{k}_t (x,y) a_x a_y \right)} \, . \]
The unitary time-dependent operator $T(t)$ acts on creation and annihilation operators as a Bogoliubov transformation. In fact, we find
\[ T(t) a(f) T^* (t) = a (\cosh_{k_t} (f)) + a^* (\sinh_{k_t} (\overline{f})) \]
where $\cosh_{k_t}, \sinh_{k_t} : L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3) \to L^2 ({\mathbb R}^3)$ are bounded operators, defined by the absolute convergent series
\[ \begin{split} \cosh_{k_t} &= \sum_{j=1}^\infty \frac{k_t \overline{k}_t)^n}{(2n)!} \qquad \text{and } \quad
\sinh_{k_t} = k_t + \sum_{j=1}^\infty \frac{(k_t \overline{k}_t)^n k_t}{(2n+1)!} \, . \end{split} \]
The singularity of $k_t (x,y)$ at $x \simeq y$ disappears when we consider the powers $(k_t \overline{k}_t)^n$, $n \geq 1$. For this reason, for most purposes, we can approximate
$\cosh_{k_t} (f) \simeq f$, $\sinh_{k_t} (f) \simeq k_t (f)$, and therefore
\begin{equation}\label{eq:TaT-ap} T^* (t) a(f) T(t) \simeq a(f) + a^* (k_t \overline{f}), \qquad \text{and } \quad T^* (t) a^* (f) T(t) \simeq a^* (f) + a (k_t \overline{f}) \, . \end{equation}
We use now the unitary operator $T(t)$ to implement the correct correlation structure, improving our approximation for the many body evolution. We introduce the new fluctuation dynamics
\[ \widetilde{{\cal U}}_N (t;s) = T^* (t) W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) e^{-i{\cal H}_N (t-s)} \, W(\sqrt{N} \varphi_s) T (s) \, . \]
Then $\widetilde{{\cal U}}_N (t;s)$ satisfies the Schr\"odinger equation
\[ i\partial_t \, \widetilde{{\cal U}}_N (t;s) = \widetilde{{\cal L}}_N (t) \, \widetilde{{\cal U}}_N (t;s) \]
with a new time-dependent generator
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cL-new} \begin{split} \widetilde{{\cal L}}_N (t) = \; &\left[ i \partial_t T^* (t) \right] T(t) + T^* (t) \left[ i\partial_t W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) \right] W(\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) T (t) \\ &+ T^* (t) W^* (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) {\cal H}_N W (\sqrt{N} \varphi_t) T(t) \, . \end{split} \end{equation}
The derivative of the Bogoliubov transformation $T(t)$ is harmless (because it only acts on the
solution $\widetilde{\varphi}_t$ of the modified Gross-Pitaevskii equation, and not on the singular correlation function $\omega (N (x-y))$). Let us focus on the last two terms on the r.h.s. of (\ref{eq:cL-new}). As in (\ref{eq:cL-old}), we find a contribution linear in the creation and annihilation operators, which is now conjugated with the unitary operator $T(t)$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Nlin} \sqrt{N} \int dx \, T^* (t) a_x T(t) \left[ N^3 \omega (N .) V (N.) *|\varphi_t|^2 \right] (x) \, \varphi_t (x) + \text{hermitian conjugate.} \end{equation}
{F}rom the last term on the r.h.s. of (\ref{eq:cL-new}), we also find a contribution cubic in creation and annihilation operators. It is given by
\[ \begin{split}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \int &dx dy \; N^3 V (N(x-y)) \varphi_t (y) \; T^* (t) a_x^* a_y^* a_x T(t) + \text{h.c.}
\\ = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \int dx dy \; N^3 V (N(x-y)) \varphi_t (y) \; T^* (t) a_x^* a_y^* T(t) T^* (t) a_x T(t) + \text{h.c.}
\\ = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \int dx dy \; N^3 V (N(x-y)) \varphi_t (y) \\ &\hspace{.5cm} \times
\left(a_x^* + \int dz \, \overline{k}_t (x, z) a_{z} \right) \left(a_y^* + \int dw \, \overline{k}_t (y,w) a_{w}\right) T^* (t) a_x T(t) + \text{h.c.}
\end{split} \]
where we used the approximation (\ref{eq:TaT-ap}). Some of the terms arising from the conjugation with $T(t)$ are not normally ordered (they have a creation operator on the right of an annihilation operator). To control these contributions, we have to bring them back to normal order. Consider for example the term
\[ \begin{split} \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \int dx dy dz \, &N^3 V (N(x-y)) \varphi_t (y) \, \overline{k}_t (x, z) a_{z} a_y^* T(t)^* a_x T(t) + \text{h.c.} \\ = \, & \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \int dx dy dz \, N^3 V (N(x-y)) \varphi_t (y) \, \overline{k}_t (x, z) a_y^* a_{z} T(t)^* a_x T(t) + \text{h.c.} \\ &+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \int dx dy \, N^3 V (N(x-y)) \varphi_t (y) \, \overline{k}_t (x, y) T(t)^* a_x T(t) + \text{h.c.}
\end{split} \]
where we used the canonical commutation relation $[a_z, a_y^* ] = \delta (z-y)$. Hence, normal ordering the cubic terms generates the new linear term
\[ \begin{split} \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \int dx dy \, &N^3 V (N(x-y)) \varphi_t (y) \, \overline{k}_t (x, y) T(t)^* a_x T(t) + \text{h.c.} \\ &= \sqrt{N} \int dx T(t)^* a_x T(t) \, \left[ N^3 V (N.) \omega (N.) * |\varphi_t|^2 \right] (x) \overline{\varphi}_t (x) + \text{h.c.} \end{split} \]
which cancels exactly the large linear contribution (\ref{eq:Nlin}). More cancellations
involve the quadratic and the non-normally ordered quartic terms. Using all these cancellations, and controlling the other terms appearing in ${\cal L}_N (t)$, we obtain uniform control on the growth of the expectation of the number of particles operator with respect to the new fluctuation dynamic ${\cal U}_N$.
As a consequence, we obtain the following theorem, establishing the convergence of the many body evolution towards the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, with a bound on the rate of the convergence.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:GP}
Consider the time evolution
\[ \psi_{N,t} = e^{-i {\cal H}_N t} W (\sqrt{N} \varphi) T (0) \psi \]
for a $\psi \in {\cal F}$ with
\[ \left\langle \psi , \left( {\cal N} + \frac{1}{N} \, {\cal N}^2 + {\cal H}_N \right) \psi \right\rangle \leq C \, . \]
Then there exist $C,c_1, c_2 >0$ with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:GP-thm} \mbox{Tr} \left| \Gamma^{(1)}_{N,t} - |\varphi_t \rangle \langle \varphi_t| \right| \leq \frac{C}{\sqrt{N}} \exp (c_1 \exp (c_2 |t|)) \end{equation}
for every $t \in {\mathbb R}$. \end{theorem}
{\it Remarks.}
\begin{itemize}
\item {F}rom the convergence of the one-particle reduced density $\Gamma^{(1)}_{N,t}$ towards a rank-one projection, one also obtains convergence of the higher order reduced densities, with rate $N^{-1/4}$. For every $k \geq 1$, there exist $C,c_1,c_2 > 0$ with
\[ \mbox{Tr} \, \left| \Gamma^{(k)}_{N,t} - |\varphi_t \rangle \langle \varphi_t|^{\otimes k} \right| \leq C N^{-1/4} \exp (c_1 \exp (c_2 |t|))\, . \]
\item Theorem \ref{thm:GP} continues to hold if the Hamiltonian contains an arbitrary external potential $V_{\text{ext}}$ (assuming $-\Delta + V_{\text{ext}}$ to be self-adjoint).
\item The bound (\ref{eq:GP-thm}) deteriorates fast in time because it depends on high Sobolev norms of the solution $\varphi_t$ of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation (\ref{eq:GP}). Assuming these norms to remain bounded in time, the estimate (\ref{eq:GP-thm}) would only deteriorate exponentially in time.
\end{itemize}
\bibliographystyle{ws-procs975x65}
|
\section{Introduction}
The calculation of hadronic forces from first principles allows insight into how interactions of the fundamental quark and gluonic degrees of freedom manifest themselves at the hadronic level.
Lattice QCD is an excellent tool for calculating hadronic observables in the low energy regime.
Although lattice calculations in euclidean space are not well suited for the study of real-time scattering processes, two methods can be used to extract interaction information from the lattice.
One method, developed by L\"{u}scher \cite{Luscher1990}, relates the elastic scattering phase shift of a two particle system in a finite periodic box with the energy levels of the system.
An alternate method, used in the present work, extracts the interaction energy as a function of hadron separation. This method is only applicable for systems of hadrons containing more than one heavy quarks which can be treated in the static approximation providing a definite spatial position for the hadrons.
Phenomenologically, two heavy-light meson systems (which we will denote as HLHL) have become interesting in the study of tetraquark bound states \cite{Vijande2007a} \cite{Vijande2007b} \cite{Vijande2009}.
It has long been known that the binding of a $\bar{Q} \bar{Q} q q $ (with $q=u,d$) system increases with the mass ratio of the heavy to light quark flavours \cite{Carlson1988}, thus $\bar{c} \bar{c} q q $ and $\bar{b} \bar{b} q q $ systems are excellent candidates in the search for exotic four quark bound states.
In Ref. \cite{Vijande2009} a distinction was made between two types of tetraquark bound states: molecular, in which the four quarks exhibit a single physical two-meson (singlet-singlet) component, and the more exotic compact bound states.
The latter would involve a complicated color space structure in which quark pairs form color vectors which then combine to form a colorless four quark state \cite{Vijande2009}.
In spite of this complicated color structure, compact bound states can be interpreted as a mixture of various two meson (color singlet) components \cite{Vijande2009sym}.
The expected features that would characterize a molecular bound state would be a small binding energy and a bound state RMS radius greater than that of the sum of the two particle sizes, i.e.:
\begin{align}
\Delta_R \equiv \frac{RMS_{4q}}{RMS_{M_1} + RMS_{M_2}} > 1 \nonumber
\end{align}
A compact state, on the other hand, would be more tightly bound and have a smaller RMS radius than the molecular state.
In Ref.~\cite{Ohkoda2012} doubly heavy four quark states were modeled as hadronic molecules interacting via a meson exchange potential. Several of the doubly bottom bound states were found to be deeply bound and spatially compact, making them excellent candidates for tetraquark bound states.
It is with these ideas in mind that we may begin to search for the signature of compact bound states on the lattice.
A recent lattice calculation of the HLHL interaction energy \cite{Wagner2011} has in fact hinted at the possibility of a bound tetraquark state in one channel that exhibits a particularly wide and deep potential well when compared with other channels, although no exhaustive determination of a bound state was undertaken.
Our work goes beyond this presenting a quantitative determination of a bound state energy in the HLHL system from a lattice calculation.
An inherent difficulty in making comparisons between theoretical models and lattice calculations performed in the static limit stems from the omission of the heavy quark spin in the static limit.
As $m_H \rightarrow \infty$, the integer valued ($J=0,1$) angular momemtum eigenstates of a single heavy light meson map onto a single static limit eigenstate with $J=1/2$.
The energies of the non-static angular momentum eigenstates also converge to a single energy corresponding to the $J=1/2$ eigenstate.
Although the two spaces map onto each other, there is not a simple one to one correspondence between static limit eigenstates and their non-static counterparts, and care must be taken in making identifications between the two spaces.
Previous lattice studies of HLHL interaction energy (\cite{Michael1999}, \cite{Detmold2007} for example) performed in the quenched approximation and included uncontrolled systematic errors because of this.
Recently dynamical quarks have been used to calculate the HLHL interaction energy using a complete set of quantum numbers which exploits the full set of symmetries of the HLHL system \cite{Wagner2010}.
With our choice of quantum numbers (presented in section \ref{sec:Background}) we are able to draw a connection between the quantum numbers and the qualitative behavior of the states.
Additionally, by way of symmetry arguments, we are able to relate our static-limit states to non-static angular momentum eigenstates.
\section{Background}
\label{sec:Background}
\subsection{Heavy-Light states}
The quark model view of a heavy-light meson is of a heavy anti-quark $\bar{Q}$ coupled to a light quark $q$.
The relevant quantum numbers to describe such a state are total angular momentum $J$ and its projection along some axis (here arbitrarily chosen to be $\hat{z}$) $J_z$, and the parity $P_i$ as well as the relevant flavor quantum numbers.
For our interests, we choose $\bar{Q} = \bar{b}$ and $q = \{u,d\}$.
Therefore all states then have bottomness $b=+1$, and are otherwise classified by total isospin and the third component of isospin $\left(I,I_z\right) = \left(1/2,\pm 1/2\right)$.
Throughout this work, we make the assumption that we fit our correlation functions with a sufficiently large $t_{min}$ such that contributions from excited states have died out and we extract only the ground state energy.
Furthermore, we assume that states with non-zero orbital angular momentum $L$ are at sufficiently high energies as to have a negligible contribution to the ground state energies which we extract.
We are then free to speak of the spin and total angular momentum interchangeably.
In heavy quark effective theory, spin dependent contributions enter into the heavy quark action at order $1/m_H$, and in the static limit ($m_H \rightarrow \infty$) the heavy quark acts as a static color source.
This means that the spin of the HL meson comes only from the light degrees of freedom.
Because of this, the physical HL meson states with $J = \left(0,1\right)$ become degenerate in the static limit, with both represented by a single $J=1/2$ state.
The relevant angular momentum classification is then $\left(J,J_z\right) = \left(1/2,\pm1/2\right)$.
With the above flavor assignments, the lowest energy excitations of the B spectrum with $J^P=\{0,1\}^-$ (coupling to the static $J^P=1/2^-$ B) are $B_{0,\pm}$ and $B^*$, and for $J^P = \{0,1\}^+$ (coupling to the static $J^P=1/2^+$ $B_1$), the ground state $B_1\left(5721\right)^0$ (neglecting excited states).
\subsection{Heavy-Light Heavy-Light states}
When constructing states with a pair of HL mesons, care must be taken in determining a relevant set of quantum numbers that fully exploit the symmetries of the problem.
The flavor quantum numbers for a Heavy-Light Heavy-Light (HLHL) system are straightforward, and for a $\bar{Q} q \bar{Q} q$ (with $q= \{u,d\}$) there are two isospin combinations, an isospin triplet with $I=1$ and an $I=0$ singlet.
For a HLHL pair separated by a vector $\vec{r}$ the rotational symmetry is broken to rotations around the separation axis.
Total angular momentum $J$ is therefore no longer a conserved quantity, though its projection along the axis of separation (arbitrarily taken to be $\hat{z}$) is still conserved.
The system will also be symmetric or antisymmetric under parity as well as reflections through a plane containing the separation axis, which we shall call $P_{\perp}$.
This last transformation can be accomplished by a parity transformation followed by a rotation of $\pi$ about an axis perpendicular to the reflection plane.
States with $J_z = \pm 1$ are not invariant under this transformation (being mapped onto each other), but their average is an eigenstate of $P_{\perp}$.
Lastly we choose to classify HLHL states by intrinsic parity $P_i$, defined to be the product of the intrinsic parities of the two light quarks, and (full) parity $P$, defined as the product of the intrinsic parity transformation and coordinate inversion of the two particle spatial wavefunction.
We will use both parity quantum numbers in our classification of states.
\section{Methodology}
\subsection{HL and HLHL interpolating fields}
A general interpolating operator coupling to a single heavy-light state is given by:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{O}_{HL}\left(\vec{x}\right) = \bar{Q}\left(\vec{x}\right) \Gamma q\left(\vec{x}\right)
\end{equation}
with $\Gamma$ chosen to achieve the desired angular momentum and parity quantum numbers.
For pseudoscalar HL states, $\Gamma = \gamma_5, \gamma_i$ (with $i=1,2,3$), corresponding to a particle in the static limit with $J^P=1/2^-$, which we will refer to simply as $B$.
$J = 1$ meson states with $\Gamma = 1, \gamma_i \gamma_5$ correspond to a state with $J^P = 1/2^+$, which we shall refer to as $B_1$.
We make the choice $\Gamma = \gamma_5$ for $\mathcal{O}_B$ and $\Gamma = 1$ for $\mathcal{O}_{B_1}$.
As it will be useful in the analysis of HLHL states, it should be noted that for these choices of $\Gamma$, correlation functions constructed from $\mathcal{O}_B$ interpolating fields will consist of only upper (positive parity) components in the Dirac basis of the light quarks while those constructed from $\mathcal{O}_{B_1}$ will consist of only lower (negative parity) components.
This is explicitly shown in Appendix \ref{App:Single_HL}.
The states are classified by the additional flavor quantum numbers $\left(I,I_z\right) = \left(1,\pm1\right)$ for $q=\{u,d\}$.
For HLHL states, we want to create states with definite $\left(I,I_z,|J_z|, P_{\perp}, P, P_i\right)$ and displacement $\vec{r}$ at the source and sink. To do this, we want to couple only our light quarks in spinor space to specify the quantum numbers of the state while allowing the heavy quarks to act only as color sources. Our general HLHL operator is then given by:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{O}_{HLHL}^{\left(I,I_z,|J_z|, P_{\perp}, P, P_i\right)}\left(\vec{x},\vec{r}\right) = \bar{Q}\left(\vec{x},t\right) \bar{Q}\left(\vec{x}+\vec{r},t\right) \times \left[q\left(\vec{x},t\right) q\left(\vec{x}+\vec{r},t\right)\right]\bigg|_{\left(I,I_z,|J_z|, P_{\perp}, P, P_i\right)}
\end{align}
where the light quark wavefunctions $\left[q\left(\vec{x},t\right) q\left(\vec{x}+\vec{r},t\right)\right]$ are combined in such a way as to achieve the set of quantum numbers $\left(I,I_z,|J_z|, P_{\perp}, P, P_i\right)$ of the system.
The explicit construction of these wavefunctions is described in Appendix \ref{App:wfn}.
For simplicity we restrict ourselves to identical source and sink interpolating fields neglecting any cross correlators between states.
Isospin is a good quantum number on the $2+1$ flavor lattices with which we work, and we choose our interpolating fields to be isospin eigenstates with $\left(I,I_z\right) = \left(1,1\right)$ and $\left(I,I_z\right) = \left(0,0\right)$.
At large spatial separations, we expect the energy of the four quark state to asymptotically approach the energy of it's dominant two meson component\footnote{Here we are referring to the dominant \emph{lowest energy} contribution, as we expect excited states to contribute negligibly to the extracted HLHL ground state energies}.
States with $P_i = -1$ will tend towards the energy of a $B B_1$ combination at large spatial separations.
There are two possible combinations of the light quark parities that yield $P_i=+1$: $\left(p_1,p_2\right)=\left(+,+\right),\left(-,-\right)$.
In light of the above discussion of parity content of single HL states, we project our $P_i=+1$ interpolating fields to contain only negative or positive parity spinor components and retain these as distinct interpolating fields.
The expectation is that interpolating fields constructed from lower spinor components will exhibit a significantly higher ground state energy in relation to those constructed from upper components. The reason for this is that the $(-,-)$ interpolating field are constructed by the product of two $B_1$ meson interpolating fields, thus should exhibit an asymptotic energy (as $\vec{r} \rightarrow \infty$) near twice that of the single $B_1$ energy. Similarly the $(+,+)$ interpolating field is constructed from the product of two $B$ meson interpolating fields tending asymptotically as $\vec{r} \rightarrow \infty$ towards a ground state energy of twice that of a single $B$ meson.
We differentiate all interpolating fields by their dominant asymptotic content in the tabulation of interpolating fields in Table \ref{tab:operators}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|c|}
\hline
$\left( I,I_z\left| J_z\right|, P_{\perp}, P, P_{i}\right) $ & $\left( I,I_z,\left| J_z\right|, P_{\perp}, P, P_{i}\right) $ & Dominant asymptotic content \\
\hline
\hline
(1,1,1,--,--,+) & (0,0,1,--,+,+) & $B B$ \\
(1,1,0,--,--,+) & (0,0,0,--,+,+) & $B B$ \\
(1,1,0,+,+,+) & (0,0,0,+,--,+) & $B B$ \\
(1,1,1,--,--,+) & (0,0,1,--,+,+) & $B_1 B_1$ \\
(1,1,0,--,--,+) & (0,0,0,--,+,+) & $B_1 B_1$ \\
(1,1,0,+,+,+) & (0,0,0,+,--,+) & $B_1 B_1$ \\
(1,1,1,+,+,--) & (0,0,1,+,--,--) & $B B_1$ \\
(1,1,0,+,+,--) & (0,0,0,+,--,--) & $B B_1$ \\
(1,1,0,--,--,--) & (0,0,0,--,+,--) & $B B_1$ \\
(1,1,1,+,--,--) & (0,0,1,+,+,--) & $B B_1$ \\
(1,1,0,+,--,--) & (0,0,0,+,+,--) & $B B_1$ \\
(1,1,0,--,+,--) & (0,0,0,--,--,--) & $B B_1$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{HLHL interpolating operator basis and expected asymptotic values}
\label{tab:operators}
\end{table}
\section{Details of the lattice calculation}
We work with colorwave propagators (described below) calculated on $n_f = 2+1$ anisotropic ($24^3 \times 128 $) lattices generated by the Hadron Spectrum Collaboration \cite{Lattices} with a pion mass of roughly 380 MeV.
The fermion action used was the clover Wilson action with stout link smearing, not smeared in the temporal direction.
The gauge action was Symanzik tree level tadpole-improved without a rectangle in the temporal direction, preserving temporal ultra-locality.
The spatial and temporal lattice spacings for these lattices are $a_s = 0.1227(8) $fm and $a_t = 0.03506(23) $fm. The pion mass on this ensemble is 0.0681(4) in temporal lattice units.
The Chroma Software package for Lattice QCD \cite{Edwards} was used to generate both colorwave and heavy propagators.
The calculation of the HL and HLHL energies was performed using 305 gauge field configurations with eight sources spaced evenly in the temporal direction.
Ground state energies were extracted using single exponential correlated fits,
with an appropriate $t_{min}$ determined from the quality of the fit.
\subsection{Colorwave Formalism}
\subsubsection{Two quark states}
Consider a general operator for a two quark mesonic state:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{O}\left(\vec{x}\right) = \bar{q}_1\left(\vec{x}\right) \Gamma q_2\left(\vec{x}\right)
\end{equation}
where we assume for simplicity that the two quarks have different flavors.
We seek to calculate the correlation function with localized interpolating fields: (averaged over spatial source and sink locations to increase statistics)
\begin{eqnarray}
C\left(t,t_0\right) &=&\sum_{x,y}\left< \mathcal{O}\left(y\right) \mathcal{O}^{\dagger}\left(x\right)\right> \nonumber\\
&=& \sum_x \sum_y tr\left( S_1\left(x,t_0|y,t\right) \Gamma S_2\left(y,t|x,t_0\right) \Gamma \right)
\label{eq:cor_HL}
\end{eqnarray}
Following the methodology presented in \cite{Peardon2009}, we now consider any complete set of orthonormal states $\{ \phi_i\left(x\right) \} $ which satisfy:
\begin{equation}
\sum_i \phi_i^*\left(x\right)\phi_i\left(y\right) = \delta\left(x -y\right), \sum_x \phi_i^*\left(x\right)\phi_j\left(x\right) = \delta_{ij} \;.
\label{eqn:com_rel}
\end{equation}
By inserting the completeness relation of eq.~\ref{eqn:com_rel} twice into the two point function of eq.~\ref{eq:cor_HL}:
\begin{align}
C \left(t,t_0\right) =& \sum_{x,x'} \sum_{y,y'} \left<S_1\left(x,t_0|y',t\right) \delta\left(y -y'\right)\Gamma S_2\left(y,t|x',_0\right) \delta\left(x -x'\right)\Gamma \right> \nonumber\\
=& \sum_{x,x'} \sum_{y,y'} \left< S_1\left(x,t_0|y',t\right) \sum_i \phi^{*}_i\left(y\right)\phi_i\left(y'\right)\Gamma S_2\left(y,t|x',t_0\right)\sum_j \phi^*_j\left(x\right)\phi_j\left(x'\right)\Gamma \right> \nonumber\\
=& \sum_{i,j} S_1^{j,i} \left(t_0,t\right)\Gamma S_2^{i,j}\left(t,t_0\right) \Gamma
\end{align}
where we have defined:
\begin{align}
S^{i,j}\left(t,t_0\right) \equiv \sum_{x,y} \phi^*_i\left(y\right) S\left(y,t;x,t_0\right) \phi_j\left(x\right)
\label{eqn:basisprop}
\end{align}
A convenient choice for the $\{ \phi_i\left(x\right) \} $ is a plane wave basis: $\phi_i\left(x\right) \equiv \phi_p\left(x\right) = e^{-ipx}\delta_{s,s'}\delta_{c,c'}$.
The delta functions here operate on color and spin.
With this choice of basis, we define $S^{i,j}\left(t,t_0\right) \equiv S^{p,p'}\left(t,t_0\right)$ to be \emph{colorwave} propagators.
The use of these propagators allows us to implement spatial smearing at the source and sink of our correlation functions.
In the limit where all momenta are summed over in equation \ref{eqn:basisprop}, all to all point-point propagators are recovered.
However, introducing a maximum momentum cutoff $p^2_{cut}$ we are able to introduce and control the effective amount of spatial smearing\footnote{It should be noted that smearing is achieved only in fixed gauge. In our case we use the Coulomb gauge, which is a smooth gauge allowing to project out high energy modes if the cutoff $p^2_{cut}$ is kept small .}.
The effect of restricting the plane wave basis to $|p|^2 \leq p^2_{cut}$ (summing over a momentum space volume) is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:psqrcutlteq} where effective masses for single HL $B$ meson correlation functions\footnote{These HL correlation functions are defined in Appendix \ref{App:Single_HL}, eq.~\ref{eqn:HL_Corr}} are presented.
It's evident that the noise of the signal decreases by increasing the momentum space cutoff (as this increases the statistics contributing to the correlation function).
Each effective mass plateau appears to begin at roughly the same point independent of $p^2_{cut}$, and thus a common fit range of $17 -30$ was chosen for all values of $p^2_{cut}$.
In Fig. \ref{fig:psqrcutlteq} we can see that as $p^2_{cut}$ increases the overlap with excited states drops resulting lower values
for the effective mass at earlier times. This indicates that a small radial smearing of the quarks field results interpolating fields that have
better overlap with the ground state of the system.
Such behavior is likely due to the fact that the a non-relativistic HL meson in the static limit is a highly localized object whose wavefunction is confined to a small spatial region.
In light of this behavior and in order to reduce computational cost associated with increasing the momentum cutoff, a value of $p^2_{cut} = 1$ was chosen for calculations of the HLHL system.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{./PLOTS/COLORWAVEANALYSIS/BLOCK/CORRBLOCKpsqr0}
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{./PLOTS/COLORWAVEANALYSIS/BLOCK/CORRBLOCKpsqr1} \\
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{./PLOTS/COLORWAVEANALYSIS/BLOCK/CORRBLOCKpsqr2}
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{./PLOTS/COLORWAVEANALYSIS/BLOCK/CORRBLOCKpsqr3} \\
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{./PLOTS/COLORWAVEANALYSIS/BLOCK/CORRBLOCKpsqr4}
\caption{Effective mass for HL $B$ for increasing $|p^2| \leq |p^2_{cut}|$}
\label{fig:psqrcutlteq}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{HLHL States}
We begin with a correlation function for two heavy-light mesons separated by $\vec{r}$ as described above:
\begin{align}
C_{HLHL} \left(t,\vec{r}\right) =& \sum_x \left< \mathcal{O}_{HLHL}\left(\vec{x},\vec{r},t\right) \mathcal{O}^{\dagger}_{HLHL}\left(\vec{x},\vec{r},t_0\right) \right> \\
=& \sum_x \left<
\bar{Q}\left(\vec{x},t\right) \bar{Q}\left(\vec{x}+\vec{r},t\right) q\left(\vec{x},t\right) q\left(\vec{x}+\vec{r},t\right)
\bar{q}\left(\vec{x}+\vec{r},t_0\right) \bar{q}\left(\vec{x},t_0\right) Q\left(\vec{x}+\vec{r},t_0\right) Q\left(\vec{x},t_0\right) \right> \nonumber
\end{align}
Each heavy quark source can only be contracted with the sink at the same spatial location, and upon contraction we work only with the Wilson line portion of the heavy quark propagator, as we want the quantum numbers of the system to be determined entirely by the light degrees of freedom. There are two possible light quark contractions, one where the light quarks contract with source and sink at the same spatial location (direct), and one where the light quarks contract at the other spatial location (crossed). Performing these contractions, we have (omitting the overall color trace):
\begin{align}
C_{HLHL} \left(t,\vec{r}\right) =& \sum_x \gamma_5 W^\dagger\left(\vec{x};t,t_0\right)\gamma_5 \gamma_5 W^\dagger\left(\vec{x}+\vec{r};t,t_0\right)\gamma_5 \nonumber\\
&\times tr_d\left[ S\left(\vec{x}+\vec{r},t; \vec{x}+\vec{r},t_0\right) S\left(\vec{x},t; \vec{x},t_0\right) - S\left(\vec{x}+\vec{r},t; \vec{x},t_0\right) S\left(\vec{x},t; \vec{x}+\vec{r},t_0\right)\right]
\end{align}
Here, $tr_d$ denotes the trace over Dirac space spinor indices and $W$ is the Wilson line
\begin{equation}
W\left(\vec{x};t,t_0\right) = \prod_{t'=t_0}^{t} U^\dagger_4(\vec{x},t')
\label{eq:Wline}
\end{equation}
We now introduce our partially fourier transformed light quark propagators as:
\begin{align}
S\left( x'_1,t; x_1,t_0 \right) = \sum_{p'_1, p_1} e^{i p'_1 x'_1} S\left( p'_1,t; p_1,t_0 \right)e^{-i p_1 x_1}
\end{align}
where sums over momenta $p_i$ have been restricted to $|p^2| \leq 1$ as described in the previous section.
Using this, the above correlator can be rewritten as:
\begin{align}
C_{HLHL} \left(t,\vec{r}\right) = \sum_{p_1 p_1' p_2 p_2'}\sum_x & \; \gamma_5 W^\dagger\left(\vec{x};t,t_0\right) \gamma_5 \gamma_5 W^\dagger\left(\vec{x}+\vec{r};t,t_0\right)\gamma_5 \times
e^{i (p'_1 - p_1 + p'_2 - p_2) x} e^{i(p'_2 - p_2) r} \nonumber\\
&\times \left[ S\left(p_2',t; p_2,t_0\right) S\left(p_1',t; p_1,t_0\right) -
S\left(p_2',t; p_1,t_0\right) S\left(p_1',t;p_2,t_0\right)\right]
\end{align}
Defining
\begin{align}
\mathcal{D}\left(\vec{r},t,t_0,\omega\right) \equiv \sum_x \gamma_5 W^\dagger\left(\vec{x};t,t_0\right)\gamma_5 \gamma_5 W^\dagger\left(\vec{x}+\vec{r};t_0,t\right)\gamma_5 e^{i (\omega) x}
\end{align}
with $\omega \equiv p'_1 - p_1 + p'_2 - p_2 $, our the final form of our HLHL correlation function becomes:
\begin{align}
C_{HLHL} \left(t,\vec{r}\right) = \sum_{p_1 p_1' p_2 p_2'} & \mathcal{D}\left(\vec{r},t,t_0,\omega\right) \times
e^{i(p'_2 - p_2) r} \nonumber\\
&\times \left[ S\left(p_2',t; p_2,t_0\right) S\left(p_1',t; p_1,t_0\right) -
S\left(p_2',t; p_1,t_0\right) S\left(p_1',t; p_2,t_0\right)\right ]
\end{align}
With this method, we calculate the costly $ \mathcal{D}\left(\vec{r},t,t_0,\omega\right) $ first using a parallel code (parallelization over space time) and then perform the far less expensive contractions with the colorwave propagators for our complete operator basis
on a scalar workstation class machine.
\section{HLHL results}
For $q=\{u,d\}$ we have 24 unique HLHL corresponding to the operators enumerated in Table \ref{tab:operators}. Each potential curve is calculated by taking the jackknife difference between the energy of the HLHL state for various $\vec{r}$ and the energy of the expected two meson asymptotic state:
\begin{align}
V\left(\vec{r}\right) = E_{HLHL}\left(\vec{r}\right) - E_{B_{(1)}} - E_{B_{(1)}}
\end{align}
The statistical uncertainty for each point is determined from jackknife statistical analysis. The systematic uncertainties are determined by adjusting the chosen fit range by one time slice in each direction and averaging the observed deviations in the energy. The systematic uncertainty for both $E_{HLHL}$ and $E_{B_{(1)}}$ are determined independently and then added in quadrature to determine the systematic uncertainty on $V\left(r\right)$.
We find three different asymptotic values for the various states as illustrated in Fig. [\ref{fig:AsymVals}]. The lowest lying asymptotic value corresponds to states with a positive intrinsic parity $P_i$ with all spin components in the correlation function projected to the upper spin components, while the highest asymptotic value corresponds to states with positive intrinsic parity and all spins projected to the lower components. This asymptotic behavior is in line with our expectation that the spin projection of our positive intrinsic parity operators helps to increase the coupling to the lower energy $B B$ state or the higher energy $B_1 B_1$ state.
The energy difference between the highest and lowest asymptotic values is roughly twice the energy difference between the single HL $B$ and $B_1$ states, indicating that they are both tending asymptotically towards their expected two meson asymptotic energies at long distances.
The slight overshoot of the highest asymptotic state beyond it's expected value of twice the $B_1$ energy for $d > 0.8$ fm
may be indicative of contamination from mixing of the HL $B_1$ with a $\pi - B$ state. All $P_i = (-)$ states exhibit an asymptotic tendency towards the sum of the single HL $B$ and $B_1$ energies as expected.
As the states with the lowest asymptotic energy values trend most cleanly towards their expected asymptotic value (indicating the least contamination from excited states), we will focus mainly on these states which we present in Fig. [\ref{fig:BB_IntEn}].
Several aspects of these potential curves should be noted: First, we find that the product of exchange parity $P$ and intrinsic parity $P_i$, which is the symmetry of the two meson spatial wavefunction under spatial inversion, directly corresponds to the attractiveness $(-)$ or repulsiveness $(+)$ of the state. This is in agreement with \cite{Wagner2011}. Second, the $\left(I,I_z,|J_z|,P_{\perp},P,P_i\right) = \left(0,0,0\right) + - +$ exhibits a significantly deeper and wider potential well when compared with the two other attractive channels. This qualitative difference was acknowledged in \cite{Wagner2011}, and the quantum numbers of this channel are consistent with a bound state predicted in a phenomenological model in \cite{Vijande2009}.
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{PLOTS/POTPLOTS/ASYM_VAL_CMP_LWR}
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{PLOTS/POTPLOTS/ASYM_VAL_CMP_UPR}
\caption{Comparison of $B B$ vs. $B B_1$ (left) and $B B$ vs $B_1 B_1$ (right) asymptotic states. Here we take the energy difference for the three potential curves with respect to twice the HL $B$ energy}
\label{fig:AsymVals}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{PLOTS/POTPLOTS/1111_pp}
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{PLOTS/POTPLOTS/0011_pp}
\vspace*{0.25in}\\
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{PLOTS/POTPLOTS/1110_pp}
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{PLOTS/POTPLOTS/0010_pp}
\vspace*{0.25in}\\
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{PLOTS/POTPLOTS/0000_pp}
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{PLOTS/POTPLOTS/1100_pp}\\
\caption{Calculated HLHL $B B$ energies with expected asymptotic value (twice the calculated HL $B$ mass)}
\label{fig:BB_IntEn}
\end{figure}
\section{Bound States}
As the HLHL system has been predicted to be an excellent candidate for bound tetraquark states, we seek a quantitative method for extracting such a bound state (if one exists) from our lattice calculation. Our method is as follows: We fit our lattice potential to a phenomenological quark model potential as described in \cite{Barnes}. We make the choice to focus on the $\left(I,I_z,|J_z|,P_{\perp},P,P_i\right) = \left(0,0,0,+,-,+\right)$ channel, as previous work
has hinted at the possibility of a bound state here. As a control, we also perform the fit for the $\left(I,I_z,|J_z|,P_{\perp},P,P_i\right)= \left(1,1,0,-,-,+\right)$ channel as well.
In our fit, we neglect the $\vec{r} = 0$ points as the finite value of the potential at $\vec{r} = 0$ is a lattice artifact stemming from the ultraviolet cut off introduced by the lattice discretization, leaving us with 7 data points for each potential curve, and two free parameters from the fit model.
The model with the extracted fit parameters is then taken to be the interaction potential between two B mesons in the continuum limit. The two body (one-dimensional) Schrodinger equation is then solved numerically with this interaction potential to determine the existence of any negative energy (bound) states. It should be noted here that the solutions to the Schrodinger equation will converge to their continuum values as the continuum limit of the lattice calculation is taken. As we have only a single lattice spacing available to work with this continuum extrapolation is not an option, and it should be understood that the results presented in this section are at finite lattice spacing.
\subsection{Potential Model}
We have limited our displacements $|\vec{r}| \leq 1.27$ fm, therefore long range effective interactions due to meson exchange do not provide a good description of the HLHL system. In reference \cite{Barnes}, a quark model picture of a two meson interaction was used to derive an interaction potential for the HLHL system, which included color coulomb, spin-spin, linear confinement interactions. Details of the derivation of the potential model can be found in the aforementioned reference, and we will only highlight several modifications we make when fitting this potential model to our numerical results. The quark model HLHL potential has the form:
\begin{align}
V_{BBDS}\left(r\right) = C_I V_{cc}\left(\alpha_s,\beta,r\right) + C_{\bold{S} \cdot \bold{S}} V_{ss}\left(\alpha_s,\beta,\bar{m},r\right) + C_I V_{lc}\left(b,\beta,r\right)
\label{eqn:pot_mod}
\end{align}
with:
\begin{align}
V_{cc}\left(\alpha_s,\beta,r\right) &= \frac{-4\alpha_s}{9r} \left[1+\left(\frac{2}{\pi}\right)^{1/2} \beta r - 4\text{Erf}\left(\frac{\beta r}{2}\right)\right]e^{-\beta^2 r^2/2} \\
V_{ss}\left(\alpha_s,\beta,\bar{m},r\right) &= \frac{2}{27} \left(\frac{2}{\pi}\right)^{1/2} \frac{\alpha_s \beta^3}{\bar{m}^2}e^{-\beta^2 r^2/2} \\
V_{lc}\left(b,\beta,r\right) &= \frac{b}{3 \beta} \bigg{[} \beta r e^{-\beta^2 r^2/2} + 2\left(\frac{2}{\pi}\right)^{1/2} e^{-\beta^2 r^2/2} \nonumber \\
\:\:\:\:\:\: \:\:\:\:\: &-\left(\beta r + \frac{2}{\beta r}\right) \text{Erf}\left(\frac{\beta r}{2}\right)e^{-\beta^2 r^2/2} - \frac{2}{\pi^{1/2}}e^{-3\beta^2 r^2/4}\bigg{]}
\end{align}
Here, $\alpha_s$ is the strong coupling constant, $\beta$ is the spatial width of the quark model single HL meson wavefunction, $\bar{m}$ is the mass of the light quark in the $\overline{MS}$ scheme, and $b$ is the QCD string tension. The coefficients $C_I$ and $C_{\bold{S} \cdot \bold{S}}$, which contain the spin information of the HLHL state, are defined as matrix elements between initial (unprimed) and final (primed) two meson states and will be discussed further below.
It should be noted that the above potential model acquires an overall minus sign if the isospin wavefunction of the two meson state is antisymmetric. Additionally, the potential is a function of $|\vec{r}|$ and not $\vec{r}$, as any tensor interaction terms are neglected in this model.
\subsection{Fit Model}
When applying the above model to our lattice data, we must make several modifications to the above quark model potential.
Due to the use of periodic boundary conditions in the calculation, interactions with image ``charges'' lying past the boundary must be accounted for.
We must also consider the possibility that there will be long range meson exchange interactions that were neglected in our choice of potential model. To account for these long range interactions, we extend the original model by adding a simple Yukawa like term for one pion exchange:
\begin{equation}
V^{Yuk}\left(r\right) = V_{BBDS}\left(r\right) + g\frac{e^{-m_\pi r}}{r}
\label{eq:ourModel}
\end{equation}
Here we take $m_{\pi}$ to be the mass of the pion on the gauge field configurations used in the calculation ($\sim 390$ GeV). The parameter $g$ is discussed below.
In principle, interactions with each of the infinitely many image charges contribute to the potential and must be included. In practice however, we may restrict ourselves to contributions where the image of the first meson is $\leq 3L/2$ ($\sim 4.5$ fm) away from the second and vice versa. This approximation is valid as the contribution of these truncated images (at separations of $r>3L/2$) to the potential (with the choice of parameters outlined below)
is $\mathcal{O}\left(10^{-4}\right) \text{MeV}$.
With the inclusion of the image charges our potential model then becomes:
\begin{align}
V_{Im}^{Yuk}= V^{Yuk}\left(r\right) + 2\sum_{r_{i} < 3L/2} V^{Yuk}\left(r_i\right)
\end{align}
The addition of these image charges modify the potential at long distance as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:Potential_Contributions}
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{PLOTS/BOUNDSTATES/IMAGES}
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{PLOTS/BOUNDSTATES/CONTRIBUTIONS}
\caption{Contribution of image charges to the potential (left) and contributions to the potential model $V_{HLHL}$ from the individual terms in eq.~\ref{eqn:pot_mod}}
\label{fig:Potential_Contributions}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=10cm]{PLOTS/BOUNDSTATES/0000pp_fit}
\caption{Fit of the potential model in eq.~\ref{eq:ourModel} to the $\left(I,I_z,|J_z|,P_{\perp},P,P_i\right) = \left(0,0,0,+,-,+\right)$ channel. The colored band represents the uncertainty in the fit paramters $\beta$ and $g$ from jackknife analysis.}
\label{fig:Pot_0000_Fit}
\end{figure}
The final modification made to the potential model is a modification of the spin dependent coefficients $C_I$ and $C_{\bold{S} \cdot \bold{S}}$. The original presentation of this phenomenological potential model in Ref. \cite{Barnes} sought to provide a comparison with the lattice calculations of the time, which had an incomplete classification of the HLHL states in terms of the total isospin $I$ and spin $S$ of the system,
while also maintaining a connection with the physical B meson states. Because of this, classification of the various potentials was made in terms of the physical $B$ and $B^*$ (first angular excitation of the $B$ meson) with respect to the quantum numbers $I$ and $S$.
The difference in angular momentum spaces of the non-static and static limit prevents a direct interpretation of the lattice data from the present work in terms of physical $B$ and $B^*$ states, and our classification of states makes it difficult to reconcile the previous classification with ours.
We therefore choose to recalculate the spin dependent coefficients of the potential model relevant for the static limit BB system we study on the lattice, the results of which are presented in Table \ref{tab:Fit_Params} (For details of the calculation, see Appendix \ref{App:coef}).
The previous determination of these coefficients for the HLHL system included spin degrees of freedom for the heavy quarks in the two meson states $| M_{i} M_{j}>$ allowing for better classification of the potential in terms of non-static limit states. We choose to neglect the spin degrees of freedom of the heavy quarks in our determination, effectively fully implementing the static limit for the the potential model. Thus the spin degrees of freedom of our two meson kets $| M_{i} M_{j} >$ are just those of the spin of the light degrees of freedom of our HLHL state. The evaluation of these coefficients however requires knowledge of the total angular momentum of the two meson state, a point that has been neglected until now. As we seek to fit the $\left(I,I_z,|J_z|,P_{\perp},P,P_i\right) = \left(0,0,0,+,-,+\right)$ and $\left(1,1,0,-,-,+\right)$ states, we need to determine if these particular states are in a symmetric angular momentum triplet, or an antisymmetric angular momentum singlet. In order to make this identification, we must rely on the overall symmetries of the state in question. We know that the parity $P$ of a given state is the product of the intrinsic parity $P_i$ and the symmetry of the spatial wavefunction. From this relationship, and with knowledge of the symmetry of the isospin spatial wavefunction, we can infer the symmetry of the angular momentum wavefunction:
\begin{align}
Sym_J = \left(-\right)\left(Sym_I\right) \left(P_i\right) \left(P\right),
\end{align}
where $Sym_J$ and $Sym_I$ the symmetries of the angular momentum and isospin wavefunctions. The overall negative sign appears from exchanging fermions in the parity operation. Using this we are able to identify the $\left(I,I_z,|J_z|,P_{\perp},P,P_i\right) = \left(0,0,0,+,-,+\right)$ channel with $Sym_J = -$ as a $J=0$ state, and the $\left(I,I_z,|J_z|,P_{\perp},P,P_i\right) = \left(1,1,0,-,-,+\right)$ channel with $Sym_J = +$ as a $J=1$ state. The spin dependent coefficients can then be recalculated for our states and are shown in Table [\ref{tab:Fit_Params}].
\subsection{Fitting Procedure and Bound State Determination}
In fitting the potential model of eq.~\ref{eq:ourModel} to our lattice data, we use two free fit parameters: $\beta$ and $g$ and take the remaining parameters $b$, $\bar{m}$ and $\alpha_s$ to be $0.18 \text{GeV}^2$, $0.33 \text{GeV}$, and $0.5$ respectively as in Ref. \cite{Barnes}.
A fit is performed for each of 305 jackknife ensembles, allowing for an accurate way to estimate the error on the extracted fit parameters, shown in Table [\ref{tab:Fit_Params}]. As we are ultimately interested in the energy levels allowed by the potential model, and not the model parameters themselves, we will only briefly comment on the fit parameters. It is immediately obvious that $g$ is not well determined for the $J=1$ channel. It's also interesting that the fit parameter $\beta$ is significantly smaller for the $J=0$ channel, indicating a much narrower spatial distribution of the two meson wavefunction.
Once the fit parameters have been extracted they are then inserted into the two body radial Schrodinger equation to determine if any bound states exist. As we are restricting ourselves to $L=0$ states, the two body Schrodinger equation can be written as:
\begin{align}
\left[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2 \bar{m}} \frac{d^2}{dr^2} + V^{Yuk}\left(r\right)\right]u\left(r\right) = E u\left(r\right)
\label{eqn:schrod}
\end{align}
where $\bar{m}$ is the reduced mass of a two B meson system (with the single meson mass taken from the Particle Data Group \cite{PDG}), $u\left(r\right) = r\Psi\left(r\right)$ and $V^{Yuk}\left(r\right)$ is the potential model presented in the preceding section excluding the image terms.
Eq.~\ref{eqn:schrod} is then solved numerically as an eigenvalue problem with a spatial discretization of 0.01 fm and a spatial cutoff of 10 fm (corresponding to a sphere with $r=10$ fm), and the boundary condition that $\Psi\left(r\right)\bigg|_{r=10} = 0$. This spatial volume provides ample space for the potential to decay to zero. The eigenvalue spectrum is then analyzed for each of the two states discussed above. While the $J=1$ channel exhibits a near continuum of positive eigenvalues (discrete only because of the numerical solution method), the $J=0$ channel does admit a single bound state with energy $E_0 = -50.0(5.1)$ MeV (with the uncertainty determined by carrying through the jackknife analysis from the fit parameters and solving eq.~\ref{eqn:schrod} for each of the 305 $\left(\beta,g\right)$ sets).
Aside from the binding energy, we can also calculate the RMS radius for the two meson wavefunction $\Psi\left(r\right)$ from the wavefunctions $u\left(r\right)$ above:
\begin{align}
r_{RMS} \equiv \left<r^2\right>^{1/2} =\left[\frac{\sum_i r_i^2 \left|u\left(r_i\right)\right|^2}{\sum_i\left|u\left(r_i\right)\right|^2} \right]^{1/2}
\end{align}
For the bound state wavefunction $u_0\left(r\right)$, we find an RMS radius of 0.383(6) fm, the error again estimated by jackknife analysis.
Although no previous calculation of the binding energy in this particular static-limit channel exists (lattice or otherwise), Ref. \cite{Vijande2009} does quote binding energies and RMS radii for a doubly bottom $J^P \left(L, S, I\right) = 0^+ \left(0,0,0\right)$ channel which is consistent (in the static limit) with the quantum numbers of our static limit $\left(I,I_z,|J_z|,P_{\perp},P,P_i\right) = \left(0,0,0,+,-,+\right)$ channel. This reference uses two different potential models to calculate binding energies: the constituent quark cluster model CQC and the the Bhaduri-Cohler-Nogami or BCN model.
The BCN model includes the same interactions as those used in Ref. \cite{Barnes} to derive the potential used to fit our lattice results (namely, color coulomb, linear confinement and spin-spin).
Furthermore, the BCN parameters corresponding to string tension $b$, strong coulpling $\alpha_s$, and constituent quark mass $\bar{m}$ used in \cite{Vijande2009} are very similar to those used in our potential model (compare our $\left(b, \alpha_s,\bar{m}\right) = \left(0.18\;\text{GeV}^2, 0.5, 0.33 \;\text{GeV}\right)$ to $\left(0.186 \;\text{GeV}^2, 0.52, 0.337 \;\text{GeV}\right)$).
These binding energies should provide a relevent point of comparison for our results provided our lattice discretization errors have minor effects on the extracted potential model fit parameters. In comparison, we find our values for the binding energy and RMS radius to be consistent with the values quoted in \cite{Vijande2009} from the BCN model
$ \left(E_0, r_{RMS}\right) = \left(-52 \text{MeV}, 0.334 \text{fm}\right)$, providing a good cross check that our lattice calculation has identified a bound state in the static limit $\left(I,I_z,|J_z|,P_{\perp},P,P_i\right) = \left(0,0,0,+,-,+\right)$ channel.
The fact that the bound state identified in that work has an RMS radius that is smaller than the sum of the individual mesonic RMS radii is indicative of the compact nature of that bound state.
Additionally, as illustrated in Ref. \cite{Wagner2010} (see eqns. 4), the static limit HLHL tetraquark state can be written as a linear combination of products of two single meson wavefunctions in different spin states. This is consistent with the idea that although the compact tetraquark state may have a complicated color space structure composed of color vectors, this state can always be decomposed into a linear combination of products of two single meson wavefunctions.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\left(J, J_z\right)$ &$C_I$ & $C_{\bold{S} \cdot \bold{S}}$ & $\beta$ (GeV)& $g$ & $\chi^2/d.o.f.$ & $E_0$ (MeV)\\
\hline
\hline
(0,0) & -1 & 3/4 & 0.274(14) & 0.041(12) & 0.9943 & -50.0(5.1)\\
\hline
(1,0) & 1 & 1/4 & 0.459(38) & 0.016(20) & 0.4119 & N/A\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Spin dependent coefficients from reference \cite{BarnesCoef} and fit parameters from fitting our lattice data to a modified version of the model presented in ref. \cite{Barnes}. Here $\beta$ corresponds to the spatial width of the HL meson wavefunction, and $g$ is the coupling strength of the additional Yukawa term introduced in this work. The uncertainties quoted for the fit parameters are jackknife estimates.}
\label{tab:Fit_Params}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}
We have computed using lattice QCD the interaction potential between two b-meson states in the limit of static b quarks. With this lattice potential parametrized with a functional form
motivated by the quark model description of the two b-meson interaction, we have
determined the bound state energies in the heavy-light-heavy-light (HLHL) tetraquark system.
To perform this study we introduced colorwave propagators for calculating meson correlation functions and extended the formalism to the HLHL system in order to provide a novel way for an efficient calculation of HLHL correlation functions for several $\left( I,I_z,\left| J_z\right|, P_{\perp}, P, P_{i}\right) $ channels. The effect of limiting the colorwave plane wave basis on the ground state overlap of single HL correlation functions was explored,
and a choice for the momentum cutoff $p^2_{cut}$ was made to optimize the quality of the signal versus the computational cost.
For a single HL meson, results indicate that a more localized interpolating field has a better overlap on the ground state, suggesting the compact nature of the HL meson.
HLHL potentials were calculated for 24 distinct $\left( I,I_z,\left| J_z\right|,P_{\perp},P,P_{i}\right) $ channels, exhibiting three distinct asymptotic values as $r \rightarrow \infty$ corresponding to the different ways $B$ and $B_1$ mesons can be combined.
The tendency of the HLHL energy to overshoot the expected asymptotic value of $E_{B_1} + E_B$ and $2E_{B_1}$ may be due to contamination from excited states and the possibility of $B_1$ mixing with a $B - \pi$ state.
It was determined that the attractiveness or repulsiveness of the HLHL potential corresponds directly to the symmetry of the two meson spatial wavefunction under spatial inversion, in agreement with Ref. \cite{Wagner2011}. The asymptotic behavior of the various HLHL states was shown to be dependent on the intrinsic parity of the state. While the $P_i = -$ states have only one asymptotic value (corresponding to a single two meson $B B_1$ component), the $P_i = +$ channels have two asymptotic values corresponding to both $B B$ and $B_1 B_1$ two meson components. By examining the construction of single HL correlation functions, it was determined that we could increase overlap with the $B B$ and $B_1 B_1$ two meson wavefunctions by projecting the correlation functions to include only positive or negative parity components of the Dirac basis quark spinors.
The existence of bound states was then explored for the $\left(I,I_z,|J_z|,P_{\perp},P,P_i\right) = \left(0,0,0,+,-,+\right)$ channel as it exhibited a wider and deeper potential when compared with the other attractive potentials. Analysis was also carried out for the $\left(I,I_z,|J_z|,P_{\perp},P,P_i\right) = \left(1,1,0,-,-,+\right)$ for the purposes of comparison. A modified version of the potential model described in Ref. \cite{Barnes} was used to fit the lattice data, and two fit parameters $\beta$ (the gaussian width of the HL meson wavefunction) and $g$ (the Yukawa interaction constant) were extracted from,
the fit. Inserting the potential with the extracted fit parameters into the two body Schr\"odinger equation, we then solved numerically for the eigenvalues of the hamiltonian, searching for any negative energy eigenstates. A single negative energy bound state was found in the $\left(0,0,0,+,-,+\right)$ channel, with an energy of $E_0 = -50.0(5.1)$ MeV and RMS radius $r_{RMS} = 0.383(6)$ fm. These results were found to be consistent with results presented in Ref. \cite{Vijande2009} for the state $J^P \left(L, S, I\right) = 0^+ \left(0,0,0\right)$ (which maps onto our $\left(0,0,0,+,-,+\right)$ channel in the static limit).
The errors quoted on these results are statistical only. One needs to account for several systematic errors such as $1/m_b$ corrections ($m_b$ the b quark mass), lattice spacing effects as well as dependence on the light quark mass.~\footnote{Just before completion of this manuscript a study of the
same system appeared as a preprint~\cite{Bicudo:2012qt}. Some of these systematics were studied there.}
\acknowledgments
We would like to thank W. Detmold, S. Meinel, and E. Mastropas for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by DOE grants DE-AC05-06OR23177 (JSA) and DE-FG02-04ER41302 and DE-FG02-04ER41302 as well as the JSA Jefferson Lab Graduate Fellowship Program.
|
\section{Introductions}\label{intro}
Let $X$ be a smooth complex projective variety of maximal Albanese dimension (m.A.d. for short) and of general type. Recall that tricanonical map is birational onto its image (cf. \cite{CH2} and \cite{JMT}). It is interesting to consider the birationality of
its bicanonical map. Let us recall the following results.
Assume moreover that the bicanonical map of $X$ is not birational. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[I]{If $X$ is a surface, then either $X$ is fibered by curves of genus 2 (the standard case), or
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)]{if $q(X) >2$, then $X$ is birationally equivalent to a theta divisor of a principally polarized abelian variety (p.p.a.v. for short) of dimension 3 (cf. \cite{CCM});}
\item[(ii)]{if $q(X) = 2$, then $X$ is birational to a double cover of a simple principally polarized abelian surface $A$ branched
along a divisor $B \in |2\Theta|$ (cf. \cite{CCM}, \cite{CFM}, \cite{CM}).}
\end{enumerate}}
\item[II]{\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)]{If $X$ is a primitive variety (cf. Def. \ref{prm}) with $q(X) > \dim X$, then it
is birational to a theta divisor of a p.p.a.v. (cf. \cite{BLNP}).}
\item[(ii)]{If $X$ is not necessarily primitive, then $\mathrm{gv}(\omega_X) \leq 1$, and the Albanese image is fibred by subvarieties
of codimension at most 1 of an Abelian subvariety of $\mathrm{Alb}(X)$ (cf. \cite{La}).}
\end{enumerate}}
\end{itemize}
If $X$ has a fibration $f: X \rightarrow Y$ with general fibers having non-birational bicanonical map, then the bicanonical map of $X$ is not birational. It is known that a non-primitive variety always has an irregular fibration by generic vanishing theorem (cf. Theorem \ref{gv}). Therefore, it is of special interest to study the bicanonical map of primitive varieties or those with simple Albanese varieties.
For the bicanonical map of primitive varieties, when $q(X) > \dim X$, it is completely clear by the results of I(i) and II(i); when $q(X) = \dim X$, it is not clear yet except in dimension 2 (I(ii)), and it is conjectured that if $\mathrm{Alb} (X)$ is simple, then $\mathrm{Alb}(X)$ is a p.p.a.v., and $X$ is birational to a double cover of $\mathrm{Alb}(X)$ branched
along a divisor $B \in |2\Theta|$ (see also \cite{La}).
In this paper, we study the case $q(X) = \dim X$, the main result is
\begin{Theorem}[Theorem \ref{eun}, \ref{spr2}]\label{main}
Let $X$ be a smooth complex projective variety of general type with $q(X) = \dim X$ and maximal Albanese dimension. Suppose that its bicanonical map is not birational and that $\mathrm{Alb}(X)$ is simple. Then $\chi(\omega_X) = 1$, and the linear system $|2K_X|$ separates two distinct points over the same general point $\mathrm{Alb} (X)$ via the Albanese map.
\end{Theorem}
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{tool}, we list the technical results needed in this paper. In Section \ref{map}, we compare the Euler numbers of two irregular varieties of m.A.d. and equipped with a generically finite surjective morphism. In Section \ref{bicmap}, we study the bicanonical map and prove our main theorem. Finally, in Section \ref{inequ} as an appendix, we give an inequality on the irregularity of a fibration, and describe a certain fibration with the equality attained.
\textbf{Conventions:}
All varieties are assumed over $\mathbb{C}$.
``$\equiv$'' denotes the linear equivalence of line bundles or Cartier divisors respectively.
Let $E$ be a vector bundle on a variety $X$. We denote the projective bundle by $\mathbb{P}_X(E):=\mathrm{Proj}_{\mathcal{O}_X}(\oplus_kS^k(E^*))$ and the tautological line bundle by $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}_X(E)}(1)$.
Let $X$ be a projective variety. We denote by $D^b(X)$ be the
bounded derived category of coherent sheaves on $X$. Let $f: X \rightarrow Y$ be a morphism between two
smooth projective varieties. We denote by $Rf_*$ and $Lf^*$
the derived functors of $f_*$ and $f^*$ respectively.
We say an object $E \in D^b(X)$ is a sheaf if it is quasi-isomorphic to ($\cong$) a sheaf in $D^b(X)$.
For a product $X = X_1 \times X_2 \times ... \times X_r$ of $r$ varieties, $p_i$ denotes the projection from $X$ to the $i$\textsuperscript{th} factor $X_i$.
For an abelian variety $A$, $\hat{A}$ denotes its dual $\mathrm{Pic}^0 (A)$, $\mathcal{P}$ denotes the Poincar\'{e} line bundle on
$A \times \hat{A}$, and the Fourier-Mukai transform $R\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}: D^b(A) \rightarrow D^b(\hat{A})$ w.r.t. $\mathcal{P}$ is defined as
$$R\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{F}) := R(p_2)_*(Lp_1^*\mathcal{F} \otimes \mathcal{P});$$
similarly $R\Psi_{\mathcal{P}}: D^b(\hat{A}) \rightarrow D^b(A)$ is defined as
$$R\Psi_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{F}) := R(p_1)_*(Lp_2^*\mathcal{F} \otimes \mathcal{P}).$$
Since $p_i, i =1,2$ are flat morphisms, $R\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}$ and $R\Psi_{\mathcal{P}}$ are two right derived functors.
If $a: X \rightarrow A$ is a map to an abelian variety, then $\mathcal{P}_a : = (a \times \mathrm{id}_{\hat{A}}) ^*\mathcal{P}$, and for $\mathcal{F} \in D^b(X)$, $R\Phi_{\mathcal{P}_a}(\mathcal{F})$ is defined similarly; and if $\alpha \in \hat{A}$, we often denote the line bundle $a^*\alpha \in \mathrm{Pic}^0 (X)$ by $\alpha$ for simplicity. For an irregular variety $X$, we usually denote by $\mathrm{alb}_X: X \rightarrow
\mathrm{Alb} (X)$ the Albanese map.
{\bf Acknowledgements.} Part of this note appears in the author's
doctoral thesis submitted to Peking University (2011). The author expresses appreciations to Prof. Jinxing Cai and Dr. Wenfei Liu for many useful discussions. He thanks Prof. Meng Chen, Dr. Fan Peng and Ze Xu for their help on the inequality appearing in the appendix, and thanks Olivier Debarre and Yifei Chen for their suggestions in improving the English. He also thanks Sofia Tirabassi for some suggestions, and thanks the authors of \cite{BLNP} for their stimulating ideas. Finally, the author owes too much to an anonymous referee, who shares his or her ideas on improving the result of Theorem \ref{euln} and simplifying the proof of Corollary \ref{fm} and Theorem \ref{euln}. The author is supported by NSFC (No. 11226075).
\section{Definitions and technical results}\label{tool}
In this section, we collect some definitions and results needed in the sequel. First recall that
\begin{Theorem}[\cite{Mu} Thm. 2.2]\label{Mu} Let $A$ be an abelian variety of dimension $d$. Then
$$R\Psi_{\mathcal{P}} \circ R\Phi_{\mathcal{P}} = (-1)_A^*[-d]~\mathrm{and}~R\Phi_{\mathcal{P}} \circ R\Psi_{\mathcal{P}} = (-1)_{\hat{A}}^*[-d].$$
\end{Theorem}
\subsection{GV-sheaves, M-regular sheaves and $IT^0$-sheaves}
\begin{Definition}[\cite{PP2} Def. 2.1, 2.2, 2.8, 2.10, \cite{CH2} Def. 2.6]\label{defgv}
Given a coherent sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ on an abelian variety $A$, its \emph{$i$\textsuperscript{th} cohomological support locus} is defined as
$$V^i(\mathcal{F}): = \{\alpha \in \mathrm{Pic}^0 (A)| h^i(\mathcal{F} \otimes \alpha) > 0\}.$$
The number $\mathrm{gv}^i(\mathcal{F}): = \mathrm{codim}_{\mathrm{Pic}^0(A)}V^i(\mathcal{F}) - i$ is called the \emph{$i$\textsuperscript{th} generic vanishing index} of $\mathcal{F}$; $\mathrm{gv}(\mathcal{F}): = \min_{i>0}\{\mathrm{gv}^i(\mathcal{F})\}$ is called the \emph{generic vanishing index} of $\mathcal{F}$.
We say $\mathcal{F}$ is a \emph{GV-sheaf} (resp. \emph{M-regular sheaf}) if $\mathrm{gv}(\mathcal{F}) \geq 0$ (resp. $>0$) and an \emph{$IT^0$-sheaf} if $V^i(\mathcal{F}) = \emptyset$ for $i>0$.
Let $X$ be an irregular variety equipped with a morphism to an abelian variety $a: X \rightarrow
A$. Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a sheaf on $X$, its \emph{$i$\textsuperscript{th} cohomological support locus w.r.t. $a$} is defined as
$$V^i(\mathcal{F}, a) := \{\alpha \in \mathrm{Pic}^0(A)| h^i(X, \mathcal{F} \otimes \alpha) > 0\}$$
We say $\mathcal{F}$ is \emph{continuously~ globally~ generated} (\emph{CGG} for short) w.r.t. $a$ if the sum of the evaluation maps
$$\mathrm{ev}_U: \oplus_{\alpha \in U}H^0(\mathcal{F} \otimes \alpha) \otimes (\alpha^{-1}) \rightarrow \mathcal{F}$$
is surjective for any non-empty open set $U \subset \hat{A}$.
\end{Definition}
\begin{Proposition}[\cite{PP2} Thm. 5.1]\label{cgg}
An M-regular sheaf on an abelian variety is CGG.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{Proposition}\label{sjt}
Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a sheaf on an abelian variety $A$ of dimension $d$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
If $\mathcal{F}$ is M-regular, then there is a natural surjection
$$(-1)_A^*R^d\Psi_\mathcal{P}R^0\Phi_\mathcal{P}\mathcal{F} \rightarrow \mathcal{F}.$$
\item[(ii)]
$\mathcal{F}$ is $IT^0$ if and only if $R\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}\mathcal{F} \cong R^0\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}\mathcal{F}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
(i) By assumption, for $j>0$, $\mathrm{codim}_{\hat{A}}\mathrm{Supp} R^j\Phi_\mathcal{P}\mathcal{F} > j$ (\cite{PP2} Prop. 2.1), thus
$$\clubsuit: R^i\Psi_\mathcal{P}R^j\Phi_\mathcal{P}\mathcal{F} = 0~\mathrm{if}~j \neq 0~ \mathrm{and} ~i+j \geq d.$$
By $(-1)_A^*R\Psi_\mathcal{P}R\Phi_\mathcal{P}(a_*\omega_X)\cong a_*\omega_X[-d]$ (Theorem~\ref{Mu}), applying Leray spectral sequence gives that
$$E_2^{i,j}:= (-1)_A^*R^i\Psi_\mathcal{P}R^j\Phi_\mathcal{P}\mathcal{F} \Rightarrow \mathcal{H}^{i+j}(\mathcal{F}[-d]).$$
Since $\clubsuit$, we have that
\begin{itemize}
\item
$E_{\infty}^{i,j} \cong 0$ for $i+j =d$ and $(i,j) \neq (d,0)$, thus
$E_{\infty}^{d,0} \cong \mathcal{F}$; and
\item
$d_r^{d,0}: E_{r}^{d,0} \rightarrow E_{r}^{d+r,-r+1} = 0$ is zero for $r\geq 2$, thus there is a surjection
$$E_{2}^{d,0} = (-1)_A^*R^d\Psi_\mathcal{P}R^0\Phi_\mathcal{P}\mathcal{F} \rightarrow E_{\infty}^{d,0}.$$
\end{itemize}
Then we conclude a natural surjection
$$(-1)_A^*R^d\Psi_\mathcal{P}R^0\Phi_\mathcal{P}\mathcal{F} \rightarrow \mathcal{F}.$$
(ii) The direction ``only if'' follows from applying \cite{ha77} Cor. 12.9. For the other direction, note that for every $\alpha \in \mathrm{Pic}^0 (A)$ and $i>d$ the natural map $R^i\Phi_\mathcal{P}\mathcal{F}\otimes \mathbb{C}(\alpha) \rightarrow H^i(A, \mathcal{F}\otimes \alpha) = 0$ is surjective, and if $R\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}\mathcal{F} \cong R^0\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}\mathcal{F}$, then $R^i\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}\mathcal{F} = 0$ for $i>0$. Then applying \cite{ha77} Cor. 12.11 (b), we can prove the direction ``if'' by induction.
\end{proof}
\begin{Corollary}\label{fm}
Let $a: X \rightarrow A$ be a generically finite morphism from a smooth projective variety to an abelian variety. Suppose that $\dim X = \dim A =d \geq 2$, $a^* : \mathrm{Pic}^0(A) \rightarrow \mathrm{Pic}^0(X)$ is an embedding, and for $i>0$, $V^i(\omega_X, a)$ is composed of at most some isolated points. Then there exists an exact sequence
$$(-1)_A^*R^d\Psi_\mathcal{P}R^0\Phi_\mathcal{P}(a_*\omega_X) \rightarrow a_*\omega_X \rightarrow \omega_A \rightarrow 0.$$
\end{Corollary}
\begin{proof}
By assumption we have a splitting (cf. for example \cite{CV} Prop. 1.2)
$$a_*\omega_X \cong \omega_A \oplus \mathcal{F}.$$
Then by $R\Phi_\mathcal{P}(a_*\omega_X) \cong R\Phi_\mathcal{P}\omega_A \oplus R\Phi_\mathcal{P} \mathcal{F}$ and $R^d\Phi_\mathcal{P}(a_*\omega_X) \cong R^d\Phi_\mathcal{P}\omega_A \cong \mathbb{C}(\hat{0})$ (Proposition 6.1 in \cite{BLNP}), we find that
$$R^i\Phi_\mathcal{P}(a_*\omega_X) \cong R^i\Phi_\mathcal{P} \mathcal{F}~\mathrm{for}~i = 0,1,...,d-1~\mathrm{and}~R^d\Phi_\mathcal{P} \mathcal{F}=0.$$
Therefore, $\mathcal{F}$ is M-regular, and there is a surjection by Proposition \ref{sjt} (i)
$$(-1)_A^*R^d\Psi_\mathcal{P}R^0\Phi_\mathcal{P}(a_*\omega_X) \cong (-1)_A^*R^d\Psi_\mathcal{P}R^0\Phi_\mathcal{P}\mathcal{F} \rightarrow \mathcal{F}.$$
Then naturally it follows the exact sequence
$$(-1)_A^*R^d\Psi_\mathcal{P}R^0\Phi_\mathcal{P}(a_*\omega_X) \rightarrow a_*\omega_X \rightarrow \omega_A \rightarrow 0$$
\end{proof}
Applying Theorem \ref{Mu} and Proposition \ref{sjt} (ii), we get (see \cite{Zh} Cor. 2.2 for details)
\begin{Corollary}\label{Muc}
Let $A$ be an abelian variety of dimension $d$, $E$ an $IT^0$-vector bundle on $A$. Then $R\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}E$ is a vector bundle on $\hat{A}$, and its dual $(R\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}E)^*$ is an $IT^0$-vector bundle such that
$$R\Psi_{\mathcal{P}}((R\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}E)^*) \cong E^* \cong ((-1)_A^*R^d\Psi_{\mathcal{P}}((R^0\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}E)))^*.$$
\end{Corollary}
\subsection{Generic vanishing theorem}
Recall generic vanishing theorem due to Green and Lazarsfeld:
\begin{Theorem} [\cite{GL1}, \cite{GL2}]\label{gv} Let $X$ be a smooth compact k\"{a}hler manifold with $\dim X =n$ and $\dim \mathrm{alb}_X(X) = k$. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)]{$\mathrm{codim}_{\mathrm{Pic}^0 (X)}V^i(\omega_X, \mathrm{alb}_X) \geq k-n +i$.}
\item[(ii)]{Let $Z$ be a component of $V^i(\omega_X, \mathrm{alb}_X)$ of positive dimension. Then $Z$ is a subtorus of $\mathrm{Pic}^0 (X)$, and there exists an analytic variety $Y$ of dimension $\leq n-i$ and a dominant map $f: X \rightarrow Y$ such that $Z \subset \alpha + f^*\mathrm{Pic}^0 (Y)$ where $\alpha$ is torsion.}
\item[(iii)]{$Y$ has maximal Albanese dimension.}
\item[(iv)]{Let $\alpha \in V^i(\omega_X, \mathrm{alb}_X)$ and $v \in H^1(\mathcal{O}_X) = T_\alpha \mathrm{Pic}^0(X)$. The \emph{derived complex} below
$$\centerline{\xymatrix{
&H^{n-i-1}(\alpha^{-1}) \ar[r]^{\cup v} &H^{n-i}(\alpha^{-1}) \ar[r]^{\cup v} &H^{n-i+1}(\alpha^{-1})
}}$$
is exact if $v$ is not contained in the tangent cone $TC_\alpha V^i(\omega_X, \mathrm{alb}_X)$ to $V^i(\omega_X, \mathrm{alb}_X)$ at $\alpha$.}
\end{enumerate}
\end{Theorem}
\begin{Corollary}\label{rmk}
Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety of m.A.d. and of dimension $d$. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]{$h^i(X, \omega_X \otimes \alpha) = h^i(\mathrm{Alb}(X), (\mathrm{alb}_X)_*\omega_X \otimes \alpha)$ for $\alpha \in \mathrm{Pic}^0 (X), i \geq 0$, and $(\mathrm{alb}_X)_*\omega_X $ is a GV-sheaf, thus
$$V^0(\omega_X, \mathrm{alb}_X) \supset V^1(\omega_X, \mathrm{alb}_X) \supset \cdot\cdot\cdot \supset V^d(\omega_X, \mathrm{alb}_X);$$}
\item[(ii)]{$R\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}((\mathrm{alb}_X)_*\mathcal{O}_X)[d] \cong R^d\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}((\mathrm{alb}_X)_*\mathcal{O}_X)$ is a sheaf, which we denote by $\widehat{\mathcal{O}_X}$;}
\item[(iii)]{$R^i\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}((\mathrm{alb}_X)_*\omega_X) \cong (-1)^*_{\mathrm{Pic}^0(X)}\mathcal{E}xt^i(\widehat{\mathcal{O}_X}, \mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{Pic}^0(X)})$;}
\item[(iv)]{$p_g(X) > \chi(\omega_X)$.}
\end{itemize}
\end{Corollary}
\begin{proof}
By Koll\'{a}r's results (\cite{Ko1} Thm. 2.1, \cite{Ko2} Thm. 3.1), we have that
$$R(\mathrm{alb}_X)_*\omega_X \cong \sum_iR^i(\mathrm{alb}_X)_*\omega_X[-i]$$
and $R^i(\mathrm{alb}_X)_*\omega_X$ is torsion free if restricted to the Albanese image $\mathrm{alb}_X(X)$. We conclude that $R^i(\mathrm{alb}_X)_*\omega_X = 0$ for $i>0$ since $\mathrm{alb}_X$ is generically finite, hence $R(\mathrm{alb}_X)_*\omega_X \cong (\mathrm{alb}_X)_*\omega_X$. Using Grothendieck duality and projection formula, the assertions (i), (ii) and (iii) follow from Theorem \ref{gv}. See \cite{Ha} Thm. 1.5, 4.1 and Cor. 3.2 for the details.
For (iv), take a general $v \in H^1(\mathcal{O}_X) = T_{\hat{0}} \mathrm{Pic}^0X$. Theorem \ref{gv} (iv) tells that \emph{the derived complex} $D_v$ is exact
$$\centerline{\xymatrix{&0 \ar[r] &H^{0}(\mathcal{O}_X) \ar[r]^{\cup v} &H^{1}(\mathcal{O}_X) \ar[r]^{\cup v}&\cdot\cdot\cdot\ar[r]^{\cup v} &H^{n-1}(\mathcal{O}_X) \ar[r]^{\cup v}&H^{n}(\mathcal{O}_X)
}}$$
This implies that the cokernel of the right-most map is a linear space of dimension $\chi(\omega_X) = (-1)^n\chi(\mathcal{O}_X)$. Since $X$ is of m.A.d., the right-most map is non-zero. Therefore, $p_g(X) = h^n(\mathcal{O}_X) > \chi(\omega_X)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Remark}[\cite{EL} Remark 1.6]
If replacing the Albanese map by a generically finite morphism to an abelian variety $a: X \rightarrow A$ and replacing $\mathrm{Pic}^0(X)$ by $\mathrm{Pic}^0(A)$, then the evident analogues of the results in Corollary \ref{rmk} hold.
\end{Remark}
\begin{Proposition}\label{cnm}
Let $a: X \rightarrow A$ be a generically finite morphism from a smooth projective variety onto an abelian variety $A$. Suppose that $\chi(\omega_X) > 0$. Then for any $n>0$ the pluri-canonical map $\phi_{nK_X}$ does not factor through $a$ rationally.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
We only need to consider the canonical map. Since $X$ is of m.A.d., we have
$p_g(X) > 1$ by Corollary \ref{rmk} (iv), and thus the canonical map $\phi_{K_X}$ is not constant.
Assume to the contrary that $\phi_{K_X} = g \circ a$ where $g: A \dashrightarrow \mathbb{P}^{p_g(X) - 1}$. By blowing up $X$ and $A$, we get a birational model of $g \circ a: X \rightarrow A \dashrightarrow \mathbb{P}^{p_g(X) - 1}$
$$\tilde{g} \circ \tilde{a}: \tilde{X} \rightarrow \tilde{A} \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{p_g(X) - 1}$$
such that both $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{a}$ are morphisms and
$$|K_{\tilde{X}}| = (\tilde{g} \circ \tilde{a})^* |\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{p_g(X) - 1}}(1)| + F = \tilde{a}^*|M| + F~ \mathrm{where}~ |M| = \tilde{g}^* |\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{p_g(X) - 1}}(1)|$$
Denote by $\tilde{R}$ the ramification divisor of $\tilde{g}: \tilde{X} \rightarrow \tilde{A}$. Then $K_{\tilde{X}} \equiv \tilde{R} + \tilde{a}^*E$ where $E$ is an effective divisor on $\tilde{A}$ exceptional w.r.t. the blowing up map $\tilde{A} \rightarrow A$. So there exists $M \in |M|$ such that $\tilde{R} + \tilde{a}^*E - \tilde{a}^*M$ is an effective divisor. Notice that $M$ is not contained in $E$. We get a contradiction by the property of the ramification divisor.
\end{proof}
\begin{Definition}[\cite{Ca} Def. 1.24]\label{prm}
Let $X$ be an irregular variety of m.A.d.. It is called \emph{primitive} if $V^i(\omega_X, \mathrm{alb}_X)$ is composed of at most finitely many points for $i>0$.
\end{Definition}
\subsection{Characterization of a theta divisor}
Imitating the proof of \cite{BLNP} Prop. 3.1, we can prove
\begin{Proposition}\label{refp}
Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety of general type equipped with a generically finite morphism $a: X \rightarrow A$ to an abelian variety $A$. Suppose that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]{$\dim V^1(\omega_X, a) = 0$;}
\item[(ii)]{$\dim X < \dim A$ and $a^*: \mathrm{Pic}^0(A) \rightarrow \mathrm{Pic}^0(X)$ is an embedding; and}
\item[(iii)]{$\chi(X, \omega_X) = 1$.}
\end{itemize}
Then A is a p.p.a.v., and $a: X \rightarrow A$ birationally maps $X$ to a theta divisor on $A$.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{Corollary}\label{ref}
Let $X$ and $a: X \rightarrow A$ be as in Proposition \ref{refp}. Assume (i), (ii) in Proposition \ref{refp} and
\begin{itemize}
\item[(iii)']{for $\alpha \in U_0:=\hat{A} \setminus V^1(\omega_X, a)$, $|\omega_X \otimes \alpha| = |M| + F_\alpha$ where $M$ is the movable part which is independent of $\alpha$ and $F_\alpha$ is the fixed part.}
\end{itemize}
Then A is a p.p.a.v., and $a: X \rightarrow A$ birationally maps $X$ to a theta divisor on $A$.
\end{Corollary}
\begin{proof}
Assumption (iii)' implies that $\mathcal{B}:= \{(x, \alpha) \in X \times U_0| x \in F_\alpha\}$ is a divisor in $X \times U_0$. Denote by $\bar{\mathcal{Y}}$ the closure of $\mathcal{B}$ in $X \times \hat{A}$. Noticing that $\mathrm{codim}_{\hat{A}}V^1(\omega_X, a)\geq 2$, by the see-saw principle we have (\cite{BLNP} Lemma 5.2)
$$\bar{\mathcal{Y}} \equiv p_1^* \omega_X(-M) \otimes \mathcal{P}_a \otimes p_2^*\mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}}(\bar{\mathcal{Y}}_p)$$
where $p \in X$ is a point mapped to $0 \in A$ via $a$.
With these settings, by similar argument as in \cite{BLNP} Lemma 5.3, we can show that $\chi(X, \omega_X) = 1$. Then we are done by Proposition \ref{refp}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Universal divisors and separation} \label{rzh}
Recall the following results from \cite{Zh} Sec. 3.
\begin{Theorem}[\cite{Zh} Theorem 2.10]\label{pf}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be two projective normal varieties, and $\mathcal{L}$ a line bundle on $X \times Y$. Assume $E= (p_2)_*\mathcal{L}$ is a vector bundle and put $P = \mathbb{P}_Y(E)$.
Note that there exists an open set $U \subset P$ parametrizing the divisors in $|\mathcal{L}_y|, y \in Y$. Denote by $\mathcal{D} \subset X \times U$ the universal family. Then its closure $\bar{\mathcal{D}} \subset X
\times P$ is a divisor, and
$$\bar{\mathcal{D}} \equiv p^*\mathcal{L} \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}_P(1)$$
where $p,q$ denote the two projections $p: X \times P \rightarrow X
\times Y$, $q: X \times P \rightarrow P$.
\end{Theorem}
Let $E$ be an $IT^0$-vector bundle on an abelian variety $A$. Then $R\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}E$ is a vector bundle $\hat{A}$. Its dual $(R\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}E)^*$ is an $IT^0$-vector bundle, and $R\Psi_{\mathcal{P}}(R\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}(E)^*) \cong E^*$ (cf. Corollary \ref{Muc}).
Let $P = \mathbb{P}_A(E^*)$, $\hat{P} =
\mathbb{P}_{\hat{A}}(R\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}(E))$, and denote by $\pi: P \rightarrow A$ and $\hat{\pi}: \hat{P} \rightarrow \hat{A}$ the natural projections. Note that
$$(p_2)_*(p_1^*\mathcal{O}_{P}(1)\otimes (\pi \times \mathrm{id}_{\hat{A}})^*\mathcal{P}) \cong R\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}(E)~\mathrm{and}~(p_1)_*(p_2^*\mathcal{O}_{\hat{P}}(1)\otimes (\mathrm{id}_{A} \times \hat{\pi})^*\mathcal{P}) \cong E^*.$$
We can identify $\hat{P}$ (resp. $P$) with the Hilbert scheme parametrizing the divisors in $\{|\mathcal{O}_{P}(1)\otimes \alpha||\alpha \in \mathrm{Pic}^0(P) = \hat{A}\}$ (resp. $\{|\mathcal{O}_{\hat{P}}(1)\otimes \hat{\alpha}||\hat{\alpha} \in \mathrm{Pic}^0(\hat{P}) = A\}$). Denote by
$\mathcal{U} \subset P \times \hat{P}$ the universal family and by $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$
the pull-back $(\pi \times \hat{\pi})^*\mathcal{P}$ of the Poincar\'{e} bundle on $A \times \hat{A}$. We have
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\mathcal{U} \equiv p_1^* \mathcal{O}_P(1) \otimes \tilde{\mathcal{P}} \otimes p_2^*\mathcal{O}_{\hat{P}}(1) $ (by Theorem \ref{pf});
\item
identifying a divisor in $|\mathcal{O}_{P}(1)\otimes \alpha|,\alpha \in \hat{A}$ with a point in $\hat{P}$, for every $x \in P$, the fiber $\mathcal{U}_x$ parametrizes all those divisors passing through $x$;
\item
for $x,y \in P$, $\mathcal{U}_x \equiv \mathcal{U}_y \Leftrightarrow \pi(x) = \pi(y), ~\mathrm{and}~\mathcal{U}_x = \mathcal{U}_y \Leftrightarrow x = y$.
\end{itemize}
We can write that
\begin{equation}\label{dec}
\mathcal{U}_x = \mathcal{H}_x + \mathcal{V}_x ~\text{and}~
\mathcal{V}_x= \mathcal{V}^1_x + \cdots + \mathcal{V}^r_x
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{H}_x$ is
the horizontal part (if $\mathrm{rank}(R\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}(E)) = 1$ then $\mathcal{H}_x = \emptyset$), $\mathcal{V}_x = \hat{\pi}^*V_x$ is the vertical part ($\mathcal{V}_x = \emptyset$ if $\mathcal{U}_x$ is irreducible), and the
$\mathcal{V}^i_x = \hat{\pi}^*V^i_x$'s are the reduced and
irreducible vertical components (two of them may equal).
In fact there is a decomposition $\mathcal{U}= \mathcal{H} + \mathcal{V}$ such that for general $x \in P$, $\mathcal{U}_x = \mathcal{H}_x + \mathcal{V}_x$.
\begin{Lemma}[\cite{Zh}, Lemma 3.3]\label{spr}
Let $x,y \in P$ be two distinct points. Write that $\mathcal{U}_x = \mathcal{H}_x +
\mathcal{V}_x $ and $\mathcal{U}_y = \mathcal{H}_y +
\mathcal{V}_y$ as in \ref{dec}. Then the following conditions are equivalent
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)]{$|\mathcal{O}_P(2)|$ fails to separate $x,y$;}
\item[(b)]{$\mathcal{H}_x= \mathcal{H}_y$ and $\mathrm{Supp}(V_x +(-1)_{\hat{A}}^*V_x) = \mathrm{Supp}(V_y +(-1)_{\hat{A}}^*V_y)$.}
\end{itemize}
\end{Lemma}
\section{The maps between two irregular varieties}\label{map}
Here we give a theorem comparing the Euler numbers of two varieties of m.A.d. and equipped with a generically finite surjective morphism.
Similar result has been proved by Tirabassi with a stronger assumption (\cite{Ti} Prop. 5.2.4). A weaker version also appeared in \cite{CLZ}, where it is applied to study the automorphism groups inducing trivial actions on cohomology of irregular varieties.
\begin{Theorem}\label{euln}
Let $\pi: X \rightarrow Z$ be a generically finite surjective morphism between two smooth projective varieties of m.A.d.. Then $\chi(\omega_X) \geq \chi(\omega_Z)$.
If moreover
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]{$\pi$ is not birational;}
\item[(ii)]{$\pi^*: \mathrm{Pic}^0 (Z) \rightarrow \mathrm{Pic}^0 (X)$ is an embedding; and}
\item[(iii)]{$\mathrm{gv}^i(\omega_X, \mathrm{a}_X)\geq 1~\mathrm{for} ~i=1,2,\cdots,\dim X-1$, where $\mathrm{a}_X:= \mathrm{alb}_Z \circ \pi: X \rightarrow Z \rightarrow \mathrm{Alb} (Z)$,}
\end{itemize}
then $\chi(X, \omega_X) > \chi(Z, \omega_Z)$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
By assumption we have a splitting $\pi_*\omega_X \cong \omega_Z \oplus \mathcal{F}$. Since $(\mathrm{a}_X)_*\omega_X$ is a GV-sheaf on $\mathrm{Alb} (Z)$, the direct summand $(\mathrm{alb}_Z)_*\mathcal{F}$ is also a GV-sheaf. Then
$$\chi(Z, \mathcal{F}) = \chi(\mathrm{Alb} (Z), (\mathrm{alb}_Z)_*\mathcal{F}) = h^0(\mathrm{Alb} (Z), (\mathrm{alb}_Z)_*\mathcal{F} \otimes \alpha) \geq 0 ~\mathrm{for~ general}~ \alpha \in \mathrm{Pic}^0 (Z),$$
and it follows that
$$\chi(X, \omega_X) = \chi(Z, \omega_Z) + \chi(Z, \mathcal{F}) \geq \chi(Z, \omega_Z).$$
Now assume (i, ii, iii). Note that
(i) implies that $\mathcal{F} \neq 0$;
(ii) implies that $R^d \Phi_\mathcal{P}((\mathrm{a}_X)_*\omega_X) \cong R^d \Phi_\mathcal{P}((\mathrm{alb}_Z)_*\omega_Z) \cong \mathbb{C}(\hat{0})$ where $d = \dim X$, thus $R^d \Phi_\mathcal{P}((\mathrm{alb}_Z)_*\mathcal{F}) = 0$;
(iii) implies that $\mathrm{gv}^i((\mathrm{alb}_Z)_*\mathcal{F}) \geq 1~\mathrm{for} ~i=1,2,\cdots,\dim X-1$.
So we conclude that $(\mathrm{alb}_Z)_*\mathcal{F}$ is a non-zero M-regular sheaf. Since $(\mathrm{alb}_Z)_*\mathcal{F}$ is CGG (cf. Proposition \ref{cgg}), for general $\alpha \in \mathrm{Pic}^0 (Z)$, we have
$$\chi(\mathrm{Alb} (Z), (\mathrm{alb}_Z)_*\mathcal{F}) = h^0(\mathrm{Alb} (Z), (\mathrm{alb}_Z)_*\mathcal{F} \otimes \alpha) > 0.$$
As a consequence we get that
$$\chi(X, \omega_X) > \chi(Z, \omega_Z).$$
\end{proof}
\section{The bicanonical map}\label{bicmap}
\begin{Assumption-Notation}\label{not2}
Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety of general type and of m.A.d., with $q(X) = \dim X = d\geq 2$. Denote by $a: X \rightarrow A$ the Albanese
map, and assume $A$ is simple, which implies that $X$ is primitive. Suppose that the bicanonical map $\phi: X \dashrightarrow \mathbb{P}^{P_2(X) - 1}$ is not birational.
\end{Assumption-Notation}
\subsection{The Fourier-Mukai transform of $\omega_X$}
\begin{Lemma}\label{pre}
$R^0\Phi_{\mathcal{P}_a}(\omega_X) \cong
\mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}}(-\hat{D})^{\oplus \chi(\omega_X)}$ where
$\hat{D}$ is an ample divisor on $\hat{A}$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $U_0 = \hat{A} \setminus V^1(\omega_X, a)$ and $\mathcal{B}_a(x) = \{\alpha \in U_0| x~ \mathrm{is ~a ~ base~ point~ of }~ |\omega_X \otimes \alpha|\}$. Applying \cite{BLNP} Theorem 4.13 gives that $\mathrm{codim}_{\hat{A}}\mathcal{B}_a(x) = 1$ for general $x \in X$. Denote by $\bar{\mathcal{Y}}$ the divisorial part of the closure of $\mathcal{B}:= \{(x, \alpha) \in X \times U_0| \alpha \in B_a(x)\}$ in $X\times \hat{A}$. We conclude that for $\alpha \in U_0$, $|\omega_X \otimes \alpha| = |M_\alpha| + F_\alpha$, where $|M_\alpha|$ is the movable part and $F_\alpha = \bar{\mathcal{Y}}_\alpha$ is the fixed part. As in \cite{BLNP} Sec. 5.1, we define a map $f: \hat{A} \rightarrow \hat{A}$. Since $\hat{A}$ is simple, we conclude that $f = \mathrm{id}_{\hat{A}}$ by \cite{BLNP} Lemma 5.1 (a). As a consequence $|M_\alpha|$ is independent of $\alpha$., i.e.,
$$|\omega_X \otimes \alpha| = |M| + F_\alpha$$
By \cite{BLNP} Lemma 5.2, we have
$$\mathcal{P}_a \cong \mathcal{O}_{X \times \hat{A}}(\bar{\mathcal{Y}}) \otimes p_1^*(\omega_X^{-1} \otimes M) \otimes p_2^*\mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}}(-\hat{D})$$
where $\hat{D}$ is a fiber $\bar{\mathcal{Y}}_p$ for some $p \in X$.
Then there is an exact sequence
$$0 \rightarrow \mathcal{P}_a^{-1} \rightarrow p_1^*(\omega_X \otimes M^{-1})\otimes p_2^*\mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}}(\hat{D}) \rightarrow p_1^*(\omega_X \otimes M^{-1})\otimes p_2^*\mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}}(\hat{D})|_{\bar{\mathcal{Y}}} \rightarrow 0$$
Applying $R^d(p_2)_*$ to the sequence above, we obtain the following exact sequence
\begin{equation}\label{3}
0 \rightarrow \tau \rightarrow (-1)_{\hat{A}}^*\widehat{\mathcal{O}_X} \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}}(\hat{D})^{\oplus \chi(\omega_X)} \rightarrow \tau' \rightarrow 0
\end{equation}
where
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)]{The rank $\chi(\omega_X)$ in the third term appears because $h^d(\omega_X \otimes M^{-1}) = h^0(M) = \chi(\omega_X)$.}
\item[(b)]{$\tau'$ is supported at the locus of the $\alpha \in \hat{A}$ such that the fiber $\bar{\mathcal{Y}}_\alpha$ of the projection $p_2: \bar{\mathcal{Y}} \rightarrow \hat{A}$ has dimension $d$. Such locus is contained in $V^1(\omega_X,a)$, hence consists of finitely many torsion points.}
\item[(c)]{Since $(-1)_{\hat{A}}^*\widehat{\mathcal{O}_X}$ (cf. Corollary \ref{rmk} (ii)) also has rank $\chi(\omega_X)$, the kernel of the map $(-1)_{\hat{A}}^*\widehat{\mathcal{O}_X} \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}}(\hat{D})^{\oplus \chi(\omega_X)}$ is the torsion part $\tau \cong \mathbb{C}(\hat{0})$ of $(-1)_{\hat{A}}^*\widehat{\mathcal{O}_X}$ (cf. \cite{BLNP} Prop. 6.1). }
\item[(d)]{Note that
$R\Psi_{\mathcal{P}}(\tau'), R\Psi_{\mathcal{P}}(\tau)~\mathrm{and}~
R\Psi_{\mathcal{P}}((-1)_{\hat{A}}^*\widehat{\mathcal{O}_X}) \cong a_*\mathcal{O}_X$ (by Theorem \ref{Mu}) are all sheaves on
$A$. Applying $R\Psi_{\mathcal{P}}$ to Sq. \ref{3}, then by using spectral sequence we conclude that $R\Psi_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}}(\hat{D})^{\oplus
\chi(\omega_X)})$ is also a sheaf, hence $\hat{D}$ is an ample
divisor on $\hat{A}$.}
\end{enumerate}
Note that
$$\mathcal{E}xt^i(\mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}}(\hat{D})^{\oplus \chi(\omega_X)}, \mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}}) = 0 ~\mathrm{if}~i\neq 0~\mathrm{and}~ \mathcal{E}xt^i(\tau, \mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}}) = \mathcal{E}xt^i(\tau', \mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}}) = 0~\mathrm{if}~i\neq d.$$
Recall that $R^i\Phi_{\mathcal{P}_a}(\omega_X) \cong (-1)_{\hat{A}}^*\mathcal{E}xt^i(\widehat{\mathcal{O}_X}, \mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}})$ (cf. Corollary \ref{rmk} (iii)). Applying $\mathcal{E}xt(-, \mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}})$ to (\ref{3}), by using spectral sequence, we conclude that
$$R^0\Phi_{\mathcal{P}_a}(\omega_X) \cong (-1)_{\hat{A}}^*\mathcal{E}xt^0(\widehat{\mathcal{O}_X}, \mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}}) \cong \mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}}(-\hat{D})^{\oplus \chi(\omega_X)}$$
\end{proof}
\subsection{The universal divisor}\label{ud}
Since $\hat{D}$ is an ample divisor on $\hat{A}$, $\mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}}(\hat{D})^{\oplus \chi(\omega_X)}$ is an $IT^0$-vector bundle, using Corollary \ref{Muc}, we have that the sheaf
$$E := (-1)_A^*R^d\Psi_{\mathcal{P}}R^{0}\Phi_{\mathcal{P}_a}(\omega_X) \cong (-1)_A^*R^d\Psi_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}}(-\hat{D})^{\oplus \chi(\omega_X)}) \cong (R\Psi_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}}(\hat{D})^{\oplus \chi(\omega_X)}))^*$$
is an $IT^0$-vector bundle such that $R^0\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}(E) = R^{0}\Phi_{\mathcal{P}_a}(\omega_X)$. By Corollary \ref{fm}, $E$ fits into the following exact sequence
\begin{equation}\label{4}
E \rightarrow a_*\omega_X \rightarrow \omega_A \rightarrow 0.
\end{equation}
Let
$$\hat{P} =
\mathbb{P}_{\hat{A}}(R^{0}\Phi_{\mathcal{P}_a}(\omega_X))=\mathbb{P}_{\hat{A}}(R^0\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}(E)) \cong \hat{A} \times \mathbb{P}^{\dim |M|}~\mathrm{and}~P = \mathbb{P}_A(E^*).$$
Then $\hat{P}$ is one component of the Hilbert scheme
parametrizing the divisors in $|K_X \otimes \alpha|, \alpha \in \hat{A}$. We denote by $\mathcal{K}
\subset X \times \hat{P}$
the universal family (cf. Theorem \ref{pf}). Let the notation $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$, $\mathcal{U}$, $\pi$ and $\hat{\pi}$ be as in Sec. \ref{rzh}.
By the proof of Lemma \ref{pre}, for $\hat{p} = (\alpha, M) \in U_0 \times \mathbb{P}^{\dim |M|} \subset \hat{P}$, where $M\in |M|$, we have
$$\mathcal{K}_{\hat{p}} = \bar{\mathcal{Y}}_\alpha + M.$$
So $(\mathrm{id}_X \times \hat{\pi})^*\bar{\mathcal{Y}} \subset \mathcal{K}$, and we can write that
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K} = \mathcal{H} + (\mathrm{id}_X \times \hat{\pi})^*\bar{\mathcal{Y}}.
\end{equation}
\begin{Fact}\label{facts}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)]
If $\mathcal{H}$ is non-empty (i.e., $\chi(X, \omega_X) > 1$), then it is dominant over $\hat{P}$, and for $\hat{p} = (\alpha, M) \in \hat{P}$, $\mathcal{H}_{\hat{p}} = M$;
\item[(b)]
for general $x \in X$, $\mathcal{H}_x = \hat{A} \times H_x \subset \hat{A} \times \mathbb{P}^{\dim |M|}$ where $H_x$ is the hyperplane in $\mathbb{P}^{\dim |M|}$ parametrizing all the divisors in $|M|$ passing through $x$;
\item[(c)]
for the divisor $\bar{\mathcal{Y}}$, denoting by $\mathcal{V}$ the sum of all the components dominant over $X$, then $\bar{\mathcal{Y}} = \mathcal{V} + p_1^*F$ where $F \subset X$ is the common fixed part of all $F_\alpha, \alpha \in U_0$;
\item[(d)]
for a general point $x \in X \setminus F$, $\mathcal{Y}_x = \mathcal{V}_x\equiv \mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}}(\hat{D}) \otimes \mathcal{P}_{a(x)}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Fact}
Let $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}_a = (a \times \hat{\pi})^*\mathcal{P}$. By Theorem \ref{pf}, we have
$$\mathcal{K} \equiv p_1^*\omega_X \otimes \tilde{\mathcal{P}}_a \otimes p_2^*\mathcal{O}_{\hat{P}}(1)~~~\mathrm{and}~~~ \mathcal{U} \equiv p_1^* \mathcal{O}_P(1) \otimes \tilde{\mathcal{P}}\otimes p_2^*\mathcal{O}_{\hat{P}}(1).$$
Observe that for a general $x \in X$, the fiber $\mathcal{K}_x$ is a divisor on $\hat{P}$ linearly equivalent to $\mathcal{O}_{\hat{P}}(1) \otimes \hat{\pi}^*\mathcal{P}_{a(x)}$, hence is a fiber of $\mathcal{U} \rightarrow P$. We can define a rational map relative over $A$
$$h: X \dashrightarrow P ~\mathrm{via}~x \mapsto \mathcal{K}_x,$$
Assume that $h$ is a morphism by blowing up $X$. There exists an open set $U \subset X$ such that the restriction $\mathcal{K}|_{U \times \hat{P}} = (h \times \mathrm{id}_{\hat{P}})^* \mathcal{U}|_{U \times \hat{P}}$. Since $\mathcal{U}$ is flat over $P$, $(h \times \mathrm{id}_{\hat{P}})^* \mathcal{U}$ is the closure of $(h \times \mathrm{id}_{\hat{P}})^* \mathcal{U}|_{U \times \hat{P}}$ in $X \times \hat{P}$, thus $(h \times \mathrm{id}_{\hat{P}})^* \mathcal{U} \subset \mathcal{K}$.
\begin{Fact}\label{fact}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] Using the see-saw principle, $\mathcal{K} = (h \times id_{\hat{P}})^*\mathcal{U} \otimes p_1^*\mathcal{O}_X(G)$ where $G$ is an effective divisor on $X$ such that
$h^*\mathcal{O}_P(1) + G \equiv \omega_X$.
\item[(2)] We have a natural homomorphism $\otimes s: h^*\mathcal{O}_P(1) \rightarrow \omega_X$ where $s \in H^0(X, \mathcal{O}_X(G))$ is a section with zero locus $G$, then pushing forward gives a homomorphism $a_*h^*\mathcal{O}_P(1) \rightarrow a_*\omega_X$.
\item[(3)]
The relative map $h: X/A \rightarrow P/A$ is induced by the homomorphism $E =\pi_*\mathcal{O}_P(1) \rightarrow
a_*h^*\mathcal{O}_P(1)$.
\item[(4)] The composite homomorphism $E \rightarrow a_*h^*\mathcal{O}_P(1) \rightarrow a_*\omega_X$ coincides with the natural homomorphism $E \rightarrow a_*\omega_X$ in (\ref{4}) up to multiplication by a non-zero constant.
\end{itemize}
\end{Fact}
We explain (4). Since $E$ is CGG, the composite homomorphism $E \rightarrow a_*h^*\mathcal{O}_P(1) \rightarrow a_*\omega_X$ is determined by its Fourier-Mukai transform $\lambda: R^0\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}E \rightarrow R^0\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}(a_*h^*\mathcal{O}_P(1)) \rightarrow R^0\Phi_{\mathcal{P}}(a_*\omega_X)$. By abuse of notation, we also use $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{K}$ for the line bundles on $P \times \hat{P}$ and $X \times \hat{P}$ linearly equivalent to $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{K}$ respectively. Then with the corresponding terms being isomorphic, we have that $\lambda$ coincides with the following natural composite homomorphism
$$\lambda': \hat{\pi}_*(p_2)_*(\mathcal{U} \otimes p_2^*\mathcal{O}_{\hat{P}}(-1)) \rightarrow \hat{\pi}_*(p_2)_*((h \times \mathrm{id}_{\hat{P}})^*\mathcal{U} \otimes p_2^*\mathcal{O}_{\hat{P}}(-1)) \rightarrow \hat{\pi}_*(p_2)_*(\mathcal{K} \otimes p_2^*\mathcal{O}_{\hat{P}}(-1)).$$
We can see that $\lambda'$ coincides with the Fourier-Mukai transform of $E \rightarrow a_*\omega_X$ in (\ref{4}) up to multiplication by a non-zero constant, then (4) follows.
\begin{Lemma}\label{embd}
If $\deg(a) > 2$, then $h : X \rightarrow P$ is an embedding generically, which means that for two general distinct points $x, y \in X$, $\mathcal{K}_x \neq \mathcal{K}_y$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Fact \ref{fact} (3, 4), the degree of the restriction map $\pi|_{h(X)}: h(X) \rightarrow A$ is $\geq \mathrm{rank}(E \rightarrow a_*h^*\mathcal{O}_P(1)) \geq \deg(a)-1$. Then we have $\deg(h) \leq
\frac{\deg(a)}{\deg(a) -1}$, and the assertion
follows easily by assumption.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The Euler number $\chi(X, \omega_X)$}
\begin{Proposition}\label{ir}
$\mathcal{V}$ is irreducible.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
We argue by contradiction. Suppose that $\mathcal{V} = \mathcal{V}^1 + \mathcal{V}^2$ is reducible. Note that both $\mathcal{V}^1$ and $\mathcal{V}^2$ are dominant over $X$ and $\hat{A}$. Fixing a general $\alpha_0$, we define two maps $\iota_i: \hat{A} \rightarrow \hat{A}$ via $\alpha \mapsto \mathcal{V}^i_\alpha - \mathcal{V}^i_{\alpha_0}$ with $\mathcal{V}^i_\alpha - \mathcal{V}^i_{\alpha_0}$ identified as an element in $\hat{A} = \mathrm{Pic}^0(X)$, which extend to two morphisms. We claim that neither of the two maps are constant. Indeed, say, if $\iota_1$ is constant, then for a general $\alpha \in \hat{A}$ $\mathcal{V}^1_\alpha \equiv \mathcal{V}^1_{\alpha_0}$ and $\mathcal{V}^1_\alpha \neq \mathcal{V}^1_{\alpha_0}$, so $\mathcal{V}^1_\alpha + \mathcal{V}^2_{\alpha_0} \equiv \mathcal{V}^1_{\alpha_0} + \mathcal{V}^2_{\alpha_0} \in |\mathcal{V}_{\alpha_0}|$, contradicting that $\mathcal{V}_{\alpha_0}$ is contained in the fixed part of $|\omega_X \otimes \alpha_0|$. Therefore, both $\iota_1$ and $\iota_2$ are surjective since $\hat{A}$ is simple. For general $\alpha \in \hat{A}$, there exist $\alpha_1, \alpha_2 \in \hat{A}$ such that $\iota_1(\alpha_1) = \alpha, \iota_2(\alpha_2) = \alpha^{-1}$. Then we conclude that
$$\mathcal{V}_{\alpha_0} = \mathcal{V}^1_{\alpha_0} + \mathcal{V}^2_{\alpha_0} \equiv \mathcal{V}^1_{\alpha_1} + \mathcal{V}^2_{\alpha_2}$$
which contradicts that $\mathcal{V}_{\alpha_0}$ is contained in the fixed part of $|\omega_X \otimes \alpha_0|$ again.
\end{proof}
\begin{Theorem}\label{eun}
The Euler number $\chi(\omega_X) = 1$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
We argue by contradiction. Suppose that $\chi(\omega_X) \geq 2$. So for general $\alpha \in \mathrm{Pic}^0 (X)$, the movable part $|M|$ of $|\omega_X \otimes \alpha|$ is non-trivial. By taking two different general elements $M_1, M_2 \in |M|$, we define a rational map $f: X \dashrightarrow \mathbb{P}^1$, and assume that $f$ is a morphism by blowing up $X$. Let $f = \pi \circ g: X \rightarrow Y \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}$ be the Stein factorization.
Since $A$ is simple and $\dim A \geq 2$, we conclude that $Y$ is a rational curve. Take a general fiber $M'$ of $g: X \rightarrow Y$. Then $M'$ is smooth, $M \equiv kM'$ for some integer $k>0$, and the restriction map of the bicanonical map $\phi|_{M'}$ is not birational.
We claim that $M'$ is not birational to a theta divisor on a p.p.a.v.. Indeed, otherwise we have $q(M') = \dim M' +1 = \dim X$, thus $q(X) = q(M') + q(Y)$. Then $X$ is birational to $M' \times \mathbb{P}^1$ by Theorem \ref{cp}, contradicting that $X$ is of general type.
It is reduced to prove that
\begin{Claim}
$M'$ is birational to a theta divisor on a p.p.a.v..
\end{Claim}
\emph{Proof of the claim:} We break the proof into 3 steps.
\underline{Step 1}: Consider the line bundle $\omega_X(M')$. For general $x\in X$, we define the locus $B'_x := \{\alpha \in \hat{A}|x~ \mathrm{is ~a ~base ~ point~of}~|\omega_X(M')\otimes \alpha|\}$. Then $\mathrm{codim}_{\hat{A}}B'_x = 1$.
Assume to the contrary that $\mathrm{codim}_{\hat{A}}B'_x > 1$. Then take two general distinct points $x,y \in X$ such that $|2K_X|$ fails to separate them. We can see that every $M \in |M|$ containing $x$ must contain $y$, thus $\mathcal{H}_x = \mathcal{H}_y$ by Fact \ref{facts} (b).
We claim that $\mathcal{V}_x = \mathcal{V}_y$, as a consequence $\mathcal{K}_x = \mathcal{K}_y$ and $a(x) = a(y)$ by Fact \ref{facts} (d).
Indeed, if not, we can choose $\alpha \in \hat{A}$ contained in $\mathcal{V}_x$ while not in $\mathcal{V}_y$ such that $-\alpha$ is not contained in $B'_y$ since $\mathrm{codim}_{\hat{A}}(B'_y) > 1$. It follows that $\mathcal{V}_\alpha$ contains $x$ but not $y$, and there exists $D \in |\omega_X(M')\otimes \alpha^{-1}|$ which does not contain $y$. Taking a divisor $M' \in |M'|$ not containing $y$, then the divisor $\mathcal{V}_\alpha + D + (k-1)M' + F \in |2K_X|$ contains $x$ but not $y$ (where $F$ is introduced in Fact \ref{facts} (c)), a contradiction.
Then we obtain a contradiction by Proposition \ref{cnm} if $\deg (a) = 2$, and by Lemma \ref{embd} if $\deg (a) > 2$.
\underline{Step 2}: $|\omega_X(M')\otimes \alpha| = |H| + F'_{\alpha}$, where the movable part $H$ is independent of general $\alpha\in \hat{A}$.
Since $\mathrm{codim}_{\hat{A}}B'_x = 1$ for general $x \in X$, similarly as in the proof of Lemma \ref{pre} we get a divisor $\bar{\mathcal{Y}}'$ dominant over $\hat{A}$, such that $|\omega_X(M')\otimes \alpha| = |H_{\alpha}| + F'_{\alpha}$ for general $\alpha \in \hat{A}$, where $|H_{\alpha}|$ is the movable part and $F'_{\alpha} = \bar{\mathcal{Y}}'_\alpha$ is the fixed part. Since $|M'|$ is base point free, we have $F'_{\alpha} \leq F_\alpha$, i.e., $\bar{\mathcal{Y}}'_\alpha \leq \bar{\mathcal{Y}}_\alpha$. There exists a non-empty open set $U \subset \hat{A}$ such that, the restriction $\bar{\mathcal{Y}}'|_{X \times U} \leq \bar{\mathcal{Y}}|_{X \times U}$, thus $\bar{\mathcal{Y}}' \leq \bar{\mathcal{Y}}$ because they are the closure of $\bar{\mathcal{Y}}'|_{X \times U}$ and $\bar{\mathcal{Y}}|_{X \times U}$ in $X \times \hat{A}$ respectively. Denote by $\mathcal{V}'$ the sum of the components of $\bar{\mathcal{Y}}'$ dominant over $X$. We have $\mathcal{V}' \leq \mathcal{V}$, thus $\mathcal{V}' = \mathcal{V}$ by Proposition \ref{ir}. Denote by $F'$ the common fixed part of $|\omega_X(M')\otimes \alpha|$. We can see that $H_{\alpha} \equiv \omega_X(M' - \mathcal{V}_\alpha -F')\otimes \alpha$ is independent of general $\alpha\in \hat{A}$. Setting $F'_{\alpha} = \mathcal{V}_\alpha + F'$, then we are done.
\underline{Step 3}: Tensoring the following exact sequence
$$0\rightarrow \omega_X \rightarrow \omega_X(M') \rightarrow \omega_{M'} \rightarrow 0$$
with $\alpha \in U_0$ and taking cohomology, we conclude that the restriction map $H^0(X, \omega_X(M')\otimes \alpha) \rightarrow H^0(M', \omega_{M'}\otimes \alpha)$ is surjective since $H^1(X,\omega_X \otimes \alpha) = 0$. Then by $|\omega_X(M')\otimes \alpha| = |H| + F'_{\alpha}$, we have that
$$|\omega_{M'}\otimes \alpha| = |H||_{M'} + F'_{\alpha}|_{M'}$$
By assumption that $A$ and $\hat{A}$ are simple, they have no proper subtorus of positive dimension, we conclude that $A$ is generated by the translates through the origin of $a(M')$, and $\dim V^1(\omega_{M'}, a|_{M'}) = 0$ by generic vanishing theorem.
The restriction morphism $a|_{M'}: M'\rightarrow A$ factors through a morphism to an abelian variety $a_{M'}: M'\rightarrow A_{M'}$, where $A_{M'}$ is the dual of the image of the natural map $(a|_{M'})^*: \mathrm{Pic}^0(A) \rightarrow \mathrm{Pic}^0 (M')$. So $(a_{M'})^*:\mathrm{Pic}^0(A_{M'}) \rightarrow \mathrm{Pic}^0(M')$ is an embedding. Write that $ a|_{M'} =\eta \circ a_{M'}: M'\rightarrow A_{M'} \rightarrow A$. Then $\eta$ is finite, and thus $\eta^*: \mathrm{Pic}^0(A) \rightarrow \mathrm{Pic}^0(A_{M'})$ is an epimorphism. So $V^1(\omega_{M'}, a_{M'}) = \eta^*V^1(\omega_{M'}, a|_{M'})$ is of dimension $0$. Applying Corollary \ref{ref} to $a_{M'}: M'\rightarrow A_{M'}$ shows that $M'$ is birational to a theta divisor.
\end{proof}
\begin{Remark}
To prove $\chi(X, \omega_X) = 1$, the simplicity of $\mathrm{Alb}(X)$ is necessary by Example \ref{eg}.
\end{Remark}
\subsection{The degree of the bicanonical map}\label{sdeg}
$\chi(X, \omega_X) = 1$ implies that $R^0\Phi_{\mathcal{P}_a}(\omega_X) \cong
\mathcal{O}_{\hat{A}}(-\hat{D})$ is a line bundle, and $\hat{P} = A$. By Fact \ref{facts}, we have that $\mathcal{K} = \bar{\mathcal{Y}}$, and for $x \in X\setminus F$, $\mathcal{K}_x = \bar{\mathcal{Y}}_x= \mathcal{V}_x$. Write that
$\mathcal{V}_x = V^1_x + ...+V^r_x$ as in Sec. \ref{rzh}.
\begin{Theorem}\label{deg}
Let the notation be as above. Then $\deg(\phi) \leq 2^r$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{spr}, if $x, y \in P$ are two distinct points such that $|\mathcal{O}_P(2)|$ fails to separate them, then
$\mathcal{H}_x = \mathcal{H}_y$
and
$$\mathcal{V}_y = ((-1)_{\hat{A}}^{\epsilon_1})^*V^1_x + \cdots +
((-1)_{\hat{A}}^{\epsilon_r})^*V^r_x, ~for~some~\epsilon_i \in \{0,1\}, i = 1,2,...,r$$
which has $2^r$ possibilities.
If $\deg(h) = 1$, then we are done since $h^*|\mathcal{O}_P(2)| \subset |2K_X|$.
If $\deg(h) > 1$, then $\deg(a) = 2$ by Lemma \ref{embd}, and thus $a$ and $h$ are birationally equivalent. The assertion follows by combining the two facts that the restriction of $|\mathcal{O}_P(2)|$ on $h(X)$ defines a map of degree $\leq 2^r$ and that the bicanonical map does not factor through $a$ rationally (cf. Proposition \ref{cnm}).
\end{proof}
\begin{Theorem}\label{spr2}
$|2K_X|$ separates the points over the same general point on $A$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
Consider the diagonal map $(a \times \phi): X \dashrightarrow A \times \mathbb{P}^{P_2(X) - 1}$. We can assume this map is a morphism by blowing up $X$, and denote by $Z$ the image. If the theorem is not true, then $X \rightarrow Z$ is not birational. Note that $a$ factors through $(a \times \phi): X \rightarrow Z$, so $(a \times \phi)^*: \mathrm{Pic}^0(Z) \rightarrow \mathrm{Pic}^0(X)$ is an embedding. Since $\chi(\omega_X) = 1$, Theorem \ref{euln} implies that $\chi(\omega_Z) = 0$, so $Z$ is birational to $A$ (\cite{BLNP}, Prop. 4.10). Therefore, $(a \times \phi): X \rightarrow Z$ is birational to $a: X \rightarrow A$, and $\phi$ factors through $a$ rationally. However, this contradicts Proposition \ref{cnm}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Remarks and an example}\label{sre}
We remark the following:
(1) $\mathcal{V}$ is irreducible (Proposition \ref{ir}), it is expected that $\mathcal{V}_x$ is irreducible for general $x \in X$. If this is true, then by Theorem \ref{deg}, the bicanonical map $\phi$ is of degree 2. Precisely, using the idea of \cite{Zh}, we know that $\phi$ factors through an involution $\sigma$, and up to a translate on $A$, the quotient map $X \rightarrow X/(\sigma)$ fits into the following commutative diagram
\[\begin{CD}
X @> >> X/(\sigma) \\
@Va VV @Va' VV \\
A @> >> A/((-1)_A)
\end{CD} \]
(2) For a primitive variety $X$, if we do not assume $A= \mathrm{Alb}(X)$ is simple, then $R^0\Phi_{\mathcal{P}_a} \omega_X \cong (\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{D}))^*$ where $\mathcal{E}$ is a vector bundle and $\mathcal{D}$ is a divisor on $\mathrm{Pic}^0 (X)$ (cf. \cite{BLNP} proof of Lemma 5.3). Assume that $\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{D})$ is an $IT^0$-vector bundle. Then $E = (R^0\Psi_{\mathcal{P}}\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{D}))^*$ is an $IT^0$-vector bundle on $A$. Similarly we can define $P, \hat{P}, \mathcal{K}$ and $\mathcal{V}$. For general $x \in X$, if $\mathcal{V}_x = \hat{\pi}^*(V^1_x + \cdots+V^r_x)$ as before, then by similar argument we can prove $\deg(\phi) \leq 2^r$. This bound is analogous to \cite{Zh} Corollary 3.4, and is optimal (cf. Example \ref{eg}). Stimulated by \cite{Zh} Theorem 1.2 and 3.5, it is expected that $A$ is decomposable if $r>1$ (Example \ref{eg} provides an evidence). So it is possible to give an upper bound to $\deg(\phi)$ relying on the numbers of the factors of $A$.
\begin{Example}\label{eg}
Let
\begin{itemize}
\item
$(A_i, \Theta_i) , i = 1,2,\cdots,r$ be $r$ simple p.p.a.v. and $A_{r+1}$ a simple abelian variety;
\item
$A = A_1 \times A_2 \times \cdots \times A_r \times A_{r+1}$;
\item
$B = p_1^*B_1 + \cdots + p_r^*B_r + p_{r+1}^*B_{r+1}$ where $B_i \in |2\Theta_i|$ is a smooth divisor on $A_i$ for $i =1,2,\cdots,r$ and $B_{r+1}\equiv 2D_{r+1}$ is a smooth very ample divisor on $A_{r+1}$;
\item
$Y \rightarrow A$ the double cover given by the relation $2L \equiv B$ where $L$ is a line bundle linearly equivalent to $p_1^*\Theta_1 + \cdots + p_r^*\Theta_r + p_{r+1}^*D_{r+1}$;
\item
$X \rightarrow Y$ a smooth resolution.
\end{itemize}
Note that $Y$ has at most canonical singularities since $B$ is a reduced simple normal crossing divisor. We denote by $\pi: X \rightarrow Y \rightarrow A$ the composed map which coincides with the Albanese map.
Immediately we have
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
$\omega_X \equiv \pi^*L$, thus $\pi_*\omega_X \cong \omega_A \oplus L$ and $X$ is primitive;
\item[(ii)]
$\pi_*\omega_X^2 \cong L \oplus \mathcal{O}_A(B)$, and the linear system $|B|$ defines a morphism of degree $2^r$ on $A$;
\item[(iii)]
$E \cong L$ is a line bundle, $P = A$ and $R\Phi_{\mathcal{P}} E$ is a vector bundle of rank $\chi(X, \omega_X) = \chi(A_{r+1}, \mathcal{O}_{A_{r+1}}(D_{r+1}))$.
\end{itemize}
We can prove that (with details left to readers)
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)]
for general $x \in X$, $\mathcal{K}_x = \mathcal{H}_x + \mathcal{V}_x^1 + \mathcal{V}_x^2 + \cdots + \mathcal{V}_x^r$ where $\mathcal{V}_x^i$ is the pull-back of the divisor on $\hat{A}_i$ parametrizing the theta divisors passing through $p_i (\pi (x))$ via the projection $\hat{P} \rightarrow \hat{A} \rightarrow \hat{A}_i$ for $i = 1,2,\cdots,r$;
\item[(2)]
the degree of the bicanonical map of $X$ is $2^r$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Example}
\section{Appendix: An inequality on the fibrations of irregular varieties}\label{inequ}
Let $f:S\rightarrow C$ be a fibration of a smooth surface and $F$ a general fiber. Beauville proved that $q(S) \leq q(F) + q(C)$; and if $q(F) \geq 2$, then the equality is attained if, and only if $S$ is birational to $C \times F$ (\cite{Beau}).
For arbitrary dimensional case, we have
\begin{Theorem}\label{ineq}
Let $f: X \rightarrow Y$ be a fibration between two smooth projective varieties and $F$ a general fiber. Then $q(X) \leq q(Y) + q(F)$, and the kernel of the restriction map $r: \mathrm{Pic}^0(X) \rightarrow \mathrm{Pic}^0(F)$ contains $f^*\mathrm{Pic}^0(Y)$, as the whole component passing through the identity point $\hat{0} \in \mathrm{Pic}^0(X)$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
The inequality has been proved in \cite{CH1} Cor. 3.5 for Iitaka fibration. We use the notation in \cite{CH1} Lemma 2.6 and Cor. 3.5 for convenience. Noticing that the natural map $\mathrm{A}(X_y) \rightarrow J$ is surjective by the proof of \cite{CH1} Lemma 2.6, the inequality $q(X) \leq q(Y) + q(F)$ is obtained by applying the proof of \cite{CH1} Cor. 3.5 straightforwardly. The remaining assertion follows from \cite{CH1} Lemma 2.6 iii).
Another approach is using Beauville's argument (\cite{Beau}) and \cite{Lan} Chap. VIII Theorem 13.
\end{proof}
\begin{Theorem}\label{cp}
Let $f: X \rightarrow Y$ be a fibration between two smooth projective varieties. Suppose that for general $y \in Y$, $\mathrm{Alb}(X_y)$ is a p.p.a.v., the general fiber $X_y$ is birational to a theta divisor $F_y \subset \mathrm{Alb}(X_y)$, and that $q(X) = q(X_y) + q(Y)$. Then $\mathrm{Alb}(X_y)$ is isomorphic to a p.p.a.v. $A$ independent of general $y \in Y$, $F_y\cong F$ where $F$ is a theta divisor on $A$, and $X$ is birational to $F \times Y$.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{ineq} and the assumption $q(X) = q(X_y) + q(Y)$, the restriction map $\mathrm{Pic}^0(X)/f^*\mathrm{Pic}^0(Y) \rightarrow \mathrm{Pic}^0(X_y)$ is an epimorphism between two abelian varieties of the same dimension, and the kernel consists of finitely many torsion points which is independent of general $y$. Then we can see that $\mathrm{Pic}^0(X_y)$ is independent of general $y$ up to isomorphisms, so is its dual $\mathrm{Alb}(X_y)$. We can assume $\mathrm{Alb}(X_y) \cong A$, and $A$ has a theta divisor $F$ such that $F_y\cong F$.
Note that $f: X \rightarrow Y$ has a birational model $f': X' \rightarrow Y$ such that the general fibers are all isomorphic to $F$. Take an equivariant resolution $\tilde{f}: \tilde{X} \rightarrow Y$ of $f': X' \rightarrow Y$ (\cite{Ka} p.14), whose general fibers are smooth and isomorphic to each other. Let $\tilde{F}$ be a general fiber of $\tilde{f}$. Since $\tilde{F}$ is of general type, using \cite{Le} Proposition 1, we know that $\tilde{f}: \tilde{X} \rightarrow Y$ is birational to $(\tilde{F} \times Z)/G \rightarrow Z/G$, where $G$ is a finite group and the action of $G$ on the product $\tilde{F} \times Z$ is compatible with the actions on each factor. The action $G$ on $\tilde{F}$ descends to $F$, and since $q(X) = q(F) + q(Y)$, $G$ induces a trivial action on $H^1(F, \mathcal{O}_F)$.
If we can show $G$ acts on $F$ trivially, then we are done. From now on fix the Albanese map $a: F \rightarrow A$, and take $\sigma \in G$. By the universal property of Albanese maps, we obtain the following commutative diagram
$$\centerline{\xymatrix{
&F \ar[d]^{a} \ar[r]^\sigma &F \ar[d]^{a}\\
&A \ar[r]^{\tilde{\sigma}} &A
}}$$
i.e., $\sigma$ extends to an isomorphism $\tilde{\sigma}$ of $A$ fixing $F$.
Since $\sigma$ acts trivially on $H^1(F, \mathcal{O}_{F})$, $\tilde{\sigma}$ acts trivially on $H^1(A, \mathcal{O}_{A})$, so it is nothing but a translate $t_a$ for some $a \in A$. Since $F$ is a theta divisor, the morphism $\phi_{F}: A \rightarrow \mathrm{Pic}^0(A)$ via $a' \mapsto t_{a'}^*F - F$ is an isomorphism. Then since $\tilde{\sigma}$ fixes $F$, we have $t_a^*F = F$, thus $a = 0$, this means $\sigma$ is identity.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
The theory of persistent homology builds a bridge between computational algebraic topology and data analysis using homology as an effective tool to associate a computable invariant to a point cloud. Other applications of the theory range from coverage problems in sensor networks to complex network theory.
The main idea is to approximate the point cloud embedded in a metric space with an increasing sequence of simplicial complexes (filtration), see \cite{(Pers),(Pers2)}.
By analysing the persistent, i.e. long living, homological features in the filtration, the shape of the point cloud can be inferred.
Multipersistent homology is a generalization of this theory in which the homology of a filtration of simplicial complexes indexed by $\mathbb N^r$ (multifiltration)
is analysed. A multifiltration represents a simplicial complex evolving along $r$ different directions.
Multipersistent homology has been introduced by Carlsson and Zomorodian in the seminal paper \cite{(Multi)}, where the authors study the classification problem for multipersistence homology modules. From then, several papers have considered these modules: the same authors and Singh in \cite{(Multi2)} developed an algorithm for computing their Gr\"{o}bner bases \cite{(CLS),(Eis)} and Chacholski et al. \cite{(Multi1)} gave a combinatorial multigraded resolution for multipersistence homology modules. The classification problem has been studied in \cite{(Kn)}.
A particular type of multifiltration is highlighted in \cite{(Multi2)} and called one-critical.
Intuitively, in the one critical case, simplices enter the filtration in one single instance rather than in non comparable states.
The algorithm in \cite{(Multi2)} works on one-critical multifiltrations optimally and on general ones, reducing them to the one-critical case by using the mapping telescope.
As observed by the authors in \cite{(Multi2)} the mapping telescope increases the size of the multifiltration exponentially in the worst case.
Therefore, although the algorithm in \cite{(Multi2)} has polynomial complexity in the one-critical case, the use of the mapping telescope introduces a bottleneck in the general case.
In this paper, we give a new presentation of multipersistence modules. By using this, we are able to extend a version of the algorithm presented in \cite{(Multi2)} to all multipersistence modules avoiding the use of the mapping telescope and therefore eliminating the bottleneck of the previous approach.
Our algorithm has polinomial complexity for all multifiltrations and in the one-critical case it essentially coincides with the one in \cite{(Multi2)}.
We will now sketch the structure of the paper.
Section $2$ introduces a construction that generates a non one-critical multifiltration from a point cloud, motivating our algorithm. In section $3$ we lay the theoretical basis: we show in fact how the modules of cycles and boundaries are isomorphic to submodules of a finitely generated free module. Embedding cycles and boundaries in the free module we can adapt the algorithm in \cite{(Multi2)} to the general case. The algorithm presented by Carlsson et al. is described in section $4$ along with some definitions from commutative algebra. Section $5$ presents our algorithm for the computation of Gr\"{o}bner bases in the general case.
\centerline{Acknowledgement}
We would like to thank W.Chacholski for useful discussions and hints.
\section{Motivating Construction}
Multifiltrations arise from data sets in many ways.
For instance, in analyzing the structure of natural images the data is filtered according to density, \cite{(Im)}.
The following generalization of the Rips Vietoris complex determines a non one-critical multifiltration from a data set.
Let $S\subset \mathbb R^2$ be a point cloud. Consider the ellipses centered in the points of $S$ with semi-axis of lenght $a$ and $b$ respectively. Fixed a direction $v\in \mathbb R^2$, we assume that the semi-axis of length $a$ is parallel to $v$.
Fixing the values of $a$ and $b$, we can build a simplicial complex on $S$ by following the same procedure used for the Rips-Vietoris complex. Given $n$ points in $S$, they define a $(n-1)$-face of the complex if the corresponding ellipses intesect two by two. According to this construction, the critical coordinates for $(n-1)$-faces correspond to couples $(a,b)$ such that $n$ ellipses of semi-axis $a$ and $b$ are tangent two by two. As $a$ and $b$ vary in $[0,\infty)$ we obtain a non one-critical multifiltered complex.
Given two points in $S$ there can be non comparable values of the semi-axes such that the corresponding ellipses are tangent. In fact there are infinitely many (see example \ref{esel}).
Note that for $a=b$ the construction is the Rips- Vietoris complex and that this multifiltration shows if some points are aligned in direction $v$.
\begin{example}
\label{esel}
Consider the origin $0$ and a point on the unitary circonference centered in the origin $(cos(t),sin(t))\,\,t\in [0,2\pi)$. We assume $v$ is the $x$-axis. For $t$ varying in $(0,\pi/2)$, the implicit function between $a$ and $b$ in the tangency point of the ellipses centered in the two points is a branch of hyperbola, see figure \ref{el}. The hyperbola degenerates continuously to the vertical and horizontal axes for $t=0$ and $\pi/2$ respectivelly. The example is quite general: the function is symmetric with respect to the $x$ and $y$ axes.
{\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{ellipses3}
\label{el}
\caption{Implicit function between the semi-axes $a$ and $b$ in the tangency point of the ellipses. }
\end{figure}}
\end{example}
\section{Theoretical setting}
Let us consider $\mathbb N^r$ equipped with the product order, i.e.\ $v = (v_1 \dotso v_r) \preceq w = (w_1 \dotso w_r)$ iff $v_i \leq w_i$ for all $i$. We denote by $R = k[x_1 \dotso x_r]$ the polynomial ring in $r$ indeterminates over a field $k$ and $\underline{x}^v$ is the monomial $x_1^{v_1} \dotsm x_r^{v_r}$.
Unless otherwise stated, we will call module a $R$\nobreakdash-module and vector space a $k$\nobreakdash-vector space. \\
A simplicial complex $X$ is called \emph{multifiltered} if we are given a family of subcomplexes $\{ X_v \}$ with $v \in \mathbb N^r$, such that $X_v \subseteq X_w$
whenever $v \preceq w$. The family $\{ X_v \}$ is called a \emph{multifiltration} of $X$. If $X$ is a finite simplicial complex, every multifiltration of $X$ stabilizes, i.e.\ there exists a multi\nobreakdash-index $v' = (v'_1 \dotso v'_r)$ such that $X_{w + e_i} \simeq X_w$ for all $w = (w_1 \dotso v'_i \dotso w_r) \in \mathbb N^r$ and $1 \leq i \leq r$, where $e_i$'s are, as usual, the vectors in $\mathbb N^r$ having one in the $i-$th entry and zero elsewhere.
We fix a filtered $d$\nobreakdash-dimensional finite simplicial complex $X$ with multifiltration $\{ X_v \}$. The vector space $C_n(X_v)$ of \n-chains in $X_v$ will be denoted by $C_n(v)$. This is the vector space with linear basis $\mathbf{B}_n(v)$, the set of \n-faces in $X_v$. The \n-faces of $X_{v'} \simeq X$ will be ordered and denoted by $\sigma^n_1, \dotsc, \sigma^n_{d_n}$ (or simply by $\sigma_i$ when $n$ is fixed) where $d_n$ is the rank of $C_n(v')$.
The \emph{multipersistence \n-chain module} (first defined in \cite{(Multi2)} and described in \cite{(Multi1)}) is the multigraded vector space
\begin{equation}
C_n = \bigoplus_v C_n(v)
\end{equation}
equipped with the left $R$\nobreakdash-action defined by the linear maps $\underline{x}^u \colon C_n(\bullet) \to C_n(\bullet + u)$ induced by the inclusions $X_\bullet \to X_{\bullet + u}$. The set of bases $\{\mathbf{B}_n(v)\}$ is closed under the module action. Indeed, $\underline{x}^w\,\mathbf{B}_n(\bullet) \subseteq \mathbf{B}_n(\bullet+w)$ for all $w \in \mathbb N^r$.
\begin{definition}
The module $D_n:=\bigoplus_{w} C_n(v^{\prime}+w).$
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
The module $D_n$ inherits the grading from $C_n$ in the obvious way and it is a free module, isomorphic to ${R}^{d_n}$, with $R$\nobreakdash-basis $\mathbf{B}_n(v')$. All the generators have multidegree zero.
\end{remark}
The \emph{multipersistence homology modules} are the homology modules of the multigraded module chain complex (see \cite{(Multi1)})
\begin{equation*}
C_\bullet \colon 0 \rightarrow C_d \xrightarrow{\partial_d} C_{d-1} \rightarrow \dotsb \rightarrow C_1 \xrightarrow{\partial_1} C_0 \rightarrow 0
\end{equation*}
obtained as the direct sum of the simplicial chain complexes of $X_v$ for all $v \in \mathbb N^r$. As usual, we denote by $Z_n\subseteq C_n$ the kernel of $\partial_n$ and with $B_{n-1}\subseteq C_{n-1}$ the image of $\partial_n$. Since multiplication by monomials is injective in $C_n$, the chain complex $C_\bullet$ is isomorphic to the shifted chain complex
\begin{equation*}
x^{v'}\,C_\bullet \colon 0 \rightarrow x^{v'}\,C_d \xrightarrow{\partial_d} x^{v'}\,C_{d-1} \rightarrow \dotsb \rightarrow x^{v'}\,C_1 \xrightarrow{\partial_1} x^{v'}\,C_0 \rightarrow 0.
\end{equation*}
Note that in general $\underline{x}^{\prime}C_n$ is a proper submodule of $D_n$. It is indeed enough to observe that $\underline{x}^v C_n((0,\dots,0))\subsetneq C_n(v^{\prime}).$\\
Since $\partial_n(D_n)\subset D_{n-1}$, as it easy to check, the following is a chain complex of multigraded modules
\begin{equation*}
D_\bullet \colon 0 \rightarrow D_d \xrightarrow{\partial_d} D_{d-1} \rightarrow \dotsb \rightarrow D_1 \xrightarrow{\partial_1} D_0 \rightarrow 0.
\end{equation*}
where the boundaries are obtained by restriction. We see $x^{v'}\,C_\bullet$ as a subcomplex of $D_\bullet.$
\begin{definition}
Let $\sigma \in \mathbf{B}_n(v')$ be a basis element of $D_n$, a \emph{critical coordinate} for $\sigma$ is a minimal $v \in \mathbb N^r$ such that there exists $\tau \in \mathbf{B}_n(v)$ with $\underline{x}^{v' - v}\,\tau = \sigma$. The element $\tau$ is called a \emph{fundamental element} associated to $\sigma$.
\end{definition}
In general, critical coordinates and fundamental elements for $\sigma \in \mathbf{B}_n(v')$ are not unique.
We denote by $\mathcal{F}_{\sigma}$ the set of fundamental elements associated to $\sigma \in\mathbf{B}_n(v')$ and by $\mathcal{C}_\sigma$ the set of corresponding critical coordinates i.e. the multi-degrees of elements in $\mathcal{F}_{\sigma}$.
The cardinality of these sets is denoted by $k_{\sigma}:=|\mathcal{F}_{\sigma}|=|\mathcal{C}_{\sigma}|$. The set $\mathcal{F}_n = \bigcup_{\sigma\in B_n(v^{\prime})} \mathcal{F}_{\sigma}$ generates the module $C_n$.
A presentation of $C_n$ is given by the short exact sequence
\begin{equation*}
0 \rightarrow \ker\varphi_n \rightarrow R^{d_n}\xrightarrow{\varphi_n} C_n \rightarrow 0
\end{equation*}
where $R^{d_n}$ is the free module with basis the fundamental elements. We define maps $\widetilde{\partial}_n \colon R^{d_n} \to D_{n-1}$ such that the following diagrams are commutative.
\begin{equation}\label{(diagcom)}
\xymatrix{
C_n \ar[rr]^{x^{v'}} \ar[dr]^{\partial_n} & & D_n \ar[dd]^{\partial_n}\\
& C_{n-1} \ar[dr]^{x^{v'}} & \\
R^{d_n} \ar[rr]^{\widetilde{\partial}_n} \ar[uu]_{\varphi_n} & & D_{n-1}
}
\end{equation}
The maps $\widetilde{\partial}_n$ are linear maps between free modules and they can thus be represented by matrices with coefficients in $R$. The columns of such matrices are the boundaries of $n$\nobreakdash-dimensional fundamental elements, shifted in $D_{n-1}$.
Each column is given by monomial entries and two elements can differ only by scalar coefficients, being the columns omogeneous elements of $D_{n-1}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{teo}
The modules $Z_n$ and $B_n$ can be calculated from matrices:
\[
B_n\simeq \underline{x}^{v^{\prime}} B_n= \Img\widetilde{\partial_{n+1}} \,\,\,\, \text{and} \,\,\,\, Z_n \simeq \underline {x}^{v^{\prime}}Z_n =\underline{x}^{v^{\prime}}\circ \varphi_n (\ker \widetilde{\partial_n}).
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The modules $Z_n$ and $B_n$ are isomorphic to
$\underline{x}^{v^{\prime}}Z_n$ and $\underline{x}^{v^{\prime}} B_n$ respectively, by the injectivity of multiplication by $\underline{x}^{v^{\prime}}$.
Considering also that diagram \ref{(diagcom)} is commutative and that $\phi_n$ is surjective, the following equalities are satisfied.
\begin{equation*}
\underline{x}^{v^{\prime}}B_n=\underline{x}^{v^{\prime}} \circ \partial_n (C_n) = \partial_n \circ \underline{x}^{v^{\prime}} (C_n)= \widetilde{\partial}_n (R^{d_n}).
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\underline{x}^{v^{\prime}}Z_n=\underline{x}^{v^{\prime}} \ker (\partial_n)=\underline{x}^{v^{\prime}} \ker (\underline{x}^{v^{\prime}}\circ\partial_n)=\underline{x}^{v^{\prime}}\circ\varphi_n (\ker \widetilde{\partial_n})
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
\label{ex}
Consider the multifiltered finite simplicial complex with four vertices, five edges and one $2$\nobreakdash-face in figure \ref{fig:example}.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{1b}
\caption{A non one-critical multifiltration}
\label{fig:example}
\end{figure*}
\noindent
The four vertices have critical coordinates $\mathcal{C}_{v_1} = \{(0,0)\}$, $\mathcal{C}_{v_2} = \{(1,0),\, (0,1)\}$, $\mathcal{C}_{v_3} = \{(2,0),\,(1,2)\}$, $\mathcal{C}_{v_4} = \{(3,0),\, (0,1)\}$. The critical coordinates for the five edges are $\mathcal{C}_{v_2v_1} = \{(0,2),\, (2,0)\}$, $\mathcal{C}_{v_3v_2} = \{(2,0)\}$, $\mathcal{C}_{v_4v_2} = \{(0,2),\,(3,0)\}$, $\mathcal{C}_{v_1v_4} = \{(0,2),\, (1,1)\}$, $\mathcal{C}_{v_3v_4} = \{(3,0)\}$. There is just one $2-$face with critical coordinate $(2,2)$. The boundary operators of the simplicial chain complex associated to $X_{(3,2)}$ are represented by the matrices
\begin{equation*}
\partial_1 = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
-1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 1 & 1
\end{pmatrix}\quad
\partial_2=\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
0 \\
1 \\
1\\
0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation*}
and the matrices of the maps $\widetilde{\partial}$ are
\begin{equation*}
\widetilde{\partial}_1 = \begin{pmatrix}
x^2 & y^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -y^2 & -xy & 0 \\
-x^2 & -y^2 & x^2 & y^2 & x^3 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -x^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -x^3\\
0 & 0 & 0 & -y^2 & -x^3 & y^2 & xy & x^3
\end{pmatrix}\quad
\widetilde{\partial}_2 = \begin{pmatrix}
x^2y^2 \\
0 \\
x^2y^2 \\
x^2y^2 \\
0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation*}
\end{example}
\subsection{One-critical case}
Following \cite{(Multi2)}, a multifiltration such that there exists a unique critical coordinate for each $\sigma \in \mathbf{B}_n(v')$ and for all $n$ is called \emph{one-critical}.
The module $C_n$ is free if and only if the corresponding multifiltration is one-critical.
In this case,
\begin{equation}\label{onec}
C_n \simeq R^{|\mathcal{F}_n|} \simeq R^{d_n}
\end{equation}
and the boundary operator $\partial_n$ can be represented as a matrix with coefficients in $R$.
It is also true that in the one-critical case the modules $Z_n$ and $B_n$ are naturally submodules of the free module $C_n$, thus it is possible to compute the quotient $H_n=Z_n/B_n$ in $C_n$.
Exploiting these properties, Carlsson et al.\ in \cite{(Multi2)} present an algorithm to compute a Gr\"{o}bner basis for multipersistence homology modules in the one-critical case.
In general there is not a natural choice for an ambient free module, but by shifting $Z_n$ and $B_n$ in $D_n$
it is possible to compute the quotient $x^{v^{\prime}}H_n\simeq H_n$ in $D_n$.
Using this device, in section $5$ we will generalize Carlsson's algorithm to all multifiltrations.
\begin{remark}
In the one critical case $\underline{x}^{v^{\prime}}:C_n\to D_n$, is an isomorphism. Therefore, in this case, we have an identification of $\widetilde{\partial}_n$ and $\partial_n$ up to isomorphisms, as one can check from diagram \ref{(diagcom)}. This gives the exact relationship between our approach and the one developed in \cite{(Multi2)}.
\end{remark}
\section{One-critical case algorithm}
In this section we will recall the basic steps of the algorithm for the one-critical case \cite{(Multi2)}. For background information on Gr\"{o}bner basis theory we refer the reader to \cite{(CLS),(Eis)}.
Let $R^N$ be a finitely generated free module with canonical basis $\{e_1,\ldots e_N\}$. Each element $f \in R^N$ is a linear combination of monomials $x^u\,e_i$. The module generated by elements $\{f_1,\ldots f_t\}$ in $R^N$ will be denoted by $<f_1,\ldots f_t>$. We fix a monomial order \cite{(CLS),(Eis)} on the monomials of $R^N$. The leading monomial $\LM(f)$ and leading coefficient $\LC(f)$ of $f \in R^N$ are respectively the greatest monomial of $f$ and its corresponding coefficient. If $F$ is a finitely generated submodule of $R^N$, then $\LM(F)$ is the submodule of $R^N$ generated by the leading monomials of the elements of $F$.
\begin{definition}
A finite set of generators $\{f_1, \dotsc, f_t\}$ for a module $F \subset R^N$ is a Gr\"{o}bner basis of $F$ if
$$
\LM\bigl(\langle f_1, \dotsc, f_t \rangle\bigr) = \bigl\langle \LM(f_1), \dotsc, \LM(f_t) \bigr\rangle
$$
\end{definition}
Using Buchberger algorithm, shown in listing \ref{buchalg}, a Gr\"{o}bner basis of $F\subset R^N$ can be computd from any finite set of generators.
\begin{definition}
For each set of elements $\{f_1, \dotsc, f_m\}\in R^N$, the syzygy module $Syz(f_1, \dotsc, f_m)$ is the kernel of the map $\psi \colon R^m \to R^N$ sending the canonical basis elements of $R^m$ to $\{ f_1, \dots, f_m\}$.
\end{definition}
A Gr\"obner basis for the sygyzy module $Syz(f_1, \dotsc, f_m)$ exists by Schreyer's theorem (see page $334$ in \cite{(Eis)}). We can compute such basis using the Wall algorithm described in \cite{(Wall)} or the Schreyer algorithm described in \cite{(Multi2)}.
Buchberger and Wall (or Schreyer) algorithms share most of their logic. The Gr\"obner bases for $\langle f_1, \dotsc, f_m \rangle$ and $Syz(f_1, \dotsc, f_m)$ can indeed be computed concurrently as shown in listing \ref{buchalg2} (using the Wall algorithm).
The algorithm described by Carlsson et al.\ in \cite{(Multi2)} uses these algorithms to compute Gr\"obner bases for all $B_n$, $Z_n$ and $H_n$ in the one-critical case. The input of the algorithm are the matrices of the maps $\partial_n$. The steps of the algorithm are the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute the (reduced) Gr\"obner basis of $B_n$ using Buchberger algorithm on the columns of $\partial_{n+1}$.
\item Compute the (reduced) Gr\"obner basis of $Z_n$ as the syzygy module of the elements corresponding to the columns of $\partial_n$.
\item Compute the quotient $H_n = B_n / Z_n$ using the multivariate division algorithm.
\end{enumerate}
The Gr\"obner bases of $B_n$ and $Z_{n+1}$ can be computed concurrently using the algorithm we have described above.
\begin{remark}
As stated in the previous section, the differential operators $\partial_n$ are matrices if and only if the multifiltration is one-critical. The previous algorithm therefore cannot be directly applied to all multifiltrations.
\end{remark}
In \cite{(Multi2)}, Carlsson et al.\ observed that the entries of the matrices of $\partial_n$ are terms whose monomials only depend on the position in the matrix. They called the matrices with this property homogeneous, highlighting the fact that the image of $\partial_n$ is given by homogeneus elements of $C_{n-1}$.
\section{General Multipersistence Algorithm}
With our algorithm we compute, starting from general multifiltrations, reduced Gr\"obner bases of $\underline{x}^{v'}\,B_n$, $\underline{x}^{v'}\,Z_n$ and $\underline{x}^{v'}\,H_n\simeq H_n$ for all $n\in\{0\ldots d\}.$
To compute a Gr\"obner basis for $\underline{x}^{v'}\,B_n$ we can use the Buchberger algorithm (as in step 1 of \cite{(Multi2)} ) on the columns of $\widetilde{\partial}_{n+1}$. \\
To compute a Gr\"obner basis for $\underline{x}^{v'}\,Z_n$ we first compute the syzygy module of the elements corresponding to the columns of the matrix $\widetilde{\partial}_n$ (as in step 2 of \cite{(Multi2)}). This is however a submodule of $R^{\mathcal F_n}$. To obtain a Gr\"obner basis of $\underline{x}^{v'}\,Z_n$ as desired, it is thus necessary to map the result in $D_n$. \\
The multivariate dision algorithm (step 3 of \cite{(Multi2)}) can be used without any modifications to compute a Gr\"obner basis of the quotient $x^{v^{\prime}}Z_n/x^{v^{\prime}}B_n$.\\
\begin{remark}
Observe that the matrices $\widetilde{\partial_n}$ are homogeonous matrices, this implies that the computational complexity of our algorithm is polynomial.\\
The algorithm in \cite{(Multi2)} is in fact polynomial beacuse the matrices are homogeneous and we perform the same operations, adding only multiplication by a matrix that is polynomial.
\end{remark}
\begin{example}
We will now compute Gr\"{o}bner bases for the significant modules arising from the multifiltration in figure \ref{fig:example}.
In this example the only non trivial homologies are $H_0$ and $H_1$.
The modules $H_0$ and $H_1$ are isomorphic to $Z_0$ and $Z_1$ respectively. The information given by the couple $(Z_n, B_n)$ is anyway more informative than the quotient $H_n$ to understand the birth and death of generators in terms of multi-degree.
As already stated, it is necessary to embed $Z_n$ and $B_n$ in $D_n$ to compute Gr\"{o}bner bases.\\
The reduced Gr\"{o}bner bases for $x^3 y^2 Z_0$ and $x^3 y^2 B_0$ are
\[
Gb(x^3 y^2 Z_0)\begin{Bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
1\\
0\\
0\\
0
\end{pmatrix};&
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
x\\
0\\
0
\end{pmatrix};&
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
y\\
0\\
0
\end{pmatrix};&
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
0\\
x^2\\
0
\end{pmatrix};&
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
0\\
xy^2\\
0
\end{pmatrix};&
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
0\\
0\\
x^3
\end{pmatrix};&
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
0\\
0\\
y
\end{pmatrix}
\end{Bmatrix}
\]
and
\[
Gb(x^3 y^2 B_0)= \begin{Bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
0\\
x^2y\\
x^2y
\end{pmatrix};&
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
0\\
x^3\\
x^3
\end{pmatrix};&
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
y^2\\
0\\
y^2
\end{pmatrix};&
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
x^2\\
x^2\\
0
\end{pmatrix};&
\begin{pmatrix}
y^2\\
0\\
0\\
y^2
\end{pmatrix};&
\begin{pmatrix}
xy\\
0\\
0\\
xy
\end{pmatrix};&
\begin{pmatrix}
x^2\\
0\\
x^2\\
0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{Bmatrix}
\]
The reduced Gr\"{o}bner bases for $x^3 y^2 Z_1$ and $x^3 y^2 B_1$ are
\[Gb(x^3 y^2 Z_1)=\begin{Bmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
x^3y\\
0\\
x^3y \\
x^3y\\
0\\
\end{pmatrix};&
\begin{pmatrix}
y^2\\
0\\
y^2 \\
y^2\\
0
\end{pmatrix};&
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
x^3\\
x^3 \\
0\\
x^3
\end{pmatrix}
\end{Bmatrix}
\quad \text{and}\quad
Gb(x^3 y^2B_1) =
\begin{Bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
x^2y^2\\
0\\
x^2y^2\\
x^2y^2\\
0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{Bmatrix}
\]
\end{example}
\newpage
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Buchberger algorithm}
\label{buchalg}
\begin{algorithmic}
\Function{Buchberger}{$f_1, \dotsc, f_m$}
\State $\mathcal{G} \gets \{ f_1, \dotsc, f_m \}, \quad \mathcal{P} \gets \{$ \Call{Svector}{$f_i, f_j$} $\neq 0 \mid 0 \le i < j \le s \}$
\ForAll{$p \in \mathcal{P}$}
\State $\mathcal{P} \gets \mathcal{P} - \{ p \}$
\If{$h = $ \Call{Reduce}{$p, G$} $\neq 0$}
\State $\mathcal{G} \gets \mathcal{G} \cup \{ h \}, \quad \mathcal{P} \gets \mathcal{P} \cup \{$ \Call{Svector}{$g, h$} $\neq 0 \mid g \in \mathcal{G} \}$
\EndIf
\EndFor
\State \Return $\mathcal{G}$
\EndFunction
\Function{Svector}{$f_1, f_2$}
\State $c \gets \LC(f_1)/\LC(f_2), \quad s_{ij} = \lcm\bigl(\LM(f_i), \LM(f_j)\bigr)/\LM(f_j)$
\State \Return $s_{21}\,f_1 - c\,s_{12}\,f_2$
\EndFunction
\Function{Reduce}{$f, \{ g_1, \dotsc, g_t\}$}
\While{there exists a $g_i$ such that $\LM(g_i)$ divides $\LM(f)$}
\State $c \gets \bigl( \LC(f)\,\LM(f) \bigl)/\bigl( \LC(g_i)\,\LM(g_i) \bigr), \quad f \gets f - c\,g_i$
\EndWhile
\State \Return $f$
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Buchberger algorithm with syzygy computation}
\label{buchalg2}
\begin{algorithmic}
\Function{BuchbergerWithSyzygy}{$f_1, \dotsc, f_m$}
\State $\mathcal{G} \gets \{ (f_1, \epsilon_1), \dotsc, (f_m, \epsilon_m) \}, \quad \mathcal{S} \gets \emptyset$
\State $\mathcal{P} \gets \{$ \Call{Svector}{$(f_i, \epsilon_i), (f_j, \epsilon_j)$} $\neq 0 \mid 0 \le i < j \le s \}$
\ForAll{$p \in \mathcal{P}$}
\State $\mathcal{P} \gets \mathcal{P} - \{ p \}$
\If{$(h, s) = $ \Call{Reduce}{$p, G$} $= (0, s)$}
\State $\mathcal{S} \gets \mathcal{S} \cup \{ s \}$
\Else
\State $\mathcal{G} \gets \mathcal{G} \cup \{ h \}, \quad \mathcal{P} \gets \mathcal{P} \cup \{$ \Call{Svector}{$g, h$} $\neq 0 \mid g \in \mathcal{G} \}$
\EndIf
\EndFor
\State $\mathcal{G}' \gets \{ g \mid (g, s) \in \mathcal{G} \}$
\State \Return $(\mathcal{G}, \mathcal{S})$
\EndFunction
\Function{Svector}{$(f_1, s_1), (f_2, s_2)$}
\State $c \gets \LC(f_1)/\LC(f_2), \quad s_{ij} = \lcm\bigl(\LM(f_i), \LM(f_j)\bigr)/\LM(f_j)$
\State \Return $(s_{21}\,f_1 - c\,s_{12}\,f_2, s_{21}\,s_1 - c\,s_{12}\,s_2)$
\EndFunction
\Function{Reduce}{$(f, s), \{ (g_1, s_1), \dotsc, (g_t, s_t)\}$}
\While{there exists a $g_i$ such that $\LM(g_i)$ divides $\LM(f)$}
\State $c \gets \bigl( \LC(f)\,\LM(f) \bigl)/\bigl( \LC(g_i)\,\LM(g_i) \bigr)$
\State $f \gets f - c\,g_i, \quad s \gets s - c\,s_i$
\EndWhile
\State \Return $(f, s)$
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\newpage
|
\section*{Abstract}
Consider the capillary water waves equations, set in the whole space with infinite depth,
and consider small data (i.e. sufficiently close to zero velocity, and constant height of the water).
We prove global existence and scattering. The proof combines in a novel way the energy method
with a cascade of energy estimates, the space-time resonance method and commuting vector fields.
\section{Introduction}
In this manuscript we consider the global existence and asymptotic behavior of surface waves for an
irrotational, incompressible, and inviscid fluid in the presence of surface tension. The fluid velocity is given by Euler's equation in a domain $\mathcal{U}$:
\[
\mathcal{U}=\bigcup_t\mathscr{D}_t, \quad \mathscr{D} = \mathscr{D}_t = \{ (x,z) = (x_1,x_2,z) \in \mathbb{R}^3 , z\leq h(x,t) \},
\]
and the free boundary of the fluid at time $t$
\[
\mathscr{B}=\mathscr{B}_t= \{ (x,h(x,t)), x \in \mathbb{R}^2\}=\partial\mathscr{D}
\]
moves by the normal velocity of the fluid. The surface tension is assumed to be proportional (by the coefficient $c$) to the mean curvature $\kappa$ of $\mathscr{B}$ and we neglect the presence of gravity.
In this setting the Euler equation for the fluid velocity $v$, and the boundary conditions are given by
\begin{subequations}\label{CW}
\begin{align}
&\begin{cases}
{D}_tv\stackrel{def}{=}\partial_t v + \nabla_v v = -\nabla p \quad (x, z) \in \mathscr{D},\\
\nabla \cdot v =0 \quad (x, z) \in \mathscr{D},\\
\end{cases}\\
&
\begin{cases}
\partial_t h+ \nabla_v (h-z)=0 \quad (x,z)\in \mathscr{B},\\
p= c\kappa, \quad (x,z)\in \mathscr{B}.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\nabla =(\partial_1, \partial_2,\partial_z)$. Since the flow is assumed to be irrotational, the Euler equation can be reduced to an equation on the boundary and thus the system of equations (E--BC) reduces to a system
defined on $\mathscr{B}$. This is achieved by introducing the potential $\psi_{\mathcal{H}}$ where $v= \nabla \psi_{\mathcal{H}}$. Denoting the trace of the potential on the free
boundary by $\psi(x,t) = \psi_{\mathcal{H}} (x,h(x,t),t)$, the system of equations for $\psi$ and $h$ are (see for instance~\cite{SuSu})
\begin{equation}\label{ww}
\tag{WW}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l} \partial_t h = G(h) \psi \\
\partial_t \psi = c \kappa -\frac{1}{2} |\partial \psi|^2 + \frac{1}{2(1+|\partial h|^2)} \left(G(h) \psi + \partial h \cdot \partial \psi \right)^2 \\
(h,\psi)(t=0) = (h_0,\psi_0). \end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where
$$
G(h) \psi = \sqrt{1 + |\partial h|^2} \mathcal{N}(h) \psi \sim \Lambda \psi + \hbox{(quadratic)},
$$
$\mathcal{N}$ being the Dirichlet-Neumann operator associated with $\mathscr{D}$; $\partial= (\partial_1,\partial_2)$;
$\Lambda = |\partial|$; and where the mean curvature can be expressed as
$$
\kappa = \frac{1}{2} \partial \cdot \left( \frac{\partial h}{\sqrt{1+|\partial h |^2}} \right) \sim
\frac12 \Delta h + \hbox{(cubic)}.
$$
In the sequel we take $c=2$ for simplicity.
The dispersive nature of \eqref{ww} is revealed by writing the linearization of this system around $(h,\psi)=(0,0)$:
\begin{equation} \label{Lin}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l} \partial_t h = \Lambda \psi, \\
\partial_t \psi = \Delta h,
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
where $\mathfrak{R}_i$ are at least quadratic in $(h,\psi)$. By setting
$$
u \overset{def}{=} \Lambda^{1/2} h + i \psi \;\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;\; u_0 \overset{def}{=} \Lambda^{1/2} h_0 + i \psi_0,
$$
the above system can be written as a single equation
\begin{equation}\label{WWlin}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_t u = - i \Lambda^{3/2} u + \mathfrak{R} \\
u(t=0) = u_0.
\end{array}
\right.,
\end{equation}
where $\mathfrak{R} = \Lambda^\frac{1}{2}\mathfrak{R_1}+ i \mathfrak{R_2}$
\subsection{Known results}
A great number of works has been devoted to local well-posedness of the water wave problem. These works consider the problem with gravity, capillarity, or both;
it is furthermore possible to allow domains of finite depth. The small data problem was first addressed by Nalimov~\cite{NA74}
(see also H.~Yoshihara \cite{YO82}), but the first breakthrough in solving the local well-posedness problem with general data is due to Wu~\cite{WU97,WU99}.
There are many other works on local well-posedness: we mention in particular Craig \cite{CA85},
Christodoulou and Lindblad \cite{CL00}, Lannes \cite{LA05}, Coutand and Shkoller \cite{CS05}, Ambrose and Masmoudi \cite{AM05,AM07,AM09}, Shatah and Zeng \cite{SZ06},
Alzazard, Burq and Zuily~\cite{ABZ}.
In connection with the local regularity problem, Christianson, Hur and Staffilani~\cite{CHS} and Alazard, Burq and Zuily~\cite{ABZ2} have been able to prove recently
a nonlinear smoothing effect.
Fewer works address the global evolution problem; all results are then restricted to small data.
The first progress in this direction is due to Wu~\cite{Wu0}, who proved almost global existence of gravity waves in dimension 2.
The authors of the present paper~\cite{GMS3} could then prove global existence of gravity water waves in dimension 3. A very similar result was obtained later
by Wu~\cite{Wu}, using a different proof. We shall come back later to the methods of proof employed.
Another line of research has been concerned with traveling waves. We focus on fully localized traveling waves in dimension 3
(that is, two-dimensional interface). Such waves have been constructed recently by Groves and Sun~\cite{GS}, and Buffoni, Groves, Sun and Wahl\'en~\cite{BGSW}. The setting
is that of gravity-capillary waves of finite depth: denote respectively $c$, $g$ and $h$ for the capillarity coefficient, gravity, and the depth of the fluid,
and define the Bond number $\beta = \frac{c}{g h^2}$. The aforementioned works show that if $\beta > \frac{1}{3}$, traveling waves of arbitrarily small size in $L^2$ exist.
This should be contrasted with our main theorem here: we prove that for $c>0$, $g=0$, $h=\infty$, small data lead to scattering for large time. In our main theorem however,
smallness is expressed in weighted $L^2$ spaces, and it is not clear to which weighted $L^2$ spaces the traveling waves of Buffoni, Groves, Sun and Wahl\'en belong. For a more general account of traveling waves, we refer to the recent book of Constantin~\cite{Constantin}.
\subsection{Main theorem}
To state our main result we need to introduce the following notation: let
$$
\partial \overset{def}{=} (\partial_1,\partial_2), \;\;\;\; \Omega \overset{def}{=} x^1 \partial_2 - x^2 \partial_1=\omega^i\partial_i, \;\;\;\;
\mbox{ and }\;\;\;\; \mathcal{S} \overset{def}{=} \frac{3}{2}t\partial_t + x^i\partial_i,
$$
and let $\Gamma$ denote any of the fields $\Gamma= \mathcal{S}, \Omega$, or $\partial^3$, where $\partial^3=\partial_1^{i_1}\partial_2^{i_2}$ with $i_1 +i_2 =3$. We adopt the multiindex
notation: if $\gamma = (\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3) \in \mathbb{N}^3$,
$$
\Gamma^\gamma = \mathcal{S}^{\gamma_1} \Omega^{\gamma_2} \partial^{3 \gamma_3}.
$$
We shall also need the spatial part of $\mathcal{S}$
$$
\Sigma \overset{def}{=} x^i\partial_i.
$$
Recall the classical Sobolev space $W^{k,p}$, whose norm reads
$$
\left\| u \right\|_{W^{k,p}} \overset{def}{=} \left\| \left( 1 + \Lambda^k \right) u \right\|_p.
$$
For $k$ a positive real number and $\ell$ an integer, define the weighted Sobolev space $W^{k,p}_\ell$ by its norm
$$
\left\| u \right\|_{W^{k,p}_\ell} \overset{def}{=} \sum_{|\gamma|\leq \ell} \left\| \Gamma^\gamma u \right\|_{W^{k,p}}.
$$
Recall that $u = \Lambda^{1/2} h + i \psi$, where $(h,\psi)$ are given by \eqref{ww}.
\begin{thm}
Assume that the initial data $u_0$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{conditiondata}
\| \Lambda^{1/2} u_{0} \|_{W^{9/2,2}_{2K} ( \mathbb{R}^2 )}
+ \| \Lambda^{\alpha_*} u_0 \|_{W^{0,2}_{2K}( \mathbb{R}^2 ) }
< \epsilon,
\end{equation}
where $K\geq 10$, and $\epsilon,\alpha_*> 0$ are sufficiently small.
Then there exists a global solution $u$ of \eqref{WWlin} such that
$ \| u\|_X \lesssim \eps $ (where the $ \| \, \|_X$ norm is defined in section \ref{tech}).
Furthermore, this solution scatters, i.e. there exists a solution $u_\ell$ of the linearized problem
$$
\partial_t u_\ell = - i \Lambda^{3/2} u_\ell
$$
such that
$$
\left\| \Lambda^{1/2} \left( u(t) - u_\ell(t) \right) \right\|_2 \rightarrow 0 \qquad \mbox{as $t\rightarrow \infty$}.
$$
\end{thm}
\begin{remark}
Consider $h_0 \in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^2)$ and $v_0 \in \mathcal{S}(\mathcal{D}_0)$ such that $\operatorname{curl} v = \operatorname{div} v = 0$.
Then the data $\mu (h_0,v_0)$ satisfy the hypotheses of the theorem if $\mu$ is small enough. However note that if we took $\alpha_* =0$ in the theorem above, namely that
$ \| u_0 \|_{W^{0,2}_{2K}( \mathbb{R}^2 ) }
< \epsilon $
then $\mu (h_0,v_0)$ would not satisfy the hypotheses of the theorem unless
a moment condition is satisfied by $v_0$.
Thus by requiring $\alpha_*>0$ we allow a larger class of data at the expense of complicating the proof, since such a condition on the initial data makes $\partial h$
decay at a polynomial rate slower than $1/t$ (even at the linear level!).
\end{remark}
The proof of this result is based on combining in a new way 1) the vector field method (see Klainerman \cite{Klainerman}) which is based on invariances of the equation, 2) A cascade of energy
estimates, 3) dispersive bounds and 4)
the space time resonance method \cite{GMS1,GMS3}, which is based on resonant interactions of waves. Below we give a brief and {\it simplified} description of the ideas of the proof.
\subsection{Discussion of the difficulties and the method}
There are several difficulties that distinguish this problem from the gravity water waves problem, namely:
\paragraph{ \it 1) Low frequencies} The group velocity for capillary waves is given by $\frac32|\xi|^{1/2}$ while for gravity water waves it is given by
$\frac12|\xi|^{-1/2}$. This makes high frequency capillary waves disperse faster than gravity waves, but it also causes low frequency waves to decay very slowly.
For the long time behavior the low rate of dispersion of low frequencies is more problematic. In particular, in our setting, the quantity $\| \nabla h \|_{L^\infty}$ decays
at a polynomial rate slower than $1/t$. This slow decay combined with the commutation properties of the
vector fields causes a cascading growth on the weighted energy
estimates.
\paragraph{\it 2) Quadratic resonances} A second difficulty is linked with the fact that $\xi \to |\xi|^{3/2}$ is convex rather than concave as in the gravity water waves
problem. Hence there are non trivial (time) quadratic resonances. This was not the case for the gravity water waves.
\paragraph{\it 3) Weighted energy estimates} In this work, we chose to estimate $u$ in weighted energy spaces given by the invariances of the equation, rather than estimating,
say $xf$ in $L^2$. This gives better control, since the invariant vector fields have better commuting properties than commuting $x$ in the equation of the profile. The presence
of quadratic time resonances in this problem also makes bounding $xf$ in $L^2$ a delicate question.
Through the use of vector fields, we actually integrate the vector fields method and the space time resonance method to prove our result. The steps in our proof are
reminiscent of the proof of global existence in three dimensions for nonlinear wave equations satisfying the null condition by
Klainerman~\cite{Klainerman2}, see also Sogge~\cite{Sogge}. In these works, the null condition is utilized via a {\it{pointwise}} bound for the quadratic term of the type
(we denote $Q$ for the quadratic term, and $\Gamma$ for the vector fields) $|Q(u,u)| \leq \frac{C}{t} |\Gamma u| |\Gamma u|$. This inequality in turn is deduced from
an algebraic identity. For our problem such an algebraic identity does not exists for quadratic terms. However by analyzing the space time resonant frequencies and the
null structure, all cancellations can be taken into account and this makes it possible for us to close our argument. Another difference is that here we need to use a cascade of energy estimates
with controlled growth bounds.
\section{Sketch of the proof}
\subsection{Ideas of the proof}
\subsubsection*{1) \it Weighted Energy estimates}
The basic estimate is the conservation of energy
$$
\int_\mathscr{D} |v|^2 \,dxdz + \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} (\sqrt{1 + |\partial h|^2} -1) \,dx
= \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \psi G(h) \psi \,dx +
\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} (\sqrt{1 + |\partial h|^2} -1) \,dx
$$
which is a consequence of invariance under time translation.
Higher energy estimates are derived by using the geometric structure of the problem, as was done in \cite{SZ06}. This essentially propagates the regularity of $u$ at a rate of $3/2$ spatial derivatives at a time, which can be seen from the model linear problem $ \partial_tu =- \Lambda^{\frac 32} u$. To simplify our presentation we elect to propagate the spatial regularity at twice that rate, i.e., $3$.
Since weighted energy estimates are derived from invariances of the equation \cite{Klainerman}, we note that ransformations that keep \eqref{ww} invariant are:
\begin{inparaenum}[\itshape a\upshape)]
\item {\it space translations}, $(h(t,x),\psi(t,x))\mapsto (h(t,x+\delta),\psi(t,x+\delta))$ for $\delta\in\mathbb{R}^2$;
\item {\it space rotations}, $(h(t,x),\psi(t,x))\mapsto (h(t,R_\theta x),\psi(t,R_\theta x))$ for any $\theta$, where $R_\theta$ is the rotation of angle $\theta$ around the origin; and
\item {\it scaling}, $(h(t,x),\psi (t,x)) \mapsto \left(\frac{1}{\lambda} h (\lambda^{3/2} t,\lambda x),\frac{1}{\lambda^{1/2}}\psi(\lambda^{3/2}t,\lambda x) \right)$ for any
$\lambda >0$.
\end{inparaenum} The vector fields associated with these transformations are given by $\partial$, $\Omega$, and $\mathcal{S}$.
Since these vector fields are derived from the symmetries of the equation, they have good commutation properties. Combining them with the physical energy, this naturally leads to the weighted Sobolev spaces defined above. We show that the norm with the highest number of derivatives or vector spaces grows slowly in time (like a small power of $t$):
$\| \Lambda^{1/2} u_{0} \|_{W^{9/2,2}_{2K} ( \mathbb{R}^2 )}
+ \| \Lambda^{\alpha_*} u_0 \|_{W^{0,2}_{2K}( \mathbb{R}^2 ) } \lesssim t^{\delta'}$.
These energy estimates are performed in Section~\ref{sectionenergy}.
\subsubsection*{\it 2) Dispersive bound} The weighted energy estimate relies crucially on the decay of $\Lambda^{1/2+\alpha}u$ in $W^{5,\infty}_K$ at the rate $1/t$.
It is obtained from the linear estimate
$$
\left\| \Lambda^{1/2} e^{-it\Lambda^{3/2}} f \right\|_{L^\infty} \lesssim \frac 1t \sum_{|k|\leq 3} \left\| Y(\partial) \Sigma \Omega^k f \right\|_{L^2},
$$
where $Y(\partial) = |\partial|^{\iota} + |\partial|^{-\iota}$ for arbitrary small $\iota$, derived in Appendix~\ref{sectionlindecay}.
\subsubsection*{3) Space-time resonances} For the above linear estimate to yield the desired decay of $\Lambda^{1/2+\alpha} u$ in $W^{5,\infty}_K$ at the rate $1/t$,
it is easily seen that a uniform in time bound on $\Lambda^\alpha u$ in $W^{7,2}_{4+K}$ suffices. This is obtained by the method of space-time resonances;
the key analytic property of $(WW)$ being the vanishing of the quadratic interactions at the space time resonant waves. We briefly explain this below.
\label{QR}
The space-time resonances method identifies the wave interactions which lead to significant contributions to the long time dynamics of solutions. It also presents
an algorithmic method of how to deal with these interactions. It was introduced by the authors
and proved very efficient in dealing with the global existence problem for a variety of dispersive equations: nonlinear Schr\"odinger~\cite{GMS1}~\cite{GMS2}, nonlinear
Klein-Gordon~\cite{PG2}, gravity water waves~\cite{GMS3}, Euler-Maxwell~\cite{GM}.
We refer the reader to~\cite{PG1} for a comprehensive presentation of the method.
For \eqref{ww} the most significant interaction comes from the quadratic terms which
can be computed explicitly by using the expansion for $G(h)$ contained in Sulem and Sulem~\cite{SuSu}
$$
\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \partial_t h = \Lambda \psi - \nabla \cdot(h \nabla \psi) - \Lambda (h \Lambda \psi) \mbox{ + cubic and higher order terms}\\
\partial_t \psi = \Delta h - \frac{1}{2} |\nabla \psi|^2 + \frac{1}{2} |\Lambda \psi|^2 \mbox{ + cubic and higher order terms}. \end{array}\right.
$$
By writing the solution $u = \Lambda^{1/2} h + i \psi,
$ in terms of its profile $u(t) = e^{-it\Lambda^{3/2}} f(t)$, and using Fourier transform, one quickly discovers that the worst quadratic interaction, as far as space-time
resonances are concerned, is $u$ with $\bar u$. The space time resonant frequencies in this case are given by $ \mathcal{R}_{+-} = \{(\xi,\eta) ; \quad \xi= 0 \}$.
The vanishing of these quadratic interactions seems needed, which is the case for \eqref{ww}. These calculations are carried out in Section~\ref{sectionnonlindecay}.
\subsection{Detailed plan of the proof}
\label{tech}
Since local well-posedness is not an issue, the whole proof consists of a global a priori estimate. Define
\begin{enumerate}
\item The energy norm
$$
\|u\|_{\operatorname{energy}} \overset{def}{=} \sup_t \sum_{j=0}^{2K} \<t\>^{-(j+1) \delta} \left\| \Lambda^{1/2} u \right\|_{W^{3(2K-j)+9/2,2}_j}
$$
\item The decay norm
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\| u\|_{\operatorname{decay}} \overset{def}{=} & \sup_t \left[ \<t\>^{-\delta'} \left\| Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^\alpha u \right\|_{W^{9,2}_{8+K}}
+ \left\|Y(\partial)^2 \Lambda^\alpha u \right\|_{W^{7,2}_{4+K}} \right] \\
& + \sup_t \sup_{0 \leq \beta \leq 1/2} \left[ \<t\>^{1-\delta'-\frac{2}{3} \beta} \left\| Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^{\frac{1}{2} + \alpha - \beta} u \right\|_{W^{7,\infty}_{4+K}}
+ \<t\>^{1-\frac{2}{3} \beta} \left\| Y(\partial) \Lambda^{\frac{1}{2} + \alpha - \beta} u \right\|_{W^{5,\infty}_K} \right].
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\item The global norm
$$
\|u\|_{X} \overset{def}{=} \|u\|_{\operatorname{energy}} + \| u\|_{\operatorname{decay}}
$$
\end{enumerate}
We can now define all the parameters appearing in the proof:
\begin{itemize}
\item $K \geq 10$ controls the number of derivatives (see~(\ref{conditiondata})).
\item $\iota << \alpha,\epsilon $: auxiliary parameter appearing in $Y(\xi)$, used when summing dyadic pieces.
\item $\alpha_* <<1$: (fractional) number of derivatives of $u_0$ in $L^2$ for small frequencies (see~(\ref{conditiondata})).
\item $\alpha = \alpha_* + 3 \iota<<1$: used in the definition of $\|u\|_{\operatorname{energy}}$ and $\|u\|_{\operatorname{decay}}$.
\item $\epsilon << 1$: controls the size of the initial data in $X$ (see~(\ref{conditiondata})).
\item $R >> 1$: large parameter which we do not set yet. It will be such that the solution satisfies $\|u\|_X < R \epsilon$.
\item $\delta = \sup (C_0 R \epsilon, \alpha)<<1$, for a big enough constant $C_0$: time growth rate, appears in the definition of $\|u\|_{\operatorname{energy}}$.
\item $\delta' = (2K+1) \delta<<1$: time growth rate, appears in the definition of $\|u\|_{\operatorname{decay}}$.
\end{itemize}
The steps in proving the global a priori estimate are as follows:
\subsubsection*{Control of the energy norm.} This is obtained in Section~\ref{sectionenergy}. There it is proved (Proposition~\ref{prop:hs} and Proposition~\ref{prop:energy})
that if the data is such that \eqref{conditiondata} holds
and $\|u\|_X < R \epsilon$, then
$$
\left\| u\right\|_{\operatorname{energy}} \leq C_1' \epsilon,
$$
for some constant $C_1'$ uniform in $R$ as long as $R\epsilon <<1$.
\subsubsection*{Control of the decay norm.} This is obtained in Section~\ref{sectionnonlindecay}.
There it is proved (Proposition~\ref{eagle}) that if the data is such that \eqref{conditiondata} holds and $\|u\|_X < R \epsilon$, then
$$
\left\| u\right\|_{\operatorname{decay}} \leq C_1'' \left( \epsilon + \|u\|_X^2 \right),
$$
for some constant $C_1''$ uniform in $R$ as long as $R\epsilon <<1$.
\subsubsection*{Control of the $\|\, \|_X$ norm.} From the two previous points, we deduce that if
the data is such that \eqref{conditiondata} holds
and $\|u\|_X < R \epsilon $,
then
$$
\left\| u\right\|_X \leq C_1 \left( \epsilon + \|u\|_X^2 \right),
$$
for some constant $C_1 \geq 1$ uniformly in $R$ as long as $R\epsilon <<1$. For $\epsilon$ sufficiently small, the inequalities
$$
x \leq C_1 (\epsilon + x^2) \quad \mbox{and} \quad x \geq 0
$$
hold on two connected components, $[0,x_1]$ and $[x_2,\infty]$ with $x_1 < x_2$ and $x_1 \sim C_2 \epsilon$, for a constant $C_2$.
Picking $R>C_2$, we get the desired estimate $\|u\|_X < R \epsilon$ by a continuity argument.
\subsection{Notations}
We adopt the following standard notations
\begin{itemize}
\item $A \lesssim B$ if $A \leq C B$ for some implicit constant $C$. The value of $C$ may change from line to line.
\item $A \sim B$ means that both $A \lesssim B$ and $B \lesssim A$.
\item If $f$ is a function over $\mathbb{R}^d$ then its Fourier transform, denoted $\widehat{f}$, or $\mathcal{F}(f)$, is given by
\footnote{In the text, we systematically drop the constants such as $\frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{d/2}}$ since they are irrelevant for our purposes.}
$$
\widehat{f}(\xi) = \mathcal{F}f (\xi) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{d/2}} \int e^{-ix\xi} f(x) \,dx \;\;\;\;\mbox{thus} \;\;\;\;f(x) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{d/2}} \int e^{ix\xi} \widehat{f}(\xi) \,d\xi.
$$
\item The Fourier multiplier with symbol $m(\xi)$ is defined by
$$
m(\frac 1i \partial)f = \mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[m \mathcal{F} f \right].
$$
\item In particular, we denote ($\iota$ being a sufficiently small real number)
$$
\Lambda \overset{def}{=} |\partial| \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad Y(\partial) \overset{def}{=} \Lambda^\iota + \Lambda^{-\iota}
$$
\item The bilinear Fourier multiplier with symbol $m$ is given by
$$T_m(f,g)(x) \overset{def}{=} \mathcal{F}^{-1} \int m(\xi,\eta) \widehat{f}(\eta) \widehat{g}(\xi-\eta)\,d\eta.$$
\item The japanese bracket $\langle \cdot \rangle$ stands for $\langle x \rangle = \sqrt{1 + x^2}$.
\end{itemize}
\section{Energy Estimates} \label{sectionenergy} The conserved energy of system \eqref{CW} is given by
\begin{equation}\label{en0}
E_{\rm{physical}} = \int_{\mathscr{D}} |v|^2 dxdz + \int_{\mathscr{B}}1- \frac 1{\sqrt{1+ |\partial h|^2}} dS
\end{equation}
which is sufficient to give $\dot H^{\frac 12}(\mathscr{B})$ on the potential $\psi_\mathcal{H}$, and $\dot H^{1}(\mathscr{B})$ on $h$ for small $\partial h$.
Higher $H^s$ bounds and weighted norms bounds will be derived by commuting vector fields with the evolution equation of the
mean curvature $\kappa$ of $\mathscr{B}$, and from Euler's equation evaluated on the boundary $\partial\mathcal{U}$ (see \cite{SZ06} for the derivation)
\begin{subequations}\label{firstk}
\begin{align}
&{D}_t \kappa =- \Delta_{ \mathscr{B}} v \cdot N -
2 \Pi \cdot (\nabla^\top v) \label{E:dtk2}
\\[.3em]
&N\cdot {D}_t v = -\mathcal{N}\kappa +N\cdot \nabla \Delta_0^{-1}{\rm div} (v\cdot\nabla v)\label{seuler}\\[.3em]
&{D}_t(z-h)= v_3 -D_t h =0,\label{boundary}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where ${D}_t = \partial_t + v \cdot \nabla \in T_{(x,t)}\partial \mathcal{U}$ is the material derivative on $\partial \mathcal{U}$, $ \Delta_{\mathscr{B}} $ is the surface Laplacian, $\Pi$ is the second fundamental form of $\mathscr{B}$, $\mathcal{N}$ is the Dirichlet Neumann operator of $\mathscr{D}$, $\top$ and $\perp$ are the tangential and normal component to $\mathscr{B}$ of the relevant quantity, $ \Delta_0^{-1}$ is the inverse Laplacian on $\mathscr{D}$ with $0$ Dirichlet data. Here we also introduced the notation $A_1 \cdot A_2 =\text{trace} (A_1 (A_2^*))$, for two matrices, where $A^*$ is the adjoint of $A$.
In order to compute commutators of vector fields with the above system we need to introduce some geometric notation.
\subsection{Geometric notations}
Recall that $\mathcal{U}=\{(t,x,z); \;\; (x,z)\in\mathscr{D}\}$ denotes the space time fluid domain. Let
\[
\tilde\partial_t = \partial_t +(\partial_th)\partial_z, \qquad \tilde\partial_i= \partial_i + (\partial_ih)\partial_z, \quad i =1,2,
\]
denote vector fields defined on $\mathcal{U}$ that are tangent to $\partial\mathcal{U}$. For any function $\varphi$ defined on $\mathcal{U}$ let $\varphi_b$ denote its value on $\mathcal{U}$, i.e.,
$\varphi_b(t,x) = \varphi(t,x,h(t,x))$, consequently
\[
\tilde\partial_\alpha\varphi(t,x,z)|_{z=h(t,x)}= \partial_\alpha(\varphi_b(t,x)).
\]
Also note that since $\tilde\partial_i\in T\mathscr{B}$ are linearly independent, they can be used to construct an orthonormal frame on $T\mathscr{B}$, which we denote by $(e_1,e_2)$.
For any vector $e\in T\mathscr{B}$ the covariant derivative $\mathcal{D}_e$ on $T\mathscr{B}$ can be defined in terms of the outward unit normal $N\perp T\mathscr{B}$ as follows.
Writing $\nabla_e=e\cdot\nabla$ for the directional derivative in $\mathbb{R}^3$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{D}_e w=( \nabla_e w)^\top = \nabla_e w - (\nabla_e w)^\perp = \nabla_e w +( w\cdot \nabla_eN) N, \qquad w \in T\mathscr{B}.
\end{equation*}
For a vector-valued function on $\mathbb{R}^3$ $f = (f^j)$, we also denote $Df$ for the partial derivatives matrix
$$
Df = (\partial_i f^j)_{i,j}.
$$
For any orthonormal frame $\{e_a\}$ of $T\mathscr{B}$, the second fundamental form $\Pi$, the mean curvature $\kappa$ of $\mathscr{B}$, the Hessian $\mathcal{D}^2$
and the surface Laplacian $\Delta_\mathscr{B}$ are given by
\begin{align*}
&\Pi(e_a) = \nabla_{e_a}N, \qquad \kappa = \nabla_{e_a}N\cdot e_a, \qquad \mathcal{D} \phi(X,Y) = \nabla_X \nabla_Y \phi - \nabla_{\mathcal{D}_X Y} \phi, \\
&\Delta_\mathscr{B} \varphi = \mathcal{D}^2\varphi(e_a,e_a) = \nabla_{e_a}\nabla_{e_a} \varphi- \nabla_{\mathcal{D}_{e_a}e_a}\varphi= \nabla_{e_a}\nabla_{e_a} \varphi- \nabla_{\nabla_{e_a}e_a}\varphi -\kappa\nabla_N\varphi,
\end{align*}
where we sum over repeated indices. Note that using the frame $\{e_a\}$ the equation for $\kappa$ can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{dtkframe}
{D}_t \kappa =- \Delta_{ \mathscr{B}} v \cdot N -2 (\nabla_{e_a}N) \cdot (\nabla_{e_a} v).
\end{equation}
The harmonic extension to $\mathscr{D}$ of a function $f$ defined on $\mathscr{B}$ is denoted by $f_\mathcal{H}$, and the Dirichlet-Neumann operator by $\mathcal{N}$
\[
\mathcal{N} (f) = \nabla_N f_\mathcal{H} : \mathscr{B} \to \mathbb{R}.
\]
We refer to Section~\ref{appendixtaee} for the definitions and main properties of the spaces $H^s(\mathscr{B})$ and $H^s(\mathscr{D})$.
\subsection{Vector fields} \label{Vf}
Recall that we defined $\Omega$ and $\mathcal{S}$ on $\mathbb{R}^2$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{VF}
\Omega = x^1 \partial_2 - x^2 \partial_1 = \omega^i \partial_i \quad \mbox{and} \quad \mathcal{S} = \frac{3}{2} t \partial_t + x^1 \partial_1 + x^2 \partial_2
= \frac{3}{2} t \partial_t + x^i \partial_i.
\end{equation}
For any function $\varphi: \mathcal{U} \to \mathbb{R}$ with $\varphi_b =\varphi|_{\partial \mathcal{U}}$ we have
\[
\begin{split}
\left(\frac{3}{2} t \partial_t + x^i \partial_i\right)\varphi_b = \left. \left( \frac 32 t\partial_t +x^i\partial_i + z\partial_z+( \mathcal{S} h-h )\partial_z\right)\varphi\right|_{\partial \mathcal{U}},\\
\left( x^1 \partial_2 - x^2 \partial_1\right)\varphi_b = \left. \left( x^1 \partial_2 - x^2 \partial_1+( x^1 \partial_2h - x^2 \partial_1h )\partial_z\right)\varphi\right|_{\partial \mathcal{U}}.
\end{split}
\]
Thus with a slight abuse of notation, $(\mathcal{S},\Omega)$, can be considered as vector fields defined on $\partial\mathcal{U}$ by writing
\begin{align*}
&\mathcal{S} = \frac 32 t\partial_t + x^i\partial_i + z\partial_z +Z\partial_z, \qquad Z= (\frac{3}{2} t \partial_t + x^i \partial_i) h-h,\\
&\Omega = x^1\partial_2 -x^2\partial_1 + ( x^1 \partial_2 - x^2 \partial_1)h \partial_z.
\end{align*}
The coordinates of the space parts of $\mathcal{S}$ and $\Omega$ are denoted respectively $(S^i)$ and
$(\omega^i)$:
$$
\left(\begin{array}{l} S^1 \\ S^2 \\ S^3 \end{array} \right) = \left(\begin{array}{c} x^1 \\ x^2 \\ z + \mathcal{S} h - h \end{array} \right)
\quad \mbox{and} \quad \left(\begin{array}{l} \omega^1 \\ \omega^2 \\ \omega^3 \end{array} \right)
= \left(\begin{array}{c} -x^2 \\ x^1 \\ \Omega h \end{array} \right).
$$
These vector fields can also be extended harmonically on $\mathscr{D}$ $(\mathcal{S}_\mathcal{H}, \Omega_\mathcal{H})$, and thus on $\mathcal{U}$:
\begin{align*}
& \mathcal{S}_\mathcal{H} = \frac 32 t\partial_t + x^i\partial_i + z\partial_z +Z_\mathcal{H}\partial_z, \qquad \Omega_\mathcal{H} = x^1 \partial_2 - x^2 \partial_1 + \omega^3_\mathcal{H}\partial_z.
\end{align*}
\subsection{Commutators} Since on $\partial\mathcal{U}$, $\mathcal{S}, \Omega, {D}_t\in T\partial\mathcal{U}$, then $[\mathcal{S}, {D}_t ], [\Omega, {D}_t ] , [\Omega, \mathcal{S}] \in T\partial\mathcal{U}$, and
\begin{subequations}\label{commute}
\begin{align}
&[\mathcal{S}, {D}_t ] \varphi + \frac 32 {D}_t \varphi = (\frac12v^i+\mathcal{S} v^i)\tilde{\partial}_i\varphi \\
&[\Omega, {D}_t ] \varphi = \Omega v^i \tilde{\partial}_i\varphi -v^1 \tilde{\partial}_2 \varphi + v^2 \tilde{\partial}_1 \varphi.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{remark} One can think of these commutators in the following way. \\
\noindent $\bullet$ $[\mathcal{S}, {D}_t ] + \frac 32 {D}_t$ is a first order differential operator with coefficients depending on $( v,\mathcal{S} v, \partial h v, \partial h \mathcal{S} v)$.\\
\noindent $\bullet$ $[\Omega, {D}_t ]$ is a first order differential operator with coefficients depending on $( v,\Omega v, \partial h v, \partial h\Omega v)$.\\
\end{remark}
To compute commutators of $({D}_t, \mathcal{S}, \Omega)$ with the surface Laplacian $\Delta_\mathscr{B}$, we proceed as follows.
Writing $\mathcal{X} = \alpha(t)\partial_t + X\cdot\nabla \in T\partial\mathcal{U}$ for any of these vector fields, we first note that for any vector field $e\in T\mathscr{B}$ we have $[ \mathcal{X},e] \in T\mathscr{B}$
since $[\mathcal{X},e] \in T\partial\mathcal{U}$ and has no $\partial_t$ term. Thus
\begin{equation*}
[ \mathcal{X},e] = \mathcal{X} e - \nabla_e X = (\mathcal{X} e)^\top -( \nabla_{e }X)^\top
\end{equation*}
We also note that for any orthonormal frame $\{e_a\}$ of $T\mathscr{B}$ that depends smoothly on $t$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{antisym}
(\mathcal{X} e_a)^\top\cdot e_b + e_a \cdot (\mathcal{X} e_b)^\top = \mathcal{X}(e_a\cdot e_b) =0.
\end{equation}
With these observations we compute
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{X}\Delta_\mathscr{B} \varphi &= \mathcal{X} \left(\nabla_{e_a}\nabla_{e_a} \varphi- \nabla_{\mathcal{D}_{e_a}e_a}\varphi\right)\\
&= \Delta_\mathscr{B} \mathcal{X}\varphi + \nabla_{ [\mathcal{X}, e_a]}\nabla_{e_a}\varphi + \nabla_{e_a}\nabla_{ [\mathcal{X}, e_a]}\varphi - \nabla_{[\mathcal{X}, \mathcal{D}_{e_a}e_a]}\varphi\\
&= \Delta_\mathscr{B} \mathcal{X}\varphi + 2\mathcal{D}^2\varphi(e_a, [\mathcal{X}, e_a]) + \nabla_{\tilde{W}}\varphi\\
&= \Delta_\mathscr{B} \mathcal{X}\varphi - 2\mathcal{D}^2\varphi(e_a, (\nabla_{e_a}X)^\top) + \nabla_{\tilde{W}}\varphi, \qquad \mbox{ by \eqref{antisym}}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $\tilde{W} = \mathcal{D}_{[ \mathcal{X}, e_a]}e_a + \mathcal{D}_{e_a}[ \mathcal{X}, e_a] -[ \mathcal{X}, \mathcal{D}_{e_a}e_a]\in T\mathscr{B}$. By keeping track of the tangential terms we get
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\tilde{W} &=\left( \nabla_{[ \mathcal{X}, e_a]}e_a + \nabla_{e_a}[ \mathcal{X}, e_a] - \mathcal{X}(\nabla_{e_a}e_a -\kappa N)
+ \nabla_{ \mathcal{D}_{e_a}e_a} X \right)^\top\\
&= \left( \nabla_{[ \mathcal{X}, e_a]}e_a + \nabla_{e_a}\mathcal{X} e_a- \nabla_{e_a}\nabla_{e_a} X- \mathcal{X}(\nabla_{e_a}e_a) + \mathcal{X} (\kappa N) + \nabla_{\mathcal{D}_{e_a}e_a} X\right)^\top\\
&= - \left( \Delta_\mathscr{B} X \right)^\top + \kappa\mathcal{X} N.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Thus
\begin{equation}\label{comxlap}
[\mathcal{X} , \Delta_\mathscr{B}]\varphi = -2\mathcal{D}^2\varphi\cdot \nabla^\top X - \left( \Delta_\mathscr{B} X \right)\cdot (\nabla^\top \varphi) + \kappa\mathcal{X} N\cdot (\nabla^\top \varphi),
\end{equation}
and the commutators of ${D}_t$, $\mathcal{S}$, and $\Omega$ with $\Delta_\mathscr{B}$ are given by differential operators
\begin{subequations}\label{comm-lap}
\begin{align}
&[{D}_t , \Delta_\mathscr{B}]\varphi =-2\mathcal{D}^2\varphi\cdot \nabla^\top v - \left( \Delta_\mathscr{B} v \right)\cdot (\nabla^\top \varphi)
+\kappa{D}_t N\cdot (\nabla^\top \varphi) \label{dtlap}\\
&[\mathcal{S} , \Delta_\mathscr{B}]\varphi = -2 \Delta_\mathscr{B}\varphi -2\mathcal{D}^2\varphi\cdot \nabla^\top (Z\mathbf{k}) -
\left( \Delta_\mathscr{B} S \right)\cdot (\nabla^\top \varphi) + \kappa\mathcal{S} N\cdot (\nabla^\top \varphi)\\
&[\Omega , \Delta_\mathscr{B}]\varphi = -2\mathcal{D}^2\varphi\cdot \nabla^\top \omega - \left( \Delta_\mathscr{B} \omega \right)\cdot (\nabla^\top \varphi) + \kappa\Omega N\cdot (\nabla^\top \varphi)
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{remark} \label{redtlap} Using the relation $D_th= v_3$ we get\\
\noindent $\bullet$ $[{D}_t , \Delta_\mathscr{B}]$ is a second order operator with coefficients depending on
$w_1\overset{def}{=}( \partial^2h,(\partial h)^2, Dv, D^2v,$
$\qquad \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\partial h Dv, \partial h D^2v)$.\\
\noindent $\bullet$ $[\mathcal{S} , \Delta_\mathscr{B}] + 2 \Delta_\mathscr{B}$ is a second order operator with coefficients depending on $w_2\overset{def}{=}( \partial^2 h, (\partial h)^2 , \mathcal{S} \partial h, \mathcal{S} \partial^2h)$.\\
\noindent $\bullet$ $[\Omega , \Delta_\mathscr{B}]$ is a second order operator with coefficients depending on $w_3\overset{def}{=}( \partial^2 h, (\partial h)^2, \Omega \partial h, \Omega \partial^2h)$.
\end{remark}
To compute commutators of $({D}_t, \mathcal{S}, \Omega)$ with the Dirichlet--Neumann operator $\mathcal{N}$ we proceed as follows. Again writing
$\mathcal{X} = \alpha(t)\partial_t + X\cdot\nabla \in T\partial\mathcal{U}$, for either ${D}_t$, $\mathcal{S}$, or $\Omega$, we have for any $g : \mathcal{U} \to\mathbb{R}$ and $\varphi : \partial\mathcal{U} \to\mathbb{R}$
\begin{subequations}\label{precmd}
\begin{align}
& \mathcal{X}_\mathcal{H} \nabla g = \nabla \mathcal{X}_\mathcal{H} g - (DX_\mathcal{H})^* \nabla g\label{grad} \\
& \mathcal{X}_\mathcal{H} \varphi_\mathcal{H} = ( \mathcal{X} \varphi)_\mathcal{H}
+ \Delta^{-1}_0 2 {\rm div}( (DX_\mathcal{H})^* \nabla \varphi_\mathcal{H}) \\
& \mathcal{X}_\mathcal{H} \Delta_0^{-1}g =\Delta_0^{-1}( \mathcal{X}_\mathcal{H} g) + \Delta^{-1}_0 2 {\rm div}((DX_\mathcal{H})^* \nabla\Delta_0^{-1}g )\label{lap-1}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
This gives the identities
$$
[ \mathcal{X}_\mathcal{H}, \nabla \Delta_0^{-1} {\rm div}] g = (DX_\mathcal{H})^* \nabla \Delta_0^{-1}{\rm div} g
+ 2 \nabla \Delta_0^{-1} {\rm div} \left( (DX_\mathcal{H})^* \nabla \Delta_0^{-1} {\rm div} g \right) + \nabla \Delta_0^{-1} \left( D X_{\mathcal{H}} \cdot D g \right)
$$
and
\begin{equation}\label{ddn}
[ \mathcal{X}, \mathcal{N}]\varphi = (\mathcal{X} N)\cdot \nabla \varphi_\mathcal{H} - N\cdot ((DX_\mathcal{H})^* \nabla \varphi_\mathcal{H})
+ N\cdot \nabla \Delta_0^{-1} 2{\rm div}((DX_\mathcal{H})^* \nabla \varphi_\mathcal{H}).
\end{equation}
In particular
\begin{subequations}\label{comm-n}
\begin{align}
&[{D}_t, \mathcal{N}]\varphi ={D}_tN\cdot \nabla \varphi_\mathcal{H} - N\cdot ((Dv)^*\nabla \varphi_\mathcal{H})
+ N\cdot \nabla \Delta_0^{-1} 2{\rm div}((Dv)^* \nabla \varphi_\mathcal{H}), \label{dtn}\\[.3em]
\begin{split}\label{sdn}
&[\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{N}]\varphi + \mathcal{N} \varphi = (\mathcal{S} N) \cdot \nabla \varphi_\mathcal{H} - N\cdot( \nabla Z_\mathcal{H}) \partial_z\varphi_\mathcal{H}
+ N\cdot \nabla \Delta_0^{-1} 2{\rm div}(( \nabla Z_\mathcal{H}) \partial_z\varphi_\mathcal{H})
\end{split} \\[.3em]
\begin{split}\label{rdn}
&[\Omega, \mathcal{N}] \varphi= (\Omega N) \cdot \nabla \varphi_\mathcal{H} - N^1\partial_2\varphi_\mathcal{H} + N^2\partial_1\varphi_\mathcal{H} - N\cdot (\nabla \omega^3_\mathcal{H})\partial_z \varphi_\mathcal{H}\\
&\phantom{[\Omega, \mathcal{N}] \varphi=} + N\cdot \nabla \Delta_0^{-1} 2{\rm div}((\nabla \omega^3_\mathcal{H}) \partial_z \varphi_\mathcal{H});
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The only term that prevents the order of these commutators to be apparent is $N\cdot \nabla \Delta_0^{-1} 2{\rm div}$. However by proposition \eqref{elliptic}
\[
N\cdot \nabla \Delta_0^{-1} {\rm div} :\; H^{s+\frac 12}(\mathscr{D})\to H^s(\mathscr{B})
\]
is a bounded operator. Thus if $\mathscr{E}: H^s(\mathscr{B}) \to H^{s+\frac 12}(\mathscr{D})$, is an extension operator, then
\[ N\cdot \nabla \Delta_0^{-1} {\rm div}\mathscr{E} :\; H^{s}(\mathscr{B})\to H^s(\mathscr{B}),
\]
is a bounded operator.
\begin{remark} \label{renlap} Using the relation $D_th= v_3$ we get\\
\noindent $\bullet$ $[{D}_t, \mathcal{N}]$ is a first order operator with coefficients depending on $\tilde w_1 \overset{def}{=} (Dv, \partial h Dv)$.\\
\noindent $\bullet$ $[\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{N}] +\mathcal{N}$ is a first order operator with coefficients depending on $\tilde w_2 \overset{def}{=}( \partial h, \mathcal{S} \partial h)$.\\
\noindent $\bullet$ $[\Omega, \mathcal{N}] $ is a first order operator with coefficients depending on $\tilde w_3\overset{def}{=}( \partial h, \Omega \partial h)$.
\end{remark}
Bounds on commutators are given in the following lemmata.
\begin{lemma}\label{com1-est} Assume $(v,\partial h)$ are smooth and $\|(v,\partial h)\|_{W^{\frac s2,\8}}\lesssim 1$, for $s >2$,
then
\begin{subequations}\label{estd}
\begin{align}
&\begin{cases}\label{estd1}
\|[{D}_t,\mathcal{D}]\varphi\|_{L^2} \lesssim \|(Dv, \partial h Dv)\|_{L^{\infty}}\|\nabla \varphi\|_{L^2}\\
\|[{D}_t,\mathcal{D}]\varphi\|_{H^s} \lesssim \|(Dv, \partial h Dv)\|_{W^{s/2 ,\infty}}\|\nabla \varphi\|_{H^s} +
\| \nabla \varphi \|_{W^{s/2 ,\infty}}\| (Dv, \partial h Dv) \|_{H^s} \\
\end{cases}\\
&\begin{cases}\label{estd2}
\|[D_{t},\mathcal{N}] \varphi\|_{L^2} \lesssim \|\tilde w_1\|_{L^\infty} \|\nabla \varphi\|_{L^2},\\
\|[D_{t},\mathcal{N}] \varphi\|_{H^s} \lesssim \|\tilde w_1\|_{W^{[s/2],\infty}} \|\nabla \varphi\|_{H^{s}} +\| \tilde w_1\|_{H^{s}} \, \|\nabla \varphi\|_{W^{[s/2],\infty}}.
\end{cases}\\
&\begin{cases}\label{estd3}
\|[\mathcal{D},\mathcal{N}] \varphi\|_{L^2} \lesssim \|\partial^2h\|_{L^\infty} \|\nabla \varphi\|_{L^2},\\
\|[\mathcal{D},\mathcal{N}] \varphi\|_{H^s} \lesssim \|\partial^2h\|_{W^{[s/2],\infty}} \|\nabla \varphi\|_{H^{s}} +\| \partial^2h\|_{H^{s}} \, \|\nabla \varphi\|_{W^{[s/2],\infty}}.
\end{cases}\\
&| \langle[D_t, \mathcal{N}] \varphi, \varphi \rangle | \lesssim \left[ \|Dv\|_\infty + \|Dh\|_{W^{1,\infty}} \|Dv\|_{W^{1,\infty}}
+ \|D^2 v\|_\infty \right] \|\varphi\|^2_{H^{1/2}}\label{estd4}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\end{lemma}
\proof
$[{D}_t,\mathcal{D}]$ is a first order differential operator whose coefficients depend on $(Dv, \partial h Dv)$,
thus \eqref{estd1} is straightforward.
To compute the norm of $[D_{t},\mathcal{N}] $, given by \eqref{dtn}, on $H^s$ we have to bound terms of the form
$G \cdot \nabla^\top$, $g\mathcal{N} \varphi$, $|N \cdot \nabla \Delta^{-1}_{0} { {\rm div}}(A \nabla \cdot)$, where $G$, $g$, and $A$ are given in terms of $\tilde w_1= (Dv, \partial hDv)$.
By proposition \ref{elliptic} these terms can be bounded by
\[
\begin{split}
&\|G \cdot \nabla^\top \varphi \|_{L^2} + \|g\mathcal{N}\varphi \|_{L^2} \lesssim
\| (G, G \partial h, g, g\partial h) \|_{L^{\infty}} \| \nabla \varphi \|_{L^2} \\
&\|G \cdot \nabla^\top \varphi \|_{H^{s}} + \|g\mathcal{N}\varphi \|_{H^{s}} \lesssim
\| (G, G \partial h, g, g \partial h) \|_{W^{{[\frac{s}{2}}],\infty}} \| \nabla \varphi \|_{H^{s}}
+ \| (G, G \partial h, g, g\partial h)\|_{H^s} \| \nabla \varphi \|_{W^{{[\frac{s}{2}}],\infty}} \\
&\|N \cdot \nabla \Delta^{-1}_{0} { {\rm div}}(A \nabla \varphi ) \|_{L^2}
\lesssim \|A\|_{L^\infty}\| \nabla \varphi \|_{L^2}\\
&\|N \cdot \nabla \Delta^{-1}_{0} { {\rm div}}(A \nabla \varphi ) \|_{H^{s}}
\lesssim (1 + \| \partial h
\|_{W^{{[\frac{s}{2}} -1],\infty}}) \|A \nabla \varphi \|_{H^{s}} + \| \partial h\|_{H^{s-1}}\| A\nabla \varphi \|_{W^{[\frac{s}{2}],\infty}},
\end{split}
\]
and this implies \eqref{estd2}. Equation \eqref{estd3} follows from a similar computation.
Finally to derive \eqref{estd4} we note that $ \langle [D_t,\mathcal{N}]\varphi, \varphi\rangle$ can be written as a sum of three terms which can be estimated as follows:
\begin{align*}
&\bigg|\int\limits_\mathscr{B}\varphi G \cdot \nabla^\top \varphi\, dS \bigg|=\bigg|\int\limits_\mathscr{B} \frac G2 \cdot \nabla^\top \varphi^2\, dS \bigg|\lesssim
(\|\nabla^\top G\|_{L^\infty} + \| G\|_{L^\infty} \|\partial^2 h \|_{L^\infty} )|\varphi|^{2}_{L^2},\\
&\bigg|\int\limits_\mathscr{B} g \varphi \, \mathcal{N} \varphi \, dS \bigg| =
\bigg| \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathscr{B}} \varphi^2 \mathcal{N}g + \int_{SCD} g_{\mathcal{H}} \nabla \varphi_{\mathcal{H}} \nabla \varphi_{\mathcal{H}} \bigg| \\
& \phantom{\bigg|\int\limits_\mathscr{B} g \varphi \, \mathcal{N} \varphi \, dS \bigg|}
\lesssim \left[ \|Dv\|_\infty + \|Dh\|_{W^{1,\infty}} \|Dv\|_{W^{1,\infty}} + \|D^2 v\|_\infty \right] |\varphi|^2_{H^{1/2}(\mathscr{B})}
\end{align*}
where the last inequality sign follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:elliptic}, and finally
\begin{align*}
&\bigg|\int\limits_\mathscr{B} \varphi \, N \cdot \nabla \, \Delta^{-1}_{0} { {\rm div}}(D v
\nabla \varphi_{\mathcal{H}}) \, dS \bigg| = \bigg| \int\limits_\mathscr{D} \varphi_{\mathcal{H}} { {\rm div}}(D v
\nabla \varphi_{\mathcal{H}}) \, dx \bigg| \\
&\phantom{ \bigg|\int\limits_\mathscr{B} \varphi \, N \cdot \nabla \, \Delta^{-1}_{0} { {\rm div}}(D v
\nabla \varphi_{\mathcal{H}}) \, dS \bigg|} = \bigg|\int\limits_\mathscr{B} N \cdot (D v \nabla \varphi_\mathcal{H})
\varphi_\mathcal{H} dS \bigg| +\bigg| \int\limits_\mathscr{D} \nabla \varphi_\mathcal{H} \cdot D v \nabla \varphi_\mathcal{H} dx\bigg|\\
&\phantom{ \bigg|\int\limits_\mathscr{B} \varphi \, N \cdot \nabla \, \Delta^{-1}_{0} { {\rm div}}(D v
\nabla \varphi_{\mathcal{H}}) \, dS \bigg|} \lesssim (\|D v\|_{W^{1,\infty}} + \|\partial^2 h\|_{L^\infty} \|Dv\|_{L^\infty} )\|\varphi\|^2_{H^{1/2}},
\end{align*}
which implies the stated inequality.
\endproof
Using these commutators we can derive a second order evolution equation for $\kappa$.
We start by choosing an orthonormal frame $\{e_a\}$ which is parallelly transported along the particle path i.e.,
\[
{D}_t e_a = (\nabla_{e_a}v\cdot N)N.
\]
Applying ${D}_t$ to \eqref{dtkframe}, we obtain (see equation~(3.15) in~\cite{SZ06})
\[
{D}_t^2 \kappa =- {D}_t \Delta_{\mathscr{B}} v\cdot N - \Delta_{\mathscr{B}} v\cdot {D}_t N -2 ({D}_t\nabla_{e_a}N) \cdot (\nabla_{e_a} v) -2 (\nabla_{e_a}N) \cdot ({D}_t\nabla_{e_a} v).
\]
Using the fact that
\[
{D}_t N = - [(D v)^*N]^\top, \mbox{ and } [{D}_t, \nabla_{e_a}] = - \nabla_{(\nabla_{e_a}v)^\top},
\]
and the commutator formula $[{D}_t, \Delta_{\mathscr{B}}]$, we obtain (see equation~(3.16) in~\cite{SZ06})
\begin{equation*} \begin{split}
{D}_t^2 \kappa = &- \Delta_{\mathscr{B}} {D}_t v\cdot N - 2 \nabla_{e_a}N\cdot \nabla_{e_a} {D}_t v -2 \Delta_{\mathscr{B}} v \cdot {D}_tN \\
&-\left( 4\mathcal{D}_{e_a} \left({D}_tN\right) + 2 \nabla_{(\nabla_{e_a}v)^\top}N)\right) \cdot \nabla_{e_a} v - \kappa |{D}_tN|^2
- 2 {D}_tN \cdot \nabla_{({D}_tN)}N
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Using Euler's equation evaluated on $\mathscr{B}$ to substitute for ${D}_t v$ on $\mathscr{B}$, we obtain
\begin{equation} \begin{split}
{D}_t^2 \kappa = &\Delta_{\mathscr{B}} \mathcal{N} (\kappa) - \nabla \kappa_\mathcal{H} \cdot
\Delta_{\mathscr{B}}N -\Delta_{\mathscr{B}} \nabla\Delta_0^{-1} {\rm div}(v\cdot\nabla v) \cdot N \\
&- 2 \Delta_{\mathscr{B}} v \cdot {D}_tN
-\left( 4\mathcal{D}_{e_a} \left({D}_tN\right) + 2 \nabla_{(\nabla_{e_a}v)^\top}N)\right) \cdot \nabla_{e_a} v
- \kappa |{D}_tN|^2 \\
& -2 \nabla_{e_a}N \cdot (\nabla_{e_a} \nabla \Delta_0^{-1}{\rm div}( v\cdot\nabla v)) - 2 {D}_tN \cdot \nabla_{({D}_tN)}N \\
\overset{def}{=} & \Delta_{\mathscr{B}} \mathcal{N} (\kappa) + R_0.
\label{E:dttk2} \end{split}
\end{equation}
Note that in terms of regularity on the boundary $\mathscr{B}$, we have from \eqref{firstk}
\[
v\sim {D}_th, \qquad \Delta_\mathscr{B} v \sim {D}_t\kp, \qquad N\cdot {D}_tv \sim \mathcal{N}\kappa \sim D^3 h.
\]
Thus the nonlinear terms of $R_0$ are
\[
\begin{split}
&\nabla \kappa_\mathcal{H} \cdot \Delta_{\mathscr{B}}N =( \partial^3h)^2 + cubic\\
&\Delta_{\mathscr{B}} \nabla\Delta_0^{-1} {\rm div}(v\cdot\nabla v) \cdot N = DvD^2v + cubic\\
&\Delta_{\mathscr{B}} v \cdot {D}_tN = D^2v\partial_t\partial h +cubic\\
&\mathcal{D}_{e_a} \left({D}_tN\right) \cdot \nabla_{e_a} v = \partial_t\partial^2h Dv + cubic.
\end{split}
\]
If we introduce $w\overset{def}{=} (v,\partial h)$, then we can write
\begin{equation}\label{r0approx}
R_0 \sim {D}_t\kp D_t\partial h + (\partial\kappa)^2 + \text{ cubic} \sim (Dw, D^2 w)^2 +(w)^3.
\end{equation}
Energy estimates will be derived using equation \eqref{E:dttk2}.
\begin{remark} The energy and weighted energy estimates can be done simultaneously.
However we elected to separate the two for the benefit of the reader. The $H^s$ estimate is derived by commuting $\mathcal{A} = \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N}$
with the equation which leads to a schematic equation
$\partial_t^2 \mathcal{A} g -\partial^3 \mathcal{A} g = (\partial \mathcal{A} g)\partial g$, while the weighted estimates which are derived from commuting $\mathcal{S}$ and $\Omega$ lead to $\partial_t^2 \mathcal{S} g -\partial^3 \mathcal{S} g = (\partial^3 g)\partial \mathcal{S} g$.
Thus energy estimates for $\mathcal{S} g$ require estimates on $\partial^3 g$. In terms of regularity, $\mathcal{S}$ acts therefore as $3/2$ derivatives.
To avoid fractional derivatives in energy (and weighted energy) estimates we estimate derivatives in multiples of $3$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{${H^s(\mathscr{B})}$ \label{energy-sec} estimates} For the remainder of this section all norms of $v$ are computed for $v|_\mathscr{B}$, thus $H^s$ stands for $H^s(\mathscr{B})$, etc.
Bounds of $\partial{h}$ and $v$ in $H^s$ will be derived from the equation
\[
D^2_t \kappa - \Delta_\mathscr{B} \mathcal{N} \kappa = R_0 \quad \text{ on }\quad \partial\mathcal{U},
\]
and as such they are implicit in \cite{SZ06}.
Energy estimates are usually obtained in a straightforward manner by
differentiating the equation and multiplying it by $D_t \kappa$. However in
this case, there will be commutators present, and bounding them
requires some care.
Consider smooth solutions of
\begin{equation}\label{lin-eq}
D^2_t g - \Delta_\mathscr{B} \mathcal{N} g = F \quad \text{ on }\quad \partial\mathcal{U}.
\end{equation}
For functions defined on $\mathscr{B}$ let $\langle\; , \; \rangle$ denote the inner product on $L^2(\mathscr{B})$,
and define
\[
e_{g}(t) = \langle \mathcal{D} \mathcal{N} D_tg, \mathcal{D} \mathcal{N}{D}_tg \rangle + \langle \mathcal{N}\Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N} g, \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N} g \rangle = \|\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} D_t g \|^2_{L^2} + \| \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N} g \|^2_{H^{\frac12}}.
\]
\begin{lemma}\label{linear:prop}
Smooth solutions to the above equation satisfy, if $(Dv,\partial h)$ is small in $W^{3,\infty}$,
\begin{align*}
\dot e_g \lesssim \|(Dv,\partial h Dv, \partial^2 h)\|_{W^{3, \infty}} (e_g + \|D_tg\|_{L^2}^2 + \|\mathcal{D} g\|^2_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}) + \|\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} F\|_{L^2}\sqrt{e_g},
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\proof Recall first that
$$
D_t dS = ( v^\perp \kappa + \mathcal{D} \cdot v^\top ) dS.
$$
Multiply \eqref{lin-eq} by $\mathcal{N}\Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N} D_tg$ and integrate over $\mathscr{B}$ to get
\[
\begin{split}
\dot e_g(t) =& \langle ( v^\perp \kappa + \mathcal{D} \cdot v^\top )\mathcal{D} \mathcal{N}{D}_tg,\mathcal{D} \mathcal{N}{D}_tg \rangle
+ 2\langle [D_t, \mathcal{D}] \mathcal{N} D_tg, \mathcal{D} \mathcal{N}{D}_tg \rangle + 2 \langle\mathcal{D} [D_t, \mathcal{N} ]D_tg, \mathcal{D} \mathcal{N}{D}_tg \rangle \\
&+ \langle[D_t, \mathcal{N}] \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N} g, \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N} g \rangle
+2 \langle \mathcal{N}[D_t , \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N}] g, \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N} g \rangle + \langle \mathcal{D} \mathcal{N} F, \mathcal{D} \mathcal{N}{D}_tg \rangle.
\end{split}
\]
Thus to estimate $e_g$ we use the commutator bounds given in Lemma \ref{com1-est}.
These bounds imply
\[
|\langle [D_t, \mathcal{D}] \mathcal{N} D_tg, \mathcal{D} \mathcal{N}{D}_tg \rangle|+ |\langle\mathcal{D} [D_t, \mathcal{N} ]D_tg, \mathcal{D} \mathcal{N}{D}_tg\rangle | \lesssim \|(Dv,\partial hDv, \partial^2 h)\|_{W^{1,\infty}}
\| D_tg\|^2_{H^2},
\]
and by \eqref{estd4} of the same lemma we have
\[
| \langle[D_t, \mathcal{N}] \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N} g, \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N} g \rangle |
+| \langle \mathcal{N}[D_t , \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N}] g, \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N} g \rangle | \lesssim \|(D v,\partial hDv,\partial^2 h)\|_{W^{3,\infty}} \|\mathcal{D} g\|^2_{H^{5/2}}.
\]
Consequently
\[
\dot e_g \lesssim \|(Dv,\partial hDv, \partial^2 h)\|_{W{1, \infty}} (e_g + \|D_tg\|_{L^2}^2 + \|\mathcal{D} g\|^2_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}) + \|\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} F\|_{L^2}\sqrt{e_g},
\]
which implies the desired result.
\endproof
$H^s$ estimates for solutions of \eqref{CW} follow in a straightforward manner from Lemma \ref{linear:prop}. Let $\kappa_n =\mathcal{A}^n\kappa$, where $\mathcal{A}= \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N}$, then
\begin{equation}
{D}_t^2 \kappa_n = \Delta_{\mathscr{B}} \mathcal{N} (\kappa_n) + R_n,\label{kn}
\end{equation}
where $R_n$ is defined inductively by
\[
R_n \overset{def}{=}- [\mathcal{A}, {D}^2_t] \kappa_{n-1} +\mathcal{A} R_{n-1}= D_t[D_t,\mathcal{A}]\kappa_{n-1} + [D_t,\mathcal{A}]{D}_t\kappa_{n-1}+ \mathcal{A} R_{n-1} ,
\]with $R_0$ given by \eqref{E:dttk2}. Thus
\begin{align}\label{Rninduc}
R_n =\sum_{i=1}^n\mathcal{A}^{n-i} \left(D_t[D_t,\mathcal{A}]\kappa_{i-1} + [D_t,\mathcal{A}]{D}_t\kappa_{i-1}\right) + \mathcal{A}^{n}R_0
\end{align}
Define the energy
\[
\mathcal{E}_n(t) \overset{def}{=} \frac{1}{2} \langle \mathcal{D} \mathcal{N} {D}_t\kappa_n, \mathcal{D} \mathcal{N} {D}_t\kappa_n \rangle + \frac{1}{2} \langle \mathcal{N}\mathcal{A}\kappa_n, \mathcal{A}\kappa_n \rangle
\]
where $\mathcal{A}= \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N}$. Finally, let
$$
E_n(t) \overset{def}{=} \sum_{k=0}^{n} \mathcal{E}_k(t) + E_{\rm{physical}},
$$
where $n$ is a large integer and $E_{\rm{physical}}$ is given by \eqref{en0}. Then $E_n$ is equivalent to
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
E_n & \sim \|D_t\kappa\|^2_{H^{3n + 2}} + \|\kappa\|^2_{H^{3n+ 7/2}} + \|\Lambda^{1/2} \psi \|^2_{L^2}+ \|\partial h\|^2_{L^{2}} \\
& \sim \|\Lambda^{1/2} \psi\|^2_{H^{3n+\frac{9}{2}}}+ \|\partial h\|^2_{H^{3n+ 9/2}} \\
& \sim \| \Lambda^{1/2} u \|^2_{H^{3n+\frac{9}{2}}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Global energy estimates will be derived under the assumptions
\begin{equation}\label{assume1}
\begin{cases}\tag{a1}
E_{2K}(t) \lesssim \epsilon, \mbox{ for } \epsilon \ll 1, \quad \text{for $K$ large},\\
b(t) \overset{def}{=} \|\partial^2 h\|_{W^{3K + 7/2 ,\infty}} +\| D v\|_{W^{3K + 3,\infty}} \lesssim \epsilon t^{-1}, \quad \text{for $ t\ge 1$}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
which follow from $\|u\|_{\rm{decay}} \lesssim \epsilon$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:hs}
Under assumption \eqref{assume1}, solutions of \eqref{E:dttk2} with data $(h_0,v_0)$
\[ E_{2K}(0)
\sim \|v_0\|^2_{H^{6K +4}}+ \|\partial h_0\|^2_{H^{6K +9/2}} \le \epsilon^2 \ll1,
\]
satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{energyn}
E_{2K}(t) \lesssim \epsilon^2 t^{2\delta},
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\proof
Recall that on the boundary $\mathscr{B}$, we have from \eqref{firstk}
\[
v\sim {D}_th, \qquad \Delta_\mathscr{B} v \sim {D}_t\kp, \qquad N\cdot {D}_tv \sim \mathcal{N}\kappa \sim D^3 h.
\]
From Lemma \ref{linear:prop} we have for $n \le 2K$
\begin{align} \label{edot:eq}
\dot \mathcal{E}_n \lesssim \|(Dv,\partial h Dv, \partial^2 h)\|_{W^{1, \infty}} (\mathcal{E}_n + \|D_t\kappa_n\|_{L^2}^2 + \|\mathcal{D} \kappa_n\|^2_{\dot H^{\frac{1}{2}}}) + \|\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} R_n\|_{L^2}\sqrt{\mathcal{E}_n}.
\end{align}
From Lemma \ref{com1-est} and \eqref{assume1}, we have for $n\ge4$
\[
\|\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N}\mathcal{A}^{n-i} D_t[D_t,\mathcal{A}]\kappa_{i-1} \|_{L^2} + \|\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N}\mathcal{A}^{n-i} [D_t,\mathcal{A}]{D}_t \kappa_{i-1} \|_{L^2} \lesssim \frac \epsilon t \sqrt{E_n},
\]
where we bound the low derivatives in $L^\8$ and the high derivatives in $L^2$. From
\eqref{r0approx} we know that $R_0 \sim {D}_t\kp D_t\partial h + (\partial\kappa)^2 $, and thus
$$
\|\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N}\mathcal{A}^nR_0\|_{L^2} \lesssim \frac \epsilon t \sqrt{E_{n}},
$$
by assumption \eqref{assume1}. Consequently \eqref{edot:eq} can be rewritten as $\dot \mathcal{E}_n \lesssim \frac \epsilon t E_{n}$,
and by summing over $n \le 2K$ we get the stated inequality.
\endproof
Note that in terms of $(\psi,h)$, where $\psi$ is the boundary value of the potential $\psi_\mathcal{H}$, $E_0$ bounds
$\psi \in \dot H^{\frac 12}(\mathbb{R}^2)$ and $h\in \dot H^{1}(\mathscr{B})$, and thus
Proposition \ref{prop:hs} gives control on
\[
E_{2K} \sim \|\Lambda^\frac{1}{2}\psi\|^2_{H^{6K + 9/2}(\mathbb{R}^2)} + \|\partial h \|^2_{H^{6K +9/2}(\mathbb{R}^2)}
\sim \|\Lambda^\frac{1}{2} u\|^2_{H^{6K + 9/2}(\mathbb{R}^2)},
\]
where $u = \Lambda^{1/2} h + i \psi$.
\subsection{Weighted energy estimates} Weighted energy estimates will be derived by commuting $( \mathcal{S}, \Omega)$ with the $\kappa$ equation \eqref{E:dttk2}.
The main difference, and difficulty, between the energy estimate and weighted estimates is the following.
Commuting $D_t$ with $\mathcal{N}$ gives a first order differential operator with coefficients depending on $\tilde w_1 = (Dv, \partial h Dv)$,
while commuting $\mathcal{S}$ or $\Omega$ with $\mathcal{N}$ gives a first order differential operator with coefficients depending on $\tilde w_2 = (\partial h, \mathcal{S}\partial h)$,
The crucial difference is that $\tilde{w}_1$ decays $\sim \frac{1}{t}$ in $L^\infty$, whereas $\tilde{w}_1$ decays $\sim \frac{1}{t^{1-\delta}}$
(compare assumptions \eqref{assume1} and \eqref{assume2} for instance).
For this reason weighted estimates are slightly worse than regular energy estimates.
We also would like to remind the reader that since $\mathcal{S}$ in commutators acts as $3/2$ derivatives, we will treat $( \mathcal{S}, \Omega,\mathcal{A})$, where $\mathcal{A}= \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N}$,
on equal footing; these operators are collectively denoted by $\Gamma$.
In the sequel we will let $\hd$ stand for either $\partial$ or $\mathcal{N}$, and $\mathcal{X}$ stand for
$$
\mathcal{X} = \mathcal{S}, \Omega.
$$
Finally, we define the spaces,
\begin{gather}
\widetilde W^{k,p}(\mathscr{B}) = \{g \in W^{k,p}(\mathscr{B}) ; \; \mathcal{N} g \in W^{k-1,p}(\mathscr{B})\}\\
L^p_\ell(\mathscr{B}) = \left\{ \varphi : \; \mathscr{B} \to \mathbb{R}; \; \|\varphi\|_{L^p_\ell} \overset{def}{=} \; \sum_{i=0}^\ell\|\Gamma^i \varphi\|_{L^p} \right\},\\
W^{k,p}_\ell(\mathscr{B}) = \left\{ \varphi : \; \mathscr{B} \to \mathbb{R}; \; \|\varphi\|_{W^{k,p}_\ell} \overset{def}{=} \; \sum_{i=0}^\ell\|\Gamma^i \varphi\|_{\widetilde W^{k,p}} \right\},
\end{gather}
for $p= 2 \text{ or } \infty$, $k, \ell\in \mathbb{N}$. For $p=2$ we allow $k\in\mathbb{N}/2$. Note that $\widetilde W^{k,2}(\mathscr{B}) = W^{k,2}(\mathscr{B}) $, however $\widetilde W^{k,\8}(\mathscr{B}) \neq W^{k,\8}(\mathscr{B})$, due to the presence of $\mathcal{N}$.
The relation between $v$, $h$, and $\kappa$ in $W^{k,p}_\ell$ norms is as follows.
\begin{proposition} Under the assumption
\[
\|\partial h\|_{W^{3,\infty}_{K}} + \|v\|_{W^{2,\infty}_{K} }\ll 1, \qquad \text{ for }\; K>1,
\]
solutions to system \eqref{firstk} satisfy \label{psidtk}
\begin{gather}
\|\partial h\|_{W^{a+1,2}_{2K}(\mathscr{B})} \sim \|\kappa\|_{W^{a,2}_{2K}(\mathscr{B})}+ \|\partial h\|_{L^2_{2K}(\mathscr{B})}\label{hk}\\[.3em]
\|v \|_{W^{a+2,2}_{2K}(\mathscr{B})} \sim \| {D}_t \kappa \|_{W^{a,2}_{2K}(\mathscr{B})} + \|\kappa\|_{W^{a,2}_{2K}(\mathscr{B})} + \|\partial h\|_{L^2_{2K}(\mathscr{B})} + \|v^\perp \|_{L^2_{2K}(\mathscr{B})}.
\end{gather}
\end{proposition}
\proof
The first inequality follows from $\kappa = -(1+|\partial h|^2)^{\frac 12} \Delta_\mathscr{B} h$, commuting $\mathcal{X}$ with $\Delta_\mathscr{B}$, and standard elliptic theory. To prove the second inequality we note that since $v$ is the gradient of a harmonic function, then by equation \eqref{eqhk}
\[
\|D^2v \|_{L^{2}(\mathscr{B})} \lesssim \|v \|_{H^{2}(\mathscr{B})} \lesssim \|v^\perp \|_{H^{2}(\mathscr{B})} \lesssim \|\Delta_{\partial \mathscr{B}} v^\perp \|_{L^{2}(\mathscr{B})} + \|v^\perp \|_{L^2(\mathscr{B})}
\]
From equation \eqref{E:dtk2}
\[
\Delta_{\mathscr{B}} v^\perp=-{D}_t \kappa - v^\perp |\Pi|^2 + (\mathcal{D} \cdot\Pi)(v^\top),
\]
the commutation relations of $\mathcal{X}$, and by the fact that $|\Pi| + |\mathcal{D}\Pi|\lesssim | \partial h| + |D^2h| +|D^3h|$, we conclude the stated result.
\endproof
Set $\tilde \kappa_j = \kappa_{2K-j} = \mathcal{A}^{2K-j}\kappa$, for any $0 \le j\le 2K$. It solves the equation
\begin{equation}
{D}_t^2 \tilde\kappa_j = \Delta_{\mathscr{B}} \mathcal{N} (\tilde \kappa_j) + \tilde R_j, \label{tildekj}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde R_j = R_{2K-j}$ is defined by \eqref{Rninduc}.
Next, let
$$
\mathscr{F}_j^{\ell} \overset{def}{=}
\frac{1}{2} \left\| \mathcal{D} \mathcal{N} D_t \mathcal{X}^j \tilde \kappa_{j+\ell} \right\|_{L^2}^2 + \frac{1}{2} \langle \mathcal{N} \Delta_{\mathscr{B}} \mathcal{N} \mathcal{X}^j
\kappa_{j+\ell} , \Delta_{\mathscr{B}} \mathcal{N} \mathcal{X}^j \kappa_{j+\ell} \rangle
$$
where $\ell = 0 \dots 2K - j$. Finally, define the weighted energy that will be controlled:
$$
F_n \overset{def}{=} \sum_{j = 0}^n \sum_{\ell = 0}^{2K-j} \mathscr{F}_j^{\ell} + E_{\rm{physical}}.
$$
Notice that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
F_n(t) & \sim \left\| D_t \kappa \right\|_{W^{3(2K-n)+2,2}_n}^2 + \left\| \kappa \right\|_{W^{3(2K-n)+\frac{7}{2},2}_n}^2 + \|\Lambda^{1/2} \psi\|_2^2 + \| \partial h \|_2^2 \\
& \sim \left\| v \right\|_{W^{3(2K-n)+4,2}_n}^2 + \left\| \partial h \right\|_{W^{3(2K-n)+\frac{9}{2},2}_n}^2 + \|\Lambda^{1/2} \psi\|_2^2 \\
& \sim \left\| \Lambda^{1/2} u \right\|_{W_n^{3(2K-n)+\frac{9}{2},2}}^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
To derive the weighted energy estimate we need to commute $\mathcal{X}$ with the operator ${D}_t^2 -\Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N}$. The next lemma illustrates how and where terms such as $\mathcal{S}\partial h$ appear in the commutators.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:skj} Let $g$ denote a smooth function on $\partial\mathcal{U}$ and write
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lin-eq}
D^2_t g - \Delta_\mathscr{B} \mathcal{N} g = F \quad \text{ on }\quad \partial\mathcal{U}.
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{equation}
\begin{split} \label{eq:xg}
\| \mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} [ \mathcal{X}, \Delta_{\mathscr{B}} \mathcal{N}- D^2_t ] g \|_{L^2} \lesssim & \left(\|\mathcal{X}\hd h\|_{\widetilde W^{4,\8}}+ \|\mathcal{X} v\|_{\widetilde W^{2,\8}}\right)\left(
\| \hd g\|_{H^4}+ \|\hd D_tg\|_{H^2}\right)\\
&+ \|\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} F\|_{L^2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\proof
For $\mathcal{X}=\mathcal{S}$, we have from the commutation relations \eqref{comm-lap} and \eqref{comm-n} \begin{align*}
[\mathcal{S}, \Delta_\mathscr{B} \mathcal{N} -{D}^2_t] g =&\left( \Delta_\mathscr{B}[\mathcal{S},\mathcal{N}] + [\mathcal{S}, \Delta_\mathscr{B}]\mathcal{N} - {D}_t[\mathcal{S},D_t] - [\mathcal{S},D_t]D_t\right) g\\[.3em]
=& \Delta_\mathscr{B} \left( \nabla_{\mathcal{S} N} g_{\mathcal{H}} -( \mathcal{N} Z )\partial_z g_{\mathcal{H}} + N\cdot \nabla \Delta_0^{-1} 2{\rm div}(( \nabla Z_\mathcal{H}) \partial_z g_{\mathcal{H}} )\right) \\[.3em]
& -\left(2 \Delta_{\mathscr{B}} \mathcal{N} g + 2\mathcal{D}^2\mathcal{N} g \cdot \nabla^\top (Z\mathbf{k}) + \left( \Delta_\mathscr{B} S \right)\cdot (\nabla^\top \mathcal{N} g ) +\kappa\mathcal{S} N\cdot (\nabla^\top\mathcal{N} g )\right)\\[.3em]
&-D_t(\frac12v^i+\mathcal{S} v^i)\partial_i g -(\frac12v^i+\mathcal{S} v^i)\partial_iD_t g +3 D_t F.
\end{align*}
Writing $A_{\nabla Z_\mathcal{H}}(\partial_z g) = \Delta_\mathscr{B}\left( N\cdot \nabla \Delta_0^{-1} 2{\rm div}(( \nabla Z_\mathcal{H}) \partial_zg_{\mathcal{H}}\right)$ (which is an operator of order 2),
this commutator can be written as
\[
\begin{split}
[ \mathcal{S}, \Delta_{\mathscr{B}} \mathcal{N}- D^2_t ] g = & A_3 (\mathcal{S} \hd h) \hd^3 g + A_2 (\mathcal{S}\hd^2 h) \hd^2 g
+ A_1 ( \mathcal{S}\hd^3 h) \hd g \\
&+ A_{\nabla Z_\mathcal{H}}(\partial_z g_{\mathcal{H}}) + B_1(v,\mathcal{S} v)\hd {D}_t g + 3 D_t F,
\end{split}
\]
where we exhibited the dependence of the coefficients on the least regular terms and terms with the least number of $\hat D$.
Here we introduced the notation $A_3\hd^3 =\sum_{i=1}^{3} A^i_3 \mathcal{N}^iD^{3-i}$, and so on. This implies
\[
\begin{split}
\| \mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} [ \mathcal{S}, \Delta_{\mathscr{B}} \mathcal{N}- D^2_t ] g \|_{L^2} & \lesssim \left(\|\mathcal{S}\hd h\|_{\widetilde W^{4,\8}}+ \|\mathcal{S} v\|_{\widetilde W^{2,\8}}\right)\left(
\| \hd g\|_{H^4} + \|\hd D_tg\|_{H^2}\right)+ \|\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} D_t F\|_{L^2}.
\end{split}
\]
Similar estimates hold for $\mathcal{X}=\Omega$.
\endproof
\begin{remark}
Note that this lemma, when combined with Lemma \ref{linear:prop}, gives an estimate with $1/2$ regular derivatives loss on $g$.
However since the loss is in regular derivatives, we can handle this by regular energy estimates.
Moreover since terms like $\mathcal{S}\hd h$ decay at a rate less than $t^{-1}$, this will cause a cascading effect on the growth rate of the weighted energy estimates.
\end{remark}
Bounds for $F_n(t)$ will be derived under the assumptions
\begin{equation}\label{assume2}
\begin{cases}\tag{a2}
F_0(t) \lesssim \epsilon^2 t^{2\delta}, \;
\|v\|^2_{W^{4,2}_K}+ \|\partial h\|^2_{W^{{9/2},2}_K} \lesssim \epsilon, \mbox{ for } \epsilon \ll 1\\
a(t) \overset{def}{=} \|\partial h\|_{{\widetilde W}_{K}^{9/2 ,\infty}} +\| v\|_{{\widetilde W}_{K}^{4,\infty}} \lesssim \epsilon t^{-1+\delta}, \quad t\ge 1,\\
b(t) \overset{def}{=} \|\partial^2 h\|_{{\widetilde W}_{K}^{7/2 ,\infty}} +\| D v\|_{{\widetilde W}_{K}^{3,\infty}} \lesssim \epsilon t^{-1}, \quad t\ge 1,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
which follow from $\|u\|_{\rm{decay}} \lesssim \epsilon$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:energy} Under assumption \eqref{assume2}, solutions of \eqref{E:dttk2} with initial data
\[
\|v_0\|^2_{W^{4,2}_{2K}}+ \|\partial h_0\|^2_{W^{9/2,2}_{2K}} \le \epsilon^2 \ll1,
\]
satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{energyw}
F_j(t) \lesssim \epsilon^2 t^{2(j+1)\delta},
\end{equation}
for $0\le j \le 2K$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} \underline{Step 1: the ODE controlling $F_j$.} The proof will be constructed inductively on $j$. The case $j=0$ is the non-weighted estimates.
Since the difficulty in controlling $F_j$ is in controlling high order weighted derivatives, we will only keep track of the highest order weighted derivative terms in $F_j$,
that is $\mathscr{F}_j^0$.
Recall that $\tilde\kappa_j=\mathcal{A}^{2K-j}\kappa$ satisfies \eqref{tildekj}, and that
\begin{equation}
\mathscr{F}_j^0 (t) =\frac 12\|\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} {D}_t \mathcal{X}^j \tilde\kappa_j\|_{L^2} ^2 + \frac 12 \langle \mathcal{N} \Delta_\mathscr{B} \mathcal{N} \mathcal{X}^j\tilde\kappa_j, \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N} \mathcal{X}^j \tilde\kappa_j\rangle.
\end{equation}
For $ 1\le j \le 2K$, $\mathcal{X}^j\tilde\kappa_j$ satisfies the equation
\begin{align}
&{D}_t^2\mathcal{X}^j \tilde\kappa_j = \Delta_{\mathscr{B}} \mathcal{N} (\mathcal{X}^j \tilde \kappa_j) + \mathcal{R}_j,\\
&\mathcal{R}_{j} \overset{def}{=} \sum_{i=1}^{j}\mathcal{X}^{{j}-i} \left([\mathcal{X}, \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N} - {D}^2_t] \mathcal{X}^{i-1}\tilde \kappa_{j}\right) + \mathcal{X}^{{j}}{\tilde R}_j, \label{eq:calr}
\end{align}
and consequently from Lemma \ref{linear:prop} we have
\be\label{dte}
\begin{split}
\frac d{dt} \mathscr{F}_j^0 (t) =& \langle ( v^\perp \kappa + \mathcal{D} \cdot v^\top )\mathcal{D} \mathcal{N}{D}_t\tilde \kappa_j ,\mathcal{D} \mathcal{N}{D}_t \tilde \kappa_j \rangle
+ 2\langle [D_t, \mathcal{D}] \mathcal{N} D_t\tilde\kappa_j, \mathcal{D} \mathcal{N}{D}_t\tilde\kappa_j \rangle + 2 \langle\mathcal{D} [D_t, \mathcal{N} ]D_t\tilde\kappa_j, \mathcal{D} \mathcal{N}{D}_t\tilde\kappa_j \rangle
\\ &+ \langle[D_t, \mathcal{N}] \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N} \tilde \kappa_j, \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N} \tilde \kappa_j \rangle
+2 \langle \mathcal{N}[D_t , \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N}] \tilde \kappa_j, \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N} \tilde \kappa_j \rangle + \langle \mathcal{D} \mathcal{N} {\mathcal{R}}_j, \mathcal{D} \mathcal{N}{D}_t\tilde \kappa_j \rangle,
\end{split}
\ee
and
\begin{align*}
\frac d{dt} \mathscr{F}_j^0 \lesssim \|(Dv, \partial h Dv,\partial^2 h)\|_{\widetilde W^{3, \infty}}\mathscr{F}_j + \|\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} \mathcal{R}_1\|_{L^2}\sqrt{ \mathscr{F}_j^0 }
\lesssim \frac{\epsilon}t \mathscr{F}_j + \|\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} \mathcal{R}_j\|_{L^2}\sqrt{ \mathscr{F}_j^0 }.
\end{align*}
Thus to prove the proposition we have to bound $\mathcal{R}_j$, which will be done inductively.
\bigskip
\noindent
\underline{Step 2: the case $j=1$.}
For $j=1$
\[
\begin{split}
&\mathcal{R}_{1} =[\mathcal{X}, \Delta_\mathscr{B}\mathcal{N} - {D}^2_t] \tilde \kappa_{1} + \mathcal{X}{\tilde R}_1
\end{split}
\]
has to be bounded carefully due to the presence of $\mathcal{X}\partial h$ in the commutators whenever $\mathcal{X}=\mathcal{S}$ or $\Omega$.
To estimate this term when $\mathcal{X}= \mathcal{S}$, we use Lemma \ref{lem:skj} to obtain
\[
\begin{split}
\| \mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} [ \mathcal{S}, \Delta_{\mathscr{B}} \mathcal{N}- D^2_t ] \tilde\kappa_1 \|_{L^2} & \lesssim \left(\|\mathcal{S}\hd h\|_{\widetilde W^{4,\8}}+ \|\mathcal{S} v\|_{\widetilde W^{2,\8}}\right)\left(
\| \hd \tilde\kappa_1\|_{H^4} + \|\hd D_t \tilde\kappa_1\|_{H^2}\right)+ \|\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} D_t \tilde R_1\|_{L^2}
\end{split}
\]
From the regular energy estimates and assumption \eqref{assume2} we can bound the right-hand side as follows
\begin{align*}
&\| \hd \tilde\kappa_1\|_{H^4} + \|\hd D_t \tilde\kappa_1\|_{H^2}\lesssim \sqrt{E_{2K}} \lesssim \epsilon
t^\delta\\[.3em]
& \|\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} D_t \tilde R_1\|_{L^2} \lesssim \frac \epsilon{t}\sqrt{E_{2K}} \lesssim \frac {\epsilon^2} {t^{1-\delta}},\\[.3em]
&\|\mathcal{S}\hd h\|_{\widetilde W^{4,\8}}+ \|\mathcal{S} v\|_{\widetilde W^{2,\8}} \lesssim \frac \epsilon {t^{1-\delta}}.
\end{align*}
Thus $ \| \mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} [ \mathcal{S}, \Delta_{\mathscr{B}} \mathcal{N}- D^2_t ] \tilde\kappa_1 \|_{L^2} \lesssim \frac {\epsilon^2} {t^{1-2\delta}}$.
Similarly, observe that
\[
\tilde R_1 = R_{2K -1}= \sum_{i=1}^ {2K -1}\mathcal{A}^{ {2K -1}-i} \left(D_t[D_t,\mathcal{A}]\kappa_{i-1} + [D_t,\mathcal{A}]{D}_t\kappa_{i-1}\right) + \mathcal{A}^{ {2K -1}}R_0,
\]
is a sum of products of the following type: a function which carries the highest number of derivative, which can be estimated in $L^2$; and a function
that decays $\sim \frac{1}{t}$ in $L^\infty$ due to Assumption~(\ref{assume2}). Therefore, we get
\[
\| \mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} \mathcal{S} \tilde R_1 \|_{L^2} \lesssim \frac \epsilon{t}\sqrt{F_1},
\]
Similar estimates holds when $\mathcal{X}=\Omega$.
Thus we conclude
\[
\frac d{dt} \sqrt{\mathscr{F}^0_1(t)} \lesssim \frac \epsilon{t}\sqrt{F_1} +\frac {\epsilon^2} {t^{1-2\delta}} \sqrt{F_0} \implies
\frac d{dt} \sqrt{F_1(t)} \lesssim \frac \epsilon{t}\sqrt{F_1} + \frac{\epsilon^2}{t^{1-2\delta}}
\implies F_1(t) \lesssim \epsilon^2 t^{4\delta},
\]
which proves the proposition for $j=1$.
\bigskip
\noindent
\underline{Step 3: the case $j\geq 2$.}
For $j\ge2$ we proceed inductively in $j$ to estimate $\|\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} \mathcal{R}_j\|_{L^2}$. Assume we have verified the proposition for $j-1$.
To show it holds for $j$ we have to apply $\mathcal{X}^j$ to the $\tilde\kappa_j$ equation. Recall that
\[
\begin{split}
[ \mathcal{X}, \Delta_{\mathscr{B}} \mathcal{N}- D^2_t ] \mathcal{X}^{i-1}\tilde \kappa_{j} = & A_3 (\mathcal{X} \hd h) \hd^3 \mathcal{X}^{i-1}\tilde \kappa_{j} + A_2 (\mathcal{X}\hd^2 h) \hd^2 \mathcal{X}^{i-1}\tilde \kappa_{j}
+ A_1 ( \mathcal{X}\hd^3 h) \hd \mathcal{X}^{i-1}\tilde \kappa_{j} \\
&+ A_{\nabla Z_\mathcal{H}}(\partial_z \mathcal{X}^{i-1}\tilde \kappa_{j \mathcal{H}}) + B_1(\mathcal{X} v )\hd {D}_t \mathcal{X}^{i-1}\tilde \kappa_{j} + 3 D_t \mathcal{X}^{i-1}\tilde \kappa_{j}.
\end{split}
\]
In equation \eqref{eq:calr}, these terms
generate quadratic terms of the form
\[
\begin{split}
A_3 ({\mathcal{X}^{\ell+1}}\hd h) \hd^3\mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1} \tilde\kappa_j+ &A_2 (\mathcal{X}^{\ell+1}\hd^2 h) \hd^2\mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1} \tilde\kappa_j\\
+ &A_1 ( {\mathcal{X}^{\ell+1}}\hd^3 h) \hd \mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1}\tilde\kappa_j + B_1({\mathcal{X}^{\ell+1}}v )\hd {D}_t \mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1} \tilde\kappa_j,
\end{split}
\]
(for $ 0\le \ell \le j-1$) as well as terms of the type
\begin{equation}
\label{albatros}
\begin{split}
& \Delta_\mathscr{B} \left( N\cdot \nabla \Delta_0^{-1} 2{\rm div}(( \mathcal{X}_\mathcal{H}^{\ell} \nabla X_\mathcal{H}) \partial_z \mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1}\tilde \kappa_{j \mathcal{H}}\right),\quad 0\le \ell \le j-1 \\
& \Delta_\mathscr{B}\left( N\cdot \nabla \Delta_0^{-1} 2\mathcal{X}_\mathcal{H}^{\ell -1} \left( (\nabla X_\mathcal{H})\cdot( \nabla X_\mathcal{H} \partial_z \mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1}\tilde \kappa_{j \mathcal{H}} )\right)\right), \quad 1\le \ell \le j-1,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and finally terms which more regular and of higher degree.
The first term in~(\ref{albatros}) is easy to bound, while the second term term gives rise to smooth regular cubic terms and to quartic terms of order $-1$ of the form
\begin{equation}
(\Delta_\mathscr{B} N)\cdot \nabla \Delta_0^{-1}\mathcal{X}_\mathcal{H}^{\ell-1} \left( (\nabla X_\mathcal{H})\cdot( \nabla X_\mathcal{H} \partial_z\mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1}\tilde \kappa_{j \mathcal{H}} )\right)
\end{equation}
Thus all these commutations lead to quadratic terms
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
Q_j = \sum_{\ell=0}^{j-1}&
A_3 ({\mathcal{X}^{\ell+1}}\hd h) \hd^3\mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1} \tilde\kappa_j+ A_2 ({\mathcal{X}^{\ell+1}}\hd^2 h) \hd^2\mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1} \tilde\kappa_j\\
+ &A_1 ( {\mathcal{X}^{\ell+1}}\hd^3 h) \hd \mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1}\tilde\kappa_j + B_1({\mathcal{X}^{\ell+1}}v )\hd {D}_t \mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1} \tilde\kappa_j\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
quartic terms of order $-1$ of the form
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}_j = ( \Delta_\mathscr{B}\ N) \cdot \nabla \Delta_0^{-1} 2\mathcal{X}_\mathcal{H}^{\ell -1} \left( (\nabla X_\mathcal{H})\cdot( \nabla X_\mathcal{H} \partial_z \mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1}\tilde \kappa_{j \mathcal{H}} )\right), \quad 1\le \ell \le j-1,
\end{equation}
and more regular degree 3 or higher terms. Thus
\[
\mathcal{R}_j = Q_j + \mathcal{K}_j + \mathcal{X}^j{\tilde R}_{0} + \mbox{ similar or more regular terms of degree 3 or higher}.
\]
To bound $\| \mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} \mathcal{R}_{j}\|^2_{L^2}$, we deal first with the quadratic terms $Q_{j}$. In this case
we bound each term in $L^2$ or $L^\8$, depending on whether $\ell \ge K$ or $\ell \le K-1$.
To estimate $A_3 ({\mathcal{X}^\ell\mathcal{S}}\hd h) \hd^3\mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1} \tilde\kappa_j$, with $\ell \ge K$, we proceed as follows:
\[
\begin{split}
\| \mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} A_3 ({\mathcal{X}^\ell\mathcal{S}}\hd h) \hd^3\mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1} \tilde\kappa_j\|_{L^2} & \lesssim
\|\ \hd^3\mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1} \tilde\kappa_j\|_{\widetilde W^{2,\8}}
\| {\mathcal{X}^\ell\mathcal{S}}\hd h \|_{H^2}.
\end{split}
\]
The above expression is bounded by $\epsilon t^{-1}\sqrt{F_j}$.
For $\ell\le K-1$,
\[
\begin{split}
&\| {\mathcal{X}^\ell\mathcal{S}}\hd h \|_{\widetilde W^{2,\8}} \lesssim\frac{\epsilon}{ t^{1-\delta}}, \quad \text{by assumption \eqref{assume2}},\\
&\| \hd^3\mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1} \tilde\kappa_j \|_{H^2} \lesssim \sqrt{ F_{j-\ell-1}} \lesssim \epsilon t^{(j-\ell)\delta}, \quad \text{by the inductive step}.
\end{split}
\]
Therefore
\[
\begin{split}
\| \mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} A_3 ({\mathcal{X}^\ell\mathcal{S}}\hd h) \hd^3\mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1} \tilde\kappa_j\|_{L^2} & \lesssim
\| {\mathcal{X}^\ell\mathcal{S}}\hd h \|_{\widetilde W^{2,\8}}
\| \hd^3\mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1} \tilde\kappa_j \|_{H^2} \lesssim
\frac{\epsilon^2} {t^{1-(j + 1)\delta}}.
\end{split}
\]
The remaining terms in $Q_{j}$ are estimated in the same manner.
The cubic terms are much easier to bound since they appear from multiple commutations of $\mathcal{X}$ and thus they have fewer derivatives and better $t$ decay.
The quartic terms $\|\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N}\mathcal{K}_j \|_{L^2}$ can be estimated in the following manner: when $\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N}$ hits $\Delta_\mathscr{B} N$ we bound the term by
\begin{multline*}
\left\|(\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} \Delta_\mathscr{B} N)\cdot \nabla \Delta_0^{-1} \mathcal{X}_\mathcal{H}^{\ell -1} \left( (\nabla Z_\mathcal{H})\cdot( \nabla Z_\mathcal{H} \partial_z \mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1}\tilde \kappa_{j \mathcal{H}} )\right)\right\|_{L^2} \\
\lesssim \left\|\partial h\right\|_{H^4}\left\| \nabla \Delta_0^{-1} \mathcal{X}_\mathcal{H}^{\ell -1} \left( (\nabla Z_\mathcal{H})\cdot( \nabla Z_\mathcal{H} \partial_z \mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1}\tilde \kappa_{j \mathcal{H}} )\right)\right\|_{L^\8(\mathscr{D})} \\
\lesssim\|\partial h\|_{H^4} \left\| \mathcal{X}_\mathcal{H}^{\ell -1} \left( (\nabla Z_\mathcal{H})\cdot( \nabla Z_\mathcal{H} \partial_z \mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1}\tilde \kappa_{j \mathcal{H}} )\right)\right \|_{H^1(\mathscr{D})}
\end{multline*}
By distributing the $\mathcal{X}_\mathcal{H}^{\ell -1}$ vector fields on the cubic term we end up with a highest derivative of $\mathcal{X}^{j-2}$, and at least one term with less than $K$ derivatives. Thus
\[
\left\|(\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N} \Delta_\mathscr{B} N)\cdot \nabla \Delta_0^{-1} \mathcal{X}_\mathcal{H}^{\ell -1} \left( (\nabla Z_\mathcal{H})\cdot( \nabla Z_\mathcal{H} \partial_z \mathcal{X}^{j-\ell-1}\tilde \kappa_{j \mathcal{H}} )\right)\right\|_{L^2} \lesssim \frac{\epsilon^2} {t^{1-(j + 1)\delta}}.
\]
The remaining terms are quartic with fewer derivatives and are of positive order, thus their estimates are straightforward.
This leaves $\|\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N}\mathcal{X}^{j}{\tilde R}_0\|_{L^2}$ to estimate. Recall that ${\tilde R}_0 = R_{2K-j}$ is given by \eqref{Rninduc}
\begin{align*}
R_{2K-j} =\sum_{i=1}^{2K-j}\mathcal{A}^{n-i} \left(D_t[D_t,\mathcal{A}]\kappa_{i-1} + [D_t,\mathcal{A}]{D}_t\kappa_{i-1}\right) + \mathcal{A}^{2K-j}R_0,
\end{align*}
so these terms can be bounded by
\[
\|\mathcal{D}\mathcal{N}\mathcal{X}^{j}{\tilde R}_0\|_{L^2} \lesssim \frac{\epsilon}{t} \sqrt{F_j}.
\]
Putting all of these bounds together implies
\[
\frac d{dt} \mathcal{F}_{j} (t) \lesssim \frac \epsilon t \sqrt{F_{j}} + \frac{\epsilon^2} {t^{1-(j + 1)\delta}},
\]
which gives the desired estimate after summing over $j$.
\end{proof}
\section{Decay estimates}
\label{sectionnonlindecay}
\subsection{Rewriting the equation}
\label{subsecrewrit}
Recall that the equations for the trace of the potential and the graph of the surface are given by (see \eqref{Lin})
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l} \partial_t h = \Lambda \psi - \nabla \cdot (h \nabla \psi) - \Lambda (h\Lambda \psi) +\tilde R_1 \\
\partial_t \psi = \Delta h - \frac{1}{2}|\nabla \psi|^2 + \frac{1}{2} |\Lambda \psi|^2 + R_2\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
where $\tilde R_1$ and $R_2$ are terms of degree $3$ and higher, and where
$\Lambda$ is the Fourier multiplier of symbol $|\xi|$.
By introducing the variable $H = \Lambda^{1/2} h$, the above equations can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{aa}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l} \partial_t H = \Lambda^{3/2} \psi - \Lambda^{1/2}
\nabla \cdot ( \Lambda^{-1/2} H \nabla \psi) - \Lambda^{3/2} ( \Lambda^{-1/2} H \Lambda \psi) +R_1 \\
\partial_t \psi = -\Lambda^{3/2} H - \frac{1}{2}|\nabla \psi|^2 + \frac{1}{2} |\Lambda \psi|^2 +R_2,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $R_1 \overset{def}{=} \Lambda^{1/2}\tilde R_1 $. The above system can be written in a compact form in terms of the complex variable $u = H + i \psi$:
\begin{equation}
\label{aau} \partial_t u = - i \Lambda^{3/2} u + T_{m_{++}}(u,u) + T_{m_{--}}(\bar u,\bar u) + T_{m_{+-}}(u,\bar u) + R,
\end{equation}
where $m_{\pm \pm}$ are linear combinations of
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned} \label{m1m2}
& m_1(\xi,\eta) \overset{def}{=} \frac{|\xi|^{1/2}}{|\eta|^{1/2}} \left(\xi \cdot (\xi-\eta) - |\xi||\xi-\eta| \right), \\
& m_2(\xi,\eta) \overset{def}{=} \eta \cdot (\xi-\eta) + |\eta||\xi-\eta|, \\
& \mbox{and} \;\; m_1(\xi,\xi-\eta),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and we set $R \overset{def}{=}R_1+i R_2$.
The next step is to define
$$
f(t) \overset{def}{=} e^{it\Lambda^{3/2}} u
$$
and to write Duhamel's formula for $f$:
\begin{multline}
\label{eqfourier}
\widehat{f}(t,\xi) = \widehat u_0(\xi) + \sum_{(\tau_1,\tau_2) = (++),(+-),(--)} \int_0^t
\!\!\int e^{is\phi_{\tau_1,\tau_2}(\xi,\eta)} m_{\tau_1 \tau_2} (\xi,\eta) \widehat{f_{-\tau_1}}(s,\eta) \widehat{f_{-\tau_2}}(s,\xi-\eta)\,d\eta \,ds \\
\quad \quad \quad + \int_0^t e^{is |\xi|^{3/2}} \widehat{R} (s,\xi )\,ds, \\
\end{multline}
where $f_{+} \stackrel{def}{=} f$, $ f_{-} \stackrel{def}{=} \bar{f}$, and the phases are given by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
& \phi_{\pm,\pm}(\xi,\eta) = |\xi|^{3/2} \pm |\eta |^{3/2} \pm |\xi-\eta|^{3/2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Sometimes, the exact structure of~(\ref{aau}) will not matter and we will write it in a simplified form
\begin{equation}
\label{simpleform}
\partial_t u = - i \Lambda^{3/2} u + T_{m}(u,u) + R,
\end{equation}
with $m$ being a linear combination of $m_1$ and $m_2$.
We will also often write indistinctively $f$ for $f$ and $\bar f$; similarly, we will not distinguish between $e^{is|D|^{3/2}}$ and $e^{-is|D|^{3/2}}$.
This alleviates somewhat the notations, and has of course no impact on the estimates.
\subsection{Examination of the bilinear symbols and the phases}
\label{eotbsatp}
\subsubsection{The symbols}
Start with the two multilinear symbols
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
& \tilde m_1(\xi,\eta) \overset{def}{=} \xi \cdot (\xi- \eta) - |\xi|| \xi - \eta| \\
& \tilde m_2(\xi,\eta) \overset{def}{=} \eta \cdot (\xi-\eta) + |\eta||\xi-\eta|
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Due to the relation $\tilde m_1(\eta,\xi) = - \tilde m_2 (-\xi,-\eta ) $, it is equivalent to prove estimates for either of these symbols.
Using the simple fact that
$$
|X+\eps| = |X| + X\cdot \frac{\eps}{|X|} + \frac12 \left(\frac{|\eps|^2}{|X|} \right)
- \left(\frac{(\eps \cdot X)^2}{|X|^3} \right) + O \left(\frac{|\eps|^3}{|X|^2} \right),
$$
we can deduce that for $|\eta| << |\xi| $,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde m_1(\xi,\eta) & = |\xi|^2 - \eta \cdot \xi - |\xi| \left( |\xi| + \xi \cdot \frac{\eta}{|\eta|} + O \left( \frac{|\eta|^2}{|\xi|} \right) \right) \\
& = O (|\eta |^2).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Therefore
\begin{itemize}
\item If $|\xi| << |\eta| $, then $ | \tilde m_1(\xi,\eta) | \lesssim |\xi| |\eta| $
\item If $|\eta| << |\xi| $, then $ | \tilde m_1(\xi,\eta) | \lesssim |\eta|^2 $
\item If $|\xi-\eta| << |\eta| $, then $ | \tilde m_1(\xi,\eta) | \lesssim |\xi-\eta| |\eta| $
\end{itemize}
and thus
\begin{itemize}
\item If $|\xi| << |\eta| $, then $ | \tilde m_2(\xi,\eta) | \lesssim |\xi|^2 $
\item If $|\eta| << |\xi| $, then $ | \tilde m_2(\xi,\eta) | \lesssim |\eta| |\xi| $
\item If $|\xi-\eta| << |\eta| $, then $ | \tilde m_2(\xi,\eta) | \lesssim |\xi-\eta| |\eta| $.
\end{itemize}
In terms of the classes defined in Appendix~\ref{appendixbilin}, this means that $\tilde m_1(\xi,\eta) \in \mathcal{M}^{2,1,2,1}$ and
$\tilde m_2(\xi,\eta) \in \mathcal{M}^{2,2,1,1}$.
Now
$$
m_1(\xi,\eta) = \frac{|\xi|^{1/2}}{|\eta|^{1/2}} \tilde m_1(\xi,\eta) \quad \mbox{and} \quad m_2(\xi,\eta) = \tilde m_2(\xi,\eta).
$$
This implies that $m_1(\xi,\eta) \in \mathcal{M}^{2,3/2,3/2,1}$, $m_1(\xi,\xi-\eta) \in \mathcal{M}^{2,3/2,1,3/2}$, and $m_2(\xi,\eta) \in \mathcal{M}^{2,2,1,1}$.
Finally, since any $m_{\pm \pm}$ is a linear combination of
$m_1(\xi,\eta)$, $m_2(\xi,\eta)$, and $m_1(\xi,\xi-\eta)$, we deduce that
$$
m_{\pm \pm} \in \mathcal{M}^{2,3/2,1,1}.
$$
\subsubsection{The phases}
Recall that for a phase $\phi$, the space, time, and space-time resonant sets are given by
$$
\mathcal{T} = \{ \phi = 0 \} \quad,\quad \mathcal{S} = \{ \partial_\eta \phi = 0 \} \quad \mbox{and} \quad \mathcal{R} = \mathcal{S} \cap \mathcal{T}.
$$
Let us study these sets for each of the phases $\phi_{\pm \pm}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item First $\phi_{++}$: it is obvious that $\mathcal{T}_{++} = \{(0,0)\}$, which is the most favourable case. We will therefore deal with this interaction by using
a normal form transform, producing the symbol $\frac{m_{++}}{\phi_{++}}$, which belongs to $\mathcal{M}^{1/2,3/2,1,1}$.
\item For $\phi_{+-}$, we have $\partial_\eta\phi_{+-} = + \frac32 \frac{\eta}{|\eta|^{1/2}} +\frac32 \frac{\xi - \eta}{|\xi- \eta|^{1/2}} $ and hence
we find $\mathcal{S}_{+-} = \mathcal{R}_{+-} = \{\xi=0\}$. Thus in this case estimates will be obtained by an integration by parts in $\eta$.
Expanding $\partial_\eta \phi_{+-}$ around $\xi=0$ gives:
$$
\partial_\eta \phi = \frac{3}{2|\eta|^{1/2}} \left( \xi + \frac{1}{2} \left( \xi \cdot \frac{\eta}{|\eta|} \right) \frac{\eta}{|\eta|} \right) +
O\left(\frac{|\xi|^2}{|\eta|^{1/2}}\right).
$$
When integrating by parts in $\eta$, the symbol will be changed to $\frac{m_{+-}}{|\partial_\eta \phi_{+-}|^2} \partial_\eta \phi$, which, by the above estimate, belongs
to $\mathcal{M}^{3/2,1/2,1,1}$.
\item Finally, for $\phi_{--}$, we have $\partial_\eta \phi = - \frac32 \frac{\eta}{|\eta|^{1/2}} +\frac32 \frac{\xi - \eta}{|\xi- \eta|^{1/2}} $
and hence
we find that $\mathcal{S}_{+-} =\{ \xi = 2\eta \} $ and
$ \mathcal{R}_{--} = \{(0,0)\} $.
As we will see, by splitting the $(\xi,\eta)$ space into regions where $\phi$ and
$\partial_\eta \phi$ do not vanish, this case can be reduced to estimates similar to those for $\phi_{++}$ and $\phi_{+-}$.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Invariances and commutators}
\label{invandcom}
The solutions of equation~(\ref{aau}) are invariant by translation $u \mapsto u(x+\delta)$, $\delta \in \mathbb{R}^2$, rotation $u \mapsto u(R_\theta x)$, and dilation
$u \mapsto \frac{1}{\lambda^{1/2}} u ( \lambda^{3/2} t,\lambda x)$.
The generators of these transformations give the vector fields\footnote{Notice that the vector field $\mathcal{S}$ equals the generator of the scaling transformation up
to an additive constant only.}
$$
\partial^3 = (\partial_1,\partial_2)^3,\;\;
\Omega = x^1 \partial_2 - x^2 \partial_1=\omega^i\partial_i,
\mbox{ and } \mathcal{S} = \frac{3}{2}t\partial_t + x^i \partial_i.
$$
We shall also use the space part of $\mathcal{S}$, namely
$$
\Sigma = x^i \partial_i.
$$
The vector fields $\partial^3,\Omega,\mathcal{S}$ are collectively denoted by $\Gamma$, and the multiindex notation for powers of $\Gamma$ is used.
Of course, $\partial^3$ commutes exacly with the linear part of the equation, and the linear group.
As for the nonlinear part of the equation, it can be expanded into pseudo-product operators
(by translation invariance) and regular derivatives can be commuted with pseudo-product operators according to the Leibniz rule.
The commutation of the vector fields $\Omega$ and $\mathcal{S}$ with the linear part of the equation and the linear group are given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
& \left[ \Omega,\partial_t + i \Lambda^{3/2} \right] = 0 \\
& \left[ \mathcal{S},\partial_t + i \Lambda^{3/2} \right] = - \frac{3}{2} \left( \partial_t + i \Lambda^{3/2} \right) \\
& \left[ \Omega, e^{\pm i t \Lambda^{3/2}} \right] = \left[ \mathcal{S}, e^{\pm i t \Lambda^{3/2}} \right] = 0 .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Next, to commute these vector fields with the nonlinear part of the equation, expand it into a series of multilinear operators:
in other words, write~(\ref{aau}) as
$$
\partial_t u = -i \Lambda^{3/2} u + \sum_{k=2}^\infty L_k (u,\dots,u),
$$
where $L_k$ is $k$-linear. The invariance by translation and rotation gives immediately that the Leibniz rule applies to $\partial$ and $\Omega$, namely
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
& \partial L_k (u,\dots,u) = L_k (\partial u,\dots,u) + \dots + L_k (u,\dots,\partial u) \\
& \Omega L_k (u,\dots,u) = L_k (\Omega u,\dots,u) + \dots + L_k (u,\dots,\Omega u).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
As for the dilation operators, notice that the scaling invariance gives
$$
L_k \left(\frac{1}{\lambda^{1/2}} u ( \lambda^{3/2} t,\lambda x),\dots,\frac{1}{\lambda^{1/2}} u ( \lambda^{3/2} t,\lambda x) \right)
= \lambda \left[ L_k (u,\dots,u) \right] ( \lambda^{3/2} t,\lambda x)
$$
Taking the derivative in $\lambda$ yields the modified Leibniz rule:
$$
\mathcal{S} L_k (u,\dots,u) = L_k (\mathcal{S} u,\dots,u) + \dots + L_k ( u,\dots,\mathcal{S}u) - \left( \frac{k}{2} + 1 \right) L_k (u,\dots,u).
$$
Finally, we will need to commute vector fields with Fourier multipliers of the type $\Lambda^\alpha$. The formulas are easily computed:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& \left[\partial,\Lambda^\alpha\right] = \left[\Omega,\Lambda^\alpha\right] = 0 \\
& \left[\mathcal{S},\Lambda^\alpha\right] = \left[\Sigma,\Lambda^\alpha\right] = \alpha \Lambda^\alpha.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
In particular, we shall remember that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& \Gamma \Lambda^\alpha = \Lambda^\alpha \Gamma + \mbox{ \{ lower order terms \} } \\
& \Sigma \Lambda^\alpha = \Lambda^\alpha \Sigma + \mbox{ \{ lower order terms \} }.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\subsection{The estimates}
We prove the following a priori estimate (recall that
$f = e^{it\Lambda^{3/2}} u$ and that $\alpha = \alpha_* + 3 \iota$).
\begin{prop}
\label{eagle}
Assuming $\|u\|_X < \infty$ and~(\ref{conditiondata}),
\begin{align}
\label{D1} \left\|Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^\alpha u \right\|_{W^{9,2}_{8+K}} &\lesssim \left( \eps + \|u\|_X^2 \right) \<t\>^{\delta'} \\
\label{D1'} \left\| Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^\alpha \Sigma f \right\|_{W^{9,2}_{7+K}} &\lesssim \left( \eps + \|u\|_X^2 \right) \<t\>^{\delta'} \\
\label{D2} \left\| Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^{1/2+\alpha-\beta} u \right\|_{W^{7,\infty}_{4+K}} & \lesssim \frac{\eps + \|u\|_X^2}{ \<t\>^{1-\delta'-\frac{2}{3}\beta}}
\qquad \mbox{if $0\leq \beta \leq 1/2$} \\
\label{D3} \left\|Y(\partial)^2 \Lambda^\alpha u \right\|_{W^{7,2}_{4+K}} & \lesssim \eps + \|u\|_X^2 \\
\label{D3'} \left\| Y(\partial)^2 \Sigma \Lambda^\alpha f \right\|_{W^{7,2}_{3+K}} & \lesssim \eps + \|u\|_X^2 \\
\label{D4} \left\| Y(\partial) \Lambda^{1/2+\alpha-\beta} u \right\|_{W^{5,\infty}_{K}} & \lesssim
\frac{\epsilon + \|u\|_X^2}{\<t\>^{1-\frac{2}{3} \beta}} \qquad \mbox{if $0 \leq \beta \leq 1/2$}.
\end{align}
\end{prop}
This proposition gives in particular the desired a priori estimate
$$
\|u\|_{\operatorname{decay}} \lesssim \epsilon + \|u\|_X^2.
$$
\begin{rem}
Notice that one of the reasons why many derivatives are lost in this
argument is that we cannot interpolate easily the derivatives $\mathcal{S}$ and $\Omega$,
namely we do not have a Trudinger type inequality for such derivatives.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Proof of~(\ref{D1})}\label{lowfreq}
The growth estimate~(\ref{D1}) follows from the result of Section~\ref{sectionenergy} as far as high frequencies are concerned. Thus it
suffices to control $Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^\alpha \Gamma^{k} u$ in $L^2$ for $|k| \leq K+8$. We fix such a $k$ and apply
$Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^\alpha \Gamma^k$ to~(\ref{simpleform}). This gives
\begin{equation}
\label{pinguin}
Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^\alpha \Gamma^{k} \left( \partial_t + i \Lambda^{3/2} \right) u = Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^{\alpha} \Gamma^{k} T_{m}(u,u) + Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^{\alpha} \Gamma^{k} R.
\end{equation}
Let us discard for the moment the remainder terms; we will come back to them in Section~\ref{remainderterm}.
Next apply Leibniz rule (see Subsection~(\ref{invandcom})) to commute $\Gamma^{k}$ with the linear equation and the bilinear term. Out of the many terms coming out, we single out
two representative examples: $Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^\alpha T_{m}(\Gamma^{k}u,u)$ and $Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^\alpha T_{m}(\Gamma^{k/2}u,\Gamma^{k/2}u)$
(assuming for simplicity that $k$ is even). Thus the equation now reads
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\left( \partial_t + i \Lambda^{3/2} \right) \Gamma^{k} Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^\alpha u = & Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^\alpha T_{m}(\Gamma^{k}u,u) + Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^\alpha T_{m}(\Gamma^{k/2}u,\Gamma^{k/2}u) \\
& \qquad + \mbox{ \{ similar terms \} }.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
To estimate the first term on the right-hand side, recall that $m \in \mathcal{M}^{2,3/2,1,1}$ and use Corollary~\ref{Bili-prop1} to get
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\left\|Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^\alpha T_{m}(\Gamma^{k}u,u) \right\|_2 & \lesssim \left\| \Gamma^{k} \Lambda^\alpha u \right\|_{H^2} \left\| \Lambda^{3/4} u \right\|_{W^{2,\infty}} \\
& \lesssim \left\| \Gamma^{k}\Lambda^\alpha u \right\|_2 \left\| \Lambda^{3/4} u \right\|_{W^{2,\infty}}
+ \left\| \Gamma^{k}\Lambda^\alpha u \right\|_{\dot{H}^2} \left\| \Lambda^{3/4} u \right\|_{W^{2,\infty}}\\
& \lesssim \frac{\|u\|_X}{\left< t \right>} \left\| \Gamma^{k} \Lambda^\alpha u \right\|_2 + \left< t \right>^{\delta'-1} \|u\|_X^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
To estimate the second term on the right-hand side, we also rely on Corollary~\ref{Bili-prop1} to obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\left\|Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^\alpha T_{m}(\Gamma^{k/2}u,\Gamma^{k/2}u) \right\|_2 & \lesssim \left\| \Gamma^{k/2} \Lambda^\alpha u \right\|_{H^2}
\left\| \Lambda^{3/4} \Gamma^{k/2}u \right\|_{W^{2,\infty}} \\
& \lesssim \frac{\|u\|_X}{t} \left\|\Gamma^{k} \Lambda^\alpha u \right\|_2 .
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Performing an energy estimate, (\ref{pinguin}) gives thus the differential inequality
$$
\frac{d}{dt} \left\|Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^\alpha u \right\|_{W^{0,2}_{K+8}}
\lesssim \frac{\|u\|_X}{\left< t \right>} \left\|Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^\alpha u \right\|_{W^{0,2}_{K+8}}
+ \left< t \right>^{\delta'-1} \|u\|_X^2.
$$
The hypothesis on the initial data~(\ref{conditiondata}) and Gronwall's inequality give the desired conclusion.
\subsection{Proof of~(\ref{D1'})}
It follows from~(\ref{D1}) in a very similar, but slightly simpler, way to how~(\ref{D3'}) follows from~(\ref{D3}). We therefore refer the reader to the proof of~(\ref{D3'}).
\subsection{Proof of~(\ref{D2})}
It follows from~(\ref{D1'}) and Proposition~\ref{decay-prop}.
\subsection{Proof of (\ref{D3})}
\subsubsection{First reduction}
The estimate~(\ref{D3}) is the crucial one, and the one for which space-time resonances will play a role. We want to control
$\|Y^2(\partial) \Gamma^{k} \Lambda^\alpha \partial^j u \|_2$ for $|k|\leq K+4$ and $|j|\leq 7$, which are from now on fixed. We will denote
$$
z = \Gamma^{k} \partial^j u \quad \mbox{and} \quad g(t) = e^{it\Lambda^{3/2}} z(t).
$$
Start by applying $Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha \Gamma^{k} \partial^j$ to the equation~(\ref{aau}).
Using Leibniz rule (see Subsection~\ref{invandcom}), $\Gamma^{k} \partial^j$ can be commuted with the linear and quadratic terms, which produces many terms.
We only record the extremal ones: these are the most difficult to estimate, and we will focus on them. Thus we find
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\partial_t Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha z = & - i \Lambda^{3/2} Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha z + Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha T_{m_{++}}(z,u) + Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha T_{m_{--}}(\bar z,\bar u) \\
& \qquad + Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha T_{m_{+-}}(z,\bar u) + Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha T_{m_{+-}}(u,\bar z) \\
& \qquad + \mbox{\{ Mixed terms \}} + Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha \Gamma^{k} \partial^jR.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Proceeding as in Subsection~\ref{subsecrewrit}, this can be translated in Fourier space into
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \widehat{g}(t,\xi)& \\
= Y^2(\xi) &|\xi|^\alpha \widehat z_0(\xi) + \sum_{\tau_{1,2} = \pm} \int_0^t Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha
\!\!\int e^{is\phi_{\tau_1,\tau_2}(\xi,\eta)} m_{\tau_1 \tau_2} (\xi,\eta) \widehat{f_{-\tau_1}}(s,\eta) \widehat{g_{-\tau_2}}(s,\xi-\eta)\,d\eta \,ds \\
& \quad \quad \quad + \mbox{\{ Mixed terms \}} + \int_0^t e^{is |\xi|^{3/2}}Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \widehat{\Gamma^{k} \partial^j R} (s,\xi )\,ds.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The constant term $Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \widehat z_0(\xi)$, by assumption, can be bounded in $L^2$ by $\epsilon$.
In the three following subsections, we analyze separately the terms corresponding to $++$, $--$, and $+-$ in the above sum to show that
$$
\left\| \int_0^t e^{is|D|^{3/2}} Y(\partial)^2 \Lambda^\alpha \Gamma^k \partial^j \sum T_{m_{\pm,\pm}}(u,u)\,ds \right\|_2 \lesssim \|u\|_X^2.
$$
The last term, which involves the remainder $R$, will be dealt with in Section~\ref{remainderterm} where we show
$$
\left\| \int_0^t e^{is|D|^{3/2}} Y(\partial)^2 \Lambda^\alpha \Gamma^k \partial^j R\,ds \right\|_2 \lesssim \|u\|_X^3.
$$
\subsubsection{The $++$ case}
Let us consider for now the term
$$
Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \int_0^t \int e^{is\phi_{++}(\xi,\eta)} m(\xi,\eta) \widehat{f}(s,\eta) \widehat{g}(s,\xi-\eta) \,d\eta\,ds
$$
where $m \in \mathcal{M}^{2,3/2,1,1}$ (recall that we denoted indistinctively $f$ for $f$ or $\bar f$ since the distinction is irrelevant for our purposes).
Using the identity $e^{is\phi} = \frac{1}{i\phi} \partial_s e^{is\phi}$ to integrate by parts gives
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \int_0^t & \int e^{is\phi_{++}(\xi,\eta)} m(\xi,\eta) \widehat{f}(s,\eta) \widehat{g}(s,\xi-\eta) \,d\eta\,ds \\
& \label{flamingo1} \qquad = Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \int e^{it\phi_{++}(\xi,\eta)} \frac{m(\xi,\eta)}{i \phi_{++}(\xi,\eta)} \widehat{f}(t,\eta) \widehat{g}(t,\xi-\eta) \,d\eta\,ds \\
& \label{flamingo2} \qquad \qquad - Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \int \frac{m(\xi,\eta)}{i \phi_{++}(\xi,\eta)} \widehat{f}(0,\eta) \widehat{g}(0,\xi-\eta) \,d\eta\,ds \\
& \label{flamingo3} \qquad \qquad - Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \int_0^t \int e^{is\phi_{++}(\xi,\eta)} \frac{m(\xi,\eta)}{i \phi_{++}(\xi,\eta)} \partial_s \widehat{f}(s,\eta)
\widehat{g}(s,\xi-\eta) \,d\eta\,ds \\
& \label{flamingo4} \qquad \qquad - Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \int_0^t \int e^{is\phi_{++}(\xi,\eta)} \frac{m(\xi,\eta)}{i \phi_{++}(\xi,\eta)} \widehat{f}(s,\eta)
\partial_s \widehat{g}(s,\xi-\eta) \,d\eta\,ds.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Keeping in mind that $ \frac{m(\xi,\eta)}{i \phi_{++}(\xi,\eta)}$ belongs to $\mathcal{M}^{1/2,3/2,1,1}$, applying Corollary~\ref{Bili-prop1} gives
$$
\left\| (\ref{flamingo1}) \right\|_2 \lesssim \left\| \Lambda^{1/4} u \right\|_{W^{1,\infty}}
\left\| \Lambda^{1/4} z \right\|_{H^1} \lesssim \frac{\|u\|_X^2 }{\left< t \right>^{1-\delta'-\frac{2}{3}(\alpha + \frac{1}{4})}}.
$$
The term~(\ref{flamingo2}) is easier to treat, thus we skip it.
Proceeding as in the proof of~(\ref{D3'}) below, we can prove that
$$
\left\| Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^{1/4} \partial_t f \right\|_2 \lesssim \frac{\|u\|_X^2}{t} \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\left\|Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^{1/4} \partial_t g \right\|_2 \lesssim \frac{\|u\|_X^2}{\<t\>^{1-\delta}}
$$
This gives, with the help of Corollary~\ref{Bili-prop1},
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\left\| (\ref{flamingo3}) \right\|_2 & =
\left\| \int_0^t \int e^{is\phi_{++}(\xi,\eta)} Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \frac{m(\xi,\eta)}{i \phi_{++}(\xi,\eta)} \partial_s \widehat{f}(s,\eta) \widehat{g}(s,\xi-\eta) \,d\eta\,ds \right\|_2 \\
& \lesssim \int_0^t \left\| Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha e^{is\Lambda^{3/2}} T_{\frac{m(\xi,\eta)}{i \phi_{++}(\xi,\eta)}} \left( e^{is\Lambda^{3/2}} \partial_s \widehat{f}(s,\eta)\,,
\, e^{is\Lambda^{3/2}} \widehat{g}(s,\xi-\eta) \right) \right\|_2 \,ds \\
& = \int_0^t \left\|Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha T_{\frac{m(\xi,\eta)}{i \phi_{++}(\xi,\eta)}} \left( e^{is\Lambda^{3/2}} \partial_s \widehat{f}(s,\eta)\,,
\, e^{is\Lambda^{3/2}} \widehat{g}(s,\xi-\eta) \right) \right\|_2 \,ds \\
& \lesssim \int_0^t \left\| \Lambda^{1/4} \partial_t f \right\|_{H^1} \left\| \Lambda^{1/4} z \right\|_{W^{1,\infty}} \,ds \\
& \lesssim \int_0^t \frac{\|u\|_X}{\<s\>} \frac{\|u\|_X}{\<s\>^{1-\delta'}}\,ds \\
& \lesssim \|u\|_X^3.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Finally, the term~(\ref{flamingo4}) can be treated in a very similar way, thus we omit the details here.
\subsubsection{The $+-$ case}
Let us consider here the term
$$
Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \int_0^t \int e^{is\phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)} m(\xi,\eta) \widehat{f}(s,\eta) \widehat{g}(s,\xi-\eta) \,d\eta\,ds
$$
where $m \in \mathcal{M}^{2,3/2,1,1}$.
The piece of the integral corresponding to $s \in (0,1)$ is easily dealt with; thus we shall consider in the following
$$
Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \int_1^t \int e^{is\phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)} m(\xi,\eta) \widehat{f}(s,\eta) \widehat{g}(s,\xi-\eta) \,d\eta\,ds
$$
(the aim of this manipulation is to allow for the upcoming integration by parts, which will produce a $\frac{1}{s}$ factor, not integrable near $s=0$).
Using the identity $e^{is\phi} = \frac{1}{is|\partial_\eta \phi|^2} \partial_\eta \phi \cdot \partial_\eta e^{is\phi}$ to integrate by parts gives
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
& Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \int_1^t \int e^{is\phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)} m(\xi,\eta) \widehat{f}(s,\eta) \widehat{g}(s,\xi-\eta) \,d\eta\,ds \\
& \label{woodpecker1} \qquad = - Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \int_1^t \int e^{is\phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)} \frac{m(\xi,\eta)\partial_\eta \phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)}{i s |\partial_\eta \phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)|^2}
\cdot \widehat{f}(s,\eta) \partial_\eta \widehat{g}(s,\xi-\eta) \,d\eta\,ds \\
& \label{woodpecker2} \qquad \qquad - Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \int_1^t \int e^{is\phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)} \frac{m(\xi,\eta)\partial_\eta \phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)}{i s |\partial_\eta \phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)|^2}
\cdot \partial_\eta \widehat{f}(s,\eta) \widehat{g}(s,\xi-\eta) \,d\eta\,ds \\
& \label{woodpecker3}\qquad \qquad - Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \int_1^t \int e^{is\phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)} \partial_\eta \cdot \left[ \frac{m(\xi,\eta)\partial_\eta \phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)}
{i s |\partial_\eta \phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)|^2} \right]
\widehat{f}(s,\eta) \widehat{g}(s,\xi-\eta) \,d\eta\,ds.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Notice that, due to the vanishing properties of $m$ and $\partial_\eta \phi$ established in Subsection~\ref{eotbsatp}
the symbol $\frac{m(\xi,\eta)\partial_\eta \phi_{+-}}{i|\partial_\eta \phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)|^2 |\xi-\eta|}$ belongs to the class $\mathcal{M}^{1/2,1/2,1,0}$.
Therefore, by Corollary~\ref{Bili-prop1},
\begin{equation}
\label{tree1}
\begin{split}
& \left\| (\ref{woodpecker1}) \right\|_2= \left\| Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \int_1^t \int e^{is\phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)}
\frac{m(\xi,\eta)}{i s |\partial_\eta \phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)|^2} \widehat{f}(s,\eta) \partial_\eta \widehat{g}(s,\xi-\eta) \,d\eta\,ds \right\|_2 \\
& \qquad \lesssim \int_1^t \frac{1}{s} \left\| e^{is\Lambda^{3/2}}
T_{Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \frac{m(\xi,\eta)\partial_\eta \phi_{+-}}{i |\partial_\eta \phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)|^2 |\xi-\eta|} }
\left( e^{is\Lambda^{3/2}} f(s)\,,\, e^{is\Lambda^{3/2}}\Lambda x g(s) \right) \right\|_2 \,ds \\
& \qquad \lesssim \int_1^t \frac{1}{s} \left\| \Lambda^{1/2} u \right\|_{W^{1,4}} \left\| Y(\partial) e^{is\Lambda^{3/2}}\Lambda x g \right\|_{W^{1,4}} \,ds
\end{split}
\end{equation}
On the one hand, we can interpolate between $L^2$ and $L^\infty$ to obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{tree2}
\left\| \Lambda^{1/2} u \right\|_{W^{1,4}} \lesssim \sqrt{ \left\| \Lambda^\alpha u \right\|_{W^{1,2}} \left\| \Lambda^{1-\alpha} u \right\|_{W^{1,\infty}} } \lesssim \frac{\|u\|_X}{\sqrt{\< t \>}}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the pointwise bound
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
|\xi| |\partial_\xi \widehat{g}(\xi)| \lesssim \left|\widehat{g}(\xi)\right| + \left|\widehat{\Omega g} (\xi)\right| + \left| \widehat{\Sigma g} (\xi)\right| \lesssim \left|\widehat{g}(\xi)\right| + \left|\widehat{\Omega g} (\xi)\right| + \left| \widehat{\mathcal{S} g} (\xi)\right| + t \left| \partial_t \widehat{g}(\xi) \right|
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
entails the $L^2$ bound
$$
\left\|Y(\partial) \Lambda^{1/2} \Lambda x g \right\|_{H^1}
\lesssim \|Y(\partial) \Lambda^{1/2} g \|_2 + \|Y(\partial) \Lambda^{1/2} g\|_{W^{0,2}_1} + t \|Y(\partial) \Lambda^{1/2} \partial_t g\|_2
\lesssim (\|u\|_X + \|u\|_X^2) \<t\>^{\delta'}
$$
(the term involving the time derivative being bounded as in the proof of~(\ref{D3'}) below) and, by Sobolev embedding,
\begin{equation}
\label{tree3}
\left\|Y(\partial) e^{is\Lambda^{3/2}}\Lambda x g \right\|_{W^{1,4}} \lesssim \left\| Y(\partial) e^{is\Lambda^{3/2}} \Lambda^{1/2} \Lambda x g \right\|_{H^1}
= \left\| Y(\partial) \Lambda^{1/2} \Lambda x g \right\|_{H^1} \lesssim (\|u\|_X + \|u\|_X^2) \<t\>^{\delta'}.
\end{equation}
Plugging~(\ref{tree2}) and~(\ref{tree3}) in the last line of~(\ref{tree1}) gives
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\left\| (\ref{woodpecker1}) \right\|_2 \lesssim \int_1^t \frac{1}{s} \frac{\|u\|_X}{\sqrt{s}} \|u\|_X \<s\>^{\delta'} \,ds \lesssim \|u\|_X^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The term~(\ref{woodpecker2}) is bounded in a similar fashion. Finally, in order to deal with~(\ref{woodpecker3}), observe that
$\partial_\eta \cdot \left[ \frac{m(\xi,\eta)\partial_\eta \phi_{+-}}{i s |\partial_\eta \phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)|^2} \right]$ belongs to
$\mathcal{M}^{1/2,1/2,0,0}$, thus we can use Corollary~\ref{Bili-prop1} to get
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
& \left\| Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha (\ref{woodpecker3}) \right\|_2 = \left\| Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \int_1^t \int e^{is\phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)} \partial_\eta \cdot
\left[ \frac{m(\xi,\eta)\partial_\eta \phi_{+-}}{i s |\partial_\eta \phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)|^2} \right] \widehat{f}(s,\eta) \widehat{g}(s,\xi-\eta) \,d\eta\,ds \right\|_2 \\
& \qquad \lesssim \int_1^t \frac{1}{s} \left\| e^{is\Lambda^{3/2}}
T_{Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \partial_\eta \cdot \left[ \frac{m(\xi,\eta)\partial_\eta \phi_{+-}}{i s |\partial_\eta \phi_{+-}(\xi,\eta)|^2}\right]}
\left( e^{is\Lambda^{3/2}} f(s)\,,\, e^{is\Lambda^{3/2}} g(s) \right) \,ds \right\|_2 \, ds \\
& \qquad \lesssim \int_1^t \frac{1}{s} \left[ \left\| Y(\partial)z \right\|_{W^{1,4}} \left\| \Lambda^{1/2} u \right\|_{W^{1,4}}
+ \left\| Y(\partial) u \right\|_{W^{1,4}} \left\| \Lambda^{1/2} z \right\|_{W^{1,4}} \right] \,ds. \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
By Sobolev embedding, and using the bound for $\| \Lambda^{1/2} u \|_{W^{1,4}}$ in~(\ref{tree2}), as well as a similar bound for
$\| \Lambda^{1/2} z \|_{W^{1,4}}$, the above can be estimated by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\left\| Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha (\ref{woodpecker3}) \right\|_2 & \lesssim \int_1^t \frac{1}{s} \left[ \left\| Y(\partial) \Lambda^{1/2} g \right\|_{H^1} \left\| \Lambda^{1/2} u \right\|_{W^{1,4}}
+ \left\| Y(\partial) \Lambda^{1/2} f \right\|_{H^1} \left\| \Lambda^{1/2} z \right\|_{W^{1,4}} \right] \,ds \\
& \lesssim \int_1^t \frac{1}{s} \frac{\|u\|_X}{\sqrt{s}} \|u\|_X \<s\>^{\delta'} \,ds \lesssim \|u\|_X^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\subsubsection{The $--$ case}
Upon partitioning the $(\xi,\eta)$ space into regions where $\phi$, respectively $\partial_\eta \phi$ do not vanish, one can proceed as in the $++$ case
(if $\phi \neq 0$) or $--$ case (if $\partial_\eta \phi \neq 0$). We refer to
\cite{GMS2} for a similar partitioning. Indeed, recall that for
$\xi = 2 \eta$, $\phi (2\eta, \eta) = ( 2^{3/2} - 2 ) |\eta|^{3/2} $ and hence
$\mathscr{R} = \{ (0,0) \} $. We can partition the plan $\xi, \eta$ into two regions
$\mathbb{R}^4 = \Omega_1 \cup \Omega_2$ such that
$ |\xi|^{3/2}+|\eta|^{3/2} \lesssim |\phi_{--}| $ in the region $\Omega_1$
and $ |\xi|^{1/2}+|\eta|^{1/2} \lesssim |\partial_\eta \phi_{--}| $ in the region $\Omega_2$.
More precisely, we can take a smooth cut-off $\rho : \mathbb{R}_+ \to \mathbb{R}_+$ such that
$\rho(a) = 1$ for $a \leq 1 $ and
$\rho(a) = 0$ for $a \geq 2 $ and then
define
\begin{align}
&\chi^T ( \xi,\eta) =
\rho(\frac{200 |\xi -2\eta| }{|\xi|} ) \\
&\chi^S ( \xi,\eta) =
\Big( 1- \rho(\frac{200 |\xi -2\eta| }{|\xi|} ) \Big).
\end{align}
Notice that on the support of $ \chi^T $, we have $|\xi-2\eta| \leq \frac{|\xi|}{100} $ and
hence, $ \frac{99}{100} |\xi| \leq 2|\eta| \leq \frac{101}{100} |\xi| $
and $|\xi-\eta| \leq |\eta| + \frac{|\xi|}{100} \leq \frac{101}{99} |\eta| $. This yields
$$ \phi_{--} \geq [ \left(\frac{200}{101} \right)^{3/2} - 1 - \left(\frac{101}{99} \right)^{3/2} ] |\eta|^{3/2}
\geq c \phi_{--} . $$
In a similar way, we have on the support of $\chi^S $ that
$|\xi|^{1/2}+|\eta|^{1/2} \lesssim |\partial_\eta \phi_{--} | $.
The rest of the argument is similar to what was done before.
We rewrite the Duhamel term in \eqref{eqfourier} as the sum of
two terms:
$$
Y^2(\xi) |\xi|^\alpha \int_0^t \int \chi(\xi,\eta) e^{is\phi_{--}(\xi,\eta)} m(\xi,\eta) \widehat{f}(s,\eta) \widehat{g}(s,\xi-\eta) \,d\eta\,ds
$$
where $\chi = \chi^T $ or $\chi = \chi^S $.
For the term with $ \chi^T $, we integrate by parts in time and recover terms
similar to \eqref{flamingo1}- \eqref{flamingo4}. We estimate them exactly as
in the case of the phase $\phi_{++}$. For the term with $\chi^S $, we integrate by
parts in $\eta$, we get terms similar to \eqref{woodpecker1}-\eqref{woodpecker3}.
\subsection{Proof of~(\ref{D3'})}
\label{phoebe}
We want to bound
$$
\left\| \partial^j \Gamma^k Y^2(\partial) \Sigma \Lambda^\alpha f \right\|_2,
$$
for some $j,k$ less than respectively $7$, $K+3$, which we fix from now on. First, since the commutators are controlled by~(\ref{D3}), it suffices to bound
$$
\left\| Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha \partial^j \Gamma^k \Sigma f \right\|_2.
$$
Since $Y^2(\partial)$, $\partial$, $\Gamma$ commute with the group $e^{it\Lambda^{3/2}}$, we infer from~(\ref{D3}) that
$$
\left\| Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha \partial^j \Gamma^k \mathcal{S} f \right\|_2 \lesssim \epsilon + \|u\|_X^2.
$$
Since $\Sigma = \mathcal{S} - \frac{3}{2} t \partial_t$, we can bound
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\left\| Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha \partial^j \Gamma^k \Sigma f \right\|_2 & \lesssim \left\| Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha \partial^j \Gamma^k \mathcal{S} f \right\|_2
+ t \left\| Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha \partial^j \Gamma^k \partial_t f \right\|_2 \\
& \lesssim \epsilon + \|u\|_X^2 + t \left\| Y^2(\partial) \partial^j \Gamma^k \partial_t f \right\|_2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Thus it suffices to prove that
$$
\left\| Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha \partial^j \Gamma^k \partial_t f \right\|_2 \lesssim \frac{\|u\|_X^2}{t}.
$$
Going back to~(\ref{simpleform}), $f$ solves
$$
\partial_t f = e^{it\Lambda^{3/2}} T_m(u,u) + e^{it\Lambda^{3/2}} R.
$$
Applying $Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha \partial^j \Gamma^k$ gives
\begin{equation}
\label{eqdt}
Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha \partial^j \Gamma^k \partial_t f = e^{it\Lambda^{3/2}} Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha \partial^j \Gamma^k T_m(u,u) + e^{it\Lambda^{3/2}} Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha \partial^j \Gamma^k R.
\end{equation}
The remainder term $R$ is easily dealt with, thus we discard it.
Next, we can compute $Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha \partial^j \Gamma^k T_m(u,u)$ by applying Leibniz' rule. This manipulation produces a great number of terms,
but for simplicity we keep only two representative ones, namely (assuming for simplicity $j,k$ even)
$$
Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha T_m(\partial^j \Gamma^k u,u) \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha T_m(\partial^{j/2} \Gamma^{k/2} u,\partial^{j/2} \Gamma^{k/2} u).
$$
Applying Corollary~\ref{Bili-prop1} gives
$$
\left\| Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha T_m(\partial^j \Gamma^k u,u) \right\|_2 \lesssim \left\|\Lambda^\alpha \partial^j \Gamma^k u \right\|_{H^2} \left\| \Lambda^{3/4} u \right\|_{W^{2,\infty}}
\lesssim \frac{\|u\|_X^2}{t}
$$
where the last inequality follows from~(\ref{D3}). Similarly, we find
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\left\| Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha T_m( \partial^{j/2} \Gamma^{k/2} u,\partial^{j/2} \Gamma^{k/2} u) \right\|_2
& \lesssim \left\|\Lambda^\alpha \partial^{j/2} \Gamma^{k/2} u \right\|_{H^2} \left\| \Lambda^{3/4} \partial^{j/2} \Gamma^{k/2} u) \right\|_{W^{2,\infty}} \\
& \lesssim \frac{\|u\|_X^2}{t}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Coming back to~(\ref{eqdt}), this yields
$$
\left\| Y^2(\partial) \Lambda^\alpha \partial^j \Gamma^k \partial_t f \right\|_2 \lesssim \frac{\|u\|_X^2}{t},
$$
thus giving the desired estimate.
\subsection{Proof of (\ref{D4})}
It follows from (\ref{D3'}), and Proposition~\ref{decay-prop}.
\subsection{Estimates for the remainder term $R$}
\label{remainderterm}
Recall that we wrote in~(\ref{simpleform}) the equation under the form
$$
\partial_t u = - i \Lambda^{3/2} u + T_m(u,u) + R
$$
with
$$
R = \left[ \Lambda^{1/2} G(h) \psi + i \left( \Delta_h h + \frac{1}{2(1 + |\partial h|^2)} \left( G(h) \psi + \partial h \cdot \nabla \psi \right)^2 \right) \right]_3
$$
where $[ \cdot ]_3$ means the terms of order 3 and higher in the expansion of the expression between brackets. In proving the estimates~(\ref{D1}) to~(\ref{D4}),
we always skipped the term $R$ to focus on the more difficult bilinear term $T_m(u,u)$. We now come back to the term $R$ and show how it can be estimated.
We will prove the a priori estimate
$$
\int_0^t \left\| Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^\alpha \partial^j \Gamma^k R \right\|_2 \,ds \lesssim \|u\|_X^3.
$$
for $|j|\leq 9$ and $|k| \leq K+8$. We fix such a $k$ from now on.
Instead of treating all the terms which appear in the above expression of $R$, we retain one, $\left[ \Lambda^{1/2} G(h) \psi \right]_3$; this will alleviate the notations and the
other terms can be treated similarly. Thus we want to show that
$$
\int_0^t \left\| Y(\partial)^3 \Lambda^\alpha \partial^j \Gamma^k \Lambda^{1/2} \left[ G(h) \psi \right]_3 \right\|_2 \,ds \lesssim \|u\|_X^3.
$$
Commuting $\Lambda^{1/2}$ and $\Gamma^k$, interpolating, and applying Cauchy-Schwarz, we see that the above can be bounded up to lower order terms by terms of the form
$$
\left( \int_0^t \left\|\Gamma^k \partial^j \left[ G(h) \psi \right]_3 \right\|_2 \,ds \right)^{\theta}
\left( \int_0^t \left\| \nabla \Gamma^k \partial^j\left[ G(h) \psi \right]_3 \right\|_2^{1/2} \, ds \right)^{1-\theta} \;\;\;\; \mbox{with $0 \leq \theta \leq 1$}.
$$
Since the real problem is low frequencies, we focus on the first factor above. Expanding first $G(h)$ into multilinear operators as follows from
Proposition~\ref{propexpansion}, and then applying Leibniz rule as described in Lemma~\ref{lemmasymmetries} gives that
$$
\Gamma^k \partial^j \left[ G(h) \psi \right]_3 = \Gamma^k \partial^j \sum_{n \geq 2} M_n(h,\dots,h,\psi)
$$
is a sum of terms of the type
$$
\sum_{n \geq 2} \sum_{i_1 + \dots + i_{n+1} = k} M_n \left( \partial^{j_1} \Gamma^{i_1} h,\dots, \partial^{j_n} \Gamma^{i_n} h,
\partial^{j_{n+1}} \Gamma^{i_{n+1}}\psi \right).
$$
with $|i_1| + \dots + |i_{n+1}| \leq K+8$ and $|j_1| + \dots + |j_{n=1}| \leq 9$.
Using the bound given in Proposition~\ref{propexpansion}, each of these terms can be bounded by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& \int_0^t \left\| M_n \left(\partial^{j_1} \Gamma^{i_1} h,\dots,\partial^{j_n} \Gamma^{i_n} h,\partial^{j_{n+1}} \Gamma^{i_{n+1}}\psi \right) \right\|_2 \, ds \\
& \qquad \qquad\lesssim C_*^n \int_0^t \left\|\partial^{j_1+1} \Gamma^{i_1} h \right\|_\infty \dots \left\|\partial^{j_n+1} \Gamma^{i_n} h \right\|_\infty \left\|\partial^{j_{n+1}+1}
\Gamma^{i_{n+1}} \psi \right\|_2 \,ds \\
& \qquad \qquad\lesssim C_*^n \int_0^t \left\| Y(\partial) \Lambda^{3/4}\partial^{j_1} \Gamma^{i_1} u \right\|_\infty \dots
\left\| Y(\partial) \Lambda^{3/4}\partial^{j_n} \Gamma^{i_n} u \right\|_\infty \left\|\nabla \partial^{j_{n+1}} \Gamma^{i_{n+1}} u \right\|_2 \,ds \\
& \qquad \qquad\lesssim C_*^n \|u\|_X^{n+1} \int_0^t \frac{1}{\< s \>^{1-\delta'}}
\dots \frac{1}{\< s \>^{1-\delta'}} \<s\>^{\delta'} \,ds \\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Summing over $n$ gives the desired result since $\|u\|_X$ is small enough.
\section{Dispersive estimate for the linear group}
\label{sectionlindecay}
\begin{prop} \label{decay-prop}
For any $\beta \in [0,\frac{1}{2})$,
\begin{equation}
\label{dispersivestimate2}
\left\| e^{it\Lambda^{3/2}} f \right\|_\infty \lesssim t^{-1+\frac{2\beta}{3}} \sum_{j=0}^1
\sum_{k=0}^3 \left\| Y(\partial) \Lambda^{\beta-1/2} \Sigma^j \Omega^k f \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}.
\end{equation}
In particular,
\begin{equation}
\label{dispersivestimate1}
\left\| e^{it\Lambda^{3/2}} f \right\|_\infty \lesssim \frac{1}{t}
\sum_{j=0}^1 \sum_{k=0}^3 \left\| Y(\partial) \Lambda^{-1/2} \Sigma^j \Omega^k f \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{rem} These estimates are probably far from being optimal, but, omitting $Y(\partial)$, they are at the scaling of the equation. They should be understood as giving
the right decay if $f$ is smooth, and has a behaviour at $\infty$ in space (that is, at zero in Fourier) like an inverse power.
A similar estimate was proved by Klainerman~\cite{Klainerman}, see also H\"ormander~\cite{Hormander} for the linear group of the wave equation, and by Wu~\cite{Wu}
for the group $e^{it\Lambda^{1/2}}$. These authors argued in physical space, whereas we rely here on a Fourier space approach. \end{rem}
After some preliminary steps, the proof reduces the problem to an oscillatory integral, which is then estimated.
\subsection{Preliminary steps}
\subsubsection{Why~(\ref{dispersivestimate2}) follows from~(\ref{dispersivestimate1})}
Split $\left\| e^{it\Lambda^{3/2}} f \right\|_\infty$ as follows, for $j_0 \leq 0$:
$$
\left\| e^{it\Lambda^{3/2}} f \right\|_\infty \leq \left\| P_{<j_0} e^{it\Lambda^{3/2}} f \right\|_\infty
+ \left\| P_{\geq j_0} e^{it\Lambda^{3/2}} f \right\|_\infty .
$$
Bound the first piece directly, using successively the Hausdorff-Young and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities,
$$
\left\| P_{<j_0} e^{it\Lambda^{3/2}} f \right\|_\infty \lesssim \left\| \Theta \left( \frac{\xi}{2^{j_0}} \right) \widehat{f}(\xi) \right\|_1
\leq \left\| \Theta \left( \frac{\xi}{2^{j_0}} \right) |\xi|^{1/2-\beta} \right\|_2 \left\| |\xi|^{\beta-1/2} \widehat{f}(\xi) \right\|_2
\lesssim 2^{j_0 \left( \frac{3}{2} - \beta \right)} \left\| \Lambda^{\beta-1/2} f \right\|_2,
$$
and the second one using~(\ref{dispersivestimate1})
$$
\left\| P_{\geq j_0 } e^{it\Lambda^{3/2}} f \right\|_\infty
\lesssim \frac{1}{t} \sum_{k=0}^3 \left\| P_{\geq j_0 } Y(\partial) \Lambda^{-1/2} \Sigma \Omega^k f \right\|_{2}
\lesssim \frac{1}{t} 2^{-\beta j_0} \sum_{k=0}^3 \left\| Y(\partial) \Lambda^{\beta - 1/2} \Sigma \Omega^k f \right\|_{2}.
$$
Optimizing over $j_0$ gives the desired result.
\subsubsection{A Hardy-type estimate}
We denote the polar coordinates in Fourier space by $(\rho,\theta)$. A function $\widehat{f}(\rho)$ is understood to depend only on the radial variable. We will denote
$$
A(\rho) \overset{def}{=} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \rho^{1/2-\epsilon}\quad \mbox{if $\rho \leq 1$} \\ \rho^{1/2+\epsilon}\quad \mbox{if $\rho \geq 1$}. \end{array} \right.
$$
Then one can estimate by Cauchy Schwarz
$$
|\widehat{f}(\rho)| = \left| \int_\rho^\infty \partial_\rho \widehat{f}(\sigma) \,d\sigma \right|
\leq \left( \int_{\rho}^\infty \frac{d\sigma}{\sigma^2} \right)^{1/2} \left( \int_\rho^\infty \left| \partial_\rho \widehat{f}(\sigma) \right|^2 \sigma^2\,d\sigma \right)^{1/2}
\lesssim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho}} \|\rho^{1/2} \partial_\rho \widehat{f}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}.
$$
We record the result
\begin{equation}
\label{boundf}
|\widehat{f}(\rho)| \lesssim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho}} \|\rho^{1/2} \partial_\rho \widehat{f}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}.
\end{equation}
By a trivial modification of the above one can prove the slightly more precise bound
\begin{equation}
\label{boundfprecised}
|\widehat{f}(\rho)| \lesssim \frac{1}{A(\rho)} \|A(\rho) \partial_\rho f\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)} .
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Estimates on Bessel functions}
\label{subsubbessel}
Recall that the $m$-th Bessel function is given by
$$
J_m(s) = \int_{\mathbb{S}^1} e^{i(s \cos(\theta)+m \theta)}\,d\theta.
$$
It is well-known (see Stein~\cite{Stein}, Chapter VIII) that
$$
J_m(s) = e^{is} g^m_1(s) + e^{-is} g^m_2(s) \quad \mbox{with} \quad \left| \left( \frac{d}{ds} \right)^k g^m_i(s) \right| \leq C(m,k) \frac{1}{\<s\>^{1/2+k}}.
$$
In order to bound the constant $C(m,k)$, we will need the following lemma
\begin{lem}
Assume that $f$ is a fixed smooth function such that $f(0) = 0$, $f'(0) = 0$, $f'(x) \neq 0$ if $x\neq 0$, and $f''(0) = 1$. Let
$$
I(s) := \int_{\mathbb{R}} u(\theta) e^{is f(\theta)} \,d\theta
$$
where $u$ is a smooth function with support in $[-1,1]$. Then
$$
\left| \left( \frac{d}{ds} \right)^k I(s) \right| \lesssim \frac{1}{\< s \>^{1/2+k}} \left( \|u\|_\infty + \|u'\|_\infty + \|u''\|_\infty \right) \quad \mbox{if $k=0,1$}.
$$
\end{lem}
In the definition of $J_m$, the phase $\cos(\theta)$ has two stationary points, $0$ and $\pi$, both of which are non degenerate.
Successively restricting attention to one of them by an appropriate cut-off, we see that the above lemma implies
\begin{cor}
The constant $C(m,0)$ and $C(m,1)$ can be bounded by
$$
C(m,0) + C(m,1) \lesssim m^2.
$$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof} Choosing a compactly supported, smooth cut-off function, equal to one in a neighbourhood of zero, write
$$
I(s) = \int ( u(0) + \theta u'(0)) \chi(\theta) e^{isf(\theta)} \,d\theta + \int \left[ u(\theta) - ( u(0) + \theta u'(0)) \chi(\theta) \right] e^{isf(\theta)} \,d\theta := I_1(s) + I_2(s).
$$
The term $I_1(s)$ is easily estimated by the standard stationary phase lemma. We are thus left with $I_2(s)$. In order to estimate it, it suffices to show that, under the assumptions of the lemma, and if furthermore $u(0) = u'(0) = 0$, then
$$
\left| \left(\frac{d}{ds} \right)^k I(s) \right| \lesssim \frac{1}{s^{k+1}}\left( \|u\|_\infty + \|u'\|_\infty + \|u''\|_\infty \right)
$$
(this estimate is even stronger than needed). We prove this inequality for $k=0$, the case $k=1$ being similar. The idea is of course to integrate by parts, to get
$$
\int u(\theta) e^{is f(\theta)} \,d\theta = \frac{i}{s} \int \frac{u'(s)}{f'(s)} e^{isf(\theta)}\,d\theta - \frac{i}{s} \int \frac{u(s) f''(s)}{f'(s)^2} e^{is f(\theta)} \,d\theta,
$$
which can easily be estimated by
$$
\left| I(s) \right| \lesssim \frac{1}{s} \left(\|u\|_\infty + \|u'\|_\infty + \|u''\|_\infty \right).
$$
This concludes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The oscillatory integral point of view}
\subsubsection{Reduction of the proposition to an oscillatory integral estimate}
Expand the function $f$ in the statement of the proposition in spherical (or rather circular) harmonics:
$$
\widehat{f}(\xi) = \sum_{m \in \mathbb{Z}} \widehat{f_m}(\rho) e^{im\theta}.
$$
Suppose $x$, a point in physical space, has the polar coordinates $(r,\theta_0)$. Then
$$
\left[ e^{it\Lambda^{3/2}} f \right] (x)= \sum_m e^{im\theta_0} \int \int e^{i(r\rho \cos(\theta)+m \theta)} e^{it \rho^{3/2}} \widehat{f_m}(\rho) \rho \,d\rho\,d\theta = \sum_m e^{im\theta_0} \int J_m(r \rho) e^{it \rho^{3/2}} \widehat{f_m}(\rho) \rho \,d\rho
$$
where $J_m$ is the $m$-th Bessel function. By the results of Section~\ref{subsubbessel}, the problem reduces to estimating an integral of the type
$$
\int e^{i(t\rho^{3/2} - r\rho)} g(r\rho)\widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho
$$
with
\begin{equation}
\label{boundg}
\left| \left( \frac{d}{ds} \right)^k g(s) \right| \lesssim \frac{1}{\< s \>^{1/2+k}} \quad \mbox{for $k=0,1$}
\end{equation}
(the other integral, with phase $t\rho^{3/2} + r\rho$ being easier, we skip it). Denoting
$$
R \overset{def}{=}\frac{r}{t} \quad \mbox{and} \quad \phi(\rho) = \rho^{3/2} - R \rho,
$$
the integral becomes
$$
\int e^{i(t\phi(\rho))} g(R \rho t)\widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho.
$$
Our aim will be to prove the
\begin{claim}
\label{clay}
If $g$ satisfies~(\ref{boundg}), then with an implicit constant independent of $R$,
$$
\left| \int e^{it\phi(\rho)} g(R \rho t)\widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho \right| \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \left\| A(\rho) \partial_\rho \widehat{f}(\rho) \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}.
$$
\end{claim}
\subsubsection{How Proposition~\ref{decay-prop} follows from Claim~\ref{clay}}
The proposition follows easily from the claim. Indeed, using in addition the results of Section~\ref{subsubbessel}, it implies that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\left\| e^{it\Lambda^{3/2}} f \right\|_\infty & \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \sum_{m} m^2 \left\| A(\rho) \partial_\rho \widehat{f_m}(\rho) \right\|_2 \\
& \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \left( \sum_m m^6 \left\| A(\rho) \partial_\rho \widehat{f_m}(\rho) \right\|_2^2 \right)^{1/2} \\
& \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \sum_{j=0}^1 \sum_{k=0}^3 \left\| Y(\partial) \Lambda^{-1/2} \Sigma^j \Omega^k f \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Estimates on $\phi$}
Estimates on $\phi$ will be needed, we will record them below. First notice that $\phi'$ vanishes for $\rho = \frac{4}{9}R^2$. This motivates the introduction of the new variable
$$
h \overset{def}{=} \rho - \frac{4}{9}R^2.
$$
We start with estimates on $\phi'$:
$$
\phi'(\rho) \sim
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
R & \mbox{if $\rho < \frac{2 R^2}{9}$} \\
\frac{h}{R} & \mbox{if $\frac{2}{9}R^2 \leq \rho \leq 10 R^2$} \\
\sqrt{h} \sim \sqrt{\rho} & \mbox{if $\rho \geq 10R^2$}.
\end{array} \right.
$$
Estimates on $\partial_\rho \frac{1}{\phi'}$ will also be necessary:
$$
\left| \partial_\rho \frac{1}{\phi'} \right| \sim
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{R^2 \sqrt{\rho}} & \mbox{if $\rho < \frac{2 R^2}{9}$} \\
\frac{R}{h^2} & \mbox{if $\frac{2}{9}R^2 \leq \rho \leq 10 R^2$} \\
\frac{1}{\rho^{3/2}} & \mbox{if $\rho \geq 10R^2$}.
\end{array} \right.
$$
Aside from direct estimates, the basic tool will be integration by parts using the identity:
\begin{equation}
\label{ibp}
\frac{1}{it\phi'(\rho)} \partial_\rho e^{it\phi(\rho)}=e^{it\phi(\rho)}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Proof of the claim~(\ref{clay}), the case $\rho<\frac{1}{Rt}$}
We assume from now on for simplicity that
$$
\left\| A(\rho) \partial_\rho \widehat{f}(\rho) \right\|_2 = 1.
$$
We estimate here
$$
\int_0^{\frac{1}{Rt}} e^{it\phi(\rho)} g(R \rho t)\widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho.
$$
\subsubsection{The case $R^3 \gtrsim \frac{1}{t}$}
Using~(\ref{boundg}),~(\ref{boundf}), and the assumption $R^3 \gtrsim \frac{1}{t}$, it follows easily that
$$
\left|\int_0^{\frac{1}{Rt}} e^{it\phi(\rho)} g(R \rho t)\widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho\right| \lesssim \int_0^{\frac{1}{Rt}} \sqrt{\rho} \,d\rho \lesssim \frac{1}{(Rt)^{3/2}} \lesssim \frac{1}{t}.
$$
\subsubsection{The case $R^3 < \frac{1}{100 t}$}
Split then
$$
\int_0^{\frac{1}{Rt}} e^{i(t\phi(\rho))} g(R \rho t)\widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho = \int_0^{\frac{1}{t^{2/3}}} + \int_{\frac{1}{t^{2/3}}}^{\frac{1}{Rt}} \dots \overset{def}{=} I + II
$$
\bigskip
\noindent \underline{Estimate for $I$} The term $I$ can be estimated with the help of~(\ref{boundg}),~(\ref{boundf}):
$$
\left| I \right| \lesssim \int_0^{\frac{1}{t^{2/3}}} \sqrt{\rho} \,d\rho \lesssim \frac{1}{t}.
$$
\bigskip
\noindent \underline{Estimate for $II$}
Integration by parts with the help of (\ref{ibp}) gives
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{hummingbird1}
II = & - e^{it\phi(t^{-2/3})} \frac{1}{it\phi'\left( t^{-2/3} \right)} g(Rtt^{-2/3}) \widehat{f}(t^{-2/3}) t^{-2/3} \\
\label{hummingbird2}
& + e^{it\phi\left(\frac{1}{Rt}\right)} \frac{1}{it\phi'\left( \frac{1}{Rt} \right)}g\left(Rt \frac{1}{Rt}\right) \widehat{f}\left(\frac{1}{Rt}\right) \frac{1}{Rt} \\
\label{hummingbird3}
& - \int_{\frac{1}{t^{2/3}}}^{\frac{1}{Rt}} e^{it\phi} \frac{1}{it\phi'} Rt g'(Rt\rho) \widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho \\
\label{hummingbird4}
& - \int_{\frac{1}{t^{2/3}}}^{\frac{1}{Rt}} e^{it\phi} \frac{1}{it\phi'} g(Rt\rho) \partial_\rho \widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho \\
\label{hummingbird5}
& - \int_{\frac{1}{t^{2/3}}}^{\frac{1}{Rt}} e^{it\phi} \frac{1}{it\phi'} g(Rt\rho) \widehat{f}(\rho) \,d\rho \\
\label{hummingbird6}
& - \int_{\frac{1}{t^{2/3}}}^{\frac{1}{Rt}} e^{it\phi} \partial_\rho\left( \frac{1}{it\phi'} \right) g(Rt\rho) \widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Observe that on the integration domain of $II$, $\phi'(\rho) \sim \sqrt{\rho}$, $\partial_\rho\left( \frac{1}{\phi'(\rho)} \right) \sim\frac{1}{\rho^{3/2}}$, and $g,g'\sim 1$. Using in addition~(\ref{boundg}),~(\ref{boundf}),~(\ref{boundfprecised}) and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, this leads to the estimates:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
|(\ref{hummingbird1})| & \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \frac{1}{\sqrt{t^{-2/3}}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{t^{-2/3}}} t^{-2/3} = \frac{1}{t} \\
|(\ref{hummingbird2})| & \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \sqrt{Rt} \sqrt{Rt} \frac{1}{Rt} = \frac{1}{t} \\
|(\ref{hummingbird3})| & \lesssim \int_{\frac{1}{t^{2/3}}}^{\frac{1}{Rt}} \frac{1}{t\sqrt{\rho}} R t\frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho}} \rho \,d\rho = R \int_{\frac{1}{t^{2/3}}}^{\frac{1}{Rt}}d\rho \leq \frac{1}{t} \\
|(\ref{hummingbird4})| & \lesssim \int_{\frac{1}{t^{2/3}}}^{\frac{1}{Rt}} \frac{1}{t\sqrt{\rho}} \rho \partial_\rho \widehat{f}(\rho) d\rho \leq \frac{1}{t} \left(\int \rho A^2 \partial_\rho \widehat{f}(\rho)^2 \,d\rho\right)^{1/2} \left(\int A^{-2} \,d\rho\right)^{1/2} \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \\
|(\ref{hummingbird6})| & \lesssim \int_{\frac{1}{t^{2/3}}}^{\frac{1}{Rt}} \frac{1}{t} \frac{1}{\rho^{3/2}} \frac{1}{A(\rho)} \,d\rho \lesssim \frac{1}{t}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
(the term~(\ref{hummingbird5}) can be treated like~(\ref{hummingbird4}), thus we skipped it).
\subsection{Proof of the claim~(\ref{clay}), the case $\rho>\frac{1}{Rt}$}
We estimate here
$$
\int_{\frac{1}{Rt}}^\infty e^{it\phi(\rho)} g(R \rho t)\widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho.
$$
\subsubsection{The case $R^3 \gtrsim \frac{1}{t}$}
Split the integral as follows
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\int_{\frac{1}{Rt}}^\infty e^{i(t\phi(\rho))} g(R \rho t)\widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho & = \int_{1/Rt}^{R^2/10} + \int_{R^2/10}^{\frac{4}{9}R^2 - \sqrt{\frac{R}{t}}} + \int_{\frac{4}{9}R^2 - \sqrt{\frac{R}{t}}}^{\frac{4}{9}R^2 + \sqrt{\frac{R}{t}}} + \int_{\frac{4}{9}R^2 + \sqrt{\frac{R}{t}}}^{10R^2} + \int_{10R^2}^\infty \dots \\
& \overset{def}{=} I + II + III + IV + V.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\bigskip
\noindent \underline{Estimate for $I$} Integration by parts with the help of (\ref{ibp}) gives
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{baldeagle1}
I = & - e^{it\phi\left(\frac{1}{Rt}\right)} \frac{1}{it\phi'\left( \frac{1}{Rt} \right)}g\left(Rt \frac{1}{Rt}\right) \widehat{f}\left(\frac{1}{Rt}\right) \frac{1}{Rt} \\
\label{baldeagle2}
& + e^{it\phi\left(\frac{R^2}{10}\right)} \frac{1}{it\phi'\left( \frac{R^2}{10} \right)}g\left(Rt \frac{R^2}{10}\right) \widehat{f}\left(\frac{R^2}{10}\right) \frac{1}{Rt} \\
\label{baldeagle3}
& - \int_{\frac{1}{Rt}}^{\frac{R^2}{10}} e^{it\phi} \frac{1}{it\phi'} Rt g'(Rt\rho) \widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho \\
\label{baldeagle4}
& - \int_{\frac{1}{Rt}}^{\frac{R^2}{10}} e^{it\phi} \frac{1}{it\phi'} g(Rt\rho) \partial_\rho \widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho \\
\label{baldeagle5}
& - \int_{\frac{1}{Rt}}^{\frac{R^2}{10}} e^{it\phi} \frac{1}{it\phi'} g(Rt\rho) \widehat{f}(\rho) \,d\rho \\
\label{baldeagle6}
& - \int_{\frac{1}{Rt}}^{\frac{R^2}{10}} e^{it\phi} \partial_\rho\left( \frac{1}{it\phi'} \right) g(Rt\rho) \widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Observe that on the integration domain of $II$, $\phi'(\rho) \sim R$, $\partial_\rho\left( \frac{1}{\phi'(\rho)} \right) \sim\frac{1}{R^2 \sqrt{\rho}}$, $g(s)\sim\frac{1}{\sqrt{s}}$, $g'(s)\sim \frac{1}{s^{3/2}}$. Using in addition~(\ref{boundg}),~(\ref{boundf}),~(\ref{boundfprecised}) and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, this leads to the estimates:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
|(\ref{baldeagle1})| & \lesssim \frac{1}{Rt} \sqrt{Rt} \frac{1}{Rt} \lesssim \frac{1}{(Rt)^{3/2}} \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \\
|(\ref{baldeagle2})| & \lesssim \frac{1}{Rt} \frac{1}{\sqrt{tR^3}} \frac{1}{R} \frac{1}{Rt} = \frac{1}{R^{9/2} t^{5/2}} \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \\
|(\ref{baldeagle3})| & \lesssim \int_{\frac{1}{Rt}}^{\frac{R^2}{10}} \frac{1}{tR} Rt \frac{1}{(Rt\rho)^{3/2}} \widehat{f}(\rho)\rho\,d\rho \lesssim \frac{1}{(Rt)^{3/2}} \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \\
|(\ref{baldeagle4})| & \lesssim \int_{\frac{1}{Rt}}^{\frac{R^2}{10}} \frac{1}{tR} \frac{1}{\sqrt{Rt\rho}} |\partial_\rho \widehat{f}(\rho)|\rho\,d\rho = \frac{1}{(Rt)^{3/2}} \int \rho^{1/2} |\partial_\rho \widehat{f}(\rho\,d\rho)| \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \\
|(\ref{baldeagle6})| & \lesssim \int_{\frac{1}{Rt}}^{\frac{R^2}{10}} \frac{1}{tR^2 \sqrt{\rho}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{Rt\rho}}\rho\,d\rho \lesssim \frac{1}{(Rt)^{3/2}} \lesssim \frac{1}{t}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\bigskip
\noindent \underline{Estimate for $II$} Integration by parts with the help of (\ref{ibp}) gives
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{cardinal1}
I = & - e^{it\phi\left(\frac{R^2}{10}\right)} \frac{1}{it\phi'\left( \frac{R^2}{10} \right)}g\left(Rt \frac{R^2}{10}\right) \widehat{f}\left(\frac{R^2}{10}\right) \frac{1}{Rt} \\
\label{cardinal2}
& + e^{it\phi\left(\frac{4}{9}R^2 - \sqrt{\frac{R}{t}}\right)} \frac{1}{it\phi'\left( \frac{4}{9}R^2 - \sqrt{\frac{R}{t}} \right)}g\left(Rt \left[ \frac{4}{9}R^2 - \sqrt{\frac{R}{t}}\right] \right) \widehat{f}\left(\frac{4}{9}R^2 - \sqrt{\frac{R}{t}}\right) \left[ \frac{4}{9}R^2 - \sqrt{\frac{R}{t}} \right] \\
\label{cardinal3}
& - \int_{\frac{R^2}{10}}^{\frac{4}{9}R^2 - \sqrt{\frac{R}{t}}} e^{it\phi} \frac{1}{it\phi'} Rt g'(Rt\rho) \widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho \\
\label{cardinal4}
& - \int_{\frac{R^2}{10}}^{\frac{4}{9}R^2 - \sqrt{\frac{R}{t}}} e^{it\phi} \frac{1}{it\phi'} g(Rt\rho) \partial_\rho \widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho \\
\label{cardinal5}
& - \int_{\frac{R^2}{10}}^{\frac{4}{9}R^2 - \sqrt{\frac{R}{t}}} e^{it\phi} \frac{1}{it\phi'} g(Rt\rho) \widehat{f}(\rho) \,d\rho \\
\label{cardinal6}
& - \int_{\frac{R^2}{10}}^{\frac{4}{9}R^2 - \sqrt{\frac{R}{t}}} e^{it\phi} \partial_\rho\left( \frac{1}{it\phi'} \right) g(Rt\rho) \widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Observe that on the integration domain of $II$, $\phi'(\rho) \sim \frac{h}{R}$, $\partial_\rho\left( \frac{1}{\phi'(\rho)} \right) \sim\frac{R}{h^2}$, $g(s)\sim\frac{1}{\sqrt{s}}$, $g'(s)\sim \frac{1}{s^{3/2}}$. Using in addition~(\ref{boundg}),~(\ref{boundf}),~(\ref{boundfprecised}) and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, this leads to the estimates:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
|(\ref{cardinal2})| & \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \frac{R}{\sqrt{R/t}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{tR^3}} \frac{1}{R} R = \frac{1}{t} \\
|(\ref{cardinal3})| & \lesssim \int_{\frac{R^2}{10}}^{\frac{4}{9}R^2 - \sqrt{\frac{R}{t}}} \frac{R}{th}Rt\frac{1}{(Rt\rho)^{3/2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho}} \rho\,d\rho \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \frac{1}{\sqrt{tR^3}} \log(tR^3) \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \\
|(\ref{cardinal4})| & \lesssim \int_{-\frac{31R^2}{90}}^{- \sqrt{\frac{R}{t}}} \frac{R}{th} \frac{1}{\sqrt{Rt\rho}} \rho |\partial_\rho \widehat{f}(\rho)|\,dh \lesssim \frac{1}{\sqrt{Rt}} \frac{1}{t} \left(\int_{\sqrt{R/t}}^\infty \frac{dh}{h^2} \right)^{1/2} \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \frac{1}{(R^3t)^{1/4}} \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \\
|(\ref{cardinal6})| & \lesssim \int_{-\frac{31R^2}{90}}^{- \sqrt{\frac{R}{t}}} \frac{R}{t h^2} \frac{1}{\sqrt{tR^3}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho}} \rho\,dh \lesssim \frac{\sqrt{R}}{t^{3/2}} \int_{\sqrt{R/t}}^\infty \frac{dh}{h^2} \lesssim \frac{1}{t}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
(notice that~(\ref{cardinal1}) was already estimated for $I$, and that~(\ref{cardinal5}) can be estimated like~(\ref{cardinal6}).
\bigskip
\noindent \underline{Estimate for $III$} This term can be estimated directly, using simply~(\ref{boundg}) and~(\ref{boundf}):
$$
|III| \lesssim \int_{\frac{4}{9}R^2 - \sqrt{\frac{R}{t}}}^{\frac{4}{9}R^2 + \sqrt{\frac{R}{t}}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{Rt\rho}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho}} \rho d\rho \lesssim \frac{1}{t}.
$$
\bigskip
\noindent \underline{Estimate for $IV$} Identical to the estimate for $II$!
\bigskip
\noindent \underline{Estimate for $V$} Integration by parts with the help of (\ref{ibp}) gives
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{bluejay1}
V = & - e^{it\phi\left(10R^2\right)} \frac{1}{it\phi'\left(10R^2 \right)}g\left(Rt 10R^2\right) \widehat{f}\left(10R^2\right) 10 R^2 \\
\label{bluejay2}
& - \int_{10R^2}^{\infty} e^{it\phi} \frac{1}{it\phi'} Rt g'(Rt\rho) \widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho \\
\label{bluejay3}
& - \int_{10R^2}^{\infty} e^{it\phi} \frac{1}{it\phi'} g(Rt\rho) \partial_\rho \widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho \\
\label{bluejay4}
& - \int_{10R^2}^{\infty} e^{it\phi} \frac{1}{it\phi'} g(Rt\rho) \widehat{f}(\rho) \,d\rho \\
\label{bluejay5}
& - \int_{10R^2}^{\infty} e^{it\phi} \partial_\rho\left( \frac{1}{it\phi'} \right) g(Rt\rho) \widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Observe that on the integration domain of $V$, $\phi'(\rho) \sim \sqrt{\rho} $, $\partial_\rho\left( \frac{1}{\phi'(\rho)} \right) \sim \frac{1}{\rho^{3/2}}$, $g(s)\sim\frac{1}{\sqrt{s}}$, $g'(s)\sim \frac{1}{s^{3/2}}$. Using in addition~(\ref{boundg}),~(\ref{boundf}),~(\ref{boundfprecised}) and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, this leads to the estimates:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
|(\ref{bluejay2})| & \lesssim \int_{10R^2}^\infty \frac{1}{t\sqrt{\rho}} tR \frac{1}{(tR\rho)^{3/2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho}}\rho\,d\rho \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \frac{1}{\sqrt{tR^3}} \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \\
|(\ref{bluejay3})| & \lesssim \int_{10R^2}^\infty \frac{1}{t\sqrt{\rho}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{Rt\rho}} |\partial_\rho \widehat{f}(\rho)|\rho\,d\rho \lesssim \frac{1}{t\sqrt{Rt}} \left( \int_{R^2}^\infty \frac{d\rho}{\rho^2} \right)^{1/2} \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \frac{1}{\sqrt{tR^3}} \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \\
|(\ref{bluejay5})| & \lesssim \int_{10R^2}^\infty \frac{1}{t} \frac{1}{\rho^{3/2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{Rt\rho}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho}} \rho\,d\rho \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \frac{1}{\sqrt{tR^3}} \lesssim \frac{1}{t}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
(the term~(\ref{bluejay1}) was already estimated, and~(\ref{bluejay4}) can be estimated like~(\ref{bluejay5})).
\subsubsection{The case $R^3 < \frac{1}{100 t}$}
Integration by parts with the help of (\ref{ibp}) gives
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{toucan1}
\int_{\frac{1}{Rt}}^\infty e^{i(t\phi(\rho))} g(R \rho t)\widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho = & - e^{it\phi\left(\frac{1}{Rt}\right)} \frac{1}{it\phi'\left( \frac{1}{Rt} \right)}g\left(Rt \frac{1}{Rt}\right) \widehat{f}\left(\frac{1}{Rt}\right) \frac{1}{Rt} \\
\label{toucan2}
& - \int_{\frac{1}{Rt}}^\infty e^{it\phi} \frac{1}{it\phi'} Rt g'(Rt\rho) \widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho \\
\label{toucan3}
& - \int_{\frac{1}{Rt}}^\infty e^{it\phi} \frac{1}{it\phi'} g(Rt\rho) \partial_\rho \widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho \\
\label{toucan4}
& - \int_{\frac{1}{Rt}}^\infty e^{it\phi} \frac{1}{it\phi'} g(Rt\rho) \widehat{f}(\rho) \,d\rho \\
\label{toucan5}
& - \int_{\frac{1}{Rt}}^\infty e^{it\phi} \partial_\rho\left( \frac{1}{it\phi'} \right) g(Rt\rho) \widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Observe that on the domain of the above integral, $\phi' \sim \sqrt{\rho}$ and $\partial_\rho\left( \frac{1}{\phi'(\rho)} \right) \sim\frac{1}{\rho^{3/2}}$. Using in addition~(\ref{boundg}),~(\ref{boundf}),~(\ref{boundfprecised}) and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, this leads to the estimates:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
|(\ref{toucan1})| & \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \sqrt{Rt} \sqrt{Rt} \frac{1}{Rt} \frac{1}{t} \\
|(\ref{toucan2})| & \lesssim \int_{\frac{1}{Rt}}^\infty \frac{1}{t\sqrt{\rho}} Rt \frac{1}{(Rt\rho)^{3/2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho}}\rho\,d\rho \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \\
|(\ref{toucan3})| & \lesssim \int_{\frac{1}{Rt}}^\infty \frac{1}{t\sqrt{\rho}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{R t \rho}} \partial_\rho \widehat{f}(\rho) \rho\,d\rho \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{R}t^{3/2}} \left( \int_{1/Rt}^\infty \rho^2 \left| \partial_\rho \widehat{f}(\rho) \right|^2 \,d\rho \right)^{1/2}\left( \int_{1/Rt}^\infty \frac{d\rho}{\rho^2} \right)^{1/2} \lesssim \frac{1}{t} \\
|(\ref{toucan5})| & \lesssim \int_{\frac{1}{Rt}}^\infty \frac{1}{t\rho^{3/2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{Rt\rho}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\rho}}\rho\,d\rho \lesssim \frac{1}{t}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
(the term~(\ref{toucan4}) can be estimated similarly to~(\ref{toucan3}), thus we skipped it).
\section{Traces and elliptic estimates }
\label{appendixtaee}
In this appendix we present bounds on harmonic extensions and traces of functions defined in a domain $\mathscr{D}\subset \mathbb{R}^3$. We assume that $\mathscr{D}$ is bounded by the graph of a smooth function $h$ defined on $\mathbb{R}^2$ such that
\be\label{A2}
\tag{A1}
\|\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2} +\alpha} h\|_{H^{2s - \frac{1}{2} -\alpha }}< \infty, \qquad \|\partial h\|_{H^{s+3}} \ll 1\quad \text{for $s\gg 1$ }, \quad 0 < \alpha < \frac{1}{2}.
\ee
This implies that $h\in L^p$ for some $p<\8$.
For a function $u$ defined on $\mathscr{D}$,
\[
\mathscr{D}= \{(x,z) ; \;x\in\mathbb{R}^2, z \le h(x)\},
\]
we denote by $u_b(x)= u(x,h(x))$ the trace of $u$ on the boundary $\mathscr{B} =\partial \mathscr{D}$, and for a function $\varphi$ defined on $\mathscr{B}$ we denote
by $\varphi_\mathcal{H}$ its harmonic extension to $\mathscr{D}$. Finally we denote by $\Delta_0^{-1}g$ the solution to the Dirichlet problem on $\mathscr{D}$
with $0$ boundary value
\[
\Delta u = g \quad \text{on $\mathscr{D}$}, \quad u_b= 0.
\]
The surface $\mathscr{B}$ is a Riemannian submanifold of $\mathbb{R}^3$ with covariant derivative given by
\begin{equation}\label{cov}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{D}_e w=( \nabla_e w)^\top = \nabla_e w - (\nabla_e w\cdot N) N = \nabla_e w +( w\cdot \nabla_eN) N, \qquad e,w \in T\mathscr{B}\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $N= \frac{ \nabla(z-h(x))}{|\nabla(z-h(x))|}$, is the unit normal to $\mathscr{B}$. In terms of coordinates $(x^1, x^2)\in \mathbb{R}^2$
\begin{equation}\label{localcoor}
\mathscr{B} \cong \{\mathbb{R}^2 ; \quad g_{ij}= \delta_{ij} + \partial_i h \partial_j h, \quad \mathcal{D}_i = \partial_i + C_i \}.
\end{equation}
where $C_i$ are the Christoffel symbols matrices.
Recall that Sobolev spaces on $\mathbb{R}^2$ or $\mathbb{R}^3$ are given by the norm
$$
\| u \|_{H^k(\mathbb{R}^n)} = \left\| \< \partial \>^k u \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)}
$$
We will now define Sobolev spaces on $\mathcal{D}$ and $\mathcal{B}$. First, the function spaces $H^k(\mathscr{D})$ are defined for any $k$ as restrictions:
$$
\|g\|_{H^k(\mathcal{D})} \overset{def}{=} \inf \left\{ \left\| G \right\|_{H^k(\mathbb{R}^3)}, G_{|\mathbb{D}} = g \right\}.
$$
Notice that this definition is equivalent for $k$ an integer to a more direct one, as can be seen using Lemma~\ref{hreg} below:
$$
\sum_{|s|\leq k} \left\| \partial^s g \right\|_{L^2(\mathbb{D})} + \left\| \partial h \right\|_{H^{k-1}(\mathbb{R}^2)} \left\| \partial u \right\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^2)}
\sim \|g\|_{H^k(\mathcal{D})} + \left\| \partial h \right\|_{H^{k-1}(\mathbb{R}^2)} \left\| \partial u \right\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^2)}
$$
For $k\in \mathbb{N}$ and $0\le k\le 2s$, $H^k(\mathscr{B})$ is given by the following norm
$$
\|u\|_{H^k(\mathscr{B})} \overset{def}{=} \sum_{i=0}^k \|\mathcal{D}^iu\|_{L^2(\mathscr{B})}.
$$
By \eqref{A2}, for $3\le k \le 2s$
\[
\|u\|_{H^k(\mathbb{R}^2)} + \left\| \partial h \right\|_{H^{k-1}(\mathbb{R}^2)} \left\| \partial u \right\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^2)}
\sim \|u\|_{H^k(\mathcal{B})} + \left\| \partial h \right\|_{H^{k-1}(\mathcal{B})} \left\| \partial u \right\|_{L^\infty(\mathcal{B})}
\]
The next lemma shows that in the $L^2(\mathscr{B})$ norm, the Dirichlet to Neumann operator is the same as one derivative.
\begin{lemma}\label{harmonic0}
Given a harmonic function $\phi$ on $\mathscr{D}$ then the following are equivalent
\begin{equation*}
\|(\partial_z\phi)_b\|_{L^2}\sim \|(\partial_1\phi)_b\|_{L^2} + \|(\partial_2\phi)_b\|_{L^2}
\sim \|\mathcal{N} \phi_b\|_{L^2} \sim \|\nabla\phi_b\|_{L^2} \sim \|\Lambda\phi_b\|_{L^2}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\proof
Since $\phi$ is harmonic, then
\[\begin{split}
0 = \int\limits_\mathscr{B} \Delta \phi \partial_z \phi
& = \int\limits_\mathscr{B} N \cdot \nabla \phi \partial_z \phi
- \frac 12 N^3 | \nabla \phi |^2 \Rightarrow\\
\int\limits_\mathscr{B} N^3 |\partial _ z \phi |^2
& = \int\limits_\mathscr{B} N^3 [ (\partial_{1} \phi)^2 + ( \partial_{2} \phi )^2 ]
- 2\partial_z\phi ( N^1 \partial_{1} \phi + N^2 \partial_{2} \phi ) .
\end{split}\]
Since $N^1$ and $N^2$ are $o(1)$ and $N^3$ is $O(1)$
then we have the first equivalence.
The second equivalence follows from the definition of $\mathcal{N}$ and from the relative sizes of $N^1, N^2$, and $N^3$
\[
\mathcal{N} \phi_b = N \cdot (\nabla \phi )_b
= N^3 (\partial_z \phi)_b + N^1( \partial_{x^1} \phi)_b + N^2 (\partial_{x^2} \phi )_b.
\]
The third equivalence follows from
\[
\partial_{i} \phi_b = ( \partial_{i} \phi + \partial_i h \partial_z \phi)_b .
\]
The last equivalence follows from using the Fourier transform and Plancherel's Theorem.
\endproof
The lemma above shows that for $1 \le k \le 2s$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqhk}
\|u\|_{H^k(\mathscr{B})} \sim \|u\|_{H^{k-1}(\mathscr{B})} + \|\mathcal{N}\mathcal{D}^{k-1}u\|_{L^2(\mathscr{B})}.
\end{equation}
In particular on $H^1(\mathscr{B})$ we have the equivalent norms
$$ \|\varphi\|_{L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^2)} + \|\Lambda\varphi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}\sim \|\varphi\|_{L^{2}(\mathscr{B})} + \|\mathcal{N}\varphi\|_{L^2(\mathscr{B})}
$$
and by interpolation we can define $H^{\frac12}(\mathscr{B})$ with equivalent norms
\[
\|\varphi\|_{L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^2)} + \|\Lambda^{\frac 12}\varphi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)}\sim \|\varphi\|_{L^{2}(\mathscr{B})} + \|\mathcal{N}^{\frac 12}\varphi\|_{L^2(\mathscr{B})}.
\]
The spaces $H^{k+1/2}(\mathscr{B})$, for $1\le k\le 2s-\frac12$, can be defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eqh1/2}
\|\varphi\|_{H^{k+ 1/2}(\mathscr{B})} \overset{def}{=} \|\varphi\|_{H^{k}(\mathscr{B})} + \|\mathcal{N}^{\frac 12}\mathcal{D}^k\varphi\|_{L^2(\mathscr{B})}.
\end{equation}
To show that harmonic extensions gain $1/2$ a derivative and that $\Delta_0^{-1}$ gains $2$ derivatives, in an appropriate range of spaces,
we introduce an $H^{2s+1/2}$ coordinate system that maps $\mathbb{R}^3_- \to \mathscr{D} $ and the $z=0$ plane to $\mathscr{B}$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{hreg}
1. There exists an extension $h\to \tilde h$ defined on $\mathbb{R}^3$ such that
\[
\|\nabla \tilde h\|_{H^{2s-1/2}(\mathbb{R}^3)} \lesssim \|\partial h\|_{H^{2s-1}(\mathbb{R}^2)} \qquad \|\nabla \tilde h\|_{H^{s+1/2}(\mathbb{R}^3)}
\lesssim \|\partial h\|_{H^{s}(\mathbb{R}^2)}
\]
2. The map $ \tilde y =(\tilde x, \tilde z) \overset{\Psi}{\longrightarrow} y=(x,z) $ defined by
\begin{align*}
x &= \tilde x\\
z &= \tilde z + \tilde h(\tilde x,\tilde z).
\end{align*}
the $\tilde z=0$ plane to $\mathscr{B}$, and maps the lower half space $\mathbb{R}^3_- \to \mathscr{D}$. $\Psi$ is an $H^{2s+1/2}$ diffeomorphism on $\mathbb{R}^3$, since
\begin{equation}\label{lippsi}
\|D\Psi- \rm{I}\|_{H^{2s-1/2}} < \infty, \quad \|D\Psi- \rm{I}\|_{H^{s+7/2}} \ll 1.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\proof
Define $\tilde h$ via its Fourier transform $\hat {\tilde h}$ ($\xi$ denoting the dual variable to $(x_1,x_2)$ and $\eta$ the dual variable to $z$)
\[
\hat {\tilde h}(\xi, \eta) = c\frac{|\xi|^{2\alpha}}{(|\xi|^2 +\eta^2)^{\alpha + 1/2}}\hat h(\xi); \quad c^{-1} = \int \frac 1{(1+s^2)^{\alpha + 1/2}}ds.
\]
Then $\tilde h(x,0)=h(x)$ and for $1\le a+b\le 2s +1/2$
\begin{gather*}
|\xi|^a|\eta|^b\hat{\tilde h}(\xi, \eta) = |\xi|^{a+b -1}\frac{\left(\frac{|\eta|}{|\xi|}\right)^b}
{\left(1+\left(\frac{|\eta|}{|\xi|}\right)^2\right)^{\alpha +1/2}}\hat h(\xi)\, \Rightarrow\,
\||\xi|^a|\eta|^b\hat{\tilde h}\|_{L^2} \lesssim \||\xi|^{a+ b -1/2} \hat h\|_{L^2}
\end{gather*}
By assumption \eqref{A2} and the definition of $\tilde h$ {\it 2.} follows.
\endproof
The next proposition states that for $0\le a \le 2s$, {\it 1.} $g\to g\circ\Psi$ is one to one and onto from $H^{a +\frac 12}(\mathscr{D})$ to $ H^{a +\frac12}(\mathbb{R}^3_-)$, {\it 2.} harmonic extension of $f\in H^a(\mathscr{B})$ gains $1/2$ derivative, and {\it 3.} $\nabla\Delta_0^{-1}\nabla$ is bounded on $H^{a-\frac 12}(\mathscr{D})$.
\begin{proposition} \label{elliptic} Under assumption \eqref{A2} and for $a\in \mathbb{N}/2$ and $3 \le a \le 2s$ we have:\\
1. For $g\in H^{a+\frac12}(\mathscr{D})$
\begin{align*}
&\| g\|_{H^{a+\frac12}(\mathscr{D}) } \lesssim \| g\circ \Psi\|_{H^{a+\frac12}(\mathbb{R}^3_-) }+ \| \partial h\|_{H^{a-1}(\mathbb{R}^2)} \| \nabla (g\circ\Psi)\|_{W^{[\frac a2] +1, \8}(\mathbb{R}^3_-)}\\
&\| g\circ \Psi \|_{H^{a+\frac12}(\mathbb{R}^3_-)} \lesssim \| g\|_{H^{a+ \frac12}(\mathscr{D})} + \| \partial h\|_{H^{a-1}(\mathbb{R}^2)} \| \nabla g\|_{W^{[\frac a2] +1, \8}(\mathscr{D})}.
\end{align*}
2. For $ f\in H^{a}(\mathscr{B})$
\begin{alignat*}{2}
&\| \nabla f_\mathcal{H}\|_{H^{a-\frac12}(\mathscr{D}) } && \lesssim \| f\|_{H^{a }(\mathscr{B})}+ \| \partial h\|_{H^{a-1}(\mathbb{R}^2) } \|\nabla f\|_{W^{[\frac a2] +1, \8}};
\end{alignat*}
3. For $g\in H^{a-1/2}(\mathscr{D})$
\[
\begin{split}
\|\nabla \Delta^{-1}_0 \nabla g\|_{H^{a-\frac12}(\mathscr{D})} \lesssim & \| g\|_{H^{a-\frac12}(\mathscr{D})} + \|\partial h\|_{H^{a-1}(\mathscr{B})}\|\nabla\Delta^{-1}_0 \nabla g\|_{W^{[\frac a2] +1, \8}(\mathscr{D})}\\
\lesssim & \| g\|_{H^{a-\frac12}(\mathscr{D})} + \|\partial h\|_{H^{a-1}(\mathscr{B})}\|\nabla g\|_{H^{[\frac a2] +2}(\mathscr{D})}
\end{split}
\]
\end{proposition}
\proof[Proof of 1] For $a+1/2$ an integer the inequalities follow immediately from the chain rule. For $a$ an integer, extend $g$ to a function $g_e\in H^{a+1/2}(\mathbb{R}^3)$ with $ \|g_e\|_{H^{a+1/2}(\mathbb{R}^3)}\le 2 \|g\|_{H^{a+1/2}(\mathscr{D})} $ and use the equivalent norm on $H^{a+\frac12}(\mathbb{R}^3)$
\[
\| \phi\|_{H^{a + \frac12}}^2 = \| \phi\|_{H^{a}}^2 +\int\int\frac{ |D^a\phi(x)-D^a\phi(y)|^2}{|x-y|^{4}}dxdy,
\]
and \eqref{lippsi} to conclude 1. \\
\noindent {\it Proof of 2. and 3.} For $g\in H^{a- \frac{1}{2}}(\mathscr{D})$, solve $\Delta U = \nabla g $ on $\mathscr{D}$ with Dirichlet data $f$. Change variables using~$\Psi$
to flatten the domain, and let $\phi = U \circ \Psi$, and $\tilde g = g \circ \Psi$; then $D U = \left((I + A)D \phi \right)\circ \Psi^{-1}$
where the matrix $A$ depends on $\partial \tilde h$, and thus satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eqA}
\|A\|_{H^{2s -1/2}( \mathbb{R}^3_- ) } < \infty, \qquad \|A\|_{H^{s + 5/2}( \mathbb{R}^3_- ) }\ll 1 .
\end{equation}
Consequently $\phi$ satisfies
\[ \begin{split}
&\mbox{trace}[(D + AD)^2]\phi =\Delta \phi +2 \operatorname{div} (B D \phi) + c\cdot D\phi = \nabla \tilde g + A \nabla \tilde g \qquad x \in \mathbb{R}^3_-\\[.5 em]
&\phi( x,0) = \phi_b (x) = f\circ \Psi(x),
\end{split} \]
where $c$ depends on $\partial^2 \tilde h$, and $B$ is a linear combination of $A$ and $A^2$.
By letting $\Delta^{-1}_*$ be the inverse of $\Delta$ on $\mathbb{R}^3_-$, we write
\[
D \phi =D (\phi_b)_\mathcal{H} +D \Delta^{-1}_*\nabla \tilde g + D \Delta^{-1}_*(B \nabla \tilde g -c\cdot D\phi) - 2\nabla \Delta^{-1}_* \operatorname{div} BD \phi.
\]
By standard elliptic estimates on $\mathbb{R}^3_-$, and Sobolev embedding we have
\[
\begin{split}
&\|\nabla \phi \|_{{L^2} ( \mathbb{R}^3_- ) }
\lesssim \| \phi_b \|_{ \dot H^{\frac12} ( \mathbb{R}^2) } + \|\tilde g\|_{L^2 ( \mathbb{R}^3_- ) }
+ \|BD \phi\|_{L^2 ( \mathbb{R}^3_- ) } + \|B \nabla \tilde g\|_{L^{\frac65} ( \mathbb{R}^3_- ) } + \|c\cdot D\phi\|_{L^{\frac65} ( \mathbb{R}^3_- ) }.\\
&\|\nabla \phi \|_{H^{a-\frac12} ( \mathbb{R}^3_- ) }
\lesssim \| \phi_b \|_{ H^{a} ( \mathbb{R}^2) }
+ \|BD \phi\|_{H^{a-\frac12} ( \mathbb{R}^3_- ) }+ \|\tilde g\|_{H^{a-\frac12} ( \mathbb{R}^3_- ) } \\
&\phantom{\|\nabla \phi \|_{H^{a-\frac12} ( \mathbb{R}^3_- ) }
\lesssim } + \|B \nabla \tilde g\|_{H^{a-\frac32} ( \mathbb{R}^3_- ) } + \|B \nabla \tilde g\|_{L^{\frac65} ( \mathbb{R}^3_- ) } + \|c\cdot D\phi\|_{H^{a-\frac32} ( \mathbb{R}^3_- ) } + \|c\cdot D\phi\|_{L^{\frac65} ( \mathbb{R}^3_- ) }.
\end{split}
\]
By setting $g =0$, or $f=0$, and using \eqref{eqA}, we conclude {\it 2.} or {\it 3.}, for the stated ranges of $a$.
\endproof
The next proposition shows that
\[
\|u\|_{H^q(\mathscr{B})}\sim \sum_{i=0}^q \|\mathcal{N}^iu\|_{L^2(\mathscr{B})}
\]
Recall that $\tilde \partial_i = \partial_i +h_i \partial_z$, and that for a vector field $\mathcal{X}= X\cdot \nabla$ on $T\mathscr{B}$, the commutator
$[\mathcal{X}, \mathcal{N}]$ acting on $\varphi: \mathscr{B}\to \mathbb{R}$ is given by:
\begin{equation}\label{comm-na}
[\mathcal{X}, \mathcal{N} ] \varphi = N \cdot \nabla \Delta^{-1}_0(2 {\rm div}((\nabla X_\mathcal{H})\nabla\varphi_\mathcal{H}))+ (XN ) \cdot ( \nabla \varphi_\mathcal{H}) -N \cdot ( D X_\mathcal{H} D\varphi _\mathcal{H} )
\end{equation}
Thus by proposition \ref{elliptic}
\begin{equation}\label{eqnd}
\|[\tilde \partial, \mathcal{N}] \varphi\|_{L^2}\sim \|(D^2h)D\varphi\|_{L^2}
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}\label{harmonic}
For any $\varphi:\mathscr{B}\to \mathbb{R}$ and $3\le q\le 2s$ with $q\in\mathbb{N}_0/2$
\begin{equation}\label{hqnorm}\begin{cases}
\|\mathcal{N}^{q}\varphi\|_{L^2} \lesssim \sum_{i=0}^q \|\Lambda^iu\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)} + \| \partial h\|_{H^{q-1}} \| \nabla \varphi\|_{L^\infty}\\[.5em]
\|\Lambda^{q} \varphi\|_{L^2} \lesssim \sum_{i=0}^q \|\mathcal{N}^iu\|_{L^2(\mathscr{B})} + \| \partial h\|_{H^{q-1}} \| \nabla \varphi\|_{L^\infty}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\proof From \cite{SZ06} we have
\begin{equation} \label{E:deltacn1}
(-\Delta_{\mathscr{B}} - \mathcal{N}^2) \varphi = \kappa \mathcal{N}(\varphi) +2N\cdot \nabla
\Delta_0^{-1}\operatorname{div} (D N_\mathcal{H} D \varphi_\mathcal{H}) - \mathcal{N}(N) \cdot (\mathcal{N}(\varphi) N +
\nabla^\top \varphi).
\end{equation}
Thus the operator $\Delta_{\mathscr{B}} + \mathcal{N}^2$ is a first order operator with coefficients depending on second derivatives of $h$.
Consequently if $q$ is even \eqref{hqnorm} are immediate. If $q$ is odd then the equation \eqref{E:deltacn1} and Lemma \ref{harmonic0} imply \eqref{hqnorm}.
For $q=k +\frac12$, we use the commutator estimate \eqref{eqnd} to write
\[
\|\mathcal{N}^{q}\varphi\|_{L^2}^2 = \int \mathcal{N}^{k+1}\varphi\mathcal{N}^k\varphi = \int D^k\varphi\mathcal{N} D^k\varphi+ \, \text{lower order terms}.
\]
>From equation \eqref{eqh1/2} we obtain the desired result.
\endproof
\section{Properties of the Dirichlet-Neumann operator}
\label{appendixpotdno}
Recall that we denote $\mathcal{N}(h)$ or simply $\mathcal{N}$ for the Dirichlet-Neumann operator associated to the domain $\mathcal{D} = \{ z \leq h(x) \}$ with boundary
$\mathscr{B} = \{ z = h(x) \}$.
\subsection{$L^\infty$ estimate}
Next we bound $\mathcal{N}$ in $L^\8(\mathscr{B}) \cong L^\8(\mathbb{R}^2)$ by allowing the loss of small powers of $\Lambda = |\nabla|$ for small and large frequencies.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:elliptic}
There exists $\epsilon_0$ such that: if
$$
\|\partial h \|_\infty + \| \nabla^3 h \|_\infty + \|\partial h \|_2 + \| \nabla^3 h \|_2< \epsilon_0,
$$
then for any $\varphi$ defined on $\mathscr{B}$, and for $0<\sigma<1/2$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:1}
&\|\mathcal{N} \varphi \|_{W^{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^2)} \lesssim \|D \varphi\|_{W^{3,\infty}} + \|\Lambda^{1-\sigma}\varphi\|_{L^\infty}.
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\noindent
\begin{proof} \underline{Step 1: the double layer potential} Let $a = (x, z) \in \mathscr{D}$ and $b = (y, h(y) ) \in \mathscr{B}$.
Then $\varphi_{\mathcal{H}}$ can be represented by the double layer potential
\[
\varphi_{\mathcal{H}} (a) = \int\limits_\mathscr{B} \mu (b)N
\cdot \nabla G (a -b) dS (b)
= -1/2\mu (b_0) + \int\limits_\mathscr{B} (\mu (b)- \mu (b_0) ) N
\cdot \nabla G (a -b) dS (b)
\]
where $G(a-b) = \frac 1{4\pi} |a-b|^{-1}$
is the Newtonian potential and $b_0$ is an arbitrary point on $\mathscr{B}$.
Define $K (x,y) = \sqrt{1+|\partial h(y)|^2}N(b) \cdot \nabla G (b_0-b)$
for $b_0= (x, h(x) ) \in \mathscr{B}$ and $b = (y, h(y) ) \in \mathscr{B}$. In other words,
$$
K (x,y) = \frac{{- \nabla} h(y) \cdot (x-y) + h(x) -h (y) }{ 4\pi (|x-y|^2 + (h(x) -h(y))^2) ^{\frac 32}}.
$$
Then as $a\to b_0$, it follows by standard singular integral calculations~\cite{Folland} that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:e2}
-1/2 \mu (x) + \int \mu (y) K (x,y) dy = \varphi (x).
\end{equation}
\bigskip
\noindent \underline{Step 2: estimating $\mu$} Notice that $K(x,y)$ has the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\int K(x,y) \,dy = 0$
\item $|K(x,y)| \lesssim \epsilon_0 \min \left[ \frac{1}{|x-y|} \,,\, \frac{1}{|x-y|^2} \right]$
\item $|K(x,y) - K(x',y)| \lesssim \epsilon_0 \frac{|x-x'|}{|y-x|^3}$ if $|y-x|>>|x-x'|$
\item $\int |K(x,y)|\,dy \lesssim \epsilon_0$.
\end{itemize}
The first point above can be seen by a standard integration by parts; the second and third points follow from $\|\partial h\|_\infty < \epsilon_0$; for the fourth one use in
addition that $\|\partial h\|_2 < \epsilon_0$.
Next we also denote $K$ for the operator with kernel $K(x,y)$. By points one to three above, it is standard to see that
$$
\|K\|_{\dot{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha \rightarrow \dot{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha} \lesssim \epsilon_0 \quad \mbox{if $0<\alpha<1$};
$$
and point four easily implies
$$
\|K\|_{L^\infty \rightarrow L^\infty} \lesssim \epsilon_0.
$$
Choosing $\epsilon_0$ small enough, it is possible to solve~(\ref{eq:e2}) by Neumann series to obtain
$$
\|\mu\|_{L^\infty} \lesssim \|\varphi\|_{L^\infty} \quad \mbox{and} \quad \|\mu\|_{\dot{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha} \lesssim \|\varphi\|_{\dot{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}
$$
To obtain estimates on derivatives of $\mu$, write
\begin{equation*}
-1/2\mu (x)
+ \int( \mu (y)-\mu(x)) K (x,y)\, dy
= \varphi (x) .
\end{equation*}
and differentiate with respect to $x$ to get
$$
-1/2\partial_x \mu (x) + \int (\mu (y)-\mu(x)) \partial_x K (x,y)\, dy = \partial_x \varphi (x).
$$
Denoting $J(x,y) = (\partial_x + \partial_y)K(x,y)$, an integration by parts gives (writing $J$ for the operator with kernel $J(x,y)$)
\begin{equation}
\label{equn}
-1/2\partial_x \mu (x) - K \partial_x \mu + J \mu = \partial_x \varphi.
\end{equation}
Using that $\|\nabla^2 h\|_\infty + \|\nabla^2 h\|_2 < \epsilon_0$, one checks that $J(x,y)$ enjoys the properties of $K(x,y)$ listed above. Thus if $0<\alpha<1$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqdeux}
\|J\|_{L^\infty \rightarrow L^\infty} + \|J\|_{\dot{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha \rightarrow \dot{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha} \lesssim \epsilon_0.
\end{equation}
It is furthermore easy to see that
$$
\|J\|_{\mathcal{C}^{1-\sigma} \rightarrow L^\infty} + \|J\|_{\dot{\mathcal{C}}^{1-\sigma} \rightarrow L^\infty} + \lesssim \epsilon_0.
$$
Now equation~(\ref{equn}) implies
$$
\partial_x \mu (x) = \left(\frac{1}{2} + K \right)^{-1} \left( J \mu - \partial_x \varphi \right),
$$
from which follows, in conjunction with the various bound on $K$ and $J$, if $0<\alpha<1$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
& \left\| \partial_x \mu \right\|_\infty \lesssim \| J \mu \|_\infty + \| \partial_x \varphi \|_\infty \lesssim \|\varphi\|_{\dot{\mathcal{C}}^{1-\sigma}} +
\| \partial_x \varphi \|_\infty \\
& \left\| \partial_x \mu \right\|_{\dot{\mathcal{C}}^{1-\sigma}} \lesssim \| J \mu \|_{\dot{\mathcal{C}}^{1-\sigma}} + \| \partial_x \varphi \|_{\dot{\mathcal{C}}^{1-\sigma}}
\lesssim \|\varphi\|_{\dot{\mathcal{C}}^{1-\sigma}} + \| \partial_x \varphi \|_\infty. \\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Taking one more derivative and arguing similarly gives
$$
\| \partial_x^2 \mu \|_{\infty} \lesssim \| \partial_x^2 \varphi \|_\infty + \|\varphi\|_{\dot{\mathcal{C}}^{1-\sigma}}.
$$
\bigskip
\noindent
\underline{Step 3: estimating $\mathcal{N}\varphi$}
Fix a point $b_0\in \mathscr{B}$ and use normal coordinates in a neighborhood of $\mathscr{B}$ to restrict $a$ near the boundary to the line $a = b_0 + \nu N (b_0 )$. Thus
\[
N(b_0)\cdot \nabla \varphi_{\mathcal{H}} (a)
= \int\limits_\mathscr{B} (\mu(b) -\mu(b_0))
D^2 G(N(b), N(b_0))(a-b) dS (b) .
\]
For $|b-b_0|$ large and $\nu$ small $|D^2G(a-b)|\lesssim |b-b_0|^{-3}$ and thus the above integral can be bounded by $\|\mu \|_{\dot{\mathcal{C}}^{ 1- \sigma}} $.
For $|b-b_0|$ small we write
\[
N(b_0) = \theta(b,b_0)N(b) + \gamma(b,b_0) \tau \qquad \text{where} \quad \tau \in T_{b}S.
\]
The term involving $\tau$ is integrable due to the vanishing of $\gamma(b_0,b_0)$. By repeating the argument that led to inequality \eqref{eqdeux} we obtain
\[
| \int\limits_\mathscr{B} (\mu(b) -\mu(b_0))D^2 G(N(b),\gamma \tau)(b_0-b) dS (b) | \lesssim
\|\mu\|_{\dot{C}^{1-\sigma}} \lesssim \|\varphi\|_{\dot{C}^{1-\sigma}}.
\]
Split the remaining term
\[
I = \int\limits_\mathscr{B} (\mu(b) -\mu(b_0))D^2 G(N(b), N(b))(\nu N(b_0) +b_0-b) dS (b)
\]
with the help of a cutoff function $\chi$ which localizes smoothly away from the ball of center 0 and radius one:
$$
I = \int \left( \chi(b-b_0) + [1 - \chi(b-b_0)] \right) \dots dS(b) = II + III.
$$
The term $III$ is easily dealt with; as for $II$, it is hypersingular as $\nu \to 0$. Use the identity
\[
0 = \Delta G
= \Delta_{S} G
+ \kappa N
\cdot \nabla G
+ D^2 G (N, N)
\]
for $\nu < 0$ to re-express $II$ as
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
II = & \int\limits_{\mathscr{B}} \mathcal{D} \left( \chi(b-b_0) (\mu(b)-\mu(b_0)) \right) \mathcal{D} G(\nu N(b_0) +b_0-b) \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad - \chi(b-b_0) (\mu(b) -\mu(b_0)) \kappa N(b) \cdot \nabla G(\nu N(b_0) +b_0-b) \, dS(b).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Letting now $\nu \to 0$, this can be bounded as before
\[
\| I \| \lesssim \| \partial \mu \|_{C^1}
+ \| \mu \|_{C^{1-\sigma} } \lesssim \| \partial \varphi \|_{C^{1}}
+ \| \varphi \|_{\dot {C}^{1-\sigma} }.
\]
Thus
\[
\| \mathcal{N} \varphi \|_{L^\infty(S) }
\le \| \partial \varphi \|_{C^1 }
+ \| \varphi \|_{\dot{C}^{1-\sigma} }.
\]
By repeating the above argument after applying
tangential derivatives to $N(b_0)\cdot\nabla \varphi$ we obtain
\[
\| \mathcal{N} \varphi \|_{W^{2,\infty}(S) }
\le \| \partial \varphi \|_{C^3 }
+ \| \varphi \|_{\dot{C}^{1-\sigma} }.
\]
This proves inequality \eqref{eq:1}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Expansion into multilinear $L^2$ bounded operators}
\begin{prop}
\label{propexpansion}
The operator $\mathcal{N}(h)$ can be expanded into a series of multilinear operators
$$
\mathcal{N}(h) = \sum_{n \geq 0} M_n (h,\dots,h,\cdot) \quad \mbox{i.e.} \quad \mathcal{N}(h)f = \sum_{n \geq 0} M_n (h,\dots,h,f)
$$
where the operators $M_n$ are symmetric, $n-linear$ in $h$, and satisfy the estimate
\begin{equation}
\label{multilinbounds}
\left\| M_n(h,\dots,h,f) \right\|_2 \leq C_*^n
\left\|\partial h \right\|_\infty^n \|\nabla f\|_2.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Though we could not find this explicit statement, this result is classical in harmonic analysis.
The idea is to expand the Dirichlet-Neumann operator into elementary operators akin to Calderon's commutators.
\noindent \underline{Step 1: The single-layer potential}
Let $\psi$ be the solution of the Dirichlet problem with boundary data $f$:
$$
\Delta \psi = 0 \quad \mbox{in $\mathcal{D}$} \quad \mbox{and} \quad \psi(x,h(x)) = f(x) \quad \mbox{on $\mathscr{B}$}.
$$
It can be represented via a single layer potential by
\begin{equation*}
\psi(x,z) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \frac{\rho(y)}{\left(|x-y|^2+|h(y)-z|^2\right)^{1/2}} dy
\end{equation*}
(this is not quite the standard definition, where the weight $\sqrt{1+|\partial h|^2}$ would appear, reflecting the volume element for $\mathscr{B}$).
In particular,
\begin{equation}
\label{slp}
f(x) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \frac{\rho(y)}{\left(|x-y|^2+|h(x)-h(y)|^2\right)^{1/2}} dy.
\end{equation}
It is well-known (see Folland~\cite{Folland}) that
\begin{equation}
\label{lim}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{N}(h)\psi (x) & = \operatorname{lim}_{z \rightarrow h(x)} N_x \cdot \nabla \psi(z,h(x)) \\
& = \frac{1}{2} \frac{\rho(x)}{\sqrt{1+|\partial h|^2(x)}} + \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \frac{h(x) - h(y) + \partial h(x) \cdot (x-y)}{\left( |x-y|^2 + |h(x) - h(y)|^2\right)^{3/2}} \rho(y) \,dy .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\bigskip
\noindent \underline{Step 2: expanding $\rho$}
Start by expanding~(\ref{slp}) in $h$:
$$
f(x) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \beta_n \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \frac{|h(x)-h(y)|^{2n}}{|x-y|^{2n+1}}\rho(y)\,dy,
$$
where $|\beta_n|\leq 1$. Apply $\Lambda$ to the above, noting that $\Lambda = \frac{D}{\Lambda}\cdot D = \sum_{j=1,2} R_j \partial_j$. This gives
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\Lambda f(x) & = \rho(x) + \sum_{n=1}^\infty \sum_{j=1,2} R_j \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \frac{(h(x)-h(y))^{2n-1}}{|x-y|^{2n+1}} \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \left[2n \partial_j h(x)-(2n+1)\frac{(x^j-y^j)}{|x-y|}\frac{(h(x)-h(y))}{|x-y|}\right] \rho(y)\,dy \\
& \overset{def}{=} \rho(x) + \sum_{n=1}^\infty \left[ P_n \rho \right] (x).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Inverting the above by Neumann series gives
\begin{equation}
\label{toureiffel}
\rho(x) = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} (-1)^k \left[ \sum_{n=0}^\infty P_n \right]^k \Lambda f(x).
\end{equation}
\bigskip
\noindent \underline{Step 3: expanding $\mathcal{N}(h) f$}
The right-hand side of~(\ref{lim}) can be expanded in $h$ to give
\begin{equation}
\label{champselysees}
\begin{split}
\left[ \mathcal{N}(h) \psi \right] (x) & = \frac{1}{2} \frac{\rho(x)}{\sqrt{1+|\partial h|^2(x)}} +
\sum_{n\geq 0} \alpha_n \frac{h(x)-h(y) + \partial h(x) \cdot (x-y)}{|x-y|^3} \frac{|h(x)-h(y)|^{2n}}{|x-y|^{2n}} \rho(y) \,dy, \\
& \overset{def}{=} \frac{1}{2} \frac{\rho(x)}{\sqrt{1+|\partial h|^2(x)}} + \sum_{n=0}^\infty \left[ Q_n \rho \right] (x)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $|\alpha_n| \leq n$.
\bigskip
\noindent \underline{Step 4: boundedness of the elementary operators and conclusion}
The elementary operators $P_n$ and $Q_n$ appearing respectively in~(\ref{toureiffel}) and~(\ref{champselysees}) can be estimated by the following result
of Coifman, MacIntosh, and Meyer~\cite{CMIM}
\footnote{This result corresponds to Theorem III in~\cite{CMIM}, transfered on $\mathbb{R}^2$ by the method of rotations.}: the operator on $\mathbb{R}^2$ with kernel
$$
\frac{(h_1(x)-h_1(y))\dots (h_n(x)-h_n(y))}{|x-y|^{n+2}}
$$
(and $n$ odd) has a norm on $L^2$ which is bounded by
$$
C(1+n^4) \|\partial h_1 \|_\infty \dots \| \partial h_n \|_\infty.
$$
Using this estimate in conjunction with~(\ref{toureiffel}) and~(\ref{champselysees}) gives the desired conclusion.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Symmetries}
\begin{lem}
\label{lemmasymmetries}
The Dirichlet-Neumann operator is invariant by the following symmetries:
\begin{itemize}
\item Translation: $G(h(\cdot+\delta)) \left[ f(\cdot + \delta) \right] = \left[ G(h) f \right] (\cdot + \delta)$ for $\delta \in \mathbb{R}^2$.
\item Rotation: $G(h (R_\theta \cdot) ) \left[ f(R_\theta \cdot) \right] = \left[ G(h) f \right] (R_\theta \cdot)$ with $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$, where $R_\theta$ is the rotation by an angle~$\theta$.
\item Dilation: $G \left( \frac{1}{\lambda} h(\lambda \cdot) \right) \left[ f(\lambda \cdot) \right] = \lambda \left[ G(h) f \right] (\lambda \cdot)$ with $\lambda > 0$
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
Consider the expansion of Proposition~\ref{propexpansion}. Applying for instance the rotation symmetry, and using in conjunction the above lemma gives
$$
\left[ G(h) f \right] (R_\theta \cdot) = \sum_{n \geq 0} M_n
(h(R_\theta \cdot) ,\dots,h(R_\theta \cdot) , f(R_\theta \cdot) )
$$
Differentiating in the continuous parameter ($\theta$ in the above example, or $\lambda$ or $\delta$ if the other symmetries are used), we obtain that
$$
\Gamma \left[ G(h) f \right] = \sum_{n \geq 0} n M_n
(\Gamma h,\dots,h,f) + M_n(h,\dots,h,\Gamma f)
$$
for $\Gamma = \nabla, \Omega$; and
\begin{equation}
\label{leibniz}
\Gamma \left[ G(h) f \right] = \sum_{n \geq 0} n M_n (\Gamma h,\dots,h,f) - (n+1)
M_n(h,\dots,h,\Gamma f) + G(h) f.
\end{equation}
for $\Gamma = x\cdot \nabla$. This last formula remains valid for $\mathcal{S} = \frac{3}{2} t \partial_t + x \cdot \nabla$ if the functions under consideration depend on time.
Analogous formulas can of course be obtained if more than one vector field $\Gamma$ is applied.
\section{Tools from linear and multilinear harmonic analysis}
\label{appendixbobo}
\subsection{Littlewood-Paley theory}
Consider $\theta$ a function supported in the annulus $\mathcal{C}(0,\frac{3}{4},\frac{8}{3})$ such that
$$
\mbox{for $\xi \neq 0$,}\quad\sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \theta \left( \frac{\xi}{2^j} \right) = 1 .
$$
Also define
$$
\Theta(\xi) \overset{def}{=} \sum_{j <0} \theta \left( \frac{\xi}{2^j} \right) .
$$
Define then the Fourier multipliers
$$
P_j \overset{def}{=} \theta\left( \frac{D}{2^j} \right) \quad P_{<j} = \Theta \left( \frac{D}{2^j} \right)\quad P_{\geq j} = 1- \Theta\left( \frac{D}{2^j} \right)
$$
and similarly $P_{\leq j}$, $P_{>j}$.
This gives a homogeneous and an inhomogeneous decomposition of the identity (for instance, in $L^2$)
$$
\sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} P_j = \operatorname{Id} \quad\mbox{and}\quad P_{\leq 0} + \sum_{j> 0} P_j = \operatorname{Id}.
$$
All these operators are bounded on $L^p$ spaces:
$$
\mbox{if $1 \leq p \leq \infty$,}\quad \|P_j f \|_p \lesssim \|f\|_p \quad,\quad \|P_{<j} f \|_p \lesssim \|f\|_p\quad\mbox{and} \quad\|P_{>j} f \|_p \lesssim \|f\|_p.
$$
Furthermore, for $P_j f$, taking a derivative is essentially equivalent to multiplying by $2^j$:
\begin{equation}
\label{LPderivative}
\begin{split}
& \mbox{if $1 \leq p \leq \infty$ and $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$,}\quad \|\Lambda^\alpha P_j f \|_p \sim 2^{\alpha j} \|P_j f\|_p\\
& \mbox{if $1 \leq p \leq \infty$ and $\ell \in \mathbb{Z}$,} \quad \|\nabla^\ell P_j f \|_p \sim 2^{\ell j} \|P_j f\|_p.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Also, we recall Bernstein's lemma: if $1\leq q\leq p \leq \infty$,
\begin{equation}
\label{lemmadeltaj}
\|P_j f \|_p \leq 2^{2j\left( \frac{1}{q}-\frac{1}{p} \right)} \left\| P_j f \right\|_q\quad\mbox{and}\quad \left\| P_{<j} f \right\|_p \leq 2^{2j\left( \frac{1}{q}-\frac{1}{p} \right)} \left\| P_{<j} f \right\|_q .
\end{equation}
\subsection{Boundedness of bilinear operators}
\label{appendixbilin}
Recall the definition of the bilinear operator with symbol $m$:
$$
T_m(f,g)(x) \overset{def}{=} \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} e^{ix \xi} \widehat{f}(\eta) \widehat{g}(\xi-\eta) m(\xi,\eta)\, d\xi d\eta.
$$
These operators are called pseudo-products and were introduced by Coifman and Meyer~\cite{CM}.
\begin{df}
Let $\mathcal{M}^{\beta,c_1,c_2,c_3}$ denote the set of bilinear symbols $m(\xi,\eta)$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $m$ is homogeneous of degree $\beta$: $m(\lambda \xi,\lambda \eta) = \lambda^\beta m(\xi,\eta)$.
\item $m$ is smooth away from $\{\xi=0\} \cup \{\eta = 0\} \cup \{ \xi-\eta=0 \}$.
\item If $|\xi|\ll|\eta| \sim 1 $, $m(\xi,\eta)$ can be written under the form $|\xi|^{c_1} \mathcal{A}\left( |\xi|,\frac{\xi}{|\xi|},\eta \right)$,
where $\mathcal{A}$ is smooth in its arguments.
\item If $|\eta|\ll|\xi| \sim 1$, $m(\xi,\eta)$ can be written under the form $|\eta|^{c_2} \mathcal{A}\left( |\eta|,\frac{\eta}{|\eta|} ,\xi \right)$,
where $\mathcal{A}$ is smooth in its arguments.
\item If $|\xi-\eta|\ll|\eta| \sim 1$, $m(\xi,\eta)$ can be written under the form $|\xi-\eta|^{c_3} \mathcal{A}\left( |\xi-\eta|,\frac{\xi-\eta}{|\xi-\eta|},\eta \right)$,
where $\mathcal{A}$ is smooth in its arguments.
\end{itemize}
\end{df}
\begin{prop} \label{Bili-prop}
Let $\psi(\xi,\eta)$ be a smooth function, supported on an annulus, and let $m \in \mathcal{M}^{\beta,c_1,c_2,c_3}$, with $c_1,c_2,c_3>0$.
Finally set
$$
\mu = \psi \left( \frac{(\xi,\eta)}{2^j} \right) m(\xi,\eta).
$$
Then
\begin{equation}\label{bili-est}
\left\| T_{\mu}(f,g) \right\|_p \lesssim 2^{\beta j} \|f\|_q \|g\|_r
\end{equation}
if $1 \leq p,q,r \leq \infty$ and $\frac{1}{q} + \frac{1}{r} = \frac{1}{p}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By scaling, it suffices to treat the case $j = 0$, $\beta = 0$. Consider thus the symbol $\psi \mu$. It is supported on a compact set. First consider the region inside this
compact set where none of $\xi$, $\eta$, $\xi-\eta$ vanish. Then $\psi \mu$ is smooth, and the proposition is clear. We are left with the three regions where
$|\eta|\ll|\xi|$, $|\xi|\ll|\eta|$, and $|\xi-\eta|\ll|\eta|$. By a duality argument and symmetry, it suffices to treat one of these three cases, say $|\eta|\ll|\xi|$.
Then $m$ can be written
$$
|\eta|^c \mathcal{A}\left( |\eta|,\frac{\eta}{|\eta|} ,\xi \right).
$$
Expand $\mathcal{A}$ in Taylor series in its first argument, and in Fourier series in its second argument $\frac{\eta}{|\eta|} \in \mathbb{S}^1$
(we omit the necessary cut-off function to alleviate the notations)
$$
\mathcal{A}\left( |\eta|,\frac{\eta}{|\eta|} ,\xi \right) = \sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} \sum_{\ell=0}^M |\eta|^{c+\ell} e^{i k \frac{\eta}{|\eta|}} \mathcal{A}_{k\ell} (\xi) + R_M.
$$
(notice that the smoothness of $\mathcal{A}$ entails fast decay of the $\mathcal{A}_{k \ell}$ in $k,\ell$).
Taking $M$ sufficiently large, $R_M$ is sufficiently smooth for
the theory of Coifman-Meyer to apply, and we are left with $\sum_{\ell=0}^M$. We might as well consider only the first summand, $\ell = 0$, the other being treated similarly.
Thus we are left with
$$
\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} |\eta|^{c} e^{i k \frac{\eta}{|\eta|}} \mathcal{A}_{k0} (\xi).
$$
Multiply this symbol by $\psi(\xi,\eta)$, and call the result
$\rho(\xi,\eta) \overset{def}{=} \psi(\xi,\eta) \sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} |\eta|^{c} e^{i k \frac{\eta}{|\eta|}} \mathcal{A}_{k0} (\xi)$. Then
$$
T_\rho (f,g) = \sum_{m<0} T_{\rho}(P_m f,g) =
\sum_{m<0} \sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}} T_{\psi(\xi,\eta)\mathcal{A}_{k0}(\xi)} (\Lambda^c e^{i k \frac{D}{\Lambda}} P_m f,P_1g).
$$
Now by standard linear theory there exists $C$ such that
$$
\left\| \Lambda^c e^{i k \frac{D}{\Lambda}} P_m f \right\|_{p} \lesssim 2^{mc} k^C \|f\|_p
$$
valid for any $p$ in $[1,\infty]$. Summing over $m$ is possible since $c>0$; and the fast decay of the $\mathcal{A}_{k0}$ makes the sum over $k$ converge. This finishes the
proof.
\end{proof}
A simple consequence of the previous Proposition is the following
\begin{cor} \label{Bili-prop1}
Let $m \in \mathcal{M}^{\beta,c_1,c_2,c_3}$ and assume that $\sigma_2$, $\sigma_3$, $q$, $r$, $Q$, $R$ satisfy
$$
c_1>0, \quad \sigma_2 < c_2, \quad \sigma_3 < c_3, \quad \mbox{and}\quad \frac{1}{q} + \frac{1}{r} = \frac{1}{Q} + \frac{1}{R} = \frac{1}{p}.
$$
Then for any $\kappa > 0$,
$$
\left\| T_m(f,g) \right\|_{L^p} \lesssim \left\|f\right\|_{\dot{W}^{\sigma_2,q}} \left\| \left[\Lambda^\kappa + \Lambda^{-\kappa} \right]
\Lambda^{\beta-\sigma_2} g\right\|_{L^r} + \left\| \left[\Lambda^\kappa + \Lambda^{-\kappa} \right] \Lambda^{\beta-\sigma_3} f\right\|_{L^Q}
\left\|g\right\|_{\dot{W}^{\sigma_3,R}}.
$$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof} As in the proof of Proposition~\ref{Bili-prop}, it suffices to treat the case where $m$ is supported in the region where $|\eta|<<|\xi|$. Then
$\frac{m(\xi,\eta)}{|\eta|^{\sigma_2}} \in \mathcal{M}^{\beta - \sigma_2,c_1,c_2-\sigma_2,c_3}$.
Keeping the notation $\psi$ defined above, and applying Proposition~\ref{Bili-prop} one gets
$$
\left\| T_{\frac{m(\xi,\eta)}{|\eta|^{\sigma_2}} \psi \left( \frac{(\xi,\eta)}{2^j} \right) } \left( |\eta|^{\sigma_2} f , g \right) \right\|_{L^p}
\lesssim 2^{(\beta - \sigma_2)j} \left\| |\eta|^{\sigma_2} f \right\|_q \left\|P_j g \right\|_r.
$$
Summing over $j$ gives the desired result.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Softened East Model}
\label{sec:model}
The East model is a schematic lattice model for a fragile glassformer~\cite{JJackleandAKronig1994}. We work in one dimension but we expect our results to generalize trivially to higher dimension. The thermodynamic properties of the model are those of a lattice gas \cite{IMSM} with $N$ spins that take binary values $n_{i} = \{0,1\}$ and an energy $E = J \sum_{i=1}^N n_i$, where $J$ is the energy required to create an ``excitation'' (a site with $n_i=1$). The spins do not represent the particles of the glass-former directly: instead they the describe the potential for mobility in a dynamically heterogenous material, after individual particles have been coarse-grained away~\cite{Garrahan2003}. ``Excitations'' are regions of space where relaxation can (but may not necessarily) occur. Regions which locally cannot support relaxation are modeled by sites with $n_{i}=0$.
An excitation on site $i$ relaxes, i.e. $ n_{i} = 1 \rightarrow n_{i} = 0$ with rate $[r_{i}]_{0\rightarrow1} = \lambda C_{i}$, where $C_{i}= \epsilon+n_{i-1}$ is a facilitation function (or kinetic constraint~\cite{Ritort2003}) that depends on the state of the left neighbor site, $n_{i-1}$.
The facilitation process is such that an excitation on site $i-1$ facilitates motion on its ``eastern'' (right) neighbor, site $i$.
On fixing the excitation energy $J$ and the temperature $T$, the remaining rates in the system are fixed by detailed balance:
$[r_{i}]_{0 \rightarrow 1} = \gamma \lambda C_{i}$ where $\gamma = \mathrm{e}^{-J/T}$.
In what follows we set $\lambda=1$, which fixes our time unit, and we take Boltzmann's constant $k_\mathrm{B}=1$ throughout.
Having fixed our units in this way, the system at equilibrium is described by two dimensionless parameters, $\gamma$ and $\epsilon$.
We imagine that violating the kinetic constraint requires an energy $U$, so that $\epsilon = \mathrm{e}^{-U/T}$. Hence, one may equivalently consider the system as a function of the reduced temperature $T/J$ and the ratio of energies $U/J$.
In terms of the equilibrium dynamics on decreasing the temperature (at fixed $U$ and $J$), the soft East model exhibits two crossovers.
At high temperature, facilitation effects are irrelevant, as usual in KCMs~\cite{Ritort2003}, with facilitation becoming relevant around the onset temperature
$T_\mathrm{o} \approx J$. However, in the presence of a soft constraint, facilitation effects are also irrelevant at very low temperatures, as we now discuss.
The facilitated dynamics of the ``hard'' East model (with $\epsilon=0$) lead to a time scale $\tau_{\rm fac}(\ell)$ for dynamical relaxation on a length scale $\ell$: the relevant rate is
\begin{equation}
\tau_{\rm fac}(\ell)^{-1} \sim \exp( -(J/T) \log_2 \ell),
\end{equation}
which is valid as long as $\ell < \mathrm{e}^{J/T}$ and $J/T\ll 1$.
The equilibrium relaxation time of the model with $\epsilon=0$ scales as $\tau_\mathrm{East} \sim \mathrm{e}^{J^2/(2 T^2\ln 2)}$~\cite{Cancrini2007}, comparable with the prediction~\cite{Sollich1999} obtained by setting $\ell$ equal to the typical spacing between excitations, $ \mathrm{e}^{J/T}$. When $\epsilon>0$,
one expects an additional relaxation mechanism via constraint violation, with rate $\tau_{\rm soft}^{-1} \sim \epsilon \sim \exp (-U/T)$.
Thus, the structural relaxation time $\tau$ in the soft East model may be estimated via $\tau^{-1} \approx \tau_{\rm East}^{-1} + \tau_{\rm soft}^{-1}$.
At low temperatures, the facilitated time scale diverges faster than $\tau_\mathrm{soft}$, and the softened mechanism dominates. (This is opposite to the behavior
in the soft-FA model, where the facilitated relaxation dominates as $T\to0$, as long as $J>3U$~\cite{Elmatad_PNAS_2010}.)
The crossover to the softened mechanism cuts off the super-Arrhenius divergence of $\tau$ in favor of an Arrhenius law, reminiscent of strong glasses. This crossover takes place at
\begin{equation}
T_\mathrm{x} \approx \frac{J^2}{2 U \ln 2}
\end{equation}
and is accompanied by a saturation of the equilibrium dynamical length scale at $\xi_\mathrm{sat} \approx 2^{U/J}$. However, in contrast to the crossovers from fragile to strong behavior in other KCMs~\cite{Buhot2001,Garrahan2003}), we note that the activation energy for relaxation here increases monotonically with decreasing temperature. In experiments on glass-formers, we expect $U$ to be a large energy scale, so that $T_\mathrm{x}$ is likely to be beyond the limit of supercooling of the liquid. However, this low temperature crossover will be relevant for our discussion of phase transitions in the soft-East model below.
\section{Active and Inactive Space-Time Phases}
In order to investigate dynamical (space-time) phase transitions in the soft East model, we define an order parameter $K$ that measures the activity in the system~\cite{Merolle_PNAS_Aug_2005, Garrahan_PRL_2007, Lecomte2005,Lecomte2007,Hooyberghs2010, Baiesi2009}.
The activity is the total number of configuration changes in a trajectory,
$K = \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{t=0}^{t_\mathrm{obs}} \left (n_i(t) - n_i(t+\delta t) \right)^2$, where $t_{\mathrm{obs}}$ is the length (``observation time'') of the trajectory, and $\delta t$
is an elementary time step.
Since we work in continuous time \cite{Newman1999} we take the limit where $\delta t \rightarrow 0$.
\begin{figure}[b]
\resizebox{8cm}{!}{\includegraphics{fig1.eps}}
\caption{
(A) Phase diagram for the 1$d$ soft East model in the $(s, \epsilon)$ plane at $J/T=0.75$ (so $\gamma = 0.47$). The solid line is the phase boundary between the active and inactive phase. The dashed line is the continuation of the symmetry line (\ref{eqn:sym}) into the 1 phase region. The red circles indicate a state point with $\epsilon = 5 \cdot 10^{-4} < \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$, on the coexistence line, in the two phase region. The blue triangles indicates a simulation point where $\epsilon = 5 \cdot 10^{-3} > \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$. The black $\times$ indicates a state near the critical point: $\epsilon = 1.5 \cdot 10^{-3} \approx \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$. (The precise location of the critical point is not known for this model). The inset to (A) shows histograms of the intensive activity $k$ for the three state points in (A). (B) Plots of average intensive activity $\langle k(s) \rangle$ as a function of field $s$, for the values of $\epsilon$ given in (A).
\label{fig:phaseD}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\resizebox{6.5in}{!}{\includegraphics{fig2.eps}}
\caption{Sample trajectories from the three state points identified in Fig. \ref{fig:phaseD}, taken from near the centers of the distributions $P(k)$ ($k\approx 0.1$). Thus, for $\epsilon \leq \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$ these trajectories are rare, coming from the trough in the histogram that lies between the two stable basins. Active sites are colored ($n_i = 1$) and inactive sites are white ($n_i=0$). (A) Trajectory with $\epsilon < \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$. showing space-time phase separation. (B) Trajectory at $\epsilon \approx \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$ where the phases are still identifiable but the clusters no longer have a sharp interface. (C) Trajectory at $\epsilon > \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$ showing a single homogeneous phase.
\label{fig:trajs}}
\end{figure*}
The activity $K$ distinguishes between active and inactive phases (the active phase is characterized by a large value of $K$ while the inactive phase is characterized by a small value of $K$). While $K$ is an order parameter in space time, it is analogous to an equilibrium order parameter such as density, which distinguishes between two phases such as liquid and gas. However, while the equilibrium ensemble for a liquid-to-gas phase transition is a set of configurations, the ensembles we consider here are collections of space-time trajectories. (Mathematically, we are considering the ``large deviations'' of the order parameter $K$~\cite{Lecomte2007,Garrahan_JPhysA_2008}.)
To access space-time phase transitions, we introduce an intensive biasing field $s$ which couples to $K$. This defines a nonequilibrium ensemble of trajectories \cite{Ruelle1984, Merolle_PNAS_Aug_2005, Jack2006, Garrahan_PRL_2007, Lecomte2005, Lecomte2007} known as the $s$-ensemble \cite{Garrahan_JPhysA_2008}. For an observable $A$, we use $\langle A \rangle_{s}$ to denote the expectation value of $A$ in the presence of a biasing field of strength $s$. Similarly, $\langle A \rangle_{0}$ denotes the equilibrium expectation value. These expectation values are related through
\begin{equation}
\langle A \rangle_{s} =\langle A e^{-sK} \rangle_{0} \frac{1}{Z(s,t_\mathrm{obs})}
\label{eqn:avgAs}
\end{equation}
where $Z(s,t_{\mathrm{obs}}) = \langle \exp(-sK) \rangle_{0}$ is the partition function for the $s$ ensemble.
While the field $s$ has no direct physical interpretation, the formalism we use implies an equivalence between ensembles with fixed $K$ and those with fixed $s$~\cite{Garrahan_JPhysA_2008}. That is, the field $s$ acts in the same way as a constraint on $K$.
\section{Computational Sampling of Space-Time Phases}
To harvest ensembles of trajectories we use transition path sampling (TPS) \cite{Bolhuis_AnnuRevPhysChem_2002}, as in~\cite{Hedges_Science_2009,Elmatad_PNAS_2010}.
We employ two basic move types to generate trajectories from an initial trajectory: shooting and shifting in both the forwards and backwards directions. New trajectories are accepted with a probability proportional to $\exp(-sK)$ - analogous to accepting and rejecting configurations with probability proportional to $\exp(-\beta E)$ in standard configurational Monte Carlo dynamics.
For the softened East model, the $s$-ensemble depends on only three parameters: $\gamma, \epsilon$, and $s$. Fig.~\ref{fig:phaseD}(a) shows a space-time phase diagram in the $(\epsilon,s$) plane, for fixed $\gamma$ (specifically, $J/T=0.75$, so $\gamma= 0.47$). On the $s=0$ axis, the system undergoes equilibrium dynamics, while the $\epsilon=0$ axis is the `hard' East model.
The solid line on the phase digram indicates
phase coexistence between inactive and active phases, as estimated from our numerical results. On increasing $s$, one crosses the phase coexistence line at $s=s^*$ and the activity in the system changes discontinuously from an ``active'' state to an inactive one: this is accompanied by a jump in the value of $K$ [see Fig.~\ref{fig:phaseD}(b)].
To characterize these phase transitions in the $s$-ensemble, we perform finite-size scaling, by varying the system size $N$ and the observation time $t_\mathrm{obs}$. As in~\cite{Elmatad_PNAS_2010}, there are two analytic results that improve the quality of our finite-size scaling analysis. The theoretical analysis is given in Sec.~\ref{sec:theory}: here we simply state the results and explain how we use them in conjunction with our TPS scheme. Firstly,
we perform our TPS simulations at $s=s^{*}$, which allows accurate estimation of the properties of the phase transition. The transition point $s^*$ can be located exactly because
there is a hidden symmetry of the $s$-ensemble for the soft East model, similar to that found in the soft-FA case~\cite{Elmatad_PNAS_2010}. This implies that $s^*$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\frac{1+\gamma}{2\epsilon+1} = \sqrt{(1-\gamma)^{2} + 4\gamma e^{-2s^{*}}} \ \ \ .
\label{eqn:sym}
\end{equation}
A second result that aids finite-size scaling analysis involves the boundary conditions used in the $s$-ensemble: as in~\cite{Elmatad_PNAS_2010}, it is natural to take periodic boundary conditions for the $N$ spins in the system, but the boundary conditions in time are not periodic, with the initial and final configurations of the trajectory being free to fluctuate independently. This free boundary favors activity near initial and final parts of the trajectory~\cite{Garrahan_JPhysA_2008}, which frustrates convergence of the limit of large $t_\mathrm{obs}$. To counteract this effect, we bias the initial and final conditions of the trajectory, as follows. We define an angle $\alpha$ by
\begin{equation}
\tan \alpha = \frac{2e^{-s}\sqrt{\gamma}}{1-\gamma}
\label{equ:alpha}
\end{equation}
with $0<\alpha<\pi/2$,
and we define
\begin{equation}
g_\mathrm{sEast} = \ln\left[ \tan (\alpha^*/4) \sqrt{\gamma} \right] \ \ \ .
\label{eqn:softEastBoundary}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha^*$ is the value of $\alpha$ when $s=s^*$.
We then introduce an extra bias on the $s$-ensemble, which depends on the total number of excitations in the initial and final conditions
of the trajectory: in the resulting ensemble then the average of observable $A$ is
\begin{equation}
\langle A \rangle_{s,\text{symm}} = \frac{\langle A e^{-sK + g_\mathrm{sEast}[\mathcal{N}(0)+\mathcal{N}(t_{\mathrm{obs}})]}\rangle_{0}}{Z_{\text{sym}}(s,t_{\mathrm{obs}})},
\label{equ:s-sym}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{N}(t) = \sum_{i=1}^N n_i (t)$ is the number of excitations at time $t$, and
$Z_{\text{sym}}(s,t_{\mathrm{obs}}) = \langle e^{-sK + g_\mathrm{sEast}[\mathcal{N}(0)+\mathcal{N}(t_{\mathrm{obs}})]}\rangle_{0}$ is a normalization
factor.
As discussed in~\cite{Elmatad_PNAS_2010}, this extra bias ensures that the $s$-ensemble at $s=s^*$ is fully symmetric between the active and inactive phases, and we term it the symmetrized $s$-ensemble.
In the limit where the observation time $t_\mathrm{obs}$ is infinite, this symmetrized ensemble is equivalent to the ensemble without boundary constraints,
$\langle A \rangle_{s,\text{symm}} \to \langle A\rangle_s$ as $t_\mathrm{obs}\to\infty$~\cite{Elmatad_PNAS_2010}, as long as observable $A$ is not dominated by the initial and final parts of the trajectory.
This boundary biasing condition is straightforwardly included in the transition path sampling algorithm.
\section{Numerical results}
The order parameter for the phase transitions we consider is the intensive average activity $\langle k (s) \rangle$,
\begin{equation}
\langle k(s) \rangle \equiv \frac{1}{N t_{\mathrm{obs}}} \langle K \rangle_{s,\mathrm{symm}} \ \ \ .
\end{equation}
As discussed in the previous Section,
our main results are summarized in Fig.~\ref{fig:phaseD} where
we show sample numerical results for $k(s)$ (panel b), and the phase diagram (panel a) that we have obtained by finite-size scaling of the behavior of $k(s)$. In particular, there is a first-order space-time phase transition represented by a solid line, which ends in a critical point as $(s_c,\epsilon_c)$. That is, the phase transition that is known to be present as $\epsilon=0$~\cite{Garrahan_PRL_2007} still exists in the presence of soft constraints, as long as $\epsilon < \epsilon_c$. However, when the constraints are too soft ($\epsilon>\epsilon_c)$, the phase transition disappears and the system shows a smooth response to the field $s$, and no phase transition. The exact value of $\epsilon_c$ is not known for the soft East model, but we have bracketed its location by identifying two state points, one where the phase transition occurs, and another where the response to $s$ is smooth (non-singular).
The inset to Fig. \ref{fig:phaseD}(a) shows probability distributions $P(k)$, where $k=K/Nt_{\mathrm{obs}}$ is the (intensive) activity per space-time volume. The histograms correspond to simulations performed at the conditions highlighted by the symbols along the symmetry line. These were chosen to lie in the two phase region far from criticality, near criticality, and in the one phase region which does not support a phase transition. In the first order region $\epsilon < \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$, there are two distinct peaks corresponding to the inactive and active phases. Near the critical point $\epsilon \approx \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$ the two peaks are broadened and very flat. In the one phase region $\epsilon > \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$ there is one distinct peak.
Figure \ref{fig:phaseD}(b) shows the jump in $\langle k(s) \rangle$ as the field $s$ is varied. It is useful to compare these results with those expected for an equilibrium phase transition in a ferromagnetic system (see also~\cite{Merolle_PNAS_Aug_2005,Jack2006}).
The behavior of $k(s)$ is analogous to the change in the magnetization, $M$, of a ferromagnet as the field strength, $h$, is changed.
Thus, $\epsilon < \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$ corresponds to $T<T_\mathrm{c}$ in a ferromagnet and shows a jump in the order parameter (from a high $k$ active phase to a low $k$ inactive phase). On the other hand, $ \epsilon \approx \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$ corresponds to $T \approx T_\mathrm{c}$ in a ferromagnet: it shows a steep crossover between the phases (for the system sizes considered here).
In Fig.~\ref{fig:trajs}, we show three trajectories which have $k \approx 0.1$, approximately corresponding with the center of the distributions. These trajectories are harvested under the same conditions as the marked points in Fig. \ref{fig:phaseD}(a).
In Fig. \ref{fig:trajs}(a) a trajectory for $\epsilon < \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$ is shown: it may be seen from the inset to Fig \ref{fig:phaseD}(b) that
this is a rare trajectory, coming from near the minimum of $P(k)$. There is a clear segregation between the two phases as the space-time ``surface tension" \cite{Elmatad_PNAS_2010} is large. In Fig. \ref{fig:trajs}(b) a near-critical trajectory with $\epsilon \approx \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$ is shown. Here, there is still distinct phase segregation but the boundaries between the phases have become amorphous, corresponding to the diminished ``surface tension'' near criticality. In Fig. \ref{fig:trajs}(c) we show a trajectory with $\epsilon > \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$. Here, there is no phase separation since the system
in a one-phase region of the phase diagram.
As usual for phase transitions in space-time~\cite{Garrahan_JPhysA_2008}, the first order jumps in $k(s)$ become singular only as $N,t_\mathrm{obs} \rightarrow \infty$. For finite systems undergoing a first-order phase transition, the susceptibility $\chi = -d \langle k (s) \rangle/ds$ evaluated at $s^*$ is proportional to the system size, $N t_\mathrm{obs}$ \cite{Binder1984}. This scaling is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:finSize}. In Fig. \ref{fig:finSize}(a) we show the finite size scaling for the first order transition for $\epsilon < \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$. As the system size increases, the transition sharpens. In Fig. \ref{fig:finSize}(b) we show the scaling near the critical point. Here, the crossover sharpens as $N t_\mathrm{obs}$ increases, but there is no clear jump in $\langle k(s) \rangle$. In the inset to Fig. \ref{fig:finSize}(b) we plot $\chi^*$, the value of the susceptibility evaluated at the transition point $s^*$ as function of system size $N t_\mathrm{obs}$. For $\epsilon < \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$ and $\epsilon \approx \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$ the scaling grows linearly. For $\epsilon > \epsilon^*$ there is no increase with system size.
\section{Theoretical Analysis}
\label{sec:theory}
\subsection{The master equation and its symmetries}
\begin{figure}[b]
\resizebox{8cm}{!}{\includegraphics{fig3.eps}}
\caption{
Finite size scaling of the intensive activity $\langle k(s) \rangle$. In panel (a) we show $\epsilon = 5 \cdot 10^{-4} < \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$ and in (b) $\epsilon = 1.5 \cdot 10^{-3} \approx \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$. Inset to (B) shows
scaling of the susceptibility $\chi^* = -d \langle k \rangle/ds \big{|}_{s^{*}} $ for various system sizes $t_\mathrm{obs} \cdot N$, with symbols and colors corresponding to the$\epsilon$ values shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phaseD}. The dashed lines indicates linear scaling associated with a first order phase transition (for $\epsilon\leq\epsilon _\mathrm{c}$ and the constant value of susceptibility expected in a single phase ($\epsilon > \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$).
\label{fig:finSize}}
\end{figure}
The soft East model may be studied analytically following the methods used for the soft FA model in~\cite{Elmatad_PNAS_2010}.
We now use these methods to derive the relations (\ref{eqn:sym}) and (\ref{eqn:softEastBoundary}) that we used to facilitate our numerical studies.
To do so, we start with the master equation
\begin{equation}
\partial_t P(\mathcal{C},t) = -r(\mathcal{C}) P(\mathcal{C},t) + \sum_{\mathcal{C}'(\neq \mathcal{C})} W (\mathcal{C}' \rightarrow \mathcal{C}) P(\mathcal{C}',t) \ \ \
\label{eqn:masterEast1}
\end{equation}
where $P(\mathcal{C},t)$ is the probability of observing a configuration $\mathcal{C}$ of the soft east system at time $t$. Also, $r(\mathcal{C}) = \sum_{\mathcal{C}'} W(\mathcal{C} \rightarrow \mathcal{C}')$ is the exit rate to leave the current configuration $\mathcal{C}$, sums over $\mathcal{C}'$ run over all possible configurations of the model, and $W(\mathcal{C}' \rightarrow \mathcal{C})$ is the transition rate from $\mathcal{C}'$ to $\mathcal{C}$.
This master equation can be represented compactly using a spin-half representation of the system's configuration space. The ground state (where $n_i = 0$ for all $i$) is denoted by $| \Omega \rangle$, with the site variables $\{ n_i \}$ now represented by $N$ spin-half variables. Hence, all possible configurations $\{ n_i \}$ can be represented via Pauli matrices $\sigma_i^{x,y,z}$ acting on $|\Omega\rangle$ \cite{Sakurai1993}, the raising $\sigma_i^+$ and lowering $\sigma_i^-$ operators are defined as $\sigma_i^\pm = \frac{1}{2} (\sigma_i^x \pm \sigma^y_i$)
Thus, a configuration $\{n_i\}$ can be represented as
\begin{equation}
| \{ n_i\} \rangle = \sum_{i=1}^N (\sigma_i^{+})^{n_i} | \Omega \rangle \ \ \ .
\end{equation}
We then write
$
| P(t) \rangle = \sum_{\mathcal{C}} P(\mathcal{C},t) | \mathcal{C} \rangle
$
which allows us to rewrite the master equation (\ref{eqn:masterEast1}) as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} | P(t) \rangle = \mathbb{W} | P(t) \rangle \ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{W}$ is a linear operator whose matrix elements are the transition rates, $W(\mathcal{C}\to\mathcal{C}')$ and escape rates $r(\mathcal{C})$.
For the soft East model this operator is
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{W} = \sum_{i}(\hat{n}_{i-1} + \epsilon) [(1-\sigma_i^+)\sigma_i^- + \gamma (1-\sigma_i^-)\sigma_i^+] \ \ \ .
\label{eqn:WWs0East}
\end{equation}
This master operator is similar to that of the soft-FA model given in Ref. \cite{Elmatad_PNAS_2010}. However it does not contain the symmetrized portion ( $i \leftrightarrow j$ ) as the East model is inherently asymmetric, nor does it contain the diffusive term that was introduced to the soft-FA model: introducing such a term in the soft-East model does not simplify the analysis in the way that it did for the soft-FA model so we do not consider it here.
To analyse the soft East model in the $s$-ensemble, we follow \cite{Garrahan_JPhysA_2008}.
First the probability distribution $P(\mathcal{C},K,t)$ is defined as the probability of being in configuration $\mathcal{C}$ at time $t$, having already accumulated an activity $K$ in the time between time $0$ and $t$. The probability to be in configuration $\mathcal{C}$ at time $t$ at a field strength $s$ is
then $P(\mathcal{C},s,t)$, which can then be written as a reweighted sum over over all possible accumulated $K$ values:
\begin{equation}
P(\mathcal{C},s,t) = \sum_K P(\mathcal{C},K,t)e^{-sK} \ \ \ .
\end{equation}
The equation of motion for $ | P(s,t) \rangle = \sum_{\mathcal{C}} P(\mathcal{C},s,t) | \mathcal{C} \rangle $ is
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} | P(s,t) \rangle = \mathbb{W}(s) | P(s,t) \rangle \ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
where now the matrix elements of $\mathbb{W}(s)$ include the biasing field $s$, through
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{W}(s) = \sum_i (\hat{n}_{i-1} + \epsilon) [(e^{-s}-\sigma_i^+)\sigma_i^- + \gamma(e^{-s}-\sigma_i^-)\sigma_i^+] \ \ \ .
\end{equation}
This resembles Eq.~(\ref{eqn:WWs0East}), with the additional factors of $e^{-s}$ modifying the rate of changes of state.
This representation of the model allows us to derive the symmetry condition (\ref{eqn:sym}),
following \cite{Jack2006b,Elmatad_PNAS_2010}. Writing the energy operator $\mathbb{E} = J\sum_i \hat{n_i}$
(recall $\gamma = \mathrm{e}^{-J/T}$), we symmetrize $\mathbb{W}(s)$ using $\mathbb{H}(s) \equiv \mathrm{e}^{\mathbb{E}/2T} \mathbb{W}(s) \mathrm{e}^{-\mathbb{E}/2T}$,
so that
\begin{multline}
\mathbb{H}(s)
= - \frac{h}{4} \sum_i \left( 1 + 2\epsilon + \sigma_{i-1}^z \right) \\ \times
\left( \frac{1+\gamma}{h} + \sigma_{i}^z \cos\alpha - \sigma_{i}^x \sin\alpha \right)
\label{equ:Heast}
\end{multline}
where $h=\sqrt{(1+\gamma)^2 - 4\gamma(1-\mathrm{e}^{-2s})}$ and $\alpha$ was defined in (\ref{equ:alpha}): we have $(\cos\alpha,\sin\alpha) = \frac{1}{h}( 1-\gamma,2\mathrm{e}^{-s}\sqrt{\gamma})$.
Next, making a (site-independent) rotation of the quantum spin matrices,
$(\sigma^x,\sigma^y,\sigma^z) \to ( -\sigma^x\cos\alpha - \sigma^z\sin\alpha , -\sigma^y, \sigma^z\cos\alpha - \sigma^x\sin\alpha )$, one finds
$\mathbb{H}(s) \to \mathbb{H}_\mathrm{W}(s)$ with
\begin{multline}
\mathbb{H}_\mathrm{W}(s) = - \frac{h}{4} \sum_i \left( 1 + 2\epsilon + \sigma_{i-1}^z \cos\alpha - \sigma_{i-1}^x \sin\alpha \right)
\\ \times
\left( \frac{1+\gamma}{h} +\sigma_{i}^z \right)
\label{equ:Hwest}
\end{multline}
Comparison with (\ref{equ:Heast}) shows that (\ref{equ:Hwest}) is a symmetrized master operator for a ``West model'', similar to the East model except
that spin $i$ facilitates motion on its left (west) neighbor, spin $i-1$. This West model has the same parameters as the original East model if
$1 + 2\epsilon = \frac{1+\gamma}{h}$: this corresponds to the symmetry condition (\ref{eqn:sym}). The spin rotation and the symmetrization of $\mathbb{W}(s)$ preserve
the eigenspectrum of this operator, meaning that the model is `self-dual', with a
symmetry that may be spontaneously broken. Formally, there is a similarity transformation
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{H}_\mathrm{W}(s) = U_\alpha^\dag \mathbb{H}(s) U_\alpha
\label{equ:simil}
\end{equation}
where $U_\alpha=\prod_j (-\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha\sigma_j^y/2}\sigma^z_j )$: see also~\cite{Elmatad_PNAS_2010,Jack2006b}. When the West model described by $\mathbb{H}_\mathrm{W}(s)$ has the same parameters as the East model described by $\mathbb{H}(s)$, this represents a symmetry of the model, which is broken spontaneously at the spacetime phase transitions.
To understand the boundary bias introduced in (\ref{equ:s-sym}), it is useful to write $Z(s,t_\mathrm{obs}) = \langle e | e^{\mathbb{W}(s) t_\mathrm{obs}} |\mathrm{eq}\rangle$, with $\langle e | = \langle 0 | \prod_j ( 1 + \sigma^-_j)$ and $|\mathrm{eq}\rangle = \prod_j \frac{ 1 + \gamma \sigma^+_j}{1+\gamma} | \Omega \rangle$. We also introduce the general coherent state $|\phi\rangle = \prod_j ( \cos\phi + \sigma^+_j \sin\phi ) |\Omega\rangle$, parameterized by the angle $\phi$. Then, symmetrizing $\mathbb{W}$, one arrives at
\begin{equation}
Z(s,t_\mathrm{obs}) = \langle \phi_0 | e^{\mathbb{H}(s) t_\mathrm{obs}} | \phi_0 \rangle
\label{equ:Zphi}
\end{equation}
with $\tan\phi_0 = \sqrt{\gamma}$ and $0<\phi_0<\pi/2$. From (\ref{equ:simil}), one has
\begin{equation}
Z(s,t_\mathrm{obs}) = \langle (\alpha/2) - \phi_0 | e^{\mathbb{H}_\mathrm{W}(s) t_\mathrm{obs}} | (\alpha/2) - \phi_0 \rangle
\label{equ:Zphi2}
\end{equation}
where we used $U_\alpha^\dag|\phi\rangle = |(\alpha/2)-\phi\rangle$, which follows from the definitions of $U_\alpha$ and $|\phi\rangle$.
The key point is that the partition function (\ref{equ:Zphi}) is fully symmetric under this similarity transformation only if two conditions are met:
(i)~$\mathbb{H}_\mathrm{W}(s)$ should describe a West model with the same parameters as $\mathbb{H}(s)$ and (ii)~the boundary terms are invariant
under the transformation: $(\alpha/2) - \phi_0 = \phi_0$, so that (\ref{equ:Zphi2}) coincides with (\ref{equ:Zphi}), up to the replacement
of $\mathbb{H}_\mathrm{W}(s)$ by $\mathbb{H}_(s)$. It is easily verified that while (\ref{eqn:sym}) ensures condition (i),
it does not simultaneously ensure condition (ii). To simultaneously satisfy both conditions, we write
\begin{equation}
Z_\mathrm{sym}(s,t_\mathrm{obs}) = \langle e | e^{g_\mathrm{sEast}\sum_i \hat{n}_i} e^{\mathbb{W}(s) t_\mathrm{obs}} e^{g_\mathrm{sEast}\sum_i \hat{n}_i} |\mathrm{eq} \rangle
\end{equation}
Symmetrizing $\mathbb{W}(s)$ and using the expression (\ref{eqn:softEastBoundary}) for $g_\mathrm{sEast}$, one finds
\begin{equation}
Z_\mathrm{sym}(s,t_\mathrm{obs}) = y^{-N} \langle \alpha/4 | e^{\mathbb{H}(s) t_\mathrm{obs}} |\alpha/4 \rangle
\end{equation}
with $y = (1+\gamma)\cos^2(\alpha/4)$. Applying (\ref{equ:simil}) yields $Z_\mathrm{sym}(s,t_\mathrm{obs}) = c^{-N} \langle \alpha/4 | e^{\mathbb{H}_\mathrm{W}(s) t_\mathrm{obs}} |\alpha/4 \rangle$, indicating that the partition function is fully symmetric under the similarity transformation, as long as (\ref{eqn:sym}) holds. Physically, this means that the initial and final conditions in the symmetrized $s$-ensemble have no additional preference for the active phase over the inactive one, ensuring that the probabilities of active and inactive states are equal within the ensemble that we sample. This facilitates accurate numerical characterization of the phase transitions in the system.
\subsection{Scaling of $s^*$ and $\epsilon_c$ with temperature}
As well as exact symmetries of the master operator, we also identify low-temperature scaling properties of the softened East model.
For low temperatures, $\gamma \ll 1$, the symmetry condition (\ref{eqn:sym}) reduces to $s^* \approx 2\epsilon/\gamma$. As proposed in~\cite{Jack-melt-2011}, this scaling of $s^*$ with system parameters may be obtained by comparing the difference $\Delta k$ in activity between the two phases, and the escape rate $\gamma_0$ from the inactive phase. Specifically, we expect
\begin{equation}
s^* \approx \gamma_0 / \Delta k.
\label{equ:s-soft}
\end{equation}
At low temperatures, the activity difference between the phases is given simply by the equilibrium activity per site, so $\Delta k = 2\gamma^2\lambda$. The escape rate (per site) is $\gamma_0 \approx \epsilon\lambda\gamma$, since a single unfacilitated spin flip in a large inactive region typically leads to relaxation of the entire inactive region. Thus, the prediction
(\ref{equ:s-soft}) works well in the softened East model. (The same analysis also applies in the softened FA model, except that $\Delta k$ is larger by a factor of 2, so the
coexistence field $s^*$ is commensurately smaller.)
It is instructive to generalize the mean-field analysis of the soft-FA model~\cite{Elmatad_PNAS_2010} to the East model. In both soft-FA and soft-East models, the mean-field analysis gives the correct low-temperature scaling for $s^*$. However,
at this mean field level, one finds that the critical point scales as $s_\mathrm{c} = O(1)$ and $\epsilon_\mathrm{c} \sim \gamma$, as $\gamma\to0$.
This analysis seems too simplistic, especially given that the mean-field analysis does not capture the hierarchical relaxation in the East model, and the mean-field predictions do not
seem consistent with the small values of $\epsilon_\mathrm{c}$ and $s_\mathrm{c}$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phaseD}.
A more appropriate estimate of $\epsilon_c$ can be obtained from dynamical scaling at equilibrium in the East model: scaling requires that
requires that $\tau_\mathrm{soft}/\tau_\mathrm{East}$ should remain constant as $\gamma$ is reduced.
Assuming that the large deviations of $K$ have the same scaling as the equilibrium fluctuations, one therefore expects
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_\mathrm{c} \approx \exp\left[ -\frac{(\log \gamma)^2}{2\ln 2}\right]
\label{equ:eps_c}
\end{equation}
with $s_\mathrm{c} \sim \gamma\epsilon_\mathrm{c}$ as constrained by the symmetry condition~(\ref{eqn:sym}).
These predictions indicate that the existence of a space-time phase transition requires that the probability of constraint violation must remain
extremely small at low temperature, at least in this model.
\section{Implications of These Results for the Glass Transition}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{fig4a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{fig4b.eps}
\caption{Schematic phase diagrams in the $(s,T)$ plane. (a)~The ``hard'' East model ($U\to\infty$, varying $T/J$ and $s$).
The system is in the inactive phase for all $s>0$ and in the active phase for $s\leq0$.
The equilibrium dynamics are characterized by diverging length and time scales as $T\to0$.
(b)~The softened East model with fixed $U/J>1$, varying $T/J$ and $s$. For an intermediate range of temperature,
there is a first order phase transition at $s>0$. This is also the temperature range in which facilitation effects are strong.
Facilitation effects are weak both for large $T$ (above the onset temperature) and for small $T$ (below $T_\mathrm{x}$): there
is no phase transition in these weak-facilitation regimes.
} \label{fig:phase}
\end{figure}
While there is no direct experimental realization of the $s$-field, we believe the results presented here have implications to real glassformers. Again, we are motivated via analogy to the ferromagnetic system, as discussed in~\cite{Jack2006}. Imagine a ferromagnet~\cite{IMSM} at temperature $T<T_\mathrm{c}$ and in a magnetic field $h > 0$. The dominant phase is ordered and aligns with the field $h$. However, there remain fluctuations which are aligned opposite to the preferred phase. The size of these fluctuations and their shape are controlled by the free energy difference and surface tension between the two phases~\cite{IMSM}. Near $T_\mathrm{c}$, the character of these fluctuations is influenced by the nearby critical point and the fluctuations become larger and their shape becomes less well defined.
For `hard' KCMs (with $\epsilon = 0$), the coexistence between the active and inactive phases occurs exactly at $s^*=0$~\cite{Garrahan_PRL_2007}. On the other hand, for the softened models presented here and in Ref. \cite{Elmatad_PNAS_2010}, the coexistence moves towards $s^* > 0 $. The equilibrium dynamics of the system corresponds to the active phase which dominates the system.
However, for equilibrium dynamics close to coexistence, we still expect that this dominant phase may support relatively large fluctuations of the minority (inactive) phase, depending on the size of the free energy difference and the space time ``surface tension". This was
the scenario envisaged in~\cite{Merolle_PNAS_Aug_2005,Jack2006}: domains of the inactive phase form the slow correlated regions that form part of the dynamical heterogeneity
in the glassy systems.
In the soft East model, we estimate the free energy difference between active (equilibrium) and inactive phases to be $\Delta \mu \approx s^* \langle k(s=0) \rangle \approx \gamma\epsilon$ per site, per unit time. Both $\gamma = \mathrm{e}^{-J/T}$ and $\epsilon = \mathrm{e}^{-U/T}$ decrease on cooling, so this effect promotes fluctuations of the inactive phase, and enhanced dynamical heterogeneity. However, we expect the low-temperature crossover at $T_\mathrm{x}$ to be relevant for the low-temperature behavior (recall Sec.~\ref{sec:model}).
Assuming that (\ref{equ:eps_c}) holds, then $\epsilon_\mathrm{c}$ tends to zero faster than $\epsilon \sim \mathrm{e}^{-U/T}$ on cooling, with the result that $\epsilon > \epsilon_\mathrm{c}$ at low temperatures, and there is no space-time phase transition for $T\lesssim T_\mathrm{x}$
To summarize, facilitated dynamics dominate the system for $T_\mathrm{x} < T < T_\mathrm{o}$, and this is the regime in which space-time phase transitions are observed. Outside this regime, the dynamics of the system have weaker correlations in space and time, and the response to the field $s$ is smooth, not singular.
The situation as a function of temperature $T$ and bias $s$ is sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:phase}. However, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:model}, the critical point in the vicinity of $T_\mathrm{x}$ is probably hard to observe in atomistic models of glass-formers, since supercooling the system to such a low temperature is likely to be very difficult.
We end with a few comments on the space-time phase diagram we have proposed in Fig.~\ref{fig:phase}. Firstly, while two critical points appear when the phase diagram is plotted in these variables, phase diagrams in the $(\epsilon,s)$ plane for any fixed $\gamma$ are always of the form shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phaseD}(a). Except for the point where $\epsilon=0$ and $\gamma\to0$ (the original East model as $T\to0$), these critical points are all of the same type. We expect these to be in the universality class of the Ising model in $(1+1)$ dimensions, as in the soft-FA case~\cite{Elmatad_PNAS_2010}. (Settling the universality class of these transitions requires an assumption that the microscopic left-right asymmetry of the East model is irrelevant on very long length scales near the critical point: we have not been able to demonstrate this explicitly but it seems plausible from our numerical results). Finally, we note that passage from active to inactive states and vice versa may be achieved by varying $s$ and $T$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:phase}, without ever passing through any phase transition line. Such a situation requires that the symmetry properties of the active and inactive phases must be the same, and forbids any spontaneous breaking of translational invariance in the inactive phase. This is consistent with the behavior of the soft-FA model: in the analogy with atomistic glass-formers it requires that the inactive phase be a liquid, and not a crystal or glass phase where non-trivial density profiles persist indefinitely.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We warmly thank D. Chandler and J. P. Garrahan for guidance and helpful discussions. We further thank A. S. Keys and G. D\"uring for helpful comments on the manuscript.
Y. S. E. was funded by the NSF GRFP and DOD NDSEG program during the beginning of this project and by an NYU Faculty Fellowship during the completion. RLJ thanks the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) for support through grant EP/I003797/1.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Defeasible reasoning concerns reasoning where a chain of reasoning
can be defeated (that is, not considered the basis of an inference)
by another chain of reasoning (or, perhaps, several chains of reasoning).
Defeasible logics are a class of non-monotonic logics designed to support defeasible reasoning.
Their rule-based approach is inspired by logic programming \cite{Nute_book}
and there is a close relationship between the logics and logic programming semantics \cite{MG99}.
Defeasible logics have some similarity to default logic \cite{DefaultLogic}.
An important difference is that default logic performs credulous reasoning,
whereas defeasible logics are sceptical.
In particular, an application of a default rule can proceed without reference to other default rules.
In contrast, in defeasible logics a rule can be applied only if all opposing rules are defeated.
The defeasible logics we address are distinguished by their choices on two orthogonal issues.
The first issue is one of \emph{team defeat}: when there are competing claims (on inferring $q$ or $\neg q$, say),
should a single claim for $q$ be required to overcome all competing claims in order to validate the inference,
or is it sufficient that every claim for $\neg q$ is overcome by some claim for $q$,
so that the claims for $q$, as a team, overcome all competing claims?
The second issue addresses \emph{ambiguity}, the situation where there is no resolution of the competing claims,
so that neither $q$ nor $\neg q$ can be derived.
Should ambiguity block, so that inferences relying on $q$ or $\neg q$ simply fail to apply,
or should the fact that there are claims for $q$ (say) that are not overcome by claims for $\neg q$
be allowed to influence later inferences, so that ambiguity propagates?
${\bf DL}(\partial)$ and ${\bf DL}(\delta)$ are the ambiguity blocking and propagating logics, respectively, employing
team defeat, while ${\bf DL}(\partial^*)$ and ${\bf DL}(\delta^*)$ are the corresponding logics without team defeat.
The logics all fall within the ${\bf DL}$ framework \cite{flexf} of defeasible logics.
In this paper we investigate the notion of relative expressiveness with respect to the four logics named above.
Relative expressiveness can establish whether the different logics are substantively different, or simply provide the same capabilities in different formulations.
A logic that is less expressive than another does not require a dedicated implementation;
it can, in theory, be implemented via a translation to the more expressive logic\footnote{
In practice, however, since the logics addressed here have linear computational complexity \cite{Maher2001,TOCL10}, implementation by translation might not be as efficient as a direct implementation.
}.
On the other hand, a logic that is not less expressive than the other logics requires a separate implementation.
We explore alternative notions of relative expressiveness for defeasible logics
and make a considered choice of a formulation.
The main result is that logics with and without team defeat ({\it viz.} ${\bf DL}(\partial)$ and ${\bf DL}(\partial^*)$
and, separately, ${\bf DL}(\delta)$ and ${\bf DL}(\delta^*)$)
are equally expressive under this formulation.
This is surprising because team defeat appears a more sophisticated and powerful way
to adjudicate competing claims than requiring one claim to overwhelm all others.
It is also surprising because, in terms of relative inference strength,
${\bf DL}(\partial)$ and ${\bf DL}(\partial^*)$ are incomparable,
and ${\bf DL}(\delta^*)$ is strictly weaker than ${\bf DL}(\delta)$.
A second result shows that the treatments of ambiguity are incomparable,
in terms of a different formulation of relative expressiveness.
This is also surprising when compared to relative inference strength.
The paper is structured as follows.
The next section provides an overview of defeasible logics.
It is followed by a discussion and formulation of the notion of simulation
that is central to our formulation of relative expressiveness.
The next two sections present a simulation of non-team defeat within a logic with team defeat
and, conversely, a simulation of team defeat within a logic without this capability.
In a section on ambiguity, we show that the two treatments of ambiguity are incomparable,
but in terms of a different notion of expressiveness.
Finally, we have a short discussion of the results and related work.
\section{Defeasible Logic}
In this section we can only present an outline of the defeasible logics we investigate.
Further details can be obtained from \cite{TOCL10} and the references therein.
We address propositional defeasible logics.
This might be restrictive in one sense, but a useful notion of relative expressiveness
should work on propositional logics as well as their first-order counterparts.
A \emph{defeasible theory} $D = (F, R, >)$ consists of a set of facts $F$, a finite set of rules $R$,
and a acyclic relation $>$ on $R$ called the \emph{superiority relation}.
This syntax is uniform for all the logics considered here.
Facts are individual literals
expressing indisputable truths.
Rules relate a set of literals (the body), via an arrow, to a literal (the head), and are one of three types:
a strict rule, with arrow $\rightarrow$;
a defeasible rule, with arrow $\Rightarrow$;
or
a defeater, with arrow $\leadsto$.
Strict rules represent inferences that are unequivocally sound if based on definite knowledge;
defeasible rules represent inferences that are generally sound.
Inferences suggested by a defeasible rule may fail, due to the presence in the theory
of other rules.
Defeaters do not support inferences, but may impede inferences suggested by other rules.
The superiority relation provides a local priority on rules.
Strict or defeasible rules whose bodies are established defeasibly represent claims
for the head of the rule to be concluded.
The superiority relation contributes to the adjudication of these claims by an inference rule,
leading (possibly) to a conclusion.
For every theory $D$ there is a language $\Sigma$ containing all the literals addressed by $D$.
We assume that $\Sigma$ is closed under negation.
Defeasible logics derive conclusions that are outside the syntax of the theories.
Conclusions may have the form
$+d q$, which denotes that under the inference rule $d$ the literal $q$ can be concluded,
or
$-d q$, which denotes that the logic can establish that under the inference rule $d$ the literal $q$ cannot be concluded.
The syntactic element $d$ is called a tag.
In general, neither conclusion may be derivable:
$q$ cannot be concluded under $d$, but the logic is unable to establish that.
Tags $+\Delta$ and $-\Delta$ represent monotonic provability (and unprovability)
where inference is based on facts, strict rules, and modus ponens.
We assume these tags and their inference rules are present in every defeasible logic.
What distinguishes a logic is the inference rule for defeasible reasoning.
The four logics discussed in the Introduction correspond to four different pairs of inference rules,
labelled $\partial$, $\delta$, $\partial^*$, and $\delta^*$;
they produce conclusions of the form (respectively) $+\partial q$, $-\partial q$, $+\delta q$, $-\delta q$, etc.
The inference rules $\delta$ and $\delta^*$ require auxiliary tags and inference rules,
denoted by $\supp$ and $\supp^*$, respectively.
For each of the four main defeasible tags $d$, the corresponding logic is denoted by ${\bf DL}(d)$.
At times we refer to a set of rules as a theory,
implicitly choosing the set of facts and the superiority relation to be empty.
In general, every rule has a label with which to name it.
Labels are used in the superiority relation.
Where labels are not needed, they are omitted.
The \emph{size} of a theory is the total number of symbols used in expressing the theory.
The inference rules for ${\bf DL}(\partial)$ and ${\bf DL}(\partial^*)$ are presented
below.
Given a defeasible theory $D = (F, R, >)$, for any set of conclusions $E$,
${\cal T}_D(E)$ denotes the set of conclusions inferred from $E$ using $D$
and one application of an inference rule.
The inference rules are implicit in the definition of this function.
${\cal T}_D$ is a monotonic function on the complete lattice of sets of conclusions ordered by containment.
The least fixedpoint of ${\cal T}_D$ is the set of all conclusions that can be drawn from $D$.
We follow standard notation in that ${\cal T}_D \uparrow 0 = \emptyset$ and ${\cal T}_D \uparrow (n+1) = {\cal T}_D({\cal T}_D \uparrow n)$.
For every inference rule $+d$ there is a closely related inference rule $-d$
allowing to infer that some literals $q$ cannot be consequences of $D$ via $+d$.
The relationship between $+d$ and $-d$ is described as the Principle of Strong Negation \cite{flexf}.
Some notation in the inference rules requires explanation.
Given a literal $q$, its complement ${\sim} q$ is defined as follows:
if $q$ is a proposition then ${\sim} q$ is $\neg q$; if $q$ has form $\neg p$ then ${\sim} q$ is $p$.
We say $q$ and ${\sim} q$ (and the rules with these literal in the head) \emph{oppose} each other.
$R_s$ ($R_{sd}$) denotes the set of strict rules (strict or defeasible rules) in $R$.
$R[q]$ ($R_s[q]$, etc) denotes the set of rules (respectively, strict rules) of $R$ with head $q$.
Given a rule $r$, $A(r)$ denotes the set of literals in the body of $r$.
{\small
\begin{minipage}[t]{.45\textwidth}
\begin{tabbing}
$+\Delta)$ $+\Delta q \in {\cal T}_D(E)$ iff either \\
\hspace{0.2in} .1) $q \in F$; or \\
\hspace{0.2in} .2) $\exists r \in R_{s}[q]$ such that \\
\hspace{0.4in} .1) $\forall a \in A(r), +\Delta a \in E$ \\
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.10\textwidth}
\hspace{1.0cm}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.45\textwidth}
\begin{tabbing}
$-\Delta)$ $-\Delta q \in {\cal T}_D(E)$ iff \\
\hspace{0.2in} .1) $q \notin F$, and \\
\hspace{0.2in} .2) $\forall r \in R_{s}[q]$ \\
\hspace{0.4in} .1) $\exists a \in A(r), -\Delta a \in E$ \\
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
\noindent\begin{minipage}[t]{.45\textwidth}
\begin{tabbing}
$+\partial)$ $+\partial q \in {\cal T}_D(E)$ iff either \\
\hspace{0.2in} .1) $+\Delta q \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.2in} .2) The following three conditions all hold. \\
\hspace{0.4in} .1) $\exists r \in R_{sd}[q] \ \forall a \in A(r), +\partial a \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.4in} .2) $-\Delta {\sim} q \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.4in} .3) $\forall s \in R[{\sim} q]$ either \\
\hspace{0.6in} .1) $\exists a \in A(s), -\partial a \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.6in} .2) $\exists t \in R_{sd}[q]$ such that \\
\hspace{0.8in} .1) $\forall a \in A(t), +\partial a \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.8in} .2) $t > s$.
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.45\textwidth}
\begin{tabbing}
$-\partial)$ $-\partial q \in {\cal T}_D(E)$ iff \\
\hspace{0.2in} .1) $-\Delta q \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.2in} .2) either \\
\hspace{0.4in} .1) $\forall r \in R_{sd}[q] \ \exists a \in A(r), -\partial a \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.4in} .2) $+\Delta {\sim} q \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.4in} .3) $\exists s \in R[{\sim} q]$ such that \\
\hspace{0.6in} .1) $\forall a \in A(s), +\partial a \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.6in} .2) $\forall t \in R_{sd}[q]$ either \\
\hspace{0.8in} .1) $\exists a \in A(t), -\partial a \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.8in} .2) not$(t > s)$.\\
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
\smallskip
\begin{minipage}[t]{.45\textwidth}
\begin{tabbing}
$+\partial^{*})$ $+\partial^* q \in {\cal T}_D(E)$ iff either \\
\hspace{0.2in} .1) $+\Delta q \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.2in} .2) $\exists r \in R_{sd}[q]$ such that \\
\hspace{0.4in} .1) $\forall a \in A(r), +\partial^{*} a \in E$, and\\
\hspace{0.4in} .2) $-\Delta {\sim} q \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.4in} .3) $\forall s \in R[ {\sim} q]$ either \\
\hspace{0.6in} .1) $\exists a \in A(s), -\partial^{*}a \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.6in} .2) $r > s$.
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.07\textwidth}
\hspace{1.0cm}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.45\textwidth}
\begin{tabbing}
$-\partial^{*})$ $-\partial^* q \in {\cal T}_D(E)$ iff \\
\hspace{0.2in} .1) $-\Delta q \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.2in} .2) $\forall r \in R_{sd}[q]$ either \\
\hspace{0.4in} .1) $\exists a \in A(r), -\partial^{*}a \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.4in} .2) $+\Delta {\sim} q \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.4in} .3) $\exists s \in R[ {\sim} q]$ such that \\
\hspace{0.6in} .1) $\forall a \in A(s), +\partial^{*}a \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.6in} .2) not$(r > s)$. \\
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
}
\begin{center}
\small Inference rules for $\Delta$, $\partial$, and $\partial^*$.
\end{center}
In clause .1 of the inference rules for $+\partial$ and $+\partial^*$,
all literals derived from the monotonic part of the logic
are also considered defeasible consequences.
We can see that $+\partial^*$ relies on a single rule to overcome all competing rules.
At clause .2 a strict or defeasible rule $r$ must be found such that
all literals in the body have been established (.2.1) and,
every competing rule $s$ (.2.3) either fails to be established (.2.3.1)
or is inferior to $r$.
In comparison,
$+\partial$ relies on a team consisting of $r$ (.2.1) and all the rules $t$ (.2.3.2)
that are needed to overcome the competing rules $s$ (.2.3).
Thus $+\partial$ employs team defeat while $+\partial^*$ relies on a single rule overcoming all opposition.
For example, consider the following defeasible theory $D$ on whether animals are mammals \cite{TOCL01}.
\[
\begin{array}{lrll}
r_1: & monotreme & \Rightarrow & mammal \\
r_2: & hasFur & \Rightarrow & mammal \\
r_3: & laysEggs & \Rightarrow & \neg mammal \\
r_4: & hasBill & \Rightarrow & \neg mammal \\
& r_1 > r_3 \\
& r_2 > r_4 \\
\end{array}
\]
For a platypus, we have the facts:
$monotreme$,
$hasFur$,
$laysEggs$,
and
$hasBill$.
The rules $r_3$ and $r_4$ for $\neg mammal$ are over-ruled by, respectively, $r_1$ and $r_2$.
Consequently, under inference with team defeat ($\partial$ and $\delta$),
we conclude $+\partial mammal$ and $+\delta mammal$.
Under inference without team defeat ($\partial^*$ and $\delta^*$),
there is no rule that overrules all the opposing rules.
Consequently we cannot make any positive conclusion;
we conclude $-\partial^* mammal$ and $-\partial^* \neg mammal$,
and similarly for $\delta^*$.
Both $\partial$ and $\partial^*$ are ambiguity blocking.
Consider the following theory $D$.
\[
\begin{array}{lrll}
r_1 & & \Rightarrow & p \\
r_2 & & \Rightarrow & \neg p \\
r_3 & & \Rightarrow & q \\
r_4 & \neg p & \Rightarrow & \neg q \\
\end{array}
\]
\noindent
$p$ and $\neg p$ are \emph{ambiguous}:
neither $r_1$ nor $r_2$ can overcome the other via the superiority relation.
Thus $-\partial \neg p$ is inferred.
Now, because the body of $r_4$ fails, there is no rule left to compete with $r_3$,
and so $+\partial q$ is inferred.
We also conclude $-\partial \neg q$; thus there is no ambiguity about $q$ and $\neg q$.
The same arguments apply for $\partial^*$.
On the other hand, $\delta$ and $\delta^*$ are ambiguity propagating.
$-\delta \neg p$ is inferred and consequently $-\delta \neg q$ is inferred.
However, ambiguity propagating logics like $\delta$ do not support a conclusion $+\delta q$.
There is a possibility that $\neg p$ holds, given that $r_2$ was not overcome via the superiority relation
but simply failed to overcome its competitor.
Hence there is a possibility that $\neg q$ holds.
And since $r_3$ cannot explicitly overcome $r_4$ via the superiority relation,
the conclusion $+\delta q$ is not justified and, in fact, $-\delta q$ is concluded.
This idea of ``possibly holding'' is called \emph{support};
it is expressed by an auxiliary tag $\supp$ and defined by a corresponding inference rule in ${\bf DL}(\delta)$
(and, similarly, the auxiliary tag $\sigma^*$ in ${\bf DL}(\delta)$).
In the theory $D$ above, among the conclusions are $+\supp p$, $+\supp \neg p$, $+\supp \neg q$, and $+\supp q$.
Since both $q$ and $\neg q$ possibly hold, they are ambiguous
and clearly the ambiguity has propagated.
A more detailed discussion of ambiguity and team defeat in the ${\bf DL}$ framework is given in \cite{TOCL10}.
Inference for $\delta$ and $\sigma$ (and $\delta^*$ and $\sigma^*$) is defined mutually recursively:
\smallskip
{\small
\smallskip
\noindent\begin{minipage}[t]{.45\textwidth}
\begin{tabbing}
$+\delta)$ If $+\delta q \in {\cal T}_D(E)$ then either \\
\hspace{0.2in} .1) $+\Delta q \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.2in} .2) The following three conditions all hold. \\
\hspace{0.4in} .1) $\exists r \in R_{sd}[q] \ \forall a \in A(r), +\delta a \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.4in} .2) $-\Delta {\sim} q \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.4in} .3) $\forall s \in R[{\sim} q]$ either \\
\hspace{0.6in} .1) $\exists a \in A(s), -\sigma a \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.6in} .2) $\exists t \in R_{sd}[q]$ such that \\
\hspace{0.8in} .1) $\forall a \in A(t), +\delta a \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.8in} .2) $t > s$.
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.45\textwidth}
\begin{tabbing}
$-\delta)$ If $-\delta q \in {\cal T}_D(E)$ then \\
\hspace{0.2in} .1) $-\Delta q \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.2in} .2) either \\
\hspace{0.4in} .1) $\forall r \in R_{sd}[q] \ \exists a \in A(r), -\delta a \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.4in} .2) $+\Delta {\sim} q \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.4in} .3) $\exists s \in R[{\sim} q]$ such that \\
\hspace{0.6in} .1) $\forall a \in A(s), +\sigma a \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.6in} .2) $\forall t \in R_{sd}[q]$ either \\
\hspace{0.8in} .1) $\exists a \in A(t), -\delta a \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.8in} .2) not$(t > s)$.\\
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.45\textwidth}
\begin{tabbing}
$+\sigma)$ If $+\sigma q \in {\cal T}_D(E)$ then either \\
\hspace{0.2in} .1) $+\Delta q \in E$; or\\
\hspace{0.2in} .2) $\exists r \in R_{sd}[q]$ such that \\
\hspace{0.4in} .1) $\forall a \in A(r), +\sigma a \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.4in} .2) $\forall s \in R[{\sim} q]$ either \\
\hspace{0.6in} .1) $\exists a \in A(s), -\delta a \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.6in} .2) not$(s > r)$.
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.10\textwidth}
\hspace{1.0cm}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.45\textwidth}
\begin{tabbing}
$-\sigma)$ If $-\sigma q \in {\cal T}_D(E)$ then \\
\hspace{0.2in} .1) $-\Delta q \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.2in} .2) $\forall r \in R_{sd}[q]$ either \\
\hspace{0.4in} .1) $\exists a \in A(r), -\sigma a \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.4in} .2) $\exists s \in R[{\sim} q]$ such that \\
\hspace{0.6in} .1) $\forall a \in A(s), +\delta a \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.6in} .2) $s > r$.\\
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.45\textwidth}
\begin{tabbing}
$+\delta^{*})$ If $+\delta^{*}q \in {\cal T}_D(E)$ then either \\
\hspace{0.2in} .1) $+\Delta q \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.2in} .2) $\exists r \in R_{sd}[q]$ such that \\
\hspace{0.4in} .1) $\forall a \in A(r), +\delta^{*}a \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.4in} .2) $-\Delta {\sim} q \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.4in} .3) $\forall s \in R[ {\sim} q]$ either \\
\hspace{0.6in} .1) $\exists a \in A(s), -\sigma ^{*}a \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.6in} .2) $r > s$.
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.10\textwidth}
\hspace{1.0cm}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.45\textwidth}
\begin{tabbing}
$-\delta^{*})$ If $-\delta^{*}q \in {\cal T}_D(E)$ then \\
\hspace{0.2in} .1) $-\Delta q \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.2in} .2) $\forall r \in R_{sd}[q]$ either \\
\hspace{0.4in} .1) $\exists a \in A(r), -\delta^{*}a \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.4in} .2) $+\Delta {\sim} q \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.4in} .3) $\exists s \in R[ {\sim} q]$ such that \\
\hspace{0.6in} .1) $\forall a \in A(s), +\sigma ^{*}a \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.6in} .2) not$(r > s)$.\\
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\textwidth}
\begin{tabbing}
$+\sigma ^{*})$ If $+\sigma ^{*}q \in {\cal T}_D(E)$ then either \\
\hspace{0.2in} .1) $+\Delta q \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.2in} .2) $\exists r \in R_{sd}[q]$ such that \\
\hspace{0.4in} .1) $\forall a \in A(r), +\sigma ^{*}a \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.4in} .2) $\forall s \in R[ {\sim} q]$ either \\
\hspace{0.6in} .1) $\exists a \in A(s), -\delta^{*}a \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.6in} .2) not$(s > r)$.
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.10\textwidth}
\hspace{1.0cm}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.45\textwidth}
\begin{tabbing}
$-\sigma ^{*})$ If $-\sigma ^{*}q \in {\cal T}_D(E)$ then \\
\hspace{0.2in} .1) $-\Delta q \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.2in} .2) $\forall r \in R_{sd}[q]$ either \\
\hspace{0.4in} .1) $\exists a \in A(r), -\sigma ^{*}a \in E$; or \\
\hspace{0.4in} .2) $\exists s \in R[ {\sim} q]$ such that \\
\hspace{0.6in} .1) $\forall a \in A(s), +\delta^{*}a \in E$, and \\
\hspace{0.6in} .2) $s > r$.
\end{tabbing}
\end{minipage}
}
\begin{center}
\small Inference rules for $\delta$, $\sigma$, $\delta^*$ and $\sigma^*$.
\end{center}
\smallskip
\smallskip
\smallskip
\smallskip
There are surface similarities between defeasible logic and Reither's Default Logic \cite{DefaultLogic},
but there are also substantial differences.
Default Logic employs a credulous semantics based on a model-theoretic view (the extensions),
whereas defeasible logics take a proof-theoretic view.
Hence, from a defeasible theory $\Rightarrow p; \Rightarrow \neg p$ defeasible logics will not draw any conclusion\footnote{We refer only to positive conclusions, those using a tag $+d$.
}, whereas from the corresponding default theory
$\frac{: p}{p}, \frac{: \neg p}{\neg p}$ Default Logic will (separately) conclude each of $p$ and $\neg p$.
If the theory is extended by $p \Rightarrow q; \neg p \Rightarrow q$
then we find that defeasible logics will not draw any conclusion about $q$
while $q$ appears in both extensions of the corresponding default theory.
Thus, the formulation of scepticism through intersection of extensions is
different from the proof-theoretic formulation.
\cite{Horty} has a discussion of the two views, in the context of inheritance networks.
\section{Simulating Defeasible Logics} \label{sect:sim}
A natural definition of relative expressiveness of logics
is to rely on the sets of conclusions that they are able to express.
\begin{definition} \label{defn:sim}
The theory $D_1$ in logic $L_1$ is \emph{simulated} by $D_2$ in $L_2$
if
$D_1$ in $L_1$ and $D_2$ in $L_2$ have the same strict and defeasible conclusions,
modulo the tag that each logic uses.
We say $L_2$ is \emph{more (or equal) expressive} than $L_1$ if every theory $D_1$ in $L_1$
is simulated by some theory in $L_2$.
\end{definition}
That is, $D_2$ simulates $D_1$ when $D_1 \vdash \pm d_1 q$ iff $D_2 \vdash \pm d_2 q$,
where ${\bf DL}(d_1)$ is the logic of $D_1$ and ${\bf DL}(d_2)$ is the logic of $D_2$.
This appears to be quite a restrictive definition
since $D_2$ cannot use a larger language than $D_1$.
It also requires that the tag $d_1$ in $L_1$ is represented by the tag $d_2$ in $L_2$
rather than be expressed indirectly.
Nevertheless, it turns out to be a very coarse notion of relative expressiveness
that is unsuitable for separating the different logics in $DL$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:simplesim}
For every pair of logics $L_1$ and $L_2$ in $DL$,
for every defeasible theory $D_1$ under the logic $L_1$
there is a defeasible theory $D_2$ under the logic $L_2$ that simulates $D_1$ under $L_1$.
\end{theorem}
The construction is straightforward.
Let $S$ be the set of conclusions from $D_1$ under $L_1 = {\bf DL}(d_1)$.
We construct $D_2 = (F, R, >)$ as follows, for every literal $q$:
If $+\Delta q \in S$ then add a fact $q$ to $F$.
If $+\Delta q \notin S$ and $-\Delta q \notin S$ then add $q \rightarrow q$ to $R$.
If $-\Delta q \in S$ then nothing is added to $D_2$.
If $+d_1 q \in S$ and $+\Delta q \in S$ then nothing is added.
If $+d_1 q \in S$ and $-\Delta q \in S$ then add $\Rightarrow q$ to $R$.
It is not possible for a logic infer $+d_1 q \in S$ and both $+\Delta q \notin S$ and $-\Delta q \notin S$,
so what to do in that case does not arise.
If $-d_1 q \in S$ then nothing is added.
If $+d_1 q \notin S$ and $-d_1 q \notin S$ then add $q \Rightarrow q$ to $R$.
Because of the simplicity of the theory $D_2$ that is constructed,
the conclusions of the theory are the same for all tags $d_2$.
Verification of the theorem requires checking that rules for $q$ and ${\sim} q$ do
not interfere with each other.
For brevity, this part of the proof is omitted.
As a sidenote, observe that conclusions concerning support ($\supp, \supp^*$) have properties
that cannot be simulated by the main tags.
In particular, the theory $\Rightarrow q; \Rightarrow {\sim} q$ has as conclusions $+\supp q$ and $+\supp {\sim} q$
(and similarly for $\supp^*$)
but none of the main tags can conclude both $+d q$ and $+d {\sim} q$,
by the consistency property of these logics (Proposition 4 of \cite{TOCL10}).
In the previous theorem, the structure of the constructed theory $D_2$ is nothing like the theory $D_1$.
This freedom to choose $D_2$ without restriction is the reason why any theory in any logic
can be simulated by a theory in any other logic.
It is necessary to require that $D_2$ reflects some of the structure of $D_1$.
We do this indirectly, by requiring that the simulating theory be robust to certain changes.
We introduce the idea of an \emph{addition} $A$ to a theory $D$, denoted by $D + A$.
In general, $A$ is a defeasible theory: it may contain facts, rules and a superiority relation.
Let $D = (F, R, >)$ and $A = (F', R', >')$.
Then $D + A = (F \cup F', R \cup R', > \cup >')$.
We would like to consider a theory $D'$ under logic $L'$
able to simulate $D$ under $L$ if the two theories have the same conclusions, modulo tags,
no matter what is added to both theories.
However, this is too strong a requirement.
For example, $p \rightarrow q$ is not simulated by $p \rightarrow t, t \rightarrow q$ under this definition
because the addition of the fact $t$ produces different behaviours.
We make two adjustments: we restrict additions to a class of theories,
and we allow $D'$ to ``hide'' internal symbols from interference by $A$.
We permit both $D'$ and $A$ to use symbols that are not used in $D$,
but we require that the symbols in $D'$ but not in $D$ are not available to $A$.
Thus we have the following \emph{language separation} condition:
$\Sigma(A) \cap \Sigma(D') \subseteq \Sigma(D)$.
\begin{definition} \label{defn:simC}
Let $\Sigma$ be the language of the defeasible theory $D_1$.
Let $C$ be a class of defeasible theories $A$ such that $\Sigma(A) \cap \Sigma(D_2) \subseteq \Sigma(D_1)$.
We say $D_1$ in logic $L_1$ is \emph{simulated} by $D_2$ in $L_2$ with respect to a class $C$
if, for every addition $A$ in $C$,
$D_1 + A$ and $D_2 + A$ have the same conclusions in $\Sigma$, modulo tags.
We say a logic $L_1$ can be simulated by a logic $L_2$ with respect to a class $C$
if every theory in $L_1$ can be simulated by some theory in $L_2$ with respect to $C$.
\end{definition}
The use of a class $C$ gives us flexibility in expressing the degree of simulation
by varying the class, not only among those defined above, but many others.
For example, when $C$ consists only of the the empty theory $(\emptyset, \emptyset, \emptyset)$
the notion of simulation is notionally weaker than that of Definition \ref{defn:sim}
(weaker because it allows the simulation to use a larger language).
Larger classes of additions represent notionally stronger forms of simulation.
Consider addition limited to a set of facts, that is $A = (F, \emptyset, \emptyset)$.
Allowing arbitrary addition of facts corresponds to treating each theory $D_1$ under logic $L_1$
as defining a non-monotonic inference relation from facts to consequences.
This is similar to Dix's treatment of logic programs in \cite{Dix1} where
a logic program is viewed as defining a non-monotonic inference relation from the input atoms to the output atoms.
It also reflects a common practice of keeping the rules static while facts vary.
Simulation then requires that any inference relation expressed by $D_1$ under $L_1$
can be expressed by some $D_2$ under $L_2$.
However, it is not clear that the addition of facts is sufficiently discriminating.
For example,
we can attempt to extend the construction in Theorem \ref{thm:simplesim} by adding conditions
to the bodies of rules in that construction.
For a given defeasible theory $D$, we define $T(D)$ in several parts, as follows.
Define $NOT$ to be the set of all rules
\[
\begin{array}{lrl}
& q & \Rightarrow \neg not\_q \\
& & \Rightarrow not\_q
\end{array}
\]
for $q \in \Sigma$.
For any set $A \subseteq \Sigma$, we define $\hat{A}$ to be the conjunction of literals in the set
$A \cup \{ not\_a ~|~ D+A \vdash -d a\}$.
$\hat{A}_{-q}$ denotes this conjunction with the omission of the literal $q$.
We also use $A$ as a conjunction of literals.
\noindent
We define $T(D, A)$ to contain:
\begin{tabular}[c]{rl}
$A \rightarrow q$ & if $D+A \vdash +\Delta q$ and $q \notin A$ \\
$A, q \rightarrow q$ & if $D+A \not\,\vdash +\Delta q$ and $D+A \not\,\vdash -\Delta q$ \\
$\hat{A}_{-q} \Rightarrow q$ & if $D+A \vdash +d q$ and $q \notin A$ \\
$\hat{A}_{-q}, q \Rightarrow q$ & if $D+A \not\,\vdash +d q$ and $D+A \not\,\vdash -d q$ \\
\end{tabular}
$T(D, A)$ describes the behaviour of $D + A$ in a way similar to the transformation in Theorem \ref{thm:simplesim},
but prefixes defeasible rules with $\hat{A}_{-q}$ to ensure that they are only applicable
when $A$ is the addition, or is a consequence of the addition.
For the strict rules, only a prefix $A$ is necessary, since any greater addition will also
allow the inference of $+\Delta q$ (this is a reflection of the monotonicity of strict inference).
\noindent
We define $T(D)$ to consist of the facts from $D$ and the rules in $NOT \cup \bigcup_{A \subseteq \Sigma} T(D, A)$.
The superiority relation for $T(D)$ is empty.
In general, the size of $T(D)$ is exponential in the size of $D$.
While it is not proved that $T(D)$ simulates $D$,
the possibility of such a construction
prompts us to require that the simulating theory is limited to be of polynomial size,
and that the computation of the simulating theory can be achieved in polynomial time.
A \emph{polynomial simulation} of $L_1$ by $L_2$ is a mapping $T$ from each theory $D_1$
to a theory $D_2$ and a polynomial function $p(x)$ such that
$size(D_2) \leq p(size(D_1))$,
$t_{D_1 D_2} \leq p(size(D_1))$ where $t_{D_1 D_2}$ is the time to compute $D_2$ from $D_1$,
and
$D_2$ under $L_2$ simulates $D_1$ under $L_1$.
This leads us to a definition of relative expressiveness.
\begin{definition} \label{def:expr}
A logic $L_1$ is \emph{more expressive} than a logic $L_2$ iff
there is a polynomial simulation of $L_2$ by $L_1$
with respect to the addition of facts.
\end{definition}
An alternative definition might use addition of rules, with or without the restriction to polynomial simulations.
The suitability of the current definition, and alternatives,
will depend on the results that can be obtained:
a notion of expressiveness that is so strict that no logic is more expressive than another,
or so lenient that all the logics have equivalent expressiveness,
has no practical use.
The following sections establish results showing that Definition \ref{def:expr} is not too strict.
\section{Team Defeat Simulates Non-Team Defeat}
We now show that every theory over a logic that does not employ team defeat
can be simulated by a theory over the corresponding logic that does employ team defeat.
Any defeasible theory $D$ is transformed into a new theory.
The new theory employs new propositions $h(r)$ for each rule $r$ in $D$,
and employs labels $p(r)$ for each rule $r$ in $D$
and labels $n(r, r')$ for each ordered pair of rules with opposing heads.
Let $D = (F, R, >)$ be a defeasible theory with language $\Sigma$.
We define the transformation $T$ of $D$ to $T(D) = (F', R', >')$ as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The facts of $T(D)$ are the facts of $D$.
That is, $F' = F$.
\item
For each rule $r = B \hookrightarrow_r q$ in $R$, $R'$ contains
\[
\begin{array}{lrll}
p(r): & B & \hookrightarrow_r & h(r) \\
s(r): & h(r) & \rightarrow & q
\end{array}
\]
\noindent
and, further, for each rule $r' = B' \hookrightarrow_{r'} {\sim} q$ for ${\sim} q$ in $R$, $R'$ contains
\[
\begin{array}{lrll}
n(r, r'): & B' & \hookrightarrow_{r'} & \neg h(r)
\end{array}
\]
\item
For every $r > r'$ in $D$, where $r$ and $r'$ are rules for opposite literals,
$T(D)$ contains $p(r) >' n(r, r')$ and $n(r', r) >' p(r')$.
\end{enumerate}
In this transformation, for each literal $q$, and for each rule $r$ for $q$,
we essentially create a copy of $r$ opposed to a copy of all rules for ${\sim} q$
(the rules labelled $p(r)$ and $n(r, r')$ respectively).
$q$ is derived if a copy of some rule $r$ for $q$ is able to overcome the opposed rules
(that is, $q$ is derived without team defeat).
\begin{example}
To see the operation of this transformation, consider the following theory $D$:
\begin{tabbing}
1234123412341234\=123412341234\=1234\=1234\kill
\>$r_1: \ \ \Rightarrow p$
\>\> $r_3: \ \ \Rightarrow \neg p$ \\
\>$r_2: \ \ \Rightarrow p$
\>\> $r_4: \ \ \Rightarrow \neg p$ \\
\>$r_1 > r_3$ \>\> $r_2 > r_4$
\end{tabbing}
In ${\bf DL}(\partial^*)$ from $D$ we conclude $-\partial^* p$ and $-\partial^* \neg p$, whereas
in ${\bf DL}(\partial)$ from $D$ we conclude $+\partial^* p$ and $-\partial^* \neg p$.
$T(D)$ contains the following rules and superiority relation.
\begin{tabbing}
12341234\=1234123412341234\=12341234123412341234\=12341234\kill
\>$p(r_1): \hspace{44pt} \Rightarrow h(r_1)$
\>\> $p(r_3): \hspace{44pt} \Rightarrow h(r_3)$ \\
\>$s(r_1):\hspace{15pt} h(r_1) \rightarrow p$
\>\>$s(r_3):\hspace{15pt} h(r_3) \rightarrow \neg p$ \\
\>$n(r_1, r_3): \hspace{30pt} \Rightarrow \neg h(r_1)$
\>\>$n(r_3, r_1): \hspace{30pt} \Rightarrow \neg h(r_3)$ \\
\>$n(r_1, r_4): \hspace{30pt} \Rightarrow \neg h(r_1)$
\>\>$n(r_3, r_2): \hspace{30pt} \Rightarrow \neg h(r_3)$ \\
\ \\
\>$p(r_2): \hspace{44pt} \Rightarrow h(r_2)$
\>\> $p(r_4): \hspace{44pt} \Rightarrow h(r_4)$ \\
\>$s(r_2):\hspace{15pt} h(r_2) \rightarrow p$
\>\>$s(r_4):\hspace{15pt} h(r_4) \rightarrow \neg p$ \\
\>$n(r_2, r_3): \hspace{30pt} \Rightarrow \neg h(r_2)$
\>\>$n(r_4, r_1): \hspace{30pt} \Rightarrow \neg h(r_4)$ \\
\>$n(r_2, r_4): \hspace{30pt} \Rightarrow \neg h(r_2)$
\>\>$n(r_4, r_2): \hspace{30pt} \Rightarrow \neg h(r_4)$ \\
\ \\
\>$p(r_1) > n(r_1, r_3)$
\>\>$p(r_2) > n(r_2, r_4)$ \\
\>$n(r_3, r_1) > p(r_3)$
\>\>$n(r_4, r_2) > p(r_4)$ \\
\end{tabbing}
For each rule in $D$ there are four rules in $T(D)$.
Now
$T(D) \vdash -\partial p$ and $T(D) \vdash -\partial \neg p$,
reflecting non-team defeat behaviour of $D$ within ${\bf DL}(\partial)$.
\end{example}
In general, the size of $T(D)$ is quadratic in the size of $D$.
Thus it remains to establish that $T(D)$ simulates $D$ with respect to addition of facts.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:NTDbyTD}
The logic ${\bf DL}(\partial^*)$ can be simulated by ${\bf DL}(\partial)$, and
${\bf DL}(\delta^*)$ can be simulated by ${\bf DL}(\delta)$, with respect to addition of facts.
\end{theorem}
The proof of this theorem is available
in the online appendix, pages 1--5.
It first shows, by induction on $n$, that, for any tagged literal $\alpha$ in ${\bf DL}(\partial^*)$ (or ${\bf DL}(\delta^*)$),
if $\alpha \in {\cal T}_{D+A} \uparrow n$ then $T(D)+A \vdash \alpha'$,
where $\alpha'$ is the tagged literal in ${\bf DL}(\partial)$ (or ${\bf DL}(\delta)$) corresponding to $\alpha$.
Then, conversely, it shows that
if $\alpha' \in {\cal T}_{T(D)+A} \uparrow n$ then $D+A \vdash \alpha$.
Together, these establish that ${\bf DL}(\partial^*)$ is simulated by ${\bf DL}(\partial)$ under the transformation $T$ and,
similarly, that ${\bf DL}(\delta^*)$ is simulated by ${\bf DL}(\delta)$.
Thus $DL(\partial)$ is more (or equal) expressive than $DL(\partial^*)$
and
$DL(\delta)$ is more (or equal) expressive than $DL(\delta^*)$.
Notice that this result does not extend to simulation with respect to adding arbitrary defeasible theories
because, in that case, we can use the following defeasible theory as $A$ when $D = \emptyset$
and $p \in \Sigma$.
\begin{tabbing}
1234123412341234\=123412341234\=1234\=1234\kill
\>$r_1: \ \ \Rightarrow p$
\>\> $r_3: \ \ \Rightarrow \neg p$ \\
\>$r_2: \ \ \Rightarrow p$
\>\> $r_4: \ \ \Rightarrow \neg p$ \\
\>$r_1 > r_3$ \>\> $r_2 > r_4$
\end{tabbing}
This theory distinguishes ${\bf DL}(\partial)$ from ${\bf DL}(\partial^*)$,
to demonstrate non-simulation in both directions,
and similarly for ${\bf DL}(\delta)$ and ${\bf DL}(\delta^*)$.
\section{Non-Team Defeat Simulates Team Defeat}
We define the transformation $T$ of $D$ to $T(D) = (F', R', >')$ as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{pt:facts}
The facts of $T(D)$ are the facts of $D$.
That is, $F' = F$.
\item \label{pt:strict}
For each literal $q$, and each strict rule $r = (B \rightarrow q)$ in $R$, $R'$ contains
\[
\begin{array}{lrlrl}
ns(q): & & \Rightarrow & \neg & strict(q) \\
s(r): & B & \rightarrow & & strict(q) \\
\end{array}
\]
and $ns(q) >' s(r)$.
\item \label{pt:strict2}
For each literal $q$ defined by at least one strict rule in $R$, $R'$ contains
\[
\begin{array}{lrll}
& strict(q) & \rightarrow & q \\
\end{array}
\]
\item \label{pt:dft}
For each ordered pair of opposing rules $r_i = (B_i \hookrightarrow_{i} {\sim} q)$ and $r_j = (B_j \hookrightarrow_{j} q)$ in $R$,
where
$r_j$ is not a defeater, $R'$ contains
\[
\begin{array}{lrlrl}
R1_{ij}: & B_i & \hookrightarrow_i & \neg & d(r_i, r_j) \\
R2_{ij}: & B_j & \Rightarrow && d(r_i, r_j) \\
R3_{ij}: & strict(q) & \Rightarrow && d(r_i, r_j) \\
& d(r_i, r_j) & \Rightarrow && d(r_i) \\
& fail(r_i) & \Rightarrow & & d(r_i) \\
NF_i: & B_i & \Rightarrow & \neg & fail(r_i) \\
F_i: & & \Rightarrow && fail(r_i) \\
\end{array}
\]
and
$R2_{ij} >' R1_{ij}$ iff $r_j > r_i$,
$R3_{ij} >' R1_{ij}$ for every $i$ and $j$,
and $NF_i > F_i$ for every $i$.
If there is no strict or defeasible rule $r_j$ for $q$ in $D$ then only the last three rules appear in $R'$, for each $i$.
\item \label{pt:one}
For each literal $q$, and each strict or defeasible rule $r = (B \hookrightarrow_r q)$ in $R$, $R'$ contains
\[
\begin{array}{lrll}
& B & \Rightarrow & one(q) \\
\end{array}
\]
\item \label{pt:oneq}
For each literal $q$, $R'$ contains
\[
\begin{array}{lrll}
& one(q), d(r_1), \ldots, d(r_k) & \Rightarrow & q \\
\end{array}
\]
where $r_1, \ldots, r_k$ are the rules for ${\sim} q$
\end{enumerate}
We say that a body $B$ \emph{fails} if $-d p$ is derived, for some $p \in B$,
and \emph{succeeds} if $+d B$ is derived,
where $d$ is the defeasible tag in the logic of interest.
We say a rule $r$ \emph{defeats} another $r'$ if they have opposing heads,
the body of $r$ succeeds and $r > r'$.
In the resulting theory $T(D)$,
$d(r_1, r_2)$ is derived iff
$r_1$ is defeated either because the body of $r_2$ succeeds and
$r_2 > r_1$, or because there is a strict opposing rule and its body is strictly provable.
$d(r)$ is derived iff some rule $r'$ defeats $r$, or the body of $r$ fails.
$one(q)$ is derived iff there is a strict or defeasible rule for $q$ and the body of that rule succeeds.
Thus, $q$ is derived if
there is a strict or defeasible rule for $q$ that succeeds and every rule for ${\sim} q$ is defeated.
In this way, the transformed theory expresses team defeat.
Some elements of the definition deserve a more detailed explanation.
The first three points together define inference of $\pm\Delta$ from $T(D)$.
In point \ref{pt:strict} a defeasible rule is superior to a strict rule.
The effect of this somewhat counter-intuitive construction
is to ensure $+\partial^* strict(q)$ is derived iff $+\Delta strict(q)$ is derived iff $+\Delta B$ is derived,
and $+\partial^* \neg strict(q)$ is derived iff $-\Delta B$ is derived.
It restricts the strict rule $s(r)$ to only be used for strict inferences, and not for defeasible inferences.
As a result, it ensures that all inferences to $q$ via point \ref{pt:strict2} are strict inferences.
Point \ref{pt:dft} identifies when a rule $r_i$ is defeated (as part of the process of inferring $q$).
$d(r_i, r_j)$ expresses that $r_i$ is defeated by $r_j$, and $d(r)$ expresses that $r$ is defeated.
If $r_i$ is strict and $+\Delta B_i$ is established then $r_i$ is not defeated (by $r_j$ or any other rule).
The use of $\hookrightarrow_i$ in $R1_{ij}$ ensures this.
For $r_i$ to be defeated by $r_j$ we must have $+\partial^* B_j$.
If the stronger $+\Delta q$ can be established then $r_i$ is defeated unless,
by the above case, $r_i$ cannot be defeated.
This is expressed by $R3_{ij}$ with a defeasible rule so that, if the first case applies,
$+\Delta \neg d(r_i, r_j)$ is established and hence $+\partial^* d(r_i, r_j)$ cannot be derived.
However, $R3_{ij} >' R1_{ij}$ so that, in other circumstances, if $+\Delta q$ can be established then $r_i$ is defeated.
In the more normal case, if $+\partial^* B_j$ is established then $r_i$ is defeated by $r_j$
if either $-\partial^* B_i$ is established, or if $r_j > r_i$.
$R2_{ij}$ achieves this where the superiority relation in $T(D)$ has $R2_{ij} > R1_{ij}$, reflecting $r_j > r_i$.
Finally, the last three (classes of) rules of point \ref{pt:dft} identify that $r_i$ is defeated if its body $B_i$ fails.
Point \ref{pt:one} defines that $one(q)$ succeeds iff the body of some strict or defeasible rule for $q$
succeeds.
Point \ref{pt:oneq} then reflects the team defeat approach:
$q$ can be inferred if there is a strict or defeasible rule whose body succeeds ($one(q)$)
and every rule for ${\sim} q$ is defeated ($d(r_1), \ldots, d(r_k)$).
\begin{example}
To see the operation of this transformation, we again consider the following theory $D$:
\begin{tabbing}
1234123412341234\=123412341234\=1234\=1234\kill
\>$r_1: \ \ \Rightarrow p$
\>\> $r_3: \ \ \Rightarrow \neg p$ \\
\>$r_2: \ \ \Rightarrow p$
\>\> $r_4: \ \ \Rightarrow \neg p$ \\
\>$r_1 > r_3$ \>\> $r_2 > r_4$
\end{tabbing}
In ${\bf DL}(\partial)$ from $D$ we conclude $+\partial^* p$ and $-\partial^* \neg p$,
whereas
in ${\bf DL}(\partial^*)$ from $D$ we conclude $-\partial^* p$ and $-\partial^* \neg p$.
$D$ does not contain any facts or strict rules, so parts \ref {pt:facts}, \ref {pt:strict}, and \ref {pt:strict2}
do not contribute to $T(D)$.
$T(D)$ contains the following rules and superiority relation.
\smallskip
\begin{tabbing}
12\=3412341234123412341\=234123412341234123\=41234123412341234\=\kill
\>$R1_{13}:\ \Rightarrow \neg d(r_1, r_3)$
\>$R2_{13}:\ \Rightarrow d(r_1, r_3)$
\>$R3_{13}:\ strict(p) \Rightarrow d(r_1, r_3)$ \\
\>$R1_{14}:\ \Rightarrow \neg d(r_1, r_4)$
\>$R2_{14}:\ \Rightarrow d(r_1, r_4)$
\>$R3_{14}:\ strict(p) \Rightarrow d(r_1, r_4)$ \\
\>$R1_{23}:\ \Rightarrow \neg d(r_2, r_3)$
\>$R2_{23}:\ \Rightarrow d(r_2, r_3)$
\>$R3_{23}:\ strict(p) \Rightarrow d(r_2, r_3)$ \\
\>$R1_{24}:\ \Rightarrow \neg d(r_2, r_4)$
\>$R2_{24}:\ \Rightarrow d(r_2, r_4)$
\>$R3_{24}:\ strict(p) \Rightarrow d(r_2, r_4)$ \\
\>$R1_{31}:\ \Rightarrow \neg d(r_3, r_1)$
\>$R2_{31}:\ \Rightarrow d(r_3, r_1)$
\>$R3_{31}:\ strict(p) \Rightarrow d(r_3, r_1)$ \\
\>$R1_{32}:\ \Rightarrow \neg d(r_3, r_2)$
\>$R2_{32}:\ \Rightarrow d(r_3, r_2)$
\>$R3_{32}:\ strict(p) \Rightarrow d(r_3, r_2)$ \\
\>$R1_{41}:\ \Rightarrow \neg d(r_4, r_1)$
\>$R2_{41}:\ \Rightarrow d(r_4, r_1)$
\>$R3_{41}:\ strict(p) \Rightarrow d(r_4, r_1)$ \\
\>$R1_{42}:\ \Rightarrow \neg d(r_4, r_2)$
\>$R2_{42}:\ \Rightarrow d(r_4, r_2)$
\>$R3_{42}:\ strict(p) \Rightarrow d(r_4, r_2)$ \\
\ \\
\>$d(r_1, r_3) \Rightarrow d(r_1)$
\>$d(r_1, r_4) \Rightarrow d(r_1)$
\>$d(r_2, r_3) \Rightarrow d(r_2)$
\>$d(r_2, r_4) \Rightarrow d(r_2)$ \\
\ \\
\>$d(r_3, r_1) \Rightarrow d(r_3)$
\>$d(r_3, r_2) \Rightarrow d(r_3)$
\>$d(r_4, r_1) \Rightarrow d(r_4)$
\>$d(r_4, r_2) \Rightarrow d(r_4)$ \\
\ \\
\>$fail(r_1) \Rightarrow d(r_1)$
\>$fail(r_2) \Rightarrow d(r_2)$
\>$fail(r_3) \Rightarrow d(r_3)$
\>$fail(r_4) \Rightarrow d(r_4)$ \\
\>$NF_1:\ \Rightarrow \neg fail(r_1)$
\>$NF_2:\ \Rightarrow \neg fail(r_2)$
\>$NF_3:\ \Rightarrow \neg fail(r_3)$
\>$NF_4:\ \Rightarrow \neg fail(r_4)$ \\
\>$F_1:\ \Rightarrow fail(r_1)$
\>$F_2:\ \Rightarrow fail(r_2)$
\>$F_3:\ \Rightarrow fail(r_3)$
\>$F_4:\ \Rightarrow fail(r_4)$ \\
\ \\
\>$ \Rightarrow one(p)$
\>\>$ \Rightarrow one(\neg p)$ \\
\>$ \Rightarrow one(p)$
\>\>$ \Rightarrow one(\neg p)$ \\
\>$ one(p), d(r_3), d(r_4) \Rightarrow p$
\>\>$ one(\neg p), d(r_1), d(r_2) \Rightarrow \neg p$ \\
\ \\
\>$R2_{31} > R1_{31}$
\>\>$R3_{ij} > R1_{ij}$ for every opposing $i$ and $j$ \\
\>$R2_{42} > R1_{42}$
\>\>$NF_i > F_i$ for every $i$
\end{tabbing}
\smallskip
From $T(D)$ we can draw the conclusions $one(p)$, $+\partial^* d(r_3, r_1)$ and $+\partial^* d(r_4, r_2)$,
among others.
Consequently, we conclude $+\partial^* d(r_3)$ and $+\partial^* d(r_4)$,
and hence $+\partial^* p$.
This reflects the team defeat behaviour of $D$ within the non-team defeat logic ${\bf DL}(\partial^*)$.
\end{example}
In general, the size of $T(D)$ is quadratic in the size of $D$.
Thus it remains to establish that $T(D)$ simulates $D$ with respect to addition of facts.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:TDbyNTD}
The logic ${\bf DL}(\partial)$ can be simulated by ${\bf DL}(\partial^*)$,
and ${\bf DL}(\delta)$ can be simulated by ${\bf DL}(\delta^*)$,
with respect to addition of facts.
\end{theorem}
The proof of this theorem is available
in the online appendix, from page 5.
As a result of Theorems \ref{thm:NTDbyTD} and \ref{thm:TDbyNTD},
the logics ${\bf DL}(\partial)$ and ${\bf DL}(\partial^*)$ have equal expressive power.
Similarly, ${\bf DL}(\delta)$ and ${\bf DL}(\delta^*)$ have equal expressive power.
\section{Ambiguity}
We now consider a different notion of expressiveness,
where simulation must be performed with respect to the addition of rules, not only facts.
We show that the ambiguity propagating logics cannot simulate the ambiguity blocking logics
with respect to additions of rules, and vice versa.
To show that a logic $L'$ cannot simulate $L$
it suffices to identify a theory $D$ and addition $A$ where
there is no $D'$ such that $D + A$ in $L$ and $D' + A$ in $L'$ have the same consequences.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:amb1}
Consider simulation with respect to addition of rules.
The logics ${\bf DL}(\partial)$ and ${\bf DL}(\partial^*)$
cannot be simulated by ${\bf DL}(\delta)$, nor by ${\bf DL}(\delta^*)$.
Conversely,
the logics ${\bf DL}(\delta)$ and ${\bf DL}(\delta^*)$ cannot be simulated by ${\bf DL}(\partial)$, nor by ${\bf DL}(\partial^*)$.
\end{theorem}
We first address the case of ${\bf DL}(\partial)$ and ${\bf DL}(\delta)$.
As mentioned above, it is sufficient to identify a single theory and addition that cannot be simulated.
Consider the theory $D$, with rules
\[
\begin{array}{lrll}
r_1: & & \Rightarrow & p \\
r_2: & & \Rightarrow & \neg p \\
\end{array}
\]
and consider an addition $A$ of rules
\[
\begin{array}{lrll}
r_3: & & \Rightarrow & \neg p \\
r_4: & & \Rightarrow & q \\
r_5: & \neg p & \Rightarrow & \neg q \\
\end{array}
\]
Then in ${\bf DL}(\partial)$ we have $D + A \vdash +\partial q$.
Suppose there is a theory $D'$ in ${\bf DL}(\delta)$ that simulates $D$ with respect to rules.
Then we must have $D' + A \vdash +\delta q$.
Furthermore, $-\Delta p, -\Delta \neg p, -\Delta q, -\Delta \neg q$
are consequences of $D + A$, and so are also consequences of $D' + A$ (and $D'$).
By the language separation condition, $D'$ does not contain any mention of $q$,
so the two rules $r_4$ and $r_5$ are the only rules under consideration for inferences about $q$.
Since $D' + A \vdash +\delta q$,
by the inference rule for $+\delta q$,
for (in this case) the rule $r_5$ for $\neg q$
either some literal in the body has no support (i.e. $-\supp \neg p$)
or the rule $r_4$ for $q$ over-rules $r_5$, that is, $r_4 > r_5$.
However, $r_4 > r_5$ is not part of $A$
and cannot be part of $D'$ (by the language separation condition).
Hence, we must have $D' + A \vdash -\supp \neg p$.
Now, by the inference rule for $-\supp$,
for every strict or defeasible rule for $\neg p$ either
some literal in the body has no support
or there is a rule that can over-rule it.
Consider $r_3$.
No rule can over-rule it (by the language separation condition),
but the body of $r_3$ is empty.
This contradiction shows that no theory $D'$ in ${\bf DL}(\delta)$ simulates $D$ in ${\bf DL}(\partial)$.
$D + A$ has the same consequences, whether $\partial$ or $\partial^*$ is used.
Further, the argument is valid for $\delta^*$ as well as $\delta$.
Thus, neither $\partial$ nor $\partial^*$ can be simulated by either $\delta$ or $\delta^*$
with respect to the addition of rules.
The same theory and addition can be used to show that the ambiguity blocking logics cannot simulate the ambiguity propagating logics.
Given $D$ and $A$ as above,
in ${\bf DL}(\delta)$ we have $D + A \vdash -\delta q$.
Suppose there is a theory $D'$ in ${\bf DL}(\partial)$ that simulates $D$ with respect to rules.
Then $D' + A \vdash -\partial q$.
As before, $-\Delta p, -\Delta \neg p, -\Delta q, -\Delta \neg q$ are consequences of $D' + A$ (and $D'$)
and, again, only rules $r_4$ (for $q$) and $r_5$ (for $\neg q$) directly affect inferences about $q$.
Furthermore, $D' + A \vdash -\partial \neg p$ since $-\delta \neg p$ is a consequence of $D+A$
and, hence, by the coherence property of ${\bf DL}$ (Proposition 2 of \cite{TOCL10}),
we cannot have $D' + A \vdash +\partial \neg p$.
Since $D' + A \vdash -\partial q$,
in the inference rule for $-\partial q$ only clause $-\partial.2.3$ can apply.
Thus we must have $D' + A \vdash +\partial \neg p$, by clause $-\partial.2.3.1$.
This gives us a contradiction, and hence no such $D'$ exists.
That is, ${\bf DL}(\delta)$ cannot be simulated by ${\bf DL}(\partial)$.
$D + A$ has the same consequences, whether $\delta$ or $\delta^*$ is used.
Further, the argument is valid for $\partial^*$ as well as $\partial$.
Thus, neither $\delta$ nor $\delta^*$ can be simulated by either $\partial$ or $\partial^*$
with respect to the addition of rules.
From these results, and the comments at the end of the section on simulating non-team defeat,
it is clear that simulation with respect to the addition of an arbitrary defeasible theory
is too strict to provide a viable notion of relative expressiveness.
Simulation with respect to addition of rules is stronger than simulation with respect to addition of facts,
(because addition of facts can be emulated by addition of strict rules with empty antecedents),
but is weaker than simulation with respect to full theories.
Thus the non-simulation results of this section do not necessarily extend to addition of facts.
That remains an open problem.
We could also consider simulation with respect to addition of rules, instead of facts, as the basis for a notion of relative expressiveness.
As we have seen, this notion is able to distinguish ambiguity propagating and blocking logics.
We would want to strengthen Theorems \ref{thm:NTDbyTD} and \ref{thm:TDbyNTD} to support this notion.
\section{Discussion}
The results of this paper are summarized in Figure \ref{fig:RE},
where an arrow from $d_1$ to $d_2$ expresses that $d_1$ can be polynomially simulated by $d_2$
with respect to the addition of facts.
Question marks between tags denote that the relationship is unknown.
This picture of relative expressiveness is quite different from the one for relative inference strength.
\begin{figure}
\[
\begin{array}{rcl}
\delta & \Longleftrightarrow & \delta^* \\
\\
? & & ? \\
\\
\partial & \Longleftrightarrow & \partial^* \\
\end{array}
\]
\caption{Relative expressiveness of logics in ${\bf DL}$ using simulation wrt addition of facts}
\label{fig:RE}
\end{figure}
The relative inference strength of the logics in ${\bf DL}$ is described in Figure \ref{fig:RIS} (see \cite{TOCL10}).
$d_1 \subset d_2$ expresses that,
for any theory $D$,
the set of literals that are $+d_1$ consequences of $D$ is a subset of or equal to
the set of literals that are $+d_2$ consequences of $D$ and,
furthermore, there is a theory for which this containment is strict.
In addition,
the $-d_2$ consequences of $D$ are contained in the $-d_1$ consequences of $D$.
\begin{figure}
\[
\begin{array}{rcccl}
\Delta ~ \subset ~ \delta^* & \subset & \delta ~ \subset ~ \partial ~ \subset ~ \supp & \subset & \supp^* \\
\\
& \rotatebox[origin=c]{-45}{$\mathbf{\subset}$} & & \rotatebox[origin=c]{45}{$\mathbf{\subset}$} & \\
\\
& & \partial^* & \\
\end{array}
\]
\caption{Relative inference strength of logics in ${\bf DL}$}
\label{fig:RIS}
\end{figure}
It is interesting that $\partial$ and $\partial^*$ can simulate each other,
even though there is no relation between the two logics in terms of relative strength.
Furthermore, $\delta$ and $\delta^*$ can simulate each other even though,
in terms of relative inference strength,
$\delta^*$ is strictly weaker than $\delta$.
On the other hand, $\delta$ has weaker inference strength than $\partial$ but yet
$\partial$ is unable to simulate $\delta$ under addition of rules and,
similarly, $\delta^*$ has less inference strength than $\partial^*$
but $\partial^*$ is unable to simulate $\delta^*$ under addition of rules.
However $\delta$ is able to simulate the weaker in inference strength $\delta^*$.
Thus we see that relative expressiveness in defeasible logics is not directly related to
the relative inference strength of the logics.
This work is part of a long line of work addressing the relative expressibility of formalisms,
of which we will mention just a few.
Interpretation of one theory by another in classical logic (for example, \cite{Shoenfield})
essentially maps functions in one language into terms from another
in such a way that the axioms of one theory map to theorems in the other.
This extends easily to the interpretation of theories in different, but similar, logics.
This technique provides a basis for transferring results on consistency and decidability
from one theory to another.
The idea was used in \cite{CoxMT92} to transfer complexity results for CLP languages.
Similarly, the idea of a conservative extension and extension by definitions of a theory \cite{Shoenfield}
can be used to establish that some programming language features do not extend the expressive power
of a language \cite{Landin,Felleisen}.
In general, any sequential programming language can simulate another (the ``Turing tarpit'')
but, by requiring that the mapping of one language into another be homomorphic
(which enforces a preservation of structure)
and observing the behaviour in any context,
a meaningful notion of relative expressiveness can be developed \cite{Felleisen}.
These ideas were extended for concurrent languages \cite{Shapiro89,dBP1,dBP2} where, in addition,
it was required that parallel composition and nondeterministic choice in the simulated language
were represented by parallel composition and nondeterministic choice in the simulating language.
A more general treatment is \cite{Shapiro91}.
More recently, \cite{Janhunen06} investigated relative expressiveness
for logic programs using a polynomial bound on the translation and a weak form of modularity.
There has also been some related work in defeasible logic.
Early work \cite{TOCL01} on ${\bf DL}(\partial)$
demonstrated that some features of the logic --
facts, defeaters and the superiority relation --
do not add to the expressiveness to that logic\footnote{
These results do not all extend to ambiguity propagating logics \cite{Lam.2011}.
}.
Furthermore,
the idea of simulation with respect to additions
is similar to the idea of modular transformation in \cite{TOCL01}.
In \cite{MG99}, failure operators were added to ${\bf DL}(\partial)$
and shown to be a conservative extension.
In \cite{MG99,TPLP06}, a simulation of ${\bf DL}(\partial)$ in logic programs under the Kunen semantics was shown,
and in \cite{TPLP06} it was shown that this transformation
does not provide a simulation by logic programs under the stable model semantics.
\section{Conclusion}
We have introduced a notion of relative expressiveness for defeasible logics,
based on simulation with respect to addition of facts,
and shown that it is not too strict.
The simulation of a logic ${\bf DL}(\partial)$ with team defeat by a logic ${\bf DL}(\partial^*)$
without team defeat is a surprising demonstration of that fact.
However, it remains an open question whether there is a relative expressiveness relationship
between the ambiguity blocking and propagating logics.
We have also investigated alternative notions of relative expressiveness,
and seen that simulation with respect to rules is not too lenient.
It remains to determine whether it is too strict or not.
We have already seen, in the section on ambiguity, that simulation with respect to full defeasible theories is too strict.
{\bf Acknowledgements:} The author thanks the referees for their careful reviewing.
\bibliographystyle{acmtrans}
|
\section{County-Level Dendrogram}
\includegraphics[page=1,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=2,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=3,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=4,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=5,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=6,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=7,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=8,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=9,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=10,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=11,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=12,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=13,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=14,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=15,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=16,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=17,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=18,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=19,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=20,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=21,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=22,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=23,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=24,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=25,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=26,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=27,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=28,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=29,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=30,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=31,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=32,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=33,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\includegraphics[page=34,scale=.95]{ItakuraSaitoOrdinalDendrogram2.pdf}
\begin{acknowledgments}
I would like to express appreciation to the Kavli Institute for Theoretical
Physics (KITP)
for computational support in this research.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section*{\textbf{#1}}}
\newcommand{\margin}[1]{%
\marginpar[{\raggedleft\smaller[3]#1}]{\raggedright\smaller[3]#1}}
\title{
Tensor diagrams and cluster algebras
}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{1}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
\author{Sergey Fomin}
\address{\hspace{-.3in} Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA}
\email{<EMAIL>}
\author{Pavlo Pylyavskyy}
\address{\hspace{-.3in} Department of Mathematics, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN 55414, USA}
\email{<EMAIL>}
\date{\today
}
\thanks{Partially supported by NSF grants DMS-1101152 (S.~F.)
and DMS-1068169 (P.~P.).
}
\subjclass{
Primary
13F60,
Secondary
05E99,
13A50,
15A72.
}
\keywords{Cluster algebra, invariant theory, web basis, tensor diagram}
\begin{abstract}
The rings of $\operatorname{SL}(V)$ invariants of configurations of vectors
and linear forms in a finite-dimensional complex vector space $V$
were explicitly described by Hermann Weyl in the 1930s.
We show that when $V$ is $3$-dimensional, each of these rings carries
a natural cluster algebra structure (typically, many of them) whose cluster
variables include Weyl's generators.
We describe and explore these cluster structures using the
combinatorial machinery of tensor diagrams.
A~key role is played by the web bases introduced by G.~Kuperberg.
\end{abstract}
\ \vspace{-.1in}
\maketitle
\vspace{-.3in}
\tableofcontents
\usection{Introduction}
Homogeneous coordinate rings of Grassmannians
are among the most important examples of
cluster algebras.
Cluster structures in these rings \cite{gsv1, scott}
play a prominent role in applications of
cluster theory arising in connection with
integrable systems,
algebraic Lie theory,
Poisson geometry,
Teichm\"uller theory,
total positivity,
and beyond;
see, e.g., \cite{gls-lie, gsv-book, grabowski-launois,
keller-triangulated, kodama-williams} and references therein.
Within cluster algebra theory proper, Grassmannians provide the most concrete
and accessible examples of naturally defined cluster algebras
of infinite mutation type.
Despite their importance, cluster structures on
Grassmannians are not well understood at all,
apart from a few special cases.
Just a tiny subset of their cluster variables have been explicitly
described;
we do not know which quivers appear in their seeds;
we do not understand the structure of their underlying cluster
complexes; and so on.
Let $\operatorname{Gr}_{k,N}$ denote the Grassmann manifold
of $k$-subspaces in an $N$-dimensional complex vector space.
The corresponding cluster algebra
has finite type (i.e., has finitely
many seeds) if and only if $(k-2)(N-k-2)\le 3$.
All of the problems mentioned above are open for any Grassmannian of
infinite cluster type, so in particular for
$k=3$, $N\ge 9$.
(The case $k=2$ has been well understood since the early days of
cluster algebras, see~\cite[Section~12.2]{ca2}.)
We advocate the point of view that many aspects of cluster
structures on Grassmannians are best understood within a broader
range of examples coming from classical invariant theory.
Recall that the homogeneous coordinate ring
of~$\operatorname{Gr}_{k,N}$
(with respect to a Pl\"ucker embedding)
is isomorphic to the ring of $\operatorname{SL}(V)$ invariants of
$N$-tuples of vectors in a
$k$-dimensional complex vector space~$V$.
More general rings of $\operatorname{SL}(V)$ invariants of
collections of vectors and linear forms have been thoroughly studied
by classical invariant theory.
We conjecture that \emph{every such ring carries a natural cluster algebra
structure}.
In fact, there are typically many such structures,
depending on a choice of a cyclic ordering of the tuples of vectors and
covectors.
In this paper, we prove this claim in the special case when $V$ is
$3$-dimensional.
Our main result (Theorem~\ref{th:main}) describes a family of cluster
structures in the rings of $\operatorname{SL}_3$-invariants of collections of
vectors and covectors in~$V\cong\CC^3$.
The cluster structure (and moreover the mutation type of the
corresponding quiver) depends on the choice of a \emph{cyclic
signature}, a binary word describing the order in which vectors
and covectors are arranged around a circle.
An accurate formulation of this result requires a description of (some
of) the seeds defining the cluster structure in question;
this in turn relies on the development of fairly technical
combinatorial vocabulary, not to mention the requisite background on
cluster algebras, tensor calculus, and basic invariant theory.
This makes it impractical to include the precise statement of our main
result in this introduction.
What makes the case $k=3$ special, and amenable to combinatorial
approaches that cannot be straightforwardly generalized to higher
dimensions?
{}From our perspective,
the distinguishing characteristic of the $3$-dimensional case
is the existence of a beautiful
\emph{web basis} discovered by Greg Kuperberg~\cite{kuperberg}.
Our investigations were largely motivated by the desire to understand
the cluster-theoretic significance of Kuperberg's basis.
The main new feature of our approach is an emphasis on the
multiplicative properties of the web basis,
which along with its compatibility with tensor contraction
play a central role in the study of
cluster algebra structures in these rings of invariants.
While all of our results hold for arbitrary rings of
$\operatorname{SL}_3$-invariants, with an (almost) arbitrary cyclic ordering of
vectors and covectors,
many of our theorems are new already in the case of Grassmannians
$\operatorname{Gr}_{3,N}$.
The list of such results includes:
\begin{itemize}
\item a large family of new ``non-Pl\"ucker'' cluster variables;
\item
compatibility of cluster structures across different values of~$N$;
\item
examples of ``imaginary'' elements in the web basis;
\item
examples of negative
structure constants;
\item
a description of clusters associated with arbitrary
triangulations of an $N$-gon.
\end{itemize}
The latter description extends a construction given by
J.~Scott~\cite{scott}, and
suggests an extension to
other Riemann surfaces, which we plan to pursue in a separate~paper.
We describe conjectural ways in which each cluster structure in a
classical ring of $\operatorname{SL}_3$-invariants is
intrinsically determined by
the corresponding web basis.
We believe that this type of relationship extends to many other
settings in which
multiplicative properties of some distinguished additive
basis in a given commutative ring
dictate a ``canonical'' choice of a cluster structure
in the ring.
We also believe that, conversely, each cluster algebra
of geometric type has an
additive basis with certain remarkable properties; see
Conjecture~\ref{conj:A-and-B}.
Perhaps most significantly, we formulate a conjectural combinatorial
description (see Conjecture~\ref{conj:cluster-variables-are-trees})
of \emph{all} cluster variables in each of our cluster algebras.
To the best of our knowledge,
this is the first class of cluster algebras of infinite
mutation type for which such a description has been proposed.
\smallskip
\centerline{------------}
\smallskip
We next outline the general plan of the paper,
and review the contents of each section.
Sections~\ref{sec:tensors}--\ref{sec:webs} cover the requisite
background, some of which may be familiar to the reader.
Section~\ref{sec:tensors} is a reminder
on the basic notions of tensor calculus.
Section~\ref{sec:rings-of-invariants} introduces our main object of
study, the ring $R_{a,b}(V)$ of $\operatorname{SL}(V)$ invariants of collections of
$b$~vectors and $a$~covectors
(i.e., linear forms) in a complex vector space~$V$.
Fundamentals of cluster algebras are reviewed in
Section~\ref{sec:cluster-algebras}.
We limit ourselves to the case of cluster algebras defined by
quivers,
as this is all the generality we need.
At the end of the section, we state sufficient conditions
that ensure that a particular seed, i.e., a quiver whose vertices are
labeled by elements of a given ring~$R$,
defines a cluster algebra structure in~$R$.
Starting with Section~\ref{sec:tensor-diagrams},
we assume that the space~$V$ is $3$-dimensional.
Section~\ref{sec:tensor-diagrams} is a primer on \emph{tensor
diagrams},
a particular kind of combinatorial gadgets
that can be used to define $\operatorname{SL}(V)$ invariants.
This diagrammatic calculus,
popular among physicists, has the advantage of reducing cumbersome
calculations with tensors and invariants
to repeated applications of certain (purely
combinatorial) local transformation rules called skein relations.
Section~\ref{sec:webs} presents
the crown jewel of the theory of tensor diagrams: Kuperberg's
construction of the web basis in $R_{a,b}(V)$.
This basis, which depends on
a choice of a cyclic signature, consists of \emph{web invariants},
the $\operatorname{SL}(V)$ invariants defined
by planar tensor diagrams without short internal cycles.
Sections~\ref{sec:special-invariants} and~\ref{sec:special-seeds}
introduce the key combinatorial construction of the paper:
a family of ``special seeds'' designed to define a cluster structure
in~$R_{a,b}(V)$.
In Section~\ref{sec:special-invariants}, we describe the ``special
invariants'' that appear in those seeds, and state their basic
properties.
We then explain in Section~\ref{sec:special-seeds} how each triangulation
of a convex $(a+b)$-gon gives rise to an extended cluster consisting
of $\dim(R_{a,b}(V))=3(a+b)-8$ special invariants,
and to a quiver whose vertices are labeled by them.
An impatient reader unwilling to labor through the rather intricate
technicalities of this construction may decide to skip the details,
and go directly to Section~\ref{sec:main-theorem}.
Sections~\ref{sec:main-theorem}--\ref{sec:zoo} present the main
results and conjectures of the paper.
(The proofs are deferred until later.)
The main theorem (Theorem~\ref{th:main}) asserts that each of the
special seeds described in Section~\ref{sec:special-seeds} defines a cluster
algebra structure in the ring of invariants~$R_{a,b}(V)$.
This cluster structure is independent of the choice of
such a seed; in other words, all special seeds are mutation
equivalent. The cluster structure does however depend on the choice of
a signature. In fact, this choice affects the (cluster) type of the resulting
cluster algebra, and whether it is of finite or infinite type
(resp., finite or infinite mutation type).
This can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:boundary-signatures-5678} that lists
the cluster types of~$R_{a,b}(V)$ for all signatures with
$a+b\le 8$.
Our main construction has nice functoriality properties:
it is preserved by the duality between vectors and covectors,
and respected by
the natural embeddings of smaller invariant rings into larger ones,
induced by the forgetful maps (dropping a (co)vector
from a collection) or the maps defined by taking a
cross product of two consecutive (co)vectors.
As a corollary, we establish that if a tensor
diagram is a planar tree, then the corresponding web invariant is a
cluster or coefficient variable.
In Section~\ref{sec:main-conjectures},
we discuss many conjectural connections between our main construction
and Kuperberg's web basis.
In particular, we expect this basis to contain all cluster monomials.
Furthermore,
we expect two cluster variables to be compatible if and only if their
product is a web invariant.
We formulate criteria that should distinguish cluster
variables/monomials among more general web invariants.
While the web basis has many wonderful properties,
it \emph{may} have negative structure constants
(cf.\ Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong-positivity}
and Proposition~\ref{prop:negative-structure-const}).
This is perhaps not so surprising in light of the discovery, made by
M.~Khovanov and G.~Kuperberg~\cite{khovanov-kuperberg},
that the web basis is generally different from the \emph{dual canonical
basis}, i.e., the basis dual to G.~Lusztig's canonical
basis~\cite{lusztig-quantum-groups}.
Putting things into a cluster-theoretic context allows us to
``explain'' the Khovanov-Kuperberg smallest counterexample:
it corresponds to the square of the simplest web invariant which is
not a cluster variable.
As established by B.~Leclerc \cite{leclerc-reims} and
P.~Lampe~\cite{lampe}, for the cluster type at hand the appropriate
element of the dual canonical basis is given by the quadratic
Chebyshev polynomial of the second kind. Using the Chebyshev
polynomial of the first kind recovers the corresponding element of the
``atomic'' basis of P.~Sherman and
A.~Zelevinsky~\cite{sherman-zelevinsky}, while the square lies in the
\emph{dual semicanonical basis}, see~\cite{gls-semicanonical,
lusztig-semicanonical}. It is
then natural to ask: Does the web basis always coincide with the
appropriate dual semicanonical (or ``generic'') basis, in the sense of
\cite{gls-semicanonical, gls-jams}?
Section~\ref{sec:arborization} begins by our favorite conjecture of
the paper
(Conjecture~\ref{conj:cluster-variables-are-trees}) that
describes, in simple combinatorial terms, the entire set of
cluster monomials
in~$R_{a,b}(V)$.
According to this conjecture, a cluster monomial is an $\operatorname{SL}(V)$
invariant that possesses two alternative presentations by a single
tensor diagram:
first, by a (planar, non-elliptic) web;
second, by a (possibly non-planar) forest.
If, in addition, this invariant does not factor
(so that this forest is actually a tree),
then the invariant is a cluster or coefficient variable.
We then present an explicit \emph{arborization} algorithm that
conjecturally detects whether a given web defines a cluster monomial
(resp., a cluster or coefficient variable) by applying a sequence of
skein relations that either transform the web into a forest (resp., tree),
or else determine that this is impossible.
Section~\ref{sec:zoo} presents a gallery of fairly complicated
examples of webs illustrating various phenomena that we
discovered. These include: non-arborizable webs, both
``real'' and ``imaginary'' (in the sense of
B.~Leclerc~\cite{leclerc});
``fake'' exchange relations involving web invariants;
and the aforementioned negative structure constants.
Sections~\ref{sec:special-proofs}--\ref{sec:other-proofs} contain the
proofs of the results stated in
Sections~\ref{sec:special-invariants}--\ref{sec:main-theorem}
and~\ref{sec:arborization}.
Specifically, the properties of special invariants and special seeds
formulated in
Sections~\ref{sec:special-invariants}--\ref{sec:special-seeds} are
proved in
Sections~\ref{sec:special-proofs}--\ref{sec:properties-of-special-seeds}.
The construction of the quiver associated with a special seed defined
by an arbitrary triangulation is outlined in
Section~\ref{sec:building-a-quiver}.
The main Theorem~\ref{th:main} is proved in
Section~\ref{sec:proof-main}.
Other results stated in Sections~\ref{sec:main-theorem}
and~\ref{sec:arborization} are proved in
Section~\ref{sec:other-proofs}.
The
last two sections
play the role of appendices.
Section~\ref{sec:T-fan} describes, in precise combinatorial terms,
the construction of a special seed associated with a particular choice
of a triangulation. This is in principle sufficient to identify a
cluster structure in the ring~$R_{a,b}(V)$ once the main theorem has
been proved.
Section~\ref{sec:examples-of-seeds} shows a couple of additional
examples of special seeds, illustrating the main construction.
The paper contains a large number of pictures,
which are best viewed in \darkred{color}.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
We were influenced in our work
by the research of many friends and colleagues
on the subject of cluster algebras.
We are grateful to
Arkady Berenstein,
Thomas Lam,
Bernard Leclerc,
Jan Schr\"oer,
David Speyer,
and Andrei Zelevinsky
for helpful advice and stimulating discussions.
We thank Bernard Leclerc and Gregg Musiker for their comments on the
earlier version of the paper.
Our main sources of inspiration outside cluster theory
included the timeless texts by H.~Weyl \cite{weyl}
and V.~Popov--E.~Vinberg~\cite{popov-vinberg}
on the foundations of classical invariant theory;
the pioneering work by G.~Kuperberg~\cite{kuperberg} on the web bases;
and the groundbreaking paper by V.~Fock and A.~Goncharov~\cite{fg-convex}
on
$\operatorname{PGL}_3$-Teich\-m\"uller~spaces.
We are grateful to
Igor Dolgachev,
Rob Lazarsfeld,
Ivan Losev,
Ezra Miller,
and
Mircea Musta\c{t}\u{a}
for answering some of our questions on classical invariant theory.
Our work on this paper began and ended at the Mathematical Sciences
Research Institute in Berkeley, CA.
It started in 2008 during MSRI's
Combinatorial Representation Theory program,
and was completed in 2012 during the Cluster Algebras
program.
We are grateful to MSRI for an excellent work environment.
The main results of this paper were first reported at
the Hausdorff Institute (Bonn)
and the Abel Symposium (Balestrand) in April and June 2011,
respectively.
The first author thanks the organizers of these events
for their hospitality and support.
\pagebreak[3]
\usection{Preliminaries}
\section{Tensors}
\label{sec:tensors}
Let $V$ be a $k$-dimensional complex vector space.
The word \emph{vector} will always refer to an element of~$V$.
The elements of the dual space $V^*$ (the linear forms on~$V$) are
called \emph{covectors}.
A \emph{tensor} $T$ of \emph{type} $(a,b)$ is an element of the tensor product
\[
\underbrace{V\otimes \cdots \otimes V}_\text{$a$ copies} \otimes
\underbrace{V^*\otimes \cdots \otimes V^*}_\text{$b$ copies}\,,
\]
or alternatively a multilinear map
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:multilinear-map}
T: \underbrace{V^*\times \cdots \times V^*}_\text{$a$ copies} \times
\underbrace{V\times \cdots \times V}_\text{$b$ copies}
\longrightarrow \CC.
\end{equation}
In this paper, we consistently use the latter viewpoint.
We will also need a slight notational variation
that allows an arbitrary ordering
of the \emph{contravariant} arguments of $T$ (vectors in~$V$)
and its \emph{covariant} arguments (covectors in~$V^*$).
The simplest examples of tensors are vectors (linear forms on $V^*$)
and covectors (linear forms on~$V$);
they have types $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$, respectively.
Tensors of type~$(1,1)$ are cryptomorphic to linear operators in
$\operatorname{End(V)}$.
Indeed, a tensor $T:V^*\times V\to\CC$ corresponds to a linear map
$V\to (V^*)^*\cong V$ that sends $v\in V$
to the linear form on $V^*$ given by $u^*\mapsto T(u^*,v)$.
The \emph{identity tensor} $I$ is the type $(1,1)$ tensor that corresponds
to the identity operator on~$V$.
One can accordingly define the \emph{trace} of a type $(1,1)$ tensor,
denoted by $\operatorname{Tr}(T)$.
For example, $\operatorname{Tr}(I)=\dim(V)=k$.
The $k$th exterior power of $V^*$ is one-dimensional.
Let us fix an element in $\wedge^k V^*$,
a \emph{volume form} on~$V$.
The corresponding \emph{volume tensor} $\operatorname{vol}:V^k\to\CC$ has type $(0,k)$.
Its evaluation $\operatorname{vol}(v_1,\dots,v_k)$
is the oriented volume of the parallelotope with sides $v_1,\dots,v_k$.
The \emph{dual volume tensor} $\operatorname{vol}^*$ of type $(k,0)$ is defined by the
identity
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:two-volume-forms}
\operatorname{vol}(v_1,\dots,v_k) \operatorname{vol}^*(u^*_1,\dots,u^*_k)
=\det(u^*_j(v_i))_{\substack{1\le i\le k\\ 1\le j\le k}}
\,.
\end{equation}
Let $T$ and $U$ be tensors of types $(a,b)$ and $(c,d)$, respectively.
The \emph{tensor product} $T\otimes U$ is a tensor of type $(a+c,b+d)$
defined by
\begin{align*}
&(T\otimes U)(u_1^*,\dots,u_{a+c}^*; v_1,\dots,v_{b+d})\\
&=T(u_1^*,\dots,u_a^*; v_1,\dots,v_b)
\,\cdot\, U(u_{a+1}^*,\dots,u_{a+c}^*; v_{b+1},\dots,v_{b+d}).
\end{align*}
In some instances, the arguments of $T$ and $U$ are re-shuffled in the process,
resulting in different variants of the notion of a tensor product.
We will also need the concept of a \emph{contraction} of a tensor with respect
to a pair of arguments of opposite variance, i.e., a vector argument and a
covector argument.
For a tensor $T$ of type $(a,b)$ given by~\eqref{eq:multilinear-map},
its contraction with respect to, say,
the first covariant and the first contravariant arguments is the type
$(a-1,b-1)$
tensor $T'$ obtained by viewing $T$ as the function of those two arguments
(temporarily fixing all the rest) and evaluating the trace of the resulting
tensor:
\[
T'(v_2^*,\dots,v_a^*;u_2,\dots,u_b)
=\operatorname{Tr}(T(\bullet,v_2^*,\dots,v_a^*;\bullet,u_2,\dots,u_b)).
\]
One can also define a contraction of two tensors with respect to
a contravariant argument of one of them and a covariant argument of another.
The result is obtained by first computing the tensor product
of the two tensors, then contracting as above.
\begin{example}
\ \\
\textbf{1.}
Contracting a vector $v$ and a covector $u^*$ produces a scalar $u^*(v)$.
More generally, an $(a+b)$-fold contraction of a type $(a,b)$ tensor~$T$
against
an ordered collection of $a$ covectors and $b$ vectors returns the evaluation
of $T$ at this collection.
\\
\textbf{2.}
Contracting the two arguments of a type $(1,1)$ tensor against each other
yields
the trace of the corresponding linear operator. \\
\textbf{3.}
Given two tensors of type $(1,1)$, contracting a contravariant argument
of one tensor against the covariant argument of the other tensor corresponds to
composition of respective linear operators. \\
\textbf{4.}
Two-fold contraction of two such tensors (matching each contravariant argument
to the covariant argument of the other tensor) yields the trace of the product
of the corresponding linear operators. \\
\textbf{5.}
A $k$-fold contraction of the volume tensor against its dual yields the
scalar~$k!$.
\end{example}
All of the above can be recast in the basis-dependent
language of coordinates and matrices, once we designate
a ``standard'' basis $(\ee_1,\dots,\ee_k)$ in~$V$ satisfying
\[
\operatorname{vol}(\ee_1,\dots,\ee_k)=1.
\]
(Note that in view of~\eqref{eq:two-volume-forms}, the dual basis
$(\ee^*_1,\dots,\ee^*_k)$ in~$V^*$ has the similar property:
\[
\operatorname{vol}^*(\ee^*_1,\dots,\ee^*_k)=1.)
\]
After a standard basis has been chosen,
tensors of type $(a,b)$ become $(a+b)$-dimensional arrays of complex scalars
(the \emph{components} of a tensor)
indexed by tuples of $a$ ``row indices''
and $b$ ``column indices;''
each index takes values from 1 to~$k$.
In particular, vectors become column vectors (with $k$ components),
covectors become row vectors,
tensors of type~$(1,1)$ become $k\times k$ matrices, and so on.
The trace becomes the usual trace of a matrix.
The evaluation of a volume tensor at a $k$-tuple of column vectors
is given by the determinant of a square matrix formed by placing them
side-by-side
in the given order.
The contraction of a tensor with respect to a row index and a column index is
obtained
by summing over all assignments of matching values to these two indices.
In coordinate notation described above, the identity tensor is given by
the identity matrix $(\delta_{ij})$, also known as
the \emph{Kronecker symbol}.
In \emph{Einstein notation}, commonly used in physics, the row indices are
placed as superscripts while column indices appear as subscripts;
one then writes the Kronecker symbol as~$\delta^i_j\,$.
The volume tensor on $V$ is given in the coordinates associated with the
standard
basis as the \emph{Levi-Civita symbol} $(\varepsilon_{i_1,\dots,i_k})$
defined by
\[
\varepsilon_{i_1,\dots,i_k}
=\begin{cases}
\text{the sign of the permutation $(i_1,\dots,i_k)$} & \text{if
$i_1,\dots,i_k$ are all distinct;}\\
0 & \text{otherwise. }
\end{cases}
\]
The dual volume tensor on $V^*$ is given by the same symbol
(denoted $(\varepsilon^{i_1,\dots,i_k})$ in Einstein notation).
\section
$\operatorname{SL}(V)$ invariants}
\label{sec:rings-of-invariants}
The special linear group $\operatorname{SL}(V)$ naturally acts
on both~$V$ and~$V^*$;
to make the latter a left action, one sets $(gu^*)(v)=u^*(g^{-1}(v))$,
for $v\in V$, $u^*\in V^*$, and $g\in\operatorname{SL}(V)$.
The group $\operatorname{SL}(V)$ consequently acts on the vector space
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:product-of-spaces}
(V^*)^a\times V^b
=\underbrace{V^*\times \cdots \times V^*}_\text{$a$ copies} \times
\underbrace{V\times \cdots \times V}_\text{$b$ copies}\,,
\end{equation}
and therefore on its coordinate (polynomial) ring.
In this paper, we focus our attention
on the ring
\[
R_{a,b}(V)=\CC[(V^*)^a\times V^b]^{\operatorname{SL}(V)}
\]
of $\operatorname{SL}(V)$-invariant polynomials on $(V^*)^a\times V^b$.
In coordinate notation, this ring is described as follows.
Consider two matrices filled with indeterminates:
the matrix $y\!=\!(y_{ij})$ of size $a\!\times\! k$ and
the matrix $x\!=\!(x_{ij})$ of size $k\!\times\! b$.
The ring $R_{a,b}(V)$ consists of polynomials in these $(a\!+\!b)k$
variables which are invariant under the transformation that
simultaneously replaces $x$ by $gx$, and $y$ by $yg^{-1}$,
for any matrix $g\in\operatorname{SL}_k(\CC)$.
One example of such polynomial is a \emph{Pl\"ucker coordinate}~$P_J$
where $J$ is a $k$-element subset of columns in~$x$;
by definition, $P_J$ is the $k\times k$ minor of~$x$ obtained by
selecting the columns in~$J$.
(In coordinate-free terms, we evaluate the volume tensor
on the $k$-element subset, labeled by~$J$,
of the last $b$ factors in~\eqref{eq:product-of-spaces}.)
One similarly defines the ``dual'' Pl\"ucker coordinate~$P_I^*$,
for $I$ a $k$-element subset of rows,
as the corresponding maximal minor of~$y$.
Another example of an $\operatorname{SL}(V)$ invariant is a bilinear
form $Q_{ij}=\sum_\ell y_{i \ell} x_{\ell j} $
where $i$ is a row index for~$y$, and $j$ a column index for~$x$;
thus, this invariant is obtained by pairing a particular
$V^*$ factor in~\eqref{eq:product-of-spaces} with a~$V$ factor.
The ring $R_{a,b}(V)$ is one of the archetypal objects of classical
invariant theory; see, e.g., \cite[Chapter~2]{dolgachev},
\cite{kraft-procesi, li, olver},
\hbox{\cite[\S9]{popov-vinberg}},
\cite[Section~11]{procesi-textbook},
\cite{stur, weyl}.
It was explicitly described by Hermann Weyl~\cite{weyl}
in the 1930s in terms of generators and relations.
The First Fundamental Theorem of invariant theory states that
the ring $R_{a,b}(V)$ is generated by the following multilinear
polynomials (tensors):
\begin{itemize}
\item
the $\binom{a}{k}$ (``dual'') Pl\"ucker coordinates~$P_I^*$,
\item
the $\binom{b}{k}$ Pl\"ucker coordinates~$P_J$, and
\item
the $ab$ pairings $Q_{ij}$\,.
\end{itemize}
Thus, in a sense, all $\operatorname{SL}(V)$ invariants are
obtained from three fundamental ones:
the volume tensors on $V$ and~$V^*$, and the identity tensor.
Weyl also described the ideal of relations among the generators
$P_I^*$, $P_J$, and~$Q_{ij}$.
His Second Fundamental Theorem, which we will not rely upon,
states that this ideal is generated by the quadratic
\emph{Grassmann-Pl\"ucker relations} for the~$P_I^*$'s,
the similar relations for the~$P_J$'s,
and the non-homogeneous (for $k\neq 2$) relations
$
P_I^* P_J=\det(Q_{ij})_{i\in I, j\in J}
$
(cf.~\eqref{eq:two-volume-forms}).
\iffalse
classical linear algebraic groups
acting in various spaces of tensors .
The central example of this theory---at least from our current
perspective---is the ring of $\operatorname{SL}(V)$ invariants of $n$-tuples of vectors
in a $k$-dimensional complex vector space~$V$.
The \emph{first fundamental theorem of invariant theory} asserts that this ring
is generated by the $\binom{n}{k}$ invariants...
\fi
The First Fundamental Theorem implies that the ring $R_{0,b}(V)$
is isomorphic to
the homogeneous coordinate ring $\CC[\operatorname{Gr}_{k,b}]$ of the
Grassmann manifold $\operatorname{Gr}_{k,b}$ of $k$-dimensional subspaces
in~$\CC^b$ with respect to its Pl\"ucker
embedding (see, e.g., \cite[Corollary~2.3]{dolgachev}).
It is not hard to show that $R_{1,b}(V)$ is isomorphic to the
homogeneous coordinate ring of the two-step partial flag manifold
\[
\{
(V_1,V_k) : V_1\in\operatorname{Gr}_{1,b}, V_k\in\operatorname{Gr}_{k,b}
\}.
\]
We do not know a similar interpretation of $R_{a,b}(V)$ for
general values of $a$ and~$b$.
In our discussions of the spaces $R_{a,b}(V)$,
it will be important to distinguish between their incarnations that
involve different orderings of the contravariant and covariant
arguments.
To this end, we will use the notion of a \emph{signature},
a word in the alphabet $\{\bullet,\circ\}$ that reflects the
order of the $a+b$ arguments of an invariant~$f$.
Specifically, each of the $a$ factors $V^*$ will be represented by the
symbol~$\circ$, and each of the $b$ factors $V$ by the
symbol~$\bullet$.
Thus for example an $SL(V)$-invariant polynomial
\[
f: V^*\times V\times V\times V^* \to \CC
\]
is an invariant of signature $\sigma=[\circ\bullet\bullet\,\circ]$.
We denote by $R_\sigma(V)$ the ring of $\operatorname{SL}(V)$ invariants of
signature~$\sigma$.
If $\sigma$ consists of $a$ copies of~$\circ$ and $b$ copies of~$\bullet$,
we say that it has \emph{type} $(a,b)$.
Thus for $\sigma$ of type~$(a,b)$, we have
$R_\sigma(V)\cong R_{a,b}(V)$.
The natural action of the $(a+b)$-dimensional torus defines
a multi-grading of the ring $R_\sigma(V)\cong R_{a,b}(V)$.
If an invariant~$f\in R_\sigma(V)$ is multi-homogeneous of degrees
$d_1,\dots,d_{a+b}$ in its $a+b$ arguments,
we then call the tuple
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:multideg}
\operatorname{multideg}(f)=
(d_1,\dots,d_{a+b})
\end{equation}
the \emph{multidegree} of~$f$.
For example,
the Pl\"ucker coordinate $P_{\{1,\dots,k\}}\in R_{0,b}(V)$
has multidegree $(1,\dots,1,0,\dots,0)$ (the first $k$ entries are~1's).
There are known combinatorial formulas
for the dimensions of multigraded components of the ring~$R_{a,b}(V)$
in terms of the iterated
Littlewood-Richarsdon Rule.
In some cases, more explicit formulas can be given.
For example, the multilinear component of $R_{0,b}(V)$
(i.e., the space of $\operatorname{SL}_k$-invariant $b$-covariant
tensors in~$\CC^k$) is only nontrivial when $k$ divides~$b$;
if it does, then the dimension of this space is equal to the number of standard Young
tableaux of rectangular shape $k\times \frac{b}{k}$.
As such, this dimension is given by the hooklength formula.
\iffalse
We will need the following basic properties of invariant rings.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:properties-of-inv-rings}
Let $\mathcal{V}$ be a finite-dimensional complex vector space,
and $G\subset\operatorname{GL}(\mathcal{V})$ a reductive
algebraic group.
Then the algebra of invariants $S(\mathcal{V})^G$ is a finitely
generated normal domain.
If $G=\operatorname{SL}(\mathcal{V})$, then $S(\mathcal{V})^G$ is
a unique factorization domain.
\end{lemma}
\fi
Being a subring of a polynomial ring, $R_{a,b}(V)$ is a domain.
By~(the modern version of) Hilbert's theorem,
it is finitely generated; as mentioned above,
H.~Weyl~\cite{weyl} described the generators explicitly.
Finally, the ring $R_{a,b}(V)$ is factorial:
\begin{lemma}[see \cite{popov-vinberg}, Theorem~3.17]
\label{lem:properties-of-RabV}
The algebra of invariants $R_{a,b}(V)$ is a finitely
generated unique factorization domain.
\end{lemma}
\pagebreak[3]
\section{Cluster algebras
}
\label{sec:cluster-algebras}
This section offers a quick
introduction to cluster
algebras, limited in scope to the immediate needs of our project.
Further details on cluster algebra fundamentals can be found
in~\cite{ca1, ca2, ca4}.
The only non-standard material in this section is
Proposition~\ref{prop:cluster-criterion}
(and its Corollary~\ref{cor:cluster-criterion})
which provides a test for verifying that
a given set of algebraic/combinatorial data inside a commutative ring
makes the latter into a cluster algebra.
Cluster algebras are a class of commutative rings endowed with a
combinatorial structure of a particular kind.
The concept can be defined in varying degrees of \linebreak[3]
generality. In this paper,
we will only need the notion of a cluster algebra which
(i)~is of \emph{geometric type}, (ii)~has $\CC$ as its field of scalars,
and (iii)~has \emph{skew-symmetric exchange matrices}.
To simplify terminology, we call such gadgets ``cluster algebras''
without further qualifications.
\iffalse
A cluster algebra is built inside an ambient field $\Fcal$ of rational
functions in the variables of an initial \emph{extended cluster}
$\{x_1,\dots,x_n,x_{n+1},\dots,x_m\}$.
The indeterminates $x_1,\dots,x_n$ are the initial \emph{cluster variables};
$x_{n+1},\dots,x_m$ are the \emph{coefficient} (or \emph{frozen})
\emph{variables}.
\fi
The combinatorial data defining a cluster algebra are encoded in a
\emph{quiver}~$Q$, a finite oriented loopless graph
with no oriented 2-cycles.
Some vertices of $Q$ are designated as
\emph{mutable};
the remaining ones are called \emph{frozen}.
\begin{definition}
Let $z$ be a mutable vertex in a quiver~$Q$.
The \emph{quiver mutation} $\mu_z$ transforms $Q$ into the new
quiver~$Q'=\mu_z(Q)$ via a sequence of three steps.
At the first step, for each pair of directed edges $x\to z\to y$
passing through~$z$, introduce a new edge $x\to y$ (unless both
$x$ and~$y$ are frozen, in which case do nothing).
At the second step, reverse the direction of all edges incident
to~$z$.
At the third step, repeatedly remove oriented 2-cycles
until unable to do~so. See Figure~\ref{fig:quiver-mutation}.
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1.8pt}
\begin{picture}(40,15)(0,4)
\put( 0,0){\makebox(0,0){$x$}}
\put(20,0){\makebox(0,0){$y$}}
\put(0,20){\makebox(0,0){$u$}}
\put(20,20){\makebox(0,0){$z$}}
\put(40,20){\makebox(0,0){$v$}}
\thicklines
\put(16,0){\vector(-1,0){12}}
\put(16,20){\vector(-1,0){12}}
\put(36,20){\vector(-1,0){12}}
\put(20,16){\vector(0,-1){12}}
\put(0,4){\vector(0,1){12}}
\put(3,3){\vector(1,1){14}}
\end{picture}
\qquad$\stackrel{\displaystyle\mu_z}{\longmapsto}$\qquad
\begin{picture}(40,15)(0,4)
\put( 0,0){\makebox(0,0){$x$}}
\put(20,0){\makebox(0,0){$y$}}
\put(0,20){\makebox(0,0){$u$}}
\put(20,20){\makebox(0,0){$z'$}}
\put(40,20){\makebox(0,0){$v$}}
\thicklines
\put(4,20){\vector(1,0){12}}
\put(24,20){\vector(1,0){12}}
\put(-1.3,4){\vector(0,1){12}}
\put(1.3,4){\vector(0,1){12}}
\put(20,4){\vector(0,1){12}}
\put(17,17){\vector(-1,-1){14}}
\put(37,17){\vector(-1,-1){14}}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{A quiver mutation. Vertices $u$ and $v$ are frozen.}
\label{fig:quiver-mutation}
\end{figure}
Quiver mutations can be iterated \emph{ad infinitum},
using an arbitrary sequence of mutable vertices of an evolving
quiver.
This combinatorial dynamics drives the algebraic
dynamics of \emph{seed mutations} that we describe next.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:seeds}
Let~$\Fcal$ be a field containing~$\CC$.
A \emph{seed} in~$\Fcal$ is a pair $(Q,\mathbf{z})$
consisting of a quiver~$Q$ as above together with
a collection~$\mathbf{z}$, called an \emph{extended cluster},
consisting of algebraically independent (over~$\CC$)
elements of~$\Fcal$, one for each vertex of~$Q$.
The elements of~$\mathbf{z}$ associated with the mutable
vertices are called \emph{cluster variables}; they form a
\emph{cluster}.
The elements associated with the frozen vertices are called
\emph{frozen variables}, or \emph{coefficient variables}.
A~\emph{seed mutation}~$\mu_z$ at a mutable vertex associated with
a cluster variable~$z$
transforms $(Q,\mathbf{z})$ into the seed $(Q',\mathbf{z}')=\mu_z(Q,\mathbf{z})$ defined as
follows.
The new quiver is $Q'=\mu_z(Q).$
The new extended cluster is
$\mathbf{z}'\!=\!\mathbf{z}\cup\{z'\}\setminus\{z\}$
where the new cluster variable~$z'$ replacing $z$ is determined by the
\emph{exchange relation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:exchange-relation}
z\,z'=
\prod_{z\leftarrow y} y
+\prod_{z\rightarrow
} y\,.
\end{equation}
(The two products are over the edges directed at and from~$z$, respectively.)
\end{definition}
To illustrate, the exchange relation associated with the quiver mutation
$\mu_z$ shown in Figure~\ref{fig:quiver-mutation} is $zz'=vx+uy$,
while applying $\mu_x$ to the quiver on the right would invoke the
exchange relation~$xx'=z'+u^2$.
We note that the mutated seed $(Q',\mathbf{z}')$ contains the same
coefficient variables as the original seed $(Q,\mathbf{z})$.
It is easy to check that one can recover $(Q,\mathbf{z})$
from $(Q',\mathbf{z}')$ by performing a seed mutation at~$z'$.
Definition~\ref{def:seeds} deviates from the usual
convention of using the field of rational functions~$\CC(\mathbf{z})$
as the ambient field~$\Fcal$.
This distinction is inconsequential since, as we shall see,
all the action is taking place inside~$\CC(\mathbf{z})$.
\begin{definition}[\emph{Cluster algebra}]
\label{def:cluster-algebra}
Two seeds that can be obtained from each other by a sequence of
mutations are called \emph{mutation-equivalent}.
The \emph{cluster algebra $\Acal(Q,\mathbf{z})$} associated to a seed
$(Q,\mathbf{z})$ is defined as the subring of $\Fcal$
generated by
all elements of all extended clusters of the seeds mutation-equivalent
to~$(Q,\mathbf{z})$.
\end{definition}
Thus, to construct a cluster algebra, one begins with an arbitrary
\emph{initial seed} $(Q,\mathbf{z})$ in~$\Fcal$, repeatedly applies
seed mutations in all possible directions, and takes the $\CC$-subalgebra
generated by all elements of~$\Fcal$ appearing in all seeds produced by this
recursive process.
Note that the above construction of $\Acal(Q,\mathbf{z})$ does not depend, up
to a natural isomorphism, on the choice of the extended cluster~$\mathbf{z}$:
everything, save for the embedding of the resulting cluster
algebra into~$\Fcal$, is determined by the initial quiver~$Q$,
and indeed by its mutation equivalence class.
The \emph{rank} of a cluster algebra $\Acal(Q,\mathbf{z})$
is the number of cluster variables in each of its seeds,
or equivalently the number of mutable vertices in each of its
quivers.
When a quiver $Q$ undergoes a mutation,
its mutable part (that is, the induced subquiver on the set of mutable
vertices) does so, too.
Thus the mutable parts of the quivers at different seeds of a given
cluster algebra~$\Acal$ are all mutation equivalent.
This mutation equivalence class determines the (cluster) \emph{type}
of~$\Acal$.
The same ring can be endowed with cluster structures of different
type; see, e.g., \cite[Example~12.10]{ca2}.
Many more examples of this kind appear later in this paper.
A cluster algebra is said to be of \emph{finite type} if it has
finitely many distinct seeds.
One of the basic structural results of cluster theory is the
\emph{finite type classification}:
\begin{theorem}
[\textrm{\!\!\cite{ca2}}]
\label{th:finite-type}
A cluster algebra is of finite type if and only if it
has a quiver whose mutable part is an orientation of a disjoint union
of Dynkin diagrams.
\end{theorem}
Thus the terminology is consistent:
the property of being of finite type depends only on the
cluster type of a cluster algebra.
If a cluster algebra~$\Acal$ (say of rank~$n$)
has a quiver whose mutable part is an orientation of a
Dynkin diagram~$X_n$, then we say that $\Acal$ is ``of type~$X_n$.''
This convention applies as well to the extended Dynkin diagrams of
affine and elliptic (or extended affine) types;
see, e.g., \cite[Section~12]{cats1} for further details.
It is worth noting that all orientations of any such diagram $X_n$
are mutation equivalent whenever $X_n$ is a tree (thus in particular
in finite type).
Furthermore, orientations of non-isomorphic
diagrams are mutation inequivalent.
Another basic property of cluster algebras is the
\emph{Laurent Phenomenon}:
\begin{theorem}
[\textrm{\!\!\cite{ca1, ca2}}]
\label{th:laurent}
Any element of a cluster algebra $\Acal(Q,\mathbf{z})$ is expressed in terms of the
extended cluster~$\mathbf{z}$ as a Laurent polynomial.
Furthermore, none of the coefficient variables appears in the
denominator of this Laurent expression (reduced to lowest terms).
\end{theorem}
Since $\Acal(Q,\mathbf{z})$ is generated by cluster variables from the seeds
mutation equivalent to $(Q,\mathbf{z})$,
Theorem~\ref{th:laurent} can be restated as saying that each of those
cluster variables is given by a Laurent expression of the
aforementioned kind.
The Laurentness part of Theorem~\ref{th:laurent} is a special case
of \cite[Theorem~3.1]{ca1}.
The last statement of Theorem~\ref{th:laurent}
was established in \cite[Proposition~11.2]{ca2},
modulo a technical condition \cite[(11.3)]{ca2}
which is in fact satisfied in all applications appearing in this
paper.
This condition can be removed using
\cite[Theorem~3.7]{ca4} in combination with
\cite[Conjecture~5.4]{ca4}; the latter was proved (in the generality
considered in the current paper) in \cite[Theorem~1.7]{dwz}.
Many important rings arising in Lie theory
possess a natural structure of a cluster algebra.
The list includes homogeneous coordinate rings of
partial flag manifolds, Schubert varieties,
and double Bruhat cells in semisimple Lie groups;
see, e.g.,
\cite{ca3, cdm, gls-survey, keller-bourbaki,leclerc-icm}.
Of particular importance to us is the example of
a Grassmannian~$\operatorname{Gr}_{k,b}$.
As mentioned earlier, its homogeneous
coordinate ring (with respect to the Pl\"ucker embedding) is canonically
isomorphic to the ring $R_{0,b}(\CC^k)$
of $\operatorname{SL}_k$-invariants of configurations of $b$ vectors in a
$k$-dimensional vector space.
This ring has a natural cluster algebra structure,
first defined in J.~Scott's Ph.D.\ thesis~\cite{scott}
(cf.\ also~\cite{gsv1, gsv-book}).
It is important to note that this cluster structure
on $R_{0,b}(V)$ depends on the choice of
a cyclic ordering of the $b$ vectors;
choosing a different ordering results in a different (albeit
isomorphic) cluster structure.
\medskip
Any cluster algebra, being a subring of a field, is an integral
domain (and under our conventions, a \hbox{$\CC$-algebra}).
Conversely, given such a domain~$R$, one may be interested in
identifying $R$ as a cluster algebra.
As an ambient field~$\Fcal$,
we can always use the quotient field~$\operatorname{QF}(R)$.
The challenge is to find a seed $(Q,\mathbf{z})$ in $\operatorname{QF}(R)$ such
that $\Acal(Q,\mathbf{z})=R$.
We next present a set of conditions that are sufficient to ensure
that a particular choice of a seed solves this
problem.
Recall that an integral domain $R$ is called \emph{normal} if it is
integrally closed in~$\operatorname{QF}(R)$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:cluster-criterion}
Let $R$ be a finitely generated $\CC$-algebra and a normal domain.
Let~$(Q,\mathbf{z})$ be a seed in $\operatorname{QF}(R)$ satisfying the following
conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item
all elements of $\mathbf{z}$ belong to~$R$;
\item
the cluster variables in $\mathbf{z}$ are pairwise coprime (in~$R$);
\item
for each cluster variable $z\in\mathbf{z}$, the seed mutation~$\mu_z$
replaces $z$ with an element~$z'$
(cf.~\eqref{eq:exchange-relation})
that lies in $R$ and is coprime to~$z$.
\end{itemize}
(Here we call two elements of $R$ coprime if the locus of their common zeros
has codimension~$\ge 2$ in $\operatorname{Spec}(R)$.)
Then $R\supset\Acal(Q,\mathbf{z})$.
If, in addition, $R$ has a set of generators each of which
appears in the seeds mutation-equivalent to $(Q,\mathbf{z})$, then
$R=\Acal(Q,\mathbf{z})$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition~\ref{prop:cluster-criterion} (and
its proof given below) extends some of the ideas used in \linebreak[3]
\cite[Proof of Theorem~2.10]{ca3},
and subsequently in \cite[Proof of Proposition~7]{scott}.
The argument given below actually establishes a stronger statement:
under the conditions of Proposition~\ref{prop:cluster-criterion},
the ring~$R$ contains the \emph{upper cluster algebra}
$\overline\Acal(Q,\mathbf{z})$ (see~\cite{ca3}),
or more precisely the subalgebra of $\operatorname{QF}(R)$ consisting of the elements
which, when expressed in terms of any extended cluster,
are Laurent polynomials in the cluster variables and
ordinary polynomials in the coefficient variables.
In particular, the conditions of
Proposition~\ref{prop:cluster-criterion} imply that in this case,
the upper cluster algebra coincides with the ordinary cluster algebra
(localized at coefficient variables).
\begin{proof}
The last implication is clear since its premise
ensures that $R\subset\Acal(Q,\mathbf{z})$.
To prove that $R\supset\Acal(Q,\mathbf{z})$,
we need to show that each cluster
variable $\bar z$ from any seed $(\bar Q,\bar \mathbf{z})$
mutation-equivalent to $(Q,\mathbf{z})$
belongs to~$R$.
This is done using some basic algebraic geometry.
Our assumptions on the ring $R$ mean that
it can be identified with the coordinate ring of an
(irreducible) normal affine complex
algebraic variety $X\!=\!\operatorname{Spec}(R)$.
Then $\operatorname{QF}(R)\!=\!\CC(X)$, the field of rational functions on~$X$.
Our goal is to show that each ``distant'' cluster variable~$\bar z$ as
above is not just a rational function in $\CC(X)$ but a regular
function in~$\CC[X]\!=\!R$.
The key property that we need is the algebraic version of
Hartogs' continuation principle for normal varieties
(see, e.g., \cite[Chapter~2, 7.1]{danilov}) which asserts that a
function on~$X$ that is regular outside a closed algebraic subset
of codimension~$\ge 2$ is in fact regular everywhere on~$X$.
Let $Y\subset X$ be the locus where at least two of the cluster
variables in $\mathbf{z}$ vanish, or else one of them, say~$z$, vanishes
together with the element~$z'$ defined by~\eqref{eq:exchange-relation}.
By the coprimeness conditions imposed on the seed~$(Q,\mathbf{z})$,
the codimension of $Y$ in~$X$ is~$2$. \linebreak[3]
The complement $X\setminus Y$ consists of the points $x\in X$ such
that
\begin{itemize}
\item
at most one of the cluster variables in $\mathbf{z}$ vanishes at~$x$, and
\item
for each pair $(z,z')$ as above, either $z$ or $z'$ does not vanish
at~$x$.
\end{itemize}
This means that there is a seed $(Q',\mathbf{z}')$
(either the original seed $(Q,\mathbf{z})$ or one of the adjacent seeds
$\mu_z(Q,\mathbf{z})$) none of whose cluster variables vanishes at~$x$;
moreover $\mathbf{z}'\subset\CC[X]$.
Then the Laurent Phenomenon (Theorem~\ref{th:laurent}) implies that
our distant cluster variable $\bar z$ is regular at~$x$.
By the algebraic Hartogs' principle mentioned above,
it follows that $\bar z$ is regular on~$X$, and
we are done.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:cluster-criterion}
Let $R$ be a finitely generated unique factorization domain over~$\CC$.
Let~$(Q,\mathbf{z})$ be a seed in the quotient field of $R$
such that
all elements of $\mathbf{z}$ and all elements of clusters adjacent to~$\mathbf{z}$
are irreducible elements of~$R$.
Then $R\supset\Acal(Q,\mathbf{z})$.
If, in addition, the union of extended clusters in $\Acal(Q,\mathbf{z})$
contains a generating set for~$R$, then $R=\Acal(Q,\mathbf{z})$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let us check the conditions of Proposition~\ref{prop:cluster-criterion}.
Any UFD is a normal domain.
To verify the coprimality conditions,
we first note that two elements of~$\mathbf{z}$
cannot differ by a scalar factor since they are algebraically independent.
Similarly, the elements of an exchange pair $(z,z')$ cannot differ
by a scalar factor, or else the exchange relation would give
an algebraic dependence in~$\mathbf{z}$.
Now, an irreducible element in a UFD generates a prime ideal,
so the vanishing locus in $\operatorname{Spec}(R)$ for each of our
irreducible elements is an (irreducible) subvariety.
These subvarieties are pairwise distinct (cf.\ above),
so their pairwise intersections have codimensions~$\ge 2$.
\end{proof}
In view of Lemma~\ref{lem:properties-of-RabV},
in order to identify a cluster algebra structure in
the ring of invariants~$R_{a,b}(V)$, all we need to do is
find a seed $(Q,\mathbf{z})$ satisfying the conditions
in Corollary~\ref{cor:cluster-criterion}.
This is a lot easier said than done.
\section{Tensor diagrams}
\label{sec:tensor-diagrams}
{}From now on, we assume that $k=3$, so that $V\cong\CC^3$.
Our description of cluster structures in the classical rings of invariants
$R_{a,b}(V)$ will be based on the calculus
of tensor diagrams~\cite{blinn, cvitanovic,
richter-gebert-lebmeir,
stedman},
particularly in its version of the ``$A_2$~spider''
developed by G.~Kuperberg~\cite{kuperberg}.
This calculus, in turn, is based on two simple observations.
The first one was already mentioned in connection with the First Fundamental
Theorem:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
the identity tensor and
the volume tensors on $V$ and $V^*$ are $\operatorname{SL}(V)$-invariant.
\end{itemize}
The second observation is that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(ii)]
the operations of tensor product
and contraction preserve $\operatorname{SL}(V)$ invariance.
\end{itemize}
By combining the ingredients derived from (i) using the operations
in~(ii),
one can build a surprisingly rich supply of $\operatorname{SL}(V)$-invariant tensors--and
from them, a large class of polynomial invariants.
We next explain how, without claiming any originality:
the machinery described below is a
variation of diagrammatic calculus whose various versions were (re)discovered
multiple times, under different guises and names, see in particular \cite{blinn,
cvitanovic, kuperberg}.
\iffalse
While tensors themselves are multilinear functionals,
they can be used to construct invariants of higher degrees using
\emph{cloning} (or \emph{restitution}),
the procedure opposite to \emph{polarization}.
The idea is extremely simple:
evaluate an $\operatorname{SL}(V)$-invariant tensor at a tuple of arguments (vectors and/or
covectors)
some of which are repeated several times.
Nontrivial invariants constructed using this technique will appear in...
\fi
Tensor diagrams are built using three
types of building blocks shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs21}.
These blocks correspond, left to right,
to the three basic $\operatorname{SL}(V)$-invariant tensors:
the volume tensor, the dual volume tensor, and the identity tensor.
The endpoints of a block correspond to the tensor's arguments:
a sink to a vector, a source to a covector.
In order for either of the volume tensors to be well defined,
a cyclic ordering of the three arguments must be specified.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(20,20)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(10,10){\vector(1,1){10}}
\put(10,10){\vector(-1,1){10}}
\put(10,10){\vector(0,-1){10}}
\end{picture}
\qquad
\begin{picture}(20,20)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,20){\vector(1,-1){10}}
\put(20,20){\vector(-1,-1){10}}
\put(10,0){\vector(0,1){10}}
\end{picture}
\qquad
\begin{picture}(15,20)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,10){\vector(1,0){15}}
\end{picture}
\qquad
\end{center}
\caption{Basic building blocks for tensor diagrams.
The arrows are to be thought of as flexible
strings which can be bent and/or stretched.
}
\label{fig:webs21}
\end{figure}
We then combine these building blocks by
plugging arrowheads into arrowtails.
Interpreting this operation as contraction of the corresponding tensors,
we obtain a well defined notion of a tensor associated with the resulting
combinatorial gadget.
Note that plugging one end of a two-pronged block
(corresponding to the identity tensor) into an end of opposite valence
in some tensor diagram does not change the tensor that the latter represents.
Consequently, for any diagram assembled using the above procedure from
the three
basic types of blocks, the associated tensor does not depend on
the locations (or number) of plug-in joints along unbranched stretches.
Erasing those joints produces a directed graph with trivalent and
univalent vertices in which every trivalent vertex is a source or a sink.
Any such graph, together with the additional data specifying cyclic
ordering of edges incident to trivalent vertices, represents a well defined
tensor.
\pagebreak[3]
We are going to draw all our diagrams in an oriented disk,
obeying the following conventions.
We will usually erase the arrows, introducing instead a
bi-coloring of the vertices:
the sinks will be colored black, and the sources white.
We place the boundary vertices on the boundary of the disk,
in the order mirroring the one used to define the direct product
of the $a+b$ spaces $V$ and~$V^*$ whose $\operatorname{SL}(V)$ invariants
we study.
We place the interior vertices inside the disk,
and draw the edges as simple curves
that are allowed to intersect transversally.
Last but not least,
we make sure that the cyclic ordering specified at each interior
vertex of the diagram
matches the clockwise ordering of the three curves
meeting at the corresponding point in the disk.
The last step in the construction of a general tensor diagram involves
gluing together some of the univalent vertices of a directed graph as above.
We interpret this step as substituting the same (co)vector into
the arguments of the associated tensor which correspond to the glued
endpoints.
At this point, the $\operatorname{SL}(V)$ invariant represented by the graph ceases to be
multilinear.
This last operation is sometimes called (partial) \emph{restitution}, and is
inverse to \emph{polarization}.
An example illustrating different stages of the construction outlined above is
shown in Figure \ref{fig:webs22}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(60,67)(0,-7)
\thicklines
\put(10,30){\vector(-1,0){10}}
\put(10,30){\vector(1,1){9}}
\put(10,30){\vector(2,-3){8.5}}
\put(20,15){\vector(2,-3){8}}
\put(50,30){\vector(1,0){10}}
\put(50,30){\vector(-1,1){9}}
\put(50,30){\vector(-2,-3){8.5}}
\put(40,15){\vector(-2,-3){8}}
\put(21,41){\vector(1,1){9}}
\put(39,41){\vector(-1,1){9}}
\put(30,60){\vector(0,-1){10}}
\put(26.5,-7){(a)}
\end{picture}
\qquad\qquad
\begin{picture}(60,67)(0,-7)
\thicklines
\put(10,30){\vector(-1,0){10}}
\put(10,30){\vector(1,1){20}}
\put(10,30){\vector(2,-3){18}}
\put(50,30){\vector(1,0){10}}
\put(50,30){\vector(-1,1){20}}
\put(50,30){\vector(-2,-3){18}}
\put(30,60){\vector(0,-1){10}}
\put(26.5,-7){(b)}
\end{picture}
\\[.2in]
\begin{picture}(60,67)(0,-7)
\thicklines
\put(0,30){\line(1,0){8.5}}
\put(30,50){\line(-1,-1){19}}
\put(30,50){\line(1,-1){19}}
\put(28,3){\line(-2,3){17.3}}
\put(60,30){\line(-1,0){9}}
\put(32,3){\line(2,3){17.3}}
\put(30,59){\line(0,-1){9}}
\put(0,30){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(60,30){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(30,50){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(28,3){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(32,3){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(10,30){\circle{2.5}}
\put(50,30){\circle{2.5}}
\put(30,60){\circle{2.5}}
\put(26.5,-8.5){(c)}
\end{picture}
\qquad\qquad
\begin{picture}(60,67)(0,-7)
\thicklines
\put(0,30){\line(1,0){8.5}}
\put(30,50){\line(-1,-1){19}}
\put(30,50){\line(1,-1){19}}
\put(30,0){\line(-2,3){19.3}}
\put(60,30){\line(-1,0){9}}
\put(30,0){\line(2,3){19.3}}
\put(30,59){\line(0,-1){9}}
\put(0,30){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(60,30){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(30,50){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(30,0){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(10,30){\circle{2.5}}
\put(50,30){\circle{2.5}}
\put(30,60){\circle{2.5}}
\put(45,10){$D$}
\put(26.5,-8.8){(d)}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Assembling a tensor diagram. In this example,
we use five building blocks, corresponding to two copies of the
volume tensor, one copy of the dual volume tensor, and two copies
of the identity tensor. The resulting tensor diagram $D$ of type
$(1,3)$ represents an
invariant~of multidegree $(1,2,1,1)$ in~$R_{1,3}(V)$. The disk
containing $D$ is not~shown.}
\label{fig:webs22}
\end{figure}
\pagebreak[3]
\begin{definition}
A \emph{tensor diagram}
is a finite bipartite graph $D$ with a fixed proper coloring of its vertices
into two colors, black and white, and with a fixed partition of its vertex set
into the set~$\operatorname{bd}(D)$ of \emph{boundary} vertices and
the set~$\operatorname{int}(D)$ of \emph{internal} vertices,
satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item
each internal vertex is trivalent;
\item
for each internal vertex, a cyclic
order on the edges incident to it is fixed.
\end{itemize}
The last condition ensures that each of the six permutations of the
three edges incident to an internal vertex has a well-defined sign.
If $\operatorname{bd}(D)$ consists of
$a$ white vertices and $b$ black ones,
then we say that $D$ is of \emph{type} $(a,b)$.
\end{definition}
We regard each edge of a tensor diagram as being oriented
so that it points away from its white endpoint and towards the black
one.
While drawing tensor diagrams, this orientation is routinely omitted.
A tensor diagram~$D$ of type $(a,b)$
defines an $\operatorname{SL}(V)$ invariant~$[D]\in R_{a,b}(V)$ \linebreak[3]
obtained by
repeated contraction of elementary $\operatorname{SL}(V)$-invariant tensors
(followed by bundling up some of the arguments), as explained above.
To compensate for the informality of that explanation, we next provide a
precise definition of the invariant $[D]$ in the language of coordinates.
Let us identify $R_{a,b}(V)$ with the ring of
$\operatorname{SL}_3$ invariants of collections of $a$ covectors
\[
y(v)=\begin{bmatrix}\,y_1(v)&y_2(v)&y_3(v)\,\end{bmatrix}
\]
and $b$ vectors
\[
x(v)=\begin{bmatrix}x_1(v)\\ x_2(v)\\ x_3(v)\end{bmatrix}
\]
labeled by a fixed collection of $a$ white and $b$ black vertices on the
boundary of a disk.
The invariant $[D]$ associated with a tensor diagram~$D$ with those
boundary vertices is then given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:[D]-in-coordinates}
[D]=\sum_\ell
\biggl(\,\prod_{v\in\operatorname{int}(D)}\operatorname{sign}(\ell(v))\biggr)
\biggl(\,\prod_{\substack{v\in\operatorname{bd}(D)\\
\text{$v$ black}}}x(v)^{\ell(v)}\biggr)
\biggl(\,\prod_{\substack{v\in\operatorname{bd}(D)\\
\text{$v$ white}}}y(v)^{\ell(v)}\biggr),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\ell$ runs over all proper labelings of the edges in~$D$ by the
numbers~$1,2,3$; \linebreak[3]
to wit, we require that for each internal vertex~$v$,
the labels associated with the three edges incident to $v$ are all distinct;
\item
$\operatorname{sign}(\ell(v))$ denotes the sign of the (cyclic) permutation of
those three labels determined by the cyclic ordering of the edges incident
to~$v$;
\item
$x(v)^{\ell(v)}$ denotes the monomial $\prod_e x_{\ell(e)}(v)$,
product over all edges $e$ incident to~$v$, and similarly for $y(v)^{\ell(v)}$.
\end{itemize}
Example~\ref{example:tripod-and-stick} below illustrates
formula~\eqref{eq:[D]-in-coordinates}.
Many more examples of tensor diagrams are scattered throughout the paper.
\pagebreak[3]
\begin{example}
\label{example:tripod-and-stick}
Consider the tensor diagram $D$ shown
in Figure~\ref{fig:webs22}(d).
We label the black boundary vertices 1, 2, and~3, in clockwise order,
and label the white vertex~4.
We denote the corresponding three column vectors and one row covector
by
\[
\begin{bmatrix}x_{11}\\ x_{21}\\ x_{31}\end{bmatrix},{\ \ }
\begin{bmatrix}x_{12}\\ x_{22}\\ x_{32}\end{bmatrix},{\ \ }
\begin{bmatrix}x_{13}\\ x_{23}\\ x_{33}\end{bmatrix},{\ \ }
\text{and}\ \ \begin{bmatrix}\,y_1&y_2&y_3\,\end{bmatrix},
\]
respectively.
There are 24 proper labelings of the edges of~$D$.
They can be broken into four six-tuples as shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:edge-labelings}.
The corresponding monomial weights are
\[
\varepsilon\,x_{\gamma 1}x_{\alpha 2}^2x_{\beta 3} y_\alpha\,,\ \
\varepsilon\,x_{\gamma 1}x_{\alpha 2}x_{\beta 2}x_{\beta 3} y_\beta\,,\ \
\varepsilon\,x_{\gamma 1}x_{\alpha 2}x_{\gamma 2}x_{\beta 3} y_\gamma\,,\ \
-\varepsilon\,x_{\beta 1}x_{\alpha 2}x_{\gamma 2}x_{\beta 3} y_\beta\,,
\]
where $\varepsilon$ denotes the sign of the permutation
$(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ in the symmetric group~$\mathcal{S}_3$.
The weights of the labelings in the fourth group cancel each other out
under the sign-reversing involution that switches $\alpha$
and~$\gamma$. Consequently, \eqref{eq:[D]-in-coordinates} becomes
\begin{align}
\nonumber
[D]&=\sum_{(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)\in\mathcal{S}_3}
\operatorname{sgn}(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)
x_{\gamma 1}x_{\alpha 2}x_{\beta 3}
\,(x_{\alpha 2} y_\alpha+x_{\beta 2} y_\beta+x_{\gamma 2} y_\gamma)\\
\label{eq:det*dot-product}
&=\det(x_{ij})_{i,j\in(1,2,3)}
(x_{12} y_1+x_{22} y_2+x_{32} y_3),
\end{align}
coinciding with the invariant given by the tensor diagram shown
in Figure~\ref{fig:tripod-and-a-stick}.
\end{example}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1.5pt}
\begin{picture}(60,60)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,30){\line(1,0){8.5}}
\put(30,50){\line(-1,-1){19}}
\put(30,50){\line(1,-1){19}}
\put(30,0){\line(-2,3){19.3}}
\put(60,30){\line(-1,0){9}}
\put(30,0){\line(2,3){19.3}}
\put(30,59){\line(0,-1){9}}
\put(0,30){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(60,30){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(30,50){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(30,0){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(10,30){\circle{2.5}}
\put(50,30){\circle{2.5}}
\put(30,60){\circle{2.5}}
\put(0,25){\makebox(0,0){$3$}}
\put(60,25){\makebox(0,0){$1$}}
\put(25,0){\makebox(0,0){$2$}}
\put(25,60){\makebox(0,0){$4$}}
\put(15,15){\makebox(0,0){$\alpha$}}
\put(45,15){\makebox(0,0){$\alpha$}}
\put(5,35){\makebox(0,0){$\beta$}}
\put(55,35){\makebox(0,0){$\gamma$}}
\put(18,43){\makebox(0,0){$\gamma$}}
\put(42,43){\makebox(0,0){$\beta$}}
\put(34,55){\makebox(0,0){$\alpha$}}
\end{picture}
\quad
\begin{picture}(60,60)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,30){\line(1,0){8.5}}
\put(30,50){\line(-1,-1){19}}
\put(30,50){\line(1,-1){19}}
\put(30,0){\line(-2,3){19.3}}
\put(60,30){\line(-1,0){9}}
\put(30,0){\line(2,3){19.3}}
\put(30,59){\line(0,-1){9}}
\put(0,30){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(60,30){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(30,50){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(30,0){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(10,30){\circle{2.5}}
\put(50,30){\circle{2.5}}
\put(30,60){\circle{2.5}}
\put(0,25){\makebox(0,0){$3$}}
\put(60,25){\makebox(0,0){$1$}}
\put(25,0){\makebox(0,0){$2$}}
\put(25,60){\makebox(0,0){$4$}}
\put(15,15){\makebox(0,0){$\alpha$}}
\put(45,15){\makebox(0,0){$\beta$}}
\put(5,35){\makebox(0,0){$\beta$}}
\put(55,35){\makebox(0,0){$\gamma$}}
\put(18,43){\makebox(0,0){$\gamma$}}
\put(42,43){\makebox(0,0){$\alpha$}}
\put(34,55){\makebox(0,0){$\beta$}}
\end{picture}
\quad
\begin{picture}(60,60)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,30){\line(1,0){8.5}}
\put(30,50){\line(-1,-1){19}}
\put(30,50){\line(1,-1){19}}
\put(30,0){\line(-2,3){19.3}}
\put(60,30){\line(-1,0){9}}
\put(30,0){\line(2,3){19.3}}
\put(30,59){\line(0,-1){9}}
\put(0,30){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(60,30){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(30,50){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(30,0){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(10,30){\circle{2.5}}
\put(50,30){\circle{2.5}}
\put(30,60){\circle{2.5}}
\put(0,25){\makebox(0,0){$3$}}
\put(60,25){\makebox(0,0){$1$}}
\put(25,0){\makebox(0,0){$2$}}
\put(25,60){\makebox(0,0){$4$}}
\put(15,15){\makebox(0,0){$\gamma$}}
\put(45,15){\makebox(0,0){$\alpha$}}
\put(5,35){\makebox(0,0){$\beta$}}
\put(55,35){\makebox(0,0){$\gamma$}}
\put(18,43){\makebox(0,0){$\alpha$}}
\put(42,43){\makebox(0,0){$\beta$}}
\put(34,55){\makebox(0,0){$\gamma$}}
\end{picture}
\quad
\begin{picture}(60,60)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,30){\line(1,0){8.5}}
\put(30,50){\line(-1,-1){19}}
\put(30,50){\line(1,-1){19}}
\put(30,0){\line(-2,3){19.3}}
\put(60,30){\line(-1,0){9}}
\put(30,0){\line(2,3){19.3}}
\put(30,59){\line(0,-1){9}}
\put(0,30){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(60,30){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(30,50){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(30,0){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(10,30){\circle{2.5}}
\put(50,30){\circle{2.5}}
\put(30,60){\circle{2.5}}
\put(0,25){\makebox(0,0){$3$}}
\put(60,25){\makebox(0,0){$1$}}
\put(25,0){\makebox(0,0){$2$}}
\put(25,60){\makebox(0,0){$4$}}
\put(15,15){\makebox(0,0){$\alpha$}}
\put(45,15){\makebox(0,0){$\gamma$}}
\put(5,35){\makebox(0,0){$\beta$}}
\put(55,35){\makebox(0,0){$\beta$}}
\put(18,43){\makebox(0,0){$\gamma$}}
\put(42,43){\makebox(0,0){$\alpha$}}
\put(34,55){\makebox(0,0){$\beta$}}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{The proper labelings of the edges of a tensor diagram. \quad
Here $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ runs over all permutations of $1,2,3$.}
\label{fig:edge-labelings}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-.1in}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1.5pt}
\begin{picture}(60,60)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,30){\line(1,0){18.5}}
\put(30,0){\line(-1,3){9.5}}
\put(60,30){\line(-1,0){39}}
\put(30,59){\line(0,-1){59}}
\put(0,30){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(60,30){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(30,0){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(20,30){\circle{2.5}}
\put(30,60){\circle{2.5}}
\put(0,25){\makebox(0,0){$3$}}
\put(60,25){\makebox(0,0){$1$}}
\put(25,0){\makebox(0,0){$2$}}
\put(25,58){\makebox(0,0){$4$}}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{A tensor diagram defining the same invariant as the one in
Figure~\ref{fig:edge-labelings}.}
\label{fig:tripod-and-a-stick}
\end{figure}
The $\operatorname{SL}(V)$ invariant $[D]$ defined by a tensor
diagram~$D$ is homo\-geneous
in each of its arguments~$x(v)$, for $v$ a boundary vertex.
The degree of $[D]$ with respect to~$x(v)$ is equal to the
degree~$d_v$ of~$v$ (in the graph theory sense).
The \emph{multidegree} of~$D$ is, by definition,
the multidegree of~$[D]$ (cf.\ \eqref{eq:multideg}):
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:td-multideg}
\operatorname{multideg}(D)=
\operatorname{multideg}([D])=
(d_v)_{v\in\operatorname{bd}(D)}.
\end{equation}
\pagebreak[3]
\begin{remark}
An $\operatorname{SL}_3$ invariant $[D]$ associated with a tensor diagram~$D$
without multiple edges can be
alternatively defined by a determinantal formula, as explained below.
Although we do not rely on such formulas in this paper,
they may be useful in some calculations.
As before, suppose that $D$ has type $(a,b)$.
Assume that no two boundary vertices are directly connected by an
edge.
(Otherwise, factor out the corresponding scalar product, and
remove the edge.)
Assume that $D$ has $c+d$ interior vertices,
$c$ of them white and $d$ black.
Clearly $a+3c=b+3d$, the number of edges in~$D$.
We now build a square $(a+3c)\times(b+3d)$ matrix $M(D)$ as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item
the rows of $M(D)$ come from the white vertices
in~$\operatorname{int}(D)$ (each such vertex contributes three rows)
as well as from the edges incident to the white vertices
in~$\operatorname{bd}(D)$ (each such edge contributes one row);
\item
similarly, the columns of $M(D)$ come from the black interior vertices (each
contributes three) and from the edges incident to the black boundary
vertices (each contributes one).
\end{itemize}
The matrix $M(D)$ is then built out of rectangular blocks $M(i,j)$
of sizes $3\times 3$, $3\times 1$, $1\times 3$, and $1\times 1$,
defined as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item
if $i$ is a white interior vertex and $j$ is a black interior vertex,
then $M(i,j)$ is a $3\times 3$ identity matrix;
\item
if $i$ is a white interior vertex and $j$ is an edge incident to a
black boundary vertex~$v$,
then $M(i,j)$ is the column vector~$x(v)$;
\item
if $j$ is a black interior vertex and $i$ is an edge incident to a
white boundary vertex~$v$,
then $M(i,j)$ is the row (co)vector~$y(v)$;
\item
otherwise,
$M(i,j)$ consists entirely of zeroes.
\end{itemize}
It is straightforward to check that $\det(M(D))=\pm [D]$.
(The sign depends on the ordering of the rows and columns in~$M(D)$.)
It is also easy to see directly that $\det(M(D))$ is an $SL_3$
invariant.
We illustrate this construction for the tensor diagram shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:webs22}(d),
using the notation introduced in
Example~\ref{example:tripod-and-stick}.
The recipe described above gives
\[
M(D)=
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc|c|c|c|c}
1 & 0 & 0 & x_{11} & x_{12} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & x_{21} & x_{22} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & x_{31} & x_{32} & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x_{12} & x_{13}\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x_{22} & x_{23}\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & x_{32} & x_{33}\\
\hline
y_1 & y_2 & y_3 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right].
\]
It is then easy to see that
\[
-\det(M(D))=
\det
\begin{bmatrix}
x_{11} & x_{12} & x_{13}\\
x_{21} & x_{22} & x_{23}\\
x_{31} & x_{32} & x_{33}
\end{bmatrix}
(x_{12} y_1+x_{22} y_2+x_{32} y_3),
\]
matching \eqref{eq:det*dot-product}.
\end{remark}
\pagebreak[3]
The calculus of tensor diagrams includes natural counterparts for both the
additive and the multi\-plicative structures in the ring of invariants.
For the former, allow formal linear combinations of
tensor diagrams, and extend the definition of $[D]$ by linearity.
For the latter, use
superposition of
diagrams: if
$D$
is a union of subdiagrams $D_1,D_2,\dots$
connected only at boundary vertices, then
$[D]=[D_1][D_2]\cdots$; cf.\ Figure~\ref{fig:tripod-and-a-stick}.
The Weyl generators of the ring $R_{a,b}(V)$ are encoded by the simplest
possible tensor diagrams: two types of \emph{tripods} (corresponding
to two kinds of Pl\"ucker coordinates) and simple edges.
To rephrase, one takes each of the three types of building
blocks shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs21} and attaches it directly to the
boundary vertices.
The First Fundamental Theorem implies that any $\operatorname{SL}(V)$ invariant can
be represented (non-uniquely) as a linear combination of invariants
associated with tensor diagrams obtained by superposition of tripods
and edges.
An important class of relations among invariants associated with
tensor diagrams on an oriented plane is obtained from \emph{local
transformation rules}.
Such a rule trans\-forms a small fragment $F$ of
a tensor diagram $D$ into a linear combination $\sum_i c_i F_i$
of other such pieces
(corresponding to tensors of the same type) while keeping the rest of
the diagram intact.
The intrinsic definition of the invariants~$[D]$ implies
that if $[F]\!=\!\sum_i c_i [F_i]$ (i.e., the tensor does not change
locally), then $[D]=\sum_i c_i [D_i]$, where $D_i$ denotes the tensor
diagram obtained from $D$ by replacing $F$ by~$F_i$.
Figure~\ref{fig:skein} shows several fundamental relations of this
kind.
Checking their validity is straightforward.
Several basic relations involving boundary vertices are shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:local-boundary}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{cl}
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(16,20)(0,0)
\put(8,10){\makebox(0,0){(a)}}
\end{picture}
&
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(30,20)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,20){\line(3,-2){30}}
\put(0,20){\vector(3,-2){25}}
\put(0,0){\line(3,2){30}}
\put(0,0){\vector(3,2){25}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(16,20)(0,0)
\put(8,10){\makebox(0,0){$=$}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(30,20)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,0){\line(1,1){9.2}}
\put(0,20){\line(1,-1){9.2}}
\put(10,10){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(11,10){\line(1,0){8}}
\put(20,10){\circle{2.5}}
\put(30,20){\line(-1,-1){9.2}}
\put(30,0){\line(-1,1){9.2}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(16,20)(0,0)
\put(8,10){\makebox(0,0){$+$}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(30,20)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,0){\line(1,0){30}}
\put(0,0){\vector(1,0){20}}
\put(0,20){\line(1,0){30}}
\put(0,20){\vector(1,0){20}}
\end{picture}
\\[.3in]
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(16,30)(0,0)
\put(8,15){\makebox(0,0){(b)}}
\end{picture}
&
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(30,30)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,0){\line(1,1){9}}
\put(30,30){\line(-1,-1){9}}
\put(0,30){\line(1,-1){9}}
\put(30,0){\line(-1,1){9}}
\put(10,10){\circle{2.5}}
\put(20,20){\circle{2.5}}
\put(10,20){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(20,10){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(11,10){\line(1,0){8}}
\put(11,20){\line(1,0){7.8}}
\put(10,11.2){\line(0,1){8}}
\put(20,11){\line(0,1){8}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(16,30)(0,0)
\put(8,15){\makebox(0,0){$=$}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(30,30)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,0){\line(1,0){30}}
\put(15,0){\vector(-1,0){5}}
\put(0,30){\line(1,0){30}}
\put(15,30){\vector(1,0){5}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(16,30)(0,0)
\put(8,15){\makebox(0,0){$+$}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(30,30)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(0,15){\vector(0,-1){5}}
\put(30,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(30,15){\vector(0,1){5}}
\end{picture}
\\[.3in]
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(16,10)(0,0)
\put(8,5){\makebox(0,0){(c)}}
\end{picture}
&
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(30,10)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,5){\line(1,0){9}}
\put(30,5){\line(-1,0){9}}
\qbezier(11,6)(15,10)(19,6)
\qbezier(11,4)(15,0)(19,4)
\put(10,5){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(20,5){\circle{2.5}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(16,10)(0,0)
\put(8,5){\makebox(0,0){$=$}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(14,10)(0,0)
\put(6,5){\makebox(0,0){$(-2)$}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(30,10)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,5){\line(1,0){30}}
\put(15,5){\vector(1,0){5}}
\end{picture}
\\[.2in]
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(16,20)(0,0)
\put(8,10){\makebox(0,0){(d)}}
\end{picture}
&
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(30,20)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(15,10){\circle{20}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(16,20)(0,0)
\put(8,10){\makebox(0,0){$=$}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(4,20)(0,0)
\put(1.5,10.5){\makebox(0,0){$3$}}
\end{picture}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Skein relations for tensor diagrams. Remember that all
edges are oriented towards their black endpoints. The cycle in
relation~(d) can be oriented either way.}
\label{fig:skein}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{cl}
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(16,25)(0,-5)
\put(8,10){\makebox(0,0){(a)}}
\end{picture}
&
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(10,35)(0,-5)
\thicklines
\put(5,-5){\makebox(0,0){$B$}}
\put(5,0){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(5,20){\circle{2.5}}
\put(5,21){\line(0,1){8}}
\qbezier(4,1)(-3,10)(4,19)
\qbezier(6,1)(13,10)(6,19)
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(12,25)(0,-5)
\put(6,10){\makebox(0,0){$=$}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(10,25)(0,-5)
\thicklines
\put(5,-5){\makebox(0,0){$B$}}
\put(5,0){\circle{2.5}}
\put(5,20){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(5,21){\line(0,1){8}}
\qbezier(4,1)(-3,10)(4,19)
\qbezier(6,1)(13,10)(6,19)
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(16,25)(0,-5)
\put(6,10){\makebox(0,0){$=0$}}
\end{picture}
\\[.2in]
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(16,25)(0,-5)
\put(8,10){\makebox(0,0){(b)}}
\end{picture}
&
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(10,25)(0,-5)
\thicklines
\put(5,-5){\makebox(0,0){$B$}}
\put(5,0){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(5,20){\circle{2.5}}
\put(5,1){\line(0,1){18}}
\qbezier(4,1)(-3,10)(4,19)
\qbezier(6,1)(13,10)(6,19)
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(12,25)(0,-5)
\put(6,10){\makebox(0,0){$=$}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(10,25)(0,-5)
\thicklines
\put(5,-5){\makebox(0,0){$B$}}
\put(5,0){\circle{2.5}}
\put(5,20){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(5,1){\line(0,1){18}}
\qbezier(4,1)(-3,10)(4,19)
\qbezier(6,1)(13,10)(6,19)
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(16,25)(0,-5)
\put(6,10){\makebox(0,0){$=0$}}
\end{picture}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Local relations involving a vertex~$B$ lying on the boundary.}
\label{fig:local-boundary}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:yang-baxter} shows a few additional relations which
are immediate from the definition of the invariants
associated with tensor diagrams.
These relations can also be deduced from those in Figure~\ref{fig:skein}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{cl}
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(16,20)(0,0)
\put(8,10){\makebox(0,0){(a)}}
\end{picture}
&
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(30,20)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,20){\line(3,-2){30}}
\put(0,0){\line(3,2){30}}
\qbezier(0,10)(15,0)(30,10)
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(16,20)(0,0)
\put(8,10){\makebox(0,0){$=$}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(30,20)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,20){\line(3,-2){30}}
\put(0,0){\line(3,2){30}}
\qbezier(0,10)(15,20)(30,10)
\end{picture}
\\[.2in]
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(16,16)(0,0)
\put(8,8){\makebox(0,0){(b)}}
\end{picture}
&
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(30,16)(0,0)
\thicklines
\qbezier(0,0)(20,5)(20,10)
\qbezier(30,0)(10,5)(10,10)
\qbezier(10,10)(10,15)(15,15)
\qbezier(20,10)(20,15)(15,15)
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(16,16)(0,0)
\put(8,8){\makebox(0,0){$=$}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(30,16)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,0){\line(1,0){30}}
\end{picture}
\\[.3in]
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(16,10)(0,0)
\put(8,5){\makebox(0,0){(c)}}
\end{picture}
&
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(30,10)(0,0)
\thicklines
\qbezier(0,0)(15,15)(30,0)
\qbezier(0,10)(15,-5)(30,10)
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(16,10)(0,0)
\put(8,5){\makebox(0,0){$=$}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(30,10)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,0){\line(1,0){30}}
\put(0,10){\line(1,0){30}}
\end{picture}
\\[.2in]
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(16,20)(0,0)
\put(8,10){\makebox(0,0){(d)}}
\end{picture}
&
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(30,20)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,10){\line(1,0){8.8}}
\put(10,10){\circle{2.5}}
\qbezier(11,11)(20,18)(30,0)
\qbezier(11,9)(20,2)(30,20)
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(16,20)(0,0)
\put(8,10){\makebox(0,0){$=$}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(12,20)(0,0)
\put(5,10){\makebox(0,0){$(-1)$}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(30,20)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,10){\line(1,0){8.8}}
\put(10,10){\circle{2.5}}
\put(30,20){\line(-2,-1){18.7}}
\put(30,0){\line(-2,1){18.7}}
\end{picture}
\\[.2in]
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(16,20)(0,0)
\put(8,10){\makebox(0,0){(e)}}
\end{picture}
&
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(30,20)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,10){\line(1,0){8.8}}
\put(10,10){\circle*{2.5}}
\qbezier(11,11)(20,18)(30,0)
\qbezier(11,9)(20,2)(30,20)
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(16,20)(0,0)
\put(8,10){\makebox(0,0){$=$}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(12,20)(0,0)
\put(5,10){\makebox(0,0){$(-1)$}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(30,20)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,10){\line(1,0){8.8}}
\put(10,10){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(30,20){\line(-2,-1){18.7}}
\put(30,0){\line(-2,1){18.7}}
\end{picture}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Yang-Baxter-type relations for tensor diagrams.
In relations (a)--(c), edge
orientations on the left-hand sides can be arbitrary;
the orientations on each right-hand side should match those on the~left.}
\label{fig:yang-baxter}
\end{figure}
It is possible to develop a diagrammatic calculus based on the local
relations listed above, without making any mention of tensors or the
special linear group~$\operatorname{SL}_3$; see in particular \cite{kuperberg} and
references therein.
Such diagrammatic calculus, and its $q$-analogues, can in particular
be used to construct invariants of knots and links.
We do not discuss these connections in this paper.
\iffalse
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs24.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{}
\label{fig:webs24}
\end{figure}
\fi
\newpage
\section{Webs}
\label{sec:webs}
Informally speaking, webs are \emph{planar} tensor diagrams.
The systematic study of webs was pioneered by
G.~Kuperberg~\cite{kuperberg} whose
foundational results are reviewed below,
in slightly different terminology.
\begin{definition}[\emph{Webs}]
A (planar) \emph{web} is a tensor diagram $D$ embedded in an oriented
disk as described above in Section~\ref{sec:tensor-diagrams},
so that its edges do not cross or touch each other, except at
endpoints.
Each web is considered up to an isotopy of the disk that fixes its
boundary---so it is in essence a combinatorial object.
Recall that the boundary (respectively internal)
vertices of $D$ must lie on the boundary (respectively in the
interior) of the disk, and the three edges meeting at each internal
vertex are viewed as cyclically ordered clockwise.
A web is called \emph{non-elliptic} if
it has no multiple edges, and no unoriented simple 4-cycles
whose all four vertices are internal.
An invariant $[D]$ associated with a non-elliptic web~$D$ is called a
\emph{web invariant}.
\end{definition}
A web $D$ of type $(a,b)$ has $a$ white boundary vertices and $b$
black ones.
The cyclic pattern of colors of the boundary vertices
is encoded by the (cyclic) \emph{signature} of~$D$
(cf.~a similar notion introduced in
Section~\ref{sec:rings-of-invariants}),
a cyclically ordered binary string,
or more precisely a word in the alphabet $\{\bullet,\circ\}$
considered up to a cyclic permutation.
For example, the webs in
Figures~\ref{fig:edge-labelings}--\ref{fig:tripod-and-a-stick} have
signature
\[
[\bullet\bullet\bullet\,\circ]
=[\bullet\bullet\circ\,\bullet]
=[\bullet\circ\bullet\,\bullet]
=[\circ\bullet\bullet\,\bullet]
\]
The following highly nontrivial result is the cornerstone of the
theory of webs.
\begin{theorem}[{\rm G.~Kuperberg \cite{kuperberg}}]
\label{th:web-basis}
Web invariants with a fixed signature $\sigma$ of type $(a,b)$
form a linear basis in the ring of invariants $R_\sigma(V)\cong R_{a,b}(V)$.
\end{theorem}
Being a special kind of tensor diagrams,
webs have \emph{multidegrees},
cf.~\eqref{eq:td-multideg};
the invariants they define are multi-homogeneous.
Kuperberg's theorem can be restated as saying that
web invariants with a fixed signature~$\sigma$
and a fixed multidegree make up a linear basis in the corresponding
multi-homogeneous component of~$R_\sigma(V)$.
\begin{example}
\label{example:R24}
For the ring of invariants $R_{4,2}(V)$,
choose the signature
\[
\sigma=[\bullet\circ\bullet\circ\circ\,\circ]
\]
and the multidegree $(1,1,1,1,2,1)$.
There are $5$ non-elliptic webs of such signature and multidegree,
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs23} at the top.
Thus the corresponding multi-homogeneous component
of $R_\sigma(V)\cong R_{4,2}(V)$ is $5$-dimensional.
\end{example}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\scalebox{0.95}{\input{webs23.pstex_t}}
\caption{Two web bases in a multi-homogeneous component
of $R_{4,2}(V)$.}
\label{fig:webs23}
\end{figure}
\begin{remark}
Theorem~\ref{th:web-basis} implies that the number of
non-elliptic webs of given multidegree
does not depend on the
choice of a signature of given type~$(a,b)$.
To illustrate, continue with Example~\ref{example:R24}.
Taking instead the signature
$[\bullet\bullet\circ\circ\circ\,\circ]$
of the same type $(4,2)$, and choosing the multidegree
$(1,1,1,1,1,2)$---so that, as before, the invariants in
question are multilinear in all arguments except for a single
covector---we get the $5$ webs (same number!)
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs23} at the bottom.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:confluence}
Any linear combination of tensor diagrams
can be transformed
into a linear combination of non-elliptic webs by repeated
application of local relations shown in
Figures~\hbox{\ref{fig:skein}--\ref{fig:local-boundary}}.
(Just apply them left-to-right.)
It follows that $R_\sigma(V)$ is spanned by the web invariants.
The content of Theorem~\ref{th:web-basis} is that web invariants
are linearly independent, so the reduction process described above is
\emph{confluent}.
Theorem~\ref{th:web-basis} implies that
two linear combinations of tensor
diagrams define the same invariant if and only if they can be
transformed into each other using the relations
in Figures~\ref{fig:skein}--\ref{fig:local-boundary}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:khovanov-kuperberg}
It is tempting to hypothesize, as M.~Khovanov and
G.~Kuperberg originally did~\cite{khovanov-kuperberg},
that the web basis in a space of multilinear invariants (of some fixed
signature)
coincides with the corresponding instance of G.~Lusztig's \emph{dual canonical
basis} (see \cite{khovanov-kuperberg} for definitions and
references).
Their investigation however established that web bases for $\operatorname{SL}_3$
are generally \emph{not} dual canonical.
The first discrepancy occurs in degree~12, for the signature
$\bullet\bullet\circ\circ\bullet\bullet\circ\circ\bullet\bullet\circ\,\circ$.
See Section~\ref{sec:thickening-non-cluster}
for a cluster-theoretic interpretation of this counterexample.
\end{remark}
A \emph{closed} tensor diagram (without boundary vertices)
represents a tensor of type $(0,0)$, \emph{i.e.}\ a scalar.
This scalar has the following direct description.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:closed-webs}
Let $D$ be a closed web with $m$ white and $m$ black vertices.
Then $[D]$ is equal to $(-1)^m$ times the number of proper colorings
of the edges of~$D$ into three colors. (That is, we require the colors
of the three edges incident to each vertex of~$D$ to be distinct.)
\end{proposition}
The simplest illustration of Proposition~\ref{prop:closed-webs}
is provided by formula~(d) in Figure~\ref{fig:skein} (with $m=0$).
A more interesting example: let $D$ be the $1$-skeleton of the
(three-dimensional) cube; then $[D]=24$.
The proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:closed-webs} is omitted; we do not
rely on it elsewhere in the paper.
\iffalse
A few more are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:closed-webs}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(10,20)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(5,0){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(5,20){\circle{2.5}}
\put(5,1){\line(0,1){18}}
\qbezier(4,1)(-3,10)(4,19)
\qbezier(6,1)(13,10)(6,19)
\end{picture}
&\qquad\qquad&
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(30,20)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(5,0){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(5,20){\circle{2.5}}
\put(6.5,20){\line(1,0){17.5}}
\qbezier(4,1)(0,10)(4,19)
\qbezier(6,1)(10,10)(6,19)
\put(25,0){\circle{2.5}}
\put(25,20){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(6,0){\line(1,0){18}}
\qbezier(24,1)(20,10)(24,19)
\qbezier(26,1)(30,10)(26,19)
\end{picture}
&\qquad\qquad&
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(20,20)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(6,6){\circle{2.5}}
\put(14,14){\circle{2.5}}
\put(6,14){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(14,6){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(0,0){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(20,20){\circle*{2.5}}
\put(0,20){\circle{2.5}}
\put(20,0){\circle{2.5}}
\put(1,0){\line(1,0){17.5}}
\put(1,20){\line(1,0){18}}
\put(0,1){\line(0,1){18}}
\put(20,1.5){\line(0,1){17.5}}
\put(7,6){\line(1,0){6}}
\put(7,14){\line(1,0){5.5}}
\put(6,7.5){\line(0,1){6}}
\put(14,7){\line(0,1){6}}
\put(5,5){\line(-1,-1){5}}
\put(15,15){\line(1,1){5}}
\put(6,14){\line(-1,1){5}}
\put(14,6){\line(1,-1){5}}
\end{picture}
\\[.1in]
$[D]=-6$&\qquad\qquad&
$[D]=12$&\qquad\qquad&
$[D]=24$
\end{tabular}
\caption{Scalar invariants represented by closed webs.}
\label{fig:closed-webs}
\end{figure}
\fi
\pagebreak[3]
\section{Special invariants}
\label{sec:special-invariants}
Fix a (cyclic) signature $\sigma$ of type $(a,b)$ with $a+b\ge 5$.
We assume that $\sigma$ is \emph{non-alternating}, i.e.,
it has two adjacent vertices of the same color.
In this section, we construct a family of ``special'' elements in the
ring of invariants~$R_\sigma(V)\cong R_{a,b}(V)$.
These special invariants will play a key role in our main construction.
The proofs of the propositions stated in
Sections~\ref{sec:special-invariants}--\ref{sec:special-seeds} are given
in Section~\ref{sec:special-proofs}.
\medskip
As before, we work in a disk with $a+b$ marked points (vertices)
on the boundary, $a$~of them white and $b$~of them black,
arranged in accordance with the signature~$\sigma$.
We label these vertices $1,\dots,a+b$, going clockwise,
and work with them modulo~$a+b$.
For each boundary vertex~$p$,
we next define two trees $\Lambda_p$ and $\Lambda^p$ embedded into our
disk. These trees will then serve as building blocks for
certain tensor diagrams.
If the vertex $p$ is black, then $\Lambda_p$ has one vertex,
namely~$p$, and no edges.
If $p$ is white, then place a new black vertex
(which we call the \emph{proxy} of~$p$) inside the disk
and connect it to~$p$.
We then examine $p\!+\!1$. If $p\!+\!1$ is white,
then we connect it to the proxy vertex, and stop;
see Figure~\ref{fig:caterpillars}(a).
If $p$ is white and $p+1$ is black, then we look at $p\!+\!2$.
If $p\!+\!2$ is black, then put a white vertex inside the disk,
connect it to both $p\!+\!1$ and $p\!+\!2$, and to the proxy vertex;
see Figure~\ref{fig:caterpillars}(b).
If $p$ is white, $p\!+\!1$ is black, and $p\!+\!2$ is white, then
examine~$p\!+\!3$, and so on, cf.\ Figure~\ref{fig:caterpillars}(c).
In general, we proceed clockwise from~$p$ until we find two
consecutive vertices of the same color (here we need the condition
that $\sigma$ is non-alternating), then build a caterpillar-like
bi-colored tree whose all interior vertices have degree~$3$ except for
the proxy vertex which has degree~$2$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\scalebox{1}{\input{webs52.pstex_t}}
\caption{Trees $\Lambda_p$. The proxy vertex is denoted by~$p'$.}
\label{fig:caterpillars}
\end{figure}
The graph $\Lambda^p$ is defined in the same way, with the colors
swapped. The proxy vertex is defined analogously (if $p$ is white).
At the next stage, we stitch together several
caterpillar trees
to build tensor diagrams.
In anticipation of this stage, we draw these trees without
self-intersections, and sufficiently close to the boundary of the disk,
so as to avoid ambiguities later on
related to the choice of cyclic ordering at
each vertex of the tensor diagram.
\begin{definition}[\emph{Special invariants}]
\label{def:special-inv}
Let $p$ and $q$ be boundary vertices, $p\ne q$.
The special invariant $J_p^q$ is defined by the tensor
diagram obtained by connecting the trees $\Lambda_p$ and~$\Lambda^q$
by a single edge.
One of its endpoints is $p$ if the latter is black, or else
take the proxy of~$p$.
The other endpoint is $q$ if the latter is white, or else take the
proxy of~$q$.
Make sure the connector edge approaches every proxy vertex from
the same side where the disk's center lies.
See Figure~\ref{fig:webs61} for a couple of examples.
Now, let $p,q,r$ be distinct boundary vertices, ordered clockwise.
The special invariants $J_{pqr}$ and $J^{pqr}$ are defined by tensor
diagrams constructed in a similar
fashion to those used for~$J_p^q$.
For $J_{pqr}$, place a white vertex in the middle, and
draw edges from it to each of $\Lambda_p, \Lambda_q, \Lambda_r$.
As the other endpoints of these three edges,
use the vertices $p,q,r$ whenever they are black, or else take
their respective proxies.
For $J^{pqr}$, reverse the roles of the colors.
See Figure~\ref{fig:webs61}.
Finally, let $p,q,r,s$ be four boundary vertices, ordered clockwise.
The invariant $J_{pq}^{rs}$ is defined by the tensor diagram
obtained as follows.
Place a white vertex~$W$ and a black vertex~$B$ near the center of the
disk. Connect them by an edge.
Connect $W$ to $L_p$ and~$L_q$ using $p$ and $q$ if these two are
black, or else using their proxies as needed.
Similarly, connect $B$ to the appropriate white vertices in $L^r$ and~$L^s$.
Make sure that the five edges incident to $B$ and $W$ do not cross each other.
\end{definition}
\ \vspace{-.3in}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.7}{\input{webs61a.pstex_t}}\qquad\quad
\scalebox{0.7}{\input{webs61b.pstex_t}}
\\[.3in]
\scalebox{0.7}{\input{webs61c.pstex_t}}\qquad\quad
\scalebox{0.7}{\input{webs61d.pstex_t}}
\end{center}
\caption{Examples of special invariants for
$\sigma=[\circ \circ \circ \bullet \circ
\circ \circ \, \bullet]$.\quad
Note~that $J_{257}=J_{25}^{78}$, $J_1^7=J^{127}$, $J_3^5=J^{345}$.}
\label{fig:webs61}
\end{figure}
\iffalse
Recall that $V$ is a three-dimensional vector space endowed with a
volume form.
The \emph{cross product} of two vectors $u,v\in V$ is the covector
$u\times v$ given by $(u\times v)(w)=\operatorname{vol}(u,v,w)$, for $w\in V$.
One similarly defines a cross product of two covectors in~$V^*$
(which is a vector).
\begin{definition}[\emph{Partners}]
\label{def:partner}
Consider a collection of $a$ covectors and $b$ vectors
arranged around a circle in the order specified by the non-alternating
signature~$\sigma$. \linebreak[3]
We use the following recursive procedure to construct $a$ vectors and
$b$ covectors whom we call \emph{partners} of their respective counterparts.
The partner $\overline v$ of a vector~$v$
is given by $\overline v=v\times w$ where $w$ is
the clockwise neighbor of~$v$ if this neighbor is a vector;
otherwise $w$ is the neighbor's partner. Similarly,
for each covector take its cross product with the clockwise
neighbor or with the neighbor's partner.
This rule uniquely determines a partner for each vector and covector.
To find all the partners,
locate two consecutive vectors or two consecutive covectors
(these exist since $\sigma$ is non-alternating.)
Starting there, proceed in counterclockwise order.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
\label{example:ooxxox}
Let $\sigma = [\circ \circ \bullet \bullet \circ
\, \bullet]$, with covectors $v_1, v_2, v_5$ and vectors $v_3,
v_4, v_6$ arranged in a circle as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs51}.
Their partners are determined as follows:
\[
\overline v_1 = v_1 \times v_2, \;\;
\overline v_6 = v_6 \times \overline v_1, \;\;
\overline v_5 = v_5 \times \overline v_6, \;\;
\overline v_4 = v_4 \times \overline v_5 , \;\;
\overline v_3 = v_3 \times v_4, \;\;
\overline v_2 = v_2 \times \overline v_3.
\]
\end{example}
\begin{remark}
The left part of Figure~\ref{fig:webs51}
illustrates the recursive process of computing the partners.
Note that this kind of picture is \emph{not} a tensor diagram
(although its portions can and will be used to construct web
invariants).
Rather, it can be viewed as an \emph{incidence
diagram} whose black and white vertices represent vectors and
covectors, respectively, and whose edges connect a vector $v$ with a
covector~$u^*$ whenever $u^*(v)=0$.
Projectivizing, we get a configuration in the projective plane
consisting of points and lines corresponding to vectors and
covectors, respectively. In an incidence diagram, a black vertex
representing a point is connected to a white vertex representing a
line whenever the point lies on the line.
Each unordered pair $\{v_i, \overline v_i\}$ consists of a vector and
a covector annihilating each other. Projectively, they represent a
\emph{flag} in the plane.
Furthermore, our definition of partners
imposes certain incidence relations across these flags,
whereby a line from one flag is forced to contain a point from another
flag.
It is not difficult to see that these relations encode
configurations which can be called \emph{necklaces of flags};
such a necklace is a cyclically ordered collection of flags in which
each pair of consecutive flags is connected by one incidence relation
(the point in one flag lies on the line in another flag).
The specific form of these relations is determined by the
signature~$\sigma$.
See Figure \ref{fig:webs51}.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}[\emph{Special invariants}]
The \emph{special invariants} are tensor diagram invariants
$J_p^q, J_{pqr}$ and $J^{pqr}$ defined as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item For $p,q\in \{1,\dots,a+b\}$, the invariant
$J_p^q$ is obtained by pairing the vector in
$(v_p, \overline v_p)$ with the covector in $(v_q, \overline v_q)$.
\item For $1\le p\le q\le r\le a+b$, the invariant
$J_{pqr}$
(respectively $J^{pqr}$) is defined
as the signed volume of the three vectors
(respectively the three covectors) in the 6-tuple
$(v_p, v_q, v_r, \overline v_p, \overline v_q, \overline v_r)$.
\end{itemize}
By convention, $J_{pqr}=J_{qrp}=J_{rpq}$,
and similarly for the upper indices.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
In Example~\ref{example:ooxxox}, we have
\begin{align*}
J_3^6 &= \langle v_3, \overline v_6 \rangle = \langle v_3, v_6 \times
(v_1 \times v_2) \rangle,
\\
J_{456} &= |v_4, \overline v_5, v_6| = |v_4, ((v_1 \times v_2)\times
v_6)\times v_5, v_6| = \langle \overline v_4, v_6 \rangle = J_6^4,
\\
J_5^4 &= J^{456} = 0.
\end{align*}
\end{example}
\fi
Some special invariants are identically equal to zero.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:special=0}
If the vertices $p$ and~$q$ are not adjacent,
then $J_p^q$ is a nontrivial invariant.
If $p$ and~$q$ are adjacent,
then exactly one of the two invariants
$J_p^q$ and $J_q^p$ vanishes.
Specifically, if $p$ is white, then $J_p^{p+1}=0$;
if $p$ is black, then $J_{p+1}^p=0$.
\end{proposition}
For example, in Figure~\ref{fig:webs61}
we have $J_1^2=J_2^3=J_3^4=J_5^4=J_5^6=J_6^7=J_7^8=J_1^8=0$.
Some nonzero special invariants are equal to each other.
We do not catalogue all such instances (although we could).
Cf.\ the caption to Figure~\ref{fig:webs61}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:specweb}
Each nonzero special invariant is a web invariant.
\end{proposition}
To illustrate, refer to Figure~\ref{fig:webs61}.
While the two tensor diagrams in the top row
are non-elliptic webs,
the ones in the bottom row are not.
They can however be transformed using skein relations into the
non-elliptic webs shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs62}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.7}{\input{webs62a.pstex_t}}
\qquad
\scalebox{0.7}{\input{webs62b.pstex_t}}
\end{center}
\caption{
$J_3^5$ and $J_{127}$ are (decomposable) web invariants.}
\label{fig:webs62}
\end{figure}
We call a nonzero special invariant \emph{indecomposable} if it
does not factor as a product of two or more special invariants.
In our running example of signature
\hbox{$\sigma=[\circ \circ \circ \bullet \circ \circ \circ \, \bullet]$},
the invariants $J_{257}$ and $J_1^7$ are indecomposable whereas
$J_3^5$ and $J_{127}$ are not.
Indeed, $J_3^5=J_5^3 J_4^5$
and $J_{127}=J_8^2 J_2^1 J_1^7$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:special-inv-factoring}
Each nonzero special invariant is represented uniquely as a product of
indecomposable special invariants.
\end{prop}
There is a simple algorithm for finding such a factorization;
see Section~\ref{sec:special-proofs}.
Indecomposable special invariants will later play the role of
(a subset of) generators for the cluster structure in~$R_\sigma(V)$.
We call two special invariants \emph{compatible} if their product is a
single web invariant. This terminology will prove consistent with the
notion of compatibility of cluster variables;
cf.\ Conjecture~\ref{conj:cluster-compatibility}.
The reader is welcome to check (this may take some time) that the
four special invariants in Figure~\ref{fig:webs61} are pairwise
compatible.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:coeff-special}
Let $\sigma$ be a signature of type $(a,b)$, with $a+b\ge 5$, $a\le b$,
and $\sigma\neq[\bullet\circ\bullet\circ\bullet]$.
Then there are $a+b$ special
invariants com\-patible with all special~invariants.
These $a+b$ invariants are
the (indecomposable) nonzero invariants of the form $J_p^{p \pm 1}$.
Moreover the product of any of them and any web invariant is
a web invariant.
\end{prop}
Anticipating their future role, we call these special invariants
\emph{coefficient invariants}.
We denote the $(a\!+\!b)$-element set of these invariants by~$\mathbf{c}_\sigma$.
See Figure~\ref{fig:webs64}.
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:xoxox}
For $\sigma=[\bullet\circ\bullet\circ\bullet]$, the special invariant
$J_5^1$ factors: $J_5^1=J_3^5 J_4^2$. \linebreak[3]
As a result, there are $6$ coefficient invariants in this case,
namely $J_1^2, J_3^2, J_3^4, J_5^4, J_3^5, J_4^2$.
\end{remark}
\pagebreak[3]
\vspace{-.1in}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.7}{\input{webs64.pstex_t}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-.2in}
\caption{For the signature
$\sigma=[\circ \circ \circ \bullet \circ \circ \circ \,\bullet]$,
the set of coefficient invariants is
$\mathbf{c}_\sigma=\{J_2^1, J_3^2, J_4^3, J_4^5, J_6^5, J_7^6, J_8^7,
J_8^1\}$.
}
\label{fig:webs64}
\end{figure}
In order to write exchange relations for the cluster
algebra~$R_\sigma(V)$, we will need certain
\emph{$3$-term skein relations} for special invariants.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:3-term-skein-special}
Let $p,q,r$ (respectively $p,q,r,s$) be distinct boundary vertices,
listed in clockwise order.
Then
\begin{align}
\label{eq:3-term-1}
J_{pqr} J^{pqr} &= J_r^p J_q^r J_p^q + J_r^q J_p^r J_q^p\,; \\
\label{eq:3-term-2}
J_p^r J_{qrs} &= J_q^r J_{prs} + J_s^r J_{pqr}\,;\\
\label{eq:3-term-3}
J_p^r J_s^q &= J_s^r J_p^q + J_{sp}^{qr}\,;\\
\label{eq:3-term-4}
J_p^r J_{rs}^{pq} &=J_p^q J_r^p J_s^r + J_{prs} J^{pqr}\,;\\
\label{eq:3-term-5}
J_r^p J_{sp}^{qr} &= J_r^q J_s^p J_p^r + J_{prs} J^{pqr}\,.
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
It is important to note that identities
\eqref{eq:3-term-1}--\eqref{eq:3-term-5}
hold irrespective of the
choice~of the signature~$\sigma$.
For some of those choices, these identities are illustrated in
Figure~\ref{fig:webs56}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\smallskip
\scalebox{0.65}{\input{webs67a.pstex_t}}
\bigskip\bigskip
\scalebox{0.65}{\input{webs67b.pstex_t}}
\bigskip
\scalebox{0.65}{\input{webs67d.pstex_t}}
\bigskip
\scalebox{0.65}{\input{webs67c.pstex_t}}
\caption{$3$-term skein relations \eqref{eq:3-term-1}--\eqref{eq:3-term-4}.}
\label{fig:webs56}
\end{figure}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:distill}
In each of identities \eqref{eq:3-term-1}--\eqref{eq:3-term-5}, some special
invariants might be equal to~$0$, while others might factor further.
After everything is expressed in terms of indecomposable special invariants,
we either get a tautological formula $A=A$,
or else a genuine \hbox{$3$-term} relation.
We call the latter relation the \emph{distilled form} of the original
one.
While the distilled relation is always a skein relation of some sort,
it does not have to be an instance of
\eqref{eq:3-term-1}--\eqref{eq:3-term-5};
an example is given in~\eqref{eq:j17*j258}.
\end{remark}
\begin{example}
\label{example:distill}
Let $\sigma =[\circ \circ \circ \bullet \circ
\circ \circ \, \bullet]$ as before.
One instance of equation \eqref{eq:3-term-1} is
$J_{127}J^{127}=J_7^1J_2^7J_1^2+J_7^2J_1^7J_2^1$.
This does not yield a nontrivial identity:
after substituting $J_1^2=0$,
$J_{127}=J_8^2 J_2^1 J_1^7$, $J^{127}=J_1^7$, and
$J_7^2=J_8^2J_1^7$, everything cancels~out.
A more interesting example is
$J_7^2 J_{258} = J_8^2 J_{257} + J_5^2 J_{278}$
(cf.~\eqref{eq:3-term-2}).
Substituting the factorizations $J_7^2=J_8^2J_1^7$
and $J_{278}=J_8^7 J_8^2 J_2^1$ and simplifying, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:j17*j258}
J_1^7 J_{258} =
J_8^7J_5^2J_2^1+J_{257}\,.
\end{equation}
\end{example}
\pagebreak[3]
\section{Seeds associated to triangulations}
\label{sec:special-seeds}
In this section, we construct a family of distinguished seeds in
(the quotient field~of) the ring~$R_\sigma(V)\cong
R_{a,b}(V)$.
These seeds will be used in Section~\ref{sec:main-theorem}
to define a cluster algebra structure in~$R_\sigma(V)$.
\begin{definition
\label{def:z(T)}
Let $T$ be a triangulation of our $(a+b)$-gon by its diagonals.
Let $K(T)$ to be the collection of special invariants
built as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item for each diagonal or side $pq$ in $T$ , include $J_p^q$ and $J_q^p$;
\item for each triangle $pqr$ in $T$ (here $p,q,r$ are ordered clockwise),
include $J_{pqr}$.
\end{itemize}
The \emph{extended cluster} $\mathbf{z}(T)$
consists of all indecomposable special invariants which appear in
factorizations of nonzero elements of $K(T)$ into indecomposables. \linebreak[3]
The \emph{cluster} $\mathbf{x}(T)=\mathbf{z}(T)\setminus\mathbf{c}_\sigma$
consists of all non-coefficient invariants in~$\mathbf{z}(T)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:z(T)}
For any triangulation~$T$ as above, the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item
the extended cluster $\mathbf{z}(T)$ contains the entire set $\mathbf{c}_\sigma$ of
coefficient invariants;
\item
$\mathbf{z}(T)$ consists of $3(a+b)-8$ invariants;
\item
all special invariants in $\mathbf{z}(T)$ are pairwise compatible.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{example}
\label{example:K(T)}
Let $\sigma=[\circ \circ \circ \bullet \circ \circ \circ \,\bullet]$.
Then
\[
\mathbf{c}_\sigma=\{J_2^1, J_3^2, J_4^3, J_4^5, J_6^5, J_7^6, J_8^7,
J_8^1\}
\]
(see Figure~\ref{fig:webs64}).
For~the triangulation~$T$ shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs60} on the
left, we have
\[
K(T)= \mathbf{c}_\sigma \cup
\{J_7^1, J_1^7, J_2^7, J_7^2, J_2^5, J_5^2, J_7^5, J_5^7, J_5^3,
J_3^5, J_{127}, J_{178}, J_{257}, J_{235}, J_{567}\}.
\]
Now, $J_{178}=J_{345}=0$ and $J_5^7=J_6^5$,
while several other elements of $K(T)$
factor:
\[
J_7^1=J_8^1 J_1^7, {\ \ }
J_7^2=J_8^2J_1^7, {\ \ }
J_3^5=J_4^5J_5^3, {\ \ }
J_{127}=J_8^2 J_2^1 J_1^7, {\ \ }
J_{235}=J_5^3J_3^2, {\ \ }
J_{567}=J_6^5J_7^6.
\]
We conclude that
$\mathbf{z}(T)= \mathbf{c}_\sigma\cup \mathbf{x}(T)$ where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:x(T)-example}
\mathbf{x}(T)=\{J_8^2, J_2^7, J_1^7, J_2^5, J_5^2, J_7^5, J_5^3, J_{257}\}.
\end{equation}
\vspace{-.05in}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.6}{\input{webs60.pstex_t}}
\qquad\quad
\scalebox{0.6}{\input{webs60a.pstex_t}}
\end{center}
\caption{Triangulations $T$ and $T'$ of an octagon,
$\sigma=[\circ \circ \circ \bullet \circ
\circ \circ \, \bullet]$.
}
\label{fig:webs60}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:webs66} shows the webs corresponding to the elements
of~$\mathbf{x}(T)$.
\end{example}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\scalebox{0.65}{\input{webs66.pstex_t}}
\caption{Cluster associated with the triangulations shown
in Figure~\ref{fig:webs60}.}
\label{fig:webs66}
\end{figure}
Surprisingly, different triangulations may define the same
cluster.
\begin{proposition}
\label{pr:x(T)=x(T')}
Let $T$ and $T'$ be triangulations which contain the diagonal \hbox{$q(q+3)$}
and coincide outside the quadrilateral $q(q+1)(q+2)(q+3)$.
If the colors of the vertices $(q,q+1,q+2)$ alternate,
then $\mathbf{x}(T)=\mathbf{x}(T')$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{example}
\label{example:x(T)=x(T')}
The two triangulations in Figure~\ref{fig:webs60} yield
the same cluster. (Apply Proposition~\ref{pr:x(T)=x(T')} with $q\!=\!7$.)
To check this directly, refer to Example~\ref{example:K(T)},
write
\[
K(T')=\{J_8^2,J_2^8,J_{128},J_{278}\}\cup
K(T)\setminus\{J_7^1,J_1^7,J_{127},J_{178}\},
\]
and use the factorizations $J_2^8=J_8^2J_2^1$, $J_{128}=J_8^2 J_2^1$,
and $J_{278}=J_8^7 J_8^2 J_2^1$.
\end{example}
To complete our construction,
we need to describe the quivers~$Q(T)$ which,
together with the extended clusters~$\mathbf{z}(T)$,
will form the seeds defining
a cluster algebra structure in the ring~$R_\sigma$.
To put it differently, we need to write the corresponding
exchange relations~\eqref{eq:exchange-relation}.
These are obtained from the
$3$-term skein relations \eqref{eq:3-term-1}--\eqref{eq:3-term-5}
using a couple of additional observations.
Let $T$ be a triangulation as in Definition~\ref{def:z(T)}.
If $pqr$ and $prs$ are triangles in~$T$, then by construction
the first factor on the left-hand side of each relation
\hbox{\eqref{eq:3-term-1}--\eqref{eq:3-term-5}}
is an element of~$K(T)$.
In order for such a relation (or rather its distilled form, see
Remark~\ref{rem:distill}) to be a good candidate for an exchange
relation out of the extended cluster~$\mathbf{z}(T)$,
we would like the terms on the right-hand side to factor into the
elements of~$\mathbf{z}(T)$.
For \eqref{eq:3-term-1}--\eqref{eq:3-term-2},
this is true by design;
for \eqref{eq:3-term-3}--\eqref{eq:3-term-5},
the terms $J_{sp}^{qr}$ and $J^{pqr}$
will only have the requisite property in some special cases.
\pagebreak[3]
We say that a side $pq$ of a triangle $pqr$
is \emph{exposed} if it lies on the
boundary of the $(a+b)$-gon;
in other words, $pq$ is exposed if $q=p+1$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{pr:thin-triangles}
Suppose a triangle~$pqr$ has an exposed side.
Then
\[
J^{pqr}\in \{J_p^r, J_q^p, J_r^q,
J_p^q J_q^r, J_q^r J_r^p, J_r^p J_p^q \}
\]
(which element of this set $J^{pqr}$ is equal to depends on the signature).
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}
\label{pr:thin-quads}
Let $(p,p+1,p+2,s)$ be distinct vertices of the $(a+b)$-gon.
\begin{align}
\label{eq:3-term-3wb}
&\text{If $p$ is white and $p+1$ is black,
then $J_{p+2}^p J_{p+1}^s = J_{p+1}^p J_{p+2}^s + J_p^s$.}\\
\label{eq:3-term-3bw}
&\text{If $p$ is black and $p+1$ is white,
then $J_p^{p+2} J_s^{p+1} = J_p^{p+1} J_s^{p+2} + J_s^p$.}
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{definition}[\emph{Exchange relations for a cluster associated
with a triangulation}]
\label{def:exch-rel-T}
Continuing in the setting of Definition~\ref{def:z(T)},
write the following identities:
\begin{itemize}
\item
for each triangle $pqr$ of the triangulation~$T$,
write formula~\eqref{eq:3-term-1};
\item
for each diagonal $pr$ in~$T$ separating triangles $pqr$ and $prs$:
\begin{itemize}
\item
write formula~\eqref{eq:3-term-2};
\item
if one of the sides of $pqr$ is exposed,
write~\eqref{eq:3-term-4}--\eqref{eq:3-term-5};
\item
if two sides of $pqr$ are exposed,
write the appropriate instance of~\eqref{eq:3-term-3wb}
or~\eqref{eq:3-term-3bw}, if applicable.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
It is easy to check, with the help of
Proposition~\ref{pr:thin-triangles}, that
each of the two monomials on the right-hand side of each of resulting
relations will either vanish (in which case the relation is of no use
to us) or else factor into nontrivial indecomposables.
In the latter case, we distill the relation
(see Remark~\ref{rem:distill}) to obtain a $3$-term relation in
indecomposable special invariants all of which, with the exception on
the second factor on the left, will belong~to~$\mathbf{z}(T)$.
To obtain the final list of exchange relations,
we should also inspect all instances where we can apply
Proposition~\ref{pr:x(T)=x(T')} to get another triangulation~$T'$ with
the same cluster~$\mathbf{x}(T')=\mathbf{x}(T)$,
then check whether applying the above recipe to~$T'$ yields any
additional $3$-term relations.
\end{definition}
A few simple observations help reduce the amount of work
required to write the $3$-term relations of
Definition~\ref{def:exch-rel-T} for a particular choice of~$T$
and~$\sigma$.
For example, if a triangle $pqr$ has an exposed side,
then one of the terms on the right-hand
side of~\eqref{eq:3-term-1} vanishes,
by virtue of Proposition~\ref{prop:special=0}.
Thus, we only need to write relations~\eqref{eq:3-term-1}
for the triangles whose all sides are diagonals.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:special-seeds-exchanges}
For any triangulation $T$ of the $(a+b)$-gon, the procedure described
in Definition~\ref{def:exch-rel-T} yields
as many relations as there are elements in the cluster~$\mathbf{x}(T)$.
More precisely, it yields one relation of the form
\[
x x'=M_1+M_2
\]
for each $x\in\mathbf{x}(T)$; here $M_1,M_2$ are
monomials in the elements of~$\mathbf{z}(T)$.
\end{proposition}
\pagebreak[3]
\begin{definition}
\label{def:Q(T)}
We are now ready to define the \emph{quiver $Q(T)$ associated
with a triangulation~$T$}.
This quiver is built so that the exchange relations
\eqref{eq:exchange-relation} match the $3$-term relations obtained via
the process described in Definition~\ref{def:exch-rel-T}.
This requirement defines $Q(T)$ up to simultaneous reversal of
direction of all edges incident to any subset of connected components
of the mutable part of the quiver.
Typically, there will be a~single connected component,
so that $Q(T)$ is defined up to a global change of orientation.
It is not hard to see that the choice of a particular incarnation of
$Q(T)$ is inconsequential, as the resulting cluster structure will
not depend on this choice.
To simplify presentation, we henceforth use the notation $Q(T)$
without mentioning its ambiguity.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
We continue with the triangulation~$T$
discussed in Example~\ref{example:K(T)};
cf.\ Figure~\ref{fig:webs60} on the left.
The only relevant instance of formula~\eqref{eq:3-term-1} is
\[
J_{257} J^{257}
=J_7^2 J_5^7 J_2^5 + J_7^5 J_2^7 J_5^2
\qquad \text{(for $p=2,\ q=5,\ r=7$).}
\]
After factoring $J_7^2$ into indecomposables
and substituting $J_5^7=J_6^5$
(so as to use consistent notation for the coefficient invariants),
we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:j257*u257}
J_{257} J^{257}
= J_8^2 J_1^7 J_6^5 J_2^5 + J_7^5 J_2^7 J_5^2\,.
\end{equation}
Among 10 instances of~\eqref{eq:3-term-2},
the nontrivial identities are (in distilled form):
\begin{align}
\label{eq:j27*j58}
J_2^7 J_5^8 &= J_6^5 J_8^2 J_2^1+J_{257}
\qquad \text{(for $p=2,\ q=5,\ r=7,\ s=1$),}\\[.1in]
J_2^5 J_7^4 &= J_{257} J_4^5 + J_3^2 J_7^5
\qquad \text{(for $p=2,\ q=3,\ r=5,\ s=7$),}\\[.1in]
\label{eq:j52*j73}
J_5^2 J_7^3 &= J_8^2 J_1^7 J_5^3 + J_{257}
\qquad \text{(for $p=5,\ q=7,\ r=2,\ s=3$),}\\[.1in]
\label{eq:j75*j26}
J_7^5 J_2^6 &= J_2^5 J_7^6 + J_{257}\quad
\qquad \text{(for $p=7,\ q=2,\ r=5,\ s=6$).}
\end{align}
For each of \eqref{eq:3-term-4} and \eqref{eq:3-term-5},
there are 7~instances to check.
Equation \eqref{eq:3-term-4} produces one nontrivial relation:
\begin{align}
J_8^2 J_{25}^{71} &= J_8^1 J_2^7 J_5^2 + J_{257}
\qquad \text{(for $p=7,\ q=1,\ r=2,\ s=5$),}
\end{align}
Equation \eqref{eq:3-term-5} yields three relations---but all of them
replicate those obtained earlier:
\begin{itemize}
\item
for $p=7,\ q=1,\ r=2,\ s=5$, we get~\eqref{eq:j27*j58};
\item
for $p=2,\ q=3,\ r=5,\ s=7$, we get~\eqref{eq:j52*j73};
\item
for $p=5,\ q=6,\ r=7,\ s=2$, we get~\eqref{eq:j75*j26}.
\end{itemize}
The rule \eqref{eq:3-term-3wb} supplies two equations
one of which results in a new nontrivial identity:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:j53*j42}
J_5^3 J_4^2 = J_4^3 J_5^2 + J_3^2
\qquad \text{(for $p=3,\ s=2$);} \hspace{.75in}
\end{equation}
and there are no instances of~\eqref{eq:3-term-3bw}.
We have obtained 7~exchange relations
\eqref{eq:j257*u257}--\eqref{eq:j53*j42},
one for each element of $\mathbf{x}(T)$ (cf.~\eqref{eq:x(T)-example}) except
for~$J_1^7$.
To get the missing relation, we need to replace $T$ by the
triangulation~$T'$ shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs60} on the right.
(Cf.\ Example~\ref{example:x(T)=x(T')}).
The only new relation is obtained by applying~\eqref{eq:3-term-2}
with $p=7, q=8, r=2, s=5$.
As explained in Example~\ref{example:distill}, this results in
the equation~\eqref{eq:j17*j258}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:j17*j258-again}
J_1^7 J_{258} =
J_8^7J_5^2J_2^1+J_{257}\,.
\end{equation}
The corresponding quiver~$Q(T)$ has 16 vertices:
8~frozen, labeled by the coefficient
invariants (see Figure~\ref{fig:webs64}),
and 8~mutable, labeled by the elements of the cluster~$\mathbf{x}(T)$
(see~\eqref{eq:x(T)-example}).
One by one, we draw the edges incident to each mutable vertex
using the corresponding exchange relation
\eqref{eq:j257*u257}--\eqref{eq:j17*j258-again},
so as to match the formula~\eqref{eq:exchange-relation}.
This occasionally requires swapping the two terms on the right-hand
side.
\pagebreak[3]
The resulting quiver $Q(T)$ is shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:webs65}.
It has cluster type~$E_8$.
\end{example}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\scalebox{0.65}{\input{webs65.pstex_t}}
\caption{The quiver associated with the triangulations shown
in Figure~\ref{fig:webs60}.}
\label{fig:webs65}
\end{figure}
A general recipe for building the quiver $Q(T)$ associated with an
arbitrary triangulation~$T$ of the polygon~$P_\sigma$ is described in
Section~\ref{sec:building-a-quiver}.
Additional examples of seeds $(Q(T),\mathbf{z}(T))$
associated with particular triangulations~$T$ and signatures~$\sigma$
can be found in Sections~\ref{sec:T-fan} and~\ref{sec:examples-of-seeds}.
\usection{Results and conjectures}
\section{Main results}
\label{sec:main-theorem}
After all the preparation of the preceding sections, the statement of
our main theorem comes as no surprise.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:main}
Let $\sigma$ be a non-alternating cyclic signature of type $(a,b)$,
and let $P_\sigma$ be a convex $(a+b)$-gon with vertices colored
according to~$\sigma$.
Let $T$ be a triangulation of~$P_\sigma$ by its diagonals.
Then the extended cluster~$\mathbf{z}(T)$ and the quiver~$Q(T)$
constructed as described in Definitions~\ref{def:z(T)}
and~\ref{def:Q(T)}
form a seed in the quotient field of
the ring of invariants~$R_\sigma(V)$ whose associated cluster algebra
is~$R_\sigma(V)$:
\[
R_\sigma(V)=\Acal(Q(T),\mathbf{z}(T)).
\]
This cluster structure on $R_\sigma(V)$
does not depend on the choice of triangulation~$T$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary}
Any element of $R_\sigma(V)$, and in particular any web invariant, can
be expressed as a Laurent polynomial in the elements of any extended
cluster~$\mathbf{z}(T)$.
\end{corollary}
For the record, we state below some basic properties of the cluster
algebra $R_\sigma(V)$ that are immediate from its construction
(as justified by Theorem~\ref{th:main}).
\begin{proposition}
The cluster algebra $R_\sigma(V)$ has the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The set of
coefficient variables and cluster variables
includes all indecomposable special invariants, and
in particular all Weyl generators.
\item
The coefficient variables are the
coefficient invariants (cf.\ Proposition~\ref{prop:coeff-special}).
\item
Each extended cluster consists of $3(a+b)-8$ elements;
\item
The rank (the cardinality of each cluster)
is $2(a+b)-8$,
except for the cases $\sigma=[\bullet\circ\bullet\circ\bullet]$
and $\sigma=[\circ\bullet\circ\bullet\circ]$
when it is equal to~1
(cf.\ Remark~\ref{rem:xoxox}).
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{example}
Let $a=2$, $b=3$, $\sigma=[\bullet \bullet \bullet \circ \circ]$.
In this case, the cluster algebra $R_\sigma(V)$ has type~$A_2$.
It has $5$~coefficient variables, namely:
\[
J_{123},\ J_{23}^{45},\ J_3^4,\ J_{12}^{45},\ J_1^5.
\]
(Some of these have alternative presentations, for example $J_{23}^{45}=J_{234}=J^{245}=J_2^3$.)
The $5$~cluster variables in $R_\sigma(V)$ are:
\[
J_1^4, \ J_2^4, \ J_2^5, \ J_3^5, \ J_{13}^{45}=J_{134}=J_1^3.
\]
They form $5$~clusters:
\[
\{J_1^4, J_2^4\}, \{J_2^4, J_2^5\}, \{J_2^5, J_3^5\}, \{J_3^5, J_{13}^{45}\},
\{J_{13}^{45}, J_1^4\}.
\]
The exchange relations are:
\begin{align*}
J_1^4 J_3^5 &= J_1^5 J_3^4 + J_{13}^{45}, \\
J_2^4 J_{13}^{45} &= J_{12}^{45} J_3^4 + J_{23}^{45} J_1^4, \\
J_2^5 J_1^4 &= J_{12}^{45} + J_1^5 J_2^4, \\
J_3^5 J_2^4 &= J_{23}^{45} + J_3^4 J_2^5, \\
J_{13}^{45} J_2^5 &= J_{23}^{45} J_1^5 + J_{12}^{45} J_3^5.
\end{align*}
Notice that the coefficient variable $J_{123}$ does not appear in these relations.
Accordingly, the frozen vertex corresponding to $J_{123}$ is isolated in every
quiver of~$R_\sigma(V)$.
One example of such a quiver is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:xxxoo}.
\end{example}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(80,22)(0,-2)
\put( 0,20){\makebox(0,0){$J_1^5$}}
\put(20,0){\makebox(0,0){$J_{12}^{45}$}}
\put(20,20){\makebox(0,0){$J_2^5$}}
\put(40,0){\makebox(0,0){$J_{23}^{45}$}}
\put(40,20){\makebox(0,0){$J_2^4$}}
\put(60,20){\makebox(0,0){$J_3^4$}}
\put(80,20){\makebox(0,0){$J_{123}$}}
\thicklines
\put(16,20){\vector(-1,0){12}}
\put(56,20){\vector(-1,0){12}}
\put(24,20){\vector(1,0){12}}
\put(20,4){\vector(0,1){12}}
\put(40,16){\vector(0,-1){12}}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{The quiver associated with the cluster $\{J_2^4, J_2^5\}$
in the cluster algebra~$R_\sigma(V)$,
for $\sigma=[\bullet \bullet \bullet \circ \circ]$.}
\label{fig:xxxoo}
\end{figure}
\pagebreak[3]
While the cluster structure on $R_\sigma(V)\cong R_{a,b}(V)$ defined
in Theorem~\ref{th:main} is
independent of the choice of triangulation,
it does critically depend on the signature~$\sigma$.
In fact, fixing the parameters $a$ and~$b$ does not determine
the cluster type of~$R_\sigma(V)$, nor
whether $R_\sigma(V)$ is of finite or infinite type.
See Figure~\ref{fig:boundary-signatures-5678}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\vspace{-.05in}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}[t]{lll}
\begin{tabular}[t]{|p{2cm}|p{2.5cm}|}
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet$ & $A_2$ \\
\hline
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ$ & $A_1\!\sqcup\!A_1$ \\
\hline
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\circ$ & $A_2$ \\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\circ\bullet\circ$ & $A_1$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
&&
\begin{tabular}[t]{|p{2.33cm}|p{3.8cm}|}
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\,\bullet$ & $D_4$ \\
\hline
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\,\circ$ & $A_4$\\
\hline
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\,\circ$ & $A_4$ \\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\bullet\,\circ$& $A_4$ \\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\circ\bullet\bullet\,\circ$& $A_2\!\sqcup\!A_2$\\
\hline
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\circ\,\circ$ & $D_4$ \\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\circ\bullet\circ\,\circ$& $A_3 \!\sqcup\! A_1$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\\
\\
\hskip-.07in\begin{tabular}[t]{l}
\begin{tabular}[t]{|p{2cm}|p{2.5cm}|}
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet$ & $E_6$ \\
\hline
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ$ & $E_6$ \\
\hline
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\circ$ & $D_6$ \\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\bullet\circ$ & $D_5^{(1)}$ \\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\bullet\bullet\circ$ & $D_6$ \\
\hline
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\circ\circ$ & $E_6$ \\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\circ\bullet\circ$ & $E_6$ \\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\circ\bullet\bullet\circ\circ$ & $D_6$ \\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\circ\bullet\circ\bullet\circ$&
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(33,13)(-3,0)
\thicklines
\put(0,0){\circle*{2}}
\put(10,0){\circle*{2}}
\put(0,10){\circle*{2}}
\put(10,10){\circle*{2}}
\put(20,5){\circle*{2}}
\put(30,5){\circle*{2}}
\put(2,0){\vector(1,0){6}}
\put(2,10){\vector(1,0){6}}
\put(0,2){\vector(0,1){6}}
\put(12,0){\vector(2,1){6}}
\put(18,6){\vector(-2,1){6}}
\put(22,5){\vector(1,0){6}}
\end{picture}
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\\
\begin{tabular}{c}
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(53,23)(-10,0)
\thicklines
\multiput(10,10)(10,0){4}{\circle*{2}}
\put(20,0){\circle*{2}}
\put(30,0){\circle*{2}}
\put(10,10){\line(1,0){30}}
\put(20,0){\line(0,1){10}}
\put(30,0){\line(0,1){10}}
\put(40,0){$D_5^{(1)}$}
\end{picture}
\\
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(53,27)(-10,0)
\thicklines
\multiput(0,10)(10,0){7}{\circle*{2}}
\put(30,0){\circle*{2}}
\put(0,10){\line(1,0){60}}
\put(30,0){\line(0,1){10}}
\put(40,0){$E_7^{(1)}$}
\end{picture}
\\
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(53,33)(-10,0)
\thicklines
\multiput(0,20)(10,0){6}{\circle*{2}}
\put(30,0){\circle*{2}}
\put(30,10){\circle*{2}}
\put(30,20){\circle*{2}}
\put(0,20){\line(1,0){50}}
\put(30,0){\line(0,1){20}}
\put(40,5){$T_{433}$}
\end{picture}
\end{tabular}
\end{tabular}
&\qquad\quad&
\begin{tabular}[t]{|p{2.33cm}|p{3.8cm}|}
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\,\bullet$ & $E_8$ \\
\hline
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\,\circ$ & $E_7^{(1)}$ \\
\hline
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\,\circ$ & $E_8$ \\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\bullet\,\circ$ & $T_{433}$\\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\bullet\bullet\,\circ$ & $T_{433}$ \\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\bullet\bullet\bullet\,\circ$ & $E_8$ \\
\hline
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\circ\,\circ$ & $E_8$ \\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\circ\bullet\,\circ$ & $T_{433}$ \\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\circ\bullet\bullet\,\circ$ & $E_8$\\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\bullet\circ\bullet\,\circ$ & $T_{433}$ \\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\circ\bullet\bullet\circ\bullet\,\circ$ &
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(53,13)(-2,0)
\thicklines
\multiput(0,10)(10,0){6}{\circle*{2}}
\put(20,0){\circle*{2}}
\put(30,0){\circle*{2}}
\put(0,10){\line(1,0){50}}
\put(20,0){\line(0,1){10}}
\put(30,0){\line(0,1){10}}
\end{picture}
\\
\hline
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\circ\circ\,\circ$ & $E_7^{(1)}$\\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\circ\circ\bullet\,\circ$ & $E_7^{(1)}$\\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\circ\bullet\circ\,\circ$ & $E_7^{(1)}$\\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\circ\circ\bullet\bullet\circ\,\circ$ & $D_8$\\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\circ\circ\bullet\circ\bullet\,\circ$ &
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(53,13)(-2,0)
\thicklines
\multiput(0,10)(10,0){6}{\circle*{2}}
\put(40,0){\circle*{2}}
\put(30,0){\circle*{2}}
\put(0,10){\line(1,0){50}}
\put(40,0){\line(0,1){10}}
\put(30,0){\line(0,1){10}}
\end{picture}
\\
\hline
$\bullet\bullet\circ\bullet\circ\circ\bullet\,\circ$ &
\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\begin{picture}(53,23)(-2,0)
\thicklines
\multiput(0,20)(10,0){5}{\circle*{2}}
\put(20,0){\circle*{2}}
\put(20,10){\circle*{2}}
\put(30,10){\circle*{2}}
\put(0,20){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(20,0){\line(0,1){20}}
\put(30,10){\line(0,1){10}}
\end{picture}
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Cluster types of $R_\sigma(V)$
for non-alternating signatures $\sigma$ of type $(a,b)$ with
$a\!+\!b\in\{5,6,7,8\}$.
These cluster types are
invariant under dihedral symmetries and/or global
change of coloring;
we include one representative from each equivalence class.
Take an arbitrary orientation of each tree to get the corresponding quiver.}
\label{fig:boundary-signatures-5678}
\end{figure}
\iffalse
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ ||p{2cm}|p{2cm}||p{2cm}|p{2cm}||p{2cm}|p{2cm}||}
\hline
\hline
xxxxx & $A_2$ & xxxxo & $A_1+A_1$ & xxxoo & $A_2$\\
\hline
xxoxo & $A_1$ & xxxxxx & $D_4$ &xxxxxo & $A_4$\\
\hline
xxxxoo & $A_4$ & xxxoxo& $A_4$& xxoxxo& $A_2+A_2$\\
\hline
xxxooo & $D_4$& xxooxo& $A_3 + A_1$& xxxxxxx& $E_6$\\
\hline
xxxxxxo & $E_6$& xxxxxoo& $D_6$& xxxxoxo& $D_5^{(1)}$\\
\hline
xxxoxxo & $D_6$& xxxxooo& $E_6$& xxxooxo& $E_6$\\
\hline
xxooxxo & $D_6$& xxoxoxo& see figure& xxxxxxxx& $E_8$\\
\hline
xxxxxxxo & $E_7^{(1)}$& xxxxxxoo& $E_8$& xxxxxoxo& see figure\\
\hline
xxxoxxxo & $E_8$& xxxxooxo& see figure& xxxooxxo& $E_8$\\
\hline
xxxoxoxo & see figure& xxoxxoxo& see figure& xxxxoooo& $E_7^{(1)}$\\
\hline
xxxoooxo & $E_7^{(1)}$& xxxooxoo& $E_7^{(1)}$& xxooxxoo& $D_8$\\
\hline
xxooxoxo & see figure & xxoxooxo& see figure& xxxxxooo& $E_8$\\
\hline
xxxxxooo & $E_8$ & xxxxoxxo& see figure & & \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{}
\label{fig:boundary-signatures}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs25.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{}
\label{fig:webs25}
\end{figure}
\fi
For each signature~$\sigma$,
there are choices of a triangulation~$T$ for which the construction of the
quiver $Q(T)$ simplifies considerably.
One such choice is presented in Section~\ref{sec:T-fan},
providing a totally explicit rule for determining
the (extended) cluster type of~$R_\sigma(V)$ for any signature~$\sigma$.
\medskip
We next discuss the important special case $a=0$ (ring of invariants of $b$
vectors in \hbox{$3$-space}),
or equivalently the case of monochromatic signature
\[
\sigma=[\bullet\bullet\bullet\cdots\bullet\bullet\,\bullet]
\]
of type~$(0,b)$.
As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:cluster-algebras},
cluster structures in the rings~$R_{0,b}(V)$,
and indeed in homogeneous coordinate rings of arbitrary Grassmannians
${\mathrm{Gr}}_{k,b}$,
were described by J.~Scott~\cite{scott} and extensively studied thereafter
(cf., e.g.,~\cite{gsv-book}).
\pagebreak[3]
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:we=scott}
The cluster algebra structure in the ring of invariants $R_{0,b}(V)$
(or equivalently in the homogeneous coordinate ring of the
Grassmannian ${\mathrm{Gr}}_{3,b}$)
described in Theorem~\ref{th:main}
coincides with the one given by J.~Scott~{\rm\cite{scott}}.
\end{theorem}
In the Grassmannian case $a=0$, our construction of seeds
$(Q(T),\mathbf{z}(T))$
simplifies considerably,
see Figure~\ref{fig:webs47}.
This construction
generalizes the one given by Scott~\cite{scott} for a
particular kind of triangulation~$T$.
\pagebreak[3]
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{1.1}{ \input{webs47.pstex_t}}
\end{center}
\caption{Given a triangulation~$T$ of a convex $b$-gon,
the seed $(Q(T),\mathbf{z}(T))$ in the ring of invariants $R_{0,b}(V)$
is constructed as follows.
Place one vertex of~$Q(T)$ inside each triangle $pqr$ of~$T$;
it corresponds to the Pl\"ucker invariant~$P_{pqr}$.
Place two vertices of~$Q(T)$ on each diagonal $pq$ of~$T$
and on each side $pq$ of the polygon;
the vertex closer to~$p$ (resp., to~$q$)
corresponds to $P_{p,p+1,q}$
(resp., to~$P_{p,q,q+1}$).
For every triangle in~$T$ with no exposed sides,
connect the seven associated vertices as shown on the left.
If one or two sides are exposed (second and third pictures),
identify the vertices of each solid triangular region,
and remove the arrows bounding it.
Finally, freeze the variables~$P_{p,p+1,p+2}$.}
\label{fig:webs47}
\end{figure}
\begin{example}
\label{example:G3-678}
For $b\le 8$, the cluster algebras
$R_{0,b}(V)\cong\CC[{\mathrm{Gr}}_{3,b}]$ are of finite type,
so we can list all their generators explicitly.
Unsurprisingly, we end up reproducing Scott's original description
of these generators~\cite{scott} in the language of webs.
In fact, Scott gave a geometric interpretation of these generators
(for $b\le 8$) which can be seen to match our construction.
The cluster types of the rings $\CC[{\mathrm{Gr}}_{3,b}]$, $b\le 8$,
are well known to be as follows:
$A_2$ for $b=5$,
$D_4$ for $b=6$,
$E_6$~for $b=7$, and
$E_8$ for $b=8$ (see, e.g., \cite{cdm};
cf.\ Figure~\ref{fig:boundary-signatures-5678}).
The set of generators of each cluster algebra $R_{0,b}(V)$
includes the $\binom{b}{3}$ Pl\"ucker invariants $P_{pqr}=J_{pqr}$ given by
tripod~webs.
Among them there are $b$ coefficient variables of the form $P_{p,p+1,p+2}$.
For $b\ge 6$, there are also non-Pl\"ucker cluster variables.
The simplest among them are the ``hexapod'' invariants
given by webs of the kind shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs50} on the~left.
There are $2\binom{b}{6}$ of these hexapods in $R_{0,b}(V)$.
For $b=6$ and $b=7$, the tripods and hexapods comprise the entire list
of generators.
For $b=8$, there are 24 additional cluster variables,
namely 8 (resp.,~16) web invariants of the kind shown in the second (resp.,
third) picture in Figure~\ref{fig:webs50}.
\end{example}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{1.25}{ \input{webs50.pstex_t}}
\end{center}
\caption{Non-Pl\"ucker cluster variables in
$R_{0,b}(V)$, for $b\in\{6,7,8\}$.
To get all of them, include rotations and, in the case of
the~rightmost web, the mirror images.}
\label{fig:webs50}
\end{figure}
\medskip
Cluster algebra structures in rings of invariants $R_\sigma(V)$ behave
nicely under two types of embeddings of such rings into one another.
To state these results, we will need the following natural
definition.
\begin{definition}
Let $\Acal$ be a cluster algebra.
Take a seed $(Q,\mathbf{z})$ of~$\Acal$.
Freeze some subset of cluster variables in~$\mathbf{z}$
(thus, some subset of mutable vertices in~$Q$).
If the resulting quiver has vertices that are not connected by an
edge to a mutable vertex, remove some of them (and remove the
corresponding elements from~$\mathbf{z}$) to get a new seed $(Q',\mathbf{z}')$.
The cluster algebra $\Acal'=\Acal(Q',\mathbf{z}')$ obtained in this way is called a
\emph{cluster subalgabra} of~$\Acal$.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:drop-vertex}
Let $\sigma$ and $\sigma'$ be two non-alternating signatures
such that $\sigma'$ is obtained from $\sigma$ by removing a single
symbol.
Then the image of $R_{\sigma'}(V)$ under the obvious
tautological embedding $R_{\sigma'}(V)\to R_\sigma(V)$
is a cluster subalgebra of~$R_\sigma(V)$.
\end{theorem}
Theorem~\ref{th:drop-vertex} seems to be new even in the case of
Grassmannians (cf.\ Theorem~\ref{th:we=scott}).
For example, it implies that any web invariant of the form shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:webs50} is a cluster variable in $R_{0,b}(V)$ for any
$b\ge 8$, or
indeed in any cluster algebra $R_{a,b}(V)$ with $b\ge 6$,
respectively $b\ge 8$.
\medskip
Recall that $V$ is a three-dimensional vector space endowed with a
volume form.
The \emph{cross product} of two vectors $u,v\in V$ is the covector
$u\times v$ given by $(u\times v)(w)=\operatorname{vol}(u,v,w)$, for $w\in V$.
One similarly defines a cross product of two covectors in~$V^*$,
which is a vector.
\pagebreak[3]
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:fork}
Let $\sigma$ and $\sigma'$ be two non-alternating signatures
such that $\sigma'$ is obtained from $\sigma$ by
replacing two consecutive entries of the same color by a single entry
of the opposite color.
Interpreting this operation algebraically as a cross product,
consider the corresponding embedding
$R_{\sigma'}(V)\to R_\sigma(V)$.
Then the image of $R_{\sigma'}(V)$ under this embedding
is a cluster subalgebra of~$R_\sigma(V)$.
\end{theorem}
Theorems~\ref{th:drop-vertex} and~\ref{th:fork} can be restated as
saying that if $\sigma'$ is obtained from~$\sigma$
by removing an entry, or by replacing $\bullet\,\bullet\!\to\!\circ$
or $\circ\,\circ\!\to\!\bullet$, or more generally by a sequence of such
steps, then $R_{\sigma'}(V)$ can be viewed as a cluster subalgebra
of~$R_\sigma(V)$.
In particular, in each of those cases the cluster type of~$R_{\sigma'}(V)$
can be obtained by taking an induced subgraph inside
some quiver for~$R_{\sigma}(V)$.
One consequence of this hierarchy is that each cluster algebra
$R_{\sigma}(V)$ can be interpreted as a cluster subalgebra of some
Grassmann cluster algebra $R_{0,b}(V)$.
At the level of tensor diagrams, the embeddings in
Theorems~\ref{th:drop-vertex}--\ref{th:fork} correspond to
simple transformations near the boundary of our disk.
In the case of Theorem~\ref{th:drop-vertex},
passing from $\sigma'$ to~$\sigma$ corresponds to adding an isolated
vertex.
For the cross product embedding of Theorem~\ref{th:fork},
we replace one boundary vertex by a pair of vertices
of the opposite color, simultaneously
adding \emph{forks} to all edges of a tensor diagram which use this
vertex, see
Figure \ref{fig:webs17}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs17.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{Adding a fork.
}
\label{fig:webs17}
\end{figure}
Theorems~\ref{th:drop-vertex} and~\ref{th:fork} can be
used to obtain the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:planar-tree}
If a tensor diagram $D$ is a planar tree,
then the corresponding web invariant $[D]$ is a cluster or coefficient
variable in~$R_{\sigma}(V)$.
\end{corollary}
An observant reader may have noticed that our definition of the cluster structure in
the ring $R_\sigma(V)$ does not treat the black and white colors in exactly the same way.
The only place where the symmetry is broken is Definition~\ref{def:z(T)}:
the set $K(T)$ used to define the extended cluster $\mathbf{z}(T)$ includes
the invariants $J_{pqr}$---but not~$J^{pqr}$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:swap-colors}
Interchanging the two colors in the definition of the extended clusters $\mathbf{z}(T)$
does not change the resulting cluster structure in the ring~$R_\sigma(V)$.
\end{theorem}
Besides swapping the colors, one can also consider the ``mirror image''
of our main construction.
We expect this version to yield the same result.
\begin{conjecture}
Reversal of direction (more specifically, replacing the clockwise direction
in the definition of special invariants by the counterclockwise one)
does not affect the cluster structure in~$R_\sigma(V)$.
\end{conjecture}
We do not know of a natural
construction of a cluster algebra structure in the ring~$R_\sigma(V)$
for the \emph{alternating} signature~$\sigma=[\bullet\circ\bullet\circ\cdots]$;
this case seems to be genuinely exceptional.
If $\sigma$ is alternating,
then the structure one gets by applying the approach of
Sections~\ref{sec:special-invariants}--\ref{sec:special-seeds}
is one of a ``generalized cluster
algebra'' in which some of the exchange relations have more than two
terms on the right-hand side.
\section{Main conjectures}
\label{sec:main-conjectures}
In this section, we discuss conjectural links between
\begin{itemize}
\item
the cluster structure in a ring of invariants $R_\sigma(V)$
(cf.\ Section~\ref{sec:main-theorem}) and
\item
Kuperberg's basis of this ring
formed by the web invariants (cf.\ Section~\ref{sec:webs}).
\end{itemize}
The conjectures in this section
are intentionally formulated in general terms,
so as to suggest their possible extensions to other contexts,
including other classical rings of invariants and
cluster algebras associated with marked surfaces.
\medskip
We call a web invariant~$z$ \emph{indecomposable} if it cannot be expressed
as a product of two web invariants.
(This is likely equivalent to irreducibility of~$z$.)
For example, any coefficient variable is an indecomposable web invariant.
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conj:cluster-vars-are-in-web-basis}
All cluster variables
are indecomposable web invariants.
\end{conjecture}
Two cluster variables are called \emph{compatible}
if they belong to the same cluster.
Coefficient variables are compatible with each other, and with all
cluster variables.
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conj:cluster-compatibility}
Two cluster (or coefficient)
variables are compatible if and
only if their product is a web invariant.
\end{conjecture}
Note that by Proposition~\ref{prop:coeff-special},
the product of a coefficient
variable and any web invariant
(in particular, by
Conjecture~\ref{conj:cluster-vars-are-in-web-basis}, any cluster
variable) is a web invariant.
The simplest illustration of
Conjecture~\ref{conj:cluster-compatibility} can be found in
Figure~\ref{fig:tripod-and-a-stick}:
the invariants $J_2^4$ and $J_{123}$ shown there
are compatible with each other,
and their product is a web invariant shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:edge-labelings}.
To see more interesting examples,
take any two (compatible) webs in Figure~\ref{fig:webs66}
and verify that their superposition can be converted into a single web
by iterated skein transformations.
We conjecture that much more is true.
Define a \emph{cluster monomial} (cf.~\cite{cdm})
as a monomial in the elements of any given extended cluster.
For cluster algebras defined by quivers,
cluster monomials are known to be linearly independent~\cite{cklp}.
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conj:cluster-monomials-are-in-web-basis}
All cluster monomials are web invariants.
\end{conjecture}
\iffalse
While the web in Figure~\ref{fig:G38}(a) has no internal cycles, the
web in~(b) has
one; still, this web can be transformed into the non-planar tensor diagram~(c)
which has no such cycles.
(In principle, one can always get rid of the cycles;
the challenge is to do so without getting a linear combination of two
or more webs.)
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
$\begin{xy}
0;<.75cm,0cm>:
(3,6)*{\bullet}="l1",
(5,5.5)*{\bullet}="l2",
(6,4)="l3",
(5.5,2)="l4",
(3.75,.75)="l5",
(2.25,.75)*{\bullet}="l6",
(.5,2)*{\bullet}="l7",
(0,4)*{\bullet}="l8",
(1,5.5)*{\bullet}="l9",
(3,4.5)="a1", (3.5,2)="a2", (4.75,4.25)="a3", (2.25,3.5)="a4",
(1.25,4.25)="a5", (2,2.25)="a6", (4,2.25)="a7",
{\ar @{->} "l1"; "a1"}, {\ar @{->} "l2"; "a1"}, {\ar @{->} "l6";
"a6"}, {\ar @{->} "l7"; "a6"}, {\ar @{->} "l8"; "a5"}, {\ar @{->}
"l9"; "a5"}, {\ar @{->} "a4"; "a1"}, {\ar @{->} "a4"; "a5"}, {\ar
@{->} "a4"; "a6"}, {\ar @{->} "l6"; "a2"}, {\ar @{->} "l7"; "a2"},
{\ar @{->} "l1"; "a2"},
\end{xy}$
\qquad\qquad
$\begin{xy}
0;<.75cm,0cm>:
(3,6)*{\bullet}="l1",
(5,5.5)*{\bullet}="l2",
(6,4)="l3",
(5.5,2)="l4",
(3.75,.75)="l5",
(2.25,.75)*{\bullet}="l6",
(.5,2)*{\bullet}="l7",
(0,4)*{\bullet}="l8",
(1,5.5)*{\bullet}="l9",
(3,4.5)="a1", (3.75,2.6)="a2", (3.5,4)="a3", (2.25,3.5)="a4",
(1.25,4.25)="a5", (2,2.25)="a6", (2.85,2.2)="a7", (2,1.6)="a8",
(4,4.5)="a9",
{\ar @{->} "l1"; "a1"}, {\ar @{->} "l7"; "a6"}, {\ar @{->} "l8";
"a5"}, {\ar @{->} "l9"; "a5"}, {\ar @{->} "a4"; "a1"}, {\ar @{->}
"a4"; "a5"}, {\ar @{->} "a4"; "a6"}, {\ar @{->} "l1"; "a9"}, {\ar
@{->} "l2"; "a9"}, {\ar @{->} "a3"; "a9"},{\ar @{->} "a3"; "a1"},
{\ar @{->} "a3"; "a2"}, {\ar @{->} "a7"; "a2"}, {\ar @{->} "a7";
"a8"}, {\ar @{->} "a7"; "a6"}, {\ar @{->} "l6"; "a8"}, {\ar @{->}
"l7"; "a8"}, {\ar @{->} "l6"; "a2"}
\end{xy}
$
\\[-.0in]
\hspace{-.15in}{\small (a)}
\hspace{2.0in}{\small (b)}
\end{center}
\vspace{-.1in}
\caption{Tensor diagram (a) represents a product of a Pl\"ucker coordinate and
a~non-Pl\"ucker cluster variable in~$R_{0,6}(V)$.
Since this diagram can be transformed by local reduction rules into the
planar web~(b),
these two cluster variables are compatible.}
\label{fig:tripod}
\end{figure}
\fi
Conjecture~\ref{conj:cluster-monomials-are-in-web-basis} suggests the
following property of the web basis.
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conj:compat-web-invariants}
Given a finite collection of distinct web invariants,
if the product of any two of them is a web invariant,
then so is the product of all of them.
\end{conjecture}
\pagebreak[3]
In Conjecture~\ref{conj:compat-web-invariants},
we cannot replace ``the product of all of them'' by ``any monomial in them:''
it is possible to construct a web invariant
(see Section~\ref{sec:imaginary-elts})
whose square is not a web invariant.
This invariant is \emph{not} a cluster monomial,
or else its square would provide a counterexample to
Conjecture~\ref{conj:cluster-monomials-are-in-web-basis}.
We note that it is enough to prove Conjecture~\ref{conj:compat-web-invariants}
for collections of three invariants.
The general case would then follow by induction.
Conjecture~\ref{conj:compat-web-invariants} is inspired by the
``flag property'' of cluster complexes (conjectural, but proved in many instances),
and by the analogous property of the dual canonical basis
(cf.~\cite{hernandez}).
We anticipate that
all of the above conjectures generalize broadly.
Our most optimistic hopes are expressed in
Conjecture~\ref{conj:A-and-B} whose statements
\eqref{enum:cluster-mon-in-B}--\eqref{enum:clique}
are patterned after
Conjectures~\ref{conj:cluster-compatibility}--\ref{conj:compat-web-invariants}
and Proposition~\ref{prop:coeff-special}.
\pagebreak[3]
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conj:A-and-B}
In any cluster algebra~$\Acal$ of geometric type,
there exists an additive basis~$\Bcal$ with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{enum:cluster-mon-in-B}
All cluster monomials in $\Acal$ lie in~$\Bcal$.
\item
Two cluster variables are compatible if and
only if their product lies in~$\Bcal$.
\item
The product of a coefficient variable and an element of~$\Bcal$ lies
in~$\Bcal$.
\item
\label{enum:clique}
If $B$ is a finite subset of $\Bcal$ such that the product of any two
distinct elements of~$B$ lies in~$\Bcal$,
then the product of all elements of~$B$ lies in~$\Bcal$.
\iffalse
\item
Among all subsets $B\subset\Bcal$ of indecomposable elements
satisfying the condition in~\eqref{enum:clique},
the ones of maximal cardinality are exactly the extended clusters.
\item
Let $z$, $z'$, $M_1$, $M_2$, be elements of~$\Bcal$
satisfying~\eqref{eq:3-term-general}.
If the product of any two among these four, except for~$zz'$,
lies in~$\Bcal$, and $z$ and $z'$ are indecomposable,
then $z$ and $z'$ are cluster variables, and \eqref{eq:3-term-general}
is an exchange relation.
\item
Suppose that an indecomposable element $z\in\Bcal$ and
a cluster variable $z'$ satisfy
a 3-term relation~{\rm\eqref{eq:3-term-general}}
such that $M_1$, $M_2$, $z'M_1$, and $z'M_2$ lie in $\Bcal$
whereas $zM_1$ and $zM_2$ do not.
Then $z$ is not a cluster variable.
\fi
\end{enumerate}
\end{conjecture}
It is already nontrivial to show the existence of a basis~$\Bcal$
satisfying a small subset of the conditions
in Conjecture~\ref{conj:A-and-B}.
For example, the existence of a basis $\Bcal$
satisfying~\eqref{enum:cluster-mon-in-B} is equivalent
to linear independence of cluster monomials.
Perhaps even more important is the
problem of determining a cluster structure in a given ring
which is in some sense ``compatible'' with a
particular distinguished basis~$\Bcal$.
In the case of the web basis, we used the properties
\eqref{enum:cluster-mon-in-B}--\eqref{enum:clique}
in Conjecture~\ref{conj:A-and-B} as the guiding principles in
designing the cluster structure in the rings of
invariants~$R_\sigma(V)$.
One cannot help but wonder whether this kind of
``reverse engineering'' process can be made algorithmic, or at least
axiomatic.
A~couple of approaches to this problem are outlined below.
At the heart of the matter lies this question:
What distinguishes cluster variables among other indecomposable
elements of the basis?\footnote{Unfortunately,
in the case of the web basis, one cannot use B.~Leclerc's ``reality check''
criterion \cite{hernandez-leclerc, leclerc}
according to which the cluster monomials are identified as the \emph{real}
basis elements, i.e., those whose square lies in the basis.
There exist web invariants which are not cluster monomials,
yet their squares are web invariants;
see Section~\ref{sec:thickening-non-cluster}.}
One conjectural answer involves an extension of the notion of
compatibility of cluster variables.
Let us call a set of distinct indecomposable web invariants
a \emph{clique} if their product
(variant: the product of any two of them, cf.\ Conjecture~\ref{conj:compat-web-invariants})
is again a web invariant.
By Conjecture~\ref{conj:cluster-monomials-are-in-web-basis},
any extended cluster is a clique.
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conj:largest-clique}
Among all cliques, extended clusters are precisely
the ones of the largest cardinality.
Thus, an indecomposable web invariant~$z$ is a cluster variable if
and only if the largest clique containing~$z$
has the cardinality of an extended cluster.
\end{conjecture}
While Conjecture~\ref{conj:largest-clique} may be aesthetically pleasing,
it is rather impractical as a tool for
determining whether a particular basis element is a cluster
variable. \linebreak[3]
It~also is of little help in finding the exchange relations, or
equivalently the quivers accompanying extended clusters.
For that, we need to move beyond purely multiplicative properties
of web invariants
(to put it differently, beyond \hbox{2-term} relations they satisfy)
into the realm of \emph{3-term relations}.
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conj:3-term-cluster}
Suppose that indecomposable web invariants $z$ and $z'$ satisfy the 3-term relation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:3-term-general}
zz'=M_1+M_2
\end{equation}
such that $M_1$, $M_2$, $zM_1$, $zM_2$, $z'M_1$, $z'M_2$, and $M_1M_2$ are web invariants.
Then $z$ and $z'$ are cluster variables, and \eqref{eq:3-term-general} is an exchange relation.
\end{conjecture}
Note that by Conjectures~\ref{conj:cluster-vars-are-in-web-basis}--\ref{conj:cluster-monomials-are-in-web-basis},
we expect each exchange relation in our cluster algebra to satisfy
the conditions in Conjecture~\ref{conj:3-term-cluster}.
There is also a test that can (conjecturally) disqualify a web invariant
from being a cluster variable.
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conj:3-term-non-cluster}
Suppose that an indecomposable web invariant $z$ and
a cluster variable $z'$ satisfy
a 3-term relation~{\rm\eqref{eq:3-term-general}}
such that $M_1$, $M_2$, $z'M_1$, and $z'M_2$ are web invariants
whereas $zM_1$ and $zM_2$ are not.
Then $z$ is not a cluster variable.
\end{conjecture}
In Conjecture~\ref{conj:3-term-non-cluster},
the requirement that $z'M_1$, and $z'M_2$ be web invariants
cannot be dropped---see Section~\ref{sec:fake-exchange} for a relevant
counterexample.
\begin{remark}
We conjecture that \emph{any} cluster structure can be uniquely recovered
from a suitably chosen additive basis~$\Bcal$
using appropriate versions of the criteria in
Conjectures~\ref{conj:largest-clique}--\ref{conj:3-term-non-cluster}.
\end{remark}
{}From its very inception, cluster theory was motivated by the desire to
better understand the
(dual) ``canonical'' bases in the corresponding rings.
Recall that for most of the rings~$R_\sigma(V)$
the dual canonical basis is \emph{different} from the web basis---although
the two bases share many important features,
see Remark~\ref{rem:khovanov-kuperberg}.
The canonical basis is expected to
have strong positivity properties, such as those spelled out
in the conjecture below, which has long been part of the cluster algebras folklore.
\begin{conjecture}[\emph{Strong Positivity Conjecture}]
\label{conj:strong-positivity}
In any cluster algebra $\Acal$ of geometric type,
there is an additive basis $\Ccal$
which includes the cluster monomials
and has nonnegative structure constants.
\end{conjecture}
That is, any product of elements of the basis~$\Ccal$
should have nonnegative coefficients when expanded in the same basis.
This condition suggests the existence of a monoidal categorification,
wherein structure constants become tensor product multiplicities.
See \cite{hernandez-leclerc, kimura-qin, nakajima}.
\pagebreak[3]
The web basis does not always satisfy the conditions of
Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong-positivity}:
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:negative-structure-const}
For some choices of signature,
some structure constants of the web basis are negative.
\end{proposition}
An example justifying Proposition~\ref{prop:negative-structure-const}
is given in Section~\ref{sec:negative-structure-const}.
The \emph{Laurent positivity conjecture}~\cite{ca1} predicts
that the Laurent polynomial expressing any cluster variable in terms
of any given seed has positive coefficients.
This conjecture has been proved in many
special cases, see in particular \cite{caldero-reineke,
musiker-schiffler-williams, nakajima}.
It is well known, and easy to see, that
Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong-positivity}
is \emph{stronger} than Laurent positivity.
To deduce the latter from the former, multiply a cluster
variable by the denominator of its Laurent expansion.
The result is a linear combination of cluster monomials.
By Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong-positivity},
they all belong to the basis~$\Ccal$;
moreover the coefficients in this linear combination
must be positive, and we are~done.
\iffalse
One possible approach to Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong-positivity} is
based on the idea advocated in~\cite{cdm} (cf.\
also~\cit
{fock-goncharov2})
that a canonical basis can potentially be defined
by looking at extremal rays in a suitable cone of
``positive elements'' inside the cluster algebra.
Let us call an element $z$ of a cluster algebra~$\Acal$ \emph{positive}
if $z$ is expressed as a Laurent polynomial with nonnegative coefficients
in terms of any extended cluster~$\mathbf{z}$.
The \emph{positive cone} $\Acal_{\ge 0}\subset\Acal$ formed by such
elements is closed
under products. The Laurent positivity conjecture asserts that the cluster
monomials belong to this cone.
One hopes that in fact, much more is true (cf.~\cite{cdm}).
\begin{conjecture}
\label{con:positive-cone}
Choosing a generator for each extremal ray of the positive cone
yields a basis satisfying the conditions in
Conjecture~\ref{conj:strong-positivity}.
\end{conjecture}
Equivalently, generators of $\Acal_{\ge 0}$ form a linear basis
of~$\Acal$ that includes the cluster monomials.
Positivity of structure constants is then automatic.
\fi
\pagebreak[3]
\section{Arborization}
\label{sec:arborization}
By definition, a web invariant can be represented by a single planar
tensor diagram (a~web).
We conjecture that the cluster variables in~$R_\sigma(V)$
are distinguished from other web invariants by the property of
possessing a particular kind of alternative presentation;
informally speaking, they can be defined by tensor diagrams which
are \emph{trees}.
Let us explain.
The \emph{unclasping} of a tensor diagram~$D$ is the graph obtained
from~$D$ by replacing each boundary vertex~$p$, say of
degree~$k$, by $k$ distinct vertices serving as endpoints of the edges
formerly incident to~$p$.
By a harmless abuse of terminology,
we shall call a tensor diagram~$D$
whose unclasping has no cycles a \emph{forest diagram};
if moreover the unclasping is connected, we call $D$ a \emph{tree diagram}.
We emphasize that such a diagram~$D$ does \emph{not} have to be planar.
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conj:cluster-variables-are-trees}
A web invariant $z$ is a cluster monomial
if and only~if $z\!=\![D]$ for some
forest diagram~$D$.
\end{conjecture}
To illustrate, consider the webs for non-Pl\"ucker cluster variables
in $R_{0,8}(V)$ shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs50}.
The first one is a tree.
The second one has a $6$-cycle but it goes through a boundary vertex.
The third web does have an internal cycle---but
the alternative presentation of this invariant shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:G38-nonplanar-tree} unclasps to a (non-planar) tree.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1.4pt}
\begin{picture}(70,75)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(35,5){\circle*{4}}
\put(35,5){\line(0,1){18}}
\put(0,40){\circle*{4}}
\put(0,40){\line(3,-2){13}}
\put(10,60){\circle*{4}}
\put(10,60){\line(3,-2){13}}
\put(10,60){\line(3,1){13}}
\put(10,15){\circle*{4}}
\put(10,15){\line(1,3){4.2}}
\put(25,40){\circle*{4}}
\put(25,40){\line(2,-3){8.7}}
\put(25,40){\line(-1,-1){8.5}}
\put(25,40){\line(0,1){8}}
\put(35,55){\circle*{4}}
\put(35,55){\line(1,0){8}}
\put(35,55){\line(-2,-1){8.2}}
\put(35,55){\line(-1,1){8.4}}
\put(35,75){\circle*{4}}
\put(35,75){\line(-1,-1){8.4}}
\put(45,40){\circle*{4}}
\put(45,40){\line(-2,-3){8.7}}
\put(45,40){\line(1,-1){8.5}}
\put(45,40){\line(0,1){13}}
\put(60,15){\circle*{4}}
\put(60,15){\line(-1,3){4.2}}
\put(60,60){\circle*{4}}
\put(60,60){\line(-3,-1){13}}
\put(70,40){\circle*{4}}
\put(70,40){\line(-3,-2){13}}
\put(35,25){\circle{4}}
\put(15,30){\circle{4}}
\put(55,30){\circle{4}}
\put(45,55){\circle{4}}
\put(25,50){\circle{4}}
\put(25,65){\circle{4}}
\end{picture}
\qquad\qquad
\begin{picture}(70,75)(0,0)
\thicklines
\put(35,5){\circle*{4}}
\put(35,5){\line(0,1){18}}
\put(0,40){\circle*{4}}
\put(0,40){\line(3,-2){13}}
\put(10,60){\circle*{4}}
\put(10,60){\line(6,-1){32.8}}
\put(10,60){\line(4,1){12.7}}
\put(10,15){\circle*{4}}
\put(10,15){\line(1,3){4.2}}
\put(25,40){\circle*{4}}
\put(25,40){\line(2,-3){8.7}}
\put(25,40){\line(-1,-1){8.5}}
\put(25,40){\line(0,1){21.5}}
\put(35,75){\circle*{4}}
\put(35,75){\line(-5,-6){8.4}}
\put(45,40){\circle*{4}}
\put(45,40){\line(-2,-3){8.7}}
\put(45,40){\line(1,-1){8.5}}
\put(45,40){\line(0,1){12}}
\put(60,15){\circle*{4}}
\put(60,15){\line(-1,3){4.2}}
\put(60,60){\circle*{4}}
\put(60,60){\line(-5,-2){13}}
\put(70,40){\circle*{4}}
\put(70,40){\line(-3,-2){13}}
\put(35,25){\circle{4}}
\put(15,30){\circle{4}}
\put(55,30){\circle{4}}
\put(45,54.2){\circle{4}}
\put(25,63.7){\circle{4}}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\vspace{-.2in}
\caption{Two representations of a non-Pl\"ucker cluster variable in $R_{0,8}(V)$.}
\label{fig:G38-nonplanar-tree}
\end{figure}
\iffalse
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
$
\begin{xy}
0;<.81cm,0cm>:
(3,6)*{\bullet}="l1",
(5,5.5)*{\bullet}="l2",
(6,4)*{\bullet}="l3",
(5.5,2)*{\bullet}="l4",
(3,.75)="l5",
(3,.75)*{\bullet}="l6",
(.5,2)*{\bullet}="l7",
(0,4)*{\bullet}="l8",
(1,5.5)*{\bullet}="l9",
(3,4.5)="a1",
(3.75,3.5)="a2",
(4.75,4.25)="a3",
(2.25,3.5)="a4",
(1.25,4.25)="a5",
(2,2.25)="a6",
(4,2.25)="a7",
{\ar @{->} "l1"; "a1"},
{\ar @{->} "l2"; "a3"},
{\ar @{->} "l3"; "a3"},
{\ar @{->} "l4"; "a7"},
{\ar @{->} "l5"; "a7"},
{\ar @{->} "l6"; "a6"},
{\ar @{->} "l7"; "a6"},
{\ar @{->} "l8"; "a5"},
{\ar @{->} "l9"; "a5"},
{\ar @{->} "a2"; "a1"},
{\ar @{->} "a2"; "a3"},
{\ar @{->} "a2"; "a7"},
{\ar @{->} "a4"; "a1"},
{\ar @{->} "a4"; "a5"},
{\ar @{->} "a4"; "a6"},
\end{xy}
$
\quad
$
\begin{xy}
0;<.75cm,0cm>:
(12,6)*{\bullet}="r1", (14,5.5)*{\bullet}="r2", (14.75,4)*{\bullet}="r3",
(14.5,2)*{\bullet}="r4", (12,.3)*{\bullet}="r5", (10.5,.7)*{\bullet}="r6",
(9.5,1.75)="r7", (9.25,2.75)*{\bullet}="r8", (10,5.5)*{\bullet}="r9",
(12,4.5)="b1", (12.75,3.75)="b2", (12.75,2.75)="b3", (12,2)="b4",
(11.25,2.75)="b5", (11.25,3.75)="b6", (10.25,4)="b7", (11.5,1)="b8",
(13.75,4.5)="b9",
{\ar @{->} "r1"; "b1"}, {\ar @{->} "r2"; "b9"},{\ar @{->} "r3";
"b9"},{\ar @{->} "r4"; "b3"},{\ar @{->} "r5"; "b8"},{\ar @{->} "r6";
"b8"}, {\ar @{->} "r6";"b5"}, {\ar @{->} "r8";"b7"}, {\ar @{<-}
"b7";"b6"}, {\ar @{->} "r9";"b7"}, {\ar @{<-} "b5";"b6"}, {\ar @{<-}
"b5";"b4"}, {\ar @{->} "b2";"b9"}, {\ar @{->} "b2";"b1"}, {\ar @{->}
"b2";"b3"}, {\ar @{<-} "b1";"b6"}, {\ar @{->} "b4";"b8"}, {\ar @{->}
"b4";"b3"}
\end{xy}
$
\quad
$
\begin{xy}
0;<.75cm,0cm>:
(12,6)*{\bullet}="r1", (14,5.5)*{\bullet}="r2", (14.75,4)*{\bullet}="r3",
(14.5,2)*{\bullet}="r4", (12,.3)*{\bullet}="r5", (10.5,.7)*{\bullet}="r6",
(9.5,1.75)="r7", (9.25,2.75)*{\bullet}="r8", (10,5.5)*{\bullet}="r9",
(12,4.5)="b1", (12.75,3.75)="b2", (12.75,2.75)="b3", (12,2)="b4",
(11.25,2.75)="b5", (11.25,3.75)="b6", (10.25,4)="b7", (11.5,1)="b8",
(13.75,4.5)="b9",
{\ar @{->} "r1"; "b1"}, {\ar @{->} "r2"; "b9"},{\ar @{->} "r3"; "b9"},{\ar @{->}
"r4"; "b3"},{\ar @{->} "r5"; "b5"},{\ar @{->} "r6"; "b3"}, {\ar @{->}
"r6";"b5"}, {\ar @{->} "r8";"b7"}, {\ar @{<-} "b7";"b6"}, {\ar @{->} "r9";"b7"},
{\ar @{<-} "b5";"b6"}, {\ar @{->} "b2";"b9"}, {\ar @{->} "b2";"b1"}, {\ar @{->}
"b2";"b3"}, {\ar @{<-} "b1";"b6"},
\end{xy}
$\\
\hspace{0.15in}{\small (a)}
\hspace{1.95in}{\small (b)}
\hspace{1.85in}{\small (c)}
\end{center}
\vspace{-.1in}
\caption{(a,b) Webs representing two kinds of non-Pl\"ucker
cluster variables
in $R_{0,8}(V)$.
(c)~Tensor diagram without internal unoriented cycles
representing
the same invariant as~(b).}
\label{fig:G38}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
$
\begin{xy}
0;<.75cm,0cm>:
(12,6)*{\bullet}="r1", (14,5.5)*{\bullet}="r2", (14.75,4)*{\bullet}="r3",
(14.5,2)*{\bullet}="r4", (12,.3)*{\bullet}="r5", (10.5,.7)*{\bullet}="r6",
(9.5,1.75)="r7", (9.25,2.75)*{\bullet}="r8", (10,5.5)*{\bullet}="r9",
(12,4.5)="b1", (12.75,3.75)="b2", (12.75,2.75)="b3", (12,2)="b4",
(11.25,2.75)="b5", (11.25,3.75)="b6", (10.25,4)="b7", (11.5,1)="b8",
(13.75,4.5)="b9",
{\ar @{->} "r1"; "b1"}, {\ar @{->} "r2"; "b9"},{\ar @{->} "r3"; "b9"},{\ar @{->}
"r4"; "b3"},{\ar @{->} "r5"; "b5"},{\ar @{->} "r6"; "b3"}, {\ar @{->}
"r6";"b5"}, {\ar @{->} "r8";"b7"}, {\ar @{<-} "b7";"b6"}, {\ar @{->} "r9";"b7"},
{\ar @{<-} "b5";"b6"}, {\ar @{->} "b2";"b9"}, {\ar @{->} "b2";"b1"}, {\ar @{->}
"b2";"b3"}, {\ar @{<-} "b1";"b6"},
\end{xy}
$\\
\end{center}
\vspace{-.1in}
\caption{Another presentation of the third web invariant in Figure~\ref{fig:webs50}.}
\label{fig:G38-nonplanar-tree}
\end{figure}
\fi
A much more complicated example is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs71}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs71.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{A cluster variable represented by a web and by a tree diagram.}
\label{fig:webs71}
\end{figure}
We note that Corollary~\ref{cor:planar-tree} establishes a very
special case of Conjecture~\ref{conj:cluster-variables-are-trees},
namely the case when the same tensor diagram is both a web and a
tree.
We next describe an algorithm that
takes a web invariant~$z$ as input
and conjecturally constructs a forest diagram defining~$z$,
or else concludes that none exists.
This will require some preparation.
\begin{definition}
Let $D$ be a tensor diagram, $s_1$ and~$s_2$
its two internal vertices, and $e_1$ and $e_2$ two edges
incident to $s_1$ and~$s_2$, respectively.
We call vertices $s_1$ and~$s_2$ \emph{siblings} of each other
(more precisely, ``siblings away from $e_1$ and~$e_2$'')
if the following happens.
For $i\in\{1,2\}$, let $B_i$ denote the subgraph of~$D$ whose edge set
consists of those edges which can be reached from~$s_i$ without going
along~$e_i$ or connecting through a boundary vertex.
(In particular, the edge $e_i$ is not in~$B_i$.)
We then want $B_1$ and~$B_2$ to be isomorphic binary trees
having the same multisets of leaves on the boundary of the disk.
Thus, $s_1$ and~$s_2$ are siblings if they are
obtained from the same multiset of boundary vertices by
the same sequence of taking pairwise joins.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{def:arborizing-step}
Suppose a tensor diagram~$D$ contains a fragment which is:
\begin{itemize}
\item a quadrilateral with one vertex on the boundary, or
\item a four-edge path whose endpoints are siblings of each other,
looking away from the edges of the path.
\end{itemize}
An \emph{arborizing step} is the transformation of such a diagram~$D$ shown
in Figure~\ref{fig:webs27}.
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\vspace{-.1in}
\input{webs27a.pstex_t}
\vspace{-.1in}
\end{center}
\caption{Arborizing steps.}
\label{fig:webs27}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:arborizing-step}
An arborizing step does not change the value of the
invariant defined by a tensor diagram.
\end{lemma}
The \emph{arborization algorithm} takes a tensor diagram (not
necessarily planar) as input, and applies arborizing steps
until unable to do so.
See Figure~\ref{fig:webs26}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.9}{
\input{webs26.pstex_t}
}
\end{center}
\caption{Arborization algorithm.
The output is a forest diagram defining a
cluster monomial, a product of two compatible special invariants.
We indicate the location of each arborizing step
and the two sibling vertices, if applicable.
}
\label{fig:webs26}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:arborization-confluent}
The arborization algorithm is confluent.
That is, its output does not depend on the
choice of an arborizing step made at each stage.
\end{theorem}
We expect the arborization algorithm to cover all cases in which a web
invariant can be given by a forest diagram:
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conj:lift1}
Suppose a web invariant $z$ can be defined by a forest diagram~$D$
that cannot be arborized further.
Then $D$ is obtained
from the web defining~$z$ via the arborization algorithm.
\end{conjecture}
Conjecture~\ref{conj:lift1} suggests the following enhancement of
Conjecture~\ref{conj:cluster-variables-are-trees}.
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conj:lift2}
A web invariant $z$ is a cluster or coefficient variable
(respectively, a cluster monomial)
if and only if the arborization algorithm applied to the web
defining~$z$ outputs a tree diagram (respectively, a forest diagram).
\end{conjecture}
If a web invariant arborizes to a tree diagram, then we expect it
to be a cluster variable
(cf.\ Conjecture~\ref{conj:lift2}),
so its powers---which are cluster monomials---should be web invariants
as well (cf.\ Conjecture~\ref{conj:cluster-monomials-are-in-web-basis}).
Theorem~\ref{th:powers-arborizable} below confirms this expectation,
thereby providing indirect support for the aforementioned
conjectures.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:powers-arborizable}
Let $z$ be a web invariant defined by a web which arborizes to a tree
diagram via the arborization algorithm.
Then any power of $z$ is a web invariant.
\end{theorem}
We actually do a bit more:
under the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{th:powers-arborizable},
we explicitly describe the web that
defines the power~$z^k$ of an arborizable web invariant~$z$.
\begin{definition}[\emph{Thickening of a web}]
\label{def:thickening}
Let $k$ be a positive integer, and $W$ a web.
The \emph{$k$-thickening} of~$W$
is obtained as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item
replace each internal vertex of~$W$ by a ``honeycomb'' fragment $H_k$
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs29} (boundary vertices stay put);
\item
replace each edge of~$W$ by a $k$-tuple of edges connecting the
corresponding honeycombs and/or boundary vertices.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
An example is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs30}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs29.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{A honeycomb web fragment~$H_k$ is composed of hexagons
forming a triangular array.
The honeycombs shown above are used to replace a black vertex;
when replacing a white one, reverse the colors.}
\label{fig:webs29}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs30.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{A quadripod web and its
$3$-thickening.}
\label{fig:webs30}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:thickening}
Let $z$ be a web invariant defined by a web~$W$ that arborizes to a tree
diagram via the arborization algorithm.
Then each power $z^k$ is a web invariant defined by the $k$-thickening
of~$W$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Web gallery}
\label{sec:zoo}
In this section, we present examples of web invariants
possessing various notable properties.
\subsection{Non-arborizable indecomposable webs}
By Conjecture~\ref{conj:cluster-vars-are-in-web-basis},
the set of indecomposable web invariants includes all cluster
variables.
Which other web invariants does it include?
Conjecture~\ref{conj:lift2} suggests an approach to constructing such
invariants: if a web does not
arborize to a tree diagram, then the corresponding invariant is not a
cluster variable.
A couple of examples are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs34}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs34.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{Indecomposable web invariants in $R_{0,9}(V)$ which
do not arborize to trees.
The web at the top is its own arborization.
At the bottom, we show both a web and its arborized form.
We conjecture that there are infinitely many such invariants in $R_{0,9}(V)$.
}
\label{fig:webs34}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Non-arborizable web whose powers are obtained by
thickening}
\label{sec:thickening-non-cluster}
The converse to Theorem~\ref{th:thickening} (or
Theorem~\ref{th:powers-arborizable}) is false:
there are lots of web invariants which cannot be represented by a tree
diagram, yet all their powers are web invariants themselves;
moreover they can be obtained by the thickening procedure.
The simplest example is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs32}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{1.2}{
\input{webs32.pstex_t}
}
\end{center}
\caption{Any power of a single-cycle web is equal to its
thickening. Add~a~dummy boundary vertex to make the signature non-alternating.}
\label{fig:webs32}
\end{figure}
The unclasping of the second web in Figure~\ref{fig:webs32} yields the
minimal counterexample of M.~Khovanov and G.~Kuperberg
\cite[Theorem~4]{khovanov-kuperberg}.
\subsection{Imaginary elements}
\label{sec:imaginary-elts}
The square of the web invariant shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:webs33} is not a web invariant;
the exact formula is given in Figure~\ref{fig:webs70}.
This phenomenon parallels the existence of ``imaginary'' elements in
dual canonical bases, first discovered by B.~Leclerc~\cite{leclerc}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs33.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{A web invariant whose square is not a web invariant}
\label{fig:webs33}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs70.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{The square of the invariant shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs33}.}
\label{fig:webs70}
\end{figure}
\pagebreak[3]
\subsection{Fake exchange relations}
\label{sec:fake-exchange}
The identity presented in Figure~\ref{fig:webs68}
shows that in Conjecture~\ref{conj:3-term-non-cluster},
one cannot drop the requirement for $z'M_1$, and $z'M_2$
to be web invariants.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs68a.pstex_t}
\input{webs68b.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{Let $z$ be the cluster variable $z$ shown at the top,
and let $z'=J_2^5$. These two cluster variables
satisfy the 3-term relation
\[
zz'=M_1+M_2
\]
where $M_1$ and $M_2$ are the web invariants shown at the bottom
(in arborized form).
None of $zM_1$, $zM_2$, $z'M_1$, $z'M_2$ are web invariants.}
\label{fig:webs68}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Negative structure constants}
\label{sec:negative-structure-const}
Figure~\ref{fig:webs69} presents an instance where a particular structure
constant for the web basis is negative.
This example shows that even the product of two \emph{cluster variables}
may expand in the web basis with coefficients some of which are negative.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs69.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{Let $z$ be the cluster variable from Figure~\ref{fig:webs68},
and~let~$u$~be the cluster variable shown on the left.
The expansion of $zu$ in the web basis
contains the web invariant shown on the right with coefficient~$-1$.}
\label{fig:webs69}
\end{figure}
\iffalse
This project has intimate connections with
incidence geometry.
The equation $[D]=0$ can be viewed as a condition imposed on a
collection~$K$ of $n$ points in~$\CC\mathbb{P}^2$.
(In the simplest instance, a tripod encodes collinearity of three points.)
To understand the web basis,
we would like to interpret each condition $[D]=0$
in terms of the moduli space of configurations
of points and lines which contain~$K$ and have a prescribed
\emph{incidence graph}~$\Gamma\!=\!\Gamma(D)$.
It~is easy to see that if~$D$ is a tree, then $\Gamma\!=\!D$ works,
recovering the interpretations of the cluster variables in
${\rm Gr}_{3,n}$ ($n\le 8$) found by J.~Scott~\cite{scott}.
For diagrams with a single cycle, such a description can be
obtained from the recent work of J.~Richter-Gebert and
P.~Lebmeir~\cite{richter-gebert-lebmeir}.
\fi
\usection{Proofs}
\section{Properties of special invariants}
\label{sec:special-proofs}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:specweb}]
It is routine to examine the cases and check that
any tensor diagram representing
a special invariant ``planarizes''
(via repeated application of skein relations) into a single
non-elliptic web.
The key relation used in these verifications is shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:basic-step}.
An example is given in Figure~\ref{fig:special-planarize}.
\end{proof}
\vspace{-.05in}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.7}{
\input{webs55b.pstex_t}
}
\end{center}
\caption{Basic planarizing step. Cf.\ Figure~\ref{fig:webs27} on
the left.}
\label{fig:basic-step}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-.05in}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs53a.pstex_t}
\qquad
\input{webs53b.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{The special invariant $J^{p,p+2,p+4}$ is a web invariant.}
\label{fig:special-planarize}
\end{figure}
\pagebreak[3]
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:special-inv-factoring}]
The factorization of a nonzero special invariant into indecomposables can be
obtained by repeated application of the following rules
(cf.\ Figure~\ref{fig:caterpillars} and
Definition~\ref{def:special-inv}):
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{enum:fact-step-1}
if $p$ is white and $p\!+\!1$ is black, then
$J_p^{p+2}\! =\! J_{p+2}^{p} J_{p+1}^{p+2}$
and
$J_{q,p,p+2} \!=\! J_{p+2}^{p} J^{p+1}_{q}$;
\item
\label{enum:fact-step-2}
if $p$ is white, $p+1$ is black, and $p+2$ is white, then
$J_{p}^{p+3} = J_{p+1}^{p+3} J_{p+2}^{p}$;
\item
\label{enum:fact-step-3}
if $p$ is white and $p+1$ is black, then
$J_{rp}^{(p+1)q} = J_{r}^{p+1} J_{p}^{q}$;
\item
\label{enum:fact-step-4}
if $p$ is white, $p+1$ is black, and $p+2$ is white, then
$J_{p(p+2)}^{qr} = J_{p+2}^{p} J^{(p+1)qr}$;
\item
\label{enum:fact-step-5}
if the colors are reversed (i.e., $p$ is black, etc.),
then switch the colors and
swap subscripts with superscripts in rules
\eqref{enum:fact-step-1}--\eqref{enum:fact-step-4} above.
\end{enumerate}
An example is given in Figure~\ref{fig:webs53}.
It is tedious but straightforward to check
that this process
yields a unique factorization,
and that no other collections of special invariants multiply to a
single special invariant.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs53a.pstex_t}
\qquad
\input{webs53c.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{Factorization of
$J^{p(p+2)(p+4)}$.
The rules
\eqref{enum:fact-step-1}--\eqref{enum:fact-step-3}
can be applied in two different ways:
$J^{p(p+2)(p+4)} = J_{p+2}^{p+4} J_{p+3}^p = J_{p+2}^{p+4}
J_{p+3}^{p+1} J_p^{p+2}$
or
$J^{p(p+2)(p+4)} =
J_p^{p+2} J_{p+1}^{p+4} = J_p^{p+2} J_{p+3}^{p+1} J_{p+2}^{p+4}$,
yielding identical results.}
\label{fig:webs53}
\end{figure}
\iffalse
\begin{figure}[ht]
\scalebox{0.7}{\input{webs63.pstex_t}}
\caption{Factorization of $J_{127}$ into indecomposable special invariants}
\label{fig:webs63}
\end{figure}
\fi
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:coeff-special}]
First, we need to prove
that a non\-zero special invariant not on our list is not compatible with
some other special invariant. This is checked on a case by case
basis. For an invariant of the form~$J_p^q$, one finds an
incompatible special invariant $J_r^s$ such that the
diagonals $pq$ and $rs$ cross each other. Similarly, if
our invariant is $J_{pqr}$ or $J^{pqr}$, one can find
an incompatible special invariant $J_s^t$ such that the
diagonal $st$ crosses the triangle~$pqr$.
(These are special cases of failure of \emph{weak separation},
cf.~\cite{leclerc-zelevinsky}.)
Special invariants $J_{pq}^{rs}$ are handled analogously.
Another claim to check is that a nonzero invariant of the form
$J_p^{p \pm 1}$ is compatible with any web invariant.
Coefficient invariants come in two flavors: short and long,
see Figure \ref{fig:webs54}. The
short ones are obviously compatible with any web invariant.
The relevant calculation for a long invariant
is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs55}. Applying it
around every vertex establishes the claim.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\scalebox{0.9}{\input{webs54.pstex_t}}
\caption{Two kinds of coefficient invariants: short and long.}
\label{fig:webs54}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\scalebox{0.7}{\input{webs55a.pstex_t}}
\caption{Compatibility of
coefficient invariants with web invariants is verified by
iterating the basic relation shown in Figure~\ref{fig:basic-step}.}
\label{fig:webs55}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:3-term-skein-special}
]
Each identity
can be obtained by repeated
application of skein relations.
A~key role is played by the relation shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:basic-step}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{pr:thin-triangles}]
Without loss of generality, we can assume that side $qr$ is exposed,
so that $r=(q+1)\bmod(a+b)$.
One then checks that $J^{pq,q+1}=J_{q}^p$ if $q$ is white,
and $J^{pq,q+1}=J_{q+1}^p J_{q}^{q+1}$ if $q$ is black.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{pr:thin-quads}]
If $p$ is white and $p+1$ is black, then
$J^{sp}_{p+1,p+2}=J_p^s$.
Relation~\eqref{eq:3-term-3} then gives
\[
J_{p+2}^p J_{p+1}^s
= J_{p+1}^p J_{p+2}^s + J_{p+1,p+2}^{sp}
= J_{p+1}^p J_{p+2}^s + J_p^s\,.
\]
If $p$ is black and $p+1$ is white, then
$J_{sp}^{p+1,p+2}=J_s^p$,
and \eqref{eq:3-term-3} gives
\[
J_p^{p+2} J_s^{p+1}
= J_s^{p+2} J_p^{p+1} + J_{sp}^{p+1,p+2}
=J_s^{p+2} J_p^{p+1} + J_s^p\,.
\qedhere
\]
\end{proof}
\section{Properties of special seeds}
\label{sec:properties-of-special-seeds}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:z(T)}]
Denote $N=a+b$.
Since the theorem can be verified by direct calculation
for $N\le 6$, we assume that $N\ge 7$ from now on.
By Proposition~\ref{prop:coeff-special},
each side of the $N$-gon $P_\sigma$ produces
one nonzero special invariant
which by construction belongs to~$\mathbf{z}(T)$;
those are exactly the coefficient invariants.
Define the \emph{length} of a diagonal $pq$ in~$P_\sigma$
as the number $\min(|p-q|,|N-p-q|)$;
this is the length of the shortest path from $p$ to~$q$ along the
perimeter of~$P_\sigma$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:decomp}
Assume that $N\ge 7$.
Let $P'$ denote the interior of $P_\sigma$
with all diagonals of length~$2$ in~$T$ removed.
The set $P'$ uniquely decomposes into a disjoint union of
``fundamental regions'' of types $A, B, C, D, E, F$
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs73}.
\end{lemma}
An example is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs74}.
We note that the lemma fails for $N=6$
if $T$ contains a diagonal of length~$3$.
(The two regions of type~$E$ are not
disjoint as they share this diagonal.)
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.85}{
\input{webs73.pstex_t}
}
\end{center}
\caption{Fundamental regions. A~dashed line means that the region
does not include this diagonal.
All dashed diagonals are of length at least~$3$.
Type~$D$ includes diagonals of length at least~$4$.
The short solid segments in $A$,
$B$, $E$ and $F$ are sides of the polygon~$P_\sigma$.}
\label{fig:webs73}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs74.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{Decomposition of $P_\sigma$ into fundamental regions.}
\label{fig:webs74}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma}
Special invariants associated to each fundamental region
contribute the following number of non-coefficient
indecomposable factors to the cluster~$\mathbf{x}(T)$:
\[
\begin{array}{|c|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\text{\rm type of a region} & A & B & C & D & E & F\\
\hline
\text{\rm contribution to $\mathbf{z}(T)$} & 0 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 3\\
\hline
\end{array}
\]
The contributions of different fundamental regions are disjoint.
To clarify, if a region $R$ does not include a (dashed) diagonal~$pq$
lying on its boundary, then the contributions of $R$
exclude all indecomposable factors appearing in $J_p^q$ and~$J_q^p$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Case by case consideration depending on the signature.
One typical example involving a region of type~$E$
(with two possible colorings) is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs75}.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs75.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{
Two possible colorings for a region of type~$E$.
In the first case, regardless of which of the two short diagonals
($13$ or~$24$) is chosen, we
obtain the same three variables $J_1^4$, $J_1^3$ and $J_4^2$. In the
second case, depending on which short diagonal is used, we get either
$\{J_1^4, J_4^1, J_4^2\}$ or $\{J_1^4, J_4^1, J_1^3\}$.
Each case yields exactly three non-coefficient variables.
The fact that they cannot come from other
fundamental regions can be seen by performing a similar analysis
for those regions.
}
\label{fig:webs75}
\end{figure}
We continue with the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:z(T)}.
It is a simple counting exercise to check that the total contribution
from all fundamental regions is exactly $2N-8$ non-coefficient
variables, as claimed.
For example, in Figure \ref{fig:webs74} we get
\[
3+3+1+0+2+3+2+2+2=18=2\cdot 13-8.
\]
It remains to check that the special invariants in $\mathbf{z}(T)$ are pairwise
compatible.
For invariants coming the same fundamental region,
this is done by direct case by case inspection.
For invariants from different regions,
the argument goes as follows.
The ``tails'' of the special invariants
(cf.\ Figure~\ref{fig:caterpillars})
do not create any obstructions to compatibility:
just iterate the basic
planarizing steps of Figure~\ref{fig:basic-step}.
The remaining pieces lie in different regions
and thus do not intersect.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{pr:x(T)=x(T')}]
The proof reduces to a direct verification comparing
triangulations $T$ and~$T'$ which differ by a flip
that switches the diagonals $(q,q+2)$ and $(q+1,q+3)$.
A~typical example is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs15}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:special-seeds-exchanges}]
The proof is a case by case verification, organized as follows.
For each region~$R$,
the variables (i.e., indecomposable factors)
contributed by $R$ are exchanged using only
the variables defined within~$R$
and/or several adjacent regions.
Specifically:
\begin{itemize}
\item
regions of type $A$ do not contribute any variables, so there is
nothing to check;
\item
for regions of type $B$ (resp.,~$C$,~$F$),
also consider two (resp., three, one) adjacent region(s) of types
$D$ or~$E$;
\item
for regions of type $D$ (resp.,~$E$),
also consider two (resp., one)
adjacent region(s) of types $A$, $B$, $C$ or~$F$, as well as the regions
of types $D$ or $E$ which are adjacent to those.
\end{itemize}
In each of these cases, the proof consists of a local verification
(sometimes tedious but always straightforward)
ranging over a finite
list of possible patterns.
\end{proof}
\section{Building a quiver
}
\label{sec:building-a-quiver}
In this section, we provide a blueprint for building the quiver~$Q(T)$
associated with an arbitrary triangulation~$T$ of the polygon~$P_\sigma$.
As mentioned earlier, a detailed description for
a particular choice of~$T$ can be found in Section~\ref{sec:T-fan}.
The simplest part of the recipe
concerns the portions of $Q(T)$ coming from triangles $pqr$ in~$T$
which have no exposed sides.
We draw the vertex~of~$Q(T)$ representing
the special invariant $J_{pqr}$ inside the triangle~$pqr$.
The vertices representing cluster variables coming from
$J_p^q$ and $J_q^p$ are placed on
the diagonal~$pq$ (and similarly for $qr$ and~$pr$),
with the former closer to~$q$, and the latter closer to~$p$.
See Figure~\ref{fig:webs43}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\vspace{-.05in}
\begin{center}
\input{webs4.pstex_t}
\medskip
\input{webs41.pstex_t}
\medskip
\input{webs42.pstex_t}
\medskip
\input{webs43.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{Special invariants around a triangle in a
triangulation~$T$,
and the corresponding portion of the quiver~$Q(T)$.
}
\label{fig:webs43}
\end{figure}
The above recipe may require adjustments if some of the sides of the
triangle $pqr$ are too short, so that the corresponding special
invariants factor; cf., e.g., Figure~\ref{fig:webs15}.
For triangles with one or two sides on the boundary of~$P_\sigma$,
the basic principles remain the same, but the recipe changes somewhat.
Figures~\ref{fig:webs11} and~\ref{fig:webs12} treat ``generic'' cases of one
and two exposed sides, respectively.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs11.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{Portion of the quiver $Q(T)$
in a triangle $pq(q+1)$ of~$T$.
There are two cases, depending on the color of~$q$.
In each case, three vertices
collapse into a single vertex of~$Q(T)$, represented by the solid triangle.
All edges that used to go to/from
those three vertices are still going to/from this new vertex.}
\label{fig:webs11}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs121.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{Portion of the quiver in a triangle with two exposed
sides. The pattern only depends on
the coloring of two of the vertices.
}
\label{fig:webs12}
\end{figure}
\pagebreak[3]
In a few exceptional cases, additional adjustments have to be made to
the construction of the quiver $Q(T)$ and/or to the rules of assigning
special invariants to its vertices.
These adjustments are caused by nontrivial factoring of the special
invariants involved.
One such case is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:webs14},
which is in turn a special case of the pattern shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:webs12} on the upper right.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.9}{
\input{webs14.pstex_t}
}
\end{center}
\caption{The special invariant
corresponding to the yellow vertex~$Y$ of the quiver
is given by the yellow web shown in the middle; it factors
into a product of two special invariants shown on the right.
The green factor is already associated to the corresponding diagonal.
We let the yellow factor be the cluster variable
associated with~$Y$.
}
\label{fig:webs14}
\end{figure}
Another example is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs15}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs15.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{The special invariant~$J_4^1$ factors:
$J_4^1=J_4^2 J_1^3\,$.
Which of the two factors should be
associated to the diagonal~$14$
depends on whether triangulation~$T$ contains
diagonal $13$ or diagonal~$24$.
The clusters $\mathbf{x}(T)$ and $\mathbf{x}(T')$
associated to triangulations $T$ and~$T'$ which differ by a
flip replacing $13$ by~$24$ are the same.
Cf.\ Proposition~\ref{pr:x(T)=x(T')}.}
\label{fig:webs15}
\end{figure}
There are only a finite number of such exceptional situations,
all of them arising when some sides of the relevant
triangle(s) are short enough to make certain special
invariants factor nontrivially.
We refrain from exhaustively describing all these exceptional cases and
the corresponding quiver-building instructions.
\section{Proof of the main theorem
}
\label{sec:proof-main}
Theorem~\ref{th:main} will follow once we establish
claims \eqref{item:alg-indep}--\eqref{item:irreducible} below:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{item:alg-indep}
the elements of $\mathbf{z}(T)$ are algebraically independent;
\item
\label{item:mut-flips}
the seeds $(Q(T),\mathbf{z}(T))$ are mutation-equivalent;
\item
\label{item:irreducible}
each indecomposable special invariant is an irreducible element
of~$R_\sigma(V)$.
\end{enumerate}
Here is why.
Claim~\eqref{item:alg-indep} means that $(Q(T),\mathbf{z}(T))$ is a seed.
Claim~\eqref{item:mut-flips} means that~the cluster algebra
$\Acal(Q(T),\mathbf{z}(T))$ does not depend on~$T$.
Claim~\eqref{item:irreducible}, in combination with
Lemma~\ref{lem:properties-of-RabV},
Corollary~\ref{cor:cluster-criterion},
claim~\eqref{item:mut-flips},
the First Fundamental Theorem of invariant theory,
and the fact that all Weyl generators show up in extended
clusters~$\mathbf{z}(T)$,
implies that $R_\sigma(V)\!=\!\Acal(Q(T),\mathbf{z}(T))$.
Since all exchange relations from the special seeds
$(Q(T),\mathbf{z}(T))$ involve exclusively special invariants,
claim~\eqref{item:irreducible} implies that
the cluster variables appearing in seeds adjacent to the special ones
are irreducible.
\subsection*{Proving that special seeds are related by mutations}
The bulk of the work (most of it rather tedious) goes into
establishing claim~\eqref{item:mut-flips}.
Since any two triangulations of the polygon~$P_\sigma$ can be
connected by a sequence of \emph{flips}
(each flip replacing a single diagonal by another one),
it suffices to show that for two triangulations that differ by a flip,
the corresponding seeds are related by mutations.
Typically, the required number of mutations is four,
although in some cases it can be three, two, one, and even zero,
see Proposition~\ref{pr:x(T)=x(T')}.
The verification of the claim is done on a case by case basis,
depending on the color pattern of the vertices involved;
as before, there are several exceptional cases where closeness of
vertices results in nontrivial factorization of the corresponding
special invariant.
Once again, we do not list all cases exhaustively,
presenting instead a couple of
``generic'' cases which illustrate the checks
one needs to perform.
The general rule (barring aforementioned exceptions) is as follows.
Suppose that triangulations $T$ and~$T'$ are related by a flip that
replaces diagonal~$pr$ by diagonal~$qs$;
thus $T$ has triangles $pqr$ and $rsp$ while $T'$ has triangles $qrs$
and~$pqs$.
Then the seed $(Q(T'),\mathbf{z}(T'))$ is
obtained from $(Q(T),\mathbf{z}(T))$
by a sequence of four mutations:
\begin{itemize}
\item
replace $J_r^p$ by $J_{pqs}$, and
replace $J_p^r$ by $J_{qrs}$ (these two mutations commute);
\item
replace $J_{prs}$ by $J_q^s$, and
replace $J_{pqr}$ by $J_s^q$ (these two mutations commute).
\end{itemize}
The corresponding exchange relations are of the
form~\eqref{eq:3-term-2}.
Figures~\ref{fig:webs10} and~\ref{fig:webs8}
illustrate these sequences of mutations for two different color
patterns.
In Section~\ref{sec:other-proofs}
(see the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:we=scott}),
we examine exceptional instances of mutation sequences associated with
diagonal flips
in the special case of a monochromatic signature
(equivalently, the case of a Grassmannian $\operatorname{Gr}_{3,b}$).
\pagebreak[3]
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs10.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{Diagonal flip in a quadrilateral with four black
vertices.
These seeds are related by
a sequence of four mutations:
$J_3^1\to J_{124}$,
$J_1^3\to J_{234}$,
$J_{134}\to J_2^4$,
$J_{123}\to J_4^2$.
}
\label{fig:webs10}
\end{figure}
\iffalse
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs9.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{Diagonal flip in a quadrilateral with three black
vertices.
Mutations to perform:
$J_3^1\to J_{124}$, $J_1^3\to J_{234}$,
$J_{134}\to J_2^4$, $J_{123}\to J_4^2$.
}
\label{fig:webs9}
\end{figure}
\fi
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs8.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{Diagonal flip in a quadrilateral with two black and two
white vertices, with opposite vertices of the same color.
Mutations to perform:
$J_3^1\to J_{124}$, $J_1^3\to J_{234}$,
$J_{134}\to J_2^4$, $J_{123}\to J_4^2$.
}
\label{fig:webs8}
\end{figure}
\iffalse
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs7.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{Diagonal flip in a quadrilateral with two black and two
white vertices, with opposite vertices of different color.
Mutations to perform:
$J_3^1\to J_{124}$, $J_1^3\to J_{234}$,
$J_{123}\to J_4^2$, $J_{134}\to J_2^4$.
}
\label{fig:webs7}
\end{figure}
\fi
\subsection*{Proof of algebraic independence}
We begin by noting that $\operatorname{Spec}(R_{a,b}(V))$
has the same dimension as $\operatorname{Spec}(R_{0,a+b}(V))$,
the affine cone over the Grassmannian $\operatorname{Gr}_{3,a+b}\,$;
the latter dimension is equal to $3(a+b-3)+1=3a+3b-8$.
To prove the equality of dimensions,
assume without loss of generality that $a\ge 3$,
and use the $\operatorname{SL}(V)$-equivariant birational isomorphism
that sends an $a$-tuple of covectors
$(u_1^*,u_2^*\dots,u_a^*)$ to the $a$-tuple of vectors
$(u_1^*\times u_2^*,u_2^*\times u_3^*,\dots,u_a^*\times u_1^*)$.
Since we know from~\eqref{item:mut-flips}
that the $(3a+3b-8)$-tuples $\mathbf{z}(T)$
(cf.\ Theorem~\ref{th:z(T)}) are
birationally related to each other, and collectively
generate the field of fractions of~$R_\sigma$
(as they contain all Weyl generators),
it follows that each of these tuples is algebraically independent.
\pagebreak[3]
\subsection*{Proof of irreducibility}
Here we prove claim~\eqref{item:irreducible},
the irreducibility of indecomposable special invariants.
Incidentally, \cite[Theorem~3.17]{popov-vinberg}
asserts that $f\in R_\sigma(V)$ is irreducible
(as an element of $R_\sigma(V)$)
if and only if $f$ is an irreducible $\operatorname{SL}(V)$-invariant polynomial.
That is, if $f$ factors nontrivially in the polynomial ring
$\CC[(V^*)^a\times V^b]$, then the factors must be
$\operatorname{SL}(V)$-invariant.
We do not need to rely on this result.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:antis}
Assume that an invariant $X\in R_\sigma(V)$
is antisymmetric and linear with respect to its arguments
$v_p$ and $v_{p+1}$ which have the same variance
(i.e., are both contravariant or both covariant).
Then $X$ can be expressed as a linear combination of web invariants
defined by webs which have a fork between vertices $p$ and~$p+1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We can write $X$ as a linear
combination of web invariants $X=\sum_i c_i Y_i$
where the web representing each $Y_i$ has a single edge incident to~$p$
(resp., to~$p+1$).
Let us attach a crossing to this web at vertices $p$
and~$p+1$ to get an invariant~$\overline Y_i$.
Since $\overline X=\sum_i c_i \overline Y_i$ is obtained
from $X$ by interchanging $v_p$ and~$v_{p+1}$,
and since $X$ is antisymmetric in these arguments,
it follows that $\overline X=-X$.
On the other hand, applying the skein relation at the crossing
gives $\overline Y_i = Y_i + Z_i$, where $Z_i$ has
a fork between $p$ and~$p+1$.
Taking linear combinations, we get $-X = X + \sum_i
c_i Z_i$, implying
$X = -\frac{1}{2} \sum_i c_i Z_i$,
an expansion of the desired kind.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:plantreeirr}
A web invariant defined by a planar tree is irreducible.
\end{lemma}
Note that by Corollary~\ref{cor:planar-tree},
such an invariant is a cluster or
coefficient variable in~$R_{\sigma}(V)$.
By \cite[Theorem~1.3]{gls-factorial},
every cluster variable in \emph{any} cluster algebra is
irreducible.
At this point, we cannot of course rely on these statements,
as we are still in the process of
proving that $R_{\sigma}(V)$ is a cluster algebra.
\begin{proof}
We proceed by induction on the size of the tree.
In the base cases of Weyl generators,
irreducibility is well known (and easy to prove).
Suppose a web invariant $X$ defined by a planar tree~$T$
has a nontrivial factorization $X=X_1X_2$.
It is easy to see that $T$ must have a fork,
say between vertices $p$ and $q$ (of the same color)
associated with (co)vectors $v_p$ and~$v_q$, respectively.
Without loss of generality, we may assume that $q=(p+1)\bmod(a+b)$.
As $X$ is multi-homogeneous, so must be $X_1$ and~$X_2$.
Moreover $X$ is multilinear, implying the dichotomy:
either one of the factors $X_i$ depends (linearly) on both
$v_p$ and $v_q$ while the other depends on neither,
or else one of the factors depends on $v_p$ but not $v_q$ while another
depends on $v_q$ but not $v_p$.
The latter option is ruled out by the fact that $X$ is antisymmetric
in $v_p$ and $v_q$ (because of the fork),
so it must vanish if we substitute $v_p = v_q$.
On the other hand, neither factor $X_i$
vanishes under this substitution, and $R_\sigma$ is a domain.
So $v_p$ and $v_q$ appear in the same factor, say~$X_1$.
Then $X_2$ does not depend on $v_p$ and~$v_q$.
Hence $X_1$ is antisymmetric in $v_p$ and~$v_q$.
Applying Lemma~\ref{lem:antis},
we express $X_1$ as a linear combination of web invariants
whose webs have a fork between $p$ and $q=p+1$.
Thus, $v_p$ and $v_q$ enter the identity $X=X_1X_2$
exclusively through their cross product $v_p\times v_q$.
This yields a nontrivial factorization of an invariant
defined by a smaller planar tree,
contradicting the induction assumption.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to prove that
any indecomposable special invariant $X$ is irreducible.
We describe the general idea of the proof, omitting some details.
The proof is by induction on the number of internal vertices in the
tree diagram defining~$X$.
Let $A\subset\{1,\dots,a+b\}$ denote the set of indices appearing in the
original notation for~$X$ (cf.\ Definition~\ref{def:special-inv}).
Thus the cardinality of $A$ is $2$, $3$, or~$4$.
If $X$ is a planar tree, the statement reduces to
Lemma~\ref{lem:plantreeirr}.
Otherwise the ``tail'' involved in building the proxy for some of the
vertices in~$A$ (cf.\ Figure~\ref{fig:caterpillars}) is long
enough to cover another such vertex.
It is not hard to see that we can find two
consecutive vertices $p,q\in A$ (going clockwise)
such that the boundary segment between them is covered
by only one such tail. Furthermore, for $X$ to be indecomposable,
this segment has to be sufficiently long
(cf.\ Figures~\ref{fig:webs61}--\ref{fig:webs62} to see why).
Assume without loss of generality that vertex $p$ is white;
then $p+1$ is black, $p+2$ is white, etc.
We then define invariants $X'$ and $X''$ as follows.
(Consult Figure~\ref{fig:webs72}.)
For~$X'$, attach an outside fork to $p+1$ and identify
one of its endpoints with~$p$.
(This changes the color of the entry $p+1$ of the signature.)
For $X''$, attach an outside fork to $p$ and identify
one of its endpoints with~$p+1$.
(This changes the color of the $p$'th entry.)
Thus the invariants
$X'=X'(\dots,v_p^*,v_{p+1}^*,v_{p+2}^*,\dots)$ and
$X''=X''(\dots,v_p,v_{p+1},v_{p+2}^*,\dots)$
are obtained from $X(\dots,v_p^*,v_{p+1},v_{p+2}^*,\dots)$ via the
substitutions
\begin{align}
\label{eq:X'-sub}
X'(\dots,v_p^*,v_{p+1}^*,\dots)
&=X(\dots,v_p^*,v_p^*\times v_{p+1}^*,\dots),\\
\label{eq:X''-sub}
X''(\dots,v_p,v_{p+1},\dots)
&=X(\dots,v_p\times v_{p+1},v_{p+1},\dots).
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs72.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{Top row: invariants $X'$, $X$, $X''$. }
\label{fig:webs72}
\end{figure}
Suppose $X$ has a nontrivial factorization $X=YZ$;
it then specializes into factorizations $X'=Y'Z'$ and~$X''=Y''Z''$.
On the other hand, $X'$ and $X''$ factor as shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:webs72} (bottom row), one of the factors
being given by a planar tree (the cut-off tail)
and another factor being a special invariant of the same kind as~$X$.
The former factor is irreducible by Lemma~\ref{lem:plantreeirr}
while the latter is irreducible by the induction assumption
(here we actually need some kind of explicit description of which
special invariants are indecomposable).
Since our rings of invariants are unique factorization domains,
we conclude that factorizations $X'=Y'Z'$ and~$X''=Y''Z''$
must coincide with the ones shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs72}.
Since $X$ is linear in~$v_{p+1}$, either $Y$ or~$Z$ (say~$Y$)
does not depend on~$v_{p+1}$. Thus $Y$ is unaffected by the
substitution~\eqref{eq:X'-sub}, and $Y'=Y$ does not depend
on~$v_{p+1}^*$. Consequently, $Y$ must be the invariant given by the
cut-off tail, shown in red in the lower-left corner
of Figure~\ref{fig:webs72}.
Similarly, one of the factors $Y$ and $Z$ does not depend on~$v_p$,
is unaffected by the substitution~\eqref{eq:X''-sub},
and appears in the factorization of $X''$
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs72} in the lower-right corner;
this must be the invariant shown in blue (and it must be~$Z$).
In conclusion, the factors $Y$ and $Z$ must match
the ones shown in the center of the bottom row.
But the product of these two special invariants yields a sum of two
terms, one of them being~$X$.
The second term does not vanish because the
tail is long enough.
This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:main}.
\section{Other proofs}
\label{sec:other-proofs}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:we=scott}]
It is straightforward to verify that the construction described in~\cite{scott}
arises as a special case of our setup for the ``zig-zag''
triangulation that includes all diagonals of the form $(i,b-i)$ and
$(i,B+1-i)$.
For the sake of completeness, we include a case-by-case verification
that in the case of monochromatic signature, the seeds $Q(T),\mathbf{z}(T)$
related by a single flip are indeed obtained from each other
by mutations.
We stated this claim in Section~\ref{sec:proof-main} for an
arbitrary signature, but did not conduct an exhaustive examination of all
possible non-generic cases.
Such an examination (for $a=0$) is presented in
Figures~\ref{fig:webs49b}--\ref{fig:webs48b}.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.55}{ \input{webs49b.pstex_t}}
\end{center}
\caption{A flip in $R_{0,b}(V)$: one exposed side, three mutations.}
\label{fig:webs49b}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.5}{ \input{webs48a.pstex_t}}
\end{center}
\caption{A flip in $R_{0,b}(V)$: two adjacent exposed
sides, two mutations.}
\label{fig:webs48a}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.5}{ \input{webs49a.pstex_t}}
\end{center}
\caption{A flip in $R_{0,b}(V)$: two non-adjacent exposed
sides, two mutations.}
\label{fig:webs49a}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.6}{ \input{webs48b.pstex_t}}
\end{center}
\caption{A flip in $R_{0,b}(V)$: three exposed sides, one mutation.}
\label{fig:webs48b}
\end{figure}
\newpage
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:drop-vertex}]
Our goal is to identify the cluster structure after dropping a
boundary vertex with a part of the original cluster structure.
There are several cases to consider.
Figure~\ref{fig:webs20} explains how to handle the case where the
color of the dropped vertex differs from both of its neighbors.
Other cases are treated in a similar way.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs20a.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{Vertex $6$ is being dropped.
Notation $\tilde J$ refers to
special invariants after the removal.
The identification is achieved by exchanging
$J_6^4$ for $J_{357} = {\tilde {J_3^5}}$,
then $J_7^3$ for ${\tilde{J_2^7}}$,
and finally $J_2^7$ for~${\tilde{J_2^1}}$;
then freezing $J_5^7$ and ${\tilde{J_2^1}}$
and subsequently throwing away $J_2^1$, $J_5^6$, and~$J_7^6$.
The relevant exchange relations are:
$J_6^4 J_{357} = J_7^3 + J_3^7 J_7^6 J_5^4$,
$J_7^3 {\tilde{J_2^7}} = J_2^7 J_{357} J_7^4 + J_7^6 J_5^7 J_5^4 J_3^4 J_7^2
J_3^7$, and
$J_2^7 {\tilde{J_2^1}} =
{\tilde{J_2^7}} J_2^1 + J_7^6 J_5^7 J_5^4 J_3^4 J_3^2 J_1^7$.}
\label{fig:webs20}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:fork}]
We follow the pattern of the proof of
Theorem~\ref{th:drop-vertex},
examining one characteristic example
(see Figure~\ref{fig:webs19})
instead of conducting a formal case by case analysis.
The size of this example is large enough to demonstrate
what happens in general.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs19b.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{Replacing black vertices $5$ and~$5'$
by the white vertex~$5$.
Notation $\tilde J$ refers to
special invariants after the replacement.
We go counterclockwise along the boundary until the colors
repeat (at vertices $1,2$).
The~identification
is achieved by exchanging
$J_6^4$ for~${\tilde {J_5^3}}$,
then $J_3^6$ for~${\tilde{J_6^2}}$,
and finally $J_6^2$ for~${\tilde{J_1^2}}$;
then freezing $J_5^6$ and~${\tilde{J_1^2}}$, and throwing out
$J_1^2$, $J_{5'}^6$, and~$J_5^6$.
The exchange relations are:
$J_6^4 {\tilde {J_5^3}} = J_5^{5'} J_3^6 + J_4^5 J_6^3\,$,
$J_3^6 {\tilde{J_6^2}} = J_4^6 {\tilde {J_5^3}} J_6^2 + J_5^6 J_6^3 J_2^6
J_4^3 J_4^5\,$, and
$J_6^2 {\tilde{J_1^2}} =
{\tilde{J_6^2}} J_1^2 + J_5^6 J_6^1 J_4^5 J_4^3 J_2^3\,.$
}
\label{fig:webs19}
\end{figure}
\pagebreak[3]
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:planar-tree}]
Any planar tree can be grown by repeated application of the operations
of adding a fork and dropping a vertex.
Make sure to never pass
through an alternating signature; this can indeed be done.
We omit the details.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:swap-colors}]
The construction of an extended cluster $\mathbf{z}(T)$ can be carried out
verbatim with the black and white colors swapped.
Let us denote the resulting set by~$\mathbf{z}'(T)$.
Note that the definition of a proxy vertex remains the same.
The only difference between the two constructions is that for each
triangle $pqr$ in~$T$, we use (the factors of)
the special invariant $J_{pqr}$ to build~$\mathbf{z}(T)$
whereas the construction of $\mathbf{z}'(T)$ involves~$J^{pqr}$.
In each instance where the latter choice yields an indecomposable
factor that does not come from any special invariant
contributing to~$\mathbf{z}(T)$, one can use the relation \eqref{eq:3-term-1} to
mutate between the two seeds.
This can be verified on a case by case basis,
treating each fundamental region separately.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:arborizing-step}]
A skein relation yields the identity shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs27b}.
It remains to note that the second term vanishes
as it is both symmetric and
antisymmetric with respect to the (co)vectors corresponding to the two
sibling vertices.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs27b.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{Skein relation justifying an arborizing step.}
\label{fig:webs27b}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:arborization-confluent}]
The proof is a straightforward application of the diamond lemma.
The five possible nontrivial diamonds are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:webs28}.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.85}{
\input{webs28.pstex_t}
}
\end{center}
\caption{Proving the confluence of the arborization algorithm.}
\label{fig:webs28}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:thickening}]
The idea of the proof is as follows.
Assume that $W$ arborizes to a tree diagram~$D$.
Let us reverse the arborization process: starting
with~$D$, we step by step ``planarize'' it (cf.\ Figure~\ref{fig:basic-step}),
each time creating a four-edge fragment of one of the two kinds described in
Definition~\ref{def:arborizing-step}.
Now make a tensor diagram for~$z^k$ by bundling together $k$ copies
of~$D$, and apply a planarization procedure following the same steps,
each time planarizing all $k$ copies.
At the end of this process, we are going to obtain the $k$-thickening of~$W$,
thereby proving the theorem.
We illustrate how this works using the example in
Figure~\ref{fig:webs31}.
The left picture shows an intermediate stage of the planarization
process, with $k=3$.
The six white vertices correspond to two sibling vertices in~$D$.
Remember that we are transforming our tensor diagram from the inside
out, i.e., moving towards the boundary.
The portions attached underneath those six vertices all look
identical:
they are patterned after the same subtree of~$D$.
We proceed in two stages as shown in the figure.
At the first stage, we planarize
around the two triples of black vertices, using skein relations
(including the square move).
Each time, all terms but one vanish because they can be seen
to be both symmetric and antisymmetric with respect to a pair of
arguments.
At the second stage,
we planarize the intersection of $k$-thickenings of two edges of~$D$
using a similar calculation.
\iffalse
Let us also point out why it is crucial for this argument that the diagram
$D$ is a tree. We need to start the process of reverse arborization from some
internal
vertex. In a tree, one can choose either of the three directions and have all
$k$ copies of this vertex have the same origin in this direction. This allows to
planarize
the part of the $k$ copies of the original web around this vertex (as it was
just described). If $D$ is not a tree however, copies of the vertices
belonging to cycles
do not share a common origin, and thus the argument fails.
\fi
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.9}{
\input{webs31.pstex_t}
}
\end{center}
\caption{ L'Ouvrier et la Kolkhozienne}
\label{fig:webs31}
\end{figure}
\newpage
\usection{Appendices}
\section{Special choice of an initial seed}
\label{sec:T-fan}
The cluster structure in the ring of invariants~$R_\sigma(V)$
is in principle determined by a single initial seed $(Q(T),\mathbf{z}(T))$.
Consequently, one may be interested
in identifying a particular choice of a triangulation~$T$ for which
the seed $(Q(T),\mathbf{z}(T))$ has a simpler and more
explicit description than the general case as presented in
Sections~\ref{sec:special-invariants}--\ref{sec:special-seeds}.
One~such choice is discussed in this section.
Denote $N\!=\!a+b$.
Since the signature $\sigma$ is non-alternating, we can assume without loss of
generality that the vertices $1$ and~$2$ are black.
(If we can only find two adjacent white vertices, then
use the same recipe with the colors swapped, cf.\ Theorem~\ref{th:swap-colors}.)
The case $a=0$ has been covered in Figure~\ref{fig:webs47}.
So let $\sigma$ be non-monochromatic.
Without loss of generality, we can assume that the
vertex~$N$ is white.
Let $T_1$ be the triangulation of the $N$-gon~$P_\sigma$
obtained by drawing all diagonals with an endpoint at the vertex~$1$.
The quiver $Q(T_1)$ is constructed as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Place two (mutable) vertices of $Q(T_1)$ on each diagonal of~$T_1$.
Place one frozen vertex on each side of~$P_\sigma$.
\item Fill each triangle in $T_1$ with arrows as shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:webs44}.
The choice of a pattern is determined by the color of the right endpoint
of the base side.
\item Assemble a quiver from these pieces,
removing $2$-cycles if necessary.
\item On the diagonal $13$, freeze the vertex closer to~$1$,
and identify it with the frozen vertex~$12$.
\item
On the diagonal $1(N\!-\!1)$, freeze one vertex, namely the one closer
to~$1$ (resp.,~$N\!-\!1$) if $N\!-\!1$ is white (resp., black).
Identify it with $(N\!-\!1)N$
if
$N-1$ is white,
and with $1N$
if it is black.
\item Add arrows connecting the mutable vertices on diagonals
$13$ and $1(N\!-\!1)$
to the frozen vertices $12$, $23$, $(N\!-\!1)N$, and~$1N$ as shown
in Figure~\ref{fig:webs44} on the~right.
Remove 2-cycles if necessary;
this will happen if vertex $3$ is black.
\item
\label{enum:except-Q}
If
$N-1$ is black,
replace the portions of the
resulting quiver inside the pentagon $1(N-3)(N-2)(N-1)N$ as shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:webs45}.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\input{webs44.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{Constructing the quiver $Q(T_1)$:
Building blocks}
\label{fig:webs44}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{1.1}{
\input{webs45a.pstex_t}
}
\end{center}
\caption{Constructing the quiver $Q(T_1)$:
Exceptional cases}
\label{fig:webs45}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:webs46} shows an example of applying this
construction.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\input{webs45b.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{Constructing the quiver $Q(T_1)$.
In this example, one of the exceptional cases
in step~\eqref{enum:except-Q} applies.}
\label{fig:webs46}
\end{figure}
When the vertex $N-1$ is white,
the above construction of the quiver $Q(T_1)$ simplifies substantially
as we do not have to make the adjustments described in
step~\eqref{enum:except-Q}.
If one is only interested in the cluster type of~$R_\sigma(V)$,
the description simplifies further:
\begin{proposition}
Let $\sigma=[\sigma_1\cdots\sigma_N]$, $N\ge 6$, be a signature
such that $\sigma_1=\sigma_2=\bullet$ and
$\sigma_{N-1}=\sigma_N=\circ$.
Let $T_1$ be the triangulation of $P_\sigma$ by the diagonals incident
to the vertex~$1$.
Then the mutable part of the quiver $Q(T_1)$ is obtained by
taking the vertices $s_3,s_4,\dots,s_{N-1}$ and
$t_4,t_5,\dots,t_{N-2}$
together with the following edges:
\begin{itemize}
\item
for $3\le i\le N-2$, draw an edge $s_i\to s_{i+1}\,$;
\item
for $4\le i\le N-3$, draw an edge $t_i\to t_{i+1}\,$;
\item
for $3\le i\le N-3$, if $\sigma_i=\bullet$, then draw an edge
$t_{i+1}\to s_i\,$;
\item
for $3\le i\le N-3$, if $\sigma_i=\circ$, then draw an edge
$t_{i+1}\to s_{i+1}\,$;
\item
for $4\le i\le N-2$, if $\sigma_i=\bullet$, then draw an edge
$s_i\to t_i\,$;
\item
for $4\le i\le N-2$, if $\sigma_i=\circ$, then draw an edge
$s_{i+1}\to t_i\,$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\pagebreak
\section{Additional examples of seeds}
\label{sec:examples-of-seeds}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs13.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{An example of a seed $(Q(T),\mathbf{z}(T))$ for
$\sigma=[\bullet\bullet\bullet\bullet\circ\bullet\bullet\,\circ]$.
}
\label{fig:webs13}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\input{webs16.pstex_t}
\end{center}
\caption{An example of a seed $(Q(T),\mathbf{z}(T))$ for
$\sigma=[\circ\circ\circ\circ\circ\bullet\bullet\,\bullet]$.
}
\label{fig:webs16}
\end{figure}
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction: organizing quasar diversity}
It is perhaps not surprising that quasars were thought to be
spectroscopically similar in the early days of quasar research.
Accretion phenomena are rather mass invariant so no great diversity was
expected and available low s/n spectra certainly looked rather similar.
Accretion luminosity can be written as $L_\mathrm{acc} \propto M \dot{M} / R$,
where $R$\ indicates distance from the central black hole customarily identified
with the radius of the last stable orbit, $\sim$ R$_{\rm g}$\/. It follows that
$L_\mathrm{acc} \propto \dot{M}$: so the energetic output is independent of
the black hole mass $M_{\rm BH}$\/.
Recent times have seen more attention given to spectral differences that may be
related to the wide range of Eddington ratio likely to be present in the quasar
population now much better sampled via optical surveys (bright quasar survey (BQS), Hamburg-ESO (HE), Sloan digital sky survey (SDSS), etc.;
\cite{sulenticetal00a,baskinlaor05b,yipetal04,kuraszkiewiczetal09}). A landmark study of systematic trends
in quasar spectra \cite{borosongreen92} involved a principal component analysis (PCA)
of 87 bright quasars from the Palomar-Green survey. Correlations among several
parameters measured for emission features in the {\sc{H}}$\beta$\/\ spectral region could be
grouped into an Eigenvector 1 (E1) involving, among other things, an anti-correlation
between {\sc{[Oiii]}}\-$\lambda\lambda$\-4959,\-5007\/\ and optical {Fe\sc{ii}}\/\ strength. Variations of E1 were later found in a
number of larger samples
\cite{marzianietal96,boroson02,grupe04,kuraszkiewiczetal02,sulenticetal00a,sulenticetal02,yipetal04,kovacevicetal10,kruzceketal11,tangetal12,wangetal06}. The E1 discovery was eventually generalized into a 4D Eigenvector 1 parameters (4DE1) space \citep{sulenticetal07} which added measures of the soft X-ray photon index ({$\Gamma_{\mathrm{soft}}$\/}) and {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ broad line profile shift. The higher dimensionality of the input space is helpful to cover parameters that are independent
(``orthogonal,'' one is tempted to say) observationally and that correspond to different physical processes: 1) the dynamics of the low-ionization line (LIL) emitting gas, 2) physical conditions and metallicity of the line emitting gas, 3) sources of continuum emission and 4) the dynamics of the high ionization line (HIL) emitting region.
It is now clear that all type-1 AGNs do not show similar (emission line) spectra anymore than
all stars show similar (absorption line) spectra. Differences go beyond source-to source comparisons
and include significant differences between median spectra of large numbers binned in a context
like 4DE1. We now suspect that Eddington ratio, central black hole mass, orientation and metallicity
-- parameters that could define a 4D physical space related to accretion properties of the central
supermassive black hole, the process that is believed to power the tremendous energy output of
quasars -- all likely affect the observed source spectra.
The 4DE1 formalism has reduced interpretative confusion and assisted the interpretation of several
observational aspects that appear puzzling if, for example, sets of spectra are indiscriminately
averaged together \citep{nagaoetal06}. Spectra can be averaged but only in a well defined context like 4DE1.
An obvious indication that not all quasars are the same in terms of physical and dynamical properties comes
from the difference between optical spectral properties of narrow line Seyfert 1 sources (NLSy1s)
(which can be luminous quasars) and radio-loud quasars (a less extreme difference is shown in Fig. 2
of \cite{sulenticetal00a}). In the former we observe narrow low ionization lines dominated
by {Fe\sc{ii}}\/\ emission vs. broad multi-component (redward asymmetric) lines in an overall higher
ionization spectrum. The systematic differences are recognized by several authors who speak, emphasizing different
aspects, of NLSy1s and broad(er) line quasars (BLQs), of Population A and B \cite{sulenticetal00a}, Population 1 and 2 \cite{collinetal06} or
disk- and wind-dominated sources \cite{richardsetal11}. In this review we adopt the empirically-motivated Pop. A and
B subdivision involving FWHM({\sc{H}}$\beta_{\rm BC}$\/) $\approx$ 4000 km~s$^{-1}$. Pop. A and B are, respectively,
narrower and broader than this value. The reason for this limit is made clear by Fig.
\ref{fig:optplane}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5in]{f1c.eps}
\caption{The 4DE1 optical plane. In abscissa the ratio $R_{\rm FeII}$\ as defined in the text, and in ordinate the FWHM of the broad component of {\sc{H}}$\beta$\/. Bins in the plane define spectral types. The arrows schematically indicates the increasing prominence of blue shifts (outflows) along the elbow-shaped sequence. The most compelling evidence of outflows is observed in the extreme Pop. A bins, A3 and A4. }
\label{fig:optplane}
\end{figure}
The division into two populations is useful for highlighting major differences among Type 1 AGNs, although spectral differences among objects within the same population are still noticeable, especially for Pop. A sources (see Figure 2 of \cite{sulenticetal02}). This motivates gridding the 4DE1 optical plane into bins of FWHM\-({\sc{H}}$\beta_{\rm BC}$\/) and iron emission strength. The prominence of {Fe\sc{ii}}\/\ emission is quantified the intensity of the \rm Fe{\sc ii}$\lambda$4570\/\ blend of multiplets normalized to the one of {\sc{H}}$\beta_{\rm BC}$\/: $R_{\rm FeII}$ = \rm Fe{\sc ii}$\lambda$4570\//{\sc{H}}$\beta_{\rm BC}$\/. Bins A1, A2, A3, A4 are defined in terms of increasing $R_{\rm FeII}$, while bins B1, B1$^{+}$, and B1$^{++}$\ with bin size $\Delta$$R_{\rm FeII}$ = 0.5, are defined in terms of increasing FWHM({\sc{H}}$\beta_{\rm BC}$\/). Sources belonging to the same spectral type show similar spectroscopic measures (e.g., line profiles and line flux ratios). They are assumed to isolate sources with similar broad line physics and geometry. Systematic changes are minimized (although they may not be fully random \cite{marzianietal01}) within each spectral type so that an individual quasar can be taken as representative of all sources within a given spectral bin. The binning adopted in \cite{sulenticetal02} (see Fig. \ref{fig:optplane}) has been derived for low-$z$ ($<$0.7) quasars and is luminosity dependent since the FWHM boundary between Pop. A and B is luminosity dependent \cite{marzianietal09,dultzinetal11}.
In this paper we concentrate on a particular physical process, outflows in or in the proximity of the broad line region (BLR) that show a clear trend along the 4DE1 sequence. We will focus on observational constraints to the interpretations about this process. Quasar outflows may have important effects on the host galaxy and perhaps also on the intergalactic medium. A comprehensive account can
be found in Chapters 8 and 9 of the recent book celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of quasar discovery \cite{donofrioetal12}.
\section{Quasars non-relativistic outflows: an optical/UV perspective}
\paragraph{Setting a proper rest frame } An accurate rest frame definition is needed to evaluate the meaning of inter-line shifts but it remains a sore problem for quasar studies. Knowing the rest frame makes possible a physical interpretation of internal shifts among broad lines that are distributed over a wide range of radial velocity, differ widely from source to source, and depend on ionization state \citep{gaskell82,tytlerfan92}. The problem remains especially serious for high redshift quasars since prominent narrow emission lines are shifted into the IR, a range that has been of difficult coverage until very recent times. Narrow LIL serve as rest frame reference, and they are assumed to provide a value closest to the one of the host galaxy, although this is not really {\em known} for the wide majority of sources).
Setting a proper rest frame is of special importance since outflows in quasars are suggested by the detection of blueshifted absorption or emission components of spectral lines if shifts are interpreted as due to Doppler effect (for a dissenting view see \cite{gaskell09}). These features can cover a wide range of shifts and widths, and are present in a sizable fraction of quasars. Narrow absorption lines (FWHM $\ltsim$ 1000 km~s$^{-1}$) are very frequent in HIL {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ \cite{vestergaard03,wildetal08}, and associated to a wide range of outflow velocities (up to $12000$ km~s$^{-1}$). X-ray emission lines between a few tens eV and 1 KeV in the so-called warm absorber are typically blueshifted by $\sim -1000$ km~s$^{-1}$\ and are probably part of a phenomenon involving most if not all quasars \citep{blustinetal05,chakravortyetal12}. An interesting study could involve the warm absorber prevalence and properties along the E1 sequence but this study, as far as we know, has not been carried out as yet.
\paragraph{BAL QSOs} The presence of broad absorption lines (BALs) systematically blueshifted with respect to the emission component readily indicates outflow of gas, and that momentum is being transferred from the quasar continuum to the outflowing gas. The maximum radial velocity of the absorption throughs can reach several tens of thousands km~s$^{-1}$, far above the escape velocity at the distance where they are probably formed. Fig. \ref{fig:bal} shows the {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ profile after continuum subtraction of the classical high ionization BAL QSOs PG 1700+518 \cite{sulenticetal06}. The SDSS survey indicates that BAL QSOs are detected with a frequency of 15-20\%\ in large quasars samples \cite{halletal02,reichardetal03,gibsonetal09}. BAL QSOs were discovered soon after the first quasars \cite{lynds67}, but the fundamental issue of whether they represent a special subsample of quasars or are instead quasars observed at a special viewing angle is still lingering today \cite{gangulybrotherton08}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{f2.eps}
\caption{The {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ profile of the BAL QSO PG 1700+518, extracted from the continuum-subtracted spectrum. Abscissa is redial velocity with respect to rest frame; ordinate is specific flux. The rest frame has been set from {\sc{H}}$\beta_{\rm NC}$\/\ and is therefore believed to be especially accurate. }
\label{fig:bal}
\end{figure}
The so-called line-locking (i.e., the presence of absorption trough in {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ with the same radial velocity separation of { Ly}$\alpha$\ and {N\sc{v}}$\lambda$1240\ indicates absorption by C$^{+3}$ ions of down-shifted { Ly}$\alpha$\ and {N\sc{v}}$\lambda$1240\ line photons \cite{weymannetal91}. This discovery has oriented eventual modeling of the BAL QSOs toward the inclusion of significant resonant line acceleration \cite{progaetal00}. In this case the outflow is accelerated by the emission of line photons in gas that continues to see unabsorbed continuum photons because of its changing velocity with distance from the central continuum source \cite{castoretal75}.
\paragraph{Broad emission lines} The first evidence of a systematic blueshift of the {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ line with respect to {Mg\sc{ii}}$\lambda$2800\/\ came in the early 1980s \cite{gaskell82,espeyetal89}. Since then evidence has considerably strengthened with several papers appearing in the 1990s confirming the previous result (the main development until 1999 are summarized by \citet{sulenticetal00a}). In the 1990s the UV data provided by HST spectrographic cameras made possible a comparison between low- and high-ionization lines for many tens of low-$z$\ quasars \cite{corbin90,willsetal93,brothertonetal94a}. Quasars HILs were found to be systematically blueshifted with respect to LILs, but not in all cases \citep{marzianietal96}.
The systematic blueshift of {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ in the low-$z$ NLSy1 source I Zw 1 is an exemplary, albeit extreme case. Superimposing a scaled and shifted broad {\sc{H}}$\beta$\/\ profile to {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ shows that the {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ can be accounted for by (1) a component reproduced by the scaled profile of {\sc{H}}$\beta$\/\ plus a fully blueshifted, much broader component that accounts for most of the {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ flux. In Fig. \ref{fig:izw1}, a scaled {\sc{H}}$\beta$\/\ matched component is superimposed to the original profile of {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/. The interpretation is straightforward in this case: {\sc{H}}$\beta$\/\ is mainly emitted by a flattened distribution of gas seen face-on, or almost so, while the gas emitting the blueshifted component is moving toward us. The receding part of the flow is assumed to be hidden by the structure emitting {\sc{H}}$\beta$\/, yielding a net blueshift in the {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ profile. I Zw 1 is in many ways not a peculiar source but an extreme in the 4DE1 sequence. Wind emission appears to be dominant for the HIL {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/, and indeed I Zw 1 could be considered a prototype of ``wind-dominated'' quasars \cite{richards12}. Sources like I Zw 1 are clearly unsuitable for estimating the central black hole mass under the assumption of virial motions, unless a correction is applied \cite{sulenticetal07,netzeretal07,marzianisulentic12}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{f3.eps}
\caption{The {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ profile of the extreme Pop. A source I Zw 1. Abscissa is wavelength in \AA, and ordinate is specific flux. A scaled {\sc{H}}$\beta_{\rm BC}$\/\ profile (thin grey line) has been overlaid to emphasize the difference between the HIL {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ and LIL {\sc{H}}$\beta$\/. }
\label{fig:izw1}
\end{figure}
\section{Outflows along the 4DE1 sequence}
As one moves along the E1 sequence toward Pop. B, the appearance of {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ changes \citep{bachevetal04,sulenticetal07} with large {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ blueshifts becoming less frequent (see Fig. \ref{fig:civshiftse1}). The maximum shift amplitude decreases as well. B1 sources account for the wide majority of Pop. B: their {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ and {\sc{H}}$\beta$\/\ profiles are similar, and profile parameters like centroids and asymmetry occupy overlapping ranges \citep{marzianietal96}. This trend has been recently explained with the progressive demise of the wind component \cite{marzianietal10,richardsetal11,wangetal11}. An interpretation of the BLR that seems to be supported, at least in part, by micro-lensing of the BLR \cite{sluseetal11,sluseetal12} involves three main regions: (1) a relatively stable region whose dynamics is predominantly virial, associated to a symmetric unshifted emission in emission lines; (2) an outflow region revealed by emission line blueward asymmetries or by a component systematically blueshifted with respect to the rest frame of the quasars. It has proved useful to introduce a third region in Pop. B: (3) a very-broad line region (VBLR) that accounts for the innermost emission and for the prominent redward asymmetries observed in the line profile of these sources. The introduction of this third region is motivated by the ``inflected'' appearance of {\sc{H}}$\beta_{\rm BC}$\/\ line profiles, as well as by the absence of low-ionization line emission. Optical {Fe\sc{ii}}\/\ emission is not emitted in the broadest component associated to the VBLR. This said, one should be aware that the VBLR cannot be rigorously isolated in the profile, and that there could be, if virial motions account for the bulk line broadening, a smooth gradient of ionization with distance from the central continuum source. Empirically, the most prominent lines can be modeled by the addition of three components (the VBC is 0 in Pop. A sources), each of them associated to the regions described above.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5in]{civshiftse1.eps}
\caption{{\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ shifts in the optical 4DE1 plane. Data points from \cite{sulenticetal07} are represented with different symbols according to the centroid at half-maximum shift of the broad {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ profile. Large blue: {$\Delta$v$_\mathrm{r}$} $<-1000$km~s$^{-1}$; pale blue: $-200 $ km~s$^{-1}$$>$ {$\Delta$v$_\mathrm{r}$} $\ge -1000$km~s$^{-1}$; grey (unshifted): $-200$ km~s$^{-1}$ $\le$ {$\Delta$v$_\mathrm{r}$} $\le 200$km~s$^{-1}$; orange open circles: $200< $ km~s$^{-1}$ {$\Delta$v$_\mathrm{r}$} $\le 1000$km~s$^{-1}$; red open circles: {$\Delta$v$_\mathrm{r}$} $>1000$km~s$^{-1}$.}
\label{fig:civshiftse1}
\end{figure}
A blueshifted component that appears dominant in the {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ profile of A3/A4 spectral types is also apparent in {\sc{H}}$\beta$\/, although the intensity ratio is {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/{\sc{H}}$\beta$\/$\gg$1. The {\sc{H}}$\beta$\/\ profile is mostly unaffected \cite{marzianietal10} when the {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ blueshifted component is less prominent.
The blueshifted component in {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ and other high ionization lines seems to be present in most spectral types. Only in spectral type B1$^{+}$\ it is irrelevant and undetectable or almost so in bin B1$^{++}$. These bins are the ones with the largest fraction of RL FRII galaxies \citep{zamfiretal08}. It appears reasonable that the presence of axial, powerful relativistic outflows may hinder the propagation of a strong disk wind as observed in radio-quiet sources \cite{normanmiley84}. However, recent work suggests that some wind emission is coexisting with relativistic jets \cite{richardsetal11}. The parameter that is more relevant for the prominence of winds appears to be $L/L_{\rm Edd}$. Radio-loudness might yield only a secondary effect since occurrence of powerful radio-loud sources is favored in sources of low $L/L_{\rm Edd}$\ \cite{woourry02,marzianietal03b}.
\subsection{More on outflows in extreme Pop. A sources}
The distribution of {\sc [Oiii]}$\lambda$5007\ shifts with respect to rest frame (set by low ionization narrow emission lines) is strongly skewed toward the blue \cite{zamanovetal02,huetal08}, indicating that outflow, at some level, is also occurring within the NLR in a sizable fraction of sources. Also, most sources show a typical profile with a spiky, symmetric narrow core and a blueward asymmetry: the latter feature can be easily associated to fast outflowing gas.
Observations of the extreme Pop. A I Zw 1 shows an {\sc{[Oiii]}}\-$\lambda\lambda$\-4959,\-5007\/\ blueshift of $\approx$ --500 km~s$^{-1}$\ relative to rest-frame measures\cite{borosonoke87,marzianietal96}, with a second component at $\approx$ --1500 km~s$^{-1}$\ (\cite{veroncettyetal04}, and references therein). I Zw 1 is not the sole source showing a systematic blueshift of {\sc [Oiii]}$\lambda$5007. It is possible to identify I Zw 1 analogues with $\Delta v_{\rm r}$({\sc{[Oiii]}}\-$\lambda\lambda$\-4959,\-5007\/) $ \gtsim -300$ km~s$^{-1}$\ with respect to {\sc{H}}$\beta_{\rm NC}$\/. These sources are found to be rare
\cite{grupeetal99,grupeetal01,marzianietal03b,komossaetal08,zhangetal11}) and seem to lie out of a continuous, skewed shift distribution (hence the frequent use of the ``blue outliers" denomination). The distribution of blue outliers in the
E1 optical plane is different from that of the general quasars
population \cite{zamanovetal02} since they occupy the
lower right part of the diagram and are exclusively Pop. A/NLSy1
nuclei \cite{zamanovmarziani02}.
It is interesting to point out that the blue outliers have low W({\sc{[Oiii]}}\-$\lambda\lambda$\-4959,\-5007\/) at low $z$. Sources with low W({\sc{[Oiii]}}\-$\lambda\lambda$\-4959,\-5007\/) appear to show only a blue-shifted {\sc{[Oiii]}}\-$\lambda\lambda$\-4959,\-5007\/\ profile as if only the asymmetric part of the most typical profile were present (i.e., the ``spiky'' component were missing). It is relatively straightforward to interpret the large blueshift and the profile of the {\sc{[Oiii]}}\-$\lambda\lambda$\-4959,\-5007\/\ lines as the result of an outflow \cite{aokietal05,zamanovetal02}, within a compact NLR \cite{veroncettyetal04,zamanovetal02}. Zamanov et al. \cite{zamanovetal02} constructed a model of gas moving following a wind velocity field (\S \ref{wind}). Both {\sc [Oiii]}$\lambda$5007\ and {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ were assumed to arise in a radial flow constrained in a cone of large half-opening angle, where the receding part of the flow is obscured by an optically thick accretion disk. This simple model could explain the observed profiles of both lines as emitted at different distances within the same flow. The model consistently suggested a very compact NLR ($r \ltsim$ 1 pc for a black hole mass of 10$^{8}$\ M$_\odot$\/).
Most extreme examples of blue outliers at high $z$ may involve massive outflows on scales of several kpc \cite{canodiazetal12}. In this case the receding part of the flow is obscured by the dust and gas in the host galaxy.
\subsection{Outflows and quasar evolution}
It is intriguing to note that the observed blueshifts seem to constrain a scale invariant BLR/NLR structure. In both BLR and NLR we observe HIL blue shifts, while LIL appear to be more symmetric. Extreme Pop. A sources that are blue outliers are outflow dominated sources within both the BLR and NLR. It is tempting to speculate that, as the active nucleus evolves, the NLR occupies progressively more space, yielding to the extended NLR that have been spatially resolved in nearby Seyfert galaxies. In this way the E1 sequence appears as an evolutionary sequence: from the fledgling extreme Pop. A sources radiating a large Eddington ratio, wind dominated, to the ``dying'' Pop. B sources that host very massive black hole, radiate at low Eddington ratio and show very extended NLR \cite{sulenticetal00a,mathur00}. $M_{\rm BH}$\/\ and NLR prominence may serve as quantitative evolutionary parameters.
\subsection{Outflows and the LIL emitting part of the BLR}
Several works stressed since the mid-1980s that LILs and HILs have to be emitted at least in part from different media \cite{collinsouffrinetal88}. The effect of the strongest winds may have important effects on the very structure of the BLR \cite{leighly04}. Extreme Pop. A sources apparently have only a very dense low-ionization emitting gas, with little contribution of gas at $n_{\mathrm{H}}$\/ $\sim 10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$\/ \cite{negrete11,negreteetal12}. Their {\sc{Ciii]}}$\lambda$1909\/\ emission is the lowest observed in quasar spectra. Another speculation would be to consider these sources as experiencing a radiation force strong enough to sweep away/heat the lower density gas within the BLR. It is interesting to note that extreme Pop. A sources still show an unperturbed {\sc{H}}$\beta$\/\ component. A stable equilibrium might however be possible only for the densest gas.
\section{A simple physical scheme}
\label{wind}
From an observational point of view it is not settled whether we are considering the flow of a continuous medium or the motion of discrete gas clouds. Gas clouds could be magnetically confined \cite{reesetal89}; however, high-resolution spectroscopy fails to resolve individual clouds \cite{aravetal98,laoretal06} placing a lower limit on their numbers. This result is consistent with the idea that we are observing a hydrodynamical flow. Such flows are appealing especially at low luminosity and in the presence of a hard spectrum but are very difficult to test observationally \cite{everett07} even if they have been successful in reproducing line profiles \cite{bottorffetal97,bottorffferland00}. Thermal winds, i.e., winds where the outflow is driven by the thermal energy of the gas, appear unable to withstand cooling losses if they are expanding adiabatically \citep{everettmurray07}. Radiative acceleration models have been successful in explaining single-peaked profiles assuming the lines are emitted in a disk wind \cite[e.g.,][]{murraychiang97,murraychiang98}. It is, however, not clear to us whether typical Balmer and {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ profiles in Pop. B sources can be explained by such a model (although see \citep{flohicetal12}).
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5in]{civshifts.eps}
\caption{{\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ centroid at half maximum shifts as a function of logarithm of Eddington ratio. Data from \cite{sulenticetal07}. The dashed lines define a $\pm$ 200 km~s$^{-1}$\ radial velocity interval where the {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ line profile are considered unshifted. }
\label{fig:civshifts}
\end{figure}
Observationally, the dependence of the outflow blueshifts on Eddington ratio \cite{gangulyetal07,bachevetal04,baskinlaor05b,sulenticetal07} strongly indicates that radiation forces are at play right in cases where winds/outflows appear to be most prominent. Fig. \ref{fig:civshifts} shows the {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ broad component centroid at half maximum (i.e., a measurement of the global {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ broad component shift) as a function of $L/L_{\rm Edd}$. The simplest interpretation sees a correlation between negative (i.e. blue) shift amplitude and $L/L_{\rm Edd}$\ for sources in the range $-1.6 \le \log$$L/L_{\rm Edd}$ $\le 0.6$. The large scatter is at least partly due to orientation effects \citep{richardsetal02}. A more proper interpretation might
involve a discontinuity at $\log$$L/L_{\rm Edd}$ $\approx$ -0.5: from a distribution of shifts that is fairly symmetric to a distribution skewed toward negative values, where the largest amplitude shifts are observed. Moderate amplitude blueshifts are not infrequently found also at relatively low $L/L_{\rm Edd}$.
The balance of gravitational and radiative forces is likely different in each quasar (for fixed $M_{\rm BH}$\/) and dependent on the luminosity-to-mass ratio (i.e., the Eddington ratio). The ratio between radiative and gravitational acceleration of an optically thick, Compton-thin cloud of surface $\Sigma$\ can be written as
$
r_\mathrm{a} = {a_{\mathrm{rad} } }/{a_{\mathrm{grav} } } \approx
({{\Sigma L_{\mathrm{ion}}}/{4\pi r^{2} c M_{\mathrm{cloud}}}})/({{GM_\mathrm{BH}}/{r^{2}}}) \approx 7.2 \frac{L}{L_\mathrm{Edd}} N_\mathrm{c,23}^{-1}$
\citep[cf.][]{netzermarziani10,marzianietal10}. The momentum transferred to the gas in a cloud of mass $M_{\mathrm{cloud}}$\ is assumed equal to the total momentum from the ionizing radiation $L_\mathrm{ion}/c$. The relation holds as long as the gas remains optically thick and resonant-line acceleration is negligible. Opacity effects are ignored. We will therefore use the relation only to outline a qualitative trend. If there is a distribution of column density within the BLR the lowest density gas can become unbound as the Eddington ratio increases. Radiative acceleration will dominate if $r_\mathrm{a} \gg$ 1. This is likely the case for the blueshifted emission component. Equilibrium may be approached at $r_\mathrm{a} \approx$ 1. $L/L_{\rm Edd}$ $\approx$1 (the corresponding $N_{\rm c}$\/\ should be $\ltsim 10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$\/\ which is a plausible value for the LIL-BLR).
Finally if the ratio $r_\mathrm{a} \ll$ 1 the emitting gas (in the presence of drag forces or viscous stresses that lead to angular momentum loss) may be unable to withstand the central black hole gravity and may fall toward the center giving rise to the observed redshifted profiles typical of low-Eddington ratio Pop. B sources. The dynamical status of the line emitting gas may ultimately be related to $N_{\rm c}$\/\ and source $L/L_{\rm Edd}$. This scheme readily explains the ``coexistence'' of a gravitationally bound region and a radiatively driven outflow \cite{denneyetal09b,marzianietal10,wangetal11}.
What are the physical conditions in the outflowing gas emitting the broad lines? The blueshifted component is prominent in { Ly}$\alpha$\ and {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/. It is revealed in a consistent fit of He{\sc{ii}}$\lambda$1640\ blended with {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/, and it appears to be weak (undetected in LILs) implying a rather high lower limit to {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\//{\sc{H}}$\beta$\/\ and { Ly}$\alpha$/{\sc{H}}$\beta$\/. The weakness of any LIL emission and the He{\sc{ii}}$\lambda$1640/{\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ ratio imply high ionization parameter $U\gtsim$ 10$^{-1}$\ \cite{leighly04,marzianietal10} validating the description ``high ionization-outflow or wind.'' Winds in extreme Pop. A source may disperse a highly enriched gas \cite{wangetal09a}.
\subsection{BAL QSOs}
\label{bals}
Outflows driven by line and ionizing photon pressure can accelerate the line-emitting gas to
$v_\mathrm{t} \approx k \left({\cal M} { L}/{r}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \approx 10^{4} {\cal M}^{\frac{1}{2}} L_{46}^{\frac{1}{2}} r_{16}^{-\frac{1}{2}} \mathrm{km ~~s}^{-1}$ where ${\cal M}$\ is the force multiplier
\citep[e.g.][]{laorbrandt02}.
The same relation can be written in terms of $L/L_{\rm Edd}$\ as $v_\mathrm{t} \approx \left({\cal M} { L}/{L_\mathrm{Edd}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} v_\mathrm{Kepl}$\ where $v_\mathrm{Kepl}$\ is the Keplerian velocity at the launching radius of the wind. Therefore it is not necessary for the Eddington ratio to be high in order to launch a wind \cite{laorbrandt02}, provided that ${\cal M} \gg 1$\ as in the case of line driven winds \citep{progaetal00}. BAL QSOs like PG 1700+512 are extreme Pop. A sources radiating at high $L/L_{\rm Edd}$. PG 1700+512 shows a very large $v_\mathrm{t}$\ inferred from the maximum {$v_{\mathrm r}$}\ in the {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ absorption trough. This extreme phenomenology is probably restricted to highly accreting sources. However BALs are observed in sources of relatively low Eddington ratio suggesting that line driving is important \cite{sulenticetal06,gangulyetal07}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{a4mg_ar.eps}
\caption{The {Mg\sc{ii}}$\lambda$2800\/\ profile of the median spectrum for spectral type A4, from \cite{sulenticetal12}, after continuum subtraction. Abscissa scale is rest frame wavelength (top) and radial velocity (bottom) from rest frame wavelength of {Mg\sc{ii}}$\lambda$2800\/. Ordinate scale is continuum-normalized intensity. The dashed magenta line shows a model fit with all components included. The thick black line traces the the {Mg\sc{ii}}$\lambda$2800\/\ doublet. The thin green line shows the assumed {Fe\sc{ii}}\/\ emission. }
\label{fig:mgii}
\end{figure}
\section{A low-ionization wind/outflow}
Up to this point we have considered shifts of up to a few thousands km~s$^{-1}$\ in the {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ line which is a high-ionization resonance line. {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ is assumed to be representative of HILs only for the simple reason that it is not strongly contaminated by other lines, is strong and conveniently placed. Recent observations of smaller amplitude blueshifts in the LIL {Mg\sc{ii}}$\lambda$2800\/\ resonance doublet (Fig. \ref{fig:mgii}) came as a surprise \cite{marzianietal12}. The shift is not easy to measure because it depends on the intrinsic doublet ratio (that is only approximately known) and to a lesser extent on the estimate of the underlying {Fe\sc{ii}}\/\ emission. A small shift by $\approx 200$ km~s$^{-1}$\ would be overlooked in most previous studies (it was found in \cite{tytlerfan92}, although not at a significant level because of the large uncertainty). In addition to the small systematic shifts in bin A3 and A4 (see Fig. \ref{fig:mgii}), \cite{marzianietal12} found a source where the {Mg\sc{ii}}$\lambda$2800\/\ profile is shifted by $\approx 2000$ km~s$^{-1}$. The {Mg\sc{ii}}$\lambda$2800\/\ profile of SDSS J150813.02+484710.6 resembles a typical {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ profile for A3 and A4 sources. (Fig. \ref{fig:sdss}).
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5in]{s1330mg_ar.eps}
\caption{The {Mg\sc{ii}}$\lambda$2800\/\ profile of the extreme Pop. A source SDSS J150813.02+484710.6. Meaning of symbol is as in the previous figure. Vertical scale is specific flux in units of 10$^{-15}$ ergs s$^{-1}$\/\ cm$^{-2}$\/\ \AA$^{-1}$. Note the resemblance with the {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ profile of I Zw 1.}
\label{fig:sdss}
\end{figure}
Apart from this extreme SDSS source we note that {Mg\sc{ii}}$\lambda$2800\/\ is different from both {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ and {\sc{H}}$\beta$\/. In {Mg\sc{ii}}$\lambda$2800\/\ we see a displacement of the {\em core} of the line. The shift normalized by line width is large, with the implication that the line emitting gas is predominantly in outflow (see Fig. \ref{fig:mgii}). What is the relation between the {Mg\sc{ii}}$\lambda$2800\/\ and {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ blueshifts? In a photoionization framework {Mg\sc{ii}}$\lambda$2800\/\ emission is associated with low-ionization, and high column density gas that allows for the existence of a partially-ionized zone \cite{kk81,netzer80,grandiphillips79}. The partially-ionized zone extends to much larger depth within a gas cloud or slab than the fully ionized zone where {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ is emitted. Such high $N_{\rm c}$\/\ ($\gtsim 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$\/) gas has to exist if photoionization is at work: we are speaking of a very prominent line in all type 1 quasar spectra. The second ingredient for {Mg\sc{ii}}$\lambda$2800\/\ emission involves the strong X-ray continuum that is typical of quasars and that is needed to create the partially-ionized zone \cite{kk81}. For bin A3 and A4, $L/L_{\rm Edd}$$\rightarrow$1, and the force multiplier ${\cal M}$\ is large enough to drive a wind to a velocity larger than the virial velocity if only the effect of the ionizing continuum is considered. The relatively low amplitude of the shift may therefore result from the combined effects of large distance and, especially, of large column density \cite{marzianietal12}. The large emitting radius may favor shielding from the strong UV continuum radiation close to the equatorial plane of the disk where large column density material could be preferentially located \cite[e.g.][]{chelouchenetzer03,gaskell09,gibsonetal09,wuetal12}.
We note that these results would imply that {Mg\sc{ii}}$\lambda$2800\/\ is not suitable as a virial estimator for $M_{\rm BH}$\/\ computations in extreme Pop. A bins (which are a minority in a large quasar sample, typically around 10\%\ \cite{sulenticetal12,zamfiretal10}). Also the smaller width of {Mg\sc{ii}}$\lambda$2800\/\ with respect to {\sc{H}}$\beta_{\rm BC}$\/\ \cite{wangetal11,sulenticetal12} implies that a calibration between $M_{\rm BH}$\/ -- luminosity -- FWHM different from the one of {\sc{H}}$\beta$\/\ should be applied.
\section{Conclusion}
The existence of non-relativistic outflows in quasars has left the realm of speculation. High-ionization lines are, at least in part, produced in outflowing gas. There is evidence that this is likely to be true within both the BLR and NLR. Inter-line shift analysis has proved a powerful tool to understand this aspect of quasar structure and kinematics. The {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ blueshift is associated with a wind component whose prominence increases with $L/L_{\rm Edd}$\ along the 4DE1 sequence. In bins A2, A3 and A4 the wind component is basically dominating HIL fluxes. At low Eddington ratio the {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ profile is less affected. {\sc{H}}$\beta$\/\ and {\sc{Civ}}$\lambda$1549\/\ line profiles are, if not correlated, occupying overlapping ranges in parameter spaces \cite{marzianietal96,marzianietal10}. This basic scenario has been confirmed by recent work \cite{richardsetal11,wangetal11}. Recent developments point toward the possibility of resonant line driving as an explanation
for outflows at low $L/L_{\rm Edd}$.
Major improvements will come from 2D reverberation mapping which is, in principle, capable of resolving different coexisting dynamical regimes within the BLR \cite{horneetal04,denneyetal09a}. The multiplexing ability of new generation spectrographs like X\-SHOO\-TER \cite{vernetetal11} allow one to simultaneously observe the strongest LILs and HILs with higher sensitivity and will provide new data of quality suitable for the measurements of small inter-line shifts. This may lead to a better understanding of the outflows especially in low $L/L_{\rm Edd}$\ radiators, as well as to a self-consistent unified scenario of quasars outflows.
\paragraph{Acknowledgements}
PM acknowledges support by Junta de An\-da\-lu\-c\'\i a, through grant TIC-114 and the Excellence Project P08-TIC-3531, and by the Spanish Ministry for Science and Innovation through grants AYA2010-15169 for a ``sabbatical'' stay at IAA, whe\-re this paper was written.
\clearpage
\bibliographystyle{apj}
|
\section{Introduction}
The present paper and its predecessor \cite{pelsch} describe a complete classification of regular polygonal complexes in the euclidean $3$-space $\mathbb{E}^3$. Polygonal complexes are discrete polyhedra-like structures composed of convex or non-convex, planar or skew, finite or infinite (helical or zigzag) polygonal faces, always with finite graphs as vertex-figures, such that each edge lies in at least two, but generally $r\geq 2$ faces, with $r$ not depending on the particular edge. The various kinds of $3$-dimensional polyhedra that have been studied in the literature are prominent examples of polygonal complexes, obtained when $r=2$ (see Coxeter~\cite{crsp,coxeter}, Gr\"unbaum~\cite{gr1} and McMullen \& Schulte~\cite{arp}). A polygonal complex is {\em regular\/} if its full euclidean symmetry group is transitive on the flags.
Our two papers are part of an ongoing program that combines a {\em skeletal\/} approach to polyhedra in space pioneered in \cite{gr1} (see also Dress~\cite{d1,d2} and McMullen \& Schulte~\cite{ordinary}), with an effort to study symmetry of discrete polyhedra-like space structures through transitivity properties of their symmetry group. The full enumeration of the chiral polyhedra in $\mathbb{E}^3$ in \cite{chiral1, chiral2} (see also Pellicer \& Weiss~\cite{pelwei}), as well as a number of corresponding enumeration results for figures in higher-dimensional euclidean spaces by McMullen~\cite{ pm,pm1,pm2} (see also Arocha, Bracho \& Montejano~\cite{ar} and \cite{bra}), are examples of recent successes of this program; for a survey, see~\cite{ms3}.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{terba} we review basic properties of regular polygonal complexes and their symmetry groups, and elaborate on two important operations that produce new regular complexes from old. Then in Sections~\ref{mirr11}, \ref{mir0k} and \ref{mir2k}, respectively, we enumerate the simply flag-transitive regular polygonal complexes with mirror vectors $(1,1)$, $(0,k)$ and $(2,k)$, with $k=1$ or $2$. In Section~\ref{mirrcyc} we eliminate the possibility that a simply flag-transitive regular polygonal complex with mirror vector $(0,k)$ has pointwise edge stabilizers that are cyclic of order $r\geq 3$. Together with the results of \cite{pelsch}, our findings complete the enumeration of all regular polygonal complexes in $\mathbb{E}^3$. Overall we establish that, up to similarity, there are precisely 25 regular polygonal complex in $\mathbb{E}^3$ which are not regular polyhedra, namely 21 simply flag-transitive complexes and $4$ complexes which are $2$-skeletons of regular $4$-apeirotopes in $\mathbb{E}^3$.
\section{Terminology and basic facts}
\label{terba}
A {\em finite polygon\/} $(v_1, v_2, \dots, v_n)$ in euclidean $3$-space $\mathbb{E}^3$ is a figure formed by distinct points $v_1, \dots, v_n$, together with the line segments $(v_i, v_{i+1})$, for $i = 1, \dots, n-1$, and $(v_n, v_1)$. Similarly, an {\em infinite polygon\/} consists of a sequence of distinct points $(\dots, v_{-2},v_{-1}, v_0, v_1, v_2,\dots)$ and of line segments $(v_i, v_{i+1})$ for each $i$, such that each compact subset of $\mathbb{E}^3$ meets only finitely many line segments. In either case the points and line segments are the {\em vertices\/} and {\em edges\/} of the polygon, respectively.
A {\em polygonal complex}, or simply {\em complex}, $\mathcal{K}$ in $\mathbb{E}^3$ consists of a set $\mathcal{V}$ of points, called {\em vertices}, a set $\mathcal{E}$ of line segments, called {\em edges}, and a set $\mathcal{F}$ of polygons, called {\em faces}, such that the following properties are satisfied. The graph defined by $\mathcal{V}$ and $\mathcal{E}$, called the {\em edge graph\/} of $\mathcal{K}$, is connected. Moreover, the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}$ at each vertex of $\mathcal{K}$ is connected. Recall that the {\em vertex-figure\/} of $\mathcal{K}$ at a vertex $v$ is the graph, possibly with multiple edges, whose vertices are the neighbors of $v$ in the edge graph of $\mathcal{K}$ and whose edges are the line segments $(u,w)$, where $(u, v)$ and $(v, w)$ are edges of a common face of $\mathcal{K}$. It is also required that each edge of $\mathcal{K}$ is contained in exactly $r$ faces of $\mathcal{K}$, for a fixed number $r \geq 2$. Finally, $\mathcal{K}$ is {\em discrete\/}, in the sense that each compact subset of $\mathbb{E}^3$ meets only finitely many faces of $\mathcal{K}$.
A complex with $r=2$ is also called a {\em polyhedron\/}. Finite or infinite polyhedra in $\mathbb{E}^3$ with high symmetry properties have been studied extensively (for example, see \cite[Ch.~7E]{arp} and \cite{gr1,ordinary,pelwei,chiral1,chiral2}).
A polygonal complex $\mathcal{K}$ is said to be (geometrically) {\em regular} if its symmetry group $G:=G(\mathcal{K})$ is transitive on the flags (triples consisting of a vertex, an edge, and a face, all mutually incident). We simply refer to the (full) symmetry group $G$ as the {\em group of $\mathcal{K}$}. If $\mathcal{K}$ is regular, its faces are necessarily regular polygons, either finite, planar (convex or star-) polygons or non-planar ({\em skew\/}) polygons, or infinite, planar zigzags or helical polygons. Moreover, its vertex-figures are graphs with single or double edges; the latter occurs precisely when any two adjacent edges of a face of $\mathcal{K}$ are adjacent edges of just one other face of $\mathcal{K}$. We know from \cite{pelsch} that, apart from polyhedra, there are no regular complexes that are finite or have an affinely reducible group.
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be a regular complex, and let $G$ be its group. Let $\Phi := \{F_0, F_1, F_2\}$ be a fixed, or {\em base}, flag of $\mathcal{K}$, where $F_0$ is a vertex, $F_1$ an edge, and $F_2$ a face of $\mathcal{K}$. If $\Psi$ is a subset of $\Phi$, we let
$G_{\Psi}$ denote its stabilizer in $G$. For $i=0,1,2$ we also set $G_i := G_{\{F_j, F_k\}}$, where $i,j,k$ are distinct.
We showed in \cite{pelsch} that $|G_\Phi|\leq 2$. Thus the group of a regular complex either acts simply flag-transitively or has flag-stabilizers of order $2$. We call $\mathcal{K}$ {\em simply flag-transitive\/} if its (full symmetry) group $G$ acts simply flag-transitively on $\mathcal{K}$.
In \cite{pelsch} we characterized the regular complexes with non-trivial flag stabilizers as the $2$-skeletons of regular $4$-apeirotopes in $\mathbb{E}^3$. These complexes have planar faces and have {\em face mirrors\/}, the latter meaning that the affine hull of a face is the mirror (fixed point set) of a plane reflection in $G$. There are eight regular $4$-apeirotopes in $\mathbb{E}^3$; however, since a pair of Petrie-duals among these apeirotopes share the same $2$-skeleton, these only yield four regular complexes $\mathcal{K}$. We can list the eight $4$-apeirotopes in a more descriptive way in four pairs of Petrie duals using the notation of~\cite{arp}.
\smallskip
\begin{equation}
\label{4apeirotopes}
\begin{array}{cc}
\{4, 3, 4\} &\{\{4, 6 \,|\,4\}, \{6, 4\}_3\}\\[.04in]
\mathop{\rm apeir} \{3, 3\} \!=\! \{\{\infty, 3\}_6 \# \{ \, \}, \{3, 3\}\}
&\{\{\infty, 4\}_4 \# \{\infty\}, \{4, 3\}_3\} \!=\! \mathop{\rm apeir}\{4, 3\}_3 \\[.04in]
\mathop{\rm apeir} \{3, 4\} \!=\! \{\{\infty, 3\}_6 \# \{ \, \}, \{3, 4\}\}
&\{\{\infty, 6\}_3 \# \{\infty\}, \{6, 4\}_3\} \!=\! \mathop{\rm apeir}\{6, 4\}_3 \\[.04in]
\mathop{\rm apeir} \{4, 3\} \!=\! \{\{\infty, 4\}_4 \# \{\, \}, \{4, 3\}\}
&\{\{\infty, 6\}_3 \# \{\infty\}, \{6, 3\}_4\} \!=\! \mathop{\rm apeir} \{6, 3\}_4\\[.04in]
\end{array}
\end{equation}
The apeirotopes in the top row are the cubical tessellation $\{4,3,4\}$ and its Petrie dual; these have square faces, and their facets are cubes or Petrie-Coxeter polyhedra $\{4, 6 \,|\,4\}$, respectively. All other apeirotopes have zigzag faces, and their facets are blends of the Petrie-duals $\{\infty,3\}_6$, $\{\infty,6\}_3$ or $\{\infty,4\}_4$ of the plane tessellations $\{6,3\}$, $\{3,6\}$ or $\{4,4\}$, respectively, with the line segment $\{ \,\}$ or linear apeirogon $\{\infty\}$ (see \cite[Ch.~7F]{arp}). These six apeirotopes can be obtained as particular instances from the {\em free abelian apeirotope\/} or ``apeir" construction of \cite{pm,pm1}, which we briefly review here for rank $4$.
Let $\mathcal Q$ be a finite regular polyhedron in $\mathbb{E}^3$ with symmetry group $G(\mathcal{Q}) = \langle T_1,T_2,T_3\rangle$ (say), where the labeling of the distinguished generators begins at $1$ deliberately. Let $o$ be the centroid of the vertex-set of $\mathcal Q$, let $w$ be the initial vertex of $\mathcal Q$, and let $T_0$ denote the reflection in the point $\frac{1}{2}w$. Then there is a regular $4$-apeirotope in $\mathbb{E}^3$, denoted $\mathop{\rm apeir} {\mathcal Q}$, with $T_0,T_1,T_2,T_3$ as the generating reflections of its symmetry group, $o$ as initial vertex, and $\mathcal Q$ as vertex-figure. In particular, $\mathop{\rm apeir} Q$ is discrete if $\mathcal Q$ is rational (the vertices of $\mathcal Q$ have rational coordinates with respect to some coordinate system). The latter limits the choices of $\mathcal Q$ to $\{3,3\}$, $\{3,4\}$ or $\{4,3\}$, or their Petrie duals $\{4,3\}_3$, $\{6,4\}_3$ or $\{6,3\}_4$, respectively, giving the six remaining regular $4$-apeirotopes in $\mathbb{E}^3$.
The enumeration of the simply flag-transitive regular complexes is a lot more involved. From now on, unless specified otherwise, we will work under the standard assumption that the complexes $\mathcal{K}$ under consideration are infinite, regular, and simply flag-transitive, and have an affinely irreducible group $G(\mathcal{K})$.
Thus let $\mathcal{K}$ be an (infinite) simply flag-transitive regular complex, and let $G=G(\mathcal{K})$ be its (affinely irreducible) group.
We know from \cite{pelsch} that $G_0 = \langle R_0 \rangle$ and $G_1 = \langle R_1 \rangle$, for some point, line or plane reflection $R_0$ and some line or plane reflection $R_1$; moreover, $G_2$ is a cyclic or dihedral group of order $r$ (so $r$ is even if $G_2$ is dihedral). The {\em mirror vector} of $\mathcal{K}$ is the vector $(dim(R_0), dim(R_1))$, where $dim(R_i)$ is the dimension of the mirror of the reflection $R_i$ for $i=0,1$; if $\mathcal{K}$ is a polyhedron, then $G_2$ is generated by a (line or plane) reflection $R_2$ and we refer to $(dim(R_0), dim(R_1),dim(R_2))$ as the {\em complete mirror vector} of $\mathcal{K}$. The face stabilizer subgroup $G_{F_2}$ in $G$ of the base face $F_2$ is given by $G_{F_2}=\langle R_0, R_1 \rangle$ and is isomorphic to a (finite or infinite) dihedral group acting simply transitively on the flags of $\mathcal{K}$ containing $F_2$. Similarly, the vertex-stabilizer subgroup $G_{F_0}$ in $G$ of the base vertex $F_0$ is given by $G_{F_0}=\langle R_1, G_2 \rangle$ and acts simply flag-transitively on (the graph that is) the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}$ at $F_0$. (A flag in the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}$ at $F_0$ amounts to a pair consisting of an edge and incident face of $\mathcal{K}$ each containing $F_0$.) We call $G_{F_0}$ the {\em vertex-figure group\/} of $\mathcal{K}$ at $F_0$. Note that, by our discreteness assumption on complexes, $G_{F_0}$ must be a finite group.
In our previous paper~\cite{pelsch} we already dealt with the complexes with mirror vector $(1,2)$. In this paper, we complete the enumeration of the simply flag-transitive regular complexes and describe the complexes for the remaining mirror vectors. Our approach employs operations on the generators of $G$ which replace one of the generators $R_0$ or $R_1$ while retaining the other as well as the subgroup $G_2$. This allows us to construct new complexes from old and helps reduce the number of cases to be considered. In particular, we require the following two operations $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ that involve (not necessarily involutory) elements $R$ of $G_{2}$ with the property that $R_0 R$ or $R_1 R$, respectively, is an involution:
\begin{equation}
\label{opone}
\lambda_0 = \lambda_0(R)\!:\;\, (R_0, R_1, G_2)\; \mapsto\; (R_0 R, R_1, G_2),
\end{equation}\\[-.45in]
\begin{equation}
\label{optwo}
\lambda_1 = \lambda_1(R) : \:\, (R_0, R_1, G_2)\; \mapsto\; (R_0, R_1R, G_2).
\end{equation}
The corresponding complexes $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ and $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}$ are obtained from Wythoff's construction applied with the generators and generating subgroups on the right-hand side of (\ref{opone}) or (\ref{optwo}), respectively.
The two operations in (\ref{opone}) and (\ref{optwo}) can also be applied to regular complexes with face-mirrors by choosing as $R_0$ or $R_1$, respectively, particular elements of $G_0$ or $G_1$ that do not stabilize the base flag. (Note that we cannot change the entire subgroup $G_0$ or $G_1$, respectively, to its coset $G_{0}R$ or $G_{1}R$, since this is not even a group; instead we must work with particular elements of $G_0$ or $G_1$.)
In this wider setting of arbitrary regular complexes, the operations $\lambda_0 = \lambda_0(R)$ and $\lambda_1 = \lambda_1(R)$ are invertible at least at the level of groups (but not at the level of complexes in general); in fact, at the group level, their inverses are given by $\lambda_0(R^{-1})$ and $\lambda_1(R^{-1})$, respectively. While the invertibility of the operations at the level of the corresponding complexes will be immediately clear when the new complex $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ or $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}$ is simply flag-transitive, more care is required when the new complex has face-mirrors.
After we apply an operation $\lambda_0 = \lambda_0(R)$ or $\lambda_1 = \lambda_1(R)$ at the level of (arbitrary) regular complexes, we may arrive at a new complex $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ or $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}$ with face mirrors. In this case the (involutory) element $R_{0}R$ of $G_{0}(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0})$ or $R_{1}R$ of $G_{1}(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1})$ is available as a particular choice of generator to base the inverse operation $\lambda_0(R^{-1})$ or $\lambda_1(R^{-1})$ on (this would have been the only possible choice had $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ or $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}$ been simply flag-transitive). While this choice may not directly recover the original complex $\mathcal{K}$ from $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ or $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}$, it does produce a regular complex $\mathcal{L}$ containing $\mathcal{K}$ as a (possibly proper) subcomplex. Throughout, we are adopting the {\em convention\/} to base the inverse operation on the particular element $R_{0}R$ or $R_{1}R$ of its respective subgroup. Note that, when $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ or $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}$ has face mirrors, there would have been just one other admissible choice for the particular element besides $R_{0}R$ or $R_{1}R$ (the respective subgroup and the flag stabilizer are isomorphic to $C_{2}\times C_2$ and $C_2$, respectively).
In our applications, $R$ will always be an involution in $G_2$ and the corresponding operation $\lambda_0$ or $\lambda_1$ will be involutory as well. In particular, we will encounter statements of the form $\mathcal{K}=(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0})^{\lambda_0}$ or $\mathcal{K}=(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1})^{\lambda_1}$, where throughout an appropriate interpretation (following our convention) is understood if a complex happens to have face mirrors. As we will see, in practice it is only $\lambda_0$ that requires special consideration for complexes with face mirrors (and in only one case).
The following lemmas summarize basic properties of $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ (see \cite[Lemmas 5.1--5.5]{pelsch}. The first two are saying that the new generators on the right side of (\ref{opone}) and (\ref{optwo}) indeed determine a new regular complex in each case.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lambda1}
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be a simply flag-transitive regular complex with group $G = \langle R_0, R_1, G_2 \rangle$, and let $R$ be an element in $G_2$ such that $R_0 R$ is an involution. Then there exists a regular complex, denoted $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$, with the same vertex-set and edge-set as $\mathcal{K}$ and with its symmetry group containing $G$ as a (possibly proper) flag-transitive subgroup, such that
\begin{equation}\label{klambda}
\langle R_0 R \rangle \subseteq G_0(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}), \;\;\,
G_1(\mathcal{K}) = \langle R_1 \rangle \subseteq G_1(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}),\;\;\,
G_2(\mathcal{K}) \subseteq G_2(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}).
\end{equation}
The complex $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ is simply flag-transitive if and only if the inclusions in (\ref{klambda}) are equalities (or equivalently, at least one of the inclusions in (\ref{klambda}) is an equality).
\end{lemma}
Lemma~\ref{lambda1} is a slightly revised version of Lemma~5.1 in~\cite{pelsch}, which was incorrect as stated. As pointed out on \cite[p.\! 6692]{pelsch}, there are examples where the new complex $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ is not simply flag-transitive but rather has face-mirrors and possibly a strictly larger symmetry group; the latter depends on whether or not the reflections in the face-mirrors of $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ are also symmetries of $\mathcal{K}$ (see Section~\ref{k02}). However, by mistake, this possibility was not carried forward to the wording of Lemma~5.1 in~\cite{pelsch}. Our new version corrects this error. Similarly, our Lemmas~\ref{appone} and \ref{apptwo} below are slightly revised versions of corresponding statements in \cite{pelsch}, with the only adjustments directly resulting from those in Lemma~\ref{lambda1}.
By contrast, the simple flag-transitivity is preserved in our next lemma, which describes the effect of the operation $\lambda_1$. In fact, we proved in \cite{pelsch} that~$\lambda_1$, applied to a regular complex with face mirrors, always yields another regular complex with face mirrors.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lambda2}
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be a simply flag-transitive regular complex with group $G = \langle R_0, R_1, G_2 \rangle$, and let $R$ be an element in $G_2$ such that $R_1 R$ is an involution. Then there exists a regular complex, denoted $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}$ and again simply flag-transitive, with the same vertex-set and edge-set as $\mathcal{K}$ and with the same group $G$, such
that
\begin{equation}\label{klambda1}
G_0(\mathcal{K}) = \langle R_0 \rangle = G_0(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}), \;\;\,
\langle R_1 R \rangle = G_1(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}),\;\;\,
G_2(\mathcal{K}) = G_2(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\smallskip
The next three lemmas state that the operations $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ change the mirror vectors in a uniform way, that is, independent of $\mathcal{K}$ (but possibly dependent on whether $G_2$ is dihedral or cyclic). For the first two lemmas recall our convention about the double iteration of $\lambda_0$ if the new complex $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ happens to have face mirrors.
\begin{lemma}
\label{appone}
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be an infinite simply flag-transitive regular complex with an affinely irreducible group $G$ and mirror vector $(2, k)$ for some $k = 1, 2$. Then $G_2$ contains a half-turn $R$. In particular, the corresponding complex $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$, with $\lambda_0 = \lambda_0(R)$, is a regular complex which either has face mirrors or is simply flag-transitive with mirror vector $(0, k)$; in either case, $\mathcal{K} = (\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0})^{\lambda_0}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{apptwo}
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be an infinite simply flag-transitive regular complex with an affinely irreducible group $G$, a dihedral subgroup $G_2$, and mirror vector $(0, k)$ for some $k = 1, 2$. Then, for any plane reflection $R \in G_2$, the corresponding complex $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$, with $\lambda_0 = \lambda_0(R)$, is a regular complex which either has face mirrors or is simply flag-transitive with mirror vector $(1, k)$; in either case, $\mathcal{K} = (\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0})^{\lambda_0}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{appthree}
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be an infinite simply flag-transitive regular complex with an affinely irreducible group $G$ and mirror vector $(k, 1)$ for some $k = 0, 1, 2$. Assume also that $G_2$ contains a plane reflection $R$ whose mirror contains the axis of the half-turn $R_1$. Then the corresponding complex $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}$, with $\lambda_1 = \lambda_1(R)$, is a simply flag-transitive regular complex with mirror vector $(k, 2)$. In particular, $\mathcal{K} = (\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1})^{\lambda_1}$.
\end{lemma}
As mentioned earlier, the symmetry group of a simply flag-transitive regular complex $\mathcal{K}$ may be only a proper subgroup of the symmetry group of the new complex $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$. Clearly, this can only occur if $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ itself is not simply flag-transitive. Now under the assumptions of Lemmas \ref{appone} and \ref{apptwo}, the given simply flag-transitive complex $\mathcal{K}$ must necessarily have planar faces. Hence, if $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ acquires face mirrors, then these face mirrors must necessarily be the affine hulls of the faces of $\mathcal{K}$; bear in mind here that the geometry of the base face of $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ is entirely determined by the subgroup $\langle R_{0}R,R_1\rangle$, and that therefore this base face lies in the same plane as the base face of $\mathcal{K}$. The equality $\mathcal{K} = (\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0})^{\lambda_0}$ at the end of Lemmas \ref{appone} and \ref{apptwo} follows from this argument.
When the new $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ is not simply flag-transitive, the question arises whether or not the reflective symmetries in the face mirrors of $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ are also symmetries of~$\mathcal{K}$. Here $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ has a strictly larger symmetry group than $\mathcal{K}$ precisely when the face mirrors of $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ are {\em not\/} face mirrors of $\mathcal{K}$ (that is, when the reflective symmetries in the face mirrors of $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ are not symmetries of~$\mathcal{K}$). For example, the $2$-skeleton of the regular $4$-apeirotope $\mathop{\rm apeir} \{3,4\}$, viewed as the complex $\mathcal{K}_{4}(1,2)^{\lambda_0}$ as described in Section~\ref{k02}, has a strictly larger symmetry group than the original (simply flag-transitive) complex $\mathcal{K}_{4}(1,2)$.
\smallskip
The symmetry groups of regular complexes are crystallographic groups. Recall that the {\em special group\/} $G_*$ of a crystallographic group $G$ is the image of $G$ under the epimorphism $\mathcal{I}(3)\mapsto \mathcal{O}(3)$ whose kernel is $\mathcal{T}(\mathbb{E}^3)$; here $\mathcal{I}(3)$, $\mathcal{O}(3)$, and $\mathcal{T}(\mathbb{E}^3)$, respectively, are the euclidean isometry group, orthogonal group, and translation group of $\mathbb{E}^3$. Then $G_*$ is finite and
$G_*= G/(G \cap \mathcal{T}(\mathbb{E}^3)) = G/T(G)$, where $T(G)$ is the full translation subgroup of $G$ (which may be identified with a lattice in $\mathbb{E}^3$). More explicitly, if $R: x \mapsto xR' + t$ is any element of $G$, with $R' \in \mathcal{O}(3)$ and $t \in \mathbb{E}^3$, then $R'$ lies in $G_*$; conversely, all elements of $G_*$ are obtained in this way from elements in $G$.
\smallskip
Let $a$ be a positive real number, let $k=1$, $2$ or $3$, and let ${\bf a} : = (a^k,0^{3-k})$, the vector with $k$ components $a$ and $3-k$ components $0$. Following \cite[p.166]{arp}, we write $\Lambda_{\bf a}$ for the sublattice of $a\mathbb{Z}^3$ generated by $\bf a$ and its images under permutation and changes of sign of coordinates. Then $\Lambda_{(1,0,0)}=\mathbb{Z}^{3}$ is the standard {\em cubic lattice\/}; $\Lambda_{(1,1,0)}$ is the {\em face-centered cubic lattice\/} consisting of all integral vectors with even coordinate sum; and $\Lambda_{(1,1,1)}$ is the {\em body-centered cubic\/} lattice.
The geometry of a number of regular complexes described later can best be described in terms of the semiregular tessellation $\mathcal{S}$ of $\mathbb{E}^3$ by regular tetrahedra and octahedra constructed as follows (see \cite{coxsr,gruni,jo}). Let $Q$ denote the regular octahedron with vertices $(\pm a,0,0)$, $(0,\pm a,0)$, $(0,0,\pm a)$, and let $\mathcal{Q}$ denote the family of octahedra $u+Q$ centered at the points $u$ in $a\mathbb{Z}^3$ not in $\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$. Then the complement in $\mathbb{E}^3$ of the octahedra in $\mathcal{Q}$ gives rise to a family $\mathcal{R}$ of regular tetrahedra each inscribed in a cube of the cubical tessellation with vertex-set $a\mathbb{Z}^3$; each such cube $C$ contributes just one tetrahedron $T_C$ to $\mathcal{R}$, and the tetrahedra in adjacent cubes share an edge with $T_C$. The family $\mathcal{Q}\cup\mathcal{R}$ of octahedra and tetrahedra consists of the tiles in a tessellation $\mathcal{S}$ of $\mathbb{E}^3$; this tessellation is {\em semiregular\/}, meaning that its tiles are Platonic solids and the symmetry group of $\mathcal{S}$ acts transitively on the vertices of $\mathcal{S}$. The faces of $\mathcal{S}$ are regular triangles, each a face of one octahedron and one tetrahedron.
\smallskip
Concluding this section we record the following simple lemma without proof.
\begin{lemma}
\label{cubelemma}
Let $C$ be a cube, and let $R,R',R''$ be symmetries of $C$ such that $R$ and $R'$ are plane reflections and $R''$ is a half-turn. Suppose one of the following conditions applies: the mirrors of $R$ and $R'$ are determined by the two diagonals of a face $F$ of $C$, and $R''$ is a half-turn whose axis passes through the midpoint of an edge of $F$; or $R$ and $R'$ are the two reflections leaving an edge $E$ of $C$ invariant, and $R''$ is a half-turn whose axis passes through the midpoint of an edge adjacent to $E$. Then $R,R',R''$ generate the full octahedral group $G(C)=[3,4]$.
\end{lemma}
\section{Complexes with mirror vector $(1, 1)$}
\label{mirr11}
In this section we enumerate the infinite simply flag-transitive regular complexes with mirror vector $(1, 1)$, exploiting Lemma~\ref{appthree} and drawing on the enumeration of the regular complexes with mirror vector $(1,2)$ in \cite{pelsch}. As we shall see, all have helical faces. We will work again under the assumption that the symmetry group is affinely irreducible. It is known that there are exactly six regular complexes of this kind which are polyhedra, all with helices as faces:\ in the notation of \cite[Section 7E]{arp} these are $\{\infty,3\}^{(a)}$, $\{\infty,4\}_{\cdot,\star 3}$, $\{\infty,3\}^{(b)}$ with complete mirror vector $(1,1,1)$ and $\{\infty, 6\}_{4,4}$, $\{\infty, 4\}_{6,4}$, $\{\infty, 6\}_{6,3}$ with complete mirror vector $(1,1,2)$. We generally take the enumeration of the regular polyhedra for granted and concentrate on the complexes which are not polyhedra.
For the sake of simplicity, whenever we claim uniqueness for a choice of certain elements within a group (or its special group) or of mirrors of such elements, we will usually omit any qualifying statements such as ``up to conjugacy'' or ``up to congruence''. Throughout, these qualifications are understood.
Throughout, let $\mathcal{K}$ be an infinite simply flag-transitive regular complex with mirror vector $(1,1)$ and an affinely irreducible symmetry group $G = \langle R_0, R_1, G_2 \rangle$, where the subgroup $G_2$ has order $r\geq 3$.
The isometries $R_0$ and $R_1$ are half-turns whose axes, $L_0$ and $L_1$ respectively, either intersect at the center of the base face $F_2$ if $\mathcal{K}$ has finite faces, or do not intersect at all if $\mathcal{K}$ has infinite faces. Their product $R_0 R_1$ is a twist, with a trivial or non-trivial translation component, whose invariant line $L_3$ is perpendicular
to the axes of $R_0$ and $R_1$. The subgroup $G_2$ fixes the line $L_2$ through $F_1$ pointwise, and the generator $S$ of its rotation subgroup is a rotation about $L_2$. Note here that $L_0$ is perpendicular to $L_2$. On the other hand, $L_2$ cannot be perpendicular to $L_1$ or parallel to $L_3$, since otherwise $F_2$ would necessarily have to be a linear apeirogon. For the same reason, $L_0$ and $L_1$ are not parallel. Moreover, since $R_1$ does not fix $F_1$, its axis $L_1$ cannot coincide with $L_2$.
It is convenient to assume that $o$ is the base vertex of $\mathcal{K}$. Then $o$ is fixed by $R_1$ and each element of $G_2$. It follows that the vertex-figure group $\langle R_1, G_2 \rangle$ of $\mathcal{K}$ at $o$ is a (possibly proper) subgroup of the special group $G_*$. Recall that, if $R$ is any element of $G$ or $L$ is any line, we let $R'$ denote the image of $R$ in $G_*$ and $L'$ the translate of $L$ through~$o$.
The special group $G_*$ is a finite irreducible crystallographic subgroup of $\mathcal{O}(3)$ that contains the three distinct rotations $R_0'$, $R_1$ and $S$, whose axes $L_0'$, $L_1$ and $L_2$ are positioned in such a way that $L_2$ is perpendicular to $L_0'$ but not to $L_1$. This immediately rules out the groups $[3, 3]^+$, $[3, 3]^*$ and $[3, 3]$ as special groups of $G$. In fact, the rotation subgroup of these groups is $[3, 3]^+$ in each case; however, then the axis of a non-involutory rotation like $S$ could not be perpendicular to the axis of an involutory rotation like $R_{0}'$. Hence $G_*$ is either $[3, 4]^+$ if $G_2$ is cyclic, or $[3, 4]$ if $G_2$ is dihedral.
We now proceed to determine the regular complexes with mirror vector $(1, 1)$. As the reference figure for the action of $G_*$ we take the cube $C$ with vertices $(\pm 1, \pm 1, \pm 1)$.\\[-.3in]
\subsection{The four complexes derived through $\lambda_1$}
\label{lam}
First we employ the operation $\lambda_1$ described in (\ref{optwo}) and Lemma~\ref{appthree} to obtain those complexes for which the axis of $R_1$ is contained in a mirror of a plane reflection in $G_2$ (this corresponds to case (A) in \cite[\S 6.1]{pelsch}). According to Lemma~\ref{appthree} applied with $k=1$, we need to apply $\lambda_1$ to those regular, simply flag-transitive complexes with mirror vector $(1, 2)$ for which the mirror of the corresponding plane reflection $R_1$ is perpendicular to the mirror of a plane reflection in the corresponding group $G_2$. Hence, using the enumeration of \cite[Sections 5.2, 6.2]{pelsch} and in particular the notation of equations (6.3), (6.5), (6.6) and (6.7) of \cite{pelsch}, we arrive at the regular complexes\\[-.25in]
\begin{equation}
\label{thekones}
\begin{array}{rl}
\mathcal{K}_1(1, 1) \;:=&\!\! \mathcal{K}_3(1, 2)^{\,\lambda_1 (\hat{R}_2 \widetilde{R}_2 \hat{R}_2)},\\
\mathcal{K}_2(1, 1) \;:=&\!\! \mathcal{K}_5(1, 2)^{\,\lambda_1 (\widetilde{R}_2)},\\
\mathcal{K}_3(1, 1) \;:=&\!\! \mathcal{K}_6(1, 2)^{\,\lambda_1 (R_2 \hat{R}_2 R_2)},\\
\mathcal{K}_4(1, 1) \;:=&\!\! \mathcal{K}_7(1, 2)^{\,\lambda_1 (\hat{R}_2)},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
all with mirror vector $(1,1)$ and with special group $[3, 4]$. (Recall our convention to label regular complexes with their mirror vectors.) Each new complex has the same twin vertex and the same vertex-figure group (although with new generators) as the original complex, so its edge graph (and in particular, its vertex-set) must be the same as that of the original complex. (Recall from \cite{pelsch} that the vertex $v$ of the base edge distinct from the base vertex is called the {\em twin vertex\/} of the complex.) Similarly, since the element of $G$ that defines $\lambda_1$ belongs to $G_2$ and hence stabilizes the base vertex of the vertex-figure at $o$, the vertex-figure itself remains unchanged under $\lambda_1$, so that the two complexes always have the same vertex-figure at~$o$. Moreover, the (dihedral) subgroup $G_2$ and hence the parameter $r$ remain the same under the operation. The finer geometry of these complexes can be described as follows.
The vertex-set of $\mathcal{K}_1(1, 1)$ is $\Lambda_{(a, a, a)}$. The faces are helices over triangles and their axes are parallel to the diagonals of $C$. There are six helical faces around each edge, permuted under a dihedral group $G_2=D_3$; thus $r=6$. Note that every edge $e$ of $\mathcal{K}_1(1, 1)$ is a main diagonal of a cube $C_e$ in the cubical tessellation with vertex-set $a\mathbb{Z}^3$. With this in mind, for any three, but no four, consecutive edges, $e,f,g$ (say), of any helical face, the three corresponding cubes $C_e$, $C_f$ and $C_g$ share an edge whose vertices are not vertices of this helical face. Moreover, for any four consecutive edges $e,f,g,h$ of a helical face, the two edges shared by $C_e$, $C_f$, $C_g$ and $C_f$, $C_g$, $C_h$, respectively, are adjacent edges (of a square face) of $C_f$. Each of the six helical faces of $\mathcal{K}_1(1,1)$ around an edge $e$ with vertices $u,v$ is now determined by one of the six edges of $C_e$ that do not contain $u$ or $v$. The vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_1(1, 1)$ at $o$ coincides with the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_3(1, 2)$ at $o$, and hence is the double-edge graph of the cube with vertices $(\pm a, \pm a, \pm a)$. The vertex-figure group is $[3, 4]$.
The vertex-set of $\mathcal{K}_2(1, 1)$ is $a\mathbb{Z}^3 \setminus ((0, 0, a) + \Lambda_{(a, a, a)})$ and the faces again are helices over triangles with their axes parallel to the diagonals of $C$. Now the faces are those Petrie polygons of the cubical tessellation of $\mathbb{E}^3$ with vertex-set $a\mathbb{Z}^3$ that have no vertex in $(0, 0, a) + \Lambda_{(a, a, a)}$; thus any two, but no three, consecutive edges belong to the same square face, and any three, but no four, consecutive edges belong to the same cubical tile, of the cubical tessellation. There are four helical faces around an edge of $\mathcal{K}_2(1,1)$, so $r=4$ (and $G_2=D_2$). As for the original complex $\mathcal{K}_5(1, 2)$, the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_2(1, 1)$ at $o$ is the (planar) double-edge graph of the square with vertices $(\pm a, 0, 0)$ and $(0, \pm a, 0)$, and the vertex-figure group is $[4, 2] \cong D_4 \times C_2$.
The vertex-set of $\mathcal{K}_3(1, 1)$ is $a\mathbb{Z}^3$ and the faces again are helices over triangles with their axes parallel to the diagonals of $C$. Now the faces are all the Petrie polygons of the cubical tessellation of $\mathbb{E}^3$ with vertex-set $a\mathbb{Z}^3$, so $\mathcal{K}_3(1,1)$ contains $\mathcal{K}_2(1, 1)$ as a subcomplex. There are eight helical faces around an edge, so $r=8$ (and $G_2=D_4$). The vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_3(1, 1)$ at $o$ is the double-edge graph of the octahedron with vertices $(\pm a, 0, 0), (0, \pm a, 0), (0, 0, \pm a)$, and the vertex-figure group is $[3, 4]$.
The vertex-set of $\mathcal{K}_4(1, 1)$ is $\Lambda_{(2a, 2a, 0)} \cup ((a, -a, a) + \Lambda_{(2a, 2a, 0)})$, and the edges are main diagonals of cubes of the cubical tessellation of $\mathbb{E}^3$ with vertex-set $a \mathbb{Z}^3$. Now the faces are helices over squares with their axes parallel to the coordinate axes; in particular, the axis of the base face $F_2$ is parallel to the $y$-axis and the projection of $F_2$ along its axis onto the $xz$-plane is the square with vertices $(0, 0, 0)$, $(a, 0, a)$, $(0, 0, 2a)$ and $(-a, 0, a)$. Each edge belongs to six helical faces (that is, $r=6$ and $G_2=D_3$), and these have the property that each coordinate direction of $\mathbb{E}^3$ occurs exactly twice among the directions of their axes. The vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_4(1, 1)$ at $o$ is the double-edge graph of the tetrahedron with vertices $(a, -a, a)$, $(-a, a, a)$, $(a, a, -a)$, $(-a, -a, -a)$. The vertex-figure group is $[3, 3]$. Note that the common edge graph of $\mathcal{K}_4(1,1)$ and $\mathcal{K}_7(1,2)$ is the famous {\em diamond net\/} modeling the diamond crystal (see \cite{pelsch}, as well as \cite[p. 241]{arp} and \cite[pp. 117,118]{wells}).
\subsection{The five complexes not derived through $\lambda_1$}
\label{notlam}
Next we enumerate the regular complexes with mirror vector $(1,1)$ for which either $G_2$ is cyclic, or $G_2$ is dihedral and the axis of $R_1$ is not contained in a mirror of a plane reflection in $G_2$. Now we cannot apply any of the operations $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ but instead must deal with the geometry directly. Recall that $L_3$ and $L_{3}'$ denote the axes of $R_0 R_1$ and $R_0'R_1$, respectively. We break our discussion into three cases, I, II and III respectively, according as $L_3'$ is a coordinate axis, $L_3'$ is parallel to a face diagonal of $C$, or $L_3'$ is parallel to a main diagonal of $C$. (Recall here that $G_*=[3,4]^+$ or $[3,4]$.) In each case there is just one choice for $L_{3}'$ (up to conjugacy), namely the line through $o$ with direction vector $(1,0,0)$, $(0, 1, 1)$, or $(1, 1, 1)$ (say), respectively.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Case I: $L_3'$ is a coordinate axis}
\medskip
Suppose $R_0'R_1$ is a rotation whose axis $L_3'$ is the $x$-axis. Then there are two possible choices for each of the rotation axes $L_0'$ of $R_0'$ and $L_1$ of $R_1$ (perpendicular to $L_3'$), namely a coordinate axis or a line through the midpoints of a pair of antipodal edges of $C$. If $L_0'$ and $L_1$ are perpendicular, then $R_0' R_1$ must be a half-turn and the faces of $\mathcal{K}$ must be zigzags. However, as we shall see, this case will not actually occur under our assumptions. On the other hand, if $L_0'$ and $L_1$ are inclined at an angle $\pi/4$, then $R_0' R_1$ is a $4$-fold rotation and the faces of $\mathcal{K}$ are helices over squares.
\medskip
\noindent{\em Case Ia: $L_0'$ and $L_1$ both are coordinate axes}
\medskip
We can rule out this possibility on the following grounds. Suppose $L_0'$ is the $y$-axis and $L_1$ is the $z$-axis. Since the rotation axis $L_2$ of $S$ must be orthogonal to $L_0'$ but not to $L_1$, the only possible choice for $L_2$ is the line through $o$ and $(1, 0, 1)$. This immediately implies that $S$ is a half-turn and that $G_2$ is the dihedral group generated by the reflections in the $xz$-plane and the plane $x=z$. (Bear in mind that $r\geq 3$.) However, the $xz$-plane is invariant under $R_0'$, $R_1$ and $G_2$, and hence under all of $G_*$, contradicting our assumption of irreducibility of $G$. Therefore this case cannot occur.
\medskip
\noindent{\em Case Ib: $L_0'$ is a coordinate axis and $L_1$ is parallel to a face diagonal of $C$}
\medskip
Suppose $L_0'$ is the $y$-axis and $L_1$ is the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, 1)$. Now there are two possibilities for the rotation axis $L_2$ for $S$, namely the $z$-axis or the line through $o$ and $(1, 0, 1)$.
We first eliminate the possibility that $L_2$ is the $z$-axis. When $L_2$ is the $z$-axis, the group $G_2$ can be cyclic of order $4$ or dihedral. We first rule out the latter possibility as follows. Bear in mind that $L_1$ does not lie in the mirror of a plane reflection in $G_2$. Now if $G_2$ is dihedral, then it cannot contain the reflection in the $yz$-plane and must necessarily have order $4$ and be generated by the reflections in the planes $x=y$ and $x=-y$. However, then Lemma~\ref{cubelemma} shows that the generators $R_1$ and $G_2$ of the vertex-figure group must already generate the full special group, $[3, 4]$, implying that $G_2$ must actually have order $8$, contradicting our earlier claim. Thus $G_2$ cannot be dihedral.
Next we consider the possibility that $G_2$ is cyclic of order $4$ (and $L_2$ is the $z$-axis). Since $L_0'$, $L_1$ and $L_2$ (and hence $F_1$) are coplanar, $L_0$ and $L_1$ are also coplanar and intersect at an angle $\pi/4$. Therefore the base face $F_2$ of $\mathcal{K}$ must be a planar square. Since now all generators of $G$ are rotations, $G$ consists only of proper (orientation preserving) isometries. This suggests that $G$ is the even subgroup (of all proper isometries) of the symmetry group of the cubical tessellation in $\mathbb{E}^3$. This can indeed be verified by the following argument (or alternatively by Wythoff's construction). Let $T_0$, $T_1$, $T_2$, $T_3$ denote the distinguished plane reflections generating the symmetry group $[4,3,4]$ of the cubical tessellation $\{4,3,4\}$ of $\mathbb{E}^3$, chosen in such a way that $T_0 T_3$, $T_1 T_3$ and $T_2 T_3$ coincide with $R_0$, $R_1$ and $S$, respectively. Since these three elements generate the rotation subgroup of $[4,3,4]$ we conclude that $\mathcal{K}$ would have to coincide with the $2$-skeleton of $\{4, 3, 4\}$, which is impossible as $\mathcal{K}$ is simply flag-transitive. Thus $G_2$ cannot be cyclic of order $4$, completing our argument that in Case Ib the rotation axis $L_2$ of $S$ cannot be the $z$-axis
We now analyze the case when $L_2$ is the line through $o$ and $(1, 0, 1)$. In this case the twin vertex has the form $(a, 0, a)$ for some $a \ne 0$. Since $r\geq 3$, the group $G_2$ must necessarily be dihedral of order $4$, generated by the reflections $R_2$ in the plane $x=z$ and $\hat{R}_2$ in the $xz$-plane. Then $G$ has generators $R_0$, $R_1$, $R_2$ and $\hat{R}_2$ given by
\begin{equation}
\label{genk511}
\begin{array}{rccl}
R_0\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-x,y,-z) + (a,0,a),\\
R_{1}\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-x,z,y),\\
R_2\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (z,y,x),\\
\hat{R}_2\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (x,-y,z),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
with $a \ne 0$ (see Figure~\ref{k511}). This determines a new regular complex, denoted $\mathcal{K}_5(1, 1)$, with faces given by helices over squares and with four faces around each edge (that is, $r=4$ and $G_2=D_2$)
The vertex-set of $\mathcal{K}_5(1, 1)$ is $\Lambda_{(a, a, 0)}$. The helical faces have their axes parallel to a coordinate axis, and each coordinate axis occurs. The set of faces of $\mathcal{K}_5(1, 1)$ splits into three classes each determined by the coordinate axis that specifies the direction for the axes of its members. The faces in each class constitute four copies of the (blended) apeirohedron $\{4,4\} \#\{\infty\}$ (see \cite[p. 222]{arp}). From any copy in the class determined by the $x$-direction we can obtain another copy through translation by $(2a,0,0)$; the remaining two copies then are obtained by rotating the first two copies by $\pi/2$ about the axis of a helical face. The situation is similar for the other two classes. Thus $\mathcal{K}_5(1, 1)$ is a regular complex that can be viewed as a compound of twelve such apeirohedra, four for each coordinate direction. The vertex-figure group of $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$ is the full octahedral group (see Lemma~\ref{cubelemma}), and the vertex-figures are isomorphic to the edge graph of the cuboctahedron.
Observe here that the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$ at $o$ induces a non-standard realization of the cuboctahedron with equilateral triangular and skew square faces, and with vertices $(\pm 1, \pm 1, 0)$, $(\pm 1, 0, \pm 1)$ and $(0, \pm 1, \pm 1)$ (say). The four vertices adjacent to $(1, 1, 0)$ are $(-1, 0, 1)$, $(0, -1, 1)$, $(-1, 0, -1)$ and $(0, -1, -1)$; these correspond to the midpoints of the four edges of $C$ sharing a vertex with the edge of $C$ opposite the edge with midpoint $(1, 1, 0)$. A typical triangle has vertices $(1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 0, 1)$ and $(0, -1, -1)$, while a typical square is given by the vertices $(1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 0, 1)$, $(1, -1, 0)$ and $(-1, 0, -1)$, in that order.
These observations also shed some light on why four copies of $\{4,4\} \#\{\infty\}$ per coordinate direction are needed to cover all helical faces of $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$ with this direction. In fact, a single copy of this apeirohedron accounts for just one square of the cuboctahedral vertex-figure, so a pair of opposite squares requires two such copies; on the other hand, the base vertex $o$ lies in just one half of the helical faces of $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$ with a given direction, with the other half accounting for the two additional copies of the apeirohedron.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm, height=7cm]{k511.pdf}
\caption{The special group of the complex $\mathcal{K}_{5}(1, 1)$}\label{k511}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\medskip
\noindent{\em Case Ic: $L_0'$ is parallel to a face diagonal of $C$ and $L_1$ is a coordinate axis}
\medskip
Suppose $L_0'$ is the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, 1)$, and $L_1$ is the $y$-axis. Then there are two possible choices for $L_2$, namely the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, -1)$, or the line through $o$ and $(1, 1, -1)$. However, if $L_2$ is the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, -1)$, then $S$ is a half-turn and $G_2$ is the dihedral group generated by the reflections in the $yz$-plane and the plane $y=-z$, which contradicts our previous hypothesis that the axis of $R_1$ not be contained in a mirror of a plane reflection in $G_2$. Therefore we may assume that $L_2$ is the line through $o$ and $(1, 1, -1)$ and hence that the twin vertex has the form $(a, a, -a)$ with $a \ne 0$.
Now $S$ is a $3$-fold rotation and the subgroup $G_2$ must be cyclic of order $3$. In fact, the axis $L_1$ is contained in the plane $x=-z$, which would become the mirror of a plane reflection if $G_2$ was dihedral of order $6$. It follows that $G$ has generators $R_0$, $R_1$ and $S$ given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rccl}
R_0\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-x,z,y) + (a,a,-a),\\
R_{1}\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-x,y,-z),\\
S\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (y,-z,-x),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
with $a \ne 0$ (see Figure~\ref{k611}). These generators yield a regular complex, denoted $\mathcal{K}_6(1, 1)$, which again has faces given by helices over squares but now with three faces surrounding each edge (that is, $r=3$ and $G_2=C_3$).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm, height=7cm]{k611.pdf}
\caption{The special group of the complex $\mathcal{K}_{6}(1, 1)$}\label{k611}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The vertex- and edge-sets of $\mathcal{K}_6(1, 1)$ coincide with those of $\mathcal{K}_4(1, 1)$, respectively; in particular, the edge graphs of $\mathcal{K}_6(1, 1)$ and $\mathcal{K}_4(1, 1)$ are the same and form a diamond net. In fact, $\mathcal{K}_6(1, 1)$ is a subcomplex of $\mathcal{K}_4(1, 1)$ made up of only half the faces of the latter. The group $G$ consists of all proper isometries in the group of $\mathcal{K}_4(1, 1)$, and $G_2$ is the cyclic subgroup of the corresponding (dihedral) group of $\mathcal{K}_4(1,1)$. Thus, in a sense, the faces of $\mathcal{K}_6(1, 1)$ are exactly the right-handed (say) helices of $\mathcal{K}_4(1, 1)$. Now each coordinate axis is parallel to the axis of just one helix containing a given edge of $\mathcal{K}_6(1, 1)$. The vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_6(1, 1)$ at $o$ is the (simple) edge-graph of the tetrahedron with vertices $(a, -a, a)$, $(-a, a, a)$, $(a, a, -a)$, $(-a, -a, -a)$. The vertex-figure group is $[3, 3]^+$.
\medskip
\noindent{\em Case Id: $L_0'$ and $L_1$ both are parallel to face diagonals of $C$}
\medskip
We show that this case cannot contribute a regular complex. Suppose $L_0'$ is the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, 1)$, and $L_1$ is the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, -1)$. Now there is just one choice for $L_2$, namely the line through $o$ and $(-1, 1, -1)$, and then $S$ is a $3$-fold rotation. Moreover, $G_2$ must be cyclic of order $3$. In fact, if $G_2$ was dihedral, the plane $y=-z$ would become the mirror of a reflection in $G_2$ and contain the axis $L_1$ of $R_1$, contrary to our previous hypothesis on $G_2$ and $L_1$.
Since the lines $L_0'$ and $L_1$ are perpendicular, the faces are planar zigzags. All three generators $R_0$, $R_1$ and $S$ of $G$ are again proper isometries. We claim that now $\mathcal{K}$ must be the $2$-skeleton of the regular $4$-apeirotope
\[\mathcal{P} := \{\{\infty, 4\}_4 \# \{\}, \{4, 3\}\}\]
in $\mathbb{E}^3$; however, this is impossible as $\mathcal{K}$ is simply flag-transitive. In fact, let $T_0, T_1, T_2, T_3$ denote the distinguished generators of the symmetry group $G(\mathcal{P})$ of $\mathcal{P}$, where $T_0$ is the point reflection in $\frac{1}{2}v$, with $v = (-a, a, -a)$, and the distinguished generators $T_1, T_2, T_3$ for the cube $\{4,3\}$ (the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{P}$) are chosen in such a way that $T_0 T_3 = R_0$, $T_1 T_3 = R_1$ and $T_2 T_3 = S$. Since these three rotations generate the even subgroup of $G(\mathcal{P})$, it follows that $\mathcal{K}$ must necessarily be the $2$-skeleton of $\mathcal{P}$. Thus Case Id does not yield a (simply flag-transitive) regular complex.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Case II: $L_3'$ is parallel to a face diagonal of $C$}
\medskip
We shall see that Case II does not contribute a regular complex (with a simply flag-transitive group). Suppose $R_0' R_1$ is a rotation whose axis $L_3'$ is the line passing through the midpoints of a pair of antipodal edges of $C$, the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, 1)$ (say). Then $R_0' R_1$ must be a half-turn and the faces of $\mathcal{K}$ must be zigzags.
There there are two possible choices for the axis $L_0'$ of the half-turn $R_0'$, namely the $x$-axis or the line through $o$ and $(0,1,-1)$. In each case $L_1$ must necessarily be perpendicular to $L_0$.
\medskip
\noindent{\em Case IIa: $L_0'$ is the $x$-axis}
\medskip
If $L_0'$ is the $x$-axis, then $L_1$ must necessarily be the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, -1)$. In this situation, the rotation axis $L_2$ of $S$ must be a coordinate axis, the $y$-axis (say), and the subgroup $G_2$ must be cyclic of order $4$ or dihedral of order $4$ or $8$. We can rule out the possibility that $G_2$ is dihederal. In fact, if $G_2$ was dihedral, then since the $yz$-plane contains $L_1$, the group $G_2$ would necessarily have order $4$ and be generated by the reflections in the planes $x = \pm z$; however, this would immediately force the vertex-figure group to be the full special group $[3, 4]$ and then the subgroup $G_2$ to have order $8$ (see Lemma~\ref{cubelemma}).
Therefore we may assume that $G_2$ is cyclic of order $4$. Since then $G$ is generated by rotations and $\mathcal{K}$ has planar faces, we can proceed as in Case Id and establish that $\mathcal{K}$ must be the $2$-skeleton of the regular $4$-apeirotope
\[\mathcal{P} := \{\{\infty, 3\}_6 \# \{\}, \{3, 4\}\}.\]
In fact, the distinguished generators $T_0, T_1, T_2, T_3$ of $G(\mathcal{P})$ can once again be chosen in such a way that $T_0 T_3 = R_0$, $T_1 T_3 = R_1$ and $T_2 T_3 = S$. Hence $\mathcal{K}$ must be the $2$-skeleton of $\mathcal P$, which we know to be impossible.
\medskip
\noindent{\em Case IIb: $L_0'$ is the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, -1)$}
\medskip
If $L_0'$ is the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, -1)$, then $L_1$ and $L_2$ must necessarily be the $x$-axis and the line through $o$ and $(1, 1, +1)$ respectively. If $G_2$ was dihedral, then, contrary to our earlier hypothesis, the plane $y = z$ would become the mirror of a reflection in $G_2$ containing $L_1$. Hence $G_2$ must be cyclic of order $3$, so again $G$ is generated by rotations. Now $\mathcal{K}$ must be the $2$-skeleton of the regular $4$-apeirotope
\[\mathcal{P} := \{\{\infty, 3\}_6 \# \{\}, \{3, 3\}\},\]
once again by the same arguments involving a choice of generators of $G(\mathcal{P})$.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Case III: $L_3'$ is the line through a main diagonal of $C$}
\medskip
Suppose $R_0' R_1$ is a rotation whose axis $L_3'$ is the line through a main diagonal of $C$, the line through the vertices $\pm (1, 1, 1)$ (say). Then we may assume that $R_0'$ is the half-turn about the line $L_{0}'$ through $o$ and $(1, -1, 0)$, and that $R_1$ is the half-turn about the line $L_1$ through $o$ and $(1, 0, -1)$. It follows that $R_0' R_1$ is a $3$-fold rotation and that the faces of $\mathcal{K}$ are helices over triangles. We now have three choices for the axis $L_2$ of $S$, namely the $z$-axis, the line through $o$ and $(1, 1, 0)$, or the line through $o$ and $(1, 1, -1)$.
\medskip
\noindent{\em Case IIIa: $L_2$ is the $z$-axis}
\medskip
If $L_2$ is the $z$-axis, then the twin vertex has the form $(0, 0, a)$ for some $a \ne 0$. We already discussed the case, ruled out here by our previous assumptions, that $G_2$ is a dihedral group with the $xz$-plane as a reflection mirror that contains $L_1$; this gave us the complexes $\mathcal{K}_2(1, 1)$
when $G_2$ was dihedral of order $4$, and $\mathcal{K}_3(1, 1)$ when $G_2$ was dihedral of order $8$. There is just one other way for $G_2$ to be dihedral, and this can be eliminated as follows. It occurs when $G_2$ is generated by the reflections in the planes $x = \pm y$ and hence is of order $4$. However, then the vertex-figure group is the full special group $[3, 4]$, forcing $G_2$ to have order $8$ rather than $4$ (see again Lemma~\ref{cubelemma}).
This only leaves the possibility that $G_2$ is cyclic of order $4$. Then the generators $R_0$, $R_1$ and $S$ of $G$ are given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rccl}
R_0\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-y, -x, -z) + (0,0,a),\\
R_{1}\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-z, -y, -x),\\
S\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-y, x, z),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for some $a \ne 0$ (see Figure~\ref{k711}). Now we obtain a regular complex, denoted $\mathcal{K}_7(1, 1)$, with helices over triangles as faces, four surrounding each edge (that is, $r=4$ and $G_{2}=C_4$).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm, height=7cm]{k711.pdf}
\caption{The special group of the complex $\mathcal{K}_{7}(1, 1)$}\label{k711}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The edge graph of $\mathcal{K}_7(1, 1)$ coincides with the edge graph of $\mathcal{K}_3(1, 1)$. The group of $\mathcal{K}_7(1,1)$ consists of all proper isometries in the group of $\mathcal{K}_3(1, 1)$, and its subgroup $G_2$ is just the cyclic subgroup of the corresponding group for $\mathcal{K}_3(1,1)$. Hence the faces of $\mathcal{K}_7(1, 1)$ are just the right-handed (say) Petrie polygons of the cubical tessellation of $\mathbb{E}^3$ with vertex-set $a\mathbb{Z}^3$. The vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_7(1, 1)$ at $o$ is the (simple) edge graph of the octahedron with vertices $(\pm a, 0, 0), (0, \pm a, 0), (0, 0, \pm a)$. The vertex-figure group is $[3, 4]^+$.
\medskip
\noindent{\em Case IIIb: $L_2$ is the line through $o$ and $(1, 1, 0)$}
\medskip
If $L_2$ is the line through $o$ and $(1, 1, 0)$, the twin vertex has the form $(a, a, 0)$ for some $a \ne 0$. The group $G_2$ must be dihedral of order $4$ (recall that $r\geq 3$), generated by the reflections $R_2$ and $\hat{R}_2$ in the $xy$-plane and the plane $x=y$, respectively. Then $G$ is generated by $R_0$, $R_1$, $R_2$ and $\hat{R}_2$ given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rccl}
R_0\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-y, -x, -z) + (a, a, 0),\\
R_{1}\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-z, -y, -x),\\
R_2\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (x, y, -z),\\
\hat{R}_2\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (y, x, z),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for some $a \ne 0$ (see Figure~\ref{k811}). This leads to a new regular complex, denoted $\mathcal{K}_8(1, 1)$, which has
helices over triangles as faces such that four surround each edge (that is, $r=4$ and $G_2=D_2$).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm, height=7cm]{k811.pdf}
\caption{The special group of the complex $\mathcal{K}_{8}(1, 1)$}\label{k811}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The vertex-set of $\mathcal{K}_8(1, 1)$ is $\Lambda_{(a, a, 0)}$. Now the edges are face diagonals of square faces of the cubical tessellation of $\mathbb{E}^3$ with vertex-set $a \mathbb{Z}^3$. Any three consecutive edges $e_1$, $e_2$ and $e_3$ of a face of $\mathcal{K}_8(1, 1)$ can be seen to lie in a $2a\!\times\! 2a\!\times\! 2a$ cube $Q$ formed from eight cubes of this tessellation. The middle edge $e_2$ joins the midpoints of two adjacent faces $f_1$ and $f_2$ of $Q$, while the first edge $e_1$ and the last edge $e_3$, respectively, lie in $f_1$ and $f_2$ and join the midpoints of $f_1$ and $f_2$ to opposite vertices $u$ and $w$ of $Q$. To construct the entire
helical face we only need to translate $e_1, e_2, e_3$ by integral multiples of the vector $u-w$. The vertex-figure of
$\mathcal{K}_8(1, 1)$ is isomorphic to the (simple) edge graph of the cuboctahedron (inducing the same non-standard realization of the cuboctahedron as for the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_5(1, 1)$). The vertex-figure group is $[3, 4]$.
\medskip
\noindent{\em Case IIIc: $L_2$ is the line through $o$ and $(1, 1, -1)$}
\medskip
Finally, if $L_2$ is the line through $o$ and $(1, 1, -1)$, then the twin vertex has the form $(a, a, -a)$ for some $a \ne 0$. Now observe that the plane $x=-z$ contains both $L_1$ and $L_2$. It follows that, if $G_2$ was dihedral of order $6$, then $L_1$ would necessarily lie in the mirror of a plane reflection of $G_2$; in fact, this possibility just yielded the complex $\mathcal{K}_1(1, 1)$ that we described earlier. On the other hand, if $G_2$ is cyclic of order $3$, then $G$ is generated by the proper isometries
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rccl}
R_0\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-y, -x, -z) + (a, a, 0),\\
R_{1}\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-z, -y, -x),\\
S\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-z, x, -y),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for some $a \ne 0$ (see~Figure \ref{k911}). The resulting regular complex, denoted $\mathcal{K}_9(1, 1)$, has helices over triangles as faces such that three surround each edge (that is, $r=3$ and $G_2=C_3$).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm, height=7cm]{k911.pdf}
\caption{The special group of the complex $\mathcal{K}_{9}(1, 1)$}\label{k911}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Just like $\mathcal{K}_6(1, 1)$ and $\mathcal{K}_7(1, 1)$, this new regular complex $\mathcal{K}_9(1, 1)$ has only right-handed (say) helices as faces. Now the faces are given by all the right-handed helical faces of $\mathcal{K}_1(1, 1)$. In particular, the edge graphs of $\mathcal{K}_9(1, 1)$ and $\mathcal{K}_1(1, 1)$ are the same. The group of $\mathcal{K}_9(1, 1)$ consists of the proper isometries in the group of $\mathcal{K}_1(1, 1)$, and its subgroup $G_2$ is just the cyclic subgroup of the corresponding group for $K_1(1,1)$. The vertex-figure is the (simple) edge graph of the cube with vertices $(\pm a, \pm a, \pm a)$ and the vertex-figure group is $[3, 4]^+$.
\bigskip
In conclusion, our discussion in Sections~\ref{lam} and \ref{notlam} establishes the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
Apart from polyhedra, the complexes $\mathcal{K}_1(1, 1), \dots, \mathcal{K}_9(1, 1)$ described in this section are the only simply flag-transitive regular polygonal complexes with mirror vector $(1, 1)$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Complexes with mirror vector~$(0,k)$ and dihedral $G_2$}
\label{mir0k}
We begin with the following lemma about regular complexes with face mirrors, which is also of independent interest.
\begin{lemma}
\label{halfturn}
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be a regular complex with face mirrors. Then the subgroups $G_0(\mathcal{L})$ and $G_{1}(\mathcal{L})$ of $G(\mathcal{L})$ each contain exactly one half-turn (with its axis contained in, or perpendicular to, the plane of the base face). Moreover, each either contains one pair of commuting plane reflections (with their mirrors given by the plane through the base face, and the perpendicular plane meeting the first in the axis of the half-turn), or one plane reflection (with its mirror given by the plane through the base face) and one point reflection (with center contained in the base face).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall from \cite[\S 3]{pelsch} that $\mathcal{L}$ has planar faces and that $G(\mathcal{L})$ has flag-stabilizers of order $2$. In particular, the stabilizer of the base flag is generated by the reflection $R$ in the plane through the base face. Now, since $G_0(\mathcal{L})\cong C_{2}\times C_{2} \cong G_1(\mathcal{L})$ and $R$ is an improper isometry contained in $G_0(\mathcal{L})$ and $G_1(\mathcal{L})$, there is just one non-trivial proper isometry in each of $G_0(\mathcal{L})$ and $G_1(\mathcal{L})$. Thus each of these subgroups contains a unique half-turn. The other two involutions in each subgroup commute and their product is this half-turn; then this only leaves the two possibilities described. (An alternative proof of the lemma could be obtained from \cite[Theorem 4.1]{pelsch} and would provide more detailed information about $G_{0}(\mathcal{L})$ or $G_{1}(\mathcal{L})$.)
\end{proof}
Now according to Lemma~\ref{apptwo}, each simply flag-transitive complex $\mathcal{K}$ with mirror vector $(0,k)$ and a dihedral group $G_2$ can be obtained from a regular complex $\mathcal{L}$ which either has face mirrors or is simply flag-transitive with mirror vector $(1,k)$, by applying to $\mathcal{L}$ the operation $\lambda_0$ determined by a plane reflection from $G_2(\mathcal{L})$ with mirror perpendicular to the axis of the (unique) half-turn in $G_0(\mathcal{L})$; here necessarily $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$.
We can first rule out the possibility that the complex $\mathcal{L}$ has face-mirrors. This follows from our next lemma applied with $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$, noting that then $\mathcal{L}'=\mathcal{K}$ would also have face mirrors, which contradicts our assumptions.
\begin{lemma}\label{facemirlambda01}
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be a regular complex with face mirrors, and let $R_0$ be the half-turn in $G_0(\mathcal{L})$. Suppose $G_2(\mathcal{L})$ contains a plane reflection $R_2$ whose mirror is perpendicular to the axis of $R_0$. Let $\mathcal{L}'$ denote the regular complex obtained from $\mathcal{L}$ by the operation $\lambda_0(R_2)$ associated with $R_2$. Then $\mathcal{L}'$ also has face mirrors.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $L$ denote the plane through the base face $F_2$ of $\mathcal{L}$. Then the axis $L_1$ of the unique half-turn $R_1$ in $G_1(\mathcal{L})$ lies in $L$, since otherwise $F_2$ would be a linear apeirogon. Also, the mirrors of the two plane reflections in $G_1(\mathcal{L})$ are $L$ and the plane through $L_1$ perpendicular to $L$. In particular, $G_1(\mathcal{L})$ leaves $L$ invariant. Furthermore, the mirror of the point reflection $R_0 R_2$ is the midpoint of the base edge $F_1$, which is also contained in $L$. Since the symmetries of $\mathcal{L}$ are also symmetries of $\mathcal{L}'$, the reflection in $L$ is also a symmetry of $\mathcal{L}'$.
Now observe that the complex $\mathcal{L}'$ can be obtained from Wythoff's construction with the same initial vertex as for $\mathcal{L}$, namely the base vertex $F_0$ of $\mathcal{L}$, which also lies in $L$. Since the vertices of the base face $F_2'$ of $\mathcal{L}'$ are just the images of $F_0$ under the group generated by $R_0 R_2$ and $R_1$, the face $F_2'$ must entirely lie in $L$ and hence be planar. On the other hand, the reflection in $L$ is a symmetry of $\mathcal{L}'$. Thus $\mathcal{L}'$ also has face mirrors.
\end{proof}
Thus, in order to enumerate the simply flag-transitive complexes $\mathcal{K}$ with mirror vector $(0,k)$ and a dihedral subgroup $G_2$, it is sufficient to apply the operation $\lambda_0$ to the simply flag-transitive complexes $\mathcal{L}$ with mirror vector $(1,k)$ and with a dihedral subgroup $G_2(\mathcal{L})$ containing a plane reflection with mirror perpendicular to the axis of the half-turn $R_0$ in $G_0(\mathcal{L})$. However, when $\lambda_0$ is applied to a complex $\mathcal{L}$ of this kind, the resulting regular complex $\mathcal{L}^{\lambda_0}$ can actually have face-mirrors and hence be discarded for our present enumeration. The following lemma, applied with $\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{L}^{\lambda_0}$, describes a scenario when this will occur.
\begin{lemma}\label{facemirr0k}
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be a regular complex with a dihedral group $G_2$ such that $G_0$ contains a point reflection and $G_1$ contains a line or plane reflection fixing the mirror of a plane reflection in $G_2$. Then $\mathcal{K}$ has face mirrors.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The base face $F_2$ of $\mathcal{K}$ can be obtained by Wythoff's construction from the orbit of the base vertex $F_0$ under the subgroup generated by the point reflection $R_0$ in $G_0$ and the line or plane reflection $R_1$ in $G_1$ that fixes the mirror $L$ of a plane reflection in $G_2$. Since $R_0$ also fixes $L$, this subgroup must preserve $L$. Therefore $F_2$ must lie in $L$ and the reflection in $L$ must stabilize the base flag. Thus $\mathcal{K}$ has face mirrors.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Complexes with mirror vector~$(0,1)$ and dihedral $G_2$}
\label{k01}
We now appeal to our enumeration of the simply flag-transitive polygonal complexes $\mathcal{K}$ with mirror vector $(1,1)$ in Section~\ref{mirr11} to determine all simply flag-transitive regular polygonal complexes $\mathcal{K}$ with mirror vector $(0,1)$ and a dihedral subgroup $G_2$. This is the case $(0,k)$ for $k=1$.
First note that if $\mathcal{L}$ is a simply flag-transitive polygonal complex with mirror vector $(1,1)$ obtained from a simply flag-transitive complex with mirror vector $(1,2)$ by the operation $\lambda_1$ as in Section~\ref{lam}, then the axis of the half-turn $R_1$ for $\mathcal{L}$ must lie in the mirror of a plane reflection in $G_2(\mathcal{L})$, so in particular $R_1$ must leave this mirror invariant. But then Lemma~\ref{facemirr0k} implies that the regular complex obtained from any such complex $\mathcal{L}$ by operation $\lambda_0$ must actually have face mirrors. Therefore, in enumerating simply flag-transitive complexes $\mathcal{K}$ with mirror vector $(0,1)$ we can restrict ourselves to applying $\lambda_0$ to those complexes $\mathcal{L}$ of Section~\ref{mirr11} that were not derived by operation $\lambda_1$, that is, the complexes $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{K}_i(1,1)$ with $i \ge 5$ described in Section~\ref{notlam}.
Moreover, since the complexes $\mathcal{K}_i(1,1)$ with $i=6,7,9$ have a cyclic subgroup $G_2(\mathcal{K}_i(1,1))$, we need only consider the complexes $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$ and $\mathcal{K}_8(1,1)$, which have a corresponding dihedral subgroup isomorphic to $D_2$. However, the mirror arrangements of $R_1$, $R_2$ and $\hat{R}_2$ depicted in Figures~\ref{k511} and~\ref{k811} coincide (up to congruence), so these three generators for $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$ and $\mathcal{K}_8(1,1)$ are the same (up to conjugacy). Moreover, the mirror of $\hat{R}_2$ is perpendicular to the axis of the half-turn $R_0$ in both cases. Consequently, since the fourth generator for $\mathcal{L}^{\lambda_0}$ is just the point reflection in the midpoint of the base edge, we have $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)^{\lambda_0} \cong \mathcal{K}_8(1,1)^{\lambda_0}$; that is, the two regular complexes $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)^{\lambda_0}$ and $\mathcal{K}_8(1,1)^{\lambda_0}$ are the same (up to congruence).
Thus there is just one simply flag-transitive polygonal complex with mirror vector $(0,1)$ and a dihedral group $G_2$, namely
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}(0, 1) \,:=\,\mathcal{K}_5(1, 1)^{\,\lambda_0 (\hat{R}_2)},
\end{equation}
with the notation as in Figure~\ref{k511}.
Just as the original complex $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$, the complex $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ has vertex-set $\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$. Its edges are face diagonals of the standard cubical tessellation with vertex-set $a\mathbb{Z}^3$, and its faces are zigzags, four around each edge. The four faces that surround an edge occur in two pairs of co-planar zigzags. Using the notation of (\ref{genk511}) and Figure~\ref{k511} we observe that the symmetry $R_{0}\hat{R}_2\!\cdot\! R_1$ of the base face $F_2$ which ``shifts" the vertices of $F_2$ by one step along $F_2$, is a glide reflection whose square is the translation by $(2a,-a,a)$. In particular, the base face of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ is given by
\[ F_{2} = \{(-a,a,0), (0,0,0),(a,0,a)\} + \mathbb{Z}\!\cdot\!(2a,-a,a) , \]
where here $(-a,a,0)$ and $(a,0,a)$ are the two vertices of $F_2$ adjacent to the base vertex $(0,0,0)$. The vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ at $o$ coincides with the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$ at $o$, that is, with the edge-graph of a non-standard cuboctahedron with skew square faces.
The complex $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ is closely related to the semiregular tessellation $\mathcal{S}$ of $\mathbb{E}^3$ by regular tetrahedra and octahedra described in Section~\ref{terba}. In fact, the zigzag base face of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ lies in the plane $x+y-z=0$ and is a $2$-zigzag of the regular tessellation of this plane by triangles formed from faces of the $2$-skeleton of $\mathcal{S}$; each $2$-zigzag of this tessellation occurs as a face of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$. Recall here that a $2$-{\em zigzag\/} is an edge-path which leaves a vertex at the second edge from the one by which it entered, but in the oppositely oriented sense at alternate vertices (see \cite[p.\! 196]{arp}). (The notion of a $2$-zigzag of a regular map is not to be confused with that of a zigzag face of a complex.) More generally, each $2$-zigzag of a triangular tessellation induced by $\mathcal{S}$ on the affine hull of a triangular face of $\mathcal{S}$ is a face of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$, and all faces of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ arise in this way. Note that, for any such induced triangular tessellation, the faces of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ that are its $2$-zigzags form the faces in a compound of three regular maps each isomorphic to $\{\infty,3\}_6$; this map could also be obtained from the triangular tessellation by applying, in succession (in any order), the Petrie operation and the second facetting operation of~\cite[p. 196]{arp}.
\subsection{Complexes with mirror vector~$(0,2)$ and dihedral $G_2$}
\label{k02}
Next we determine all simply flag-transitive regular polygonal complexes with mirror vector $(0,2)$ and a dihedral subgroup $G_2$, now appealing to the enumeration of the simply flag-transitive complexes with mirror vector $(1,2)$. From the classification of these complexes with mirror vector $(1,2)$ in \cite[Section 6.2]{pelsch} we know that the generator $R_1$ for the complex $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{K}_i(1,2)$ with $i=3,5,6,7$ is a plane reflection that fixes the mirror of a plane reflection in $G_2$, namely the plane reflection (with mirror perpendicular to that of $R_1$) employed in Section~\ref{lam} to define the operation $\lambda_1$. Now, when $\lambda_0$ is applied to these complexes $\mathcal{L}$, the resulting complex meets the assumptions of Lemma~\ref{facemirr0k} and hence must necessarily have face mirrors. On the other hand, $\mathcal{K}_2(1,2)$ has a cyclic group $G_2(\mathcal{K}_2(1,2))$, so in particular $\lambda_0$ cannot even be applied. Hence, in enumerating the simply flag-transitive complexes $\mathcal{K}$ with mirror vector $(0,2)$ we need only consider the effect of $\lambda_0$ on the complexes $\mathcal{K}_1(1,2)$, $\mathcal{K}_4(1,2)$ and $\mathcal{K}_8(1,2)$.
Next we observe that the complex $\mathcal{K}_4(1,2)^{\lambda_0}$, with $\lambda_{0}:=\lambda_{0}(\widehat{R}_2)$ and $\widehat{R_2}$ as in \cite[eq.~(6.4)]{pelsch}, actually coincides with the $2$-skeleton of the regular $4$-apeirotope $\mathop{\rm apeir} \{3, 4\}$ in $\mathbb{E}^3$ and therefore has face mirrors. In this case $G(\mathcal{K}_4(1,2))$ acts simply flag transitively on the flags of the $2$-skeleton of $\mathop{\rm apeir} \{3,4\}$, and $G(\mathcal{K}_4(1,2)^{\lambda_0})$ is strictly larger than $G(\mathcal{K}_4(1,2))$ (see our discussion after Lemma~\ref{lambda1}). Thus we can exclude this possibility as well. This follows from arguments very similar to those described later in Section~\ref{mirr02cyc}, so we will not include any details here. It suffices to say that the reflection $T_3$ in the $xy$-plane normalizes the distinguished generating subgroups of the symmetry group $G(\mathcal{K}_4(1,2)^{\lambda_0})$ of the complex, and hence is itself a symmetry of the complex not contained in $G(\mathcal{K}_4(1,2)^{\lambda_0})$ but stabilizing the base flag (lying in the $xy$-plane).
We further note that the mirror configurations of $R_1$, $R_2$ and $\hat{R}_2$ shown in Figures 2 and 9 of \cite{pelsch} are the same (up to congruence) so that $\mathcal{K}_1(1,2)^{\lambda_0} \cong \mathcal{K}_8(1,2)^{\lambda_0}$, again with $\lambda_{0}=\lambda_{0}(\hat{R}_2)$ in both cases. Hence, as in the previous subsection there is just one simply flag transitive regular polygonal complex with mirror vector $(0,2)$, namely
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}(0, 2) \, :=\,\mathcal{K}_1(1, 2)^{\,\lambda_0 (\hat{R}_2)},
\end{equation}
with the notation as in Section~6.2 of \cite{pelsch}.
The vertex-set of $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$ is also $\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$, just as for the original complex $K_1(1, 2)$. The edges of $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$ are again face diagonals of the cubical tessellation with vertex-set $a\mathbb{Z}^3$; the faces are zigzags, again four around an edge. As for $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$, the four faces around an edge occur in two pairs of co-planar zigzags. With $R_{0}$, $R_1$ and $\hat{R}_2$ as in \cite[eq. (6.1)]{pelsch}, we now find that the symmetry $R_{0}\hat{R}_2\cdot R_1$ of $F_2$ which ``shifts" the vertices of $F_2$ by one step along $F_2$, is a twist whose square is the translation by $(a,a,0)$. In particular, the base face of $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$ lies in the plane $x+y-z=0$ and is given by
\[ F_{2} = \{(0,a,a), (0,0,0),(a,0,a)\} + \mathbb{Z}\!\cdot\!(a,a,0) , \]
where here $(0,a,a)$ and $(a,0,a)$ are the two vertices of $F_2$ adjacent to the base vertex $(0,0,0)$. The vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$ at $o$ coincides with the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_1(2,1)$ at $o$, that is, with the edge-graph of a cuboctahedron.
Just like $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$, the complex $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$ is also closely related to the semiregular tessellation $\mathcal{S}$ of $\mathbb{E}^3$ by regular tetrahedra and octahedra described in Section~\ref{terba}. In fact, the zigzag base face of $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$ is a Petrie polygon of the regular tessellation of the plane $x+y-z=0$ by triangles formed from faces of $\mathcal{S}$, and each such Petrie polygon occurs as a face of $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$. Recall here that a {\em Petrie polygon\/} (or $1$-{\em zigzag}) is a path along edges such that any two, but no three, consecutive edges lie in a common face (see \cite[p. 196]{arp}). More generally, each Petrie polygon of a triangular tessellation induced by $\mathcal{S}$ on the affine hull of a triangular face of $\mathcal{S}$ is a face of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$, and all faces of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ arise in this way.
\section{Complexes with mirror vector~$(0,k)$ and cyclic $G_2$}
\label{mirrcyc}
In this section we complete the enumeration of the simply flag-transitive regular complexes with mirror vector $(0,1)$ or $(0,2)$. In Section~\ref{mir0k} we exploited the operation $\lambda_0$ of (\ref{opone}) to deal with the case when $G_{2}$ is dihedral, and derived the corresponding complexes via $\lambda_0$ from suitable regular complexes with mirror vectors $(1,1)$ or $(1,2)$, respectively. Here we concern ourselves with the remaining case when $G_{2}$ is a cyclic group. In particular, we prove that this contributes no new regular complexes to our list. We already know from \cite[Section 7E]{arp} that polyhedra (with an irreducible symmetry group) cannot have mirror vector $(0,1)$ or $(0,2)$.
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be an infinite simply flag-transitive regular complex with mirror vector $(0,k)$, with $k=1$ or $2$, and let its symmetry group $G$ be irreducible. Then $R_0$ is the point reflection in the midpoint of the base edge $F_1$ of $\mathcal{K}$, and $R_{1}$ is a half-turn or plane reflection, depending on whether $k=1$ or $2$, with its mirror passing through the base vertex $F_0$ of $\mathcal{K}$. Now it is immediately clear that $\mathcal{K}$ must have (planar) zigzag faces. In fact, in the special group $G_*$ of $G$ we must have $R_0'=-I$ and hence $(R_{0}'R_{1})^{2}=I$, the identity mapping on $\mathbb{E}^3$, so modulo $G_*$ the basic cyclic symmetry $R_{0}R_{1}$ of the base face $F_2$ of $\mathcal{K}$ has only period $2$. Moreover, since $G_*$ contains the central inversion $-I$, we must have $G_{*}= [3,3]^{*}$ or $[3,4]$.
Now suppose the pointwise stabilizer $G_2$ of $F_1$ is a cyclic group generated by a rotation $S$ of period $r$. We show that all these data together already imply that $\mathcal{K}$ could only be the $2$-skeleton of a regular $4$-apeirotope in $\mathbb{E}^3$ (see (\ref{4apeirotopes})). However, this is impossible, since the latter is not a simply flag-transitive complex (see \cite[Section 4]{pelsch}). More precisely, we will establish that $G$ would have to be a flag-transitive subgroup of index $2$ in the full symmetry group of the $2$-skeleton of a regular $4$-apeirotope. Recall that the eight regular $4$-apeirotopes come in pairs of Petrie-duals, and that the apeirotopes in each pair have the same $2$-skeleton. Thus for our purposes it suffices to consider the apeirotopes $\mathop{\rm apeir} {\mathcal Q}$ with $\mathcal Q$ equal to $\{3,3\}$, $\{3,4\}$ or $\{4,3\}$.
\subsection{Mirror vector $(0,1)$ and cyclic $G_2$}
We begin with the case $k=1$. Suppose $\mathcal{K}$ is a simply flag-transitive regular complex with mirror vector $(0,1)$ and a cyclic group $G_2$ with rotational generator $S$. Recall our standing assumption that $G$ is irreducible. Then $R_0$ is a point reflection in the midpoint of the base edge $F_1$; $R_1$ is a half-turn about a line through the base vertex $F_{0}:=o$; and $S$ is a rotation about a line containing $F_1$. Moreover, as we remarked earlier, the faces of $\mathcal{K}$ are planar zigzags. In particular, this forces the rotation axis of $R_1$ to lie in the plane containing the base face $F_2$ (the axis of $R_1$ cannot be perpendicular to this plane, as no regular complex can have linear apeirogons as faces). Let $T_3$ denote the reflection in the plane through $F_2$. Then $T_3$ fixes each of $F_0$, $F_1$ and $F_2$ but does not lie in $G$; otherwise $T_3$ would actually belong to $G_2$ and make $G_2$ a dihedral group, contrary to our assumption (alternatively, as $T_3$ stabilizes the base flag, it would have to be trivial, by the simple flag-transitivity of $G$). However, we can also prove that $T_3$ must be a symmetry of $\mathcal{K}$, so $\mathcal{K}$ cannot have been simply-transitive. In fact, $\mathcal{K}$ must be the $2$-skeleton of a regular $4$-apeirotope in $\mathbb{E}^3$ since it has face-mirrors (for example, $T_3$), and $G$ must be a flag-transitive proper subgroup of the full symmetry group of $\mathcal{K}$, the latter being that of the $4$-apeirotope.
The proof hinges on the observation that $T_3$ commutes with the involutory generators $R_0$ and $R_1$ of $G$ and, up to taking inverses, with the (possibly non-involutory) generator $S$ as well, since $T_{3}ST_{3}=S^{-1}$. Note here that the mirror of $T_3$ contains the invariant point of $R_0$ and the rotation axes of $R_1$ and $S$. Now as the vertices, edges and faces of $\mathcal{K}$ are just the images of $F_{0}$, $F_{1}$ and $F_{2}$ under the elements of $G$, and these elements commute with $T_3$ up to taking inverses, we find that $T_3$ takes vertices, edges or faces of $\mathcal{K}$ to vertices, edges or faces of $\mathcal{K}$, respectively; more explicitly, if $R$ is any element in $G$ and $\widehat{R}$ its conjugate under $T_3$ (in the isometry group of $\mathbb{E}^3$), then $\widehat{R}$ lies in $G$ and $(F_{j}R)T_{3}=(F_{j}T_{3})\widehat{R}=F_{j}\widehat{R}$ for each $j$. Thus $T_3$ is actually a reflective symmetry of $\mathcal{K}$ leaving the plane through $F_2$ invariant; in particular, this plane is a face mirror of $\mathcal{K}$.
In summary, there are no simply flag-transitive regular complexes with mirror vector $(0,1)$ and a cyclic group $G_2$.
A more detailed analysis of the geometric situation above sheds some light on possible characterizations of $2$-skeletons of regular $4$-apeirotopes. In fact, there are just two possible choices for the special group $G_*$, namely $[3,3]^*$ and $[3,4]$, allowing for complexes $\mathcal{K}$ with $r=3$ or with $r=3$ or $4$, respectively. Suppose we pick the cube $C:=\{4,3\}$ with vertices $(\pm 1,\pm 1,\pm 1)$ as a reference figure for the action of $G_*$. Now if $G_{*}=[3,3]^*$ then $\mathcal{K}$ must necessarily be the $2$-skeleton of the regular $4$-apeirotope
\[ \mathop{\rm apeir} \{3, 3\} = \{\{\infty, 3\}_6 \# \{ \, \}, \{3, 3\}\} ,\]
with the tetrahedral vertex-figure $\mathcal{Q}:=\{3,3\}$ determined by one of the two sets of alternating vertices of $C$. On the other hand, if $G_{*}=[3,4]$ the outcome depends on the period of $S$ (that is, on $r$). If the period of $S$ is $3$, then $\mathcal{K}$ must be the $2$-skeleton of
\[ \mathop{\rm apeir} \{4, 3\} = \{\{\infty, 4\}_4 \# \{ \, \}, \{4, 3\}\}, \]
now with the cubical vertex-figure $\mathcal{Q}:=\{3,3\}$ given by $C$ itself. However, if the period of $S$ is $4$, then $\mathcal{K}$ must be the $2$-skeleton of
\[ \mathcal{P} = \mathop{\rm apeir} \{3,4\} = \{\{\infty, 3\}_6 \# \{ \, \}, \{3,4\}\} ,\]
with the octahedral vertex-figure $\mathcal{Q}:=\{3,4\}$ dually positioned to $C$ such that its vertices are at the centers of the faces of $C$. Notice that our choice of notation, $T_3$, for the reflection in the plane of $F_2$ was deliberate
to indicate its role as a generator of the symmetry group of the $4$-apeirotope.
\subsection{Mirror vector $(0,2)$ and cyclic $G_2$}
\label{mirr02cyc}
Similarly we deal with the mirror vector $(0,2)$. Let $\mathcal{K}$ be a simply flag-transitive regular complex with mirror vector $(0,2)$ and a cyclic group $G_2$ with rotational generator $S$. Then $R_0$ is the reflection in the midpoint of $F_1$; $R_1$ is a reflection in a plane through $F_{0}:=o$; and $S$ is a rotation about the line containing $F_1$. Now let $T_3$ denote the reflection in the plane through the (zigzag) base face $F_2$. Then this plane is perpendicular to the mirror of $R_1$ and also contains the invariant point of $R_0$ and the rotation axis of $S$. Thus $T_3$ stabilizes the base flag $\{F_{0},F_{1},F_{2}\}$. However, $T_3$ cannot belong to $G$, since otherwise $G_2$ would be dihedral, not cyclic. On the other hand, $T_3$ again commutes with the generators $R_0$ and $R_1$ of $G$ and, up to taking inverses, with the generator $S$ as well (that is $T_{3}S=S^{-1}T_{3}$); note here that the mirror of $T_3$ is perpendicular to the mirror of $R_1$ and contains the mirrors of $R_0$ and $S$. It follows that we can proceed exactly as for the mirror vector $(0,1)$ to show that $T_3$ is actually a reflective symmetry of $\mathcal{K}$ leaving the plane through $F_2$ invariant and making it a face mirror. Hence, $\mathcal{K}$ cannot have been simply-transitive and must be the $2$-skeleton of a regular $4$-apeirotope in $\mathbb{E}^3$. Moreover, $G$ must be a flag-transitive proper subgroup of the full symmetry group of $\mathcal{K}$, the latter being that of the underlying $4$-apeirotope.
Thus no simply flag-transitive regular complex can have a mirror vector $(0,2)$ and a cyclic group $G_2$.
A further analysis shows that the operation
\begin{equation}\label{opt3}
\lambda \!:\;\, (R_0, R_1, S)\; \mapsto\; (R_0, T_3R_1, S)
\end{equation}
on the generators of the underlying groups interchanges the two possible choices of mirror vectors $(0,1)$ and $(0,2)$ if $G_2$ is cyclic. Thus, in some sense, these cases are equivalent. The operation (\ref{opt3}) actually applies to the symmetry group of the corresponding regular $4$-apeirotope, where it corresponds to performing the Petrie operation (on the vertex-figure). As the eight regular $4$-apeirotopes in $\mathbb{E}^3$ come in pairs of Petrie duals sharing a common $2$-skeleton (see \cite[Theorem~4.3]{pelsch}), the three apeirotopes with~zigzag faces associated with the complexes with mirror vector $(0,2)$ (and cyclic $G_2$) occur here in the form $\mathop{\rm apeir} {\mathcal Q}$ with $\mathcal{Q}=\{4,3\}_3$, $\{6,4\}_3$ or $\{6,3\}_4$, these being the Petrie duals of $\{3,3\}$, $\{3,4\}$ or $\{4,3\}$, respectively.
\bigskip
The following theorem summarizes our discussion for the mirror vectors $(0,k)$ with $k=1,2$. Note that there are also regular polyhedra with these mirror vectors; for example, the Petrie duals of the regular plane tessellations $\{4,4\}$, $\{3,6\}$ and $\{6,3\}$ have mirror vector $(0,1)$ when viewed in the plane.
\begin{theorem}
\label{classif0k}
Apart from polyhedra, the complexes $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ and $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$ described in Sections~\ref{k01} and~\ref{k02} are the only simply flag-transitive regular polygonal complexes with mirror vectors $(0,1)$ or $(0,2)$, respectively.
\end{theorem}
\section{Complexes with mirror vector~$(2,k)$}
\label{mir2k}
Our last step is the enumeration of the simply flag-transitive complexes $\mathcal{K}$ with mirror vector $(2,k)$. According to Lemma~\ref{appone}, each such complex can be obtained from a regular complex $\mathcal{L}$ which either has face mirrors or is simply flag-transitive with mirror vector $(0,k)$, by applying to $\mathcal{L}$ the operation $\lambda_0$ with respect to a half-turn in $G_2(\mathcal{L})$.
The next lemma, applied with $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ and $\mathcal{L}'=\mathcal{K}$, rules out the possibility that the complex $\mathcal{L}$ has face-mirrors.
\begin{lemma}\label{facemirlambda02}
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be a regular complex with face mirrors. Assume that $G_0(\mathcal{L})$ contains a point reflection $R_0$. Let $\mathcal{L}'$ denote the regular complex obtained from $\mathcal{L}$ by the operation $\lambda_0(R_2)$, where $R_2$ is the unique half-turn in $G_2(\mathcal{L})$. Then $\mathcal{L}'$ also has face mirrors.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to that of Lemma \ref{facemirlambda01}. It suffices to note that all elements in $G_1(\mathcal{L})$ fix the plane $L$ through the base face of $\mathcal{L}$, and that $R_0 R_2$ is a reflection in a plane perpendicular to $L$. Then it follows that the base face of $\mathcal{L}'$ also lies in $L$, so $\mathcal{L}'$ also has face-mirrors.
\end{proof}
Thus we may concentrate on the simply flag-transitive complexes $\mathcal{L}$ with mirror vector $(0,k)$. We know from Theorem~\ref{classif0k} that there is just one such complex for each $k$.
\subsection{Complexes with mirror vector~$(2,1)$}
We first derive the unique simply flag-transitive complex with mirror vector $(2,1)$ from $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ by means of the operation $\lambda_0(R_2)$ associated with the half-turn $R_2$ in the dihedral group $G_2(\mathcal{L})$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}(2, 1) := \mathcal{K}(0, 1)^{\,\lambda_0 (R_2)}.
\end{equation}
The vertex-set of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ is again $\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$, as for the original complex $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$. The edges of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ are face diagonals of the standard cubical tessellation with vertex-set $a\mathbb{Z}^3$, and the faces are convex regular hexagons in planes perpendicular to main diagonals of $a\mathbb{Z}^3$. There are four faces around an edge, such that opposite faces are co-planar. Computing the distinguished generators for $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ from those of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ (which, in turn, are based on the generators for $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$ described in (\ref{genk511})), we find that the vertices of the hexagonal base face of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ are given by
\[(0,0,0), (a,0,a), (a,a,2a), (0,2a,2a), (-a,2a,a), (-a,a,0),\]
in this order. The base face is centered at the point $(0,a,a)$ of $\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$ and forms an equatorial hexagon of the cuboctahedron whose vertices are the midpoints of the edges of the $2a\!\times\!2a\!\times\!2a$ cube with center at $(0,a,a)$. Note that $(0,a,a)$ is the common center (but not a vertex) of four faces of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$, each an equatorial hexagon of the cuboctahedron just described. The vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ at $o$ coincides with the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ at $o$, that is, with the edge graph of a non-standard cuboctahedron with skew square faces.
As with the complexes $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ and $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$, the geometry of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ can be described in terms of the semiregular tessellation $\mathcal{S}$ of $\mathbb{E}^3$ by regular tetrahedra and octahedra (see Section~\ref{terba}). The hexagonal base face of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ also lies in the plane $x+y-z=0$ and is just a $2$-hole of the regular tessellation of this plane by triangles formed from faces of $\mathcal{S}$; in fact, each $2$-hole of this tessellation is a face of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$. Recall here that a $2$-{\em hole\/}, or simply a {\em hole\/}, of any regular map on a surface, is a path along edges that successively take the second exit on the left (in a local orientation), at each vertex. For a regular tessellation by triangles, the $2$-holes are just the boundary edge-paths of convex hexagons comprising the six triangles with a common vertex. More generally, each face of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ is a hole of the regular tessellation of its affine hull by triangles formed from faces of $\mathcal{S}$, and each such hole is a face of~$\mathcal{K}(2,1)$.
\subsection{Complexes with mirror vector~$(2,2)$}
\label{mirr22com}
Finally, then, we construct the unique simply flag-transitive complex with mirror vector $(2,2)$ from $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{K}(0,2)$ by applying the operation $\lambda_0 (R_2)$, where again $R_2$ denotes the unique half-turn in the dihedral group $G_2(\mathcal{L})$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}(2, 2) \,:=\, \mathcal{K}(0, 2)^{\,\lambda_0 (R_2)}.
\end{equation}
As for the original complex $\mathcal{K}(0, 2)$, the vertex-set of $\mathcal{K}(2,2)$ is $\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$ and the edges are again face diagonals of the cubical tessellation with vertex-set $a\mathbb{Z}^3$. The faces are triangles, four around each edge such that opposite triangles are co-planar. Now the distinguished generators for $\mathcal{K}(2,2)$ can be obtained from those of $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$, which, in turn, are based on the generators for $\mathcal{K}_1(1,2)$ described in \cite[eq. (6.1)]{pelsch}. The base face of $\mathcal{K}(2,2)$ lies in the plane $x+y-z=0$ and has vertices
\[(0,0,0), (a,0,a), (0,a,a).\]
The vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ at $o$ coincides with the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$ at $o$, that is, with the edge-graph of a cuboctahedron.
The complex $\mathcal{K}(2,2)$ can best be visualized as the $2$-skeleton of the semiregular tessellation $\mathcal{S}$ of $\mathbb{E}^3$ by regular tetrahedra and octahedra described in Section~\ref{terba}. The faces of $\mathcal{S}$ are regular triangles, each shared by an octahedral tile and a tetrahedral tile of $\mathcal{S}$. It is straightforward to check that $\mathcal{K}(2,2)$ is just the $2$-skeleton of $\mathcal{S}$.
\bigskip
Inspection of the list of simply flag-transitive regular complexes shows that there are just two complexes with finite planar (in fact, convex) faces, namely $\mathcal{K}(2,2)$ with triangular faces and $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ with hexagonal faces (see also Table~\ref{tabone}). The complex $\mathcal{K}(2,2)$ can be viewed as the $2$-skeleton of the semiregular tessellation $\mathcal{S}$ by regular tetrahedra and octahedra, and hence is a geometric complex embedded (without self-intersections) in $\mathbb{E}^3$. On the other hand, $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ can not be viewed as a geometric complex embedded in $\mathbb{E}^3$. In fact, every vertex of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ is the common center of the four faces of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ given by the equatorial hexagons of a suitable cuboctahedron with this vertex as center; when the hexagonal faces of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ are viewed as bounding convex hexagons, these four hexagons all intersect in their common center, and hence self-intersections do occur in this case.
\bigskip
In conclusion, we have established the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{classif2k}
Apart from polyhedra, the complexes $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ and $\mathcal{K}(2,2)$ described in this section are the only simply flag-transitive regular polygonal complexes with mirror vectors $(2,1)$ or $(2,2)$, respectively.
\end{theorem}
\section{The enumeration}
The following theorem summarizes our enumeration of regular polygonal complexes in euclidean $3$-space.
\begin{theorem}
\label{fullclassif}
Up to similarity, there are exactly 25 regular polygonal complexes in $\mathbb{E}^3$ which are not regular polyhedra, namely 21 simply flag-transitive complexes and $4$ complexes which are $2$-skeletons of regular $4$-apeirotopes in~$\mathbb{E}^3$.
\end{theorem}
Table~\ref{tabone} organizes the $21$ simply flag-transitive polygonal complexes by mirror vectors and includes for each complex the data about the pointwise edge stabilizer $G_2$, the number $r$ of faces surrounding an edge, the structure of faces and vertex-figures, the vertex-set, and the structure of the special group. The symbols $p_c$, $p_s$, $\infty_2$, or $\infty_k$ with $k=3$ or $4$, respectively, in the face column indicate that the faces are {\em convex} $p$-gons, {\em skew} $p$-gons, planar zigzags, or helices over {\em $k$-gons}. (In some sense, a planar zigzag is a helix over a $2$-gon, hence our notation. Clearly, the suffix in $3_c$ is redundant.) We also set
\[ V_{a}:=a\mathbb{Z}^{3}\!\setminus\! ((0,0,a)\!+\!\Lambda_{(a,a,a)}),\;\;
W_{a}:= 2\Lambda_{(a,a,0)} \cup ((a,-a,a)\!+\!2\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}), \]
to have a short symbol available for some of the vertex-sets. The vertex-figures of polygonal complexes are finite graphs, so an entry in the vertex-figure column describing a solid figure is meant to represent the edge-graph of this figure, with ``double" indicating the double edge-graph. The abbreviation ``ns-cuboctahedron" stands for (the edge graph of) the ``non-standard cuboctahedron" (as explained earlier in the text).
\begin{table}[htb]
\centering
{\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
mirror & complex&$G_2$ & $r$ &face &vertex- &vertex- & special\\
vector & & & & & figure&set & group \\[.05in]
\hline
\hline
$(1,2)$ & $\mathcal{K}_1(1,2)$& $D_2$ & $4$ &$4_s$ & cuboctahedron&$\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_2(1,2)$& $C_3$& $3$ &$4_s$ & cube&$\Lambda_{(a,a,a)}$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_3(1,2)$& $D_3$& $6$ &$4_s$ &double cube&$\Lambda_{(a,a,a)}$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_4(1,2)$& $D_2$& $4$ & $6_s$&octahedron&$a\mathbb{Z}^3$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_5(1,2)$& $D_2$& $4$ &$6_s$&double square&$V_a$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_6(1,2)$& $D_4$& $8$ &$6_s$&double octahedron&$a\mathbb{Z}^3$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_7(1,2)$& $D_3$& $6$ &$6_s$&double tetrahedron&$W_a$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_8(1,2)$& $D_2$& $4$ &$6_s$&cuboctahedron&$\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
\hline
$(1,1)$ & $\mathcal{K}_1(1,1)$& $D_3$& $6$ &$\infty_3$&double cube&$\Lambda_{(a,a,a)}$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_2(1,1)$& $D_2$& $4$ &$\infty_3$&double square&$V_a$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_3(1,1)$& $D_4$& $8$ &$\infty_3$&double octahedron&$a\mathbb{Z}^3$ & $[3,4]$ \\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_4(1,1)$& $D_3$ & $6$ &$\infty_4$& double tetrahedron&$W_a$ &$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$& $D_2$& $4$ &$\infty_4$&ns-cuboctahedron&$\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$&$[3,4]$ \\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_6(1,1)$& $C_3$& $3$ &$\infty_4$&tetrahedron& $W_a$&$[3,4]^+$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_7(1,1)$& $C_4$& $4$ &$\infty_3$&octahedron&$a\mathbb{Z}^3$ & $[3,4]^+$ \ \\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_8(1,1)$& $D_2$& $4$ &$\infty_3$&ns-cuboctahedron&$\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$&$[3,4]$ \\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_9(1,1)$& $C_3$& $3$ &$\infty_3$&cube&$\Lambda_{(a,a,a)}$&$[3,4]^+$ \\
\hline
\hline
$(0,1)$ & $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$& $D_2$& $4$ &$\infty_2$&ns-cuboctahedron&$\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$&$[3,4]$ \\
\hline
\hline
$(0,2)$ & $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$& $D_2$& $4$ &$\infty_2$&cuboctahedron& $\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$&$[3,4]$ \\
\hline
\hline
$(2,1)$ & $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$& $D_2$& $4$ & $6_c$ &ns-cuboctahedron&$\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$&$[3,4]$ \\
\hline
\hline
$(2,2)$ & $\mathcal{K}(2,2)$& $D_2$& $4$ &$3_c$&cuboctahedron&$\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\medskip
\caption{The 21 simply flag-transitive regular polygonal complexes in $\mathbb{E}^3$ which are not regular polyhedra.}
\label{tabone}}
\end{table}
\section{Subcomplex relationships}
In this last section we provide the full net of subcomplex relationships for regular polygonal complexes in space, including regular polyhedra. In each diagram, a vertical or slanted line indicates that the complex $\mathcal{K}$ at the bottom is a subcomplex of the complex $\mathcal{L}$ at the top, or equivalently, that the complex $\mathcal{L}$ at the top is a ``compound" of congruent copies of the complex $\mathcal{K}$ at the bottom; the label attached to the line is the number of congruent copies of $\mathcal{K}$ in this representation of $\mathcal{L}$ as a compound, allowing~$\infty$.
Across the bottom of a diagram we usually find polyhedra and occasionally (indecomposable) complexes from among those discussed in this paper or in \cite{pelsch}. Polyhedra can only occur at the bottom of a diagram. Two diagrams have three layers and each contains the diagrams for the complexes in the middle layer as subdiagrams (these diagrams are not listed separately).
The regular polyhedra in $\mathbb{E}^3$ were enumerated in Gr\"unbaum~\cite{gr} and Dress~\cite{d1,d2}. We refer the reader to McMullen \& Schulte~\cite[Section 7E]{arp} (or \cite{ordinary}) for a quick method of arriving at the full characterization, and for the notation for polyhedra used in the diagrams. For a regular $4$-apeirotope $\mathcal{P}$ we write $skel_{2}(\mathcal{P})$ for the $2$-skeleton of $\mathcal{P}$ (see Section~\ref{terba}).
The complexes are grouped according to their type of faces, beginning with the complexes with finite, planar or skew, faces and followed by the complexes with infinite, zigzag or helical, faces.
\bigskip
\noindent
PLANAR FACES\newline
\vskip.08in
\input{diagram1.pic}
\vspace{.1in}
\input{diagram2.pic}
\vspace{0.7cm}
\noindent
SKEW FACES\newline
\vskip.08in
\input{diagram6.pic}
\vspace{.1in}
\input{diagram7.pic}
\vspace{.1in}
\input{diagram8.pic}
\vspace{0.7cm}
\noindent
ZIGZAG FACES\newline
\vskip.08in
\input{diagram3.pic}
\vspace{.1in}
\input{diagram4.pic}
\vspace{.1in}
\input{diagram5.pic}
\vspace{0.7cm}
\noindent
HELICAL FACES\newline
\vskip.08in
\input{diagram9.pic}
\vspace{.1in}
\input{diagram10.pic}
\vspace{.1in}
\input{diagram11.pic}
\vspace{0.2cm}
The preceding diagrams provide the full net of {\em geometric\/} subcomplex relationships for regular polygonal complexes in $\mathbb{E}^3$. We have not investigated the question if there are any other {\em combinatorial\/} subcomplex relationships. This of course is closely related to the problem of determining the full combinatorial automorphism group for each complex, which in general could be larger than the symmetry group and in particular have a larger flag stabilizer. For example, a (geometrically) simply flag-transitive polygonal complex may not be combinatorially simply flag-transitive. Clearly, this does not occur for regular polyhedra, where the two groups are isomorphic.
It would also be interesting to know if the geometrically distinct regular polygonal complexes described here are also combinatorially distinct, or if two of these complexes can be combinatorially isomorphic in a non-geometric way. We conjecture that the regular polygonal complexes in $\mathbb{E}^3$ are indeed also combinatorially distinct. (We are ignoring here the case of blended polyhedra, where the relative size of the components of the blend provides a continuous parameter for the geometric realizations.)
\vskip.1in
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgment}
We are grateful to an anonymous referee for a thoughtful review with valuable comments.
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
\section{Introduction}
The present paper and its predecessor \cite{pelsch} describe a complete classification of regular polygonal complexes in the euclidean $3$-space $\mathbb{E}^3$. Polygonal complexes are discrete polyhedra-like structures composed of convex or non-convex, planar or skew, finite or infinite (helical or zigzag) polygonal faces, always with finite graphs as vertex-figures, such that each edge lies in at least two, but generally $r\geq 2$ faces, with $r$ not depending on the particular edge. The various kinds of $3$-dimensional polyhedra that have been studied in the literature are prominent examples of polygonal complexes, obtained when $r=2$ (see Coxeter~\cite{crsp,coxeter}, Gr\"unbaum~\cite{gr1} and McMullen \& Schulte~\cite{arp}). A polygonal complex is {\em regular\/} if its full euclidean symmetry group is transitive on the flags.
Our two papers are part of an ongoing program that combines a {\em skeletal\/} approach to polyhedra in space pioneered in \cite{gr1} (see also Dress~\cite{d1,d2} and McMullen \& Schulte~\cite{ordinary}), with an effort to study symmetry of discrete polyhedra-like space structures through transitivity properties of their symmetry group. The full enumeration of the chiral polyhedra in $\mathbb{E}^3$ in \cite{chiral1, chiral2} (see also Pellicer \& Weiss~\cite{pelwei}), as well as a number of corresponding enumeration results for figures in higher-dimensional euclidean spaces by McMullen~\cite{ pm,pm1,pm2} (see also Arocha, Bracho \& Montejano~\cite{ar} and \cite{bra}), are examples of recent successes of this program; for a survey, see~\cite{ms3}.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{terba} we review basic properties of regular polygonal complexes and their symmetry groups, and elaborate on two important operations that produce new regular complexes from old. Then in Sections~\ref{mirr11}, \ref{mir0k} and \ref{mir2k}, respectively, we enumerate the simply flag-transitive regular polygonal complexes with mirror vectors $(1,1)$, $(0,k)$ and $(2,k)$, with $k=1$ or $2$. In Section~\ref{mirrcyc} we eliminate the possibility that a simply flag-transitive regular polygonal complex with mirror vector $(0,k)$ has pointwise edge stabilizers that are cyclic of order $r\geq 3$. Together with the results of \cite{pelsch}, our findings complete the enumeration of all regular polygonal complexes in $\mathbb{E}^3$. Overall we establish that, up to similarity, there are precisely 25 regular polygonal complex in $\mathbb{E}^3$ which are not regular polyhedra, namely 21 simply flag-transitive complexes and $4$ complexes which are $2$-skeletons of regular $4$-apeirotopes in $\mathbb{E}^3$.
\section{Terminology and basic facts}
\label{terba}
A {\em finite polygon\/} $(v_1, v_2, \dots, v_n)$ in euclidean $3$-space $\mathbb{E}^3$ is a figure formed by distinct points $v_1, \dots, v_n$, together with the line segments $(v_i, v_{i+1})$, for $i = 1, \dots, n-1$, and $(v_n, v_1)$. Similarly, an {\em infinite polygon\/} consists of a sequence of distinct points $(\dots, v_{-2},v_{-1}, v_0, v_1, v_2,\dots)$ and of line segments $(v_i, v_{i+1})$ for each $i$, such that each compact subset of $\mathbb{E}^3$ meets only finitely many line segments. In either case the points and line segments are the {\em vertices\/} and {\em edges\/} of the polygon, respectively.
A {\em polygonal complex}, or simply {\em complex}, $\mathcal{K}$ in $\mathbb{E}^3$ consists of a set $\mathcal{V}$ of points, called {\em vertices}, a set $\mathcal{E}$ of line segments, called {\em edges}, and a set $\mathcal{F}$ of polygons, called {\em faces}, such that the following properties are satisfied. The graph defined by $\mathcal{V}$ and $\mathcal{E}$, called the {\em edge graph\/} of $\mathcal{K}$, is connected. Moreover, the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}$ at each vertex of $\mathcal{K}$ is connected. Recall that the {\em vertex-figure\/} of $\mathcal{K}$ at a vertex $v$ is the graph, possibly with multiple edges, whose vertices are the neighbors of $v$ in the edge graph of $\mathcal{K}$ and whose edges are the line segments $(u,w)$, where $(u, v)$ and $(v, w)$ are edges of a common face of $\mathcal{K}$. It is also required that each edge of $\mathcal{K}$ is contained in exactly $r$ faces of $\mathcal{K}$, for a fixed number $r \geq 2$. Finally, $\mathcal{K}$ is {\em discrete\/}, in the sense that each compact subset of $\mathbb{E}^3$ meets only finitely many faces of $\mathcal{K}$.
A complex with $r=2$ is also called a {\em polyhedron\/}. Finite or infinite polyhedra in $\mathbb{E}^3$ with high symmetry properties have been studied extensively (for example, see \cite[Ch.~7E]{arp} and \cite{gr1,ordinary,pelwei,chiral1,chiral2}).
A polygonal complex $\mathcal{K}$ is said to be (geometrically) {\em regular} if its symmetry group $G:=G(\mathcal{K})$ is transitive on the flags (triples consisting of a vertex, an edge, and a face, all mutually incident). We simply refer to the (full) symmetry group $G$ as the {\em group of $\mathcal{K}$}. If $\mathcal{K}$ is regular, its faces are necessarily regular polygons, either finite, planar (convex or star-) polygons or non-planar ({\em skew\/}) polygons, or infinite, planar zigzags or helical polygons. Moreover, its vertex-figures are graphs with single or double edges; the latter occurs precisely when any two adjacent edges of a face of $\mathcal{K}$ are adjacent edges of just one other face of $\mathcal{K}$. We know from \cite{pelsch} that, apart from polyhedra, there are no regular complexes that are finite or have an affinely reducible group.
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be a regular complex, and let $G$ be its group. Let $\Phi := \{F_0, F_1, F_2\}$ be a fixed, or {\em base}, flag of $\mathcal{K}$, where $F_0$ is a vertex, $F_1$ an edge, and $F_2$ a face of $\mathcal{K}$. If $\Psi$ is a subset of $\Phi$, we let
$G_{\Psi}$ denote its stabilizer in $G$. For $i=0,1,2$ we also set $G_i := G_{\{F_j, F_k\}}$, where $i,j,k$ are distinct.
We showed in \cite{pelsch} that $|G_\Phi|\leq 2$. Thus the group of a regular complex either acts simply flag-transitively or has flag-stabilizers of order $2$. We call $\mathcal{K}$ {\em simply flag-transitive\/} if its (full symmetry) group $G$ acts simply flag-transitively on $\mathcal{K}$.
In \cite{pelsch} we characterized the regular complexes with non-trivial flag stabilizers as the $2$-skeletons of regular $4$-apeirotopes in $\mathbb{E}^3$. These complexes have planar faces and have {\em face mirrors\/}, the latter meaning that the affine hull of a face is the mirror (fixed point set) of a plane reflection in $G$. There are eight regular $4$-apeirotopes in $\mathbb{E}^3$; however, since a pair of Petrie-duals among these apeirotopes share the same $2$-skeleton, these only yield four regular complexes $\mathcal{K}$. We can list the eight $4$-apeirotopes in a more descriptive way in four pairs of Petrie duals using the notation of~\cite{arp}.
\smallskip
\begin{equation}
\label{4apeirotopes}
\begin{array}{cc}
\{4, 3, 4\} &\{\{4, 6 \,|\,4\}, \{6, 4\}_3\}\\[.04in]
\mathop{\rm apeir} \{3, 3\} \!=\! \{\{\infty, 3\}_6 \# \{ \, \}, \{3, 3\}\}
&\{\{\infty, 4\}_4 \# \{\infty\}, \{4, 3\}_3\} \!=\! \mathop{\rm apeir}\{4, 3\}_3 \\[.04in]
\mathop{\rm apeir} \{3, 4\} \!=\! \{\{\infty, 3\}_6 \# \{ \, \}, \{3, 4\}\}
&\{\{\infty, 6\}_3 \# \{\infty\}, \{6, 4\}_3\} \!=\! \mathop{\rm apeir}\{6, 4\}_3 \\[.04in]
\mathop{\rm apeir} \{4, 3\} \!=\! \{\{\infty, 4\}_4 \# \{\, \}, \{4, 3\}\}
&\{\{\infty, 6\}_3 \# \{\infty\}, \{6, 3\}_4\} \!=\! \mathop{\rm apeir} \{6, 3\}_4\\[.04in]
\end{array}
\end{equation}
The apeirotopes in the top row are the cubical tessellation $\{4,3,4\}$ and its Petrie dual; these have square faces, and their facets are cubes or Petrie-Coxeter polyhedra $\{4, 6 \,|\,4\}$, respectively. All other apeirotopes have zigzag faces, and their facets are blends of the Petrie-duals $\{\infty,3\}_6$, $\{\infty,6\}_3$ or $\{\infty,4\}_4$ of the plane tessellations $\{6,3\}$, $\{3,6\}$ or $\{4,4\}$, respectively, with the line segment $\{ \,\}$ or linear apeirogon $\{\infty\}$ (see \cite[Ch.~7F]{arp}). These six apeirotopes can be obtained as particular instances from the {\em free abelian apeirotope\/} or ``apeir" construction of \cite{pm,pm1}, which we briefly review here for rank $4$.
Let $\mathcal Q$ be a finite regular polyhedron in $\mathbb{E}^3$ with symmetry group $G(\mathcal{Q}) = \langle T_1,T_2,T_3\rangle$ (say), where the labeling of the distinguished generators begins at $1$ deliberately. Let $o$ be the centroid of the vertex-set of $\mathcal Q$, let $w$ be the initial vertex of $\mathcal Q$, and let $T_0$ denote the reflection in the point $\frac{1}{2}w$. Then there is a regular $4$-apeirotope in $\mathbb{E}^3$, denoted $\mathop{\rm apeir} {\mathcal Q}$, with $T_0,T_1,T_2,T_3$ as the generating reflections of its symmetry group, $o$ as initial vertex, and $\mathcal Q$ as vertex-figure. In particular, $\mathop{\rm apeir} Q$ is discrete if $\mathcal Q$ is rational (the vertices of $\mathcal Q$ have rational coordinates with respect to some coordinate system). The latter limits the choices of $\mathcal Q$ to $\{3,3\}$, $\{3,4\}$ or $\{4,3\}$, or their Petrie duals $\{4,3\}_3$, $\{6,4\}_3$ or $\{6,3\}_4$, respectively, giving the six remaining regular $4$-apeirotopes in $\mathbb{E}^3$.
The enumeration of the simply flag-transitive regular complexes is a lot more involved. From now on, unless specified otherwise, we will work under the standard assumption that the complexes $\mathcal{K}$ under consideration are infinite, regular, and simply flag-transitive, and have an affinely irreducible group $G(\mathcal{K})$.
Thus let $\mathcal{K}$ be an (infinite) simply flag-transitive regular complex, and let $G=G(\mathcal{K})$ be its (affinely irreducible) group.
We know from \cite{pelsch} that $G_0 = \langle R_0 \rangle$ and $G_1 = \langle R_1 \rangle$, for some point, line or plane reflection $R_0$ and some line or plane reflection $R_1$; moreover, $G_2$ is a cyclic or dihedral group of order $r$ (so $r$ is even if $G_2$ is dihedral). The {\em mirror vector} of $\mathcal{K}$ is the vector $(dim(R_0), dim(R_1))$, where $dim(R_i)$ is the dimension of the mirror of the reflection $R_i$ for $i=0,1$; if $\mathcal{K}$ is a polyhedron, then $G_2$ is generated by a (line or plane) reflection $R_2$ and we refer to $(dim(R_0), dim(R_1),dim(R_2))$ as the {\em complete mirror vector} of $\mathcal{K}$. The face stabilizer subgroup $G_{F_2}$ in $G$ of the base face $F_2$ is given by $G_{F_2}=\langle R_0, R_1 \rangle$ and is isomorphic to a (finite or infinite) dihedral group acting simply transitively on the flags of $\mathcal{K}$ containing $F_2$. Similarly, the vertex-stabilizer subgroup $G_{F_0}$ in $G$ of the base vertex $F_0$ is given by $G_{F_0}=\langle R_1, G_2 \rangle$ and acts simply flag-transitively on (the graph that is) the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}$ at $F_0$. (A flag in the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}$ at $F_0$ amounts to a pair consisting of an edge and incident face of $\mathcal{K}$ each containing $F_0$.) We call $G_{F_0}$ the {\em vertex-figure group\/} of $\mathcal{K}$ at $F_0$. Note that, by our discreteness assumption on complexes, $G_{F_0}$ must be a finite group.
In our previous paper~\cite{pelsch} we already dealt with the complexes with mirror vector $(1,2)$. In this paper, we complete the enumeration of the simply flag-transitive regular complexes and describe the complexes for the remaining mirror vectors. Our approach employs operations on the generators of $G$ which replace one of the generators $R_0$ or $R_1$ while retaining the other as well as the subgroup $G_2$. This allows us to construct new complexes from old and helps reduce the number of cases to be considered. In particular, we require the following two operations $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ that involve (not necessarily involutory) elements $R$ of $G_{2}$ with the property that $R_0 R$ or $R_1 R$, respectively, is an involution:
\begin{equation}
\label{opone}
\lambda_0 = \lambda_0(R)\!:\;\, (R_0, R_1, G_2)\; \mapsto\; (R_0 R, R_1, G_2),
\end{equation}\\[-.45in]
\begin{equation}
\label{optwo}
\lambda_1 = \lambda_1(R) : \:\, (R_0, R_1, G_2)\; \mapsto\; (R_0, R_1R, G_2).
\end{equation}
The corresponding complexes $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ and $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}$ are obtained from Wythoff's construction applied with the generators and generating subgroups on the right-hand side of (\ref{opone}) or (\ref{optwo}), respectively.
The two operations in (\ref{opone}) and (\ref{optwo}) can also be applied to regular complexes with face-mirrors by choosing as $R_0$ or $R_1$, respectively, particular elements of $G_0$ or $G_1$ that do not stabilize the base flag. (Note that we cannot change the entire subgroup $G_0$ or $G_1$, respectively, to its coset $G_{0}R$ or $G_{1}R$, since this is not even a group; instead we must work with particular elements of $G_0$ or $G_1$.)
In this wider setting of arbitrary regular complexes, the operations $\lambda_0 = \lambda_0(R)$ and $\lambda_1 = \lambda_1(R)$ are invertible at least at the level of groups (but not at the level of complexes in general); in fact, at the group level, their inverses are given by $\lambda_0(R^{-1})$ and $\lambda_1(R^{-1})$, respectively. While the invertibility of the operations at the level of the corresponding complexes will be immediately clear when the new complex $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ or $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}$ is simply flag-transitive, more care is required when the new complex has face-mirrors.
After we apply an operation $\lambda_0 = \lambda_0(R)$ or $\lambda_1 = \lambda_1(R)$ at the level of (arbitrary) regular complexes, we may arrive at a new complex $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ or $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}$ with face mirrors. In this case the (involutory) element $R_{0}R$ of $G_{0}(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0})$ or $R_{1}R$ of $G_{1}(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1})$ is available as a particular choice of generator to base the inverse operation $\lambda_0(R^{-1})$ or $\lambda_1(R^{-1})$ on (this would have been the only possible choice had $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ or $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}$ been simply flag-transitive). While this choice may not directly recover the original complex $\mathcal{K}$ from $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ or $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}$, it does produce a regular complex $\mathcal{L}$ containing $\mathcal{K}$ as a (possibly proper) subcomplex. Throughout, we are adopting the {\em convention\/} to base the inverse operation on the particular element $R_{0}R$ or $R_{1}R$ of its respective subgroup. Note that, when $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ or $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}$ has face mirrors, there would have been just one other admissible choice for the particular element besides $R_{0}R$ or $R_{1}R$ (the respective subgroup and the flag stabilizer are isomorphic to $C_{2}\times C_2$ and $C_2$, respectively).
In our applications, $R$ will always be an involution in $G_2$ and the corresponding operation $\lambda_0$ or $\lambda_1$ will be involutory as well. In particular, we will encounter statements of the form $\mathcal{K}=(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0})^{\lambda_0}$ or $\mathcal{K}=(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1})^{\lambda_1}$, where throughout an appropriate interpretation (following our convention) is understood if a complex happens to have face mirrors. As we will see, in practice it is only $\lambda_0$ that requires special consideration for complexes with face mirrors (and in only one case).
The following lemmas summarize basic properties of $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ (see \cite[Lemmas 5.1--5.5]{pelsch}. The first two are saying that the new generators on the right side of (\ref{opone}) and (\ref{optwo}) indeed determine a new regular complex in each case.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lambda1}
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be a simply flag-transitive regular complex with group $G = \langle R_0, R_1, G_2 \rangle$, and let $R$ be an element in $G_2$ such that $R_0 R$ is an involution. Then there exists a regular complex, denoted $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$, with the same vertex-set and edge-set as $\mathcal{K}$ and with its symmetry group containing $G$ as a (possibly proper) flag-transitive subgroup, such that
\begin{equation}\label{klambda}
\langle R_0 R \rangle \subseteq G_0(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}), \;\;\,
G_1(\mathcal{K}) = \langle R_1 \rangle \subseteq G_1(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}),\;\;\,
G_2(\mathcal{K}) \subseteq G_2(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}).
\end{equation}
The complex $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ is simply flag-transitive if and only if the inclusions in (\ref{klambda}) are equalities (or equivalently, at least one of the inclusions in (\ref{klambda}) is an equality).
\end{lemma}
Lemma~\ref{lambda1} is a slightly revised version of Lemma~5.1 in~\cite{pelsch}, which was incorrect as stated. As pointed out on \cite[p.\! 6692]{pelsch}, there are examples where the new complex $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ is not simply flag-transitive but rather has face-mirrors and possibly a strictly larger symmetry group; the latter depends on whether or not the reflections in the face-mirrors of $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ are also symmetries of $\mathcal{K}$ (see Section~\ref{k02}). However, by mistake, this possibility was not carried forward to the wording of Lemma~5.1 in~\cite{pelsch}. Our new version corrects this error. Similarly, our Lemmas~\ref{appone} and \ref{apptwo} below are slightly revised versions of corresponding statements in \cite{pelsch}, with the only adjustments directly resulting from those in Lemma~\ref{lambda1}.
By contrast, the simple flag-transitivity is preserved in our next lemma, which describes the effect of the operation $\lambda_1$. In fact, we proved in \cite{pelsch} that~$\lambda_1$, applied to a regular complex with face mirrors, always yields another regular complex with face mirrors.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lambda2}
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be a simply flag-transitive regular complex with group $G = \langle R_0, R_1, G_2 \rangle$, and let $R$ be an element in $G_2$ such that $R_1 R$ is an involution. Then there exists a regular complex, denoted $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}$ and again simply flag-transitive, with the same vertex-set and edge-set as $\mathcal{K}$ and with the same group $G$, such
that
\begin{equation}\label{klambda1}
G_0(\mathcal{K}) = \langle R_0 \rangle = G_0(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}), \;\;\,
\langle R_1 R \rangle = G_1(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}),\;\;\,
G_2(\mathcal{K}) = G_2(\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\smallskip
The next three lemmas state that the operations $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ change the mirror vectors in a uniform way, that is, independent of $\mathcal{K}$ (but possibly dependent on whether $G_2$ is dihedral or cyclic). For the first two lemmas recall our convention about the double iteration of $\lambda_0$ if the new complex $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ happens to have face mirrors.
\begin{lemma}
\label{appone}
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be an infinite simply flag-transitive regular complex with an affinely irreducible group $G$ and mirror vector $(2, k)$ for some $k = 1, 2$. Then $G_2$ contains a half-turn $R$. In particular, the corresponding complex $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$, with $\lambda_0 = \lambda_0(R)$, is a regular complex which either has face mirrors or is simply flag-transitive with mirror vector $(0, k)$; in either case, $\mathcal{K} = (\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0})^{\lambda_0}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{apptwo}
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be an infinite simply flag-transitive regular complex with an affinely irreducible group $G$, a dihedral subgroup $G_2$, and mirror vector $(0, k)$ for some $k = 1, 2$. Then, for any plane reflection $R \in G_2$, the corresponding complex $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$, with $\lambda_0 = \lambda_0(R)$, is a regular complex which either has face mirrors or is simply flag-transitive with mirror vector $(1, k)$; in either case, $\mathcal{K} = (\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0})^{\lambda_0}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{appthree}
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be an infinite simply flag-transitive regular complex with an affinely irreducible group $G$ and mirror vector $(k, 1)$ for some $k = 0, 1, 2$. Assume also that $G_2$ contains a plane reflection $R$ whose mirror contains the axis of the half-turn $R_1$. Then the corresponding complex $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1}$, with $\lambda_1 = \lambda_1(R)$, is a simply flag-transitive regular complex with mirror vector $(k, 2)$. In particular, $\mathcal{K} = (\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_1})^{\lambda_1}$.
\end{lemma}
As mentioned earlier, the symmetry group of a simply flag-transitive regular complex $\mathcal{K}$ may be only a proper subgroup of the symmetry group of the new complex $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$. Clearly, this can only occur if $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ itself is not simply flag-transitive. Now under the assumptions of Lemmas \ref{appone} and \ref{apptwo}, the given simply flag-transitive complex $\mathcal{K}$ must necessarily have planar faces. Hence, if $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ acquires face mirrors, then these face mirrors must necessarily be the affine hulls of the faces of $\mathcal{K}$; bear in mind here that the geometry of the base face of $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ is entirely determined by the subgroup $\langle R_{0}R,R_1\rangle$, and that therefore this base face lies in the same plane as the base face of $\mathcal{K}$. The equality $\mathcal{K} = (\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0})^{\lambda_0}$ at the end of Lemmas \ref{appone} and \ref{apptwo} follows from this argument.
When the new $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ is not simply flag-transitive, the question arises whether or not the reflective symmetries in the face mirrors of $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ are also symmetries of~$\mathcal{K}$. Here $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ has a strictly larger symmetry group than $\mathcal{K}$ precisely when the face mirrors of $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ are {\em not\/} face mirrors of $\mathcal{K}$ (that is, when the reflective symmetries in the face mirrors of $\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ are not symmetries of~$\mathcal{K}$). For example, the $2$-skeleton of the regular $4$-apeirotope $\mathop{\rm apeir} \{3,4\}$, viewed as the complex $\mathcal{K}_{4}(1,2)^{\lambda_0}$ as described in Section~\ref{k02}, has a strictly larger symmetry group than the original (simply flag-transitive) complex $\mathcal{K}_{4}(1,2)$.
\smallskip
The symmetry groups of regular complexes are crystallographic groups. Recall that the {\em special group\/} $G_*$ of a crystallographic group $G$ is the image of $G$ under the epimorphism $\mathcal{I}(3)\mapsto \mathcal{O}(3)$ whose kernel is $\mathcal{T}(\mathbb{E}^3)$; here $\mathcal{I}(3)$, $\mathcal{O}(3)$, and $\mathcal{T}(\mathbb{E}^3)$, respectively, are the euclidean isometry group, orthogonal group, and translation group of $\mathbb{E}^3$. Then $G_*$ is finite and
$G_*= G/(G \cap \mathcal{T}(\mathbb{E}^3)) = G/T(G)$, where $T(G)$ is the full translation subgroup of $G$ (which may be identified with a lattice in $\mathbb{E}^3$). More explicitly, if $R: x \mapsto xR' + t$ is any element of $G$, with $R' \in \mathcal{O}(3)$ and $t \in \mathbb{E}^3$, then $R'$ lies in $G_*$; conversely, all elements of $G_*$ are obtained in this way from elements in $G$.
\smallskip
Let $a$ be a positive real number, let $k=1$, $2$ or $3$, and let ${\bf a} : = (a^k,0^{3-k})$, the vector with $k$ components $a$ and $3-k$ components $0$. Following \cite[p.166]{arp}, we write $\Lambda_{\bf a}$ for the sublattice of $a\mathbb{Z}^3$ generated by $\bf a$ and its images under permutation and changes of sign of coordinates. Then $\Lambda_{(1,0,0)}=\mathbb{Z}^{3}$ is the standard {\em cubic lattice\/}; $\Lambda_{(1,1,0)}$ is the {\em face-centered cubic lattice\/} consisting of all integral vectors with even coordinate sum; and $\Lambda_{(1,1,1)}$ is the {\em body-centered cubic\/} lattice.
The geometry of a number of regular complexes described later can best be described in terms of the semiregular tessellation $\mathcal{S}$ of $\mathbb{E}^3$ by regular tetrahedra and octahedra constructed as follows (see \cite{coxsr,gruni,jo}). Let $Q$ denote the regular octahedron with vertices $(\pm a,0,0)$, $(0,\pm a,0)$, $(0,0,\pm a)$, and let $\mathcal{Q}$ denote the family of octahedra $u+Q$ centered at the points $u$ in $a\mathbb{Z}^3$ not in $\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$. Then the complement in $\mathbb{E}^3$ of the octahedra in $\mathcal{Q}$ gives rise to a family $\mathcal{R}$ of regular tetrahedra each inscribed in a cube of the cubical tessellation with vertex-set $a\mathbb{Z}^3$; each such cube $C$ contributes just one tetrahedron $T_C$ to $\mathcal{R}$, and the tetrahedra in adjacent cubes share an edge with $T_C$. The family $\mathcal{Q}\cup\mathcal{R}$ of octahedra and tetrahedra consists of the tiles in a tessellation $\mathcal{S}$ of $\mathbb{E}^3$; this tessellation is {\em semiregular\/}, meaning that its tiles are Platonic solids and the symmetry group of $\mathcal{S}$ acts transitively on the vertices of $\mathcal{S}$. The faces of $\mathcal{S}$ are regular triangles, each a face of one octahedron and one tetrahedron.
\smallskip
Concluding this section we record the following simple lemma without proof.
\begin{lemma}
\label{cubelemma}
Let $C$ be a cube, and let $R,R',R''$ be symmetries of $C$ such that $R$ and $R'$ are plane reflections and $R''$ is a half-turn. Suppose one of the following conditions applies: the mirrors of $R$ and $R'$ are determined by the two diagonals of a face $F$ of $C$, and $R''$ is a half-turn whose axis passes through the midpoint of an edge of $F$; or $R$ and $R'$ are the two reflections leaving an edge $E$ of $C$ invariant, and $R''$ is a half-turn whose axis passes through the midpoint of an edge adjacent to $E$. Then $R,R',R''$ generate the full octahedral group $G(C)=[3,4]$.
\end{lemma}
\section{Complexes with mirror vector $(1, 1)$}
\label{mirr11}
In this section we enumerate the infinite simply flag-transitive regular complexes with mirror vector $(1, 1)$, exploiting Lemma~\ref{appthree} and drawing on the enumeration of the regular complexes with mirror vector $(1,2)$ in \cite{pelsch}. As we shall see, all have helical faces. We will work again under the assumption that the symmetry group is affinely irreducible. It is known that there are exactly six regular complexes of this kind which are polyhedra, all with helices as faces:\ in the notation of \cite[Section 7E]{arp} these are $\{\infty,3\}^{(a)}$, $\{\infty,4\}_{\cdot,\star 3}$, $\{\infty,3\}^{(b)}$ with complete mirror vector $(1,1,1)$ and $\{\infty, 6\}_{4,4}$, $\{\infty, 4\}_{6,4}$, $\{\infty, 6\}_{6,3}$ with complete mirror vector $(1,1,2)$. We generally take the enumeration of the regular polyhedra for granted and concentrate on the complexes which are not polyhedra.
For the sake of simplicity, whenever we claim uniqueness for a choice of certain elements within a group (or its special group) or of mirrors of such elements, we will usually omit any qualifying statements such as ``up to conjugacy'' or ``up to congruence''. Throughout, these qualifications are understood.
Throughout, let $\mathcal{K}$ be an infinite simply flag-transitive regular complex with mirror vector $(1,1)$ and an affinely irreducible symmetry group $G = \langle R_0, R_1, G_2 \rangle$, where the subgroup $G_2$ has order $r\geq 3$.
The isometries $R_0$ and $R_1$ are half-turns whose axes, $L_0$ and $L_1$ respectively, either intersect at the center of the base face $F_2$ if $\mathcal{K}$ has finite faces, or do not intersect at all if $\mathcal{K}$ has infinite faces. Their product $R_0 R_1$ is a twist, with a trivial or non-trivial translation component, whose invariant line $L_3$ is perpendicular
to the axes of $R_0$ and $R_1$. The subgroup $G_2$ fixes the line $L_2$ through $F_1$ pointwise, and the generator $S$ of its rotation subgroup is a rotation about $L_2$. Note here that $L_0$ is perpendicular to $L_2$. On the other hand, $L_2$ cannot be perpendicular to $L_1$ or parallel to $L_3$, since otherwise $F_2$ would necessarily have to be a linear apeirogon. For the same reason, $L_0$ and $L_1$ are not parallel. Moreover, since $R_1$ does not fix $F_1$, its axis $L_1$ cannot coincide with $L_2$.
It is convenient to assume that $o$ is the base vertex of $\mathcal{K}$. Then $o$ is fixed by $R_1$ and each element of $G_2$. It follows that the vertex-figure group $\langle R_1, G_2 \rangle$ of $\mathcal{K}$ at $o$ is a (possibly proper) subgroup of the special group $G_*$. Recall that, if $R$ is any element of $G$ or $L$ is any line, we let $R'$ denote the image of $R$ in $G_*$ and $L'$ the translate of $L$ through~$o$.
The special group $G_*$ is a finite irreducible crystallographic subgroup of $\mathcal{O}(3)$ that contains the three distinct rotations $R_0'$, $R_1$ and $S$, whose axes $L_0'$, $L_1$ and $L_2$ are positioned in such a way that $L_2$ is perpendicular to $L_0'$ but not to $L_1$. This immediately rules out the groups $[3, 3]^+$, $[3, 3]^*$ and $[3, 3]$ as special groups of $G$. In fact, the rotation subgroup of these groups is $[3, 3]^+$ in each case; however, then the axis of a non-involutory rotation like $S$ could not be perpendicular to the axis of an involutory rotation like $R_{0}'$. Hence $G_*$ is either $[3, 4]^+$ if $G_2$ is cyclic, or $[3, 4]$ if $G_2$ is dihedral.
We now proceed to determine the regular complexes with mirror vector $(1, 1)$. As the reference figure for the action of $G_*$ we take the cube $C$ with vertices $(\pm 1, \pm 1, \pm 1)$.\\[-.3in]
\subsection{The four complexes derived through $\lambda_1$}
\label{lam}
First we employ the operation $\lambda_1$ described in (\ref{optwo}) and Lemma~\ref{appthree} to obtain those complexes for which the axis of $R_1$ is contained in a mirror of a plane reflection in $G_2$ (this corresponds to case (A) in \cite[\S 6.1]{pelsch}). According to Lemma~\ref{appthree} applied with $k=1$, we need to apply $\lambda_1$ to those regular, simply flag-transitive complexes with mirror vector $(1, 2)$ for which the mirror of the corresponding plane reflection $R_1$ is perpendicular to the mirror of a plane reflection in the corresponding group $G_2$. Hence, using the enumeration of \cite[Sections 5.2, 6.2]{pelsch} and in particular the notation of equations (6.3), (6.5), (6.6) and (6.7) of \cite{pelsch}, we arrive at the regular complexes\\[-.25in]
\begin{equation}
\label{thekones}
\begin{array}{rl}
\mathcal{K}_1(1, 1) \;:=&\!\! \mathcal{K}_3(1, 2)^{\,\lambda_1 (\hat{R}_2 \widetilde{R}_2 \hat{R}_2)},\\
\mathcal{K}_2(1, 1) \;:=&\!\! \mathcal{K}_5(1, 2)^{\,\lambda_1 (\widetilde{R}_2)},\\
\mathcal{K}_3(1, 1) \;:=&\!\! \mathcal{K}_6(1, 2)^{\,\lambda_1 (R_2 \hat{R}_2 R_2)},\\
\mathcal{K}_4(1, 1) \;:=&\!\! \mathcal{K}_7(1, 2)^{\,\lambda_1 (\hat{R}_2)},
\end{array}
\end{equation}
all with mirror vector $(1,1)$ and with special group $[3, 4]$. (Recall our convention to label regular complexes with their mirror vectors.) Each new complex has the same twin vertex and the same vertex-figure group (although with new generators) as the original complex, so its edge graph (and in particular, its vertex-set) must be the same as that of the original complex. (Recall from \cite{pelsch} that the vertex $v$ of the base edge distinct from the base vertex is called the {\em twin vertex\/} of the complex.) Similarly, since the element of $G$ that defines $\lambda_1$ belongs to $G_2$ and hence stabilizes the base vertex of the vertex-figure at $o$, the vertex-figure itself remains unchanged under $\lambda_1$, so that the two complexes always have the same vertex-figure at~$o$. Moreover, the (dihedral) subgroup $G_2$ and hence the parameter $r$ remain the same under the operation. The finer geometry of these complexes can be described as follows.
The vertex-set of $\mathcal{K}_1(1, 1)$ is $\Lambda_{(a, a, a)}$. The faces are helices over triangles and their axes are parallel to the diagonals of $C$. There are six helical faces around each edge, permuted under a dihedral group $G_2=D_3$; thus $r=6$. Note that every edge $e$ of $\mathcal{K}_1(1, 1)$ is a main diagonal of a cube $C_e$ in the cubical tessellation with vertex-set $a\mathbb{Z}^3$. With this in mind, for any three, but no four, consecutive edges, $e,f,g$ (say), of any helical face, the three corresponding cubes $C_e$, $C_f$ and $C_g$ share an edge whose vertices are not vertices of this helical face. Moreover, for any four consecutive edges $e,f,g,h$ of a helical face, the two edges shared by $C_e$, $C_f$, $C_g$ and $C_f$, $C_g$, $C_h$, respectively, are adjacent edges (of a square face) of $C_f$. Each of the six helical faces of $\mathcal{K}_1(1,1)$ around an edge $e$ with vertices $u,v$ is now determined by one of the six edges of $C_e$ that do not contain $u$ or $v$. The vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_1(1, 1)$ at $o$ coincides with the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_3(1, 2)$ at $o$, and hence is the double-edge graph of the cube with vertices $(\pm a, \pm a, \pm a)$. The vertex-figure group is $[3, 4]$.
The vertex-set of $\mathcal{K}_2(1, 1)$ is $a\mathbb{Z}^3 \setminus ((0, 0, a) + \Lambda_{(a, a, a)})$ and the faces again are helices over triangles with their axes parallel to the diagonals of $C$. Now the faces are those Petrie polygons of the cubical tessellation of $\mathbb{E}^3$ with vertex-set $a\mathbb{Z}^3$ that have no vertex in $(0, 0, a) + \Lambda_{(a, a, a)}$; thus any two, but no three, consecutive edges belong to the same square face, and any three, but no four, consecutive edges belong to the same cubical tile, of the cubical tessellation. There are four helical faces around an edge of $\mathcal{K}_2(1,1)$, so $r=4$ (and $G_2=D_2$). As for the original complex $\mathcal{K}_5(1, 2)$, the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_2(1, 1)$ at $o$ is the (planar) double-edge graph of the square with vertices $(\pm a, 0, 0)$ and $(0, \pm a, 0)$, and the vertex-figure group is $[4, 2] \cong D_4 \times C_2$.
The vertex-set of $\mathcal{K}_3(1, 1)$ is $a\mathbb{Z}^3$ and the faces again are helices over triangles with their axes parallel to the diagonals of $C$. Now the faces are all the Petrie polygons of the cubical tessellation of $\mathbb{E}^3$ with vertex-set $a\mathbb{Z}^3$, so $\mathcal{K}_3(1,1)$ contains $\mathcal{K}_2(1, 1)$ as a subcomplex. There are eight helical faces around an edge, so $r=8$ (and $G_2=D_4$). The vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_3(1, 1)$ at $o$ is the double-edge graph of the octahedron with vertices $(\pm a, 0, 0), (0, \pm a, 0), (0, 0, \pm a)$, and the vertex-figure group is $[3, 4]$.
The vertex-set of $\mathcal{K}_4(1, 1)$ is $\Lambda_{(2a, 2a, 0)} \cup ((a, -a, a) + \Lambda_{(2a, 2a, 0)})$, and the edges are main diagonals of cubes of the cubical tessellation of $\mathbb{E}^3$ with vertex-set $a \mathbb{Z}^3$. Now the faces are helices over squares with their axes parallel to the coordinate axes; in particular, the axis of the base face $F_2$ is parallel to the $y$-axis and the projection of $F_2$ along its axis onto the $xz$-plane is the square with vertices $(0, 0, 0)$, $(a, 0, a)$, $(0, 0, 2a)$ and $(-a, 0, a)$. Each edge belongs to six helical faces (that is, $r=6$ and $G_2=D_3$), and these have the property that each coordinate direction of $\mathbb{E}^3$ occurs exactly twice among the directions of their axes. The vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_4(1, 1)$ at $o$ is the double-edge graph of the tetrahedron with vertices $(a, -a, a)$, $(-a, a, a)$, $(a, a, -a)$, $(-a, -a, -a)$. The vertex-figure group is $[3, 3]$. Note that the common edge graph of $\mathcal{K}_4(1,1)$ and $\mathcal{K}_7(1,2)$ is the famous {\em diamond net\/} modeling the diamond crystal (see \cite{pelsch}, as well as \cite[p. 241]{arp} and \cite[pp. 117,118]{wells}).
\subsection{The five complexes not derived through $\lambda_1$}
\label{notlam}
Next we enumerate the regular complexes with mirror vector $(1,1)$ for which either $G_2$ is cyclic, or $G_2$ is dihedral and the axis of $R_1$ is not contained in a mirror of a plane reflection in $G_2$. Now we cannot apply any of the operations $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ but instead must deal with the geometry directly. Recall that $L_3$ and $L_{3}'$ denote the axes of $R_0 R_1$ and $R_0'R_1$, respectively. We break our discussion into three cases, I, II and III respectively, according as $L_3'$ is a coordinate axis, $L_3'$ is parallel to a face diagonal of $C$, or $L_3'$ is parallel to a main diagonal of $C$. (Recall here that $G_*=[3,4]^+$ or $[3,4]$.) In each case there is just one choice for $L_{3}'$ (up to conjugacy), namely the line through $o$ with direction vector $(1,0,0)$, $(0, 1, 1)$, or $(1, 1, 1)$ (say), respectively.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Case I: $L_3'$ is a coordinate axis}
\medskip
Suppose $R_0'R_1$ is a rotation whose axis $L_3'$ is the $x$-axis. Then there are two possible choices for each of the rotation axes $L_0'$ of $R_0'$ and $L_1$ of $R_1$ (perpendicular to $L_3'$), namely a coordinate axis or a line through the midpoints of a pair of antipodal edges of $C$. If $L_0'$ and $L_1$ are perpendicular, then $R_0' R_1$ must be a half-turn and the faces of $\mathcal{K}$ must be zigzags. However, as we shall see, this case will not actually occur under our assumptions. On the other hand, if $L_0'$ and $L_1$ are inclined at an angle $\pi/4$, then $R_0' R_1$ is a $4$-fold rotation and the faces of $\mathcal{K}$ are helices over squares.
\medskip
\noindent{\em Case Ia: $L_0'$ and $L_1$ both are coordinate axes}
\medskip
We can rule out this possibility on the following grounds. Suppose $L_0'$ is the $y$-axis and $L_1$ is the $z$-axis. Since the rotation axis $L_2$ of $S$ must be orthogonal to $L_0'$ but not to $L_1$, the only possible choice for $L_2$ is the line through $o$ and $(1, 0, 1)$. This immediately implies that $S$ is a half-turn and that $G_2$ is the dihedral group generated by the reflections in the $xz$-plane and the plane $x=z$. (Bear in mind that $r\geq 3$.) However, the $xz$-plane is invariant under $R_0'$, $R_1$ and $G_2$, and hence under all of $G_*$, contradicting our assumption of irreducibility of $G$. Therefore this case cannot occur.
\medskip
\noindent{\em Case Ib: $L_0'$ is a coordinate axis and $L_1$ is parallel to a face diagonal of $C$}
\medskip
Suppose $L_0'$ is the $y$-axis and $L_1$ is the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, 1)$. Now there are two possibilities for the rotation axis $L_2$ for $S$, namely the $z$-axis or the line through $o$ and $(1, 0, 1)$.
We first eliminate the possibility that $L_2$ is the $z$-axis. When $L_2$ is the $z$-axis, the group $G_2$ can be cyclic of order $4$ or dihedral. We first rule out the latter possibility as follows. Bear in mind that $L_1$ does not lie in the mirror of a plane reflection in $G_2$. Now if $G_2$ is dihedral, then it cannot contain the reflection in the $yz$-plane and must necessarily have order $4$ and be generated by the reflections in the planes $x=y$ and $x=-y$. However, then Lemma~\ref{cubelemma} shows that the generators $R_1$ and $G_2$ of the vertex-figure group must already generate the full special group, $[3, 4]$, implying that $G_2$ must actually have order $8$, contradicting our earlier claim. Thus $G_2$ cannot be dihedral.
Next we consider the possibility that $G_2$ is cyclic of order $4$ (and $L_2$ is the $z$-axis). Since $L_0'$, $L_1$ and $L_2$ (and hence $F_1$) are coplanar, $L_0$ and $L_1$ are also coplanar and intersect at an angle $\pi/4$. Therefore the base face $F_2$ of $\mathcal{K}$ must be a planar square. Since now all generators of $G$ are rotations, $G$ consists only of proper (orientation preserving) isometries. This suggests that $G$ is the even subgroup (of all proper isometries) of the symmetry group of the cubical tessellation in $\mathbb{E}^3$. This can indeed be verified by the following argument (or alternatively by Wythoff's construction). Let $T_0$, $T_1$, $T_2$, $T_3$ denote the distinguished plane reflections generating the symmetry group $[4,3,4]$ of the cubical tessellation $\{4,3,4\}$ of $\mathbb{E}^3$, chosen in such a way that $T_0 T_3$, $T_1 T_3$ and $T_2 T_3$ coincide with $R_0$, $R_1$ and $S$, respectively. Since these three elements generate the rotation subgroup of $[4,3,4]$ we conclude that $\mathcal{K}$ would have to coincide with the $2$-skeleton of $\{4, 3, 4\}$, which is impossible as $\mathcal{K}$ is simply flag-transitive. Thus $G_2$ cannot be cyclic of order $4$, completing our argument that in Case Ib the rotation axis $L_2$ of $S$ cannot be the $z$-axis
We now analyze the case when $L_2$ is the line through $o$ and $(1, 0, 1)$. In this case the twin vertex has the form $(a, 0, a)$ for some $a \ne 0$. Since $r\geq 3$, the group $G_2$ must necessarily be dihedral of order $4$, generated by the reflections $R_2$ in the plane $x=z$ and $\hat{R}_2$ in the $xz$-plane. Then $G$ has generators $R_0$, $R_1$, $R_2$ and $\hat{R}_2$ given by
\begin{equation}
\label{genk511}
\begin{array}{rccl}
R_0\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-x,y,-z) + (a,0,a),\\
R_{1}\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-x,z,y),\\
R_2\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (z,y,x),\\
\hat{R}_2\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (x,-y,z),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
with $a \ne 0$ (see Figure~\ref{k511}). This determines a new regular complex, denoted $\mathcal{K}_5(1, 1)$, with faces given by helices over squares and with four faces around each edge (that is, $r=4$ and $G_2=D_2$)
The vertex-set of $\mathcal{K}_5(1, 1)$ is $\Lambda_{(a, a, 0)}$. The helical faces have their axes parallel to a coordinate axis, and each coordinate axis occurs. The set of faces of $\mathcal{K}_5(1, 1)$ splits into three classes each determined by the coordinate axis that specifies the direction for the axes of its members. The faces in each class constitute four copies of the (blended) apeirohedron $\{4,4\} \#\{\infty\}$ (see \cite[p. 222]{arp}). From any copy in the class determined by the $x$-direction we can obtain another copy through translation by $(2a,0,0)$; the remaining two copies then are obtained by rotating the first two copies by $\pi/2$ about the axis of a helical face. The situation is similar for the other two classes. Thus $\mathcal{K}_5(1, 1)$ is a regular complex that can be viewed as a compound of twelve such apeirohedra, four for each coordinate direction. The vertex-figure group of $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$ is the full octahedral group (see Lemma~\ref{cubelemma}), and the vertex-figures are isomorphic to the edge graph of the cuboctahedron.
Observe here that the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$ at $o$ induces a non-standard realization of the cuboctahedron with equilateral triangular and skew square faces, and with vertices $(\pm 1, \pm 1, 0)$, $(\pm 1, 0, \pm 1)$ and $(0, \pm 1, \pm 1)$ (say). The four vertices adjacent to $(1, 1, 0)$ are $(-1, 0, 1)$, $(0, -1, 1)$, $(-1, 0, -1)$ and $(0, -1, -1)$; these correspond to the midpoints of the four edges of $C$ sharing a vertex with the edge of $C$ opposite the edge with midpoint $(1, 1, 0)$. A typical triangle has vertices $(1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 0, 1)$ and $(0, -1, -1)$, while a typical square is given by the vertices $(1, 1, 0)$, $(-1, 0, 1)$, $(1, -1, 0)$ and $(-1, 0, -1)$, in that order.
These observations also shed some light on why four copies of $\{4,4\} \#\{\infty\}$ per coordinate direction are needed to cover all helical faces of $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$ with this direction. In fact, a single copy of this apeirohedron accounts for just one square of the cuboctahedral vertex-figure, so a pair of opposite squares requires two such copies; on the other hand, the base vertex $o$ lies in just one half of the helical faces of $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$ with a given direction, with the other half accounting for the two additional copies of the apeirohedron.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm, height=7cm]{k511.pdf}
\caption{The special group of the complex $\mathcal{K}_{5}(1, 1)$}\label{k511}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\medskip
\noindent{\em Case Ic: $L_0'$ is parallel to a face diagonal of $C$ and $L_1$ is a coordinate axis}
\medskip
Suppose $L_0'$ is the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, 1)$, and $L_1$ is the $y$-axis. Then there are two possible choices for $L_2$, namely the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, -1)$, or the line through $o$ and $(1, 1, -1)$. However, if $L_2$ is the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, -1)$, then $S$ is a half-turn and $G_2$ is the dihedral group generated by the reflections in the $yz$-plane and the plane $y=-z$, which contradicts our previous hypothesis that the axis of $R_1$ not be contained in a mirror of a plane reflection in $G_2$. Therefore we may assume that $L_2$ is the line through $o$ and $(1, 1, -1)$ and hence that the twin vertex has the form $(a, a, -a)$ with $a \ne 0$.
Now $S$ is a $3$-fold rotation and the subgroup $G_2$ must be cyclic of order $3$. In fact, the axis $L_1$ is contained in the plane $x=-z$, which would become the mirror of a plane reflection if $G_2$ was dihedral of order $6$. It follows that $G$ has generators $R_0$, $R_1$ and $S$ given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rccl}
R_0\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-x,z,y) + (a,a,-a),\\
R_{1}\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-x,y,-z),\\
S\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (y,-z,-x),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
with $a \ne 0$ (see Figure~\ref{k611}). These generators yield a regular complex, denoted $\mathcal{K}_6(1, 1)$, which again has faces given by helices over squares but now with three faces surrounding each edge (that is, $r=3$ and $G_2=C_3$).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm, height=7cm]{k611.pdf}
\caption{The special group of the complex $\mathcal{K}_{6}(1, 1)$}\label{k611}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The vertex- and edge-sets of $\mathcal{K}_6(1, 1)$ coincide with those of $\mathcal{K}_4(1, 1)$, respectively; in particular, the edge graphs of $\mathcal{K}_6(1, 1)$ and $\mathcal{K}_4(1, 1)$ are the same and form a diamond net. In fact, $\mathcal{K}_6(1, 1)$ is a subcomplex of $\mathcal{K}_4(1, 1)$ made up of only half the faces of the latter. The group $G$ consists of all proper isometries in the group of $\mathcal{K}_4(1, 1)$, and $G_2$ is the cyclic subgroup of the corresponding (dihedral) group of $\mathcal{K}_4(1,1)$. Thus, in a sense, the faces of $\mathcal{K}_6(1, 1)$ are exactly the right-handed (say) helices of $\mathcal{K}_4(1, 1)$. Now each coordinate axis is parallel to the axis of just one helix containing a given edge of $\mathcal{K}_6(1, 1)$. The vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_6(1, 1)$ at $o$ is the (simple) edge-graph of the tetrahedron with vertices $(a, -a, a)$, $(-a, a, a)$, $(a, a, -a)$, $(-a, -a, -a)$. The vertex-figure group is $[3, 3]^+$.
\medskip
\noindent{\em Case Id: $L_0'$ and $L_1$ both are parallel to face diagonals of $C$}
\medskip
We show that this case cannot contribute a regular complex. Suppose $L_0'$ is the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, 1)$, and $L_1$ is the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, -1)$. Now there is just one choice for $L_2$, namely the line through $o$ and $(-1, 1, -1)$, and then $S$ is a $3$-fold rotation. Moreover, $G_2$ must be cyclic of order $3$. In fact, if $G_2$ was dihedral, the plane $y=-z$ would become the mirror of a reflection in $G_2$ and contain the axis $L_1$ of $R_1$, contrary to our previous hypothesis on $G_2$ and $L_1$.
Since the lines $L_0'$ and $L_1$ are perpendicular, the faces are planar zigzags. All three generators $R_0$, $R_1$ and $S$ of $G$ are again proper isometries. We claim that now $\mathcal{K}$ must be the $2$-skeleton of the regular $4$-apeirotope
\[\mathcal{P} := \{\{\infty, 4\}_4 \# \{\}, \{4, 3\}\}\]
in $\mathbb{E}^3$; however, this is impossible as $\mathcal{K}$ is simply flag-transitive. In fact, let $T_0, T_1, T_2, T_3$ denote the distinguished generators of the symmetry group $G(\mathcal{P})$ of $\mathcal{P}$, where $T_0$ is the point reflection in $\frac{1}{2}v$, with $v = (-a, a, -a)$, and the distinguished generators $T_1, T_2, T_3$ for the cube $\{4,3\}$ (the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{P}$) are chosen in such a way that $T_0 T_3 = R_0$, $T_1 T_3 = R_1$ and $T_2 T_3 = S$. Since these three rotations generate the even subgroup of $G(\mathcal{P})$, it follows that $\mathcal{K}$ must necessarily be the $2$-skeleton of $\mathcal{P}$. Thus Case Id does not yield a (simply flag-transitive) regular complex.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Case II: $L_3'$ is parallel to a face diagonal of $C$}
\medskip
We shall see that Case II does not contribute a regular complex (with a simply flag-transitive group). Suppose $R_0' R_1$ is a rotation whose axis $L_3'$ is the line passing through the midpoints of a pair of antipodal edges of $C$, the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, 1)$ (say). Then $R_0' R_1$ must be a half-turn and the faces of $\mathcal{K}$ must be zigzags.
There there are two possible choices for the axis $L_0'$ of the half-turn $R_0'$, namely the $x$-axis or the line through $o$ and $(0,1,-1)$. In each case $L_1$ must necessarily be perpendicular to $L_0$.
\medskip
\noindent{\em Case IIa: $L_0'$ is the $x$-axis}
\medskip
If $L_0'$ is the $x$-axis, then $L_1$ must necessarily be the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, -1)$. In this situation, the rotation axis $L_2$ of $S$ must be a coordinate axis, the $y$-axis (say), and the subgroup $G_2$ must be cyclic of order $4$ or dihedral of order $4$ or $8$. We can rule out the possibility that $G_2$ is dihederal. In fact, if $G_2$ was dihedral, then since the $yz$-plane contains $L_1$, the group $G_2$ would necessarily have order $4$ and be generated by the reflections in the planes $x = \pm z$; however, this would immediately force the vertex-figure group to be the full special group $[3, 4]$ and then the subgroup $G_2$ to have order $8$ (see Lemma~\ref{cubelemma}).
Therefore we may assume that $G_2$ is cyclic of order $4$. Since then $G$ is generated by rotations and $\mathcal{K}$ has planar faces, we can proceed as in Case Id and establish that $\mathcal{K}$ must be the $2$-skeleton of the regular $4$-apeirotope
\[\mathcal{P} := \{\{\infty, 3\}_6 \# \{\}, \{3, 4\}\}.\]
In fact, the distinguished generators $T_0, T_1, T_2, T_3$ of $G(\mathcal{P})$ can once again be chosen in such a way that $T_0 T_3 = R_0$, $T_1 T_3 = R_1$ and $T_2 T_3 = S$. Hence $\mathcal{K}$ must be the $2$-skeleton of $\mathcal P$, which we know to be impossible.
\medskip
\noindent{\em Case IIb: $L_0'$ is the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, -1)$}
\medskip
If $L_0'$ is the line through $o$ and $(0, 1, -1)$, then $L_1$ and $L_2$ must necessarily be the $x$-axis and the line through $o$ and $(1, 1, +1)$ respectively. If $G_2$ was dihedral, then, contrary to our earlier hypothesis, the plane $y = z$ would become the mirror of a reflection in $G_2$ containing $L_1$. Hence $G_2$ must be cyclic of order $3$, so again $G$ is generated by rotations. Now $\mathcal{K}$ must be the $2$-skeleton of the regular $4$-apeirotope
\[\mathcal{P} := \{\{\infty, 3\}_6 \# \{\}, \{3, 3\}\},\]
once again by the same arguments involving a choice of generators of $G(\mathcal{P})$.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Case III: $L_3'$ is the line through a main diagonal of $C$}
\medskip
Suppose $R_0' R_1$ is a rotation whose axis $L_3'$ is the line through a main diagonal of $C$, the line through the vertices $\pm (1, 1, 1)$ (say). Then we may assume that $R_0'$ is the half-turn about the line $L_{0}'$ through $o$ and $(1, -1, 0)$, and that $R_1$ is the half-turn about the line $L_1$ through $o$ and $(1, 0, -1)$. It follows that $R_0' R_1$ is a $3$-fold rotation and that the faces of $\mathcal{K}$ are helices over triangles. We now have three choices for the axis $L_2$ of $S$, namely the $z$-axis, the line through $o$ and $(1, 1, 0)$, or the line through $o$ and $(1, 1, -1)$.
\medskip
\noindent{\em Case IIIa: $L_2$ is the $z$-axis}
\medskip
If $L_2$ is the $z$-axis, then the twin vertex has the form $(0, 0, a)$ for some $a \ne 0$. We already discussed the case, ruled out here by our previous assumptions, that $G_2$ is a dihedral group with the $xz$-plane as a reflection mirror that contains $L_1$; this gave us the complexes $\mathcal{K}_2(1, 1)$
when $G_2$ was dihedral of order $4$, and $\mathcal{K}_3(1, 1)$ when $G_2$ was dihedral of order $8$. There is just one other way for $G_2$ to be dihedral, and this can be eliminated as follows. It occurs when $G_2$ is generated by the reflections in the planes $x = \pm y$ and hence is of order $4$. However, then the vertex-figure group is the full special group $[3, 4]$, forcing $G_2$ to have order $8$ rather than $4$ (see again Lemma~\ref{cubelemma}).
This only leaves the possibility that $G_2$ is cyclic of order $4$. Then the generators $R_0$, $R_1$ and $S$ of $G$ are given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rccl}
R_0\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-y, -x, -z) + (0,0,a),\\
R_{1}\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-z, -y, -x),\\
S\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-y, x, z),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for some $a \ne 0$ (see Figure~\ref{k711}). Now we obtain a regular complex, denoted $\mathcal{K}_7(1, 1)$, with helices over triangles as faces, four surrounding each edge (that is, $r=4$ and $G_{2}=C_4$).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm, height=7cm]{k711.pdf}
\caption{The special group of the complex $\mathcal{K}_{7}(1, 1)$}\label{k711}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The edge graph of $\mathcal{K}_7(1, 1)$ coincides with the edge graph of $\mathcal{K}_3(1, 1)$. The group of $\mathcal{K}_7(1,1)$ consists of all proper isometries in the group of $\mathcal{K}_3(1, 1)$, and its subgroup $G_2$ is just the cyclic subgroup of the corresponding group for $\mathcal{K}_3(1,1)$. Hence the faces of $\mathcal{K}_7(1, 1)$ are just the right-handed (say) Petrie polygons of the cubical tessellation of $\mathbb{E}^3$ with vertex-set $a\mathbb{Z}^3$. The vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_7(1, 1)$ at $o$ is the (simple) edge graph of the octahedron with vertices $(\pm a, 0, 0), (0, \pm a, 0), (0, 0, \pm a)$. The vertex-figure group is $[3, 4]^+$.
\medskip
\noindent{\em Case IIIb: $L_2$ is the line through $o$ and $(1, 1, 0)$}
\medskip
If $L_2$ is the line through $o$ and $(1, 1, 0)$, the twin vertex has the form $(a, a, 0)$ for some $a \ne 0$. The group $G_2$ must be dihedral of order $4$ (recall that $r\geq 3$), generated by the reflections $R_2$ and $\hat{R}_2$ in the $xy$-plane and the plane $x=y$, respectively. Then $G$ is generated by $R_0$, $R_1$, $R_2$ and $\hat{R}_2$ given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rccl}
R_0\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-y, -x, -z) + (a, a, 0),\\
R_{1}\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-z, -y, -x),\\
R_2\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (x, y, -z),\\
\hat{R}_2\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (y, x, z),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for some $a \ne 0$ (see Figure~\ref{k811}). This leads to a new regular complex, denoted $\mathcal{K}_8(1, 1)$, which has
helices over triangles as faces such that four surround each edge (that is, $r=4$ and $G_2=D_2$).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm, height=7cm]{k811.pdf}
\caption{The special group of the complex $\mathcal{K}_{8}(1, 1)$}\label{k811}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The vertex-set of $\mathcal{K}_8(1, 1)$ is $\Lambda_{(a, a, 0)}$. Now the edges are face diagonals of square faces of the cubical tessellation of $\mathbb{E}^3$ with vertex-set $a \mathbb{Z}^3$. Any three consecutive edges $e_1$, $e_2$ and $e_3$ of a face of $\mathcal{K}_8(1, 1)$ can be seen to lie in a $2a\!\times\! 2a\!\times\! 2a$ cube $Q$ formed from eight cubes of this tessellation. The middle edge $e_2$ joins the midpoints of two adjacent faces $f_1$ and $f_2$ of $Q$, while the first edge $e_1$ and the last edge $e_3$, respectively, lie in $f_1$ and $f_2$ and join the midpoints of $f_1$ and $f_2$ to opposite vertices $u$ and $w$ of $Q$. To construct the entire
helical face we only need to translate $e_1, e_2, e_3$ by integral multiples of the vector $u-w$. The vertex-figure of
$\mathcal{K}_8(1, 1)$ is isomorphic to the (simple) edge graph of the cuboctahedron (inducing the same non-standard realization of the cuboctahedron as for the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_5(1, 1)$). The vertex-figure group is $[3, 4]$.
\medskip
\noindent{\em Case IIIc: $L_2$ is the line through $o$ and $(1, 1, -1)$}
\medskip
Finally, if $L_2$ is the line through $o$ and $(1, 1, -1)$, then the twin vertex has the form $(a, a, -a)$ for some $a \ne 0$. Now observe that the plane $x=-z$ contains both $L_1$ and $L_2$. It follows that, if $G_2$ was dihedral of order $6$, then $L_1$ would necessarily lie in the mirror of a plane reflection of $G_2$; in fact, this possibility just yielded the complex $\mathcal{K}_1(1, 1)$ that we described earlier. On the other hand, if $G_2$ is cyclic of order $3$, then $G$ is generated by the proper isometries
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rccl}
R_0\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-y, -x, -z) + (a, a, 0),\\
R_{1}\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-z, -y, -x),\\
S\colon & (x,y,z) &\mapsto & (-z, x, -y),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for some $a \ne 0$ (see~Figure \ref{k911}). The resulting regular complex, denoted $\mathcal{K}_9(1, 1)$, has helices over triangles as faces such that three surround each edge (that is, $r=3$ and $G_2=C_3$).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm, height=7cm]{k911.pdf}
\caption{The special group of the complex $\mathcal{K}_{9}(1, 1)$}\label{k911}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Just like $\mathcal{K}_6(1, 1)$ and $\mathcal{K}_7(1, 1)$, this new regular complex $\mathcal{K}_9(1, 1)$ has only right-handed (say) helices as faces. Now the faces are given by all the right-handed helical faces of $\mathcal{K}_1(1, 1)$. In particular, the edge graphs of $\mathcal{K}_9(1, 1)$ and $\mathcal{K}_1(1, 1)$ are the same. The group of $\mathcal{K}_9(1, 1)$ consists of the proper isometries in the group of $\mathcal{K}_1(1, 1)$, and its subgroup $G_2$ is just the cyclic subgroup of the corresponding group for $K_1(1,1)$. The vertex-figure is the (simple) edge graph of the cube with vertices $(\pm a, \pm a, \pm a)$ and the vertex-figure group is $[3, 4]^+$.
\bigskip
In conclusion, our discussion in Sections~\ref{lam} and \ref{notlam} establishes the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
Apart from polyhedra, the complexes $\mathcal{K}_1(1, 1), \dots, \mathcal{K}_9(1, 1)$ described in this section are the only simply flag-transitive regular polygonal complexes with mirror vector $(1, 1)$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Complexes with mirror vector~$(0,k)$ and dihedral $G_2$}
\label{mir0k}
We begin with the following lemma about regular complexes with face mirrors, which is also of independent interest.
\begin{lemma}
\label{halfturn}
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be a regular complex with face mirrors. Then the subgroups $G_0(\mathcal{L})$ and $G_{1}(\mathcal{L})$ of $G(\mathcal{L})$ each contain exactly one half-turn (with its axis contained in, or perpendicular to, the plane of the base face). Moreover, each either contains one pair of commuting plane reflections (with their mirrors given by the plane through the base face, and the perpendicular plane meeting the first in the axis of the half-turn), or one plane reflection (with its mirror given by the plane through the base face) and one point reflection (with center contained in the base face).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall from \cite[\S 3]{pelsch} that $\mathcal{L}$ has planar faces and that $G(\mathcal{L})$ has flag-stabilizers of order $2$. In particular, the stabilizer of the base flag is generated by the reflection $R$ in the plane through the base face. Now, since $G_0(\mathcal{L})\cong C_{2}\times C_{2} \cong G_1(\mathcal{L})$ and $R$ is an improper isometry contained in $G_0(\mathcal{L})$ and $G_1(\mathcal{L})$, there is just one non-trivial proper isometry in each of $G_0(\mathcal{L})$ and $G_1(\mathcal{L})$. Thus each of these subgroups contains a unique half-turn. The other two involutions in each subgroup commute and their product is this half-turn; then this only leaves the two possibilities described. (An alternative proof of the lemma could be obtained from \cite[Theorem 4.1]{pelsch} and would provide more detailed information about $G_{0}(\mathcal{L})$ or $G_{1}(\mathcal{L})$.)
\end{proof}
Now according to Lemma~\ref{apptwo}, each simply flag-transitive complex $\mathcal{K}$ with mirror vector $(0,k)$ and a dihedral group $G_2$ can be obtained from a regular complex $\mathcal{L}$ which either has face mirrors or is simply flag-transitive with mirror vector $(1,k)$, by applying to $\mathcal{L}$ the operation $\lambda_0$ determined by a plane reflection from $G_2(\mathcal{L})$ with mirror perpendicular to the axis of the (unique) half-turn in $G_0(\mathcal{L})$; here necessarily $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$.
We can first rule out the possibility that the complex $\mathcal{L}$ has face-mirrors. This follows from our next lemma applied with $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$, noting that then $\mathcal{L}'=\mathcal{K}$ would also have face mirrors, which contradicts our assumptions.
\begin{lemma}\label{facemirlambda01}
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be a regular complex with face mirrors, and let $R_0$ be the half-turn in $G_0(\mathcal{L})$. Suppose $G_2(\mathcal{L})$ contains a plane reflection $R_2$ whose mirror is perpendicular to the axis of $R_0$. Let $\mathcal{L}'$ denote the regular complex obtained from $\mathcal{L}$ by the operation $\lambda_0(R_2)$ associated with $R_2$. Then $\mathcal{L}'$ also has face mirrors.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $L$ denote the plane through the base face $F_2$ of $\mathcal{L}$. Then the axis $L_1$ of the unique half-turn $R_1$ in $G_1(\mathcal{L})$ lies in $L$, since otherwise $F_2$ would be a linear apeirogon. Also, the mirrors of the two plane reflections in $G_1(\mathcal{L})$ are $L$ and the plane through $L_1$ perpendicular to $L$. In particular, $G_1(\mathcal{L})$ leaves $L$ invariant. Furthermore, the mirror of the point reflection $R_0 R_2$ is the midpoint of the base edge $F_1$, which is also contained in $L$. Since the symmetries of $\mathcal{L}$ are also symmetries of $\mathcal{L}'$, the reflection in $L$ is also a symmetry of $\mathcal{L}'$.
Now observe that the complex $\mathcal{L}'$ can be obtained from Wythoff's construction with the same initial vertex as for $\mathcal{L}$, namely the base vertex $F_0$ of $\mathcal{L}$, which also lies in $L$. Since the vertices of the base face $F_2'$ of $\mathcal{L}'$ are just the images of $F_0$ under the group generated by $R_0 R_2$ and $R_1$, the face $F_2'$ must entirely lie in $L$ and hence be planar. On the other hand, the reflection in $L$ is a symmetry of $\mathcal{L}'$. Thus $\mathcal{L}'$ also has face mirrors.
\end{proof}
Thus, in order to enumerate the simply flag-transitive complexes $\mathcal{K}$ with mirror vector $(0,k)$ and a dihedral subgroup $G_2$, it is sufficient to apply the operation $\lambda_0$ to the simply flag-transitive complexes $\mathcal{L}$ with mirror vector $(1,k)$ and with a dihedral subgroup $G_2(\mathcal{L})$ containing a plane reflection with mirror perpendicular to the axis of the half-turn $R_0$ in $G_0(\mathcal{L})$. However, when $\lambda_0$ is applied to a complex $\mathcal{L}$ of this kind, the resulting regular complex $\mathcal{L}^{\lambda_0}$ can actually have face-mirrors and hence be discarded for our present enumeration. The following lemma, applied with $\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{L}^{\lambda_0}$, describes a scenario when this will occur.
\begin{lemma}\label{facemirr0k}
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be a regular complex with a dihedral group $G_2$ such that $G_0$ contains a point reflection and $G_1$ contains a line or plane reflection fixing the mirror of a plane reflection in $G_2$. Then $\mathcal{K}$ has face mirrors.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The base face $F_2$ of $\mathcal{K}$ can be obtained by Wythoff's construction from the orbit of the base vertex $F_0$ under the subgroup generated by the point reflection $R_0$ in $G_0$ and the line or plane reflection $R_1$ in $G_1$ that fixes the mirror $L$ of a plane reflection in $G_2$. Since $R_0$ also fixes $L$, this subgroup must preserve $L$. Therefore $F_2$ must lie in $L$ and the reflection in $L$ must stabilize the base flag. Thus $\mathcal{K}$ has face mirrors.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Complexes with mirror vector~$(0,1)$ and dihedral $G_2$}
\label{k01}
We now appeal to our enumeration of the simply flag-transitive polygonal complexes $\mathcal{K}$ with mirror vector $(1,1)$ in Section~\ref{mirr11} to determine all simply flag-transitive regular polygonal complexes $\mathcal{K}$ with mirror vector $(0,1)$ and a dihedral subgroup $G_2$. This is the case $(0,k)$ for $k=1$.
First note that if $\mathcal{L}$ is a simply flag-transitive polygonal complex with mirror vector $(1,1)$ obtained from a simply flag-transitive complex with mirror vector $(1,2)$ by the operation $\lambda_1$ as in Section~\ref{lam}, then the axis of the half-turn $R_1$ for $\mathcal{L}$ must lie in the mirror of a plane reflection in $G_2(\mathcal{L})$, so in particular $R_1$ must leave this mirror invariant. But then Lemma~\ref{facemirr0k} implies that the regular complex obtained from any such complex $\mathcal{L}$ by operation $\lambda_0$ must actually have face mirrors. Therefore, in enumerating simply flag-transitive complexes $\mathcal{K}$ with mirror vector $(0,1)$ we can restrict ourselves to applying $\lambda_0$ to those complexes $\mathcal{L}$ of Section~\ref{mirr11} that were not derived by operation $\lambda_1$, that is, the complexes $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{K}_i(1,1)$ with $i \ge 5$ described in Section~\ref{notlam}.
Moreover, since the complexes $\mathcal{K}_i(1,1)$ with $i=6,7,9$ have a cyclic subgroup $G_2(\mathcal{K}_i(1,1))$, we need only consider the complexes $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$ and $\mathcal{K}_8(1,1)$, which have a corresponding dihedral subgroup isomorphic to $D_2$. However, the mirror arrangements of $R_1$, $R_2$ and $\hat{R}_2$ depicted in Figures~\ref{k511} and~\ref{k811} coincide (up to congruence), so these three generators for $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$ and $\mathcal{K}_8(1,1)$ are the same (up to conjugacy). Moreover, the mirror of $\hat{R}_2$ is perpendicular to the axis of the half-turn $R_0$ in both cases. Consequently, since the fourth generator for $\mathcal{L}^{\lambda_0}$ is just the point reflection in the midpoint of the base edge, we have $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)^{\lambda_0} \cong \mathcal{K}_8(1,1)^{\lambda_0}$; that is, the two regular complexes $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)^{\lambda_0}$ and $\mathcal{K}_8(1,1)^{\lambda_0}$ are the same (up to congruence).
Thus there is just one simply flag-transitive polygonal complex with mirror vector $(0,1)$ and a dihedral group $G_2$, namely
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}(0, 1) \,:=\,\mathcal{K}_5(1, 1)^{\,\lambda_0 (\hat{R}_2)},
\end{equation}
with the notation as in Figure~\ref{k511}.
Just as the original complex $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$, the complex $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ has vertex-set $\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$. Its edges are face diagonals of the standard cubical tessellation with vertex-set $a\mathbb{Z}^3$, and its faces are zigzags, four around each edge. The four faces that surround an edge occur in two pairs of co-planar zigzags. Using the notation of (\ref{genk511}) and Figure~\ref{k511} we observe that the symmetry $R_{0}\hat{R}_2\!\cdot\! R_1$ of the base face $F_2$ which ``shifts" the vertices of $F_2$ by one step along $F_2$, is a glide reflection whose square is the translation by $(2a,-a,a)$. In particular, the base face of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ is given by
\[ F_{2} = \{(-a,a,0), (0,0,0),(a,0,a)\} + \mathbb{Z}\!\cdot\!(2a,-a,a) , \]
where here $(-a,a,0)$ and $(a,0,a)$ are the two vertices of $F_2$ adjacent to the base vertex $(0,0,0)$. The vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ at $o$ coincides with the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$ at $o$, that is, with the edge-graph of a non-standard cuboctahedron with skew square faces.
The complex $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ is closely related to the semiregular tessellation $\mathcal{S}$ of $\mathbb{E}^3$ by regular tetrahedra and octahedra described in Section~\ref{terba}. In fact, the zigzag base face of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ lies in the plane $x+y-z=0$ and is a $2$-zigzag of the regular tessellation of this plane by triangles formed from faces of the $2$-skeleton of $\mathcal{S}$; each $2$-zigzag of this tessellation occurs as a face of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$. Recall here that a $2$-{\em zigzag\/} is an edge-path which leaves a vertex at the second edge from the one by which it entered, but in the oppositely oriented sense at alternate vertices (see \cite[p.\! 196]{arp}). (The notion of a $2$-zigzag of a regular map is not to be confused with that of a zigzag face of a complex.) More generally, each $2$-zigzag of a triangular tessellation induced by $\mathcal{S}$ on the affine hull of a triangular face of $\mathcal{S}$ is a face of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$, and all faces of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ arise in this way. Note that, for any such induced triangular tessellation, the faces of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ that are its $2$-zigzags form the faces in a compound of three regular maps each isomorphic to $\{\infty,3\}_6$; this map could also be obtained from the triangular tessellation by applying, in succession (in any order), the Petrie operation and the second facetting operation of~\cite[p. 196]{arp}.
\subsection{Complexes with mirror vector~$(0,2)$ and dihedral $G_2$}
\label{k02}
Next we determine all simply flag-transitive regular polygonal complexes with mirror vector $(0,2)$ and a dihedral subgroup $G_2$, now appealing to the enumeration of the simply flag-transitive complexes with mirror vector $(1,2)$. From the classification of these complexes with mirror vector $(1,2)$ in \cite[Section 6.2]{pelsch} we know that the generator $R_1$ for the complex $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{K}_i(1,2)$ with $i=3,5,6,7$ is a plane reflection that fixes the mirror of a plane reflection in $G_2$, namely the plane reflection (with mirror perpendicular to that of $R_1$) employed in Section~\ref{lam} to define the operation $\lambda_1$. Now, when $\lambda_0$ is applied to these complexes $\mathcal{L}$, the resulting complex meets the assumptions of Lemma~\ref{facemirr0k} and hence must necessarily have face mirrors. On the other hand, $\mathcal{K}_2(1,2)$ has a cyclic group $G_2(\mathcal{K}_2(1,2))$, so in particular $\lambda_0$ cannot even be applied. Hence, in enumerating the simply flag-transitive complexes $\mathcal{K}$ with mirror vector $(0,2)$ we need only consider the effect of $\lambda_0$ on the complexes $\mathcal{K}_1(1,2)$, $\mathcal{K}_4(1,2)$ and $\mathcal{K}_8(1,2)$.
Next we observe that the complex $\mathcal{K}_4(1,2)^{\lambda_0}$, with $\lambda_{0}:=\lambda_{0}(\widehat{R}_2)$ and $\widehat{R_2}$ as in \cite[eq.~(6.4)]{pelsch}, actually coincides with the $2$-skeleton of the regular $4$-apeirotope $\mathop{\rm apeir} \{3, 4\}$ in $\mathbb{E}^3$ and therefore has face mirrors. In this case $G(\mathcal{K}_4(1,2))$ acts simply flag transitively on the flags of the $2$-skeleton of $\mathop{\rm apeir} \{3,4\}$, and $G(\mathcal{K}_4(1,2)^{\lambda_0})$ is strictly larger than $G(\mathcal{K}_4(1,2))$ (see our discussion after Lemma~\ref{lambda1}). Thus we can exclude this possibility as well. This follows from arguments very similar to those described later in Section~\ref{mirr02cyc}, so we will not include any details here. It suffices to say that the reflection $T_3$ in the $xy$-plane normalizes the distinguished generating subgroups of the symmetry group $G(\mathcal{K}_4(1,2)^{\lambda_0})$ of the complex, and hence is itself a symmetry of the complex not contained in $G(\mathcal{K}_4(1,2)^{\lambda_0})$ but stabilizing the base flag (lying in the $xy$-plane).
We further note that the mirror configurations of $R_1$, $R_2$ and $\hat{R}_2$ shown in Figures 2 and 9 of \cite{pelsch} are the same (up to congruence) so that $\mathcal{K}_1(1,2)^{\lambda_0} \cong \mathcal{K}_8(1,2)^{\lambda_0}$, again with $\lambda_{0}=\lambda_{0}(\hat{R}_2)$ in both cases. Hence, as in the previous subsection there is just one simply flag transitive regular polygonal complex with mirror vector $(0,2)$, namely
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}(0, 2) \, :=\,\mathcal{K}_1(1, 2)^{\,\lambda_0 (\hat{R}_2)},
\end{equation}
with the notation as in Section~6.2 of \cite{pelsch}.
The vertex-set of $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$ is also $\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$, just as for the original complex $K_1(1, 2)$. The edges of $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$ are again face diagonals of the cubical tessellation with vertex-set $a\mathbb{Z}^3$; the faces are zigzags, again four around an edge. As for $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$, the four faces around an edge occur in two pairs of co-planar zigzags. With $R_{0}$, $R_1$ and $\hat{R}_2$ as in \cite[eq. (6.1)]{pelsch}, we now find that the symmetry $R_{0}\hat{R}_2\cdot R_1$ of $F_2$ which ``shifts" the vertices of $F_2$ by one step along $F_2$, is a twist whose square is the translation by $(a,a,0)$. In particular, the base face of $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$ lies in the plane $x+y-z=0$ and is given by
\[ F_{2} = \{(0,a,a), (0,0,0),(a,0,a)\} + \mathbb{Z}\!\cdot\!(a,a,0) , \]
where here $(0,a,a)$ and $(a,0,a)$ are the two vertices of $F_2$ adjacent to the base vertex $(0,0,0)$. The vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$ at $o$ coincides with the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}_1(2,1)$ at $o$, that is, with the edge-graph of a cuboctahedron.
Just like $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$, the complex $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$ is also closely related to the semiregular tessellation $\mathcal{S}$ of $\mathbb{E}^3$ by regular tetrahedra and octahedra described in Section~\ref{terba}. In fact, the zigzag base face of $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$ is a Petrie polygon of the regular tessellation of the plane $x+y-z=0$ by triangles formed from faces of $\mathcal{S}$, and each such Petrie polygon occurs as a face of $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$. Recall here that a {\em Petrie polygon\/} (or $1$-{\em zigzag}) is a path along edges such that any two, but no three, consecutive edges lie in a common face (see \cite[p. 196]{arp}). More generally, each Petrie polygon of a triangular tessellation induced by $\mathcal{S}$ on the affine hull of a triangular face of $\mathcal{S}$ is a face of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$, and all faces of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ arise in this way.
\section{Complexes with mirror vector~$(0,k)$ and cyclic $G_2$}
\label{mirrcyc}
In this section we complete the enumeration of the simply flag-transitive regular complexes with mirror vector $(0,1)$ or $(0,2)$. In Section~\ref{mir0k} we exploited the operation $\lambda_0$ of (\ref{opone}) to deal with the case when $G_{2}$ is dihedral, and derived the corresponding complexes via $\lambda_0$ from suitable regular complexes with mirror vectors $(1,1)$ or $(1,2)$, respectively. Here we concern ourselves with the remaining case when $G_{2}$ is a cyclic group. In particular, we prove that this contributes no new regular complexes to our list. We already know from \cite[Section 7E]{arp} that polyhedra (with an irreducible symmetry group) cannot have mirror vector $(0,1)$ or $(0,2)$.
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be an infinite simply flag-transitive regular complex with mirror vector $(0,k)$, with $k=1$ or $2$, and let its symmetry group $G$ be irreducible. Then $R_0$ is the point reflection in the midpoint of the base edge $F_1$ of $\mathcal{K}$, and $R_{1}$ is a half-turn or plane reflection, depending on whether $k=1$ or $2$, with its mirror passing through the base vertex $F_0$ of $\mathcal{K}$. Now it is immediately clear that $\mathcal{K}$ must have (planar) zigzag faces. In fact, in the special group $G_*$ of $G$ we must have $R_0'=-I$ and hence $(R_{0}'R_{1})^{2}=I$, the identity mapping on $\mathbb{E}^3$, so modulo $G_*$ the basic cyclic symmetry $R_{0}R_{1}$ of the base face $F_2$ of $\mathcal{K}$ has only period $2$. Moreover, since $G_*$ contains the central inversion $-I$, we must have $G_{*}= [3,3]^{*}$ or $[3,4]$.
Now suppose the pointwise stabilizer $G_2$ of $F_1$ is a cyclic group generated by a rotation $S$ of period $r$. We show that all these data together already imply that $\mathcal{K}$ could only be the $2$-skeleton of a regular $4$-apeirotope in $\mathbb{E}^3$ (see (\ref{4apeirotopes})). However, this is impossible, since the latter is not a simply flag-transitive complex (see \cite[Section 4]{pelsch}). More precisely, we will establish that $G$ would have to be a flag-transitive subgroup of index $2$ in the full symmetry group of the $2$-skeleton of a regular $4$-apeirotope. Recall that the eight regular $4$-apeirotopes come in pairs of Petrie-duals, and that the apeirotopes in each pair have the same $2$-skeleton. Thus for our purposes it suffices to consider the apeirotopes $\mathop{\rm apeir} {\mathcal Q}$ with $\mathcal Q$ equal to $\{3,3\}$, $\{3,4\}$ or $\{4,3\}$.
\subsection{Mirror vector $(0,1)$ and cyclic $G_2$}
We begin with the case $k=1$. Suppose $\mathcal{K}$ is a simply flag-transitive regular complex with mirror vector $(0,1)$ and a cyclic group $G_2$ with rotational generator $S$. Recall our standing assumption that $G$ is irreducible. Then $R_0$ is a point reflection in the midpoint of the base edge $F_1$; $R_1$ is a half-turn about a line through the base vertex $F_{0}:=o$; and $S$ is a rotation about a line containing $F_1$. Moreover, as we remarked earlier, the faces of $\mathcal{K}$ are planar zigzags. In particular, this forces the rotation axis of $R_1$ to lie in the plane containing the base face $F_2$ (the axis of $R_1$ cannot be perpendicular to this plane, as no regular complex can have linear apeirogons as faces). Let $T_3$ denote the reflection in the plane through $F_2$. Then $T_3$ fixes each of $F_0$, $F_1$ and $F_2$ but does not lie in $G$; otherwise $T_3$ would actually belong to $G_2$ and make $G_2$ a dihedral group, contrary to our assumption (alternatively, as $T_3$ stabilizes the base flag, it would have to be trivial, by the simple flag-transitivity of $G$). However, we can also prove that $T_3$ must be a symmetry of $\mathcal{K}$, so $\mathcal{K}$ cannot have been simply-transitive. In fact, $\mathcal{K}$ must be the $2$-skeleton of a regular $4$-apeirotope in $\mathbb{E}^3$ since it has face-mirrors (for example, $T_3$), and $G$ must be a flag-transitive proper subgroup of the full symmetry group of $\mathcal{K}$, the latter being that of the $4$-apeirotope.
The proof hinges on the observation that $T_3$ commutes with the involutory generators $R_0$ and $R_1$ of $G$ and, up to taking inverses, with the (possibly non-involutory) generator $S$ as well, since $T_{3}ST_{3}=S^{-1}$. Note here that the mirror of $T_3$ contains the invariant point of $R_0$ and the rotation axes of $R_1$ and $S$. Now as the vertices, edges and faces of $\mathcal{K}$ are just the images of $F_{0}$, $F_{1}$ and $F_{2}$ under the elements of $G$, and these elements commute with $T_3$ up to taking inverses, we find that $T_3$ takes vertices, edges or faces of $\mathcal{K}$ to vertices, edges or faces of $\mathcal{K}$, respectively; more explicitly, if $R$ is any element in $G$ and $\widehat{R}$ its conjugate under $T_3$ (in the isometry group of $\mathbb{E}^3$), then $\widehat{R}$ lies in $G$ and $(F_{j}R)T_{3}=(F_{j}T_{3})\widehat{R}=F_{j}\widehat{R}$ for each $j$. Thus $T_3$ is actually a reflective symmetry of $\mathcal{K}$ leaving the plane through $F_2$ invariant; in particular, this plane is a face mirror of $\mathcal{K}$.
In summary, there are no simply flag-transitive regular complexes with mirror vector $(0,1)$ and a cyclic group $G_2$.
A more detailed analysis of the geometric situation above sheds some light on possible characterizations of $2$-skeletons of regular $4$-apeirotopes. In fact, there are just two possible choices for the special group $G_*$, namely $[3,3]^*$ and $[3,4]$, allowing for complexes $\mathcal{K}$ with $r=3$ or with $r=3$ or $4$, respectively. Suppose we pick the cube $C:=\{4,3\}$ with vertices $(\pm 1,\pm 1,\pm 1)$ as a reference figure for the action of $G_*$. Now if $G_{*}=[3,3]^*$ then $\mathcal{K}$ must necessarily be the $2$-skeleton of the regular $4$-apeirotope
\[ \mathop{\rm apeir} \{3, 3\} = \{\{\infty, 3\}_6 \# \{ \, \}, \{3, 3\}\} ,\]
with the tetrahedral vertex-figure $\mathcal{Q}:=\{3,3\}$ determined by one of the two sets of alternating vertices of $C$. On the other hand, if $G_{*}=[3,4]$ the outcome depends on the period of $S$ (that is, on $r$). If the period of $S$ is $3$, then $\mathcal{K}$ must be the $2$-skeleton of
\[ \mathop{\rm apeir} \{4, 3\} = \{\{\infty, 4\}_4 \# \{ \, \}, \{4, 3\}\}, \]
now with the cubical vertex-figure $\mathcal{Q}:=\{3,3\}$ given by $C$ itself. However, if the period of $S$ is $4$, then $\mathcal{K}$ must be the $2$-skeleton of
\[ \mathcal{P} = \mathop{\rm apeir} \{3,4\} = \{\{\infty, 3\}_6 \# \{ \, \}, \{3,4\}\} ,\]
with the octahedral vertex-figure $\mathcal{Q}:=\{3,4\}$ dually positioned to $C$ such that its vertices are at the centers of the faces of $C$. Notice that our choice of notation, $T_3$, for the reflection in the plane of $F_2$ was deliberate
to indicate its role as a generator of the symmetry group of the $4$-apeirotope.
\subsection{Mirror vector $(0,2)$ and cyclic $G_2$}
\label{mirr02cyc}
Similarly we deal with the mirror vector $(0,2)$. Let $\mathcal{K}$ be a simply flag-transitive regular complex with mirror vector $(0,2)$ and a cyclic group $G_2$ with rotational generator $S$. Then $R_0$ is the reflection in the midpoint of $F_1$; $R_1$ is a reflection in a plane through $F_{0}:=o$; and $S$ is a rotation about the line containing $F_1$. Now let $T_3$ denote the reflection in the plane through the (zigzag) base face $F_2$. Then this plane is perpendicular to the mirror of $R_1$ and also contains the invariant point of $R_0$ and the rotation axis of $S$. Thus $T_3$ stabilizes the base flag $\{F_{0},F_{1},F_{2}\}$. However, $T_3$ cannot belong to $G$, since otherwise $G_2$ would be dihedral, not cyclic. On the other hand, $T_3$ again commutes with the generators $R_0$ and $R_1$ of $G$ and, up to taking inverses, with the generator $S$ as well (that is $T_{3}S=S^{-1}T_{3}$); note here that the mirror of $T_3$ is perpendicular to the mirror of $R_1$ and contains the mirrors of $R_0$ and $S$. It follows that we can proceed exactly as for the mirror vector $(0,1)$ to show that $T_3$ is actually a reflective symmetry of $\mathcal{K}$ leaving the plane through $F_2$ invariant and making it a face mirror. Hence, $\mathcal{K}$ cannot have been simply-transitive and must be the $2$-skeleton of a regular $4$-apeirotope in $\mathbb{E}^3$. Moreover, $G$ must be a flag-transitive proper subgroup of the full symmetry group of $\mathcal{K}$, the latter being that of the underlying $4$-apeirotope.
Thus no simply flag-transitive regular complex can have a mirror vector $(0,2)$ and a cyclic group $G_2$.
A further analysis shows that the operation
\begin{equation}\label{opt3}
\lambda \!:\;\, (R_0, R_1, S)\; \mapsto\; (R_0, T_3R_1, S)
\end{equation}
on the generators of the underlying groups interchanges the two possible choices of mirror vectors $(0,1)$ and $(0,2)$ if $G_2$ is cyclic. Thus, in some sense, these cases are equivalent. The operation (\ref{opt3}) actually applies to the symmetry group of the corresponding regular $4$-apeirotope, where it corresponds to performing the Petrie operation (on the vertex-figure). As the eight regular $4$-apeirotopes in $\mathbb{E}^3$ come in pairs of Petrie duals sharing a common $2$-skeleton (see \cite[Theorem~4.3]{pelsch}), the three apeirotopes with~zigzag faces associated with the complexes with mirror vector $(0,2)$ (and cyclic $G_2$) occur here in the form $\mathop{\rm apeir} {\mathcal Q}$ with $\mathcal{Q}=\{4,3\}_3$, $\{6,4\}_3$ or $\{6,3\}_4$, these being the Petrie duals of $\{3,3\}$, $\{3,4\}$ or $\{4,3\}$, respectively.
\bigskip
The following theorem summarizes our discussion for the mirror vectors $(0,k)$ with $k=1,2$. Note that there are also regular polyhedra with these mirror vectors; for example, the Petrie duals of the regular plane tessellations $\{4,4\}$, $\{3,6\}$ and $\{6,3\}$ have mirror vector $(0,1)$ when viewed in the plane.
\begin{theorem}
\label{classif0k}
Apart from polyhedra, the complexes $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ and $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$ described in Sections~\ref{k01} and~\ref{k02} are the only simply flag-transitive regular polygonal complexes with mirror vectors $(0,1)$ or $(0,2)$, respectively.
\end{theorem}
\section{Complexes with mirror vector~$(2,k)$}
\label{mir2k}
Our last step is the enumeration of the simply flag-transitive complexes $\mathcal{K}$ with mirror vector $(2,k)$. According to Lemma~\ref{appone}, each such complex can be obtained from a regular complex $\mathcal{L}$ which either has face mirrors or is simply flag-transitive with mirror vector $(0,k)$, by applying to $\mathcal{L}$ the operation $\lambda_0$ with respect to a half-turn in $G_2(\mathcal{L})$.
The next lemma, applied with $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{K}^{\lambda_0}$ and $\mathcal{L}'=\mathcal{K}$, rules out the possibility that the complex $\mathcal{L}$ has face-mirrors.
\begin{lemma}\label{facemirlambda02}
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be a regular complex with face mirrors. Assume that $G_0(\mathcal{L})$ contains a point reflection $R_0$. Let $\mathcal{L}'$ denote the regular complex obtained from $\mathcal{L}$ by the operation $\lambda_0(R_2)$, where $R_2$ is the unique half-turn in $G_2(\mathcal{L})$. Then $\mathcal{L}'$ also has face mirrors.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to that of Lemma \ref{facemirlambda01}. It suffices to note that all elements in $G_1(\mathcal{L})$ fix the plane $L$ through the base face of $\mathcal{L}$, and that $R_0 R_2$ is a reflection in a plane perpendicular to $L$. Then it follows that the base face of $\mathcal{L}'$ also lies in $L$, so $\mathcal{L}'$ also has face-mirrors.
\end{proof}
Thus we may concentrate on the simply flag-transitive complexes $\mathcal{L}$ with mirror vector $(0,k)$. We know from Theorem~\ref{classif0k} that there is just one such complex for each $k$.
\subsection{Complexes with mirror vector~$(2,1)$}
We first derive the unique simply flag-transitive complex with mirror vector $(2,1)$ from $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ by means of the operation $\lambda_0(R_2)$ associated with the half-turn $R_2$ in the dihedral group $G_2(\mathcal{L})$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}(2, 1) := \mathcal{K}(0, 1)^{\,\lambda_0 (R_2)}.
\end{equation}
The vertex-set of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ is again $\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$, as for the original complex $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$. The edges of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ are face diagonals of the standard cubical tessellation with vertex-set $a\mathbb{Z}^3$, and the faces are convex regular hexagons in planes perpendicular to main diagonals of $a\mathbb{Z}^3$. There are four faces around an edge, such that opposite faces are co-planar. Computing the distinguished generators for $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ from those of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ (which, in turn, are based on the generators for $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$ described in (\ref{genk511})), we find that the vertices of the hexagonal base face of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ are given by
\[(0,0,0), (a,0,a), (a,a,2a), (0,2a,2a), (-a,2a,a), (-a,a,0),\]
in this order. The base face is centered at the point $(0,a,a)$ of $\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$ and forms an equatorial hexagon of the cuboctahedron whose vertices are the midpoints of the edges of the $2a\!\times\!2a\!\times\!2a$ cube with center at $(0,a,a)$. Note that $(0,a,a)$ is the common center (but not a vertex) of four faces of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$, each an equatorial hexagon of the cuboctahedron just described. The vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ at $o$ coincides with the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ at $o$, that is, with the edge graph of a non-standard cuboctahedron with skew square faces.
As with the complexes $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$ and $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$, the geometry of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ can be described in terms of the semiregular tessellation $\mathcal{S}$ of $\mathbb{E}^3$ by regular tetrahedra and octahedra (see Section~\ref{terba}). The hexagonal base face of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ also lies in the plane $x+y-z=0$ and is just a $2$-hole of the regular tessellation of this plane by triangles formed from faces of $\mathcal{S}$; in fact, each $2$-hole of this tessellation is a face of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$. Recall here that a $2$-{\em hole\/}, or simply a {\em hole\/}, of any regular map on a surface, is a path along edges that successively take the second exit on the left (in a local orientation), at each vertex. For a regular tessellation by triangles, the $2$-holes are just the boundary edge-paths of convex hexagons comprising the six triangles with a common vertex. More generally, each face of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ is a hole of the regular tessellation of its affine hull by triangles formed from faces of $\mathcal{S}$, and each such hole is a face of~$\mathcal{K}(2,1)$.
\subsection{Complexes with mirror vector~$(2,2)$}
\label{mirr22com}
Finally, then, we construct the unique simply flag-transitive complex with mirror vector $(2,2)$ from $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{K}(0,2)$ by applying the operation $\lambda_0 (R_2)$, where again $R_2$ denotes the unique half-turn in the dihedral group $G_2(\mathcal{L})$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}(2, 2) \,:=\, \mathcal{K}(0, 2)^{\,\lambda_0 (R_2)}.
\end{equation}
As for the original complex $\mathcal{K}(0, 2)$, the vertex-set of $\mathcal{K}(2,2)$ is $\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$ and the edges are again face diagonals of the cubical tessellation with vertex-set $a\mathbb{Z}^3$. The faces are triangles, four around each edge such that opposite triangles are co-planar. Now the distinguished generators for $\mathcal{K}(2,2)$ can be obtained from those of $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$, which, in turn, are based on the generators for $\mathcal{K}_1(1,2)$ described in \cite[eq. (6.1)]{pelsch}. The base face of $\mathcal{K}(2,2)$ lies in the plane $x+y-z=0$ and has vertices
\[(0,0,0), (a,0,a), (0,a,a).\]
The vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ at $o$ coincides with the vertex-figure of $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$ at $o$, that is, with the edge-graph of a cuboctahedron.
The complex $\mathcal{K}(2,2)$ can best be visualized as the $2$-skeleton of the semiregular tessellation $\mathcal{S}$ of $\mathbb{E}^3$ by regular tetrahedra and octahedra described in Section~\ref{terba}. The faces of $\mathcal{S}$ are regular triangles, each shared by an octahedral tile and a tetrahedral tile of $\mathcal{S}$. It is straightforward to check that $\mathcal{K}(2,2)$ is just the $2$-skeleton of $\mathcal{S}$.
\bigskip
Inspection of the list of simply flag-transitive regular complexes shows that there are just two complexes with finite planar (in fact, convex) faces, namely $\mathcal{K}(2,2)$ with triangular faces and $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ with hexagonal faces (see also Table~\ref{tabone}). The complex $\mathcal{K}(2,2)$ can be viewed as the $2$-skeleton of the semiregular tessellation $\mathcal{S}$ by regular tetrahedra and octahedra, and hence is a geometric complex embedded (without self-intersections) in $\mathbb{E}^3$. On the other hand, $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ can not be viewed as a geometric complex embedded in $\mathbb{E}^3$. In fact, every vertex of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ is the common center of the four faces of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ given by the equatorial hexagons of a suitable cuboctahedron with this vertex as center; when the hexagonal faces of $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ are viewed as bounding convex hexagons, these four hexagons all intersect in their common center, and hence self-intersections do occur in this case.
\bigskip
In conclusion, we have established the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{classif2k}
Apart from polyhedra, the complexes $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$ and $\mathcal{K}(2,2)$ described in this section are the only simply flag-transitive regular polygonal complexes with mirror vectors $(2,1)$ or $(2,2)$, respectively.
\end{theorem}
\section{The enumeration}
The following theorem summarizes our enumeration of regular polygonal complexes in euclidean $3$-space.
\begin{theorem}
\label{fullclassif}
Up to similarity, there are exactly 25 regular polygonal complexes in $\mathbb{E}^3$ which are not regular polyhedra, namely 21 simply flag-transitive complexes and $4$ complexes which are $2$-skeletons of regular $4$-apeirotopes in~$\mathbb{E}^3$.
\end{theorem}
Table~\ref{tabone} organizes the $21$ simply flag-transitive polygonal complexes by mirror vectors and includes for each complex the data about the pointwise edge stabilizer $G_2$, the number $r$ of faces surrounding an edge, the structure of faces and vertex-figures, the vertex-set, and the structure of the special group. The symbols $p_c$, $p_s$, $\infty_2$, or $\infty_k$ with $k=3$ or $4$, respectively, in the face column indicate that the faces are {\em convex} $p$-gons, {\em skew} $p$-gons, planar zigzags, or helices over {\em $k$-gons}. (In some sense, a planar zigzag is a helix over a $2$-gon, hence our notation. Clearly, the suffix in $3_c$ is redundant.) We also set
\[ V_{a}:=a\mathbb{Z}^{3}\!\setminus\! ((0,0,a)\!+\!\Lambda_{(a,a,a)}),\;\;
W_{a}:= 2\Lambda_{(a,a,0)} \cup ((a,-a,a)\!+\!2\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}), \]
to have a short symbol available for some of the vertex-sets. The vertex-figures of polygonal complexes are finite graphs, so an entry in the vertex-figure column describing a solid figure is meant to represent the edge-graph of this figure, with ``double" indicating the double edge-graph. The abbreviation ``ns-cuboctahedron" stands for (the edge graph of) the ``non-standard cuboctahedron" (as explained earlier in the text).
\begin{table}[htb]
\centering
{\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
mirror & complex&$G_2$ & $r$ &face &vertex- &vertex- & special\\
vector & & & & & figure&set & group \\[.05in]
\hline
\hline
$(1,2)$ & $\mathcal{K}_1(1,2)$& $D_2$ & $4$ &$4_s$ & cuboctahedron&$\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_2(1,2)$& $C_3$& $3$ &$4_s$ & cube&$\Lambda_{(a,a,a)}$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_3(1,2)$& $D_3$& $6$ &$4_s$ &double cube&$\Lambda_{(a,a,a)}$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_4(1,2)$& $D_2$& $4$ & $6_s$&octahedron&$a\mathbb{Z}^3$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_5(1,2)$& $D_2$& $4$ &$6_s$&double square&$V_a$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_6(1,2)$& $D_4$& $8$ &$6_s$&double octahedron&$a\mathbb{Z}^3$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_7(1,2)$& $D_3$& $6$ &$6_s$&double tetrahedron&$W_a$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_8(1,2)$& $D_2$& $4$ &$6_s$&cuboctahedron&$\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
\hline
$(1,1)$ & $\mathcal{K}_1(1,1)$& $D_3$& $6$ &$\infty_3$&double cube&$\Lambda_{(a,a,a)}$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_2(1,1)$& $D_2$& $4$ &$\infty_3$&double square&$V_a$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_3(1,1)$& $D_4$& $8$ &$\infty_3$&double octahedron&$a\mathbb{Z}^3$ & $[3,4]$ \\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_4(1,1)$& $D_3$ & $6$ &$\infty_4$& double tetrahedron&$W_a$ &$[3,4]$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_5(1,1)$& $D_2$& $4$ &$\infty_4$&ns-cuboctahedron&$\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$&$[3,4]$ \\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_6(1,1)$& $C_3$& $3$ &$\infty_4$&tetrahedron& $W_a$&$[3,4]^+$\\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_7(1,1)$& $C_4$& $4$ &$\infty_3$&octahedron&$a\mathbb{Z}^3$ & $[3,4]^+$ \ \\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_8(1,1)$& $D_2$& $4$ &$\infty_3$&ns-cuboctahedron&$\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$&$[3,4]$ \\
\hline
& $\mathcal{K}_9(1,1)$& $C_3$& $3$ &$\infty_3$&cube&$\Lambda_{(a,a,a)}$&$[3,4]^+$ \\
\hline
\hline
$(0,1)$ & $\mathcal{K}(0,1)$& $D_2$& $4$ &$\infty_2$&ns-cuboctahedron&$\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$&$[3,4]$ \\
\hline
\hline
$(0,2)$ & $\mathcal{K}(0,2)$& $D_2$& $4$ &$\infty_2$&cuboctahedron& $\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$&$[3,4]$ \\
\hline
\hline
$(2,1)$ & $\mathcal{K}(2,1)$& $D_2$& $4$ & $6_c$ &ns-cuboctahedron&$\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$&$[3,4]$ \\
\hline
\hline
$(2,2)$ & $\mathcal{K}(2,2)$& $D_2$& $4$ &$3_c$&cuboctahedron&$\Lambda_{(a,a,0)}$&$[3,4]$\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\medskip
\caption{The 21 simply flag-transitive regular polygonal complexes in $\mathbb{E}^3$ which are not regular polyhedra.}
\label{tabone}}
\end{table}
\section{Subcomplex relationships}
In this last section we provide the full net of subcomplex relationships for regular polygonal complexes in space, including regular polyhedra. In each diagram, a vertical or slanted line indicates that the complex $\mathcal{K}$ at the bottom is a subcomplex of the complex $\mathcal{L}$ at the top, or equivalently, that the complex $\mathcal{L}$ at the top is a ``compound" of congruent copies of the complex $\mathcal{K}$ at the bottom; the label attached to the line is the number of congruent copies of $\mathcal{K}$ in this representation of $\mathcal{L}$ as a compound, allowing~$\infty$.
Across the bottom of a diagram we usually find polyhedra and occasionally (indecomposable) complexes from among those discussed in this paper or in \cite{pelsch}. Polyhedra can only occur at the bottom of a diagram. Two diagrams have three layers and each contains the diagrams for the complexes in the middle layer as subdiagrams (these diagrams are not listed separately).
The regular polyhedra in $\mathbb{E}^3$ were enumerated in Gr\"unbaum~\cite{gr} and Dress~\cite{d1,d2}. We refer the reader to McMullen \& Schulte~\cite[Section 7E]{arp} (or \cite{ordinary}) for a quick method of arriving at the full characterization, and for the notation for polyhedra used in the diagrams. For a regular $4$-apeirotope $\mathcal{P}$ we write $skel_{2}(\mathcal{P})$ for the $2$-skeleton of $\mathcal{P}$ (see Section~\ref{terba}).
The complexes are grouped according to their type of faces, beginning with the complexes with finite, planar or skew, faces and followed by the complexes with infinite, zigzag or helical, faces.
\bigskip
\noindent
PLANAR FACES\newline
\vskip.08in
\input{diagram1.pic}
\vspace{.1in}
\input{diagram2.pic}
\vspace{0.7cm}
\noindent
SKEW FACES\newline
\vskip.08in
\input{diagram6.pic}
\vspace{.1in}
\input{diagram7.pic}
\vspace{.1in}
\input{diagram8.pic}
\vspace{0.7cm}
\noindent
ZIGZAG FACES\newline
\vskip.08in
\input{diagram3.pic}
\vspace{.1in}
\input{diagram4.pic}
\vspace{.1in}
\input{diagram5.pic}
\vspace{0.7cm}
\noindent
HELICAL FACES\newline
\vskip.08in
\input{diagram9.pic}
\vspace{.1in}
\input{diagram10.pic}
\vspace{.1in}
\input{diagram11.pic}
\vspace{0.2cm}
The preceding diagrams provide the full net of {\em geometric\/} subcomplex relationships for regular polygonal complexes in $\mathbb{E}^3$. We have not investigated the question if there are any other {\em combinatorial\/} subcomplex relationships. This of course is closely related to the problem of determining the full combinatorial automorphism group for each complex, which in general could be larger than the symmetry group and in particular have a larger flag stabilizer. For example, a (geometrically) simply flag-transitive polygonal complex may not be combinatorially simply flag-transitive. Clearly, this does not occur for regular polyhedra, where the two groups are isomorphic.
It would also be interesting to know if the geometrically distinct regular polygonal complexes described here are also combinatorially distinct, or if two of these complexes can be combinatorially isomorphic in a non-geometric way. We conjecture that the regular polygonal complexes in $\mathbb{E}^3$ are indeed also combinatorially distinct. (We are ignoring here the case of blended polyhedra, where the relative size of the components of the blend provides a continuous parameter for the geometric realizations.)
\vskip.1in
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgment}
We are grateful to an anonymous referee for a thoughtful review with valuable comments.
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Although the use of digital detectors and computer manipulation of
images is now ubiquitous, many pioneering surveys were conducted in
the days of photographic observations. This is particularly
true of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), where precedent ensures that most
of the brighter stars are still commonly identified by
catalogue numbers from surveys conducted in the photographic era, such as
the Henry Draper Extension (\citealt{Cannon36}; HDE), the
Radcliffe study by \citeauthor{Feast60} (\citeyear{Feast60}; R numbers\footnote{The CDS uses `RMC'
to identify Radcliffe
stars.}), and
work by \citeauthor{Henize56} (\citeyear{Henize56};
\mbox{LH$\alpha$120-S} identifiers for LMC emission-line stars)
and
by \citeauthor{Sanduleak70} (\citeyear{Sanduleak70}; Sk
identifiers).
A difficulty confronting early authors was that the determination of
precise equatorial co-ordinates involved time-consuming manual
measurements with opto-mechanical plate-measuring machines, and
subsequent tedious calculations (as well as requiring a dense,
good-quality grid of reference stars). This laborious effort was
invariably eschewed in favour of co-ordinates quoted to only
$\sim$arc{\-}minute precision and, in most cases, provision of supporting
finder charts.
In the modern era the identification problem is reversed: in
large-scale digital surveys, precise co-ordinates are quickly and
routinely obtained, but the task of visually checking many targets
against numerous published finding charts is discouragingly
burdensome. Cross-identification based solely on co-ordinate
coincidences from crude astro{\-}metry
is not reliable in dense LMC starfields, but has nevertheless proven
enticing to a number of authors. As a result, the literature is
littered with misidentifications based on approximate positional
matches, unverified by checks against original sources.
Heroic efforts by Brian Skiff at Lowell Observatory have greatly improved the
situation. His work (unpublished, but incorporated into CDS
databases) includes $\sim$arc{\-}second astro{\-}metry for the HDE, Sk, and
LH$\alpha$ catalogues, based on careful examination of original sources.
There remain, however, two important, extensive surveys of bright H$\alpha$
emission-line stars in the LMC for which only arc{\-}minute
astro{\-}metry is available: the Lindsay surveys \citep{Lindsay63b,
Andrews64} and the Bohannan \& Epps study (\citealt{Bohannan74};
BE74).
Lindsay's papers give co-ordinates to the nearest arc{\-}minute, but
no finder charts. Plausible identifications of many of
the $\sim$800 targets may be possible, based on positional and brightness
coincidences, but the absence of finder charts means
that \emph{secure} identifications are now not generally
feasible.\footnote{The authors provide cross-identifications with 126
LH$\alpha$ objects; these sources are therefore reliably recoverable
(through Henize's charts and Skiff's astro{\-}metry).} Given the potential for errors, it
is the present author's opinion that the conservative position is to
consider Lindsay's stars lost to science, for the most part.
In contrast, \citet{Bohannan74} provided identification charts which
should allow secure identification of nearly all their emission-line
stars, and hence new astro{\-}metry with accuracy and precision suited
to cross-identifications in modern large-scale surveys. The purpose
of this Note is to report such astrometry.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.45,angle=-90]{fig1}
\caption{Left panel: cumulative distribution functions for offsets
between interactively measured co-ordinates and adopted UCAC4
positions, for right ascension, declination, and absolute
differences. Right panel: cumulative distribution function for
offsets between BE74's positions and the current astrometry.}
\label{fig:one}
\end{figure}
\section{Methods}
\citeauthor{Bohannan74} identified their H$\alpha$ emission-line stars
on images from the \citeauthor{Hodge67} Atlas \citep{Hodge67}. In
spite of the small plate scale, this allows subsequent secure
identification of nearly all stars in larger-scale digital images. In
practice, this identification was normally carried out using CDS's
Aladin tool \citep{Bonnarel00} in conjunction with a much magnified
pdf copy of \citet{Bohannan74} from the NASA Astro{\-}physics Data
System. In a number of cases, the original \citeauthor{Hodge67} Atlas
was examined to resolve ambiguities.
Other than for a few bright targets, a semi-transparent window of the
DSS2 red image from Aladin was overlaid on the pdf, at matching
scales; where necessary, an image rotation was also applied, using the
GNU Image Manipulation Program. In general, this allowed a positive
identification of the BE74 target with a single object on the DSS2
image, for which a position was recorded interactively, and
transferred to a data file by copy-and-paste. (With distance moduli
of $\sim$18.5, proper motions are negligible for these sources, so
differences in epoch of observation are of no importance in this
context.)
Correlating the results against UCAC4 \citep{Zacharias12} gave a
positive match with a single target within 5$\arcsec$ in most cases,
with a small systematic offset: $\Delta\alpha = +0\fs11$, $\Delta\delta
= -0\farcs6$ (UCAC4$-$Aladin). This offset is presumed to be due to
small errors in matching the DSS2 images to the ICRS reference frame,
so the interactively recorded measurements were corrected accordingly.
After applying this correction, a second pass was made against UCAC4
with a 2$\arcsec$-radius window to get final positions. The results
are listed in the Table~1,\footnote{Tables 1--3 are available on-line
at the CDS.} which is the main data product of this
Note. Fig.~\ref{fig:one} (left-hand panel) shows that the positional
differences between corrected interactive measurements and UCAC4 are
Normally distributed, and are less than one arc-second in the great
majority of cases.
\section{Discussion}
The co-ordinates reported here are intended to establish precise
positions for the objects marked by BE74 on their finder charts,
independently of other investigations (largely to avoid any danger of
propagating existing misidentifications). BE74 state that these
charts, rather than their published co-ordinates, best define their
targets, although a potential source of error is that they may not
always have matched the emission-line star from their objective-prism
plates with the correct object on the \citeauthor{Hodge67} Atlas (cf.,
e.g., BE74~602; Table~2). Furthermore, in a number of cases multiple
bright sources are present on DSS2 images (and sometimes on the
\citeauthor{Hodge67} atlas) within the BE74 identification circle;
Table~2 discusses most of these instances.
Of course, in addition to ambiguities and possible errors in the
original materials, there is certainly also the potential for
misidentifications and mismeasurements in the present work.
Cross-checking the adopted positions against BE74's co-ordinates
initially disclosed six faulty results requiring correction in the
former (all believed to be due to failures to `copy' a correct
position before `pasting'), suggesting a residual error rate from this
source of better than 1\%.
Agreement between the finally adopted positions and BE74's original
co-ordinates is generally satisfactory, with matches to within
1--2$\arcmin$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:one}, right-hand panel), although some
discrepancies remain (cf.\ Table~2). The current co-ordinates have
also been cross-matched to Skiff's astro{\-}metry for HDE, Sk, and
LH$\alpha$120-S sources, within a 5$\arcsec$ radius around the
interactively recorded positions (Table~3, on-line). Where matches
are found, the positional differences are almost all sub-arcsecond
(essentially, the differences between UCAC2 and UCAC4 results),
giving confidence in the assigned correspondences. In the few cases
where larger offsets occured, DSS2 imagery was re-examined;
invariably, the differences were found to arise because the BE74
object is not a single point source.
Finally, it is perhaps worth concluding with an explicit comment that,
while the positions reported here are precise, they may not
necessarily always be accurate, for the reasons just set out. At the
least, for critical cases the results in Table~1 should be considered
in conjunction with the notes on individual sources given in Table~2.
\addtocounter{table}{1}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Notes on individual objects. `BE74' refers to \citet{Bohannan74}; `HW'
to charts from the \citeauthor{Hodge67} Atlas \citep{Hodge67};
`RPs' to emission-line stars catalogued by \citeauthor{Reid12} (\citeyear{Reid12};
RP12);
and `DSS2' to the red Digital Sky Survey images accessed through
Aladin. `A', `B' etc. refers to separate entries in Table~1.}
\label{table:2}
\centering
\scalebox{0.91}{
\begin{tabular}{rp{19cm}}
\hline\hline
BE74&Notes\\
\hline
2 &NGC 1735 (cluster)\\
37 &Identification uncertain.
The object marked by BE74 is the northerly of two
stars visible on DSS2; the companion is 6$\arcsec$ distant, SSE.
A brighter DSS2 star (not visible on the HW B chart, but clear on
the V chart) is $\sim35\arcsec$ E.\\
44 &Identification uncertain; BE74 co-ords and finder-chart object
differ by $3\farcm6$. HDE~269504 (Sk~$-67$~100; B0$\;$Ia
according to \citealt{Fitzpatrick93}) is the brightest
object at the published co-ords.\\
51 &BE74 mark a triple object on the HW atlas\\
54 &Assumed to be the brighter `A' (N)
component of a pair on DSS2 (unresolved in the HW atlas).\\
62 &Elongated (multiple?) image on DSS2.\\
68 &Assumed to be the middle (brightest) of three DSS2 stars.\\
69 &Assumed to be the brightest (S) of three DSS2 objects.\\
72 &SW component of multiple object (as per BE74 notes).\\
74 &Wrongly identified with RPs1077 by RP12 (correct match is BE74~75/RPs1077).\\
80 &MFH2006 Cl1 (cluster; \citealt{Martayan06}) \\
84 &Brighter (E) component of double on DSS2.\\
109 &Recorded as 2 separate objects in UCAC4; barely resolved in DSS2.\\
127 &`A' is the brighter (W) component of a pair on DSS2 (unresolved in HW atlas).\\
129 &BSDL 2450 (cluster; \citealt{Bica99}).\\
139 &Identification uncertain; BE74 finder chart and co-ords differ by $8\farcm5$. BE74's quoted
co-ords are in RA sequence (as is usual), but the marked object is out of
RA order, and is therefore suspect. The nearest moderately bright star to the published co-ords is
UCAC4~116-009443.\\
143 &Assumed to be brighter W component of pair on DSS2 (unresolved
in HW atlas; companion 2$\arcsec$ E).\\
159 &BE74 identify 159 with the Wolf-Rayet
star WS4=BAT99-8 \citep{Westerlund64, BAT99},
but this is not the star marked on the BE74 finder chart
\citep{Fehrenbach76}, which does, however, match LH$\alpha$120-S70.\\
162 &Wrongly identified with RPs1757 by RP12 (RPs1757 is much fainter).\\
168 &Elongated image on DSS2, probably multiple.\\
171 &N component of double on DSS2 (secondary is 6$\arcsec$ SW,
unresolved on the BE74 chart).
Identification uncertain; BE74 identify 171 with
WS6=BAT99-11 \citep{Westerlund64, BAT99},
but this is not the star marked on the BE74 finder chart \citep{Fehrenbach76}.\\
191 &Elongated (multiple?) image in DSS2.\\
197 &Double on DSS2 (unresolved on the BE74 chart).\\
207 &Centre object of three (as in BE74 notes).\\
223 &BE74 co-ords wrongly duplicate the entry for BE74~224 (7$\arcmin$ to the south).\\
227 &Typographical error in RP12; correct match is BE74~277/RPs2160, not BE74~227/RPs2160.\\
232 &Brighter SW component of double on DSS2.\\
238 &BE74 finder-chart object is 4$\arcmin$ N of BE74 co-ords.\\
242 &Wrongly identified with RPs1374 by RP12 (correct match is BE74~242/RPs1373).\\
246 &Unresolved double in the HW atlas.\\
276 &Southern object of pair is brighter on DSS2, and matches RPs988
(BE74: ``Impossible to tell from which emission arises''). RP12 also
(wrongly) identify BE74~276 with RPs989.\\
277 &Elongated image on DSS2?\\
292 &ID uncertain on BE74 atlas.\\
294 &S component of double on DSS2.\\
299 &NGC~1994 (HDE~269599, cluster).\\
360 &Object marked on BE74 finder chart is 6$\arcmin$ N of BE74 co-ords.\\
380 &ID uncertain on BE74 atlas.\\
383 &HDE~269828 (cluster).\\
394 &Not marked on BE74 charts; several possible candidates.\\
400 &Close double, emission-line (WR) star is W component
(Sk~$-69$~223, BAT99-85; \citealt{Prevot81}).\\
402 &KMK88 91 (cluster; \citealt{Kontizas88}).\\
426 &Wrongly identified with RPs286 by RP12 (cf.\ their Fig.~4; RPs286 is much fainter).\\
434 &Not marked on BE74 charts; several possible candidates.\\
439 &Not marked on BE74 charts; two plausible possibilities measured (439a is HV 2774).\\
441 &Elongated (multiple?) image on DSS2.\\
443 &BE74 finder chart ambiguous. Wrongly identified with both
RPs236 and RPs237 by RP12.\\
445 &KMHK 1230 (multiple; \citealt{Kontizas90}).\\
451 &Wrongly identified with RPs1023 by RP12 (RPs1023 is much fainter).\\
477 &BE74 finder-chart object matches HDE~268687/Sk~$-$69~13
(F6$\;$Ia according to \citealt{Ardeberg72}), but is 4$\arcmin$ N of BE74 co-ords.\\
487 & Two stars in BE74 identifying circle.\\
494 &`A' is the object shown on BE74 chart; `B' is not visible in HW but is
brighter on DSS2 (and both are within the BE74 ID circle).\\
497 &Two bright stars (septn. $6\farcs8$) unresolved on BE74 chart; `A' (HD~32763) is the brighter object in DSS2, and
matches Skiff astrometry for LH$\alpha$120-S149/Sk~$-$70~29.\\
499 &Brightest (NW) object of three within the circle marked by BE74.\\
509 &Distorted DSS2 image; two close objects in UCAC3 match this distortion.\\
518 &BE74: ``Perhaps emission arises from
S and brighter member of pair'' (agrees with Skiff
LH$\alpha$120~S156 astro{\-}metry).\\
520 &Uncertain ID (no object clearly visible on the HW B chart).\\
522 &BE74 finder object is $7\farcm5$ S of BE74 co-ords.\\
528 &Elongated (multiple?) image on DSS2.\\
565 &Identified with RPs1344 by RP12, but this is a different
object to that marked by BE74 (16$\arcsec$ distant). However, RPs1344 is
only $\sim$0.5m fainter than BE74~565; possible misidentification on BE74 chart?\\
567 &NW (brighter) `A' component has elongated (multiple?) image on
DSS2. `B' component matches Skiff LH$\alpha$120-S102 astro{\-}metry.\\
570 &Misidentified as BE571 in Simbad at the time of writing.\\
574 &Identified with RPs870 by RP12, but this is a different object
to that marked by BE74 (12$\arcsec$ distant). However, the object
marked by BE74 is very faint on DSS2, while RPs870 is almost
invisible on HW; possible misidentification on BE74 chart?\\
578 &SE, `A' component is the only one of three DSS2 objects visible
in the BE74 chart. `B' component matches Skiff LH$\alpha$120-S104 astro{\-}metry.\\
579 &Wrongly identified with both RPs873 and RPs874 by RP12 (both
RPs objects are much fainter).\\
581 &Identified with RPs886 by RP12; this is $1\farcm3$ S of the marked BE74 position, but
the BE74 object is very faint on DSS2. Possible misidentification on BE74 chart?\\
582 & Two objects are marked as `587' on BE74 chart; N object is
actually BE74~582.\\
595 &Wrongly identified with RPs443 by RP12 (correct match is BE74~596/RPs443).\\
602 &Nova Mensae 1970b. Co-ordinates reported in Table~1 refer to
the finder-chart object
marked by BE74, but this is \emph{not} the nova.\newline 602X in Table~1
is the approximate position of the nova.\\
620 &MHW2005 1145 \citep{Meynadier05}; emission comes from the nebular `blob'.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\acknowledgements{I am grateful to Brian Skiff for correspondence;
Jean Guibert for useful suggestions; and
the BBC for its broadcast coverage of the 2012 Olympics, which
facilitated the measurements reported here. The work relied on tools
provided by the GNU/Linux open-source community, NASA's
Astro{\-}physics Data System and, particularly, the CDS, Strasbourg;
without these resources, this study would not have been possible.}
|
\section{Introduction and overview}
In the hierarchical paradigm of large scale structure (LSS) formation, galaxy clusters are the largest object ever to virialize. With masses in excess of $10^{14}M_\odot$, they are located at the nodes of the cosmic web, where they accrete matter from the surrounding voids and through large scale filaments. Due to their vast size, galaxy clusters resemble island Universes seen at great distance, providing a powerful cosmological probe and a unique astrophysical laboratory.
The gas accreted by a cluster is thought to abruptly heat and slow down in a strong virial shock wave surrounding the cluster.
Such collisionless shocks are thought, by analogy with supernova remnant shocks, to accelerate charged particles to $>\TeV$ energies, where they Compton-scatter cosmic-microwave background (CMB) photons up to the \gama-ray band\cite{LoebWaxman00, TotaniKitayama00, KeshetEtAl03}.
Consequently, one expects to find \gama-ray rings around clusters\cite{WaxmanLoeb00}, as indicated by cosmological simulations\cite{KeshetEtAl03, Miniati02}, which suggest an elliptic morphology elongated towards the large-scale filaments feeding the cluster\cite{KeshetEtAl03}.
Such rings are also expected in hard X-rays\cite{KushnirWaxman10}, and should coincide with a synchrotron radio ring\cite{WaxmanLoeb00,KeshetEtAl04} and with a cutoff in the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) signal\cite{KocsisEtAl05}.
However, no such virial shock signature was detected so far, although a stacking analysis of EGRET data around a sample of 447 rich clusters did show a $3\sigma$ signal\cite{ScharfMukherjee02}.
Upper limit were imposed on the \gama-ray emission from clusters such as Coma\cite{SreekumarEtAl96, ReimerEtAl03, AckermannEtAl10, VERITAS12_Coma}, but mostly focusing on the central parts of the cluster, well within the virial radius.
The very existence of cluster-scale virial shocks has thus remained unconfirmed.
The Coma cluster (Abell 1656) is one of the richest nearby clusters. With mass $M\sim 10^{15}M_\odot$, temperature $T\sim 8\keV$, and richness class 2, it lies only $\sim 100\Mpc$ away\cite{GavazziEtAl09}, at a redshift $z=0.023$.
Its virial radius, $R\simeq R_{200}\simeq 2.3\Mpc$, corresponds to an angular radius $\psi\simeq \psi_{200}\simeq 1.3\dgr$, where subscript $200$ refers to an enclosed density $200$ times above the critical value.
The cluster is somewhat elongated in the East-West direction, in coincidence with the Western LSS filament\cite{WestEtAl95} that connects it with the cluster Abell 1367 (see Figure \ref{fig:SDSS}). There is X-ray, optical, weak lensing, radio\cite{BrownRudnick10}, and SZ\cite{PlanckComa12} evidence that the cluster is accreting clumpy matter and experiencing weak shocks towards the filament well within the virial radius, at $\psi\sim0.5\dgr$ radii.
The VERITAS \v{C}erenkov array has produced a $d\sim 5\dgr$ diameter \gama-ray mosaic\cite{VERITAS12_Coma} of Coma, at energies $E\gtrsim 220\GeV$.
We argue that the significance map (Figure \ref{fig:ComaVer})
shows extended \gama-ray emission away from the center, that appears as a thick ($\sim 0.5\dgr$) elliptical ring with semi-minor axis $b\simeq 1.3\dgr$, elongated along the East--West direction, with semi-major to semi-minor axes ratio $\myzeta=a/b\gtrsim 3$.
The ring is seen at a $4.5\sigma$ confidence level (effectively a single-parameter fit, estimated using mock VERITAS noise maps; see Figures \ref{fig:ComaVerBin} and \ref{fig:ComaVerTilt} and \S\ref{sec:VERITAS}).
However, the data was taken in $\myw=0.5\dgr$ wobble mode\cite{DanielEtAl08}, inappropriate for extended emission on larger scales; correcting for the excessive background removal indicates a $\geq 5.7\sigma$ signal.
\newsavebox{\myimage}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\savebox{\myimage}{\makebox{\epsfxsize=8.5cm \epsfbox{ComaVer14R600.eps}}
\subfloat[VERITAS significance map\label{fig:ComaVer}]{\usebox{\myimage}} \quad
\subfloat[Simulated cluster in \gama-rays\label{fig:ComaSim}]{\raisebox{\dimexpr.5\ht\myimage-.48\height\relax}{\epsfxsize=7cm \epsfbox{ComaSimContR600.eps}}}
\caption{\label{fig:ComaVerSim}
{\bf Observed and simulated \gama-ray maps of Coma.\\}
\emph{Left:} VERITAS $\gtrsim 220\GeV$ significance map\cite{VERITAS12_Coma} of Coma for $\theta=0.2\dgr$ integration (illustrated by the red circle). Elliptical bins are shown (thin dashed cyan contours) for $\Delta b=0.2\dgr$, $\myzeta=a/b=2$ and $\phi=-5\dgr$.
The bins showing enhanced emission are highlighted (bounded by thick, long-dashed green curves).
\emph{Right:}
Simulated map of a Coma-like cluster from a $\Lambda$CDM simulation\cite{KeshetEtAl03}.
The largest in the $200\Mpc$ simulation box, this cluster has\cite{KeshetEtAl04} mass $M\simeq 10^{15}M_\odot$ and temperature $T\simeq 8\keV$.
The $8.5\dgr$ diameter image was convolved with a $\sim 0.23\dgr$ beam, comparable to the VERITAS map, and rotated such that the large-scale filament extends to the West.
Colorbar: $\log_{10}(J/10^{-8}\cm^{-2}\se^{-1}\sr^{-1})$ brightness above $220\GeV$ for $\udot\xi_e=5\%$.
The regions corresponding to the VERITAS mosaic (solid cyan contour) and to the VERITAS ring (elliptic dashed contours) are highlighted.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\epsfxsize=9cm \epsfbox{ComaVerEllPhiBins1.eps}
}
\caption{\label{fig:ComaVerBin}
{\bf Significance of the VERITAS ring.\\}
Elliptical binning (symbols; connecting lines are guides to the eye) of the significance map (Figure \ref{fig:ComaVer}) with $\Delta b=0.6\dgr$, an East-West orientation ($\phi=0$), and semi-major to semi-minor axes ratios $\myzeta\equiv a/b=1$ (circles), $2$ (diamonds), $3$ (squares), $5$ (right triangles) and $1000$ (stars).
A slightly tilted, $\phi=-5\dgr$ orientation provides a slightly better fit, illustrated for $\myzeta=5$ (down triangles and solid line).
The yellow band corresponds to the bright extended ring marked in Figure \ref{fig:ComaVer}.
The detection significance of the ring can be estimated from the enclosed flux (the ordinate gives the nominal significance $S$), but more accurate estimates are found by considering a large sample of mock maps containing only noise, and applying the same elliptical templates, either constrained to have an East-West elongation (labelled dashed lines) or picking the angle $\phi$ that maximizes the significance in each map (labelled dot-dashed lines).
In either case, a correction due to excessive wobble-mode background subtraction is necessary.
}
\end{figure}
X-ray and galaxy maps suggest that the LSS filament and the semi-major axis of the thermal gas distribution are slightly tilted Southwest, at an angle $-10\dgr\lesssim\phi\lesssim 0\dgr$.
Indeed, the significance of the \gama-ray structure is maximized when thus tilted;
the best fit is obtained for $\myzeta\simeq 4.5$ and $\phi\simeq -5\dgr$.
If no assumption is made regarding $\phi$, the ring significance weakens to $4.2\sigma$ ($\geq 5.4\sigma$ corrected).
The size and morphology of the VERITAS ring resemble the predicted \gama-ray signature of a Coma-like, $M\sim10^{15}M_\odot$ and $T\sim 8\keV$ cluster in a $\Lambda$CDM simulation\cite{KeshetEtAl03}.
The simulated map (Figure \ref{fig:ComaSim}), oriented such that the major simulated LSS filament lies to the West and normalized for a nominal $3.3\sigma$ wobble-mode VERITAS detection (no remaining free parameters), correlates with the VERITAS map at the $3.7\sigma$ ($4.9\sigma$ corrected) confidence level.
The ring brightness agrees with predictions too, if the relativistic electron fraction $\xi_e$ of the thermal energy accretion rate $\udot$ (normalized by the total thermal energy over a Hubble time) is a few percent.
The associated $\sim 5\eV\se^{-1}\cm^{-2}$ flux at $20\till 80\keV$ energies can explain the hard X-ray signal observed in Coma\cite{FuscoFemianoEtAl11}.
Similar, $\xi_e\udot\simeq 4\%$ values are inferred from the $3\sigma$ EGRET stacking analysis\cite{ScharfMukherjee02}, and from LSS hard X-ray sources\cite{KushnirWaxman10, MakiyaEtAl12}.
In order to examine the coincident radio signals, we spectrally decompose the WMAP seven-year, full-sky maps\cite{KomatsuEtAl11} into synchrotron and thermal SZ maps.
Excluding the inner, $b<1\dgr$ part of the cluster, the VERITAS data correlates with the synchrotron map at a $+2.8\sigma$ ($+3.9\sigma$) confidence level (Figure \ref{fig:CompositeVERsyn}), and anti-correlates with the SZ signal at $-2.6\sigma$ ($-3.6\sigma$).
The radio signals are stronger in the Western half of the ring, towards the LSS filament, where the correlations strengthen up to $+3.5\sigma$ ($+4.6\sigma$) with the synchrotron and $-3.9\sigma$ ($-5.0\sigma$) with the SZ.
These peripheral radio signals agree with predictions for the synchrotron emission from the \gama-ray emitting electrons, and for the SZ decline with thermal pressure beyond the shock, provided that $B\simeq 0.6\muG$ magnetic fields are found downstream, corresponding to $\xi_B\simeq 1\%$ magnetization.
Bright spots along the ring suggest local enhancements, up to $\udot\xi_{e}\xi_{B}\sim$ a few times its mean value.
While the SZ signal, extending in some parts out to $\psi\simeq 2.3\dgr$, agrees with SZ detections by WMAP\cite{KomatsuEtAl11} and Planck\cite{PlanckComa12}, the peripheral synchrotron signal coincident with the \gama-rays and with the SZ cutoff was not reported so far.
Note that the \gama-ray ring and these radio features are much farther out than the $\psi\simeq0.5\dgr$ weak shocks previously reported based on X-ray, radio\cite{BrownRudnick10}, and SZ\cite{PlanckComa12} data.
Inside the $b=1\dgr$ ellipse, the VERITAS and synchrotron maps show a $-1.9\sigma$ ($-2.7\sigma$) anti-correlation, mainly ($-2.2\sigma$ ($-2.8\sigma$)) in the West, evident from the \gama-ray underluminous radio halo and relic (Figure \ref{fig:CompositeVERsyn}).
Such a signature, predicted in secondary models\cite{Keshet10} where cosmic-ray ion collisions inject relativistic electrons in both strongly ($\gtrsim 3\muG$) and weakly magnetized regions, which consequently appear radio bright/\gama-ray faint and vice versa, is unnatural in primary models where electrons are (re)accelerated in turbulence\cite{EnsslinEtAl99, BrunettiEtAl01} or weak shocks.
Secondary electrons can explain radio halos\cite{Dennison80, KushnirEtAl09}, relics\cite{Keshet10} and minihalos\cite{KeshetLoeb10} as arising from the same cosmic-ray distribution, if the latter is nearly homogeneous\cite{Keshet10}.
The extent and magnitude of the anti-correlation observed, if confirmed, support such secondary models, and favor an extended cosmic-ray distribution.
A future VERITAS observation deeper than the present $18.6$ hour exposure would decisively test our results, in particular if wobble-mode corrections are minimized.
This would allow a more precise reconstruction of the virial shock and a measure of variations in the electron deposition rate along the shock front.
Such data is valuable in the study of LSS formation at low redshifts, mapping the feeding pattern of Coma, probing the surrounding voids and filaments, and tracing the warm-hot intergalactic medium (WHIM) immediately behind the shock.
A detailed, more significant anti-correlation between \gama-ray and synchrotron maps at inner, $\psi\lesssim 1\dgr$ radii would confirm the hadronic, secondary electron model for cluster radio sources, and provide a direct measure of magnetic variations in the ICM.
A deeper \gama-ray observation would thus probe the cosmic-ray proton distribution out to large radii, address the origin of these protons, and place an upper limit on proton acceleration in the virial shock.
The VERITAS energy threshold, $E\simeq 220\GeV$, is not far below the expected photon cutoff, $E_{max}\simeq 50 (B/0.6\muG)\TeV$.
Observations at higher energies would become increasingly sensitive to this cutoff, thus probing the conditions at the shock.
Interestingly, no evidence for extended emission was found in a $1.1\TeV$ observation of Coma by the HESS telescopes\cite{AharonianEtAl09}, with $\sim 40\%$ the sensitivity in the VERITAS mosaic, but the \gama-ray ring may be shallowly buried in the HESS noise.
Calibrating analytic\cite{LoebWaxman00, KeshetEtAl03}, and numerical\cite{KeshetEtAl03, KeshetEtAl04} estimates with the above $\udot\xi_e$ and $\xi_B$ values, yields $E^2 dJ/dE\simeq 0.3\keV(\xi_e\udot/5\%)\se^{-1}\cm^{-2}\sr^{-1}$ inverse-Compton and $\nu I_\nu\sim 3\times 10^{-11}(\xi_e\udot/5\%) (\xi_B/1\%) \erg\se^{-1}\cm^{-2}\sr^{-1}$ synchrotron cumulative backgrounds from cluster shocks.
These constitute fair fractions of the \gama-ray and low-frequency radio signals observed far from the Galactic plane, and dominate the respective diffuse extragalactic backgrounds\cite{KeshetEtAl04, KeshetEtAl04_EGRB}.
The paper is organized as follows.
In \S\ref{sec:VERITAS} we show that an elongated \gama-ray ring around Coma was observed by the VERITAS \v{C}erenkov array.
Methods to correct for excessive wobble-mode background subtraction are discussed in general in \S\ref{sec:Wobble}, and specifically for cross-correlation analyses in \S\ref{sec:CrossCorrelations}.
Contamination by Galactic foregrounds is shown to be negligible in \S\ref{sec:Galactic}.
The \gama-ray ring is shown to agree with simulation-based predictions in \S\ref{sec:Simulation}.
Significant correlations with both synchrotron and SZ maps are presented in \S\ref{sec:Radio}.
In \S\ref{sec:InverseCompton} we show that the \gama-ray signal agrees with predictions, if the shock deposits a few percent of the thermal energy per Hubble time in relativistic electrons.
In \S\ref{sec:RadioTheory} we show that the synchrotron and SZ signals also agree with the predictions, if magnetic fields carry $\xi_B\simeq 1\%$ of the thermal energy.
A \gama-ray--radio anti-correlation inward of the \gama-ray ring is interpreted in \S\ref{sec:InnerEmission} as possible preliminary evidence for strong local magnetization and secondary electron injection at small radii.
The results are summarized and discussed in \S\ref{sec:Discussion}.
A simple $\beta$-model of the shock is provided in Appendix \ref{sec:BetaModel}.
We adopt a concordance flat $\Lambda$CDM model with hubble constant $H=70\km\Mpc^{-1}$, a baryon fraction $f_b=17\%$, and a hydrogen mass fraction $\chi=0.75$.
The plasma is approximated as an ideal gas with adiabatic index $\Gamma=5/3$ and mean particle mass $\mu=0.59m_p$, where $m_p$ is the proton mass.
Colorbars are square-weighted.
\section{VERITAS \gama-ray ring around Coma}
\label{sec:VERITAS}
VERITAS has produced a $d\sim 5\dgr$ diameter \gama-ray mosaic\cite{VERITAS12_Coma} of Coma, at energies $\gtrsim 220\GeV$. The significance map (Figure \ref{fig:ComaVer}), taken in $\myw=0.5\dgr$ wobble mode\cite{DanielEtAl08} with a $\theta=0.2\dgr$ integration radius, shows some extended \gama-ray emission away from the center.
The \gama-ray structure appears as an elliptical ring, elongated along the East-West direction, or as two parallel filaments lying symmetrically both North and South of the cluster.
The spectrum in the VERITAS band is probably flat, as a $p=2.4$ photon spectral index was used to optimize the gamma-hadron separation cuts\cite{VERITAS12_Coma}.
In \S\ref{sec:InverseCompton} we show that a flat spectrum with index $p=2$ (equal energy per logarithmic energy interval) is consistent with observations at lower energies.
Denote the VERITAS significance map by $s_j$.
The data is taken in wobble mode\cite{DanielEtAl08}, where a pixel of significance $s_j$ means that in a beam of radius $\theta=0.2\dgr$ centered upon the pixel, there are $s_j \phN_\sigma$ counts in excess of the anticipated $\phN_{0.2}$ background events, where $\phN_\sigma\equiv \phN_{0.2}^{1/2}$ and the background is estimated based on a $\myw\sim 0.5\dgr$ ring around the pixel.
A $\theta^2$ analysis\cite{VERITAS12_Coma} shows a background of about $\phN_{0.2}\simeq 1000$ photon counts above $220\GeV$ in such a $\theta=0.2\dgr$ bin.
The background per pixel is denoted by $\phN_b=\phN_{0.2}/\pxN_{0.2}$, where $\pxN_{0.2}$ is the number of pixels in the beam.
First we assume that the background is uniform, so the pixels are not correlated before the beam integration.
The nominal significance of an extended source may then be estimated as
\begin{equation}
S = \frac{s \phN_\sigma/\pxN_{0.2}}{\sqrt{\phN_b \pxN}} = \frac{s}{\sqrt{\pxN_{0.2}\pxN}} \coma
\end{equation}
where $s=\sum s_j$ and $\pxN$ are respectively the total significance and the number of pixels enclosed.
In order to quantify the \gama-ray structure and assess its significance, we fit the data with a thick, elliptical ring model.
The center of the ellipse is chosen as the ROSAT X-ray peak.
The median semi-major axis $a$ is taken along the East-West direction, as inferred from the ROSAT map and from the orientation of the SDSS galaxy filament.
The thickness of the ring is fixed at $\Delta b=0.6\dgr$ along the semi-minor axis, because a thicker ring would exceed the $2\myw=1\dgr$ limit imposed by the wobble-mode background subtraction\footnote{
\if \MakeDouble 1
\fontsize{10pt}{8pt}\selectfont
\fi
The map is cut into elliptical, $\Delta b=\theta=0.2\dgr$ bins (Figure \ref{fig:ComaVer}), so $\Delta b\geq0.8\dgr$ exceeds $2\myw$ at oblique angles.}.
The ring is then defined by its median semi-minor axis $b$ and elongation ratio $\myzeta=a/b$, taken as two free parameters.
However, for sufficient elongation, $\myzeta\gtrsim 3$, the results (Figures \ref{fig:ComaVerBin} and \ref{fig:ComaVerTilt}) depend weakly upon $\myzeta$.
The (effectively single-parameter) fit then indicates an extended structure around $b\simeq 1.3\dgr$, found at an $S=3.3 \sigma$ nominal significance level.
The SDSS (Figure \ref{fig:SDSS}) and ROSAT maps suggest that the LSS filament and the semi-major axis of the gas distribution are slightly tilted towards the Southwest, at an angle $-10\dgr\lesssim\phi\lesssim 0\dgr$.
Indeed, the significance of the \gama-ray structure is maximized when tilted at precisely such angles (Figure \ref{fig:ComaVerTilt}).
The best fit is obtained for $\myzeta\simeq 4.5$ and $\phi\simeq -5\dgr$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{
\epsfxsize=7cm \epsfbox{ComaVerTiltScan2BPolar.eps}
}
\caption{\label{fig:ComaVerTilt}
\if \MakeDouble 1
\fontsize{10pt}{8pt}\selectfont
\fi
{\bf Orientation of the VERITAS ring.\\}
The nominal significance $S$ (thin, solid curves) and corresponding semi-minor axes $b$ (thick, dashed curves) are shown for elongated rings of various ellipticity $\myzeta$ (legend).
The yellow sector corresponds to the $-10\dgr<\phi<0\dgr$ orientation of the LSS filament.
The secondary peak towards $\phi\simeq 70\dgr$ with $b\sim 0.5\dgr$ is related to the primary peak: the semi-major axis of the small ellipse solution roughly coincides with the semi-minor axis of the large ellipse solution.
}
\end{figure}
A more reliable way to estimate the significance of the extended emission is to apply the same elliptical templates to a large sample ($\sim 1000$) of mock significance maps, containing random noise but no signal.
We prepare these maps by injecting Poisson noise at the observed background level to the VERITAS mosaic template, integrating over the same $\theta=0.2\dgr$ beam, and converting to a significance map using either the mean background or a simulated $\myw=0.5\dgr$ wobble-mode background.
None of the resulting mock maps shows a signal as strong as the observed $S=3.3\sigma$, so we extrapolate to the high significance levels assuming a Gaussian distribution.
The resulting significance levels are shown as dashed curves in Figure \ref{fig:ComaVerBin}, for elliptical rings elongated in the East-West direction (based on 1000 maps at a given $\zeta$).
If we make no a-priori assumption regarding the ring orientation $\phi$, but rather choose in each mock map the value $\phi$ that maximizes its nominal ring significance, we obtain higher mock detection levels, shown as dot-dashed contours in the figure (based on 200 maps, each scanned with $\Delta \phi=20\dgr$ tilt intervals). The results depend weakly (within the statistical fluctuations) on $\zeta$.
The mock statistics indicate that the VERITAS ring presents at the $4.5\sigma$ confidence level if we assume that it is aligned with the LSS filament, and at $4.2\sigma$ confidence if we make no a-priori assumption regarding $\phi$.
These conservative estimates are based on the mean background, and are approximately independent of $\myzeta$; higher, $\sim 5.5\sigma$ significance levels are obtained when wobble-mode is used to estimate the mock background.
As we show in \S\ref{sec:Wobble} below, the detection significance for such extended structures is actually higher, $\geq 5.7\sigma$ for East-West alignment, and $\geq 5.4$ for arbitrary $\phi$.
The signal is locally on the order of $\lesssim 10\%$ of the noise, and stronger than the average Galactic foreground at these energies\cite{AckermannEtAl12} (see \S\ref{sec:InverseCompton}).
In the Coma region, the expected Galactic foreground is relatively low, spatially smooth, and featureless on $\lesssim0.5\dgr$ scales; see \S\ref{sec:Galactic}.
Wobble-background subtraction is highly efficient in removing smooth foregrounds; a disadvantage is that it also removes much of the signal for extended sources.
In wobble mode, an estimated background is subtracted based on a ring of radius $\myw$ around each pixel.
This method, appropriate for point sources, distorts and smears out features extended over scales comparable or larger than $\myw$.
As we show below, analyses of the \gama-ray features, of a histogram of the \gama-ray pixels, and of wobble simulations, indicate that the wobble subtraction reduces the significance of the extended features observed by at least $\Delta S=1.2\sigma$.
Therefore, the corrected significance of a \gama-ray ring aligned with the LSS filament is estimated as $\geq 5.7\sigma$.
\section{Correcting for wobble-mode background subtraction}
\label{sec:Wobble}
Consider the wobble-induced correlation between \gama-ray pixels. Due to the wobble background subtraction, the significance of a pixel is anti-correlated with the pixels $\myw\sim 0.5\dgr$ around it. One implication is that sources that extend over scales much larger than $\myw$ are effectively erased by the background subtraction, except in an $\sim \myw$ wide band in their periphery. In such a band, and in sources that extend $\lesssim \myw$ in at least one direction, the signal is diminished but not completely erased. For example, the estimated signal at the inner edge of a large linear source will be diminished by a factor of two, and the signal at the outer edge will have an equal but negative significance.
Therefore, for sources that extend over $>\myw$ in at least one direction, the actual significance may be $\gtrsim 2$ times higher than estimated from the wobble-mode map.
In order to quantify the effect wobble-mode has on the signal, we examine the distribution of \gama-ray significance pixels, using the same $\theta=0.2\dgr$ integration beam applied to the map.
The significance histogram (Figure \ref{fig:VER_Hist}), taken with $\delta \sigma=0.1$ intervals, can be modeled\cite{VERITAS12_Coma} as a single Gaussian function, with adjusted coefficient of determination $\bar{R}^2=0.9956$.
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\epsfxsize=10cm \epsfbox{ComaHist8.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:VER_Hist}
\if \MakeDouble 1
\fontsize{10pt}{8pt}\selectfont
\fi
{\bf Histogram of pixel significance in the VERITAS map.\\}
A single Gaussian function (dot-dashed) provides a marginal fit to the data.
A much better fit is provided by the sum (solid) of two Gaussian functions (dashed); see text for function parameters.
Inset: logarithmic histogram.
}
\end{figure*}
However, the histogram shows peak deviations and sharp cutoffs, indicating a more complicated underlying distribution.
Indeed, a simple model combining two Gaussian functions provides a much better fit to the data ($\bar{R}^2=0.9967$; note that $\bar{R}$ improves slowly near $1$).
The best fit is obtained for Gaussian means $\mu_1=-1.23\pm0.21$ and $\mu_2=0.23\pm0.15$, with corresponding standard deviations $0.69\pm0.12$ and $0.91\pm0.08$.
The data were also modelled as the sum of two Gaussian functions constrained to have the same standard deviation; the resulting best fit is similar to the unconstrained sum: $\mu_1=-0.96\pm 0.06$ and $\mu_2=0.41\pm0.05$, with standard deviation $0.83\pm0.04$ ($\bar{R}^2=0.9967$).
Both fits suggest that a signal is present in the map, with pixels that are on average $\mu_2-\mu_1\simeq 1.4\sigma$ above the noise.
Interestingly, a histogram of the pixels found only in the central, $\sim2\dgr$ wide region of the map agrees much better with a single Gaussian\cite{PerkinsEtAl08}.
This indicates that the additional signal is found at radii $\gtrsim 1\dgr$, in agreement with the inferred ring.
The above arguments indicate that the local pixel significance should in fact be $\Delta s_j\sim -\mu_1 \simeq 1.2\sigma$ higher than it appears in the significance map (Figure \ref{fig:ComaVer}).
This imposes a lower limit $\Delta S=1.2(\pxN/\pxN_{0.2})^{1/2}\sigma$ to the correction factor needed in order to estimate the significance of an extended structure or of a cross-correlation signal (see \S\ref{sec:CrossCorrelations}) with respect to the true background.
We conservatively use $\Delta S=1.2\sigma$ for extended emission exceeding the beam size.
Another indication that such a correction is needed are the negative, $\lesssim -3\sigma$ significance regions, lying just outside the bright feature we identify as a ring.
Assuming that the bright region is part of an extended, linear structure, this suggests that its local significance should be $\Delta s_j\gtrsim(3+\mu_1)/2 \simeq 0.9\sigma$ higher than it appears.
Another way to assess the effect of wobble background subtraction is to apply it to a simulated cluster map.
We thus normalize the \gama-ray map of the simulated cluster derived in \S\ref{sec:Simulation} below, add homogeneous poisson noise, introduce a $\myw=0.5\dgr$ wobble-mode correction, and integrate over the $\theta=0.2\dgr$ beam.
The normalization and background are chosen such that the final map thus obtained shows $4.0\sigma$ bright spots over a background comparable to the VERITAS background.
For such parameters, a map identically prepared but with mean background, rather than wobble background subtraction, shows $6.1\sigma$ bright spots, implying a true significance $\sim 50\%$ higher than inferred in wobble-mode.
A \gama-ray structure that extends over scales much greater than $\myw$ would be largely erased by the wobble background subtraction.
Hence, the above estimates provide only a lower limit to the correction needed to determine the significance of such a structure.
\section{Cross-correlation signals and wobble-mode calibration}
\label{sec:CrossCorrelations}
Next, consider a cross-correlation between the VERITAS map $s_j$ and some potential tracer of the virial shock, $q_j$.
After binning the two maps onto some common grid, we compute the correlation as
\begin{equation}
\mys = \sum_{j=1}^{\pxN} \frac{\left( s_j-\mu_s \right) \left( q_j-\mu_q \right)}{\pxN^2 \sigma_s\sigma_q \pxN_{0.2}^{1/2}} \coma
\end{equation}
where the means $\mu$, standard deviations $\sigma$, and number of pixels $\pxN$, pertain to the region being examined. The factor $\pxN_{0.2}$ accounts for the correlation between pixels within the $\theta=0.2\dgr$ beam, ensuring that the result is approximately independent of the grid resolution.
The significance of the correlation is determined by generating a large ($>\pxN^2$, converged) sample of maps with randomly swapped pixels, and computing the corresponding significance distribution.
Consider the effect wobble-mode background subtraction has on such cross-correlations.
As in the significance estimation discussed in \S\ref{sec:Wobble}, any existing correlation is diminished because extended bright regions experience excessive background subtraction.
However, the effect here is more severe, because background regions lying $\leq \myw$ away from the bright structure are affected as well, appearing excessively faint.
As such ``dark edges'' appear in the wobble-mode map but not in the tracers, the correlation is further diminished.
The effect of wobble-mode background subtraction on a cross-correlations signal can be crudely estimated by correlating mock tracers with simulated \gama-ray maps, prepared with (\eg Figure \ref{fig:ComaSimWobble}) and without (\eg Figure \ref{fig:ComaSim}) wobble background subtraction.
We generate mock tracers by adding random noise of various mean amplitude to the significance map of the simulated cluster, smoothed with a Gaussian filter of standard deviation $r_q$.
The results are well-fit by a wobble correction factor
\begin{equation} \label{eq:CorrWobble}
\Delta \mys \simeq 0.18 e^{(r_q/0.2\dgr)}(d/5\dgr)\mys \coma
\end{equation}
where $\mys$ is the nominal significance of the cross-correlation using the wobble-mode signal, $\mys+\Delta\mys$ is the true significance, and $\pi (d/2)^2$ is the solid angle involved.
For example, for the typical $r_q=0.25\dgr$ of WMAP, the $\mys\simeq+2.8\sigma$ correlation found (see \S\ref{sec:Radio} below) between \gama-ray and synchrotron emission outside the inner $b=1\dgr$ ellipse bounding the \gama-ray structure from below yields a corrected $\mys+\Delta\mys=+3.9\sigma$ confidence level.
As pointed out in \S\ref{sec:Wobble}, these corrections are only lower limits if the \gama-ray structure is more extended than the simulated ring used to derive Eq.~(\ref{eq:CorrWobble}).
\section{Negligible Galactic contamination}
\label{sec:Galactic}
When averaged over large angular scales, the Galactic foreground anticipated above $220\GeV$ based on Fermi observations\cite{AckermannEtAl12} is lower by at least a factor of a few than the ring signal (see \S\ref{sec:InverseCompton}).
Moreover, Galactic signals on $\gtrsim\myw=0.5\dgr$ scales are efficiently removed from the VERITAS map by the wobble-mode background correction.
Next, we show that no significant Galactic contamination on $\lesssim\myw$ scales is expected in the VERITAS mosaic of Coma.
The main \gama-ray Galactic foregrounds at intermediate latitudes arise from \myNi inverse Compton emission from cosmic-ray (CR) electrons;
\myNii relativistic bremsstrahlung of CR electrons with the interstellar plasma; and
\myNiii nucleon-nucleon scattering between CR ions and the interstellar medium.
The CRs are unlikely to show significant structure on $<0.5\dgr$ scales, as this would require $<10\pc$ magnetic fields at $<1\kpc$ distances.
Moreover, synchrotron maps\cite{Haslam82, Reich82} show relatively very little emission from the Coma region.
Therefore, the Galactic foreground on small scales is dominated by electron bremsstrahlung and by $\pi^0$ decay from nucleon collisions, both approximately following the distribution of gas along the line of sight.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\subfloat[H$\alpha$\label{fig:Halpha}]{\epsfxsize=8cm \epsfbox{ComaHalphaR600.eps}}
\subfloat[Dust\label{fig:SFDdust}]{\epsfxsize=8cm \epsfbox{ComaDustR600.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:GalacticTracers}
\if \MakeDouble 1
\fontsize{10pt}{8pt}\selectfont
\fi
{\bf Tracers of Galactic foreground near Coma.\\}
The H$\alpha$ full-sky map\cite{Finkbeiner03} (left; colorbar units: Rayleigh) and the SFD dust map\cite{Schlegel98} (right; colorbar: E(V-B) reddening) show only little Galactic structure in the region of the VERITAS mosaic (enclosed by cyan contour), and in particular towards the \gama-ray ring (dashed green contours).
}
\end{figure*}
Hence, we may estimate the Galactic contamination remaining in the VERITAS map using gas tracers, such as the full-Sky H$\alpha$ \cite{Finkbeiner03} and infrared dust emission\cite{Schlegel98} maps (Figure \ref{fig:GalacticTracers}).
Both tracers indicate a very low level of Galactic structure in the Coma region, and towards the \gama-ray ring in particular, with only minor structure found mainly in the East.
We confirm this using a spectral linear regression of the seven-year WMAP data, outlined in \S\ref{sec:Radio}.
Both tracers show no positive correlation with the VERITAS map, ruling out any significant remaining Galactic contamination.
Note that synchrotron tracers should not be used here to estimate or eliminate the Galactic foreground.
First, these tracers are inefficient as they follow the smooth CR electron distribution.
More importantly, they include an interesting synchrotron signal from the Coma virial ring, as we argue in \S\ref{sec:Radio}.
\section{Gamma-rays from a simulated cluster}
\label{sec:Simulation}
The VERITAS signal can be assessed by comparing it to the \gama-ray signature of a simulated Coma-like cluster in a $\Lambda$CDM simulation\cite{KeshetEtAl03}.
The \gama-ray signal was computed by injecting relativistic electrons at the strong shocks of the simulation, with a Mach number-dependent power-law spectrum given by the Fermi diffusive shock acceleration model.
These electrons were assumed to carry a fraction $\xi_e$ of the thermal post-shock energy; see \S\ref{sec:InverseCompton} for details.
We choose the richest cluster in the $(200\Mpc)^3$ simulation box, found\cite{KeshetEtAl04} to have a Coma-like mass $\sim10^{15}M_\odot$ and temperature $T\sim 8\keV$.
\newsavebox{\myimageB}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\savebox{\myimageB}{\hbox{\epsfxsize=9cm \epsfbox{SDSS2cR600.eps}}
\quad
\subfloat[SDSS galaxies with simulated LSS filaments\label{fig:SDSS}]{\usebox{\myimageB}}
\quad
\subfloat[Corresponding simulated \gama-ray map\label{fig:GammaSDSS}]{\raisebox{\dimexpr.5\ht\myimageB-.48\height\relax}{\epsfxsize=6cm \epsfbox{ComaSimR600P2.eps}}}
\caption{\label{fig:ComaSim2}
\if \MakeDouble 1
\fontsize{10pt}{8pt}\selectfont
\fi
{\bf The LSS environment of Coma.\\}
\emph{Left:} SDSS galaxies at redshift $0.018<z<0.028$ near Coma.
The simulation roughly reproduces the filamentary structure near Coma, especially when reflected about the semi-major axis of the virial shock (solid red contours show the density-weighted $T=1\keV$ gas in a $4.4\Mpc$ thick slice through the simulation box\cite{KeshetEtAl03}).
\emph{Right:} \gama-ray map for $\xi_e\dot{m}=5\%$, showing the $>220\GeV$ brightness as $\log_{10}(J/10^{-8}\cm^{-2}\se^{-1}\sr^{-1})$ after said reflection.
Elliptic dashed contours from Figure \ref{fig:ComaVer} are superimposed, and the region shown in the right panel is marked by a dot-dashed circle.
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centerline{
\epsfxsize=6.5cm \epsfbox{ComaSimWob2R600.eps}
}
\caption{\label{fig:ComaSimWobble}
\if \MakeDouble 1
\fontsize{10pt}{8pt}\selectfont
\fi
{\bf Wobble-mode background-subtracted \gama-ray map of the simulated cluster.\\}
The map corresponds to the VERITAS parameters: $\Delta t=18.6$ hour integration, $A=4\times 10^8\cm^2$ effective area, and $90\%$ Poisson noise.
While the bright spots are $\sim 3\sigma$ for $\xi_e\dot{m}=5\%$, here we use $\xi_e\dot{m}=50\%$ to also show the dimmer Western edge.
}
\end{figure}
The simulated virial shock (Figure \ref{fig:ComaSim}) has an elliptic structure, elongated towards the main LSS filament (Figure \ref{fig:SDSS}), with semi-minor axis $b\simeq 1.3\dgr$ and semi-major axis $a\simeq 2.5\dgr$ (at the distance of Coma); the average $<220\GeV$ spectral index is $p\simeq 2.05$.
The shock elongation, the morphology of the surrounding filaments, and the enhanced accretion towards the main filament, suggest a prolate geometry aligned with the main filament feeding the cluster.
Unrelaxed, merger clusters such as Coma are indeed known to preferentially be prolate\cite{LemzeEtAl12}.
The center of the simulated cluster is determined by the peak density.
The simulated map is rotated about this point such that the main simulated LSS filament coincides with the $\phi \sim -5\dgr$ orientation of the SDSS filament and the ROSAT ellipse.
By coincidence, the agreement between the simulated filaments and the SDSS map remains fairly good even far from the cluster, if the simulated map is inverted along the semi-major axis of the virial shock (Figure \ref{fig:ComaSim2}).
The simulated \gama-ray signal shows a positive correlation with the VERITAS map (Figure \ref{fig:ComaVerSim}), at the $3.7\sigma$ confidence level ($4.9\sigma$ after correcting for the excessive wobble-mode background subtraction; see \S\ref{sec:Wobble}).
The correlation remains strong, $>3.5\sigma$ ($>4.7\sigma$), if the maps are rotated by $<5\dgr$ with respect to each other.
The extent of the virial shock may be somewhat overestimated by the adiabatic, smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) simulation.
Indeed, the correlation strengthens to $4.1\sigma$ ($5.3\sigma$) if the simulated map is resized by a factor $0.9$.
The mass accretion rate $\dot{M}$ of the cluster, normalized by the mass-to-Hubble time ratio in the dimensionless parameter $\dot{m}\equiv \dot{M}/(M H)$, varies among clusters and fluctuates in time, and is found\cite{KeshetEtAl04} to be somewhat low when averaged over the simulated cluster, $\dot{m}\simeq 0.3$.
The \gama-ray map shown in Figure \ref{fig:ComaSim} corresponds to normalized average accretion rate $\dot{m}=1$, and an acceleration efficiency $\xi_e=5\%$. Equivalently, we may examine the accretion rate of the total thermal energy $U_{th}$, using the dimensionless parameter $\udot\equiv \dot{U}_{th}/(U_{th} H)$.
In the simulation, we find\cite{KeshetEtAl03,KeshetEtAl04} $\udot\simeq \dot{m}$, although slightly larger, $\udot=(5/3)\dot{m}$ values arise in a simple isothermal sphere model\cite{WaxmanLoeb00}.
\section{Significant cross-correlations between \gama-ray and radio signals}
\label{sec:Radio}
In order to quantify the coincidence between \gama-ray and radio signals, we analyze the WMAP seven-year, full-sky maps\cite{KomatsuEtAl11}.
We use a simple spectral decomposition of the five WMAP bands into synchrotron and SZ maps, avoiding any spatial masking which may complicate the comparison to the VERITAS map.
The synchrotron spectrum is approximated as a pure power-law, with brightness $I_\nu\propto \nu^\alpha$ and spectral index $\alpha=-1.2$, typical of cluster radio sources; the results are not sensitive to the precise spectrum for $-2 \lesssim \alpha \lesssim -1$.
The SZ signal is clear in the central parts of Coma, but is difficult to spectrally separate from the CMB fluctuations at large radii\cite{KomatsuEtAl11}.
For simplicity, we leave these CMB fluctuations in the SZ map, thus somewhat diluting any correlations with the VERITAS map.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\subfloat[Thermal SZ\label{fig:WMAP_SZ}]{\epsfxsize=8cm \epsfbox{ComaSZS2bR600.eps}}
\subfloat[Synchrotron\label{fig:WMAP_Syn}]{\epsfxsize=8cm \epsfbox{ComaSynS2cR600.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:WMAP_Regression}
\if \MakeDouble 1
\fontsize{10pt}{8pt}\selectfont
\fi
{\bf Radio maps of the Coma region.\\}
Thermal SZ (left; colorbar is the low-frequency $\Delta \TSZ=-2y$ in mK) and synchrotron (right; colorbar is $\Tsyn (\nu/23\GHz)^{3.2}$ in mK) maps, spectrally extracted from the WMAP seven-year all sky map\cite{KomatsuEtAl11}.
The dashed curves, showing the \gama-ray bright region, are the same as in Figure \ref{fig:ComaVer}, and the cyan contours show the VERITAS mosaic region.
}
\end{figure*}
In general, the WMAP data includes non-negligible foregrounds from Galactic synchrotron, dust and free-free emission\cite{GoldEtAl11}, which are strong towards the Galactic plane and in principal should be removed.
However, as discussed in \S\ref{sec:Galactic}, these signals are particularly weak in the Coma region (Figure \ref{fig:GalacticTracers}), are spatially too smooth (in particular the synchrotron foreground) to have a \gama-ray counterpart surviving the wobble-mode background removal, and their tracers do not correlate with the VERITAS map.
Moreover, the extragalactic synchrotron signal cannot be separated from the Galactic $\alpha\simeq -1$ synchrotron, $\alpha\simeq -0.7$ dust, and $\alpha\simeq -0.35$ free-free signals, using spectral regression alone, in particular considering the varying synchrotron spectral index in the cluster radio sources.
Therefore, we leave these faint and probably smooth Galactic contaminations in our synchrotron extragalactic tracer.
This only dilutes the correlations between this tracer and the VERITAS map, as the Galactic signals show no positive correlations with the latter.
Therefore, we fit the five WMAP channels by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta T & = & T-\Tcmb \\*
& = & y \left[ \tilde{\nu}\coth\left(\frac{\tilde{\nu}}{2}\right) -4 \right] + \Tsyn \left( \frac{\nu}{\nu_0}\right)^{-3.2} \coma \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde{\nu}=h\nu/k_B \Tcmb$ is the dimensionless frequency and $y$ is the Comptonization parameter.
The low-frequency SZ temperature shift $\Delta \TSZ=-2y$ and the synchrotron brightness temperature $\Tsyn$ (at the arbitrary frequency $\nu_0$) are used as fit parameters, giving the tracer maps (Figure \ref{fig:WMAP_Regression}).
Next, we compute the cross-correlation amplitudes of the VERITAS data with these $\Delta \TSZ$ and $\Tsyn$ maps.
On average, the VERITAS data show no correlation with the synchrotron map, and an insignificant, $-1.0\sigma$ ($-1.6\sigma$) anti-correlation with the SZ map (\ie a positive correlation with the $y$-parameter).
Here and below, results in parenthesis are the conservative confidence levels after correcting for the wobble-mode background subtraction, as described in \S\ref{sec:CrossCorrelations}.
Features seen in both SZ and synchrotron maps are more pronounced in the Western part of the cluster, possibly due to some Eastern foreground (\eg see Figure \ref{fig:Halpha}) or CMB fluctuation.
Consequently, for $\mbox{RA}<195.3$ (no more than $0.5\dgr$ East of the cluster's center), the SZ anti-correlation strengthens to $-1.6\sigma$ ($-2.3\sigma$).
Note that this signal does not arise from the spatial separation between the central SZ decrement and the peripheral \gama-ray ring, as this would correspond to a positive correlation here.
More importantly, when we split the data into two regions, outside and inside the inner $b=1\dgr$ ellipse bounding the \gama-ray signal, correlations emerge between \gama-rays and both radio signals.
Outside this inner ellipse, i.e. along the \gama-ray ring, the VERITAS map correlates with the synchrotron map at the $+2.8\sigma$ ($+3.9\sigma$) confidence level, and anti-correlates with the SZ map at the $-2.6\sigma$ ($-3.6\sigma$) level.
The signal is dominated by the Western half of the ring, where these correlations strengthen to $+3.2\sigma$ ($+4.1\sigma$) with the synchrotron and $-3.9\sigma$ ($-5.0\sigma$) with the SZ.
The results depend somewhat on the precise region examined.
For example, including the $0.5\dgr$ region east of the center, the synchrotron correlation strengthens to $+3.5\sigma$ ($+4.6\sigma$) while the SZ correlation remains unchanged.
Within the $b=1\dgr$ ellipse, the VERITAS map does not correlate with the SZ signal, but does show a $-1.9\sigma$ ($-2.7\sigma$) anti-correlation with the synchrotron map, mainly in the Western part, where it reaches $-2.2\sigma$ ($-2.8\sigma$).
The inner anti-correlation between the VERITAS and synchrotron maps, evident in the \gama-ray underluminous radio halo and radio relic, and their outer positive correlation, are illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:CompositeVERsyn}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
{\epsfxsize=8cm \epsfbox{ComaVerSynYel2R600.eps}}
\caption{\label{fig:CompositeVERsyn}
{\bf Composite \gama-ray and synchrotron emission.\\}
Superimposed VERITAS map (green; colorbar range: $-3.4\sigma$ to $+3.0\sigma$) and synchrotron map (red; spectrally extracted from the WMAP 7-year full sky-map; colorbar range: $-1.3$ to $+5.4(\nu/\mbox{GHz})^{3.2}\K$), showing a positive correlation (yellow) outside the inner edge of the \gama-ray ring (dashed contour) and an anti-correlation (spatially separated green and red, the latter dominated by the radio halo and relic) inside the ring.
}
\end{figure}
In the periphery of the cluster, the positive correlation between the VERITAS map and the synchrotron signal agrees with predictions for the coincident inverse-Compton and synchrotron emission from the same relativistic, shock-accelerated electrons, as we show in \S\ref{sec:InverseCompton} and \S\ref{sec:RadioTheory} below.
The anti-correlation with the SZ map agrees with the anticipated SZ signal from the thermal gas, expected to cutoff sharply as the thermal pressure drops beyond the virial shock, as shown in \S\ref{sec:RadioTheory}.
In the inner parts of the cluster, an anti-correlation between \gama-ray and synchrotron radiation was anticipated in secondary electron models, where electrons are continuously injected into the ICM in both strongly and weakly magnetized regions\cite{Keshet10}.
Here, electrons magnetized above (below) $\Bcmb\equiv (8\pi \ucmb)^{1/2}\sim 3\muG$, where $\ucmb$ is the CMB energy density, lose most of their energy to synchrotron (inverse-Compton) radiation in the radio (\gama-ray) band\cite{KushnirEtAl09}, leading to alternating radio- and \gama-ray-bright regions, as discussed in \S\ref{sec:InnerEmission}.
\section{The observed \gama-ray signal agrees with predictions for an $\xi_e\dot{m}\sim 5\%$ electron injection rate}
\label{sec:InverseCompton}
Cluster virial shocks last for long, $\sim H^{-1}$ Hubble timescales, and are strong, in particular where cold gas accretes from the voids and the Mach number squared is $\gg 10$.
Therefore, such shocks are thought to accelerate a flat, $dn/d\epsilon \propto \epsilon^{-2}$ spectrum (constant energy per logarithmic energy interval) of relativistic electrons up to high, cooling-limited energies.
The dominant cooling process here is Compton scattering off CMB photons, implying an electron energy cutoff\cite{LoebWaxman00}
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_{max} & \simeq & \frac{\Gamma+1}{2}m_e c \sqrt{\frac{3 e B k_B T}{(\Gamma-1)m_p\sigma_T\ucmb}} \nonumber \\
& \simeq & 60(T_{10}B_{0.1})^{1/2}\TeV \coma
\end{eqnarray}
where $k_B T=10T_{10}\keV$ and $B=0.1B_{0.1}\muG$ are the temperature and magnetic field amplitude downstream of the shock.
Here, $e$ and $m_e$ are the electron charge and mass, $\sigma_T$ is the Thompson cross section, and $c$ is the sound velocity.
The photon energy $E\sim 220\GeV$ which maximizes the VERITAS sensitivity corresponds\cite{VERITAS12_Coma} to electrons with energy $\epsilon \simeq (E/3k_B\Tcmb)^{1/2} m_e c^2 \simeq 9\TeV$, below but not far from the estimated cutoff.
The main uncertainty in modelling the nonthermal emission from a virial shock stems from the presently poor understanding of particle acceleration and magnetization in collisionless shocks.
The inverse-Compton emission from the shock can be estimated by assuming that a fraction $\xi_e=0.05\xi_{e,5}$ of the post-shock thermal energy is deposited in relativistic electrons.
Electrons with energies $\gg 100\MeV$ cool quickly, in a narrow shell behind the shock, so the logarithmic emissivity per unit surface area of the shock is
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:ICEmissivity}
E^2 \frac{d^3N}{dt\, dA\, dE} & \simeq & \frac{3\xi_e v n k_B T}{4\ln (\epsilon_{max}/m_e c^2)} \\
& \simeq & 10^{-8} \xi_{e,5} n_{-5} T_{10}^{3/2} \erg \se^{-1} \cm^{-2} \coma \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $n=10^{-5}n_{-5}\cm^{-3}$ is the (thermal) electron number density, and $v=(k_B T/12\mu)^{1/2}$ is the downstream velocity.
The \gama-ray signal from a Coma-like cluster can be computed using Eq.~(\ref{eq:ICEmissivity}) in the framework of a cosmological simulation\cite{KeshetEtAl03, Miniati02}, without introducing additional free parameters.
However, the comparison between simulated and observed clusters is complicated by a secondary uncertainty, involving the local accretion rate of the cluster.
This rate varies spatially along the shock front, fluctuates in time, and differs even among similar clusters as a function of their specific environment.
We parameterize the average accretion rate using the dimensionless variable
\begin{equation}
\dot{m} \equiv \frac{\dot{M}}{M H} \simeq \frac{4\pi R^2 \mu n v}{f_b M H} \coma
\end{equation}
where here we assumed a spherical shock of radius $R$.
In the $\beta$-model discussed in Appendix \ref{sec:BetaModel}, $\dot{m}=1.4$, and in the simulated cluster\cite{KeshetEtAl04} $\dot{m}\simeq 0.3$.
These are averaged quantities, with strong local fluctuations seen in simulations and expected in practice.
Consider a planar cut parallel to the line of sight, along which the virial shock is approximately a ring of radius $R$ and of negligible thickness.
A beam that intersects the cut at distances $\{r_1,r_2\}<R$ from the center covers a shock segment of length $2R|\arcsin(r_2/R)-\arcsin(r_1/R)|$.
Therefore, at the near edge of a long cylindrical shock of angular radius $\psi$, a beam of area $\theta^2$ would detect $>E$ energy photons with number flux
\begin{equation} \label{eq:JperBeam}
J(>E) \simeq \frac{\pi -2\arcsin\left(1-\theta/\psi\right)}
{4\pi (1+z)^4 \theta/\psi } E \frac{d^3 N}{dt\, dA\, dE} \fin
\end{equation}
A similar result is expected in the prolate shock inferred in Coma, where for the VERITAS map
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:JPredicted}
J(>220\GeV) &\simeq & 2 \times 10^{-8} \left( \frac{\psi}{10\theta} \right)^{1/2} \xi_{e,5} n_{-5} \nonumber \\
& & \times T_{10}^{3/2} \se^{-1} \cm^{-2} \sr^{-1} \fin
\end{eqnarray}
In the isothermal $\beta$-model, this may be written as $J(>220\GeV) \simeq 5 \times 10^{-8} \xi_{e,5}\dot{m} \se^{-1} \cm^{-2} \sr^{-1}$.
In order to compare this estimate with the \gama-ray structure seen in the VERITAS map, recall that a $1\sigma$ fluctuation corresponds to an excess of $\phN_{\sigma}=\phN_{0.2}^{1/2}\simeq 32$ photons with $E\gtrsim 220\GeV$ in a beam of radius $\theta=0.2\dgr$.
The map was produced by a $t=18.6$ hour exposure\cite{VERITAS12_Coma}, with an $A\simeq 4\times 10^8\cm^2$ effective area (at $\sim220\GeV$, see \cite{MaierEtAl08}).
A $1\sigma$ signal in the beam therefore corresponds to a photon flux
\begin{equation} \label{eq:IVer}
J_{1\sigma} \simeq \frac{\phN_{\sigma}}{\pi \theta^2 t A} \simeq 3.1 \times 10^{-8} \se^{-1} \cm^{-2} \sr^{-1} \fin
\end{equation}
The average signal inferred from the histogram (Figure \ref{fig:VER_Hist}), $\mu_2-\mu_1\simeq 1.4\sigma$, is thus comparable to the predicted signal in Eq.~(\ref{eq:JPredicted}) for standard parameters.
The agreement between the predicted (Eq.~\ref{eq:JPredicted}) and observed (Eq.~\ref{eq:IVer}) \gama-ray flux, and the similar significance of the \gama-ray features in the observed (Figure \ref{fig:ComaVer}) and simulated (Figure \ref{fig:ComaSim}) maps, suggest that to within an uncertainty factor of a few, $\xi_e\dot{m}\simeq 5\%$.
Localized regions with $\sim 3\sigma$ detection, and possibly brighter emission masked by the wobble-mode background subtraction, suggest that at least locally the product $\xi_e\dot{m}$ can exceed its inferred average value by a factor of a few.
The total flux from the virial shock can be estimated by taking $\theta\to 2\psi$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:JperBeam}), and integrating over the solid angle enclosed by the shock.
For a cylindrical ring of radius $b$ and length $\myzetaT b$, this gives
\begin{eqnarray}
F(>E) & \simeq & \frac{2b^2\myzetaT}
{4(1+z)^4} E \frac{d^3 N}{dt\, dA\, dE} \\
& \simeq & 10^{-9}\frac{\myzetaT b_1^2\xi_{e,5} n_{-5} T_{10}^{3/2} }
{E_1(1+z)^4} \se^{-1} \cm^{-2} \nonumber
\coma
\end{eqnarray}
where $b_1\equiv b/1\dgr$ and $E_1\equiv E/1\GeV$.
For the VERITAS band and $b=1.3\dgr$, we use the isothermal $\beta$-model to obtain $F(>220\GeV) \simeq 3\times 10^{-11}\myzetaT\xi_{e,5}\dot{m}\se^{-1}\cm^{-2}$.
Calibrating the free parameters against the local $1\sigma$ VERITAS flux (Eq.~\ref{eq:IVer}), this becomes $F(>220\GeV) \simeq 2\times 10^{-11}\myzetaT\se^{-1}\cm^{-2}$.
Extrapolating the VERITAS-calibrated signal to the EGRET band (assuming a flat spectrum), yields $F(>100\MeV) \simeq 4\times 10^{-8}\myzetaT\se^{-1}\cm^{-2}$, comparable to the $4\times 10^{-8}\se^{-1}\cm^{-2}$ EGRET upper limit on emission from Coma\cite{SreekumarEtAl96, ReimerEtAl03}.
The corresponding $F(>200\MeV) \simeq 2\times 10^{-8}\myzetaT\se^{-1}\cm^{-2}$ exceeds the $5\times 10^{-9}\se^{-1}\cm^{-2}$ upper limit imposed by Fermi\cite{AckermannEtAl10}, but this limit was obtained using an aperture optimized for emission from the central, X-ray bright region of the cluster.
Note that at such low energies, the Galactic foreground is not negligible, and both instruments lack the high angular resolution of VERITAS essential in order to identify the ring and avoid foreground contamination.
The above analysis assumed a flat spectrum of accelerated electrons, leading to a flat ($p=2$) photon spectrum.
Indeed, comparing the VERITAS measurement with the EGRET upper limit implies that the photon spectral index between $100\MeV$ and $220\GeV$ cannot be much softer than $p=2.1$.
As the VERITAS measurement probes only photons near $220\GeV$, the above estimates strictly pertain to electrons in energies near $10\TeV$.
Here, we find a logarithmic electron injection efficiency
\begin{equation}
\dot{m}\epsilon \frac{d\xi_e}{d\epsilon} \simeq \frac{\xi_e\dot{m}}{\ln(\epsilon_{max}/\epsilon_{min})} \simeq 0.3\% \fin
\end{equation}
\section{The synchrotron and SZ signals agree with predictions for $\xi_B\sim 1\%$ magnetization}
\label{sec:RadioTheory}
The same electrons that scatter CMB photons up to the \gama-ray band also emit synchrotron radiation, as they gyrate in the shock amplified magnetic fields.
The ratio between radio and \gama-ray emission from a strong virial shock is approximately given by the ratio between magnetic and CMB energy densities,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:gamma_to_synch}
\frac{\nu I_\nu}{E J(>E)} \simeq \frac{B^2/8\pi}{\ucmb} \fin
\end{equation}
In order to compute the synchrotron signal, some assumption must be made concerning the magnetic field behind the shock. Typically\cite{WaxmanLoeb00,KeshetEtAl04}, one assumes that a fraction $\xi_B\equiv 0.01\xi_{B,1}$ of the thermal energy is deposited in downstream magnetic fields, based on observations of supernova remnant shocks; some magnetization is also needed to accelerate the \gama-ray emitting electrons.
However, this assumption was not tested so far near the virial shock, and the value of $\xi_B$ is not well constrained.
We may use the coincident \gama-ray and radio measurements to estimate the magnetic field at the shock.
The strongest signal is found in the lowest WMAP frequency, $\nu=23\GHz$, where bright spots along the shock show $\Tsyn\simeq 0.1\mK$, corresponding to a brightness
\begin{equation}
\nu I_\nu = 2\frac{\nu^3}{c^2}k_B \Tsyn \simeq 10^{-9} \erg \se^{-1} \cm^{-2} \sr^{-1} \fin
\end{equation}
The same bright spots are detected by VERITAS at $\sim 3\sigma$, corresponding to $EJ(>E)\simeq 3.2\times 10^{-8} \erg \se^{-1}\cm^{-2} \sr^{-1}$.
Equation (\ref{eq:gamma_to_synch}) then yields $B\simeq 0.4\muG$, which according to the $\beta$-model corresponds to $\xi_B\simeq 0.5\%$.
We may use the SZ signal near the shock to test the above estimates.
For example, at $\nu=23\GHz$ one expects the ratio between the synchrotron emission and the SZ decrement to be $\Tsyn/\Delta \TSZ \simeq -0.3 \xi_{e,5}\xi_{B,1} \dot{m}$ for an isothermal sphere distribution\cite{WaxmanLoeb00, KeshetEtAl04}, and $\Tsyn/\Delta \TSZ \simeq -0.5 \xi_{e,5}\xi_{B,1}$ for a $\beta$-model (see Appendix \ref{sec:BetaModel}).
Inspecting the coincident synchrotron ($\Tsyn\sim 0.1\mK$ at $23\GHz$) and SZ ($\Delta\TSZ\sim -0.2\mK$) signals measured along the \gama-ray ring, we find that $\Delta \Tsyn/\Delta \TSZ\simeq -0.5$.
This supports the above estimates $\xi_e\dot{m}\simeq 5\%$, and $\xi_B\simeq 1\%$.
Note that the parameter $\xi_B$ refers to the magnetic energy weighted over the relativistic electron distribution, and so is elevated by clumping effects\cite{KeshetEtAl04}.
\section{In the inner regions, the \gama-ray--synchrotron anti-correlation supports strong magnetization and hadronic injection}
\label{sec:InnerEmission}
Within $b=1\dgr$, we find an anti-correlation between \gama-rays and synchrotron emission.
This signal is not highly significant ($-2.2\sigma$ and $-2.8\sigma$, before and after correcting for wobble background removal), so deeper observations are needed to clarify its nature.
Here we consider the implications of the anti-correlation assuming it is indeed real.
In such a case, as the synchrotron signal involved is dominated by the radio halo and radio relic, some of the VERITAS signal must arise from the inner ICM, well inside the virial radius.
In the radio band, Coma is a classical example of a merging cluster, harboring both an extended radio halo and a peripheral radio relic\cite{BrownRudnick10}.
The $\gtrsim$ Mpc size of such radio halos implies an ongoing injection of relativistic electrons, but it is debated whether they arise from hadronic collisions involving CR ions (secondary models\cite{Dennison80, BlasiColafrancesco99, KushnirEtAl09, Keshet10}) or from in-situ (re)acceleration in weak shocks or turbulence (primary models\cite{EnsslinEtAl99, BrunettiEtAl01, Petrosian01}).
Secondary models can also explain radio relics\cite{Keshet10} and minihalos\cite{KeshetLoeb10} as arising from the same distribution of CR protons, if the latter are homogeneously distributed\cite{Keshet10}.
Here, radio-bright regions correspond to strong, $B\gtrsim \Bcmb$ magnetic fields.
The existence of such strongly magnetized regions is also being debated, in Coma\cite{BonafedeEtAl10, BrunettiEtAl12} and in other clusters\cite{Clarke04, Johnston-Hollitt04, Keshet10, BonafedeEtAl11}.
In secondary models, electron injection is an ongoing process, proportional to the gas density but largely independent of shocks, turbulence, and other changes in the flow.
Therefore, the sum of synchrotron and inverse-Compton emission from the ICM varies slowly across the cluster, whereas their ratio can show strong variations, proportional to $(B/\Bcmb)^2$, leading to a radio--\gama-ray anti-correlation.
In contrast, in primary models, the electrons are injected only locally, in shocks or turbulence where the magnetic field is amplified, and cool long before the magnetic field can decay.
Hence, a positive correlation is expected here between synchrotron and \gama-ray signals; inverse-Compton emission far from the radio sources is expected to be negligible.
In both secondary and primary models, \gama-ray emission is expected also from $\pi^0$ decay, following CR ion collisions with the ambient nucleons.
This signal is expected to be smoother than the inverse-Compton emission, and so more susceptible to wobble-mode background subtraction, in particular if the CRs are distributed homogeneously, as inferred from hadronic radio models\cite{Keshet10}.
For example, in a $\beta$-model with homogeneous CR ions, wobble-mode removes $>50\%$ of the signal in the central $0.2\dgr$ beam, which corresponds to the magnetized core, and $>90\%$ of the signal beyond $\psi=0.3\dgr$.
The $\pi^0$ signal, independent of the local magnetic field and stronger in the center, should positively correlate with the synchrotron map, which is dominated by the central radio halo.
It cannot account for the anti-correlation presently observed.
Therefore, the inner \gama-ray--synchrotron anti-correlation, if confirmed, supports the notion of magnetized, $\gtrsim 3\muG$ regions in the ICM, and favors a secondary electron injection model.
Here, the presence of a weak \gama-ray signal far from the center (but inward of the virial shock) supports a homogeneous CR proton distribution.
In non-magnetized regions, the $\Tsyn(23\GHz)\sim 0.2\mK$ synchrotron signals from the radio halo and relic translate to an inverse-Compton flux $J(>220\GeV) \simeq 3 \times 10^{-9}\se^{-1} \cm^{-2} \sr^{-1}$.
By Eq.~(\ref{eq:IVer}), this corresponds to an $s_j\simeq 0.1\sigma$ VERITAS significance per $\theta=0.2\dgr$ beam, so \gama-ray emission around the core can plausibly lead to the observed anti-correlation.
Integrated within a $b=1\dgr,\myzeta=3$ ellipse, emission from secondary electrons corresponds to an $S\simeq 0.4\sigma$ nominal VERITAS signal, assuming homogeneous CR ions and a $\beta$-model gas distribution.
Such a signal can be further tested in a deeper \gama-ray observation.
If wobble-mode corrections can be minimized, the ($\sim 4$ times stronger\cite{KushnirWaxman09}) $\pi^0$ signal may be measured as well.
\section{Summary and discussion}
\label{sec:Discussion}
We analyze the VERITAS mosaic (Figure \ref{fig:ComaVer}) of the Coma cluster, and find a large-scale, extended \gama-ray feature around the cluster.
It is best described as an elongated ($\myzeta\gtrsim 3$), thick ($\Delta b\gtrsim0.5\dgr$) elliptical ring, with semi-minor axis $b\simeq 1.3\dgr$ (Figure \ref{fig:ComaVerBin}), oriented approximately along the East-West direction ($\phi\sim -5\dgr$; Figure \ref{fig:ComaVerTilt}), towards the LSS filament connecting Coma with Abell 1367 (Figure \ref{fig:SDSS}).
The \gama-ray ring is seen at a nominal $3.3\sigma$ confidence level, but comparison with mock VERITAS noise maps implies a higher, $4.5\sigma$ confidence. Further correcting for excessive wobble-mode background subtraction, we conclude that the ring presents with a confidence level of at least $5.7\sigma$.
If we do not assume a-priori that the ring is aligned with the LSS filament, the significance becomes $4.2\sigma$ ($\geq 5.4\sigma$ corrected).
Our wobble-mode corrections, derived in \S\ref{sec:Wobble} and \S\ref{sec:CrossCorrelations} (see Figure \ref{fig:VER_Hist}, and Eq.~\ref{eq:CorrWobble}), are quite conservative.
The size and morphology of the \gama-ray ring agree with predictions for the signature of the virial shock, produced as shock-accelerated electrons inverse Compton-scatter CMB photons.
The VERITAS map thus correlates with a normalized simulated \gama-ray map of a Coma-like cluster (Figure \ref{fig:ComaSim}), once the main LSS filaments are similarly oriented (Figure \ref{fig:ComaSim2}), at a $3.7\sigma$ ($4.9\sigma$) confidence (no free parameters; see Figure \ref{fig:ComaSimWobble}).
The best fit is obtained for ellipticity $\myzeta\simeq 4.5$, but we cannot rule out a cylindrical shock parallel to the LSS filament.
The brightness of the signal agrees with predictions as well, provided that the rate of relativistic electron energy deposition is $\xi_{e}\dot{m}\simeq 5\%$ of the thermal energy per Hubble time (within a factor of a few).
Interestingly, a $3\sigma$ signal found\cite{ScharfMukherjee02} by stacking the EGRET data around 447 rich clusters corresponds, when compared with source number counts computed analytically\cite{WaxmanLoeb00} and using cosmological simulations\cite{KeshetEtAl03}, to an average $\xi_{e,5}\dot{m}\simeq 4\%$, in agreement with the value we infer in Coma.
Inverse-Compton emission from virial shocks can explain the hard X-ray signals observed in several clusters\cite{KushnirWaxman10}, provided that $\xi_e\lesssim 10\%$.
For example, $\xi_e\dot{m}\simeq 4\%$ was recently inferred from hard X-ray emission from a LSS filament\cite{MakiyaEtAl12}.
The VERITAS ring corresponds to a $\sim 5\myzetaT\eV\se^{-1}\cm^{-2}$ flux at $20\till 80\keV$ energies (assuming a flat spectrum), accounting for the $(8.1\pm2.5)\eV\se^{-1}\cm^{-2}$ hard X-ray signal observed\cite{FuscoFemianoEtAl11}.
High resolution observations in hard X-rays, in particular with NuSTAR, should resolve the virial ring in Coma, and detect virial shocks in many other clusters.
An analysis of the WMAP seven-year data reveals a positive correlation between the \gama-ray ring and synchrotron emission (Figures \ref{fig:WMAP_Syn} and \ref{fig:CompositeVERsyn}), at the $2.8\sigma$ ($3.9\sigma$) confidence level, and an anti-correlation with the SZ map (Figure \ref{fig:WMAP_SZ}) at $-2.6\sigma$ ($-3.6\sigma$). The radio signals are clearer in the Western half of the ring, towards the LSS filament, where the correlations reach $3.5\sigma$ ($4.6\sigma$) and $-3.9\sigma$ ($-5.0\sigma$), respectively.
They agree with predictions for the synchrotron emission from the \gama-ray emitting electrons and for the SZ decline with thermal pressure beyond the shock, if the downstream magnetic field is $B\simeq 0.4\muG$, corresponding to $\xi_B\simeq 0.5\%$ magnetization (within a factor of a few).
The SZ signal we find, extending in some parts out to $\psi\simeq 2.3\dgr$ away from the center, agrees with the SZ detections by WMAP\cite{KomatsuEtAl11} and Planck\cite{PlanckComa12}.
However, the peripheral synchrotron signal coincident with the \gama-rays and with the SZ cutoff was not reported so far.
The \gama-ray ring and these radio features are much farther out than the $\psi\simeq0.5\dgr$ weak shocks seen in X-ray, radio\cite{BrownRudnick10}, and SZ\cite{PlanckComa12} data.
Inward of the ring, the VERITAS map shows a $-1.9\sigma$ ($-2.7\sigma$) anti-correlation with the synchrotron map, stronger in the Western region where $\mys=-2.2\sigma$ ($-2.8\sigma$).
This is evident in the radio halo and radio relic, which appear underluminous in \gama-rays (Figure \ref{fig:CompositeVERsyn}).
Such a signal was predicted in models where relativistic electrons are injected into the ICM continuously, in both strongly and weakly magnetized regions which consequently appear radio bright/\gama-ray faint and vice versa.
While the present signal is weak and requires confirmation, it is consistent with analytic estimates.
The extent of the anti-correlation and its magnitude support secondary electron injection by collisions of cosmic-ray protons with the ambient nucleons, and favor a homogeneous CR distribution.
A VERITAS observation deeper than the present $18.6$ hour exposure would decisively test our results, in particular if wobble-mode corrections can be avoided or minimized, for example by using a larger, $\myw>1\dgr$ wobble radius.
This would allow for a more precise reconstruction of the virial shock structure and a determination of variations in the electron deposition rate along the shock front.
Such data would be valuable in the study of large-scale structure formation at low redshift, mapping the feeding pattern of Coma, probing the surrounding voids, the Coma--Abell 1367 filament, and other LSS filaments, and tracing the warm-hot intergalactic medium (WHIM) immediately behind the shock.
Such a deep observation would test the anti-correlation we find between \gama-ray and radio maps at small, $b\lesssim 1\dgr$ radii.
A significant anti-correlation would confirm the hadronic, secondary electron model for cluster radio sources, and provide a direct measure of magnetic variations in the ICM.
A deep observation would thus probe the CR proton distribution out to large radii, address the origin of these protons, and in particular place an upper limit on proton acceleration in the virial shock.
Observations at lower energies, for example using the $\sim 50\GeV$ MAGIC \v{C}erenkov telescopes\cite{DeLotto12}, should be able to utilize the higher photon flux to clearly identify the \gama-ray ring.
At yet lower energies, the Fermi \gama-ray space telescope is marginally sensitive to the signal at $\lesssim 1\GeV$, but it may be challenging to resolve the shock structure with the $\gtrsim 1\dgr$ ($68\%$ containment) point spread function\cite{BurnettEtAl09}.
The VERITAS energy threshold, $E\simeq 220\GeV$, is not far below the expected photon cutoff, $E_{max}\simeq 10 T_{10}B_{0.1}\TeV$.
Observations at higher energies would become increasingly sensitive to this cutoff, thus probing the conditions at the shock and the nature of particle acceleration, although pair production off the infrared background also becomes important at such energies\cite{FranceschiniEtAl08}.
Interestingly, no evidence for extended emission was found in a $1.1\TeV$ observation of Coma by the HESS telescopes\cite{AharonianEtAl09}.
Despite the higher energy threshold and the shorter, $8.2$ hour observation, it was only $\sim 2.3$ times less sensitive than the VERITAS observation (assuming a flat spectrum), thanks to the larger effective area\cite{BenbowEtAl05}, $\sim 2\times 10^9\cm^2$.
The HESS map shows no significant signal or correlation with the VERITAS data, but the \gama-ray ring may well be shallowly buried under the noise.
Note that the optical depth of the HESS photons due to pair production off the infrared background, estimated\cite{FranceschiniEtAl08} as $\tau\simeq 0.2$, may not be negligible.
Finally, consider the contribution of cluster virial shocks to the extragalactic \gama-ray and radio backgrounds.
These components were computed analytically\cite{LoebWaxman00, TotaniKitayama00, KeshetEtAl03}, and calibrated numerically using cosmological simulations\cite{KeshetEtAl03, Miniati02, KeshetEtAl04}.
While the main model parameters $\xi_e\dot{m}$ and $\xi_B$ are likely to fluctuate within clusters and vary among different clusters, it is instructive to adopt the values inferred in Coma as typical.
An accretion rate $\dot{m}\simeq 1$ is intermediate between the analytic model\cite{WaxmanLoeb00} and the low redshift result of numerical simulations\cite{KeshetEtAl03}.
Normalizing all clusters by this value, we obtain a diffuse \gama-ray component $E^2 dJ/dE\simeq 0.3(\xi_e\dot{m}/5\%)\keV\se^{-1}\cm^{-2}\sr^{-1}$, dominating the extragalactic background\cite{KeshetEtAl04_EGRB}.
In the radio, the revised parametrization yields a $\nu I_\nu \sim 3\times 10^{-11}(\xi_e\dot{m}/5\%) (\xi_B/1\%)\erg\se^{-1}\cm^{-2}\sr^{-1}$ synchrotron signal, dominating the extragalactic low frequency radio background \cite{KeshetEtAl04}.
It is observable through $\delta T_l\simeq 1 (\nu/\mbox{GHz})^{-3}\K$ fluctuations at multipoles $400\lesssim l \lesssim 2000$ with present interferometers such as LOFAR and EVLA.
\acknowledgements
We thank Ido Reiss and Boaz Katz for useful discussions.
The research of UK has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n\textordmasculine ~PCIG09-GA-2011-293975.
\onecolumngrid
|
\section{Introduction}
Data assimilation is
the problem of estimating the state variables of a dynamical system, given observations of the output variables. It is a challenging and fundamental problem area, of importance in a wide range of applications. A natural framework for approaching such problems is that of Bayesian statistics, since it is often the case that
the underlying model and/or the data are uncertain. However, in many real world applications, the dimensionality of the underlying model and the vast amount of available data makes the investigation of the Bayesian posterior distribution of the model state given data computationally infeasible in on-line situations. An example of such an application is the global weather prediction: the computational models used currently involve on the order of $\mathcal{O}(10^8)$ unknowns, while a large amount of partial observations of the atmosphere, currently on the order of
$\mathcal{O}(10^6)$ per day,
are used to compensate both the uncertainty in the model and in the initial conditions.
In situations like this practitioners typically employ some form of approximation based on both physical insight and computational expediency. There are two competing methodologies for data assimilation which are widely implemented in practice, the first being \emph{filters} \cite{kalnay2003atmospheric} and the second being \emph{variational methods} \cite{ben02}.
In this paper we focus on the filtering approach.
Many of the filtering algorithms
implemented in practice are \emph{ad hoc} and, besides some very special cases, the theoretical understanding of their ability
to accurately and reliably estimate the state variables is
under-developed. Our goal here is to contribute towards
such theoretical understanding.
We concentrate on the 3DVAR filter
which has its origin in weather forecasting \cite{lorenc1986analysis} and is prototypical of more sophisticated filters used
today.
The idea behind filtering is to update the posterior
distribution of the system state sequentially at each
observation time. This may be performed exactly for linear systems
subject to Gaussian noise: the Kalman filter \cite{harvey1991forecasting}. For the case of non-linear and non-Gaussian scenarios the particle filter \cite{doucet2001sequential} can be used and provably approximates the desired probability distribution as the number of particles increases \cite{bain2008fundamentals}. Nevertheless, standard implementations of this method perform poorly in high dimensional systems \cite{SBBA08}. Thus the development of
practical filtering algorithms for high
dimensional dynamical systems is an active research area
and for further insight into this subject the reader may consult
\cite{toth1997ensemble,evensen2009data,VL09,
harlim2008filtering,majda2010mathematical,chorin2010implicit,van2010nonlinear,beskos2011stability} and references within.
Many of the methods used invoke some form of \emph{ad hoc} Gaussian approximation and the 3DVAR method which we analyze here is perhaps the simplest example of this idea. These \emph{ad hoc} filters, 3DVAR included, may also be viewed within the framework of nonlinear control theory
and thereby derived directly, without reference to the
Bayesian probabilistic interpretation; indeed this is primarily
how the algorithms were conceived.
In this paper we will study accuracy
and stability for the 3DVAR filter.
The term {\em accuracy} refers to establishing closeness of the
filter to the true signal underlying the data, and
{\em stability} is concerned with studying
the distance between two filters,
initialized differently, but driven by the same noisy data.
Proving filter accuracy and stability results
for control systems has a long history and the paper \cite{Tarn-Rasis} is a fundamental contribution to the subject
with results closely related to those developed here. However,
as indicated above, the high dimensionality of the problems
arising in data assimilation is a significant challenge in
the area. In order to confront this challenge we work in
an infinite dimensional setting, therby ensuring that our
results are not sensitive to dimensionality. We focus
on dissipative dynamical systems, and take the two
dimensonal Navier-Stokes equation as a prototype model
in this area. Furthermore, we study a data assimilation
setting in which data arrives continuously in time which
is a natural setting in which to study high time-frequency
data subject to significant uncertainty.
The study of accuracy and stability of filters for data assimilation has been a developing area over the last few years and the paper \cite{carrassi2008data} contains finite dimensional theory and numerical experiments in a variety of finite and discretized infinite dimensional systems extend the conclusions of
the theory. The paper \cite{trevisan2011chaos}
highlights the principle that, roughly speaking,
unstable directions must be observed and assimilated into the
estimate and, more subtly, that accuracy can be improved by avoiding
assimilation of stable directions. In particular
the papers \cite{carrassi2008data,trevisan2011chaos}
both explicitly identify the importance of observing
the unstable components of the dynamics, leading to
the notion of AUS: {\em assimilation in the unstable subspace}.
The paper \cite{lsetal} describes a theoretical analysis of 3DVAR
applied to the Navier-Stokes equation, when the data arrives
in discrete time, and
in this paper we address similar questions in the
continuous time setting; both papers include the possibility
of only partial observations in Fourier space. Taken together,
the current paper and
\cite{lsetal} provide a significant generalization of the theory
in \cite{Tarn-Rasis} to dissipative infinite dimensional
dynamical systems prototypical of the high dimensional
problems to which filters are applied in practice; furthermore,
through studying partial observations,
they give theoretical insight into the
idea of AUS as developed
in \cite{carrassi2008data,trevisan2011chaos}.
The infinite dimensional
nature of the problem brings fundamental mathematical
issues into the problem, not addressed in previous finite
dimensional work. We make use of the
{\em squeezing property}
of many dissipative dynamical systems
\cite{constantin1988navier,book:Temam1997},
including the Navier-Stokes equation, which drives
many theoretical results in this area, such
as the ergodicity studies pioneered by Mattingly
\cite{mattingly2002exponential,hairer2006ergodicity}.
In particular our infinite dimensional analysis is motivated
by the theory developed in \cite{olson2003determining} and \cite{hayden2011discrete}, which are the first
papers to study data assimilation directly through PDE analysis, using ideas from the theory of determining modes in infinite dimensional dynamical systems. However, in contrast to those papers, here we allow for noisy observations, and provide a methodology
that opens up the possibility of studying more general Gaussian
approximate filters such as the Ensemble and the Extended Kalman filter (EnKF and ExKF).
Our point of departure for analysis is an ordinary differential equation (ODE) in a Banach space.
Working in the limit of high frequency observations we formally derive continuous time filters.
This leads to a stochastic differential equation for
state estimation, combining the original dynamics with
extra terms indcuing mean reversion to the noisily observed
signal. In the particular case of the Navier-Stokes equation
we get a stochastic PDE (SPDE) with
additional mean-reversion term,
driven by spatially-correlated time-white noise.
This SPDE is central to our analysis as it is used to prove
accuracy and stability results for the 3DVAR filter. In particular,
in the case when enough of the low modes of the Navier-Stokes equation
are observed and the model has larger uncertainty than the data in these low modes,
a situation known to practitioners as variance inflation, then the filter can lock on to a small neighbourhood of the true signal,
recovering from the initial error, if the error in the
observed modes is small.
The results are formulated in terms of the theory of random and
stochastic dynamical systems \cite{Arn98},
and both forward and pullback type results are proved, leading
to a variety of probabilistic accuracy and stability results,
in the mean square, probability and almost sure senses.
The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2 we derive the continuous-time limit of the 3DVAR filter applied to a general ODE in a Banach space, by considering the limit of high frequency observations. In Section 3, we focus on the 2D Navier-Stokes equations and present the continuous time 3DVAR filter
within this setting. Sections 4
and 5 are devoted, respectively, to results
concerning forward accuracy and stability as well as pullback
accuracy and stability, for the filter when applied to the
Navier-Stokes equation.
In Section 6, we present various numerical investigations
that corroborate our theoretical results. Finally
in Section 7 we present conclusions.
\section{Continuous-Time Limit of 3DVAR}
Consider $u$ satisfying the following ODE in a Banach space $X:$
\begin{equation} \label{e:model}
\frac{du}{dt}=\mathcal{F}(u), \quad u(0)=u_{0}\;.
\end{equation}
Our aim is to study online filters which combine
knowledge of this dynamical system with noisy observations
of $u_n=u(nh)$ to estimate the state of the system.
This is particularly important in applications where
$u_0$ is not known exactly, and the noisy data can
be used to compensate for this lack of initial
knowledge of the system state.
In this section we study approximate Gaussian filters
in the high frequency limit, leading to stochastic
differential equations which combine the dynamical
system with data to estimate the state.
As the formal derivation of continuous time filters in this
section is independent of the precise model under consideration,
we employ the general framework of \eqref{e:model}.
We make some general observations, relating to a broad family
of approximate Gaussian filters, but focus mainly on 3DVAR.
In subsequent sections, where we study stability and accuracy
of the filter, we focus exclusively on 3DVAR,
and work in the context of the $2$D
incompressible Navier-Stokes equation, as this is prototypical
of dissipative semilinear partial differential equations.
\subsection{Set Up - The Filtering Problem}
\label{ssec:setup}
We assume that $u_0 \sim N(\hat{m}_{0},\hat{C}_{0})$
so that the initial data is only known statistically.
The objective is to update the estimate of the state
of the system sequentially in time, based
on data received sequentially in time.
We define the flow-map $\Psi:X \times \mathbb{R}^+ \to X$ so that
the solution to \eqref{e:model} is
$u(t)=\Psi(u_{0};t)$. Let $H$ denote a linear operator
from $X$ into another Banach space $Y$, and assume that we
observe $Hu$ at equally spaced time intervals:
\begin{equation} \label{e:data}
y_{n}=H\Psi(u_{0};nh)+\eta_{n}.
\end{equation}
Here $\{\eta_{n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is an i.i.d sequence,
independent of $u_0$, with $\eta_{1} \sim N(0,\Gamma).$ If we write $u_n=\Psi(u_0;nh)$, then
\begin{equation} \label{e:map}
u_{n+1}=\Psi(u_n;h),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{e:like}
y_n|u_n \sim N\bigl(Hu_n,\Gamma).
\end{equation}
We denote the accumulated data up to the time $n$ by
\[
Y_{n}=\{y_{i}\}^{n}_{i=1}.
\]
Our aim is to find $\mathbb P(u_n|Y_n).$
We will make the Gaussian ansatz that
\begin{equation} \label{e:assum1}
\mathbb P(u_{n}|Y_{n}) \simeq N(\hat{m}_{n},\hat{C}_{n}).
\end{equation}
The key question in designing an approximate Gaussian filter, then, is to find an update rule of the form
\begin{equation} \label{e:update}
(\hat{m}_{n},\hat{C}_{n}) \mapsto (\hat{m}_{n+1},\hat{C}_{n+1})
\end{equation}
Because of the linear form of the observations in \eqref{e:data}, together with the fact that the noise is mean zero-Gaussian,
this update rule is determined directly if we impose
a further Gaussian ansatz, now on the distribution
of $u_{n+1}$ given $Y_{n}:$
\begin{equation} \label{e:assum2}
u_{n+1}|Y_{n} \sim N(m_{n+1},C_{n+1})
\end{equation}
With this in mind, the update \eqref{e:update}
is usually split into two parts. The first,
{\em prediction} (or forecast), step is the map
\begin{equation} \label{e:predict}
(\hat{m}_{n},\hat{C}_{n}) \mapsto (m_{n+1},C_{n+1})
\end{equation}
The second, {\em analysis}, step is
\begin{equation} \label{e:analysis}
(m_{n+1},C_{n+1}) \mapsto (\hat{m}_{n+1},\hat{C}_{n+1}).
\end{equation}
For the prediction step
we will simply \emph{impose} the approximation
\eqref{e:assum2} with
\begin{equation} \label{e:mean_update}
m_{n+1}=\Psi(\hat{m}_{n};h),
\end{equation}
while the choice of $C_{n+1}$ will depend on the choice of the specific filter. For the analysis step,
assumptions \eqref{e:like}, \eqref{e:assum2} imply that
\begin{equation}
u_{n+1}|Y_{n+1} \sim N(\hat{m}_{n+1},\hat{C}_{n+1})
\end{equation}
and an application of Bayes rule, as applied in the
standard Kalman filter update \cite{harvey1991forecasting},
and using \eqref{e:mean_update}, gives us the nonlinear
map \eqref{e:update} in the form
\begin{subequations} \label{e:normal_update}
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{C}_{n+1} &=& C_{n+1}-C_{n+1}H^*(\Gamma+HC_{n+1}H^*)^{-1}HC_{n+1} \\
\hat{m}_{n+1} &=& \Psi(\hat{m}_{n};h)+C_{n+1}H^*(\Gamma+HC_{n+1}H^*)^{-1}(y_{n+1}-Hm_{n+1})
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
The mean $\hat{m}_{n+1}$ is an element of the Banach space $X$,
and $\hat{C}_{n+1}$ is a linear
symmetric and non-negative operator from $X$ into itself.
\begin{comment}
Alternatively, if $\Gamma$ and $C_{n+1}$ are positive-definite,
then this may be written as
\begin{subequations} \label{e:inverse_update}
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{C}^{-1}_{n+1} &=& C^{-1}_{n+1}+\Gamma^{-1}, \\
\hat{C}^{-1}_{n+1}\hat{m}_{n+1} &=& C^{-1}_{n+1}m_{n+1}+\Gamma^{-1}y_{n+1}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Derivation of The Continuous-Time Limit}
\label{sec:deriv}
Together equations \eqref{e:mean_update} and
\eqref{e:normal_update}, which are generic
for {\em any} approximate Gaussian filter, specify
the update for the mean once the equation determining
$C_{n+1}$ is defined. We proceed to
derive a continuous-time limit for the mean,
in this general setting, assuming
that $C_n$ arises as an approximation of a continuous
process $C(t)$ evaluated at $t=nh$, so that $C_n \approx C(nh)$,
and that $h \ll 1$.
Throughout we will assume that
$\Gamma=h^{-1}\Gamma_{0}$.
This scaling implies that the noise variance is inversely
proportional to the time between observations and is
the relationship which gives a nontrivial stochastic
limit as $h \to 0.$
With these scaling assumptions
equation (\ref{e:normal_update}b) becomes
\begin{equation*}
\hat{m}_{n+1}=\Psi(\hat{m}_{n};h)+hC_{n+1}H^*(\Gamma_{0}+
hHC_{n+1}H^*)^{-1}\bigl(y_{n+1}-H\Psi(\hat{m}_{n};h)\bigr).
\end{equation*}
Thus
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\hat{m}_{n+1}-\hat{m}_{n}}{h}
= \frac{\Psi(\hat{m}_{n};h)-\hat{m}_{n}}{h}+C_{n+1}H^*(\Gamma_{0}+hHC_{n+1}H^*)^{-1}\bigl(y_{n+1}-H\Psi(\hat{m}_{n};h)\bigr).
\end{equation*}
If we define the sequence $\{z_{n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{Z}^{+}}$ by
\[
z_{n+1}=z_{n}+hy_{n+1}, \quad z_0=0\;,
\]
then we can rewrite the previous equation as
\begin{align} \label{e:prelim}
\frac{\hat{m}_{n+1}-\hat{m}_{n}}{h} =& \frac{\Psi(\hat{m}_{n};h)-\hat{m}_{n}}{h}\\
&\quad\quad\quad
+C_{n+1}H^*(\Gamma_{0}+hHC_{n+1}H^*)^{-1}\left(\frac{z_{n+1}-z_{n}}{h}-H\Psi(\hat{m}_{n};h)\right). \notag
\end{align}
Note that
$$
\Psi(\hat{m}_{n};h)=\hat{m}_{n}+h\mathcal{F}(\hat{m}_{n})+\mathcal{O}(h^{2}).
$$
This is an Euler-Maruyama-like discretization of
a stochastic differential equation which,
if we pass to the limit of $h \rightarrow 0$ in
\eqref{e:prelim},
noting that we have assumed that $C_n \approx C(nh)$
for some continuous covariance process, is seen to be
\begin{equation} \label{e:basic}
\frac{d\hat{m}}{dt}=\mathcal{F}(\hat{m})+CH^*\Gamma^{-1}_{0}\left(\frac{dz}{dt}-H\hat{m}\right), \quad \hat{m}(0)=\hat{m}_{0}.
\end{equation}
Equation \eqref{e:basic} is similar to the observer equation
in the nonlinear control literature \cite{Tarn-Rasis}.
Our objective in this paper is to study the stability and
accuracy properties of this stochastic model. Here stability
refers to the contraction of two different trajectories of
the filter \eqref{e:basic}, started at two different points, but
driven by the same observed data; and accuracy refers to estimating
the difference between the true trajectory of \eqref{e:model}
which underlies the data, and the output of the filter
\eqref{e:basic}.
Similar questions are studied in finite dimensions in
\cite{Tarn-Rasis}. However, the infinite dimensional nature
of our problem, coupled with the fact that we study situations
where the state is only partially observed ($H$ is not invertible
on $X$) mean that new techniques of analysis are required,
building on the theory of semilinear dissipative PDEs
and infinite dimensional dynamical systems.
We now express the observation signal $z$ in terms of the
truth $u$ in order to facilitate study of filter
stability and accuracy. In particular, we have that
\[
\left( \frac{z_{n+1}-z_{n}}{h} \right)=y_{n+1}=Hu_{n+1}+\frac{\sqrt{\Gamma_{0}}}{\sqrt{h}}\Delta w_{n+1},
\]
where $\{ \Delta w_{n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is an i.i.d sequence and $\Delta w_{1} \sim N(0,I)$ in $Y$. This corresponds to the
Euler-Maruyama discretization of the SDE
\begin{equation}
\label{e:obs}
\frac{dz}{dt}=Hu+\sqrt{\Gamma_{0}}\frac{dW}{dt}, \quad z(0)=0.
\end{equation}
Expressed in terms of the true signal $u$,
equation \eqref{e:basic} becomes
\begin{equation} \label{e:3dvar}
\frac{d\hat{m}}{dt}= \mathcal{F}(\hat{m})+CH^*\Gamma^{-1}_{0}H\left(u-\hat{m}\right)+ \moda{C}H^*\Gamma^{-1/2}_{0}\frac{dW}{dt}.
\end{equation}
We complete the study of the continuous limit
with the specific example of 3DVAR.
This is the simplest filter of all in which the
prediction step is found by simply setting
$C_{n+1}=\hat{C}$ for some {\em fixed}
covariance operator $\hat{C}$, independent of $n$.
Then equation \eqref{e:normal_update} shows that
${\hat C}_{n+1}=\hat{C}+{\cal O}(h)$ and
we deduce that the limiting covariance is simply constant:
$C(t)=\hat{C}(t)=\hat{C}$ for all $t\ge 0$.
The present work will focus on this case and hence study
\eqref{e:3dvar} in the case where $C=\hat{C}$,
a constant in time.
\section{Continuous-Time 3DVAR for Navier-Stokes}
\label{sec:nse}
In this section we describe application of the 3DVAR
algorithm to the two dimensional Navier-Stokes equation.
This will form the focus of the remainder of the paper.
In subsection \ref{ssec:nsef} we describe the
forward model itself, namely we specify equation
\eqref{e:model}, and then in subsection \ref{ssec}
we describe how data is incorporated into the model,
and specify equation \eqref{e:3dvar}, and the choices
of the (constant in time)
operators $C=\hat{C}$ and $\Gamma_0$ which appear
in it.
\subsection{Forward Model}
\label{ssec:nsef}
Let $\mathbb{T}^{2}$ denote the two-dimensional
torus of side $L:$ $[0,L) \times [0,L)$
with periodic boundary conditions. We
consider the equations
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{ccc}
\partial_{t}u(x, t) - \nu \Delta u(x, t)
+ u(x, t) \cdot \nabla u(x, t) + \nabla p(x, t)
&=& f(x)
\\
\nabla \cdot u(x, t) &=& 0
\\
u(x, 0) &=& u_{0}(x)
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
for all $x \in \mathbb{T}^{2}$ and $t\in(0, \infty)$.
Here $u \colon \mathbb{T}^{2} \times (0, \infty) \to \mathbb{R}^{2}$ is a time-dependent vector field representing the velocity, $p \colon \mathbb{T}^{2} \times (0,\infty) \to \mathbb{R}$ is a time-dependent scalar field representing the pressure and $f \colon \mathbb{T}^{2} \to \mathbb{R}^{2}$
is a vector field representing the forcing which we take as
time-independent for simplicity. The parameter $\nu$
represents the viscosity. We assume throughout that $u_0$
and $f$ have average zero over $\mathbb{T}^2$; it then follows
that $u(\cdot,t)$ has average zero over $\mathbb{T}^2$ for all
$t>0$.
Define
$${\mathsf T}:= \left\{ {\rm {trigonometric\,polynomials\,}}
u:\mathbb{T}^2 \to {\mathbb R}^2\,\Bigl|\, \nabla \cdot u = 0, \,\int_{\mathbb{T}^{2}} u(x) \, \mathrm{d} x = 0 \right\}
$$
and $\mathcal{H}$ as the closure of ${\mathsf T}$ with respect to the
norm in $(L^{2}(\mathbb{T}^{2}))^{2} = L^{2}(\mathbb{T}^{2},\mathbb{R}^2)$.
We let $P:(L^{2}(\mathbb{T}^{2}))^{2}
\to \mathcal{H}$ denote the Leray-Helmholtz orthogonal projector.
Given $k = (k_{1}, k_{2})^{\mathrm{T}}$, define $k^{\perp} := (k_{2}, -k_{1})^{\mathrm{T}}$. Then an orthonormal basis for
$\mathcal{H}$ is given by $\psi_{k} \colon \mathbb{R}^{2} \to \mathbb{R}^{2}$, where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fb}
\psi_{k} (x) := \frac{k^{\perp}}{|k|} \exp\Bigl(\frac{2 \pi i k \cdot x}{L}\Bigr)
\end{equation}
for $k \in \mathbb{Z}^{2} \setminus \{0\}$.
Thus for $u \in \mathcal{H}$ we may write
$$
u(x,t) = \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}^{2} \setminus \{0\}} u_{k}(t) \psi_{k}(x)
$$
where, since $u$ is a real-valued function, we have the
reality constraint $u_{-k} = - \overline{u_{k}}.$
We define the projection operators $P_{\lambda}: \mathcal{H} \to \mathcal{H}$
and $Q_{\lambda}:\mathcal{H} \to \mathcal{H}$ for
$\lambda \in\mathbb{N}\cup\{\infty\}$
by
$$P_{\lambda} u(x,t) = \sum_{|2\pi k|^2 <\lambda L^2} u_{k}(t) \psi_{k}(x),
\quad Q_{\lambda}=I-P_{\lambda}.$$
Below we will choose the observation operator $H$ to be $P_{\lambda}.$
We define $A = -\frac{L^2}{4\pi^2} P \Delta$,
the Stokes operator, and, for every $s \in \mathbb{R}$,
define the Hilbert spaces $\mathcal{H}^s$ to be the domain of $A^{s/2}.$
We note that $A$ is diagonalized in $\mathcal{H}$ in the basis comprised
of the $\{\psi_k\}_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}^2\backslash\{0\}}$
and that, with the normalization employed
here, the smallest eigenvalue of $A$ is $\lambda_1=1.$
We use the norm
$\|\cdot\|_{s}^2:=\langle \cdot, A^s \cdot \rangle$,
the abbreviated notation $\norm{u}$ for the norm on $\mathcal{V}:=\mathcal{H}^1$,
and $|\cdot|$ for the norm on $\mathcal{H}:=\mathcal{H}^0$.
Applying the projection $P$ to the Navier-Stokes
equation we may write it as an ODE in $\mathcal{H}$:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d} u}{\mathrm{d} t} + \delta Au + \mathcal{B}(u, u) = f, \quad u(0)=u_0.
\label{eq:nse}
\end{equation}
Here $\delta=4\pi^2\nu/L^2$
and the term $\mathcal{B}(u,v)$
is the {\it symmetric}
bilinear form defined by
$$\mathcal{B}(u,v) = \frac12 P(u \cdot \nabla v)+ \frac12 P(v \cdot \nabla u)$$
for all $u,v\in\mathcal{V}$.
Finally, with abuse of notation, $f$ is the original forcing,
projected into $\mathcal{H}$. Equation \eqref{eq:nse} is in the form
of equation \eqref{e:model} with
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:F}
\mathcal{F}(u)=-\delta Au-\mathcal{B}(u,u)+f.
\end{equation}
See \cite{constantin1988navier}
for details of this formulation of the Navier-Stokes
equation as an ODE in $\mathcal{H}$.
The following proposition
is a classical result which implies the existence
of a dissipative semigroup for the ODE \eqref{eq:nse}.
See Theorems 9.5 and 12.5 in \cite{book:Robinson2001}
for a concise overview and \cite{temam1995navier,book:Temam1997}
for further details.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:1}
Assume that $u_0 \in \mathcal{H}^1$ and $f \in \mathcal{H}$.
Then \eqref{eq:nse} has a unique strong solution on $t
\in [0,T]$ for any $T>0:$
$$u \in L^{\infty}\bigl((0,T);\mathcal{H}^1\bigr)\cap L^{2}\bigl((0,T);\mathcal{H}^2\bigr),\quad \frac{du}{dt} \in L^{2}\bigl((0,T);\mathcal{H}\bigr).$$
Furthermore the equation has a global attractor $\mathcal{A}$
and there is $R\in(0,\infty)$ such that,
if $u_0 \in \mathcal{A}$, then the solution from this initial
condition exists for all $t \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}}\|u(t)\|^2 = R.$
\end{proposition}
We let $\{\Psi(\cdot,t): \mathcal{H}^1 \to \mathcal{H}^1\}_{t \ge 0}$
denote the semigroup of
solution operators for the equation \eqref{eq:nse} through $t$
time units. We note that by
working with weak solutions,
$\Psi(\cdot,t)$ can be extended to act on larger spaces $\mathcal{H}^s$,
with $s \in [0,1)$, under the same assumption on $f$;
see Theorem 9.4 in \cite{book:Robinson2001}.
\subsection{3DVAR}
\label{ssec}
We apply the analysis of the previous section to write
down the continuous time 3DVAR filter,
namely \eqref{e:3dvar} with $C(t)={\hat C}$ constant in time,
for the Navier-Stokes equation. We take $X=\mathcal{H}$ and
throughout we assume that the data is found by observing
$P_{\lambda} u$ at discrete times, so that
$H^*=H=P_{\lambda}$ and $Y=P_{\lambda} \mathcal{H}$.
We assume that $A$, $\Gamma_0$ and $\hat{C}$
commute and, for simplicity of presentation, suppose that
\begin{equation}
\label{e:assumCG}
\hat{C} = \omega \sigma_0^2 A^{-2\zeta},
\quad \Gamma_0= \sigma_0^2 A^{-2\beta}P_{\lambda}.
\end{equation}
We set $\alpha=\zeta-\beta$.
These assumptions correspond to those made in \cite{lsetal}
where discrete time filters are studied.
Note that $A^{s/2}$ is defined on $\mathcal{H}^s$; it
is also defined on $Y$ for every $s \in \mathbb{R}$,
provided that $\lambda$ is finite.
From equations \eqref{e:3dvar}, using \eqref{eq:F} and
the choices for $\hat{C}$ and $\Gamma_0$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d} \widehat {m}}{\mathrm{d} t}
+ \delta A\widehat {m}
+ \mathcal{B}(\widehat {m}, \widehat {m})
+\omega A^{-2\alpha}P_{\lambda}(\widehat {m}-u)
= f
+\omega \sigma_0A^{-2\alpha-\beta}P_{\lambda}\frac{\mathrm{d} W}{\mathrm{d} t},
\quad \widehat {m}(0)=\widehat {m}_0
\label{eq:nse2}
\end{equation}
where $W$ is a cylindrical Brownian motion in $Y$.
In the following we consider the cases of finite $\lambda$,
where the data is in a finite dimensional subspace of $\mathcal{H}$,
and infinite $\lambda$, where $P_{\lambda}=I$ and the whole solution
is observed.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:SC}
For $\lambda=\infty$
assume that $4\alpha+2\beta>1.$
Then the stochastic convolution
\[
W_A(t) = \int_0^t e^{\delta(t-s)A} A^{-2\alpha-\beta} P_{\lambda} dW(s)
\]
has a continuous version in $C^0([0,T], \mathcal{V})$
with all moments $\mathbb{E} \sup_{[0,T]} \|W_A\|^p$ finite
for all $T>0$ and $p>1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If $\lambda<\infty$ then the covariance of the
driving noise is automatically trace-class
as it is finite dimensional;
since $4\alpha+2\beta>1$ it follows that
the covariance of the driving noise is also
trace-class when $\lambda=\infty.$
The desired result follows from Theorem 5.16
in \cite{Dap-Z}. For the moments see \cite[(5.23)]{Dap-Z}.
\end{proof}
It is only in the case of full observations
(i.e., $\lambda=\infty$) that we need the additional
regularity condition $4\alpha+2\beta>1$. This
may be rewritten as $\zeta>\frac14+\frac12\beta$ and relates the
rate of decay, in Fourier space, of the model variance
to the observational variance. Although a key driver
for our accuracy and stability results (see Remark \ref{rem:eps}
below) will be variance inflation, meaning that the observational
variance is smaller than the model variance in the low Fourier modes,
this condition on $\zeta$ allows regimes in which, for high
Fourier modes, the situation is reversed.
\begin{pro}
\label{prop:ex-S2DNS}
Assume that $u_0 \in \mathcal{A}$
and let $u$ be the corresponding solution of (\ref{eq:nse})
on the global attractor $\mathcal{A}$.
For $\lambda=\infty$
suppose $4\alpha+2\beta>1$ and $\alpha>-\frac12.$
Then for any initial condition $\hat{m}(0) \in \mathcal{H}$
there is a stochastic process $\hat{m}$
which is the unique strong solution
of (\ref{eq:nse2}) in the spaces
\[
\hat{m} \in
L^2\bigl((0,T),\mathcal{V}\bigr) \cap C^0\bigl([0,T],\mathcal{H}\bigr)
\]
for all $T>0$.
Moreover,
\[
\mathbb{E}\|\hat{m}\|^2_{L^\infty\bigl((0,T),\mathcal{H}\bigr)} +
\mathbb{E}\|\hat{m}\|^2_{L^2\bigl((0,T),\mathcal{V}\bigr)} <\infty.
\]
To be more precise
\[
\hat{m}\in L^2\Bigl(\Omega, C^0_{\mathrm{loc}}\bigl([0,\infty),\mathcal{H} \bigr)\Bigr) \cap L^2\Bigl(\Omega,L^2_{\mathrm{loc}}\bigl([0,\infty),\mathcal{V}\bigr)\Bigr)\;.
\]
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
The proof of this theorem is well known
without the function $u$
and the additional linear term.
See for example Theorem 15.3.1 in the book \cite{dap2}
using fixed point arguments
based on the mild solution. Another reference is
\cite[Theorem 3.1]{Fl:94} based on spectral Galerkin methods.
See also \cite{FlMa:95} or \cite{Sch:87}.
Nevertheless, our theorem is a straightforward modification of their arguments.
For simplicity of presentation we refrain from giving
a detailed argument here.
The existence and uniqueness is established either by
Galerkin methods or fixed-point arguments.
The continuity of solutions follows from the standard fixed-point arguments
for the mild formulation in the space $C^0\bigl([0,T],\mathcal{H}\bigr)$.
Finally, as we assume the covariance of the Wiener process
to be trace-class, the bounds on the moments are a straightforward
application of It\^o's formula
(cf. \cite[Theorem 4.17]{Dap-Z})
to $|\hat{m}|^2$ and to $\|\hat{m}\|^2$,
in order to derive standard a-priori estimates.
This is very similar to the method of proof
that we use to study mean square stability
in Section \ref{sec41}.
The additional linear term $\omega A^{-2\alpha}P_{\lambda}\widehat {m}$ does not change the result in
any substantive fashion.
If $\lambda<\infty$ then the proof is essentially identical,
as the additional term is a lower order perturbation of the Stokes operator.
If $\lambda=\infty$ then minor modifications of the
proof are necessary, but do not change the proof significantly.
This is since, for $\alpha>-\frac12$,
the additional term
$\omega A^{-2\alpha}\hat{m}$
is a compact perturbation of the
Stokes operator.
The additional forcing term,
depending on $u$, is always sufficiently regular
for our argument,
as we assume $u$ to be on the attractor (see Proposition \ref{prop:1}).
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
For $\lambda=\infty$
it is possible to extend the preceding result
to other ranges of $\alpha$, but this will change the proof.
Hence, for simplicity,
for $\lambda=\infty$ we always
assume that
$\alpha>-\frac12$.
We comment later on
the fact that the solutions to (\ref{eq:nse2})
generate a stochastic dynamical system.
As we need two-sided Wiener-processes for this
we postpone the discussion to Section \ref{sec:PB}.
\end{rem}
\section{Forward Accuracy and Stability}
We wish to study conditions under which two filters,
starting from different points but driven by the same
observations, converge (stability); and conditions under
which the filter will, asymptotically, track the
true signal (accuracy).
Establishing such results has been
the object of study in control theory for some time,
and the paper \cite{Tarn-Rasis} contains
foundational work in both the discrete and continuous time
settings. However the
infinite dimensional nature of the problem at hand brings
significant new challenges to the analysis. The key idea
driving the proofs is that, although the Navier-Stokes equations
themselves may admit exponentially diverging trajectories,
the observations can counteract this instability, provided
the observation space is large enough. Roughly speaking
the exponential divergence of the Navier-Stokes equations
is dominated by a finite set low Fourier modes, whilst the rest
of the space contracts. If the observations provide
information about enough of the low Fourier modes,
then this can counteract the instability.
This basic idea underlies the accuracy and stability
results proved in subsections \ref{sec41} and \ref{ssec:z}.
A key technical estimate in what follows is the following
(see \cite{book:Temam2001}):
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:B1}
For the symmetric bilinear map
$$\mathcal{B}(u,v) = \tfrac12 P(u \cdot \nabla v)+ \tfrac12 P(v \cdot \nabla u)
$$
there
is constant $K'\ge1$ such that
for all $v,w \in \mathcal{V}$
\begin{equation}
\langle \mathcal{B}(v,v)-\mathcal{B}(w,w), v-w\rangle \leq K'\|w\| \|v-w\| \cdot |v-w|,
\label{eq:Best0}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Best1}
|\langle \mathcal{B}(w,v),v \rangle| \le K' \|w\| \|v\| |v|
\quad\text{and}\quad
|\langle \mathcal{B}(w,v),z \rangle| \le K' \|v\| \|w\| \|z\|\;.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, for all $v \in \mathcal{V}$,
\begin{equation}
\langle \mathcal{B}(v,v), v \rangle =0
\label{eq:Best2}
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
Notice that (\ref{eq:Best0}) implies that, for $K=(K')^2/\delta$,
\begin{equation}
\langle \mathcal{B}(v,v)-\mathcal{B}(w,w), v-w\rangle \leq \tfrac12 K\|w\|^2|v-w|^2 +\tfrac12\delta \|v-w\|^2,
\quad \forall v,w \in \mathcal{V}.
\label{eq:Best}
\end{equation}
This estimate will be used to control the possible
exponential divergence of Navier-Stokes trajectories
which needs to be compensated for by means of observations.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:B1}.]
We give a brief overview of the main ideas required
to prove this well known result.
First notice that the assumption $K'\ge1$ is without loss of generality.
We need this later for simplicity of presentation.
Then (\ref{eq:Best0}) is a direct consequence of (\ref{eq:Best1})
and (\ref{eq:Best2}), by
using the identity
$$
\mathcal{B}(v,v)-\mathcal{B}(w,w) = \mathcal{B}(v+w, v-w) = \mathcal{B}(v-w, v-w)+ 2 \mathcal{B}(w, v-w)
$$
For simplicity of presentation, we use the same constant in (\ref{eq:Best0})
and (\ref{eq:Best1}).
For Navier-Stokes it is well-known that
$\langle (w\cdot\nabla)v,v \rangle=0$, as the divergence of $w$ is $0$.
Thus there is constant $c_1$ such that
$$
2|\langle \mathcal{B}(w,v),v \rangle|
= \langle (v\cdot\nabla)w,v \rangle|
\le c_1\|w\| |v|_{L^4}^2\;.
$$
Since, in two dimensions $H^{1/2} = D(A^{1/4})$ is embedded
into $L^4$, there is constant $c_2$ such that
$
|\langle \mathcal{B}(w,v),z \rangle| \le c_2 \|w\| \|v\|_{H^{\frac12}}
\|z\|_{H^{\frac12}}\;.$ The first result in (\ref{eq:Best1})
then follows from the
interpolation inequality $\|v\|^2_{H^{\frac12}} \le c |v| \|v\|$
and the second from the embedding
$\|v\|_{H^{\frac12}} \le c \|v\|$.
\end{proof}
Finally, in the following a key role will be played
by the constant $\gamma$ defined as follows:
\begin{ass}
Let $\gamma$ be
the largest positive constant such that
\begin{equation}
\label{e:bass2a}
\frac12 \gamma|h|^2 \le \langle \omega A^{-2\alpha}P_{\lambda} h , h \rangle + \frac12 \delta \| h \|^2
\qquad \text{for all }h\in \mathcal{V}.
\end{equation}
\end{ass}
It is clear that such a $\gamma$ always exists, and
indeed that
$\gamma \ge \delta$, as one has $\langle A^{-2\alpha}P_{\lambda} h , h \rangle\ge 0 $. We will study how
$\gamma$ depends on $\lambda$ and $\omega$ in subsequent
discussions where we show that, by choosing $\lambda$
and $\omega$ large enough, $\gamma$ can be made
arbitrarily large.
\subsection{Forward Mean Square Accuracy}
\label{sec41}
\begin{theo}[\bf{}Accuracy]
\label{thm:mainacc}
Let $\hat{m}$ solve \eqref{eq:nse2}, and let
$u$ solve \eqref{eq:nse} with initial condition
on the global attractor $\mathcal{A}$.
For $\lambda=\infty$
assume $4\alpha+2\beta>1$ and $\alpha>-\frac12$.
Suppose that $\gamma$, the largest positive number
such that \eqref{e:bass2a} holds, satisfies
\[\gamma=KR+\gamma_0 \qquad\text{for some } \gamma_0>0,
\]
where $K$ is the constant appearing in \eqref{eq:Best}
and $R$, recall, is defined by $R=\sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}} \|u(t)\|^2$.
Then
\[
\mathbb{E}|\hat{m}(t)-u(t)|^2
\leq \mathrm{e}^{-\gamma_0 t}|\hat{m}(0)-u(0)|^2+\omega^2\sigma_0^2\int_0^t
\mathrm{e}^{-\gamma_0(t-s)}
{{\mathrm{trace}}}_{\mathcal{H}}\bigl(A^{-4\alpha-2\beta}P_{\lambda}\bigr) ds.
\]
As a consequence
\[
\limsup_{t\to\infty} \mathbb{E}|\hat{m}(t)-u(t)|^2 \leq
\tfrac1{\gamma_0}\omega^2\sigma_0^2 {{\mathrm{trace}}}_{\mathcal{H}}\bigl(A^{-4\alpha-2\beta}P_{\lambda}\bigr).
\]
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
Define the error $e=\hat{m}-u$
and subtract equation \eqref{eq:nse} from \eqref{eq:nse2}
to obtain
\begin{equation*}
de +\delta Ae= \Bigl(\mathcal{B}(u,u)-\mathcal{B}(\hat{m},\hat{m})-\omega
A^{-2\alpha}P_{\lambda} e \Bigr)dt+\omega \sigma_0A^{-2\alpha-\beta}P_{\lambda} dW\;.
\end{equation*}
Using the It\^o formula from Theorem 4.17
of \cite{Dap-Z}, together with \eqref{eq:Best}, yields
\begin{align*}
\tfrac12 d |e |^2 \leq&
\Bigl(-\tfrac12 \delta \| e \|^2 + \tfrac12 K \| u(t) \|^2 | e |^2
-\langle \omega A^{-2\alpha}P_{\lambda} e , e \rangle \Bigr)dt\\
&\qquad \qquad
+ \langle e ,\omega \sigma_0 A^{-2\alpha-\beta} P_{\lambda} dW\rangle
+ \tfrac12 \omega^2\sigma_0^2 {{\mathrm{trace}}}_{\mathcal{H}}\bigl(A^{-4\alpha-2\beta}P_{\lambda}
\bigr) dt
\;.
\end{align*}
Here we have used the fact that
the projection $P_{\lambda}$ and $A$ commute.
Applying \eqref{e:bass2a} and taking expectations we
obtain
\[
\frac{d}{dt} \mathbb{E}|e(t)|^2
\leq
-\bigl(\gamma-K\|u(t)\|^2\bigr)\cdot\mathbb{E}| e(t) |^2
+ \omega^2\sigma_0^2 {{\mathrm{trace}}}_{\mathcal{H}}\bigl(A^{-4\alpha-2\beta}P_{\lambda} \bigr)
\;,
\]
But $\sup_{t \ge 0} \|u(t)\|^2 =R<\infty$ by Proposition \ref{prop:1}
and hence, by assumption on $\gamma$,
\[
\frac{d}{dt} \mathbb{E}|e(t)|^2
\leq
-\gamma_0\cdot \mathbb{E}| e(t) |^2
+ \omega^2\sigma_0^2 {{\mathrm{trace}}}_{\mathcal{H}}\bigl(A^{-4\alpha-2\beta}P_{\lambda}
\bigr).
\;,
\]
The result follows from a Gronwall argument.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:eps}
We now briefly discuss the choice of parameters
to ensure satisfaction of the conditions of Theorem
\ref{thm:mainacc}, and its implications.
To this end, notice that $K$
and $R$ are independent of the parameters of the
filter, being determined entirely by the
Navier-Stokes equation \eqref{eq:nse} itself.
To apply the theorem we need to ensure that
$\gamma$ defined by \eqref{e:bass2a} exceeds $KR.$
Notice that
$$\frac12 \gamma|h|^2 \le \langle \omega A^{-2\alpha}P_{\lambda} h , h \rangle + \frac12 \delta \| h \|^2
\qquad \text{for all }h\in P_{\lambda} \mathcal{V}$$
requires that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:un}
\frac12 \gamma \le \frac{\omega}{|k|^{4\alpha}}+\frac12 \delta |k|^2
\qquad \text{for all } |k|^2<\lambda L^2/4\pi^2.
\end{equation}
On the other hand,
$$\frac12 \gamma|h|^2 \le \langle \omega A^{-2\alpha}P_{\lambda} h , h \rangle + \frac12 \delta \| h \|^2
\qquad \text{for all }h\in Q_{\lambda} \mathcal{V}$$
requires that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:deux}
\gamma \le \delta |k|^2 \qquad \text{for all } |k|^2
\ge \lambda L^2/4\pi^2.
\end{equation}
Since the global minimum of the function $x \in \mathbb{R}^+
\mapsto \omega x^{-2\alpha}+\frac12 \delta x$ occurs at a point
$c\delta^{2\alpha/2\alpha+1}\omega^{1/2\alpha+1}$
we see that the maximum value of $\gamma$ such that \eqref{e:bass2a} holds, $\gamma_{\rm max}$, is
$$\gamma_{\rm max} =\min\Big\{\frac{\delta \lambda L^2}{4\pi^2},c(\delta^
{2\alpha}\omega)^{1/(2\alpha+1)}\Big\}.$$
This demonstrates that, provided $\lambda$ is large enough,
and $\omega$ is large enough, then the conditions of the
theorem are satisfied.
In summary, these conditions are satisfied
provided that enough of the low Fourier modes are
observed ($\lambda$ large enough),
and provided that the ratio of the scale of the
covariance for the model to that for the observations, $\omega$,
is sufficiently large. Ensuring that the latter is achieved
is often termed {\em variance inflation} in the applied
literature and our theory provides concrete analytical
insight into the mechanisms behind it.
Furthermore, notice that once
$\lambda$ and $\omega$ are chosen to ensure this,
then the asymptotic
mean square error will be small,
provided $\epsilon:=\omega\sigma_0$ is small that is,
provided the observational noise is sufficiently small.
In this situation the theorem establishes
a form of accuracy of the filter since, regardless of the
starting point of the filter,
\[
\limsup_{t\to\infty} \mathbb{E}|\hat{m}(t)-u(t)|^2 \leq
\frac{1}{\gamma_0}\epsilon^2{{\mathrm{trace}}}_{\mathcal{H}}\bigl(A^{-4\alpha-2\beta}P_{\lambda}\bigr).
\]
\end{rem}
\subsection{Forward Stability in Probability}
\label{ssec:z}
The aim of this section is to prove that two
different solutions of the continuous 3DVAR filter
will converge to one another in
probability as $t \to \infty.$
Almost sure and mean square convergence is out of reach
in forward time. However, almost sure pullback convergence
is possible and we study this in the next section.
Throughout this section we define, for $u$ on the
attractor,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:useful}
R'=\sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}}|f+\omega A^{-2\alpha}P_{\lambda} u|_{-1}^2
\end{equation}
and we assume that $R'<\infty.$
From this we define
\begin{equation}
\label{e:defR2}
R''=
\frac{K}{\delta^2}R'+\frac{K}{\delta}\omega^2\sigma_0^2
{{\mathrm{trace}}}_{\mathcal{H}}\bigl(A^{-4\alpha-2\beta}P_{\lambda}\bigr).
\end{equation}
\begin{theo}
\label{t:stabf}
Let $\hat{m}_i$ solve \eqref{eq:nse2} with initial
condition $\hat{m}(0)=\hat{m}_i(0)$
and let $u$ solve \eqref{eq:nse} with initial condition
on the global attractor $\mathcal{A}$.
For $\lambda=\infty$
assume that $4\alpha+2\beta>1$ and $\alpha>-\frac12$.
Let $R''$ be defined as above, and
suppose $\gamma$, the largest positive number
such that \eqref{e:bass2a} holds, satisfies
$\gamma = R''+\gamma_0$ for some $\gamma_0>0.$
Then for all $\eta\in(0,\gamma_0)$
\[
|\hat{m}_1(t)-\hat{m}_2(t)|e^{\eta t} \to 0
\qquad\text{in probability as } t \to \infty.
\]
\end{theo}
\begin{proof} It follows from Lemma \ref{lem:stabf} below that,
for any fixed $t>0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{e:convprob}
\mathbb{P}\Big(
|\hat{m}_1(t)-\hat{m}_2(t)|^2
\leq
|\hat{m}_1(0)-\hat{m}_2(0)|^2 e^{-2\gamma_0 t}
\Big)
\geq
\mathbb{P}\Big(
\frac{1}{t}\int_0^t K\|\hat{m}_2(s)\|^2 ds \leq \gamma - \gamma_0
\Big)\;.
\end{equation}
Thus to establish the desired convergence in probability,
it suffices to establish that the right hand side
converges to $1$ as $t\to\infty$.
Taking the inner-product of equation \eqref{eq:nse2} with
$\widehat{m}$, applying \eqref{eq:Best2} and
using the It\^o formula from Theorem 4.17
of \cite{Dap-Z}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\tfrac12 d |\widehat{m} |^2 \leq&
\Bigl(-\delta \| \widehat{m} \|^2
-\langle \omega A^{-2\alpha}P_{\lambda} \widehat{m} , \widehat{m} \rangle
+\langle f+\omega A^{-2\alpha}P_{\lambda} u,\widehat{m} \rangle\Bigr)dt\\
&\qquad \qquad
+ \langle \widehat{m} ,\omega \sigma_0 A^{-2\alpha-\beta} P_{\lambda} dW\rangle
+ \tfrac12 \omega^2\sigma_0^2 {{\mathrm{trace}}}_{\mathcal{H}}\bigl(A^{-4\alpha-2\beta}P_{\lambda}
\bigr) dt\\
\leq&
\Bigl(-\frac12\delta \| \widehat{m} \|^2
+\frac{1}{2\delta}|f+\omega A^{-2\alpha}P_{\lambda} u|^2_{-1}\Bigr)dt\\
&\qquad \qquad
+ \langle \widehat{m} ,\omega \sigma_0 A^{-2\alpha-\beta} P_{\lambda} dW\rangle
+ \tfrac12 \omega^2\sigma_0^2 {{\mathrm{trace}}}_{\mathcal{H}}\bigl(A^{-4\alpha-2\beta}P_{\lambda}
\bigr) dt\;.
\end{align*}
Notice that, from the Poincar\'e
inequality, we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:L}
d |\widehat{m} |^2 \leq
\Bigl(-\delta | \widehat{m} |^2
+\frac{1}{\delta}R'
+ \omega^2\sigma_0^2 {{\mathrm{trace}}}_{\mathcal{H}}\bigl(A^{-4\alpha-2\beta}P_{\lambda}
\bigr)
\Bigr)dt
+ 2\langle \widehat{m} ,\omega \sigma_0 A^{-2\alpha-\beta} P_{\lambda} dW\rangle
\;.
\end{equation}
From this inequality we can deduce two facts.
Taking expectations gives
\[
d\bigl(\mathbb{E}|\widehat{m}(t) |^2\bigr) \leq
\Bigl(-\delta \mathbb{E}|\widehat{m}|^2
+\frac{1}{\delta}R'\Bigr)dt
+ \omega^2\sigma_0^2 {{\mathrm{trace}}}_{\mathcal{H}}\bigl(A^{-4\alpha-2\beta}P_{\lambda}
\bigr)dt;,
\]
and thus
with $R''$ from (\ref{e:defR2})
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:first}
\limsup_{t \to \infty}\mathbb{E}|\widehat{m}(t)|^2 \le
\frac{1}{\delta^2}R'+
\frac{1}{\delta}\omega^2\sigma_0^2 {{\mathrm{trace}}}_{\mathcal{H}}\bigl(A^{-4\alpha-2\beta}P_{\lambda}\bigr)
=\frac{R''}{K}.
\end{equation}
We also see that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:second}
\frac{1}{t}\int_0^t |\widehat{m}(s)|^2 ds \le
\frac{R''}{K}
+\frac{1}{t}|\widehat{m}(0)|^2+ I(t)\;,
\end{equation}
where we have defined
\[
I(t)=\frac{2}{t}\int_0^t
\bigl\langle \widehat{m}(s) ,\omega \sigma_0 A^{-2\alpha-\beta}P_{\lambda} dW(s)
\bigr\rangle
\]
Observe that, by the It\^o formula,
\[
\mathbb{E} |I(t)|^2
\le \frac{c}{t^2}\int_0^t \mathbb{E}|\widehat{m}(s)|^2 ds
\]
for the positive constant
$c=\omega^2 \sigma_0^2 \| A^{-2\alpha-\beta}P_{\lambda}\|^2_{\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H})}$.
Using \eqref{eq:first} we deduce that
$I(t) \to 0$ in mean square and hence in probability.
As a consequence we deduce that \eqref{eq:second} implies
that
\[
\mathbb{P}\Big(
\frac1t \int_0^t K\|\widehat {m}(s)\|^2 ds
\leq R'' \Big) \to 1
\quad\text{for }t\to\infty\;.
\]
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:stabf}
Let $\hat{m}_i$ solve \eqref{eq:nse2}
with the same $u$ on the attractor but with different
initial
conditions $\hat{m}_i(0)$.
For $\lambda=\infty$
assume that $4\alpha+2\beta>1$.
Fix $t>0$
and recall that
$K$ is the constant appearing in \eqref{eq:Best}.
Suppose that $\gamma$, the largest positive number
such that \eqref{e:bass2a} holds, satisfies
$$
\frac{1}{t}\int_0^t K\|\hat{m}_2(s)\|^2 ds+\gamma_0 \leq \gamma
$$
for some $\gamma_0>0.$
Then
\[
|\hat{m}_1(t)-\hat{m}_2(t)|^2
\leq e^{-2\gamma_0 t}|\hat{m}_1(0)-\hat{m}_2(0)|^2.
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We define the error $e=\hat{m}_1-\hat{m}_2$,
subtract equation \eqref{eq:nse2} from itself and take
the inner-product with $e$ to obtain, using
\eqref{eq:Best},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tfrac12 \frac{d }{dt} |e |^2
&=& \langle \mathcal{F}(\hat{m}_1)-\mathcal{F}(\hat{m}_2) , e \rangle
-\langle \omega A^{-2\alpha}P_{\lambda} e , e \rangle
\\&\leq&
-\delta \| e \|^2 + K \| \hat{m}_2(t) \|^2 | e |^2
-\langle \omega A^{-2\alpha}P_{\lambda} e , e \rangle\;.
\end{eqnarray*}
Applying \eqref{e:bass2a} we obtain
\[
\tfrac12 \frac{d }{dt} |e (t)|^2
\leq ( K \| \hat{m}_2(t) \|^2 -\gamma ) \cdot | e(t) |^2 \;.
\]
Integrating this inequality yields
\[
|e(t) |^2
\leq \exp\Bigl(2\int_0^t( K \| \hat{m}_2(t) \|^2 -\gamma )ds\Bigr)\cdot | e(0) |^2
\;.\]
\end{proof}
This gives the desired result.
\begin{rem}
Satisfying the condition on $\gamma$ for the stability
Theorem \ref{t:stabf} is harder than for the
accuracy Theorem \ref{thm:mainacc}. This is because
$R''$ can grow with $\omega$ and so analogous arguments
to those used at the end of the previous subsection
may fail. However different proofs can be developed, in the
case where $\sigma_0$ is sufficiently small, to overcome
this effect.
\end{rem}
\section{Pullback Accuracy and Stability}
\label{sec:PB}
In this section we consider almost
sure accuracy and stability
results for the 3DVAR algorithm
applied to the 2D-Navier-Stokes equation.
We use the notion of pullback convergence as pioneered
in the theory of stochastic dynamical systems, as
we do not expect almost sure results to hold forward in time.
Indeed, as shown in the previous section,
convergence in probability is typically the
result of forward studies of stability.
The methodology that we employ derives from the study
of semilinear equations driven by additive noise;
in particular the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU)
process constructed from a modification of the
Stokes' equation plays a central role.
Properties of this process are
described in subsection \ref{ssec:one}, and the
necessary properties of the 3DVAR Navier-Stokes filter
are discussed in subsection \ref{ssec:two}. In both
subsections a key aspect of the analysis concerns
the extension of solutions to the whole real line
$t \in \mathbb{R}$. Subsections \ref{ssec:three}
and \ref{ssec:four} then concern accuracy and stability
for the filter, in the pull-back sense.
In the following we define the Wiener process
$$
\mathcal{W}:= \omega\sigma_0 A^{-2\alpha-\beta}P_{\lambda} W,
$$
and recall that when $\lambda=\infty$
we assume $4\alpha+2\beta>1$ and
$\alpha>-\frac12$. In this
section the driving Brownian motion is considered
to be two-sided: $\mathcal{W} \in C(\mathbb{R},\mathcal{H})$. This
enables us to study notions of pullback attraction and
stability.
With this definition, 3DVAR for (\ref{eq:nse}), namely
equation \eqref{eq:nse2}), may be written
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:M}
\frac{d\hat{m}}{dt}
+ \delta A\hat{m} + \mathcal{B}(\hat{m}, \hat{m}) + \omega A^{-2\alpha} P_{\lambda}(\hat{m}-u)
= f+ \frac{d\mathcal{W}}{dt},
\quad \hat{m}(0)=\hat{m}_0\;.
\end{equation}
We employ the same notations from the previous sections
for the nonlinearity $\mathcal{F}(u)$, the Stokes operator $A$,
the bilinear form $\mathcal{B}$, and the
spaces $\mathcal{H}$ and $\mathcal{V}.$
\subsection{Stationary Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Processes}
\label{ssec:one}
Let $\phi\geq 0$ and define
the stationary ergodic OU process $Z_\phi$ as follows,
using integration by parts to find the second expression:
\begin{subequations}
\label{e:defZ}
\begin{align}
Z_\phi(t) &:= \int_{-\infty}^t e^{-(t-s)(\delta A+\phi)}d\mathcal{W}(s)\\
&= \mathcal{W}(t) - \int_{-\infty}^t (\delta A+\phi) e^{-(t-s)(\delta A+\phi)}\mathcal{W}(s) ds \;.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Note that $Z_\phi$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ZEQ}
\partial_t Z_\phi
+ (\delta A+\phi) Z_\phi
= \partial_t \mathcal{W}.
\end{equation}
With a slight abuse of notation we
rewrite the random variable
$Z_\phi(0)$ as $Z_\phi(\mathcal{W})$, a function of the whole Wiener path $t\mapsto \mathcal{W}(t)$.
Thus
$Z_\phi(t)=Z_\phi(\theta_t\mathcal{W})$, where $\theta_t$ is the stationary ergodic shift on
Wiener space defined by
\[
\theta_t\mathcal{W}(s) = \mathcal{W}(t+s)-\mathcal{W}(t)
\qquad\text{for all } t,s\in\mathbb{R}.
\]
The noise is always of trace-class, in case either $\lambda<\infty$ or $4\alpha+2\beta>1$.
Recall that by Lemma \ref{lem:SC},
the OU-process $Z_\phi$ has a version
with continuous paths in $\mathcal{V}$.
We will always assume this in the following.
It is well known that $Z_\phi$
satisfies the Birkhoff ergodic theorem,
because it is a stationary ergodic process;
we now formulate this fact in the pullback sense.
\begin{theo}[\bf{}Birkhoff Ergodic Theorem]
For $\lambda=\infty$
assume that $4\alpha+2\beta>1$.
Then
\[
\limsup_{s\to \infty} \frac1{s}\int_{-s}^0 \|Z_\phi(\tau)\|^2 d\tau
= \mathbb{E} \|Z_\phi(0)\|^2\;.
\]
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
Just note that $Z_\phi(\tau)= Z_\phi(\theta_\tau\mathcal{W})$,
and thus
\[\frac1{s}\int_{-s}^0 \|Z_\phi(\tau)\|^2 d\tau =
\frac1{s}\int_0^{s} \|Z_\phi(\theta_{-\tau}\mathcal{W})\|^2 d\tau
\to \mathbb{E} \|Z_\phi(\mathcal{W})\|^2
\quad \text{for } s\to\infty
\]
by
the classical version of the
Birkhoff ergodic theorem,
as $\theta_{-\tau}\mathcal{W}$, $\tau\geq0$
is stationary and ergodic.
\end{proof}
We can reformulate the implications of the
ergodic theorem in several ways.
\begin{cor}
For $\lambda=\infty$
assume that $4\alpha+2\beta>1$.
There exists a random constant $C(\mathcal{W})$ such that
\[
\frac1{|s|}\int_s^0 \|Z_\phi(\tau)\|^2 d\tau
\leq
C(\mathcal{W})
\qquad \text{ for all }s<0.
\]
Furthermore, for any $\epsilon>0$ there is a random time
$t_\epsilon(\mathcal{W})<0$ such that
\[
\frac1{|s|}\int_s^0 \|Z_\phi(\tau)\|^2 d\tau
\leq
(1+\epsilon) \mathbb{E} \|Z_\phi(0)\|^2
\qquad \text{ for all }s<t_\epsilon(\mathcal{W})<0.
\]
\end{cor}
This result immediately implies
$$
\frac1{t-s}\int_s^t \|Z_\phi(\theta_\tau\mathcal{W})\|^2 d\tau
=
\frac1{t-s}\int_{s-t}^0 \|Z_\phi(\theta_{\tau+t}\mathcal{W})\|^2 d\tau
\leq C(\theta_t\mathcal{W})\;.
$$
Finally we observe that it is well-known that
the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process $Z_\phi$ is
a tempered random variable,
which means that $Z_\phi(\theta_s\mathcal{W})$ grows sub-exponentially for $s\to -\infty$,
and in fact it grows slower that any polynomial.
We now state this precisely.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:SCsub}
For $\lambda=\infty$
assume that $4\alpha+2\beta>1$.
Then on a set of measure one
\[
\lim_{s\to -\infty}\|Z_\phi(s)\| \cdot |s|^{-\epsilon} =0
\qquad \text{for all } \epsilon >0\;.
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The claim follows from Proposition 4.1.3 of \cite{Arn98}
which states that for any positive functional $h$ on Wiener paths
such that $ \mathbb{E} \sup_{t\in[0,1]}h(\theta_t\mathcal{W}) <\infty $
one has $\lim_{t\to\infty} \frac1t h(\theta_t\mathcal{W}) =0$.
Here $h(\mathcal{W})= \|Z_\phi(\mathcal{W})\|^p$, where the moment is finite
due to Lemma \ref{lem:SC}.
\end{proof}
In addition to the preceding almost sure result,
the following moment bound on $Z_\phi$ is also
useful. It shows that $Z_\phi$ is of order $\sigma_0$
and converges to $0$ for $\phi\to\infty$.
In the following it may be useful to play with $\phi$,
and even to use random $\phi$,
as our estimates hold path-wise for all $\phi$.
\begin{lem}
\label{sc:size}
For $\lambda=\infty$
assume that $4\alpha+2\beta>1$.
Then, for all $p>1$ there is a constant $C_p>0$
such that
\[
\Big(\mathbb{E}\|Z_\phi(t)\|^{2p} \Big)^{1/p}
\leq
C_p \omega^2\sigma_0^2 \cdot
{\mathrm{trace}}\{ (\delta A+\phi)^{-1}A^{1-4\alpha-2\beta}P_{\lambda} \},
\qquad\forall\;t\in\mathbb{R}.
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Due to stationarity it is sufficient to consider
$\mathbb{E}\|Z_\phi(0)\|^{2p}$. Due to Gaussianity it is enough
to consider $p=1$.
\[\mathbb{E}\|Z_\phi(0)\|^2
=\mathbb{E}|A^{1/2} Z_\phi(0)|^2
= \omega^2\sigma_0^2 \mathbb{E}\Big|A^{1/2}\int_{-\infty}^0 e^{s(\delta A+\phi)} A^{-2\alpha-\beta}P_{\lambda} dW(s)\Big|^2
\;.\]
Thus by the It\^o-Isometry
we obtain
(projection $P_{\lambda}$ commutes with $A$)
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}\|Z_\phi(0)\|^2
&=& \omega^2\sigma_0^2\cdot {\mathrm{trace}}\Bigl(\int_{-\infty}^0 e^{2s(\delta A+\phi)} A^{1-4\alpha-2\beta}P_{\lambda} ds \Bigr) \\
&= & \frac12 \omega^2\sigma_0^2\cdot {\mathrm{trace}}
\Bigl( (\delta A+\phi)^{-1}A^{1-4\alpha-2\beta}P_{\lambda}\Bigr)\;.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:eps2}
A key conclusion of the preceding lemma is
that, if $\epsilon:=\omega\sigma_0$ (as defined in
Remark \ref{rem:eps}) is small, then all moments of
the OU process $Z_{\phi}$ are small. Furthermore,
the parameter $\phi$ can be tuned to make these moments
as small as desired.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Solutions Continuous Time 2D Navier-Stokes Filter}
\label{ssec:two}
In the following we denote the solution of (\ref{eq:M})
with initial condition $\hat{m}(s)=\hat{m}_0$ and given Wiener path $\mathcal{W}$
by $S(t,s,\mathcal{W})\hat{m}_0$.
This object forms
a stochastic dynamical system (SDS);
see \cite{CF94, CrDebuFl}.
We cannot use directly the notion of a random dynamical system,
as in \cite{Arn98}, because of the non-autonomous
forcing $u$ in \eqref{eq:M}.
The fact that the solution of the SPDE (\ref{eq:M}) can be defined
path-wise for every fixed path of $\mathcal{W}$, can be seen from the
well-known method of changing to the variable
$v:=\hat{m}-Z_\phi$.
(see Section 7 of \cite{CF94} or Chapter 15 of \cite{dap2},
for example). Now, since $Z_\phi$ satisfies (\ref{eq:ZEQ}),
subtraction from (\ref{eq:M}) shows that
$v$ solves the random PDE
\begin{equation}
\label{e:randPDE}
\frac{d}{dt} v
+ \delta A v + \mathcal{B}(v,v) +2\mathcal{B}(v,Z_\phi)+\mathcal{B}(Z_\phi,Z_\phi)
+ \omega A^{-2\alpha} (v+Z_{\phi}-u) - \phi Z_\phi
= f\;.
\end{equation}
This can be solved for each given path of $\mathcal{W}$
with methods similar to the ones used for Proposition
\ref{prop:1}
(see also Proposition \ref{prop:ex-S2DNS}).
Once, the solution is defined path-wise, the generation
of a stochastic dynamical system is straightforward.
Let us summarize this in a theorem:
\begin{theo}[\bf{Solutions}]
\label{thm:solNS}
For all $u_0$ on the attractor $\mathcal{A}$
the Navier-Stokes equation (\ref{eq:nse}) has a solution
$u\in L^\infty(\mathbb{R},\mathcal{V}).$
Now consider the 3DVAR filter written in the form
of equation (\ref{e:randPDE}).
In the case $\lambda=\infty$ assume
that $\alpha>-\tfrac12$ and $4\alpha+2\beta>1$.
For any $s\in\mathbb{R}$, any path of the Wiener process $\mathcal{W}$,
and any initial condition $v(s)=\hat{m}(s)-Z_\phi(s) \in \mathcal{H}$
equation (\ref{e:randPDE})
has a unique solution
\[
v\in C^0_{\mathrm{loc}}([s,\infty),\mathcal{H}) \cap L^2_{\mathrm{loc}}([s,\infty),\mathcal{V})\;.
\]
This implies the existence of a stochastic dynamical system
$S$ for (\ref{eq:M}).
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
The first statement
follows directly from Proposition
\ref{prop:1} if we take a solution on the attractor;
in that case it follows that, in fact,
$u\in L^\infty(\mathbb{R},\mathcal{V})$.
Proof of the second statement is discussed prior to
the theorem statement.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Pullback Accuracy}
\label{ssec:three}
Here we show that in the pullback sense
solutions $\hat{m}$ for large times stay close
to $u$, where the error scales with the observational
noise strength $\sigma_0$.
Recall $K$ and $K'$ defined in Lemma \ref{lem:B1}
and $R$ the uniform bound on $u$ from Proposition
\ref{prop:1}.
\begin{theo}[\bf{}Pullback Accuracy]
\label{thm:pbacc}
Let $\hat{m}$ solve \eqref{eq:nse2}, and let
$u$ solve \eqref{eq:nse} with initial condition
on the global attractor $\mathcal{A}$.
In the case $\lambda=\infty$ assume additionally
that $4\alpha+2\beta>1$ and $\alpha>-\frac12$.
Suppose that $\gamma$
from (\ref{e:bass2a})
is sufficiently large so that
\begin{equation}
\label{cond:PBA}
K(17 \mathbb{E} \|Z_\phi\|^2+ 16 R) < \gamma \;.
\end{equation}
Then there is a random constant $r(\mathcal{W})>0$
such that for any initial condition $\hat{m}_0$
\[
\limsup_{s\to-\infty} | S(t,s,\mathcal{W})\hat{m}_0 - u(t)- Z_\phi(\theta_t \mathcal{W})|^2
\leq r(\theta_t \mathcal{W}) \;.
\]
with a finite constant
\[
r(\mathcal{W}) = \frac4\delta
\int_{-\infty}^0 \exp\Bigl(
\int_\tau^0 \bigl( 16 K (\|Z_\phi\|^2+ R ) - \gamma \bigr) d\eta\Bigr)
\mathcal{T}^2 d\tau\;,
\]
where $\mathcal{T}:=K'\|Z_\phi\|(\|Z_\phi\|+2\|u\|)+\phi|Z_\phi|+\omega|A^{-2\alpha}P_{\lambda} Z_\phi|$
where $K'$ and $K:=(K')^2/\delta$ are as defined
in Lemma \ref{lem:B1}.
\end{theo}
\begin{rem}
Regarding Theorem \ref{thm:pbacc}
we make the following obervations:
\begin{itemize}
\item In (\ref{cond:PBA}) the contribution
$\mathbb{E} \|Z_\phi\|^2$ can be made arbitrarily small by choosing
$\phi$ sufficiently large,
or is small if $\epsilon:=\omega\sigma_0$ is sufficiently small; see Lemma \ref{sc:size}.
Thus $16 R K < \gamma$ is sufficient for accuracy.
With a more careful application of Young's inequality, we could also get rid of several factors of $2$,
recovering the condition $RK<\gamma$
from the forward accuracy result of Theorem \ref{thm:mainacc}.
\item The assumption that $u$ lies
on the attractor could we weakened to a
condition on the limsup of $u$.
We state the stronger condition for
simplicity of proofs.
\item In the language of random dynamical systems,
the theorem states that the stochastic dynamical
system $S(t,s\mathcal{W})\hat{m}_0 $
has is a random pullback absorbing
ball centered around $u(t)$ with radius scaling with the size of
the stochastic convolution $Z_\phi$.
By Lemma \ref{sc:size}, this scales as $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon)$
for $\epsilon=\omega \sigma_0$ sufficiently small; thus
we have derived an accuracy result, in the pullback sense.
\end{itemize}
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
{\em (Theorem \ref{thm:pbacc})}.
Consider the difference $d= \hat{m}-u$, where $\hat{m}(t)=S(t,s)\hat{m}_0$. This solves
\begin{equation}
\label{e:defd}
\partial_t d
+ \delta A d + \mathcal{B}(d,d) + 2\mathcal{B}(u,d) + \omega A^{-2\alpha} P_{\lambda} d
= \partial_t \mathcal{W}\;.
\end{equation}
In order to get rid of the noise, define
$\psi = d - Z_\phi = \hat{m} - u - Z_\phi$,
where $Z_\phi$ is the stationary stochastic convolution.
Since $Z_\phi$ solves (\ref{eq:ZEQ})
the process $\psi$ solves
\begin{equation}
\label{e:defpsi}
\partial_t \psi
+ \delta A \psi + \mathcal{B}(\psi+Z_\phi,\psi+Z_\phi) + 2\mathcal{B}(u,\psi+Z_\phi)
+ \omega A^{-2\alpha} P_{\lambda} (\psi+Z_\phi) -\phi Z_\phi = 0\;.
\end{equation}
From this random PDE,
we can take the scalar product with $\psi$ to obtain, using \eqref{eq:Best2},
\[
\begin{split}
\tfrac12 \partial_t |\psi|^2
+ \delta \|\psi\|^2
& =
-\langle 2\mathcal{B}(Z_\phi,\psi)+ \mathcal{B}(Z_\phi,Z_\phi) + 2\mathcal{B}(u,\psi+Z_\phi) ,\psi\rangle
\\& \qquad
- \langle \omega A^{-2\alpha} P_{\lambda} (\psi+Z_\phi) -\phi Z_\phi ,\psi\rangle
\;.
\end{split}
\]
Using (\ref{e:bass2a}) and Lemma \ref{lem:B1} we obtain
\[
\begin{split}
\tfrac12 \partial_t |\psi|^2 + \tfrac\delta2 \|\psi\|^2 + \tfrac\gamma2 |\psi|^2
& \leq -\langle 2\mathcal{B}(Z_\phi,\psi)+ \mathcal{B}(Z_\phi,Z_\phi) + 2\mathcal{B}(u,\psi+Z_\phi) ,\psi\rangle
\\& \qquad
- \langle \omega A^{-2\alpha} P_{\lambda} Z_\phi -\phi Z_\phi ,\psi\rangle
\\ & \leq
2 K' \left(\|Z_\phi\| + \|u\|\right) \cdot\|\psi\| \cdot|\psi|\\
&\qquad
+ K' \|Z_\phi\|\cdot \left(\|Z_\phi\|+2\|u\|\right) \cdot \|\psi\|\\
&\qquad + \left(\phi|Z_\phi|+ \omega |A^{-2\alpha}P_{\lambda} Z_\phi| \right) \cdot|\psi|
\;.
\end{split}
\]
Recall that
\[
\mathcal{T}= K' \|Z_\phi\| (\|Z_\phi\|+2\|u\|)
+\phi|Z_\phi|+ \omega |A^{-2\alpha}P_{\lambda} Z_\phi|\;.
\]
Thus we have,
using the Young inequality in the form
$ab \leq \frac1\delta a^2 + \frac\delta4 b^2$
twice,
\[
\begin{split}
\tfrac12 \partial_t |\psi|^2 + \tfrac\delta2 \|\psi\|^2 + \tfrac\gamma2 |\psi|^2
&
\leq
2 K' (\|Z_\phi\| + \|u\|)\|\psi\| |\psi|
+ \mathcal{T}\cdot \|\psi\|\\
&\leq
4 K (\|Z_\phi\| + \|u\|)^2 |\psi|^2
+ \tfrac1\delta\mathcal{T}^2 + \tfrac\delta2\|\psi\|^2,
\end{split}
\]
since $K=(K')^2/\delta.$
Hence
\[
\partial_t |\psi|^2 + \gamma |\psi|^2
\leq
8K( \|Z_\phi\| + \|u\|)^2 \cdot |\psi|^2
+ \tfrac2\delta \mathcal{T}^2 \;.
\]
Comparison principle with $\psi(s)=\hat{m}_0-u(s)-Z_\phi(s)$ yields
(using the bound on $u$ and $(a+b)^2 \leq 2a^2+2b^2$)
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
| \psi(t) |^2 \leq
|\hat{m}_0-u(s)-Z_\phi(s) |^2
\exp\Big( \int_s^t [ 16 K ( \|Z_\phi\|^2 + R) - \gamma] dr\Big)
}\\
&& + \frac2\delta \int_s^t
\exp\Big( \int_r^t [16K ( \|Z_\phi\|^2+R)
-\gamma] d\tau\Big) \mathcal{T}^2 dr
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, we can now use Birkhoffs theorem and the sub-exponential growth
for $Z_\phi$. We obtain for $\gamma$ sufficiently large
(as asserted by the Theorem),
that there is a random time
$t_0(\mathcal{W})<0$ such that for all $s< t_0(\mathcal{W})<0$
\[
| \psi(t) |^2
\leq \frac4\delta \int_s^t
\exp\Big( \int_r^t [16K ( \|Z_\phi\|^2+R)
-\gamma] d\tau\Big) \mathcal{T}^2 dr\;.
\]
Recall that $\psi(t) =S(t,s,\mathcal{W})\hat{m}_0-Z(t)-u(t)$.
This finishes the proof, as the right hand side
is almost surely a finite random constant,
due to Birkhoffs ergodic theorem and sub-exponential growth
of $Z_\phi$ and hence $\mathcal{T}^2$ (see Lemma \ref{lem:SCsub}).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Pullback Stability}
\label{ssec:four}
Now we verify that under suitable conditions
all solutions of (\ref{eq:M}) pullback converge exponentially fast
towards each other.
We make the assumption that Birkhoff bounds
hold for the solution $\hat{m}$ (see theorem statement
below to make this assumption precise). These bounds
do not follow directly from Birkhoffs ergodic theorem,
as the equation is non-autonomous due to the presence of $u$.
Whilst it should be possible to establish such bounds,
using the techniques in \cite{FlGa:95} or \cite{ESSt:10},
doing so is technically involved, as one needs to use
random $\phi$'s in the definition of $Z_\phi$.
In order to keep the presentation at a reasonable level,
we refrain from giving details on this point.
\begin{theo}[Exponential Stability]
\label{thm:huexpstab}
Assume there is one initial condition $\hat{m}_0^{(1)}$
such that the corresponding solution $S(t,s,\mathcal{W})\hat{m}_0^{(1)} $
satisfies Birkhoff-bounds.
To be more precise, we assume that $\gamma$
from (\ref{e:bass2a}) is sufficiently large that,
for some $\eta>0$ and $K=(K')^2/\delta$ from Lemma \ref{lem:B1},
\begin{equation}
\label{e:Birkbou}
\limsup_{s\to-\infty} \frac{4K}{t-s} \int_s^t \| S(\tau,s,\mathcal{W})\hat{m}_0^{(1)}\|^2 d\tau
< \gamma -2\eta\;.
\end{equation}
Let $\hat{m}_0^{(2)}$ be
any other initial condition.
Then
\[
\lim_{s\to-\infty}| S(t,s,\mathcal{W})\hat{m}_0^{(1)} -S(t,s,\mathcal{W})\hat{m}_0^{(2)} |
\cdot \mathrm{e}^{\eta(t-s)}
=0.
\]
\end{theo}
Recall we verified in Theorem \ref{thm:pbacc}
that (\ref{eq:M})
has a random pullback absorbing set in $L^2$ centered around $u(t)$.
Together with Theorem \ref{thm:huexpstab}
this immediately implies that
Equation (\ref{eq:M})
has a random pullback attractor in $L^2$ consisting of a single point
that attracts all solutions.
Let us remark, that we did not show that the attractor also pullback-attracts
tempered bounded sets,
but this is a straightforward modification.
\begin{proof}{\em (Theorem \ref{thm:huexpstab})}
Define here $v=\hat{m}_1-\hat{m}_2$, where $\hat{m}_i(t)=S(t,s,\mathcal{W})\hat{m}_0^{(i)}$
are solutions of (\ref{eq:M}) with different initial conditions.
It is easy to see by the symmetry of $\mathcal{B}$
that
\[
\partial_t v + \delta Av + \mathcal{B}( \hat{m}_1 + \hat{m}_2 , v) + \omega A^{-2\alpha} P_{\lambda} v = 0
\]
or
\[
\partial_t v + \delta Av + 2\mathcal{B}( \hat{m}_1, v) - \mathcal{B}(v,v) + \omega A^{-2\alpha} P_{\lambda} v = 0\;.
\]
Thus
\[
\frac12 \partial_t |v|^2 + \delta\|v\|^2
+ \omega \langle A^{-2\alpha} P_{\lambda} v,v\rangle
\le 2K' \|\hat{m}_1\| \|v\| |v|\;.
\]
By (\ref{e:bass2a})
\[
\partial_t |v|^2 + \delta\|v\|^2 +\gamma |v|^2
\le 4K' \|\hat{m}_1\| \|v\| |v| \;.
\]
Hence, using Young's inequality
($ab \leq \frac1{4\delta}a^2+\delta b^2$)
with $K=(K')^2/\delta$
\[
\partial_t |v(t)|^2 + \gamma |v|^2 \leq 4K \|\hat{m}_1\|^2 |v|^2\;.
\]
Thus, using the comparison principle,
\[
|v(t)|^2 \leq |v(s)|^2 \exp\bigl( \int_s^t [ 4K \|\hat{m}_1\|^2 - \gamma] dr \bigr).
\]
This converges to $0$ exponentially fast,
provided $\gamma$ is sufficiently large,
as $v(s)= \hat{m}_0^{(1)}-\hat{m}_0^{(1)}$.
Moreover,
\[
|v(t)|^2 \mathrm{e}^{2\eta (t-s)}
\leq |v(s)|^2 \exp\bigl( (t-s) r(t,s) \bigr).
\]
with
$r(t,s)= \frac{1}{t-s} \int_s^t [ 4K \|\hat{m}_1\|^2d\tau - \gamma +2\eta $
and
$\limsup_{s\to-\infty} r(t,s) < 0$ by assumption.
This implies the claim of the theorem.
\end{proof}
\section{Numerical Results}
\label{sec:num}
In this section we study the SPDE \eqref{eq:nse2}
by means of numerical experiments, illustrating
the results of the previous sections.
We invoke a split-step scheme to solve equation (\ref{eq:nse2}),
in which we compose numerical integration of the Navier-Stokes
equation (\ref{eq:nse})
with numerical solution of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process
\begin{equation}
\frac{d \hat{m}}{d t} +
\omega A^{-2\alpha}(\hat{m}-u)= \omega \sigma_0
A^{-2\alpha-\beta}\frac{dW}{dt},
\quad \hat{m}(0)=\hat{m}_0,
\label{eq:nse222}
\end{equation}
at each step. The Navier-Stokes equation (\ref{eq:nse})
itself is solved by a pseudo-spectral method based on
the Fourier basis defined through \eqref{eq:fb}, whilst
the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process is approximated by
the Euler-Maruyama scheme \cite{kloeden1994stochastic}.
All the examples concern the case $\lambda=\infty$ only;
however similar results are obtained for finite, but sufficiently
large, $\lambda.$
\subsection{Forward Accuracy}
\label{sec:num_forward}
In this section, we will illustrate the results of Theorem \ref{thm:mainacc}.
We will let $\alpha=1/2$ throughout; since $\beta$ is always
non-negative the trace-class noise condition $4\alpha+2\beta>1$
is always satisfied.
Notice that the parameter $\omega$
sets a time-scale for relaxation towards the true signal,
and $\sigma_0$ sets a scale for the size of fluctuations
about the true signal. The parameter $\beta$
rescales the fluctuation size in the observational
noise at different wavevectors
with respect to the relaxation time.
First we consider setting $\beta=0.$
In Fig. \ref{a1c5.t} we show numerical experiments
with $\omega=100$ and $\sigma_0=0.05.$
We see that the noise level
on top of the signal in the low modes is almost $O(1)$, and
that the high modes do not synchronize at all; the total error
remains $O(1)$ although trends in the signal are followed.
On the other hand, for the smaller value of $\sigma_0=0.005$,
still with $\omega=100$,
the noise level on the signal in the low modes is moderate,
the high modes synchronize sufficiently well,
and the total error is small; this is shown in Fig. \ref{a1c05.t}.
Now we consider the case $\beta=1$.
Again we take $\omega=100$ and
$\sigma_0=0.05$ and $0.005$
in Figures \ref{a1dc5.t}
and \ref{a1dc05.t}, respectively.
The synchronization is stronger than
that observed for $\beta=0$ in each case. This is because
the forcing noise decays more rapidly for large wavevectors when
$\beta$ is increased, as can be observed in the relatively
smooth trajectories of the high modes of the estimator.
For the case when $\sigma_0=0$ we recover a (non-stochastic)
PDE for the estimator $\widehat{m}$. The values of
$\sigma_0$ and $\beta$ are irrelevant. The value of $\omega$
is the critical parameter in this case.
For values of $\omega$ of $O(100)$ the
convergence is exponentially
fast to machine precision. For values of $\omega$ of
$O(1)$ the estimator does not exhibit stable
behaviour. For intermediate values,
the estimator may approach the signal and remain bounded and
still an $O(1)$ distance away (see the case $\omega=10$
in Fig. \ref{d10.t}), or else
it may come close to synchronizing (see the case $\omega=30$
in Fig. \ref{d30.t}).
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth, height=8.5cm]{undamped_noiseB_tot1.pdf}
\caption{Trajectories of various modes of the estimator $\hat{m}$
and the signal $u$ are depicted above for
$\beta=0$ and $\sigma_0=0.05$, along with the total relative
error in the $L^2$ norm, $|\hat{m}-u|/|u|$.}
\label{a1c5.t}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth, height=8.5cm]{undamped_noise_tot1.pdf}
\caption{Trajectories of various modes of the estimator $\hat{m}$
and the signal $u$ are depicted above for $\beta=0$ and
$\sigma_0=0.005$, along with the relative error
in the $L^2$ norm, $|\hat{m}-u|/|u|$.}
\label{a1c05.t}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth, height=8.5cm]{damped_noiseB_tot1.pdf}
\caption{Trajectories of various modes of the estimator $\hat{m}$
and the signal $u$ are depicted above for
$\beta=1$ and $\sigma_0=0.05$, along with the relative error
in the $L^2$ norm, $|\hat{m}-u|/|u|$.}
\label{a1dc5.t}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth, height=8.5cm]{damped_noise_tot1.pdf}
\caption{Trajectories of various modes of the estimator $\hat{m}$
and the signal $u$ are depicted above for $\beta=1$ and
$\sigma_0=0.005$, along with the relative error
in the $L^2$ norm, $|\hat{m}-u|/|u|$.}
\label{a1dc05.t}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth, height=8.5cm]{determ10_tot1.pdf}
\caption{Trajectories of various modes of the estimator $\hat{m}$
and the signal $u$ are depicted above for $\sigma_{0}=0$
and $\omega=10$, along with the relative error
in the $L^2$ norm, $|\hat{m}-u|/|u|$.}
\label{d10.t}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth, height=8.5cm]{determ30_tot1.pdf}
\caption{Trajectories of various modes of the estimator $\hat{m}$
and the signal $u$ are depicted above for
$\sigma_{0}=0$ and $\omega=30$, along with the relative error
in the $L^2$ norm, $|\hat{m}-u|/|u|$.}
\label{d30.t}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Forward Stability}
\label{sec:num_pullback}
This section will provide numerical evidence supporting
Theorem \ref{t:stabf}. In order to investigate the
stability of estimators
we reproduce ensembles of solutions of equation \eqref{eq:nse2},
for a fixed realization of $W(t)$, and a family of
initial conditions.
We let $\beta=0$ throughout this section, and we always
choose values of $\alpha$ which ensure that the trace class
condition on the noise, $4\alpha+2\beta>1$, is satisfied.
Let $m^{(k)}(t)$ be the solution at time $t$
of \eqref{eq:nse2} where the initial conditions
are drawn from a Gaussian whose covariance
is proportional to the model covariance:
$m^{(k)}(0) \sim \mathcal{N}(0,30^2 {\hat {C}})$.
First we consider $\alpha=1/2$.
Figure
\ref{att05} corresponds to parameters given in Fig. \ref{a1c5.t} of
section \ref{sec:num_forward}.
The top figure simply shows the ensemble of trajectories, while the bottom
figure shows the convergence of $|m^{(k)}(t)-m^{(1)}(t)|/|m^{(1)}(t)|$
for $k>1$. Notice the trajectories converge to each other,
indicating stability.
But, the trajectories here
do not converge
to the truth (or driving signal).
This is because the neighbourhood of the signal
which bounds the estimators is not small.
The next image, Fig. \ref{att005},
shows results for the smaller value of $\sigma_0=0.005$
corresponding to Fig. \ref{a1c05.t} of section \ref{sec:num_forward}.
Notice the rate of convergence of the trajectories to each other
(bottom) is very similar to the previous case, indicating that there
is again stability.
However, this time the neighbourhood of the signal
which bounds the estimators is small, and so they are indeed accurate.
Fig. \ref{noat005} shows the results for the larger value of
$\alpha=1$ (still with $\beta=0$). In this case, there is no
stability,
i.e. the trajectories do not converge to
each other (bottom), and also no convergence to the truth
(bottom right of the top panels), although all trajectories do
remain in a neighbourhood of the truth and the low wavevector
modes converge (top left),
so there is accuracy with a large bound.
Furthermore, the distance of the
trajectories from each other is similar to the distance from the
truth, so the attractor in this case may be similar to the attractor
of the underlying Navier-Stokes equation.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth, height=8.5cm]{attractor_05.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{attractor_05_conv.pdf}
\caption{The above panels correspond to Fig. \ref{a1c5.t} from the
text, except illustrating stability by an ensemble of estimators.
The top set of panels are the same as in Fig. \ref{a1c5.t},
while the bottom panel shows stability by convergence of the
estimators to each other.}
\label{att05}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth, height=8.5cm]{attractor_005.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{attractor_005_conv.pdf}
\caption{The above panels correspond to Fig. \ref{a1c05.t} from the
text, except illustrating stability by an ensemble of estimators.
The top set of panels are the same as in Fig. \ref{a1c05.t},
while the bottom panel shows stability by convergence of the
estimators to each other.}
\label{att005}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth,height=8.5cm]{noattractor_005_long.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{noattractor_005_noconvlong.pdf}
\caption{The above panels correspond to the same parameter values
as above Fig. \ref{att005}, except $\alpha=1$. Panels are the same.
There is not stability in this case.}
\label{noat005}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Pullback Accuracy and Stability}
Finally, in this section, we illustrate Theorem \ref{thm:pbacc}.
As the subtle nuance differences between forward and pullback
accuracy and stability ellude standard numerical simulation,
we do not feel it is appropriate to explore this in further detail
numerically. So, this section will be brief.
We include a single image illustrating the equivalence of the above
experiments in Figures \ref{att005}, \ref{att05}, and \ref{noat005}
to the traditional notion of pullback attractor
in the case that the attractor is a point: Figure \ref{pbat005}.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth, height=8.5cm]{pullback_trad.pdf}
\caption{The same as Figure \ref{att005}, except the initial ensemble
is initiated at 3 separate times: $t_1, t_2,$ and $t_3$. Clearly
the only relevant interval of time is for $t>t_3$. All trajectories
converge to each other.}
\label{pbat005}
\end{figure*}
\section{Conclusions}
Data assimilation is important in a range of physical
applications where it is of interest to use data to
improve output from computational models. Analysis of
the various algorithms used in practice is in its infancy.
The work herein contains analysis of an algorithm,
3DVAR, which is prototypical of more complex Gaussian
approximations that are widely used in applications.
In particular we have studied the high frequency in time
observation limit of 3DVAR, leading to a stochastic PDE.
We have demonstrated mathematically how variance inflation,
widely used by practitioners, stabilizes, and makes accurate,
this filter, complementing the theory in \cite{lsetal} which
concerns low frequency in time observations.
It is to be expected that the analytical tools developed
here and in \cite{lsetal} can be built upon to study
more complex algorithms, such as the extended and ensemble
Kalman filters, variants on which are
used in operational weather forecasting.
This will form a focus of our future work.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Recently, solving real-world complex problems with supervised learning techniques has become more and more common.
In supervised learning, using all variables as input to a learning algorithm works well when the number of variables is limited.
However, when the number of variables is large (e.g., gene expression-based patient classification), using all variables in the learning process could lead to overfitting and
a model interpretability problem \cite{Zhao2010}.
To overcome these problems, feature selection techniques are useful.
Feature selection aims at removing unnecessary variables and retaining only relevant variables
for the target supervised learning task.
Many previous studies \cite{Saeys2007,Suzuki2009} showed that feature selection is useful
in finding relevant variables to gain more insight of the data.
Moreover, the generalization ability of the learned model can be improved through the removal of noisy variables \cite{Peng2005,Langley1994}.
Two conflicting criteria which are commonly used to select features are \emph{relevancy} and \emph{redundancy}.
Features are relevant if they can explain outputs.
Features are redundant if they are similar.
It is trivial that more features are more likely to explain outputs well.
However, more features are also more prone to be redundant \cite{Peng2005,Zhao2010}.
\emph{Feature interaction} is also another important criterion to consider.
Feature interaction is a situation in which two or more weak features can explain the output well in the context of each other, even though each of them alone may not be explanatory.
It is one of the key characteristics in real-world problems.
To detect a group of interacting features, it is necessary to simultaneously consider all features.
This is because, by definition, considering features individually will not reveal any relevancy to the output.
Due to this difficulty, feature interaction has not received much attention from the community.
In this research, instead of focusing on only the relevancy and the redundancy as many previous studies did, we also take into consideration the interaction among features.
We propose $\ell_1$-LSMI, an $\ell_1$-regularization based algorithm
that maximizes a squared-loss variant of mutual information between selected features and
outputs.
We also experimentally compare the proposed method
with several state-of-the-art feature selection algorithms on both artificial and real data.
Numerical results show that $\ell_1$-LSMI performs well in handling redundancy, detecting
non-linear dependency, and considering feature interaction.
The structure of this paper is as follows.
We formulate our feature selection problem in \secref{sec:formulation}.
Then we describe optimization strategies commonly used in practice in \secref{sec:opt}, as well as several feature quality measures in \secref{sec:measure}.
We argue that, among the listed strategies, $\ell_1$-regularization based feature weighting is the best choice if we take into account the balance between computation and consideration of features.
As a feature quality measure, we show that squared-loss mutual information (SMI) \cite{Suzuki2009} possesses various desirable properties.
Based on this argument, in \secref{sec:proposed}, we propose to combine $\ell_1$-regularization and SMI, which we refer to as $\ell_1$-LSMI{}.
Experiments on artificial and real data are described in \secref{sec:exp}.
Finally, we conclude the paper in \secref{sec:conclude}.
\section{Problem Formulation}
\label{sec:formulation}
A formal description of a supervised feature selection problem is as follows.
Assume we have an input data matrix $\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$ and output data vector $\mathbf{Y} \in \mathbb{R}^n$, where $m$ is the number of features and $n$ is the sample size.
$\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Y}$ are realizations of the random variable $X=(X_1,\ldots,X_m)$ and $Y$, respectively. Given the desired number of features $k$, supervised feature selection attempts to find a subset of features identified by the set of feature indices $\mathcal{I} \subset \{1,\ldots,m\}$, such that the underlying \emph{feature quality measure} $f$ is maximized. Formally, this can be formulated as an optimization problem as
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:fs}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\mathcal{I} \subset \{1,\ldots,m\}}{\text{maximize}}
& & f(\mathbf{X}_\mathcal{I},\mathbf{Y}) \\
& \text{subject to}
& & |\mathcal{I}| = k, \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $|\cdot|$ denotes the set cardinality, and $\mathbf{X}_\mathcal{I}$ denotes the data matrix $\mathbf{X}$ retaining only rows indexed by $\mathcal{I}$.
In general, $f$ can be any function which can quantify the desired characteristics of the selected features.
A popular choice for $f$ is the classification accuracy of a chosen classifier \cite{Kohavi1997}.
While the selected features $\widehat{\mathcal{I}}$ obtained from this approach can yield a good classification accuracy, they are only specifically fit to the predictor in use.
As a result, an objective interpretation of $\widehat{\mathcal{I}}$ may be difficult \cite{Guyon2003}.
In this work, we opt to focus on feature selection algorithms which are independent of a predictor for wide applicability.
In practice, searching for a good feature subset to maximize $f$ in a reasonable amount of time can be challenging.
In fact, finding the global optimal feature subset is known to be NP-hard \cite{Weston2003,Masaeli2010a}.
One way to guarantee that we can obtain the global optimal subset is to perform an exhaustive search over all possible subsets.
However, since there are $2^m$ possible subsets in total, this approach is impractical for large $m$.
Clearly, a good \emph{optimization strategy} is needed to efficiently explore the subset space.
As shown above, optimization strategies and feature quality measures are two
important research issues in feature selection.
We describe standard optimization strategies in \secref{sec:opt},
and popular feature quality measures in \secref{sec:measure}.
\section{Optimization Strategies}
\label{sec:opt}
The optimization strategy defines how to search for a good feature subset.
The complexity of these optimization strategies range, with respect to the number of
features $m$, from linear (feature ranking) to exponential (exhaustive search).
Optimization strategies in general attempt to find features which have high relevancy to the output.
Higher complexity in some strategies follows from the fact that feature redundancy is also taken into consideration.
We start the discussion with fast feature ranking technique which does not consider feature redundancy.
\subsection{Feature Ranking}
Feature ranking is one of the simplest feature optimization strategies.
Given $m$ features $\{X_1,\ldots,X_m\}$, the feature ranking approach solves the optimization problem of the form
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\mathcal{I} \subset \{1,\ldots,m\}}{\text{maximize}}
& & \sum_{i \in \mathcal{I}} f(X_i, Y)
& \text{subject to}
& & |\mathcal{I}| = k. \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
To solve this problem, we calculate $f(X_i, Y)$ for $i \in \{1,\ldots,m\}$, rank
$X_i$ in the descending order, and then select the top $k$ features.
The notable feature selection algorithms based on this ranking scheme are
Pearson correlation ranking, SPEC \cite{Zhao2007}, the Laplacian score \cite{He2006},
and the mutual information score \cite{Suzuki2009}.
Although simple and fast, feature ranking considers only the relevancy of features.
Evaluating each feature individually does not take into account the redundancy among features.
Specifically, if there are many relevant features which are similar in nature, all of them will be ranked top.
This is not desirable since having many similar features is usually as good as having just one.
In other words, $k$ best features are not the best $k$ features \cite{Peng2005}.
\begin{comment}
\subsection{Ranking with Pairwise Redundancy Constraint}
Ranking with pairwise redundancy constraint can be considered as an extension of the feature ranking.
Instead of considering only the relevancy of each feature to the output, this approach attempts to
incorporate the redundancy of each feature to other features.
This can be formulated as an optimization problem as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:rankpairwise}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\mathcal{I} \subset \{1,\ldots,m\}}{\text{maximize}}
& & \sum_{i \in \mathcal{I}} f(X_i, Y)
-\gamma \sum_{i \in \mathcal{I}} \sum_{j \in \mathcal{I}} f(X_i, X_j)\\
& \text{subject to}
& & |\mathcal{I}| = k.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Alternatively, define $(\bs{F})_{i,j} := f(X_i, X_j)$ and $(\bs{f})_i :=
f(X_i, Y)$, the optimization problem can be equivalently reformulated as
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:rankpairwiseq}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\bs{\beta}}{\text{maximize}}
& & \bs{f}^T\bs{\beta} - \gamma \bs{\beta}^T\bs{F}\bs{\beta} \\
& \text{subject to}
& & \bs{\beta} \in \Omega.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In this case, $k$ features can be obtained by selecting the top $k$ features ranked in the descending order by the coefficients of $\bs{\beta}$. $\gamma \geq 0$ is a trade-off parameter between relevancy and redundancy of features.
If $\gamma=0$, no redundancy among features is considered, and pure feature ranking is recovered.
On the other hand, if $\gamma$ is too high, the penalty will be such that redundancy is more important than relevancy.
A good $\gamma$ has to be chosen so that the trade-off is properly maintained.
Prior knowledge can be incorporated into $\Omega$ to improve the search.
Although feature redundancy is explicitly incorporated into the objective function, this approach cannot consider feature interaction. This is because features are individually evaluated.
Recent feature selection algorithms which consider similar search schemes
are, for instance, mRMR \cite{Peng2005} and QPFS \cite{Rodriguez-Lujan2010}.
\end{comment}
\subsection{Sequential Search}
To take feature redundancy into account, the popular sequential search \cite{Kohavi1997,Song2007} can be used.
It comes with two variants: forward and backward search. Forward search works iteratively by maintaining the currently selected features $\mathcal{X}_t$.
At each step $t$, $\mathcal{X}_t$ is updated with
\[
\mathcal{X}_t \leftarrow \mathcal{X}_{t-1} \cup \{X_t^*\},
\]
where
$X_t^* = \operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_X f(\mathcal{X}_{t-1} \cup \{X\})$ and $\mathcal{X}_0 = \emptyset$.
The backward search works similarly except that $\mathcal{X}_0$ contains the full feature set.
At each step, a feature which reduces $f$ the least is removed.
A potential drawback of the sequential search is its greedy search nature which is independent of $k$.
That is, the search paths are nested for different values of $k$.
Specifically, it is decremental for the backward search, and incremental for the forward search.
The result is that, for the backward search, once a feature is removed, it will never be considered again.
Likewise, for the forward search, once a feature is added, it will never be removed even if it is found to be redundant at latter iterations.
\subsection{Feature Weighting}
Feature weighting \cite{Tibshirani1996,Zhu2003,Li2006,Liu2009} is an approach which can search for features with a continuous optimization.
Formally, the feature weighting approach attempts to find
a feature weight vector $\bs{\widehat{w}} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ which is the solution
of the following optimization problem:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:featureweightl1}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\bs{w}}{\text{maximize}}
& & f(\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}(\bs{w})\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{Y}) \\
& \text{subject to}
& & \|\bs{w}\|_1 \leq r,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\|\cdot\|_1$ denotes the $\ell_1$-norm,
$\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}(\bs{w})$ is a diagonal matrix with $\bs{w}$ placed along its diagonal,
and $r>0$ is the tuning parameter for the radius of the $\ell_1$-ball. It is known
that if $r$ is sufficiently small, then the solution tends to be on a vertex of
the $\ell_1$ simplex, which makes $\bs{\widehat{w}}$ sparse \cite{Tibshirani1996}.
Features can then be selected according to the non-zero coefficients of the solution $\bs{\widehat{w}}$.
In fact, observations reveal that the number of non-zero coefficients tends to increase as $r$
increases.
So, a simple bisection method may be used to search for the value of $r$ which gives $k$ features.
Unlike the sequential search, the feature weighting approach incorporates $k$ into the problem through $r$ from the beginning.
So, the solutions for different values of $k$ are not necessarily nested.
This characteristic is particularly useful when there are multiple optimal feature subsets of different sizes which are disjoint.
\section{Feature Quality Measures}
\label{sec:measure}
In this section, we describe a number of feature quality measures commonly used
in practice. A feature quality measure is a criterion which indicates how good
the selected features are, and is the counterpart of the optimization strategy.
Here, we focus on predictor-independent criteria.
\subsection{Pearson Correlation}
Pearson correlation is a well-known univariate statistical quantity which can be used to measure a linear dependency between two random variables $X$ and $Y$. It is defined as
\begin{equation}
\rho(X, Y) = \frac{\mathrm{cov}(X,Y)}{\sigma(X) \sigma(Y)},
\label{eqn:pearson}
\end{equation}
where $\mathrm{cov}(X,Y)$ denotes the covariance between $X$ and $Y$, and
$\sigma(X)$ and $\sigma(Y)$ are population standard deviation of $X$ and $Y$,
respectively.
Although the independence of $X$ and $Y$ implies $\rho=0$, the
converse is not necessarily true since the correlation is capable of detecting
only a linear dependency.
An example would be a quadratic dependence $Y=X^2$, which gives $\rho=0$ due to the cancellation of
the negatively and the positively correlated components.
For a feature selection purpose, $|\rho|$ can be used to rank features.
There are many feature selection algorithms based on Pearson correlation \cite{Rodriguez-Lujan2010,Hall2000,Peng2005}.
\subsection{Hilbert-Schmidt Independence Criterion}
The Hilbert-Schmidt independence criterion (HSIC) \cite{Gretton2005} is a
multivariate dependence measure which can detect a non-linear dependency, and
does not require a density estimation.
The formal definition of HSIC is given as follows. Let $\mathcal{D}_X$ and
$\mathcal{D}_Y$ be the domains of $X$ and $Y$. Define a mapping $\phi(\bs{x}) \in
\mathcal{F}$ from all $\bs{x} \in \mathcal{D}_X$ to the feature space $\mathcal{F}$
in such a way that the inner product of points in $\mathcal{F}$ is given by a
kernel function $k(\bs{x},\bs{x}') = \langle \phi(\bs{x}), \phi(\bs{x}') \rangle$.
This can be achieved if $\mathcal{F}$ is a
reproducing kernel Hilbert space on $\mathcal{D}_X$
\cite{AMS:Aronszajn:1950}. Similarly, define another
reproducing kernel Hilbert space.
$\mathcal{G}$ for $\mathcal{D}_Y$ with feature map $\psi$ and kernel $l(\bs{y}, \bs{y}')
= \langle \psi(\bs{y}), \psi(\bs{y}') \rangle $. Then, the cross-covariance
operator \cite{Fukumizu2004} associated with the joint probability $p_{xy}$ is a
linear operator $C_{XY}$ defined as
\begin{equation*}
C_{XY} := \mathbb{E}_{\bs{x},\bs{y}}[(\phi(\bs{x})
- \mu_{\bs{x}} ) \otimes (\psi(\bs{y}) - \mu_{\bs{y}})],
\end{equation*}
where $\otimes$ is the tensor product. HSIC is defined as the squared
Hilbert-Schmidt norm of the cross-covariance operator
\begin{equation*}
\text{HSIC}(p_{xy}, \mathcal{F}, \mathcal{G}) := \|C_{XY}\|^2_{\mathrm{HS}},
\end{equation*}
which could be expressed in terms of kernels \cite{Gretton2005} as
\begin{align*}
\text{HSIC}(p_{xy}, \mathcal{F}, \mathcal{G}) =&
\mathbb{E}_{\bs{x},\bs{x}',\bs{y},\bs{y}'}[k(\bs{x},\bs{x}')l(\bs{y},\bs{y}')] \\
& + \mathbb{E}_{\bs{x},\bs{x}'}[k(\bs{x},\bs{x}')] \mathbb{E}_{\bs{y},\bs{y}'}[l(\bs{y},\bs{y}')] \\
& - 2\mathbb{E}_{\bs{x},\bs{y}}[\mathbb{E}_{\bs{x}'}[k(\bs{x},\bs{x}')] \mathbb{E}_{\bs{y}'}[l(\bs{y},\bs{y}')]
].
\end{align*}
$\mathbb{E}_{\bs{x},\bs{x}',\bs{y},\bs{y}'}[k(\bs{x},\bs{x}')l(\bs{y},\bs{y}')]$ is the expectation over
independent pairs $(\bs{x},\bs{y})$ and $(\bs{x}', \bs{y}')$ drawn from $p_{xy}$. Given an
i.i.d.~paired sample $\mathcal{S} = \{(\bs{x}_i, \bs{y}_i)\}_{i=1}^n$, an empirical estimator of HSIC is given by
\begin{align}
\text{HSIC}(\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{F}, \mathcal{G}) = \frac{1}{(n-1)^2}
\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}(KHLH),
\label{eqn:hsic_biased}
\end{align}
where $K,L,H \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}, (K)_{i,j} := k(\bs{x}_i, \bs{x}_j)$,
$(L)_{i,j}:=l(\bs{y}_i, \bs{y}_j)$, and $H := I_n - \bs{1}\bs{1}^T/n$ (centering matrix).
It was also shown that, if $k$ and $l$ are universal kernels (e.g., Gaussian kernels)
\cite{JMLR:Steinwart:2001}, then
$\text{HSIC}(p_{xy}, \mathcal{F}, \mathcal{G}) = 0$ if and only if $X$ and $Y$ are independent. So,
HSIC can also be used as a dependence measure.
In spite of the strong theoretical properties of HSIC,
there is no known objective criterion for model selection of the kernel functions $k$ and $l$.
A popular heuristic choice is to use a Gaussian kernel with its width set to the median of the pairwise distance of the data points \cite{Scholkopf2002}.
\subsection{Mutual Information}
In information theory, mutual information \cite{Cover1991} is an important
quantity which can be used to detect a general non-linear dependency between two
random variables.
It has been widely used as the criterion for feature selection \cite{Peng2005,Suzuki2008,Rodriguez-Lujan2010} as well as feature extraction \cite{Torkkola2003}.
Mutual information is defined as
\begin{equation}
I(X,Y) := \iint \log\left(
\frac{p_{xy}(\bs{x}, \bs{y})}{ p_x(\bs{x}) p_y(\bs{y}) }
\right) p_{xy}(\bs{x}, \bs{y}) \, \mathrm{d}\bs{x} \mathrm{d}\bs{y},
\label{eqn:mi}
\end{equation}
which is the Kullback-Leibler divergence \cite{Kullback1951} from
$p_{xy}(\bs{x},\bs{y})$ to $p_x(\bs{x}) p_y(\bs{y})$. Mutual information is a measure of dependence in the sense that it is
always non-negative, symmetric ($I(X,Y) = I(Y,X)$), and vanishes if and only if
$X$ and $Y$ are independent, i.e., $p_{xy}(\bs{x},\bs{y}) = p_x(\bs{x}) p_y(\bs{y})$.
Even though mutual information is a powerful multivariate measure, accurate estimation of the densities $p_{xy}, p_{x}$ and $p_y$ is difficult in high-dimensional case.
A recent approach which avoids taking the ratio of estimated densities by directly modeling the density ratio $\frac{p_{xy}(\bs{x}, \bs{y})}{ p_x(\bs{x})p_y(\bs{y}) }$ is Maximum Likelihood Mutual Information (MLMI) \cite{Suzuki2008}.
Although MLMI was demonstrated to be accurate,
its estimation is computationally rather expensive
due to the existence of the logarithm function.
\subsection{Squared-loss Mutual Information}
Another mutual information variant which has received much attention recently is
Squared-loss Mutual Information
(SMI) \cite{Suzuki2009,Suzuki2010,Hachiya2010,Suzuki2011} defined as
\begin{equation}
I_s(X,Y) := \frac{1}{2} \iint \left(
\frac{p_{xy}(\bs{x}, \bs{y})}{ p_x(\bs{x}) p_y(\bs{y}) } - 1
\right)^2 p_x(\bs{x}) p_y(\bs{y}) \, \mathrm{d}\bs{x} \mathrm{d}\bs{y}.
\label{eqn:smi}
\end{equation}
SMI is based on the $f$-divergence \cite{Ali1966,Csisz'ar1967} with a squared loss
(also known as the Pearson divergence, \cite{Liese2006}), as opposed to the ordinary
mutual information which is based on the $f$-divergence with a log loss (Kullback-Leibler
divergence, \cite{Kullback1951}). Note that $I_s(X,Y)=I_s(Y, X)$, $I_s(X,Y) \geq 0$,
and $I_s(X,Y) = 0$ if and only if $p_{xy}(\bs{x}, \bs{y}) = p_x(\bs{x})p_y(\bs{y})$, just like the ordinary mutual information.
Therefore, SMI can also be used as a measure of dependence between
$X$ and $Y$.
SMI can be estimated by directly modeling the ratio $g^*(\bs{x},\bs{y}) =
\frac{p_{xy}(\bs{x}, \bs{y})}{ p_x(\bs{x}) p_y(\bs{y}) }$ itself without going through the
estimation of the densities. The goal is to find a density ratio estimate
$\widehat{g}(\bs{x},\bs{y})$ which is as close to the true density ratio $g^*(\bs{x},\bs{y})$
as possible. Here, the estimation can be formulated as a least-squares problem.
That is, to find $\widehat{g}(\bs{x},\bs{y})$ such that its expected squared difference from $g^*(\bs{x},\bs{y})$
is minimized:
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:smiloss1}
& \min_g \frac{1}{2} \iint \left( g(\bs{x}, \bs{y}) - g^*(\bs{x},
\bs{y}) \right)^2 p_x(\bs{x}) p_y(\bs{y}) \, \mathrm{d}\bs{x} \mathrm{d}\bs{y} .
\end{align}
Since finding $g$ over all measurable functions is not
tractable \cite{Suzuki2010}, the model $g$ is restricted to be in a linear
subspace $\mathcal{G}$ defined as
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{G} := \{\bs{\alpha}^T \bs{\varphi}(\bs{x},\bs{y}) \,|\, \bs{\alpha} = (\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_b)^T
\in \mathbb{R}^b \},
\end{equation*}
where $\bs{\alpha}$ is the model parameter to be learned, and $\bs{\varphi}(\bs{x},\bs{y}) =
(\varphi_1(\bs{x},\bs{y}),\ldots,\varphi_b(\bs{x},\bs{y}))^T$ is a basis function vector such
that $\forall l, \varphi_l(\bs{x},\bs{y}) \geq 0$. The basis also admits kernel functions
which depend on samples.
With $\mathcal{G}$, finding $\widehat{g}$ amounts to finding the optimal
$\bs{\alpha}$. By using an empirical approximation, \eqref{eqn:smiloss1} can be written as
\begin{equation}
\min_{\bs{\alpha} \in \mathbb{R}^b} \frac{1}{2} \bs{\alpha}^T \bs{\widehat{H}} \bs{\alpha} - \bs{\widehat{h}}^T \bs{\alpha} +
\frac{\lambda}{2} \bs{\alpha}^T \bs{\alpha},
\label{eqn:smiloss2}
\end{equation}
where the term $\frac{\lambda}{2} \bs{\alpha}^T \bs{\alpha}$ with a regularization parameter $\lambda >
0$ is included for a regularization purpose, and
\begin{align*}
\bs{\widehat{H}} &:= \frac{1}{n^2} \sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n \bs{\varphi}(\bs{x}_i, \bs{y}_j)
\bs{\varphi}(\bs{x}_i, \bs{y}_j)^T,
\\
\bs{\widehat{h}} &:= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \bs{\varphi}(\bs{x}_i, \bs{y}_i).
\end{align*}
%
By differentiating \eqref{eqn:smiloss2} with respect to $\bs{\alpha}$ and equating it
to zero, the solution $\bs{\widehat{\alpha}}$ can be computed analytically as
\begin{equation*}
\bs{\widehat{\alpha}} = \left(\bs{\widehat{H}} + \lambda \bs{I} \right)^{-1} \bs{\widehat{h}},
\end{equation*}
where $\bs{I}$ denotes the identity matrix.
Finally, using $\bs{\widehat{\alpha}}$, SMI in \eqref{eqn:smi} can be estimated as
\begin{equation}
\widehat{I}_s = \frac{1}{2}\bs{\widehat{h}}^T \bs{\widehat{\alpha}} - \frac{1}{2}.
\label{eqn:lsmi}
\end{equation}
The estimator in \eqref{eqn:lsmi} is called Least-Squares Mutual Information
(LSMI).
LSMI possesses many good properties \cite{Suzuki2010}.
For example, it has an optimal convergence rate in $n$ under non-parametric
setup.
Also, LSMI is equipped with a model selection criterion for
determining $\bs{\varphi}$ and $\lambda$.
Model selection by $K$-fold cross validation is described as follows.
First, randomly split samples $\{(\bs{x}_i, \bs{y}_i)\}_{i=1}^n$ into (roughly) equal $K$
disjoint subsets $\{\mathcal{S}_k\}_{k=1}^K$.
An estimator $ \bs{\widehat{\alpha}}_{\mathcal{S}_{-k}}$ is then obtained using $\mathcal{S}_{-k} := \{\mathcal{S}_j\}_{j \neq k}$.
Finally, the approximation error for the held-out samples $\mathcal{S}_k$ is computed.
The procedure is repeated $K$ times, and $(\bs{\varphi}, \lambda)$ which minimizes the mean $\widehat{J}^{(K-CV)}$ is chosen:
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{J}^{(K-CV)} := \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K \left( \frac{1}{2}
\bs{\widehat{\alpha}}^T_{\mathcal{S}_{-k}} \bs{\widehat{H}}_{\mathcal{S}_{k}} \bs{\widehat{\alpha}}_{\mathcal{S}_{-k}} -
\bs{\widehat{h}}_{\mathcal{S}_{k}}^T \bs{\widehat{\alpha}}_{\mathcal{S}_{-k}} \right).
\end{equation*}
\section{Proposed Method}
\label{sec:proposed}
In this section, we describe our proposed method.
\subsection{Motivations}
As mentioned previously, there are a number of factors which cause the difficulty of feature selection, i.e., non-linear dependency, feature interaction, and feature redundancy.
Although existing combinations of optimization strategies and measures can handle these problems, the trade-off of the computational complexity and the obtained abilities to deal with such issues is not well balanced.
A summary of properties of common optimization strategies is shown in \tabref{tab:f_opt}.
Ranking is very fast since it completely disregards feature redundancy and feature interaction, and focuses on only feature relevancy.
Forward search improves this by maintaining a set of selected features, and greedily adding each feature to the set.
This allows the forward search to deal with feature redundancy by not adding a redundant feature to the set.
Nevertheless, feature interaction cannot be detected since features are not considered in the presence of each other.
This is why backward search comes to play by starting from the full feature set and iteratively removing a feature instead.
Although this scheme has a potential to detect interacting features, the complexity goes from $O(m)$ to $O(m^2)$
which could be problematic when the number of features, $m$, is large. Considering all strategies, an $\ell_1$-based approach seems to be the optimal choice here.
It offers a continuous optimization which is usually easier than a discrete optimization. Also, since all features are
considered simultaneously by optimizing their weights, it can take into account feature redundancy and feature interaction.
A summary of properties of feature quality measures is shown in \tabref{tab:f_measure}.
PC is very efficient to compute. However, only linear dependency can be identified.
HSIC can reveal a non-linear dependency. Nonetheless, it is unclear how to objectively choose the right kernel function.
MI is another measure that is capable of detecting a nonlinear dependency but the existence of $\log$ causes computational inefficiency. It can be seen that SMI has balanced properties here. Not only is it able to capture a non-linear dependency,
using a squared loss instead of a log loss also permits its estimator to have an analytic form, which can be efficiently computed.
\tabref{tab:opt_measure} shows the combinations of optimization strategies and feature quality measures.
Many of them have already been proposed in the past. Exhaustive search is marked impractical since it is computationally intractable.
PC is a univariate measure which considers one feature at a time.
Combining it with a feature-set optimization strategy (i.e., forward, backward search, $\ell_1$ approach) would degenerate
back to a ranking approach. Hence, the combinations are marked unreasonable.
It can be seen that the feature weighting with $\ell_1$-regularization is the best among the optimization strategies.
Also, SMI has the best balance among the listed feature quality measures. We therefore propose to combine $\ell_1$-regularized feature weighting with SMI, which we call $\ell_1$-LSMI{}.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Summary of properties of optimization strategies.
``disc.'' and ``cont.'' denote ``discrete'' and ``continuous'', respectively.}
\label{tab:f_opt}
\begin{tabular}{@{}c|ccccc@{}}
\hline
& {Ranking} & {Forward} & {Backward} & {Exhaustive} & {$\ell_1$}\\
\hline \hline
Optimization & disc. & disc. & disc. & disc. & cont. \\
Complexity
& $m$ & $m$ & $m^2$ & $2^m$ & $m$ \\
Redundancy
& $\times$ & $\triangle$ & $\bigcirc$ &$\circledcirc$ & $\bigcirc$ \\
Interaction
& $\times$ & $\times$& $\bigcirc$ & $\circledcirc$& $\bigcirc$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
$\times$: Not considered,
$\triangle$: Weak,
$\bigcirc$: Good,
$\circledcirc$: Excellent
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Summary of properties of feature quality measures.}
\label{tab:f_measure}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|cccc}
\hline
& {PC} & {HSIC} & {MI} & {SMI}
\\
\hline \hline
Non-linear Dependency & $\times$ & $\bigcirc$ & $\bigcirc$ & $\bigcirc$ \\
Model Selection & not needed & $\times$ & $\bigcirc$ & $\bigcirc$ \\
Computational Efficiency & $\circledcirc$ & $\bigcirc$ & $\times$ & $\triangle$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
$\times$: Not considered,
$\triangle$: Weak,
$\bigcirc$: Good,
$\circledcirc$: Excellent
\vspace*{5mm}
\caption{Summary of combinations of optimization strategies and feature quality measures.}
\label{tab:opt_measure}
{\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{c|lp{3cm}lll}
\hline
& {Ranking} & {Forward} & {Backward} & {Exhaustive} & {$\ell_1$} \\ \hline \hline
{PC} & $\bigcirc$\cite{Hall2000} & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$ \\
{HSIC} & $-$ & $\bigcirc$\cite{Song2007} & $\bigcirc$\cite{Song2007} & $\times$ & $\triangle$\cite{Masaeli2010a} \\
{MI} & $\bigcirc$\cite{Suzuki2008} & $\bigcirc$ & $\bigcirc$ & $\times$ & $-$ \\
{SMI} & $\bigcirc$\cite{Suzuki2009} & $\bigcirc$\cite{Suzuki2009}, \cite{Hachiya2010} & $\bigcirc$\cite{Suzuki2009} & $\times$ & $-$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}\\
$\bigcirc$: Method exists,
$\triangle$: Variation exists,\\
$-$: Method does not exist,
$\times$ Method is unreasonable, impractical
\end{table}
\subsection{Formulation of $\ell_1$-LSMI{} }
$\ell_1$-LSMI{} attempts to find an $m$-dimensional sparse weight vector by
solving the following optimization problem:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:l1lsmi_formu}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\bs{w} \in \mathbb{R}^m}{\text{maximize}} & & \widehat{I}_s(\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}(\bs{w})\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{Y}) \\
& \text{subject to} & & \bs{1}^T\bs{w} \leq r \\
& & & \bs{w} \geq \bs{0},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\widehat{I}_s$ is the LSMI defined in \eqref{eqn:lsmi}, $r>0$ is
the radius of the $\ell_1$-ball, $\bs{1}$ is the $m$-dimensional
vector consisting of only 1's, and ``$\geq$'' in $\bs{w} \geq \bs{0}$ is applied
element-wise. Features are selected according to the non-zero coefficients of
the learned $\widehat{\bs{w}}$. Here, since the sign of $\widehat{w}_j$ does not
affect the feature selection process,
we only consider the positive orthant in $\mathbb{R}^m$. Thus, the
constraint $\bs{w} \geq \bs{0}$ is imposed, and $\|\bs{w}\|_1$ reduces to $\bs{1}^T\bs{w}$.
\subsection{Advantages of $\ell_1$-LSMI{}}
Using SMI allows a detection of nonlinear dependency between $X$ and $Y$.
Furthermore, by combining it with the $\ell_1$-regularization feature weighting scheme,
feature interaction is also taken into account since all features are considered simultaneously.
In general, the use of $\ell_1$-regularization does not necessarily give an ability to deal with redundant features.
That is, the weights of all redundant features may be all high.
This drawback of $\ell_1$-regularization is covered by the use of SMI.
Since adding a redundant feature to the selected subset does not increase the SMI value (i.e., no new information), $\ell_1$-LSMI{} implicitly deals with the feature redundancy issue by avoiding the inclusion of
redundant features.
This is achieved by simply maximizing SMI between the weighted
features and the output.
The use of density-ratio estimation in approximating
SMI also helps avoid the density estimation problem, which is
difficult when $m$ is large.
\subsection{Solving $\ell_1$-LSMI{}}
Here, we explain how we solve the $\ell_1$-LSMI{} optimization problem.
\subsubsection{Algorithm Overview}
\algoref{algo:l1lsmi_ksearch} is executed to find a
$k$-feature subset by a binary-search-liked scheme. Based on the observation
that the number of obtained features tends to increase as $r$ increases, the
idea is to systematically vary $r$ so that $k$ features can be obtained.
Starting from a low $r$, the $\ell_1$-LSMI{} optimization problem is solved by
iteratively performing gradient ascent and projection (constraint satisfaction).
If $k$ features can be obtained from the current $r$, then return them.
Otherwise, $r$ is doubled (starting from \algoline{algoline:l1lsmi_ksearch_zh}
in \algoref{algo:l1lsmi_ksearch}) until more than $k$
features are obtained. The value of $r$ firstly found to give more than $k$
features is denoted by $r_{\mathrm{h}}$, and is assumed to be the upper bound of the
value of $r$ which can give $k$ features.
The lower bound $r_{\mathrm{l}}$ is then set to $r_{\mathrm{h}}/2$ which gives strictly less than $k$
features. The rest of the procedure (starting from
\algoline{algoline:l1lsmi_ksearch_bin} in \algoref{algo:l1lsmi_ksearch}) is to find $r \in
(r_{\mathrm{l}},r_{\mathrm{h}})$ using a binary search scheme, so that $k$ features can be obtained.
In each step of the search, \eqref{eqn:l1lsmi_formu} is solved
using the middle point $r_{\mathrm{m}}$ between $r_{\mathrm{h}}$ and $r_{\mathrm{l}}$.
If $k$ features cannot be found, $r_{\mathrm{h}}$ or $r_{\mathrm{l}}$ is updated accordingly. This halving procedure
is repeated until $k$ features are found, or the time limit is reached.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Pseudo code of $\ell_1$-LSMI{} to search for a $k$-feature subset.}
\label{algo:l1lsmi_ksearch}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE $k$ (desired number of features)
\STATE $r \leftarrow 0.1$ \COMMENT{$r$ is initially low}
\REPEAT[try to find an upper bound $r_{\mathrm{h}}$] \label{algoline:l1lsmi_ksearch_zh}
\STATE $r \leftarrow 2r$
\STATE $\bs{w}_0 \leftarrow $ randomly initialize a feasible $\bs{w}$
\STATE $\mathcal{X}_r \leftarrow$ Solve \eqref{eqn:l1lsmi_formu} with $(\bs{w}_0,
r)$
\COMMENT{$\mathcal{X}_r$: set of features obtained using $r$}
\IF{$|\mathcal{X}_r| = k$}
\RETURN $\mathcal{X}_r$
\ENDIF
\UNTIL{$|\mathcal{X}_r| > k$ or time limit exceeded }
\STATE $r_{\mathrm{h}} \leftarrow r$
\STATE $r_{\mathrm{l}} \leftarrow r_{\mathrm{h}}/2$
\WHILE[find $r \in (r_{\mathrm{l}}, r_{\mathrm{h}})$ which gives $k$ features with a binary
search]{time limit not exceeded} \label{algoline:l1lsmi_ksearch_bin}
\STATE $r_{\mathrm{m}} \leftarrow (r_{\mathrm{h}} + r_{\mathrm{l}})/2$
\STATE $\bs{w}_0 \leftarrow $ randomly initialize a feasible $\bs{w}$
\STATE $\mathcal{X}_{r_{\mathrm{m}}} \leftarrow$ Solve \eqref{eqn:l1lsmi_formu} with
$(\bs{w}_0, r_{\mathrm{m}})$
\IF{$|\mathcal{X}_{r_{\mathrm{m}}}| = k$}
\RETURN $\mathcal{X}_{r_{\mathrm{m}}}$
\ELSIF{$|\mathcal{X}_{r_{\mathrm{m}}}| < k$}
\STATE $r_{\mathrm{l}} \leftarrow r_{\mathrm{m}}$
\ELSIF{$|\mathcal{X}_{r_{\mathrm{m}}}| > k$}
\STATE $r_{\mathrm{h}} \leftarrow r_{\mathrm{m}}$
\ENDIF
\ENDWHILE
\STATE $\mathbb{S} \leftarrow $ list of all $\mathcal{X}$ found so far, sorted
in the ascending order by $||\mathcal{X}|-k|, |\mathcal{X}|-k, -\widehat{I}_s(\mathbf{X}_{\mathcal{X}}, \mathbf{Y})$ \label{algoline:l1lsmi_ksearch_order}
\RETURN the first $\mathcal{X}$ in $\mathbb{S}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
In case that a $k$-feature subset cannot be found, obtained feature subsets
$\mathcal{X}$ are sorted in ascending order of three keys given by
$||\mathcal{X}|-k|, |\mathcal{X}|-k, -\widehat{I}_s(\mathbf{X}_{\mathcal{X}}, \mathbf{Y})$.
This means that the feature subsets whose size is closest to $k$ are to be put
towards the head of the list. With two sets whose size is
equally closest to $k$, then prefer the smaller one (due to $|\mathcal{X}|-k$). If
there are still many such subsets, bring the ones with highest
$\widehat{I}_s(\mathbf{X}_{\mathcal{X}}, \mathbf{Y})$ to the head of the list, where
$\mathbf{X}_{\mathcal{X}}$ denotes the data matrix $\mathbf{X}$ with only rows indexed by
$\mathcal{X}$. In the end, the feature subset $\mathcal{X}$ at the head of the
list is selected.
\subsubsection{Basis Function Design}
Estimation of SMI requires $b$ basis functions.
Here, we choose the basis functions to be in the form of a product kernel defined as
\begin{equation}
\varphi_l(\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}(\bs{w})\bs{x}, \bs{y}) = \phi_l^x(\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}(\bs{w})\bs{x})\phi_l^y(\bs{y})
\mbox{ for }l=1,\ldots,b.
\label{eqn:basis_product}
\end{equation}
$\phi_l^x(\cdot)$ is defined to be the Gaussian
kernel,
\begin{equation*}
\phi_l^x(\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}(\bs{w})\bs{x}) = \exp\left(-\frac{\|\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}(\bs{w})(\bs{x} -
\bs{x}_{c(l)})\|^2}{2\sigma^2}\right).
\end{equation*}
$c(l) \in \{1,\ldots,n\}$ is a randomly chosen sample
index without overlap. The definition of $\phi_l^y(\bs{y})$ depends on the task. For a
regression task, $\phi_l^y(y)$ is also defined to
be a Gaussian kernel,
\begin{equation*}
\phi_l^y(y) = \exp\left(-\frac{ (y -y_{c(l)})^2}{2\sigma^2}\right).
\end{equation*}
For a $C$-class classification task in which $Y \in \{1,\ldots,C\}$, the delta
kernel is used on $\mathbf{Y}$, i.e.,
$\phi_l^y(y)$ takes 1 if $y =
y_{c(l)}$, and 0 otherwise. Using these definitions, model selection
for $(\bs{\varphi}, \lambda)$ is reduced to selecting $(\sigma, \lambda)$.
\subsubsection{Optimization}
Given an initial point $\bs{w}_0$ and the radius $r$,
the $\ell_1$-LSMI{} optimization problem is simply solved by
gradient ascent.
To guarantee the feasibility, the updated $\bs{w}$
is projected onto the positive orthant of the constrained $\ell_1$-ball in each iteration.
The projection can be carried out by first projecting $\bs{w}$
onto the positive orthant with
$\max(\bs{w}, \bs{0})$,
where the $\max$ function is applied element-wise. This is then followed by a
projection onto the $\ell_1$-ball which can be carried out in $O(m)$ time \cite{Duchi2008}.
In practice, there are many more sophisticated
methods for solving \eqref{eqn:l1lsmi_formu}, e.g., projected Newton-type methods \cite{Lee2006,Schmidt2007}. These methods generally converge
super-linearly, and are faster (in terms of the convergence rate) than ordinary
gradient ascent algorithms which converge linearly.
However, the notion of convergence does not take into account the number of
function evaluations. In general, methods with a good convergence rate rely on a
large number of function evaluations per iteration, i.e., performing line search
to find a good step size. In our case, function evaluation is expensive
since model selection for $(\sigma, \lambda)$ has to be performed. It turns out
that using a more sophisticated solver may take more time to actually solve the
problem even though the convergence rate is better. So, we decided to simply use
a gradient ascent algorithm to solve the problem. Additionally, to further improve the
computational efficiency, model selection is performed every five iterations, instead of
every iteration. This is based on the fact that, in each iteration, $\bs{w}$ is not
significantly altered. Hence, it makes sense to assume that the selected
$(\sigma, \lambda)$ from the previous iteration are approximately correct.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:exp}
In this section, we report experimental results.
\subsection{Methods to be Compared}
We compare the performance of the following feature selection algorithms:
\begin{itemize}
\item PC (Pearson correlation ranking).
\item F-HSIC (forward search with HSIC).
\item F-LSMI (forward search with LSMI) \cite{Hachiya2010}.
\item B-HSIC (backward search with HSIC) \cite{Song2007}.
\item B-LSMI (backward search with LSMI).
\item $\ell_1$-HSIC (similar to $\ell_1$-LSMI{}, but the objective function is replaced
with $\text{HSIC}(\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}(\bs{w})\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})$) .
\item $\ell_1$-LSMI{}\footnote{Matlab implementation of $\ell_1$-LSMI{} is available at \url{http://wittawat.com/software/l1lsmi/}} (proposed method).
\item mRMR (Minimum Redundancy Maximum Relevance) \cite{Peng2005}.
mRMR is one of the state-of-the-art algorithms which selects features by solving
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\mathcal{I} \subset \{1,\ldots,m\}}{\text{maximize}}
& & \overbrace{\frac{1}{k} \sum_{i \in \mathcal{I}} I(X_i, Y)}^{\text{relevancy measure}}
- \overbrace{\frac{1}{k^2} \sum_{i \in
\mathcal{I}} \sum_{j \in \mathcal{I}} I(X_i, X_j)}^{\text{redundancy measure}} \\
& \text{subject to}
& & |\mathcal{I}| = k.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
%
That is, it uses mutual information to select relevant features which are not too redundant.
mRMR solves the optimization problem by greedily adding one feature at a time until $k$ features
can be obtained. This scheme is similar to a forward search algorithm.
\item QPFS (Quadratic Programming Feature Selection) \cite{Rodriguez-Lujan2010}.
QPFS formulates the feature selection task as a quadratic programming problem of the form:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\bs{w} \in \mathbb{R}^m}{\text{minimize}} & &
\frac{1}{2}(1-\alpha)\bs{w}^T \bs{Q}\bs{w} - \alpha \bs{f}^T \bs{w}\\
& \text{subject to} & & \bs{1}^T\bs{w} = 1 \\
& & & \bs{w} \geq \bs{0},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$ controls the trade-off between high relevancy (high $\alpha$) and low redundancy
of the selected features. $\bs{Q} = [q_{ij}] = |\rho(X_i, X_j)|$ is the absolute value of the
Pearson correlation between $X_i$ and $X_j$ as in \eqref{eqn:pearson}, and $\bs{f} = [f_i] = |\rho(X_i, Y)|$.
In the case that $Y$ is categorical, the correlation for categorical variable as in \cite{Hall2000} is used.
In this experiment, we use the recommended value of $\alpha = \bar{q}/(\bar{q}+\bar{f})$ where
$\bar{q} = \frac{1}{m^2}\sum_{i=1}^m \sum_{j=1}^m q_{ij}$ and $\bar{f} = \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m f_i$ \cite{Rodriguez-Lujan2010}.
Notice that if $\alpha=1$, QPFS reduces to PC.
\item Lasso \cite{Tibshirani1996}. Lasso is a well-known method of least squares which imposes an $\ell_1$-norm
constraint on the weight vector. Specifically, it solves the problem of the form:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\bs{w} \in \mathbb{R}^m}{\text{minimize}} & &
\|\mathbf{Y} - \bs{w}^T \mathbf{X}\|^2 + \lambda \|\bs{w}\|_1, \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where $\lambda \geq 0 $ is the sparseness regularization parameter. In this experiment, $\lambda$ is varied
so that $k$ features can be obtained.
\item Relief \cite{Kira1992,Kononenko1994}.
Relief is another state-of-the-art heuristic algorithm which scores each feature based
on how it can discriminate different classes (distance-based).
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Toy Data Experiment}
An experiment is conducted on the following three toy datasets:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \texttt{and-or}
\begin{itemize}
\item Binary classification (4 true / 6 distracting features).
\item $Y = (X_1 \wedge X_2) \vee (X_3 \wedge X_4) $.
\item $X_1, \ldots, X_7 \sim \text{Bernoulli(0.5)}$,
where $\mathrm{Bernoulli}(p)$ denotes the Bernoulli distribution
taking value $1$ with probability $p$.
\item $X_8,\ldots, X_{10} = Y$ with 0.2 chance of bit flip.
\item {Characteristics:} Feature redundancy and weak interaction.
\end{itemize}
\item \texttt{quad}
\begin{itemize}
\item Regression (2 true / 8 distracting features).
\item $Y = \frac{X_1^2 + X_2}{0.5 + (X_2 + 1.5)^2} + 0.1\epsilon$.
\item $X_1,\ldots, X_8,\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$,
where $\mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma^2)$ denotes the normal distribution
with mean $\mu$ and variance $\sigma^2$.
\item $X_9 \sim 0.5X_1 + \mathcal{U}(-1, 1)$,
where $\mathcal{U}(a,b)$ is the uniform distribution on $[a,b]$.
\item $X_{10} \sim 0.5X_2 + \mathcal{U}(-1, 1)$.
\item {Characteristic:} Non-linear dependency.
\end{itemize}
\item \texttt{xor}
\begin{itemize}
\item Binary classification (2 true / 8 distracting features).
\item $Y = \text{xor}(X_1,X_2)$, where $\text{xor}(X_1,X_2)$
denotes the XOR function for $X_1$ and $X_2$.
\item $X_1,\ldots,X_5 \sim \text{Bernoulli(0.5)}$.
\item $X_6,\ldots,X_{10} \sim \text{Bernoulli(0.75)}$.
\item {Characteristic:} Feature interaction.
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
The number of features to select, $k$, is set to the number of true features in the
respective dataset. For LSMI-based methods, Gaussian kernels are used as
the basis functions and $b$ is set to 100. Five-fold cross
validation is carried out on a grid of $(\sigma, \lambda)$
candidates for model selection. For $\sigma$, the candidates are also adaptively
scaled with the median of pairwise sample distance $\sigma_{\mathrm{med}}$, which depends on the currently
selected features.
\begin{equation*}
\sigma_{\mathrm{med}} = \mathop{\mathrm{median}}( \{\|\bs{x}_i - \bs{x}_j\|_2\}_{i<j}).
\end{equation*}
Gaussian kernels are also used in HSIC-based methods. However, since model selection is not
available for HSIC, in F-HSIC and B-HSIC, the Gaussian width is heuristically set
to $\sigma_{\mathrm{med}}$ \cite{Scholkopf2002}. For $\ell_1$-HSIC, the
Gaussian width is adaptively set to the median of pairwise distance of $\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}(\bs{w})\mathbf{X}$ every
five iterations. Due to the non-convexity of the objective functions,
$\ell_1$-LSMI{} and $\ell_1$-HSIC are restarted 20 times with
randomly chosen initial points.
The experiment is repeated 50 times with $n=400$ points sampled in each trial.
For each method and each dataset, an average of the F-measure over all trials is
reported. The F-measure is defined as $f = 2pr/(p+r)$, where
\begin{itemize}
\item $p = $ (number of correctly selected features) / (number of selected
features).
\item $r = $ (number of correctly selected features) / (number of correct
features).
\end{itemize}
An F-measure is bounded between 0 and 1, and 1 is achieved if and
only if all the true features are selected and none of the distracting features
is selected. The results are shown in
\tabref{tab:fmeasure}.
\begin{table*}[tb]
\caption{Averaged F-measures on the \texttt{and-or},
\texttt{quad}, and \texttt{xor} datasets.}
\label{tab:fmeasure}
{ \hspace*{2mm}
\begin{tabular}{l|lllll}
\hline
Dataset & PC & F-HSIC & F-LSMI & B-HSIC & B-LSMI \\ \hline \hline
\texttt{and-or} & 0.25 (.00) & 0.25 (.00) & 0.57 (.22) & 0.25 (.00) & 0.85 (.22)\\
\texttt{quad} & 0.57 (.20) & 0.95 (.15) & \textbf{1.00 (.00)} & 0.95 (.15) & \textbf{1.00 (.00)} \\
\texttt{xor} & 0.25 (.31) & 0.52 (.50) & 0.53 (.50) & \textbf{1.00 (.00)} & \textbf{1.00 (.00)}\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace{3mm}
{ \hspace*{13mm}
\begin{tabular}{l|llllll}
\hline
Dataset & $\ell_1$-HSIC & $\ell_1$-LSMI & mRMR & QPFS & Lasso & Relief \\ \hline \hline
\texttt{and-or} & 0.25 (.00) & \textbf{1.00 (.00)} & 0.25 (.00) & 0.41 (.17) & 0.21 (.09) & 0.55 (.15) \\
\texttt{quad} & 0.64 (.23) & \textbf{1.00 (.00)} & \textbf{1.00 (.00)} & 0.64 (.23) & 0.66 (.25) & \textbf{1.00 (.00)} \\
\texttt{xor} & \textbf{1.00 (.00)} & \textbf{1.00 (.00)} & 0.28 (.31) & 0.25 (.32) & 0.26 (.32) & \textbf{1.00 (.00)} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
PC ranks the relevance of each feature individually without taking into account the redundancy among features.
This results in a failure on the \texttt{and-or} dataset
since $X_8,\ldots,X_{10}$, which are redundant, would simply be ranked
top due to their similarity to $Y$.
The forward search variants do not work on problems with feature interaction.
To detect interacting features, it is necessary that all features be considered simultaneously.
For this reason, F-HSIC and F-LSMI fail in the \emph{xor} problem.
The performance of HSIC-based methods seems to be unstable in many cases.
A possible cause of the instability is from the use of an incorrect parameter:
The heuristic of using $\sigma_{\mathrm{med}}$ for the Gaussian width does not always work.
As an example, given a fixed data matrix $\mathbf{X}$, the more features selected, the larger $\sigma_{\mathrm{med}}$ may become.
This is because the Euclidean distance is a non-decreasing function of the dimension.
So, inclusion of many irrelevant features obviously unnecessarily makes $\sigma_{\mathrm{med}}$ larger.
B-HSIC is subject to this weakness since it starts the search with all features.
B-LSMI performs well in detecting non-linear dependency (\texttt{quad})
and feature interaction (\texttt{xor}).
However, due to its greedy nature, the redundant features in the \texttt{and-or} problem
are sometimes chosen.
That is, in the first few iterations, all redundant features are kept, and one of the true features is eliminated instead.
mRMR and QPFS have similar optimization strategies.
That is, both of them measure the relevancy of each feature, and have a
pairwise feature redundancy constraint. Regardless of the feature measure in use,
considering features in a univariate way cannot reveal interacting features (by definition of feature interaction).
Therefore, it is not surprising that both of them fail on the \texttt{xor} and \texttt{and-or} datasets.
Nevertheless, mRMR works well on the \texttt{quad} dataset since
mutual information can reveal a non-linear dependency. On the other hand, QPFS and Lasso
do not perform well on the \texttt{quad} dataset since both of them use a linear measure.
Relief is one of the few feature ranking algorithms which can consider feature interaction (the \emph{xor} dataset) because of its distance-based nature. However, it suffers the same drawback
as other ranking algorithms in that no redundancy is considered. Hence, it fails on the \emph{and-or} dataset with the same reason as PC.
The proposed $\ell_1$-LSMI{} performs well on all datasets.
This clearly shows that $\ell_1$-LSMI{} can consider redundancy, detect non-linear dependency, and consider feature interaction.
$\ell_1$-based feature optimization enables a simultaneous consideration of features, which is the key
in tackling the feature interaction problem.
By using $\ell_1$-regularization in combination with SMI which can detect a
non-linear dependency, $\ell_1$-LSMI{} can correctly choose the two true features in
the \texttt{quad} problem. For the \texttt{and-or} problem, the pitfall is to choose
$X_8,\ldots,X_{10}$ because of their high correlation to $Y$. However, due to the
usage of $\ell_1$-regularization, $\ell_1$-LSMI{} attempts to find the four-feature subset which
maximizes LSMI in a non-greedy manner. Since $X_8,\ldots,X_{10}$ contain
bit-flip noise, inclusion of any of them will not deliver the maximum LSMI. In
this case, the only four features which give the maximum LSMI are ${X_1,\ldots,
X_4}$, and thus preferred over any of $X_8,\ldots,X_{10}$.
As an illustration of LSMI, \tabref{tab:andor_comb74} shows all possible 35
four-feature subsets of $\{X_1,\ldots,X_4\} \cup \{X_8,\ldots,X_{10}\}$ in
the \texttt{and-or} problem and their corresponding LSMI values. It is evident that the
correct subset $\{X_1,\ldots, X_4\}$ has the highest LSMI.
Inclusion of any of $X_8,\ldots,X_{10}$ (and thus remove some from
$\{X_1,\ldots,X_4\}$) would cause a significant drop of the LSMI value. In the
extreme case, with all $X_8,\ldots,X_{10}$ in the selected set (shown at the
bottom of the table), the LSMI score becomes considerably low. This is because each
of $X_8,\ldots,X_{10}$ contains roughly the same information to explain $Y$. Thus,
there is no gain in adding more features which share very similar information.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{All possible 35 four-feature subsets of $\{X_1,\ldots,X_4\} \cup
\{X_8,\ldots,X_{10}\}$ in the \texttt{and-or} dataset, and their corresponding
values of LSMI to the output $Y = (X_1 \wedge X_2) \vee (X_3 \wedge X_4) $.}
\label{tab:andor_comb74}
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc|c}
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{c|}{Feature indices} & LSMI \\
\hline \hline
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & \textbf{0.496} \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 8 & 0.365 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 9 & 0.381 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 10 & 0.357 \\
1 & 2 & 4 & 8 & 0.376 \\
1 & 2 & 4 & 9 & 0.384 \\
1 & 2 & 4 & 10 & 0.372 \\
1 & 2 & 8 & 9 & 0.346 \\
1 & 2 & 8 & 10 & 0.330 \\
1 & 2 & 9 & 10 & 0.336 \\
1 & 3 & 4 & 8 & 0.382 \\
1 & 3 & 4 & 9 & 0.376 \\
1 & 3 & 4 & 10 & 0.392 \\
1 & 3 & 8 & 9 & 0.325 \\
1 & 3 & 8 & 10 & 0.330 \\
1 & 3 & 9 & 10 & 0.333 \\
1 & 4 & 8 & 9 & 0.342 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
~~
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc|c}
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{c|}{Feature indices} & LSMI \\
\hline \hline
1 & 4 & 9 & 10 & 0.341 \\
2 & 3 & 4 & 8 & 0.367 \\
2 & 3 & 4 & 9 & 0.382 \\
2 & 3 & 4 & 10 & 0.390 \\
2 & 3 & 8 & 9 & 0.341 \\
2 & 3 & 8 & 10 & 0.312 \\
2 & 3 & 9 & 10 & 0.322 \\
2 & 4 & 8 & 9 & 0.340 \\
2 & 4 & 8 & 10 & 0.328 \\
2 & 4 & 9 & 10 & 0.328 \\
3 & 4 & 8 & 9 & 0.356 \\
3 & 4 & 8 & 10 & 0.349 \\
3 & 4 & 9 & 10 & 0.353 \\ \hline
1 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 0.330 \\
2 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 0.334 \\
3 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 0.303 \\
4 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 0.335 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\subsection{Real-Data Experiment}
To demonstrate the practical use of the proposed $\ell_1$-LSMI{}, we conduct
experiments on real datasets without any specific domains.
All the real datasets used in the experiments are summarized in \tabref{tab:real_dataset}.
The ``Task'' column denotes the type of the problem (R for regression, and C$x$
for $x$-class classification problem). The datasets cover a wide range of
domains including image, speech, and bioinformatics.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Summary of the real datasets used in the experiments.}
\label{tab:real_dataset}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|rrl|l}
\hline
Dataset & \multicolumn{1}{l}{~~~~$m$} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{~~~~~~~$n$} & Task &
Class balance (\%) \\
\hline \hline
abalone & 8 & 4177 & R & - \\
bcancer & 9 & 277 & C2 & 70.8/29.2 \\
cpuact & 21 & 3000 & R & - \\
ctslices & 379 & 53500 & R & - \\
flaresolar & 9 & 1066 & C2 & 44.7/55.3 \\
german & 20 & 1000 & C2 & 70.0/30.0 \\
glass & 9 & 214 & C6 & 32.7/35.5/7.9/6.1/4.2/13.6 \\
housing & 13 & 506 & R & - \\
image & 18 & 1155 & C2 & 42.9/57.1 \\
ionosphere & 33 & 351 & C2 & 64.1/35.9 \\
isolet & 617 & 6238 & C26 & about 3.85\% per class \\
msd & 90 & 10000 & R & - \\
musk1 & 166 & 476 & C2 & 56.5/43.5 \\
musk2 & 166 & 6598 & C2 & 84.6/15.4 \\
satimage & 36 & 6435 & C6 & 23.8/10.9/21.1/9.7/11.0/23.4 \\
segment & 18 & 2310 & C7 & 14.3\% per class \\
senseval2 & 50 & 534 & C3 & 33.3\% per class \\
sonar & 60 & 208 & C2 & 46.6/53.4 \\
spectf & 44 & 267 & C2 & 20.6/79.4 \\
speech & 50 & 400 & C2 & 50.0/50.0 \\
vehicle & 18 & 846 & C4 & 25.1/25.7/25.8/23.5 \\
vowel & 13 & 990 & C11 & 9.1\% per class \\
wine & 13 & 178 & C3 & 33.1/39.9/27.0 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}\\
All datasets were taken from UCI Machine Learning Repository:
\url{http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/},
except that \texttt{cpuact} is from
\url{http://mldata.org/repository/data/viewslug/uci-20070111-cpu_act/},
\texttt{SENSEVAL-2} is from the Second International Workshop on
Evaluating Word Sense Disambiguation Systems:
\url{http://www.sle.sharp.co.uk/senseval2},
and \texttt{speech} is our In-house developed voice dataset.
\end{table}
The experiment is repeated 20 times with $n=400$ points sampled in each trial.
In each trial, $k$ is varied in the low range with a step size proportional to
the entire dimensionality $m$.
For classification, each selected $k$-feature subset is scored with the test error of
a support vector classifier (SVC) with Gaussian kernels.
For regression, the root mean squared error of support vector regression (SVR)
with Gaussian kernels is used.
The hyper-parameters of SVC and SVR are chosen with cross validation.
We use the implementations of SVC and SVR given in
the LIBSVM library \cite{Chang2001}\footnote{LIBSVM: \url{http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/libsvm/}}. The results are shown in
\figref{fig:real_exp_noseq}.
Overall, results suggest that using LSMI can give better features than HSIC (judged by the error
of SVC/SVR). This shows the importance of the availability of a model selection
criterion.
$\ell_1$-LSMI{} and mRMR are competitive, especially on multi-class classification problems with many classes (e.g., segment and satimage).
This is in contrast to PC and Relief which do not handle multi-class problems well.
As in the case of the toy data experiment, PC does not perform well in most cases since it does not take redundancy among features into account.
An exception would be the \texttt{senseval2} problem in which PC performs the best among others.
This is because 50 features in the \texttt{senseval2} dataset are derived from the first 50
principal components obtained by principal component analysis.
Since principal components are orthogonal by definition, no redundancy has to be considered for this problem.
In some cases, considering feature redundancy may hurt the performance.
This can be seen on \texttt{image}, \texttt{cpuact}, \texttt{senseval2}, and \texttt{musk2}
datasets when PC outperforms QPFS, suggesting that
features may not be correlated. Thus, ignoring redundancy and considering just relevancy gives a better performance.
$\ell_1$-HSIC performs well in many cases,
but the performance may become unstable when $k$ is high due to the mentioned fact that
$\sigma_{\mathrm{med}}$ also gets larger.
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\centering
\subfloat[image]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{exp6_image_ss-crop.eps}
\label{fig:fvserr_image_noseq}
}
\subfloat[german]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{exp6_german_ss-crop.eps}
\label{fig:fvserr_german_noseq}
}
\subfloat[cpuact]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{exp6_cpuact_ss-crop.eps}
\label{fig:fvserr_cpuact_noseq}
}\\
\subfloat[segment]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{exp6_segment_ss-crop.eps}
\label{fig:fvserr_segment_noseq}
}
\subfloat[wine]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{exp6_wine_ss-crop.eps}
\label{fig:fvserr_wine_noseq}
}
\subfloat[flaresolar]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{exp6_flaresolar_ss-crop.eps}
\label{fig:fvserr_flaresolar_noseq}
}\\
\subfloat[spectf]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{exp6_spectf_ss-crop.eps}
\label{fig:fvserr_spectf_noseq}
}
\subfloat[satimage]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{exp6_satimage_ss-crop.eps}
\label{fig:fvserr_satimage_noseq}
}
\subfloat[vehicle]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{exp6_vehicle_ss-crop.eps}
\label{fig:fvserr_vehicle_noseq}
}\\
\subfloat[sonar]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{exp6_sonar_ss-crop.eps}
\label{fig:fvserr_sonar_noseq}
}
\subfloat[speech]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{exp6_speech_ss-crop.eps}
\label{fig:fvserr_speech_noseq}
}
\subfloat[senseval2]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{exp6_senseval2_ss-crop.eps}
\label{fig:fvserr_senseval2_noseq}
}\\
\subfloat[musk1]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{exp6_musk1_ss-crop.eps}
\label{fig:fvserr_musk1_noseq}
}
\subfloat[musk2]{
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{exp6_musk2_ss-crop.eps}
\label{fig:fvserr_musk2_noseq}
}
\subfloat{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\includegraphics[width=0.14\textwidth]{exp6_legend.eps}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
}
\caption{Comparison of SVC/SVR errors of features selected by PC, $\ell_1$-HSIC, $\ell_1$-LSMI{}, mRMR, QPFS, Lasso and Relief.}
\label{fig:real_exp_noseq}
\end{figure*}
To objectively compare the performance, another experiment with the same setting is carried out on 22 datasets.
The number of trials is set to 50.
For each method and dataset, $k$ is set to either 4, 10, or 20 depending on how large $m$ is.
The selected $k$-feature subsets are evaluated by SVC or SVR, as in the previous experiment.
The results are given in \tabref{tab:real_small}, where for each dataset, the method with the best
performance is shown in bold face.
Other methods which have insignificant performance difference (based on
the one-sided paired t-test with 5\% significance level) to the best one are also marked
in the same way. Note that Lasso works on only binary and regression problems.
Thus, the results for multi-class problems are not available.
For F-HSIC and F-LSMI, we omit the results on the \texttt{ctslices} and \texttt{isolet}
datasets due to the
large computation time involved.
From the table, it can be seen quantitatively that overall $\ell_1$-LSMI{} performs
the best by judging from the number of times it ranks top.
Interestingly, although worse on small datasets, the performance of mRMR
approaches that of $\ell_1$-LSMI{} on high-dimensional datasets (i.e., the \texttt{musk1},
\texttt{musk2}, \texttt{ctslices}, and \texttt{isolet} datasets).
One reasonable explanation for this phenomenon is that, a
large number of features provide more freedom in choosing an alternative subset.
Even though there are interacting features, there may be many other alternative
non-interacting subsets which give an almost equivalent explanatory power.
For this reason, the fact that mRMR cannot detect interacting features may be less significant.
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{SVC/SVR errors of the features selected by PC, F-HSIC, F-LSMI, $\ell_1$-HSIC, $\ell_1$-LSMI{}, mRMR, QPFS, Lasso, and Relief on real
datasets.}
\label{tab:real_small}
\centering
{\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{@{}l|c@{\ \ }c@{\ \ }c|lllllllll@{}}
\hline
Dataset & $m$ & $n$ & $k$ & PC & F-HSIC & F-LSMI & $\ell_1$-HSIC & $\ell_1$-LSMI & mRMR & QPFS & Lasso & Relief \\ \hline \hline
abalone (R) & 8 & 400 & 4 & 0.73 (.04) & 0.74 (.04) & 0.70 (.05) & 0.73 (.04) & 0.70 (.05) & 0.73 (.05) & 0.75 (.04) & 0.70 (.04) & \textbf{0.69 (.04)} \\
bcancer (C2) & 9 & 277 & 4 & 0.24 (.00) & 0.24 (.00) & 0.23 (.01) & \textbf{0.23 (.00)} & \textbf{0.23 (.01)} & 0.25 (.00) & 0.23 (.00) & 0.24 (.00) & 0.26 (.00) \\
glass (C6) & 9 & 214 & 4 & 0.29 (.00) & \textbf{0.28 (.00)} & 0.30 (.01) & 0.30 (.01) & 0.30 (.01) & 0.30 (.00) & 0.29 (.00) & -- & 0.31 (.00) \\
housing (R) & 13 & 400 & 4 & 4.03 (.19) & 4.14 (.20) & 4.20 (.21) & 3.95 (.20) & \textbf{3.91 (.19)} & 3.97 (.20) & 4.11 (.23) & 4.14 (.27) & 4.10 (.21) \\
vowel (C11) & 13 & 400 & 4 & \textbf{0.20 (.02)} & 0.23 (.03) & 0.24 (.03) & 0.20 (.02) & 0.21 (.02) & \textbf{0.20 (.02)} & 0.20 (.02) & -- & 0.21 (.02) \\
wine (C3) & 13 & 178 & 4 & 0.03 (.00) & 0.03 (.00) & \textbf{0.03 (.01)} & 0.03 (.01) & \textbf{0.03 (.01)} & 0.03 (.00) & 0.03 (.00) & -- & 0.03 (.00) \\
image (C2) & 18 & 400 & 4 & 0.10 (.01) & 0.19 (.03) & 0.17 (.03) & 0.13 (.03) & 0.06 (.02) & 0.14 (.02) & 0.11 (.02) & 0.11 (.02) & \textbf{0.05 (.01)} \\
segment (C7) & 18 & 400 & 4 & 0.19 (.03) & 0.24 (.03) & 0.17 (.02) & 0.11 (.03) & \textbf{0.05 (.01)} & \textbf{0.05 (.01)} & 0.08 (.03) & -- & 0.13 (.02) \\
vehicle (C4) & 18 & 400 & 4 & 0.32 (.02) & 0.33 (.03) & \textbf{0.28 (.02)} & 0.34 (.03) & \textbf{0.27 (.02)} & 0.39 (.05) & 0.39 (.05) & -- & 0.32 (.04) \\
german (C2) & 20 & 400 & 4 & \textbf{0.25 (.02)} & 0.29 (.01) & 0.29 (.02) & 0.25 (.02) & \textbf{0.25 (.02)} & 0.25 (.02) & 0.25 (.02) & 0.25 (.02) & 0.26 (.02) \\
cpuact (R) & 21 & 400 & 4 & 0.25 (.03) & 0.33 (.12) & 0.28 (.07) & 0.54 (.31) & \textbf{0.25 (.16)} & \textbf{0.23 (.06)} & 0.27 (.04) & 0.26 (.04) & 0.37 (.09) \\
ionosphere (C2) & 33 & 351 & 4 & 0.07 (.00) & \textbf{0.07 (.00)} & 0.08 (.01) & 0.07 (.00) & 0.07 (.00) & 0.09 (.00) & 0.07 (.00) & 0.07 (.00) & 0.07 (.00) \\ \hline
satimage (C6) & 36 & 400 & 10 & 0.22 (.02) & 0.14 (.01) & \textbf{0.13 (.02)} & 0.14 (.02) & \textbf{0.13 (.02)} & 0.14 (.01) & 0.14 (.02) & -- & 0.16 (.02) \\
spectf (C2) & 44 & 267 & 10 & 0.19 (.00) & 0.17 (.00) & \textbf{0.17 (.01)} & 0.19 (.01) & \textbf{0.17 (.01)} & 0.18 (.00) & 0.18 (.00) & 0.18 (.00) & 0.18 (.00) \\
senseval2 (C3) & 50 & 400 & 10 & \textbf{0.18 (.01)} & 0.18 (.01) & 0.18 (.02) & 0.19 (.02) & \textbf{0.18 (.01)} & 0.18 (.01) & \textbf{0.18 (.01)} & -- & 0.21 (.01) \\
speech (C2) & 50 & 400 & 10 & 0.01 (.00) & 0.01 (.00) & 0.01 (.00) & 0.01 (.00) & 0.01 (.00) & 0.02 (.00) & 0.01 (.00) & \textbf{0.01 (.00)} & 0.03 (.00) \\
sonar (C2) & 60 & 400 & 10 & 0.23 (.00) & 0.22 (.00) & \textbf{0.14 (.02)} & 0.21 (.02) & 0.16 (.02) & 0.18 (.00) & 0.19 (.00) & 0.16 (.00) & 0.19 (.00) \\
msd (R) & 90 & 400 & 10 & 0.95 (.06) & 0.94 (.06) & \textbf{0.92 (.06)} & 0.94 (.06) & 0.93 (.06) & 0.97 (.06) & 0.94 (.06) & \textbf{0.92 (.06)} & 0.96 (.06) \\ \hline
musk1 (C2) & 166 & 400 & 20 & 0.19 (.02) & 0.17 (.02) & 0.14 (.02) & 0.16 (.02) & 0.16 (.02) & 0.15 (.02) & 0.18 (.02) & \textbf{0.13 (.01)} & 0.19 (.03) \\
musk2 (C2) & 166 & 400 & 20 & 0.09 (.01) & 0.08 (.01) & \textbf{0.07 (.01)} & 0.09 (.01) & 0.08 (.01) & 0.09 (.01) & 0.09 (.02) & 0.07 (.01) & 0.09 (.01) \\
ctslices (R) & 379 & 400 & 20 & 0.79 (.07) & -- & -- & 0.64 (.05) & 0.60 (.07) & 0.45 (.04) & 0.46 (.02) & \textbf{0.41 (.03)} & 0.56 (.05) \\
isolet (C26) & 617 & 400 & 20 & 0.54 (.03) & -- & -- & 0.36 (.04) & \textbf{0.27 (.03)} & 0.30 (.03) & 0.30 (.03) & -- & 0.49 (.03) \\ \hline
\multicolumn{4}{r|}{Top Count} & 3 & 2& 7 & 1 & 11 & 3 & 1 & 4 & 2 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table*}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclude}
Feature selection is an important dimensionality reduction technique which can
help improve the prediction performance and speed, and facilitate the interpretation of a learned
predictive model. There are a number of factors which cause
the difficulty of feature selection. These include non-linear
dependency, feature redundancy, and feature interaction.
The proposed $\ell_1$-LSMI{} is an $\ell_1$-based algorithm that maximizes SMI between the
selected feature and the output. The main idea is to learn a sparse
feature weight vector whose coefficients can be used to determine the importance
of features. Only features corresponding to the non-zero coefficients in the
weight vector need to be kept. The use of $\ell_1$-regularization
allows simultaneous consideration
of features, which is essential in detecting a group of interacting features.
By combining with SMI which is able to detect a non-linear dependency, and implicitly handle feature redundancy, a
powerful feature selection algorithm is obtained.
Extensive experiments were conducted to confirm the usefulness of $\ell_1$-LSMI{}.
We therefore conclude that $\ell_1$-LSMI{} is a promising method for practical use.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Dr.~Makoto Yamada for his valuable comments.
WJ acknowledges the Okazaki Kaheita International Scholarship Foundation,
HH acknowledges the FIRST Program,
and
MS acknowledges the MEXT KAKENHI 23120004.
|
\section{Introduction\label{section:introduction}}
The use of unbiased estimators within the Metropolis--Hastings algorithm was
initiated by \cite{lin:2000}, with a surge of interest in these ideas since
their introduction in Bayesian statistics by \cite{beaumont2003estimation}. In a Bayesian context, an unbiased likelihood estimator is commonly constructed using
importance sampling as in \cite{beaumont2003estimation} or particle filters as
in \cite{andrieu:doucet:holenstein:2010}. \cite{andrieu2009pseudo} call this method the pseudo-marginal algorithm, and establish some of its theoretical properties.
Apart from the choice of proposals inherent to any Metropolis--Hastings algorithm, the main practical issue with the pseudo-marginal algorithm is the choice of the number, $N$, of Monte Carlo samples or particles used to estimate the likelihood. For any fixed $N$, the transition kernel of the pseudo-marginal algorithm leaves the posterior distribution of interest invariant. Using many Monte Carlo samples usually results in pseudo-marginal averages with asymptotic variances lower than the corresponding averages using fewer samples, as established
by \citet{AV14}
for likelihood estimators based on importance sampling. Empirical evidence suggests this result also holds when the likelihood is estimated by particle filters. However, the computing cost of constructing the likelihood estimator increases with $N$. We aim to select $N$ so as to minimize the computational resources necessary to achieve a specified asymptotic variance for a particular pseudo-marginal average. This quantity, which is referred to as the computing time, is typically proportional to $N$ times the asymptotic variance of this average, which is itself a function of $N$. Assuming that the distribution of the additive noise introduced by the log-likelihood estimator
is Gaussian, with a variance inversely proportional to $N$ and independent of
the parameter value at which it is evaluated, this minimization was carried
out in \cite{PittSilvaGiordaniKohn(12)} and in
\citet{Sherlock2013efficiency}.
However, \cite{PittSilvaGiordaniKohn(12)}
assume that the Metropolis--Hastings proposal is the posterior density,
whereas \citet{Sherlock2013efficiency} relax the Gaussian noise assumption, but restrict
themselves to an isotropic normal random walk proposal and assume that the
posterior density factorizes into $d$ independent and identically distributed
components and $d\rightarrow\infty$.
Our article addresses a similar problem but considers general proposal and
target densities and relaxes the Gaussian noise assumption. In this more
general setting, we cannot minimize the computing time, and instead
minimize explicit upper bounds on it. Quantitative results are presented
under a Gaussian assumption. In this scenario, our guidelines are that $N$ should be chosen such that the standard deviation of the
log-likelihood estimator should be around $1.0$ when the Metropolis--Hastings
algorithm using the exact likelihood is efficient and around $1.7$ when it is
inefficient. In most practical scenarios, the
efficiency of the Metropolis--Hastings algorithm using the exact likelihood is unknown as
it cannot be implemented. In these cases, our results suggest selecting a standard deviation around $1.2$.
\section{ Metropolis--Hastings method using an estimated
likelihood\label{SS: sim likelihood}}
We briefly review how an unbiased likelihood estimator may be used within a
Metropolis--Hastings scheme in a Bayesian context. Let $y\in\mathsf{Y}$ be the
observations and $\theta\in\Theta\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{d}$ the parameters of
interest. The likelihood of the observations is denoted by $p(y\mid\theta)$
and the prior for $\theta$ admits a density $p(\theta)$ with respect to
Lebesgue measure so the posterior density of interest is $\pi
(\theta)\propto p(y\mid\theta)p(\theta)$. We slightly abuse notation by using the same symbols for distributions and densities.
The Metropolis--Hastings scheme to sample from $\pi$ simulates a Markov chain
according to the transition kernel%
\begin{equation}
Q_{\textsc{ex}}\left( \theta,\mathrm{d}\vartheta\right) =q\left(
\theta,\vartheta\right) \alpha_{\textsc{ex}}(\theta,\vartheta
)\mathrm{d}\vartheta+\left\{ 1-\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\left(
\theta\right) \right\} \delta_{\theta}\left( \mathrm{d}\vartheta\right),
\label{eq:Q_EX}%
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{\textsc{ex}}(\theta,\vartheta)=\min\{1,r_{\textsc{ex}%
}(\theta,\vartheta)\}\text{, \ \ }\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\left(
\theta\right) =\int q\left( \theta,\vartheta\right) \alpha
_{\textsc{ex}}(\theta,\vartheta)\mathrm{d}\vartheta,\label{eq: accept EX}%
\end{equation}
with $r_{\textsc{ex}}(\theta,\vartheta)=\pi(\vartheta)q\left(
\vartheta,\theta\right) /\left\{ \pi(\theta)q\left( \theta,\vartheta
\right) \right\}$. This Markov chain cannot be simulated if $p(y\mid\theta)$ is intractable.
Assume $p(y\mid\theta)$ is intractable, but we have access to a non-negative
unbiased estimator \linebreak$\widehat{p}(y\mid\theta,U)$ of $p(y\mid\theta)$, where
$U\sim m\left( \cdot\right) $ represents all the auxiliary random variables
used to obtain this estimator. In this case, we introduce the joint density
$\overline{\pi}(\theta,u)$ on $\Theta\times\mathcal{U}$, where%
\begin{equation}
\overline{\pi}(\theta,u)=\pi(\theta)m(u)\widehat{p}(y\mid\theta,u)/p(y\mid
\theta). \label{eq:norm_jd}%
\end{equation}
This joint density admits the correct marginal density $\pi(\theta)$, because
$\widehat{p}(y\mid\theta,U)$ is unbiased. The pseudo-marginal algorithm is a
Metropolis--Hastings scheme targeting (\ref{eq:norm_jd}) with proposal density
$q\left( \theta,\cdot\right) m\left( \cdot\right) $, yielding the acceptance
probability
\begin{equation}
\min\left\{ 1,\frac{\widehat{p}(y\mid\vartheta,v)p\left( \vartheta\right)
q\left( \vartheta,\theta\right) }{\widehat{p}(y\mid\theta,u)p\left(
\theta\right) q\left( \theta,\vartheta\right) }\right\} =\min\left\{
1,\frac{\widehat{p}(y\mid\vartheta,v)/p(y\mid\vartheta)}{\widehat{p}%
(y\mid\theta,u)/p(y\mid\theta)}r_{\textsc{ex}}(\theta,\vartheta
)\right\}, \label{eq:jointutheta}%
\end{equation}
for a proposal $\left( \vartheta,v\right) $. In practice, we only record
$\left\{ \theta,\log\widehat{p}(y\mid\theta,u)\right\} $ instead of
$\left\{ \theta,u\right\} $. We follow \cite{andrieu2009pseudo} and
\cite{PittSilvaGiordaniKohn(12)} and analyze this scheme using additive noise,
$Z=\log\widehat{p}(y\mid\theta,U)-\log p(y\mid\theta)=\psi(\theta,U)$, in the
log-likelihood estimator, rather than $U$. In this parameterization, the
target density on $\Theta\times\mathbb{R}$ becomes%
\begin{equation}
\overline{\pi}(\theta,z)=\pi(\theta)\exp\left( z\right) g(z\mid\theta),
\label{eq:jointztheta}%
\end{equation}
where $g(z\mid\theta)$ is the density of $Z$ when $U\sim m(\cdot)$ and the
transformation $Z=\psi(\theta,U)$ is applied.
To sample from $\overline{\pi}(\theta,z)$, we could use the scheme previously
described to sample from $\overline{\pi}(\theta,u)$ and then set
$z=\psi(\theta,u)$. We can equivalently use the transition kernel%
\begin{align}
Q\left\{ \left( \theta,z\right) ,\left( \mathrm{d}\vartheta,\mathrm{d}%
w\right) \right\} & =q\left( \theta,\vartheta\right) g(w\mid
\vartheta)\alpha_{Q}\left\{ \left( \theta,z\right) ,\left( \vartheta
,w\right) \right\} \mathrm{d}\vartheta\mathrm{d}%
w\label{eq:transitionkernelQ}\\
& \text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }+\left\{ 1-\varrho
_{Q}\left( \theta,z\right) \right\} \delta_{\left( \theta,z\right)
}\left( \mathrm{d}\vartheta,\mathrm{d}w\right) ,\nonumber
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{Q}\left\{ \left( \theta,z\right) ,\left( \vartheta,w\right)
\right\} =\min\{1,\exp(w-z)\text{ }r_{\textsc{ex}}(\theta,\vartheta)\}
\label{eq:acceptanceprobaQ}%
\end{equation}
is (\ref{eq:jointutheta}) expressed in the new parameterization. Henceforth,
we make the following assumption.
\begin{assumption}
\label{assumption:noiseorthogonal}The noise density is
independent of $\theta$ and is denoted by $g\left( z\right) $.
\end{assumption}
Under this assumption, the target density (\ref{eq:jointztheta}) factorizes as
$\pi(\theta)\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( z\right) $, where%
\begin{equation}
\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( z\right) =\exp\left( z\right) g(z). \label{eq:targetinz}%
\end{equation}
Assumption \ref{assumption:noiseorthogonal} allows us to analyze in detail
the performance of the pseudo-marginal algorithm. This simplifying
assumption is not satisfied in practical scenarios. However, in the stationary
regime, we are concerned with the noise density at values of the parameter
which arise from the target density $\pi\left(\theta\right)$ and the marginal density
of the proposals at stationarity $\int \pi\left(\mathrm{d}\vartheta\right) q\left(\vartheta, \theta \right) $. If the noise density does
not vary significantly in regions of high probability mass of these densities,
then we expect this assumption to be a reasonable approximation. In Section
\ref{sect:applications}, we examine experimentally how the noise density
varies against draws from $\pi\left(\theta\right)$ and $\int \pi\left(\mathrm{d}\vartheta\right) q\left(\vartheta, \theta \right) $.
\section{Main results}
\subsection{Outline\label{sec:Qstar}}
This section presents the main contributions of the paper. All the proofs are
in Appendix~1 and in the Supplementary Material. We minimize upper bounds
on the computing time of the pseudo-marginal algorithm, as discussed in Section \ref{section:introduction}. This requires establishing upper bounds on the asymptotic variance of an ergodic average under the kernel $Q$ given in
(\ref{eq:transitionkernelQ}). To
obtain these bounds, we introduce a new Markov kernel $Q^{\ast}$, where
\begin{align}
Q^{\ast}\left\{ \left( \theta,z\right) ,\left( \mathrm{d}\vartheta
,\mathrm{d}w\right) \right\} & =q\left( \theta,\vartheta\right)
g(w)\alpha_{Q^{\ast}}\left\{ \left( \theta,z\right) ,\left( \vartheta
,w\right) \right\} \mathrm{d}\vartheta\mathrm{d}w
\label{eq:MarkovchainQstar}\\
& \text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }+\left\{ 1-\varrho_{\textsc{ex}%
}\left( \theta\right) \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\left( z\right) \right\}
\delta_{\left( \theta,z\right) }\left( \mathrm{d}\vartheta,\mathrm{d}%
w\right) ,\nonumber
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\alpha_{Q^{\ast}}\left\{ \left( \theta,z\right) ,\left( \vartheta
,w\right) \right\} & =\alpha_{\textsc{ex}}(\theta,\vartheta
)\alpha_{\textsc{z}}(z,w)\text{, \ \ }\alpha_{\textsc{z}}\left(
z,w\right) =\min\{1,\exp(w-z)\},\label{eq:acceptanceprobabilityQ*}\\
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\left( z\right) & =\int g\left( w\right)
\alpha_{\textsc{z}}\left( z,w\right) \mathrm{d}w.
\label{eq:acceptanceprobaz}%
\end{align}
As $Q$ and $Q^{\ast}$ are reversible with respect to $\overline{\pi}$ and the
acceptance probability (\ref{eq:acceptanceprobabilityQ*}) is always smaller
than (\ref{eq:acceptanceprobaQ}), an application of the theorem in
\cite{peskun1973optimum} ensures that the variance of an ergodic average under
$Q^{\ast}$ is greater than or equal to the variance under $Q$. We obtain an exact expression
for the variance under the bounding kernel $Q^{\ast}$ and simpler upper bounds by
exploiting a non-standard representation of this variance, the factor form of the
acceptance probability (\ref{eq:acceptanceprobabilityQ*}) and the\ spectral
properties of an auxiliary Markov kernel.
\subsection{Inefficiency of Metropolis--Hastings type chains
\label{sec:knownlik}}
This section recalls and establishes various results on the integrated
autocorrelation time of Markov chains, henceforth referred to as the
inefficiency. In particular, we present a novel representation of the
inefficiency of Metropolis--Hastings type chains, which is the basic component
of the proof of our main result.
Consider a Markov kernel $\Pi$ on the measurable space $\left( \mathsf{X}%
,\mathcal{X}\right) =\left\{ \mathbb{R}^{n},\mathcal{B}\left(
\mathbb{R}^{n}\right) \right\} $, where $\mathcal{B}\left( \mathbb{R}%
^{n}\right) $ is the Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. For any measurable real-valued
function $f$, measurable set $A$ and probability measure $\mu$, we use the
standard notation: $\mu\left( f\right) =\int_{\mathsf{X}}\mu\left(
\mathrm{d}x\right) f\left( x\right) $, $\mu\left( A\right) =\mu\left\{
\mathbb{I}_{A}\left( \cdot\right) \right\} ,$ $\Pi f\left( x\right)
=\int_{\mathsf{X}}\Pi\left( x,\mathrm{d}y\right) f\left( y\right) $ and
for $n\geq2$, $\Pi^{n}\left( x,\mathrm{d}y\right) =\int_{\mathsf{X}}%
\Pi^{n-1}\left( x,\mathrm{d}z\right) \Pi\left( z,\mathrm{d}y\right) $,
with $\Pi^{1}=\Pi$. We introduce the Hilbert spaces
\[
L^{2}\left( \mathsf{X},\mu\right) =\left\{ f:\mathsf{X\rightarrow
}\mathbb{R}\text{\ : }\mu\left( f^{2}\right) <\infty\right\} ,\text{ }%
L_{0}^{2}\left( \mathsf{X},\mu\right) =\left\{ f:\mathsf{X\rightarrow
}\mathbb{R}\text{\ : }\mu\left( f\right) =0,\text{ }\mu\left( f^{2}\right)
<\infty\right\}
\]
equipped with the inner product $\left\langle f,g\right\rangle _{\mu}=\int
f\left( x\right) g\left( x\right) \mu\left( \mathrm{d}x\right) $. A
$\mu$-invariant and $\psi$-irreducible Markov chain is said to be
ergodic; see \cite{Tierney94} for the definition of $\psi$-irreducibility.
The next result follows directly from \cite{kipnis1986central} and Theorem 4
and Corollary 6 in \cite{rosenthalCLT2007}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:kipnisvaradhan}Suppose $\Pi$ is a $\mu$-reversible and ergodic
Markov kernel. Let $(X_{i})_{i\geqslant 1}$ be a stationary Markov chain evolving according to
$\Pi$ and let $h\in L^{2}\left( \mathsf{X},\mu \right) $ be such that $\mu \left( \bar{h}^{2}\right)>0$ where $\bar{h}=h-\mu \left( h\right)$. Write
$\phi _{n}\left( h,\Pi \right) =\left \langle \bar{h},\Pi^{n}\bar{h}\right \rangle _{\mu}%
/\mu \left( \bar{h}^{2}\right) $ for the autocorrelation at lag $n\geq0$ of $\left \{ h\left( X_{i}\right) \right \} _{i\geq1}$ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,\Pi)=1+2%
{\textstyle \sum \nolimits_{n=1}^{\infty}}
\phi _{n}\left( h,\Pi \right) $ for the associated inefficiency. Then,
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] there exists a probability measure $e\left( h,\Pi \right)$ on $[-1,1)$ such
that the autocorrelation and inefficiency satisfy the spectral
representations
\begin{equation}
\phi_{n}\left( h,\Pi \right) =%
{\textstyle \int \nolimits_{-1}^{1}}
\lambda^{n}e\left( h,\Pi \right) \left( \mathrm{d}\lambda \right) ,\quad \textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,\Pi)=%
{\textstyle \int \nolimits_{-1}^{1}}
(1+\lambda)(1-\lambda)^{-1}e\left( h,\Pi \right) \left( \mathrm{d}\lambda \right); \label{eq:spectral}%
\end{equation}
\item[(ii)] if $\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h}, {\Pi})<\infty$, then as $n\rightarrow \infty$%
\begin{equation}
n^{-1/2}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left \{ h(X_{i})-\mu \left( h\right) \right \}
{\longrightarrow } \mathcal{N}\left \{ 0;\mu \left( \bar{h}^{2}\right)
\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,\Pi)\right \}, \label{eq:CLTKipnisVaradhan}%
\end{equation}
in distribution, where $\mathcal{N}\left( a;b^2\right) $ denotes the normal distribution with
mean $a$ and variance $b^2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
When estimating $\mu\left( h\right) $, equation (\ref{eq:CLTKipnisVaradhan})
implies that we need approximately $n$ $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,\Pi)$ samples from the
Markov chain $\left( X_{i}\right) _{i\geq1}$ to obtain an estimator of the
same precision as an average of $n$ independent draws from $\mu$.
We consider henceforth a $\mu$-reversible kernel given by%
\[
P\left( x,\mathrm{d}y\right) =q\left( x,\mathrm{d}y\right) \alpha\left(
x,y\right) +\left\{ 1-\varrho\left( x\right) \right\} \delta_{x}\left(
\mathrm{d}y\right) \text{, \ \ }\varrho\left( x\right) =\int q\left(
x,\mathrm{d}y\right) \alpha\left( x,y\right) ,
\]
where the proposal kernel is selected such that $q(x,\{ x\})=0$,
$\alpha\left( x,y\right) $ is the acceptance probability and we assume there
does not exist an $x$ such that $\mu\left( \left\{ x\right\} \right) =1$.
We refer to $P$ as a Metropolis--Hastings type kernel since it is structurally
similar to the Metropolis--Hastings kernel, but we do not require
$\alpha\left( x,y\right) $ to be the
Metropolis--Hastings acceptance probability. This generalization is required
when studying the kernel $Q^{\ast}$ as the acceptance probability
$\alpha_{Q^{\ast}}\left\{ \left( \theta,z\right) ,\left( \vartheta
,w\right) \right\} $ in (\ref{eq:acceptanceprobabilityQ*}) is not the
Metropolis--Hastings acceptance probability.
Let $( X_{i}) _{i\geq1}$ be a Markov chain evolving according to
$P$. We now establish a non-standard expression for $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,P)$ derived
from the associated jump\ chain representation $(\widetilde{X}_{i},\tau
_{i})_{i\geq1}$ of $\left( X_{i}\right) _{i\geq1}$. In this representation,
$(\widetilde{X}_{i})_{i\geq1}$ corresponds to the sequence of accepted
proposals and $(\tau_{i})_{i\geq1}$ the associated sojourn times, that is
$\widetilde{X}_{1}=X_{1}=\cdots=X_{\tau_{1}},$ $\widetilde{X}_{2}=X_{\tau
_{1}+1}=\cdots=X_{\tau_{1}+\tau_{2}}$ etc., with $\widetilde{X}_{i+1}%
\neq\widetilde{X}_{i}$. Some properties of this jump chain are
now stated; see Lemma 1 in \cite{douc2011vanilla}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemm:jumpchain}Let $P$ be $\psi$-irreducible. Then $\varrho \left(
x\right) >0$ for any $x\in \mathsf{X}$ and $(\widetilde{X}%
_{i},\tau_{i})_{i\geq1}$ is a Markov chain with a $\overline{\mu}$-reversible
transition kernel $\overline{P}$, where%
\begin{equation}
\overline{P}\left \{ \left( x,\tau \right) ,\left( \mathrm{d}%
y,\zeta \right) \right \} =\widetilde{P}\left( x,\mathrm{d}y\right) G\left \{
\zeta;\varrho \left( y\right) \right \}, \quad \overline{\mu
}\left( \mathrm{d}x,\tau \right) =\widetilde{\mu}\left( \mathrm{d}x\right)
G\left \{ \tau;\varrho \left( x\right) \right \} ,\text{ }
\label{eq:transitionjumpjoint}%
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{P}\left( x,\mathrm{d}y\right) =\frac{q(x,\mathrm{d}y)\alpha(x,y)}%
{\varrho \left( x\right) },\quad \widetilde{\mu}\left(
\mathrm{d}x\right) =\frac{\mu \left( \mathrm{d}x\right) \varrho \left(
x\right) }{\mu \left( \varrho \right) }, \label{eq:transitionjump}%
\end{equation}
and $G\left( \cdot;\upsilon \right) $ denotes the geometric distribution with
parameter $\upsilon$.
\end{lemma}
The next proposition gives the relationship between $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,P)$ and
$\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h/\varrho},{\widetilde{P}})$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:IACTequality}
Assume that $P$ and $\widetilde{P}$ are ergodic, that $h\in L_{0}^{2}\left(\mathsf{X},\mu \right)$ and that $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,P)<\infty$.
Then $h/\varrho \in L_{0}^2(\mathsf{X},\tilde{\mu})$,
\begin{equation}
\mu \left( h^{2}\right) \left \{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,P)\right \} =\mu \left(
\varrho \right) \widetilde{\mu}\left( h^{2}/\varrho^{2}\right) \left \{
1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h/\varrho},{\widetilde{P}})\right \}, \label{eq:equalityIACT}%
\end{equation}
and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h/\varrho},{\widetilde{P}})\leq \textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,P)$.
\end{proposition}
Lemma \ref{lemm:jumpchain} and Proposition \ref{prop:IACTequality} are used in Section \ref{sec:bound1} to establish a
representation of the inefficiency for the kernel $P=Q^{\ast}$.
We conclude this section by establishing some results on the positivity of the Metropolis--Hastings kernel and
its associated jump kernel. Recall that a $\mu$-invariant Markov kernel $\Pi$ is positive if $\left\langle \Pi
h,h\right\rangle _{\mu}\geq0$ for any $h\in L^{2}\left( \mathsf{X}%
,\mu\right) $. If $\Pi$ is reversible, then positivity is equivalent to
$e\left( h,\Pi\right) \left( \left[ 0,1\right) \right) =1$ for all $h\in
L^{2}\left( \mathsf{X},\mu\right) $, where $e\left( h,\Pi\right) $ is the
spectral measure, and it implies that $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,\Pi)\geq1$; see, for
example, \cite{geyer1992practical}. The positivity of the jump kernel $\widetilde{P}$ associated
with a Metropolis-Hastings kernel $P$ is useful here as several bounds on the inefficiency established subsequently
require the spectral measure of $\widetilde{P}$ to be supported on $ \left[ 0,1\right) $. We now give sufficient conditions ensuring
this property by extending Lemma 3.1 of \cite{baxendale2005}. This complements results of \citet{rudolf2013}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:positivityMHjumpMH}Assume $\alpha \left( x,y\right) $ is
the Metropolis--Hastings acceptance probability and $\mu \left( \mathrm{d}%
x\right) =\mu \left( x\right) \mathrm{d}x$. If $P$ is $\psi$-irreducible,
then $\widetilde{P}$ and $P$ are both positive if one of the following two conditions
is satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $q(x, \mathrm{d}y)=q(x,y)\mathrm{d}y$
is a $\nu$-reversible kernel with $\nu(\mathrm{d}x)=\nu(x)\mathrm{d}x$, $\mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\nu$, and there
exists $r:\mathsf{X\times Z\rightarrow}\mathbb{R}^{+}$ such that $\nu \left(
x\right) q( x,y) =\int r( x,z) r( y,z)
\chi \left( \mathrm{d}z\right) $, where $\chi$ is a measure on $\mathsf{Z};$
\item[(ii)] $q( x,\mathrm{d}y) =q( x,y) \mathrm{d}y$
and there exists $s:\mathsf{X\times Z\rightarrow}\mathbb{R}^{+}$ such that
$q( x,y) =\int s( x,z) s( y,z)\chi(\mathrm{d}z)$, where $\chi$ is a measure on $\mathsf{Z.}$
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
Condition (i) is satisfied for an independent proposal $q\left( x,y\right) =\nu \left( y\right)$ by
taking $\mathsf{Z=}\left \{ 1\right \} $, $\chi \left( \mathrm{d}z\right)
=\delta_{1}\left( \mathrm{d}z\right) $ and $r\left( x,1\right) =\nu(
x).$ It is also satisfied for autoregressive positively correlated proposals
with normal or Student-t innovations. Condition (ii) holds if $q\left(
x,y\right) $ is a symmetric random walk proposal whose increments are
multivariate normal or Student-t.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Inefficiency of the bounding chain\label{sec:bound1}}
This section applies the results of Section \ref{sec:knownlik} to establish an
exact expression for $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q^{\ast})$. The next lemma shows that
$\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q^{\ast})$ is an upper bound on $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q)$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Lemma:Peskun}The kernel $Q^{\ast}$ is $\overline{\pi}$-reversible and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q)\leq \textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q^{\ast})$
for any $h\in L^{2}\left( \Theta \times \mathbb{R},\overline{\pi}\right) $.
\end{lemma}
In practice, we are only interested in functions $h\in L^{2}\left( \Theta
,\pi\right) $. To simplify notation, we write $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q)$ in this case,
instead of introducing the function $\widetilde{h}\in L^{2}\left(
\Theta\times\mathbb{R},\overline{\pi}\right) $ satisfying $\widetilde{h}%
\left( \theta,z\right) =h\left( \theta\right) $ for all $z\in\mathbb{R}$
and writing $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(\widetilde{h},Q)$. Proposition
\ref{prop:IACTequality} shows that it is possible to express $\textsc{\protect\small IF}%
(h,Q^{\ast})$ as a function of the inefficiency of its jump kernel
$\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}$, which is particularly useful as $\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}$
admits a simple structure.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Lemma:jumpchainQ*}Assume $Q^{\ast}$ is $\overline{\pi}$-irreducible.
The jump kernel $\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}$ associated with $Q^{\ast}$ is%
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}\left \{ \left( \theta,z\right) ,\left( \mathrm{d}%
\vartheta,\mathrm{d}w\right) \right \} =\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}\left(
\theta,\mathrm{d}\vartheta \right) \widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}\left(
z,\mathrm{d}w\right), \label{eq:transitionkerneljumpchainQ*1}%
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}\left( \theta,\mathrm{d}\vartheta \right)
=\frac{q\left( \theta,\vartheta \right) \alpha_{\textsc{ex}%
}(\theta,\vartheta)\mathrm{d}\vartheta}{\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\left( \theta \right) },\quad \widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}\left( z,\mathrm{d}w\right) =\frac{g\left(
w\right) \alpha_{\textsc{z}}\left( z,w\right) \mathrm{d}w}%
{\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\left( z\right) }.
\label{eq:transitionkernelsofjumpchainQ*}%
\end{equation}
The kernel $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}\left( \theta,\mathrm{d}\vartheta \right) $
is reversible with respect to $\widetilde{\pi}\left( \mathrm{d}\theta \right)
$ and the kernel $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}\left( z,\mathrm{d}w\right)$ is positive and reversible with respect to
$\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left( \mathrm{d}z\right)$, where
\[
\widetilde{\pi}\left( \mathrm{d}\theta \right) =\frac{\pi \left(
\mathrm{d}\theta \right) \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\left( \theta \right)}{\pi(\varrho_{\textsc{ex}})},\quad \widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left(\mathrm{d}z\right) =\frac{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(\mathrm{d} z\right) \varrho_{\textsc{z}%
}\left( z\right)}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }.
\]
If $Q^{\ast}$ is ergodic, $h\in L_{0}^{2}\left( \Theta,\pi \right) $,
$\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q^{\ast})<\infty$ and $\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}$ is ergodic, then
$h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\in L_{0}^{2}\left( \Theta,\widetilde{\pi}\right)$,
$\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) <\infty$, $\textsc{\protect\small IF}\{ h/\left( \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}%
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) ,\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}\} <\infty$ and%
\begin{equation}
\pi \left( h^{2}\right) \left \{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h}, {Q^{\ast}})\right \} =\pi \left(
\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\right) \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_\textsc{z}
\right) \widetilde{\pi}\left( h^{2}/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}%
^{2}\right) \left[ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left\{ h/\left( \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}%
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) ,\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}\right\} \right].
\label{eq:equalityIACTQ*}%
\end{equation}
Additionally, $\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) <\infty$ ensures that
$\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}$ is geometrically ergodic and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}) < \infty$.
\end{lemma}
The following theorem provides an expression for $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q^{\ast})$
which decouples the contributions of the parameter and the noise components. The proof exploits the relationships between $\textsc{\protect\small IF}%
(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})$ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}%
},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$, $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q^{\ast})$ and
$\textsc{\protect\small IF}\{h/\left( \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\varrho_{\textsc{z}%
}\right) ,\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}\}$ and the spectral representation (\ref{eq:spectral}) of $\textsc{\protect\small IF}\{h/\left( \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) ,\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}\}$. This spectral
representation admits a simple structure due to the product form
(\ref{eq:transitionkerneljumpchainQ*1}) of $\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Th:ineff boundedness theorem} Let $h\in L^{2}\left( \Theta ,\pi
\right) $.\ Assume that $Q_{\textsc{ex}}$, $Q^{\ast },\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}$, $\widetilde{Q}^{\ast }$ are
ergodic with $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q^{\ast })<\infty $.
Then,
$\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h},Q)\leq \textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q^{\ast })$ and%
\begin{multline}
\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left( h,Q^{\ast }\right)
=\frac{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho _{%
\textsc{z}}\right) }-1\\
+\frac{2\left\{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})\right\} }{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho _{\textsc{ex}},%
\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})}\left\{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho _{%
\textsc{z}}\right) -\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho _{\textsc{z}%
}\right) }\right\}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\phi _{n}(h/\varrho _{\textsc{%
{ex}}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) \phi _{n}(
1/\varrho _{\textsc{z}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}).\label{eq:mainequality}
\end{multline}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:exactproposal}
If $q\left( \theta ,\vartheta \right) =\pi \left( \vartheta \right)$, then
$\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})=\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho _{\textsc{{ex%
}}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})=1$ and $\phi _{n}( h/\varrho _{%
\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) =0$ for $n\geq 1$. It follows from Theorem \ref{Th:ineff boundedness theorem} that $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q^{\ast })=2\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho _{\textsc{z}}\right) -1$. This result was established in Lemma 4 of \cite{PittSilvaGiordaniKohn(12)}.
\end{remark}
Theorem \ref{Th:ineff boundedness theorem} requires $Q_{\textsc{ex}},Q^{\ast},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}$ and $\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}$ to
be ergodic. The following proposition, generalizing Theorem 2.2 of \cite{robertstweedie1996}, provides sufficient conditions ensuring this.
\begin{proposition}
\label{Proposition:Q*andQ*JHarrisergodic}Suppose $\pi \left( \theta \right) $
is bounded away from $0$ and $\infty$ on compact sets, and there exist
$\delta>0$ and $\varepsilon>0$ such that, for every $\theta$,
\begin{equation}
\left \vert \theta-\vartheta \right \vert \leq \delta \Rightarrow q\left(
\theta,\vartheta \right) \geq \varepsilon. \label{eq:assumptionproposaltheta}%
\end{equation}
Then $Q_{\textsc{ex}},Q^{\ast},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}$ and
$\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}$ are ergodic.
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Bounds on the relative inefficiency of the pseudo-marginal
chain\label{sec:pseudomarginalbounds}}
For any kernel $\Pi$, we define the relative inefficiency $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}%
(h,\Pi)=\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,\Pi)/\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})$, which measures the
inefficiency of $\Pi$ compared to that of $Q_{\textsc{ex}}$. This section provides tractable upper bounds for $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q)$.
From Lemma \ref{Lemma:Peskun}, $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q)\leq \mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}%
(h,Q^{\ast})$, but the expression of $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q^{\ast})$ that follows
from Theorem \ref{Th:ineff boundedness theorem} is intricate and depends on the autocorrelation sequence $\{ \phi_{n}(
h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})
\} _{n\geq1}$, as well as other terms.
The next corollary provides upper bounds on $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q)$ that depend
only on $\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h},Q_{\textsc{ex}})$. To simplify the notation, we write $\phi_{\textsc{z}}=\phi_{1}(1/\varrho
_{\textsc{z}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}})$.
\begin{corollary}
\label{corollary:boundsQex}Under the assumptions of Theorem
\ref{Th:ineff boundedness theorem},
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q)\leq{\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}}_{1}(h)$, where%
\begin{align}
\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}_{1}\left( h\right) & =\{1+1/\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h},Q_{\textsc{ex}}%
)\}[\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) +(1-\phi
_{\textsc{z}})\{ \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right)
-1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right)
\}]\label{eq:maininequalityloser}\\
& \quad-1/\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h},Q_{\textsc{ex}});\nonumber
\end{align}
\item if, in addition, $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde
{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\geq1$, then $\textsc{\protect\small RIF}(h,Q)\leq{\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}}}%
_{2}(h)\leq{\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}}_{1}(h)$, where
\begin{equation}
\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}_{2}\left( h\right) =\left \{ 1+1/\textsc{\protect\small IF} \left( {h}%
,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) \right \} \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho
_{\textsc{z}}\right) -1/\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h},Q_{\textsc{ex}}).
\label{eq:pos_jumpchain}%
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
Proposition \ref{prop:positivityMHjumpMH} gives sufficient conditions for the
condition $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\geq1$ of Part 2 of Corollary \ref{corollary:boundsQex} to hold.
\begin{remark}
The bounds above are tight in two cases. First, if $\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \to 1$, then
$\textsc{\protect\small RIF}({h},Q)$, ${\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}}_{1}(h)$, ${\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}}_{2}(h)\rightarrow1$. Second, if $q\left( \theta,\vartheta \right) =\pi \left( \vartheta
\right) $, then $\textsc{\protect\small RIF}({h},Q)=\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}_{2}(h)$.
\label{remark:IFZto1}
\end{remark}
We now provide upper bounds on $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q)$ and
lower bounds on $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q^{\ast})$ in terms of
$\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$.
\begin{corollary}
\label{corollary:boundsQexjump}Under the assumptions of Theorem
\ref{Th:ineff boundedness theorem},
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\textsc{\protect\small RIF}(h,Q)\leq{\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}}}_{3}(h)$, where
\begin{align}
\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}_{3}\left( h\right)
& =\left \{ 1+ \frac{1}{\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho
_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})}\right \}
\left[
\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}( \varrho_{\textsc{z}})} +\phi_{\textsc{z}}\left \{ \pi_{\textsc{z}}( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}) -\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}( \varrho_{\textsc{z}})} \right \} \right]
\label{eq:RIFh3}\\
& \quad+2\left \{ \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right)
-1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \right \} (1-\phi
_{\textsc{z}})/\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{{ex}}},\widetilde
{Q}_{\textsc{{ex}}})-1/\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{{ex}}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}});\nonumber
\end{align}
\item $\textsc{\protect\small RIF}(h,Q)\leq{\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}}}_{4}(h)$, where%
\begin{align}
\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}_{4}\left( h\right) & =\frac{\left \{ 1+1/\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}%
,\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\right \} }{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho
_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) }\left \{
\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) -1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \right \} \{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(1/\varrho
_{\textsc{z}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}})\} \label{eq:RIFh4}\\
& + 1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}%
}\right) +\frac{1}{\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{{ex}}},\widetilde{Q}%
_{\textsc{ex}})}\left \{ \frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho
_{\textsc{z}}\right) }-1\right \};\quad \nonumber
\end{align}
\item if $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}$ is positive, then $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q^{\ast})\geq{\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{1}(h)}$, where
\begin{equation}
\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{1}(h)
=\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }
+\frac{2}{1+\textsc{{\small IF}}
(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})}
\big\{ \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(1/ \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right)
-1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \big\};
\label{eq:newlowerboundonRIFQ*}%
\end{equation}
\item$\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q^{\ast})\geq{\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{2}}$, where
\begin{equation}
\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{2}=1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right)
,\label{eq:lowerboundonRIFQ*}%
\end{equation}
and $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q^{\ast}), {\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}}_4(h)\rightarrow{\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{2}}$ as $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho
_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\rightarrow \infty$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
Proposition \ref{prop:positivityMHjumpMH} gives sufficient conditions for $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}$ to be positive.
Section \ref{sec:optim} discusses these bounds in more detail.
\bigskip
\subsection{Optimizing the computing time under a Gaussian
assumption\label{sec:optim}}
This section provides quantitative guidelines on how to select the standard deviation $\sigma$ of the noise density, under the following assumption.
\begin{assumption}
\label{assumption:Gaussiannoise}The noise density is $g^{\sigma
}\left( z\right) ={\varphi}\left( z;-\sigma^{2}/2,\sigma^{2}\right) $, where
${\varphi}(z;a,b^{2})$ is a univariate normal density with mean $a$ and
variance $b^{2}$.
\end{assumption}
Assumption \ref{assumption:Gaussiannoise} ensures that $\int\exp\left(
z\right) g^{\sigma}\left( z\right) dz=1$ as required by the unbiasedness of
the likelihood estimator. Consider a time series $y_{1:T}=\left( y_{1}%
,\ldots,y_{T}\right) $, where the likelihood estimator $\widehat{p}%
(y_{1:T}\mid\theta)$ of $p(y_{1:T}\mid\theta)$ is computed through a particle
filter with $N$ particles. Theorem 1 of an unpublished technical report
(arXiv:1307.0181) by B\'{e}rard et al. shows that, under regularity
assumptions, the log-likelihood error is distributed according to a normal
density with mean $-\delta\gamma^{2}/2$ and variance $\delta\gamma^{2}$ as
$T\rightarrow\infty$, for $N=\delta^{-1}T$. Hence, in this important scenario,
the noise distribution satisfies approximately the form specified in
Assumption \ref{assumption:Gaussiannoise} for large $T$ and the variance is
asymptotically inversely proportional to the number of samples. This
assumption is also made in \cite{PittSilvaGiordaniKohn(12)}, where it is
justified experimentally. Section \ref{sect:applications} below provides
additional experimental results.
The next result is Lemma 4 in \cite{PittSilvaGiordaniKohn(12)} and follows
from Assumption \ref{assumption:Gaussiannoise}, equation (\ref{eq:targetinz})
and Remark \ref{remark:exactproposal}. We now make the dependence on $\sigma$
explicit in our notation.
\begin{corollary}
\label{corr:IF_Z_gauss}Under Assumption \ref{assumption:Gaussiannoise}, $\pi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma }(z)={\varphi }\left( z;\sigma ^{2}/2,\sigma ^{2}\right) $,
\begin{equation*}
\varrho _\textsc{z}^{\sigma }\left( z\right) =1-\Phi (z/\sigma
+\sigma /2)+\exp (-z)\Phi (z/\sigma -\sigma /2),\text{ \ }\pi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma
}\left( 1/\varrho_\textsc{z}^{\sigma }\right) =\int \frac{\varphi ( w;0,1) }{1-\overline{\varrho }_\textsc{z}^{\sigma }\left( w\right) }%
\mathrm{d}w,
\end{equation*}%
where $\overline{\varrho }_\textsc{z}^{\sigma }\left( w\right) =\Phi (w+\sigma )-\exp
(-w\sigma -\sigma ^{2}/2)\Phi (w)$ and $\Phi (\cdot )$ is the standard
Gaussian cumulative distribution function. Additionally, $\pi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma
}\left( \varrho _\textsc{{z}}^{\sigma }\right) =2\Phi (-\sigma
/\surd 2)$.
\end{corollary}
The terms $\pi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma}\left(1/ \varrho _\textsc{{z}}^{\sigma }\right) $, $\phi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma}$ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(1/\varrho _\textsc{{z}}^{\sigma },{\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{{z}}}})$, appearing in the bounds of Corollaries \ref{corollary:boundsQex} and
\ref{corollary:boundsQexjump}, do not admit analytic expressions, but can be computed numerically.
We note that $\pi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma}\left(1/ \varrho _\textsc{{z}}^{\sigma }\right)$ is finite, and thus by Lemma~\ref{Lemma:jumpchainQ*} $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(1/\varrho _\textsc{{z}}^{\sigma },{\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{{z}}}})$ is also finite.
Consequently, for specific
values of $\sigma,$ $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})$ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$, these bounds can be calculated.
We now use these bounds to guide the choice of $\sigma$.
The quantity we aim to minimize is the relative
computing time for $Q$ defined as $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}({h},Q;\sigma)=\textsc{\protect\small RIF}%
\left( h,Q;\sigma\right) /\sigma^{2}$ because $1/\sigma^{2}$ is usually
approximately proportional to the number of samples $N$ used to estimate the
likelihood and the computational cost at each iteration is typically
proportional to $N$, at least in the particle filter scenario described previously. We define $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}({h},Q^\ast;\sigma)$ similarly. As $\textsc{\protect\small RIF}\left( h,Q;\sigma\right)$ is intractable, we instead minimize the upper bounds ${\textsc{\protect\small uRCT}}_{i}(h;\sigma)=\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}%
_{i}\left( h;\sigma\right) /\sigma^{2}$, for $i=1,\dots,4$. We similarly define the quantities ${\textsc{\protect\small lRCT}_{1}}(h; \sigma)=\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{1}(h;\sigma)/\sigma^{2}$ and ${\textsc{\protect\small lRCT}_{2}}(\sigma)=\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{2}(\sigma)/\sigma^{2}$, which bound $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}({h},Q^{\ast
};\sigma)$ from below. Figure \ref{fig:theory} plots these bounds against $\sigma$ for
different values of $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})$ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}%
(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$.
Prior to discussing how these results guide the selection of $\sigma$, we outline some properties of the bounds. First, as the corresponding inefficiency increases, the upper bounds ${\textsc{\protect\small uRCT}}_{i}(h;\sigma)$ displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:theory} become flatter as functions of $\sigma$, and the corresponding minimizing argument $\sigma_\text{opt}$ increases. This flattening effect suggests less sensitivity to the choice of $\sigma$ for the pseudo-marginal algorithm.
Second, for given $\sigma$, all the upper bounds are decreasing functions of the corresponding inefficiency, which suggests that the penalty from using the pseudo-marginal algorithm drops as the exact algorithm becomes more inefficient.
Third, in the case discussed in Remark 2, where $q(\theta, \vartheta)= \pi( \vartheta)$, so that $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})=\textsc{\protect\small IF}
(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})=1$, we obtain ${\textsc{\protect\small uRCT}}_2(h;\sigma)={\textsc{\protect\small uRCT}}_3(h;\sigma)=\textsc{\protect\small RCT}({h},Q^\ast;\sigma)=\textsc{\protect\small RCT}({h},Q;\sigma)$.
Fourth, ${\textsc{\protect\small uRCT}}_4(h;\sigma)$ agrees with the lower bound ${\textsc{\protect\small lRCT}_2}(\sigma)$ as $\textsc{\protect\small IF}%
(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\to \infty$ as indicated by Part 2 of Corollary~\ref{corollary:boundsQexjump}. In this case, these two bounds, as well as $\textsc{\protect \small uRCT}_1(h;\sigma)$, are sharp for $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}({h},Q^\ast;\sigma)$.
Fifth, ${\textsc{\protect\small uRCT}}_2(h;\sigma)$ is sharper than ${\textsc{\protect\small uRCT}}_1(h;\sigma)$ for $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}({h},Q^\ast;\sigma)$, but requires a mild additional assumption.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\captionsetup{font=small}
\begin{center}
{\small Relative computing time against $\sigma$ for different inefficiencies of the exact chain.}
\begin{subfigure}{.4\textwidth}
\caption*{$\scriptstyle\textsc{uRCT}_1$}
\vskip-10pt
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./RCT_eff1.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.4\textwidth}
\caption*{$\scriptstyle\textsc{uRCT}_2$}
\vskip-10pt
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./RCT_eff2.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\end{center}
\vskip 5pt
\begin{center}
{\small Relative computing time against $\sigma$ for different inefficiencies of the exact jump chain.}
\begin{subfigure}{.4\textwidth}
\caption*{$\scriptstyle\textsc{uRCT}_3$}
\vskip-10pt
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./RCT_eff3.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.4\textwidth}
\caption*{$\scriptstyle\textsc{uRCT}_4$}
\vskip-10pt
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{./RCT_eff4.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{{Theoretical results for relative computing time against $\sigma$.
Top: The bounds ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{1}(h;\sigma)$
(left) and ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{2}(h;\sigma)$ (right)
are displayed. Different
values of $\textsc{{\protect \small IF}}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) $ are
taken as $1$ (squares), $4$ (crosses), $20$ (circles) and $80$ (triangles).
The solid line corresponds to the perfect proposal, as discussed in Remark 2.
Bottom: The lower bound ${\textsc{{\protect \small lRCT}}}_2(\sigma)$ (solid
line) is shown together with ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{3}(h;\sigma)$
(left) and ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{4}(h;\sigma)$ (right). Different
values of $\textsc{{\protect \small IF}}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde
{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$ are taken as $1$ (squares), $4$ (crosses), $20$ (circles)
and $80$ (triangles). }}%
\label{fig:theory}
\end{center}
\vskip-20pt
\end{figure}
As the likelihood is intractable, it is necessary to make a judgment on how to
choose $\sigma$, because $\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left(
h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) $ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{{ex}%
}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$ are unknown and cannot be easily
estimated. Consider two extreme scenarios. The first is the perfect
proposal $q\left( \theta,\vartheta\right) =\pi\left( \vartheta\right) $, so
that by Corollary~\ref{corr:IF_Z_gauss} and Remark~\ref{remark:exactproposal},
$\textsc{\protect\small RCT}\left( h,Q;\sigma\right) =\{2\pi_\textsc{z}^\sigma(1/\varrho_\textsc{z}^\sigma)-1\}/\sigma^2$, which we denote by $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}\left( h,Q_\pi;\sigma\right)$, is minimized at $\sigma_\text{opt}=0.92$. The second scenario
considers a very inefficient proposal corresponding to Part 4 of Corollary
\ref{corollary:boundsQexjump} so that $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}%
\left( h,Q^{\ast};\sigma\right) ={\textsc{\protect\small lRCT}}_2(\sigma)$, which is minimized at $\sigma_\text{opt}=1.68$.
If we choose $\sigma_\text{opt}=1.68$ over $\sigma_\text{opt}=0.92$ in scenario $1$, then
$\textsc{\protect\small RCT}\left( h,Q_\pi;\sigma\right)$ rises from $5.36$ to $12.73$. Conversely, if we choose
$\sigma_\text{opt}=$ $0.92$ over $\sigma_\text{opt}=1.68$ in scenario $2$, the relative
computing time $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}\left( h,Q^{\ast};\sigma\right) $ rises from
$1.51$ to $2.29$. This suggests that the penalty in choosing the wrong value is much more
severe if we incorrectly assume we are in scenario $2$ than if we incorrectly
assume we are in scenario $1$. This is because as $\textsc{\protect\small IF}( h/\varrho
_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$ increases, ${\textsc{\protect\small lRCT}}_2(\sigma)$ is very flat relative to $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}\left( h,Q_\pi;\sigma\right)$, as a function of $\sigma$.
In practice, choosing $\sigma_\text{opt}$ slightly greater than $1.0$ appears
sensible. For example, a value of $\sigma=1.2$ leads to an increase in
${\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}({h},Q_{\pi};\sigma)$ from the minimum value of $5.36$ to
$6.10$ and an increase in ${\textsc{\protect\small lRCT}}_2(\sigma)$ from the minimum value of
$1.51$ to $1.75$. In Appendix~2, we compute lower and upper bounds for the minimizing argument of ${\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}(h, Q^\ast; \sigma)$
for various values of $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{{ex}%
}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$.
Some caution should be exercised in interpreting these results as the lower bounds apply to ${\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}(h, Q^{\ast};\sigma)$, but not in general to ${\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}(h, Q;\sigma)$. Similarly, whilst $\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}_4(h;\sigma)$ and the lower bounds become exact for ${\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}(h, Q^{\ast};\sigma)$ as $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{{ex}%
}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\to\infty$, they only provide upper bounds for ${\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}(h, Q;\sigma)$.
However, in an important class of problems $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{{ex}%
}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$ is large, for instance when $q(\theta, \vartheta)$ is a random walk proposal with small step size. In this case, we expect that as the step size gets smaller the acceptance probability $\alpha_{\textsc{ex}}$ of $Q_{\textsc{ex}}$ will tend towards unity and hence asymptotically $\alpha_{Q^\ast}= \alpha_Q$. This suggests that, for small enough step size, ${\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}(h, Q^{\ast};\sigma)\approx{\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}(h, Q;\sigma)$.
The numerical results in this section are based on Assumption 2. However, the bounds on the relative inefficiences of $Q$ and $Q^{\ast}$ presented in Corollaries \ref{corollary:boundsQex} and \ref{corollary:boundsQexjump} can be calculated for any
other noise distribution $g\left( z\right) $, subject to $\int\exp\left(z\right) g\left( z\right) dz=1$. These bounds can in turn be used
to construct corresponding bounds on the relative computing times of $Q$ and $Q^{\ast}$, provided that an appropriate penalization term is employed to account
for the computational effort of obtaining the likelihood estimator.
\subsection{Discussion}
We now compare informally the bound $\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{2}(\sigma)=1/\{2\Phi
(-\sigma/\surd2)\}$ of Part 4 of Corollary~\ref{corollary:boundsQexjump} to the
results in \citet{Sherlock2013efficiency}. These authors make Assumption \ref{assumption:noiseorthogonal}, assume
that the target factorises into $d$ independent and identically distributed
components and that the proposal is an isotropic Gaussian random walk of jump
size $d^{-1/2}l$. In the Gaussian noise case, for $h\left( \theta\right)
=\theta_{1}$ where $\theta=\left( \theta_{1},...,\theta_{d}\right) $, their
results and a standard calculation with their diffusion limit, suggest that as $d\rightarrow\infty$ the
relative inefficiency satisfies
\begin{equation}
\frac{\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left( h,Q;\sigma,l\right) }{\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left(
h,Q_{\textsc{ex}};l\right) }=\textsc{\protect\small RIF}(h,Q;\sigma,l)\rightarrow
\textsc{\protect\small aRIF}(\sigma,l)=\frac{J_{\sigma^{2}=0}(l)}{J_{\sigma^{2}}(l)}%
=\frac{\Phi(-l/2)}{\Phi\left\{ -\left( 2\sigma^{2}+l^{2}\right)
^{1/2}/2\right\} }, \label{eq:RIF_gr}%
\end{equation}
where the expression for $J_{\sigma^{2}}(l)$ is given by equations (3.3) and
(3.4) of \citet{Sherlock2013efficiency}. We observe that $\textsc{\protect\small aRIF}(\sigma,l)$ converges to $\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{2}(\sigma)$ as
$l\rightarrow0$. This is unsurprising. As $d\rightarrow\infty$, we conjecture
that in this scenario the conditions of
Part 4 of Corollary~\ref{corollary:boundsQexjump} apply, in particular that $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(
h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})
\rightarrow\infty$ for any $l>0$. Therefore, in this case, $\textsc{\protect\small RIF}%
\left( h,Q^{\ast};\sigma,l\right) \rightarrow\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{2}(\sigma)$. As
$l\rightarrow0$, we have informally that $\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\left(
\theta\right) \rightarrow1$, so that it is reasonable to conjecture that
$\textsc{\protect\small RIF}\left( h,Q;\sigma,l\right) /\textsc{\protect\small RIF}\left( h,Q^{\ast
};\sigma,l\right) \rightarrow1$. If one of these limits holds uniformly, then
$\textsc{\protect\small aRIF}(\sigma,l)\rightarrow\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{2}(\sigma)$.
\section{Application\label{sect:applications}}
\subsection{Stochastic volatility model and pseudo-marginal algorithm}
This section examines a multivariate partially observed diffusion model, which
was introduced by \cite{ChernovGallantGhyselsTauchen(03)}, and discussed
in \cite{HuangTauchen(05)}. The regularly observed log price $P(t)$ evolves according to,%
\begin{align*}
&\mathrm{d\log}P(t) =\mu_{y}\mathrm{d}t+\text{s-}\exp\left[ \left\{
v_{1}(t)+\beta_{2}v_{2}(t)\right\} /2\right] \mathrm{d}B(t),\\
&\mathrm{d}v_{1}(t) =-k_{1}\left\{ v_{1}(t)-\mu_{1}\right\}
\mathrm{d}t+\sigma_{1}\mathrm{d}W_{1}(t), \text{ }\mathrm{d}v_{2}(t)=-k_{2}%
v_{2}(t)\mathrm{d}t+\left\{ 1+\beta_{12}v_{2}(t)\right\} \mathrm{d}W_{2}(t),
\end{align*}
and the leverage parameters corresponding to the correlations between the
driving Brownian motions are $\phi_{1}=$corr$\left\{ B(t),W_{1}%
(t)\right\} $ and $\phi_{2}=$corr$\left\{ B(t),W_{2}(t)\right\} $. The
function s-$\exp\left( \cdot\right) $ is a spliced exponential function to
ensure non-explosive growth, see \cite{HuangTauchen(05)}. The two components
for volatility allow for quite sudden changes in log price whilst retaining
long memory in volatility. We note that the Brownian motion of the price
process may be expressed as $\mathrm{d}B(t)=a_{1}\mathrm{d}W_{1}(t)%
+a_{2}\mathrm{d}W_{2}(t)+\surd b\mathrm{d}\overline{B}(t)$, where $a_{1}=\phi
_{1}(1-\phi_{2}^{2})/(1-\phi_{1}^{2}\phi_{2}^{2})$, $a_{2}=\phi_{2}(1-\phi
_{1}^{2})/(1-\phi_{1}^{2}\phi_{2}^{2})$ and $b=(1-\phi_{1}^{2})(1-\phi_{2}%
^{2})/(1-\phi_{1}^{2}\phi_{2}^{2})$. Here $\overline{B}(t)$ is an independent
Brownian motion. Suppose the log prices are observed at equally spaced times
$\tau_{1}<\tau_{2}<$ $\tau_{2}<\ldots<\tau_{T}<\tau_{T+1}$ and $\Delta
=\tau_{s+1}-\tau_{s}$ for any $s$ which gives returns $Y_{s}=\log P(\tau_{s+1})-\log P(\tau_{s})$, for
$s=1,\ldots,T$. The distribution of these returns conditional upon the
volatility paths and the driving processes $W_{1}(t)$ and $W_{2}(t)$ is available in closed form as
$Y_{s}\sim\mathcal{N}\left( \mu_{y}\Delta+a_{1}Z_{1,s}+a_{2}Z_{2,s}%
;b\sigma_{s}^{2\ast}\right),$ where%
\begin{equation}
Z_{1,s}=\int_{\tau_{s}}^{\tau_{s+1}}\sigma(u)\mathrm{d}W_{1}(u)\text{,
}Z_{2,s}=\int_{\tau_{s}}^{\tau_{s+1}}\sigma(u)\mathrm{d}W_{2}(u),\text{
}\sigma_{s}^{2\ast}=\int_{\tau_{s}}^{\tau_{s+1}}\sigma^{2}(u)du,
\label{exact_intvol}%
\end{equation}
and $\sigma(t)=$s-$\exp\left[ \left\{ v_{1}(t)+\beta_{2}v_{2}(t)\right\}
/2\right] $. An Euler scheme is used to approximate the evolution of the
volatilities $v_{1}(t)$ and $v_{2}(t)$ by placing a number, $M-1$, of latent points between $\tau_{s}$ and $\tau_{s+1}$. The volatility components are
denoted by $v_{1,1}^{s},...,v_{1,M-1}^{s}$ and $v_{2,1}^{s},...,v_{2,M-1}^{s}%
$. For notational convenience, the start and end points are set to $v_{1,0}%
^{s}=v_{1}(\tau_{s})$ and $v_{1,M}^{s}=v_{1}(\tau_{s+1}),$ and similarly for
$v_{2}(t)$. These latent points are evenly spaced in time by $\delta=\Delta
/M$. The equation for the Euler evolution, starting at $v_{1,0}^{s}%
=v_{1,M}^{s-1}$ and $v_{2,0}^{s}=v_{2,M}^{s-1}$, is
\begin{align*}
v_{1,m+1}^{s} & =v_{1,m}^{s}-k_{1}(v_{1,m}^{s}-\mu_{1})\delta+\sigma
_{1}\surd\delta u_{1,m},\\
v_{2,m+1}^{s} & =v_{2,m}^{s}-k_{2}v_{2,m}^{s}\delta+\left( 1+\beta
_{12}v_{2,m}^{s}\right) \surd{\delta}u_{2,m},\text{ }m=0,\ldots,M-1,
\end{align*}
where $u_{1,m}\sim\mathcal{N}\left( 0,1\right) $ and $u_{2,m}\sim
\mathcal{N}\left( 0,1\right) $. Conditional upon these trajectories and the
innovations, the distribution of the returns has a closed form so that
$Y_{s}\sim\mathcal{N}\left( \mu_{y}\Delta+a_{1}\widehat{Z}_{1,s}%
+a_{2}\widehat{Z}_{2,s};b\widehat{\sigma}_{s}^{2\ast}\right) ,$ where
$\widehat{Z}_{1,s}$, $\widehat{Z}_{2,s}$ and $\widehat{\sigma}_{s}^{2\ast}$
are the Euler approximations to the corresponding expression in
(\ref{exact_intvol}).
We consider $T$ daily returns, $y=\left( y_{1},...,y_{T}\right) $, from the
S\&P 500 index. Bayesian inference is performed on the $9$-dimensional
parameter vector $\theta=(k_{1},\mu_{1},\sigma_{1},k_{2},\beta_{12},\beta
_{2},\mu_{y},\phi_{1},\phi_{2})$ to which we assign a vague prior. We simulate from the posterior density $\pi(\theta)$ using
the pseudo-marginal algorithm where the likelihood
is estimated using the bootstrap particle filter with $N$ particles. A
multivariate Student-t random walk proposal on the parameter components transformed to
the real line is used.
\subsection{Empirical results for the error of the log-likelihood estimator\label{sec:estimator_perf}}
This section investigates empirically Assumptions 1 and 2 by examining
the behaviour of $Z=\log\widehat{p}_{N}(y\mid\theta)-\log p(y\mid\theta)$ for $T=40$, 300 and 2700. Corresponding
values of $N$ are selected in each case to ensure
that the variance of $Z$ evaluated at the posterior mean $\overline{\theta}$
is approximately unity. We
use $\delta=0.5$ in the Euler scheme.
The three plots on the left of Fig.~\ref{fig:2fact_hist} display the
histograms corresponding to the density of $Z$
for $\theta=\overline{\theta}$ denoted $g_{N}(z\mid\overline{\theta})$, which is obtained by running $S=6000$ particle
filters at this value. As $p(y\mid\overline{\theta})$ is
unknown, it is estimated by averaging these estimates. The Metropolis--Hastings algorithm is then used to
obtain the histograms corresponding to $\pi_{N}(z\mid\overline{\theta}%
)=\exp\left( z\right) g_{N}(z\mid\overline{\theta})$. We overlay on each
histogram a kernel density estimate together with the corresponding assumed density, $g_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma
}\left( z\right) $ or $\pi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma}\left( z\right) $, where $\sigma^{2}$ is the sample variance of $Z$ over the $S$ particle
filters. For $T=40$, there is a discrepancy between the assumed Gaussian densities and the true
histograms representing $g_{N}(z\mid\overline{\theta})$ and $\pi_{N}%
(z\mid\overline{\theta})$. In particular, whilst $g_{N}(z\mid\overline{\theta
})$ is well approximated over most of its support, it is slightly lighter
tailed than the assumed Gaussian in the right tail and much heavier tailed in
the left tail. This translates into a smaller discrepancy between $g_{N}%
(z\mid\theta)$ and $\pi_{N}(z\mid\theta)$ and a higher acceptance rate for the
pseudo-marginal algorithm than the Gaussian assumption suggests. For $T=300$ and $T=2700$, the assumed Gaussian densities are
very accurate.
We also examine $Z$ when $\theta$ is distributed according to $\pi(\theta)$. We record $200$ samples from $\pi
(\theta)$, for $T=40$, 300 and 2700. For each of these samples, we run the particle filter $300$ times in order to estimate the
true likelihood at these values. The resulting histograms, corresponding to the densities ${\textstyle\int}\pi\left( \mathrm{d}\theta\right) g_{N}(z\mid\theta)$ and ${\textstyle\int}\pi\left( \mathrm{d}\theta\right) \pi_{N}(z\mid\theta)$, are displayed in the middle column of
Fig.~\ref{fig:2fact_hist}. We similarly examine the density of $Z$
when $\theta$ is distributed according to the marginal proposal density in the
stationary regime ${\textstyle\int}\pi\left( \mathrm{d}\vartheta\right) q\left( \vartheta,\theta\right) $.
Here $q\left( \vartheta,\theta\right) $ is a multivariate
Student-t random walk proposal, with step size proportional to $T^{-1/2}$. The right hand column of Fig.~\ref{fig:2fact_hist} shows the
resulting histograms. In both scenarios, Assumptions 1 and 2 are problematic
for $T=40$ as $g_{N}(z\mid\overline{\theta})$ is
not close to being Gaussian as $T\ $is too small for the central limit theorem
to provide a good approximation. Moreover, since $T$ is small, $\pi(\theta)$ and ${\textstyle\int}\pi\left( \mathrm{d}\vartheta\right) q\left( \vartheta,\theta\right) $ are
relatively diffuse. Consequently, $g_{N}(z\mid\overline{\theta})$ is not close
to $g_{N}(z\mid\theta)$ marginalized over $\pi(\theta)$ or ${\textstyle\int}\pi\left( \mathrm{d}\vartheta\right) q\left( \vartheta,\theta\right) $.
For $T=300$ and $T=2700$, the assumed densities
$g_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma}\left( z\right) $ and $\pi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma
}\left( z\right) $ are close to the corresponding histograms and
Assumptions 1 and 2 appear to capture reasonably well the salient features of the densities associated with $Z$. In particular,
the approximation suggested by the central limit theorem becomes very good.
Additionally, $\pi(\theta)$ and ${\textstyle\int}\pi\left( \mathrm{d}\vartheta\right) q\left( \vartheta,\theta\right) $ are
sufficiently concentrated to ensure that the variance of $Z$ as a function of $\theta$ exhibits little variability.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\captionsetup{font=small}
\includegraphics[height=2.4in, width=\textwidth]{./histograms_PFHGmodel.eps}\caption{{Huang and
Tauchen two factor model for S\&P 500 data. Top to bottom: }${T=40,}$ $N=4$
(top), $T=300,$ $N=80$ (middle), $T=2700,$ $N=700$ (bottom). Left to right:
histograms and theoretical densities associated with $g_{N}(z\mid \theta)$ and
$\pi_{N}(z\mid \theta)$ evaluated at the posterior mean $\overline{\theta}$
(left), over values from the posterior $\pi(\theta)$ (middle) and over values
from $\int\pi(\mathrm{d}\vartheta) q(\vartheta,\theta)$ (right). The densities $g_\textsc{z}^\sigma(z)$ and $\pi_\textsc{z}^\sigma(z)$ are overlaid (solid lines).}
\label{fig:2fact_hist}%
\vskip-10pt
\end{figure}
\subsection{Empirical results for the pseudo-marginal algorithm}
We apply the pseudo-marginal algorithm with $\delta=0.05$, $T=300$ and various values of $N$. The standard deviation $\sigma\left( \overline{\theta};N\right)$ of $\log\widehat{p}_{N}(y\mid\overline{\theta})$ is evaluated by Monte Carlo simulations, where $\overline{\theta}$ is the posterior mean. For each value of $N$, we compute the inefficiencies, denoted by $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small IF}}$, and the corresponding approximate relative computing times, denoted by $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}$, of all parameter components. The quantity $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}$ is computed as $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small IF}}/{\sigma^{2}\left( \overline{\theta};N\right)}$ divided by the inefficiency of $Q$ when $N=2000$, the latter being an approximation of the inefficiency of $Q_{\textsc{ex}}$. The results are very similar for all parameter components and so, for ease of presentation, Fig.~\ref{fig:theory2} shows the average quantities over the $9$ components. For most parameters, the optimal value for $\sigma\left( \overline{\theta};N\right)$ is between $1.2$ and $1.5$, corresponding to $N=40$ and $60$. The results agree with the bound ${\textsc{\protect\small uRCT}}_4(h;\sigma)$ in Section 3.5. This can be partly explained because the inefficiencies associated with $\widetilde{Q}$ for $N=2000$ are large, suggesting that the inefficiencies associated with $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}$ are large.
As all the bounds in the paper are based on $Q^{\ast}$, it is useful to assess the discrepancy between $Q$ and $Q^{\ast}$.
One approach to explore this discrepancy is to examine the
marginal acceptance probability $\overline{\pi}(\varrho_{\text{{\tiny Q}}})$
under $Q$ against $\sigma=\sigma(\overline{\theta},N)$ as $N$ varies. Using
the acceptance criterion (\ref{eq:acceptanceprobabilityQ*}) of $Q^{\ast}$, we
obtain under Assumptions \ref{assumption:noiseorthogonal} and
\ref{assumption:Gaussiannoise} that $\overline{\pi}(\varrho_{\textsc{{q}}})\geq2\Phi(-\sigma/\surd2)\pi(\varrho_{\textsc{ex}})$.
If $Q$ and $Q^{\ast}$ are close in the
sense of having similar marginal acceptance probabilities, then we expect
$\overline{\pi}(\varrho_{\text{{\tiny Q}}})$ to have a similar shape as its
lower bound where $\pi(\varrho_{\textsc{ex}})$ is approximated using $\overline{\pi}(\varrho_{\text{{\tiny Q}}})$ with $N=2000$. For this model, the two functions on either side of the inequality, displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:theory2}, are similar.
\begin{figure}[ptb]
\captionsetup{font=small}
\begin{center}
\begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth}
\caption*{Log of average $\textsc{if}$ against $\sigma$}
\vskip-10pt
\includegraphics[height=3cm,width=1\linewidth]{./HG_IFnew1.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth}
\caption*{Average $\textsc{rct}$ against $\sigma$}
\vskip-10pt
\includegraphics[height=3cm,width=1\linewidth]{./HG_IFnew2.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.32\textwidth}
\caption*{Acceptance Probability against $\sigma$}
\vskip-10pt
\includegraphics[height=3cm,width=1\linewidth]{./HG_IFnew5.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\end{center}
\caption{{ Huang and Tauchen two factor model for S\&P 500 data, $T=300$.
Inefficiencies (\textsc{if}) and Relative Computing Times (\textsc{rct}) against $\sigma$, where $\textsc{if}$ is computed by averaging over the 9 parameter components. Right panel: The marginal acceptance probability $\overline{\pi
}(\varrho_{\text{{\protect \tiny Q}}})$ (crosses) against $\sigma$ together with
the lower bound (squares) $2\Phi(-\sigma/\surd2)\pi(\varrho_{\textsc{{ex}}})$.}}%
\label{fig:theory2}%
\end{figure}%
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank the editor, the associate editor and the reviewers for
their comments which helped to improve the paper significantly. Arnaud Doucet
was partially supported by EPSRC\ and Robert Kohn was partially supported by an ARC Discovery grant.
|
\section{Introduction \label{s:intro}}
Experiments on neutrino oscillations~\cite{2010er,2011zk,2012eh,2012reno}
indicate that neutrinos have mass
and their masses are much smaller than those of the charged leptons.
However, the origin of neutrino mass is still unknown.
An interesting possibility
is provided by the seesaw mechanism,
in which a small Majorana mass can be generated for each of the known neutrinos
by introducing massive
states with Yukawa
couplings to leptons and to the Higgs field.
Seesaw models called type I~\cite{typeI_,1979ia},
type II~\cite{typeII_,1980gr,1981bx,1980nt,1980qt}, and
type III~\cite{typeIII_,typeIIIma} introduce
heavy states of mass $M$, that involve, respectively,
weak-isospin singlets, scalar
triplets, and fermion triplets.
The neutrino masses are generically reduced relative
to charged fermion masses
by a factor $v/M$,
where
$v$ is the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field.
For sufficiently large
$M$ (of the order of $10^{14}$\GeV), small neutrino masses
are generated even for Yukawa couplings of ${\approx}1$.
On the other hand,
either smaller Yukawa
couplings or
extended seesaw mechanisms, such as those of the inverse seesaw models~\cite{delaguila2}, are required
to obtain small neutrino masses while keeping
$M$ close to a few hundreds of \GeV.
At the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), type II and III
states can be produced through gauge
interactions, so that the possible smallness of the Yukawa couplings does not affect
the production cross section of the heavy states.
In particular, the possibility of discovering a type III fermion at a proton-proton
centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=14$\TeV is discussed in
Refs.~\cite{delaguila_,franceschini_,bajc}. Recently, a leading-order (LO) computation
of the signal expected at $\sqrt{s}=7$\TeV has become available as a computer program
for simulating such final states~\cite{carflo_}.
Given the
electric charges of the lepton triplet,
hereafter referred to as $\Sigma^+$, $\Sigma^0$, and $\Sigma^-$, the most promising
signature for finding a $\Sigma$ state with a mass $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace$
of the order of a few hundreds of\GeV is in production through
quark-antiquark annihilation
$\cPq \cPaq^\prime \to \Sigma^0 \Sigma^+$, followed by the decays
$ \Sigma^0 \to \ell^{\mp}\PW^{\pm} $
and $ \Sigma^+ \to \PWp \nu$.
The mass differences among the three electric charge states are assumed to be negligible.
The mass range relevant for this analysis is bounded by the present lower limits
(${\approx}100$\GeV) from the L3 experiment~\cite{L3} and by the CMS loss of sensitivity near ${\approx}200$\GeV
because of the very steep decrease of the expected cross section
with mass.
Since there are twice as many u as d valence quarks
in the proton, the production of $\Sigma^+$ $\Sigma^0$ via virtual $\PW^+$ bosons in the $s$-channel (Fig. \ref{f:Fey})
has the highest cross section of all the $\Sigma$ charge combinations.
(The cross section for the charge conjugate intermediary $\PW^-$ is expected to be about a factor two smaller.)
Selecting $\PW^{\pm}\to \ell^{\pm} \nu$ decays
(where $\ell$ is an electron or muon) as the final states for the search, offers a very clean
signature of three charged, isolated leptons.
The decay $ \Sigma^+ \to \ell^+$Z, with
Z$\to\cPgn\cPagn$ or Z$\to \cPq \cPaq$,
can also contribute significantly to the three-lepton final state,
especially since its relative yield grows with $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace$.
The $\tau$ lepton also contributes to the three-lepton final states through $\tau \to \ell \nu_{\ell} \nu_{\tau}$ decays.
Details of the phenomenology
and the different contributions to the final state of interest can be found in Ref.~\cite{carflo_}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidth]{Figure1.pdf}
\caption{Feynman diagram for the dominant contribution to three-charged-leptons final states in pair production of
$\Sigma$ in the type III seesaw models.
The production cross section for the charged-conjugate intermediary $\PW^-$ is expected to be about a factor of two smaller.
}
\label{f:Fey}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The total width of the $\Sigma$ states and their decay branching fractions
to SM leptons depend
on the mixing matrix element for the
leptons
$V_{\alpha}$, where $\alpha$ labels
each of the $\Pe$, $\mu$, and $\tau$
generations of leptons.
Constraints on the mixing parameters and their products are
available in Refs.~\cite{2007ux,carflo_}.
The $\Sigma \Sigma$ production cross section
does not depend on the matrix elements $V_\alpha$, which enter only in the $\Sigma$ decays.
The fraction of $\Sigma$ decays to the lepton $\alpha$ is proportional to:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:br}
b_{\alpha} = \frac{|V_{\alpha}|^2}{|V_{\Pe}|^2+|V_{\mu}|^2+|V_{\tau}|^2}.
\end{equation}
If all three $V_{\alpha}$ values are less than ${\approx}10^{-6}$, the $\Sigma$ states
can have sufficiently long lifetimes to produce leptons
at secondary vertices,
a possibility not considered in this analysis.
This Letter reports on a search for fermionic triplet states expected in type III seesaw models, in
final states with three charged leptons and
an imbalance in transverse momentum ($\MET$).
The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 4.9\fbinv, collected in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$\TeV with the Compact Muon Solenoid
(CMS) detector at the LHC in 2011. The analysis is based on the model described in Ref.~\cite{delaguila_}, using the implementation of Ref.~\cite{carflo_}.
Three possibilities are considered for the ratios $b_{\alpha}$, defined in Eq.(\ref{eq:br}): first, $b_{\Pe}=b_{\mu}=b_{\tau}=1/3$,
hereafter referred to as the flavor-democratic scenario (FDS), second, $b_{\Pe} = 0$, $b_{\mu}= 1$,
$b_{\tau}=0$, and third, $b_{\Pe}=1$
and $b_{\mu}=b_{\tau}=0$, hereafter referred to as the muon scenario ($\mu\text{S}$) and the electron scenario (eS), respectively.
\section{The CMS detector \label{s:detsim} }
A detailed description of the CMS detector can be found in Ref.~\cite{cmstdr}.
The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting
solenoid that provides an axial magnetic field of 3.8\unit{T}.
A silicon tracker, a lead-tungstate crystal electromagnetic
calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass/scintillator hadron calorimeter (HCAL) reside within the magnetic field volume.
Muons are
identified using the central tracker and a muon system consisting of gas-ionization detectors embedded in the
steel return yoke outside of the solenoid.
The directions of particles in
the CMS detector are described using the azimuthal angle $\phi$ and the
pseudorapidity $\eta$, defined as $\eta = -\ln[\tan(\theta/2)]$,
where $\theta$ is the polar angle relative to the anticlockwise proton beam.
All objects are reconstructed using a particle-flow (PF)
algorithm~\cite{PFT-09-001,PFT-10-001,PFT-10-002}. The PF algorithm
combines information from all subdetectors to identify and reconstruct particles
detected in the collision, namely charged hadrons, photons, neutral hadrons, muons, and electrons.
Jets are reconstructed using the anti-\kt jet clustering algorithm with a distance parameter
of 0.5~\cite{anti-kT}.
Jet energies are
corrected
for non-uniformity in calorimeter
response and for differences found between
jets in simulation and in data~\cite{2011ds}.
An imbalance in transverse momentum ($\MET$)
is defined by the magnitude
of the vectorial sum of the transverse momenta ($\pt$) of all particles reconstructed through the PF algorithm.
\section{ Simulation of signal and background \label{s:sim} }
To estimate signal efficiency, $\Sigma^{+}\Sigma^{0}$ events are generated using the \textsc{FeynRules} and \MADGRAPH computer programs described in
Ref.~\cite{carflo_}, while parton showers and hadronization are implemented using the \PYTHIA generator (v6.420)~\cite{PYTHIA} .
The detector simulation is based on the \GEANTfour program~\cite{GEANT4}.
Given the
number of $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace$ mass points to be generated, part of the detector
simulation is performed using the CMS Fast Simulation framework~\cite{fast1,fast2}.
Several background sources are considered in this analysis,
the most relevant one being
$\PW$Z production with both bosons decaying into leptons.
A smaller contribution to the background comes from ZZ production, where the Z bosons decay leptonically,
and one of the leptons is either outside of the detector acceptance or
is misreconstructed.
These two-boson events, calculated at next-to-LO with MCFM~\cite{2010ff}, are generated
with \PYTHIA.
Backgrounds from the production of three EW bosons are generated with \MADGRAPH5~\cite{Madgraph}.
Backgrounds
from jets and photons that are
misidentified as
leptons are also taken into account,
including events from Drell--Yan $\ell^{+} \ell^{-}$+jets sources ~\cite{PDG_},
$\PW$+jets, Z+jets,
$\ttbar$, and Drell--Yan $\ell^{+} \ell^{-}$+$\gamma$ conversions to $\ell^{+} \ell^{-}$.
(The Drell--Yan process consists of $\cPq\cPaq \to \gamma^*/\rm{Z} \to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$ production, with $\gamma^*$ and $\cPZ$ intermediaries representing virtual $\gamma$ or Z bosons.)
The presence of additional simultaneous pp interactions (pileup) is incorporated by simulating and mixing additional interactions
with a multiplicity matching that observed in data.
\section{ Event selection criteria \label{s:datasets} }
The online trigger and the offline selection criteria are analogous to those used in other multi-lepton analyses performed by the CMS Collaboration~\cite{sus13,exo11041}.
Events are selected through two-lepton triggers in which two muons, two electrons,
or one electron and one muon are required to be present. Because of the steady increase in
instantaneous luminosity in 2011, some of the lepton $\pt$ thresholds were increased over time
to keep the trigger rates within the capabilities of the data acquisition system.
For the two-muon trigger, the $\pt$ requirements evolved from 7\GeV for each muon to asymmetric
requirements of 17\GeV for the highest-$\pt$ (leading) muon and 8\GeV for the second-highest $\pt$
muon. For the two-electron trigger, the requirement is asymmetric, with a threshold applied
to the energy of an ECAL cluster projected onto the plane transverse to the
beam line
($\et=E \sin \theta$). The cluster of the leading electron is required to have $\et> 17$\GeV, and that of the next-to-leading
electron to have $\et > 8$\GeV. For the electron-muon trigger, the thresholds are either $\et> 17$\GeV for
the electron and $\pt>8$\GeV for the muon, or $\et > 8$\GeV for the electron and $\pt > 17$\GeV for
the muon.
The selected events must contain
at least two lepton candidates
with trajectories that have a transverse impact parameter of less than 0.2\unit{mm} relative to the principal interaction vertex.
The chosen vertex is defined as the one with the largest value for the sum of the $\pt^{2}$ of the emanating tracks.
Muon candidates are reconstructed from a fit performed to hits in both
the silicon tracker and the outer muon detectors, thereby defining a "global muon".
The specific selection
requirements for a muon are:
(i) $\pt>$ 10\GeV,
(ii) $|\eta| < 2.4$,
(iii) more than 10 hits in the silicon tracker, and
(iv) a global-muon fit with $\chi^2 /\text{dof}<10 $, where $\text{dof}$ is the number of degrees of freedom.
Electron candidates are reconstructed using clusters of energy
depositions in the ECAL that match the extrapolation of a reconstructed track.
The electron track is fitted using a Gaussian-sum filter ~\cite{gsf},
with the algorithm taking into account the emission of bremsstrahlung photons in the silicon tracker.
The specific requirements for a reconstructed electron are:
(i) $\pt>10\GeV$,
(ii) $|\eta| < 1.44$,
within the fully instrumented part of the central barrel, or $1.57 < |\eta| < 2.5$ for the endcap regions,
(iii) not being a candidate for photon conversion, and
(iv) the tracks reconstructed using three independent algorithms~\cite{PFT-10-001} to give the same sign for the electric charge.
All accepted lepton candidates are required to be isolated from
other particles. In particular, selected muons must have $(\sum \pt)/\pt^{\mu}<0.15$,
where the sum over scalar $\pt$ includes all other PF objects
within a cone of radius $\Delta R = \sqrt{(\Delta\eta)^2 +(\Delta\phi)^2}=0.3$
of the muon track,
where $\Delta\eta$ and $\Delta\phi$ are the differences in
pseudorapidity and azimuthal angle between the lepton axis and
the positions of other particles.
Similarly, an electron
candidate
is accepted if $(\sum \pt)/\pt^{\Pe}<0.20$ within a cone of $\Delta R=0.3$.
The candidate events used for the search are required to have:
(i) three isolated charged leptons originating from the same primary vertex, as defined above,
(ii) sum of the lepton charges equal to $+1$,
(iii) $\MET>30$\GeV,
(iv) $\pt > 18, 15, 10$\GeV for the lepton of highest, next-to-highest, and lowest $\pt$, and
(v) $H_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 100\GeV,
where $H_{\mathrm{T}}$
is the scalar sum of the transverse momenta of jets with $\pt > 30\GeV$ and $|\eta| < 2.4$, which reduces the background from $\ttbar$ events.
The selected events
are classified into six
categories that depend on lepton flavour and electric charge:
$\Pgmm \Pep \Pep $, $\Pgmm \Pep \Pgmp $,
$\Pgmm \Pgmp \Pgmp$, $\Pem\Pgmp\Pgmp$, $\Pem\Pep\Pgmp$,
and $\Pem\Pep\Pep$.
Except for the first and fourth categories, such configurations can also result from $\PWp$Z events.
Figure~\ref{f:Mmumu} shows the distributions of the $\Pgmm\Pgmp$ invariant mass for $\Pgmm \Pep \Pgmp $ and
$\Pgmm \Pgmp \Pgmp$ events in data, before applying any requirement on the $\Pgmm \Pgmp $ mass, compared to the sum of SM background contributions.
A peak in the $\Pgmp \Pgmm$ effective mass close to that of the Z boson is evident in both
simulated events and in data. To reduce the background from $\PWp$Z events, a Z veto
is added to the selection requirements for the corresponding categories as follows.
Events with at least one $\ell^+\ell^-$ mass combination
in the range $82<m_{\ell^+\ell^-}<102$\GeV are rejected.
To reject lepton pairs from decays of heavy-flavour quarks, events with
$m_{\ell^+\ell^-} < 12$\GeV are also discarded.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure2_a_color.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure2_b_color.pdf}
\caption{Distributions of the $\Pgmm\Pgmp$ invariant mass for (a) $\Pgmm \Pep \Pgmp $ and (b)
$\Pgmm \Pgmp \Pgmp$ events in data (black points), before applying any requirement on the $\Pgmm \Pgmp $ mass to reject Z bosons, compared to the sum of all major SM background contributions.
}
\label{f:Mmumu}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Other sources of background in final states with three leptons
arise from conversions of
photons into additional $\ell^{+} \ell^{-}$ pairs through the process
$Z \rightarrow \ell^+\ell^- \gamma \rightarrow \ell^+\ell^-\ell^{'+}\ell^{'-}$.
If one of these additional leptons carries most of the momentum of the photon,
the final state can appear as a three-lepton event.
In such cases, the invariant mass of the $\ell^+\ell^-\ell^{'}$ state peaks close
to the mass of the Z boson~\cite{sus13}.
Since the probability of a
photon conversion to electrons is higher than to muons, an additional Z veto of
$82<m_{\ell^+\ell^-\Pep}<102$\GeV
is applied to the
$\Pgmm \Pep \Pgmp $
and $\Pem\Pep\Pep$ categories to reject such events.
This is discussed further in the next section.
\section{Background estimation \label{s:background}}
Three types of SM processes can produce a three-lepton final
state:
(i) events containing three or more prompt leptons from production and leptonic decays of two or three EW bosons.
This is referred to as irreducible background, since it corresponds to the same final states as the signal
from $\Sigma$ production,
(ii) V$+\gamma$ and V$+\gamma^{*}$ events, where V represents any EW boson, with the accompanying photons converting to $\ell^{+} \ell^{-}$, and
(iii) events with one or two prompt leptons and additional non-prompt
leptons that arise from leptonic decays of hadrons within jets, called "misidentified jets".
The irreducible background from more than two leptons is dominated
by SM WZ production, but also includes ZZ and three-boson events.
The two-boson contribution, which is reduced substantially by the Z mass veto, and the three-boson contribution, which is dominated
by the WWW channel, are both evaluated using MC simulation.
The contribution from three-boson production is small relative to the other sources, as shown in Table~\ref{tab:bckg}.
\begin{table*}[htb]
\begin{center}
\topcaption[bckg]{Summary of the mean
number of SM background events expected in each event category, after final selections.
V represents a Z or a W bosons and
V$\gamma$ is the contribution from external photon conversions.
The column labelled "Misidentified jets" includes backgrounds with non-prompt leptons,
the column $\gamma^*\to \Pgmp \Pgmm$ shows background expectation from internal photon conversions, where a virtual photon converts to a muon pair,
and one muon is lost.
The contribution of $\gamma^*\to \Pep \Pem$ is removed by the rejection criteria on
three-lepton masses.
Statistical uncertainties are included for the six categories, and
systematic uncertainties on normalizations are listed in the last row.
}
\label{tab:bckg}
\begin{tabular}{l|c c c c c c}
\hline
& VV & VVV & V$\gamma$ & Misidentified jets &$\gamma^*\to \Pgmp \Pgmm$\\
\hline
$\Pgmm \Pep \Pep $ & 0.3$\pm$0.1 & 0.09$\pm$0.01 & - & 0.4$\pm$ 0.4 & - \\
$\Pgmm \Pep \Pgmp $ & 4.0$\pm$0.3 & 0.19$\pm$0.01 & - & 3.1$\pm$1.2 &- \\
$\Pgmm \Pgmp \Pgmp$ & 4.9$\pm$0.3 & 0.11$\pm$0.01 & - & 5.7$\pm$1.9 &0.7$\pm$ 0.2 \\
$\Pem\Pgmp\Pgmp$ & 0.3$\pm$0.1 & 0.09$\pm$0.01 & - & 0.8$\pm$0.5 & - \\
$\Pem\Pep\Pgmp$ & 4.9$\pm$0.3 &0.21$\pm$0.02 & - & 3.0$\pm$1.2 &0.4$\pm$ 0.1 \\
$\Pem\Pep\Pep$& 2.5$\pm$0.2 & 0.06$\pm$0.01 & 1.4$\pm$1.0 & 1.1$\pm$0.6 & - \\
\hline
\footnotesize{Normalization} & & & & & \\
\footnotesize{uncertainties} & 17\% (WZ) 7.5\% (ZZ) & 50\% & 13\% & 50\% & 50\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
As mentioned in Section~\ref{s:datasets}, photon conversions in the presence of W or Z bosons can produce
isolated leptons that constitute another source of background.
External conversions of photons, namely of produced photons that interact with the material in the
detector to yield primarily $\Pep\Pem$ pairs, are evaluated from simulation (V$\gamma$ in Table~\ref{tab:bckg}).
Internal conversions,
involving the direct materialisation of virtual photons into
$\Pgmp\Pgmm$ or $\Pep\Pem$ pairs, can also provide
a similar source of background. Both external and internal conversions can become problematic
when one of the two
final-state leptons carries off most of the photon energy, and the second lepton is not detected.
The contribution of conversions to electrons is reduced by the additional
three-lepton-mass
rejection applied to the
$\Pgmm \Pep \Pgmp $ and $\Pem\Pep\Pep$ categories as discussed above.
The contribution from internal photon conversions to muons $\gamma^*\to \Pgmp \Pgmm$ is evaluated
according to the method described in Ref.~\cite{sus13}, where the ratio of $\ell^+\ell^-\mu^{\pm}$ to $\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$
events, in which the
mass is close to that of a Z boson, defines a conversion factor $C_{\mu}$ for muons.
The background is estimated from $C_{\mu}$ and from the number of $\ell^+\ell^- \gamma$ events in data that pass all selections, except the three-lepton requirements.
An alternative evaluation is obtained from events
in an independent Z-enriched control region, by reversing the $\MET$ requirement to $\MET<20$\GeV.
As mentioned before, events from Z decays into two muons or two electrons that contain an additional muon from internal photon conversion,
produce a peak in the three-lepton invariant mass distribution close to the Z mass. The number of events
expected in the final sample is estimated from the ratio of simulated events for Z production with
$\MET>30$\GeV to that with $\MET<20$\GeV.
This estimate agrees
with that of the previous method. The $\gamma^*\to \Pgmp \Pgmm$ background contribution is small, as can be seen in Table~\ref{tab:bckg}.
An overall
uncertainty of $\pm$ 50$\%$ is assumed for this source of background, which is limited by the statistical precision of both estimates ($30\%$), and has an
additional contribution from the choice of normalization criteria ($40 \%$).
The largest background, aside from the irreducible backgrounds, arises from
the Z+jets process (including the Drell--Yan contribution), in which the Z boson decays leptonically,
and a jet in the event is misidentified as a third lepton.
Processes with
non-prompt leptons from heavy-flavour decays are not
simulated with sufficient accuracy with the MC generators and we therefore
use a method based on data to estimate this contribution.
The yield of such background in data is estimated using a sample of leptons that pass less restrictive selection criteria than the ones described previously.
The lepton candidates passing all selection criteria are called "tight leptons",
while those passing all but the isolation requirements are called "loose leptons".
The probability for a non-prompt lepton to pass tight selection is called the misidentification rate,
and it is measured in samples of multijet events
where a negligible fraction of the lepton candidates is expected to be due to prompt leptons.
The contribution
to the background is obtained from the lepton misidentification rate and the events that pass full selection of the analysis,
based on loose lepton identification.
The misidentification rate depends on
$\pt$ and $\eta$ of the lepton.
However, only the average value is used, and an uncertainty of 50$\%$ is assigned to this background estimate.
Several cross checks of the method used to evaluate this background contribution have
been performed using data and simulation. They show agreement between the
number of observed leptons and the number of leptons predicted on the basis of the lepton misidentification
rate.
Events from $\ttbar$ production with two leptonic W decays and an additional coincident lepton, are reduced through the PF isolation requirements for leptons and by the selection on $H_\mathrm{T}$. Simulations show that the remaining $\ttbar$ background is negligible, and its contribution
is included in the estimate of non-prompt leptons.
SM background contributions expected in each of the six analyzed event categories are summarized in
Table~\ref{tab:bckg}.
\section{Systematic uncertainties \label{s:syst}}
Systematic uncertainties can be divided in two categories:
those related to the extraction of the signal and those relevant to the sources of background.
The first group includes efficiencies of trigger selections, particle reconstruction, and lepton identification.
In the kinematic region defined by the analysis, the trigger efficiency for the signal
is very high because
it is based on a combination of three separate two-lepton triggers,
each of which is found to be $92\%$ to $100\%$ efficient, and the estimated overall efficiency
is $(99 \pm 1)\%$.
Uncertainties on lepton selection efficiencies are determined using a ``tag-and-probe" method~\cite{CMSWandZ},
both in data
and through MC simulations, and the differences between these are taken
as systematic uncertainties on the efficiencies.
Additional contributions include uncertainties on the energy scales and on resolutions for leptons and for $\MET $, as well as
uncertainties in the modeling of pileup, all of which are obtained from a full \GEANTfour simulation.
As mentioned in Section~\ref{s:sim}, \GEANTfour simulation of the signal is restricted to a limited number
of $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace$ masses.
In fact, the largest available value for this simulation is $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace = 140\GeV$.
The efficiencies are therefore extrapolated to higher mass points using fast detector simulation.
The difference between
the efficiencies evaluated with the full and fast simulation at 140\GeV
is taken as an additional contribution to the overall uncertainty.
The largest difference is for the channel with three muons.
Statistical uncertainties of the extrapolation are also taken into account.
The uncertainties attributed to the expected signal efficiencies are
summarized in Table~\ref{tab:signalSystEff} for $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace=180$\GeV,
and are expected not to differ significantly for higher mass points \cite{carflo_}.
\begin{table*}[htb]
\begin{center}
\topcaption[Systematicncertainties on signal]{Uncertainties on
signal efficiency for each event category for $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace =$ 180\GeV.
Total systematic and total systematic + statistical (fourth and sixth columns) are calculated in quadrature.
}
\label{tab:signalSystEff}
\begin{tabular}{l|ccc|c|cc}
\hline
& \multicolumn{6}{c}{Source of uncertainty} \\
&\footnotesize{Trigger}&\footnotesize{Signal efficiency}&\footnotesize{(Fullsim/Fastsim)}&\footnotesize{Total}&\footnotesize{(Fullsim/Fastsim)}&\footnotesize{Total}\\
& &\footnotesize{(Full simulation)}&\footnotesize{systematic}&\footnotesize{systematic}&\footnotesize{statistical}&\footnotesize{syst.+stat.}\\
\hline
$\Pgmm \Pep \Pep $ & 1.0\% & 6.3\% & 2.9\% & 7.0\% & 3.0\% & 7.6\% \\
$\Pgmm \Pep \Pgmp $ & 1.0\% & 4.5\% & 6.8\% & 8.2\% & 2.3\% & 8.5\% \\
$\Pgmm \Pgmp \Pgmp$ & 1.0\% & 3.9\% & 11.1\% & 11.8\% & 3.3\% & 12.2\% \\
$\Pem\Pgmp\Pgmp$ & 1.0\% & 4.5\% & 8.5\% & 9.7\% & 2.9\% & 10.1\% \\
$\Pem\Pep\Pgmp$ & 1.0\% & 6.3\% & 4.1\% & 7.6\% & 2.4\% & 7.9\% \\
$\Pem\Pep\Pep$ & 1.0\% & 7.6\% & 2.8\% & 8.0\% & 4.2\% & 9.1\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
As mentioned above, the uncertainties on backgrounds are estimated using MC simulations or control samples in data.
For the dominant irreducible background of WZ production, we apply a 17\% uncertainty on the measured cross section~\cite{wzATLAS}.
Uncertainties of 7.5\% for ZZ~\cite{wztheory}, and 13\% for V$\gamma$~\cite{VgCMS} cross sections are also taken into account.
For very small backgrounds, such as WWW, we assume a normalization uncertainty of 50\%.
Uncertainties on background estimates from methods based on data were discussed
in Section~\ref{s:background}, and those statistical and systematic uncertainties are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:bckg}.
The overall uncertainty on integrated luminosity is
2.2$\%$~\cite{LUMIPAS}.
For backgrounds determined from simulation,
the systematic uncertainties on efficiency and luminosity
are common to all
signals.
\section{Results \label{s:results}}
Table~\ref{tab:AllYield} presents the results of our search for the fermionic $\Sigma$ triplet states in terms of the expected number of
signal events, the expected number of events from SM background,
and the number of observed events in each of the analyzed event categories.
Each of the three possibilities for mixing (FDS, $\mu$S, eS) described in Section~\ref{s:intro} is considered in the analysis.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\topcaption[Final yield for signal, backgrounds and data]{Summary of the expected
mean
number of events for signal
as a function of $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace$, for the expected SM background,
and the observed number of events in data, after implementing all analysis selections.
Each of the three possibilities for mixing (FDS, $\mu$S, eS) described in Section~\ref{s:intro} are considered separately in the analysis.
}
\label{tab:AllYield}
\begin{tabular}{l|ccccc|cc|cc|c|c}
\hline
& \multicolumn{9}{c|}{Expected signal for $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace$\unit{(\GeVns)}} & Expected & Observed\\
& \multicolumn{5}{c|}{ FDS }& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\mu\text{S}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{eS} & background & in data \\
Category & 120 & 130 & 140 & 180 & 200 & 180 & 200 & 180 & 200 & & \\
\hline
$\Pgmm \Pep \Pep $ &
7.9 & 6.0 & 4.5 & 1.7 & 1.1 & 1.6 & 1.0 & 3.6 & 2.4 &
0.8$\pm$0.4 & 2 \\
$\Pgmm \Pep \Pgmp $ &
12.3 &9.0 & 7.0& 3.0 & 2.0 & 6.0 & 4.0 & 1.4 & 0.92 &
7.3$\pm$2.1 & 9\\
$\Pgmm \Pgmp \Pgmp $ &
7.8 &5.2 &3.6 &1.4 & 0.93 & 6.1& 4.0 & - & - &
11.5$\pm$3.6 & 7 \\
$\Pem\Pgmp\Pgmp$ &
8.3 &6.2 &4.8 &1.8 & 1.2 & 3.7& 2.5 & 1.6 & 1.0 &
1.1$\pm$0.7 & 0 \\
$\Pem\Pep\Pgmp$ &
13.2 &9.5 &6.9 &2.7 & 1.8 & 1.1& 0.75 &5.7 & 3.8 &
8.6$\pm$2.2 & 7 \\
$\Pem\Pep\Pep$ &
3.9 &2.8 & 2.0& 1.0& 0.63 & - & - &4.16 & 2.8 &
5.0$\pm$1.4 & 4 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
No significant excess of events is observed relative to the SM expectations
in any of the six analysis channels. Combining all channels, we set
upper limits at the 95\% confidence level (CL) on $\sigma\times\mathcal{B}$, on the product of
the production cross section of $\Sigma^{+} \Sigma^{0}$ and its branching fraction ($\mathcal{B}$)
to the three-lepton final states, where the lepton can be an electron,
muon or $\tau$
(contributing through $\tau \to \ell \nu_{\ell} \nu_{\tau}$).
The branching fraction to three-lepton final states depends
on $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace$~\cite{carflo_}, and is predicted to be about 9\% for $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace\approx 200$\GeV, where we extrapolate signal
yields to $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace>180$\GeV using the results of Ref.~\cite{carflo_}.
The upper limits on $\sigma\mathcal{B}$ as a function of fermion mass $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace$,
combining for all channels by multiplying the corresponding likelihood functions,
are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:limit_Vdem}, ~\ref{fig:limit_Vmu}, and ~\ref{fig:limit_Ve}, for FDS, $\mu$S, and eS possibilities, respectively.
The dashed lines correspond to the expected limits obtained from MC pseudo-experiments,
and are based on the CLs criterion~\cite{Tommaso_1,Tommaso_2}.
The observed limits on data are computed following both a Bayesian approach~\cite[Ch.~33]{PDG_}, and a frequentist method also based on the CLs criterion.
In the former, the assumed prior
is a constant.
In both calculations, the uncertainties on efficiencies for detecting signal, the uncertainty on integrated luminosity and on the
expected SM background,
are treated as uninteresting ``nuisance" parameters with Gaussian or log-normal densities.
Upper limits are computed at 95$\%$ CL using the \textsc{RooStats} software~\cite{RooStats}, and
and the package developed to combine results from searches for the Higgs boson~\cite{CLs_}.
The two results are similar, as shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:limit_Vdem}, ~\ref{fig:limit_Vmu}, and ~\ref{fig:limit_Ve}.
The results are stable relative to variations of ${\pm}20 \%$ on the systematic uncertainties.
Finally, we extract lower limits on $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace$ using the theoretical dependence of the cross section on $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace$, as represented by the solid blue lines of Fig.~\ref{fig:limit_Vdem}, \ref{fig:limit_Vmu}, and \ref{fig:limit_Ve}, for the three possibilities for the type III seesaw model for signal.
The expected and observed 95$\%$ CL limits obtained with the Bayesian method
are given in Table~{\ref{tab:Limits}}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidth]{Figure3.pdf}
\caption[Limit for $b_{\mu}=b_{e}=b_{\tau}=1/3$]
{The expected (dashed line) and observed (asterisks and black points) exclusion limits at 95$\%$ confidence level
on $\sigma \mathcal{B}$
as a function of the fermion mass $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace$, assuming
$b_{\Pe}=b_{\mu}=b_{\tau}=1/3$ (FDS) for the signal.
The solid (blue) curve represents the predictions of the LO type III seesaw models.
The light (yellow) and dark (green) shaded areas represent, respectively, the 1 standard deviation (68$\%$ CL)
and 2 standard deviations (95$\%$ CL) limits on the expected results obtained from MC pseudo-experiments,
which reflect the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the SM contributions.
The asterisks and the black points show, respectively, the observed limits
computed
following a frequentist method based on the CLs criterion and a Bayesian approach.
}
\label{fig:limit_Vdem}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidth]{Figure4.pdf}
\caption[Limit for $V_{\mu}=0.063$, and $V_{\Pe}=V_{\tau}=0$]
{The expected (dashed line) and observed (asterisks and black points) exclusion limits at 95$\%$ confidence level
on $\sigma\mathcal{B}$
as a function of the fermion mass $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace$, assuming $b_{\Pe}=0, b_{\mu}=1, b_{\tau}=0$ ($\mu$S) for the signal .
The solid (blue) curve represents the predictions of the LO type III seesaw models.
The light (yellow) and dark (green) shaded areas represent, respectively, the 1 standard deviation (68$\%$ CL)
and 2 standard deviations (95$\%$ CL) limits on the expected results obtained from MC pseudo-experiments,
which reflect the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the SM contributions.
The asterisks and the black points show, respectively, the observed limits
computed
following a frequentist method based on the CLs criterion and a Bayesian approach.
}
\label{fig:limit_Vmu}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\cmsFigWidth]{Figure5.pdf}
\caption[Limit for$V_{\Pe}=0.05$ and $V_{\mu}=V_{\tau}=0$]
{The expected (dashed line) and observed (black points) exclusion limits at 95$\%$ confidence level
on $\sigma \mathcal{B}$
as a function of the fermion mass $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace$, assuming $b_{\Pe}= 1, b_{\mu}=0, b_{\tau}=0$ (eS) for the signal.
The solid (blue) curve represents the predictions of the LO type III seesaw models.
The light (yellow) and dark (green) shaded areas represent, respectively, the 1 standard deviation (68$\%$ CL)
and 2 standard deviations (95$\%$ CL) limits on the expected results obtained from MC pseudo-experiments,
which reflect the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the SM contributions.
The asterisks and the black points show, respectively, the observed limits
computed
following a frequentist method based on the CLs criterion and a Bayesian approach.
}
\label{fig:limit_Ve}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\topcaption[]{The expected and observed limits on $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace$ and on $\sigma \mathcal{B}$ at the given mass are obtained using the Bayesian method, specified at a $95\%$ confidence level, for the three assumed sets of branching fractions $b_{\alpha}$ defined in Eq.(\ref{eq:br}).}
\label{tab:Limits}
\begin{tabular}{l|cccc}
\hline
Scenario & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{95$\%$ CL: $\sigma \mathcal{B}$ (fb)}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{95$\%$ CL: $\ensuremath{M_\Sigma}\xspace\unit{(\GeVns)}$ } \\
& Exp. & Obs. & Exp. & Obs. \\
\hline
FDS & 22 & 20 & 177 & 179 \\
$\mu$S & 13 & 11 & 201 & 211 \\
eS & 13 & 13 & 202 & 204 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The reported limits are valid only for short $\Sigma$ lifetimes, which hold for values of the matrix elements $V_{\alpha}$ greater than ${\approx}10^{-6}$.
For smaller values, the analysis requires a different approach, since the leptons can originate from displaced vertices in an environment that, as indicated previously, is not considered in this analysis.
\section{Summary \label{s:conclusions}}
A search has been presented for fermionic triplet states expected in type III seesaw models.
The search was performed in events with three isolated leptons (muons or electrons), whose charges sum to $+1$, and contain jets and an imbalance in transverse momentum.
The data are from proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$\TeV, recorded during 2011 by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC, and correspond to an integrated
luminosity of 4.9\fbinv.
No evidence for pair production of $\Sigma^{+} \Sigma^{0}$ states has been found,
and 95$\%$ confidence upper limits are set on the product of the production cross section of $\Sigma^{+} \Sigma^{0}$
and its branching fraction to the examined three-lepton final states.
Comparing the results with predictions from type III seesaw models,
lower bounds are established at 95$\%$ confidence on the mass of the $\Sigma$ states.
Limits are reported for three choices of mixing possibilities between the $\Sigma$ states and the three lepton generations.
Depending on the considered scenarios, lower limits are obtained on the mass of the heavy partner of the neutrino that range from 180 to 210\GeV.
The results are valid only if at least one of the mixing matrix elements is larger than $\approx$ $10^{-6}$.
These are the first limits on the production of type III seesaw fermionic
triplet states reported by an experiment at the LHC.
\section*{Acknowledgment \label{s:ack}}
We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC machine. We thank the technical and administrative staffs at CERN and other CMS institutes, and acknowledge support from BMWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MEYS (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); MoER, SF0690030s09 and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); OTKA and NKTH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); NRF and WCU (Republic of Korea); LAS (Lithuania); CINVESTAV, CONACYT, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MSI (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan); MON, RosAtom, RAS and RFBR (Russia); MSTD (Serbia); SEIDI and CPAN (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); NSC (Taipei); ThEP, IPST and NECTEC (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie programme and the European Research Council (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A.P.Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation \`a la Recherche dans l'Industrie et dans l'Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of Czech Republic; the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the Compagnia di San Paolo (Torino); and the HOMING PLUS programme of Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund.
|
\section{Introduction}
The quest for a signature of beyond standard model (SM) physics
is a very high priority agenda in high energy physics
experiments and it has been going on for a long time in
several laboratories. In particular, at the LHC experiments,
looking for new physics signals is the major thrust area.
Unfortunately, no single direct evidence of new physics
signals has been observed at this point. As a consequence, the absence of
experimental confirmation leads to stringent constraints to
various BSM models\cite{Rappoccio:2018qxp}.
On the other hand, the well-confirmed existence of dark matter (DM)
by various cosmological and astrophysical experiments serves as one of the
strong motivations to propose the existence of BSM physics\cite{Bertone:2004pz,Feng:2010gw}.
Among several probable candidates of DM, the weakly interacting massive
particle (WIMP) turns out to be the most suitable one for thermal DM,
with a correct relic density measured
by the PLANCK experiment which predicts\cite{Aghanim:2018eyx},
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm \Omega h^2=0.12~\pm~0.001.
\label{eq:wmap}
\end{eqnarray}
Enormous efforts have been in place for a long time to look for DM candidates
via direct and indirect searches in various experiments\cite{Schumann:2019eaa,Gaskins:2016cha,Slatyer:2017sev,Boveia:2018yeb,universe4110131,Aaboud:2019yqu}.
However, null results, in particular, from some of the direct
detection (DD) experiments have resulted in
strong constraints on DM-nucleon scattering cross sections
in terms of DM (WIMP) masses\cite{Akerib:2016vxi,Cui:2017nnn,Aprile:2018dbl,Agnes:2018ves,Agnese:2018col,Aprile:2019dbj,Amole:2019fdf,Adhikari:2019off,Ajaj:2019imk,Abdelhameed:2019hmk}.
The DM-nucleon scattering cross section can be classified into two
categories, namely, spin-independent (SI) and spin-dependent (SD),
depending on the structure of the coupling. Note that, in general, the SI DM-nucleon scattering cross section is smaller than that of the SD case, and it is more sensitive to DD experiments\cite{Barger:2008qd,Belanger:2008sj,Agrawal:2010fh}.
For instance, the most stringent bounds come from XENON1T experiment, where
the DM-nucleon scattering cross section corresponding to the DM of
the mass range $\sim$20--100 GeV is strongly
restricted, $\rm \sigma_{SI}\lsim10^{-46} {\rm cm}^2$\cite{Aprile:2018dbl}. The other experiments
such as LUX\cite{Akerib:2016vxi}, PANDA\cite{Cui:2017nnn}, PICO-60\cite{Amole:2019fdf}, Darkside\cite{Agnes:2018ves} etc. also constrain the DM-nucleon cross section for
a wide range of masses of DM candidates from few GeV to TeV.
The minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) with R-parity conservation
offers the lightest neutralino, assumed to be the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) as
the potential DM (WIMP) candidate
of the mass $\sim$ 100 GeV\cite{Goldberg:1983nd,Ellis:1983ew,Drees:1992am,Drees:2018dsj}. Comprehensive searches of neutralino DM are carried out at the LHC which lead to various constraints in the absence of any signal\cite{Belanger:2013pna,Choudhury:2013jpa,Han:2014nba}. In MSSM, the physical neutralino
state is constituted through the linear superposition
of electroweak (EW) gauginos (bino($\rm \widetilde B$), wino($\rm \widetilde W$))
and Higgsinos($\rm \tilde H_u^0,\tilde H_d^0$). This composition is
mainly determined by relative values of two EW gaugino mass parameters,
$\rm M_1$ and $\rm M_2$, corresponding to U(1) and SU(2) gauge
transformations respectively. In addition, the other two parameters, namely
Higgsino mass parameter($\mu$) and $\tan\beta$, the ratio of two vacuum
expectation values of two neutral Higgs bosons also play an important role
in determining the physical masses and composition of neutralino states.
A neutralino state with pure Higgsino or wino composition of the mass
$\rm \sim\mathcal{O}(100)~GeV$ is found not to be a favorable DM
candidate because of its under-abundance of relic density\cite{ArkaniHamed:2006mb}.
However, for large masses $\rm\mathcal{O}(TeV)$, those can serve as a
DM candidate\cite{ArkaniHamed:2006mb,Chakraborti:2017dpu,Cahill-Rowley:2014boa,Chakraborti:2014fha,Delgado:2020url}.
Similarly, a neutralino with pure bino composition also does
not satisfy the right relic density measurement (see Eq.~\ref{eq:wmap}).
Hence, in order to propose LSP as a viable DM candidate,
the ``tempered neutralino'' scenario is proposed to be the best bet
\cite{ArkaniHamed:2006mb},
where the neutralino is no longer a pure state, but has
admixtures of more than one composition.
A well-tempered bino-Higgsino\cite{Pierce:2004mk,Gogoladze:2010ch,vanBeekveld:2016hug,Abdughani:2017dqs} or bino-wino\cite{Baer:2005zc,Baer:2005jq,BirkedalHansen:2001is} neutralino
is found to be the most suitable DM candidate for the mass
$\sim$100~GeV to achieve the right relic density.
The Higgsino component is indispensable to bring down the
relic density to the required value (Eq.~\ref{eq:wmap}) via resonant Z or Higgs-mediated
annihilation, where the Higgs can be the SM-like Higgs boson as well as
heavier Higgs boson states, in the limit of large sfermion masses.
It is to be noted that, the neutralino-nucleon SI
scattering cross section is enhanced with the increase of
Higgsino composition in the neutralino state.
Therefore, the strong experimental limits on the SI scattering cross section
restrict the composition of neutralino, in particular, the Higgsino content\cite{Baer:2016ucr,Badziak:2017the}.
Hence a bino dominated neutralino with a little mixture of Higgsino
component, referred to as ``mild-tempered neutralino'', is
expected to be the viable DM candidate for the
mass $\rm \mathcal{O}(100)~GeV$ or little less~\cite{Profumo:2017ntc},
and consistent with all existing constraints.
In this regard, it is to be noted that few studies exist in the
literature based on the extended supersymmetric (SUSY) model, which present very light DM candidates
($\rm m_{\chi}\lsim50~GeV$)\cite{Guchait:2020wqn,Abdallah:2019znp,Barman:2020vzm,Barman:2020zpz,Abdallah:2020yag},
satisfying all current constraints.
It is worth pointing out here, that there exists
a region of MSSM parameter space where the DM-nucleon SI scattering cross section almost vanishes because of the interplay among various amplitudes.
Consequently, direct detection rate of DM becomes insensitive corresponding to that region of
parameter space, which is known as the ``blind spot''(BS)
\cite{Cheung:2012qy,Cheung:2013dua,Huang:2014xua,Han:2016qtc,Cao:2019qng}.
As the DD experiments fail to probe this BS scenario, it is worth finding a complementary way for DM searches at the LHC.
In this current study, we focus on the mild-tempered scenario, i.e. bino-Higgsino neutralino with a larger bino component, and
of the mass ${\cal O}$(100)~GeV, and then identify the corresponding
region of parameter space consistent with all measurements. The existence of a relatively lighter LSP of the mass range considered in this study is still not absolutely ruled out by any SUSY searches at the LHC. Hence, our study will presumably give some idea about its detectability at the LHC with its high luminosity options.
With this aim, the characteristic signature corresponding to this mild-tempered neutralino
including the BS scenario are discussed for the LHC experiment. We consider the top-squark pair production and then its cascade decay to SM-like Higgs boson and an LSP, the DM candidate. Although $\rm m_{\widetilde {t_1}}\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle <}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim} 1.1~TeV$ are ruled out from searches at the LHC in the context of various simplified models, for low $\rm BR(\widetilde {t_1}\rightarrow\widetilde{\chi}^0_1 +t)\sim 10\%$, $\rm m_{\widetilde {t_1}}<1~TeV$ are found to be still allowed using statistical analysis. It is be noted that the top-squarks of lower mass range which are within the reach of current LHC energy, are also motivated in the context of ``naturalness" scenario~\cite{Barbieri:1987fn,Giusti:1998gz,Kitano:2006gv,Barbieri:2009ev,Asano:2010ut,Baer:2012cf}. A detailed investigation is carried out performing simulation to explore the feasibility of finding the signal at the LHC for higher luminosity options, such as
$\rm {\cal L}=300 ~fb^{-1}$ and 3000~fb$^{-1}$.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, the MSSM model set up providing mild-tempered neutralino and BS scenario is discussed, and then corresponding allowed region of parameters are identified. In section 3, signal and background simulations are presented and followed by results. Finally, we summarize in section 4.
\section{Mild-tempered neutralino scenario in the MSSM}
In this section, we discuss the MSSM model setup and then delineate the
region of parameter space interesting to our scenario which presents
a DM candidate of mass $\sim {\cal O}$(100)~GeV consistent
with the existing data from Planck experiment (Eq.~\ref{eq:wmap}) and direct searches as mentioned
above.
In the gauge eigenstate basis ($\rm \widetilde{B}, \widetilde{W}_3, \widetilde{H}_d^0, \widetilde{H}_u^0$),
the neutralino mass matrix can be written as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm {M}_N = \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
\rm M_1 &0 &\frac{-g_1 v c_{\beta}}{\sqrt 2} & \frac{g_1 v s_{\beta}}{\sqrt 2} \\
0 &\rm M_2 & \frac{g_2 v c_{\beta}}{\sqrt 2} & \frac{-g_2 v s_{\beta}}{\sqrt 2} \\
\frac{-g_1 v c_{\beta}}{\sqrt 2} & \frac{g_2 v c_{\beta}}{\sqrt 2} & 0 & - \mu \\
\frac{g_1 v s_{\beta}}{\sqrt 2} & \frac{-g_2 v s_{\beta}}{\sqrt 2} & -\mu & 0
\end{array} \right).
\label{eq:mneu}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\rm M_1(g_1)$ and $\rm M_2(g_2)$ present the (U(1))$\rm \widetilde B$ and
(SU(2))$\rm \widetilde W_3$ gaugino mass(coupling) parameters respectively, whereas $\mu$ is defined to be the Higgsino mass parameter. The two VEVs corresponding to two neutral components of the two Higgs doublets $\rm H_u^0$ and $\rm H_d^0$ are $v_u$ and $v_d$ respectively
and constrained to be $v_u^2 + v_d^2=v^2$. As practice, we assume
$\tan\beta=\frac{v_u}{v_d}$, and $\rm s_{\beta}\equiv sin \beta,\; c_{\beta}\equiv cos\beta$. The symmetric matrix $\rm {M_N}$ can be diagonalized by a unitary matrix $\rm N_{4\times 4}$ to obtain the masses of four neutralino states $\rm \tilde{\chi}_i^0 (i=1,2,3,4)$ as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm M_{\tilde \chi^0}^D = \rm N M_N N^{\dagger},
\label{eq:nn}
\end{eqnarray}
and the corresponding physical neutralino states are given by,
\begin{equation}
\rm \widetilde{\chi}_i^0=N_{i1}{\widetilde B}+N_{i2}{\widetilde W_3}+
N_{i3}\widetilde{H}_d^0+N_{i4}\widetilde{H}_u^0.
\end{equation}
Among the four neutralino states, two of the lighter states become gaugino-like ($\rm \widetilde{B}$ and $\widetilde{W}_3$), if $\rm |M_{1,2}-\mu|\geq M_Z$ and $\rm |\mu|> M_2>M_1$ with masses $\rm m_{\widetilde{\chi}^0_1}\sim M_1$ and $\rm m_{\widetilde{\chi}^0_2}\sim M_2$ respectively. The masses of Higgsino dominated states are mostly controlled by $\mu$, and in particular $\rm m_{\widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}}\sim \mu$ for a decoupled
scenario ($\rm M_2 >> \rm \mu>M_1$). Further, for $\rm M_1<\mu<<M_2$ cases,
the heaviest state is expected to be $\rm \sim \widetilde W_3$-like,
whereas intermediate states
become Higgsino dominated with the lightest state almost bino-like
with tiny Higgsino component ($\rm i.e.,~ N_{11}^2>>N_{13}^2+N_{14}^2$).
Similarly, in the basis ($\rm i\widetilde{W}^-, \widetilde{H}_u^-$) and ($\rm i\widetilde{W}^+, \widetilde{H}_d^+$) the chargino mass matrix is given by:
\begin{equation}
\rm M_C = \left(\begin{array}{c c}
\rm M_2 & \rm \sqrt{2} M_W \sin\beta\\
\rm \sqrt{2} M_W \cos\beta & \mu
\end{array}
\right),
\end{equation}
which is diagonalized by two unitary matrices U and V. For $\rm M_2>>\mu$, the lighter chargino ($\widetilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}$) state becomes Higgsino-like.
For our considered scenario, the dominant DM annihilation process
occurs through the s-channel mediated by CP-even(h, H) and CP-odd(A)
Higgs bosons or Z,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_1\widetilde{\chi}^0_1\xrightarrow{{\phi/Z}}f\bar{f},\ \ \ \ \phi=h,H,A,
\label{eq:hannihilation}
\end{eqnarray}
in the limit of relatively heavier slepton masses.
The cross section of the annihilation process primarily depends on the
$\rm (\phi,Z)$-$\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$-$\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ couplings, which are of the following form,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm g_{h\widetilde{\chi}^0_1\widetilde{\chi}^0_1} &\sim& \rm g(N_{12}-\tan\theta_WN_{11})(sin\alpha N_{13}+\cos\alpha N_{14})
\label{eq:hchichi}\\
\rm g_{H\widetilde{\chi}^0_1\widetilde{\chi}^0_1} &\sim& \rm g(N_{12}-\tan\theta_WN_{11})(sin\alpha N_{14}-\cos\alpha N_{13})
\label{eq:Hchichi}\\
\rm g_{A\widetilde{\chi}^0_1\widetilde{\chi}^0_1} &\sim& \rm g(N_{12}-\tan\theta_WN_{11})(\cos\beta N_{14}-sin\beta N_{13})
\label{eq:achichi}\\
\rm g_{Z\widetilde{\chi}^0_1\widetilde{\chi}^0_1} &\sim& \rm \frac{g}{2\cos\theta_W}(N_{13}^2-N_{14}^2),
\label{eq:higgs-couplings}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rm \alpha$ is the mixing angle of the CP-even Higgs sector.
Clearly, the combined effect of bino$\rm (N_{11})$ and
Higgsino components($\rm N_{13},N_{14}$)
in $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ determine the annihilation rate.
In addition, a neutralino with a moderate to large amount of Higgsino
content may dominantly co-annihilate with Higgsino-like(large $\rm V_{12}$) and nearly mass degenerate
lighter chargino $\rm \widetilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_1\widetilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\xrightarrow{{W^{\pm}}}f\bar{f},
\label{wcoanni}
\end{eqnarray}
along with other subdominant contributions, which may enhance the annihilation cross-section through
the following coupling,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm g_{W^\pm\widetilde{\chi}^0_1\widetilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}}=\frac{g\tan\theta_W}{\sqrt{2}}(N_{14}V_{12}^*-\sqrt{2}N_{12}V_{11}^*).
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, in combination of all processes, whichever are viable, the cross section for annihilation process corresponding to a Higgsino-like LSP goes up leading to
an under-abundance of relic density.
Hence one can conclude that an LSP with a suitable combination of bino
and Higgsino composition appears to be a viable DM candidate around the
mass ${\cal O}$(100)~GeV. In the case of wino-Higgsino dominated
LSP, various possible annihilation and co-annihilation processes can
occur, which are mediated by SM gauge bosons, and lead to the under-abundant scenario. In order to achieve the right relic density prediction, in this case, one needs to lift the mass($\rm \sim M_2$) of the LSP to TeV level and suppress annihilation cross section\cite{ArkaniHamed:2006mb,Chakraborti:2017dpu}. This type of scenario appears naturally in anomaly mediated SUSY breaking model\cite{Moroi:1999zb,Gherghetta:1999sw,Arbey:2011gu}.
Hence, a SUSY DM model disfavors the possibility of
Higgsino/wino dominated scenario with DM mass $\rm\sim \cal{O}$(100) GeV.
As pointed out earlier, the
composition of the LSP DM candidate is also constrained
by direct detection experiments\cite{Aprile:2018dbl,Akerib:2016vxi,Cui:2017nnn,Aprile:2019dbj,Amole:2019fdf},
where DM candidate scattering off a heavy nucleus mediated by Higgs/gauge
bosons or squarks. The effects due to heavier
squarks (${\cal O}$(1) TeV) are very much suppressed. Hence the main contribution
to SI(SD) cross section occurs through Higgs(Z) boson exchange via t-channel
diagram\cite{Barger:2008qd,Belanger:2008sj}. The dominant contribution
comes from the diagram mediated by the CP-even lightest Higgs boson,
whereas contributions due to other heavier Higgs bosons are suppressed.
Interestingly, this suppression can be
compensated by enhanced couplings of heavier Higgs bosons with the quarks
for a certain range of parameters, in particular, for higher values of
$\tan\beta$, which we will discuss later.
The SI scattering cross section is also
sensitive to couplings $\rm g_{h\widetilde{\chi}^0_1\widetilde{\chi}^0_1}$(Eq.~\ref{eq:hchichi}).
The presence of a larger Higgsino component in $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_1$
enhances the SI DM-nucleon scattering cross section mediated
mainly by the CP even lightest Higgs boson, which is tightly constrained
by the existing limits on DM-nucleon
scattering cross section from the XENON1T experiment\cite{Aprile:2018dbl}.
On the other hand, the composition of the $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ state is also constrained by relic density.
Hence, the bino-Higgsino content of a mild-tempered neutralino state is
severely restricted by the combined effect of relic density measurements and
DM-nucleon cross section limits.
This feature of mild-tempered neutralino is reflected in Fig.~\ref{fig:relic}(left), where the variation of relic density
with the relative size of bino and Higgsino composition of the LSP is presented in terms of $\rm N_{11}^2/(N_{13}^2 + N_{14}^2)$. It is to be noted that this figure is
subject to the condition $\mu>0$ to avoid effects from ``blind spots,'' which occur for $\mu<0$ when $\rm M_1$ is assumed to be positive. It will be discussed in detail later. In Fig.~1(right), we present the ranges of $\rm \mu$ and $\rm M_1$ allowed by relic density, limits from DD experiments along with some other constraints as described in section 2.1.
These figures are obtained by performing a numerical scan of parameters (Eq.\ref{eq:nmssmpara}), which will be discussed later.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.9cm]{bino_higgsino_relic_DD.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{mum1_higgsino.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\small (left) Relic density with the variation of $\rm \tilde{B}/\tilde{H}$ components in $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_1$. Allowed points by DD measurements(yellow) and relic density(black band); (right) Ranges of $\mu$ and $\rm M_1$ along with the Higgsino component of the LSP allowed by relic density and DD constraints.}
\label{fig:relic}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:relic}(left) indicates that the $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_1$, with relatively higher Higgsino
composition and tiny bino content, makes under-abundance of relic density.
In this case, along with DM annihilation (Eq.~\ref{eq:hannihilation}), the co-annihilation
process(Eq.~\ref{wcoanni}) also takes place resulting in a larger
DM annihilation cross section. Towards the rightmost region of Fig.~\ref{fig:relic}(left), due to the absence of sufficient Higgsino-components in the LSP, the DM-nucleon scattering cross section goes down
because of the couplings(Eq.~\ref{eq:hchichi}) and becomes
consistent with DD limits. This region is
presented(yellow) in Fig.~\ref{fig:relic}(left) at the higher values of ratio
$\rm N_{11}^2/(N_{13}^2 + N_{14}^2)$. Hence, it can be concluded that the bino dominated
LSP with little admixtures ($\sim 1\%$) of Higgsino component
is the most favoured option in a decoupled scenario ($\rm M_2$ is very large). We referred to this as a scenario of ``mild-tempered'' neutralino in the previous section.
In this scenario, relatively higher values $\rm \mu$ are found to be allowed with light to moderate values of $\rm M_1$. It is clearly seen in Fig.~1(right) that, for $\mu>0$, the Higgsino fraction in the LSP is tiny. However, for $\mu<0$, there exist parameter spaces with a comparatively higher amount of Higgsino components that are still allowed. It occurs mainly due to the effect of ``blind spots'', which is discussed next.
The blind spot is an interesting scenario where the
DM-nucleon scattering cross section is found to be very
insensitive for a certain range of relevant parameters in the MSSM, and the
corresponding region of parameters is called ``blind spot''. It may
happen for various reasons. For instance, the tree-level scattering
cross section may vanish either for a pure gaugino
(i.e $\rm N_{13}, N_{14} \sim 0$) or Higgsino (i.e $\rm N_{11} \sim 0$)
neutralino state.
Moreover, scattering takes place via one and two loop diagrams
mediated by gauge bosons, and an accidental cancellation
among various scattering amplitudes for pure Higgsino and
gaugino LSP state, lead the total cross sections
too small and beyond the sensitivity of DD
experiment( $\rm \sigma_{SI} << 10^{-46} {\rm cm}^2$)\cite{Hisano:2011cs,Hill:2011be,Cheung:2012qy}.
Finally, BS may also arise at the tree level due to cancellation among
various amplitudes.
The dominant contribution to DM-nucleon
cross section comes from the diagram mediated by the CP
even lightest Higgs boson, whereas contributions due to other heavier
Higgs bosons are found to be very small for the
decoupling scenario($\rm m_A >> M_Z$).
Interestingly, at the tree level, the suppression of contribution mediated
by heavier Higgs bosons can be
compensated by its enhanced coupling with the
(down type) fermions for the range of moderate
to higher values of $\tan\beta$.
Additionally, the coupling between heavier Higgs bosons and
neutralinos, $\rm H$-$\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$-$\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$(Eq.~\ref{eq:Hchichi}) may receive
similar kind of enhancement for a larger value of $\rm N_{13}$,
the down type of Higgsino content in the LSP.
Consequently, the amplitudes mediated by heavier
Higgs bosons turn out to be comparable or at the same level
of the CP even SM-like Higgs boson exchange diagram.
Depending on the relative signs of $\mu$ and $\rm M_{1}$,
the interference between these two diagrams,
may become destructive or constructive\cite{Huang:2014xua}.
Incidentally, for a certain range and combination of related
parameters, these two contributions almost cancel each other
leading to the scattering cross section insensitive\cite{Huang:2014xua}.
A detailed analytical study shows that
the combination of parameters corresponding
to the BS for moderate to larger values of $\tan\beta$
follow the relation among
$\mu$, $\rm m_{A}$, $\rm tan\beta$, and $\rm m_{\widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}}$ ($\rm \sim M_1$),
as~\cite{Huang:2014xua},
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm \frac{M_1}{\mu}\sim -\left(\sin 2\beta+tan\beta\frac{m_h^2}{2m_A^2}\right).
\label{eq:bseq}
\end{eqnarray}
Corresponding to this parameter space, naturally a larger
Higgsino component $\sim \cal{O}$$(10\%)$ can be accessible without
violating DD bounds in contrast to the requirement of $\sim \cal{O}$$(1\%)$
or less for a mild-tempered neutralino case.
The above condition for BS connects the gaugino mass parameter with the Higgs
sector.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8 cm]{ma_tb_exc2.pdf}
\caption{Contour plots of $\rm \mu/m_{\widetilde{\chi}^0_{1}}$ for various values corresponding to BS scenario in the $\rm tan\beta$ and $\rm m_A$ plane along with the exclusion lines from $\rm h,A \to \tau\tau$ searches in ATLAS(red) and CMS(blue) experiments.}
\label{fig:BS}
\end{figure}
Note that a substantial region of $\rm \tan\beta$ and
$\rm m_A$ plane is excluded from the Higgs searches in the channel,
$\rm h,A \to \tau\tau$ \cite{Aad:2020zxo,Sirunyan:2018zut}.
This $\rm m_A$-$\tan\beta$ exclusion can be traded to obtain constraints
on $\rm \mu/m_{\widetilde{\chi}^0_1}$, by using Eq.~\ref{eq:bseq} in the $\rm m_A$-$\tan\beta$
plane. In Fig.~\ref{fig:BS}, following Eq.~\ref{eq:bseq}
the contour plots of $\rm \frac{\mu}{m_{\widetilde{\chi}^0_1}}\sim \frac{\mu}{M_1}$
are shown in the $\rm m_{A}$, $\rm tan\beta$ plane\cite{Huang:2014xua}.
The region above the red and blue lines are excluded due to the non observation of any signal events in the $\rm h,A \to \tau\tau$
searches by ATLAS\cite{Aad:2020zxo}($\rm \mathcal{L}= 139.5~fb^{-1}$) and CMS\cite{Sirunyan:2018zut}($\rm \mathcal{L}= 35.9~fb^{-1}$) experiments respectively. Depending on the value of $\rm m_A$, the
BS condition, i.e. the ratio $\rm \frac{\mu}{M_1}$ may vary from -1.5 to -3.5.
It implies that the lightest neutralino state is bino like whereas the second and third
heavier states are Higgsino like in the limit of large $\rm M_2$,
which is exactly the scenario that we try to explore at the LHC experiment.
As explained before, the main focus of this study is to explore the
feasibility of finding mild-tempered neutralino scenario at the LHC.
The added advantage of our proposed channel is its sensitiveness
to the region of parameters corresponding to the BS scenario,
which can also be probed at the LHC.
As we know, the content of bino and Higgsino in the LSP
depends on the splitting between $\rm \mu$ and $\rm M_1$. Therefore,
mild-tempered scenario appears with the condition $\rm |\mu|-M_1\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle >}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim} 100~GeV$, which provides also
an LSP of mass $\cal O$(100) GeV.
The scenario with little
Higgsino admixture along with the dominant bino composition
in $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ presumably predicts
Higgsino-dominated $\widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}$ states
that are degenerate in mass $\sim \mu$, for a decoupled
wino state (i.e large $\rm M_2$).
In such cases, heavier states $\widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}$ prefer to
decay to a Z boson and an LSP, and
$\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ decays to a W and an LSP. The coupling involved in
$\widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}$ decays is
$\rm Z$-$\widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}$-$\widetilde{\chi}^0_1 \propto $ $\rm N_{13} N_{23} - N_{14} N_{24}$, and
since $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ is primarily bino dominated (i.e $\rm N_{13},N_{14}$ very tiny),
it is suppressed.
Thus $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}$
preferably decay as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3} \to h + \widetilde{\chi}^0_1,
\end{eqnarray}
and a larger Higgsino composition in $\widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}$ state(Eq.~\ref{eq:hchichi})
makes its rate higher.
This decay channel of $\widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}$ is found to be the
characteristic feature for the mild-tempered neutralino scenario.
Hence testing of this scenario can be performed by studying
$\widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm$
production at the LHC\cite{Gori:2011hj,Ghosh:2012mc} and their subsequent decays.
Earlier, this channel is thought to be a ``spoiler'' mode
corresponding to trilepton signal in
pp$\to \widetilde{\chi}^0_2\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to \ell^+ \ell^- \ell \widetilde{\chi}^0_1\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$
production\cite{Barger:1994nm,Baer:1994nr}.
In this study, instead of considering the $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_2 \widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm$
production via electroweak interaction, we consider the production
of $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ through lighter top-squark production via strong interaction, where
$\rm \widetilde {t_1}$ dominantly decays to Higgsino-like $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}$
and $\chi_1^{\pm}$\cite{Dutta:2013sta,Ghosh:2012mc}. The decay $\rm \widetilde {t_1} \to t +\widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}$,
is governed by the interactions,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm \mathcal{L}_{t\bar{\tilde{t}}\tilde{\chi}_i^0} = \bar{t}\left(g_{L}^{\tilde{\chi}_i^0}P_L+g_{R}^{\tilde{\chi}_i^0}P_R\right)\widetilde{\chi}^0_{i}\tilde{t},
\label{eq:ffchi}
\end{eqnarray}
where,
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{L}^{\tilde{\chi}_i^0} &=& -\left[\frac{g_2}{\sqrt{2}}N_{i2}+\frac{g_1}{3\sqrt{2}}N_{i1}\right]\cos\theta_{\tilde{t}} - \frac{m_t}{v} N_{i4}\sin\theta_{\tilde{t}}\nonumber\\
&\sim& \frac{g_1}{3\sqrt{2}}N_{i1}\cos\theta_{\tilde{t}} - \frac{m_t}{v} N_{i4}\sin\theta_{\tilde{t}}\\
g_{R}^{\tilde{\chi}_i^0}&=&\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}g_1N_{i1}\sin\theta_{\tilde{t}}-\frac{m_t}{v}N_{i4}\cos\theta_{\tilde{t}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\theta_{\tilde t}$ is the mixing angle in the top-squark sector.
Evidently, the $\rm m_t$ dependent term becomes dominant
for Higgsino($\rm N_{i4}$)-like neutralino states
leading higher branching ratio (BR) for $\rm \widetilde {t_1} \to \widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3} + t$.
Due to large enough splitting between
$\mu$ and $\rm M_1$, it is natural to have $\rm m_{\widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}}-m_{\widetilde{\chi}^0_1}>125 ~GeV$,
resulting in the $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}\rightarrow h +\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ decay to be
dominant.
Hence the mild-tempered neutralino DM can be indirectly
produced from the decay of Higgsino-like $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}$
producing those in the lighter top-squark($\rm \widetilde {t_1}$) production.
It is be noted that, this type of scenario can also be probed through the associated
production, such as $\rm p p \to \widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}\widetilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ and with the three lepton final
states along with missing energy\cite{Han:2014sya,vanBeekveld:2016hbo,Liu:2020muv}. However, we observe that for the
same set of parameters, the rates
corresponding to signal final states are higher for top-squark pair
production via strong interaction than the case of electroweak
associated production.
\subsection{Numerical scan}
In order to identify the region of parameter space of our interest
we perform an illustrative numerical scan of all relevant parameters.
This scan is carried out using SUSPECT\cite{Djouadi:2002ze}
to calculate the spectrum for a given
set of input parameters, and then interfacing with
SUSYHIT\cite{Djouadi:2006bz} to obtain respective branching fractions of
SUSY particle decays. Also micrOMEGAs\cite{Belanger:2005kh,Belanger:2004yn,Belanger:2006is,Belanger:2013oya} is interfaced for the calculation of DM related observables and
then checking the constraints.
We have set the
ranges of the most relevant parameters, including third generation soft squark masses ($\rm M_{Q_3},~M_{t_R} $), in the random scan
(every unit is in GeV, wherever applicable):
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm 1.5 \leq {tan\beta} \leq 60, 30\leq M_1\leq 1000, 100\leq M_2\leq 3000,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \nonumber\\
\rm 100\leq |\mu|\leq 1500,100\leq m_A\leq 1500,
600\leq M_{Q_3}\leq 2500, 600\leq M_{t_R}\leq 2500,
\label{eq:nmssmpara}
\end{eqnarray}
while the other gaugino mass parameter is fixed as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm M_3=3~TeV.
\end{eqnarray}
First two generations squark masses are assumed to be,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm M_{Q_{1,2}}=3~TeV.
\end{eqnarray}
The A-term corresponding to the third generation quark($\rm A_t$) plays an
important role in determining the lightest CP even SM-like Higgs boson mass, and
it is varied in the range,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm -6~TeV\leq A_t\leq 6~TeV.
\end{eqnarray}
All the slepton masses of the first two generations are fixed to 2 TeV.
While performing the scan, each model point is tested with
PLANCK\cite{Aghanim:2018eyx} data (Eq.~\ref{eq:wmap}) and limits from
direct searches\cite{Akerib:2016vxi,Cui:2017nnn,Aprile:2018dbl,Agnes:2018ves,Agnese:2018col,Aprile:2019dbj,Amole:2019fdf,Adhikari:2019off,Ajaj:2019imk,Abdelhameed:2019hmk}. We focus only on the LSP of the mass range
$\sim$50-500 GeV.
The presence of SM-like Higgs boson (h), with mass
125$\rm \pm 3 \; GeV$ is also ensured. Other absolute constraints
from LEP\cite{LEPSUSY}, for example,
$\rm m_{\rm\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}}\geq 103.5\; GeV$
and $\rm m_{\rm H^{\pm}}> 78.6~GeV$ are imposed.
In addition, Higgsbounds-5.5.0\cite{Bechtle:2008jh,Bechtle:2011sb,Bechtle:2013gu,Bechtle:2013wla,Bechtle:2015pma} is used to check the Higgs couplings and related
measurements. The exclusion of top-squark-neutralino mass plane predicted by CMS\cite{Sirunyan:2019ctn,Sirunyan:2019xwh,Sirunyan:2019glc,CMS-PAS-SUS-19-011} and
ATLAS\cite{Aad:2020sgw,ATLAS-CONF-2020-003,ATLAS-CONF-2020-046,Aaboud:2017aeu} experiments are also examined using the SModelS-1.2.3 package~\cite{Kraml:2013mwa,Ambrogi:2017neo}. Generally the SMS model
with $\rm BR(\widetilde {t_1}\rightarrow\widetilde{\chi}^0_1 +t)=100\%$ is used to interpret data.
Whereas, in our scenario, $\rm BR(\widetilde {t_1}\rightarrow\widetilde{\chi}^0_1 +t)\sim 10\%$ implies much weaker
exclusion limits and consequently relatively light top-squarks ($\rm m_{\widetilde {t_1}}\sim 700~GeV$) are also found to be allowed.
Performing the scan, Fig.\ref{fig:relic}(left)
is plotted, where mainly the relic density and DD constraints are relaxed to show the effect of the compositions of $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ on the relic density and DD measurements.
Few representative benchmark points (BP) are chosen (see Table~\ref{tab:BPtable}), which are consistent with all constraints mentioned above. These BPs are used to obtain the signal sensitivities by performing the simulation of our proposed signal process. These BPs primarily represent two scenarios, namely ``mild-tempered neutralino'' and ``blind spots''. But under these broad pictures, they also encompass compressed and non-compressed spectrum corresponding to various choices of mass differences, $\rm \Delta m_1 = m_{\widetilde {t_1}} -(m_t + m_{\widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}})$ and $\rm \Delta m_2 = m_{\widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}} - m_{\widetilde{\chi}^0_1}$.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{\small Masses, branching fractions, DM observables for a few representative BPs and labeled those corresponding to the BS scenario. Energy units are in GeV, wherever applicable.}
\input{BP.tex}
\label{tab:BPtable}
\end{table}
Notice also that for all cases of BPs, $\rm m_{\widetilde {t_1}}$ varies from 600-1700 GeV and for all cases $\rm BR(\widetilde {t_1}\rightarrow\widetilde{\chi}^0_1 +t)$ is subdominant,
while $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}\rightarrow \widetilde{\chi}^0_1 +h$ is dominant.
Performing the simulation of signal and backgrounds,
signal sensitivities are presented for all these BPs.
\section{Signal and Background}
As discussed before, we consider the following process where the lightest
neutralino originates from the decay of second and third lightest neutralino($\widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}$)
produced via top-squark production as shown below,
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{signal.pdf}
\label{fig:signal}
\end{figure}
Since in this scenario, the $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_2/\widetilde{\chi}^0_3$ are dominantly Higgsino-like,
hence BR$\rm (\widetilde {t_1} \to t+ \widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3})$ is larger than
the BR($\rm \widetilde {t_1} \to t + \widetilde{\chi}^0_1$). Subsequently, the higher neutralino state (either $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ or $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_3$) dominantly decays to SM-like Higgs boson and $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_1$.
Here $\rm X \equiv \widetilde{\chi}^0_1, \widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}$ leads to
a $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ accompanied by either Z or $\rm h$ in the final state.
We focus only on single Higgs boson in the final state.
However, we found that
the contribution of di-Higgs boson events in the
signal is negligible.
The $\rm b \bar b $ channel of Higgs boson decay is considered owing to its higher BR and comparatively easy to reconstruct its mass. The pair of lightest neutralinos escape the detector leading to a huge amount of missing energy in the final state. Moreover, there is another pair of b-jets originating from two top quarks. Hence, the final state of the signal event is characterized by,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm h_{b\bar b}+ \ell + E{\!\!\!/}_T+ (\geq 1) ~b-jets; \ \ \ell =e,\mu.
\end{eqnarray}
We found that the contribution of di-Higgs production to the signal event is negligible. It is known that QCD is the main source of background corresponding to any pure hadronic final state. Hence, in order to eliminate it, the leptonic decay of one of the top quarks is considered. We require the presence of only one lepton in the final state. The other dominant SM backgrounds are:
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm p~p \rightarrow t\bar{t}(1\ell),~ t\bar{t}(2\ell),~ t\bar{t}h,~ t\bar{t}Z,~ t\bar{t}b\bar{b}
\end{eqnarray}
where, the combination of two b's coming from the top, $\rm h$, Z, or gluon splitting mimics the signal b-jets from Higgs decay. The lepton and $\rm E{\!\!\!/}_T$ arise from the semi-leptonic decay of one of the top quarks, while the other top decays hadronically.
It is to be noted that in the signal events, the angular separation between two
b-jets depends on the boost of Higgs boson,
which is determined by the mass differences,
$\rm \Delta m_1 = m_{\widetilde {t_1}} -(m_t + m_{\widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}})$ and $\rm \Delta m_2 = m_{\widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}} - m_{\widetilde{\chi}^0_1}$.
Accordingly, we simulate signal events in resolved and non-resolved categories
depending on the boost of Higgs boson. In Table~\ref{tab:BPtable}, BP1-BP5 correspond to the non-resolved category while BP6-BP9 represent the resolved one. For the boosted case,
two b-jets likely to appear as a single fat jet, which we refer to as the ``Higgs jet(HJ)''
now onwards.
The PYTHIA8 \cite{Sjostrand:2006za,Sjostrand:2007gs} is used
to generate $\rm t\bar{t}(1\ell),~ t\bar{t}(2\ell)$ events,
while the other background processes are generated using
[email protected]\cite{Alwall:2014hca} interfacing with PYTHIA8,
for showering and hadronization. Signal events are generated in
[email protected] using UFO for the MSSM (MSSM-SLHA2),
where the parameter card is generated from SLHA file \cite{Skands:2003cj}, obtained from SUSYHIT, corresponding to each BP.
The same SLHA file is used for subsequent showering of signal events
in PYTHIA8. Detector effects are taken into account by passing all
signal and background events through Delphes-3.4.2\cite{deFavereau:2013fsa}
using the CMS detector card{\footnote{Results are checked with ATLAS card as well, and no appreciable change is observed.}}.
In the simulation, the following selections are imposed, where objects are selected using Delphes inputs.\\
(1) {\bf Lepton selection :} Leptons are selected
with $\rm p_T>20~GeV$ and $|\eta|<2.5$. Isolation is
ensured using mini-isolation criteria by checking e-flow objects of Delphes
as follows~\cite{Khachatryan:2016uwr}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm \frac{\sum p_{T}^{R<r}}{p_{T,\ell}}<I , \;\; \ell=e,\mu.
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\rm r = \frac{10.0}{p_{T,\ell}}$ and $\rm I =0.12$ and 0.25 for e and $\mu$ respectively.
(2) {\bf Missing transverse momentum ($\rm E{\!\!\!/}_T$) :} The missing transverse
momentum is constructed by taking the resultant momenta of all
visible particles and then reversing the direction, i.e. ${\vec{\rm p}_{\rm T}}= - \sum \vec{\rm p}_{\rm T}^{~i}$,
where $i$ runs over all constructed visible collection from the detector. A cut $\rm E{\!\!\!/}_T>200(150)~GeV$ is imposed for events in the non-resolved(resolved) category.
(3) {\bf HJ selection:} The reconstruction of HJ is performed in two ways depending on the boost of the Higgs boson, i.e., resolved and non-resolved categories, as described below.
\begin{itemize}
\item HJ in non-resolved category: At first, fat jets are constructed taking inputs from Delphes, using
Fastjet3.3.2\cite{Cacciari:2011ma} with
Cambridge-Aachen\cite{Dokshitzer:1997in} algorithm and R=1.0.
Minimum $\rm p_T$ of the fatjets is set to be 100 GeV. These fat jets are then passed through mass-drop Tagger (MDT)\cite{Butterworth:2008iy,Dasgupta:2013ihk} with $\mu$ =0.667
and $\rm y_{cut} >0.09$ to remove contamination due to soft radiation. The subjets of the `tagged fat jet' are
further matched with the b-quarks of the event which are selected within $|\eta|<2.5$ and with a matching cone $\rm \Delta R<0.3$.
When both the subjets are found to be b-like, we call the tagged
fatjet as the HJ ($\rm J_{bb}$). We also checked the presence of B-hadron in the b-like subjets and found that for about 95$\%$ cases, it exists.
\item Resolved category: In this case, jets, subject to cuts $\rm p_{T}^{j}>$20 GeV and
$|\eta|<$4.0, are constructed from e-flow objects of Delphes, using Fastjet3.3.2\cite{Cacciari:2011ma}, but with the Anti-$\rm k_T$\cite{Cacciari:2008gp} algorithm with a jet size parameter R=0.5. Using the same technique as above, by matching jets with b-quarks of the event, b-like jets are identified. The pair of b-like jets that construct the invariant mass closest to Higgs boson mass within the range 100 GeV$\rm \leq m_{HJ}\leq$150 GeV, is identified as HJ, and the resultant four-momentum of the two jets is regarded as the momentum of HJ.
\end{itemize}
(4) {\bf Other jets and b-jets:} This selection also differs according to two categories.
\begin{itemize}
\item Jets in non-resolved category: Once HJ is constructed, the remaining hadrons are used to construct regular QCD jets through Fastjet3.3.2 with Anti-$\rm k_T$ algorithm setting R=0.5. Out of these jets, b-like jets are identified by matching technique with the remaining set of b-quarks in the event, which are not part of $\rm J_{bb}$.
\item Jets in resolved category: The two b-jets, which are found to be related to the HJ, are removed from the list of jets and b-jets, and this new list is used further.
\end{itemize}
Furthermore, to suppress backgrounds, we impose few more selection cuts.
For example, the transverse mass between lepton and $\rm E{\!\!\!/}_T$,
defined as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm m_T(\ell, E{\!\!\!/}_T) = \sqrt{2\times p_T^{\ell}\times E{\!\!\!/}_T\times (1-\cos\phi(\ell, E{\!\!\!/}_T))},
\label{eq:mtbb}
\end{eqnarray}
is restricted by $\rm M_W$ for all semileptonic $\rm t\bar{t}$ background events as seen in the $\rm m_T$ distribution presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:MTHT}(left) along with signal events corresponding to two BPs. On the contrary, for signal events, having
a large $\rm E{\!\!\!/}_T$ due to neutralinos, which is also not correlated with the
lepton coming from $\rm t\bar{t}$ decay, is expected to have a more wide $\rm m_T$ distribution without any peaks (see Fig.~\ref{fig:MTHT} (left)). Hence a cut $\rm m_T(\ell,E{\!\!\!/}_T)\geq110~GeV$ turns out to be very effective in eliminating a certain fraction of the background.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.5 cm]{MT_all.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.5 cm]{HT_all.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\small Transverse mass between (Eq.~\ref{eq:mtbb})lepton and $\rm E{\!\!\!/}_T$ (left) and $\rm H_T$ (right) for BP1, BP7 and dominating backgrounds.}
\label{fig:MTHT}
\end{figure}
Another discriminating variable is $\rm H_T$, defined as the scalar sum
of $\rm p_T$ of all jets except those that constitute HJ. For signal events, larger number of harder jets exist leading to higher $\rm H_T$ as seen
from the distribution shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:MTHT} (right). A cut $\rm H_T\geq 500~GeV$ turns out to be useful to reject background events substantially.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{MJ1.pdf}
\caption{\small Reconstructed mass of Higgs Jet (HJ) for a representative signal(BP5) point and dominant backgrounds.}
\label{fig:Mhiggs}
\end{figure}
In the case of the non-resolved category, the mass distribution of $\rm J_{bb}$
shows a clear peak at $\sim$125 GeV, which is absent in most of the
backgrounds, and very small for $\rm t\bar{t}h$
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Mhiggs}.
Thus the selection of $\rm m_{J_{bb}}>100 ~GeV$
is found to be useful in eliminating significant background events. In the resolved category case, this mass
requirement is already imposed while constructing HJ. The presence
of HJ with a specific mass requirement is a very important feature of our signal and helps to eliminate almost all the $\rm t\bar{t}$ backgrounds by enormous amount except $\rm t\bar{t}h$ process where the source of $\rm J_{bb}$ is same as the signal.
Signal events are simulated for 9 BPs which are chosen in such a way that BP1-BP5 represent the non-resolved cases, whereas BP6-BP9 correspond to the resolved category. The BPs labeled as `BS' in the parenthesis correspond to BS scenario.
In Table~\ref{tab:non-resolved}, the cross-section yields for the signal and background processes for the non-resolved categories are presented after imposing selection cuts. The first row presents the LO cross-sections of each processes, computed by [email protected], at the center of mass energy $\rm \sqrt{s}=13~TeV$, using NNPDF23LO \cite{Ball:2010de}
for parton distribution and choosing the dynamic QCD scale ($\rm Q^2=\sqrt{[m_{\widetilde {t_1}}^2+p_T^2(\widetilde {t_1})][m_{\bar{\widetilde {t_1}}}^2+p_T^2(\bar{\widetilde {t_1}})]}$ ). Higher order effects are taken into account by multiplying respective K-factors($\rm K=\frac{\sigma_{NLO}}{\sigma_{LO}}$). A K-factor of 1.4 is used for top-squark pair production(for NNPDF31LO)\cite{Broggio:2013uba} and $\rm t \bar t$~\cite{Melnikov:2009dn,Kidonakis:2008mu}. Whereas, for $\rm t \bar t h$, $\rm t \bar t Z$ and $\rm t \bar t b\bar{b}$ K-factors are considered to be 1.2~\cite{Beenakker:2002nc}, 1.35~\cite{Kardos:2011na} and 1.8~\cite{Buccioni:2019plc} respectively. As indicated in the table, the $\rm m_{J_{bb}}$ cut is very useful to eliminate backgrounds significantly. In addition, the $\rm m_T$ cut also kills backgrounds substantially.
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{\small Cross-section (in fb) yields after each set of selection cuts for signal points in the non-resolved category and background processes.}
\centering
\input{table_NR.tex}
\label{tab:non-resolved}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{\small Same as in Table~\ref{tab:non-resolved}, but for resolved category.}
\centering
\input{table_R.tex}
\label{tab:resolved}
\end{table}
Similarly, cross section yields for the resolved category are presented in Table~\ref{tab:resolved}. It is clear that the selection of HJ, in this case, is not as efficient as the non-resolved category, but still having good discriminating power. In general, overall signal acceptance efficiency is 1-2$\%$; while for overall backgrounds, it is found to be 0.0001$\%$ for the non-resolved category and 0.007$\%$ for the resolved category. The total cross-sections of background events are found to be 0.232~fb for the non-resolved category and 16.2~fb for the resolved cases respectively. Finally, the signal sensitivities ($\rm \frac{S}{\sqrt{S+B}}$) are presented in Table~\ref{tab:sensitivity} for two high luminosity options $\rm \mathcal{L}=300~ fb^{-1}~ and ~3000~fb^{-1}$. It is to be noted that for the non-resolved category, the sensitivities are $\sim 2-3\sigma$ for $\mathcal{L}=300~\text{fb}^{-1}$, whereas they are large($\sim 5-8\sigma$) for the resolved category, mainly because of the high production cross-sections, due to smaller top-squark masses. The tiny sensitivities for BP3 and BP5 can be attributed to a very low top-squark production cross-section because of its higher masses. Assuming 10$\%$ background uncertainty the sensitivity for the BPs in resolved category drops by $\sim 7\%$ and for the non-resolved category, it reduces by about 0.1$\%$.
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{\small Signal significances($\rm \frac{S}{\sqrt{S+B}}$) for two luminosity options.}
\centering
\input{sensitivity.tex}
\label{tab:sensitivity}
\end{table}
Though we obtain reasonable signal sensitivity in the resolved category, the acceptance efficiencies for backgrounds, in that case, are not appreciably small as in the non-resolved category in the cut-based method.
In order to improve further, we carry out multivariate analysis (MVA) based on boosted decision tree (BDT) method within the framework of TMVA~\cite{Hocker:2007ht,Voss:2007jxm} framework.
\subsection{Multivariate Analysis}
The basic idea of MVA~\cite{Hocker:2007ht,Voss:2007jxm,Friedman:Statistics,Webb:Statistics,Kuncheva:Statistics} is to examine patterns in multidimensional
data by considering several variables at once. Several kinematical variables are constructed, keeping in mind the features of signal events, for training purposes.
Depending upon the performances of those variables, we use 13 of those for the non-resolved category and 15 for the resolved category to train signal and background samples. The description of those variables are presented in Tables~\ref{tab:rank_NR} and \ref{tab:rank_R} corresponding to BP5 for non-resolved category and BP7 for the resolved category respectively.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering\caption{\small Rank of variables in MVA for non-resolved category corresponding to BP5.}
\input{rank_BP5}
\label{tab:rank_NR}
\end{table}
The first column of these tables shows the ranking of these variables, which represents the relative importance in discriminating signal and backgrounds. The set of variables are the same for all BPs for a given category, but depending on the kinematics, the ranking of those variables is found to be little different.
While doing MVA for each BP, overtraining tests are performed to ensure that there are no significant deviations between the performance of training and testing data.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{\small Rank of variables in MVA for resolved category corresponding to BP7.}
\input{rank_BP7}
\label{tab:rank_R}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.4cm]{classifier_xsec_sensitivity_nHJ1_954.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.4 cm]{classifier_xsec_sensitivity_nHJ1_688_204.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\small Signal and background yields as a function of threshold on MVA output discriminator along with the significance of signal corresponding to $\rm \mathcal{L}=300~fb^{-1}$ for signal point BP1 (left) and BP6(right).}
\label{fig:MVA_809}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:MVA_809}, the variation of cross section yields for signal and backgrounds and the signal significance ($\rm \frac{S}{\sqrt{S+B}}$) as a function of threshold on MVA output discriminator for luminosity $\rm \mathcal{L}=300~fb^{-1}$, is presented corresponding to the BP1 for the non-resolved category and BP6 for the resolved category case. It indicates that a sensitivity above $\sim 5\sigma$ can be achieved for luminosity $\rm \mathcal{L}=300~fb^{-1}$ corresponding to a cut of the classifier $>0.9$.
Evidently, the achievable signal significance for all the BPs are presented in Table~\ref{tab:sens_mva} for two luminosity options. Clearly, the signal sensitivities are found to be well above $5\sigma$ at $\rm \cal{L}$$\rm = 300 ~fb^{-1}$, except for BP3 and BP5, where the production cross-section is too low due to a heavier top-squark mass.
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{\small Signal significances($\rm \frac{S}{\sqrt{S+B}}$) for two luminosity options applying MVA.}
\centering
\input{MVA_sensitivity.tex}
\label{tab:sens_mva}
\end{table}
\section{Summary}
In the MSSM framework, the lightest neutralino, an LSP of the mass $\sim\cal{O}$(100) GeV, is found to be one of the best suitable DM candidates. However,
the constraints from direct DM detection experiments and measurement of the relic density
restrict the composition of the physical neutralino states. It is observed that, instead of a pure
state, neutralino DM in MSSM is ``mild-tempered''
where it is bino-dominated with a presence of little Higgsino, providing the best DM solution at this mass range.
In this scenario, the DM annihilation process takes place via Higgs
and gauge bosons where Higgsino content along with dominant
bino helps to provide the
right relic density. It is to be noted that, eventually the Higgsino composition in the LSP is strongly restricted by the limits of SI DM-nucleon scattering cross section measurements in the direct DM
detection experiments, primarily by XENON1T.
Considering this DM solution, a numerical scan is performed to identify
the range of sensitive parameters, in particular, $\mu$ and $\rm M_1$ in the limit of a very large $\rm M_2$ value.
It is found that, with $\rm|\mu|-M_1 > M_Z$, the most preferred ranges
are $\rm M_1 \sim 50 - 600$~GeV and $\rm \mu \sim 400- 1000$~GeV.
Moreover, there is a region of parameter space that is blind to
the SI scattering cross section due to the interplay of parameters
and cancellation among various amplitudes
mediated by the lighter and heavier Higgs bosons. Consequently, in such cases, the
Higgsino content in the lightest neutralino is not severely constrained.
In mild-tempered DM scenario, $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ is
accompanied with Higgsino-like $\widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}$
having masses around $\mu$. It is indeed the case even for the region of
parameters corresponding to the BS scenario.
Due to the gaugino-Higgsino-Higgs type of coupling,
$\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}\rightarrow h+ \widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ decay rate gets enhanced,
leading to an interesting phenomenology at the LHC corresponding to our considered scenario.
We focus on the top-squark pair production to explore the mild-tempered neutralino scenario at the LHC. As $\rm BR(\widetilde {t_1}\rightarrow\widetilde{\chi}^0_1 +t)$ is very small, $\rm \widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ is indirectly produced through the production of $\widetilde{\chi}^0_{2,3}$.
The presence of SM-Higgs boson in the final state adds an extra advantage to
probe this channel. Interestingly, this channel also provides an opportunity to probe the BS scenario. The signal is characterized by one HJ consisting of b-like jets or subjets,
large $\rm E{\!\!\!/}_T$, one lepton, plus at least one extra b-like jet.
The HJ tagging turns out to be very efficient to separate out the signal
from the debris of backgrounds. The presence of HJ adds robustness to this signal.
Signal significances are presented for few illustrative BPs including BS scenario. We observe that for top-squarks of the mass range 600-1700 GeV, for most of the BPs, a reasonable signal sensitivity($\sim3-5\sigma$) can be achieved corresponding to $\rm \cal{L}$ $\rm $ = 300 ~fb$^{-1}$ luminosity option, which goes up roughly by a factor of three for $\rm \cal{L}$$\rm = 3000 ~fb^{-1}$. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the sensitivities can be increased by employing
MVA technique. Remarkably, we notice that, for the above luminosity options, and in particular for the resolved category case, the improvement is significant, by a factor of $\sim$3-4. The signal is detectable even for $\rm \cal{L}$ $\rm $ = 300 ~fb$^{-1}$ option except for BP3 and BP5 for which top-squark masses are $\rm \sim1.5~TeV$. For the center of mass energy $\rm \sqrt{s}=14~TeV$, which is the energy option for RUN3 experiment at the LHC, our projected sensitivities are expected to increase by 15-20$\%$ depending on the top-squark masses. A 10$\%$ uncertainty in background estimation reduces sensitivity by about 7$\%$ and $0.1\%$ for resolved and non-resolved category respectively.
Our analysis shows that both the ``mild-tempered" neutralino providing a DM candidate in the framework of
MSSM and also the BS scenario where the direct search is not sensitive,
can be detected at the LHC with a reasonable sensitivity for projected luminosity
options. \\
{\bf Acknowledgements}
The authors are thankful to Shivani Lomte, at affiliation of IISER, Pune, (now at University of Wisconsin) for collaborating on this project at an earlier stage. One of the authors, A.R, is thankful to Soham Bhattacharya for useful discussions and suggestions.
\bibliographystyle{utphys.bst}
|
\section{Introduction}
Most materials of engineering significance are polycrystalline and/or multi-phase.
The resulting microstructures can be characterised by spatial distributions of domains of different phases (e.g. multi-phase alloys) or different crystallographic orientations (e.g. polycrystals).
In this manner, the microstructure may be viewed as a network of interfaces
and microstructure evolution as the motion of these interfaces.
The key to such evolution is the governing interface equation of motion.
Here, we present such an interface equation of motion in crystalline systems that respects the underlying crystal structure(s) of the materials, the bicrystallography of their interfaces, and is suitable for incorporation into complex, microstructure evolution simulations.
The formulation of such a governing equation relies on crystallography-respecting interface models and the mechanisms by which they move.
The simplest model is to treat an interface as a smoothly curved, homogeneous, isotropic surface that moves as dictated by the reduction of the total free energy of the system (gradient flow).
If the only contribution to the free energy is the excess energy of the interfaces (surface tension), interface motion is classical curvature flow~\cite{mullins1956two,burke1952recrystallization}:
{\color{black}$\mathbf{v} = M\gamma_0 \kappa \hat{\mathbf{n}}$, where $v$ is the local interface velocity, $M$ is its (constant) mobility, $\gamma_0$ is the (constant) interface energy, $\kappa$ is the local mean curvature, and $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$ is the local normal of the interface plane.}
This model and governing equation can be easily implemented in large-scale microstructure evolution simulations (e.g. normal grain growth simulations~\cite{lazar2010more}).
For an anisotropic surface (i.e., surface orientation-dependent properties), we only need to replace the interface energy $\gamma_0$ by the interface stiffness~\cite{herring1951physics,du2007properties}.
Such a continuum interface formulation is simple but ignores the role of crystallography on interface motion.
A simple, crystallography-respecting interface approach is the terrace-ledge-kink (TLK) model which was developed to describe the free surfaces of crystals~\cite{kossel1927theorie,burton1951growth,mullins1963microscopic}.
The TLK model was extended to grain boundaries (GBs) half a century ago~\cite{gleiter1969mechanism}.
In this model, one interface orientation is considered a reference (or terrace) such that, at the continuum scale, the interface morphology can be described by a single-valued height function $z(x,t)$ measured from the reference.
The kinetic mechanism for interface motion in the TLK model is the propagation of steps (i.e., ledges and kinks) along the terrace.
A continuum version of the step-flow picture was previously proposed~\cite{stone2005continuum}.
Models originally developed for crystal surfaces, such as the TLK model, cannot be directly applied to interfaces in crystalline materials.
This is because interfacial line defects are not pure steps/ledges; they are, in general, characterised by both a step height and a Burgers vector; these line defects are {\it disconnections}~\cite{bollmann1970general,ashby1972boundary,hirth1973grain}.
Disconnections have been widely observed on GBs~\cite{rajabzadeh2013evidence,zhu2019situ} and heterophase interfaces~\cite{pond2003comparison,zheng2018determination,qi2020interdiffusion}.
The Burgers vector character of disconnections plays a significant effect in the motion of interfaces; including the following.
(i) An applied stress can drive the glide of disconnections; the step character necessarily couples this to interface migration (i.e., shear-coupled migration~\cite{cahn2006coupling}).
(ii) When an interface migrates, the propagation of finite Burgers vector disconnections necessarily leads to shear across the interface, such as in Martensitic transformations~\cite{bhattacharya2003microstructure}.
(iii) In a microstructure where the interfaces are highly curved and/or interconnected, shear along individual interface will be constrained such that internal stresses will accumulate during microstructure evolution; this implies that microstructure evolution may stagnate~\cite{thomas2017reconciling}.
(iv) Elastic interactions amongst disconnections suggest that interfaces may undergo a Kosterlitz-Thouless transition at a critical temperature~\cite{chen2020grainb} (signalled by an abrupt change in the temperature dependence of GB mobility and viscosity).
(v) Elastic interactions amongst disconnections lead to GB thermal fluctuation spectra that follow $k^{-1}$ rather than $k^{-2}$ (like free surfaces and solid-fluid interfaces), where $k$ is the wave vector~\cite{karma2012relationship}.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\includegraphics[height=0.6\linewidth]{DSC.pdf}\hspace{-1.78em}%
\caption{\label{fig:DSC}
Schematic of the two-reference interface model for a $\Sigma 3$ $[100]$ $(11\bar{2})$ symmetric tilt grain boundary in a body-centred cubic crystals
(a) Two crystals (black and white) of different orientations and/or lattice structures.
(b) Dichromatic pattern formed by extending two crystals throughout space (blue and grey grids denote the CSL and the DSC lattices).
The green curve is a continuum representation of the interface; the red curve corresponds to its discretisation on the DSC lattice.
The first and second closest-packed planes are highlighted.
(c) The interfaces corresponding to (b).
(d) and (e) show the two reference interfaces.
From (d) to (c) to (e), the interface inclination angle varies from 0 to $90^\circ$.
(f) A continuum interface for an arbitrary morphology domain (green curve) described in the two-reference description (red curve).
}
\end{figure*}
We recently proposed a disconnection glide-based, continuum equation of motion for GBs~\cite{zhang2017equation}.
Similar to the TLK model, it is limited by an intrinsic assumption; i.e., there is a special, flat reference interface and the interface morphology represents only small deviations from this reference interface.
However, in a microstructure, interfaces are commonly highly curved such that the assumption of a small deviation from a reference interface is inappropriate and prevents its application in general microstructure evolution simulations {\color{black}or very wide boundaries}.
In this paper, we propose a continuum two-reference interface equation of motion for arbitrarily curved interface of arbitrary bicrystallography.
This paper is organised as follows.
In Sect.~\ref{theory}, we develop a theory for interface kinetics and then, in Sect.~\ref{numerical} we apply this to sharp interface simulations for several simple cases.
In Sect.~\ref{discussion}, we discuss the physical meaning of several parameters in the model and provide its extensive generalisation.
In Part II of this paper~\cite{Salvalaglio2021},
we develop a diffuse interface approach for the simulation of the evolution of an interface or multiple interfaces in complex settings.
\section{Theory of interface dynamics}\label{theory}
\subsection{Dual-reference interface model}\label{theorytworef}
We describe a general interface between a pair of crystals in two steps\cite{SuttonBalluffi,han2018grain}:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
Represent each crystal by its translation vectors and rotate one lattice with respect to the other to the target misorientation.
Interpenetrate the two crystal lattices to form a dichromatic pattern and the associated coincidence-site lattice (CSL).
For example, Fig.~\ref{fig:DSC}b shows the dichromatic pattern formed by the black and white crystals of the same type, Fig.~\ref{fig:DSC}a.
The grey grid in Fig.~\ref{fig:DSC}b denotes the displacement-shift-complete (DSC) lattice, while the blue grid denotes the CSL.
\item[(ii)]
Select an interface plane.
Remove one crystal (black lattice points) on one side of the interface and the other crystal (white lattice points) on the other side (see Figs.~\ref{fig:DSC}b and c).
\end{itemize}
While there is ambiguity in choosing the interface plane, close-packed CSL planes are special (see the first and second closest-packing planes highlighted in Fig.~\ref{fig:DSC}b); special in the sense that they are highly coherent and often associated with cusps in interface energy versus inclination plots and are often micro- (or macro-) facets.
We choose these planes as the two reference interfaces, denoted by ``R(1)'' and ``R(2)'' in Figs.~\ref{fig:DSC}d and e.
These special interfaces are ``reference'' interfaces in the following senses.
An interface with a plane slightly inclined with respect to R(1) (Fig.~\ref{fig:DSC}d) can be described as an R(1) interface with a superimposed distribution of disconnections (line defects in the interface plane with both a step height and a Burgers vector each corresponding to DSC lattice vectors -- see Fig.~\ref{fig:DSC}b).
Similarly, an interface that is slightly inclined with respect to an R(2) interface (Fig.~\ref{fig:DSC}e) can be described as an R(2) interface with superimposed disconnections of another type.
This description of inclined interfaces is well-established~\cite{Sutton83b}.
{\color{black}While Fig.~\ref{fig:DSC} illustrates a particularly simple case (corresponding to a $\Sigma$3 [100] (11$\bar{2}$) symmetric tilt grain boundary in a body-centred
cubic crystal), the Supplement Material shows two additional examples of reference interface selection in more complex DSC lattices.}
Generalisation of this concept requires a description of interfaces for arbitrary inclinations with respect to any plane.
Such interfaces are an intrinsic features of all non-faceted microstructures.
To address this issue, we introduce a two-reference model as follows.
First, we assume that a disconnection on the R(1) interface can be viewed as a segment of the R(2) interface and vice versa.
This assumption is consistent with the myriad observation from atomistic simulations and experiments~\cite{dodaran2019energetic,medlin2017defect}.
In this representation, an arbitrarily curved interface can be decomposed into segments of R(1) and R(2) interfaces, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:DSC}c.
Accordingly, an interface can be described by two sets of disconnections; one on each of the reference interfaces.
The shape of the interface is described by the distribution of disconnection-steps while the stress field (relative shear displacements) near the interface is caused by the distribution of disconnection-Burgers vectors.
Since the reference interfaces should be close-packed CSL planes, the two reference interfaces need not be perpendicular to each other; this depends on crystallography.
However, for concreteness and simplicity of representation, we present the two-reference model for a situation in which the two reference interfaces are orthogonal.
This applies, for example, to the case of $[110]$ tilt grain boundaries in cubic crystals (Fig.~\ref{fig:DSC}).
The extension to the non-orthogonal case is discussed in Sect.~\ref{discussion}.
\subsection{Pure-step disconnection}\label{stepmodel}
Although each segment of an interface (e.g., red lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:DSC}b) can be characterised, in general, by step heights and Burgers vectors on the two reference interfaces, we first present a simple case in which the Burgers vectors are zero; i.e., a pure-step model (see Fig.~\ref{fig:tangentgeometry}).
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[height=1.2\linewidth]{tangentgeometry.pdf}\hspace{-1.78em}%
\caption{\label{fig:tangentgeometry}
A closed interface curve (centre) and its piecewise representation in the reference lattice (outer).
The tangent vector points clockwise.
The steps on the four segments of arc length $|\mathbf{l}|$ at Points A, B, C and D are shown explicitly.
The geometry is consistent with Eqs.~\eqref{h1rho1t2} and \eqref{h2rho2t1}.
}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Geometric description}
An arbitrary curve in the $\mathbf{e}_1$-$\mathbf{e}_2$ space (Fig.~\ref{fig:tangentgeometry}) can be expressed parametrically as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{x}(s) = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_1(s) \\ x_2(s)
\end{array}
\right),
\end{equation}
where $s$ is the parameter.
The local tangent vector $\mathbf{l}$ is
\begin{subequations}\label{tangent}
\begin{gather}
\mathbf{l}
= \frac{\mathrm{d} \mathbf{x}}{\mathrm{d} s}
= \left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathrm{d} x_1/\mathrm{d} s \\ \mathrm{d} x_2/\mathrm{d} s
\end{array}\right)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
l_1 \\ l_2
\end{array}\right),
\text{ or}
\end{gather}
\begin{gather}
\hat{\mathbf{l}}
= \frac{\mathbf{l}}{|\mathbf{l}|}
= \frac{1}{|\mathbf{l}|}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{x}}{\mathrm{d} s}
= \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{x}}{\mathrm{d} L},
\end{gather}
\end{subequations}
where $\hat{\mathbf{l}}$ is the normalised tangent and the change in arc length $\mathrm{d} L$ corresponding to a unit change in $s$ is $|\mathbf{l}|\,\mathrm{d} s$.
Define $\rho^{(k)}(s) \,\mathrm{d} L$ ($k=1,2$) as the number of R($k$) disconnections in the arc $\mathrm{d} L$;
{\color{black}in other words, $\rho^{(k)}$ represents the number of R($k$) disconnections per unit arc length. }
$\rho^{(1)} > 0$ if, when we go along the $\mathbf{e}_1$ direction, R(1) step leads to increment $\mathrm{d} x_2 > 0$ along the $\hat{\mathbf{l}}$ direction; and vice versa.
Similarly, $\rho^{(2)} > 0$ if, when we go along the $\mathbf{e}_2$ direction, R(2) step leads to increment $\mathrm{d} x_1 < 0$ along the $\hat{\mathbf{l}}$ direction.
R(1) and R(2) disconnections contribute to an increment of $x_2$ ($x_1$) by
\begin{subequations}
\begin{gather}\label{h1rho1t2}
h^{(1)} \rho^{(1)} \mathrm{d} L
= \mathrm{d} x_2
\Rightarrow
h^{(1)} \rho^{(1)}
= \hat{l}_2,
\end{gather}
\begin{gather}\label{h2rho2t1}
- h^{(2)} \rho^{(2)} \mathrm{d} L
= \mathrm{d} x_1
\Rightarrow
- h^{(2)} \rho^{(2)}
= \hat{l}_1,
\end{gather}
\end{subequations}
respectively, where $h^{(k)}$ is the step height of the R($k$) disconnection.
Equations~\eqref{h1rho1t2} and \eqref{h2rho2t1} give
\begin{equation}\label{lrho}
\hat{\mathbf{l}}(s)
= \left(\begin{array}{c}
-h^{(2)} \rho^{(2)} \\
h^{(1)} \rho^{(1)}
\end{array}\right),
\end{equation}
which expresses the unit tangent vector in terms of $\rho^{(k)}(s)$ and can be integrated to find the interface curve:
\begin{equation}\label{trajectory}
\mathbf{x}(s)
=
\left(
\def1{2.2}
\begin{array}{c}
x_1(0) - \displaystyle{h^{(2)} \int_0^s \rho^{(2)}(s') |\mathbf{l}(s')|\,\mathrm{d} s'} \\
x_2(0) + \displaystyle{h^{(1)} \int_0^s \rho^{(1)}(s') |\mathbf{l}(s')|\,\mathrm{d} s'}
\end{array}\right).
\end{equation}
We can check this result for a special case.
For a flat, inclined interface plane with constant tangent unit vector $\hat{\mathbf{l}}$, $\rho^{(1)} = \hat{l}_2/h^{(1)}$ and $\rho^{(2)} = -\hat{l}_1/h^{(2)}$ are constant everywhere.
For a flat R(1) interface (zero inclination) with $\hat{l}_1 = 1$ (i.e., the interface between Points A and B in Fig.~\ref{fig:tangentgeometry}), $\hat{l}_2 = 0$, $\rho^{(1)} = 0$ and $\rho^{(2)} = - 1/h^{(2)}$.
$\rho^{(1)}$ and $\rho^{(2)}$ are not independent.
When R(1) steps glide along the $\mathbf{e}_1$-axis, R(2) steps simultaneously glide along $\mathbf{e}_2$; the motions of the steps are simply two aspects of a single interface migration event.
If so, why do we introduce a two-reference model?
As we demonstrate below, the two-reference model provides a natural means of introducing anisotropy in interface properties (e.g., interface energy and mobility) along with a well-posed description of any interface orientation.
The two-reference model allows us to associate a Burgers vector with each step that may be parallel to either the $\mathbf{e}_1$- or $\mathbf{e}_2$-axis.
\subsubsection{Curvature-flow kinetics}
In the pure-step case, the interface energy/surface tension is associated with both reference states and steps (localised energy).
The total energy is a functional of the interface curve:
\begin{equation}\label{E}
E[\mathbf{x}(s)] = \int \gamma(s) |\mathbf{l}(s)| \,\mathrm{d} s,
\end{equation}
where the interface energy is a function of the local tangent direction: $\gamma(s) = \gamma(\hat{\mathbf{l}}(s))$ (in 2D it is a function of the inclination angle $\phi(s)$, defined relative to the R(1) interface).
The driving force is the variation of the energy with respect to the interface displacement:
\begin{equation}\label{capillarity}
\mathbf{f}(s)
= -\frac{\delta E[\mathbf{x}(s)]}{\delta \mathbf{x}(s)}
= \Gamma \kappa \left(
\begin{array}{c}
-\hat{l}_2 \\ \hat{l}_1
\end{array}\right)
= \Gamma \kappa \hat{\mathbf{n}},
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma \equiv \gamma + \gamma_{,\phi\phi}$ is the interface stiffness~\cite{herring1951physics,du2007properties}, $\kappa$ is the local curvature, and $\hat{\mathbf{n}} = (-\hat{l}_2, \hat{l}_1)^T$ is the local normal (see Fig.~\ref{fig:convention}).
At Point A in Fig.~\ref{fig:convention}, $\kappa < 0$, $\mathbf{f}$ is in the $-\hat{\mathbf{n}}$ direction; at Point B, $\kappa > 0$ and $\mathbf{f}$ is in the $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$ direction.
Equation~\eqref{capillarity} shows that the driving force is simply the classical capillary force (i.e., the weighted mean curvature\cite{taylor1992overview}), always directed along the normal.
{\color{black}The Supplemental Material also shows how to represent the weighted mean curvature in terms of the interface divergence of capillarity vector \cite{hoffman1972vector}. }
\begin{figure}[b!]
\includegraphics[height=0.35\linewidth]{convention.pdf}\hspace{-1.78em}%
\caption{\label{fig:convention}A 1D curve in the $\mathbf{e}_1$-$\mathbf{e}_2$ plane.
The normal $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$ is defined such that $\hat{\mathbf{l}}\times\hat{\mathbf{n}} = \mathbf{e}_3$ where $\hat{\mathbf{l}}$ is the tangent.
The curvature at Point A is $\kappa < 0$ while that at Point B is $\kappa > 0$.
}
\end{figure}
In 2D, $\gamma = \gamma(\hat{\mathbf{l}})=\gamma(\phi)$.
If the interface energy is inclination-independent/isotropic, $\Gamma = \gamma=\gamma_0$ and $\mathbf{f}(s) = \gamma_0 \kappa \hat{\mathbf{n}}$.
The overdamped interface velocity is
\begin{equation}\label{simplest}
\dot{\mathbf{x}}(s)
= M \mathbf{f}(s)
= M \gamma_0 \kappa \hat{\mathbf{n}},
\end{equation}
where $M$ is the interface mobility;
{\color{black}here, we assume that $M$ is not a function of crystallography.}
As a results, Eq.~\eqref{simplest} reduces to classical (isotropic) capillarity-driven interface migration~\cite{mullins1956two,burke1952recrystallization}.
The pure-step model gives rise to an anisotropic interface energy
\begin{equation}\label{gammadensity}
\gamma(s)= \gamma^{(2)} h^{(2)} |\rho^{(2)}(s)|+ \gamma^{(1)} h^{(1)} |\rho^{(1)}(s)|
\end{equation}
which, exploiting Eq.~\eqref{lrho} and the definition of $\phi$, implies
\begin{equation}\label{gammaaniso}
\gamma(\phi)= \gamma^{(2)} |\cos\phi| + \gamma^{(1)} |\sin\phi|,
\end{equation}
with $\gamma^{(k)}$ the ``step energy'' on the R($k$) interface (rather than interface energy).
This interface energy encodes symmetries of the reference system~\cite{taylor1992overview} (see Sect.~\ref{sec:non-orth}).
In this case, the interface energy has cusps at $\phi = n\pi/2$ ($n = 0, 1, 2, 3$) corresponding to R(1) and R(2) facets (e.g., see Fig.~\ref{fig:anisotropy}a).
{\color{black}
Note that the geometry dependence of $\gamma$ is determined by the choice of reference interfaces and thus rooted in the crystallography, rather than arbitrarily chosen.
As demonstrated in atomistic simulations~\cite{bulatov2014grain}, the form of $\gamma(\phi)$ (grain boundary energy) is indeed crystallography-determined.
}
The $\gamma(\phi)$ in Eq.~\eqref{gammaaniso} implies the interface velocity
\begin{equation}\label{capillarity_anisotropy}
\dot{\mathbf{x}}(s)= M \left[2\gamma^{(2)} \hat{l}_2^2 \delta(\hat{l}_1)
+ 2\gamma^{(1)} \hat{l}_1^2 \delta(\hat{l}_2)\right] \kappa\hat{\mathbf{n}},
\end{equation}
where $\delta(x)$ is the Dirac delta function, which we regularise as
\begin{equation}\label{Poissonkernel}
\delta(x) = \lim_{\epsilon\to 0} \frac{1}{\pi} \frac{\epsilon}{\epsilon^2 + x^2}
\end{equation}
such that Eq.~\eqref{capillarity_anisotropy} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{capillarity_anisotropy_regularisation}
\dot{\mathbf{x}}(s)
= M \frac{2\epsilon}{\pi}
\left(
\gamma^{(2)} \dfrac{\hat{l}_2^2}{\epsilon^2 +\hat{l}_1^2}
+ \gamma^{(1)} \dfrac{\hat{l}_1^2}{\epsilon^2 + \hat{l}_2^2}
\right)
\kappa \hat{\mathbf{n}},
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon$ is a small, dimensionless parameter (see Sect.~\ref{discussion_singularities}).
Consider the special case of a circular interface (radius $R$).
Here, $s = -\theta$ ($\hat{\mathbf{l}}$ and $\theta$ increase in the clockwise and counter-clockwise directions, respectively), $x_1 = R\cos\theta$ and $x_2 = R\sin\theta$, $|\mathbf{l}| = \sqrt{x_1'^2 + x_2'^2} = R$, $\hat{l}_1 = x_1'/|\mathbf{l}| = \sin\theta$, $\hat{l}_2 = x_2'/|\mathbf{l}| = -\cos\theta$,
$\kappa = -1/R$, and
$\hat{\mathbf{n}} = (-x_2', x_1')^T/\sqrt{x_1'^2 + x_2'^2} = (\cos\theta, \sin\theta)^T$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:convention}).
Then, Eq.~\eqref{capillarity_anisotropy_regularisation} reduces to the $\dot{\mathbf{x}}(\theta)$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:anisotropy} for $\epsilon = 0.3$ and $\gamma^{(1)}/\gamma^{(2)} = 2$.
\begin{figure}[bt!]
\includegraphics[height=0.55\linewidth]{anisotropy_gamma_vector.pdf}\hspace{-1.78em}%
\caption{\label{fig:anisotropy}(a) Polar plot of interface energy vs. inclination angle $\gamma(\phi)$ (scaled by $\gamma^{(2)}$) with $\gamma^{(1)}/\gamma^{(2)} = 2$.
This plot corresponds to the $\gamma(\hat{\mathbf{n}})\hat{\mathbf{n}}$ plot in Ref.~\onlinecite{balluffi2005kinetics}.
(b) The velocity field around a circular interface (Eq.~\eqref{capillarity_anisotropy_regularisation} with $\epsilon = 0.3$ and $\gamma^{(1)}/\gamma^{(2)} = 2$).
}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:anisotropy}b shows that the interface segment at $\theta = \pm\pi/2$ has the largest velocity; we can understand this as follows.
This interface consists of R(1) steps of energy $\gamma^{(1)}$.
Since $\gamma^{(1)}>\gamma^{(2)}$, the steps on the R(1) interface tend to be eliminated quickly.
This implies that the step density on the R(1) interface decreases and this interface segment becomes increasingly flat.
This result is counterintuitive since this interface segment ($\theta = \pm\pi/2$) has lower energy than nearby segments (e.g., $\theta = \pi/4$); if the interface velocity is simply proportional to interface energy, the higher-energy segments should migrate faster.
Recall, however, that the anisotropic driving force is proportional to $\Gamma$ rather than $\gamma$; here $\gamma_{,\phi\phi}$ dominates the $\gamma$-contribution to $\Gamma$.
At $\theta = \pi/2$ ($\phi = 0$), small deviation of $\phi$ from $0$ quickly increases the energy, implying the interface flattens quickly.
\subsubsection{Step-flow kinetics}
Here, we develop an equation of motion for the interface based on step motion.
We distinguish two types of interface migration, as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:migrationmode}.
Type~(1) migration (Fig.~\ref{fig:migrationmode}a) results from the driven glide of R(1) steps along the $\mathbf{e}_1$-axis; note that, although the R(2) steps are not driven, their motion is coupled.
Similarly, Type~(2) migration (Fig.~\ref{fig:migrationmode}b) results from the driven glide of R(2) steps along the $\mathbf{e}_2$-axis, along with the coupled glide of R(1) steps.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\includegraphics[height=0.35\linewidth]{migrationmode.pdf}\hspace{-1.78em}%
\caption{\label{fig:migrationmode}
(a) Type~(1) migration is driven by horizontal glide of R(1) steps.
(b) Type~(2) migration is driven by vertical glide of R(2) steps.
The R($k$) step glide distance is $g^{(k)}$.
}
\end{figure}
The glide distance and velocity of R($k$) steps along the $\mathbf{e}_k$-axis as $\mathbf{g}^{(k)}(s) = g^{(k)}(s) \mathbf{e}_k$ and $\mathbf{v}^{(k)}(s) = \dot{\mathbf{g}}^{(k)}(s) = v^{(k)}(s) \mathbf{e}_k$.
We represent $\delta\mathbf{x}(s)$ (Eq.~\eqref{capillarity}) by $\delta g^{(k)}(s)$:
\begin{equation}\label{dxtodg}
\delta \mathbf{x}
= \left(\begin{array}{c}
\delta g^{(1)} \\ \delta g^{(2)}
\end{array}\right);
\end{equation}
i.e., interface migration can be decomposed into the two types of migration depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:migrationmode}.
The driving forces (per unit interface length) for the two types of interface migration are
\begin{equation}\label{capillarity_on_step}
f^{(1)}
= -\frac{\delta E}{\delta g^{(1)}}
= - \Gamma \kappa \hat{l}_2, \quad
f^{(2)}
= -\frac{\delta E}{\delta g^{(2)}}
= \Gamma \kappa \hat{l}_1.
\end{equation}
Assuming overdamped step dynamics, the step velocities are
\begin{equation}\label{vstep}
v^{(1)} = - M^{(1)} \Gamma \kappa \hat{l}_2, \quad
v^{(2)} = M^{(2)} \Gamma \kappa \hat{l}_1,
\end{equation}
where $M^{(k)}$ is the mobility associated with Type~($k$) step migration.
This implies that the interface velocity is
\begin{equation}\label{kineticeq_s_M1M2}
\dot{\mathbf{x}}
= \Gamma \kappa \mathbf{M} \hat{\mathbf{n}},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{M}$ is the mobility tensor
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{M}
\equiv
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
M^{(1)} & 0 \\
0 & M^{(2)}
\end{array}\right).
\end{equation}
The interface velocity $\dot{\mathbf{x}}(s)$ is parallel to $\mathbf{M}\hat{\mathbf{n}}$ rather than the interface normal $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$.
In the step-flow model of interface motion, the driving force acts on the interface steps, rather than the interface \emph{per se}.
When $M^{(1)} = M^{(2)} = M$, $\dot{\mathbf{x}} = M \Gamma \kappa \hat{\mathbf{n}}$, which is identical to the classical curvature flow equation of motion Eq.~\eqref{capillarity}.
Equation~\eqref{kineticeq_s_M1M2} is a generalisation of Eq.~\eqref{capillarity} that accounts for kinetic anisotropy ($M^{(1)} \ne M^{(2)}$).
{\color{black}
Note that, although Eq.~\eqref{kineticeq_s_M1M2} looks like the classical curvature flow equation, it is a consequence of the step-flow kinetics (rather than assumed).
}
For a flat interface with a fixed inclination angle $\phi$, only the velocity projected along the interface normal contributes to interface migration (tangential components of the velocity are important for description of the motion of corners):
\begin{equation}
M(\phi)
= \hat{\mathbf{n}}\cdot\mathbf{M}\hat{\mathbf{n}}
= M^{(1)}\cos^2\phi + M^{(2)}\sin^2\phi,
\end{equation}
as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:anisotropykinetics}a.
This prediction is qualitatively similar to the inclination dependence of grain boundary motion from kinetic Monte Carlo~\cite{lobkovsky2004grain} and molecular dynamics~\cite{lontine2018stress} simulations.
We simulate the interface evolution mediated by step migration of an arbitrarily curved interface by numerically solving Eq.~\eqref{kineticeq_s_M1M2}.
\begin{figure}[bt!]
\includegraphics[height=1.1\linewidth]{anisotropy_kinetics_vector.pdf}\hspace{-1.78em}%
\caption{\label{fig:anisotropykinetics}
(a) Polar plot of the interface mobility vs. inclination angle $M(\phi)$ (scaled by $M^{(1)}$) with $M^{(2)}/M^{(1)} = 4$.
(b) Interface velocity along a circular interface for isotropic interface energy.
The kinetics are anisotropic; i.e., we set $M^{(2)}/M^{(1)} = 4$.
(c) Interface velocity in the case anisotropic interface energy (Eq.~\eqref{gammaaniso} with $\epsilon = 0.3$, $M^{(2)}/M^{(1)}=4$) and $\gamma^{(1)} =\gamma^{(2)}$.
}
\end{figure}
If the interface energy is isotropic, $\gamma = \gamma_0$, then the interface velocity is given by Eq.~\eqref{kineticeq_s_M1M2} with $\Gamma = \gamma_0$.
Figure~\ref{fig:anisotropykinetics}b shows an example of the velocity field on a circular interface (radius $R$) with $M^{(2)}/M^{(1)} = 4$.
Here, the horizontal interface segment moves faster than the vertical interface segment because the horizontal interface segment is equivalent to R(2) steps while the vertical interface segment to R(1) steps and we set $M^{(2)} > M^{(1)}$ (i.e., Type~(2) migration is faster than Type~(1) migration, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:migrationmode}).
For the anisotropic interface energy case, Eq.~\eqref{gammaaniso},
\begin{equation}\label{kinetic_anisotropy_regularisation}
\dot{\mathbf{x}}(s)
= \frac{2\epsilon}{\pi}
\left(
\gamma^{(2)} \frac{\hat{l}_2^2}{\epsilon^2 + \hat{l}_1^2}
+ \gamma^{(1)} \frac{\hat{l}_1^2}{\epsilon^2 + \hat{l}_2^2}
\right)
\kappa \mathbf{M} \hat{\mathbf{n}}.
\end{equation}
Focusing on the velocity field around a circular interface $\dot{\mathbf{x}}(\theta)$, we see that the interface velocity (see Fig.~\ref{fig:anisotropykinetics}c for $\epsilon = 0.3$, $M^{(2)}/M^{(1)}=4$, and $\gamma^{(1)} =\gamma^{(2)}$) is larger on the horizontal segments ($\theta = \pi/2$ and $3\pi/2$) than on vertical ones ($\theta = 0$ and $\pi$) since $M^{(2)} > M^{(1)}$; consistent with Fig.~\ref{fig:anisotropykinetics}b.
When $M^{(1)} \ne M^{(2)}$, the interface shape does not evolve to the equilibrium shape (i.e., the lowest-energy profile at fixed grain/domain area).
\subsection{General disconnection}\label{disconnectionmodel}
As noted above disconnections generally have both step and dislocation characters (a pure-step model is more appropriate for describing the dynamics of free surfaces than interfaces in crystalline materials).
Here, we present the two-reference general disconnection model.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\includegraphics[height=0.5\linewidth]{migrationmode_b.pdf}\hspace{-1.78em}%
\caption{\label{fig:migrationmode_b}Two interface migration modes for disconnection with finite Burgers vectors (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:migrationmode} for the pure step case).
This interface segment corresponds to Point A in Fig.~\ref{fig:tangentgeometry_b}.
(a) Type~(1) migration is driven by horizontal glide of R(1) disconnections.
The shaded region shows that the glide of one R(1) disconnection towards the right is accompanied by the downward glide of R(2) disconnections.
(b) Type~(2) migration is driven by the vertical glide of R(2) disconnections.
The shaded region shows that the upward glide of an R( 2) disconnection is accompanied by the leftward glide of R(1) disconnections .
$g^{(1)}$ and $g^{(2)}$ are glide distances and $f_\mathrm{g}^{(k)}$ is the PK force on R($k$) disconnections under positive $\tau$.
}
\end{figure}
We employ the following conventions:
(i) the disconnection line direction $\boldsymbol{\xi} \parallel \mathbf{e}_3$, (ii) the Burgers vector is defined such that $\boldsymbol{\xi} \times \mathbf{b}$ points to the extra half plane, and (iii) $h^{(k)}\geq0$.
The Peach-Koehler (PK) force is thus
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{f}_\text{PK}
= (\boldsymbol{\upsigma}\cdot\mathbf{b}) \times \boldsymbol{\xi}
= (\boldsymbol{\upsigma}\cdot\mathbf{b}) \times \mathbf{e}_3,
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{\upsigma}$ is the total stress.
The Burgers vector associated with an R($k$) disconnection is denoted by $\mathbf{b}^{(k)} = b^{(k)}\mathbf{e}_k$ ($k = 1,2$); $b^{(k)}$ can be positive or negative, depending on the bicrystallography (its magnitude and sign are fixed along the interface while the sign of $\rho^{(k)}$ varies along the interface).
{\color{black}Here we explicitly assume that disconnection glide kinetics are much faster than disconnection climb.
Our approach to selecting reference interfaces, proposed in Sect.~\ref{theorytworef}, insures that we can always find short DSC lattice vectors parallel to the reference interface plane.
In other words, short glissile disconnections always exist as long as the reference planes are appropriately chosen.}
For the disconnection case, the two types of pure-step interface migration (Fig.~\ref{fig:migrationmode}) are replaced by those shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:migrationmode_b}.
Again, Type~(1) migration (see Fig.~\ref{fig:migrationmode_b}a) is driven by the glide of R(1) disconnections along the $\mathbf{e}_1$-axis (the R(2) disconnection motion is coupled) and
Type~(2) migration (see Fig.~\ref{fig:migrationmode_b}b) is driven by the glide of R(2) disconnections along the $\mathbf{e}_2$-axis (coupled to the R(1) disconnection motion).
The driving force on interface disconnections includes contributions from PK forces, capillarity,
and chemical potential jumps
{\color{black}(i.e. jumps in the bulk free energy densities of two phases, or ``volume phase change part'' in Ref.~\onlinecite{taylor1992overview})}; we consider each separately.
The R(1) disconnection Burgers vector density is
\begin{equation}
\rho^{(1)} b^{(1)} = \frac{b^{(1)}}{h^{(1)}} h^{(1)}\rho^{(1)} = \beta^{(1)} \hat{l}_2,
\end{equation}
where $\beta^{(k)} \equiv b^{(k)}/h^{(k)}$ is the shear-coupling factor~\cite{cahn2006coupling} for the R($k$) interface.
{\color{black}The PK force projected onto the direction of motion of this set of disconnections} is $\tau \beta^{(1)} \hat{l}_2$ and the displacement is $\delta g^{(1)}$, where $\tau \equiv \sigma_{12}$ is the total shear stress on the interface.
The energy variation with disconnection displacement is
\begin{equation}
\delta E^{(1)}
= - \tau \beta^{(1)}\hat{l}_2 \delta g^{(1)}.
\end{equation}
Considering Point A in Fig.~\ref{fig:tangentgeometry_b}a for $\tau > 0$ and $\delta g^{(1)} > 0$, we see that the energy decreases with R(1) disconnections $\mathbf{b}^{(1)}$ gliding to the right ($\delta E^{(1)} < 0$) and R(2) $\mathbf{b}^{(2)}$ gliding downwards.
The glide of R(2) disconnections under $\tau$ also does work;
\begin{equation}
\delta E^{(2)}_\text{coupling}
= \tau \beta^{(2)}
\hat{l}_2
\delta g^{(1)}.
\end{equation}
Hence, the energy variation and the PK force associated with Type~(1) migration shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:migrationmode_b} are
\begin{subequations}
\begin{gather}
\delta E
= \delta E^{(1)} + \delta E^{(2)}_\text{coupling}
= \tau \Lambda \hat{l}_2 \delta g^{(1)},
\end{gather}
\begin{gather}
f_\mathrm{g}^{(1)}
= -\delta E / \delta g^{(1)}
= -\tau\Lambda\hat{l}_2,
\end{gather}
\end{subequations}
where
\begin{equation}\label{defLambda}
\Lambda
\equiv \beta^{(2)} - \beta^{(1)}
= \frac{b^{(2)}}{h^{(2)}} - \frac{b^{(1)}}{h^{(1)}}.
\end{equation}
Similarly, the PK force which drives Type~(2) migration (see Fig.~\ref{fig:migrationmode_b}b) is $f_\mathrm{g}^{(2)} = -\delta E/\delta g^{(2)}= \tau\Lambda\hat{l}_1$.
When $b^{(1)}/h^{(1)} = b^{(2)}/h^{(2)}$, $\Lambda = 0$ and $f_\mathrm{g}^{(k)} = 0$.
Consider the interface segment in Fig.~\ref{fig:tangentgeometry_b}b;
positive $\tau$ drives R(1) disconnections to glide to the right, requiring nucleation and separation of an R(2) disconnection pair.
But, nucleation and separation of the R(2) pair are inhibited by $\tau$.
The net result is that this interface segment does not move upon application of stress $\tau$.
\begin{figure}[bt!]
\includegraphics[height=1.6\linewidth]{tangentgeometry_b.pdf}\hspace{-1.78em}%
\caption{\label{fig:tangentgeometry_b}
(a) A closed interface curve (centre) with the tangent vector oriented in the clockwise direction.
Segments of length $|\mathbf{l}|$ are shown explicitly at Points A, B, C and D .
The Burgers vector distributions associated with R(1) (blue) and R(2) (red) disconnections are shown for $b^{(1)}> 0$ and $b^{(2)}> 0$ (The sign of the actual Burgers vector is determined by $\rho^{(k)} b^{(k)}$).
(b) The motion of the interface segment between Points A and D under $\tau > 0$.
The arrows denote the PK force.
}
\end{figure}
Combining the capillary and stress effects and the two types of migration (Fig.~\ref{fig:migrationmode_b}) yields
\begin{equation}\label{velocity_capillarity_stress_anisotropy}
\dot{\mathbf{x}}
= (\Gamma \kappa + \tau\Lambda) \mathbf{M}\hat{\mathbf{n}}.
\end{equation}
As in the pure-step case, here the velocity $\dot{\mathbf{x}}$ is parallel to $\mathbf{M}\hat{\mathbf{n}}$ rather than the normal direction $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$.
Comparing Eqs.~\eqref{kineticeq_s_M1M2} and \eqref{velocity_capillarity_stress_anisotropy}, we see that, if the stress is dominated by a constant externally applied stress (as opposed to the stress fields of Burgers vectors on each other), the effect of stress is isotropic.
We also see that, when $\beta^{(1)}=\beta^{(2)}$,
$\Lambda = 0$ and $\tau$ does not affect interface motion.
Note that in the above treatment we ignore the elastic interaction among the disconnections along the interface.
The internal (or \textit{self}) shear stress from all disconnections at each point along the interface can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{s12curve_s}
\tau_\text{self}(s)
= \beta^{(1)} I^{(1)}(s) + \beta^{(2)} I^{(2)}(s),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
I^{(m)}(s)
&= \frac{G}{2\pi(1-\nu)} \int
\left(\frac{\mathrm{d} x_n}{\mathrm{d} s}\right)_{s=s_0}
\dfrac{x_m(s) - x_m(s_0)}{\varrho_a^2}
\nonumber\\
&\times \left[
1 - \dfrac{2 (x_n(s) - x_n(s_0))^2}{\varrho_a^2}
\right]
\mathrm{d} s_0,
\end{align}
and $(m, n) = (1, 2)$ or $(2, 1)$, $\varrho_a^2 \equiv [x_1(s) - x_1(s_0)]^2 + [x_2(s) - x_2(s_0)]^2 + a^2$ ($a$ is the disconnection core size)~\cite{cai2006non}, $G$ is the shear modulus, and $\nu$ is the Poisson ratio.
These integrals must be evaluated numerically.
Figure~\ref{fig:s12_self_stress} shows these stresses for the case of a circular interface.
Finally, the total shear stress should be $\tau = \tau_\text{self} + \tau_{\rm ext}$ with $\tau_{\rm ext}$ the external shear stress as considered above.
\begin{figure}[bt!]
\includegraphics[height=0.72\linewidth]{s12_self_stress.pdf}\hspace{-1.78em}%
\caption{\label{fig:s12_self_stress}
The stress fields $\tau_\text{self}(\mathbf{r})$ from the disconnections on a circular interface for (a) $\beta^{(1)} = 1$ and $\beta^{(2)} = 0$, (b) $\beta^{(1)} = 0$ and $\beta^{(2)} = 1$, and (c) $\beta^{(1)} = \beta^{(2)} = 1$.
(d) The value of $\tau_\text{self}$ along the circular interface for the three cases.
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Chemical potential jumps}
Diffusionless transformations (e.g., Martensite) often involve interface migration.
Such phase transformations/interphase interface migration are induced by differences in chemical potentials between the two phases.
A chemical potential jump across the interface between domains of different phases provides an additional, important driving force for interface migration.
In the analysis of chemical potential jump effects, we label the interface normal $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tangentgeometry_b} and use the notation ``$\pm$'' to denote the material property on the side of the interface to/from which the normal points.
The chemical potential jump is $\psi(s) = \mu^+(s) - \mu^-(s)$, where $\mu^{\pm}$ is the chemical potential of the phase on the ``${\pm}$'' side of the interface.
The glide of an R(1) disconnection (Fig.~\ref{fig:migrationmode_b}a) by $\delta g^{(1)}$ leads to an energy change $\psi h^{(1)} \delta g^{(1)}$.
So, when an R($k$) disconnection migrates by $\delta g^{(k)}$, the energy change is
\begin{equation}
\delta E
= \psi \left(h^{(1)} \rho^{(1)} \delta g^{(1)} + h^{(2)} \rho^{(2)} \delta g^{(2)}\right).
\end{equation}
The driving forces on R($k$) disconnections associated with the chemical potential jump are
\begin{equation}\label{fcs}
f_\mathrm{c}^{(1)} = - \frac{\delta E}{\delta g^{(1)}} = - \psi \hat{l}_2, \quad
f_\mathrm{c}^{(2)} = - \frac{\delta E}{\delta g^{(2)}} = - \psi \hat{l}_1 .
\end{equation}
Based on the configuration shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tangentgeometry_b}, if $\psi > 0$, the chemical potential in the matrix is higher than in the embedded phase and the chemical potential jump favors the growth of the embedded phase.
Combining this with the capillary and PK forces, the total driving forces along the interface are
\begin{equation}
f^{(1)}
= - (\Gamma \kappa + \psi + \tau\Lambda) \hat{l}_2,
\quad
f^{(2)}
= (\Gamma \kappa + \psi + \tau\Lambda) \hat{l}_1.
\end{equation}
such that the general kinetic equation for the motion of an interface is
\begin{equation}\label{vMf}
\mathbf{v}
= \mathbf{M} \mathbf{f},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{M}$ is the mobility tensor and $\mathbf{f}$ is the driving force
\begin{equation}\label{fGptn}
\mathbf{f}
\equiv \left(\Gamma \kappa + \psi + \tau\Lambda\right)
\hat{\mathbf{n}}.
\end{equation}
\section{Numerical examples}\label{numerical}
We now examine the effects of the interface migration models presented above with the aid of numerical simulations.
We consider here the simple case of an initially circular domain embedded in a matrix (i.e., two phases or grains).
The equation of motion for each model is solved via a finite difference approach.
More complex microstructures, with arbitrary domain morphologies and several interfaces with different properties (including also of topological change), are addressed in Part II of this paper through a diffuse interface approach~\cite{Salvalaglio2021}.
\subsection{Reduced units and integration scheme}
We employ the following reduced units: $\tilde{\mathbf{x}} = \mathbf{x}/\alpha$ (for all ``length'' quantities),
$\tilde{\kappa} = \kappa \alpha$,
$\Delta\tilde{t} = \Delta t M^{(1)}\gamma^{(1)}/\alpha^2$, $\tilde{\gamma} = \gamma^{(2)}/\gamma^{(1)}$, $\tilde{M} = M^{(2)} / M^{(1)}$, $\tilde{\tau} = \tau \alpha/\gamma^{(1)}$ and $\tilde{\psi} = \psi \alpha/\gamma^{(1)}$, we choose $\alpha$ as the length of one DSC cell edge.
The curve $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}(s)$ representing the interface is discretised into $N$ nodes/segments, $\{ \tilde{\mathbf{x}}(i)\}$ with $n = 0, \cdots, N-1$. Derivatives $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}'$ and $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}''$ are computed using a three-point stencil $\{\tilde{\mathbf{x}}(i-1),\tilde{\mathbf{x}}(i),\tilde{\mathbf{x}}({i+1})\}$ and centred finite differences with periodic boundary conditions $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}(N)=\tilde{\mathbf{x}}(0)$ (for closed curves).
All other geometrical properties of the interface are computed from these quantities (e.g., $\kappa(i)$, $|\mathbf{l}(i)|$, $\hat{\mathbf{l}}(i)$ and $\hat{\mathbf{n}}(i)$).
After initialisation of the node coordinates, $\{\tilde{\mathbf{x}}(i)\}$, the evolution is computed from the node velocities $(\tilde{v}_1(i), \tilde{v}_2(i))$ using Eqs.~\eqref{vMf} and \eqref{fGptn} .
We recall that these equations reduce to Eq.~\eqref{simplest} for pure steps and isotropic interface energy and mobility, to Eq.~\eqref{kinetic_anisotropy_regularisation} for pure steps and anisotropic interface energy and mobility, and to Eq.~\eqref{velocity_capillarity_stress_anisotropy} for disconnections with anisotropic properties but vanishing chemical potential difference across the interface.
Moreover, to avoid node overlap, we connect each neighbouring node pair by a spring (spring constant $\mathcal{K}$), i.e., displace each node by an additional spring force along the tangent direction.
Therefore, we consider the following integration scheme
\begin{equation}
\tilde{x}_n(i)
:=
\tilde{x}_n(i)
+ \Delta\tilde{t}
\left[
\tilde{v}_n(i)
+
\tilde{\xi}(i)
\hat{l}_n(i)
\right],
\end{equation}
where $n=1,2$, $i$ is the index of node, and
\begin{equation}\label{tildexi}
\tilde{\xi}(i)
= \mathcal{K} \left[
|\tilde{\mathbf{x}}(i+1) - \tilde{\mathbf{x}}(i)|
- |\tilde{\mathbf{x}}(i) - \tilde{\mathbf{x}}(i-1)|
\right].
\end{equation}
In its general form (see Eq.~(32) and (33)), $\tilde{v}_n(i)$ reads
\begin{equation}
\bigg(
\def1{1}
\begin{array}{c}
\tilde{v}_1(i) \\
\tilde{v}_2(i)
\end{array} \bigg)=
\left[
\tilde{\Gamma}(i) \tilde{\kappa}(i)
+ \tilde{\psi} + \tilde{\tau}(i) \Lambda
\right]
\bigg(
\def1{1}
\begin{array}{c}
-\hat{l}_2(i) \\
\tilde{M} \hat{l}_1(i)
\end{array} \bigg)
\end{equation}
with interface stiffness
\begin{equation}\label{tildeGammai}
\tilde{\Gamma}(i)
= \frac{2\epsilon}{\pi}
\left[
\tilde{\gamma} \frac{\hat{l}_2^2(i)}{\epsilon^2 + \hat{l}_1^2(i)}
+ \frac{\hat{l}_1^2(i)}{\epsilon^2 + \hat{l}_2^2(i)}
\right],
\end{equation}
and total shear stress
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\tau}(i)
= \tilde{G} \left[\beta^{(n)} \tilde{I}^{(1)}(i) + \beta^{(2)} \tilde{I}^{(2)}(i)\right]
+ \tilde{\tau}_\text{ext},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\tilde{I}^{(m)}(i)
=
\sum_{j=0}^{N-1}
\tilde{x}_n'(j) \tilde{\tau}^{(m)}(i,j), \\
&\tilde{\tau}^{(m)}(i,j)
= \dfrac{\tilde{x}_m(i) - \tilde{x}_m(j)}{\tilde{\varrho}_a^2(i,j)}
\left\{
1 - \dfrac{2[\tilde{x}_n(i) - \tilde{x}_n(j)]^2}{\tilde{\varrho}_a^2(i,j)}
\right\},
\\
&\tilde{\varrho}_a^2(i,j)
= [\tilde{x}_1(i) - \tilde{x}_1(j)]^2 + [\tilde{x}_2(i) - \tilde{x}_2(j)]^2 + \tilde{a}^2,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and $\tilde{G} = G \alpha /[2\pi(1-\nu) \gamma^{(1)}]$.
For the isotropic mobility case, we simply set $\tilde{M}=1$, while isotropic interface energy implies $\tilde{\Gamma}(i)=\tilde{\gamma}_0 = 1$.
Pure step motion can be recovered by setting $\beta^{(1)}=\beta^{(2)}=0$. Further details as well as the integration schemes corresponding to these different limits are presented in the Supplemental Material.
\subsection{Pure steps, isotropic energy and mobility}
To serve as a basis for evaluating the effects of anisotropy and finite Burgers vector disconnections, we first examine the classical capillarity-driven interface motion in the isotropic interface energy and mobility and zero Burgers vector limit (i.e., Eq.~\eqref{simplest}).
This also serves as a check on the fundamental two-reference approach presented above.
Initially ($\tilde{t} = 0$), the interface is a circle of radius $\tilde{R} = 100$ (the blue dashed curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:PureStepEvolve}a).
The evolving profile is shown by a series of black curves (at different times) in Fig.~\ref{fig:PureStepEvolve}a.
For this special case, the evolution of the initially circular profile is described by $\mathrm{d}\tilde{R}/\mathrm{d}\tilde{t} = - 1/\tilde{R}$.
The analytical solution to this equation is $\tilde{R} = (\tilde{R}_0^2 - 2\tilde{t})^{1/2}$.
The embedded domain evolves with time as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:PureStepEvolve}a or d, where the black and dashed red curves show the simulation and analytical results, respectively.
The consistency between the simulation and analytical results in Figs.~\ref{fig:PureStepEvolve}a and d validates the numerical implementation.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{PureStepEvolve.pdf}\hspace{-1.78em}%
\caption{\label{fig:PureStepEvolve}
(a)-(c) Evolution of an initially circular interface based on the pure-step model.
The blue lines denote the initial interface profile and the grey lines show the simulation results at increments of $\Delta \tilde{t} = 500$.
(a) Isotropic interface energy case (the red dotted curves show the analytical result).
Anisotropic interface energies with (b) $\gamma^{(2)}/\gamma^{(1)} = 1$ and (c) $2$.
(d) The position of the $0^\text{th}$node on the $\mathbf{e}_1$-axis $\tilde{x}_1(0)$ versus time $\tilde{t}$.
$\tilde{x}_1(0)$ is a linear measure of the domain size.
The black line and red dotted lines are the simulation result for the pure-step model and the analytical solution with isotropic interface energy.
The blue and cyan lines are the simulation results for the pure-step model with anisotropic interface energy.
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Pure steps, anisotropic energy, isotropic mobility}
We now consider the case of interface migration via a two-reference, pure-step model with anisotropic interface energy and isotropic mobility; i.e., Eq.~\eqref{capillarity_anisotropy_regularisation}.
The interface energy is described by Eq.~\eqref{gammaaniso}, with parameters $\gamma^{(1)}$ and $\gamma^{(2)}$.
The simulation results are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:PureStepEvolve}b and c, where $\epsilon^2 = 10^{-4}$ and $\tilde{\gamma} =$ 1 or 2.
Facets on the embedded domain begin to form immediately and spread during the evolution until the domain is completely faceted.
The facets correspond to the cusps in $\gamma(\phi)$ (e.g. Fig.~\ref{fig:anisotropy}a).
At late time, the shape of the embedded domain resembles the equilibrium shape of crystals obtained by the Wulff construction~\cite{balluffi2005kinetics}.
When $\gamma^{(2)} > \gamma^{(1)}$, the R(2) steps disappear faster than the R(1) steps; this implies the R(2) interface flattens faster than the R(1) interface -- exactly as the results in Fig.~\ref{fig:anisotropy}b.
Of course, when $\gamma^{(1)} = \gamma^{(2)}$, the shape of the fully faceted and embedded domain is a square.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:PureStepEvolve}d, we plot the displacement of the $\theta = 0$ node as a function of time.
The embedded domain does not follow the classical parabolic law (isotropic case), but rather approaches a linear relation once the domain is fully faceted.
This can be understood as follows.
After the square or rectangular shape is achieved, the curvatures of the four flat edges are nearly zero.
The shrinkage rate is then controlled by the motion of the corners.
The constant corner velocity can be described as controlled by disconnection nucleation at the corners.
Here, the corner velocity depends on the magnitude of the regularisation parameter $\epsilon$.
$\epsilon$ depends on the ratio of the junction mobility to the interface mobility (Sect.~\ref{discussion_singularities}).
In either case, this suggests a linear shrinkage rate $\tilde{x}_1(0) \sim \tilde{t}$.
\subsection{Disconnections, stress, isotropic capillarity}
Figure~\ref{fig:OneModeEvolve} shows simulation results for the evolution of the initially circular, embedded domain for disconnections with several different Burgers vectors and applied stresses.
These simulations were performed based upon Eq.~\eqref{velocity_capillarity_stress_anisotropy}, where the local stress $\tau(s)$ includes contributions from all disconnections (Eq.~\eqref{s12curve_s}) and the applied stress and the interface energy and mobility are isotropic.
\begin{figure}[bt!]
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{OneModeEvolve.pdf}\hspace{-1.78em}%
\caption{\label{fig:OneModeEvolve}
(a)-(f) Evolution of an initially circular interface in which the disconnections have finite Burgers vector and the interface energy is isotropic.
The blue lines denote the interfaces at $\tilde{t} = 0$.
The time interval is $\Delta\tilde{t} = 200$.
(g) The position of the $0^\text{th}$ node along the $\mathbf{e}_1$-axis $\tilde{x}_1(0)$ versus time $\tilde{t}$.
$\tilde{x}_1(0)$ is a linear measure of the domain size.
Each curve correspond to a case shown in (a)-(f).
}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:OneModeEvolve}a shows the case of $\beta^{(1)} = b^{(1)}/h^{(1)} =1$ and $\beta^{(2)} = 0$ (i.e., the R(2) disconnections are pure steps).
The signs of the Burgers vectors on the left and right sides of the domain are opposite, such these two sides elastically attract one another.
This attraction accelerates the shrinking of the embedded domain as compared with the pure-step, capillarity-driven case; cf. curve (a) in Fig.~\ref{fig:OneModeEvolve}a and the black curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:PureStepEvolve}d.
We also note that there is a tendency towards faceting here even though the interface energy and mobility are isotropic.
This faceting tendency originates from the elastic interactions between Burgers vectors.
Figure~\ref{fig:OneModeEvolve}b shows the trajectory for the opposite case as that shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:OneModeEvolve}a; i.e., $\beta^{(1)} = 0$ and $\beta^{(2)} = 1$; the evolution of the two cases
{\color{black}are (visually) indistinguishable}.
Equation~\eqref{velocity_capillarity_stress_anisotropy} shows that the profile evolution depends on $\tau\Lambda$;
$\Lambda = -1$ and $1$ in the cases of Figs.~\ref{fig:OneModeEvolve}a and b.
$\tau$ is also opposite between the Figs.~\ref{fig:OneModeEvolve}a and b cases.
Hence, $\tau\Lambda$ is the same in both cases (as suggested by Eq.~\eqref{velocity_capillarity_stress_anisotropy} and as seen here).
Figure~\ref{fig:OneModeEvolve}c shows numerical results for $\beta^{(1)} = \beta^{(2)} = 1$.
Here, $\Lambda = 0$ and hence internal stress does not influence profile evolution (implying that this case is identical to the pure-step, capillarity-driven migration case -- cv. curve (c) in Fig.~\ref{fig:OneModeEvolve}g and the black curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:PureStepEvolve}d).
On the other hand, if we switch the sign of the Burgers vectors in the R(2) case (Fig.~\ref{fig:OneModeEvolve}d), $\Lambda = -2$ and the internal stress greatly accelerates the shrinkage of the embedded phase (curve (d) in Fig.~\ref{fig:OneModeEvolve}g).
Again, the strong faceting is associated with elastic interactions rather than anisotropic interface energy or mobility.
The slightly negative curvature in the embedded domain walls at late times is associated with the elastic attraction between disconnections on opposite sides.
Figures~\ref{fig:OneModeEvolve}e and f show the same case as in Fig.~\ref{fig:OneModeEvolve}a but with an external/applied shear stresses $\tau_\text{ext}$ of opposite signs.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:OneModeEvolve}e, the applied shear stress aids the annihilation of disconnections of opposite sign on the left and right sides.
In the positive $\tau_\text{ext}$ case (Fig.~\ref{fig:OneModeEvolve}e), the applied shear stress accelerates the shrinkage.
However, in the negative $\tau_\text{ext}$ case (Fig.~\ref{fig:OneModeEvolve}f), the applied shear stress tends to separate the disconnections of opposite sign on the left and right sides.
When the shear stress is sufficiently large, the PK force dominates the capillary force such that the embedded domain grows rather than shrinks.
In this case, the embedded domain grows at a rate that approaches linear (see curve (f) in Fig.~\ref{fig:OneModeEvolve}g); this implies fundamentally different evolution kinetics/morphologies when the driving force is dominated by external stress or the elastic interactions between disconnections rather than by curvature.
We do not simulate the case with finite chemical potential jump $\psi$ in Eq.~\eqref{fGptn}, since the effect of $\psi$ is trivial for a single interface.
However, it becomes interesting and rather complex when we consider complex domain shapes or microstructures, as shown in Part II of this paper~\cite{Salvalaglio2021}.
\section{Discussion}\label{discussion}
\subsection{Reduction to the one-reference interface model}
We previously developed a one-reference, disconnection-based interface equation of motion~\cite{zhang2017equation} that assumes the interface deviates only slightly from a flat reference interface.
We now consider the reduction of the present model to the one-reference limit in order to better understand its implications.
We focus on the interface segment between Point A and Point B in Fig.~\ref{fig:tangentgeometry_b}.
Take the R(1) interface as the only reference and assume that the AB interface segment deviates only slightly from this (i.e., $|\hat{l}_2/\hat{l}_1| \ll 1$ or, equivalently, $\hat{\mathbf{n}} \approx \mathbf{e}_2$).
The one-reference model also assumes that an interface migrates in the $\mathbf{e}_2$-direction via the lateral motion of disconnections; so, only Type~(1) migration (see Fig.~\ref{fig:migrationmode_b}a) occurs.
To turn-off Type~(2) migration, we set $M^{(2)} = 0$ and $b^{(2)} = 0$.
Then, from Eqs.~\eqref{vMf} and \eqref{fGptn},
\begin{equation}\label{v1l2}
\mathbf{v}
= v_1 \mathbf{e}_1
= -M^{(1)} \left(
\Gamma \kappa + \psi - \tau b^{(1)}/h^{(1)}
\right) \hat{l}_2 \mathbf{e}_1.
\end{equation}
In the one-reference model, we can describe an interface curve by the height function $z = z(x_1)$ and assume that $|z_{,1}| \ll 1$; thus, $\kappa \approx z_{,11}$ and $\hat{l}_2 = z_{,1}/(1 + z_{,1}^2)^{1/2}$.
The lateral velocity $v_1$ in Eq.~\eqref{v1l2} corresponds to the step velocity and the interface migration velocity is $\dot{z} = - v_1 \,\text{sgn}(z_{,1}) (1 + z_{,1}^2)^{1/2}$.
Thus, we obtain the equation of interface migration for a one-reference model:
\begin{equation}\label{Hdot}
\dot{z}
= M_\mathrm{d}^{(1)}
\left(\Gamma z_{,11} h^{(1)} + \psi h^{(1)} - \tau b^{(1)}\right)
\left(\left|z_{,1}\right| + B\right),
\end{equation}
where $M_\mathrm{d}^{(1)} \equiv M^{(1)} / h^{(1)}$ is the disconnection mobility.
A brief explanation is required for the addition of the parameter $B$ in this expression.
Without $B$, we find that $\dot{z} = 0$ when $z_{,1} = 0$; i.e., an infinitely large, flat R(1) interface will never migrate no matter how large the driving force is applied -- this does not make sense.
This issue was corrected by adding a term $B$ representing the thermal equilibrium concentration of disconnection dipoles~\cite{zhang2017equation}.
So, for a flat R(1) interface, the kinetic equation is
\begin{equation}\label{dotHone}
\dot{z}
= M_\mathrm{d}^{(1)} B
\left(\psi h^{(1)} - \tau b^{(1)}\right).
\end{equation}
Equation~\eqref{Hdot} is that derived for grain boundary motion in a one-reference model~\cite{zhang2017equation}.
We also revisit the flat R(1) interface case based upon the two-reference model, without the assumptions inherent to the one-reference model.
As before, we continue to assume that $b^{(2)}=0$.
For a flat R(1) interface, we apply Eqs.~\eqref{vMf} and \eqref{fGptn} with $\hat{l}_1=1$ and $\hat{l}_2=0$:
\begin{equation}\label{dotHtwo}
\dot{z}
= M^{(2)}/h^{(1)}
\left(\psi h^{(1)} - \tau b^{(1)}\right).
\end{equation}
First, we see that the two-reference model does not require the addition of the new parameter $B$.
Second, by comparing Eqs.~\eqref{dotHone} and \eqref{dotHtwo}, we have
\begin{equation}
B = M^{(2)} / M^{(1)}.
\end{equation}
Here, nucleation of disconnection dipoles involves Type~(2) migration.
{\color{black}
We model the effect of disconnection nucleation/annihilation on R(1) interface migration by adjusting the ratio of the empirical ratio $M^{(2)}/M^{(1)}$.
}
\subsection{Facet corners}\label{discussion_singularities}
It is not unusual for interface shapes to exhibits facets and/or sharp corners.
These may result from anisotropies in the interface energy/stiffness (e.g., cusps in the interface energy vs. interface normal) or in the interface mobility, as discussed above.
The resultant non-smoothness is commonly handled in computational studies and/or theories by some form of regularisation (e.g., Eq.~\eqref{capillarity_anisotropy}).
Physically, regularisation may be associated with atomic-scale discreteness, it is often invoked as a computational convenience on a scale much larger than atomic.
In the regularisation approach discussed here (Eq.~\eqref{capillarity_anisotropy_regularisation}), this means identifying the physical origin of the regularisation parameter $\epsilon$.
Alternatively, we can explicitly account for singularities in the interface profile.
Consider the interface energy functional $E[\mathbf{x}] = \int F(s) \mathrm{d} s$, where $F(s) \equiv \gamma(s) |\mathbf{l}(s)|$.
If the interface shape is not smooth, $\mathbf{l}(s)$ is undefined at a set of discrete points.
We divide the interface profile between singularities and smooth sections, terminated by singularities; consider a smooth interface section, terminating at corners/junctions/singularities $s_1$ and $s_2$.
The variation of the energy on this curved interface section is
\begin{equation}\label{deltaEdeltaFint}
\delta E[\mathbf{x}] =
\left.\frac{\partial F}{\partial \mathbf{x}'}\cdot \delta\mathbf{x} \right|_{s_2^-}
- \left.\frac{\partial F}{\partial \mathbf{x}'}\cdot \delta\mathbf{x} \right|_{s_1^+}
- \int \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} s}\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial \mathbf{x}'}\right) \cdot \delta\mathbf{x} \mathrm{d} s,
\end{equation}
where $s_1^+$ denotes approaching $s_1$ from $s>s_1$ and $s_2^-$ denotes approaching $s_2$ from $s<s_2$.
{\color{black}
In Eq.~\eqref{deltaEdeltaFint} we evaluate the one-sided derivative of $F$; i.e., $F$ need not be differentiable with respect to $\mathbf{x}'$.
}
At all points on the interface other than $s_1$ and $s_2$, there is a capillarity driving force of the form of Eq.~\eqref{capillarity}.
The driving forces on the singularities $s_1$ and $s_2$ are, respectively,
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{f}_{s_1^+}
= \left.\frac{\partial F}{\partial \mathbf{x}'}\right|_{s_1^+}
\quad\text{and}\quad
\mathbf{f}_{s_2^-}
= -\left.\frac{\partial F}{\partial \mathbf{x}'}\right|_{s_2^-}.
\end{equation}
Smooth interface sections meet at corners/singularities such that the total driving force on singularity $s$ is
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{f}_{s}
= \left.\frac{\partial F}{\partial \mathbf{x}'}\right|_{s+}
-\left.\frac{\partial F}{\partial \mathbf{x}'}\right|_{s-}.
\end{equation}
Overdamped corner/singularity motion implies
\begin{equation}\label{junctionmotion}
\mathbf{v}_s
= \mathscr{M} \mathbf{f}_s,
\end{equation}
where $\mathscr{M}$ is the mobility of the singularity point.
Note, that $\mathscr{M}$ has different dimensionality than the interface mobility $M$ (see Eq.~\eqref{simplest} or \eqref{capillarity_anisotropy}); i.e., $M$ has dimension force/area while $\mathscr{M}$ has dimension force/length.
We suggest that $\mathscr{M}$ may be viewed as a physical parameter, distinct from $M$ because the atomic-scale structure of a junction differs from the interface itself.
How are the regularisation scheme (Eq.~\eqref{capillarity_anisotropy_regularisation}) and the discrete treatment of singularities related?
Consider the special case of a square domain and focus on the velocity of the upper right corner of the square interface, for the interface energy of Eq.~\eqref{gammaaniso} with $\gamma^{(1)} = \gamma^{(2)}$.
When regularisation (Eq.~\eqref{capillarity_anisotropy}) is applied, sharp singularities (corner) are replaced with corners with a small curvature radius.
If the interface is of thickness $r_0$, a reasonable choice of corner curvature is $1/r_0$ and the corner velocity (Eq.~\eqref{capillarity_anisotropy}) is
$\mathbf{v}_s \approx -(4\epsilon M / \sqrt{2}\pi r_0) \gamma^{(1)}(1, 1)^T$ with $\epsilon \ll 1$.
Equating this velocity with that from Eq.~\eqref{junctionmotion} ($\mathbf{v}_s = -\mathscr{M}\gamma^{(1)} (1, 1)^T$) yields
\begin{equation}
\epsilon
\sim r_0\mathscr{M} / M.
\end{equation}
This relationship allows us to interpret the regularisation parameter $\epsilon$ as the ratio of the junction mobility and the interface mobility normalised by the interface thickness.
In many materials, interfaces tend to be faceted (flat interfaces and sharp corners) at low temperatures, but smoother at high temperatures.
This implies that at low temperature, $r_0\mathscr{M} \ll M$ ($\epsilon$ is very small), while at high temperature, $r_0\mathscr{M} / M \to 1$ ($\epsilon$ is larger).
\subsection{Multi-mode ansatz}
Robust motion of crystalline interfaces generally requires the existence and operation of multiple disconnection modes, associated with different Burgers vectors and step heights (there are an infinite set of possibilities for any interface)~\cite{han2018grain}.
At finite temperature, multiple modes may be activated at different rates such that the dynamics of any interface is a statistical average of the contribution from all active disconnection modes~\cite{chen2020grain}.
We previously included multiple disconnection modes in a one-reference interface model to predict the temperature dependance of grain boundary motion~\cite{wei2019continuum}.
How can multi-mode effects be incorporated in the two-reference model to describe general interface motion?
A multi-mode ansatz for the two-reference model replaces the shear-coupling factors, $\beta^{(1)}$ and $\beta^{(2)}$ with {\it effective shear-coupling factors}, $\bar{\beta}^{(1)}$ and $\bar{\beta}^{(2)}$.
Phenomenologically, the effective shear-coupling factor $\bar{\beta}^{(k)}$ is the ratio of the average interface sliding velocity (tangential velocity of the two crystals meeting at the interface) to the average interface (normal) velocity~\cite{han2018grain,chen2019grain}.
Molecular dynamics simulations~\cite{chen2019grain} of flat grain boundaries demonstrate that multiple disconnection modes show that the effective shear-coupling factor is a function of the local stress, chemical potential jump and temperature:
\begin{equation}
\bar{\beta}^{(k)}(\tau, \psi, T)
= \dfrac{\displaystyle{ \sum_m b^{(k,m)} e^{-\frac{Q^{(k,m)}}{k_\mathrm{B} T}} \left(b^{(k,m)}\tau + h^{(k,m)}\psi\right) }}
{\displaystyle{ \sum_m h^{(k,m)} e^{-\frac{Q^{(k,m)}}{k_\mathrm{B} T}} \left(b^{(k,m)}\tau + h^{(k,m)}\psi\right) }},
\end{equation}
where $b^{(k,m)}$, $h^{(k,m)}$ and $Q^{(k,m)}$ are the Burgers vector, step height and activation energy for disconnection mode $m$ on the R($k$) interface~\cite{chen2019grain}.
\subsection{Non-orthogonal references}
\label{sec:non-orth}
In our presentation above, we focused on orthogonal reference interfaces; this is not always appropriate.
Additionally, there are several reasonable reference interface choices (i.e., highly coherent interfaces associated with close-packed CSL planes).
The present model can be generalised to account for these.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\includegraphics[height=0.44\linewidth]{nonorthogonal.pdf}\hspace{-1.78em}%
\caption{\label{fig:nonorthogonal}
Interface \textbf{l} and reference interface \textbf{e} orientations.
(a) $\{\mathbf{e}^{(k)}\}$ ($k=1, 2, 3, 4$) are four reference interfaces tangents.
(b) The green curve denotes an interface segment.
The tangent vector at Point A (B) is $\mathbf{l}_\mathrm{A}$ ($\mathbf{l}_\mathrm{B}$).
Since $\mathbf{l}_\mathrm{A}$ ($\mathbf{l}_\mathrm{B}$) lies in the grey (yellow) region delimited by $\mathbf{e}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbf{e}^{(2)}$ ($\mathbf{e}^{(2)}$ and $\mathbf{e}^{(3)}$) in (a), the interface at Point A can be described based on R(1) and R(2) (R(2) and R(3)) interfaces.
}
\end{figure}
The choice of the two reference interfaces depends on the local interface tangent vector.
As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:nonorthogonal}a, we may assume that there are several potential reference interfaces $\{\mathbf{e}^{(k)}\}$ (e.g., $k=1,2,3,4$) that need not be orthogonal to one another.
Denoting the Cartesian coordinate axes as $\mathbf{e}_1$ and $\mathbf{e}_2$, the inclination angle of each reference interface may be written: ${\phi^{(k)}}=\arcsin(\mathbf{e}^{(k)}\cdot \mathbf{e}_1)$.
At a point $s$ on the interface has local inclination ${\phi^{(k)}}(s)=\arcsin(\mathbf{l}(s)\cdot \mathbf{e}_1)$ where $\mathbf{l}(s)$ is the local tangent.
If $\phi(s)\in[\phi^{(k)},\phi^{(k+1)}]$, select reference interfaces R($k$) and R($k+1$).
For example, the orientation $\mathbf{l}_\mathrm{A}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:nonorthogonal} is delimited by $\mathbf{e}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbf{e}^{(2)}$, such that the appropriate reference interfaces for Point A are R(1) and R(2).
If R($k$) and R($k+1$) interfaces are determined for each point along the interface curve, we repeat the analyses presented above for these reference interfaces using the bases $\mathbf{e}^{(k)}$ and $\mathbf{e}^{(k+1)}$ for all vectors and tensors rather than $\mathbf{e}_1$ and $\mathbf{e}_2$.
Such an analysis leads to a generalisation of Eqs.~\eqref{vMf} and \eqref{fGptn}, namely
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nonorth1}
\mathbf{v} = \mathbf{M} \mathbf{f}, \qquad \mathbf{f}
\equiv \left(\Gamma\kappa + \psi + \boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{\lambda}\right) \hat{\mathbf{n}},
\end{equation}
for reference interfaces $\{\mathbf{e}^{(k)}, \mathbf{e}^{(k+1)}\}$.
The mobility tensor in Eq.~\eqref{eq:nonorth1} is
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{M}=M^{(k)}\mathbf{e}^{(k)}\otimes\mathbf{e}^{(k)}+M^{(k+1)}\mathbf{e}^{(k+1)}\otimes\mathbf{e}^{(k+1)}
\end{equation}
and the anisotropic interface energy relative to R($k$) and R($k+1$) is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nonorth2}
\gamma=
\gamma^{(k+1)} \left|
\dfrac{\sin(\phi^{(k+1)} - \phi)}{\sin(\phi^{(k+1)} - \phi^{(k)})}
\right|
+
\gamma^{(k)} \left|
\dfrac{\sin(\phi - \phi^{(k)})}{\sin(\phi^{(k+1)} - \phi^{(k)})}
\right|,
\end{equation}
(the interface stiffness is $\Gamma = \gamma + \gamma_{,\phi\phi}$).
Both the interface energy and mobility then reflect the symmetry of the reference interfaces.
For the system illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:nonorthogonal}, there are eight minima in $\gamma(\phi)$ and up to eight maxima in $M(\phi)$ -- consistent with experimental and simulation results~\cite{kirch2008inclination,lontine2018stress}.
In Eq.~\eqref{eq:nonorth1}, $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ is the shear stress resolved on the reference interfaces $(\tau^{(k)}, \tau^{(k+1)})$, where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nonorth8}
\tau^{(k)}
= \frac{\sigma_{22} - \sigma_{11}}{2} \sin 2\phi^{(k)}
+ \sigma_{12} \cos 2\phi^{(k)}.
\end{equation}
$\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ is the shear-coupling factor $(-\beta^{(1)}, \beta^{(2)})^T$.
See the Supplemental Material for more details.
\section{Conclusions}
We present a comprehensive two-reference, interface model and equation of motion for arbitrarily inclined, curved interface that respects the underlying crystallographic relationships between adjacent crystalline grains/phases.
Our model incorporates the underlying disconnection-based interface migration mechanisms on each reference interface.
This equation of motion also accounts for anisotropic interface energies and mobilities and a wide range of driving forces -- capillarity, chemical potential difference and shear stress.
We also showed numerical results for the evolution of simple domain shapes in a sharp interface model.
These results show interface faceting associated with thermodynamic (anisotropic interface energy) and dynamic (anisotropic interface mobility) effects and how these leads to very large differences with classical evolution laws (for capillarity- and stress-driven shape evolution).
We also demonstrated how disconnection character influences interface migration rates and morphology evolution.
Based on the model and theory presented here, we also developed a diffuse interface simulation approach appropriate for large-scale simulation of microstructure evolution and complex domain morphology evolution. This is presented in Part II of this paper~\cite{Salvalaglio2021}.
{\color{black}
Generalisation to three dimensions follows naturally from the present model. Such an implementation, while complex in the largely analytical framework present here, is more naturally accommodated through the diffuse interface approach developed in Part II.
}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
JH acknowledges support from City University of Hong Kong Start-up Grant 7200667 and Strategic Research Grant (SRG-Fd) 7005466.
DJS gratefully acknowledges the support of the Hong Kong Research Grants Council Collaborative Research Fund C1005-19G.
MS acknowledges support from Visiting Junior Fellowship of the Hong Kong Institute for Advanced Studies and the Emmy Noether Programme of the German Research Foundation (DFG) under Grant SA4032/2-1.
\providecommand{\noopsort}[1]{}\providecommand{\singleletter}[1]{#1}%
|
\section{Introduction}
Catalogs of high-resolution remotely sensed imagery have become increasingly available to the scientific community. The availability of such imagery has revolutionized scientific fields and society at large. For example, 1m resolution aerial imagery from the US Department of Agriculture (NAIP imagery) has been released on a 2-year rolling basis over the entire US for over a decade and the commercial satellite imagery provider, Planet, recently started to release 5m satellite imagery covering the whole tropical forest region of the world on a monthly basis. One estimate is that the opening of Landsat imagery in 2008 led to the creation of \$3.45B in economic value in 2017 alone~\cite{Straub2019}. The accumulation of such data facilitates an entirely new branch of longitudinal studies -- analyzing the Earth and how it has changed over time.
As the climate, technology, and human population change on an ever more rapid timescale, such longitudinal studies become particularly vital to understanding the past, present, and future of the environment. Despite the usefulness of time series data, such research faces two important practical challenges. First, the large labeled datasets that have fueled advances in computer vision are much more limited in the satellite imagery context \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1807-01232, roscher2020semcity, demir2018deepglobe}. Second, efforts in creating labeled data from remotely sensed imagery are typically focused on a single point in time \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1807-01232, weir2019spacenet, roscher2020semcity}. Project requirements may only call for a single layer of labels, or budget constraints may limit the number of labels that can be generated. This has the effect of creating labeled datasets that are ``frozen'' in time.
Expanding such ``frozen'' datasets to multiple points in time in independent follow-up work can be resource-intensive and difficult, as the same image-preprocessing and labeling methodology steps used in the original work need to be precisely reproduced in order to generate comparable data.
Going beyond ``frozen'' datasets would enable a wide range of \emph{temporal} inferences from satellite imagery, with significant social, economic, and policy implications. Previous studies include the detection of urban expansion \cite{wang2012china}, zoning violations \cite{purdy2010using}, habitat modification \cite{evans2020automated}, compliance with agricultural subsidies \cite{moltzau}, construction on wetlands \cite{handan2020deep}, and damage assessments from natural disasters \cite{gupta2020rescuenet, gupta2019cnn, matsuoka2004use}.
Algorithmic approaches for expanding ``frozen'' datasets can thus be useful in facilitating ecological and policy-based analysis. In this work we propose a simple model, Temporal Cluster Matching (TCM), for determining \textit{when} structures were previously constructed given a labeled dataset of structure footprints generated from imagery captured at a particular point in time. This model, importantly, does not rely on the differences in spectral values between layers of remotely sensed imagery as there can be considerable variance in these values depending on imaging conditions, the type of sensor used, etc. Instead, it compares a representation of the spectral values inside a building footprint to a representation of the spectral values in the surrounding area for each point in the time series. Whenever the distribution of spectral values within the footprint becomes dissimilar to that of its surroundings then the footprint is likely to have been developed. We further propose a method for fitting the parameters of this model which does not rely on additional labeled footprint data over time and show that this ``semi-supervised TCM'' performs comparably to supervised methods.
Specifically, we demonstrate the performance of this algorithm in two distinct settings:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Poultry barns from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in the United States, using high-resolution aerial imagery from the National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP), and
\item Solar farm footprints in the Indian state of Karnataka, using Sentinel 2 annual mosaics.
\end{enumerate}
Both settings are of significant environmental importance and are ripe for longitudinal study. First, CAFOs can have profound effects on water quality and human health in their proximity \cite{doi:10.2105/AJPH.94.10.1703}. Nitrates and other potentially harmful chemicals can, for example, make their way into the groundwater, spreading to adjacent wells and bodies of water over timescales that range into decades. Usage of antibiotics for growth promotion can lead to resistant bacterial infections in nearby populations \cite{cafo-antibiotics}. Effective regulation in either scenario requires differentiation of these contaminant sources, which, in turn, depends on accurate historical labels and spatio-temporal modeling.
Second, understanding the growth of solar systems is increasingly important in the transition toward clean energy.
India is an important example of this, as it has set ambitious goals of generating 450 GW of renewable energy by 2030 with 175 GW deployment by 2022 \cite{frangoul}.
Achieving this goal will require an expansion of solar farm installations throughout the country and policy makers will be able to determine better the effects of country-wide efforts with solar farm change data that can be updated year-over-year in a consistent manner. Understanding such solar expansion may also enable more targeted investments for solar potential \cite{Moynihan}.
To summarize, our contributions include:
\begin{itemize}
\item A lightweight model, Temporal Cluster Matching, for detecting when structures are developed in a time-series of remotely sensed imagery, as well as a heuristic method for fitting the parameters of the model. Combined, this results in a proposed approach that only relies on labeled building footprints for a single point in time.
\item A series of baseline methods, both supervised and semi-supervised, to evaluate our proposed approach against.
\item Experiments comparing our model to the baseline models in two datasets: poultry barn footprints with aerial imagery, and solar farm footprints with satellite imagery.
\item A code release that allows users to run the model in novel settings, as well as scripts for reproducing our experiments: \url{https://github.com/microsoft/temporal-cluster-matching}
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{data_examples_new.png}
\end{center}
\caption{(\textbf{A} and \textbf{B}) Examples of two poultry barn footprints over 5 years of NAIP imagery. We observe inter-year variability of NAIP imagery and the change in the relation of color/texture between the footprint and neighborhood when a footprint is ``developed''. (\textbf{C} and \textbf{D}) Examples of two solar farm footprints over 5 years of Sentinel 2 imagery. Note, in \textbf{A} we outline the building footprint location in yellow through the entire series of imagery, but omit this outline in remaining rows.}
\label{fig:data-examples}
\end{figure*}
\section{Related Work}
Our work pertains to several different literatures.
First, much work has focused on methods for detection of building footprints. For instance, \cite{zhao2018building} uses Mask R-CNN to train a model to detect buildings while \cite{yang} uses a semantic segmentation model (U-Net \cite{ronneberger2015u}) to segment buildings in imagery. While deep learning approaches have made rapid advances, they have largely been focused on static inferences. Moving to a different domain (spatially or temporally) can prove challenging due to shifts in the input distribution (what the input images look like), co-registration errors, and shifts in the target (what buildings looks like)~\cite{tuia2016domain}. Zhang et al., for instance, note these as some of the challenges faced when detecting structures at a global scale~\cite{zhang2017building}.
Second, other research has focused on detecting changes in satellite imagery. Historically, the remote sensing literature has started from pixel-wise change-point detection -- detecting when change happens in a time series of repeated observations of the same location in space. Much work has focused on how to model the characteristics of these time series such as seasonality, changes in illumination, atmospheric conditions, etc~\cite{aminikhanghahi2017survey}. A popular method for performing this task, BFAST, models a time series of remotely sensed observations with trend, seasonal, and remainder components, then uses an unsupervised iterative method to detect change points based on the model~\cite{verbesselt2010detecting}. This method relies on observing a relatively long time series, e.g. that shows seasonal components, and thus is not applicable to time series with few data points. Change-point detection can also be performed on other units of analysis. \cite{tewkesbury2015critical} review the literature and organize methods based on their unit of analysis, e.g. pixel-based, object-based, kernel-based, and based on their method for comparing scenes, e.g. based on differencing, transformation, or modeling. Within this organization, our work is the most similar to those that operate on image-object overlays~\cite{tewkesbury2011mapping,listner2011recent,huang2020automatic} whereby a single segmentation is applied to all imagery in a time series and change at an object level is computed. We use similar ideas in designing our baseline approaches (Section \ref{subsec:baselines}).
The computer vision and machine learning literature also addresses similar problems. Several methods use a fully supervised approach to detect changes in known building locations: \cite{jung2004detecting} use a supervised approach with decision trees to classify whether a building change occurred from pairs of imagery and \cite{malpica2013change} use support vector machines to provide estimates for which buildings have changed. Other methods perform a superpixel segmentation step to create objects in pairs of imagery, then model change over these objects with a Markov random field~\cite{marcos2016geospatial}. Most recently, advances in deep learning have driven end-to-end pipelines in building change detection. \cite{chen2019changenet}, for instance, uses a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) to overcome the limitations of pixel-level inferences. These methods all rely on having existing labeled data on either when changes have occurred, or on unchanged areas in consecutive pairs of imagery.
Finally, numerous research teams have provided benchmark datasets for evaluating models at a single point in time \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1807-01232, weir2019spacenet, roscher2020semcity}. Few datasets provide longitudinal information about the same location over time, so a typical research approach has been to train a model on labeled imagery from one period. \cite{handan2019deep}, for instance, assess the growth of intensive livestock farms in North Carolina, but do so using a model trained on images of such facilities for a single period of time. A notable exception to this is the recent SpaceNet 7 dataset/challenge~\cite{van2021multi}. This dataset includes 24 multi-spectral images at a 4m/px spatial resolution as well as building footprint labels over time for over 100 unique locations around the world. It is particularly challenging for object based change detection approaches as the median building size is 12.1 pixels~\cite{van2021multi} and the imagery is not perfectly co-registered. Pixel based segmentation models followed by in-depth post-processing methods achieved the top performance in the competition~\cite{van2021spacenet}, however it is not yet clear how to adapt such methodology to general change detection tasks.
Our approach contributes to this body of work by providing a semi-supervised approach for detecting changes in structures that easily enables researchers to expand a dataset beyond a single time period, hence enabling domain adaptation by efficient sampling of images across time. The approach we propose can be seen as a lightweight, data-driven method to expand ``frozen'' imagery longitudinally, enabling researchers to address a rich set of dynamic questions.
\begin{figure*}[th]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{schematic3.png}
\caption{Schematic description of Temporal Cluster Matching: (\textbf{A}) the input imagery and query building footprint; (\textbf{B}) $k$-means clustering of the input imagery (\textbf{C, D}) discrete distributions of clusters created from the pixels within the \textbf{footprint} polygon and from the pixels outside of the footprint (i.e. the \textbf{neighborhood}); (\textbf{E}) the KL-divergence between the two distributions indicates the similarity of the footprint to its neighborhood.}
\label{fig:schematic}
\end{figure*}
\section{Methods}
\subsection{Problem statement}
Formally, we would like to find when a structure was developed (or, more generally, changed) given a time series of remotely sensed imagery of it and the surrounding area, $\left[ \boldx^{1}, \ldots, \boldx^{t} \right]$ and its \textit{footprint}, $P$, at time $t$. We represent this footprint as a mask, $\boldy^t$. Here, the $i^{\text{th}}$ image in the time series $\boldx^i \in \mathbb{Z}^{w \times h \times c}$ is a georeferenced image with width, $w$, height, $h$, and number of spectral bands, $c$. Similarly, $\boldy^t \in \{0, 1\}^{w \times h}$ is a georeferenced binary mask with the same dimensions that contains a $1$ in every spatial location that the given structure covers at time $t$ and a $0$ elsewhere. We want to estimate the point in time that the structure was created, i.e. find $l \in \left[1, t\right]$, where $\boldx^{l}$ contains the structure, for the smallest such $l$. Note that we assume the structure to exist at $t$.
\subsection{Temporal Cluster Matching}
Our proposed model, Temporal Cluster Matching, relies on the assumption that when a structure is built its footprint will have a different set of colors and textures than its immediate surroundings compared to when the structure was not built. For example, an undeveloped piece of land in a rural setting will likely contain some sort of vegetation, and that vegetation will probably look similar (in color/texture) to some of its surroundings. When a structure is built on this land, then it will likely look dissimilar to its surroundings (unless e.g. its entire surroundings are also developed at the same time). The same intuition holds in urban environments -- an undeveloped piece of land will look dissimilar to its surroundings, however, when it is developed, it will look similar.\\
\\
We assume that we are given a \textit{footprint}, $P$, that outlines a structure that has been labeled as developed at time $t$. Now, we formally define the \textit{neighborhood} of this \textit{footprint}. This \textit{neighborhood} should be larger than the extent of the footprint in order to observe a representative set of colors/textures, so we let $r$ be a radius that serves as a buffer to the building footprint polygon. We then create $\boldy^t$ by rasterizing the polygon within this buffered extent and create $\left[ \boldx^{0}, \ldots, \boldx^{t} \right]$ by cropping the same buffered extent from each layer of remotely sensed imagery.\\
\\
Next, we define a method for comparing the set of colors/textures within the \textit{footprint} to those in the surrounding \textit{neighborhood}. Given a single layer of remotely sensed image from the time series, $\boldx$, we run $k$-means to partition the pixels into $k$ clusters. Each pixel can be represented by a set of features that encodes color and texture at its location, for example: the spectral values at the pixel's location, a texture descriptor (such as a local binary pattern) at the location, the spectral values in a window around the location, or some combination of the previous representations. Regardless, the cluster model will assign a cluster index to each pixel in $\boldx$ which we call $\mathbf{C}$. We then represent an area by the discrete distribution of cluster indices observed in that area. Specifically, we let $D_\text{footprint}$ be the distribution of cluster indices from $\mathbf{C}[\boldy^t = 1]$ and $D_\text{neighborhood}$ be the distribution of cluster indices from $\mathbf{C}[\boldy^t = 0]$\footnote{We use the notation $\mathbf{C}[\boldy^t = 1]$ to mean all the cluster indices of pixels where $\boldy^t = 1$. We build the discrete distribution by counting the number of pixels assigned to each cluster and normalizing the vector of counts by its sum.}. Now, we can compare the set of colors/textures within a footprint to those in its surrounding \textit{neighborhood} by calculating the KL-divergence between the two distributions of cluster indices, $d = \kld{D_\text{footprint}}{D_\text{neighborhood}}$. Larger KL-divergence values mean that the color/texture of a footprint is dissimilar to that of its surrounding neighborhood and that it is likely to be developed. We perform this comparison method for each image in the time series to create a list of KL-divergence values $\left[d_1, \ldots, d_t\right]$\\
\\
Finally, we let $\theta$ be a threshold value to determine the smallest KL-divergence value that we will consider to indicate a ``developed'' footprint. More specifically, our model will estimate $l$ as the time that a footprint is first developed for the first $l$ where $d_l > \theta$. This parameter can be found by experimentation using labeled data, or with the heuristic method we describe in Section \ref{subsec:heuristic}. See Algorithm \ref{pseudocode} and Figure \ref{fig:schematic} for an overview of this proposed approach.
\begin{algorithm}[thb]
\SetAlgoLined
\KwInput{Time series of remotely sensed imagery, $P$, $k$, $r$, and $\theta$}
\KwOutput{$l$, the \textit{first} point in time that the footprint described by $P$ was developed}
$\left[ \boldx^{1}, \boldx^{1}, \ldots, \boldx^{t} \right] \gets$ crop the imagery according to the buffered extent of $P$ by a radius $r$ \\
$\boldy^t \gets$ rasterize $P$ in the same buffered extent\\
\For{$l\gets1$ \KwTo $t$}{
$\mathbf{C} \gets$ cluster indices from a $k$-means clustering of $\boldx^{l}$ into $k$ clusters
$D_\text{footprint} \gets$ distribution of cluster indices $\mathbf{C}[\boldy^t = 1]$
$D_\text{neighborhood} \gets$ distribution of cluster indices $\mathbf{C}[\boldy^t = 0]$
$d \gets \kld{D_\text{footprint}}{D_\text{neighborhood}}$ \\
\If{$d > \theta$}
{
return $l$
}
}
return $t$
\caption{Temporal Cluster Matching}
\label{pseudocode}
\end{algorithm}
Section \ref{subsec:baselines} explores more complex decision models than the single threshold described above, but we note that these require labeled data to fit.
\subsection{A heuristic for semi-supervised Temporal Cluster Matching}
\label{subsec:heuristic}
In application scenarios we would like to use our model, given a dataset of (a) known structure footprints at time $t$ and (b) a time series of remotely sensed imagery over a certain study area, to find when each structure was constructed. Here we propose a method for determining reasonable parameter values for the number of clusters, $k$, buffer radius, $r$, and decision threshold, $\theta$, \textit{without assuming that we have prior labeled data on construction dates}.
This heuristic compares the distribution of KL-divergence values calculated by our algorithm for given hyperparameters, $k$ and $r$, over all footprints at time $t$ (when we assume that structures exist) to the distribution of KL-divergence values over a set of \textit{randomly generated polygons} over the study area. The intuition is that the relationship between random polygons and their \textit{neighborhoods} is similar to the relationship between undeveloped structure footprints and their \textit{neighborhoods}. In other words, this distribution of KL divergence values between color distributions from random polygons and their surroundings will represent what we would expect to observe by chance -- i.e. \textit{not} the relationship between the colors in a building footprint and its surroundings. We want to find parameter settings for our algorithm that minimize the overlap between these two distributions because it will make it easier to identify change (see Figure \ref{fig:known_vs_random} for an illustration of this for poultry barn footprints). Formally, we let $p$ be the distribution of KL-divergence values over footprints at $t$ and $q$ be the distribution of KL-divergence values over random polygons sampled from the study area (over all points in time). These are discrete distributions (e.g after binning KL divergence values) and we can measure the overlap with the Bhattacharyya coefficient, $BC(p, q) = \sum_{x \in X} \sqrt{p(x) q(x)}$. Choosing $k$ and $r$ thus becomes a search $\min_{k, r} BC(p, q)$.
Finally, after choosing $k$ and $r$, we can simply choose $\theta$ as a value representing the 98th percentile (or similar) of the resulting distribution of random polygons, $q$. Practically, this value simply needs to separate $p$ and $q$ and visualization of these two distributions should suggest appropriate values.
We test this heuristic in Section \ref{subsec:heuristic-experiments} by comparing change detection performance from fitting our proposed model with this heuristic versus with labeled data.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{poultry_known_vs_random.png}
\caption{We show the distribution of KL divergence values generated by our proposed approach for (1) poultry barn footprints in aerial imagery where there is guaranteed to be a structure and (2) randomly generated footprints over similar aerial imagery. We observe that (1) is unimodal with a large mean value, as the color distributions of footprints that contain buildings are dissimilar to the color distribution of their surroundings and (2) is unimodal with a small mean value, as random patches are highly likely to have a color distribution that is similar to their neighborhood. Our proposed heuristic method looks to find hyperparameters for the model that minimize the overlap in these two distributions such that a simple threshold can identify changes in building footprints.}
\label{fig:known_vs_random}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Baseline approaches}
\label{subsec:baselines}
Here we propose a series of baselines and variants of our model to compare against. We refer to our proposed model / heuristic for fitting the model as ``Semi-supervised TCM'' as it only depends on labeled building footprints from a single point in time. This is specifically in contrast to variant approaches like ``Supervised TCM'' (see below) that use labeled building footprints over time to fit the model parameters.
\begin{description}
\item[Supervised TCM] Here, we fit the parameter $\theta$ in our proposed model using labeled data instead of our proposed heuristic. We can do this by searching over values of $\theta$ and measuring performance on the labeled data. In this case, $k$ and $r$ are model hyperparameters that can be searched over using validation data.
\item[Supervised TCM with LR] We use the series of KL-divergence values computed by TCM as a feature representation in a logistic regression (LR) model that directly predicts which point in time a structure is first observed. This is a supervised method as it requires a sample of labeled footprint data over time to fit.
\item[Average-color with threshold] This baseline uses the same structure as TCM with two changes: instead of clustering colors we compute average colors representations (over space for each spectral band) and instead of computing KL-divergence between distributions of cluster indices we compute the Euclidean distance between the average colors representations. Specifically, we compute the average color in a footprint and the average color of its neighborhood, then take the Euclidean distance between them and treat this distance in the same way we have previously treated the KL-divergence values. This has the effect of removing $k$ as a hyperparameter, however the rest of the algorithm stays the same. Similar to the KL with threshold method we fit $\theta$ using labeled data.
\item[Average-color with LR] This method is identical to Supervised TCM with LR, but using the technique from Average-color with threshold to compute Euclidean distances between average color representations.
\item[Color-over-time] In this baseline we compute features from a time series of imagery by averaging the colors (over space for each spectral band) in the given footprint at each point in time, then taking the Euclidean distance between these average representations in subsequent pairs of imagery. For example, a time series of 5 images would result in an overall feature representation of 4 distances: the distance between the average colors at time 1 and average colors at time 2, the distance between the average colors at time 2 and the average colors at time 3, etc. We use this overall representation in a logistic regression model that predicts which point in time the structure is first observed.
\item[CNN-over-time] In this baseline we use the given structure footprints and satellite imagery at time $t$ to train a U-Net based semantic segmentation model to predict whether or not each pixel in an image contains a developed structure. We then use this trained model to score the imagery from each point and time and determine the first layer in which a building is constructed. For simplicity, if the network predicts that over 50\% of a footprint is constructed, then we count it as constructed.
\item[Mode predictions] This baseline is simply predicting the most frequent time point that we first observe constructed buildings based on the labels in the dataset of interest. For example, if `2011' was the most frequent year that we observed buildings to be constructed in a dataset, then this approach would predict every building was constructed in 2011 regardless of input. This serves as a lower bound on the performance of the supervised methods.
\end{description}
\section{Datasets}
\subsection{Poultry barn dataset}
We use the Soroka and Duren dataset of 6,013 labeled poultry barn polygons, \textsc{Poultry barn}\xspace, created from aerial imagery from the National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) from 2016/2017 over the Delmarva Peninsula (containing portions of Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware)~\cite{sorokaDataset}. NAIP imagery is 4 channel (red, green, blue, NIR) high-resolution ($\leq 1\text{m/px}$) aerial imagery and is collected independently by each state in the US at least once every three years on a rolling basis. Because of this, the availability and quality of the imagery varies between states. For instance, the NAIP imagery from 2011 in Delaware and Maryland are collected on different days of the year, at different times of day, etc. See Figure \ref{fig:data-examples} for example images of the NAIP imagery over time overlayed with the barn footprints. Additionally, we have manually labeled the earliest year (out of the years shown in Table \ref{tab:poultry-data}) that a poultry barn can be seen for a random subset of 1,000 of the poultry barn footprints.
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{State}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Years of NAIP data}} \\ \midrule
Delaware & 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2018 \\
Maryland & 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2018 \\
Virginia & 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018 \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{NAIP data availability over states covering the Delmarva Peninsula.}
\label{tab:poultry-data}
\end{table}
\subsection{Solar farm dataset}
We also use a solar farm dataset, \textsc{Solar farm}\xspace, containing polygons delineating solar installations in the Indian state of Karnataka for the year 2020. The dataset includes 935 individual polygons covering a total area or 25.7 km\textsuperscript{2}. The polygons were created by manually filtering the results of a model run on an annual median composite of Sentinel 2 multispectral surface reflectance imagery. We collect additional median composites of Sentinel 2 imagery for 2016 through 2019\footnote{The data from 2016, 2017 and 2018 are composites of the Sentinel 2 top of atmosphere products (Level 1C), while the 2019 and 2020 data are additionally corrected for surface reflectance (Level 2A). All data was processed with Google Earth Engine using the \texttt{COPERNICUS/S2} and \texttt{COPERNICUS/S2\_SR} collections respectively.} to use for change detection. See Figure \ref{fig:data-examples} for examples of the imagery overlayed with the solar farm footprints. For each of the 935 footprints we have manually labeled the earliest year (between 2016 and 2020) that a solar farm can be seen in the imagery.
\begin{table*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{@{}llcrr@{}}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Method}} & {\textbf{Semi-Supervised}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{ACC}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{MAE}} \\ \midrule
\multirow{1}{*}{\textsc{Poultry barn}\xspace} & Semi-supervised TCM & \checkmark & 0.94 & 0.15 \\
& Supervised TCM & & 0.93 +/- 0.01 & 0.17 +/- 0.04 \\
& Supervised TCM with LR & & 0.96 +/- 0.01 & 0.12 +/- 0.03 \\
\cline{2-5}
& CNN over time & \checkmark & 0.37 & 1.36 \\
& Average-color with LR & & 0.95 +/- 0.01 & 0.15 +/- 0.05 \\
& Average-color with threshold & & 0.91 +/- 0.02 & 0.24 +/- 0.06 \\
& Color-over-time & & 0.90 +/- 0.02 & 0.41 +/- 0.08 \\
& Mode predictions & & 0.84 & 0.80 \\ \midrule
\multirow{1}{*}{\textsc{Solar farm}\xspace} & Semi-supervised TCM & \checkmark & 0.71 & 0.49 \\
& Supervised TCM & & 0.70 +/- 0.04 & 0.51 +/- 0.08 \\
& Supervised TCM with LR & & 0.78 +/- 0.03 & 0.29 +/- 0.05 \\
\cline{2-5}
& CNN over time & \checkmark & 0.64 & 0.68 \\
& Average-color with LR & & 0.65 +/- 0.03 & 0.49 +/- 0.05 \\
& Average-color with threshold & & 0.50 +/- 0.04 & 0.93 +/- 0.08 \\
& Color-over-time & & 0.79 +/- 0.01 & 0.29 +/- 0.02 \\
& Mode predictions & & 0.42 & 0.81 \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}%
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison of our proposed semi-supervised model (``Semi-supervised TCM'') to other baseline methods for detecting change in structures over time series of imagery. Note that the semi-supervised methods only have access to building footprint labels at time $t$, while the other methods are ``supervised'' and additionally have access to labels on when buildings were constructed over time. We observe that our semi-supervised approach achieves identical performance to a supervised variant where the model parameters are learned. We further observe the proposed approach outperforms supervised baseline methods for detecting change. Reported values are shown as averages (+/-) a standard deviation over 50 random train/test splits where appropriate. Single values are reported for the semi-supervised methods as they are evaluated on the entire labeled data set.}
\label{tab:results}
\end{table*}
\section{Experiments and results}
We experiment with different configurations of our algorithm on the \textsc{Poultry barn}\xspace and \textsc{Solar farm}\xspace datasets. In all experiments we measure the accuracy (ACC) -- the percentage of labeled footprints for which we correctly identify the first ``developed'' year and mean absolute error (MAE) -- the average of absolute differences between the predicted year and labeled year.
\subsection{Semi-supervised TCM}
\label{subsec:heuristic-experiments}
We first test how parameters chosen with the proposed heuristic correlate with performance of the model. The benefit of the heuristic method is that it does not require labeled temporal data to fit the model, but we need to show that the parameters it selects actually result in good performance. Here, we search over buffer sizes in $\{100, 200, 400\}$ meters and $\{0.016, 0.024\}$ degrees for the \textsc{Poultry barn}\xspace and \textsc{Solar farm}\xspace datasets, respectively, and number of clusters in $\{16, 32, 64\}$ for both datasets. For each configuration combination we create $p$ and $q$ as described in Section \ref{subsec:heuristic}, compute the Bhattacharyya coefficient, estimate $\theta$, then evaluate the predicted change years on the labeled data. We find that the Bhattacharyya coefficient is correlated with the result; there is -0.77 rank order correlation between the coefficient and accuracy (p=0.01) in \textsc{Poultry barn}\xspace and a -0.94 rank order correlation (p=0.004) in \textsc{Solar farm}\xspace. In both datasets, the smallest Bhattacharyya coefficient was paired with the best performing algorithm configuration.
Second, we compare the performance of the model with heuristic estimated parameters to that with learned parameters. To learn the parameters for our proposed model, ``Supervised TCM'', we randomly partition the labeled time series data into 80/20 train/test splits. We find the values of $k$, $r$, and $\theta$ (with a grid search over the same space for $k$ and $r$ as mentioned above) using the training split, then evaluate this model on the test split. We repeat this process for 50 random partitions and report the average and standard deviation metrics for the best combination Table \ref{tab:results}. We observe that the heuristic method produces results that are equivalent to those of the learned model. In \textsc{Poultry barn}\xspace our proposed method achieves a 94\% accuracy with a mean absolute error of 0.15 years which suggests it will be effective for driving longitudinal studies of the growth of poultry CAFOs.
Finally, we observe that our method significantly outperforms the other semi-supervised baseline, CNN over time. In both \textsc{Poultry barn}\xspace and \textsc{Solar farm}\xspace we observe considerable covariate shift. For example, in the \textsc{Poultry barn}\xspace dataset there is a large shift in input distribution over time due to the fact that the aerial imagery is collected at different days of the year, at different times of day, etc. The deep learning model is trained solely on imagery from the last point in each time series where we can confirm that there exists buildings in each footprint, however is unable to reliably generalize over time. We did not experiment with domain adaptation techniques to attempt to fix this, however we explore the use of our proposed method in this capacity in Section \ref{sec:dl}. We note that our proposed model is unaffected by shifts in the input distributions year-over-year as it never compares imagery from different years.
\subsection{Supervised models}
In the previous section we showed that we can estimate the parameters of our model without labeled time series data. Not requiring additional labeling is a major benefit of the TCM approach. In this section we explore the performance of our proposed approach against \textit{supervised} baseline approaches, using labels generated going back in time. We find that logistic regression models are effective at predicting the building construction date from the series of KL divergence values produced by our proposed approach (KL with LR). In both datasets this method is overall the top performing method with 96\% accuracy in the \textsc{Poultry barn}\xspace dataset and 78\% accuracy in the \textsc{Solar farm}\xspace dataset. In the \textsc{Solar farm}\xspace dataset the Color-over-time baseline has tied for top performance (within a standard deviation), but the same features are not as effective in the \textsc{Poultry barn}\xspace dataset where the color shifts are more dramatic year-over-year. Even so, the performance of the color-over-time baseline was much better than we originally hypothesized and should be compared to in future work regardless of perceived covariate shifts.
We also observe that our proposed method (that computes clustered representations) dominates the family of average-color baselines. This, along with the fact that we observe that more clusters in the $k$-means model usually results in better performance, suggests that the clustered representation is an important component of our approach. We hypothesize that more rich feature representations will prove even more effective as both the colors and textures of a footprint will change when it becomes developed. This is a trivial addition to the existing model and we hope to test it in future studies.
Finally, we observe that our heuristic method performs very well overall. In both datasets there are only two supervised methods that achieve stronger results than the semi-supervised proposed approach.
\section{Temporal Cluster Matching as a data augmentation strategy}
\label{sec:dl}
In Table \ref{tab:results} we show that training semantic segmentation models on structure footprint masks at a time $t$ does \textit{not} result in a model that can generalize well over time (and thus cannot detect change). Previously (in Section \ref{subsec:heuristic-experiments}) we hypothesized that this is due to the covariate shift in the time series imagery in the two datasets that we test on -- the \textsc{Poultry barn}\xspace dataset uses NAIP aerial imagery that is collected at different times of day and different days of the year on a rolling three year basis and the \textsc{Solar farm}\xspace dataset uses Sentinel 2 mosaics created from TOA corrected imagery in 2016 through 2018 and surface reflectance corrected imagery in 2019 and 2020. Thus, a model trained with data from a single period in both of these cases is unlikely to perform well in other layers.
Here we test this hypothesis by using our proposed method to augment the data used to train the CNN over time method for the \textsc{Poultry barn}\xspace dataset. Specifically, we run Semi-supervised TCM over the \textsc{Poultry barn}\xspace dataset to create predictions as to when each footprint was constructed. We then use these estimates to create an expanded training set that contains pairs of imagery over all time points with footprint masks that are predicted to have a building. For example, if our model believes that there was a building in a given footprint at 2011 in the NAIP imagery, then we can train the segmentation model with (NAIP 2011, footprint), (NAIP 2013, footprint), etc. We find that this increases the performance of the model on the change detection task in all cases that we tested. For example, we apply this augmentation step to the same model configuration used in the results from Table \ref{tab:results} and achieve a 56\% accuracy and 0.97 MAE (a 19\% improvement in ACC and 0.39 improvement in MAE). These results are not competitive with the other methods we test in the change detection task. This likely stems from the fact that the segmentation model, in contrast to the other methods, is not specialized to change detection. On the other hand, the segmentation model can be run over new imagery to find novel instances of poultry barns (e.g., barns destroyed prior to the date of original data labeling), and is thus necessary to improve the performance of such models for more general applications.
While a more rigorous evaluation of how to improve the deep learning segmentation baseline is outside the scope of this paper, we hypothesize that more data augmentation strategies (e.g. RandAugment~\cite{cubuk2020randaugment} and AugMix~\cite{hendrycks2019augmix}), unsupervised domain adaptation methods~\cite{sun2019unsupervised}, and a hyperparmeter search over dimensions such as class balancing strategies, temporal balancing strategies, learning rates, architecture, etc. would all improve performance. These types of experimentation will be critical for any future work that attempts to create general purpose models for detecting building construction at scale. That said, one of the main benefits of our proposed TCM is that it provides a lightweight approach to detect construction.
\section{Conclusion and future work}
We have proposed Temporal Cluster Matching (TCM) for detecting change in building footprints from time series of remotely sensed imagery. This model is based on the intuition that the relationship between the distribution of colors inside and outside of a building footprint will change upon construction. We further propose a heuristic based method for fitting the parameters of our model and show that this approach effectively detects poultry barn and solar farm construction. TCM does not depend on having labels over time, yet it can outperform similar models that have such labels available. Further, we show that the feature representation from TCM -- a sequence of KL-divergence values between the distribution of color clusters inside and outside of a building footprint -- can be used in supervised models to improve change detection performance. Finally, we show how TCM can be used as a data augmentation technique for training deep learning models to \textit{detect} building footprints from remotely sensed imagery.
This work motivates several future directions.
First, the per-pixel representation of TCM will affect detectable changes. We used simple color representations, but more elaborate representations could be promising (e.g. texture descriptors or higher dimensional image embeddings).
Second, future work should explore other applications of TCM. Here we experimented with imagery where the size of the footprints were relatively large compared to the spatial resolution of the imagery. However, our model may not perform as well when the footprint is relatively smaller. For example, we briefly experimented with detecting changes using general building footprints in the US and NAIP imagery and found that the relationship between the color distributions of small residential buildings and their surroundings was very noisy, although we did not attempt to investigate further. The top performing methods from the recent SpaceNet7 challenge run their building detection algorithms on upsampled imagery and a similar strategy may be useful with TCM.
Finally, we hypothesize that TCM would work with time series of imagery from multiple remote sensing sensor modalities. A benefit of our model is that it does not consider inter-year differences and thus is not affected by shifts in the color distributions of the imagery, but our experimental results do not explore the extent in which this is a useful property. Practically, there may be problems (such as shifts in geolocation accuracy) when applying TCM over stacks of imagery from different sources.
In summary, we hope TCM approach illustrated here will enable researchers to overcome the ``frozen'' labels of many emerging earth imagery datasets. Our lightweight approach to augment labels temporally should foster richer exploration of time series of satellite imagery and help us to understand the earth as it was, is, and will be.
\begin{acks}
We thank Microsoft Azure for support in cloud computing, and Schmidt Futures, Stanford Impact Labs, and the GRACE Communications Foundation for research support.
\end{acks}
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{S:intro}
You have lost your puppy somewhere on a simple closed curve.
Both of you are forced to stay on the curve.
You can see each other and both want to reunite.
The problem is that the puppy runs infinitely faster than you, and it believes naively that it is always a good idea to minimize its straight-line distance to you.
What do you do?
To be more precise, let $\gamma\colon S^1\DOTSB\hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}^2$ be a simple closed curve in the plane, which we informally call the \emph{track}.
Two special points move around the track, called the \emph{puppy} $p$ and the \emph{human} $h$.
The human can walk along the track at bounded speed and change direction as desired.
The puppy runs with unbounded speed along the track as long as its Euclidean straight-line distance to the human is decreasing, until it reaches a point on the curve where the distance is locally minimized. As the human moves along the track, the puppy moves to stay at a local distance minimum. The human's goal is to move in such a way that the puppy and the human meet. See \cref{F:init-example} for a simple example.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.48]{Fig/catch-example}
\caption{Catching the puppy.}
\label{F:init-example}
\end{figure}
In this paper we show that it is always possible to reunite with the puppy, under the assumption that the curve is well-behaved in a sense to be defined.
The problem was posed in a different guise at the open problem session of the 25th Canadian Conference on Computational Geometry (CCCG 2013) by Michael Biro. In Biro's formulation,
the track was a railway, the human a locomotive, and the puppy a train carriage that was attracted to an infinitely strong magnet installed in the locomotive.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[page=4]{Fig/intro2}
\caption{If the human keeps walking counterclockwise from $h_1$, the human and the puppy will never meet.
To the right are closeups of two of the spikes of the star.
}
\label{F:intro2}
\end{figure}
Returning to our formulation of catching a puppy, it was also asked if the human will always catch the puppy by choosing an arbitrary direction and walking only in that direction.
This turns out not to be the case; consider the star-shaped track in \cref{F:intro2}. Suppose the human and puppy start at points $h_1$ and $p_1$, respectively, and the human walks counterclockwise around the track.
When the human reaches $h_2$, the puppy runs from $p_2$ to~$p'_2$.
When the human reaches $h_3$, the puppy runs from $p_3$ to $p'_3$.
Then the pattern repeats indefinitely.
Examples of this type, where the human walking in the wrong direction will never catch the puppy, were independently discovered during the conference by some of the authors and by David Eppstein.
\subsection{Related work}
Biro’s problem was inspired by his and others’ work on \emph{beacon-based geometric routing}, a generalization of both greedy geometric routing and the art gallery problem introduced at the 2011 Fall Workshop on Computational Geometry \cite{bgikm-bre-11} and the 2012 Young Researchers Forum \cite{bgikm-bbspd-12}, and further developed in Biro’s PhD thesis~\cite{biro2013beacon} and papers~\cite{DBLP:conf/wads/BiroIKM13, DBLP:conf/cccg/BiroGIKM13}. A \emph{beacon} is a stationary point object that can be activated to create a “magnetic pull” towards itself everywhere in a given polygonal domain $P$. When a beacon at point $b$ is \emph{activated}, a point object $p$ moves moves greedily to decrease its Euclidean distance to $b$, alternately moving through the interior of $P$ and sliding along its boundary, until it either reaches $b$ or gets stuck at a “dead point” where Euclidean distance is minimized. By activating different beacons one at a time, one can route a moving point object through the domain.
Initial results for this model by Biro and his colleagues \cite{bgikm-bre-11, bgikm-bbspd-12, biro2013beacon, DBLP:conf/wads/BiroIKM13, DBLP:conf/cccg/BiroGIKM13} sparked significant interest and subsequent work in the community~\cite{DBLP:journals/comgeo/BaeSV19,kostitsyna_et_al:LIPIcs:2018:8768,DBLP:conf/cccg/KouhestaniRS15,DBLP:conf/cccg/KouhestaniRS16,DBLP:journals/comgeo/KouhestaniRS18,DBLP:conf/cccg/Shermer15, aacns-bcop-17, aacns-tbico-20, cm-cbrtd-20}.
More recent works have also studied how to utilize objects that repel points instead of attracting them~\cite{DBLP:journals/comgeo/BoseS20,DBLP:conf/cocoa/MozafariS18}.
Biro’s problem can also be viewed as a novel variant of classical \emph{pursuit} problems, which have been an object of intense study for centuries~\cite{n-cempe-07}. The oldest pursuit problems ask for a description of the \emph{pursuit curve} traced by a \emph{pursuer} moving at constant speed directly toward a \emph{target} moving along some other curve. Pursuit curves were first systematically studied by Bouguer \cite{b-ncapd-32} and de Maupertuis \cite{m-cp-32} in 1732, who used the metaphor of a pirate overtaking a merchant ship; another notable example is Hathaway’s problem \cite{h-psp2-20}, which asks for the the pursuit curve of a dog swimming at unit speed in a circular lake directly toward a duck swimming at unit speed around its circumference. In more modern \emph{pursuit-evasion} problems, starting with Rado’s famous “lion and man” problem \cite[pp.114--117]{b-lm-86}, the pursuer and target both move strategically within some geometric domain; the pursuer attempts to \emph{capture} the target by making their positions coincide while the target attempts to evade capture. Countless variants of pursuit-evasion problems have been studied, with multiple pursuers and/or targets, different classes of domains, various constraints on motion or visibility, different capture conditions, and so on. Biro’s problem can be naturally described as a \emph{cooperative pursuit} or \emph{pursuit-attraction} problem, in which a strategic target (the human) \emph{wants} to be captured by a greedy pursuer (the puppy).
Kouhestani and Rappaport~\cite{kouhestani2017} studied a natural variant of Biro’s problem, which we can recast as follows.
A \emph{guppy} is restricted to a closed and simply-connected \emph{lake}, while the human is restricted to the boundary of the lake. The guppy swims with unbounded speed to decrease its Euclidean distance to the human as quickly as possible. Kouhestani and Rappaport described a polynomial-time algorithm that finds a strategy for the human to catch the guppy, if such a strategy exists, given a simple polygon as input; they also conjectured that a capturing strategy always exists.
Abel, Akitaya, Demaine, Demaine, Hesterberg, Korman, Ku, and Lynch~\cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-2006-01202} recently proved that for some polygons and starting configurations, the human cannot catch the guppy, even if the human is allowed to walk in the exterior of the polygon, thereby disproving Kouhestani and Rappaport’s conjecture. Their simplest counterexample is an orthogonal polygon with about 50 vertices.
\subsection{Our results}
Before describing our results in detail, we need to carefully define the terms of the problem. The \emph{track} is a simple closed curve $\gamma\colon S^1\DOTSB\hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}^2$. We consider the motion of two points on this curve, called the \emph{human} (or \emph{beacon} or \emph{target}) and the \emph{puppy} (or \emph{pursuer}). A \emph{configuration} is a pair $(x, y) \in S^1\times S^1$ that specifies the locations $h = \gamma(x)$ and $p = \gamma(y)$ for the human and puppy, respectively. Let $D(x, y)$ denote the straight-line Euclidean distance between these two points. When the human is located at $h = \gamma(x)$, the puppy moves from $p = \gamma(y)$ to greedily decrease its distance to the human, as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item
If $D(x, y+\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace) < D(x, y)$ for all sufficiently small $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace>0$, the puppy runs forward along the track, by increasing the parameter $y$.
\item
If $D(x, y-\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace) < D(x, y)$ for all sufficiently small $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace>0$, the puppy runs backward along the track, by decreasing the parameter $y$.
\end{itemize}
If both of these conditions hold, the puppy runs in an arbitrary direction. While the puppy is running, the human remains stationary. If neither condition holds, the configuration is \emph{stable}; the puppy does not move until the human does. When the configuration is stable, the human can walk in either direction along the track; the puppy walks along the track in response to keep the configuration stable, until it is forced to run again. The human's goal is to \emph{catch} the puppy; that is, to reach a configuration in which the two points coincide.
Our main result is that the human can always catch the puppy in finite time, starting from any initial configuration, provided the track is either a generic simple smooth curve or an arbitrary simple polygon.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. We begin in \cref{S:warmup} by considering some variants and special cases of the problem. In particular, we give a simple self-contained proof of our main result for the special case of orthogonal polygons.
We consider generic smooth tracks in \cref{S:smooth-diagrams,S:dexterity}. Specifically, in \cref{S:smooth-diagrams} we define two important diagrams, which we call the \emph{attraction diagram} and the \emph{dual attraction diagram}, and prove some useful structural results. At a high level, the attraction diagram is a decomposition of the configuration space $S^1\times S^1$ according to the puppy's behavior, similar to the \emph{free space diagrams} introduced by Alt and Godau to compute Fréchet distance \cite{ag-cfdbt-95}. We show that for a sufficiently generic smooth track, the attraction diagram consists of a finite number of disjoint simple closed \emph{critical} curves, exactly two of which are topologically nontrivial. Then in \cref{S:dexterity}, we argue that the human can catch the puppy on any track whose attraction diagram has this structure.
In \cref{S:polygons}, we describe an extension of our analysis from smooth curves to simple polygonal tracks. Because polygons do not have well-defined tangent directions at their vertices, this extension requires explicitly modeling the puppy's direction of motion in addition to its location. We first prove that the human can catch the puppy on a polygon that has no acute vertex angles and where no three vertices form a right angle; under these conditions, the attraction diagram has exactly the same structure as for generic smooth curves. We then reduce the problem for arbitrary simple polygons to this special case by \emph{chamfering}---cutting off a small triangle at each vertex---and arguing that any strategy for catching the puppy on the chamfered track can be pulled back to the original polygon.
Finally, we close the paper by suggesting several directions for further research.
\section{Warmup: other settings and a special case}
\label{S:warmup}
In this section, we discuss two variants of Biro’s problem and the special case of orthogonal polygons.
In the first variant, both the human $h$ and the puppy $p$ are allowed to move anywhere in the interior and on the boundary of a simple polygon $P$. Here, as in beacon routing and Kouhestani and Rappaport’s variant~\cite{kouhestani2017, DBLP:journals/corr/abs-2006-01202}, the puppy moves greedily to decrease its Euclidean distance to the human, alternately moving through the interior of $P$ and sliding along its boundary.
As we will show in \cref{thm:pol}, $h$ has a simple strategy to catch $p$ in this setting, essentially by walking along the dual graph of any triangulation. This is an interesting contrast to the proof by Abel et al. \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-2006-01202} that $h$ and $p$ cannot always meet when $h$ is restricted to the \emph{exterior} of $P$ and $p$ to the interior. Our main result that $h$ and $p$ can meet when both are restricted to the \emph{boundary} of $P$ (even for a much wider class of simple closed curves), somehow sits in between these other two variants.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[page=3]{Fig/intro}
\caption{The proposed strategy when $h$ and $p$ are restricted to the interior of a simple polygon~$P$.
The human $h$ will follow the path $\pi$.
Note that the triangle containing $p$ will change before $h$ reaches $d_1$, and $\pi$ will be updated accordingly.}
\label{F:thm:pol}
\end{figure}
When both $h$ and $p$ are restricted to the interior of $P$, we propose the following strategy for $h$; see \cref{F:thm:pol}.
Let $\mathcal T$ be a triangulation of $P$ and let $t_1,\ldots,t_k$ be the path of pairwise adjacent triangles in $\mathcal T$ such that $h\in t_1$ and $p\in t_k$.
Let $e_i$ be the common edge of $t_i$ and $t_{i+1}$ and let $d_i$ be the midpoint of $e_i$.
Let $\pi=hd_1d_2\ldots d_{k-1}$ be a path from $h$ to $d_{k-1}$, which is contained in the triangles $t_1,\ldots,t_{k-1}$.
The human starts walking along $\pi$.
As soon as the puppy enters a new triangle, the human recomputes $\pi$ as described and follows the new path.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:pol}
The proposed strategy will make $h$ and $p$ meet.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First, we observe that if the puppy ever enters the triangle $t_1$ that
is occupied by the human, then the puppy and the human will meet
immediately.
Assume that the human does not meet the puppy right from the beginning.
The region $P\setminus t_1$ consists of one, two, or three polygons, one of which $P_p$ contains $p$.
Thus, whenever the human moves from one triangle to another,
the set of triangles that can possibly contain $p$ shrinks.
We conclude that the human and the puppy must meet eventually.
\end{proof}
In our second variant, the human and the puppy are both restricted to a simple, closed curve~$\gamma$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Here it is easy to construct curves on which $h$ and $p$ will never meet; the simplest example is a “double loop” that approximately winds twice around a planar circle, as shown in \cref{F:doubleLoop}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[page=2]{Fig/intro2}
\caption{A double loop in $\mathbb{R}^3$; the human and puppy will never meet.}
\label{F:doubleLoop}
\end{figure}
Finally, we consider the special case of Biro’s original problem where the track $\gamma$ is the boundary of an orthogonal polygon in the plane. This special case of our main results admits a much simpler self-contained proof.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Th:ortho}
The human can catch the puppy on any simple orthogonal polygon, by walking counterclockwise around the polygon at most twice.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let~$P$ be an arbitrary simple orthogonal polygon.
Let~$u_1$ be its leftmost point with the maximum $y$-coordinate, and $u_2$ be the next boundary vertex of $P$ in the clockwise order (see \cref{F:ortho}).
Finally, let~$\ell$ be the horizontal line supporting the segment $u_1u_2$.
We break the motion of the human into two phases.
In the first phase, the human moves counterclockwise around $P$ from their starting location to $u_1$.
If the human catches the puppy during this phase, we are done, so assume otherwise.
In the second phase, the human walks counterclockwise around $P$ starting from~$u_1$ to $u_2$.
We claim that the puppy $p$ is never in the interior of the segment $u_1u_2$ during the second phase; thus, $p$ always lies on the closed counterclockwise subpath of~$P$ from $h$ to $u_2$ (or less formally, ``between $h$ and $u_2$''). This claim implies that the human and the puppy are united during the second phase on $u_2$ at the latest.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Fig/ortho}
\caption{Proof of \cref{Th:ortho}. During the human's second trip around $P$, the puppy lies between $u_2$ and the human.}
\label{F:ortho}
\end{figure}
The puppy must first be at $u_2$ if it ever wants to be in
the interior of $u_1u_2$.
So consider any moment during the second phase when~$p$
moves upward to the vertex $u_2$.
At that moment,~$h$ must be on the line~$\ell$ to the right of~$p$.
(For any point~$a$ below~$\ell$, there is a point~$b$ below~$u_2$ that is closer to $a$ than~$u_2$.)
Thus, the puppy will stay on $u_2$ as long as $h$ is on $\ell$.
As soon as~$h$ leaves~$\ell$ the puppy will leave $u_2$ downward.
Thus the puppy can never go to the interior of the edge $u_1u_2$.
\end{proof}
The star-shaped track in \cref{F:intro2} shows that this simple argument does not extend to arbitrary polygons, even with a constant number of edge directions.
\section{Diagrams of smooth tracks}
\label{S:smooth-diagrams}
We first formalize both the problem and our solution under the assumption that the track is a generic smooth simple closed curve $\gamma\colon S^1\DOTSB\hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}^2$. In particular, for ease of exposition, we assume that $\gamma$ is regular and $C^3$, meaning it has well-defined continuous first, second, and third derivatives, and its first derivative is nowhere zero. We also assume $\gamma$ satisfies some additional genericity constraints, to be specified later. We consider polygonal tracks in \cref{S:polygons}.
\subsection{Configurations and genericity assumptions}
We analyze the behavior of the puppy in terms of the \emph{configuration space} $S^1\times S^1$, which is the standard torus. Each configuration point $(x, y) \in S^1\times S^1$ corresponds to the human being located at $h = \gamma(x)$ and the puppy being located at $p = \gamma(y)$.
For any configuration $(x,y)$, recall that $D(x,y)$ denotes the straight-line Euclidean distance between the points $\gamma(x)$ and $\gamma(y)$.
We classify all configurations $(x, y) \in S^1\times S^1$ into three types, according to the sign of the partial derivative of distance with respect to the puppy's position.
\begin{itemize}\itemsep0pt
\item
$(x,y)$ is a \emph{forward} configuration if $\frac{\partial}{\partial y} D(x,y) < 0$.
\item
$(x,y)$ is a \emph{backward} configuration if $\frac{\partial}{\partial y} D(x,y) > 0$.
\item
$(x,y)$ is a \emph{critical} configuration if $\frac{\partial}{\partial y} D(x,y) = 0$.
\end{itemize}
Starting in any forward (resp.~backward) configuration, the puppy automatically runs forward (resp.~backward) along the track $\gamma$.
Genericity implies that there are a finite number of critical configurations $(x, y)$ with any fixed value of $x$, or with any fixed value of $y$. We further classify the critical configurations as follows:
\begin{itemize}\itemsep0pt
\item
$(x,y)$ is a \emph{stable} critical configuration if $\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} D(x,y) > 0$.
\item
$(x,y)$ is an \emph{unstable} critical configuration if $\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} D(x,y) < 0$.
\item
$(x,y)$ is a \emph{forward pivot} configuration if $\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} D(x,y) = 0$ and $\frac{\partial^3}{\partial y^3} D(x,y) < 0$.
\item
$(x,y)$ is a \emph{backward pivot} configuration if $\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} D(x,y) = 0$ and $\frac{\partial^3}{\partial y^3} D(x,y) > 0$.
\end{itemize}
In any stable configuration, the puppy's distance to the human is locally minimized, so the puppy does not move unless the human moves.
In any unstable configuration, the puppy can decrease its distance by running in either direction.
Finally, in any forward (resp.~backward) pivot configuration, the puppy can decrease its distance by moving
in one direction but not the other, and thus automatically runs forward (resp.~backward) along the track.
Critical points can also be characterized geometrically as follows. Refer to \cref{F:critical}. A configuration $(x,y)$ is critical if the human $\gamma(x)$ lies on the line $\ensuremath{N}\xspace(y)$ normal to $\gamma$ at the puppy's location $\gamma(y)$. Let $C(y)$ denote the center of curvature of the track at $\gamma(y)$. Then $(x, y)$ is a pivot configuration if $\gamma(x) = C(y)$, a stable critical configuration if the open ray from $C(y)$ through the human point $\gamma(x)$ contains the puppy point $\gamma(y)$, and an unstable critical configuration otherwise.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Fig/pivot-curvature}
\caption{Three critical configurations: $(h_1, p)$ is unstable; $(h_2, p)$ is a pivot configuration, and $(h_3, p)$ is stable.}
\label{F:critical}
\end{figure}
Genericity of the track $\gamma$ implies that this classification of critical configurations is exhaustive, and moreover, that the set of pivot configurations is finite.
In particular, our analysis requires that in any pivot configuration $(x,y)$, the puppy point $\gamma(y)$ is not a local curvature minimum or maximum.\footnote{More concretely, we assume the track $\gamma$ intersects its evolute (the locus of centers of curvature) transversely, away from its cusps.} Otherwise, we would need higher derivatives to disambiguate the puppy's behavior. In the extreme case where $\gamma$ contains both an open circular arc $\alpha$ and its center $c$, all configurations where $h=c$ and $p\in \alpha$ are stable.
\subsection{Attraction diagrams}
\label{sec:puppydiagram}
The \EMPH{attraction diagram} of the track $\gamma$ is a decomposition of the configuration space $S^1\times S^1$ by critical configurations. Our genericity assumptions imply that the set of critical points---the common boundary of the forward and backward configurations---is the union of a finite number of disjoint simple closed curves, which we call \emph{critical cycles}. At least one of these critical cycles, the main diagonal $x=y$, consists entirely of stable configurations; critical cycles can also consist entirely of unstable configurations. If a critical cycle is neither entirely stable nor entirely unstable, then its points of vertical tangency are pivot configurations, and these points subdivide the curve into $x$-monotone paths, which alternately consist of stable and unstable configurations.
\cref{F:diagram} shows a sketch of the attraction diagram of a simple closed curve. We visualize the configuration torus $S^1\times S^1$ as a square with opposite sides identified. Green and red paths indicate stable and unstable configurations, respectively; blue dots indicate pivot configurations; and backward configurations are shaded light gray. \cref{F:spiral-diagram} shows the attraction diagram for a more complex polygonal track, with slightly different coloring conventions. (Again, we will discuss polygonal tracks in more detail in \cref{S:polygons}.)
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[scale=0.6,page=1]{Fig/square-puppy-diagram}}
\qquad
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[scale=0.5,page=3]{Fig/square-puppy-diagram}}
\caption{The attraction diagram of a simple closed curve, with one unstable critical configuration emphasized.}
\label{F:diagram}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Fig/double-spiral}\\[3ex]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig/non-uniform-rug}
\caption{The attraction diagram of a complex simple polygon. Serrations in the diagram are artifacts of the curve being polygonal instead of smooth. The river is highlighted in blue.}
\label{F:spiral-diagram}
\end{figure*}
The cycles in any attraction diagram have a simple but important topological structure.
A critical cycle in the attraction diagram is \emph{contractible} if it is the boundary of a simply connected subset of the torus $S^1\times S^1$ and \emph{essential} otherwise. For example, the main diagonal is essential, and the attraction diagram in \cref{F:diagram} contains two contractible critical cycles and two essential critical cycles.
\begin{lemma}
\label{L:even}
The attraction diagram of any generic closed curve contains an even number of essential critical cycles.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This lemma follows immediately from standard homological arguments, but for the sake of completeness we sketch a self-contained proof.
Fix a generic closed curve $\gamma$. Let $\alpha$ be the horizontal cycle $\{(0, y) \mid y\in S^1\}$, and let $\beta$ be the vertical cycle $\{(x, 0) \mid x\in S^1\}$ in the torus $S^1\times S^1$.
Without loss of generality, assume $\alpha$ and $\beta$ intersect every critical cycle in the attraction diagram of $\gamma$ transversely.
A critical cycle $C$ in the attraction diagram is contractible if and only if $\alpha$ and $\beta$ each cross $C$ an even number of times. (Indeed, this parity condition characterizes all simple contractible closed curves in the torus.)
On the other hand, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ each cross the main diagonal once.
It follows that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ each cross \emph{every} essential critical cycle an odd number of times;
otherwise, some pair of essential critical cycles would intersect.
Because the critical cycles are the boundary between the forward and backward configurations, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ each contain an even number of critical points. The lemma now follows immediately.
\end{proof}
We emphasize that this lemma does \emph{not} actually require the track $\gamma$ to be simple; the argument relies only on properties of generic functions over the torus that are minimized along the main diagonal.
\subsection{Dual attraction diagrams}
Our analysis also relies on a second diagram, which we call the \EMPH{dual attraction diagram} of the track.
We hope the following intuition is helpful.
While the attraction diagram tells us the possible positions of the puppy depending on the position
of the human, the dual attraction diagram gives us the possible positions of the human depending on the position of the puppy.
For each puppy configuration~$y\in S^1$, we consider the
normal line $\ensuremath{N}\xspace(y)$.
We are interested in the intersection points of $\gamma$ with $\ensuremath{N}\xspace(y)$,
as those are the possible positions of the human.
The idea of the dual attraction diagram is to trace the positions of the human as a function of the position of the puppy, see \cref{F:human-diagram}.
Let $\ensuremath{T}\xspace(y)$ denote the directed line tangent to $\gamma$ at the point $\gamma(y)$. For any configuration $(x,y)$, let \EMPH{$\ell(x,y)$} denote the the distance from $\gamma(x)$ to the tangent line $\ensuremath{T}\xspace(y)$, signed so that $\ell(x,y)>0$ if the human point $\gamma(x)$ lies to the left of $\ensuremath{T}\xspace(y)$ and $\ell(x,y)<0$ if $\gamma(y)$ lies to the right of $\ensuremath{T}\xspace(y)$. More concisely, assuming without loss of generality that the track $\gamma$ is parameterized by arc length, $\ell(x,y)$ is twice the signed area of the triangle with vertices $\gamma(x)$, $\gamma(y)$, and $\gamma(y) + \gamma'(y)$.
Let $L\colon S^1\times S^1\to S^1\times \mathbb{R}$ denote the function $L(x,y) = (y, \ell(x,y))$.
The dual attraction diagram is the decomposition of the infinite cylinder $S^1\times \mathbb{R}$ by the points $\set{ L(x,y) \mid \text{$\strut(x, y)$ is critical}}$. At the risk of confusing the reader, we refer to the image $L(x,y)\in S^1\times \mathbb{R}$ of any critical configuration $(x,y)$ as a critical point of the dual attraction diagram.
The dual attraction diagram can also be described as follows. For any $y\in S^1$ and $d\in \mathbb{R}$, let $\Gamma(y, d)$ denote the point on the normal line $\ensuremath{N}\xspace(y)$ at distance $d$ to the left of the tangent vector $\gamma'(y)$. More formally, assuming without loss of generality that $\gamma$ is parametrized by arc length, we have $\Gamma(y, d) = \gamma(y) + d \left[\begin{smallmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{smallmatrix}\right] \gamma'(y)$.
We emphasize that $\Gamma(y,d)$ does not necessarily lie on the curve $\gamma$. The dual attraction diagram is the decomposition of the cylinder $S^1\times\mathbb{R}$ by the preimage $\Gamma^{-1}(\gamma)$ of $\gamma$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Fig/human-parameters}
\caption{Examples of the functions $\ell$ and $\Gamma$ used to define the dual attraction diagram.}
\label{F:human-parameters}
\end{figure}
Because $\gamma$ is simple and regular, the dual attraction diagram is the union of simple disjoint closed curves.
The function $L$ continuously maps each critical cycle in the attraction diagram to a closed curve in the cylinder $S^1\times \mathbb{R}$.
Thus, the restriction of $L$ to the set of critical configuration is a homeomorphism onto its image in the dual attraction diagram.
In particular, $L$ maps the main diagonal $x=y$ to the horizontal axis $\ell(x,y) = 0$ of the dual attraction diagram.
We emphasize, however, that the two diagrams are not topologically equivalent.
\cref{F:human-diagram} shows the dual attraction diagram of the same track whose attraction diagram is shown in \cref{F:diagram}; here preimages of points inside the track are shaded.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[scale=0.5,page=1]{Fig/normal-puppy}}
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[scale=0.45,page=2]{Fig/normal-puppy}}
\caption{The dual attraction diagram of a simple closed curve, with one critical configuration emphasized. Compare with \cref{F:diagram}.}
\label{F:human-diagram}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma}
For any generic simple closed curve $\gamma$, the attraction diagram of $\gamma$ and the dual attraction diagram of $\gamma$ contain the same number of essential critical cycles.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\alpha$ denote the horizontal cycle $y=0$ in the torus $S^1\times S^1$, and let $\alpha'$ be the vertical line $y=0$ in the infinite cylinder $S^1\times \mathbb{R}$. Let $C$ be any critical cycle on the attraction diagram, and let $C' = L(C)$ be the corresponding critical cycle in the dual attraction diagram.
Recall from the proof of \cref{L:even} that $C$ is contractible on the torus if and only if $\abs{C\cap \alpha}$ is even. Similarly, $C'$ is contractible in the cylinder if and only if $\abs{C'\cap \alpha'}$ is even. The map $L\colon S^1\times S^1\to S^1\times \mathbb{R}$ maps $C\cap \alpha$ bijectively to $C'\cap \alpha'$. We conclude that $C$ is essential if and only if $C'$ is essential.
\end{proof}
With this correspondence in hand, we can now more carefully describe the topological structure of the \emph{attraction} diagram when the track is simple.
\begin{lemma}
\label{L:simple-good}
The attraction diagram of a \textbf{simple} generic closed curve contains \textbf{two} essential critical cycles.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix a generic closed curve $\gamma$. \cref{L:even} implies that the attraction diagram of $\gamma$ contains at least two essential critical cycles, one of which is the main diagonal. Thus, to prove the lemma, it remains to show that there are \emph{at most} two essential critical cycles, in either the attraction diagram or the dual attraction diagram.
Let $\Sigma \subset S^1\times \mathbb{R}$ denote the set of essential critical cycles in the \emph{dual attraction} diagram. Any two cycles in $\Sigma$ are homotopic---meaning one can be continuously deformed into the other---because there is only one nontrivial homotopy class of simple cycles on the infinite cylinder $S^1\times \mathbb{R}$. It follows that the cycles in $\Sigma$ have a well-defined vertical total order. In particular, the highest and lowest intersection points between any vertical line and $\Sigma$ always lie on the \emph{same} two essential cycles in $\Sigma$.
Without loss of generality, suppose $\gamma(0)$ is a point on the convex hull of $\gamma$ with a unique tangent line. Let $C$ be any essential critical cycle in the attraction diagram of $\gamma$, and let $C' = L(C)$ denote the corresponding essential cycle in the dual attraction diagram. $C$ must pass through all possible puppy positions \emph{and} all possible human positions; thus, $C$ contains a configuration $(0,y)$ for some parameter $y\in S^1$. Recall that $\ensuremath{N}\xspace(y)$ denotes the line normal to $\gamma$ at $\gamma(y)$. Then $\gamma(0)$ must also lie on the convex hull of $\gamma\cap \ensuremath{N}\xspace(y)$. We conclude that $C'$ must be either the highest or lowest essential critical cycle in the dual attraction diagram. We conclude that there are at most two critical cycles, completing the proof.
\end{proof}
In the rest of the paper, we mnemonically refer to the two essential critical cycles in the attraction diagram of a simple track as the \EMPH{main diagonal} and the \EMPH{river}.
We emphasize that the converse of \cref{L:simple-good} is false; there are non-simple tracks whose attraction diagrams have exactly two essential critical cycles. (Consider the figure-eight curve $\infty$.) Moreover, we conjecture that \cref{L:simple-good} can be generalized to all (smooth) tracks with turning number $\pm 1$.
\section{Dexter and sinister strategies}
\label{S:dexterity}
We can visualize any strategy for the human to catch the puppy as a path through the attraction diagram that consists entirely of segments of stable critical paths and vertical segments, as shown in \cref{F:catch}. We refer to the vertical segments as \emph{pivots}. Every pivot (except possibly the first) starts at a pivot configuration, and every pivot ends at a stable configuration.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Fig/catch-example-folded}}\hfil
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Fig/square-strategy}}
\caption{A sinister strategy for catching the puppy; compare with \cref{F:init-example,F:diagram}.}
\label{F:catch}
\end{figure}
We call a strategy \EMPH{dexter} if it ends with a backward pivot---a \emph{downward} segment, approaching the main diagonal to the \emph{right}---and we call a configuration $(x,y)$ \emph{dexter} if there is a dexter strategy for catching the puppy starting at $(x,y)$. Similarly, a strategy is \EMPH{sinister} if it ends with a forward pivot---a \emph{skyward} segment, approaching the main diagonal to the \emph{left}---and a configuration is sinister if it is the start of a sinister strategy.\footnote{\emph{Dexter} and \emph{sinister} are Latin for right (or skillful, or fortunate, or proper, from a Proto-Indo-European root meaning “south”) and left (or unlucky, or unfavorable, or malicious), respectively.} A single configuration can be both dexter and sinister; see \cref{F:dexter}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5,page=3]{Fig/dexter-sinister}\hfil
\includegraphics[scale=0.5,page=2]{Fig/dexter-sinister}
\caption{Dexter (orange) and sinister (cyan) configurations in the example attraction diagram. Arrows on the stable critical paths describe dexter and sinister strategies for catching the puppy.}
\label{F:dexter}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}
\label{Th:good-catch}
Let $\gamma$ be a generic track whose attraction diagram has exactly two essential critical cycles. Every configuration on $\gamma$ is either dexter or sinister; thus, the human can catch the puppy on $\gamma$ from any starting configuration.
\end{theorem}
Before giving the proof, we emphasize that \cref{Th:good-catch} does not require the track $\gamma$ to be simple. Also, it is an open question whether having exactly two essential critical cycle curves is a \emph{necessary} condition for the human to always be able to catch the puppy. (We conjecture that it is not.)
\begin{proof}
Fix a generic track $\gamma$ whose attraction diagram has exactly two essential critical cycles, which we call the \emph{main diagonal} and the \emph{river}. Assume $\gamma$ has at least one pivot configuration, since otherwise, from any starting configuration, the puppy runs directly to the human.
Let $D$ be the set of all dexter configurations, and let $S$ be the set of all sinister configurations. We claim that $D$ and $S$ are both annuli that contain both the main diagonal and the river. Because $S$ and $D$ meet on opposite sides of the main diagonal, this claim implies that $D\cup S$ is the entire torus, completing the proof of the lemma. We prove our claim explicitly for $D$; a symmetric argument establishes the claim for $S$.
\medskip
For purposes of argument, we partition the attraction diagram of $\gamma$ by extending vertical segments from each pivot configuration to the next critical cycles directly above and below. We call the cells in this decomposition \emph{trapezoids}, even though their top and bottom boundaries may not be straight line segments. At each forward pivot configuration $p$, we color the vertical segment above $(x,y)$ \emph{green} and the vertical segment below $p$ \emph{red}; the colors are reversed for backward vertical segments, see \cref{F:trapezoids}.
The first step of any strategy is a (possibly trivial) pivot onto a stable critical path. Because the human and puppy can move freely within any stable critical path $\sigma$, either every point in $\sigma$ is dexter, or no point in $\sigma$ is dexter. Similarly, for any green pivot segment $\pi$, either every point in $\pi$ is dexter or no point in $\pi$ is dexter.
Consider any trapezoid $\tau$, and let $\sigma$ be the stable critical path on its boundary. Starting in any configuration in $\tau$, the puppy immediately moves to a configuration on $\sigma$. Thus, if any point in $\tau$ is dexter, then $\sigma$ is dexter, which implies that \emph{every} point in $\tau$ is dexter. Thus, we can describe entire trapezoids as dexter or not dexter. It follows that $D$ is the union of trapezoids.
If two trapezoids share a stable critical path \emph{other than the main diagonal}, then either both trapezoids are dexter or neither is dexter. Similarly, if the green pivot segment leaving a pivot configuration $p$ is dexter, then all four trapezoids incident to $p$ are dexter; otherwise, either two or none of these four trapezoids are dexter.
We conclude that aside from the main diagonal, the boundary of $D$ consists entirely of unstable critical paths, pivot configurations, and red vertical segments. Moreover, for every pivot configuration $p$ on the boundary of~$D$, the green pivot segment leaving $p$ is \emph{not} dexter.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Fig/traps}
\caption{Possible arrangements of dexter trapezoids near a forward pivot configuration.}
\label{F:trapezoids}
\end{figure}
By definition, every point in $D$ is connected by a (dexter) path to the main diagonal, so $D$ is non-empty and connected. On the other hand, $D$ excludes a complete cycle of forward configurations just below the main diagonal. For any $x \in S^1$, let $D(x)$ denote the set of dexter configurations $(x, y)$; this set consists of one or more vertical line segments in the attraction diagram.
Suppose for the sake of argument that some set $D(x)$ is disconnected. Because~$D$ is connected, the boundary of $D$ must contain a \emph{concave vertical bracket}: A vertical boundary segment $\pi$ whose adjacent critical boundary segments both lie (without loss of generality) to the right of $\pi$, but $D$ lies locally to the left of $\pi$. See \cref{F:bracket}. Let $p$ be the pivot configuration at one end of $\pi$. The green vertical segment on the other side of $p$ is dexter, which implies that \emph{all} trapezoids incident to $p$ are dexter, contradicting the assumption that $\pi$ lies on the boundary of $D$. We conclude that for all $x$, the set $D(x)$ is a single vertical line segment; in other words, $D$ is a \emph{monotone} annulus.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Fig/concave-bracket}
\caption{A hypothetical concave vertical bracket on the boundary of $D$.}
\label{F:bracket}
\end{figure}
The bottom boundary of $D$ is the main diagonal. The monotonicity of $D$ implies that the top boundary of $D$ is a monotone “staircase” alternating between upward red vertical segments and rightward unstable critical paths. Every trapezoid immediately above the top boundary of $D$ contains only forward configurations. Thus, there is a complete essential cycle $\phi$ of forward configurations just above the upper boundary of $D$. Because $\phi$ contains only forward configurations, $\phi$ must lie entirely above the river. It follows that $D$ contains the entire river.
Symmetrically, $S$ is an annulus bounded above by the main diagonal and bounded below by a non-contractible cycle of backward configurations; in particular, the entire river lies inside $S$. We conclude that $D\cup S$ is the entire configuration torus.
\end{proof}
If the attraction diagram of $\gamma$ has more than two essential critical cycles curves, then $D$ and $S$ are still monotone annuli, each bounded by the main diagonal and an essential cycle of red vertical segments and unstable paths, and thus $S$ and $D$ each contain at least one essential critical cycle other than the main diagonal. However, $D\cup S$ need not cover the entire torus.
\begin{corollary}
The human can catch the puppy on any generic simple closed track, from any starting configuration.
\end{corollary}
\section{Polygonal tracks}
\label{S:polygons}
Our previous arguments require, at a minimum, that the track has a continuous derivative that is never equal to zero.
We now extend our results to polygonal tracks, which do not have well-defined tangent directions at their vertices.
\subsection{Polygonal attraction diagrams}
Throughout this section, we fix a simple polygonal track $P$ with $n$ vertices.
We regard $P$ as a continuous piecewise-linear function $P\colon S^1\to \mathbb{R}^2$, parametrized by arc length. Without loss of generality $P(0)$ is a vertex of the track.
We index the vertices and edges of $P$ in order, starting with $v_0 = P(0)$, where edge $e_i$ connects $v_i$ to $v_{i+1}$; all index arithmetic is implicitly performed modulo $n$.
To properly describe the puppy's behavior, we must also account for the direction that the puppy is facing, even when the puppy lies at a vertex. To that end, we represent the track using both a continuous \emph{position} function $\pi\colon S^1\to \mathbb{R}$ and a continuous \emph{direction} function $\theta\colon S^1\to S^1$, such that for all $y\in S^1$, the derivative vector $\pi'(y)$ is a non-negative scalar multiple of the unit vector $\theta(y)$.
Intuitively, as we increase~$y$, the puppy alternately moves at constant speed along edges (when $\pi'(y)$ is a positive multiple of $\theta(y)$) and continuously turns at constant speed at vertices (when $\pi'(y) = 0$).
We classify any human-puppy configuration $(x,y) \in S^1\times S^1$ as \emph{forward}, \emph{backward}, or \emph{critical}, if the dot product $(P(x) - \pi(y))\cdot \theta(y)$ is negative, positive, or zero, respectively. In any forward configuration $(x,y)$, the puppy moves to increase the parameter $y$; in any backward configuration, the puppy moves to decrease the parameter $y$. (The human's direction is irrelevant.) The \emph{attraction diagram} is the set of all critical configurations $(x,y)\in S^1\times S^1$. We further classify critical configurations $(x,y)$ as follows:
\begin{itemize}\itemsep0pt
\item \emph{final} if $P(x) = \pi(y)$,
\item \emph{stable} if $(x, y-\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace)$ is forward and $(x, y+\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace)$ is backward for all suffic. small $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace>0$,
\item \emph{unstable} if $(x, y-\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace)$ is backward and $(x, y+\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace)$ is forward for all suffic. small $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace>0$,
\item \emph{forward pivot} if $(x, y-\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace)$ and $(x, y+\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace)$ are both forward for all suffic. small $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace>0$, or
\item \emph{backward pivot} if $(x, y-\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace)$ and $(x, y+\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace)$ are both backward for all suffic. small $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace>0$.
\end{itemize}
Straightforward case analysis implies that this classification is exhaustive.
To define the attraction diagram of $P$, we decompose the torus $S^1\times S^1$ into a $2n\times n$ grid of rectangular cells, where each column corresponds to an edge $e_j$ containing the human, and each row corresponds to either a vertex $v_i$ or an edge $e_i$ containing the puppy.
The \emph{main diagonal} of the attraction diagram is the set of all final configurations. Strictly speaking, in this case the ``main diagonal'' is not just a straight line, but consists of alternating diagonal and vertical segments.
We can characterize the critical points inside each cell as follows:
Each edge-edge cell $e_i\times e_j$ contains at most one boundary-to-boundary path of stable critical configurations $(x,y)$.
Refer to \cref{F:edge-edge}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Fig/edge-edge}
\caption{All edge-edge critical configurations are stable.}
\label{F:edge-edge}
\end{figure}
Each vertex-edge cell $v_i\times e_j$ contains at most one boundary-to-boundary path of stable critical configurations and at most one boundary-to-boundary path of unstable critical configurations. If the cell contains both paths, they are disjoint. A configuration $(x,y)$ with $\pi(y) = v_i$ is stable if and only if $P(x)$ lies in the outer normal cone at $v_i$, and unstable if and only if $P(x)$ lies in the inner normal cone at $v_i$; see \cref{F:vertex-edge}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Fig/vertex-edge-green}\qquad\qquad
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Fig/vertex-edge-red}
\caption{Stable and unstable vertex-edge critical configurations.}
\label{F:vertex-edge}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Polygonal pivot configurations}
Unlike the attraction diagrams of generic smooth curves defined in \cref{sec:puppydiagram}, the attraction diagrams of polygons are not always well-behaved. In particular, a pivot configuration may be incident to more (or fewer) than two critical curves, and in extreme cases, pivot configurations need not even be discrete. We call such a configuration a \emph{degenerate} pivot configuration.
In any pivot configuration $(x,y)$, the puppy $\pi(y)$ lies at some vertex $v_i$, the puppy's direction $\theta(y)$ is parallel to either $e_i$ (or $e_{i+1}$).
Generically, each pivot configuration is a shared endpoint of an unstable critical path in cell $v_i\times e_j$ and a stable critical path in cell $e_i\times e_j$ (or $e_{i-1}\times e_j$); see \cref {F:vertex-edge-pivot}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Fig/vertex-edge-pivot}
\caption{Near a non-degenerate pivot configuration.}
\label{F:vertex-edge-pivot}
\end{figure}
There are three distinct ways in which degenerate pivot configurations can appear.
A \EMPH{type-1 degeneracy} is caused by an acute angle on $P$.
Specifically,
let $v_i$ be a vertex of $P$.
The configuration $(x, y)$ with $P(x) = \pi(y) = v_i$ is degenerate if the angle between $e_{i-1}$ and $e_i$ is strictly acute.
In the attraction diagram of a type-1 degeneracy, two stable critical curves and two unstable critical curves end on a single vertical section of the main diagonal (corresponding to the human and the puppy being both at $v_i$, but the puppy facing in different directions).
Refer to \cref{F:degen1}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Fig/main-diagonal-acute}
\caption{Stable and unstable configurations near an acute vertex angle.}
\label{F:degen1}
\end{figure}
A \EMPH{type-2 degeneracy} is caused by a more specific configuration.
Let $e_i$ be an edge of~$P$, and let $\ell$ be the line perpendicular to $e_i$ through $v_i$ (or, symmetrically, through $v_{i+1}$).
Let $v_j$ be another vertex of $P$ which lies on $\ell$.
The configuration $(x, y)$ with $P(x) = v_j$ and $\pi(y) = v_i$ is degenerate if:
\begin {itemize} [noitemsep]
\item $v_{i-1}$ and $v_j$ lie in the same open halfspace of the supporting line of $e_i$; \textbf{and}
\item $v_{j-1}$ and $v_{j+1}$ lie in the same open halfspace of $\ell$.
\end {itemize}
A type-2 degeneracy corresponds to a vertex (pivot configuration) of degree 4 or 0 in the attraction diagram. We distinguish these further as \emph{type-2a} and \emph{type-2b}.
Refer to \cref{F:degen2}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Fig/right-angle-outie}
\hfil
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Fig/right-angle-innie}
\caption{Type-2a and type-2b degenerate pivot configurations.}
\label{F:degen2}
\end{figure}
Finally, a \EMPH{type-3 degeneracy} is essentially a limit of both of the previous types of degeneracies. Let $e_i$ be an edge of $P$, let $\ell$ be the line perpendicular to $e_i$ through $v_i$, and let $e_j$ be another edge of $P$ which lies on $\ell$.
The configuration $(x, y)$ with $P(x) \in e_j$ and $\pi(y) = v_i$ is degenerate if vertices $v_{i-1}$ and $v_j$ lie in the same open halfspace of the supporting line of $e_i$.
When this degeneracy occurs, pivot configurations are not discrete, because the point $P(x) \in e_j$ can be chosen arbitrarily. Moreover, the vertex-vertex configurations $(v_j, v_i)$ and $(v_{j-1}, v_i)$ have odd degree in the attraction diagram.
A type-3 degeneracy can be connected to (2 or more) other critical curves, or be isolated. We distinguish these further as \emph{type-3a} and \emph{type-3b}.
See \cref{F:degen3}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Fig/main-diagonal-right}}
\hfil
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Fig/right-angle-edge}}
\caption{Type-3 degenerate pivot configurations on incident and non-incident edge pairs.}
\label{F:degen3}
\end{figure}
In \cref {sec:genericpolygons} we first consider polygonal tracks which do not have any degeneracies of these three types. To simplify exposition, we forbid degeneracies by assuming that no vertex angle in $P$ is acute and that no three vertices of $P$ define a right angle. In \cref {sec:degeneratepolygons} we lift these assumptions by \emph{chamfering} the polygon, cutting off a small triangle at each vertex.
\subsection{Catching puppies on generic obtuse polygons}
\label{sec:genericpolygons}
Generic obtuse polygonal tracks behave almost identically to smooth tracks, once we properly define the attraction diagram and dual attraction diagram.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:nodedegeracy}
Let $P$ be a simple polygon with no acute vertex angles, in which no three vertices define a right angle. The attraction diagram of $P$ is the union of disjoint simple critical cycles.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Each edge-edge cell $e_i\times e_j$ contains at most one section of stable critical configurations $(x,y)$ (\cref {F:edge-edge}). For each such configuration, the points $\pi(y)\in e_i$ and $P(x)\in e_j$ are connected by a line perpendicular to $e_i$. Because no three vertices of $P$ define a right angle, these points cannot both be vertices of $P$; thus, any critical path inside the cell $e_i\times e_j$ avoids the corners of that cell.
Each vertex-edge cell $v_i\times e_j$ contains at most one section of a stable and one section of an unstable path (\cref {F:vertex-edge}). Again, because no three vertices of $P$ define a right angle, these paths avoid the corners of the cell $v_i\times e_j$.
For every pivot configuration $(x,y)$, the puppy $\pi(y)$ lies at a vertex $v_i$, the puppy's direction $\theta(y)$ is parallel to either $e_i$ (or $e_{i+1}$), and because no three vertices of $P$ form a right angle, the human $P(x)$ lies in the interior of some edge $e_j$. Since we avoid degenerate pivot configurations, each pivot configuration is a shared endpoint of an unstable critical path in cell $v_i\times e_j$ and a stable critical path in cell $e_i\times e_j$ (or $e_{i-1}\times e_j$).
It now follows that the set of unstable critical configurations is the union of monotone paths whose endpoints are pivot configurations. Similarly, the set of stable critical configurations is also the union of monotone paths whose endpoints are pivot configurations. Each unstable critical path lies in a single vertex strip.
Because every vertex angle in $P$ is obtuse, every configuration $(x,y)$ where the human $P(x)$ lies on an edge $e_i$ and the puppy $\pi(y)$ lies on the previous edge $e_{i-1}$ is either stable of final. In particular, the only non-pivot critical configurations $(x,y)$ with $\pi(y) = v_i$ are the final configurations with $P(x) = v_i$. Thus, the main diagonal is disjoint from all other critical cycles; in fact, no other critical cycle intersects any grid cell that touches the main diagonal.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Fig/main-diagonal}
\caption{Near the main diagonal.}
\label{F:main-diagonal}
\end{figure}
This completes the classification of all critical configurations. We conclude that the attraction diagram consists of the (simple, closed) main diagonal and possibly other simple closed curves composed of stable and unstable critical paths meeting at pivot configurations. All these critical cycles are disjoint.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Let $P$ be a simple polygon with no acute vertex angles, in which no three vertices define a right angle. If the attraction diagram of $P$ has exactly two essential critical cycles, then the human can catch the puppy on $P$, starting from any initial configuration.
\end{lemma}
The remainder of the proof is essentially unchanged from the smooth case. For any configuration $(x,y)$, let $T(y)$ denote the directed “tangent” line through $\pi(y)$ in direction $\theta(y)$, and let $L(x,y)$ denote the signed distance from $P(x)$ to $T(y)$, signed positively if $P(x)$ lies to the left of $T(y)$ and negatively if $P(x)$ lies to the right of $T(y)$. The \emph{dual attraction diagram} of $P$ consists of all points $(y, L(x,y)) \in S^1\times \mathbb{R}$ where $(x,y)$ is a critical configuration. As in the smooth case, the map $(x,y) \mapsto (y, L(x,y))$ is a homeomorphism from the critical cycles in the attraction diagram to the curves in the dual attraction diagram; moreover, this map preserves the contractibility of each critical cycle.
\begin{lemma}
\label{L:polygon-simple-two}
Let $P$ be a simple polygon with no acute vertex angles, in which no three vertices define a right angle. The attraction diagram of $P$ contains exactly two essential critical cycles.
\end{lemma}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:genericpolygons}
Let $P$ be a simple polygon with no acute vertex angles, in which no three vertices define a right angle. The human can catch the puppy on $P$, starting from any initial configuration.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Chamfering}
\label{sec:chamfering}
We now extend our analysis to arbitrary simple polygons. We define a {\em chamfering} operation which transforms a polygon $P$ into a new polygon $\cham{P}$.
First we show that $\cham{P}$ has no more degeneracies of type 1, 2a, or 3a.
The polygon $\cham{P}$ may still have degenerate pivot configurations of type~2b and type~3b;
however, since these correspond to isolated forward or backward pivot configurations in the attraction diagram, they do not impact the existence of a strategy to catch the puppy on $\cham{P}$. The puppy will just move over them as if they were normal forward or backward configurations.
Thereafter we show that such a strategy can be correctly translated back to a strategy on~$P$.
Let $P$ be an arbitrary simple polygon, and let $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace > 0$ be smaller than half of any distance between two non-incident features of $P$.
Then the {\em $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$-chamfered} polygon $\cham{P}$ is another simple polygon with twice as many vertices as $P$, defined as follows.
Refer to \cref {fig:poly-chamfering}.
For each vertex $v_i$ of $P$, we create two new vertices $v_i'$ and $v_i''$, where $v_i'$ is placed on $e_{i-1}$ at distance $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$ from $v_i$, and $v_i''$ is placed on $e_i$ at distance $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$ from $v_i$.
Edge $e_i'$ in $\cham{P}$ connects $v_i''$ to $v_{i+1}'$, and a new {\em short edge} $s_i$ connects $v_i'$ to $v_i''$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Fig/poly-chamfering-2}
\caption{The chamfering operation.}
\label{fig:poly-chamfering}
\end{figure}
The chamfering operation alters the local structure of the attraction diagram near every vertex.
The idea is that for non-degenerate configurations, the change will not influence the behaviour of the puppy in such configurations, and as such will not influence the existence of any catching strategies.
However, at degenerate configurations, the change in the structure is significant.
We will argue in \cref{sec:degeneratepolygons} that the changes are such that every strategy in the chamfered polygon translates to a strategy in the original polygon.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Fig/main-diagonal-acute-cham}
\\{\bf type 1}\\[1em]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Fig/right-angle-outie-cham}
\\{\bf type 2a}\\[1em]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Fig/right-angle-innie-cham}
\\{\bf type 2b}\\[1em]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Fig/main-diagonal-right-cham}
\\{\bf type 3a}\\[1em]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Fig/right-angle-edge-cham}
\\{\bf type 3b}\\[1em]
\caption{Effect of the chamfering operation on the attraction diagram near degenerate pivot configurations. The size of $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$ is exaggerated; the figures show the combinatorial structure of the chamfered diagram for a much smaller value of $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$. Only the effect of chamfering vertices relevant for the degeneracy is shown.}
\label{F:degen-cham}
\end{figure*}
Here we review again the different types of degenerate pivot configurations, and how the chamfering operation affects the structure of the attraction diagram in each case.
Refer to \cref {F:degen-cham}.
\begin {itemize}
\item Near type~1 degeneracies, the higher-degree vertices on the main diagonal disappear. Instead, two separate critical curves almost touch the main diagonal: one from above and one from below.
\item Near type~2a degeneracies, the degree-4 vertex disappears. Instead, the two incident critical curves coming from the left are connected, and the two incident curves coming from the right are connected.
\item Near type-2b degeneracies, the isolated pivot vertex simply disappears.
\item Near type-3 degeneracies, the degenerate pivot ``vertex'' disappears. Any connected critical curve is locally rerouted away from the degenerate location.
\end {itemize}
\subsection{Catching puppies on arbitrary simple polygons}
\label{sec:degeneratepolygons}
\begin {lemma}
\label {lem:cham}
Let $P$ be an abitrary simple polygon.
There exists an \ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace such that the \ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace-chamfered polygon~$\cham{P}$ has no degenerate pivot configurations of type 1, type~2a, or type~3a.
\end {lemma}
\begin {proof}
First, note that $P'$ has no type 1 degeneracies: we replace each vertex $v_i$ with angle $\alpha_i$ by two new vertices $v_i'$ and $v_i''$ with angles $\alpha_i' = \alpha_i'' = \pi - \frac12(\pi - \alpha_i) = \frac12\pi + \frac12\alpha_i > \frac12\pi$.
Next, we argue about type 2 degeneracies, which may occur for some values of $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$.
We argue that each potential type 2a degeneracy only occurs for a speficic value of $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$; since there are finitely many potential degeneracies the lemma then follows.
Note that, as we vary $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$, all vertices of $P'$ move linearly and with equal speed.
Suppose such a configuration is {\em not} unique for a specific choice of $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$; that is, sustained for all values of $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$. Then two vertices involved in the degenerate configuration must move in the same direction; that is, two edges of $P$, say $e_i$ and $e_j$, must be parallel.
There are two configurations in $P'$ which could potentially give rise to a type 2 degeneracies.
We argue that then, in fact, it cannot satisfy all requirements of a type 2 degeneracy.
\begin {itemize} [noitemsep]
\item An edge $e_i'$ has endpoint $v_i'$ (or symmetrically, $v_{i-1}''$) such that the line $\ell$ through $v_i'$ and perpendicular to $e_i'$ contains another vertex $v_j'$ (or $v_{j-1}'')$.
Refer to \cref {F:type2b-original}.
Then, as $v_i'$ move along $e_i'$, $\ell$ move at the same speed as $v_i'$, so $v_j'$ moves in the same direction at the same speed along $e_{j-1}'$. So $e_{j-1}'$ is parallel to $e_i'$.
But now consider $v_j''$. Since $v_j$ lies on the supporting line of $e_{j-1}'$ at distance $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$ from $v_j'$, and $v_j''$ lies at distance $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$ from $v_j$, we conclude that $v_{j-1}''$ and $v_j''$ lie on the opposite side of $\ell$; thus, this is not a type 2 degeneracy.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics{Fig/poly-cham-deg2}
\caption{Potential new degenerate pivot configurations based on a (shortened) original edge $e_i'$. For $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$ small enough, there can be no degeneracy.}
\label{F:type2b-original}
\end{figure}
\item A short edge $s_i$ of $P'$ has an endpoint $v_i'$ (or symmetrically, $v_{i}''$) such that the line $\ell$ through $v_i'$ and perpendicular to $s_i$ contains another vertex $v_j'$ (or $v_{j-1};'')$.
Refer to \cref {F:type2b-short}.
Then, as $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$ increases, $v_i'$ move along $e_i'$, $\ell$ moves at a slower speed; hence, we cannot conclude anything about the orientation of $e_j$. However, in this case, note that $e_i'$ and $s_i$ lie on opposite sides of $\ell$; therefore, $e_j'$ and thus $v_{j-1}''$ lies on the opposite side of $\ell$. It is possible that $v_j''$ lies on the same side, in which case we have a degenerate pivot configuration of type 2b (\cref {F:type2b-short} (left)), or that $v_j''$ lies on $\ell$, in which case we have a degenerate pivot configuration of type 3b (\cref {F:type2b-short} (middle)). If $v_j''$ lies on the opposite side of $\ell$, there is no degeneracy (\cref {F:type2b-short} (right)).
\end {itemize}
\end {proof}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics{Fig/poly-cham-deg3}
\caption{Potential new degenerate pivot configurations based on a short edge $s_i$. For any $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$ we may still have a new degeneracy of type 2b (left), 3b (middle), or no degeneracy (right).}
\label{F:type2b-short}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c@{\qquad}c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5,page=1]{Fig/stonks} &
\includegraphics[scale=0.5,page=1]{Fig/stonks-chamfered} \\
\includegraphics[scale=0.375,page=2]{Fig/stonks} &
\includegraphics[scale=0.375,page=2]{Fig/stonks-chamfered}
\end{tabular}
\caption{The attraction diagram of a degenerate polygon, before and after chamfering. All existing degeneracies disappeared in the chamfered polygon, which does have one new but harmless degeneracy.}
\label{fig:poly-puppy}
\end{figure*}
Let $P$ be an arbitrary simple polygon and $\cham{P}$ a chamfered copy without degeneracies.
We say a parameter value $x$ is {\em verty} whenever $P(x)$ is within distance $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$ from a vertex.
We say a parameter value $x$ is {\em edgy} whenever $P(x)$ is not within distance $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$ from a vertex.
We reparameterize $\cham{P}$ such that $P(x) = \cham{P}(x)$ whenever $x$ is edgy; the parameterization of $\cham{P}$ is uniformly scaled for verty parameters.
We say a configuration $(x, y)$ is edgy when $x$ and $y$ are both edgy.
We say a path~$\sigma$ is a \emph{valid} path in the attraction diagram
if it describes a human and puppy behavior that obeys the rules
imposed on the puppy and the human, as explained in \cref{S:intro}.
\begin {lemma}
\label {lem:equivalent}
Assuming $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$ is sufficiently small.
For any valid path $\sigma$ between two edgy configurations $(x_1, y_1)$ and $(x_2, y_2)$ in the attraction diagram of $\cham{P}$, there is an equivalent path between $(x_1, y_1)$ and $(x_2, y_2)$ in the attraction diagram of $P$.
\end {lemma}
\begin{proof}
The intuition is that the behavior of the puppy around vertices is the same as in the original polygon.
Note that when the human reaches a vertex in~$P$
then it can happen that the puppy suddenly moves infinitely fast until it reaches a stable position.
However, if the human is \emph{leaving} a vertex then the puppy may move, but only at a finite speed.
(At least for some short distance.)
Thus if the puppy is at an edgy position, we can always move the human
such that we get into an edgy configuration, given that \ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace is small enough.
Recall that there is a one to one correspondence between edgy configurations of $P$ and $\cham{P}$.
Also once the puppy is in an edgy configuration, we can also move
the human into an edgy configuration, assuming we have chosen \ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace small enough.
Thus, we only care about the situation that the puppy is in a verty configuration. We need to make sure that the same way the puppy can leave the verty position in \cham{P} can be simulated in $P$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[page = 2, scale = 0.8]{Fig/Strategy-preservance.pdf}
\caption{Left: When the puppy is at the vertex~$v_i$, then its behavior is determined on the region that the human lies.
We have four regions, called~$A,B,C,D$.
Right: Once, the human gets into a verty configuration, the puppy makes an infinitely fast jump forward.
This can be simulated in $P$, as the lower vertex stems from a type~2a degeneracy.}
\label{fig:strategy-preservance}
\end{figure}
We first handle the situation that the puppy traverses
over a generic vertex $v_i$.
To be precise, let~$v_i$ be a vertex of~$P$
and~$e_{i-1}$ and~$e_{i}$ its incident edges.
Let $\ell$ and $\ell'$ be the lines through $v_i$ orthogonal to $e_{i-1}$ and $e_i$ respectively.
We say that $v_i$ is generic if there is no vertex that
lies on either $\ell$ or $\ell'$.
We denote the infinite strip bounded by $\ell$ and $v_i'$ by the letter~$S$.
Similarly, we denote the infinite strip bounded by $\ell$ and $v_i'$ by the symbol~$S'$.
As no vertex of $P$ lies on one of the two lines~$\ell, \ell'$ then, we can choose \ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace small enough such that also there is no vertex of \cham{P} in one of the strips~$S,S'$, other than $v_i'$ and $v_i''$.
Thus whenever the human crosses over one of the strips $S$
or $S'$, the human is on an edge of~$\cham{P}$.
Thus, when the puppy will leave the verty position defined by the segment $s_i$, then the human will be in an edgy configuration, as is the puppy.
Thus we can simulate the same valid path moving the puppy out of the verty configuration at $s_i$.
We are now handling the case that the puppy moves towards a degenerate configuration.
Recall all degenerate positions as listed in \cref{F:degen-cham}.
Interestingly, while those configurations are degenerate for the attraction diagram the behavior of the puppy and the human is easily understood.
For instance in a type~1 degeneracy the human walks
towards the acute angle and the puppy will move to the same position.
Note that type~2b configurations are not changing the behavior of the puppy at all, as the isolated pivot point will never be reached in the attraction diagram.
Similarly, type~3a and type~3b degeneracies are not altering
the puppy behavior in an interesting way.
Given a movement of the human in~\cham{P} it is straightforward how the movement of the human should be in~$P$.
See to the right of \cref{fig:strategy-preservance}, for the most difficult example of a type~2a degeneracy.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to prove our main result.
\begin{theorem}
Let $P$ be a simple polygon. The human can catch the puppy on $P$, starting from any initial configuration.
\end{theorem}
\begin {proof}
By \cref {lem:cham}, there is a value $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$ such that the $\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace$-chamfered polygon $\cham{P}$ has no degeneracies of type 1 or type~2a or type~3. There may still be some type~2b degeneracies, but they result in isolated pivots in the
attraction diagram, which can be safely ignored.
Consider an arbitrary starting configuration on $P$. If the starting configuration is not stable, we let $p$ move until it is.
If the resulting configuration is not edgy, we walk $h$ along~$P$ until we reach an edge configuration $(x, y)$.
(This must be possible, except if the puppy stays on a vertex
for the entire time, in that case, we can catch the puppy trivially, by going to that vertex.)
By \cref {thm:genericpolygons}, there exists a strategy for $h$ to catch $p$ on $\cham{P}$.
If the end configuration of this strategy is not edgy, note that we may now simply move $h$ and $p$ together to an edgy final configuration $(f, f)$.
By \cref {lem:equivalent}, there is an equivalent strategy to reach $(f, f)$ from $(x, y)$ on $P$. Combined with the initial path to $(x, y)$ this gives us a path from an arbitrary starting configuration to a final configuration on~$P$.
\end {proof}
\section{Further questions}
For simple curves, we have only proved that a catching strategy exists. At least for polygonal tracks, it is straightforward to compute such a strategy in $O(n^2)$ time by searching the attraction diagram. In fact, we can compute a strategy that minimizes the total distance traveled by either the human or the puppy in $O(n^2)$ time, using fast algorithms for shortest paths in toroidal graphs \cite{hkrs-fspap-97,ght-stgbg-84}. Unfortunately, this quadratic bound is tight in the worst case if the output strategy must be represented as an explicit path through the attraction diagram. We conjecture that an optimal strategy can be described in only $O(n)$ space by listing only the human’s initial direction and the sequence of points where the human reverses direction. On the other hand, an algorithm to compute such an optimal strategy in subquadratic time seems unlikely.
If the track is a \emph{smooth curve} of length $\ell$ whose attraction diagram has $k$ pivot configurations, a trivial upper bound on the distance the human must walk to catch the puppy is $\ell\cdot k/2$. In any optimal strategy, the human walks straight to the point on the curve corresponding to a pivot located at one of the two endpoints of the current ``stable sub-curve'' of a critical curve (walking less than $\ell$). Then the configuration moves to another stable sub-curve, and so on, never visiting the same stable sub-curve twice. Our question is whether a better upper bound can be proved.
In fact, if minimizing distance is not a concern, we conjecture that \emph{no} reversals are necessary. That is, on \emph{any} simple track, starting from \emph{any} configuration, we conjecture that the human can catch the puppy \emph{either} by walking only forward along the track \emph{or} by walking only backward along the track. \cref{F:intro2} and its reflection show examples where each of these naïve strategies fails, but we have no examples where both fail. (Our proof of Theorem \ref{Th:ortho} implies that the human can always catch the puppy on an \emph{orthogonal} polygon by walking \emph{at most once} around the track in some direction, depending on the starting configuration.)
More ambitiously, we conjecture that the following \emph{oblivious} strategy is always successful: walk twice around the track the track in one (arbitrary) direction, then walk twice around the track in the opposite direction.
Another interesting question is to what extent our result applies to self-intersecting curves in the plane, when we consider the two strands of the curve at an intersection point to be distinct. It is easy to see that the human cannot catch the puppy on a curve that traverses a circle twice; see \cref{F:doubleLoop}. Indeed, we know how to construct examples of bad curves with any rotation number \emph{except} $-1$ and $+1$. We conjecture that \cref{L:simple-good}, and therefore our main result, extends to all non-simple tracks with rotation number $\pm 1$. Similarly, are there interesting families of curves in $\mathbb{R}^3$ there the human and puppy can always meet?
Finally, it is natural to consider similar pursuit-attraction problems in more general domains. \cref{thm:pol} shows that the human can always catch the puppy in the interior of a simple polygon, by walking along the dual tree of any triangulation. Can the human always catch the puppy in any planar straight-line graph? Inside any polygon with holes?
|
\subsection{Overview}
\todo{for the moment, let's keep this overview here, it's quite specific to move to the new vision section.}
We build our approach {{MigrationExp\xspace}}{} using information from projects that have done file migrations from one programming language to another.
\todo{move to the concepts section}
Our intuition is that by analyzing those migrations, we can create a model that captures the rationale behind these migrations, i.e., the developers' experience on migrations.
Then we can use it to recommend files to be migrated.
Our approach consists of two phases as Figure~\ref{fig:app:overview} illustrates:
\begin{inparaenum}[\it a)]
\item the development phase, and
\item the serving phase.
\end{inparaenum}
In the development phase, our approach learns a model from migrations from language $lang_1$ (e.g., Java) to $lang_2$ (e.g., Kotlin), done by developers on open-source projects.
Then, in the serving phase, given a project $P$ as input, the model generated in the development phase is used to recommend file-level migrations: the model produces a list of candidate files to be migrated.
Now, we give a summary of both phases from our approach.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{methodology.png}
\caption{We apply two phases: \emph{development}, where we learn a ranking model, and \emph{serving} phase, where we use the model in production.}
\label{fig:app:overview}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Development phase}
\label{cap6:sec:design:approach:dev}
{{MigrationExp\xspace}}{} is built using learning to rank, a supervised machine learning algorithm. Consequently, we need to provide example data to train our model.
Each example is described by a \emph{vector} of measurements or \emph{features} and a label that denotes the category or class the example belongs to~\cite{Hall1998}.
In our case, we use data from projects that have been migrated from one programming language to another to create {{MigrationExp\xspace}}{}'s training set.
To this end, for each commit of these projects, we analyze their files to create a \emph{vector} of features that describe them by extracting a set of metrics and classifying them as migrated or not migrated (label).
These vectors are the training data used by our approach to learning a model.
Finally, once we trained our model, it is deployed, and it is ready to be used in the serving phase.
\subsubsection{Serving phase}
\label{sec:serving}
In the serving phase, our approach takes as input a program $P$, written partially or totally using $lang_1$, which developers aim to migrate to $lang_2$.
As done in the development phase, our approach extracts features from the project's files, i.e., candidates files to migrate, and creates for each file one vector of features, as done during the development phase.
These vectors are given as input to our model.
Finally, using this information, the model learned in the development phase sorts the project's files according to their relevance and returns the list of recommended files to be migrated.
Let us show an simple example for describing this phase.
The approach takes as input a project composed of 5 files where 4 files ($A.lang_1$, $B.lang_1$, $C.lang_1$ and $E.lang_1$) could be migrated, and one $D.lang_2$ already migrated.
The learned rank model ranks the 4 files based on the experience of developers by migrating similar files (i.e., similar vector features).
In this example, the developer could start migrating the files at the top of the recommendation, e.g., $E.lang_1$, then testing the migrated app, committing the changes, and generating a new version to publish.
Those activities conform one step on the gradual migration process.
Note that in migrations that involve fully interoperable languages (e.g., Java and Kotlin) the migrated files (e.g., $D.lang_2$) could continue interacting with the not migrated (e.g., $B.lang_1$).
\section{Introduction}
A legacy system can be defined as a system that is significantly resistant to modification and evolution~\cite{Brodie1995Legacy}.
Bisbal et al.~\cite{Bisbal1997Migration} mention that legacy systems can host problems because they usually run on obsolete hardware and lack clean interfaces to interact with other systems.
\begin{inparaenum}[\it 1)]
\item usually run on obsolete hardware,
\item maintenance can be expensive,
\item lack of clean interfaces to interact with other systems.
\item are difficult to extend.
\end{inparaenum}
Migration of such legacy systems offers more flexibility, better understanding of the system, easier maintenance, and reduced costs~\cite{Bisbal1997Migration}.
Brodie and Stonebraker discuss two main strategies to migrate a legacy system \cite{Brodie1995Legacy}.
The first involves rewriting a legacy system from scratch to produce a new system (i.e., \emph{target} system) using modern software techniques and hardware of the target environment. We call it \emph{one-step migration}. Here, the legacy system remains operable until it is completely replaced by the target system.
The second strategy \emph{iterative} and \emph{incremental} migrates a system, in place, by small incremental steps until the desired long-term objective is reached.
The iterative strategy involves incrementally selecting and migrating parts of the legacy system to become new parts of the incrementally constructed target system.
During migration, the legacy system and the target system form a composite system that collectively provides all the functionalities \cite{Brodie1995Darwin}.
Note that those migration approaches can not only be applied in legacy systems but in modernization of systems, for example, on the migration of applications initially written in Java and migrated to a modern Java-virtual machine language such as Scala, Kotlin, or Groovy.
The incremental migration strategy has some advantages over a one-step migration~\cite{Brodie1995Legacy}.
The risk in the incremental is controllable, as it permits developers to control risk, step by step, by choosing the increment size: the smaller the increment, the smaller the risk.
If a step fails, only the failed step must be repeated, not the entire project, as in one step.
Moreover, one-step migration requires vast resources to completely rewrite an application from scratch, while in incremental migration, the required resources depend on the effort needed to execute one step.
However, a challenge in incremental migration is the decomposition of the legacy system into different parts, each of them are independent of the other ones and is migrated in a different migration step~\cite{Brodie1995Darwin}.
Brodie and Stonebraker \cite{Brodie1995Legacy} define different migration strategies, which consist of first decomposing the legacy system structure into different parts, each of those to be incrementally migrated.
In particular, those strategies define steps from incrementally migrating
\begin{inparaenum}[\it a)]
\item interfaces,
\item applications and
\item databases.
\end{inparaenum}
In this paper we focus on the iterative migration of \emph{applications}, which consists of decomposing the source code of an application and deciding the parts of the code to be migrated in a particular step.
In particular, we focus on \emph{language migration}, which consists of the migration of a piece of code written in a language to another language.
Previous strategies, including those of Brodie and Stonebraker~\cite{Brodie1995Legacy}, define steps or rules to guide developers during the migration process of an application.
For example, Google provides a high-level guide to migrate Android applications from Java to Kotlin~\cite{AndroidDevelopers2020a}.
The selection of independent increments to migrate is one of the main challenges of iterative migration~\cite{Brodie1995Darwin}.
Unfortunately, those guidelines and strategies are too high-level because they define a migration plan of coarse-grained parts of the system under migration.
For example, on Android migration defined by Google~\cite{AndroidDevelopers2020a} the migration order is given by the type of code entities: model class, tests, and utility functions.
For that reason, those fail to support developers on a fine-grained decomposition of the system, and thus a migration order of the decomposed parts.
For instance, the Google guide mentioned does not include any strategy to define the migration order of model classes.
The goal of this paper is to propose a novel study on the feasibility of building a migration model capable of supporting developers during incremental migration of an application.
The goal of such a migration model is to suggest to developers the parts of the systems (e.g., files) to be migrated in a particular migration step.
Our intuition is that it is possible to automatically build such a migration model from real migrations carried out by developers in the past.
The learned model captures how developers have migrated applications from a specific domain.
In our words, our goal is to lean a model that mimics the migration activity performed by developers.
To the best of our knowledge, no previous work has proposed a migration model of applications learned from migrations made by developers.
In this paper, we define a novel approach named {{MigrationExp\xspace}}{} to support incremental file-level migrations based on a model learned from previous migrations.
Our approach is based on a \emph{ranking model}, which is trained with the goal of ranking, in a given migration iteration, the files to be migrated in that iteration: the files ranked at the top are those suggested to be migrated.
To validate the approach, we define an instance of our approach, named {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}, to support the migration of Android applications from Java to Kotlin.
Kotlin is a multi-paradigm programming language, fully interoperable with Java, and adopted by Google as the official programming language for Android.
To train {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}, we apply the supervised machine learning technique \emph{learning-to-rank}.
Our model is learned from real migrations from Java to Kotlin written by developers in \numprint{1457} open-source projects.
{The results of this paper show that, on the task of proposing files to migrate, MigrationExp obtains a mean average precision (MAP metric [5]) higher than a strategy that follows Google's guideline [4], when using a ground truth of empirically observed migration orders.}
We consider that the proposed approach is an initial step towards a fully automated recommendation system to support applications' migration.
Our approach can be trained using different training datasets, instead of using migrations from Java to Kotlin extracted from open-source applications.
For example, given a definition of good migration (e.g., causing less compilation and/or execution errors during the migration process), one could create a set of training samples that comply with such definition.
The contributions of this paper are as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item An approach that recommends migrations at the file level from one programming language to another.
\item The materialization of that approach in the context of Java to Kotlin migration
\item A benchmark of projects that performed migrations from Java to Kotlin.
\end{itemize}
The paper continues as follows.
Section \ref{sec:term} explains the terminology used in the paper.
Section \ref{sec:motivation_example} presents a motivating example.
Section \ref{sec:context:kotlin} gives an overview of the Kotlin programming language in the context of Android development.
Section \ref{sec:approach} describes our approach and the instantiation of our approach in the context of Java to Kotlin migration.
Section \ref{sec:methodology} outlines the methodology used to evaluate our approach.
Section \ref{sec:evaluation} reports the evaluation results.
Section \ref{sec:threatsvalidity} presents the threats to validity.
Section \ref{cap6:sec:discussion} discusses the consequences of our results and future work.
Section \ref{sec:relatedwork} presents the related work.
Section \ref{sec:conclusion} concludes the paper.
All data presented in this paper is publicly available in our appendix:
\url{https://github.com/UPHF/MigrationEXP}.
\section{Terminology}
\label{sec:term}
In this section, we present the terminology that we use in this paper in the context of programming language migration.
{\bf{Migration:}} the process of translating software from its \emph{source} programming language to the \emph{target} programming language.
{\bf{Migration step:}} A set of translations of code written in \emph{source} language to \emph{target} language that generates a \emph{new version} of an {operational} software.
{\bf{One-step migration:}} a migration process that \emph{fully} migrates a software application in one migration step
by rewriting a legacy system from scratch to produce the target system.
Therefore, applying this strategy, there is no reuse of any component of the legacy system~\cite{bisbal1997survey}.
In one-step migration, there is no version of the system written in the source and target programming language.
This kind of migration is known as the Big Bang~\cite{bateman1994migration} or the Cold Turkey~\cite{Brodie1995Darwin} migration.
{\bf{Incremental migration:}} a migration process that has more than one migration step.
It involves incrementally selecting and migrating parts of the legacy system to become new parts of the incrementally constructed target system\cite{Brodie1995Darwin}.
During this process, the versions of the operational software may have code written in both the source and target {programming} language.
This kind of migration is known as Chicken Little~\cite{Brodie1995Darwin}.
{\bf{Gateways:}} {during an incremental migration, the legacy and target systems interoperate to form the operational information system.
This interoperability is provided by a module known, in general, as a gateway~\cite{Wu1997ButterflylegacyMigration}, a software module introduced between operational software components to mediate between them~\cite{Brodie1995Darwin}.}
{Gateways can play several roles in migration, insulating certain components from changes being made to others, translating requests and data between components or co-ordinating queries and updates between components~\cite{bisbal1997survey}.}
In some types of migrations, for example, migration of programming languages that are executed on the same platforms (e.g., Java virtual machine -JVM-), gateways are not required, because the language to be migrated (e.g., Java) can directly interact with code written in other JVM languages (e.g., Scala or Kotlin) and vice-versa.
{\bf{Language interoperability:}} the ability of two or more software components to cooperate despite differences in language, interface, and execution platform~\cite{Wegner1996}.
{\bf{File migration:}} the process of migrating a file from the \emph{source} language to the \emph{target} language.
{\bf{Commit with file migration:}} a commit that has one or more \emph{file migrations}.
\section{Motivating example}
\label{sec:motivation_example}
{
The developer named Mahdy wrote an article\footnote{\url{https://vaadin.com/blog/migrating-java-enterprise-apps-to-kotlin}} on the blog of Vaadin framework (a web app development platform for Java\footnote{\url{https://vaadin.com/}}) which discusses the migration of an Android application from Java language to Kotlin, a new programming language promoted by Google for Android development (we focus on it in Section \ref{sec:context:kotlin}).
He chose to migrate \texttt{Beverage Buddy App}, a demonstration application written in Java that uses the Vaadin framework. The app code is publicly available on the Vaadin website\footnote{Vaadin example: \url{https://github.com/vaadin/beverage-starter-flow}}.
The app has 4 main packages:
\begin{inparaenum}[\it 1)]
\item \texttt{backend/},
\item \texttt{ui/common/},
\item \texttt{ui/views/}
and
\item \texttt{ui/encoders}.
\end{inparaenum}
}
{
Mahdy, as other Android developers (e.g., \cite{duolingo_migration2020}), decided to perform an incremental migration (see the definition in Section~\ref{sec:term}), migrating Java files one by one using the autoconverter tools provided by IDEs such as Android Studio and IntelliJ IDEA.
\emph{``What would be the next file to convert?''} Mahdy asked on the blog.
}
{
He started by choosing files from \texttt{ui/common/},
but he found that not all Java files can be converted due to compilation issues related to, for example, \texttt{smart-casts}.
Additionally, selecting Java classes from other packages such as \texttt{ui/views/reviewslist/} and converting them return other different issues, such as repeatable annotations and SAM (Single Abstract Method) conversion.
Fixing all those mentioned issues requires manual effort from developers.
Even worse, after fixing those issues, the project compiles, but fails to run properly, throwing the following exception:
}
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
\begin{lstlisting}[ basicstyle=\tiny]
Caused by: com.vaadin.flow.templatemodel.InvalidTemplateModelException:
Element type '? extends org.vaadin.martin.backend.Review' is not a valid Bean type.
Used in class 'ReviewsModel' with property named 'reviews'
with list type 'java.util.List<? extends org.vaadin.martin.backend.Review>'.
at com.vaadin.flow.templatemodel.BeanModelType.getListModelType(BeanModelType.java:271)
at com.vaadin.flow.templatemodel.BeanModelType.getModelType(BeanModelType.java:177)
\end{lstlisting}
\end{minipage}
{
The developer found that this problem was related to the dependencies between classes:
Surprisingly, he found that if he converts one class (\texttt{Review.java}) before another one (\texttt{Category.java}) the app runs into code errors as that one shown, while converting in the opposite sequence compiles and runs fine.
}
{In this particular example, migrating \texttt{Category.java} before \texttt{Review.java} is better because it allows developers to be more productive, as they do not have to spend time searching, applying and testing workarounds or fixes to avoid compilation or execution issues.}
{
As he wrote in the mentioned blog entry, those errors have been produced due to \emph{``the lack a perfect migration strategy''}.
This paper presents the first attempt to automatically produce an approach capable of helping developers choose the files to be migrated along the incremental migration of apps.
}
\section{Context: Kotlin and Migration of Android Application}
\label{sec:context:kotlin}
In this Section, we first briefly introduce the Kotlin programming language (Section \ref{sec:description_kotlin}).
Then, we present the relation between Android and Kotlin (Section \ref{sec:android_kotlin}) and about migration from Java to Kotlin (Section \ref{sec:context_migrating_kotlin})
Finally, we discuss the challenges of incremental migrations (Section \ref{sec:context_challenges_incremental}).
\subsection{What is Kotlin?}
\label{sec:description_kotlin}
In 2017, Google promoted Kotlin, a programming language that combines functional and object-oriented features, as an official Android language.
Kotlin is compiled to Java byte-code, which means that
it is interoperable with Java, i.e., Kotlin code can invoke code written in Java and vice versa, both running on the same underlying JVM.
\subsection{Kotlin and Android}
\label{sec:android_kotlin}
In 2019, Google declared that Android became `Kotlin-first', which means that new APIs, libraries and documentation will target Kotlin and eventually Java~\cite{AndroidDevelopers2019}.
Since then, Google has advised developers to create new applications using Kotlin instead of Java~\cite{AndroidDevelopers2020b}.
However, thanks to the interoperability between Java and Kotlin, developers of Java-based Android applications do not need to migrate their apps fully to Kotlin, instead they can:
\begin{inparaenum}[i)]
\item add new Kotlin code and maintain the existing Java code, and/or
\item migrating some parts of their apps written in Java code to Kotlin.
\end{inparaenum}
This characteristic makes the adoption of Kotlin easier, and according to Google, in 2020 Kotlin was already used by over 60\% of professional Android developers, and 80\% of the top \numprint{1000} Android apps contain Kotlin code~\cite{AndroidDevelopersBetterApps}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth]{duolingo.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of the number of lines (LOC, axis X) of Java and Kotlin along with the Duolingo application's migration process~\cite{duolingo_migration2020} since 2014 (Axis Y).}
\label{cap6:fig:duo}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Migration of Java App to Kotlin}
\label{sec:context_migrating_kotlin}
The migration of Java to Kotlin has some peculiarities compared to legacy migration.
First, the underlying run-time environment (i.e., the Java virtual machine) or, in case of Android, the Android Runtime -ART- or Dalvik machines
do not need to be updated: Kotlin and Java are both compiled to Java bytecode.
Second, communication between migrated and non-migrated code in legacy migrations (e.g., COBOL to web~\cite{Colosimo2009Evaluatinglegacy}) needs \emph{wrappers} (\cite{Bisbal1997Migration,Colosimo2009Evaluatinglegacy}) or \emph{gateways} (\cite{Brodie1995Legacy, Bisbal1997Migration}).
The interoperability between Java and Kotlin means that wrappers and gateways are not necessary to migrate Java to Kotlin (Section \ref{sec:term}), especially focusing on incremental migration (Section \ref{sec:term}).
Moreover, some popular commercial Android applications also incrementally migrated from Java to Kotlin.
For example, Duolingo, a free science-based language education platform~\cite{duolingo_website}, was completely migrated in 2 years.
Figure~\ref{cap6:fig:duo} shows the evolution of the amount of Java and Kotlin code from Duolingo.
During that period, Java files were progressively migrated to Kotlin, i.e., a commit migrated a subset of Java files, leaving other files in Java.
The \emph{incremental} migration allows developers
to:
\begin{inparaenum}[\it a)]
\item migrate a subset of Java files,
\item exhaustively test the migrated code to verify that the migrated code preserves the expected behavior,
and
\item commit (and eventually release) a new version of their app before continuing with the migration of other files.
\end{inparaenum}
As Duolingo's developers report~\cite{duolingo_migration2020}, incremental migration allowed them to apply strict testing, code review, and code style of each part of the application that was migrated.
We have recently studied 374 open-source Android applications written, partially or totally, in Kotlin \cite{GoisMateus2019}.
We found that 86 applications were completely migrated from Java to Kotlin, and 55 of them (64\%) were incrementally migrated.
Moreover, we found that 214, initially written in Java, have been increasingly migrated, and the migrations have not been finished at the moment of writing this paper.
\subsection{Challenges of incremental migration}
\label{sec:context_challenges_incremental}
As reported by Brodie and Stonebraker~\cite{Brodie1995Legacy}, incremental migration faces several challenges.
This paper focuses on one of them:
given a version of the program to be migrated (composed of not yet migrated code and, eventually, some migrated code), a developer should select a set of files that she/he wants to migrate on that migration step.
This selection could be complex as:
\begin{inparaenum}[\it a)]
\item There could exist several candidate files to migrate, and
\item the wrong selection of the files to be migrated could increase the migration effort due to emerging errors~\cite{AbdelAziz2020MigEnterprise,Nizet2018StoryMigration} or additional modifications to files not affected in the migration step.
\end{inparaenum}
Unfortunately, existing migration guidelines provide high-level advice or guidance. For example, Google only suggests that migrations from Java to Kotlin on Android could start by migrating classes in the following order: class model first, then tests, utility functions, and, finally, other classes~\cite{AndroidDevelopers2020a}.
However, it does not include any guidance to help developers decide, for instance, which subset of model classes could be more convenient to migrate first.
For these reasons, in the next section, we first present a migration recommendation system called~{{MigrationExp\xspace}}{}, and its implementation called~{{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}, which focuses on the migration from Java to Kotlin.
\section{{{MigrationExp\xspace}}: a recommendation system for supporting incremental migrations
}
\label{sec:approach}
\subsection{Vision}
We envision a recommendation system that supports developers during incremental migration of the application $A$.
In each iteration $i$ of the migration of $A$, a portion of $A$ is migrated, while the rest is eventually migrated in future iterations.
Thus, the input of the system is $A$, conformed to parts that have not migrated and, eventually, already migrated parts.
The output of the system in $i$ is a list $L$ of \emph{parts} from $A$ that the system recommends to migrate in that iteration $i$.
The granularity of the recommendations, i.e., the part of the application that the approach recommends, could vary according to the implementation: it could be a file, a package, a module, a subsystem, etc.
We envision such a system that
\begin{inparaenum}[\it a)]
\item bases its decision exclusively on migrations previously done by developers from other migrated projects, and
\item does not require any manually encoded migration rule.
This is a major difference from other recommendation systems based on encoded expertise~\cite{Jackson1986IntroductionTE}.
\end{inparaenum}
Given a set of migrations as training data, our system automatically learns a model used to recommend future migrations.
Each migration sample from the training data can be, for example, two versions of one application: one before the migration of one or more parts of the application, and the other the version which introduces the migration of those parts.
We materialize our vision in an approach named {{MigrationExp\xspace}}{}, which focuses on programming language migration, i.e. projects that are migrated from a source language to a target language.
This section follows with a description of our approach.
\subsection{Architecture}
Our approach consists of two phases, as Figure~\ref{fig:app:overview} illustrates:
\begin{inparaenum}[\it a)]
\item the development phase, and
\item the serving phase.
\end{inparaenum}
In the development phase, our approach learns a model from migrations from language $lang_1$ (e.g.,~Java) to $lang_2$ (e.g.,~Kotlin) written by, for instance, developers in open source projects.
Then, in the serving phase, given a project $P$ as input, the model generated in the development phase is used to recommend file-level migrations: The model produces a list of candidate files to be migrated.
Now, we give a summary of both phases of our approach.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{methodology.png}
\caption{We apply two phases: \emph{development}, where we learn a ranking model, and \emph{serving} phase, where we use the model in production.}
\label{fig:app:overview}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Development phase}
\label{cap6:sec:design:approach:dev}
{{MigrationExp\xspace}}{} relies on a learned model that encodes the migration performed by the developers.
In particular, we build a \emph{ranking model}, whose goal is to rank files not already migrated.
To train the model, we use a \emph{learning-to-rank} algorithm \cite{Liu2009}, which belongs to the family of supervised machine learning algorithms.
Our intuition is that we can build a ranking model that is able to capture the knowledge from developers to decide which file(s) migrates first given an app to be migrated.
A simplified illustrative example: if we train a model with projects in which developers have first migrated short files (expressed in SLOC), then our ranking model, given as input an app $Am$ to be incrementally migrated, will propose first to migrate the shortest files from $Am$.
Each training point (an \emph{example}) used to train the model represents a migration done by a developer.
In our approach, each example is described by a \emph{vector} of measurements (or \emph{features}) and a label that denotes the category or class to which the example belongs~\cite{Hall1998}.
To create the training set used for training our ranking model, we extract data from projects that have been \emph{iteratively} migrated from one programming language to another (i.e., migrated in several commits).
In particular, for each commit $C$ of these projects,
we first create a vector of features that represents each of those files.
The vector is composed of metrics extracted from those files.
Then, we put a \emph{label} on the vector: \emph{migrated} if the file represented by the vector was migrated by commit $C$, or \emph{not migrated}, otherwise.
These vectors are the training data used by our approach to learning a model.
Note that the labels are used by the learning-to-rank algorithm to learn the relation between migrated files and their features.
Finally, once the model is trained, it is then deployed and ready to be used in the serving phase.
\subsubsection{Serving phase}
\label{sec:serving}
In the serving phase, our approach {{MigrationExp\xspace}}{} takes as input a program $P$, written partially or completely using $lang_1$, which the developers aim to migrate to $lang_2$.
As done in the development phase, our approach extracts features from the project's files, i.e., candidate files to migrate, and creates for each file one vector of features, as done during the development phase.
These vectors are given as input to our model.
Finally, using this information, the model learned in the development phase ranks the project's files according to their relevance and returns the list of recommended files to be migrated.
Let us show a simple example to describe this phase.
The approach takes as input a project composed of 5 files where 4 files ($A.lang_1$, $B.lang_1$, $C.lang_1$ and $E.lang_1$) could be migrated, and one $D.lang_2$ already migrated.
The learned rank model ranks the four not yet migrated files based on the experience of developers by migrating similar files (i.e., similar vector features).
In this example, the developer could start migrating the files at the top of the recommendation, e.g., $E.lang_1$, then testing the migrated app, committing the changes, and generating a new version to publish.
Those activities form one step in the incremental migration process.
Note that in migrations that involve fully interoperable languages (e.g., Java and Kotlin) the migrated files (e.g., $D.lang_2$) could continue interacting with the not migrated (e.g., $B.lang_1$).
In case of working with non-interoperable languages, it would be necessary to build \emph{gateways} that interconnect the code written in those languages, as proposed by~\cite{Brodie1995Legacy}.
\subsection{{{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}: Supporting Migration from Java to Kotlin.}
\label{sec:approachJtK}
The approach {{MigrationExp\xspace}}{} previously described is language independent.
In this section, we present an instantiation of the approach in the context of migrations of Java to Kotlin.
This instance aims to help Android developers migrate from Java to Kotlin.
\subsubsection{Overview of {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}}
{{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} works at the level of files: it recommends Java files that can be manually or automatically (e.g., using a conversion tool provided by the IDE) migrated to Kotlin.
Given an application that should be iteratively migrated to Kotlin, our approach generates a rank with all candidate Java files to be migrated, where the top files are the recommendations to be migrated first, for instance, in the current migration iteration.
To create such an approach, we created a ranking model using a \emph{learning-to-rank} algorithm, which solves a ranking problem by sorting objects according to their degrees of relevance, preference, or importance~\cite{Liu2009}.
In the remainder of this section, we first present how we use the information extracted from projects with file migration from Java to Kotlin to collect the data needed to build our ranking model (Section~\ref{cap6:sec:ranking:traning}).
Then, in Section~\ref{sec:representation}, we explain how we transform this data according to the representation used by learning-to-rank.
Finally, in Section~\ref{cap6:sec:design:features}, we describe the list of features extracted during the feature extraction process.
\subsubsection{Learning process for Java to Kotlin migration model}
\label{cap6:sec:ranking:traning}
In this work, we automatically create a ranking model by feeding it with information from real migrations done by developers.
To this end, we use a learning-to-rank algorithm.
In learning-to-rank, the training data consists of queries and documents where each \emph{query} is associated with a set of \emph{documents}.
The relevance of documents concerning the query is represented by a label~\cite{li2011short}.
In our context, each commit with at least one file migration from the training dataset becomes a \emph{query}.
A document associated with a query (and transitively to a commit $C$) corresponds to a file $f$, which belongs to the commit $C$.
Each query's documents are labeled with $1$ if the document (file) was migrated in the commit associated with the query. Otherwise, a document is labeled with $0$.
To illustrate how we transform the information extracted from commits with migration in our training data set, imagine an application with three Java files ($File_1.java$, $File_2.java$, $File_3.java$).
Consider a commit that performs these actions: \begin{inparaenum}[\it i)]
\item removes ``$File_1.java$'',
\item updates ``$File_2.java$'', and
\item adds ``$File_1.kt$''.
\end{inparaenum}
This commit has a file migration ($File_1.java$ was migrated from Java to Kotlin).
Consequently, we label these documents as follows: $File_1.java$ as migrated (i.e., $1$), $File_2.java$, $File_3.java$ as not migrated (i.e., $0$).
From that information, we create a \emph{query}.
To prepare the data used to train the model,
we create one query per commit that migrated code from our training set.
Finally, the set of queries is the input of the training process of the ranking model, which generates a learned ranking model as the output.
\subsubsection{Using Java to Kotlin migration model to support migration}
\label{cap6:sec:ranking:serving}
The learned ranking model is used in the serving phase (Section \ref{sec:serving}) to recommend migrations.
In that phase, the input is a query composed of files (documents) that belong to the application to be migrated.
In fact, to obtain a recommendation, we create a query composed of those documents.
Note that those documents are not labeled.
Then, giving a query as input, the model outputs, for each document, a \emph{Predicted relevance} value.
By sorting these documents according to their values, from the most relevant to the least relevant,
we obtain the ranking of recommendations, where the documents in the first positions are the ones to be prioritized during the migration.
\subsubsection{Representing documents and queries}
\label{sec:representation}
We now focus on the representation of files from a commit as documents belonging to a query.
Each file in a commit is represented by a \emph{vector} of features.
Consequently, a query is a set of vectors.
The process of learning the model receives as input queries with labeled documents, and has as goal to learn \emph{relations} between the features that represent the files and the corresponding labels (two in this paper: 1 for migrated and 0 for no migrated).
In the serving phase, we create a \emph{vector} for each file of the application to be migrated.
We create a query composed of a set of vectors, which is the input of the model. The model then ranks each vector (file) according to its label and features' value.
\subsubsection{Feature extraction for Java and Android apps}
\label{cap6:sec:design:features}
We extract features that represent and characterize the code that:
\begin{inparaenum}[\it a) ]
\item was already migrated, and
\item is under migration (i.e., not yet migrated).
\end{inparaenum}
The feature extraction phase receives as input a set of files, and we generate for each of them a vector of features. Then, those vectors are given as input to {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}.
Each feature is created from a particular metric extracted from the source code files.
In total, we used 56 metrics that are listed in Table~\ref{tab:metrics}
First, we use 44 \emph{source code metrics} that have been defined and used in previous experiments related, for example, to the assessment of the overall quality of the software~(e.g., \cite{Eski2011,Peng2015,aniche2020effectiveness}). Table \ref{tab:metrics} shows them.
These metrics are grouped into different categories such as inheritance, communication, complexity and readability.
They include the object-oriented metrics proposed by Chidamber and Kemerer~\cite{Chidamber1994}, such as Weighted Methods per Class (WMC),
readability metrics such as the number of loops and the number of comparisons proposed by Buse et al.~\cite{Buse2010} and Salabrino et al.~\cite{Scalabrino2017} and
other source code metrics such as the number of Sources Line Of Code (SLOC).
Second, we define 12 \emph{Android metrics} to capture the exclusive characteristics of the Android applications, which are presented in Table \ref{tab:Androidmetrics}
\begin{table}
\caption{List of Android metrics.}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{s b}
\toprule
\textbf{Metric} & \textbf{Description} \\
\midrule
\textit{isActivity}& a binary feature that informs whether a class extends the Activity class from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{isView}& a binary feature that informs whether a class extends the View class from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{isBroadcastReceiver}& a binary feature that informs whether a class extends the BroadcastReceiver class from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{isService}& a binary feature that informs whether a class extends the Service class from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{isContentProvider}& a binary feature that informs whether a class extends the ContentProvider class from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{isFragment}& a binary feature that informs whether a class extends the Fragment class from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{isBuildingBlock}& a binary feature that informs whether a class extends one of the essential building blocks (Activity, Service, BrodcastReceiver and ContentProvider) of an Android application.\\
\hline
\textit{isInAndroidHierarchy}& a binary feature that informs whether a class extends any class from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{Number of parameters coupled}& The number of methods parameters whose type is an object from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{Number of return coupled}& The number of methods whose return type is an object from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{Number of methods coupled}& The number of methods whose at least one parameter or return type is an object from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{hasAndroidCoupling}& a binary feature that informs whether a class has at least one method coupled.\\
\hline
\end{tabularx}
\label{tab:Androidmetrics}
\end{table}
We recall that the extracted features describe the source code under migration.
Then, from that data, we train a model that \emph{automatically}
\begin{inparaenum}[\it a)]
\item captures how the code under migration (represented by features) looks like, and
\item learns the relation between migrated and non-migrated code through the extracted features.
\end{inparaenum}
\begin{table}
\caption{List of collected features grouped by category.}
\begin{tabular}{l l}
\toprule
\textbf{Category} & \textbf{Metric name} \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Size} & Source Lines Of Code (SLOC),\\
& Number of methods, Number of fields \\\midrule
Complexity & Weight Method Class (WMC), Max nested blocks \\\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Coupling} & Coupling between objects (CBO),\\
& Response for a Class (RFC) \\\midrule
Encapsulation & Number of public fields, Number of public methods \\\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{Cohesion} & Lack of Cohesion of Methods (LCOM), \\
& Tight class cohesion (TCC),\\
& Loose Class Cohesion (LCC) \\\midrule
Inheritance & Depth Inheritance Tree (DIT) \\\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{Readability} & Number of unique words, Number of loops,\\
& Number of assignments,\\
& Number of comparisons, Number of string literals,\\
& Number of math operations, Quantity of numbers \\\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{Android} & isActivity, isView, isBroadcastReceiver,\\
& isService, isContentProvider, isFragment,\\
& isBuildingBlock, isInAndroidHierarchy,\\
& hasAndroidCoupling, Number of methods coupled,\\
& Number of parameters coupled,\\
& Number of returns coupled \\\midrule
\multirow{14}{*}{Java-specific} & Number of default fields, Number of default methods,\\
& Number of final fields, Number of final methods,\\
& Number of static fields, Number of static methods,\\
& Number of private fields, Number of private methods,\\
& Number of protected fields, {isPOJO}\\
& Number of protected methods,\\
& Number of abstract methods,\\
& Number of anonymous classes,\\
& Number of inner classes, Number of lambdas,\\
& Number of static invocation (NOSI), \\
& Number of synchronized fields,\\
& Number of synchronized methods,\\
& Number of parenthesized expressions,\\
& Number of returns, Number of try catches,\\
& Number of log statements, Number of variables \\\midrule
{Testing} & {isTest} \\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:metrics}
\end{table}
\section{Methodology}
\label{sec:methodology}
This paper aims to evaluate the feasibility of using {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} to help developers iteratively migrate Android applications.
The following research questions guide our study:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{RQ: To what extent a ranking model learned from migrations done in real projects precisely recommends files to be migrated?}
\end{itemize}
In this section, we present the methodology applied to answer this research question.
First, we present the method applied to collect open source applications that have performed migration of files from Java to Kotlin (Section~\ref{sec:met:data}).
Then, we describe how we learn a model from information about migrations performed by developers in these projects (Section~\ref{sec:met:training}).
Finally, in Section~\ref{cap6:sec:ranking:evaluation}, we explain how we evaluated the learned model.
\subsection{Data acquisition for training and evaluation}
\label{sec:met:data}
To train and evaluate {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}, we need projects that have been migrated from Java to Kotlin.
For that, we created two datasets with Java to Kotlin migrations.
First, we collected migrations from an existing dataset of open-source applications written, partially or totally, in Kotlin, published on apps stores such as F-droid and Google Play.
With this dataset, namely $Android_{j2k}$, we aim to train the model with the goal of capturing how Android developers migrate applications from Java to Kotlin.
Nevertheless, the model could be enriched with migrations from Java to Kotlin done in other types of projects (non-Android project).
For that reason, we collected additional migrated open-source applications hosted on GitHub. We call this dataset $GitHub_{j2k}$.
The usage of these two datasets allowed us to evaluate our model \emph{in the wild}, which is different from \emph{in the lab} (i.e., using one dataset to train and test our model applying 10-fold cross-validation), because it does not assume that 90\% of the domain knowledge is known beforehand~\cite{Allix2016}.
To build those datasets, we followed three steps:
\begin{inparaenum}[\it 1)]
\item identification of open source projects that use Kotlin,
\item filtering projects that have Java code at any version, i.e., commits,
and \item filtering projects that have migrated files from Java to Kotlin.
\end{inparaenum}
\textbf{Step 1. Identification of open source projects written in Kotlin.}
To build our dataset of Android applications with migrations, we extracted the FAMAZOA v3 repositories~\cite{FAMAZOA}.
FAMAZOA is a dataset of open source applications written in Kotlin, and it contains 387 applications written partially or totally in Kotlin collected from 3 datasets of open source Android applications: AndroidTimeMachine~\cite{Geiger2018:data}, AndroZoo~\cite{Allix2016} and F-Droid.\footnote{F-droid (repository of open-source Android applications): \url{http://f-droid.org}}
Then, in order to create $GitHub_{j2k}$, we searched on GitHub for repositories written in Kotlin.
Our search was performed on the publicly-available GitHub mirror available on Google BigQuery~\cite{hoffa_2016}.
This mirror offers a full snapshot of the content of more than 2.8 million open source repositories and almost 2 billion files.
Moreover, it provides information about the use of programming languages in the last commit of each repository.
Therefore, we performed a query looking for projects that have Kotlin.
As a result, it returned \numprint{7119} repositories. 170 of them were already included in FAMAZOA, so we discarded them.
\textbf{Step 2. Identification of projects that used Java at its life-cycle.}
The previous step is necessary to identify projects that have Kotlin.
However, we needed to filter projects that contain Java as well, since this is a requirement to have migrations.
For that reason, we selected all projects with at least one commit with Java (i.e., a commit that introduces Java code).
At the end of this procedure, we identified \numprint{5126} repositories from GitHub and 270 from FAMAZOA.
\textbf{Step 3. Identification of file migration.}
In order to find real cases of migrations, we navigated through all commits from the repositories identified in step 2.
Then, we applied the following procedure: consider that a repository is a set of versions (commits) $C_r = \{c_i, c_{i+1}, ..., c_n\}$ where $i$ determines the commit number, i.e., $c_1$ is the first commit and $c_n$ is the last commit.
Then, to find migrated files, we compared consecutive commits, $c_i, c_{i+1}$ to extract a pair of files, $f_i, f_{i+1}$, which should respect the following conditions:
\begin{inparaenum}[i)]
\item $f_i$ is a Java file from $c_i$ and was removed in $c_{i+1}$,
\item $f_{i+1}$ is a Kotlin file added in $c_{i+1}$, and
\item $f_i$ and $f_{i+1}$ share the same filename ignoring the file extension (.java, .kt).
\end{inparaenum}
As Table~\ref{cap6:tab:datasets} shows, from GitHub projects, we identified \numprint{7275} commits with \numprint{27375} migrated files from \numprint{1179} projects.
These commits form the $GitHub_{j2k}$ dataset.
From FAMAZOA, we found \numprint{3118} commits with migrations that migrated \numprint{8754} files from 266 projects.
These commits form the $Android_{j2k}$ dataset.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Results of the data extraction.}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Dataset}} & \textbf{\#Projects }&\textbf{\#Commits} & {\textbf{Migrated files in commits }} \\
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{with migrations}}&\\
\midrule
$GitHub_{j2k}$ & \numprint{1179} & \numprint{7275} & \numprint{27375}\\
$Android_{j2k}$ & 266& \numprint{3118} & \numprint{8754} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{cap6:tab:datasets}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.66\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{distributionFilesAndroid.pdf}
\caption{Number of files}
\label{fig:distNrFilesAndroid}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.66\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{distributionLOCAndroid.pdf}
\caption{LOC}
\label{fig:distLOCAndroid}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.66\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{distributionNrCommitsAndroid.pdf}
\caption{Number of commits}
\label{fig:distNrCommitsAndroid}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Number files, LOC and commits from $Android_{j2k}$'s project.}
\label{fig:distibutionFilesCommits}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Statistics about selected projects}
We now discuss some statistics about the selected projects.
We report the results from the $Android_{j2k}$ dataset, as we have observed similar results from the analysis of the $GitHub_{j2k}$ dataset (e.g., similar distributions).
Figure \ref{fig:distNrFilesAndroid} shows the distribution of the number of files.
It corresponds to a long-tailed distribution: most of the projects have fewer than 500 files (median 139, mean 243).
The distribution of lines of code (LOC) presented in Figure \ref{fig:distLOCAndroid} also follows the long tail distribution: most of the projects have less than 25k LOC (median 7937, mean 18235), and few projects with a much larger size in terms of LOC.
Finally, Figure \ref{fig:distNrCommitsAndroid} shows the distribution of number of commits: Most of the project has fewer than 1000 commits (median 308, mean 694).
Regarding the commits, we also inspected the distribution of the migrated files (according to the heuristic presented in Section~\ref{sec:met:data}) over the commits that carry out, at least, one migration.
Figure~\ref{fig:distMigFilesCommit} shows the distribution: we observe that most of the commits migrate exactly one file, or very few files (less than 5).
This shows that developers of the analyzed apps do incremental migrations: they migrate one file and then commit the migrated code.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.80\textwidth]{allFilesMigPerCommitFamazoa.pdf}
\caption{Distribution of number of files migrated by migration commits from $Android_{j2k}$ projects. }
\label{fig:distMigFilesCommit}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Feature extraction}
\label{sec:features_extraction}
{{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} relies on {56} metrics extracted from the source code of open-source projects with file migrations from Java to Kotlin.
To extract 12 exclusive Android metrics, we built a static analysis tool using Spoon~\cite{spoon}.
The remaining 44 source code metrics are extracted using CK~\cite{aniche-ck}, which also applies static analysis to calculate the code metrics.
To extract these metrics from the files of each commit with migration, we created a tool that takes as input
\begin{inparaenum}[\it a)]
\item a Git repository and
\item the list of commits with migration.
\end{inparaenum}
This tool relies on jGit, a pure Java library that implements the Git version control system.\footnote{jGit: \url{https://www.eclipse.org/jgit/}}
The tool clones the software repository, then navigates through all commits.
Let $C_r = \{c_1, c_2, ..., c_n\}$ be the set of commits with migrations of a given repository.
$\forall c, c \in C$ the tool checks out the source code, then extracts the metrics by calling CK~\cite{aniche-ck} and our Android features detector.
When a repository is analyzed, our tool generates a JSON file which has, for each commit, the values for features extracted grouped by file affected by the commit.
\subsection{{{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} training}
\label{sec:met:training}
The model used by {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} was trained using a learning-to-rank algorithm.
The existing learning-to-rank algorithms are categorized into three approaches: pointwise, pairwise, and listwise~\cite{Liu2009}.
In the pointwise approach, the input is a single document.
Consequently, it does not consider the inter-dependency among documents~\cite{Liu2009}.
On the other hand, pairwise and listwise algorithms consider the inter-dependency among documents.
In the pairwise approach, the ranking problem is reduced to a classification problem on document pairs, whereas the listwise approach addresses the ranking problem by taking ranking lists as instances in both learning and prediction~\cite{li2011short}.
In the context of incremental migration that we target in this paper,
we hypothesize that the decision to migrate or not one file is made considering a project's context and not a file individually.
For instance, in a migration step $S$ given by commit $C$, a developer chooses a set of files $FM$ (one or more) to be migrated over other files $NFM$ that are not migrated in that step.
Thus, to capture that decision between files to migrate, we decide to use the \emph{pairwise} approach.
During model training, that approach considers that, in the query associated with commit $C$, file $f_i$ from $FM$ was ranked higher than a file $f_j$ from $NFM$.
We trained our model using LambdaMART~\cite{burges2010}, an algorithm developed by Microsoft that applies the pairwise approach and has been shown to be among the best performing learning methods based on evaluations on public datasets~\cite{Ganjisaffar2011}.
We used the LambdaMART implementation provided by XGBoost, a scalable machine learning system for tree boosting proposed by Chen et al.~\cite{Chen2016XGboost}.\footnote{This implementation can also perform listwise ranking. However, as shown in our appendix, its pairwise version outperforms its listwise version.}
Given a query done on XGBoost, this tool outputs as \emph{predicted relevance} values (see Section \ref{cap6:sec:ranking:serving}) a float number per document, where a higher value means higher relevant.
The model was trained with the information extracted from \numprint{7275} commits with at least one file migration from the $GitHub_{j2k}$ dataset.
These commits have \numprint{1495734} files where \numprint{27375} were migrated, as Table~\ref{cap6:tab:datasets} shows.
\subsection{{{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} evaluation}
\label{cap6:sec:ranking:evaluation}
This section presents an evaluation of the performance of the trained model.
For that, we used $Android_{j2k}$ (see Section \ref{sec:met:data}) as the testing dataset.
The performance of {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} was compared to that one from those baselines, which we present in Section \ref{sec:methodology:baselines} using the metrics presented in Section \ref{sec:methodology:metrics}.
\subsubsection{Baselines}
\label{sec:methodology:baselines}
To our knowledge, there was no baseline on code recommendation migration that we can take to compare our approach.
For this reason, we created two baselines.
First, we defined a \emph{Random} baseline, which is implemented by a recommendation approach that randomly recommends files to migrate.
Although it is not a realistic strategy, we included it in this experiment to prove that our approach surpasses random choices.
Second, we defined a baseline named \emph{{{Google's guideline\xspace}}{}} based on Google's guideline for migrating Android apps to Kotlin~\cite{AndroidDevelopers2020a}.
This guideline suggests migrating first data model classes, then test classes, followed by utility methods, and finally other classes such as fragments and activities.
To create a baseline based on Google's guideline,
we implemented a recommendation approach with the same interface that {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}: given a project $P$, it produces a list of candidate files to migrate.
The implementation generates that list based on the features extracted from the project's files (see Section \ref{cap6:sec:design:features}).
It considers feature \textit{isPOJO} to identify data models and the feature \textit{isTest} to find test files.
Moreover, it classifies a file as a \emph{utility} file when it only has static methods, i.e., the number of methods $> 0$ and the number of methods equal the number of static methods.
\subsubsection{Metrics}
\label{sec:methodology:metrics}
To evaluate the performance of {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} and the baselines,
we computed the Mean Average Precision at K ($MAP@k$)~\cite{baeza1999modern}.
We now describe how we compute the $MAP$ metric.
Each \emph{data point} from the testing set corresponds to a commit $C_i$ that migrated some pieces of code $M$ from Java to Kotlin.
Therefore, in the version produced by the previous commit $C_{i-1}$, $M$ is written in Java and in the version produced by $C_i$ $M$ is written in Kotlin.
We used the $MAP$ metric to evaluate the precision of the recommendations made by {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} and the baselines for each data point.
We first created a query $Q$ (explained in Section \ref{sec:representation}) for each data point $D_i$, corresponding to commit $C_i$.
This query represents the project's files from the version \emph{previous} to the migration done by $C_i$.
Then, we queried {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} given $Q$ as input, which returns a list of suggested files to migrate.
To measure the precision of the suggestion given $Q$,
we calculated the metric $AP_Q@K$.
It compares the top-K results from that returned list with
the real migration that a developer has made in commit $C_i$.
The files migrated by $C_i$ are the \emph{relevant} documents.
(We recall that a document represents a file from the project under migration, see Section \ref{cap6:sec:ranking:traning}).
$AP_Q@K$ is given by Eq.~\ref{formula:ap}:
\begin{equation}
\label{formula:ap}
AP_Q@K = \frac{1}{\text{TR}} * \sum_{j=1}^{k}{{Precision}@j \; * \; rel@K}
\end{equation}
where TR refers to the total number of relevant documents retrieved, $Precision@K$ is given in Eq.~\ref{formula:prec} and $rel@K$ is given in Eq.~\ref{formula:rel}. The notation $@k$ means, in this context, the first $k$ elements from a list.
\begin{equation}
\small
\label{formula:prec}
{Precision}@n = \frac{\text{\# of recommended documents @$n$ that are relevant}}{\text{\# of recommended documents @$n$}}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{formula:rel}
rel@K = \begin{cases}
1 & \text{the document at rank K is relevant}\\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Finally, the $MAP@K$ of a recommendation system is the mean of the $AP_i@K$ from all queries done (one query per training point):
\begin{equation}
\text{MAP@K} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N}{AP{_i}@K}
\end{equation}
where N is the number of training points (i.e., number of queries done).
$MAP@K$ ranges from 0 to 1.
A perfect ranking result in $MAP@k$ equals 1.
In this experiment, since the median number of files migrated per commit is 1, we consider $k$ to be ranging from 1 to 10.
We computed our approach's performance improvement by comparing {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}'s $MAP@K$ performance with that of a baseline approach $B$ using the formula:
\begin{equation}
Improvement = \frac{\text{MAP@K$_{{{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}}$} - \text{MAP@K$_B$}}{\text{MAP@K$_B$}}
\end{equation}
In this experiment, we report the improvement of {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} w.r.t the best baseline between Random and Google recommendation strategies.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:evaluation}
\begin{sidewaystable}
\centering
\caption{Mean Average Precision (MAP) at \textit{K} of a random, {{Google's guideline\xspace}}{} and {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} and strategy.}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Suggestion strategy} & \multicolumn{9}{c}{Mean Average Precison (MAP) at \textit{K}} \\
\cmidrule{2-12}
& \textit{k}: & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10\\
\midrule
{Random} && 0.188 & 0.238 & 0.251 & 0.262 & 0.268 & 0.271 & 0.274 & 0.276 & 0.278 & 0.278\\
{{Google's guideline\xspace}}{} && 0.108 & 0.157 & 0.173 & 0.184 & 0.190 & 0.195 & 0.198 & 0.200 & 0.201 & 0.202 \\
{{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} && 0.225 & 0.262 & 0.280 & 0.289 & 0.293 & 0.297 & 0.301 & 0.305 & 0.306 & 0.308 \\
\hdashline
Improvement vs Random && 19.7\% & 10.1\% & 11.6\% & 10.3\% & 9.3\% & 9.6\% & 9.9\% & 10.5\% & 10.1\% & 10.8\% \\
Improvement vs {{Google's guideline\xspace}}{} &&108.3\% & 66.9\% & 61.8\% & 57.1\% & 54.2\% & 52.3\% & 52.0\% & 52.5\% & 52.2\% & 52.5\% \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{cap6:tab:ranking_result}
\end{sidewaystable}
\subsection*{RQ: To what extent a ranking model learned from migrations done in real projects precisely recommends files to be migrated?}
This section presents the results of the evaluation of a random approach and the {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} applied to rank file-level migrations.
Table~\ref{cap6:tab:ranking_result} summarizes our results.
First, the $MAP$ values go from 0.225 to 0.308.
We recall that a system that perfectly suggests the files to migrate would have a MAP equals (or close) to~1.
Although the results show that there is a large room for improvement, we consider that this result is important to settle the first baseline on Java to Kotlin migration.
In Section \ref{cap6:sec:discussion} we discuss different directions for improving our results.
Second, our results show that when \textit{k} increases, $MAP$ values also increase.
This makes sense since a greater \textit{k} means that the evaluation considers more files from the suggestion list. Thus, the probability of finding a relevant document (a file that was actually migrated) also increases.
The table shows that {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} outperforms both baselines.
{{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} presents an improvement w.r.t. random of around 10\% $\forall k \in [2, 10]$, and the largest improvement (19.7\%) for \textit{k}=1.
Moreover, {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} presents an improvement higher that 50\%, $\forall k \in [2, 10]$, reaching an improvement of 108\% for \textit{k}=1.
The low performance of {{Google's guideline\xspace}}{} may suggest that the developers that migrated code in the applications we considered did not apply the suggestion from Google's guideline on migration~\cite{AndroidDevelopers2020a}.
As we mention in Section \ref{cap6:sec:discussion}, more research is needed on measuring the adoption of Google's guideline and the definition of new guidelines from previous migrations to understand how developers migrate Java to Kotlin code.
\begin{tcolorbox}
\textbf{Response to RQ:}~\textit{To what extent a ranking model learned from migrations done in real projects precisely recommends files to be migrated?}
The results show that our learning-to-rank approach {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} has mean average precision (MAP) between 0.225 and 0.308, and surpasses the performance from two baselines: Random strategy and strategy based on {{Google's guideline\xspace}}{}.
Nevertheless, these results suggest that there is still room for improvement, as the performance is below the ideal prediction performance (that is, MAP $ \simeq 1$).
\end{tcolorbox}
We now present an example that shows how {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} has done the prediction and how we evaluate it.
\paragraph{Example}
In this example, we focus on the suggestion made by {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} during the iterative migration of `Simple Calendar Pro' application\footnote{Simple Calendar App at Google Play store: \url{https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplemobiletools.calendar.pro}} from Java to Kotlin.
Simple Calendar Pro is an application published on Google Store that has more than \numprint{100000} downloads and its source code is hosted on
GitHub.\footnote{Simple Calendar App at Github: \url{https://github.com/SimpleMobileTools/Simple-Calendar/}}
This application was initially written in Java, but was fully migrated to Kotlin in two months.
Starting in commit $09ef99$, their developers performed an incremental migration that was completed in commit $eee184$, after 202 commits.
Figure~\ref{fig:case1} shows the number of Java and Kotlin files on each commit from the app along the incremental migration.
\begin{figure}[t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{case1_evolution.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of the numbers of files written in Java and Kotlin along the incremental migration of Simple Calendar Pro application.
}
\label{fig:case1}
\end{figure}
We apply {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} on a version of Simple Calendar Pro, identified by commit {$2d1c59$}.
In this version, Simple Calendar has {38} Kotlin files (most of them already migrated by previous commits) and {6} Java files, i.e., {6} candidate files to be migrated.
Table \ref{tab:case_1} presents those Java files.
Given that version of Simple Calendar, our approach generates a \emph{predicted relevance value} (described in Section \ref{cap6:sec:ranking:serving}) for each file. Those are also presented in Table \ref{tab:case_1}.
Then, it creates a ranked list of these {6} files considering these values.
Therefore, according to {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}, {\texttt{AboutActivity.java}} should be the first migrated because it has the highest \emph{predicted relevance value} {(0.96)}, followed by {\texttt{MyWidgetProvider.java} (0.58)}, etc.
Now, we compare this suggestion from {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} with the real migration done by the developer on that particular version of Simple Calendar.
The developers migrated only one file, {\texttt{AboutActivity.java}}, and that change produced a new version {(commit $59b020$)} of their application.
In this case, the file in the first position of the list of recommendations made by {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} was exactly the same file migrated by the developers, resulting in a MAP@1 equal to 1.
Note that the migration case done by the developer does not follow Google's migration guideline \cite{AndroidDevelopers2020a}, which prioritizes to migrate, for instance, utility classes (\texttt{Utils.java} in this case) over `Activity' files (such as \texttt{AboutActivity.java}).
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Comparison between the migration performed by developers (relevant documents are those from migrated files) and the recommendation made by {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} (Predicted Ranking), when Simple Calendar Pro applications at version $2d1c59$ is given as input.
We recall that for \emph{Predicted relevance} values, higher is better.}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c}
\toprule
Candidate & Predicted & Relevant& Predicted \\
files & relevance & Document & Ranking \\
\midrule
AboutActivity.java & 0.96 & Yes & 1\\
MyWidgetProvider.java & 0.58 & -& 2\\
WidgetConfigureActivity.java & 0.42 & - & 3\\
Utils.java & 0.32 & - & 4\\
LicenseActivity.java & 0.27 & - & 5\\
Constants.java & -0.24 & - & 6\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:case_1}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Feature Importance}
Figure \ref{fig:model_gain}
shows the importance of the features computed by the XGBoost tool (we recall that it is the tool we use to create the model), as it provides a built-in module to calculate the importance.
The importance provides a score that indicates how useful or valuable each feature was in the construction of the model.
We report the default type of importance: ``gain''. A higher value of this metric compared to another feature implies that it is more important for generating a prediction.
We observe that the most important feature is $isView$, followed by $isBroadcastReceived$ and $isService$.
This means that our model is mostly influenced by the type of class (isView, isService, isBroadcast) that is under analysis.
\begin{figure}[t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{model_training_feature_gain.png}
\caption{The most important features reported by XGBoost, computed using the 'Gain' importance.
}
\label{fig:model_gain}
\end{figure}
\section{Threats to validity}
\label{sec:threatsvalidity}
In this section, we discuss the threats that could affect the validity of our results.
\subsection{Construct validity}
Threats to construct validity concern the relation between theory and observation.
\paragraph{Quality of migration suggestion}
In this paper, we present an approach that suggests migration based on a model learned from previous human-written migrations.
However, there is no guarantee that the migrations done by developers used for training and the migrations proposed by our approach correspond to the best migration order.
For determining such cases, it is necessary to first define what is a good migration order, and then to check whether a migration step is then good or not, or there are other better orders.
To our knowledge, no previous work has proposed such a definition or measured the quality of a migration order.
\paragraph{Learning from migrations in open source projects}
To create an accurate machine learning model, a large amount of data is essential.
Due to the absence of a benchmark dataset of file migration from Java to Kotlin, we mined open source projects from GitHub and FAMAZOA.
We used this information to train and evaluate our model.
However, there is a risk that open-source projects and not open-source projects might be migrated differently.
Thus, the learned model would not adequately characterize the migration activity of those projects.
\paragraph{Automated evaluation}
To have an automated evaluation process of {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}, we consider examples of file-level migrations from open source projects as ground truth.
However, we do not consider the motivation behind these migrations because we cannot automatically retrieve this information from the project repositories.
Consequently, our approach may suggest file-level migrations that do not reflect the decision taken by developers.
Nevertheless, we affirm that this first study aimed to explore whether learning-to-rank can model the problem of recommending file-level migrations.
\paragraph{Feature selection}
The choice of the feature set used to train our learning-to-rank model directly impacts its results, depending on whether these features discriminate adequately, files migrated and non-migrated.
However, to the best of our knowledge, no study establishes a relationship between any metric and source code migration.
For that reason, we target source code metrics used in a wide variety of experiments, such as fault prediction~\cite{Kaur2012,Shatnawi2014}, fault localization~\cite{Sohn2017}, testing~\cite{Eski2011}, defect prediction~\cite{Peng2015}, refactoring prediction~\cite{aniche2020effectiveness} and measuring the quality of object-oriented software~\cite{Singh2013}.
Moreover, we consider 12 exclusive Android features that, according to our experience with Android development, could support the decision to perform a file migration.
Nevertheless, there could exist missing features that better describe the migration activity.
\paragraph{Learning algorithm}
In this paper, LambdaMART was the algorithm chosen to build our ranking model.
However, the choice of the machine learning technique to build a prediction model has a strong impact on performance~\cite{Ghotra2015}.
Thus, using other existing algorithms, our approach could present different performance levels.
\subsection{Internal validity}
Threats to internal validity concern all the factors that could have impacted our results.
\paragraph{Learning data}
The data used to train and evaluate {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} contains all migrations we found in the datasets of Kotlin applications without applying any filtering.
Our model is learned from all migrations regardless of the strategy adopted by the developers.
It could be the risk that some developers did not apply the most convenient migration strategy. Thus, the model could be created from a portion of misleading data.
To our knowledge, as we discussed in Section~\ref{cap6:sec:discussion}, no work has focused on migration strategies. Thus, there is not enough knowledge about that in order we could be able to curate the training data.
\paragraph{Imbalanced data}
We trained and evaluated our model using highly imbalanced datasets, i.e., there are considerably more instances of the non-migrated files than instances of files migrated.
However, some models may under-perform if trained with imbalanced data~\cite{Hall2012}.
\paragraph{Training parameters}
The choice of parameters for the construction of the model is another threat.
In this work, we use the default parameters of XGBoost.
Therefore, for different datasets or metrics, the best parameters might be different, leading to different results.
\paragraph{Types of migrations analyzed}
In this paper, we focus on one type of migration: files are translated from Java to Kotlin one-to-one (that is, for every file in Java there is exactly one file in Kotlin, with the same name).
However, there could exist other migrations that our heuristic is not able to detect, and consequently those are not used for training and evaluating our model.
This involves that our model was trained to make such one-to-one migration suggestions, and not others.
Considering those types of migrations could help improve the generalizability of our approach.
\subsection{External validity}
Threats to external validity concern the generalizability of our findings.
\paragraph{Representativeness of our datasets}
Our work relies on two datasets of open source software.
However, open source software is a small parcel of the existing software.
This fact may limit the generalization of our findings.
\section{Discussion and future work}
\label{cap6:sec:discussion}
This work presented a study investigating the feasibility of applying learning-to-rank to build an approach to recommend file-level migrations of Android applications.
The results showed that although our approach overcomes the performance from two baselines: The random strategy and the strategy based on {{Google's guideline\xspace}}{}, there is room for improvement.
Nevertheless, we highlight the novelty of our approach and argue that these results establish a baseline for future work.
Moreover, it opens new directions for researchers.
In this section, we list some of them.
\paragraph{On defining strategies of migrations}
In this paper, we used migrations done by developers without filtering them.
In future work, we plan to focus on specific migration strategies.
One of the main challenges is determining what a ``good'' migration strategy would be (expressed, for instance, in terms of ease of migration process, quality of the migrated application, etc.) and what a ``bad'' migration strategy would be. Those strategies could be defined by analyzing metrics from migrated projects or developers' experience.
Once a set of targeted migration strategies is selected, our approach can be trained using data from migrated apps that followed such strategies.
\paragraph{Migration guidelines}
To our knowledge, there is only one \emph{official} guideline for Android migration, which was created by Google~\cite{AndroidDevelopers2020a}.
It defines the following order of migration:
\begin{inparaenum}[\it 1)]
\item data classes,
\item test cases,
\item utility classes, and
\item other classes.
\end{inparaenum}
We plan to study whether developers that have migrated code follow or not Google's guideline.
Nevertheless, we consider that our approach could complement this guideline.
Beyond its usefulness for starting the migration process,
in our opinion, the guideline is quite general and only prioritizes the types of classes to migrate as described just above.
For example, the guideline indicates to start migrating data classes, but does not specify which one. {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} could help developers decide which data class(es) to migrate.
Similarly, it does not specify the order of migration of other types of classes such as fragments, activities and ViewModel.
\paragraph{Interpretability and explainability of recommendations}
One of the main limitations and drawbacks of machine learning techniques, including the learning-to-rank technique, is the lack of transparency behind their behaviors, leaving users with little understanding of how particular decisions are made~\cite{Mengnan2019TechniquesInterpratable}.
To mitigate these problems, researchers have proposed interpretable machine learning techniques, which can generally be grouped into two categories~\cite{Mengnan2019TechniquesInterpratable}:
\begin{inparaenum}[\it 1)]
\item \emph{intrinsic interpretability}: implies constructing self-explanatory models that incorporate interpretability directly to their structures, and \item \emph{post-hoc interpretability}: requires creating a second model to explain an existing model.
\end{inparaenum}
{{MigrationExp\xspace}}{} can be complemented with other approaches to create post hoc interpretability.
For example, SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations)~\cite{Lundberg2017SHAP} is an approach to interpret predictions, that is, to explain the output of any machine learning model, including learning-to-rank.
In future work, we plan to integrate {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} with the official implementation of the SHAP framework.
Moreover, we plan also to focus on intrinsic interpretable techniques.
For example, Zhuang et al. \cite{Zhuang2021InterpretableRanking} propose an interpretable Learning-to-Rank technique, which could be used by {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} instead of the traditional learning-to-rank technique.
\paragraph{Hyperparameter tuning}
One strategy to potentially improve our results is to perform a hyperparameter tuning.
Each algorithm has a set of parameters, each having its domain, which may have different types (i.e., continuous, discrete, Boolean and nominal), making the entire set of parameters of an algorithm a large space to explore.
Consequently, the search for the machine learning algorithm's best parameters is demanding in computation complexity, time, and effort~\cite{ArcelliFontana2016}.
In future work, we plan to explore different techniques of hyperparameter tuning.
\paragraph{Data balancing}
Another aspect that researchers can focus on are pre-processing techniques to handle the imbalance of our migration dataset, as they can be more important than the choice of the classifier~\cite{Agrawal2018}.
Despite many real-world machine learning applications, learning from imbalanced data is still not trivial~\cite{PECORELLI2020}.
However, other software engineering studies (e.g, ~\cite{Wang2013Smote}) have used Synthetic Minority Oversampling TEchnique (SMOTE) to fix the data imbalance.
As feature work, we intend to explore pre-processing techniques to understand how they impact the recommendation of file-level migrations.
\paragraph{Feature engineering}
Since our machine learning models achieve a modest performance, we intend to focus on feature engineering as future work.
Adding new features or discarding existing ones could result in a better set of features that may improve our results.
Therefore, more research should be conducted to \begin{inparaenum}[i)]
\item evaluate the current set of features and possibly discard some feature,
\item verify to what extent existing metrics applied in other domains of software engineering, like process metrics~\cite{Yang2015,Hoang2019}, code smells~\cite{Catolino2020} and ownership metrics~\cite{Bird2011,aniche2020effectiveness}, are suitable for our problem and
\item develop new metrics able to characterize better migrated or non-migrated file instances.
For example, new features can be added that reflect the coupling between already migrated and not yet migrated files.
\end{inparaenum}
\paragraph{Recommending groups of files}
A future direction we aim to explore is the suggestion of migration of groups of files: there each suggestion item in the recommendation list would correspond to a set of files that should be migrated together.
There could exist different criteria for grouping such files: such as coupled files, classes and their corresponding test cases, etc.
\paragraph{Granularity of recommendations}
In this paper, we focus on recommendations of \emph{files}.
Nevertheless, our approach could also be adapted for doing suggestions at a different granularity, e.g., \emph{packages}.
\paragraph{Types of migration recommendations}
The proposed approach was trained from one type of migration (one-to-one file, as explained in Section \ref{sec:met:data}), therefore, the recommendations are based on this type of migration.
If other types of migrations are defined, our approach could be extended in order to suggest, in addition to the files that can be migrated in one migration step, the type of migration for each file.
For that, it would be necessary to first define such new types of migrations, and then to mine samples of those migrations from migrated applications in order to train the model.
\paragraph{Feedback from developers}
In this paper, we use a ranking metric ($MAP$) to automatically assess the quality of the recommendations generated by {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}. To complement our evaluation, as future work, we plan to conduct a study in which developers who want to migrate their applications would evaluate the recommendations made by our approach.
\paragraph{Deploying {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}~in the wild}
We aim to make {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} a production-ready model to integrate it with Android Studio, the official IDE for Android development.
To this end, we intend to develop a plugin for Android Studio and make it publicly available in the official JetBrains Plugin Repository, as Iannone et al.~\cite{Iannone2020} have done.
We believe that by making our approach publicly available, we can receive feedback from users to improve it.
\section{Related work}
\label{sec:relatedwork}
\paragraph{The adoption of Kotlin}
Oliveira et al.~\cite{Oliveira2020} performed a study to understand how developers deal with the adoption of Kotlin in Android development, their perception of the advantages and disadvantages related to its usage.
They found that developers believe that Kotlin can improve code quality, readability, and productivity.
Gois Mateus and Martinez~\cite{GoisMateus2019} have found that 11\% of the Android open-source applications studied have adopted Kotlin.
As a difference from them, our work focuses on a deeper aspect of the adoption of Kotlin, the \emph{migration} of Android applications from Java to Kotlin.
Researchers have recently conducted different studies on the use of Kotlin (e.g., \cite{Flauzino2018,GoisMateus2020, ARDITO2020106374}).
Their results present some benefits of adopting Kotlin. For instance, this produces shorter programs and code with fewer code smells than Java programs.
\paragraph{Migration of Android applications to Kotlin}
Coppola et al.~\cite{Coppola_2019} evaluated the transition of Android applications to Kotlin to understand whether the adoption of Kotlin impacts the success of an application (i.e., popularity and reputation) of Android applications in the App Store.
Martinez and Gois Mateus~\cite{martinez2021Why} conducted a survey to know why Android developers have migrated Java code to Kotlin. The use of the new features (typically included in modern programming language), not previously fully available using Java, was one of the most frequently mentioned reasons.
Peters et al.~ \cite{Peters2021HowImpact} empirically assessed the impact of migration from Java to Kotlin on the efficiency of the runtime of Android applications. They found that migrating
to Kotlin has a statistically significant impact on CPU usage,
memory usage, and render duration of frames.
Our work aims to help those developers to do the migration.
\paragraph{Programming language migration}
Previous work has presented approaches to migrate code e.g.,
\cite{Martin2002} C to Java, Cobol to Web \cite{colosimo2009evaluating}, Cobol to Java \cite{Mossienko2003}, C code to Eiffel ~\cite{Trudel2012}.
Other works focus on automated API migrations (e.g., ~\cite{Zhong2010, Nguyen2014, Gu2017}).
Although these works target programming language migrations, none of them focus on migration from Java to Kotlin.
\paragraph{Learning-to-rank applied to software engineering}
Previous work has applied learning-to-rank to software engineering tasks.
For example, on fault localization (\cite{Xuan2014, Le2016, Sohn2017,Kim2019}), bug-finding process (\cite{Ye2014, Zhao2015, Tian2016}), code search (\cite{Niu2017}), defects prediction (\cite{Wang2018,Yang2015b}), rule-specification mining (\cite{Cao2018}), recommendation system to classify and select design patterns \cite{Hussain2019}, third-party libraries~\cite{ALRUBAYE2020106140}.
Differently from these works, our work is the first to apply learning-to-rank to suggest file-level migrations.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this work, we presented {{MigrationExp\xspace}}{}, an approach to support developers in incremental migration of applications based on supervised machine learning, in particular, the learning-to-rank approach.
{{MigrationExp\xspace}}{} produces recommendations for candidate files to migrate and is based on a model learned from real migrations performed by developers.
Despite being a language-independent approach, we evaluate its feasibility in the context of the migration of Android applications from Java to Kotlin.
The results of the evaluation of {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} show that {on the task of suggesting files to migrate}, our approach outperforms two strategies considered as baselines.
We believe that our approach may significantly impact Android applications' development because most Android applications are written in Java, and, at the same time, Google is encouraging developers to adopt Kotlin to keep updated their apps with new Android platform features.
In future work, we plan to integrate {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} into a new infrastructure that will aim to help developers along the different stages of migrations such as migration suggestions, code translation, and testing of the migrated code.
\section{Introduction}
A legacy system can be defined as a system that is significantly resistant to modification and evolution~\cite{Brodie1995Legacy}.
Bisbal et al.~\cite{Bisbal1997Migration} mention that legacy systems can host problems because they usually run on obsolete hardware and lack clean interfaces to interact with other systems.
\begin{inparaenum}[\it 1)]
\item usually run on obsolete hardware,
\item maintenance can be expensive,
\item lack of clean interfaces to interact with other systems.
\item are difficult to extend.
\end{inparaenum}
Migration of such legacy systems offers more flexibility, better understanding of the system, easier maintenance, and reduced costs~\cite{Bisbal1997Migration}.
Brodie and Stonebraker discuss two main strategies to migrate a legacy system \cite{Brodie1995Legacy}.
The first involves rewriting a legacy system from scratch to produce a new system (i.e., \emph{target} system) using modern software techniques and hardware of the target environment. We call it \emph{one-step migration}. Here, the legacy system remains operable until it is completely replaced by the target system.
The second strategy \emph{iterative} and \emph{incremental} migrates a system, in place, by small incremental steps until the desired long-term objective is reached.
The iterative strategy involves incrementally selecting and migrating parts of the legacy system to become new parts of the incrementally constructed target system.
During migration, the legacy system and the target system form a composite system that collectively provides all the functionalities \cite{Brodie1995Darwin}.
Note that those migration approaches can not only be applied in legacy systems but in modernization of systems, for example, on the migration of applications initially written in Java and migrated to a modern Java-virtual machine language such as Scala, Kotlin, or Groovy.
The incremental migration strategy has some advantages over a one-step migration~\cite{Brodie1995Legacy}.
The risk in the incremental is controllable, as it permits developers to control risk, step by step, by choosing the increment size: the smaller the increment, the smaller the risk.
If a step fails, only the failed step must be repeated, not the entire project, as in one step.
Moreover, one-step migration requires vast resources to completely rewrite an application from scratch, while in incremental migration, the required resources depend on the effort needed to execute one step.
However, a challenge in incremental migration is the decomposition of the legacy system into different parts, each of them are independent of the other ones and is migrated in a different migration step~\cite{Brodie1995Darwin}.
Brodie and Stonebraker \cite{Brodie1995Legacy} define different migration strategies, which consist of first decomposing the legacy system structure into different parts, each of those to be incrementally migrated.
In particular, those strategies define steps from incrementally migrating
\begin{inparaenum}[\it a)]
\item interfaces,
\item applications and
\item databases.
\end{inparaenum}
In this paper we focus on the iterative migration of \emph{applications}, which consists of decomposing the source code of an application and deciding the parts of the code to be migrated in a particular step.
In particular, we focus on \emph{language migration}, which consists of the migration of a piece of code written in a language to another language.
Previous strategies, including those of Brodie and Stonebraker~\cite{Brodie1995Legacy}, define steps or rules to guide developers during the migration process of an application.
For example, Google provides a high-level guide to migrate Android applications from Java to Kotlin~\cite{AndroidDevelopers2020a}.
The selection of independent increments to migrate is one of the main challenges of iterative migration~\cite{Brodie1995Darwin}.
Unfortunately, those guidelines and strategies are too high-level because they define a migration plan of coarse-grained parts of the system under migration.
For example, on Android migration defined by Google~\cite{AndroidDevelopers2020a} the migration order is given by the type of code entities: model class, tests, and utility functions.
For that reason, those fail to support developers on a fine-grained decomposition of the system, and thus a migration order of the decomposed parts.
For instance, the Google guide mentioned does not include any strategy to define the migration order of model classes.
The goal of this paper is to propose a novel study on the feasibility of building a migration model capable of supporting developers during incremental migration of an application.
The goal of such a migration model is to suggest to developers the parts of the systems (e.g., files) to be migrated in a particular migration step.
Our intuition is that it is possible to automatically build such a migration model from real migrations carried out by developers in the past.
The learned model captures how developers have migrated applications from a specific domain.
In our words, our goal is to lean a model that mimics the migration activity performed by developers.
To the best of our knowledge, no previous work has proposed a migration model of applications learned from migrations made by developers.
In this paper, we define a novel approach named {{MigrationExp\xspace}}{} to support incremental file-level migrations based on a model learned from previous migrations.
Our approach is based on a \emph{ranking model}, which is trained with the goal of ranking, in a given migration iteration, the files to be migrated in that iteration: the files ranked at the top are those suggested to be migrated.
To validate the approach, we define an instance of our approach, named {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}, to support the migration of Android applications from Java to Kotlin.
Kotlin is a multi-paradigm programming language, fully interoperable with Java, and adopted by Google as the official programming language for Android.
To train {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}, we apply the supervised machine learning technique \emph{learning-to-rank}.
Our model is learned from real migrations from Java to Kotlin written by developers in \numprint{1457} open-source projects.
{The results of this paper show that, on the task of proposing files to migrate, MigrationExp obtains a mean average precision (MAP metric [5]) higher than a strategy that follows Google's guideline [4], when using a ground truth of empirically observed migration orders.}
We consider that the proposed approach is an initial step towards a fully automated recommendation system to support applications' migration.
Our approach can be trained using different training datasets, instead of using migrations from Java to Kotlin extracted from open-source applications.
For example, given a definition of good migration (e.g., causing less compilation and/or execution errors during the migration process), one could create a set of training samples that comply with such definition.
The contributions of this paper are as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item An approach that recommends migrations at the file level from one programming language to another.
\item The materialization of that approach in the context of Java to Kotlin migration
\item A benchmark of projects that performed migrations from Java to Kotlin.
\end{itemize}
The paper continues as follows.
Section \ref{sec:term} explains the terminology used in the paper.
Section \ref{sec:motivation_example} presents a motivating example.
Section \ref{sec:context:kotlin} gives an overview of the Kotlin programming language in the context of Android development.
Section \ref{sec:approach} describes our approach and the instantiation of our approach in the context of Java to Kotlin migration.
Section \ref{sec:methodology} outlines the methodology used to evaluate our approach.
Section \ref{sec:evaluation} reports the evaluation results.
Section \ref{sec:threatsvalidity} presents the threats to validity.
Section \ref{cap6:sec:discussion} discusses the consequences of our results and future work.
Section \ref{sec:relatedwork} presents the related work.
Section \ref{sec:conclusion} concludes the paper.
All data presented in this paper is publicly available in our appendix:
\url{https://github.com/UPHF/MigrationEXP}.
\section{Terminology}
\label{sec:term}
In this section, we present the terminology that we use in this paper in the context of programming language migration.
{\bf{Migration:}} the process of translating software from its \emph{source} programming language to the \emph{target} programming language.
{\bf{Migration step:}} A set of translations of code written in \emph{source} language to \emph{target} language that generates a \emph{new version} of an {operational} software.
{\bf{One-step migration:}} a migration process that \emph{fully} migrates a software application in one migration step
by rewriting a legacy system from scratch to produce the target system.
Therefore, applying this strategy, there is no reuse of any component of the legacy system~\cite{bisbal1997survey}.
In one-step migration, there is no version of the system written in the source and target programming language.
This kind of migration is known as the Big Bang~\cite{bateman1994migration} or the Cold Turkey~\cite{Brodie1995Darwin} migration.
{\bf{Incremental migration:}} a migration process that has more than one migration step.
It involves incrementally selecting and migrating parts of the legacy system to become new parts of the incrementally constructed target system\cite{Brodie1995Darwin}.
During this process, the versions of the operational software may have code written in both the source and target {programming} language.
This kind of migration is known as Chicken Little~\cite{Brodie1995Darwin}.
{\bf{Gateways:}} {during an incremental migration, the legacy and target systems interoperate to form the operational information system.
This interoperability is provided by a module known, in general, as a gateway~\cite{Wu1997ButterflylegacyMigration}, a software module introduced between operational software components to mediate between them~\cite{Brodie1995Darwin}.}
{Gateways can play several roles in migration, insulating certain components from changes being made to others, translating requests and data between components or co-ordinating queries and updates between components~\cite{bisbal1997survey}.}
In some types of migrations, for example, migration of programming languages that are executed on the same platforms (e.g., Java virtual machine -JVM-), gateways are not required, because the language to be migrated (e.g., Java) can directly interact with code written in other JVM languages (e.g., Scala or Kotlin) and vice-versa.
{\bf{Language interoperability:}} the ability of two or more software components to cooperate despite differences in language, interface, and execution platform~\cite{Wegner1996}.
{\bf{File migration:}} the process of migrating a file from the \emph{source} language to the \emph{target} language.
{\bf{Commit with file migration:}} a commit that has one or more \emph{file migrations}.
\section{Motivating example}
\label{sec:motivation_example}
{
The developer named Mahdy wrote an article\footnote{\url{https://vaadin.com/blog/migrating-java-enterprise-apps-to-kotlin}} on the blog of Vaadin framework (a web app development platform for Java\footnote{\url{https://vaadin.com/}}) which discusses the migration of an Android application from Java language to Kotlin, a new programming language promoted by Google for Android development (we focus on it in Section \ref{sec:context:kotlin}).
He chose to migrate \texttt{Beverage Buddy App}, a demonstration application written in Java that uses the Vaadin framework. The app code is publicly available on the Vaadin website\footnote{Vaadin example: \url{https://github.com/vaadin/beverage-starter-flow}}.
The app has 4 main packages:
\begin{inparaenum}[\it 1)]
\item \texttt{backend/},
\item \texttt{ui/common/},
\item \texttt{ui/views/}
and
\item \texttt{ui/encoders}.
\end{inparaenum}
}
{
Mahdy, as other Android developers (e.g., \cite{duolingo_migration2020}), decided to perform an incremental migration (see the definition in Section~\ref{sec:term}), migrating Java files one by one using the autoconverter tools provided by IDEs such as Android Studio and IntelliJ IDEA.
\emph{``What would be the next file to convert?''} Mahdy asked on the blog.
}
{
He started by choosing files from \texttt{ui/common/},
but he found that not all Java files can be converted due to compilation issues related to, for example, \texttt{smart-casts}.
Additionally, selecting Java classes from other packages such as \texttt{ui/views/reviewslist/} and converting them return other different issues, such as repeatable annotations and SAM (Single Abstract Method) conversion.
Fixing all those mentioned issues requires manual effort from developers.
Even worse, after fixing those issues, the project compiles, but fails to run properly, throwing the following exception:
}
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
\begin{lstlisting}[ basicstyle=\tiny]
Caused by: com.vaadin.flow.templatemodel.InvalidTemplateModelException:
Element type '? extends org.vaadin.martin.backend.Review' is not a valid Bean type.
Used in class 'ReviewsModel' with property named 'reviews'
with list type 'java.util.List<? extends org.vaadin.martin.backend.Review>'.
at com.vaadin.flow.templatemodel.BeanModelType.getListModelType(BeanModelType.java:271)
at com.vaadin.flow.templatemodel.BeanModelType.getModelType(BeanModelType.java:177)
\end{lstlisting}
\end{minipage}
{
The developer found that this problem was related to the dependencies between classes:
Surprisingly, he found that if he converts one class (\texttt{Review.java}) before another one (\texttt{Category.java}) the app runs into code errors as that one shown, while converting in the opposite sequence compiles and runs fine.
}
{In this particular example, migrating \texttt{Category.java} before \texttt{Review.java} is better because it allows developers to be more productive, as they do not have to spend time searching, applying and testing workarounds or fixes to avoid compilation or execution issues.}
{
As he wrote in the mentioned blog entry, those errors have been produced due to \emph{``the lack a perfect migration strategy''}.
This paper presents the first attempt to automatically produce an approach capable of helping developers choose the files to be migrated along the incremental migration of apps.
}
\section{Context: Kotlin and Migration of Android Application}
\label{sec:context:kotlin}
In this Section, we first briefly introduce the Kotlin programming language (Section \ref{sec:description_kotlin}).
Then, we present the relation between Android and Kotlin (Section \ref{sec:android_kotlin}) and about migration from Java to Kotlin (Section \ref{sec:context_migrating_kotlin})
Finally, we discuss the challenges of incremental migrations (Section \ref{sec:context_challenges_incremental}).
\subsection{What is Kotlin?}
\label{sec:description_kotlin}
In 2017, Google promoted Kotlin, a programming language that combines functional and object-oriented features, as an official Android language.
Kotlin is compiled to Java byte-code, which means that
it is interoperable with Java, i.e., Kotlin code can invoke code written in Java and vice versa, both running on the same underlying JVM.
\subsection{Kotlin and Android}
\label{sec:android_kotlin}
In 2019, Google declared that Android became `Kotlin-first', which means that new APIs, libraries and documentation will target Kotlin and eventually Java~\cite{AndroidDevelopers2019}.
Since then, Google has advised developers to create new applications using Kotlin instead of Java~\cite{AndroidDevelopers2020b}.
However, thanks to the interoperability between Java and Kotlin, developers of Java-based Android applications do not need to migrate their apps fully to Kotlin, instead they can:
\begin{inparaenum}[i)]
\item add new Kotlin code and maintain the existing Java code, and/or
\item migrating some parts of their apps written in Java code to Kotlin.
\end{inparaenum}
This characteristic makes the adoption of Kotlin easier, and according to Google, in 2020 Kotlin was already used by over 60\% of professional Android developers, and 80\% of the top \numprint{1000} Android apps contain Kotlin code~\cite{AndroidDevelopersBetterApps}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth]{duolingo.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of the number of lines (LOC, axis X) of Java and Kotlin along with the Duolingo application's migration process~\cite{duolingo_migration2020} since 2014 (Axis Y).}
\label{cap6:fig:duo}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Migration of Java App to Kotlin}
\label{sec:context_migrating_kotlin}
The migration of Java to Kotlin has some peculiarities compared to legacy migration.
First, the underlying run-time environment (i.e., the Java virtual machine) or, in case of Android, the Android Runtime -ART- or Dalvik machines
do not need to be updated: Kotlin and Java are both compiled to Java bytecode.
Second, communication between migrated and non-migrated code in legacy migrations (e.g., COBOL to web~\cite{Colosimo2009Evaluatinglegacy}) needs \emph{wrappers} (\cite{Bisbal1997Migration,Colosimo2009Evaluatinglegacy}) or \emph{gateways} (\cite{Brodie1995Legacy, Bisbal1997Migration}).
The interoperability between Java and Kotlin means that wrappers and gateways are not necessary to migrate Java to Kotlin (Section \ref{sec:term}), especially focusing on incremental migration (Section \ref{sec:term}).
Moreover, some popular commercial Android applications also incrementally migrated from Java to Kotlin.
For example, Duolingo, a free science-based language education platform~\cite{duolingo_website}, was completely migrated in 2 years.
Figure~\ref{cap6:fig:duo} shows the evolution of the amount of Java and Kotlin code from Duolingo.
During that period, Java files were progressively migrated to Kotlin, i.e., a commit migrated a subset of Java files, leaving other files in Java.
The \emph{incremental} migration allows developers
to:
\begin{inparaenum}[\it a)]
\item migrate a subset of Java files,
\item exhaustively test the migrated code to verify that the migrated code preserves the expected behavior,
and
\item commit (and eventually release) a new version of their app before continuing with the migration of other files.
\end{inparaenum}
As Duolingo's developers report~\cite{duolingo_migration2020}, incremental migration allowed them to apply strict testing, code review, and code style of each part of the application that was migrated.
We have recently studied 374 open-source Android applications written, partially or totally, in Kotlin \cite{GoisMateus2019}.
We found that 86 applications were completely migrated from Java to Kotlin, and 55 of them (64\%) were incrementally migrated.
Moreover, we found that 214, initially written in Java, have been increasingly migrated, and the migrations have not been finished at the moment of writing this paper.
\subsection{Challenges of incremental migration}
\label{sec:context_challenges_incremental}
As reported by Brodie and Stonebraker~\cite{Brodie1995Legacy}, incremental migration faces several challenges.
This paper focuses on one of them:
given a version of the program to be migrated (composed of not yet migrated code and, eventually, some migrated code), a developer should select a set of files that she/he wants to migrate on that migration step.
This selection could be complex as:
\begin{inparaenum}[\it a)]
\item There could exist several candidate files to migrate, and
\item the wrong selection of the files to be migrated could increase the migration effort due to emerging errors~\cite{AbdelAziz2020MigEnterprise,Nizet2018StoryMigration} or additional modifications to files not affected in the migration step.
\end{inparaenum}
Unfortunately, existing migration guidelines provide high-level advice or guidance. For example, Google only suggests that migrations from Java to Kotlin on Android could start by migrating classes in the following order: class model first, then tests, utility functions, and, finally, other classes~\cite{AndroidDevelopers2020a}.
However, it does not include any guidance to help developers decide, for instance, which subset of model classes could be more convenient to migrate first.
For these reasons, in the next section, we first present a migration recommendation system called~{{MigrationExp\xspace}}{}, and its implementation called~{{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}, which focuses on the migration from Java to Kotlin.
\section{{{MigrationExp\xspace}}: a recommendation system for supporting incremental migrations
}
\label{sec:approach}
\subsection{Vision}
We envision a recommendation system that supports developers during incremental migration of the application $A$.
In each iteration $i$ of the migration of $A$, a portion of $A$ is migrated, while the rest is eventually migrated in future iterations.
Thus, the input of the system is $A$, conformed to parts that have not migrated and, eventually, already migrated parts.
The output of the system in $i$ is a list $L$ of \emph{parts} from $A$ that the system recommends to migrate in that iteration $i$.
The granularity of the recommendations, i.e., the part of the application that the approach recommends, could vary according to the implementation: it could be a file, a package, a module, a subsystem, etc.
We envision such a system that
\begin{inparaenum}[\it a)]
\item bases its decision exclusively on migrations previously done by developers from other migrated projects, and
\item does not require any manually encoded migration rule.
This is a major difference from other recommendation systems based on encoded expertise~\cite{Jackson1986IntroductionTE}.
\end{inparaenum}
Given a set of migrations as training data, our system automatically learns a model used to recommend future migrations.
Each migration sample from the training data can be, for example, two versions of one application: one before the migration of one or more parts of the application, and the other the version which introduces the migration of those parts.
We materialize our vision in an approach named {{MigrationExp\xspace}}{}, which focuses on programming language migration, i.e. projects that are migrated from a source language to a target language.
This section follows with a description of our approach.
\subsection{Architecture}
Our approach consists of two phases, as Figure~\ref{fig:app:overview} illustrates:
\begin{inparaenum}[\it a)]
\item the development phase, and
\item the serving phase.
\end{inparaenum}
In the development phase, our approach learns a model from migrations from language $lang_1$ (e.g.,~Java) to $lang_2$ (e.g.,~Kotlin) written by, for instance, developers in open source projects.
Then, in the serving phase, given a project $P$ as input, the model generated in the development phase is used to recommend file-level migrations: The model produces a list of candidate files to be migrated.
Now, we give a summary of both phases of our approach.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{methodology.png}
\caption{We apply two phases: \emph{development}, where we learn a ranking model, and \emph{serving} phase, where we use the model in production.}
\label{fig:app:overview}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Development phase}
\label{cap6:sec:design:approach:dev}
{{MigrationExp\xspace}}{} relies on a learned model that encodes the migration performed by the developers.
In particular, we build a \emph{ranking model}, whose goal is to rank files not already migrated.
To train the model, we use a \emph{learning-to-rank} algorithm \cite{Liu2009}, which belongs to the family of supervised machine learning algorithms.
Our intuition is that we can build a ranking model that is able to capture the knowledge from developers to decide which file(s) migrates first given an app to be migrated.
A simplified illustrative example: if we train a model with projects in which developers have first migrated short files (expressed in SLOC), then our ranking model, given as input an app $Am$ to be incrementally migrated, will propose first to migrate the shortest files from $Am$.
Each training point (an \emph{example}) used to train the model represents a migration done by a developer.
In our approach, each example is described by a \emph{vector} of measurements (or \emph{features}) and a label that denotes the category or class to which the example belongs~\cite{Hall1998}.
To create the training set used for training our ranking model, we extract data from projects that have been \emph{iteratively} migrated from one programming language to another (i.e., migrated in several commits).
In particular, for each commit $C$ of these projects,
we first create a vector of features that represents each of those files.
The vector is composed of metrics extracted from those files.
Then, we put a \emph{label} on the vector: \emph{migrated} if the file represented by the vector was migrated by commit $C$, or \emph{not migrated}, otherwise.
These vectors are the training data used by our approach to learning a model.
Note that the labels are used by the learning-to-rank algorithm to learn the relation between migrated files and their features.
Finally, once the model is trained, it is then deployed and ready to be used in the serving phase.
\subsubsection{Serving phase}
\label{sec:serving}
In the serving phase, our approach {{MigrationExp\xspace}}{} takes as input a program $P$, written partially or completely using $lang_1$, which the developers aim to migrate to $lang_2$.
As done in the development phase, our approach extracts features from the project's files, i.e., candidate files to migrate, and creates for each file one vector of features, as done during the development phase.
These vectors are given as input to our model.
Finally, using this information, the model learned in the development phase ranks the project's files according to their relevance and returns the list of recommended files to be migrated.
Let us show a simple example to describe this phase.
The approach takes as input a project composed of 5 files where 4 files ($A.lang_1$, $B.lang_1$, $C.lang_1$ and $E.lang_1$) could be migrated, and one $D.lang_2$ already migrated.
The learned rank model ranks the four not yet migrated files based on the experience of developers by migrating similar files (i.e., similar vector features).
In this example, the developer could start migrating the files at the top of the recommendation, e.g., $E.lang_1$, then testing the migrated app, committing the changes, and generating a new version to publish.
Those activities form one step in the incremental migration process.
Note that in migrations that involve fully interoperable languages (e.g., Java and Kotlin) the migrated files (e.g., $D.lang_2$) could continue interacting with the not migrated (e.g., $B.lang_1$).
In case of working with non-interoperable languages, it would be necessary to build \emph{gateways} that interconnect the code written in those languages, as proposed by~\cite{Brodie1995Legacy}.
\subsection{{{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}: Supporting Migration from Java to Kotlin.}
\label{sec:approachJtK}
The approach {{MigrationExp\xspace}}{} previously described is language independent.
In this section, we present an instantiation of the approach in the context of migrations of Java to Kotlin.
This instance aims to help Android developers migrate from Java to Kotlin.
\subsubsection{Overview of {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}}
{{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} works at the level of files: it recommends Java files that can be manually or automatically (e.g., using a conversion tool provided by the IDE) migrated to Kotlin.
Given an application that should be iteratively migrated to Kotlin, our approach generates a rank with all candidate Java files to be migrated, where the top files are the recommendations to be migrated first, for instance, in the current migration iteration.
To create such an approach, we created a ranking model using a \emph{learning-to-rank} algorithm, which solves a ranking problem by sorting objects according to their degrees of relevance, preference, or importance~\cite{Liu2009}.
In the remainder of this section, we first present how we use the information extracted from projects with file migration from Java to Kotlin to collect the data needed to build our ranking model (Section~\ref{cap6:sec:ranking:traning}).
Then, in Section~\ref{sec:representation}, we explain how we transform this data according to the representation used by learning-to-rank.
Finally, in Section~\ref{cap6:sec:design:features}, we describe the list of features extracted during the feature extraction process.
\subsubsection{Learning process for Java to Kotlin migration model}
\label{cap6:sec:ranking:traning}
In this work, we automatically create a ranking model by feeding it with information from real migrations done by developers.
To this end, we use a learning-to-rank algorithm.
In learning-to-rank, the training data consists of queries and documents where each \emph{query} is associated with a set of \emph{documents}.
The relevance of documents concerning the query is represented by a label~\cite{li2011short}.
In our context, each commit with at least one file migration from the training dataset becomes a \emph{query}.
A document associated with a query (and transitively to a commit $C$) corresponds to a file $f$, which belongs to the commit $C$.
Each query's documents are labeled with $1$ if the document (file) was migrated in the commit associated with the query. Otherwise, a document is labeled with $0$.
To illustrate how we transform the information extracted from commits with migration in our training data set, imagine an application with three Java files ($File_1.java$, $File_2.java$, $File_3.java$).
Consider a commit that performs these actions: \begin{inparaenum}[\it i)]
\item removes ``$File_1.java$'',
\item updates ``$File_2.java$'', and
\item adds ``$File_1.kt$''.
\end{inparaenum}
This commit has a file migration ($File_1.java$ was migrated from Java to Kotlin).
Consequently, we label these documents as follows: $File_1.java$ as migrated (i.e., $1$), $File_2.java$, $File_3.java$ as not migrated (i.e., $0$).
From that information, we create a \emph{query}.
To prepare the data used to train the model,
we create one query per commit that migrated code from our training set.
Finally, the set of queries is the input of the training process of the ranking model, which generates a learned ranking model as the output.
\subsubsection{Using Java to Kotlin migration model to support migration}
\label{cap6:sec:ranking:serving}
The learned ranking model is used in the serving phase (Section \ref{sec:serving}) to recommend migrations.
In that phase, the input is a query composed of files (documents) that belong to the application to be migrated.
In fact, to obtain a recommendation, we create a query composed of those documents.
Note that those documents are not labeled.
Then, giving a query as input, the model outputs, for each document, a \emph{Predicted relevance} value.
By sorting these documents according to their values, from the most relevant to the least relevant,
we obtain the ranking of recommendations, where the documents in the first positions are the ones to be prioritized during the migration.
\subsubsection{Representing documents and queries}
\label{sec:representation}
We now focus on the representation of files from a commit as documents belonging to a query.
Each file in a commit is represented by a \emph{vector} of features.
Consequently, a query is a set of vectors.
The process of learning the model receives as input queries with labeled documents, and has as goal to learn \emph{relations} between the features that represent the files and the corresponding labels (two in this paper: 1 for migrated and 0 for no migrated).
In the serving phase, we create a \emph{vector} for each file of the application to be migrated.
We create a query composed of a set of vectors, which is the input of the model. The model then ranks each vector (file) according to its label and features' value.
\subsubsection{Feature extraction for Java and Android apps}
\label{cap6:sec:design:features}
We extract features that represent and characterize the code that:
\begin{inparaenum}[\it a) ]
\item was already migrated, and
\item is under migration (i.e., not yet migrated).
\end{inparaenum}
The feature extraction phase receives as input a set of files, and we generate for each of them a vector of features. Then, those vectors are given as input to {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}.
Each feature is created from a particular metric extracted from the source code files.
In total, we used 56 metrics that are listed in Table~\ref{tab:metrics}
First, we use 44 \emph{source code metrics} that have been defined and used in previous experiments related, for example, to the assessment of the overall quality of the software~(e.g., \cite{Eski2011,Peng2015,aniche2020effectiveness}). Table \ref{tab:metrics} shows them.
These metrics are grouped into different categories such as inheritance, communication, complexity and readability.
They include the object-oriented metrics proposed by Chidamber and Kemerer~\cite{Chidamber1994}, such as Weighted Methods per Class (WMC),
readability metrics such as the number of loops and the number of comparisons proposed by Buse et al.~\cite{Buse2010} and Salabrino et al.~\cite{Scalabrino2017} and
other source code metrics such as the number of Sources Line Of Code (SLOC).
Second, we define 12 \emph{Android metrics} to capture the exclusive characteristics of the Android applications, which are presented in Table \ref{tab:Androidmetrics}
\begin{table}
\caption{List of Android metrics.}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{s b}
\toprule
\textbf{Metric} & \textbf{Description} \\
\midrule
\textit{isActivity}& a binary feature that informs whether a class extends the Activity class from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{isView}& a binary feature that informs whether a class extends the View class from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{isBroadcastReceiver}& a binary feature that informs whether a class extends the BroadcastReceiver class from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{isService}& a binary feature that informs whether a class extends the Service class from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{isContentProvider}& a binary feature that informs whether a class extends the ContentProvider class from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{isFragment}& a binary feature that informs whether a class extends the Fragment class from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{isBuildingBlock}& a binary feature that informs whether a class extends one of the essential building blocks (Activity, Service, BrodcastReceiver and ContentProvider) of an Android application.\\
\hline
\textit{isInAndroidHierarchy}& a binary feature that informs whether a class extends any class from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{Number of parameters coupled}& The number of methods parameters whose type is an object from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{Number of return coupled}& The number of methods whose return type is an object from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{Number of methods coupled}& The number of methods whose at least one parameter or return type is an object from the Android API.\\
\hline
\textit{hasAndroidCoupling}& a binary feature that informs whether a class has at least one method coupled.\\
\hline
\end{tabularx}
\label{tab:Androidmetrics}
\end{table}
We recall that the extracted features describe the source code under migration.
Then, from that data, we train a model that \emph{automatically}
\begin{inparaenum}[\it a)]
\item captures how the code under migration (represented by features) looks like, and
\item learns the relation between migrated and non-migrated code through the extracted features.
\end{inparaenum}
\begin{table}
\caption{List of collected features grouped by category.}
\begin{tabular}{l l}
\toprule
\textbf{Category} & \textbf{Metric name} \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Size} & Source Lines Of Code (SLOC),\\
& Number of methods, Number of fields \\\midrule
Complexity & Weight Method Class (WMC), Max nested blocks \\\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Coupling} & Coupling between objects (CBO),\\
& Response for a Class (RFC) \\\midrule
Encapsulation & Number of public fields, Number of public methods \\\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{Cohesion} & Lack of Cohesion of Methods (LCOM), \\
& Tight class cohesion (TCC),\\
& Loose Class Cohesion (LCC) \\\midrule
Inheritance & Depth Inheritance Tree (DIT) \\\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{Readability} & Number of unique words, Number of loops,\\
& Number of assignments,\\
& Number of comparisons, Number of string literals,\\
& Number of math operations, Quantity of numbers \\\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{Android} & isActivity, isView, isBroadcastReceiver,\\
& isService, isContentProvider, isFragment,\\
& isBuildingBlock, isInAndroidHierarchy,\\
& hasAndroidCoupling, Number of methods coupled,\\
& Number of parameters coupled,\\
& Number of returns coupled \\\midrule
\multirow{14}{*}{Java-specific} & Number of default fields, Number of default methods,\\
& Number of final fields, Number of final methods,\\
& Number of static fields, Number of static methods,\\
& Number of private fields, Number of private methods,\\
& Number of protected fields, {isPOJO}\\
& Number of protected methods,\\
& Number of abstract methods,\\
& Number of anonymous classes,\\
& Number of inner classes, Number of lambdas,\\
& Number of static invocation (NOSI), \\
& Number of synchronized fields,\\
& Number of synchronized methods,\\
& Number of parenthesized expressions,\\
& Number of returns, Number of try catches,\\
& Number of log statements, Number of variables \\\midrule
{Testing} & {isTest} \\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:metrics}
\end{table}
\section{Methodology}
\label{sec:methodology}
This paper aims to evaluate the feasibility of using {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} to help developers iteratively migrate Android applications.
The following research questions guide our study:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{RQ: To what extent a ranking model learned from migrations done in real projects precisely recommends files to be migrated?}
\end{itemize}
In this section, we present the methodology applied to answer this research question.
First, we present the method applied to collect open source applications that have performed migration of files from Java to Kotlin (Section~\ref{sec:met:data}).
Then, we describe how we learn a model from information about migrations performed by developers in these projects (Section~\ref{sec:met:training}).
Finally, in Section~\ref{cap6:sec:ranking:evaluation}, we explain how we evaluated the learned model.
\subsection{Data acquisition for training and evaluation}
\label{sec:met:data}
To train and evaluate {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}, we need projects that have been migrated from Java to Kotlin.
For that, we created two datasets with Java to Kotlin migrations.
First, we collected migrations from an existing dataset of open-source applications written, partially or totally, in Kotlin, published on apps stores such as F-droid and Google Play.
With this dataset, namely $Android_{j2k}$, we aim to train the model with the goal of capturing how Android developers migrate applications from Java to Kotlin.
Nevertheless, the model could be enriched with migrations from Java to Kotlin done in other types of projects (non-Android project).
For that reason, we collected additional migrated open-source applications hosted on GitHub. We call this dataset $GitHub_{j2k}$.
The usage of these two datasets allowed us to evaluate our model \emph{in the wild}, which is different from \emph{in the lab} (i.e., using one dataset to train and test our model applying 10-fold cross-validation), because it does not assume that 90\% of the domain knowledge is known beforehand~\cite{Allix2016}.
To build those datasets, we followed three steps:
\begin{inparaenum}[\it 1)]
\item identification of open source projects that use Kotlin,
\item filtering projects that have Java code at any version, i.e., commits,
and \item filtering projects that have migrated files from Java to Kotlin.
\end{inparaenum}
\textbf{Step 1. Identification of open source projects written in Kotlin.}
To build our dataset of Android applications with migrations, we extracted the FAMAZOA v3 repositories~\cite{FAMAZOA}.
FAMAZOA is a dataset of open source applications written in Kotlin, and it contains 387 applications written partially or totally in Kotlin collected from 3 datasets of open source Android applications: AndroidTimeMachine~\cite{Geiger2018:data}, AndroZoo~\cite{Allix2016} and F-Droid.\footnote{F-droid (repository of open-source Android applications): \url{http://f-droid.org}}
Then, in order to create $GitHub_{j2k}$, we searched on GitHub for repositories written in Kotlin.
Our search was performed on the publicly-available GitHub mirror available on Google BigQuery~\cite{hoffa_2016}.
This mirror offers a full snapshot of the content of more than 2.8 million open source repositories and almost 2 billion files.
Moreover, it provides information about the use of programming languages in the last commit of each repository.
Therefore, we performed a query looking for projects that have Kotlin.
As a result, it returned \numprint{7119} repositories. 170 of them were already included in FAMAZOA, so we discarded them.
\textbf{Step 2. Identification of projects that used Java at its life-cycle.}
The previous step is necessary to identify projects that have Kotlin.
However, we needed to filter projects that contain Java as well, since this is a requirement to have migrations.
For that reason, we selected all projects with at least one commit with Java (i.e., a commit that introduces Java code).
At the end of this procedure, we identified \numprint{5126} repositories from GitHub and 270 from FAMAZOA.
\textbf{Step 3. Identification of file migration.}
In order to find real cases of migrations, we navigated through all commits from the repositories identified in step 2.
Then, we applied the following procedure: consider that a repository is a set of versions (commits) $C_r = \{c_i, c_{i+1}, ..., c_n\}$ where $i$ determines the commit number, i.e., $c_1$ is the first commit and $c_n$ is the last commit.
Then, to find migrated files, we compared consecutive commits, $c_i, c_{i+1}$ to extract a pair of files, $f_i, f_{i+1}$, which should respect the following conditions:
\begin{inparaenum}[i)]
\item $f_i$ is a Java file from $c_i$ and was removed in $c_{i+1}$,
\item $f_{i+1}$ is a Kotlin file added in $c_{i+1}$, and
\item $f_i$ and $f_{i+1}$ share the same filename ignoring the file extension (.java, .kt).
\end{inparaenum}
As Table~\ref{cap6:tab:datasets} shows, from GitHub projects, we identified \numprint{7275} commits with \numprint{27375} migrated files from \numprint{1179} projects.
These commits form the $GitHub_{j2k}$ dataset.
From FAMAZOA, we found \numprint{3118} commits with migrations that migrated \numprint{8754} files from 266 projects.
These commits form the $Android_{j2k}$ dataset.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Results of the data extraction.}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Dataset}} & \textbf{\#Projects }&\textbf{\#Commits} & {\textbf{Migrated files in commits }} \\
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{with migrations}}&\\
\midrule
$GitHub_{j2k}$ & \numprint{1179} & \numprint{7275} & \numprint{27375}\\
$Android_{j2k}$ & 266& \numprint{3118} & \numprint{8754} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{cap6:tab:datasets}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.66\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{distributionFilesAndroid.pdf}
\caption{Number of files}
\label{fig:distNrFilesAndroid}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.66\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{distributionLOCAndroid.pdf}
\caption{LOC}
\label{fig:distLOCAndroid}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.66\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{distributionNrCommitsAndroid.pdf}
\caption{Number of commits}
\label{fig:distNrCommitsAndroid}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Number files, LOC and commits from $Android_{j2k}$'s project.}
\label{fig:distibutionFilesCommits}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Statistics about selected projects}
We now discuss some statistics about the selected projects.
We report the results from the $Android_{j2k}$ dataset, as we have observed similar results from the analysis of the $GitHub_{j2k}$ dataset (e.g., similar distributions).
Figure \ref{fig:distNrFilesAndroid} shows the distribution of the number of files.
It corresponds to a long-tailed distribution: most of the projects have fewer than 500 files (median 139, mean 243).
The distribution of lines of code (LOC) presented in Figure \ref{fig:distLOCAndroid} also follows the long tail distribution: most of the projects have less than 25k LOC (median 7937, mean 18235), and few projects with a much larger size in terms of LOC.
Finally, Figure \ref{fig:distNrCommitsAndroid} shows the distribution of number of commits: Most of the project has fewer than 1000 commits (median 308, mean 694).
Regarding the commits, we also inspected the distribution of the migrated files (according to the heuristic presented in Section~\ref{sec:met:data}) over the commits that carry out, at least, one migration.
Figure~\ref{fig:distMigFilesCommit} shows the distribution: we observe that most of the commits migrate exactly one file, or very few files (less than 5).
This shows that developers of the analyzed apps do incremental migrations: they migrate one file and then commit the migrated code.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.80\textwidth]{allFilesMigPerCommitFamazoa.pdf}
\caption{Distribution of number of files migrated by migration commits from $Android_{j2k}$ projects. }
\label{fig:distMigFilesCommit}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Feature extraction}
\label{sec:features_extraction}
{{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} relies on {56} metrics extracted from the source code of open-source projects with file migrations from Java to Kotlin.
To extract 12 exclusive Android metrics, we built a static analysis tool using Spoon~\cite{spoon}.
The remaining 44 source code metrics are extracted using CK~\cite{aniche-ck}, which also applies static analysis to calculate the code metrics.
To extract these metrics from the files of each commit with migration, we created a tool that takes as input
\begin{inparaenum}[\it a)]
\item a Git repository and
\item the list of commits with migration.
\end{inparaenum}
This tool relies on jGit, a pure Java library that implements the Git version control system.\footnote{jGit: \url{https://www.eclipse.org/jgit/}}
The tool clones the software repository, then navigates through all commits.
Let $C_r = \{c_1, c_2, ..., c_n\}$ be the set of commits with migrations of a given repository.
$\forall c, c \in C$ the tool checks out the source code, then extracts the metrics by calling CK~\cite{aniche-ck} and our Android features detector.
When a repository is analyzed, our tool generates a JSON file which has, for each commit, the values for features extracted grouped by file affected by the commit.
\subsection{{{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} training}
\label{sec:met:training}
The model used by {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} was trained using a learning-to-rank algorithm.
The existing learning-to-rank algorithms are categorized into three approaches: pointwise, pairwise, and listwise~\cite{Liu2009}.
In the pointwise approach, the input is a single document.
Consequently, it does not consider the inter-dependency among documents~\cite{Liu2009}.
On the other hand, pairwise and listwise algorithms consider the inter-dependency among documents.
In the pairwise approach, the ranking problem is reduced to a classification problem on document pairs, whereas the listwise approach addresses the ranking problem by taking ranking lists as instances in both learning and prediction~\cite{li2011short}.
In the context of incremental migration that we target in this paper,
we hypothesize that the decision to migrate or not one file is made considering a project's context and not a file individually.
For instance, in a migration step $S$ given by commit $C$, a developer chooses a set of files $FM$ (one or more) to be migrated over other files $NFM$ that are not migrated in that step.
Thus, to capture that decision between files to migrate, we decide to use the \emph{pairwise} approach.
During model training, that approach considers that, in the query associated with commit $C$, file $f_i$ from $FM$ was ranked higher than a file $f_j$ from $NFM$.
We trained our model using LambdaMART~\cite{burges2010}, an algorithm developed by Microsoft that applies the pairwise approach and has been shown to be among the best performing learning methods based on evaluations on public datasets~\cite{Ganjisaffar2011}.
We used the LambdaMART implementation provided by XGBoost, a scalable machine learning system for tree boosting proposed by Chen et al.~\cite{Chen2016XGboost}.\footnote{This implementation can also perform listwise ranking. However, as shown in our appendix, its pairwise version outperforms its listwise version.}
Given a query done on XGBoost, this tool outputs as \emph{predicted relevance} values (see Section \ref{cap6:sec:ranking:serving}) a float number per document, where a higher value means higher relevant.
The model was trained with the information extracted from \numprint{7275} commits with at least one file migration from the $GitHub_{j2k}$ dataset.
These commits have \numprint{1495734} files where \numprint{27375} were migrated, as Table~\ref{cap6:tab:datasets} shows.
\subsection{{{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} evaluation}
\label{cap6:sec:ranking:evaluation}
This section presents an evaluation of the performance of the trained model.
For that, we used $Android_{j2k}$ (see Section \ref{sec:met:data}) as the testing dataset.
The performance of {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} was compared to that one from those baselines, which we present in Section \ref{sec:methodology:baselines} using the metrics presented in Section \ref{sec:methodology:metrics}.
\subsubsection{Baselines}
\label{sec:methodology:baselines}
To our knowledge, there was no baseline on code recommendation migration that we can take to compare our approach.
For this reason, we created two baselines.
First, we defined a \emph{Random} baseline, which is implemented by a recommendation approach that randomly recommends files to migrate.
Although it is not a realistic strategy, we included it in this experiment to prove that our approach surpasses random choices.
Second, we defined a baseline named \emph{{{Google's guideline\xspace}}{}} based on Google's guideline for migrating Android apps to Kotlin~\cite{AndroidDevelopers2020a}.
This guideline suggests migrating first data model classes, then test classes, followed by utility methods, and finally other classes such as fragments and activities.
To create a baseline based on Google's guideline,
we implemented a recommendation approach with the same interface that {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}: given a project $P$, it produces a list of candidate files to migrate.
The implementation generates that list based on the features extracted from the project's files (see Section \ref{cap6:sec:design:features}).
It considers feature \textit{isPOJO} to identify data models and the feature \textit{isTest} to find test files.
Moreover, it classifies a file as a \emph{utility} file when it only has static methods, i.e., the number of methods $> 0$ and the number of methods equal the number of static methods.
\subsubsection{Metrics}
\label{sec:methodology:metrics}
To evaluate the performance of {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} and the baselines,
we computed the Mean Average Precision at K ($MAP@k$)~\cite{baeza1999modern}.
We now describe how we compute the $MAP$ metric.
Each \emph{data point} from the testing set corresponds to a commit $C_i$ that migrated some pieces of code $M$ from Java to Kotlin.
Therefore, in the version produced by the previous commit $C_{i-1}$, $M$ is written in Java and in the version produced by $C_i$ $M$ is written in Kotlin.
We used the $MAP$ metric to evaluate the precision of the recommendations made by {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} and the baselines for each data point.
We first created a query $Q$ (explained in Section \ref{sec:representation}) for each data point $D_i$, corresponding to commit $C_i$.
This query represents the project's files from the version \emph{previous} to the migration done by $C_i$.
Then, we queried {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} given $Q$ as input, which returns a list of suggested files to migrate.
To measure the precision of the suggestion given $Q$,
we calculated the metric $AP_Q@K$.
It compares the top-K results from that returned list with
the real migration that a developer has made in commit $C_i$.
The files migrated by $C_i$ are the \emph{relevant} documents.
(We recall that a document represents a file from the project under migration, see Section \ref{cap6:sec:ranking:traning}).
$AP_Q@K$ is given by Eq.~\ref{formula:ap}:
\begin{equation}
\label{formula:ap}
AP_Q@K = \frac{1}{\text{TR}} * \sum_{j=1}^{k}{{Precision}@j \; * \; rel@K}
\end{equation}
where TR refers to the total number of relevant documents retrieved, $Precision@K$ is given in Eq.~\ref{formula:prec} and $rel@K$ is given in Eq.~\ref{formula:rel}. The notation $@k$ means, in this context, the first $k$ elements from a list.
\begin{equation}
\small
\label{formula:prec}
{Precision}@n = \frac{\text{\# of recommended documents @$n$ that are relevant}}{\text{\# of recommended documents @$n$}}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{formula:rel}
rel@K = \begin{cases}
1 & \text{the document at rank K is relevant}\\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Finally, the $MAP@K$ of a recommendation system is the mean of the $AP_i@K$ from all queries done (one query per training point):
\begin{equation}
\text{MAP@K} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N}{AP{_i}@K}
\end{equation}
where N is the number of training points (i.e., number of queries done).
$MAP@K$ ranges from 0 to 1.
A perfect ranking result in $MAP@k$ equals 1.
In this experiment, since the median number of files migrated per commit is 1, we consider $k$ to be ranging from 1 to 10.
We computed our approach's performance improvement by comparing {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}'s $MAP@K$ performance with that of a baseline approach $B$ using the formula:
\begin{equation}
Improvement = \frac{\text{MAP@K$_{{{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}}$} - \text{MAP@K$_B$}}{\text{MAP@K$_B$}}
\end{equation}
In this experiment, we report the improvement of {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} w.r.t the best baseline between Random and Google recommendation strategies.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:evaluation}
\begin{sidewaystable}
\centering
\caption{Mean Average Precision (MAP) at \textit{K} of a random, {{Google's guideline\xspace}}{} and {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} and strategy.}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Suggestion strategy} & \multicolumn{9}{c}{Mean Average Precison (MAP) at \textit{K}} \\
\cmidrule{2-12}
& \textit{k}: & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10\\
\midrule
{Random} && 0.188 & 0.238 & 0.251 & 0.262 & 0.268 & 0.271 & 0.274 & 0.276 & 0.278 & 0.278\\
{{Google's guideline\xspace}}{} && 0.108 & 0.157 & 0.173 & 0.184 & 0.190 & 0.195 & 0.198 & 0.200 & 0.201 & 0.202 \\
{{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} && 0.225 & 0.262 & 0.280 & 0.289 & 0.293 & 0.297 & 0.301 & 0.305 & 0.306 & 0.308 \\
\hdashline
Improvement vs Random && 19.7\% & 10.1\% & 11.6\% & 10.3\% & 9.3\% & 9.6\% & 9.9\% & 10.5\% & 10.1\% & 10.8\% \\
Improvement vs {{Google's guideline\xspace}}{} &&108.3\% & 66.9\% & 61.8\% & 57.1\% & 54.2\% & 52.3\% & 52.0\% & 52.5\% & 52.2\% & 52.5\% \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{cap6:tab:ranking_result}
\end{sidewaystable}
\subsection*{RQ: To what extent a ranking model learned from migrations done in real projects precisely recommends files to be migrated?}
This section presents the results of the evaluation of a random approach and the {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} applied to rank file-level migrations.
Table~\ref{cap6:tab:ranking_result} summarizes our results.
First, the $MAP$ values go from 0.225 to 0.308.
We recall that a system that perfectly suggests the files to migrate would have a MAP equals (or close) to~1.
Although the results show that there is a large room for improvement, we consider that this result is important to settle the first baseline on Java to Kotlin migration.
In Section \ref{cap6:sec:discussion} we discuss different directions for improving our results.
Second, our results show that when \textit{k} increases, $MAP$ values also increase.
This makes sense since a greater \textit{k} means that the evaluation considers more files from the suggestion list. Thus, the probability of finding a relevant document (a file that was actually migrated) also increases.
The table shows that {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} outperforms both baselines.
{{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} presents an improvement w.r.t. random of around 10\% $\forall k \in [2, 10]$, and the largest improvement (19.7\%) for \textit{k}=1.
Moreover, {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} presents an improvement higher that 50\%, $\forall k \in [2, 10]$, reaching an improvement of 108\% for \textit{k}=1.
The low performance of {{Google's guideline\xspace}}{} may suggest that the developers that migrated code in the applications we considered did not apply the suggestion from Google's guideline on migration~\cite{AndroidDevelopers2020a}.
As we mention in Section \ref{cap6:sec:discussion}, more research is needed on measuring the adoption of Google's guideline and the definition of new guidelines from previous migrations to understand how developers migrate Java to Kotlin code.
\begin{tcolorbox}
\textbf{Response to RQ:}~\textit{To what extent a ranking model learned from migrations done in real projects precisely recommends files to be migrated?}
The results show that our learning-to-rank approach {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} has mean average precision (MAP) between 0.225 and 0.308, and surpasses the performance from two baselines: Random strategy and strategy based on {{Google's guideline\xspace}}{}.
Nevertheless, these results suggest that there is still room for improvement, as the performance is below the ideal prediction performance (that is, MAP $ \simeq 1$).
\end{tcolorbox}
We now present an example that shows how {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} has done the prediction and how we evaluate it.
\paragraph{Example}
In this example, we focus on the suggestion made by {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} during the iterative migration of `Simple Calendar Pro' application\footnote{Simple Calendar App at Google Play store: \url{https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplemobiletools.calendar.pro}} from Java to Kotlin.
Simple Calendar Pro is an application published on Google Store that has more than \numprint{100000} downloads and its source code is hosted on
GitHub.\footnote{Simple Calendar App at Github: \url{https://github.com/SimpleMobileTools/Simple-Calendar/}}
This application was initially written in Java, but was fully migrated to Kotlin in two months.
Starting in commit $09ef99$, their developers performed an incremental migration that was completed in commit $eee184$, after 202 commits.
Figure~\ref{fig:case1} shows the number of Java and Kotlin files on each commit from the app along the incremental migration.
\begin{figure}[t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{case1_evolution.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of the numbers of files written in Java and Kotlin along the incremental migration of Simple Calendar Pro application.
}
\label{fig:case1}
\end{figure}
We apply {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} on a version of Simple Calendar Pro, identified by commit {$2d1c59$}.
In this version, Simple Calendar has {38} Kotlin files (most of them already migrated by previous commits) and {6} Java files, i.e., {6} candidate files to be migrated.
Table \ref{tab:case_1} presents those Java files.
Given that version of Simple Calendar, our approach generates a \emph{predicted relevance value} (described in Section \ref{cap6:sec:ranking:serving}) for each file. Those are also presented in Table \ref{tab:case_1}.
Then, it creates a ranked list of these {6} files considering these values.
Therefore, according to {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}, {\texttt{AboutActivity.java}} should be the first migrated because it has the highest \emph{predicted relevance value} {(0.96)}, followed by {\texttt{MyWidgetProvider.java} (0.58)}, etc.
Now, we compare this suggestion from {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} with the real migration done by the developer on that particular version of Simple Calendar.
The developers migrated only one file, {\texttt{AboutActivity.java}}, and that change produced a new version {(commit $59b020$)} of their application.
In this case, the file in the first position of the list of recommendations made by {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} was exactly the same file migrated by the developers, resulting in a MAP@1 equal to 1.
Note that the migration case done by the developer does not follow Google's migration guideline \cite{AndroidDevelopers2020a}, which prioritizes to migrate, for instance, utility classes (\texttt{Utils.java} in this case) over `Activity' files (such as \texttt{AboutActivity.java}).
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Comparison between the migration performed by developers (relevant documents are those from migrated files) and the recommendation made by {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} (Predicted Ranking), when Simple Calendar Pro applications at version $2d1c59$ is given as input.
We recall that for \emph{Predicted relevance} values, higher is better.}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c}
\toprule
Candidate & Predicted & Relevant& Predicted \\
files & relevance & Document & Ranking \\
\midrule
AboutActivity.java & 0.96 & Yes & 1\\
MyWidgetProvider.java & 0.58 & -& 2\\
WidgetConfigureActivity.java & 0.42 & - & 3\\
Utils.java & 0.32 & - & 4\\
LicenseActivity.java & 0.27 & - & 5\\
Constants.java & -0.24 & - & 6\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:case_1}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Feature Importance}
Figure \ref{fig:model_gain}
shows the importance of the features computed by the XGBoost tool (we recall that it is the tool we use to create the model), as it provides a built-in module to calculate the importance.
The importance provides a score that indicates how useful or valuable each feature was in the construction of the model.
We report the default type of importance: ``gain''. A higher value of this metric compared to another feature implies that it is more important for generating a prediction.
We observe that the most important feature is $isView$, followed by $isBroadcastReceived$ and $isService$.
This means that our model is mostly influenced by the type of class (isView, isService, isBroadcast) that is under analysis.
\begin{figure}[t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{model_training_feature_gain.png}
\caption{The most important features reported by XGBoost, computed using the 'Gain' importance.
}
\label{fig:model_gain}
\end{figure}
\section{Threats to validity}
\label{sec:threatsvalidity}
In this section, we discuss the threats that could affect the validity of our results.
\subsection{Construct validity}
Threats to construct validity concern the relation between theory and observation.
\paragraph{Quality of migration suggestion}
In this paper, we present an approach that suggests migration based on a model learned from previous human-written migrations.
However, there is no guarantee that the migrations done by developers used for training and the migrations proposed by our approach correspond to the best migration order.
For determining such cases, it is necessary to first define what is a good migration order, and then to check whether a migration step is then good or not, or there are other better orders.
To our knowledge, no previous work has proposed such a definition or measured the quality of a migration order.
\paragraph{Learning from migrations in open source projects}
To create an accurate machine learning model, a large amount of data is essential.
Due to the absence of a benchmark dataset of file migration from Java to Kotlin, we mined open source projects from GitHub and FAMAZOA.
We used this information to train and evaluate our model.
However, there is a risk that open-source projects and not open-source projects might be migrated differently.
Thus, the learned model would not adequately characterize the migration activity of those projects.
\paragraph{Automated evaluation}
To have an automated evaluation process of {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}, we consider examples of file-level migrations from open source projects as ground truth.
However, we do not consider the motivation behind these migrations because we cannot automatically retrieve this information from the project repositories.
Consequently, our approach may suggest file-level migrations that do not reflect the decision taken by developers.
Nevertheless, we affirm that this first study aimed to explore whether learning-to-rank can model the problem of recommending file-level migrations.
\paragraph{Feature selection}
The choice of the feature set used to train our learning-to-rank model directly impacts its results, depending on whether these features discriminate adequately, files migrated and non-migrated.
However, to the best of our knowledge, no study establishes a relationship between any metric and source code migration.
For that reason, we target source code metrics used in a wide variety of experiments, such as fault prediction~\cite{Kaur2012,Shatnawi2014}, fault localization~\cite{Sohn2017}, testing~\cite{Eski2011}, defect prediction~\cite{Peng2015}, refactoring prediction~\cite{aniche2020effectiveness} and measuring the quality of object-oriented software~\cite{Singh2013}.
Moreover, we consider 12 exclusive Android features that, according to our experience with Android development, could support the decision to perform a file migration.
Nevertheless, there could exist missing features that better describe the migration activity.
\paragraph{Learning algorithm}
In this paper, LambdaMART was the algorithm chosen to build our ranking model.
However, the choice of the machine learning technique to build a prediction model has a strong impact on performance~\cite{Ghotra2015}.
Thus, using other existing algorithms, our approach could present different performance levels.
\subsection{Internal validity}
Threats to internal validity concern all the factors that could have impacted our results.
\paragraph{Learning data}
The data used to train and evaluate {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} contains all migrations we found in the datasets of Kotlin applications without applying any filtering.
Our model is learned from all migrations regardless of the strategy adopted by the developers.
It could be the risk that some developers did not apply the most convenient migration strategy. Thus, the model could be created from a portion of misleading data.
To our knowledge, as we discussed in Section~\ref{cap6:sec:discussion}, no work has focused on migration strategies. Thus, there is not enough knowledge about that in order we could be able to curate the training data.
\paragraph{Imbalanced data}
We trained and evaluated our model using highly imbalanced datasets, i.e., there are considerably more instances of the non-migrated files than instances of files migrated.
However, some models may under-perform if trained with imbalanced data~\cite{Hall2012}.
\paragraph{Training parameters}
The choice of parameters for the construction of the model is another threat.
In this work, we use the default parameters of XGBoost.
Therefore, for different datasets or metrics, the best parameters might be different, leading to different results.
\paragraph{Types of migrations analyzed}
In this paper, we focus on one type of migration: files are translated from Java to Kotlin one-to-one (that is, for every file in Java there is exactly one file in Kotlin, with the same name).
However, there could exist other migrations that our heuristic is not able to detect, and consequently those are not used for training and evaluating our model.
This involves that our model was trained to make such one-to-one migration suggestions, and not others.
Considering those types of migrations could help improve the generalizability of our approach.
\subsection{External validity}
Threats to external validity concern the generalizability of our findings.
\paragraph{Representativeness of our datasets}
Our work relies on two datasets of open source software.
However, open source software is a small parcel of the existing software.
This fact may limit the generalization of our findings.
\section{Discussion and future work}
\label{cap6:sec:discussion}
This work presented a study investigating the feasibility of applying learning-to-rank to build an approach to recommend file-level migrations of Android applications.
The results showed that although our approach overcomes the performance from two baselines: The random strategy and the strategy based on {{Google's guideline\xspace}}{}, there is room for improvement.
Nevertheless, we highlight the novelty of our approach and argue that these results establish a baseline for future work.
Moreover, it opens new directions for researchers.
In this section, we list some of them.
\paragraph{On defining strategies of migrations}
In this paper, we used migrations done by developers without filtering them.
In future work, we plan to focus on specific migration strategies.
One of the main challenges is determining what a ``good'' migration strategy would be (expressed, for instance, in terms of ease of migration process, quality of the migrated application, etc.) and what a ``bad'' migration strategy would be. Those strategies could be defined by analyzing metrics from migrated projects or developers' experience.
Once a set of targeted migration strategies is selected, our approach can be trained using data from migrated apps that followed such strategies.
\paragraph{Migration guidelines}
To our knowledge, there is only one \emph{official} guideline for Android migration, which was created by Google~\cite{AndroidDevelopers2020a}.
It defines the following order of migration:
\begin{inparaenum}[\it 1)]
\item data classes,
\item test cases,
\item utility classes, and
\item other classes.
\end{inparaenum}
We plan to study whether developers that have migrated code follow or not Google's guideline.
Nevertheless, we consider that our approach could complement this guideline.
Beyond its usefulness for starting the migration process,
in our opinion, the guideline is quite general and only prioritizes the types of classes to migrate as described just above.
For example, the guideline indicates to start migrating data classes, but does not specify which one. {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} could help developers decide which data class(es) to migrate.
Similarly, it does not specify the order of migration of other types of classes such as fragments, activities and ViewModel.
\paragraph{Interpretability and explainability of recommendations}
One of the main limitations and drawbacks of machine learning techniques, including the learning-to-rank technique, is the lack of transparency behind their behaviors, leaving users with little understanding of how particular decisions are made~\cite{Mengnan2019TechniquesInterpratable}.
To mitigate these problems, researchers have proposed interpretable machine learning techniques, which can generally be grouped into two categories~\cite{Mengnan2019TechniquesInterpratable}:
\begin{inparaenum}[\it 1)]
\item \emph{intrinsic interpretability}: implies constructing self-explanatory models that incorporate interpretability directly to their structures, and \item \emph{post-hoc interpretability}: requires creating a second model to explain an existing model.
\end{inparaenum}
{{MigrationExp\xspace}}{} can be complemented with other approaches to create post hoc interpretability.
For example, SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations)~\cite{Lundberg2017SHAP} is an approach to interpret predictions, that is, to explain the output of any machine learning model, including learning-to-rank.
In future work, we plan to integrate {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} with the official implementation of the SHAP framework.
Moreover, we plan also to focus on intrinsic interpretable techniques.
For example, Zhuang et al. \cite{Zhuang2021InterpretableRanking} propose an interpretable Learning-to-Rank technique, which could be used by {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} instead of the traditional learning-to-rank technique.
\paragraph{Hyperparameter tuning}
One strategy to potentially improve our results is to perform a hyperparameter tuning.
Each algorithm has a set of parameters, each having its domain, which may have different types (i.e., continuous, discrete, Boolean and nominal), making the entire set of parameters of an algorithm a large space to explore.
Consequently, the search for the machine learning algorithm's best parameters is demanding in computation complexity, time, and effort~\cite{ArcelliFontana2016}.
In future work, we plan to explore different techniques of hyperparameter tuning.
\paragraph{Data balancing}
Another aspect that researchers can focus on are pre-processing techniques to handle the imbalance of our migration dataset, as they can be more important than the choice of the classifier~\cite{Agrawal2018}.
Despite many real-world machine learning applications, learning from imbalanced data is still not trivial~\cite{PECORELLI2020}.
However, other software engineering studies (e.g, ~\cite{Wang2013Smote}) have used Synthetic Minority Oversampling TEchnique (SMOTE) to fix the data imbalance.
As feature work, we intend to explore pre-processing techniques to understand how they impact the recommendation of file-level migrations.
\paragraph{Feature engineering}
Since our machine learning models achieve a modest performance, we intend to focus on feature engineering as future work.
Adding new features or discarding existing ones could result in a better set of features that may improve our results.
Therefore, more research should be conducted to \begin{inparaenum}[i)]
\item evaluate the current set of features and possibly discard some feature,
\item verify to what extent existing metrics applied in other domains of software engineering, like process metrics~\cite{Yang2015,Hoang2019}, code smells~\cite{Catolino2020} and ownership metrics~\cite{Bird2011,aniche2020effectiveness}, are suitable for our problem and
\item develop new metrics able to characterize better migrated or non-migrated file instances.
For example, new features can be added that reflect the coupling between already migrated and not yet migrated files.
\end{inparaenum}
\paragraph{Recommending groups of files}
A future direction we aim to explore is the suggestion of migration of groups of files: there each suggestion item in the recommendation list would correspond to a set of files that should be migrated together.
There could exist different criteria for grouping such files: such as coupled files, classes and their corresponding test cases, etc.
\paragraph{Granularity of recommendations}
In this paper, we focus on recommendations of \emph{files}.
Nevertheless, our approach could also be adapted for doing suggestions at a different granularity, e.g., \emph{packages}.
\paragraph{Types of migration recommendations}
The proposed approach was trained from one type of migration (one-to-one file, as explained in Section \ref{sec:met:data}), therefore, the recommendations are based on this type of migration.
If other types of migrations are defined, our approach could be extended in order to suggest, in addition to the files that can be migrated in one migration step, the type of migration for each file.
For that, it would be necessary to first define such new types of migrations, and then to mine samples of those migrations from migrated applications in order to train the model.
\paragraph{Feedback from developers}
In this paper, we use a ranking metric ($MAP$) to automatically assess the quality of the recommendations generated by {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}. To complement our evaluation, as future work, we plan to conduct a study in which developers who want to migrate their applications would evaluate the recommendations made by our approach.
\paragraph{Deploying {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{}~in the wild}
We aim to make {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} a production-ready model to integrate it with Android Studio, the official IDE for Android development.
To this end, we intend to develop a plugin for Android Studio and make it publicly available in the official JetBrains Plugin Repository, as Iannone et al.~\cite{Iannone2020} have done.
We believe that by making our approach publicly available, we can receive feedback from users to improve it.
\section{Related work}
\label{sec:relatedwork}
\paragraph{The adoption of Kotlin}
Oliveira et al.~\cite{Oliveira2020} performed a study to understand how developers deal with the adoption of Kotlin in Android development, their perception of the advantages and disadvantages related to its usage.
They found that developers believe that Kotlin can improve code quality, readability, and productivity.
Gois Mateus and Martinez~\cite{GoisMateus2019} have found that 11\% of the Android open-source applications studied have adopted Kotlin.
As a difference from them, our work focuses on a deeper aspect of the adoption of Kotlin, the \emph{migration} of Android applications from Java to Kotlin.
Researchers have recently conducted different studies on the use of Kotlin (e.g., \cite{Flauzino2018,GoisMateus2020, ARDITO2020106374}).
Their results present some benefits of adopting Kotlin. For instance, this produces shorter programs and code with fewer code smells than Java programs.
\paragraph{Migration of Android applications to Kotlin}
Coppola et al.~\cite{Coppola_2019} evaluated the transition of Android applications to Kotlin to understand whether the adoption of Kotlin impacts the success of an application (i.e., popularity and reputation) of Android applications in the App Store.
Martinez and Gois Mateus~\cite{martinez2021Why} conducted a survey to know why Android developers have migrated Java code to Kotlin. The use of the new features (typically included in modern programming language), not previously fully available using Java, was one of the most frequently mentioned reasons.
Peters et al.~ \cite{Peters2021HowImpact} empirically assessed the impact of migration from Java to Kotlin on the efficiency of the runtime of Android applications. They found that migrating
to Kotlin has a statistically significant impact on CPU usage,
memory usage, and render duration of frames.
Our work aims to help those developers to do the migration.
\paragraph{Programming language migration}
Previous work has presented approaches to migrate code e.g.,
\cite{Martin2002} C to Java, Cobol to Web \cite{colosimo2009evaluating}, Cobol to Java \cite{Mossienko2003}, C code to Eiffel ~\cite{Trudel2012}.
Other works focus on automated API migrations (e.g., ~\cite{Zhong2010, Nguyen2014, Gu2017}).
Although these works target programming language migrations, none of them focus on migration from Java to Kotlin.
\paragraph{Learning-to-rank applied to software engineering}
Previous work has applied learning-to-rank to software engineering tasks.
For example, on fault localization (\cite{Xuan2014, Le2016, Sohn2017,Kim2019}), bug-finding process (\cite{Ye2014, Zhao2015, Tian2016}), code search (\cite{Niu2017}), defects prediction (\cite{Wang2018,Yang2015b}), rule-specification mining (\cite{Cao2018}), recommendation system to classify and select design patterns \cite{Hussain2019}, third-party libraries~\cite{ALRUBAYE2020106140}.
Differently from these works, our work is the first to apply learning-to-rank to suggest file-level migrations.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this work, we presented {{MigrationExp\xspace}}{}, an approach to support developers in incremental migration of applications based on supervised machine learning, in particular, the learning-to-rank approach.
{{MigrationExp\xspace}}{} produces recommendations for candidate files to migrate and is based on a model learned from real migrations performed by developers.
Despite being a language-independent approach, we evaluate its feasibility in the context of the migration of Android applications from Java to Kotlin.
The results of the evaluation of {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} show that {on the task of suggesting files to migrate}, our approach outperforms two strategies considered as baselines.
We believe that our approach may significantly impact Android applications' development because most Android applications are written in Java, and, at the same time, Google is encouraging developers to adopt Kotlin to keep updated their apps with new Android platform features.
In future work, we plan to integrate {{MigrationExpJ2K\xspace}}{} into a new infrastructure that will aim to help developers along the different stages of migrations such as migration suggestions, code translation, and testing of the migrated code.
\subsection{Overview}
\todo{for the moment, let's keep this overview here, it's quite specific to move to the new vision section.}
We build our approach {{MigrationExp\xspace}}{} using information from projects that have done file migrations from one programming language to another.
\todo{move to the concepts section}
Our intuition is that by analyzing those migrations, we can create a model that captures the rationale behind these migrations, i.e., the developers' experience on migrations.
Then we can use it to recommend files to be migrated.
Our approach consists of two phases as Figure~\ref{fig:app:overview} illustrates:
\begin{inparaenum}[\it a)]
\item the development phase, and
\item the serving phase.
\end{inparaenum}
In the development phase, our approach learns a model from migrations from language $lang_1$ (e.g., Java) to $lang_2$ (e.g., Kotlin), done by developers on open-source projects.
Then, in the serving phase, given a project $P$ as input, the model generated in the development phase is used to recommend file-level migrations: the model produces a list of candidate files to be migrated.
Now, we give a summary of both phases from our approach.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{methodology.png}
\caption{We apply two phases: \emph{development}, where we learn a ranking model, and \emph{serving} phase, where we use the model in production.}
\label{fig:app:overview}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Development phase}
\label{cap6:sec:design:approach:dev}
{{MigrationExp\xspace}}{} is built using learning to rank, a supervised machine learning algorithm. Consequently, we need to provide example data to train our model.
Each example is described by a \emph{vector} of measurements or \emph{features} and a label that denotes the category or class the example belongs to~\cite{Hall1998}.
In our case, we use data from projects that have been migrated from one programming language to another to create {{MigrationExp\xspace}}{}'s training set.
To this end, for each commit of these projects, we analyze their files to create a \emph{vector} of features that describe them by extracting a set of metrics and classifying them as migrated or not migrated (label).
These vectors are the training data used by our approach to learning a model.
Finally, once we trained our model, it is deployed, and it is ready to be used in the serving phase.
\subsubsection{Serving phase}
\label{sec:serving}
In the serving phase, our approach takes as input a program $P$, written partially or totally using $lang_1$, which developers aim to migrate to $lang_2$.
As done in the development phase, our approach extracts features from the project's files, i.e., candidates files to migrate, and creates for each file one vector of features, as done during the development phase.
These vectors are given as input to our model.
Finally, using this information, the model learned in the development phase sorts the project's files according to their relevance and returns the list of recommended files to be migrated.
Let us show an simple example for describing this phase.
The approach takes as input a project composed of 5 files where 4 files ($A.lang_1$, $B.lang_1$, $C.lang_1$ and $E.lang_1$) could be migrated, and one $D.lang_2$ already migrated.
The learned rank model ranks the 4 files based on the experience of developers by migrating similar files (i.e., similar vector features).
In this example, the developer could start migrating the files at the top of the recommendation, e.g., $E.lang_1$, then testing the migrated app, committing the changes, and generating a new version to publish.
Those activities conform one step on the gradual migration process.
Note that in migrations that involve fully interoperable languages (e.g., Java and Kotlin) the migrated files (e.g., $D.lang_2$) could continue interacting with the not migrated (e.g., $B.lang_1$).
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Numerical shock instabilities}
In \cite{peery1988blunt} a numerical instability was observed to
appear near the symmetry plane in the simulation of a bow shock.
This phenomenon, subsequently dubbed ``carbuncle", has been observed by many researchers
in similar numerical experiments for the Euler equations, and many remedies
have been proposed, mainly in the form of additional numerical dissipation
\cite{quirk1997contribution,pandolfi2001numerical,dumbser2004matrix,chauvat2005shock,ismail2009proposed,shen2014stability}.
Most notably, dissipative Riemann solvers like HLLE and Rusanov suppress the carbuncle instability \cite{quirk1997contribution}.
For a recent review of numerical shock instability and work to alleviate it,
we refer to \cite[Section 2.5]{simonnumerical}.
Given the similarity of structure between the Euler equations and the shallow
water equations, it is not surprising that carbuncles appear in numerical
solutions of the latter as well \cite{kemm2014note}.
The shallow water carbuncle behaves similarly to the
Euler carbuncle; for instance, it appears when the Roe solver is used, but not when
the HLLE or Rusanov solver is used, and can also be suppressed by particular modifications
of the Roe solver \cite{kemm2014note,bader2014carbuncle}.
In this work, we propose a new Riemann solver that blends those of Rusanov and Roe
based on a local measure of the entropy residual,
as in \cite{guermond2011entropy,guermond2018second,guermond2018well}.
Using this Riemann solver (within the second-order Lax-Wendroff-LeVeque
finite volume scheme \cite{leveque1997wave, leveque2002finite}) supresses the formation of carbuncles
while maintaining an accuracy similar to that of Roe solver.
The most common test problems used to investigate carbuncle formation are
that of bow shock formation or a steady, grid-aligned planar shock.
In both of these problems, the correct behavior is the formation of a stable
shock profile without carbuncles. This is achieved by certain methods
designed specifically to avoid carbuncles, but also by typical first-order
accurate methods. Thus these test problems are not adequate on their own to
evaluate methods for practical calculations.
Elling \cite{elling2009carbuncle} proposed instead a problem specifically
designed to feature a carbuncle as the physical solution. This has
been used as a test problem to identify methods that impose excessive dissipation.
Herein we introduce a new and more exacting test problem that arises in a
common physical setting. Like some
of the problems above, it includes an equilibrium solution consisting of a
steady shock. Similar to the Elling problem, the equilibrium is unstable.
However, the correct manifestation of the instability is different from
the carbuncle. This allows us to distinguish schemes that yield correct
behavior from both those that are too dissipative and those that generate
carbuncles.
In the present work, we provide a test problem that possesses a genuine instability
that leads to carbuncles in many numerical approximations. This is an ideal
test for assessing numerical methods, since neither the presence of carbuncles
nor the complete absence of instability represents the correct behavior.
This test problem is the circular hydraulic jump.
\subsection{The circular hydraulic jump}
Perhaps the first reference to the observation of the circular hydraulic jump
comes from Lord Rayleigh \cite{rayleigh1914theory}, who wrote that it
``may usually be seen whenever a stream of water from a tap strikes a horizontal
surface''. This phenomenon that is familiar in the everyday kitchen sink, is in
fact highly nonlinear and unintuitive. Near the jet, the flow is shallow and
supercritical, while further away it is deeper and subcritical. The transition from supercritical
to subcritical flow
occurs in a very narrow region and takes the form of a \emph{jump} or \emph{bore}
that is roughly circular if the surface is flat; we refer to it herein as a
circular hydraulic jump (CHJ).
Early experimental work on the CHJ began some time later
\cite{kurihara1946hydraulic,tani1949water,watson1964radial}.
Watson \cite{watson1964radial} derived the jump radius
implied by Rayleigh's approach and the vertical
velocity profile in the supercritical region, assuming a no-slip
boundary condition at the bottom. He also studied the turbulent
flow case and performed experiments.
More detailed experiments revealed different qualitative classification
of jumps \cite{ishigai1977heat,craik1981circular}.
Although later work incorporated more physical details (such as surface tension) into the models
\cite{bush2003influence}, Bohr et. al. showed that important properties of the jump
(particularly its radius) could be reasonably predicted using a simple shallow water
model \cite{bohr1993shallow}.
While the jump is roughly circular, under appropriate conditions it may deviate
from this shape and deform rapidly and chaotically in time.
Instability of the jump was observed from fairly early on \cite{craik1981circular}.
Under special circumstances with more viscous fluids, the jump instability may lead to
the formation of curious shapes such as polygons \cite{ellegaard1998creating}, but
for a low-viscosity fluid like water the behavior is generally chaotic.
The strength of the instability increases with the jet velocity and with the
depth at the outside of the jump. For fluids with finite viscosity, the flow
can also be completely steady for sufficiently small velocities and depths.
As we will see, carbuncles can appear in the numerical solution of the shallow
water circular hydraulic jump. This is natural, since the solution involves a
standing shock wave. Dealing with the carbuncle in this context is particularly
interesting and challenging, since this standing shock should (at least in an
appropriate flow regime) be unstable, and some research has suggested that the
carbuncle is the manifestation of a true physical
instability \cite{moschetta2001carbuncle,elling2009carbuncle}.
In this work, we describe and study the circular hydraulic jump as a new
test problem for shallow water discretizations.
We solve this test problem using a novel Riemann solver that supresses the
formation of carbuncles without dissipating important features of the solution.
\subsection{Outline}
In Section \ref{sec2}, we review some existing numerical methods for
the shallow water equations, focusing on certain Riemann solvers.
In Section \ref{sec:blended_rs}, we propose a new Riemann solver that blends
those of Roe and Rusanov in order to avoid carbuncles without being
excessively dissipative. In Section \ref{sec:num}, we use Clawpack to
compare the performance of the new Riemann solver to existing
solvers on several standard shallow water test problems. In Section \ref{sec:chj}, we
study the circular hydraulic jump using the newly proposed solver.
We find that although some
existing methods behave acceptably on previous test problems, they
are not capable of providing accurate solutions for the circular hydraulic jump
across the range of flow regimes we study.
Some conclusions and future directions are discussed in Section \ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Numerical methods for the shallow water equations} \label{sec2}
We consider the shallow water model in two horizontal dimensions:
\begin{subequations} \label{eq:sw}
\begin{align}
h_t + (hu)_x + (hv)_y & = 0 \\
(hu)_t + \left(hu^2 + \frac{1}{2}gh^2\right)_x + (huv)_y & = 0 \\
(hv)_t + (huv)_x + \left(hv^2 + \frac{1}{2}gh^2\right)_y & = 0.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Here $h, u,$ and $v$ are respectively the depth and the $x$- and $y$-components of
velocity, which are functions of the two spatial coordinates $(x,y)$ as well as time $t$.
The gravitational force is proportional to $g$.
The system \eqref{eq:sw} can be written in vector form as
\begin{align}
q_t + \nabla \cdot f(q) & = 0,
\end{align}
where $q=[h, hu, hv]^T$ and the flux function $f$ is defined in accordance
with \eqref{eq:sw}.
In this work we study the behavior of certain shock-capturing finite volume
methods based on the use of Riemann solvers. For simplicity, we discuss these
solvers in the context of a 1-dimensional problem and mesh.
In the numerical experiments in \S\ref{sec:num} we use second-order Strang
splitting \cite{strang1968construction} to extend the method to multiple dimensions.
\subsection{Wave propagation methods}\label{sec:waveprop}
Let $Q_i$ represent the average value of the set of
conserved quantities over cell $i$, which extends from $x_{i-1/2}$ to $x_{i+1/2}$.
At each time step and at each interface $x_{i-1/2}$, we approximately solve the
Riemann problem with initial states $(Q^n_{i-1},Q^n_i)$. The approximate
solution consists of a set of traveling discontinuities or waves ${\mathcal W}^p_{i-1/2}$
and corresponding speeds $s^p_{i-1/2}$.
We use the wave propagation framework developed by LeVeque \cite{leveque1997wave, leveque2002finite}
and employed in the Clawpack software \cite{clawpack,pyclaw-sisc}, which implements the
Lax-Wendroff-LeVeque (LWL) scheme
\begin{align}\label{second-order_via_fluct}
Q_i^{n+1} = Q_i^n-\frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x}\left[\A^+ \!\!{\Delta} Q_{i-1/2}+\A^- \!\!{\Delta} Q_{i+1/2}\right]
-\frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x}\left[\tilde{F}_{i+1/2}-\tilde{F}_{i-1/2}\right],
\end{align}
Upon defining $z^+:=\frac{1}{2}(z+|z|)$ and $z^-:=\frac{1}{2}(z-|z|)$,
the fluctuations are given by
\begin{align}\label{fluct}
\A^+ \!\!{\Delta} Q_{i-1/2} := \sum_p\left(s_{i-1/2}^p\right)^+{\mathcal W}_{i-1/2}^p, \qquad
\A^- \!\!{\Delta} Q_{i+1/2} := \sum_p\left(s_{i+1/2}^p\right)^-{\mathcal W}_{i+1/2}^p,
\end{align}
and represent the effect (to first
order accuracy) of waves coming from the solution of the Riemann problem at
each of the neighboring interfaces. Meanwhile, $\tilde{F}_{i\pm 1/2}$ are correction
fluxes that make the method second-order accurate:
\begin{align}\label{correction-fluxes}
\tilde{F}_{i\pm 1/2}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_p|s_{i\pm 1/2}^p|\left(1-\frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x}|s_{i\pm 1/2}^p|\right)\tilde{\mathcal W}_{i\pm 1/2}^p.
\end{align}
Here $\tilde{{\mathcal W}}_{i\pm 1/2}^p$ is a limited version of ${\mathcal W}_{i\pm 1/2}^p$, usually
based on a total variation diminishing limiter function.
We note that, for the conservative Riemann solvers we use herein, the LWL scheme
\eqref{second-order_via_fluct} can be written equivalently in flux-differencing
form:
\begin{align}\label{flux-differencing-form}
Q_i^{n+1}=Q_i^n-\frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x}\left[{F}_{i+1/2}-{F}_{i-1/2}\right]
-\frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x}\left[\tilde{F}_{i+1/2}-\tilde{F}_{i-1/2}\right],
\end{align}
with appropriately chosen first order fluxes ${F}_{i+1/2}$ and correction
fluxes $\tilde{F}_{i-1/2}$.
We will sometimes work with
the first-order method obtained by setting the correction fluxes to zero:
\begin{align}\label{first-order_via_fluct}
Q_i^{n+1} = Q_i^n-\frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x}\left[\A^+ \!\!{\Delta} Q_{i-1/2}+\A^- \!\!{\Delta} Q_{i+1/2}\right]
= Q_i^n -\frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x}\left[{F}_{i+1/2}-{F}_{i-1/2}\right].
\end{align}
Next we briefly review two commonly-used Riemann solvers: those of Rusanov and
Roe. We refer to \cite{ketcheson2020riemann} and references therein for
a detailed description of these two Riemann solvers in the context of
the shallow water equations.
Neither of these solvers deals with the carbuncle instability in a fully
satisfactory way. Rusanov's solver suppresses the carbuncle but
(unless the mesh is highly refined)
is known to
also suppress related real instabilities, while Roe's solver exhibits carbuncles.
Later we will combine these two solvers in order to better deal with shock instability.
Both of these solvers satisfy the conservation property
\begin{align} \label{rs_conservation}
\A^- \!\!{\Delta} Q_{i-1/2} + \A^+ \!\!{\Delta} Q_{i-1/2} = {f}({Q}_i) - {f}({Q}_{i-1}).
\end{align}
\subsection{Rusanov's Riemann solver}\label{sec:rusanov}
Rusanov's solver approximates the Riemann solution with a single wave traveling in each
direction. Both waves are assumed to travel with speed $\lambda^{\max}_{i-1/2}$, which is an
upper bound on the wave speeds appearing in the true solution of the Riemann problem.
In this work, we take $\lambda_{i-1/2}^{\max}$ to be the upper bound
from \cite[Prop. 3.7]{azerad2017well}.
The waves are then given by
\begin{align}\label{rusanov_waves}
{\mathcal W}_{i-1/2}^{1,{\rm Rus}}={Q}_{i-1/2}-{Q}_{i-1}, \qquad
{\mathcal W}_{i-1/2}^{2,{\rm Rus}}={Q}_{i}-{Q}_{i-1/2},
\end{align}
where the intermediate state ${u}_{i-1/2}$ is determined by imposing conservation:
\begin{align}\label{rus_cons}
-\lambda_{i-1/2}^{\max}{\mathcal W}_{i-1/2}^{1,{\rm Rus}}+\lambda_{i-1/2}^{\max}{\mathcal W}_{i-1/2}^{2,{\rm Rus}} = {f}({Q}_{i})-{f}({Q}_{i-1}).
\end{align}
The fluctuations are given by \eqref{fluct} with $s_{i-1/2}^1=-\lambda_{i-1/2}^{\max}$
and $s_{i-1/2}^2=\lambda_{i-1/2}^{\max}$, and the first- and second-order methods based
on Rusanov's solver are given by \eqref{first-order_via_fluct} and \eqref{second-order_via_fluct}, respectively.
\subsection{Roe's Riemann solver} \label{sec:roe}
The Roe Riemann solver is based on evaluating the flux Jacobian using Roe's average
\begin{align}\label{roe_average}
\bar h_{i-1/2}=\frac{1}{2}(h_{i-1}+h_i), \qquad
\hat u_{i-1/2}=\frac{\sqrt{h_{i-1}}u_{i-1}+\sqrt{h_i}u_i}{\sqrt{h_{i-1}}+\sqrt{h_i}}, \qquad
\hat v_{i-1/2}=\frac{\sqrt{h_{i-1}}v_{i-1}+\sqrt{h_i}v_i}{\sqrt{h_{i-1}}+\sqrt{h_i}}.
\end{align}
The waves and speeds are given by the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the approximate
flux Jacobian obtained using these averages, resulting in
\begin{align*}
\hat\lambda_{i-1/2}^1=\hat u_{i-1/2}-\sqrt{g\bar h_{i-1/2}}, \qquad
\hat\lambda_{i-1/2}^2=\hat u_{i-1/2}, \qquad
\hat\lambda_{i-1/2}^3=\hat u_{i-1/2}+\sqrt{g\bar h_{i-1/2}}. \\
\end{align*}
and ${\mathcal W}_{i-1/2}^{p,{\rm Roe}}=\alpha_{i-1/2}^p\hat r_{i-1/2}^p$, with
\begin{align*}
\hat {r}^1_{i-1/2} =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 \\
\hat u_{i-1/2}-\sqrt{g\bar h_{i-1/2}}\\
\hat v_{i-1/2}
\end{bmatrix},
\qquad
\hat {r}^2_{i-1/2} =
\begin{bmatrix}
0\\
0\\
1
\end{bmatrix},
\qquad
\hat {r}^3_{i-1/2} =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 \\
\hat u_{i-1/2}+\sqrt{g\bar h_{i-1/2}}\\
\hat v_{i-1/2}
\end{bmatrix}
\end{align*}
and the factors $\alpha^p_{i-1/2}$ obtained by solving
\begin{align}\label{system_for_alphas}
\sum_p{\mathcal W}_{i-1/2}^{p,{\rm Roe}} = \left[\hat {r}^1_{i-1/2} ~\hat {r}^2_{i-1/2} ~\hat {r}^3_{i-1/2}\right]
\begin{bmatrix}
\alpha^1_{i-1/2} \\
\alpha^2_{i-1/2} \\
\alpha^3_{i-1/2}
\end{bmatrix}
=\Delta Q_{i-1/2}:={Q}_i-{Q}_{i-1}.
\end{align}
\subsection{Kemm's Riemann solver} \label{sec:kemm}
Several specialized Riemann solvers have been proposed in order to deal
with carbuncles. Among them, only that proposed by Kemm has been implemented
and tested on the shallow water equations \cite{kemm2014note,bader2014carbuncle}.
The idea behind that solver, known as the HLLEMCC solver, is to combine
the HLLE and Roe solvers in such a way that the resulting method behaves
like Roe's away from potential carbuncle instabilities, and like HLLE
where the potential for such instabilities arises. This is done using
an indicator function based on the local residual of the Rankine-Hugoniot
condition for the shear wave. The method requires some parameters that
may need to be tuned for a specific problem. We will consider this method
in the numerical tests below.
\section{An entropy-based blending of Rusanov and Roe}\label{sec:blended_rs}
As we discussed in the introduction, finite volume methods that use a
Roe Riemann solver are prone to exhibit the carbuncle instability.
In contrast, methods that use Rusanov's Riemann solver exhibit no carbuncles.
However, such methods tend to dissipate other important physical features of
the solution, unless the grid is highly refined.
In this section we propose a Riemann solver
that is carbuncle-free but avoids dissipating important features of the solution.
To do so we first use a combination of Rusanov's and Roe's solvers, switching
between them based on a local measure of the entropy residual.
Previous works have also proposed blending Riemann solvers with different
amounts of dissipation in the context of the Euler equations (see
\cite{nishikawa2008very,wang2016developing,jaisankar2007diffusion,ohwada2018simple,deng2019new,ray2013entropy}),
the shallow water equations (see \cite{bader2014carbuncle,kemm2014note}),
and even the Navier-Stokes equations (see \cite{nishikawa2008very,ohwada2018simple}).
Our approach differs from those just cited in that it is based on the local entropy;
for a related approach in the context of the Euler equations, see
\cite{ismail2009affordable,ismail2009proposed}.
Since Roe's solver is not entropy stable, the blended solver is also
not guaranteed to be entropy stable. We therefore include an additional term
that is chosen to give entropy stability, at least if the second-order correction
fluxes are neglected. The complete proposed scheme can be written in
flux-differencing form \eqref{flux-differencing-form} using
the first-order fluxes
\begin{align} \label{blended-flux-1}
{F}_{i+1/2} = \frac{{f}({Q}_{i+1})+{f}({Q}_i)}{2}
- \frac{1}{2} \left( \theta_{i+1/2}\lambda_{i+1/2}^{\max}\mathbb{I} + (1-\theta_{i+1/2})|\hat A_{i+1/2}| +\lambda_{i+1/2}^{\min}\mathbb{I}\right)({Q}_{i+1}-{Q}_{i})
\end{align}
and correction fluxes \eqref{correction-fluxes} based on the Roe waves with
modified speeds
\begin{align} \label{s_p}
s_{i+1/2}^p={\rm sgn}(\hat\lambda_{i+1/2}^p)\lambda_{i+1/2}^p
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\label{lambda_p}
\lambda_{i+1/2}^p := \theta_{i+1/2}\lambda_{i+1/2}^{\max} + (1-\theta_{i+1/2})|\hat \lambda_{i+1/2}^p| + \lambda_{i+1/2}^{\min}.
\end{align}
Here $\mathbb{I}\in\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}$ is the identity matrix,
$\lambda_{i+1/2}^{\max}$ is the
upper bound on the wave speed used in Rusanov's Riemann solver (see \S \ref{sec:rusanov}),
and $\hat A_{i+1/2}$ is Roe's averaged flux Jacobian (see \S \ref{sec:roe}).
In the following sections we describe the properties of this solver and
explain how $\theta_{i+1/2}$ and $\lambda^{\min}_{i+1/2}$ are chosen.
\subsection{The entropy residual}\label{sec:entres}
Let $\eta'(q)$ and $g(q)$ denote the entropy variable and entropy flux.
Recall that $q=[h,hu,hv]^T$. We use the total energy as entropy; that is,
\begin{align*}
\eta(q)=\frac{1}{2} gh^2 + \frac{(hu)^2+(hv)^2}{2h}, \qquad
g(q)=
\frac{\eta(q)}{h}
\begin{bmatrix} hu \\ hv \end{bmatrix}.
\end{align*}
Based on \cite{guermond2011entropy}, we consider
\begin{align}\label{ent_residual}
\int_{S_i} \eta'(q) \cdot \left[ \frac{\partial q}{\partial t} + \nabla\cdot {f}(q)\right]d{x}
=\int_{S_i} \left[\frac{\partial \eta(q)}{\partial t} + \eta'(q) \cdot \nabla\cdot {f}(q)\right] d{x}
\end{align}
as a measurement of the entropy production in cell $i$ (here $S_i=[x_{i-1/2},x_{i+1/2}]$).
To avoid the need to compute the time derivative of the entropy, we follow
\cite{guermond2018second, guermond2018well} and use
$\int \frac{\partial\eta(q)}{\partial t}d{x}=-\int \nabla\cdotg(q) d{x}$,
which holds in smooth regions. Then we define
\begin{align}\label{Ri}
\theta_i := \frac{R_i}{D_i},
\end{align}
with
\begin{align*}
R_i=
\left|\int_{S_i} \left[\eta'(q) \cdot \nabla\cdot {f}(q) - \nabla\cdotg(q) \right] d{x}\right|,
\end{align*}
and $D_i$ being an upper bound on $R_i$ so that $0\leq \theta_i\leq 1$.
Note that $R_i\approx 0$ if $q$ is smooth in $S_i$.
In our implementation, we use the approximation
\begin{align}
R_i
&\approx
\left|\eta'({Q}_i)\cdot \int_{S_i}\nabla\cdot {f}(q)d{x}
-\int_{S_i}\nabla\cdotg(q) d{x}\right|
=
\left|\eta'({Q}_i)\cdot \int_{\partial S_i}{n}_i(s) \cdot {f}(q) d{s}
-\int_{\partial S_i}{n}_i(s)\cdotg(q) d{s}\right|,
\end{align}
where ${n}_i$ denotes the unit vector normal to $\partial S_i$ pointing outward from cell $i$.
To compute the boundary integrals, we approximate $q$ on each cell edge ${\mathcal{F}}_{ij}$ by the average of the two
neighboring cell averages $\bar Q_{ij} = (Q_i+Q_j)/2$, resulting in
\begin{subequations}\label{Ri_and_Di}
\begin{align}
R_i =
\left|\sum_{{\mathcal{F}}_{ij}\in\partial S_i} |{\mathcal{F}}_{ij}|
\left[\eta'({Q}_i)\cdot \left({n}_{ij} \cdot {f}\left(\bar Q_{ij}\right)\right)-{n}_{ij} \cdotg \left(\bar Q_{ij}\right)\right] \right|,
\end{align}
where $|{\mathcal{F}}_{ij}|$ is the length of ${\mathcal{F}}_{ij}$ and
${n}_{ij}$ is the unit vector normal to ${\mathcal{F}}_{ij}$ pointing outward from cell $i$.
The normalization factor is similarly computed as
\begin{align}
D_i
=
\sum_{k=1}^{d+1}\left|\eta'_k\left({Q}_i\right)\right|
\left|\sum_{{\mathcal{F}}_{ij}\in\partial S_i}|{\mathcal{F}}_{ij}|\left({n}_{ij}\cdot{f}\left(\bar Q_{ij}\right)\right)_k\right|
+\left|\sum_{{\mathcal{F}}_i\in \partial S_i} |{\mathcal{F}}_{ij}| {n}_{ij}\cdotg\left(\bar Q_{ij}\right) \right|,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $(z)_k$ denotes the $k$-th component of $z\in\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$,
and $d$ is the number of physical dimensions.
In \eqref{blended-flux-1} we need values of $\theta$ at the cell interfaces, for
which we use
$$
\theta_{i+1/2} = \max(\theta_i, \theta_{i+1}).
$$
We expect that $\theta_{i+1/2}\approx 0 $ in smooth regions,
while $\theta_{i+1/2}\approx 1$ near shocks.
The value of $\theta_{i+1/2}$ controls whether the first-order flux \eqref{blended-flux-1}
behaves more like that of Rusanov or Roe. Specifically, if
$\lambda_{i+1/2}^{\min}=0$ and $\theta_{i+1/2}=1$, the flux is equivalent to that of
Rusanov, while if $\lambda_{i+1/2}^{\min}=0$ and $\theta_{i+1/2}=0$, it is equivalent
to that of Roe.
In fact, with the choice \eqref{s_p}, the correction fluxes also match
those of Rusanov or Roe in the appropriate limit, as shown in the next section.
\subsection{The correction fluxes}
In this section we explain the choice of wave speeds \eqref{s_p}.
For the moment, we consider \eqref{blended-flux-1}-\eqref{lambda_p} without
entropy stabilization; i.e., we set $\lambda^{\min}_{i+1/2}=0$
for now.
We use ${\mathcal W}^{p,{\rm Rus}}$ to denote the waves in the Rusanov
solver and ${\mathcal W}^{p,{\rm Roe}}$ to denote the waves in the Roe solver.
The first-order method given by \eqref{first-order_via_fluct} with the numerical
flux \eqref{blended-flux-1} can also be written in
terms of fluctuations:
\begin{subequations}\label{ev_fluctuations}
\begin{align}
\A^+ \!\!{\Delta} Q_{i-1/2} & = \frac{1}{2}\sum_p \left(\hat\lambda_{i-1/2}^p + \lambda_{i-1/2}^p\right){\mathcal W}_{i-1/2}^{p,{\rm Roe}}, \\
\A^- \!\!{\Delta} Q_{i+1/2} & = \frac{1}{2}\sum_p \left(\hat\lambda_{i+1/2}^p - \lambda_{i+1/2}^p\right){\mathcal W}_{i+1/2}^{p,{\rm Roe}}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
To implement the correction fluxes required for the second-order scheme \eqref{second-order_via_fluct},
we must also define a set of waves and corresponding speeds.
Using only the waves from the Roe solver, it is in general not possible
to choose speeds that yield the fluctuations \eqref{ev_fluctuations},
and we instead use \eqref{s_p}.
Using this in \eqref{correction-fluxes} and \eqref{ev_fluctuations} in
\eqref{second-order_via_fluct}, we obtain (in the absence of limiting)
the second-order scheme
\begin{align}\label{LWL}
{Q}_i^{n+1}={Q}_i^n
&-\frac{\Delta t}{2 \Delta x}
\sum_p
\left[\left(\hat\lambda_{i+1/2}^p -\frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x}(\lambda_{i+1/2}^p)^2 \right){\mathcal W}_{i+1/2}^{p,{\rm Roe}}
+
\left(\hat\lambda_{i-1/2}^p +\frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x}(\lambda_{i-1/2}^p)^2 \right){\mathcal W}_{i-1/2}^{p,{\rm Roe}}\right],
\end{align}
It is clear again that if $\theta_{i\pm 1/2}=0$ we recover the standard
second-order Lax-Wendroff method based on Roe's Riemann solver.
We now show that if $\theta_{i\pm 1/2}=1$, we recover the Lax-Wendroff method
based on Rusanov's Riemann solver.
To see this, first consider \eqref{rus_cons} and rewrite the right-going fluctuation as follows:
\begin{align}\label{rus_rs_aux}
{\mathcal A}^{+,{\rm Rus}}\Delta Q_{i-1/2}:=\lambda_{i-1/2}^{\max}{\mathcal W}_{i-1/2}^{2,{\rm Rus}}
= {f}({Q}_{i})-{f}({Q}_{i-1}) + \lambda_{i-1/2}^{\max}\left({\mathcal W}_{i-1/2}^{1,{\rm Rus}}+{\mathcal W}_{i-1/2}^{2,{\rm Rus}}\right)
-\lambda_{i-1/2}^{\max}{\mathcal W}_{i-1/2}^{2,{\rm Rus}}.
\end{align}
From \eqref{rusanov_waves} and \eqref{system_for_alphas} we get
${\mathcal W}^{1,{\rm Rus}}_{i-1/2}+{\mathcal W}^{2,{\rm Rus}}_{i-1/2}={Q}_i-{Q}_{i-1}=\sum_p{\mathcal W}_{i-1/2}^{p,{\rm Roe}}$.
Using \eqref{rs_conservation} and \eqref{ev_fluctuations}, \eqref{rus_rs_aux} becomes
\begin{align*}
\lambda_{i-1/2}^{\max}{\mathcal W}_{i-1/2}^{2,{\rm Rus}}
= \sum_p \left(\hat \lambda_{i-1/2}^p + \lambda_{i-1/2}^{\max}\right){\mathcal W}_{i-1/2}^{p,{\rm Roe}}
-\lambda_{i-1/2}^{\max}{\mathcal W}_{i-1/2}^{2,{\rm Rus}},
\end{align*}
which implies that
\begin{subequations}\label{fluct_rus}
\begin{align}
{\mathcal A}^{+,{\rm Rus}}\Delta Q_{i-1/2}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_p\left(\hat \lambda_{i-1/2}^p + \lambda_{i-1/2}^{\max}\right){\mathcal W}_{i-1/2}^{p,{\rm Roe}},
\end{align}
and similarly,
\begin{align}
{\mathcal A}^{-,{\rm Rus}}\Delta Q_{i+1/2}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_p\left(\hat \lambda_{i+1/2}^p - \lambda_{i+1/2}^{\max}\right){\mathcal W}_{i+1/2}^{p,{\rm Roe}}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
To get the second-order Lax-Wendroff method based on Rusanov's Riemann solver,
plug the fluctuations \eqref{fluct_rus} into \eqref{second-order_via_fluct} where
$\tilde F_{i\pm 1/2}$ is given by \eqref{correction-fluxes} with $|s^p_{i\pm 1/2}|=\lambda_{i\pm 1/2}^{\max}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal W}^p_{i\pm 1/2}={\mathcal W}_{i\pm 1/2}^{p,{\rm Roe}}$.
By doing this, we get \eqref{LWL} (since $\theta_{i\pm 1/2}=1 \implies \lambda_{i\pm 1/2}^p=\lambda_{i\pm 1/2}^{\max}$).
\subsection{Entropy stabilization}\label{sec:entropy_stable}
In the previous section we neglected the term $\lambda^{\min}_{i+1/2}$ in
\eqref{blended-flux-1}. In this section, we follow \cite{kuzmin2020algebraic}
and show how this term is computed, in order to guarantee local entropy stability
of the scheme given by using \eqref{blended-flux-1} in \eqref{first-order_via_fluct}.
Let $\eta'_i=\eta'({Q}_i)$ and $g_i=g({Q}_i)$ denote the entropy variable and the
(one-dimensional) entropy flux at cell $i$, respectively.
Also let $\psi=\eta'({Q}_i)\cdot {f}({Q}_i)-g({Q}_i)$ be the entropy potential at cell $i$.
From \cite[\S 4]{tadmor1987numerical}, if the numerical fluxes satisfy
\begin{align}\label{es_cond}
(\eta'_{i}-\eta'_{i-1})\cdot {F}_{i-1/2}\leq \psi_{i}-\psi_{i-1},
\qquad
(\eta'_{i+1}-\eta'_i)\cdot {F}_{i+1/2}\leq \psi_{i+1}-\psi_i,
\end{align}
then we have the entropy inequality
\begin{align}\label{ent_ineq}
\frac{d\eta({Q}_i)}{dt}+\frac{1}{\Delta x}\left[G_{i+1/2}-G_{i-1/2}\right]\leq 0,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
G_{i+1/2} &= \frac{1}{2}\left(\eta'_i+\eta'_{i+1}\right){F}_{i+1/2}-\frac{1}{2}(\psi_{i}+\psi_{i+1}),
\end{align*}
is a discretization of the entropy flux.
If \eqref{ent_ineq} holds with equality, the scheme is entropy-conservative
\cite{tadmor2003entropy}.
The approach in \cite{tadmor2003entropy}, is based on first developing an
entropy-conservative scheme and then adding entropy dissipation to enforce \eqref{ent_ineq}.
On the other hand, herein we have added dissipation (as described in Section \ref{sec:entres})
that does not guarantee \eqref{ent_ineq}.
Indeed, some linear stabilization techniques that add artificial dissipation of the conserved
variables are known to produce entropy; see for example \cite{ern2013weighting,kuzmin2020entropy}.
To guarantee \eqref{ent_ineq}, we add extra dissipation of the conserved variables via
\eqref{lambda_min}.
Doing this counteracts entropy production created by any component of the Riemann solver;
see for example \cite{kuzmin2020entropy} (in the context of $C^0$ finite elements).
Plugging \eqref{blended-flux-1} into the condition \eqref{es_cond} yields the required value
\begin{align}\label{lambda_min}
\lambda_{i+1/2}^{\min}
= \max\left\{0,\frac{\frac{1}{2}(\eta'_{i+1}-\eta'_{i})\cdot
\left[{f}({Q}_{i+1})+{f}({Q}_{i})-\sum_p\lambda_{i+1/2}^{p,{\rm EV}}{\mathcal W}_{i+1/2}^{p,{\rm Roe}}\right]
-(\psi_{i+1}-\psi_i)}
{\frac{1}{2}(\eta'_{i+1}-\eta'_{i})\cdot\sum_p{\mathcal W}_{i+1/2}^{p,{\rm Roe}}}\right\},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
\lambda_{i+1/2}^{p,{\rm EV}}=\theta_{i+1/2}\lambda_{i+1/2}^{\max}+(1-\theta_{i+1/2})|\hat{\lambda}_{i+1/2}^p|.
\end{align*}
With this choice, \eqref{blended-flux-1} guarantees \eqref{es_cond}, and therefore \eqref{ent_ineq}.
Note that here we have used the identities
\begin{align*}
|\hat{A}_{i+1/2}|(Q_{i+1}-Q_i) = \sum_p |\hat{\lambda}^p_{i+1/2}| {\mathcal W}^{p,{\rm Roe}}_{i+1/2}, \qquad
Q_{i+1}-Q_i & = \sum_p {\mathcal W}^{p,{\rm Roe}}_{i+1/2}.
\end{align*}
Since the blended Riemann solver described in Section \ref{sec:blended_rs} already
tends to introduce entropy dissipation,
we expect condition \eqref{es_cond} to be fulfilled most of the time even with $\lambda_{i+1/2}^{\min}=0$.
But \eqref{lambda_min} is used as a safeguard to guarantee entropy stability of the first-order method.
Extra modifications would be needed to guarantee entropy stability of the second-order LWL method
\eqref{second-order_via_fluct} and its multidimensional extension via Strang splitting.
We do not pursue such modifications in this work.
We close this section with two remarks. First, note that
the entropy stability condition \eqref{es_cond} can be written equivalently in terms of fluctuations:
\begin{align*}
(\eta'_{i}-\eta'_{i-1})\cdot
\Big(
\underbrace{{f}({Q}_i)-{\mathcal A}^+\Delta Q_{i-1/2}}_{={F}_{i-1/2}}\Big)\leq \psi_{i}-\psi_{i-1},
\quad
(\eta'_{i+1}-\eta'_i)\cdot
\Big(\underbrace{{f}({Q}_i)+{\mathcal A}^-\Delta Q_{i+1/2}}_{={F}_{i+1/2}}\Big)\leq \psi_{i+1}-\psi_i.
\end{align*}
Second, the additional dissipation introduced by $\lambda_{i\pm 1/2}^{\min}$ can also
serve independently as an entropy fix for Roe's solver, as we demonstrate
via a numerical experiment in \S \ref{sec:rp_dry_bed}.
\section{Numerical results}\label{sec:num}
In this section we present one- and two-dimensional numerical experiments to demonstrate the behavior of the
blended Riemann solver from \S\ref{sec:blended_rs} with the extra entropy dissipation from \S\ref{sec:entropy_stable}.
We compare the behavior of the blended solver against the standard Roe's and Rusanov's solvers.
In most of the experiments we use these Riemann solvers with the LWL method reviewed in \S\ref{sec:waveprop}.
When the exact solution is available, we report convergence results based on the $L^1$-error for the water height
\begin{align*}
E_1=\sum_i|K_i|~|h_i-h^e({x}_i)|,
\end{align*}
where $|K_i|$ is the length or area of cell $i$,
$h_i$ is the cell average of the water height at cell $i$,
and $h^e({x}_i)$ is the exact water height evaluated at the center of cell $i$.
Since the methods under consideration are at most second order accurate, comparison
of cell averages with centered point values is a sufficient way to test their accuracy.
In all experiments we use $g=1$.
We consider a total of five problems. We start in \S \ref{sec:rp_dry_bed} with a
one-dimensional Riemann problem over a dry bed.
For this problem we use the first-order methods \eqref{first-order_via_fluct},
to avoid negative depth values. Although only Rusanov's solver is proven to guarantee
positivity, we do not get negative values for the water height with any of the first-order methods.
In \S \ref{sec:rp_wet_bed} we apply the second-order methods to a dam-break problem
with a wet bed. This problem contains strong shocks. We observe similar accuracy with the
blended solver or the Roe solver; this suggests that the extra numerical entropy
dissipation that the blended solver introduces near the shocks does not degrade the accuracy
of the underlying Roe solver. This extra dissipation, however, prevents the formation of carbuncles in other experiments,
which we demonstrate in \S \ref{sec:bow_shock} and \S\ref{sec:2D_chj}.
In \S \ref{sec:steady_outflow} we consider a one-dimensional problem with a smooth steady state solution. We observe the expected
second-order accuracy of method \eqref{second-order_via_fluct} with Roe's and the blended solvers. Using
Rusanov's Riemann solver degrades the accuracy to first-order. The overall accuracy of the blended solver
is not degraded since the extra dissipation is not applied in smooth regions.
The main focus of this work is in the formation of carbuncle instabilities in the two-dimensional CHJ. We present
an extensive set of experiments for this problem in \S \ref{sec:2D_chj}.
We consider not only Roe's, Rusanov's and the blended solvers,
but also the solver proposed in \cite{kemm2014note},
which is designed to remove the carbuncle instabilities in the shallow water equations.
\subsection{Dam break problem on a dry bed}\label{sec:rp_dry_bed}
We start with the one-dimensional dam break problem on a dry bed.
This problem is a canonical example that demonstrates the `entropy glitch' of Roe's solver
at transonic rarefactions. Since the baseline Roe solver we use (see \S\ref{sec:roe}) does not contain
an entropy fix, it is important to demonstrate that the blended Riemann solver fixes the entropy glitch.
We follow the setup in \cite[\S 4.1.2]{delestre2013swashes}.
The domain is given by $x\in(0,10)$, and the initial condition is $hu(x,0)=0$ and
\begin{align*}
h(x,0)=
\begin{cases}
h_l & x\leq x_0=5 \\
h_r & x >x_0,
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
with $h_l=5\times 10^{-3}$. In our experiments we use $h_r=1\times
10^{-15}$ to avoid division by zero.
The exact solution, which can also be found in \cite{delestre2013swashes} and references therein, is
\begin{align*}
h(x,t) =
\begin{cases}
h_l, \\
\frac{4}{9g}\left(\sqrt{gh_l}-\frac{x-x_0}{2t}\right)^2, \\
0,
\end{cases}
\quad
u(x,t) =
\begin{cases}
0, &\mbox{ if } x\leq x_A(t), \\
\frac{2}{3}\left(\sqrt{gh_l}+\frac{x-x_0}{t}\right), & \mbox{ if } x_A(t) < x\leq x_B(t), \\
0, &\mbox{ if } x_B(t) < x,
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
with $x_A(t)=x_0 - t\sqrt{gh_l}$ and $x_B=x_0+2t\sqrt{gh_l}$.
We solve the problem up to $t=10$.
In Figures \ref{fig:rp_dry_bed_roe}-\ref{fig:rp_dry_bed_blended},
we show the solution using method \eqref{first-order_via_fluct}
with Roe's solver, Rusanov's solver and the blended solver, respectively.
The entropy glitch, which is manifested as a non-physical shock at $x=x_0$,
is present with Roe's solver. Using Rusanov's and the blended solvers
fixes the entropy glitch.
In Table \ref{table:rp_dry_bed}, we summarize the results of a convergence test.
Note that using the blended solver leads to more accurate results.
\begin{figure}[!h]
{\scriptsize
\subfloat[Roe's Riemann solver.\label{fig:rp_dry_bed_roe}]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{figures/rp_dry_roe.png}}
~
\subfloat[Rusanov's Riemann solver.\label{fig:rp_dry_bed_llf}]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{figures/rp_dry_llf.png}}
\subfloat[Blended Riemann solver. \label{fig:rp_dry_bed_blended}]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{figures/rp_dry_blended.png}}
~
\subfloat[Roe's Riemann solver with $\lambda_{i\pm 1/2}^{\min}$.\label{fig:rp_dry_bed_roe_with_lmin}]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{figures/rp_dry_roe_with_lmin.png}}
}
\caption{
Dam break problem over a dry bed using method \eqref{first-order_via_fluct} with different
Riemann solvers. We show the numerical solution and the exact solution (in dashed black) at $t=10$.
We consider different refinements with
(cyan) $\Delta x=1/400$, (red) $\Delta x=1/800$, (blue) $\Delta x=1/1600$.
\label{fig:rp_dry_bed}}
\end{figure}
For this particular problem, using method \eqref{first-order_via_fluct} with
the blended Riemann solver leads to $\lambda_{i\pm 1/2}^{\min}=0$ for all the experiments.
We can artificially activate the entropy stabilization by imposing $\theta_{i}=0$ in \eqref{lambda_p},
which is equivalent to using Roe's solver with extra dissipation given by $\lambda_{i\pm 1/2}^{\min}$.
In Figure \ref{fig:rp_dry_bed_roe_with_lmin} we show the solution,
and in the last column of Table \ref{table:rp_dry_bed} we summarize the results of a convergence test.
The entropy glitch is still noticeable but greatly reduced compared to the
solution from Roe's method without entropy stabilization.
To remove completely the entropy glitch we could add high-order entropy dissipation following \cite{tadmor2003entropy}
and references therein.
\begin{table}[!ht]\scriptsize
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||c||c|c||c|c||c|c||c|c||} \hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{Roe's solver}
&\multicolumn{2}{c||}{Rusanov's solver}
&\multicolumn{2}{c||}{Blended solver}
&\multicolumn{2}{c||}{Roe's with $\lambda_{i\pm 1/2}^{\min}$} \\ \cline{2-9}
$\Delta x$ & $E_1$ & rate & $E_1$ & rate & $E_1$ & rate & $E_1$ & rate \\ \hline
1/50 & 6.21E-04 & -- & 6.95E-04 & -- & 5.08E-04 & -- & 5.95E-04 & -- \\
1/100 & 4.70E-04 & 0.40 & 5.27E-04 & 0.40 & 3.39E-04 & 0.58 & 4.06E-04 & 0.55 \\
1/200 & 3.91E-04 & 0.26 & 3.88E-04 & 0.44 & 2.30E-04 & 0.56 & 2.83E-04 & 0.52 \\
1/400 & 3.16E-04 & 0.30 & 2.64E-04 & 0.55 & 1.49E-04 & 0.62 & 1.89E-04 & 0.58 \\
1/800 & 2.35E-04 & 0.42 & 1.67E-04 & 0.66 & 9.24E-05 & 0.68 & 1.20E-04 & 0.65 \\
1/1600 & 2.00E-04 & 0.23 & 1.01E-04 & 0.72 & 5.66E-05 & 0.70 & 7.42E-05 & 0.68 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Grid convergence study for the dam break problem over a dry bed
using method \eqref{first-order_via_fluct} with different Riemann solvers.\label{table:rp_dry_bed}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Dam break problem on a wet bed}\label{sec:rp_wet_bed}
We consider now a one-dimensional dam break problem on a wet domain.
We follow the setup in \cite[\S 4.1.1]{delestre2013swashes}.
The domain is $x\in(0,10)$ and the initial condition is given by
$hu(x,0)=0$ and
\begin{align*}
h(x,0) =
\begin{cases}
h_l & x \leq x_0 \\
h_r & x > x_0
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
with $x_0=5$, $h_l=0.005$, and $h_r=0.001$. The exact solution, which can be found in
\cite{delestre2013swashes} and references therein, is given by
\begin{align*}
h(x,t) =
\begin{cases}
h_l, \\
\frac{4}{9g}\left(\sqrt{gh_l}-\frac{x-x_0}{2t}\right)^2, \\
\frac{c_m^2}{g}, \\
h_r,
\end{cases}
\quad
u(x,t) =
\begin{cases}
0, &\mbox{ if } x\leq x_A(t), \\
\frac{2}{3}\left(\sqrt{gh_l}+\frac{x-x_0}{t}\right), & \mbox{ if } x_A(t) < x\leq x_B(t), \\
2(\sqrt{gh_l}-c_m), & \mbox{ if } x_B(t)<x\leq x_C(t), \\
0, &\mbox{ if } x < x_C(t),
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
where $x_A(t)=x_0-t\sqrt{gh_l}$, $x_B(t)=x_0+t\left(2\sqrt{gh_l}-3c_m\right)$,
$x_C(t)=x_0+t\frac{2c_m^2\left(\sqrt{gh_l}-c_m\right)}{c_m^2-gh_r}$ and
$c_m$ is the solution of
$-8gh_rc_m^2\left(\sqrt{gh_l}-c_m\right)^2+\left(c_m^2-gh_r\right)^2\left(c_m^2+gh_r\right)=0$.
We solve the problem up to the final time $t=5$ using the
second-order method \eqref{second-order_via_fluct}
with Roe's, Rusanov's and the blended solvers. The solution with different refinement levels
and each Riemann solver is shown in Figure \ref{fig:rp_wet_bed}.
In Table \ref{table:rp_wet_bed}, we summarize the results of a convergence test.
Since the solution is non-smooth, we expect no more than first order convergence rates. Note that the
results with the entropy dissipative blended solver are comparable to the results using Roe's solver.
That is, imposing entropy dissipation via the blended Riemann solver does not degrade the high-order
accuracy properties of Roe's solver.
In contrast, the accuracy and convergence rates using Rusanov's solver are clearly degraded.
\begin{figure}[!h]
{\scriptsize
\subfloat[Roe's Riemann solver.]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.29]{figures/rp_wet_roe.png}}
\quad
\subfloat[Rusanov's Riemann solver.]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.29]{figures/rp_wet_llf.png}}
\quad
\subfloat[Blended Riemann solver.]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.29]{figures/rp_wet_blended.png}}
}
\caption{
Dam break problem over a wet bed using method \eqref{second-order_via_fluct} with different
Riemann solvers. We show the numerical solution and the exact solution (in dashed black) at $t=10$.
We consider different refinements with
(cyan) $\Delta x=1/400$, (red) $\Delta x=1/800$, (blue) $\Delta x=1/1600$.
\label{fig:rp_wet_bed}}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!ht]\scriptsize
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||c||c|c||c|c||c|c||} \hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{Roe's solver}
&\multicolumn{2}{c||}{Rusanov's solver}
&\multicolumn{2}{c||}{Blended solver} \\ \cline{2-7}
$\Delta x$ & $E_1$ & rate & $E_1$ & rate & $E_1$ & rate \\ \hline
1/50 & 4.22E-04 & -- & 5.73E-04 & -- & 4.24E-04 & -- \\
1/100 & 2.00E-04 & 1.07 & 3.35E-04 & 0.78 & 1.99E-04 & 1.08 \\
1/200 & 1.11E-04 & 0.85 & 2.01E-04 & 0.74 & 1.10E-04 & 0.84 \\
1/400 & 5.05E-05 & 1.13 & 1.18E-04 & 0.77 & 5.07E-05 & 1.12 \\
1/800 & 2.60E-05 & 0.95 & 7.08E-05 & 0.74 & 2.61E-05 & 0.95 \\
1/1600 & 1.29E-05 & 1.01 & 3.79E-05 & 0.90 & 1.29E-05 & 1.01 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Grid convergence study for the dam break problem over a wet bed
using method \eqref{second-order_via_fluct} with different Riemann solvers.\label{table:rp_wet_bed}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Flow past a cylinder}\label{sec:bow_shock}
In this section we consider the formation of a bow shock when a
uniform flow encounters a cylindrical obstacle. This problem has
been studied previously in the context of carbuncle formation in
several works for the Euler equations and in
\cite{kemm2014note,bader2014carbuncle} for the shallow water equations.
We present results for existing solvers as a form of verification,
along with results for the new blended solver. The main question of
interest is the formation of carbuncles. It is known, for instance,
that the Roe solver incorrectly generates a carbuncle at the center
of the bow shock.
We model only the flow on the upstream side of the cylinder, since
our interest is in the resolution of the bow shock. We take the domain
$[0,40]\times[0,100]$ with a cylinder of radius 20 centered at $(40,50)$.
Reflecting boundary conditions are imposed at the surface of the cylinder,
along with outflow conditions along the rest of the right edge of the domain.
The depth and velocity are set initially and (for all time) at the other
boundaries to $h_0=1$, $u_0=5$, for a Froude number of 5. We use a $160 \times 400$
uniform Cartesian grid.
In Figure \ref{fig:steady_outflow}, we show results at $t=80$, after the flow has reached
a steady state. With Roe's solver, negative values (of the water height) are generated at an early
time, leading to failure of the solver. Therefore, we show results only for
Rusanov's, HLLEMCC by \cite{kemm2014note}, and the blended solvers. These three methods give very similar
results.
\begin{figure}[!h]
{\scriptsize
\subfloat[Rusanov's solver.]{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{figures/cylinder_rusanov.png}}
\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad
\subfloat[HLLEMCC solver.]{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{figures/cylinder_hllemcc.png}}
\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad
\subfloat[Blended solver.]{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{figures/cylinder_ES.png}}
}
\caption{
Flow past a cylinder. Results for Rusanov's, HLLEMCC, and the blended solvers.
\label{fig:cylinder_flow}}
\end{figure}
We have also conducted a more challenging version of this test, in which
the velocity within the domain is initially zero. In that case, Rusanov's
and the blended solvers give carbuncle-free results similar to Figure \ref{fig:steady_outflow},
but HLLEMCC exhibits a carbuncle.
\section{Numerical study of the circular hydraulic jump}\label{sec:chj}
\subsection{Semi-analytical steady solution under rotational symmetry}\label{sec:steady_chj}
In this section, we consider the initial boundary value problem consisting of the
shallow water model \eqref{eq:sw} in an annular domain
\begin{align} \label{eq:annulus}
r_\textup{jet} \le r \le r_\infty
\end{align}
where $r = \sqrt{x^2+y^2}$, with prescribed inflow at $r=r_\textup{jet}$
and prescribed outflow at $r=r_\infty$.
The domain and boundary conditions are rotationally symmetric.
By assuming rotational symmetry in \eqref{eq:sw}, one obtains the system
\begin{subequations} \label{eq:rsw}
\begin{align}
(rh)_t + (rhu)_r &= 0, \label{mass1} \\
(rhu)_t + (rhu^2)_r + r \left(\frac{1}{2}gh^2\right)_r &= 0, \label{mom1}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where the depth $h$ and radial velocity $u$ are functions of $r$ and $t$.
By direct integration one finds that steady-state solutions of
\eqref{eq:rsw} satisfy
\begin{subequations}\label{steady}
\begin{align}
rhu & = C \\
h'(r) & = \frac{h(r)}{\frac{g}{\beta^2} r^3 (h(r))^3 -r} = \frac{h(r)}{r} \cdot \frac{(F(r))^2}{1-(F(r))^2} \label{eq:dh}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for some $C$ independent of $r$. Here $F(r)=|u(r)|/\sqrt{gh(r)}$ is the Froude number.
We see that two types of steady profiles exist, depending on whether the flow
is subcritical ($|F|<1$) or supercritical ($|F|>1$). No smooth steady solution can
include both regimes, since the right hand side of \eqref{eq:dh} blows up when $F=1$.
\subsection{Numerical test: steady outflow}\label{sec:steady_outflow}
We now test the numerical methods by using a time-dependent simulation
to compute the steady flow solution just described,
in the annulus $r\in(0.1,1)$ with constant inflow at $r=0.1$ and outflow at $r=1$.
The initial condition is
$h(r,t=0)=0.1$, $hu(r,t=0)=0$, the inner boundary condition is $h(0.1,t)=0.3$, $hu(0.1,t)=0.75$,
and the outer boundary condition is set to outflow
(see \cite[\S 21.8.5]{leveque2002finite} for details).
The computational mesh is logically quadrilateral, of the type shown in
Figure \ref{fig:mesh_chj}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.15]{figures/mesh.png}
\caption{
Example of a grid for the problem with the two-dimensional CHJ.
\label{fig:mesh_chj}}
\end{figure}
Regardless of the initial condition, the exact solution converges to a
steady state profile given by one of the two solutions of \eqref{steady},
corresponding to subcritical or supercritical flow. In the present case we
have imposed a supercritical inflow.
In Figure \ref{fig:steady_outflow}, we show the solution and $\theta_i$ at different times using
the second-order method \eqref{second-order_via_fluct}
with Roe's, Rusanov's and the blended Riemann solvers.
Additionally, in Table \ref{table:steady_outflow}, we summarize the results of a convergence study
based on methods \eqref{first-order_via_fluct} and
\eqref{second-order_via_fluct}, using the same Riemann solvers.
Although the chosen initial
condition leads initially to shock formation, the steady state is smooth and close to
second order convergence is observed for the Roe and blended solvers.
\begin{figure}[!h]
{\scriptsize
\includegraphics[scale=0.29]{figures/outflow_1D_t0p5.png}
\qquad
\includegraphics[scale=0.29]{figures/outflow_1D_t1p3.png}
\qquad
\includegraphics[scale=0.29]{figures/outflow_1D_t10p0.png}
\vspace{15pt}
\includegraphics[scale=0.29]{figures/outflow_1D_Ri_t0p5.png}
\qquad
\includegraphics[scale=0.29]{figures/outflow_1D_Ri_t1p3.png}
\qquad
\includegraphics[scale=0.29]{figures/outflow_1D_Ri_t10p0.png}
}
\caption{
Steady outflow problem using method \eqref{second-order_via_fluct} with
(cyan) Roe's, (red) Rusanov's and (dashed blue) the blended Riemann solvers.
In the second row we plot $\theta_i$, which is given by \eqref{Ri}.
In all simulations we take $\Delta x=1/400$.
\label{fig:steady_outflow}}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!ht]\scriptsize
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||c||c|c||c|c||c|c||c|c||c|c||c|c||} \hline
& \multicolumn{6}{c||}{First-order method \eqref{first-order_via_fluct}}
& \multicolumn{6}{c||}{Second-order method \eqref{second-order_via_fluct}} \\ \cline{2-13}
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{Roe's solver}
&\multicolumn{2}{c||}{Rusanov's solver}
&\multicolumn{2}{c||}{Blended solver}
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{Roe's solver}
&\multicolumn{2}{c||}{Rusanov's solver}
&\multicolumn{2}{c||}{Blended solver}
\\ \cline{2-13}
$\Delta x$ & $E_1$ & rate & $E_1$ & rate & $E_1$ & rate & $E_1$ & rate & $E_1$ & rate & $E_1$ & rate\\ \hline
1/50 & 2.16E-4 & -- & 9.97E-4 & -- & 2.16E-4 & -- & 4.13E-5 & -- & 7.32E-4 & -- & 4.15E-5 & -- \\
1/100 & 1.14E-4 & 0.92 & 6.38E-4 & 0.64 & 1.14E-4 & 0.92 & 1.47E-5 & 1.48 & 4.43E-4 & 0.73 & 1.48E-5 & 1.48 \\
1/200 & 5.86E-5 & 0.95 & 3.88E-4 & 0.72 & 5.87E-5 & 0.95 & 4.81E-6 & 1.61 & 2.57E-4 & 0.79 & 4.83E-6 & 1.61 \\
1/400 & 2.98E-5 & 0.97 & 2.26E-4 & 0.78 & 2.98E-5 & 0.97 & 1.42E-6 & 1.76 & 1.44E-4 & 0.83 & 1.42E-6 & 1.76 \\
1/800 & 1.50E-5 & 0.98 & 1.27E-4 & 0.83 & 1.50E-5 & 0.98 & 4.16E-7 & 1.76 & 7.81E-5 & 0.88 & 4.18E-7 & 1.76 \\
1/1600 & 7.53E-6 & 0.99 & 6.90E-5 & 0.88 & 7.53E-6 & 0.99 & 1.14E-7 & 1.86 & 4.12E-5 & 0.92 & 1.15E-7 & 1.86 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Grid convergence study for the steady outflow problem
using methods \eqref{first-order_via_fluct} and \eqref{second-order_via_fluct}
with different Riemann solvers.\label{table:steady_outflow}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Location of the jump} \label{sec:jumploc}
The steady, rotationally-symmetric circular hydraulic jump involves supercritical
flow for $r<r_0$ and subcritical flow for $r>r_0$, where $r_0$ is the jump radius.
The jump itself takes the form of a stationary shock wave. The Rankine-Hugoniot jump
conditions specify that for such a shock,
\begin{align} \label{eq:RH}
h_+ - h_- & = \frac{-3h_- + \sqrt{h_-^2 + 8 h_- u_-^2/g}}{2} = \frac{3h_-}{2}\left(\sqrt{1+\frac{8}{9}(F_-^2-1)}-1\right),
\end{align}
where the subscripts $+, -$ denote states just inside or outside the jump radius, respectively.
A steady-state, rotationally symmetric solution can be given for an annular region with prescribed
flow at the inner and outer boundaries as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Specify the depth and velocity at the inner boundary (near the jet) and outer boundary.
\item Integrate \eqref{eq:dh} from both boundaries.
\item Find a radius $r_0$ where the matching condition \eqref{eq:RH} is satisfied.
\end{enumerate}
Due to the nature of solutions of \eqref{eq:dh}, it can be shown that the required jump
radius $r_0$ always exists if the prescribed flow is supercritical at the inner boundary
and subcritical at the outer boundary.
In this section we described how the location of the jump for a steady, rotationally-symmetric CHJ
is determined by the boundary conditions. Following similar steps, one can choose inner boundary conditions
and find outflow boundary conditions that lead to a CHJ at a prescribed location.
This a convenient approach to construct initial conditions for numerical experiments at different flow regimes.
Let us consider two flow regimes and construct the corresponding CHJs, which we use in the following sections.
Consider the following boundary conditions:
\begin{subequations}\label{bcs_chj}
\begin{align}
h(x,y,t)=h_{\textup{jet}}, \quad
u(x,y,t)=|{u}_{\textup{jet}}| \left(\frac{x}{r_{\textup{jet}}}\right), \quad
v(x,y,t)=|{u}_{\textup{jet}}| \left(\frac{y}{r_{\textup{jet}}}\right), \qquad \sqrt{x^2+y^2}=r_{\textup{jet}} \\
%
h(x,y,t)=h_\textup{out}, \quad
u(x,y,t)= \frac{\beta }{r_\textup{out} h}\left(\frac{x}{r_\textup{out}}\right), \quad
v(x,y,t)= \frac{\beta }{r_\textup{out} h}\left(\frac{y}{r_\textup{out}}\right), \qquad \sqrt{x^2+y^2}=r_\textup{out},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $h_{\textup{jet}}=0.3$, $r_{\textup{jet}}=0.1$, $r_\textup{out}=1$ and $\beta=r_{\textup{jet}} h_{\textup{jet}}|{u}_{\textup{jet}}|$.
We choose $|{u}_{\textup{jet}}|$ and $h_\textup{out}$ such that the steady roationally-symmetric
solution involves a symmetric shock at $r_s=0.3$; see Table \ref{table:regimes}.
In Figure \ref{fig:regimes}, we show the water depth $h$ along $y=0$ for these regimes.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||c||c|c|c||} \hline
& $F(r_{\textup{jet}})$ & $|{u}_{\textup{jet}}|$ & $h_\textup{out}$ \\ \hline
Regime I & 1.37 & 0.75 & 0.37387387318873766 \\ \hline
Regime II & 27.39 & 15 & 6.6845019298155357 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Boundary data $|u_{\textup{jet}}|$ and $h_\textup{out}$ which along with \eqref{bcs_chj}
produce CHJs located at $r_s=0.3$ for two different flow regimes. \label{table:regimes}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\subfloat[$F(r_{\textup{jet}})\approx 1.37$\label{fig:ic_regime_I}]{\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/chj_r1_init.png}} \qquad
\subfloat[$F(r_{\textup{jet}})\approx 27.39$\label{fig:ic_regime_II}]{\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/chj_r2_init.png}}
\caption{Radially symmetric CHJs created by solving \eqref{steady} with a jump given by \eqref{eq:RH}.
We show a slice along $y=0$.
In Section \ref{sec:regime_i}, we consider the CHJ in (a) as initial condition;
and in Sections \ref{sec:regime_ii} and \ref{sec:regime_iiwp},
we consider the CHJ in (b) as initial condition.
\label{fig:regimes}}
\end{figure}
Numerical tests suggest that the solution of \eqref{eq:rsw} rapidly approaches that
just described under general initial conditions as long as the inflow at the jet is
supercritical and the outflow at $r_\infty$ is subcritical. Subcritical outflow
can be enforced by an appropriate outer boundary condition. This solution remains steady
if the rate of inflow and outflow are matched. The stability of this solution in
the face of non-rotationally-symmetric perturbations is an important question not
only in the shallow water context but for more realistic fluid models and physically.
It will play an important role in the results we present below.
The rotationally-symmetric steady state is a useful initial condition for studies
of CHJ stability.
\subsection{The circular hydraulic jump in two dimensions}\label{sec:2D_chj}
Let us finally consider the numerical experiments for the CHJ in two dimensions.
The domain is again given by the annulus \eqref{eq:annulus}, but now we solve
the fully 2D shallow water equations \eqref{eq:sw}. For all of the following
experiments, we use a mesh with 1000 cells in each (radial and angular) direction.
The boundary conditions at the jet and the outer boundary are given by \eqref{bcs_chj}.
By adjusting the boundary conditions $|{u}_{\textup{jet}}|$ and $h_\textup{out}$ we can study different flow regimes.
We focus on the two cases in Table \ref{table:regimes}.
For most of the experiments we show a Schlieren plot for the water height.
That is, we plot $||\nabla h||_{\ell^2}$ with a greyscale logarithmic colormap.
\subsubsection{Regime I ($F_{\textup{jet}}\approx1.37$)}\label{sec:regime_i}
In this case, the boundary conditions are given by \eqref{bcs_chj} with
\begin{align}\label{bcs_chj_r1}
|{u}_{\textup{jet}}|=0.75, \qquad h_\textup{out}=0.37387387318873766.
\end{align}
The initial condition is a circular hydraulic jump located at $r_s=0.3$; see Figure \ref{fig:ic_regime_I}.
In Figure \ref{fig:chj_r1_roe}, we show the solution at different times using
method \eqref{second-order_via_fluct} with Roe's Riemann solver.
The solution clearly develops carbuncle instabilities, which are evident in the inset figure.
In Figure \ref{fig:chj_r1_diff}, we show solutions at $t=3$ for
Rusanov's, HLLEMCC, and the blended Riemann solvers.
For this test case, these three solvers give qualitatively similar solutions,
all of which are free from carbuncles.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\subfloat[Solution at (left) $t=1$, (middle) $t=1.5$ and (right) $t=3$ using Roe's Riemann solver.
The main plots are Schlieren plots of the depth $h$, while the inset in the right
figure shows the momentum in the radial direction.\label{fig:chj_r1_roe}]{
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/chj_r1_roe_p1.png} &
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/chj_r1_roe_p2.png} &
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/chj_r1_roe_p3.png}
\end{tabular}
}
\subfloat[Solution at $t=3$ using (left) Rusanov's,
(upper-right) HLLEMCC and (bottom-right) the blended solvers.\label{fig:chj_r1_diff}]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/chj_r1_quadrants.png}
}
\qquad\qquad
\subfloat[Solution at $t=3$ along $y=0$ using the same solvers as in (b).]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/chj_r1_slices.png}}
\caption{Simulation of a CHJ with boundary conditions given by \eqref{bcs_chj} and \eqref{bcs_chj_r1}.
We consider method \eqref{second-order_via_fluct} with different Riemann solvers.
In (a) and (b) we show the Schlieren plot for the water height $h$.
\label{fig:chj_r1}}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Regime II ($F_{\textup{jet}}\approx27.39$)}\label{sec:regime_ii}
We now consider a higher-Froude number regime. The boundary conditions are
given by \eqref{bcs_chj} with
\begin{align}\label{bcs_chj_r2}
|{u}_{\textup{jet}}|=15, \qquad h_\textup{out}=6.6845019298155357.
\end{align}
The initial condition is a circular hydraulic jump located at $r_s=0.3$; see Figure \ref{fig:ic_regime_II}.
In Figure \ref{fig:chj_r2_roe}, we show the solution at different times using method
\eqref{second-order_via_fluct} with Roe's Riemann solver. Again the solution develops
carbuncle instabilities, which are clearly seen in the inset figure at $t=3$.
For this regime, we obtained negative values for the water height with
the HLLEMCC solver, which lead to failure of the solver. Therefore, in Figure
\ref{fig:chj_r2_diff} we only show results with Rusanov's and the blended
solvers.
The solutions obtained with these solvers show no carbuncles. The Rusanov
solution remains very close to the initial symmetric equilibrium state,
whereas the blended solver solution includes perturbations that appear
just downstream from the jump.
In Figure \ref{fig:chj_r2_later}, we show the Rusanov and blended solutions at
a much later time of $t=5$. In addition to the Schlieren plot of the water
height, we superimpose a color plot of the magnitude of the momentum.
It is evident that the visible perturbations in the blended solution are
completely dissipated in the Rusanov solution, at least when using the grid employed here.
It is natural to ask whether these perturbations are meaningful; i.e., whether
the symmetric equilibrium is unstable. To investigate this, we conduct one
more test.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\subfloat[Solution at (left) $t=0.09$, (middle) $t=0.1$ and (right) $t=0.11$ using Roe's Riemann solver.\label{fig:chj_r2_roe}]{
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/chj_r2_roe_p1.png} &
\quad\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/chj_r2_roe_p2.png} \quad &
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/chj_r2_roe_p3.png}
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace{10pt}
\subfloat[Solution at $t=0.11$ using (left) Rusanov's and (right) the blended solvers.\label{fig:chj_r2_diff}]{
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/chj_r2_llf_t0p1.png} \qquad &
\qquad \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/chj_r2_blended_t0p1.png}
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{CHJ with boundary conditions given by \eqref{bcs_chj} and \eqref{bcs_chj_r2}.
We consider method \eqref{second-order_via_fluct} with different Riemann solvers.
In all cases we show the Schlieren plot for the water height $h$.
The inset figures show the momentum in the radial direction.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/chj_r2_rusanov_t5p0.png} \quad
\quad \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/chj_r2_blended_t5p0.png}
\caption{CHJ at $t=5$ with boundary conditions given by \eqref{bcs_chj} and \eqref{bcs_chj_r2}.
We consider method \eqref{second-order_via_fluct} with (left) Rusanov's
and (right) the blended solvers.
In all cases we superimpose the Schlieren plot for the water height $h$
an the magnitude of the momentum with a uniform (white-to-blue) colormap.
The scale for colormap is (white) $0.45$ to (blue) $4.5$,
which corresponds to the minimum and maximum values at $t=0$.
The inset figure shows the momentum in the radial direction.
\label{fig:chj_r2_later}}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Regime II with random perturbations}\label{sec:regime_iiwp}
Given the symmetry of the grid and initial data in the section above,
the non-rotationally-symmetric perturbations seen when using the blended
solver above must arise due to the influence of numerical errors.
In order to understand whether these are evidence of a true instability,
we now introduce a non-symmetric perturbation at the inflow boundary.
We use the same mean values \eqref{bcs_chj_r2}, but now we set
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
h(x,y,t)=\tilde h_{\textup{jet}}, \quad
u(x,y,t)=|\tilde {u}_{\textup{jet}}| \left(\frac{x}{r_{\textup{jet}}}\right), \quad
v(x,y,t)=|\tilde {u}_{\textup{jet}}| \left(\frac{y}{r_{\textup{jet}}}\right), \qquad r=r_{\textup{jet}},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with $\tilde h_{\textup{jet}} = \frac{h_{\textup{jet}}}{1+\epsilon(x,y,t)}$ and $|\tilde{u}_{\textup{jet}}|=|{u}_{\textup{jet}}|(1+\epsilon(x,y,t))$.
Here $\epsilon(x,y,t)$ is chosen at each inflow boundary ghost cell and at each
time step as an i.i.d. random variable from the uniform distribution $[-0.01,0.01]$.
In this case, due to the large Froude number, the random perturbations in the inflow
may trigger physical instabilities, which we want to preserve. At the same time, we
do not want the solution to develop carbuncle instabilities.
In figures \ref{fig:chj_r2wp_rusanov} and \ref{fig:chj_r2wp_blended}, we show the solution
at different times considering method \eqref{second-order_via_fluct} with Rusanov's and
the blended Riemann solvers, respectively.
In the right panel of Figure \ref{fig:chj_r2wp_blended}, we show an inset figure
with the momentum in the radial direction. Note that even though the solution is highly unstable
(with the blended Riemann solver), no visible carbuncle instabilities are developed.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\subfloat[Rusanov's Riemann solver\label{fig:chj_r2wp_rusanov}]{
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
$t=2$ & $t=3$ & $t=4$ & $t=5$ \\
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{figures/chj_r2wp_rusanov_t2p0.png} &
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{figures/chj_r2wp_rusanov_t3p0.png} &
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{figures/chj_r2wp_rusanov_t4p0.png} &
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{figures/chj_r2wp_rusanov_t5p0.png}
\end{tabular}
}
\subfloat[Blended Riemann solver\label{fig:chj_r2wp_blended}]{
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{figures/chj_r2wp_blended_t2p0.png} &
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{figures/chj_r2wp_blended_t3p0.png} &
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{figures/chj_r2wp_blended_t4p0.png} &
\includegraphics[scale=0.24]{figures/chj_r2wp_blended_t5p0.png}
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{CHJ at different times with a random perturbation at the inflow boundary.
We consider method \eqref{second-order_via_fluct} with different Riemann solvers.
In all cases we show the Schlieren plot for the water height $h$.
The inset figure shows the momentum in the radial direction.}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusion}
In this work we have introduced a new Riemann solver for the shallow water
equations, described in Section \ref{sec:blended_rs}. Through numerical tests we have
shown that the solver gives accuracy similar to that of Roe's method and
robustness similar to that of Rusanov's method. Although the full
second-order method we have proposed is not provably entropy stable or
positivity preserving, it gives improved results for test problems
where both of these properties are important. The approach used in Section
\ref{sec:blended_rs} could be applied to enforce entropy stability for any Riemann
solver of the type used in Clawpack. The same techniques could also
be used more generally to avoid carbuncles in the solution of the
Euler equations.
We have introduced two new test problems for numerical shallow water solvers,
both consisting of flow in an annulus, with inflow from a jet
at the center and outflow at the outer boundary. The first test
problem, described in Section \ref{sec:steady_outflow}, has a smooth solution that can
be computed by solving an ODE and thus serves as a useful test of
accuracy. The second problem, the circular hydraulic jump, involves
a standing shock wave that can be physically unstable but is
also susceptible to the numerical carbuncle instability.
Additionally, it involves high-velocity low-depth flow regions where
it is challenging to maintain positivity.
This makes it an excellent problem for testing that schemes are both
robust and not overly dissipative.
{\bf Acknowledgment.} We thank Prof. Friedemann Kemm for sharing helpful code
with us and for reviewing an early version of this manuscript.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\paragraph{Voronoi cells.} Consider a large graph $\mathcal G$, from which we choose $k$ vertices uniformly at random, and denote them by $U_1,\dots,U_k$. The \emph{Voronoi cell} $\operatorname{Vor}(U_j)$ of $U_j$ consists of those vertices that are closer in graph distance to $U_j$ than to any of the other chosen vertices $\{U_i\colon i=1,\dots,k; i\neq j\},$ with an arbitrary rule to break ties. We are studying the vector of proportional sizes \[\left(\frac{|\operatorname{Vor}(U_1)|}n,\dots,\frac{|\operatorname{Vor}(U_k)|}n\right),\] in the limit as $n\to\infty$, where $n=|\operatorname{Vor}(U_1)|+\cdots+|\operatorname{Vor}(U_k)|$ denotes the total number of vertices.
In recent work, Addario-Berry et al.\ \cite{Chapuy} investigated this question for the case that $\mathcal G$ is a uniform tree, and proved that the limiting vector is uniform on the $(k-1)$-dimensional simplex. Indeed, they showed much more, namely that this is even true in a limiting sense on the Brownian continuum random tree (henceforth CRT), and thus for all graph models that converge to the Brownian CRT in the Gromov-Hausdorff-Prokhorov topology: rooted plane trees, rooted unembedded binary trees, stacked triangulations, and others.
Guitter \cite{Guitter_2017} proved the same uniform limit for the case that $\mathcal G$ is a random planar map of genus 0 and $k=2$.
Chapuy \cite{Chapu19} made the far-reaching conjecture
that the uniform limit is true for \emph{all random embedded graphs of fixed genus}.
\paragraph{Our first contribution.}
In this paper, we look at the distribution of the Voronoi cells of $k$
uniform nodes in a random {\it split tree}.
Split trees are a family of rooted trees introduced by Devroye~\cite{devroye-split} and later extended by Janson~\cite{Janson} who allowed trees of unbounded degrees:
this family includes classical random trees such as the binary search tree, the random recursive tree, the preferential attachment tree
(also called {\sc port} for ``plane oriented recursive tree'').
In our first main result, we prove that the largest of
the Voronoi cells of $k$ uniform nodes in an $n$-node split tree
contains a proportion~1 of all nodes.
We are also able to prove that the second, third, \dots, $k$-th largest Voronoi cells
each contains an order $n\exp(-\mathrm{const}\sqrt{\log n})$ of all vertices.
We show that this result also holds when edges of the tree are given random i.i.d.\ lengths (of finite variance, or heavy-tailed but with finite mean), and defining the Voronoi cells with respect to the distance induced by these edge lengths instead of the graph distance.
This result is in contrast with the findings of~\cite{Chapuy} for the uniform random tree equipped with the graph distance:
the distribution of the sizes of Voronoi cells is balanced in the case of the uniform random tree
(and other trees whose scaling limit is the CRT),
while we show a ``winner takes it all'' behaviour in the case of split trees.
This difference in behaviour should not be surprising:
it is well-known that split trees have a very different shape from the uniform random trees
(and other random trees whose scaling limit is the CRT): for example,
the typical height of an $n$-node split tree is $\log n$,
while the typical height of the uniform random tree is $\sqrt n$.
In that sense, split trees belong to another universality class of random trees
(as opposed to trees whose scaling limit is the CRT),
and our first main result corresponds to the findings of \cite{Chapuy} for this second universality class.
Similarly to~\cite{Chapuy} conjecturing that their result generalises to maps that
scale to the random Brownian map,
one might expect that the behaviour we prove for random split trees might also be exhibited by other graphs such as preferential attachment graphs
and other scale-free models such as the configuration model.
However, our proofs cannot be straightforwardly generalised.
\paragraph{Extension to a competition/epidemics model.}
The Voronoi cells can be seen as the result of a \emph{competition model}
where $k$ agents are claiming territory with uniform speed until they reach
vertices that are already claimed by another agent.
This procedure stops when all vertices are claimed by some agent;
the final territories are the same as the Voronoi cells.
As discussed above, our first result is that -- unlike in the case of uniform trees --
the final territories are rather unbalanced:
while one agent will claim almost the entire tree,
the rest has to live on a rather small territory.
(This behaviour also persists when we introduce random edge lengths.)
One can also see this competition model as a
competition between~$k$ mutually exclusive epidemics,
which are started at $k$ uniform vertices of a split tree,
and which all spread at constant and equal speed.
Our second main result is that,
if the speed of transmission varies among the different epidemics,
then the fastest epidemic spreads over order $n$ of the vertices.
We are also able to estimate precisely the number of
nodes that get infected by each of the slower epidemics.
Note that this ``winner takes it all'' effect has already been observed in a competing first-passage percolation model on the configuration model with tail exponent $\tau\in(2,3)$ (see \cite{deijfen2016}). The main difference with our model is that epidemics spread deterministically in our model, and randomly at a given rate in the competing first-passage percolation model.
In both models, one epidemic occupies eventually almost all of the available territory.
In the case of different speeds, this is the fastest one, but in the case of equal speed this is determined by the initial position (see \cite{BaronHofstKomja15,HofstKomja15}, where this is proved for the competing first-passage percolation model). The competing first-passage percolation model on random regular graphs exhibits similar behaviour~\cite{Antun17}.
This suggests that the uniform limiting proportion of Voronoi cells is not true on complex networks. Instead, our results support the belief that for competing epidemics on networks with small distances (``small-world graphs'') there is one dominating epidemic.
\paragraph{Information on the typical shape of a random split tree.}
The asymptotic sizes of the Voronoi cells (or territories)
of $k$ nodes chosen uniformly at random in a tree
gives information on the typical shape of a tree.
In fact, to prove our main result,
we prove two results that may be of independent interest because they give information of the typical shape of a random split tree:
(1) in Proposition~\ref{prop:profile} we show convergence in
probability of the ``profile'' of a random split tree,
and (2) in Proposition \ref{prop:fringe_trees}, we prove asymptotic results for the
size of a typical ``extended'' fringe tree in a random split tree.
(1) The profile of a random tree is the distribution of the height (distance to the root)
of a node taken uniformly at random in the tree.
If the tree is random then its profile is a random measure.
In Proposition~\ref{prop:profile}, we show that the profile of a random split tree behaves asymptotically (in probability) as a Gaussian centred around $\mathrm{const}\log n$ and of standard deviation $\mathrm{const}\log n$.
Our framework includes the cases of the random binary and $m$-ary search trees, the random recursive tree and the preferential attachment trees, for which convergence of the profile is already known in the almost sure sense (see \cite{CDJ01}, \cite{MM17}, and \cite{Katona05}, respectively).
(2) Fringe trees are subtrees that are rooted at
an ancestor of a node taken uniformly at random in the tree (or at the uniform node itself).
Oftentimes, this ancestor is chosen to be at constant distance of the uniform node (see, e.g.~\cite{JansonHolm} and the references therein).
In Proposition \ref{prop:fringe_trees}, we extend this definition to allow the ancestor to be at distance to the uniform node that tends to infinity with $n$, the number of nodes in the whole split tree.
\bigskip
The main technical obstables in our proofs comes from the three levels of randomness:
(a) the trees we consider are random split trees,
(b) we then sample i.i.d.\ random edge-lengths, and
(c) we finally sample $k$ nodes uniformly at random in the tree.
The advantage of our approach is that the framework we consider is very wide:
the random split trees we consider include, among others, the binary and $m$-ary search trees, the random recursive tree, and the preferential attachment tree;
our edge-length distribution can be of finite variance, or heavy-tailed with finite mean;
we allow the different epidemics to have identical or different speeds.
In the rest of this section, we define our model (Section~\ref{sub:def_split}) and state our main results (Section~\ref{sub:results}).
\subsection{Trees and random split trees}\label{sub:def_split}
In this paper, we use the Ulam-Harris definition of $m$-ary trees:
let $m\in\mathbb N$ and
\[\mathcal D_m = \{1, 2, \ldots, m\}^* = \{\varnothing, 1, 2, \ldots, m, 11, 12, \ldots 1m, \ldots\},\]
be the set of all finite words on the alphabet $\{1, 2, \ldots, m\}$.
We further consider the case of infinitary trees, where $m=\infty$ and $\mathcal D_\infty = \mathbb N^*$.
We henceforth formulate our results for finite and infinite $m$ in a unified fashion (unless stated explicitly); finite tuples, such as in \eqref{eqSig} below, should be interpreted as infinite sequence whenever $m=\infty$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:tree}
An $m$-ary tree is a subset $t$ of $\mathcal D_m$ such that for all $w=w_1\cdots w_\ell\in t$, all the prefixes of $w$ are in $t$, i.e.\ for all $i\in \{0, \ldots, \ell\}$ one has $w_1\cdots w_i\in t$.
\end{definition}
See Figure~\ref{fig:UH} for an example of a $3$-ary tree.
In the following, we collect some standard vocabulary and notations; they reflect the fact that a tree is often seen as a genealogical structure:
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
\item words are called ``nodes'';
\item the prefixes of a word are its ``ancestors'':
we write $v\prec w$ if $v$ is an ancestor of $w,$ and $v\preccurlyeq w$ if $v$ is $w$ or an ancestor of $w$;
\item the longest of the (strict) prefixes of a word $w$ is its ``parent'', which we denote by $\overset{\sss\leftarrow} v$;
\item a node is a ``child'' of its parent, and it is a ``descendant'' of each of its ancestors;
\item the ``siblings'' of a node $v$ are all those nodes different from $v$ that share the same parent with $v;$ its ``left-siblings'' (resp.\ ``right-siblings'') are all its siblings that are smaller (resp.\ larger) in the lexicographic order;
\item the word $\varnothing$ is the ``root'' of the tree;
\item the ``height'' of a node is the number of letters in the word (the root is at height~0);
\item the ``last common ancestor'' of two nodes is the longest prefix shared by the two nodes:
we write $u\wedge v$ for the last common ancestor of nodes $u$ and $v$.
\end{itemize}
In particular, the definition of a tree can be immediately rephrased using this new vocabulary reflecting the genealogical point of view:
a tree is a set of nodes such that if a node is in the tree,
then all its ancestors must also be in the tree.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{UH}
\end{center}
\caption{The 3-ary tree $\{\varnothing, 1,2,3,11,12,31,32,311,312,313\}$.
Node 312 is the ``second child of the first child of the third child of the root'', its parent is node $31$, its siblings are $311$ and $313$. The last common ancestor of $32$ and $313$ is $3$.
}
\label{fig:UH}
\end{figure}
\medskip
We now define a probability distribution on the set of $m$-ary trees:
it is the distribution of ``split trees'' first introduced by Devroye~\cite{devroye-split},
but generalised to possibly infinite arity as in~\cite{Janson}.
Let $\nu$ be a probability distribution on the set
\begin{equation}\label{eqSig}
\Sigma_m = \Big \{(v_1, \ldots, v_m) \in [0,1]^m \colon \sum_{i=1}^m v_i = 1 \Big \},
\end{equation}
and $(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} Y(w))_{w\in\mathcal D_m}$
be a family of i.i.d.\ $\nu$-distributed random vectors.
For each node $w=w_1\cdots w_\ell\in \mathcal D_m$,
we let $Z_w = Y_{w_\ell}(\overset{\sss\leftarrow} w)$,
where $\overset{\sss\leftarrow} w$ is the parent of $w$, i.e.\ $\overset{\sss\leftarrow} w = w_1\cdots w_{\ell-1}$ and with $Y_{w_\ell}(\overset{\sss\leftarrow} w)$ denoting the $w_\ell$-th coordinate of the vector $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} Y(\overset{\sss\leftarrow} w)$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:split_tree} for an example: $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} Y(3) = (.1,.4,.5)$ and thus $Z_{32}=.4$).
We also let $(X_n)_{n\geq 0}$ be a sequence of i.i.d.\ random variables
uniformly distributed on $[0,1]$, and independent
from the sequence $(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} Y(w))_{w\in\mathcal D_m}$.
We need one last definition to define our sequence of random split trees:
Given a tree $t$, we denote by $\partial t$ the nodes of $\mathcal D_m$ that are not in $t$ but whose parent is in $t$, and we call the elements of this set the ``leaves'' of $t$. It is not hard to see that if $t$ has $n$ nodes, then $\partial t$ has cardinality $(m-1)n+1$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:split_tree}).
We can now define the sequence $(\tau_n)_{n\geq 1}$ of random trees
recursively as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item the tree $\tau_1$ is defined to consist of the root only, i.e.\ $\tau_1 = \{\varnothing\}$.
\item for $n\geq 1$ arbitrary, given $\tau_n$, we define $\tau_{n+1}$ as the tree obtained by adding one node to $\tau_n$ as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item
We subdivide the interval $[0,1]$ in subintervals indexed by $\partial\tau_n$
of respective lengths $\prod_{\varnothing\neq v\preccurlyeq w} Z_v$,
for all $w\in\partial\tau_n$.
(Note that, by definition, $\sum_{w\in\partial\tau_n}\prod_{\varnothing\neq v\preccurlyeq w} Z_v = 1;$ see Figure~\ref{fig:split_tree} for an example, and observe that some points form part of several intervals.)
\item We set $\xi(n+1) = w$ if $X_{n+1}\in [0,1]$ belongs to the part indexed by $w$ of this partition of $[0,1]$, and finally set $\tau_{n+1} = \tau_n \cup\{\xi(n+1)\};$ note that this is well-defined almost surely.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
The sequence of random trees $(\tau_n)_{n\geq 1}$ is called the {\em random split tree of split distribution~$\nu$} (which we recall is the distribution of the $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} Y(w)$'s).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{split_tree}
\end{center}
\caption{A realisation of the 3-ary split tree $\tau_2$, here we have $\tau_2 = \{\varnothing,3\}$.
The labels on the edges represent the values of $(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} Y(w))_{w\in\tau_2}$:
for example, $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} Y(\varnothing) = (.65,.15,.2)$.
The value of $Z_w$ is thus the label on the edge from~$w$ to its parent:
for example, $Z_{31}=.1$.
The nodes that are marked by a square are the elements of $\partial \tau_2$,
underneath each leaf is written the corresponding part in the partition used to build $\tau_3$.
For example, the part corresponding to $32$ is of length $Z_3Z_{32} =.2\times .4 = .08$.}
\label{fig:split_tree}
\end{figure}
This definition incorporates a variety of different random trees that are classical in the literature:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $m=2$ and $\nu$ is the distribution of $(Y, 1-Y)$, where $Y$ is uniform on $[0,1]$, then $(\tau_n)_{n\geq 1}$ is the {\it random binary search tree} (see~\cite[Table~1]{devroye-split}).
\item If $\nu$ is the uniform distribution on the simplex $\Sigma_m$ for $m$ finite, then $(\tau_n)_{n\geq 1}$ is the {\it random $m$-ary search tree} (see~\cite[Table~1]{devroye-split}).
\item If $m=\infty$ and $\nu$ is $\mathrm{GEM}(0,1)$ on $\Sigma_{\infty}$, then $(\tau_n)_{n\geq 1}$ is the {\it random recursive tree} (see~\cite[Cor.~1.2]{Janson}).
\item If $m=\infty$ and $\nu$ is $\mathrm{GEM}(\nicefrac12,\nicefrac12)$, then $(\tau_n)_{n\geq 1}$ is the {\it random preferential attachment tree} (see~\cite[Cor.~1.3]{Janson}).
\end{itemize}
\begin{remark}
For $\alpha\in [0,1]$ and $\theta>0$, the Griffiths-Engen-McCloskey distribution
$\mathrm{GEM}(\alpha, \theta)$ is defined as
the distribution of the sequence $(A_n)_{n\geq 1}$ defined as follows:
sample $(B_i)_{i\geq 1}$ a sequence of independent random variables
of respective distributions~$\mathrm{Beta}(1-\alpha, \theta+i\alpha)$,
and, for all $n\geq 1$, set $A_n = B_n\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(1-B_i)$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Voronoi cells and final territories}\label{sub:results}
In this paper, our aim is to investigate the sizes of the Voronoi cells corresponding to~$k$ nodes taken uniformly at random in the $n$-node random split tree $\tau_n$ defined in Section~\ref{sub:def_split}. In this context, we will also accommodate for the setting of having random edge lengths between the nodes:
let $\varpi$ be a probability distribution on $(0,\infty)$ and
let $(L_w)_{w\in\mathcal D_m}$
be a sequence of i.i.d.\ random variables of distribution~$\varpi$,
and we define the distance between two nodes as the sum of the length of the edges on the unique shortest path between them; see Figure~\ref{fig:distance} for an example.
\begin{definition}\label{def:Distances}
For all families $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} \ell = (\ell_w)_{w\in\mathcal D_m}$ of positive random variables we define a distance $d_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} \ell}$ on $\mathcal D_m$ as follows:
for all pairs of nodes $u$ and $v$ in $\mathcal D_m$ (for all $m\geq 2$),
let
\[d_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} \ell}(u,v)
:= \sum_{u\wedge v\prec w\preccurlyeq u} \ell_w
+ \sum_{u\wedge v\prec w\preccurlyeq v} \ell_w.\]
For all nodes $w\in\mathcal D_m$, we denote by $|w|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} \ell}:=d_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol}\ell}(\varnothing, w)$.
\end{definition}
This definition holds for any fixed sequence $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} \ell$ of edge lengths: all along the paper, we use the distance $d_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}$, where $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L = (L_w)_{w\in\mathcal D_m}$ is the sequence of i.i.d.\ random edge lengths.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{distance}
\end{center}
\caption{A binary tree. The distance between the nodes $112$ and $12$ (marked as squares on the picture) with respect to the sequence $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} \ell$ is $\ell_{11}+\ell_{112}+\ell_{12}$ (the sum of the length of the bold edges) because their last common ancestor is $1$.}
\label{fig:distance}
\end{figure}
Also, note that if $\ell_w=1$ for all $w\in\mathcal D_m$, then $d_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} \ell}$ corresponds to the graph distance in the graph whose nodes are all elements of $\mathcal D_m,$ and where there is an edge between two nodes if and only if one is the parent of the other.
\begin{definition}\label{def:Vor}
Let $u_1, \ldots, u_k$ be $k$ nodes in an $m$-ary tree $t$, and $d$ a distance on $\mathcal D_m$.
We define the Voronoi cells of $u_1, \ldots, u_k$ as follows: for all $1\leq i\leq k$,
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{Vor}_{t,d}^{i}(u_1, \ldots, u_k)
&=\big\{w\in t \colon d(w,u_i)\le d(w,u_j)\text{ for }j=1,\dots,i-1\text{ and } \\ &\qquad d(w,u_i)<d(w,u_j)\text{ for }j=i+1,\dots,n \big \}.
\end{align*}
We say that $\operatorname{Vor}_{t,d}^i(u_1, \ldots, u_k)$ is the Voronoi cell of $u_i$
(with respect to $u_1, \ldots, u_k$).
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
The idea of Definition~\ref{def:Vor} is that $\operatorname{Vor}_{t,d}^i(u_1, \ldots, u_k)$ contains all the nodes that are closer to $u_i$ than to any of the other $u_j$'s for distance $d$ on $t$.
The difference between `$<$' and `$\le$' induces a simple rule to break ties (in case of equal distances, the vertex with smaller index is preferred).
However, since the number of boundary vertices is of constant order, the choice we make about how to break ties has no impact on our results.
\end{remark}
A possible interpretation of Voronoi cells is in terms of epidemics: imagine that $k$ competing epidemics start spreading at speed one from, respectively, $u_1, \ldots, u_k$,
and that once a node is infected by an epidemic, then it becomes immune to all others.
If two or more epidemics reach one node at the same time, then the node gets infected with the epidemics that started at the $u_i$ with smallest index.
In this context, the Voronoi cells are the final territories of the $k$ infections, that is, the Voronoi cell of $u_i$ contains all the nodes that got infected by the epidemic that started at node $u_i$. From this point of view, it is natural to consider the case when the epidemics spread at different speeds:
\begin{definition}
Let $t$ be an $m$-ary tree and denote by $d$ be a distance on $\mathcal D_m.$ Furthermore, let $u_1, \ldots, u_k$ be nodes in $t$ and let $s_1, \ldots, s_k\in (0,+\infty),$ the \lq speeds of the epidemics\rq.
We define the final territories of $(u_1,s_1), \ldots, (u_k, s_k)$ as
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{Ter}_{t,d}^i((u_1, s_1), \ldots, (u_k, s_k))
&=\Big\{w\in t \colon d(w,u_i) \le \frac{s_i+s_j}{s_i}\,d(w,u_j) \text{ for }j=1,\dots,i-1\text{ and } \\
& \qquad(w,u_i)< \frac{s_i+s_j}{s_i}\,d(w,u_j)
\text{ for }j=i+1,\dots,n\} \Big\}.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
\subsubsection{Main results}
Our main result provides asymptotic statements on the sizes of $k$ epidemics in the case when the epidemics have different speeds. We first state the result in the simpler case when all epidemics have the same speed (Theorem \ref{th:voronoi}) and then extend it to the setting where different speeds are admissible (Theorem \ref{th:territories}). Both theorems apply to finite ($m\in\{2, 3, \ldots\}$) as well as infinite ($m=\infty$) arity.
They hold under the following hypothesis on the split-vector distribution $\nu$ and the edge length distribution $\varpi$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(A1)]
(i) If $\mathrm{Supp}(\nu)$ denotes the support of the probability distribution $\nu$, and $\mathbf e_i$ is the $m$-dimensional vector whose coordinates are all equal to~0 except the $i$-th coordinate which is equal to one, then
\[\mathrm{Supp}(\nu)\setminus \{\mathbf e_1, \ldots, \mathbf e_m\}\neq \varnothing.
\]
(ii) Moreover, if $(Y_1, \ldots, Y_m)\sim \nu$, $U$ is a uniform random variable on $[0,1]$,
and\footnote{By convention, we set $\sum_{i=1}^0 a_i = 0$ for each sequence $(a_i)_{i\geq 0}$ of real numbers.}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:barY}
\bar Y = \sum_{i=1}^m Y_i\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} 1\Big\{\sum_{j=1}^{i-1} Y_j\leq U<\sum_{j=1}^{i}Y_j\Big\}
\end{equation}
is the size-biased version of the marginals of $\nu$,
then $\mu:=\mathbb E[\log \nicefrac{1}{\bar Y}]> 0$
and $\sigma^2:=\mathrm{Var}(\log \bar Y)<+\infty.$
\item[(A2)] If $L\sim\varpi$ then either $\mathrm{Var}(L) \in [0,+\infty)$, in which case we set $\alpha:=2$, or there exists $\alpha\in (1,2)$ and a function $\ell$ slowly varying at infinity, such that $\mathbb P(L\geq x) = x^{-\alpha}\ell(x)$. In particular, $\mathbb E L < \infty$ in this case.
\end{itemize}
Assumption (A1-i) just excludes the trivial case when the $n$-node split tree is almost surely equal to a line of $n$ nodes hanging under each other under the root. Assumptions (A1-ii) and (A2) give some control over the moments of respectively the split vectors and the edge lengths: these assumptions will be used when applying laws of large numbers and of the iterated logarithm, as well as central limit theorems to sum of independent copies of these random variables.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:voronoi}
Let $\varpi$ be a probability distribution on $(0,+\infty)$, and $\nu$ be a probability distribution on $\Sigma_m$. Let $(\tau_n)_{n\geq 1}$ be the random split tree of split distribution $\nu$, and $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L = (L_w)_{w\in\mathcal D_m}$ be a sequence of i.i.d.\ random variables
of distribution $\varpi$, independent of $(\tau_n)_{n\geq 1}$.
For each $n\geq 1$, let $U_1(n), \ldots, U_k(n)$ be $k$ nodes taken uniformly at random among the $n$ nodes of $\tau_n$; we let $V_{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (1)}(n)\geq \ldots \geq V_{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (k)}(n)$ be the sizes of their Voronoi cells in $\tau_n$ with respect to the distance $d_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}$, ordered in decreasing order.
Under Assumptions {\rm (A1)} and {\rm (A2)}, we have in distribution when $n\to+\infty$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:VorConvDist}
\frac1{(\log n)^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}\big(\log (V_{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (2)}(n)/n), \ldots, \log (V_{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (k)}(n)/n)\big) \Rightarrow
\frac{\frak v}{2\mathbb EL}
\big(\Psi_{(1)}-\Psi_{(2)}, \ldots, \Psi_{(1)}-\Psi_{(k)}\big);
\end{equation}
here, $\Psi_{(1)}\leq \cdots\leq \Psi_{(k)}$ is the order statistics of $k$ i.i.d.\ random variables whose distribution is
$\mathcal N(0, \mathrm{Var}(L) + \sigma^2 (\mathbb EL)^2)$ if $\mathrm{Var}(L)<+\infty$, and an $\alpha$-stable distribution otherwise, and where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_frak_v}
\frak v = \begin{cases}
\mu^{-\nicefrac12} & \text{ if }\mathrm{Var}(L)<+\infty\\
\mu^{1-\nicefrac1\alpha} &\text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
In words, the above amounts to the fact that the second, third, \dots, $k$th largest component each occupies a proportion of roughly $\exp\{-\Psi(\log n)^{1/\alpha}\}$ of the vertices, where $\Psi$ is some explicit positive random variable. This implies that asymptotically and in distribution, the entire mass is allocated to the largest component (which, by construction, belongs to the vertex closest to the root). The allocation for split trees is therefore qualitatively very different from the allocation in the universality class of the continuum random tree, where the limit of the proportions of the masses is known to be uniform \cite{Chapuy}.
We now extend the results of the previous theorem to the case of different speeds at which the uniformly chosen vertices claim territory (use the same notation as in Theorem~\ref{th:voronoi}).
\begin{theorem}\label{th:territories}
For all $s_1, \ldots, s_k\in (0,+\infty)$, we let $W_{(1)}(n)\geq \ldots \geq W_{(k)}(n)$ be the sizes (ordered in decreasing order) of the final territories in $\tau_n$, equipped with the distance $d_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}$, of $k$ epidemics of respective speeds $s_1, \ldots, s_k$ and starting from $U_1(n), \ldots, U_k(n),$ respectively.
Without loss of generality, we assume that $s_1 = \ldots = s_j > s_{j+1} \geq \ldots\geq s_k$ for some $j\in\{1,\dots,k\}$.
Then, under Assumptions {\rm (A1)} and {\rm (A2)}, we have in distribution when $n\to+\infty$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:terPrincipalConv}
\frac1{(\log n)^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}\big(\log (W_{(2)}(n)/n), \ldots, \log (W_{(j)}(n)/n)\big) \Rightarrow
\frac{\frak v}{2\mathbb EL}
\big(\Psi_{(1)}-\Psi_{(2)}, \ldots, \Psi_{(1)}-\Psi_{(j)}\big),
\end{equation}
where $\frak v$ is defined in~\eqref{eq:def_frak_v},
$\Psi_{(1)}\leq \cdots\leq \Psi_{(j)}$ is the order statistics of $j$ i.i.d.\ random variables whose distribution is
$\mathcal N(0, \mathrm{Var}(L) + \sigma^2 (\mathbb EL)^2)$ if $\mathrm{Var}(L)<+\infty$, and an $\alpha$-stable distribution otherwise.
Furthermore, if $\mathbb EL^2<+\infty$, then, for all $i \in \{j+1, \ldots, k\}$,
\[\frac{\log(W_{(i)}(n)/n) + \frac{s_1-s_i}{s_1+s_i}\log n}{\sqrt{\frac{s_1-s_i}{s_1+s_i}\log n}}
\Rightarrow \mathcal N\bigg(0, \frac{\mathrm{Var}(\log \bar Y)\mathbb EL}{\mathbb E[\log\bar Y]^2}+\mathrm{Var}(L)\bigg).\]
Otherwise, if $\mathbb P(L\geq x) = x^{-\alpha}\ell(x)$ for some function $\ell$ slowly varying at infinity and some $\alpha\in(1,2)$, then, for all $i \in \{j+1, \ldots, k\}$,
\[\frac{\log (W_{(i)}(n)/n)+\frac{s_1-s_i}{s_1+s_i} \log n}{(\frac{s_1-s_i}{s_1+s_i} \log n)^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}
\Rightarrow \frac{\mu^{1-\nicefrac1\alpha}}{\mathbb E L}\Upsilon(\alpha),
\]
where $\Upsilon(\alpha)$ is an $\alpha$-stable distribution.
In particular, in both cases, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:terMinorConv}
\frac{\log(W_{(i)}(n)/n)}{\log n} \to \frac{s_i-s_1}{s_i+s_1}
\end{equation}
in probability when $n\to+\infty$,
for each $i \in \{j+1, \ldots, k\}$.
\end{theorem}
Note that, given that the slower epidemics all have very small territories (cf.~\eqref{eq:terMinorConv}),
the $j$ fastest territories behave as in~Theorem~\ref{th:voronoi}, which -- at least heuristically -- entails~\eqref{eq:terPrincipalConv}.
It is also interesting to note that in their first asymptotic order given by~\eqref{eq:terMinorConv},
the sizes of the slow epidemics do not depend on the edge length.
An intuitive indication towards this fact is that replacing $L$ by $cL$ for a positive constant $c$ does not change the sizes of the territories.
In a similar vein, the right-hand sides of~\eqref{eq:VorConvDist} and \eqref{eq:terPrincipalConv} also remain unchanged upon replacing $L$ by $cL$, as expected.
As a by-product of our proof of Theorems~\ref{th:voronoi} and~\ref{th:territories}, we get the following result on the convergence of the profile of random split trees,
which, as far as we are aware, is a new result in the context of split trees:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:profile}
Let $(\tau_n)_{n\geq 1}$ be the random split tree of split distribution $\nu$, and let, for all integer $n$, $\pi_n = \frac1n\sum_{i=1}^n \delta_{|\nu_i|}$ be the random profile of $\tau_n$,
where we recall that $|\nu_i|$ is the height of the node inserted at time $i$ in $(\tau_n)_{n\geq 1}$.
If $\nu$ satisfies Assumption {\rm (A1)}, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cv_profile}
\pi_n\big(\,\cdot\,\sqrt{(\log n)/\mu^3}+ (\log n)/\mu\big) \to \pi_{\infty}=\mathcal N(0,1),
\end{equation}
in probability as $n\to+\infty$, on the space of probability measures on $\mathbb R$ equipped with the topology of weak convergence.
\end{proposition}
Stronger results are already known for certain cases of split trees:
in particular, it is known that~\eqref{eq:cv_profile} holds almost surely
in the case of the binary search tree \cite{CDJ01},
the random recursive tree \cite{MM17},
and the preferential attachment tree \cite{Katona05}.
The profile of the uniform random tree
(considered by~\cite{Chapuy} in the context of Voronoi cells)
converges in distribution to the local time of a Brownian excursion (see~\cite{DG}).
\begin{remark}\label{rk:quenched_vs_annealed}
Note that Theorem~\ref{th:voronoi} holds in an averaged
sense (or with respect to the joint law). One could imagine two quenched versions by (i) conditioning on the random split tree $(\tau_n)_{n\geq 1}$ or (ii) conditioning additionally also on the sequence of edge lengths $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$. Since, in our proof, we use the central limit theorem for the sequence $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$, our current methods do not provide with a possible version of Theorem~\ref{th:voronoi} quenched with respect to $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$.
However, for the split distributions $\nu$ for which~\eqref{eq:cv_profile} holds almost surely, Theorem~\ref{th:voronoi} would hold almost surely given $(\tau_n)_{n\geq 1}$.
\end{remark}
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. In Section \ref{sec:voronoi}, we establish a central limit theorem for the joint law of the height of uniform vertices and derive Proposition \ref{prop:profile}. Furthermore, we proof Theorem \ref{th:voronoi}. In Section \ref{sec:territories}, we extend these arguments to the case of different speeds thereby proving Theorem \ref{th:territories}.
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:voronoi}}\label{sec:voronoi}
In this section, we use the same notation, and place ourselves under the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{th:voronoi}. The idea of the proof is as follows: if $\varpi = \delta_1$ (i.e.\ all edge lengths are equal to~1 almost surely, i.e.\ $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L \equiv 1$) then among the nodes $U_1(n), \ldots, U_k(n)$, the one closest to the root belongs to the Voronoi cell containing the root, and this Voronoi cell typically is the largest of all Voronoi cells.
As a consequence, it is important
to understand the heights of $k$ uniform nodes in a random split tree.
Recall that for a graph node $v\in\tau$, we write $|v|$ for that graph distance between the root $\varnothing$ and $v.$
\begin{lemma}[CLT for heights of uniform vertices]\label{lem:height_unif}
Let $k\in\mathbb N$ and $\bar Y$ be distributed as the size-biased version of the marginals of $\nu$ (see \eqref{eq:barY}), and denote $\mu = \mathbb E[\log (\nicefrac1{\bar Y})]$ as well as $\sigma^2 = \mathrm{Var}(\log \bar Y).$
Then, in distribution as $n\to+\infty$, we have
\[\left(\frac{|U_1(n)| - (\log n)/\mu}{\sqrt{(\log n)/\mu^3}},\ldots,
\frac{|U_k(n)| - (\log n)/\mu}{\sqrt{(\log n)/\mu^3}}
\right)\Rightarrow (\Lambda_1, \ldots, \Lambda_k),
\]
where the $\Lambda_1, \ldots, \Lambda_k$ are independent centred Gaussian random variables of variance $\sigma^2.$
\end{lemma}
This lemma straightforwardly implies Proposition~\ref{prop:profile}.
\begin{proof}[{Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:profile}}] We use \cite[Lemma~3.1]{MM17}, which states that for a sequence of random measures $(\pi_n)_{n\geq 0}$ to converge in probability to a limiting measure $\pi_{\infty}$, it is enough to show,
for two random variables $A_n$ and $B_n$ sampled independently according to the random measure $\pi_n$, that
$(A_n, B_n) \to (A, B)$ in distribution, where $A$ and $B$ are $\nu$-distributed and independent. (Note that, on the left-hand side, $A_n$ and $B_n$ are independent conditionally on $\pi_n$, but not without this conditioning.)
As a direct consequence, we conclude the proof using \cite[Lemma~3.1]{MM17} in combination with Lemma \ref{lem:height_unif} for the particular case $k=2$ in order to ensure the required convergence conditions of \cite[Lemma~3.1]{MM17} to be fulfilled.
\end{proof}
To prove Lemma~\ref{lem:height_unif}, we first prove convergence of the marginals and then derive asymptotic independence; the latter is a consequence of the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:LCA}
For all $h\in \mathbb N$, let us denote by $U^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (h)}_1(n), \ldots, U^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (h)}_k(n)$ the respective ancestors of $U_1(n), \ldots, U_k(n)$ that have height $h$ (if $h>|U_i(n)|$, we set $U^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (h)}_i(n)=U_i(n)$).
Let $H_n=\max_{1\le i < j \le k} |U_i(n)\wedge U_j(n)|$ be the height of the most recent common ancestor of $U_1(n),\dots,U_k(n)$ and $S_1(n), \ldots, S_k(n)$ be the sizes of the subtrees of $\tau_n$ rooted at $U_1^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (H_n)}(n), \ldots, U_k^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (H_n)}(n)$ respectively.
In distribution when $n\to+\infty$,
\[\Big(\frac{S_1(n)}n, \ldots, \frac{S_k(n)}n, H_n\Big)
\Rightarrow (\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_k, H),\]
where $H$ is an almost surely finite random variable,
and $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_k$ are almost surely positive random variables.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first look at the last common ancestor of $U_1(n)$ and $U_2(n)$:
for all words $w\in\mathcal D_m$,
we have
\[\mathbb P(U_1(n)\wedge U_2(n) = w\, |\, \tau_n)
= \sum_{1\leq i\neq j\leq m} \frac{s_{wi}(n)}n\cdot \frac{s_{wj}(n)}n,\]
where $s_v(n)$ is the size of the subtree of $\tau_n$ rooted at $v$
(in particular, this is equal to zero if $v\notin\tau_n$).
By the definition of the model and the strong law of large numbers we know that, conditionally on the sequence $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} Y = (\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} Y(v))_{v\in\mathcal D_m}$, for all $v\in\mathcal D_m$, almost surely when $n\to+\infty$,
\[
\frac{s_{v}(n)}n \to \prod_{u\preccurlyeq v} Z_u,
\]
where we recall that $Z_{w\ell} = Y_\ell(w)$,
for all $w\in\mathcal D_m$ and $\ell\in\{1, \ldots, m\}$.
Therefore, conditionally on $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} Y$ and almost surely when $n\to+\infty$, we have
\[\mathbb P(U_1(n)\wedge U_2(n) = w\, |\, \tau_n, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol} Y)
\to \sum_{1\leq i\neq j\leq m} \Big(\prod_{u\preccurlyeq wi}Z_u\Big) \Big(\prod_{u\preccurlyeq wj}Z_u\Big),\]
which implies, using dominated convergence, \[\mathbb P(U_1(n)\wedge U_2(n) = w)
\to \mathbb E\bigg[\sum_{1\leq i\neq j\leq m} \Big(\prod_{u\preccurlyeq wi}Z_u\Big) \Big(\prod_{u\preccurlyeq wj}Z_u\Big)\bigg].
\]
To prove that this implies convergence in distribution of $U_1(n)\wedge U_2(n)$ to an almost surely finite random variable~$K_{1,2}\in\mathcal D_m$, we need to show that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tightness}
\sum_{w\in\mathcal D_m}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sum_{1\leq i\neq j\leq m} \Big(\prod_{u\preccurlyeq wi}Z_u\Big) \Big(\prod_{u\preccurlyeq wj}Z_u\Big)\bigg] = 1.
\end{equation}
In order to prove \eqref{eq:tightness}, we first note that, by independence of the $Z_u$'s (except among siblings),
for all $w\in\mathcal D_m$,
\[
\mathbb E\bigg[\sum_{1\leq i\neq j\leq m} \Big(\prod_{u\preccurlyeq wi}Z_u\Big) \Big(\prod_{u\preccurlyeq wj}Z_u\Big)\bigg]
= \mathbb E\bigg[\prod_{u\preccurlyeq w}Z^2_u\bigg]
\sum_{1\leq i\neq j\leq m} \mathbb E[Z_{wi}Z_{wj}]
= \beta\mathbb E\bigg[\prod_{u\preccurlyeq w}Z^2_u\bigg],
\]
where we have introduced the shorthand $\beta = \sum_{1\leq i\neq j\leq m} \mathbb E[Y_i Y_j]$,
with $Y$ a random vector of distribution~$\nu$
(note that, by Assumption (A1-i), $\beta\neq 0$).
This entails that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sum_on_h}
\sum_{w\in\mathcal D_m}
\mathbb E\bigg[\sum_{1\leq i\neq j\leq m} \Big(\prod_{u\preccurlyeq wi}Z_u\Big) \Big(\prod_{u\preccurlyeq wj}Z_u\Big)\bigg]
= \beta \sum_{w\in\mathcal D_m} \mathbb E\bigg[\prod_{u\preccurlyeq w}Z^2_u\bigg]
= \beta \sum_{h\geq 0} \sum_{|w|=h} \mathbb E\bigg[\prod_{u\preccurlyeq w}Z^2_u\bigg],
\end{equation}
where we recall that $|w|$ is the height of $w$.
For all $h\geq 0$, using again the independence of the $Z_u$'s, we infer that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rec_h}
\sum_{|w|=h+1} \mathbb E\bigg[\prod_{u\preccurlyeq w}Z^2_u\bigg]
= \sum_{|w|=h} \sum_{i=1}^m \mathbb E\bigg[\prod_{u\preccurlyeq wi} Z^2_u\bigg]
= \sum_{|w|=h}\mathbb E\bigg[\prod_{u\preccurlyeq w}Z^2_u\bigg] \sum_{i=1}^m \mathbb E[Z^2_{wi}].
\end{equation}
Since, by definition, $\sum_{i=1}^m Z_{wi} = \sum_{i=1}^n Y_i(w) = 1$, we get that
\[\sum_{i=1}^m \mathbb E[Z^2_{wi}]
= \Big(\sum_{i=1}^m \mathbb EZ_{wi}\Big)^2
- \sum_{1\leq i\neq j\leq m} \mathbb E[Z_{wi}Z_{wj}]
= 1-\beta,
\]
by definition of $\beta$.
Plugging the last equality into \eqref{eq:rec_h}, this amounts to
\[\sum_{|w|=h+1} \mathbb E\bigg[\prod_{u\preccurlyeq w}Z^2_u\bigg]
= (1-\beta) \sum_{|w|=h}\mathbb E\bigg[\prod_{u\preccurlyeq w}Z^2_u\bigg]
= \dots = (1-\beta)^{h+1}
\]
by iteration, and further, using \eqref{eq:sum_on_h} and the fact that by Assumption (A1-i),
$\beta\neq 0$, we get
\[\mathbb E\bigg[\sum_{1\leq i\neq j\leq m} \Big(\prod_{u\preccurlyeq wi}Z_u\Big) \Big(\prod_{u\preccurlyeq wj}Z_u\Big)\bigg]
= \beta \sum_{h=0}^{\infty} (1-\beta)^h = 1.
\]
This concludes the proof of \eqref{eq:tightness}, and thus of the fact that $U_1(n)\wedge U_2(n)$ converges in distribution to an almost surely finite random variable~$K_{1,2}$,
Consequently,
\[
H_n=\max_{1\le i< j\le k} |U_i(n)\wedge U_j(n)| \Rightarrow \max_{1\le i< j\le k} |K_{i,j}|=:H,
\]
where each of the $K_{i,j}$ (which are not independent) has the same distribution as $K_{1,2}.$ The random variable $H$ is almost surely finite since all the $K_{i,j}$'s are.
Finally, for all $n\geq 1$, $x_1, \ldots, x_k\in [0,\infty)$
and $h\in\{0, 1, \ldots\}$
we have
\[\mathbb P\left(\frac{S_1(n)}n\geq x_1, \ldots, \frac{S_k(n)}n\geq x_k, H_n = h \,\Big|\,\tau_n, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol} Y\right)
=\sum_{w_1, \ldots, w_k\in\mathcal D_m^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (h)}}
\prod_{i=1}^k \frac{s_{w_i}(n)}n\,\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} 1\{s_{w_i}(n)\geq x_i n\},\]
where $\mathcal D_m^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (h)}$ is the set of all distinct $w_1, \ldots, w_k\in\{1, \ldots, m\}^h$ such that the cardinality of the set $\{\overset{\sss\leftarrow} w_1, \ldots, \overset{\sss\leftarrow} w_k\}$ is at most $k-1$ (where we recall that $\overset{\sss\leftarrow} w$ denotes the parent of a node $w$).
By the strong law of large numbers, we thus get
\[\mathbb P\left(\frac{S_1(n)}n\geq x_1, \ldots, \frac{S_k(n)}n\geq x_k, H_n = h \,\Big|\,\tau_n, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol} Y\right) \to \sum_{w_1, \ldots, w_k\in\mathcal D_m^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (h)}}
\prod_{i=1}^k \Big(\prod_{u\preccurlyeq w_i} Z_u\Big)\,\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} 1\Big\{\prod_{u\preccurlyeq w_i} Z_u\geq x_i \Big\},\]
and by dominated convergence,
\[\mathbb P\left(\frac{S_1(n)}n\geq x_1, \ldots, \frac{S_k(n)}n\geq x_k, H_n = h\right) \to \mathbb E\bigg[\sum_{w_1, \ldots, w_k\in\mathcal D_m^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (h)}}
\prod_{i=1}^k \Big(\prod_{u\preccurlyeq w_i} Z_u\Big)\,\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} 1\Big\{\prod_{u\preccurlyeq w_i} Z_u\geq x_i \Big\}\bigg],
\]
which concludes the proof.
To see that $\alpha_j>0$ almost surely for all $j\in\{1, \ldots, k\}$, note that
\[\mathbb P(\alpha_j=0)
=\sum_{h\geq 0} \mathbb E\bigg[\sum_{w_1, \ldots, w_k\in\mathcal D_m^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (h)}}
\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} 1\Big\{\prod_{u\preccurlyeq w_j} Z_u=0\Big\}
\prod_{i=1}^k \Big(\prod_{u\preccurlyeq w_i} Z_u\Big)\bigg]
=0,\]
because, if $\prod_{u\preccurlyeq w_j} Z_u=0$ then $\prod_{i=1}^k \Big(\prod_{u\preccurlyeq w_i} Z_u\Big)=0$ and thus
\[\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} 1\Big\{\prod_{u\preccurlyeq w_j} Z_u=0\Big\}
\prod_{i=1}^k \Big(\prod_{u\preccurlyeq w_i} Z_u\Big)=0.\]
Since this is true for all $1\leq j\leq k$, we indeed have that the $\alpha_j$'s are almost surely positive.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:height_unif}]
We first prove the convergence of the marginals: let $k_n$ be an integer chosen uniformly at random in $\{1, \ldots, n\}$, then $\xi(k_n) = U_1(n)$ in distribution; recall that by definition, for all $n\geq 1$, $\xi(n)$ is the unique node that belongs to $\tau_n$ but not to $\tau_{n-1}$.
By~\cite[Th.\ 2]{devroye-split},
we know that, in distribution when $n\to+\infty$,
\[\frac{|\xi(n)|-(\log n)/\mu}{\sqrt{(\log n)/\mu^3}}\Rightarrow\mathcal N(0,\sigma^2).\]
Therefore, since $\log k_n = \log n + \mathcal {\mathcal O_{\mathbb P}}(1)$ when $n\to+\infty$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:marginal}
\frac{|\xi(k_n)|-(\log n)/\mu}{\sqrt{(\log n)/\mu^3}}\Rightarrow\mathcal N(0,\sigma^2),
\end{equation}
which immediately entails the convergence of the marginals to the desired limit.
To show that the limits are independent, we use Lemma~\ref{lem:LCA}, and the fact that, by definition of the model, given $H_n$, $S_1(n), \ldots, S_k(n)$, the trees rooted at $U_1^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (H_n)}(n), \ldots, U_k^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (H_n)}(n)$ are independent split trees of split distribution $\nu$ and of respective sizes $S_1(n), \ldots, S_k(n)$. Moreover, for all $1\leq i\leq k$, the node $U_i(n)$ is distributed uniformly at random among the nodes of the split tree rooted at $U_i^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (H_n)}(n)$.
Therefore, given $H_n$, $S_1(n), \ldots, S_k(n)$, we have, in distribution and jointly for all $1\leq i\leq k$,
\[|U_i(n)| = H_n + |\widehat U^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(S_i(n))|,\]
where the $\widehat U^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}$'s are independent, and for all $i$, $\widehat U^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(S_i(n))$ is a node taken uniformly at random in a split tree of size $S_i(n)$.
As a consequence, applying \eqref{eq:marginal} to each of the~$k$ independent split trees, we get that, in distribution and jointly for all $1\leq i\leq k$,
\begin{align*}
\frac{|U_i(n)|-(\log n)/\mu}{\sqrt{(\log n)/\mu^3}}
&= \frac{H_n + |\widehat U^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(S_i(n))|-(\log n)/\mu}{\sqrt{(\log n)/\mu^3}}\\
&= \frac{|\widehat U^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(S_i(n))|-(\log S_i(n))/\mu}{\sqrt{(\log S_i(n))/\mu^3}}
\cdot \sqrt{\frac{\log S_i(n)}{\log n}} + \frac{\log S_i(n)-\log n}{\sqrt{\mu\log n}}
+{o_{\mathbb P}}(1)\\
&\Rightarrow \Lambda_i,
\end{align*}
where $(\Lambda_1,\ldots, \Lambda_k)$ are $k$ independent centred Gaussians of variance $\sigma^2$;
we have used the fact that by Lemma~\ref{lem:LCA},
$\log S_i(n) = \log n + {\mathcal O_{\mathbb P}}(1)$ when $n\to+\infty$.
\end{proof}
Applying the law of large numbers to the i.i.d.\ edge lengths, and using the fact that, by Lemma~\ref{lem:LCA}, the height $H_n$ of the last common ancestor of $U_1(n),\ldots, U_k(n)$ converges in distribution to an almost surely finite random variable, Lemma~\ref{lem:height_unif} entails a similar result for the distances of $U_1(n),\ldots, U_k(n)$ to the root (for the distance $d_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}$).
In the following, $L$ denotes a random variable distributed according to $\varpi.$
\begin{lemma}[CLT for distances to the root]\label{lem:real_heights_finite_var}
Under the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{th:voronoi},
if $\mathrm{Var}(L)<+\infty$, then, in distribution when $n\to+\infty$, we have
\[\left(\frac{|U_1(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L} - (\log n)\mathbb EL/\mu}{\sqrt{(\log n)/\mu^3}},\ldots,
\frac{|U_k(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L} - (\log n)\mathbb EL/\mu}{\sqrt{(\log n)/\mu^3}}
\right)\Rightarrow (\Xi_1, \ldots, \Xi_k),
\]
where the $\Xi_1, \ldots, \Xi_k$
are independent centred Gaussian random variables
of variance $\mathrm{Var}(L)+\sigma^2(\mathbb EL)^2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In this proof, we set $U_i[H_n] = U_i^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (H_n)}(n)$, i.e.\ the ancestor of $U_i(n)$ at height $H_n$,
where $H_n$ is defined in Lemma~\ref{lem:LCA}.
For all $1\leq i\leq k$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Ai}
|U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L} = \sum_{\varnothing\neq u\preccurlyeq U_i(n)} L_u
= \sum_{\varnothing \neq u \preccurlyeq U_i[H_n]} \big(L_u - L_u^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}\big)
+ A_i(n),
\end{equation}
where the $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)} = (L_u^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)})_{u\in\mathcal D_m}$ are i.i.d.\ copies of $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$, and where
\[A_i(n):=\sum_{\varnothing\neq u\preccurlyeq U_i[H_n]} L^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}_u
+\sum_{U_i[H_n]\prec u \preccurlyeq U_i(n)} L_u.\]
Since, by Lemma~\ref{lem:LCA}, $H_n$ converges in distribution to an almost surely finite random variable $H$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LLN_change_dist}
\frac1{\sqrt{\log n}}
\sum_{\varnothing \neq u \preccurlyeq U_i[H_n]}\big(L_u-L_u^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}\big)
\to 0,
\end{equation}
in distribution when $n\to+\infty$.
Note that, given $H_n$, the random variables $A_1(n), \ldots, A_k(n)$ are independent,
because the $L_u$'s are independent,
and the sums in $A_1(n), \ldots, A_k(n)$ that involve the sequence $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$
(as opposed to its i.i.d.\ copies $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (1)}, \ldots, \ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (k)}$)
range over distinct nodes~$u$. Therefore, in distribution, we have, jointly for all $1\leq i\leq k$,
\[A_i(n)= \sum_{\varnothing\neq u\preccurlyeq U_i(n)} L^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}_u
= \sum_{j=1}^{|U_i(n)|} \widetilde L^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}_j,\]
where $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)} = (\widetilde L_j^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)})_{j\geq 1}$ is a sequence of i.i.d.\ copies of the $L^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}_u$'s, and the $k$ sequences $(\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)})_{1\leq i\leq k}$ are independent of each other.
By the central limit theorem, we have, jointly for all $1\leq i\leq k$,
\[\frac{\sum_{j=1}^m \widetilde L^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}_j - m\mathbb EL}{\sqrt m} \Rightarrow \Theta_i,\]
in distribution when $n\to+\infty$,
where $\Theta_1, \ldots, \Theta_k$ are independent standard Gaussians.
Since $|U_i(n)|\to+\infty$ in probability when $n\to+\infty$, and since $(|U_i(n)|)_{1\leq i\leq k}$ is independent from $(L_j^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)} : j\geq 1)_{1\leq i\leq k}$, this implies that, jointly for all $1\leq i\leq k$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:CLT_A_i}
\frac{A_i(n)-|U_i(n)|\mathbb EL}{\sqrt{\mathrm{Var}(L)|U_i(n)|}}
\Rightarrow \Theta_i.
\end{equation}
Indeed, for all $u_1, \ldots, u_k\in\mathbb R$, and $\varepsilon>0$,
there exists $m_0>0$ such that, for all $m_1, \ldots, m_k\geq m_0$,
\[\bigg|\mathbb P\left(\frac{\sum_{j=1}^{m_i} \widetilde L^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}_j - m_i\mathbb EL}{\sqrt m_i}\leq u_i, \forall 1\leq i\leq k\right) - \mathbb P(\Theta_i\leq u_i, \forall 1\leq i\leq k)\bigg|\leq \nicefrac\varepsilon2.\]
Because $U_i(n)\to+\infty$ in probability, there exists $n_0$ such that, for all $n\geq n_0$,
$\mathbb P(\inf_{1\leq i\leq k} |U_i(n)|\geq m_0) \geq 1-\nicefrac\varepsilon2$.
Therefore, for all $u_1, \ldots, u_k\in\mathbb R$, $\varepsilon>0$, and $n\geq n_0$,
\begin{align*}
&\bigg|\mathbb P\left(\frac{A_i(n) - |U_i(n)|\mathbb EL}{\sqrt |U_i(n)|}\leq u_i, \forall 1\leq i\leq k\right) - \mathbb P(\Theta_i\leq u_i, \forall 1\leq i\leq k)\bigg|\\
&\quad\leq \bigg|\mathbb P\left(\frac{A_i(n) - |U_i(n)|\mathbb EL}{\sqrt |U_i(n)|}\leq u_i, \forall 1\leq i\leq k \text{ and }\inf_{1\leq i\leq k}|U_i(n)|\geq m_0\right) - \mathbb P(\Theta_i\leq u_i, \forall 1\leq i\leq k)\bigg| + \frac\varepsilon2\\
&\quad \leq \sum_{\ell = m_0}^\infty \bigg|\mathbb P\left(\frac{A_i(n) - \ell\mathbb EL}{\sqrt \ell}\leq u_i, \forall 1\leq i\leq k\right) - \mathbb P(\Theta_i\leq u_i, \forall 1\leq i\leq k)\bigg| \mathbb P\Big(\inf_{1\leq i\leq k}|U_i(n)|=\ell\Big) + \frac\varepsilon2\leq \varepsilon,
\end{align*}
where, in the second inequality, we have conditioned on the different possible values of~$\inf_{1\leq i\leq k}|U_i(n)|$, and used the triangular inequality.
This concludes the proof of~\eqref{eq:CLT_A_i}.
We thus get that, jointly for all $1\leq i\leq k$,
\begin{align*}
\frac{|U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}-(\log n)\mathbb EL/\mu}{\sqrt{(\log n)/\mu^3}}
&= \frac{|U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}-|U_i(n)|\mathbb EL}{\sqrt{\mathrm{Var}(L)|U_i(n)|}}
\cdot \sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{Var}(L)|U_i(n)|}{(\log n)/\mu^3}}
+ \frac{|U_i(n)|\mathbb EL-(\log n)\mathbb EL/\mu}{\sqrt{(\log n)/\mu^3}}\\
&\Rightarrow \Theta_i\sqrt{\mathrm{Var}(L)}+\Lambda_i\mathbb EL,
\end{align*}
where we have used Lemma~\ref{lem:height_unif}
(where $\Lambda_1, \ldots, \Lambda_k$ are defined).
Note that, by definition, $\Theta_i$ is independent from $\Lambda_i$ for all $1\leq i\leq k$;
indeed, $\Theta_i$ is $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}$-measurable,
while $\Lambda_i$ is $(\tau_n)_{n\geq 1}$-measurable.
Therefore, $\Xi_i:=\Theta_i\sqrt{\mathrm{Var}(L)}+\Lambda_i\mathbb EL$ is a centred Gaussian of variance $\mathrm{Var}(L) + \sigma^2\mathbb E(L)^2$, and $\Xi_1, \ldots, \Xi_k$ are independent, as claimed.
\end{proof}
We now look at the respective version of Lemma \ref{lem:real_heights_finite_var} when the edge lengths have heavier tails:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:real_height_heavy_tails}
Under the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{th:voronoi},
if there exists $\alpha\in (1,2)$ and a function $\ell\colon[0,+\infty)\to[0,+\infty)$ slowly varying at infinity such that $\mathbb P(L\geq x)=x^{-\alpha}\ell(x)$ for all $x\geq 0$, then,
in distribution when $n\to+\infty$,
\[\left(\frac{|U_1(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L} - (\log n)\mathbb EL/\mu}{((\log n)/\mu)^{\nicefrac1\alpha}},\ldots,
\frac{|U_k(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L} - (\log n)\mathbb EL/\mu}{((\log n)/\mu)^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}
\right)\Rightarrow (\Upsilon_1(\alpha), \ldots, \Upsilon_k(\alpha)),
\]
where the $\Upsilon_1(\alpha), \ldots, \Upsilon_k(\alpha)$ are i.i.d.\ copies of a centred $\alpha$-stable random variable.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We proceed as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:real_heights_finite_var} and employ the same notation:
in particular, using that our assumptions on $L$ entail its expectation being finite, \eqref{eq:Ai} and~\eqref{eq:LLN_change_dist} give that, in distribution when $n\to+\infty$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:UtoA}
|U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L} = A_i(n)+o_{\mathbb P}(\sqrt{\log n}) = A_i(n)+{o_{\mathbb P}}((\log n)^{\nicefrac1\alpha}).
\end{equation}
Using the functional limit theorem for sums of i.i.d.\ heavy-tailed random variables
(see, e.g., Theorem 2 in \cite[\S\ 35]{GK}), we have that
\[\frac{A_i(n)-|U_i(n)|\mathbb EL}{|U_i(n)|^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}\Rightarrow \Upsilon_i(\alpha),\]
where $\Upsilon_1(\alpha), \ldots, \Upsilon_k(\alpha)$ are i.i.d.\ copies of an $\alpha$-stable random variable.
We thus get that
\[\frac{|U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L} - |U_i(n)|\mathbb EL}{|U_i(n)|^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}
= \frac{A_i(n)-|U_i(n)|\mathbb EL}{|U_i(n)|^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}
+ \frac{|U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}-A_i(n)}{((\log n)/\mu)^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}
\cdot\frac{((\log n)/\mu)^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}{|U_i(n)|^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}
\Rightarrow \Upsilon_i(\alpha),
\]
in distribution when $n\to+\infty$, where we have used \eqref{eq:UtoA} and the fact that, by Lemma~\ref{lem:height_unif}, $\frac{|U_i(n)|}{(\log n)/\mu} \to 1$ in probability when $n\to+\infty$.
We thus get that, jointly for all $1\leq i\leq k$,
\begin{align}
\frac{|U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}-(\log n)\mathbb EL/\mu}{((\log n)/\mu)^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}
&= \frac{|U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}-|U_i(n)|\mathbb EL}{|U_i(n)|^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}
\cdot \bigg(\frac{|U_i(n)|}{(\log n)/\mu}\bigg)^{\!\!\nicefrac1\alpha}
+ \frac{|U_i(n)|\mathbb EL-(\log n)\mathbb EL/\mu}{((\log n)/\mu)^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}\label{eq:remark}\\
&\Rightarrow\Upsilon_i(\alpha),\notag
\end{align}
in distribution when $n\to+\infty$; here, we have used Lemma~\ref{lem:height_unif} and the fact that $\alpha<2$, which implies $\nicefrac1\alpha>\nicefrac12$ (and $\alpha > 1$ again to get the finiteness of $\mathbb E L$).
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Note that in the $\alpha$-stable case, the second summand on the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:remark} is negligible compared to the first summand, i.e.\ the fluctuations coming from the height of $U_i(n)$ are asymptotically negligible in front of the fluctuations coming from the edge-lengths.
\end{remark}
Next we control the sizes of subtrees rooted at certain nodes within the tree. For this purpose, imagine that $U_1(n)$ is the closest to the root (in graph distance) among $U_1(n), \ldots, U_k(n)$.
Then the Voronoi cell of $U_2(n)$ is the subtree rooted at the ancestor of $U_2(n)$
that has height
\[|U_1(n)\wedge U_2(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L} + \big||U_1(n)|-|U_2(n)|\big|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}/2.\]
From Lemma~\ref{lem:LCA}, we already know that $|U_1(n)\wedge U_2(n)|$ converges in distribution to an almost surely finite random variable.
The following lemma gives a limiting result for the size of the subtree rooted at an ancestor
of $U_2(n)$ at height $h(n)$ for some function $h(n) = o(\log n)$ when $n\to+\infty$.
For $f\colon \mathbb N\to \mathbb R$, $x\in[0, \infty)$, $n\geq 1$, and $1\leq i\leq k$,
we write $D^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}_n(xf)$ (or $D^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}_n(xf(n))$) for the size of the subtree of $\tau_n$ rooted at the ancestor of $U_i(n)$ closest to the root whose $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$-distance to the root is at least
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Fdef}
xF_i(n):=\min(xf(n), |U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}).
\end{equation}
By Lemmas~\ref{lem:real_heights_finite_var} and~\ref{lem:real_height_heavy_tails},
$|U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}$ grows logarithmically in $n$;
therefore, if $f(n)=o(\log n)$, then for large~$n$ we typically have $F_i(n)=f(n)$.
\begin{proposition}[Convergence of (extended) fringe trees]\label{prop:fringe_trees}
Let $f\colon \mathbb N\to \mathbb N$ be a function such that $\lim_{n\to+\infty}f(n)=+\infty$, and $x> 0$.
We assume that either $f(n) = o(\log n)$
when $n\to+\infty$, or $f(n) = \log n$ for all $n\geq 1$ and set \[C(f)=\begin{cases}+\infty &\text{if }f(n)=o(\log n),\\\mathbb EL/\mu&\text{if }f(n)=\log n.\end{cases}\]
Then, under the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{th:voronoi},
for all $1\leq i\leq k$,
for all $0<a\leq b<C(f)$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fringe_trees}
\sup_{x\in[a,b]} \Big|\frac{\log (D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xf)/n)}{xf(n)}- \frac{\mathbb E[\log \bar Y]}{\mathbb EL}\Big|\to 0
\qquad\text{in probability when $n\to+\infty$.}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
This lemma is at the heart of the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:voronoi}: it establishes a law of large numbers for the logarithm of the size of fringe trees.
A fringe tree, as defined in~\cite{JansonHolm} (see also the references therein for a literature review on the subject), is the subtree rooted at a node taken uniformly at random among the $n$-nodes of a random tree (in our case the $n$-node split tree of split distribution $\nu$).
An extended fringe tree (still following~\cite{JansonHolm})
is the subtree rooted at one of the ancestors of this randomly chosen node, under the assumption that this ancestor is at a \emph{fixed} graph distance of the randomly chosen node.
In Proposition~\ref{prop:fringe_trees}, however, we also consider subtrees rooted
at an ancestor of a node $U(n) = U_i(n)$ chosen uniformly at random in our tree,
but this ancestor can be at a distance
that grows with $n$.
Therefore, we get results that are weaker than the result stated in~\cite{JansonHolm} in the case of the binary search tree and the random recursive tree (which, we recall, are both split trees).
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:fringe_trees}]
We defined the split tree $(\tau_n)_{n\geq 1}$ as a sequence of random trees, with $\xi(n+1)$ denoting the unique node in $\tau_{n+1}$ but not in $\tau_n$.
Now let $\widetilde U$ be a uniform random variable on $[0,1]$,
set $k_n = \lceil \widetilde Un\rceil\in \{1, \ldots, n\}$ for all $n\geq 1,$ and note that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:n-kInfty}
n-k_n\to+\infty \qquad \text{almost surely as } n\to+\infty.
\end{equation}
{We fix $i\in\{1,\dots,k\}$ throughout the proof.} Letting $U_i(n)$ be the node of index $k_n$, we observe that $U_i(n)$ is indeed uniformly distributed in $\tau_n$, as required.
We fix $0<a< b<C(f)$. For $x\in[a,b]$, we define $h=h(n)$ so that $xh(n)$
is the height of the ancestor of $U_i(n)$ closest to the root whose $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$-distance
to the root is at least $xF_i(n)=\min(xf(n), |U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L})$ (recall \eqref{eq:Fdef}).
As a consequence of Lemmas \ref{lem:real_height_heavy_tails} and \ref{lem:real_heights_finite_var}, respectively, $F_i(n)\to+\infty$ in probability when $n\to+\infty$, therefore
\begin{equation}\label{eq:h_vs_f}
\frac{F_i(n)}{h(n)} \to \mathbb EL\quad\text{ in probability when }n\to+\infty
\end{equation}
by the law of large numbers.
Recall that
$U_i^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (xh(n))}(n)$ denotes the ancestor of $U_i(n)$ closest to the root whose height is at least $xh(n)$;
we denote by $k_n(x)$ the integer such that $U_i^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (xh(n))}(n) = \xi(k_n(x))$.
By definition, we have $k_n(x)\leq k_n$.
We next derive a law of large numbers for the width of the split interval associated to the node of index $k_n(x)$. Recall that, by definition of $(\tau_n)_{n\geq 1}$, to each node $w \in \tau_n$ (among which $\xi(k_n)$) is associated a sub-interval of $[0,1]$, whose length is given by $\prod_{\varnothing\neq u\preccurlyeq w} Z_u.$ We let
\begin{equation} \label{eq:QnDef}
Q_n(x) := \prod_{\varnothing\neq u\preccurlyeq \xi(k_n(x))} Z_u
\end{equation}
be the length of the interval associated to node $\xi(k_n(x))$.
We claim the following law of large numbers for $Q_n(x)$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LLN2}
\frac{\log Q_n(x)}{xh(n)}
\to \mathbb E[\log \bar Y] = -\mu \qquad \text{ in probability when $n\to+\infty$.}
\end{equation}
Indeed, first note that the random variables $Z_u$
are sized-biased since we condition on the event $u\preccurlyeq \xi(k_n)$;
more precisely, we condition the intervals associated to the nodes $u$ occurring in the product of \eqref{eq:QnDef} to contain $X_{k_n}$. In other words, conditionally on $u\preccurlyeq \xi(k_n)$, we have $Z_u = \bar Y$ in distribution, where $\bar Y$ as in \eqref{eq:barY} and $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} Y = (Y_1, \ldots, Y_m)\sim \nu$.
Therefore, by the law of large numbers, since $h(n)\to+\infty$ in probability
(cf.\ \eqref{eq:h_vs_f}), we get
\[\frac{\log Q_n(x)}{xh(n)}
= \frac1{xh(n)}\log \bigg(\prod_{\varnothing\neq u\preccurlyeq \xi(k_n(x))} Z_u\bigg)
= \frac1{xh(n)}\sum_{\varnothing\neq u\preccurlyeq \xi(k_n(x))} \log Z_u
\to \mathbb E[\log \bar Y],\]
in probability when $n\to+\infty$, which concludes the proof of~\eqref{eq:LLN2}.
\medskip
The main step now is to show
\begin{equation}\label{eq:h_instead_f}
\sup_{x\in[a,b]} \Big|\frac{\log (D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xf)/n)}{xh(n)}- \mathbb E[\log \bar Y]\Big|\to 0
\qquad\text{in probability when $n\to+\infty$,}
\end{equation}
At the end of the proof, we show that this implies~\eqref{eq:fringe_trees}.
To prove~\eqref{eq:h_instead_f}, we rewrite its left-hand side as a sum of several terms to which we will apply various concentration inequalities. First note that, for all $x\in [a,b]$, for all $n\geq 1$,
\begin{align}
&\frac1{xh(n)}\Big|\log \Big(\frac{D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xf)}n\Big)-xh(n)\mathbb E[\log \bar Y]\Big|\notag\\
&\qquad\leq \frac1{ah(n)}\Big|\log \frac{D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xf)}{(n-k_n(x))Q_n(x)}\Big|
+\frac1{ah(n)}\Big|\log\Big(1-\frac{k_n(x)}n\Big)\Big|
+\Big|\frac{\log Q_n(x)}{xh(n)}-\mathbb E[\log \bar Y]\Big|.\label{eq:three_terms}
\end{align}
We show that the right hand side is ${o_{\mathbb P}}(1)$ as $n\to+\infty$ \emph{uniformly for $x\in[a,b]$} by treating each of the three summands separately.
We start with the second term, which is the easiest. Recall that $k_n(x)\leq k_n$ and that $k_n = \lceil \widetilde Un\rceil$, so
\begin{equation}\label{eq:1st}
\sup_{x\in[a,b]}\Big|\log\Big(1-\frac{k_n(x)}n\Big)\Big| \leq \Big|\log\Big(1-\frac{k_n}n\Big)\Big|
\to -\log (1-\widetilde U),
\end{equation}
almost surely as $n\to+\infty$.
For the third term on the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:three_terms}, we proceed as follows.
In distribution, $(Q_n(x))_{x\in[a,b]} = (\sum_{\ell\leq xh(n)}\log \widetilde Z_\ell)_{x\in[a,b]}$,
where $(\widetilde Z_\ell)_{\ell\geq 1}$ is a sequence of i.i.d.\ copies of $\bar Y$.
We apply the law of the iterated logarithm to the sequence
of i.i.d.\ random variables $(\log \widetilde Z_\ell)_{\ell\geq 1}$,
this gives
\[\limsup_{m\to+\infty} \frac{|\sum_{\ell=1}^m \log \widetilde Z_\ell - m\mathbb E[\log\bar Y]|}{\sqrt{m\log\log m}} = \mathrm{Var}(\log\bar Y)^{\nicefrac12}= \sigma\quad\text{ almost surely}.\]
This implies in particular that there exists an almost surely finite random number $m_0$ such that almost surely,
\[\sup_{m\geq m_0} \frac{|\sum_{\ell=1}^m \log \widetilde Z_\ell - m\mathbb E[\log\bar Y]|}
{\sqrt{m\log\log m}}
\leq 2\sigma.\]
We fix $\varepsilon>0$ and choose $m_1\geq m_0$ such that
$2\sigma\sqrt{\log\log(m_1)/m_1}\leq \varepsilon$.
We have, almost surely
\begin{align*}
\sup_{m\geq m_1} \Big|\frac{\sum_{\ell=1}^m \log \widetilde Z_\ell}m -\mathbb E[\log\bar Y]\Big|
&\leq \sqrt{\frac{\log\log m_1}{m_1}}
\sup_{m\geq m_1} \frac{|\sum_{\ell=1}^m \log \widetilde Z_\ell - m\mathbb E[\log\bar Y]|}{\sqrt{m\log\log m}}\\
&\leq\sqrt{\frac{\log\log m_1}{m_1}} \sup_{m\geq m_0} \frac{|\sum_{\ell=1}^m \log \widetilde Z_\ell - m\mathbb E[\log\bar Y]|}
{\sqrt{m\log\log m}}\leq \varepsilon.
\end{align*}
Consequently, we have for all $n\geq 1$ that
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb P\left(\sup_{x\in[a,b]} \Big|\frac{\log Q_n(x)}{xh(n)} - \mathbb E[\log\bar Y]\Big|\geq \varepsilon\right)
= \mathbb P\left(\sup_{x\in[a,b]} \Big|\frac{\sum_{\ell=1}^{xh(n)} \log \widetilde Z_\ell}{xh(n)}- \mathbb E[\log\bar Y]\Big|\geq\varepsilon\right)\\
&\qquad\leq \mathbb P\left(\sup_{x\in[a,b]} \Big|\frac{\sum_{\ell=1}^{xh(n)} \log \widetilde Z_\ell}{xh(n)}- \mathbb E[\log\bar Y]\Big|\geq\varepsilon\text{ and }ah(n)\geq m_1\right) + \mathbb P(ah(n)<m_1)\\
&\qquad\leq \mathbb P\left(\sup_{m\geq m_1} \Big|\frac{\sum_{\ell=1}^m \log \widetilde Z_\ell}{m}- \mathbb E[\log\bar Y]\Big|\geq\varepsilon\right) + \mathbb P(ah(n)<m_1)
= \mathbb P(ah(n)<m_1)\to 0,
\end{align*}
as $n\to+\infty$, because $h(n)\to+\infty$ in probability with~$n$.
In other words,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:2nd}
\sup_{x\in [a,b]} \Big|\frac{\log Q_n(x)}{xh(n)}-\mathbb E[\log \bar Y]\Big|
={o_{\mathbb P}}(1)\qquad\text{ as }n\to+\infty.
\end{equation}
Finally, we deal with the first term in the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:three_terms} and aim to prove
\begin{equation}\label{eq:3rd}
\sup_{x\in[a,b]}\Big|\log \frac{D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xf)}{(n-k_n(x))Q_n(x)}\Big| = {o_{\mathbb P}}(1)\quad\text{ as }n\to+\infty,
\end{equation}
Mind that inserting \eqref{eq:1st}, \eqref{eq:2nd} and \eqref{eq:3rd} into \eqref{eq:three_terms} implies \eqref{eq:h_instead_f}.
In order to prove \eqref{eq:3rd}, we first recall that, for all $x\in[a,b]$ conditionally on $k_n(x)$ and $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} Z = (Z_u)_{u\in\mathcal D_m}$, we have, in distribution,
\[D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xf) = \sum_{\ell=k_n(x)+1}^n \bs1_{X_\ell < Q_n(x)}.\]
Thus, for all $x\in [a,b]$, $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$, $\lambda\geq 0$, the exponential Chebychev inequality yields
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb P\bigg(\sum_{\ell=k_n(x)}^n \bs1_{X_\ell < Q_n(x)}\geq (1+\varepsilon)Q_n(x)\big(n-k_n(x)\big)\,\Big|\, k_n(x), \ensuremath{\boldsymbol} Z\bigg)\\
&\leq \mathrm e^{-\lambda(1+\varepsilon)Q_n(x)(n-k_n(x))}
\prod_{\ell=k_n(x)}^n\big(1+Q_n(x)(\mathrm e^\lambda-1)\big)
= \exp\big(-Q_n(x)(n-k_n(x))((1+\varepsilon) \lambda -\mathrm e^{\lambda}+1)\big).
\end{align*}
Taking $\lambda = \log(1+\varepsilon)$, this yields the upper bound
\[\mathbb P\bigg(\sum_{\ell=k_n(x)}^n \bs1_{X_\ell < Q_n(x)}\geq (1+\varepsilon)Q_n(x)\big(n-k_n(x)\big)\,\Big|\, k_n(x), \ensuremath{\boldsymbol} Z\bigg)\leq\exp\big(-Q_n(x)(n-k_n(x))\tilde\varepsilon'\big),
\]
where we have set $\varepsilon':=(1+\varepsilon)\log(1+\varepsilon) - \varepsilon>0$. Using the fact that, for all $x\in[a,b]$, $Q_n(x)\geq Q_n(b)$, and $k_n(x)\leq k_n$, taking expectations on both sides, and then a supremum over $x\in[a,b]$, we infer that
\[\sup_{x\in[a,b]}
\mathbb P\bigg(\sum_{\ell=k_n(x)}^n \bs1_{X_\ell < Q_n(x)}\geq (1+\varepsilon)Q_n(x)\big(n-k_n(x)\big)\bigg)\leq\mathbb E\big[\exp\big(-Q_n(b)(n-k_n)\tilde\varepsilon'\big)\big]
\]
In a similar vein, one deduces
\[\sup_{x\in[a,b]}\mathbb P\bigg(\sum_{\ell=k_n(x)}^n \bs1_{X_\ell < Q_n(x)}\leq (1-\varepsilon)Q_n(x)\big(n-k_n(x)\big)\bigg)\leq\mathbb E\big[\exp\big(-Q_n(b)(n-k_n)\varepsilon''\big)\big],\]
where $\varepsilon''=(1-\varepsilon)\log(1-\varepsilon)+\varepsilon.$
In total, we thus get that, for all $\varepsilon>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LDP}
\sup_{x\in[a,b]}\mathbb P\bigg(\big|D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xf)-(n-k_n(x))Q_n(x)\big|>\varepsilon Q_n(x)\big(n-k_n(x)\big)\bigg)
\leq 2\mathbb E\big[\exp\big(-c\,Q_n(b)(n-k_n)\big)\big],
\end{equation}
where $c:=\min(\varepsilon', \varepsilon'')>0$.
We now recall that (see~\eqref{eq:h_vs_f}) $h(n) \sim F_i(n)/\mathbb EL$ in probability as $n\to+\infty$.
In the case when $f(n) = o(\log n)$, since $|U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}/\log n$ converges to $\mu/\mathbb EL$ in probability when $n\to+\infty$, and
since $xF_i(n) = \min(xf(n), |U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L})$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cvprob_Fi/f}
\frac{F_i(n)}{f(n)}\to 1 \quad \text{ in probability as }n\to+\infty.
\end{equation}
In the case when $f(n) = \log n$, since $|U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}/\log n$ converges to $\mu/\mathbb EL$ in probability when $n\to+\infty$, and since $x\leq b<\mu/\mathbb EL$, we get $F_i(n)\sim \log n$ in probability when $n\to+\infty$.
In both cases,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cvprob_h/f}
\frac{h(n)}{f(n)}\to \frak c := \frac1{\mathbb EL}\quad \text{ in probability as }n\to+\infty.
\end{equation}
For all $\delta>0$ and for all $\eta>0$ small enough such that $\sup_{x\in [1-\eta, 1+\eta]}|\log x|\leq \delta$,
we have
\begin{align}
&\mathbb P\bigg(\sup_{x\in[a,b]}\Big|\log \frac{D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xf)}{(n-k_n(x))Q_n(x)}\Big|\geq\delta
\bigg)\notag\\
&\qquad\leq
\mathbb P\bigg(\sup_{x\in[a,b]}\Big|\frac{D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xf)}{(n-k_n(x))Q_n(x)}-1\Big|\geq\eta
\text{ and } \frak c-\eta \leq \frac{h(n)}{f(n)}\leq \frak c+\eta\bigg)
+ \mathbb P\Big(\Big|\frak c-\frac{h(n)}{f(n)}\Big|>\eta\Big),\label{eq:prob}
\end{align}
where we have set $\frak c = 1/\mathbb EL$.
Because of~\eqref{eq:cvprob_h/f}, the second summand converges to~0 as $n\to+\infty$.
Note that, as $x$ increases between $a$ and $b$, ${D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xf)}/{(n-k_n(x))Q_n(x)}$ only changes value when $xh(n)$ crosses an integer value.
Thus, the event inside the first probability on the right-hand side implies that there exists $\ell\in\mathbb N\cap[a(\frak c-\eta)f(n), b(\frak c+\eta)f(n)]$ such that $|{D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xf)}/{(n-k_n(x))Q_n(x)}-1|\geq \eta$ for $x = \ell/h(n)$.
We thus get via a union bound
\begin{align}
&\mathbb P\bigg(\sup_{x\in[a,b]}\Big|\frac{D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xf)}{(n-k_n(x))Q_n(x)}-1\Big|\geq\eta
\text{ and } \frak c-\eta \leq \frac{h(n)}{f(n)}\leq \frak c+\eta\bigg)\notag\\
&\qquad\leq \sum_{\ell=\lceil a(1-\eta)f(n)\rceil}^{\lfloor b(1+\eta)f(n)\rfloor}
\mathbb P\bigg(\Big|\frac{D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xf)}{(n-k_n(x))Q_n(x)}-1\Big|\geq\eta
\text{ for } x=\ell/h(n)\text{ and } \frak c-\eta \leq \frac{h(n)}{f(n)}\leq \frak c+\eta\bigg)\notag\\
&\qquad\leq ([b(\frak c+\eta)-a(\frak c-\eta)]f(n)+1)
\sup_{x\in [\hat a, \hat b]} \mathbb P\bigg(\Big|\frac{D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xf)}{(n-k_n(x))Q_n(x)}-1\Big|\geq \eta\bigg)\notag\\
&\qquad\leq Kf(n)\mathbb E\big[\exp\big(-c\,Q_n(\hat b)(n-k_n)\big)\big],\label{eq:K}
\end{align}
where $\hat a = a(\frak c-\eta)/(\frak c-\eta)$ and $\hat b = b(\frak c+\eta)/(\frak c-\eta)$, and we used~\eqref{eq:LDP} in the last inequality.
We have also set $K$ large enough so that, for all $n\geq 1$, $([b(\frak c+\eta)-a(\frak c-\eta)]f(n)+1)\leq Kf(n)$, which is possible since $f(n)\to+\infty$ with~$n$.
Using the law of large numbers in~\eqref{eq:LLN2}, we get that, in probability as $n\to\infty$,
\[-cQ_n(b)(n-k_n)+\log f(n)
= -c \mathrm e^{(-\mu \hat b/\mathbb EL+o(1))f(n)}(n-k_n)+\log f(n)
\to -\infty,\]
because either $f(n)=o(\log n)$, or $f(n) = \log n$ and $\eta>0$ can be chosen small enough so that $\hat b<\mathbb EL/\mu$ (because, by assumption, $b<\mathbb EL/\mu$, and $\hat b = b(\frak c+\eta)/(\frak c-\eta)$).
This implies that the right-hand side in~\eqref{eq:K} converges to zero as $n\to+\infty$.
Using again that $h(n)\sim f(n)$ in probability when $n\to+\infty$,
we get that the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:prob} also tends to zero with~$n$,
and thus \eqref{eq:3rd} is true, which concludes the proof of~\eqref{eq:h_instead_f}.
It only remains to show that~\eqref{eq:h_instead_f} implies~\eqref{eq:fringe_trees};
intuitively, this is true because of~\eqref{eq:cvprob_h/f}. Indeed, we have
\begin{align*}
&\sup_{x\in[a,b]} \Big|\frac{\log (D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xf)/n)}{xf(n)}- \frac{\mathbb E[\log \bar Y]}{\mathbb EL}\Big|\\
&\leq \sup_{x\in[a,b]} \Big|\frac{\log (D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xf)/n)}{xh(n)\mathbb EL}- \frac{\mathbb E[\log \bar Y]}{\mathbb EL}\Big|
+ \sup_{x\in[a,b]} \Big|\frac{\log (D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xf)/n)}{xh(n)\mathbb EL}\Big(1-\frac{h(n)\mathbb EL}{f(n)}\Big)\Big|\\
&= \frac{{o_{\mathbb P}}(1)}{\mathbb EL} + \Big|1-\frac{h(n)\mathbb EL}{f(n)}\Big| \sup_{x\in[a,b]} \Big|\frac{\log (D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xf)/n)}{xh(n)\mathbb EL}\Big|
= {o_{\mathbb P}}\bigg(1+\sup_{x\in[a,b]} \Big|\frac{\log (D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xf)/n)}{xh(n)}\Big|\bigg),
\end{align*}
where we have used~\eqref{eq:h_instead_f}, in the first equality,
and~\eqref{eq:cvprob_h/f} in the second one.
By~\eqref{eq:h_instead_f} and the triangular inequality,
this last supremum goes to zero in probability when $n\to+\infty$, which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to prove Theorem~\ref{th:voronoi}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:voronoi}]
We let $U_{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (1)}(n), \ldots, U_{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (k)}(n)$ be the nodes $U_1(n), \ldots, U_k(n)$ ordered in increasing $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$-distance to the root, that is, $|U_{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (1)}(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}\leq \cdots\leq |U_{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (k)}(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}$, and let $V_1(n), \ldots, V_k(n)$ be the sizes of their respective Voronoi cells (in that order, i.e.\ the Voronoi cell of $U_{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}$ is $V_i(n)$).
We set $\frak m = \mathbb E[\log \bar Y]/\mathbb EL$ and start by showing that, in distribution when $n\to+\infty$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cv_other_order}
\Big(\frac{\log (V_2(n)/n)}{v_n}, \ldots, \frac{\log (V_k(n)/n)}{v_n}\Big)
\Rightarrow \frac{\frak m}2 (\Psi_{(2)}-\Psi_{(1)}, \ldots, \Psi_{(k)}-\Psi_{(1)}),
\end{equation}
where $\Psi_{(1)}\leq \cdots\leq \Psi_{(k)}$ is the increasing order statistics of $\Psi_1, \ldots, \Psi_k,$ and with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_vn}
v_n = \begin{cases}
\sqrt{(\log n)/\mu^3} &\text{ if }\mathrm{Var}(L)<+\infty,\\
((\log n)/\mu)^{\nicefrac1\alpha}&\text{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Note that, because $\frak m = -\mathbb E[\log(\nicefrac1{\mathbb E\bar Y})]/\mathbb EL = -\mu/\mathbb EL$, this is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cv_other_order2}
\Big(\frac{\log (V_2(n)/n)}{(\log n)^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}, \ldots, \frac{\log (V_k(n)/n)}{(\log n)^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}\Big)
\Rightarrow \frac{\frak v}{2\mathbb EL} (\Psi_{(1)}-\Psi_{(2)}, \ldots, \Psi_{(1)}-\Psi_{(k)}),
\end{equation}
where we recall that $\alpha :=2$ when $\mathrm{Var}(L)<+\infty$, and where we have set
\[\frak v = \begin{cases}
\mu^{-\nicefrac12} & \text{ if }\mathrm{Var}(L)<+\infty,\\
\mu^{1-\nicefrac1\alpha} &\text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}\]
We now show that~\eqref{eq:cv_other_order2} implies~\eqref{eq:VorConvDist}: the only difference between the two is that the entries in the left-hand side of~\eqref{eq:cv_other_order2} are ordered in increasing distance of the respective $U_i(n)$'s to the root, while those in the left-hand side of~\eqref{eq:VorConvDist} are ordered in decreasing sizes of the Voronoi cells.
However, the convergence in \eqref{eq:cv_other_order2} implies in particular that
\[\mathbb P\big(V_1(n)\geq V_2(n)\geq\cdots\geq V_k(n)\big)
= \mathbb P \big(V_i(n) = V_{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(n), \,\forall i \in \{1, \ldots, k\} \big)
\to 1,
\]
where we recall that, by definition, $V_{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(n)$ is the $i$-th largest of the $k$ Voronoi cells.
We now let $\mathcal C_n$ denote the event that $V_1(n)\geq V_2(n)\geq\cdots\geq V_k(n)$: we have, for all $x_2, \ldots, x_k<0$,
\[
\mathbb P\bigg(\forall i \in \{2, \ldots, k\} \, \colon\, \frac{\log (V_{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(n)/n)}{(\log n)^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}\geq x_i\bigg)
=\mathbb P\bigg(\forall i \in \{2, \ldots, k\} \, \colon\, \frac{\log (V_i(n)/n)}{(\log n)^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}\geq x_i \text{ and }\mathcal C_n\bigg)+o(1)\]
when $n\to+\infty$, because $\mathbb P(\mathcal C_n)\to 1$. Thus,
\eqref{eq:cv_other_order} entails \eqref{eq:VorConvDist}, and due to the above it is sufficient to establish~\eqref{eq:cv_other_order2}.
For this purpose, for each $n\geq 1$ set
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Kdef}
K_n := \max_{1\leq i<j\leq k}\{|U_i(n)\wedge U_j(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}\}.
\end{equation}
On the event
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_En}
\mathcal E_n = \bigcap_{1\leq i<j\leq k}\Big\{\big|U_i(n)\wedge U_j(n)\big|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}+\big\lceil\big||U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L} - |U_j(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}\big|/2\big\rceil\geq K_n\Big\},
\end{equation}
for all $1\leq i\neq j\leq k$,
the $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$-distance to the root of the point where the Voronoi cells of $U_i(n)$ and $U_j(n)$ would meet if we ignored all other $k-2$ points would be at least $K_n$.
Thus, for all $i\neq \ell:=\mathrm{argmin}_{1\leq j\leq k} |U_j(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}$,
the Voronoi cell of $U_i(n)$ meets the Voronoi cell of $U_\ell(n)$
at $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$-distance to the root exceeding~$K_n$,
implying that the Voronoi cell of $U_i(n)$ for all $i\neq \ell$ is the subtree rooted at the ancestor of $U_i(n)$ closest to the root among all ancestors of $U_i(n)$ whose $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$-distance to the root exceeds
\begin{equation} \label{eq:constSpeed}
\big|U_i(n)\wedge U_\ell(n)\big|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}+\frac{\big||U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L} - |U_\ell(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}\big|}2.
\end{equation}
By Lemmas~\ref{lem:LCA},~\ref{lem:real_heights_finite_var}
and~\ref{lem:real_height_heavy_tails}, we have
$\mathbb P(\mathcal E_n) \to 1$;
thus, in the rest of the proof, we work on the event $\mathcal E_n$.
For all $1\leq i\neq j\leq k$, we set
\[X^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i,j)}_n = \frac{\big|U_i(n)\wedge U_j(n)\big|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}+\big||U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L} - |U_j(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}\big|/2}{v_n},\]
where $v_n$ is as in~\eqref{eq:def_vn}.
Note that, by symmetry, the $X_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i,j)}$ all have the same distribution.
Moreover, by Lemmas~\ref{lem:LCA}, ~\ref{lem:real_heights_finite_var} and~\ref{lem:real_height_heavy_tails} (see also for notation),
in distribution when $n\to+\infty$, jointly for all $1\leq i\neq j\leq k$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cvX}
X_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i,j)} \Rightarrow |\Psi_i-\Psi_j|/2,
\end{equation}
where we have set, for all $1\leq i\leq k$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_Psi}
\Psi_i :=
\begin{cases}
\Xi_i& \text{ if }\mathrm{Var}(L)<+\infty,\\
\Upsilon_i(\alpha)&\text{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
For all $a, b\in (0,\infty)$, we define the event
\[
\mathcal B_n(a,b) := \big\{\forall 1\leq i<j\leq k\colon X_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i,j)}\in [a,b]\big\}.
\]
Note that, due to~\eqref{eq:cvX},
\begin{equation} \label{eq:PBn}
\lim_n \mathbb P(\mathcal B_n(a,b)^c) \to 0 \quad \text{ as }a\to0 \text{ and }b\to+\infty.
\end{equation}
To prove \eqref{eq:cv_other_order}, we start by setting,
for any permutation $\sigma\in\frak S_k$,
\[\mathcal A_n(\sigma) = \{|U_{\sigma_1}(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}\leq |U_{\sigma_2}(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}\leq \cdots\leq |U_{\sigma_k}(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}\}.\]
For all $\varepsilon>0$ and $\sigma\in\frak S_k$, we have, using the notation introduced before as well as in Proposition~\ref{prop:fringe_trees},
\begin{align} \label{eq:distrEst}
\begin{split}
&\mathbb P\big(\exists i \in \{2, \ldots, k\} \, \colon\,
\log (V_i(n)/n)\geq (\frak m+\varepsilon) X_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (\sigma_1,\sigma_i)} v_n
\text{ and }\mathcal B_n(a,b) \cap \mathcal A_n(\sigma)\big)\\
&
=\mathbb P\bigg(\exists i \in \{2, \ldots, k\} \, \colon\,
\log \Big(\frac{D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (\sigma_i)}\big({X^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (\sigma_1, \sigma_i)}_n} v_n \big)}n\Big)
\geq (\frak m+\varepsilon) X_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (\sigma_1,\sigma_i)}v_n
\text{ and }\mathcal B_n(a,b)\cap \mathcal A_n(\sigma)\bigg)\\
&
\leq \sum_{i=2}^k\mathbb P\bigg(\sup_{x\in [a,b]} \frac{\log (D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xv_n)/n)}{xv_n}-\frak m\geq \varepsilon\bigg)
\leq (k-1)\mathbb P\bigg(\sup_{x\in [a,b]} \frac{\log (D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(xv_n)/n)}{xv_n}-\frak m\geq \varepsilon\bigg)\to 0,
\end{split}
\end{align}
when $n\to+\infty$ by Proposition~\ref{prop:fringe_trees}.
Since $\lim_n \mathbb P(\mathcal B_n(a,b)^c) \to 0$ when $a\to0$ and $b\to+\infty$ due to \eqref{eq:PBn}, we get
\[\mathbb P\bigg(\exists i \in \{2, \ldots, k\} \, \colon\, \frac{\log (V_i(n)/n)}{X_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (\sigma_1,\sigma_i)}v_n}\geq \frak m+\varepsilon \text{ and } \mathcal A_n(\sigma)\bigg)\to 0,
\]
when $n\to+\infty$.
Therefore, for all $\varepsilon\in(0, -\frak m)$,
for all $x_i<0$, we have, asymptotically when $n\to+\infty$ that
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb P\bigg(\forall i \in \{2, \ldots, k\} \, \colon\, \frac{\log (V_i(n)/n)}{v_n}\geq x_i\bigg)\\
&\hspace{1cm}=(1+o(1))\sum_{\sigma\in\frak S_k}
\mathbb P\bigg(\forall i \in \{2, \ldots, k\} \, \colon\,
\frac{\log (V_i(n)/n)}{v_n}\geq x_i
\text{ and }
\frac{\log (V_i(n)/n)}{X_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (\sigma_1,\sigma_i)}v_n}\leq \frak m+\varepsilon
\text{ and }\mathcal A_n(\sigma)\bigg)\\
&\hspace{1cm}
\leq (1+o(1))\sum_{\sigma\in\frak S_k}
\mathbb P\bigg(\forall i \in \{2, \ldots, k\} \, \colon\,
x_i\leq X_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (\sigma_1,\sigma_i)}(\frak m+\varepsilon)
\text{ and }\mathcal A_n(\sigma)\bigg)\\
&\hspace{1cm}= (1+o(1))\sum_{\sigma\in\frak S_k}
\mathbb P\bigg(\forall i \in \{2, \ldots, k\} \, \colon\,
X_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (\sigma_1,\sigma_i)}\leq \frac{x_i}{\frak m+\varepsilon}
\text{ and }\mathcal A_n(\sigma)\bigg),
\end{align*}
where we have used that $\frak m+\varepsilon<0$.
Since this is true for all $\varepsilon\in(0,-\frak m)$,
we get
\[\mathbb P\bigg(\forall i \in \{2, \ldots, k\} \, \colon\, \frac{\log (V_i(n)/n)}{v_n}\geq x_i\bigg)
\leq (1+o(1))\sum_{\sigma\in\frak S_k} \mathbb P\bigg(\forall i \in \{2, \ldots, k\} \, \colon\, X_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (\sigma_1,\sigma_i)}\leq \frac{x_i}{\frak m}
\text{ and }\mathcal A_n(\sigma)\bigg).
\]
By definition of $\mathcal A_n(\sigma)$ and due to \eqref{eq:cvX}, we thus get
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb P\bigg(\forall i \in \{2, \ldots, k\} \, \colon\, \frac{\log (V_i(n)/n)}{v_n}\geq x_i\bigg)\\
&\leq (1+o(1))\sum_{\sigma\in\frak S_k}
\mathbb P\bigg(\forall i \in \{2, \ldots, k\} \, \colon\,
|\Psi_{\sigma_1}-\Psi_{\sigma_i}|\leq \frac{2x_i}{\frak m}
\text{ and }\Psi_{\sigma_1}\leq \cdots \leq \Psi_{\sigma_k}\bigg)\\
&= (1+o(1))\mathbb P\bigg(\forall i \in \{2, \ldots, k\} \, \colon\,
\Psi_{(i)}-\Psi_{(1)}\leq \frac{2x_i}{\frak m}\bigg),
\end{align*}
which concludes the proof of \eqref{eq:cv_other_order} and thus of \eqref{eq:cv_other_order2}. \end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{th:territories}}\label{sec:territories}
Before proving Theorem \ref{th:territories}, we prove a central limit theorem that extends the weak law of large numbers proved in Proposition~\ref{prop:fringe_trees}:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:CLT_random_index}
Using the same notation as in Proposition~\ref{prop:fringe_trees},
assume that $(x_n)_{n\geq 1}$ is a sequence of positive random variables converging in probability as $n\to+\infty$ to a positive constant $x<C(f)$.
Then, under the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{th:territories} the following hold true.
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm\bf (i)}] If $\mathrm{Var}(L)<+\infty$, then, in distribution when $n\to+\infty$,
\[\frac{\log (D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(x_n f)/n)-xf(n)\mathbb E[\log \bar Y]/\mathbb EL}{\sqrt{xf(n)}}\Rightarrow \mathcal N\bigg(0, \frac{\mathrm{Var}(\log \bar Y)}{\mathbb EL}+\frac{\mathbb E[\log \bar Y]^2\mathrm{Var}(L)}{(\mathbb EL)^2}\bigg).\]
\item[{\rm\bf (ii)}] If $\mathbb P(L\geq x)= \ell(x)x^{-\alpha}$ for $\alpha\in(1,2)$ and $\ell$ slowly varying at infinity, then, in distribution when $n\to+\infty$,
\[\frac{\log (D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(x_n f)/n)-xf(n)\mathbb E[\log \bar Y]/\mathbb EL}{(xf(n))^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}
\Rightarrow \frac{\mathbb E[\log(\nicefrac1{\bar Y})]}{(\mathbb EL)^{1+\nicefrac1\alpha}}\,\Upsilon(\alpha),\]
where $\Upsilon(\alpha)$ is an $\alpha$-stable distribution.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In this proof, we use the notation introduced in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:fringe_trees}.
{\bf (i)} Fix $\varepsilon>0$ such that $x+\varepsilon<C(f)$ and $x-\varepsilon >0.$ By assumption, the probability of the good events $\mathcal G_n := \{x_n\in [x-\varepsilon, x+\varepsilon]\}$
tends to~1 as $n\to+\infty$.
On this event, we have
\begin{align*}
\left|\log\Big(\frac{D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(x_n f)}n\Big)-\log Q_n(x_n)\right|
&= \left|\log\Big(\frac{D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(x_n f)}{(n-k_n(x_n))Q_n(x_n)}\Big)+\log \Big(1-\frac{k_n(x)}{n}\Big)\right|\\
&\leq \left|\log\Big(\frac{D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(x_n f)}{(n-k_n(x_n))Q_n(x_n)}\Big)\right|
+ \bigg|\log \Big(1-\frac{k_n}{n}\Big)\bigg|,
\end{align*}
because $k_n(x_n) \leq k_n$,
by definition.
By~\eqref{eq:3rd},
we have on $\mathcal G_n$ that
\[\left|\log\Big(\frac{D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(x_n f)}{(n-k_n(x_n))Q_n(x_n)}\Big)\right|
\leq \sup_{x_n\in[x-\varepsilon, x+\varepsilon]} \left|\log\Big(\frac{D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(x f)}{(n-k_n(x))Q_n(x)}\Big)\right|
= {o_{\mathbb P}}(1).\]
We thus get that on $\mathcal G_n,$
\[\left|\log\Big(\frac{D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(x_n f)}n\Big)-\log Q_n(x_n)\right|
= \log(1-\widetilde U) + {o_{\mathbb P}}(1),\]
which implies that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:O1Approx}
\left|\log\Big(\frac{D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(x_n f)}n\Big)-\log Q_n(x_n)\right|
={\mathcal O_{\mathbb P}}(1)\quad\text{ as }n\to+\infty.
\end{equation}
Now recall that
\[\log Q_n(x_n) = \sum_{\varnothing\neq u\preccurlyeq \xi(k_n(x_n))} \log Z_u\]
is a sum of $x_n h(n)$ i.i.d.\ random variables with finite variance,
since $\mathrm{Var}(\log \bar Y) <+\infty$ by assumption.
By definition, for all $y>0$, the node $\xi(k_n(y))$ is the ancestor of $U_i(n)$ closest to the root
whose $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$-distance to the root is at least $yh(n)$.
Therefore, almost surely, for all $y\leq z$,
$\xi(k_n(y))$ is an ancestor of $\xi(k_n(z))$
(which includes the case when both nodes are equal).
In other words, as $y$ increases from $x-\varepsilon$ to $x+\varepsilon$,
$\xi(k_n(y))$ goes through the ancestors of $U_i(n)$ at $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$-distance to the root between $(x-\varepsilon)h(n)$ and $(x+\varepsilon)h(n)$, in that order.
Therefore, in distribution, we have, jointly for all $y\in[x-\varepsilon,x+\varepsilon]$,
\[\log Q_n(y)
= \sum_{i=1}^{|\xi(k_n(y))|}\log \widetilde Z_i = \sum_{i=1}^{yh(n)}\log \widetilde Z_i,\]
where the sequence $(\widetilde Z_i)_{i\geq 1}$ is a sequence of i.i.d.\ random copies of~$\bar Y$,
because, by definition, $|\xi(k_n(y))| = yh(n)$ for all $y>0$.
Thus, by the central limit theorem with random index (see, e.g., \cite[Exercise~3.4.6]{Durrett}),
we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:first_CLT}
\frac{\log Q_n(x_n) - xh(n)\mathbb E[\log\bar Y]}{\sqrt{xh(n)}}
\Rightarrow \mathcal N(0,\mathrm{Var}(\log \bar Y)).
\end{equation}
Also recall that, by definition, $xF_i(n) = \sum_{i=1}^{xh(n)} L_i$ in distribution, and thus applying the central limit theorem, but this time to the sequence $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$, we get that, if $\mathrm{Var}(L)<+\infty$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sec_CLT}
\frac{xF_i(n)-xh(n)\mathbb EL}{\sqrt{xh(n)}} \Rightarrow \mathcal N(0,\mathrm{Var}(L)).
\end{equation}
Note that, by the independence of the sequence $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$ and the rest of the process, the two limits in~\eqref{eq:first_CLT} and~\eqref{eq:sec_CLT} hold jointly, and the two Gaussians are independent.
Combining \eqref{eq:O1Approx} to \eqref{eq:sec_CLT}, the above yields
\begin{align*}
&\sqrt{xF_i(n)}\left(\frac{\log (D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(x_n f)/n)}{xF_i(n)} - \frac{\mathbb E[\log \bar Y]}{\mathbb EL}\right)\\
&\hspace{2cm}=
\sqrt{\frac{h(n)}{F_i(n)}} \left(\frac{\log Q_n(x_n) +{\mathcal O_{\mathbb P}}(1)-xh(n)\mathbb E[\log\bar Y]}{\sqrt{xh(n)}}
+\frac{\mathbb E[\log \bar Y]}{\mathbb EL}\cdot \frac{xh(n)\mathbb EL - x_n F_i(n)}{\sqrt{xh(n)}}\right)\\
&\hspace{2cm}\Rightarrow \mathcal N\bigg(0,\frac{\mathrm{Var}(\log \bar Y)}{\mathbb EL}+\frac{\mathbb E[\log \bar Y]^2\mathrm{Var}(L)}{(\mathbb EL)^2}\bigg).
\end{align*}
In~\eqref{eq:cvprob_Fi/f} we have proved that $F_i(n)\sim f(n)$ in probability as $n\to+\infty$, but in fact, this statement can be made stronger: we have $F_i(n) = f(n)$ as soon as $|U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}\geq xf(n)$, an event whose probability tends to~1 with~$n$ because either $f(n)= o(\log n)$ or $f(n) = \log n$ and $x<\mathbb EL/\mu$.
This implies~(i).
{\bf (ii)} Under the assumption that $\mathbb P(L\geq x)=\ell(x)x^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha\in (1, 2)$,
the limit in \eqref{eq:sec_CLT} does not hold, instead we have that
\[\frac{xF_i(n)-xh(n)\mathbb EL}{(xh(n))^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}
\Rightarrow \Upsilon(\alpha),\]
where $\Upsilon(\alpha)$ is an $\alpha$-stable distribution.
Thus
\begin{align*}
&\frac{\log (D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(x_nf)/n)-xF_i(n)\mathbb E[\log \bar Y]/\mathbb EL}{(xF_i(n))^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}\\
&=\bigg(\frac{h(n)}{F_i(n)}\bigg)^{\!\nicefrac1\alpha}
\left(\frac{\mathbb E[\log \bar Y]}{\mathbb EL}\cdot \frac{xh(n)\mathbb EL - xF_i(n)}{(xh(n))^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}
+ \frac{\log Q_n(x) +{\mathcal O_{\mathbb P}}(1) - xh(n)\mathbb E[\log\bar Y]}{(xh(n))^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}\right)
\Rightarrow \frac{\mathbb E[\log(\nicefrac1{\bar Y})]}{(\mathbb EL)^{1+\nicefrac1\alpha}}\Upsilon(\alpha),
\end{align*}
where the second summand now vanishes in the limit.
This concludes the proof of (ii) because $\mu = \mathbb E[\log(\nicefrac1{\bar Y})]$, and because $F_i(n) = f(n)$ with probability tending to~1 when~$n$ tends to infinity.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{th:territories}]
For this proof, we consider that the infections ``creep along edges'' between the times at which they infect vertices: if two infections of respective speeds $s$ and $s'$ start at two neighbouring vertices $v$ and $v'$ (respectively), then they meet at distance from $v$ proportional to $\frac s{s+s'}$.
For any two infections $i$ and $\ell$,
the $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$-distance between $U_i(n)$ and $U_\ell(n)$ is equal to
\[\Delta_{i,\ell} := |U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}+|U_\ell(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}-2|U_i(n)\wedge U_\ell(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}.\]
Therefore, the time $t_{i,\ell}$ at which epidemics $i$ and $\ell$ would meet if there were no other infection at play is equal to the time it would take for an infection of speed $s_i+s_\ell$ to cross a distance $\Delta_{i,\ell}$, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:til}
t_{i,\ell} = \frac{\Delta_{i,\ell}}{s_i+s_\ell}
= \frac{|U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}+|U_\ell(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}-2|U_i(n)\wedge U_\ell(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}}{s_i+s_\ell}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, in the absence of the other $k-2$ infections, the $i$-th and $\ell$-th infections would meet
at $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$-distance to the root equal to the maximum of
\begin{equation}\label{eq:meeting}
|U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L} - s_i t_{i,\ell} \quad\text{ and }\quad
|U_\ell(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L} - s_\ell t_{i,\ell}.
\end{equation}
Thus, on the event (recall $K_n$ from \eqref{eq:Kdef}),
\[\mathcal A_n
= \bigcap_{1\leq i<\ell\leq k}\Big\{|U_\ell(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L} - s_i t_{i,\ell}\geq K_n\Big\},\]
for all $1\leq i<\ell\leq k$,
if we ignored all other $k-2$ epidemics,
the epidemics started respectively at $U_i(n)$ and $U_\ell(n)$ would meet at $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$-distance to the root at least $K_n$.
Also note that the probability of $\mathcal A_n$ goes to one when $n\to+\infty$ by Lemmas~\ref{lem:LCA} and~\ref{lem:real_heights_finite_var}.
Thus it is enough to restrict ourselves to the set where $\mathcal A_n$ holds.
We let $\kappa = \kappa(n) = \argmin \{1\leq \ell\leq j\colon |U_\ell(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}\}$.
On the event $\mathcal A_n$, for all $i\neq \kappa$,
the territory of the $i$-th infection neighbours a unique other territory,
and this neighbouring territory is the territory of the $\kappa$-th epidemic.
We let $d_i(n)$ denote the $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$-distance
from the root to the point where they meet (this point can be in the middle of an edge).
On $\mathcal A_n$, the territory of the $i$-th infection is the subtree of $\tau_n$ rooted at
the ancestor of $U_i(n)$ closest to the root whose $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$-distance to the root is at least $d_i(n)$.
We now show that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:miConv}
\frac{d_i(n)}{\log n} \to
\frac{s_1-s_i}{s_1+s_i}\cdot\frac{\mathbb EL}{\mu}\quad\text{ in probability as }n\to+\infty.
\end{equation}
Indeed,
first note that, by~\eqref{eq:til} and~\eqref{eq:meeting},
under $\mathcal A_n$,
the $i$-th and $\kappa$-th infections meet at $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$-distance to the root equal to
$|U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L} - s_i t_{i, \kappa}$, and thus
\[d_i(n) = |U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}-s_i t_{i,\kappa}.\]
By Lemma~\ref{lem:LCA}, and using the notation $H_n=\max_{1\le i < k \le n} |U_i(n)\wedge U_k(n)|$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:top_height_negl}
0\leq \frac{|U_i(n)\wedge U_\kappa(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}}{\log n}
\leq \frac{H_n}{\log n} \to 0 \quad\text{ in probability as }n\to+\infty,
\end{equation}
implying that, as $n\to+\infty$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:approx_tcross}
t_{i, \kappa} = \frac{|U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}+|U_\kappa(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}}{s_1+s_i} + {o_{\mathbb P}}(\log n),
\end{equation}
which yields
\[d_i(n)
= \frac{s_1|U_i(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}-s_i |U_\kappa(n)|_{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L}}{s_1+s_i} + {o_{\mathbb P}}(\log n),\quad\text{ as }n\to+\infty.\]
Since, by Lemmas~\ref{lem:real_heights_finite_var} and~\ref{lem:real_height_heavy_tails}, $U_i(n)=(\mathbb EL/\mu+{o_{\mathbb P}}(1)) \log n$ as $n\to+\infty$ (and similarly for $U_\kappa(n)$), we get~\eqref{eq:miConv}.
As argued above, on $\mathcal A_n$, $\operatorname{Ter}_{t,d}^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}((U_1, s_1), \ldots, (U_k, s_k))$ is the subtree of $\tau_n$ rooted at the ancestor of $U_i(n)$ closest to the root whose $\ensuremath{\boldsymbol} L$-distance is at least $x^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}_n\log n$, where, by~\eqref{eq:miConv},
\[x^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}_n := \frac{d_i(n)}{\log n}
=\frac{s_1-s_i}{s_1 + s_i}\cdot\frac{\mathbb E L}{\mu} + {o_{\mathbb P}}(1).\]
We set $x^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)} = \lim_{n\to+\infty} x_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}$ (with the limit holding in probability).
Thus, by Lemma~\ref{lem:CLT_random_index}(i), and because $W_{(i)}(n) = D_n^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(x^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}_n f)$, we get
\[\sqrt{x^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}\log n}\left(\frac{\log(W_{(i)}(n)/n)}{x^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}\log n}-\frac{\mathbb E[\log \bar Y]}{\mathbb EL}\right)\Rightarrow
\mathcal N\bigg(0, \frac{\mathrm{Var}(\log \bar Y)}{\mathbb EL}+\frac{\mathbb E[\log \bar Y]^2\mathrm{Var}(L)}{(\mathbb E L)^2}\bigg),\]
if the random variable $L$ has finite variance.
This implies
\[\frac{\log(W_{(i)}(n)/n) + \frac{s_1-s_i}{s_1+s_i}\log n}{\sqrt{\frac{s_1-s_i}{s_1+s_i}\log n}}
\Rightarrow \mathcal N\bigg(0, \frac{\mathrm{Var}(\log \bar Y)\mathbb EL}{\mathbb E[\log\bar Y]^2}+\mathrm{Var}(L)\bigg),
\]
as claimed.
In the case when the edge length are heavy-tailed, we get from Lemma~\ref{lem:CLT_random_index}(ii) that
\[\frac{\log (W_{(i)}(n)/n)-x^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}(\log n)\mathbb E[\log \bar Y]/\mathbb EL}{(x^{\ensuremath{\scriptscriptstyle} (i)}\log n)^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}
\Rightarrow \frac{\mu}{(\mathbb E L)^{1+\nicefrac1\alpha}}\Upsilon(\alpha),\]
which implies
\[\frac{\log (W_{(i)}(n)/n)+\frac{s_1-s_i}{s_1+s_i} \log n}{(\frac{s_1-s_i}{s_1+s_i} \log n)^{\nicefrac1\alpha}}
\Rightarrow \frac{\mu^{1-\nicefrac1\alpha}}{\mathbb E L}\Upsilon(\alpha).
\]
Because the probability of $\mathcal A_n$ converges to~1 as $n\to+\infty$, this concludes the proof of~\eqref{eq:terMinorConv}.
To prove the convergence in \eqref{eq:terPrincipalConv}, note that
it follows from Theorem \ref{th:voronoi} and \eqref{eq:terMinorConv} that the sizes $W_{(i)}(n)$, $j+1 \le i \le k$ are $o(W_{(\ell)}(n))$ for all $\ell \in \{1, \ldots, j\}$
with high probability. This implies \eqref{eq:terPrincipalConv}.
\end{proof}
\textbf{Acknowledgement.} We acknowledge support from DFG through the scientific network
\emph{Stochastic Processes on Evolving Networks}.
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
|
\section*{Introduction}
Epidemic spreads---such as the 1918 flu, HIV/AIDS, and COVID-19 pandemics---highlight the critical importance of infectious disease modeling in our everyday lives. Mathematical models can provide key insights into the process by which disease is transmitted between individuals, help to forecast how a disease will continue to spread through a population, and assess the efficacy of different interventions. Developing accurate, computationally-tractable, and generally-applicable models of disease spreading is therefore of critical importance to public health.
The dynamics of infectious disease spreading are often modeled using compartmental models \cite{brauer2019compartment,brauer2012mathematical} that employ the framework of reaction kinetics. For example, in one representation, members of a population are divided into three intermixed groups: those who are susceptible to infection ($S$), currently infected ($I$), or recovered from infection ($R$), with transitions from $S\rightarrow I$ and $I\rightarrow R$ occurring at prescribed rates. This standard model, known as the $SIR$ model or the $SI$ model in the absence of recovery, can successfully predict the initial exponential and eventual logistic dynamics of the total amount of infection in a population for many diseases \cite{grassly2008mathematical,ross1916application1,kermack1927contribution1,okyere2016fractional}. Thus, the $SIR$ model provides a useful approach for disease modeling that is well established.
However, a notable omission of this model is that it does not consider the discrete, spatially-separated interactions between members of a population. Instead, it assumes a well-mixed population for which the crucial dynamics of disease transmission between individuals are lumped into the basic reproduction number $R_{0}$, a macroscopic parameter describing the mean number of secondary transmissions from each infection. In practice, this quantity is used as a fitting parameter---limiting projection capabilities when the interactions between individuals change even slightly \cite{eckalbar2015dynamics,glass2004effect,van2001measles,ball2006optimal,viboud2005multinational,kilbourne2006influenza}. A recent example highlighting this deficiency is the spread of COVID-19 in China: containment policies imposing spatial barriers and suppressing individual interactions are thought to have hindered exponential growth of infection, yet this pivotal effect cannot be captured by the classic $SIR$ model without invoking additional fitting parameters \cite{maier2020effective}.
To address this issue, sophisticated extensions of this model have been developed to explicitly incorporate spatial variations in spreading \cite{bailey1975mathematical,mollison1977spatial,grassberger1983critical,bunde1985universality,herrmann1986geometrical,grenfell2001travelling,may2001infection,moreno2002epidemic,newman2002percolation,newman2002spread,lloyd2005superspreading,miller2007epidemic,kenah2007second,trapman2007analytical,davis2008abundance,lagorio2009effects,parshani2010epidemic,karrer2010message,neri2011effect,neri2011heterogeneity,ochab2011shift,wang2017unification,brauer2012mathematical}. For example, in one approach, different subpopulations---each modeled using different $SIR$ dynamics---are coupled together \cite{brauer2012mathematical,stonesynch,arenascovid,brauerstructure}. While powerful, this approach still employs lumped parameters for each subpopulation that do not explicitly consider differences between discrete individuals. Percolation theory provides another powerful way to explore disease spreading throughout a social network composed of discrete, spatially-separated individuals, yielding insights into the onset of disease spreading and the size of disease outbreaks \cite{grassberger1983critical,bunde1985universality,herrmann1986geometrical,grenfell2001travelling,may2001infection,moreno2002epidemic,newman2002percolation,newman2002spread,lloyd2005superspreading,miller2007epidemic,kenah2007second,trapman2007analytical,davis2008abundance,lagorio2009effects,parshani2010epidemic,karrer2010message,neri2011effect,neri2011heterogeneity,ochab2011shift,zuzek2015epidemic,wang2017unification}. Nevertheless, models based on this approach also suffer from limitations: they typically either do not consider the dynamics of disease spreading and only treat the final stage of infection, or they also describe the dynamics of disease transmission using an \textit{ad hoc} macroscopic parameter that aggregates the influence of random and uncorrelated individual interactions. However, transmission is known to depend sensitively on the full history of infection, on specific individual behaviors \cite{stoneunexpected} including social distancing \cite{newman2002spread,lloyd2005superspreading,neri2011effect,peak2017comparing,scherer2020moving,maier2020effective}, and on interactions between different social networks \cite{zuzek2015epidemic}. Thus, the ability to accurately predict the temporal evolution of active infections in an overall population, as well as the full spatiotemporal features of disease spreading, remains limited.
Here, we build on this previous work to develop an \textit{infection percolation} framework to model infectious disease spreading by applying $SIR$ dynamics to discrete interactions between members of a population. Our framework explicitly considers the full spatiotemporal history of infection as well as individual interactions in describing the spatial variation and individual dynamics of disease transmission. Simulations employing this framework show that disease spreads through a social network as a traveling wave of infection, followed by a traveling wave of recovery---consistent with previous predictions obtained using analytical $SIR$ modeling \cite{grenfell2001travelling,ruan2007spatial,lang2018analytic}. Analysis of these waves reveals general features of the total number of infections, maximal number of active infections, and the temporal evolution of active infections in a population, and clarifies how these features are determined by the interplay between disease transmission and recovery---consistent with the results of previous percolation simulations \cite{capala2017epidemics}. Our framework therefore provides a simple way to unify different findings previously obtained using disparate modeling approaches, and helps to clarify how disease spreading manifests for different diseases and containment strategies. Finally, as an example of how our framework can help to go beyond typical models of well-mixed populations that do not incorporate possible correlations in individual behavior, we demonstrate how disease spreading is strongly altered in a spatially heterogeneous social network.\\
\section*{Results}
\noindent \textbf{Development of the dynamic network model.} Our approach is inspired by dynamic network modeling of fluid-driven transport in heterogeneous media, which similarly seeks to predict spatiotemporal features of spreading in complex settings \cite{stauffer2018introduction,masson2016fast,lu2019controlling,furuberg1988dynamics,roux1989temporal,pietronero1990percolation,moore2000epidemics,warren2001firewalls,sander2002percolation,sander2003epidemics,miller2009percolation,massaro2014epidemic}. We represent members of a population, all of whom are initially susceptible to infection, by sites of a network that are connected by bonds representing pairwise interactions between them (\textit{Methods}). We describe the intrinsic infectivity of a given disease throughout this network by the parameter $P^{*}$, where a high value of $P^{*}$ characterizes a highly infectious disease. Crucially, each interaction between individuals $ij$ is characterized by its own barrier to disease transmission $P_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ \cite{cardy1985epidemic}; this threshold explicitly describes the propensity of individual $i$, if infected, to transmit the disease to the susceptible individual $j$, and depends on individual behaviors such as social distancing between $i$ and $j$ \cite{neri2011effect,scherer2020moving,newman2002spread,maier2020effective}. Furthermore, if individuals $i$ and $j$ are infected and susceptible, respectively, the duration of disease transmission from $i$ to $j$ is given by $\Delta\tau_{ij}$; at the population scale, the mean of all the $\Delta\tau_{ij}$ can be thought of as the inverse of a macroscopic disease transmission rate. However, in what follows, we will describe our results in terms of the time durations, since our model utilizes the time duration, not rate, in calculations of different transmission events between individuals.
Previous studies indicate that disease is transmitted between individuals more rapidly, with shorter $\Delta\tau_{ij}$, for stronger infections $P^{*}$ and reduced barriers to transmission $P_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ \cite{crepey2006epidemic,wearing2005appropriate,van2013non,gomez1994estimation,degruttola1991modeling,aldrin2010stochastic,kristoffersen2009risk,stene2014transmission,tran2013highly,yun2015efficient,karlsson2015visualizing}. We therefore propose the \textit{ansatz} that disease is only transmitted if $P_{\mathrm{th},ij}<P^{*}$, with a transmission time $\Delta\tau_{ij}=\tau_{0}/f(P^*-P_{\mathrm{th},ij})$, where $f$ monotonically increases from 0 to 1 and $\tau_{0}$ is a characteristic minimal transmission time. This feature contrasts with previous percolation-based models, which often assume that the individual disease transmission times and barriers to disease transmission are either constant or drawn from two independent distributions. Instead, by explicit linking the individual $\Delta\tau_{ij}$ and $P_{\mathrm{th},ij}$, our work provides a way to analyze the competing roles of individual disease infectivity and susceptibility in influencing population-scale disease spreading, as we show below.
Finally, as in the classic $SIR$ model, we introduce the recovery duration $\tau_{r,i}$ after which individual $i$, if infected, transitions to a recovered state and can no longer infect other individuals. The mean of this quantity can be thought of as the inverse of a macroscopic infection recovery rate. However, in what follows, we will describe our results in terms of the recovery duration---again, because our model utilizes the time duration, not rate, in calculations of different recovery events.
In nondimensional form, these control parameters---the infectivity, individual barriers to infection, disease transmission times, and recovery duration---are then represented by the parameters $\tilde{P}^{*}\equiv P^{*}/P_{\mathrm{th},\mathrm{max}}$, $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}\equiv P_{\mathrm{th},ij}/P_{\mathrm{th},\mathrm{max}}$, $\Delta\tilde{\tau}_{ij}\equiv\Delta\tau_{ij}/\tau_0=1/f(1-\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}/\tilde{P}^*)$, and $\tilde{\tau}_{r,i}\equiv\tau_{r,i}/\tau_{0}$, respectively, where $P_{\mathrm{th},\mathrm{max}}$ is the maximal value of $P_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ in the population. Thus, this framework parses the role of a macroscopic transmission rate or reproduction number $R_0$ into appropriate parameters that are globally constant for a particular disease and parameters that vary by individual, providing a systematic way to incorporate measurable spreading parameters to model populations with spatial heterogeneities.
As a first step toward exploring the spatiotemporal features of disease spreading in this framework, we construct two-dimensional (2D) simulations implementing these deterministic rules. We represent the social network as a static square lattice with $N_{t}=10^{4}$ sites, though exploring more complex networks with small world and scale-free features \cite{watts1998collective,kleinberg2000navigation,barabasi2009scale,may2001infection} will be an important direction for future work. The disease is introduced at the central site at time $\tilde{\tau}\equiv\tau/\tau_{0}=0$. For simplicity, we take the barriers to disease transmission $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ to be undirected, with $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}=\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ji}$; however, directed transmission is known to dramatically change disease spreading in some networks, and will be useful to explore in future implementations \cite{stoneunexpected}. The $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ have randomly assigned values that are chosen from a uniform distribution---and kept fixed for all computations performed for a given distribution---though we later test other distributions as well. We describe the individual dynamics of disease transmission using the simplest linear function, $f=1-\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}/\tilde{P}^*$, and take recovery to be an intrinsic property of a given disease, with $\tilde{\tau}_{r,i}$ set to a constant value $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$ throughout the lattice network. \\
\noindent\textbf{Infection percolation in a recovery-free population.} We first investigate the recovery-free case with $\tilde{\tau}_{r}\rightarrow\infty$. For a disease with low infectivity, $\tilde{P}^*\ll1$, only a small subset of individual interactions lead to transmission; thus, a large portion of the population becomes inaccessible to infection, and disease spreading is localized (Movie S1)---reminiscent of subcritical bond percolation. For sufficiently high infectivity, however, a sufficient number of individual interactions permit transmission for the disease to spread throughout the population---reminiscent of supercritical bond percolation. The example of $\tilde{P}^*=0.6$ (Movie S2) is shown at an intermediate time $\tilde{\tau}=100$ in Figure \ref{fig1}a. For this infectivity, the disease spreads in a spatially heterogeneous, ramified pattern, reminiscent of supercritical bond percolation near the percolation threshold. This heterogeneous spreading leads to the formation of discrete clusters of bypassed individuals who remain uninfected (white in Fig. \ref{fig1}a). For diseases of higher infectivity, disease spreading is more compact: the leading front of the infected population becomes more smooth, resulting in fewer and smaller uninfected clusters, as shown for the example of $\tilde{P}^*=0.7$ in Fig. \ref{fig1}b and Movie S3. Clearly, disease infectivity strongly influences the spatiotemporal features of spreading.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figure1.png}
\caption{\label{fig1} Recovery suppresses the onset and dynamics of disease spreading. For a population without recovery: \textbf{(a)} A disease with intermediate infectivity $\tilde{P}^{*}=0.6$ spreads in a spatially heterogeneous, ramified pattern, while \textbf{(b)} a disease with higher infectivity $\tilde{P}^{*}=0.7$ spreads in a more compact region. \textbf{(c)} Growth of infected fraction $\phi$ over time $\tilde{\tau}$ is hindered for diseases with low infectivity, but exhibits a generic quadratic scaling over time as indicated by the triangle, which eventually plateaus near unity for diseases with infectivity above a critical value. Infection growth is slower as $\tilde{P}^{*}$ decreases. \textbf{(d)} Total infected fraction $\phi_{t}$ exhibits an abrupt increase above a critical infectivity, $\tilde{P}_{c,0}\approx0.5$, indicating a percolation transition to an epidemic. For a population with recovery after $\tilde{\tau}_{r}=4$: \textbf{(e)} A disease with intermediate infectivity $\tilde{P}^{*}=0.6$ remains localized and does not spread, while \textbf{(f)} a disease with higher infectivity $\tilde{P}^{*}=0.7$ spreads in a spatially heterogeneous, ramified pattern. \textbf{(g)} Growth of infected fraction $\phi$ over time $\tilde{\tau}$ is hindered for diseases with low infectivity, but exhibits a generic quadratic scaling at intermediate times and linear scaling at longer times as indicated by the triangles, before reaching a peak value $\phi_{p}$ before dropping rapidly to zero for diseases with infectivity above a critical value. Infection growth is slower as $\tilde{P}^{*}$ decreases. \textbf{(h)} Total infected fraction $\phi_{t}$ and peak infected fraction $\phi_{p}$, which represent the total infected fraction at the end of a given simulation and the maximal infected fraction during the simulation, respectively, both exhibit an abrupt increase above a critical infectivity, $\tilde{P}_{c}\approx0.65$, that is larger than the recovery-free case---indicating that recovery suppresses the percolation transition to an epidemic. Images in \textbf{a-b}, \textbf{e-f} are for the same time $\tilde{\tau}=100$. All data are for a uniform distribution of individual interaction barriers $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}\in[0,1]$. Each curve in \textbf{c,g} and each point in \textbf{d,h} represents a separate simulation, all of which preserve the same lattice network structure of the $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ and only vary $\tilde{P}^{*}$ and $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$, enabling us to systematically test the influence of these two key parameters on disease spreading.}
\end{figure*}
To gain further insight into disease spreading, we repeat these simulations for a broad range of $\tilde{P}^*$, and characterize the infection growth dynamics by measuring the time-dependent infected fraction of the population, $\phi$. We again observe a bifurcation in infection behavior. For low infectivity, the disease spreads slowly (light curves in Fig. \ref{fig1}c), ultimately only infecting a total fraction $\phi_{t}\ll1$ (points with $\tilde{P}^*<0.5$ in Fig. \ref{fig1}d). By contrast, for sufficiently high infectivity, the disease spreads rapidly with $\phi\sim\tilde{\tau}^{2}$ (dark curves in Fig. \ref{fig1}c), ultimately infecting nearly the entire population (points for $\tilde{P}^*>0.5$ in Fig. \ref{fig1}d). The abrupt onset of rapid spreading throughout the population at a critical infectivity $\tilde{P}_{c,0}\approx0.5$ again suggests that disease spreading can be described as a dynamic process of percolation through infected bonds, consistent with previous calculations \cite{bunde1985universality,herrmann1986geometrical,may2001infection,newman2002percolation,newman2002spread,moreno2002epidemic,lloyd2005superspreading,miller2007epidemic,kenah2007second,trapman2007analytical,davis2008abundance,lagorio2009effects,karrer2010message,parshani2010epidemic,neri2011heterogeneity,neri2011effect,ochab2011shift,zuzek2015epidemic,wang2017unification}. This suggestion is further confirmed by the value of $\tilde{P}_{c,0}$, which coincides with the critical probability of bond percolation on the 2D square lattice \cite{kesten1980critical,mccarthy1987invasion,ochab2011shift}. We find no discernible difference in these results when the simulations are performed with lattice networks that are up to two orders of magnitude larger (Fig. S1), suggesting that our results are not strongly sensitive to finite-size effects.
\begin{SCfigure*}[\sidecaptionrelwidth][t]
\sidecaptionvpos{figure}{t}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{Fig2.png}
\caption{\label{fig2} The competition between infection and recovery determines the onset and pattern of disease spreading. For a population with a longer recovery duration $\tilde{\tau}_r=10.0$, \textbf{(a)} a disease with lower infectivity $\tilde{P}^{*}=0.7$ spreads in a ramified pattern, while diseases with higher infectivities $\tilde{P}^{*}=0.9$ and $1.1$ \textbf{(b-c)} spread in a more compact manner. The leading front of the infected population is trailed by an inner region of recovery, leading to the formation of a circular traveling pulse of infection. For a shorter recovery duration of $\tilde{\tau}_r=3.0$, \textbf{(d-e)} the threshold infectivity for appreciable disease spreading is larger, and \textbf{(e-f)} the pulse of infection is thinner. These effects are even more pronounced for the shortest recovery duration of $\tilde{\tau}_r=2.1$, as shown in \textbf{(g-i)}. The thick green line indicates the transition to infection percolation. All images are shown for the same time $\tilde{\tau}=75$ and all data are for a uniform distribution of individual interaction barriers $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}\in[0,1]$ preserving the same lattice network structure of the $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ throughout, thus demonstrating how varying $\tilde{P}^{*}$ and $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$ influences disease spreading.}
\end{SCfigure*}
Why does infection growth show quadratic scaling in time for $\tilde{P}^{*}>\tilde{P}_{c,0}$? At the leading front of the infected population, new individuals are infected over a range of transmission times $\Delta\tilde{\tau}_{ij}=1/(1-\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}/\tilde{P}^*)\in[1,\infty)$, leading to heterogeneous disease spreading. However, as $\tilde{P}^{*}$ increases, a greater proportion of disease transmission between individuals occurs in the shortest possible time $\tau_{0}$, corresponding to $\Delta\tilde{\tau}_{ij}=1$, resulting in more compact spreading (Fig. \ref{fig1}b). Hence, the leading front of the infected population spreads radially outward on the 2D social network lattice at a maximal rate of 1 new individual per $\tau_{0}$, therefore spanning an overall region with a maximal radius of $\tilde{\tau}$ individuals. The maximal infected fraction of the population is then given directly by the area of this infected region: $\phi\approx\pi\tilde{\tau}^{2}/N_{t}$, consistent with a previous result in percolation theory \cite{burlatsky1985growth} and yielding the quadratic scaling shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}c. As this infected region spreads, it eventually reaches the boundary and spans the entire population at a shortest possible time of $\tilde{\tau}_{f,0}\approx\sqrt{N_{t}/2}=71$ (\textit{SI text})---in good agreement with the onset of the plateau in $\phi$ at $\tilde{\tau}\approx100$ for the highest $\tilde{P}^{*}$ shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}c. As $\tilde{P}^{*}$ decreases, we expect that the infected region spreads at a slower rate, as a greater proportion of disease transmission occurs at $\Delta\tilde{\tau}_{ij}>1$---also in good agreement with the variation of the curves in Fig. \ref{fig1}c. The variability in these curves reflects the increasing importance of the variability in the individual barriers; different simulations employing different choices of the randomly-chosen $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ would yield slightly different dynamics. However, in all cases, we expect that decreasing $\tilde{P}^{*}$ leads to slower transmission as a greater proportion of disease transmission occurs at $\Delta\tilde{\tau}_{ij}>1$. \\
\noindent\textbf{Infection percolation in a population with recovery.} How do these results change when infected individuals can recover? To address this question, we perform the same simulations as in Fig. \ref{fig1}a--d, but with $\tilde{\tau}_{r}=4$. This modification markedly alters disease spreading. For $\tilde{P}^*=0.6$, the spread of disease is quickly quenched by recovery \cite{karrer2010message}, and only a few individuals are ever infected (Fig. \ref{fig1}e, Movie S4). Thus, even above the critical infectivity for percolation in the recovery-free case, $\tilde{P}_{c,0}\approx0.5$, recovery gives rise to subcritical spreading behavior. For a higher infectivity of $\tilde{P}^*=0.7$, the disease does continue to spread, eventually reaching the boundaries of the population as in supercritical bond percolation. However, unlike the recovery-free case, it does so in a spatially heterogeneous, ramified pattern (Fig. \ref{fig1}f, Movie S5). Close inspection of the spatiotemporal pattern of infection and recovery reveals the underlying cause: recovery of infected individuals before they can transmit the disease shields clusters of individuals who would have otherwise been infected, as exemplified by the large uninfected region in the top right of Fig. \ref{fig1}f, which was heavily infected in the recovery-free case shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}b. Together, these results hint that recovery suppresses infection percolation.
The competition between infection and recovery also drastically alters the time evolution of the infected fraction $\phi$. For low infectivity, recovery is sufficiently fast to quench the spread of disease (light curves in Fig. \ref{fig1}g). As a result, the total fraction of the population ever infected $\phi_{t}\ll1$ (points with $\tilde{P}^*<0.65$ in Fig. \ref{fig1}h). By contrast, for sufficiently high infectivity, the disease initially spreads rapidly, first with $\phi\sim\tilde{\tau}^{2}$ as in the recovery-free case and then with $\phi\sim\tilde{\tau}^{1}$ (dark curves in Fig. \ref{fig1}g). As time progresses $\phi$ eventually reaches a peak value $\phi_{p}$ before dropping rapidly to zero as the entire population recovers. Both $\phi_{t}$ and $\phi_{p}$ increase precipitously above the critical infectivity $\tilde{P}_{c}\approx0.65>\tilde{P}_{c,0}$ (Fig. \ref{fig1}h), again indicating that recovery suppresses infection percolation. Again, the variability in the curves in Fig. 1g reflects the variability in the individual barriers; different simulations employing different choices of the randomly-chosen $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ would yield slightly different dynamics. However, in all cases, we expect that decreasing $\tilde{P}^{*}$ leads to slower transmission as a greater proportion of disease transmission occurs at $\Delta\tilde{\tau}_{ij}>1$.
To further explore the competition between infection and recovery, we inspect the spatiotemporal patterns of both using simulations performed at several different values of $\tilde{P}^{*}$ and $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$, with snapshots all taken at $\tilde{\tau}=75$ shown in Fig. \ref{fig2}. For a large value of $\tilde{\tau}_{r}=10$, the critical infectivity for percolation is $\tilde{P}_{c}\approx0.6$; for $\tilde{P}^{*}$ slightly above this value, disease spreading is heterogeneous, with recovered individuals again shielding clusters of individuals who would have otherwise been infected (Fig. \ref{fig2}a). For even higher $\tilde{P}^{*}$, disease spreading becomes more compact (Figs. \ref{fig2}b-c). Moreover, the leading front of the infected population is trailed by an inner compact region of recovery, leading to the formation of a wide circular pulse of infection that travels outward through the population (dark blue region in Figs. \ref{fig2}b-c). This feature is notably similar to the traveling pulses of infection predicted by extensions of the classic $SIR$ model \cite{grenfell2001travelling,ruan2007spatial,lang2018analytic}---highlighting the ability of our framework to reproduce previously-reported continuum-scale phenomena. We observe similar behavior at smaller values of $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$, but shifted to increased values of $\tilde{P}^{*}$ (Figs. \ref{fig2}d-i): recovery can increasingly quench the spread of disease as it becomes faster relative to infection transmission. As a result, the critical infectivity for percolation, $\tilde{P}_{c}$, shifts to higher values (thick green line in Fig. \ref{fig2}), further confirming that recovery suppresses infection percolation. Recovery also strongly impacts the number of infected individuals: as $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$ decreases, the thickness of the pulse of infected individuals decreases (compare Figs. \ref{fig2}c, f, i).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Fig3_050.png
\caption{\label{fig3} Amount of infection shows a general dependence on disease infectivity across populations with different recovery durations and distributions of individual interaction barriers. \textbf{(a-c)} Data for the total infected fraction $\phi_{t}$ align when plotted as a function of the shifted disease infectivity $\tilde{P}^{*}-\tilde{P}_{c}$; insets show that the critical infectivity $\tilde{P}_{c}$ is given by the relation in Eq. \ref{eq1} (dashed lines). \textbf{(d-f)} Data for the rescaled peak infected fraction $\tilde{\phi}_{p}\equiv\phi_{p}/(\phi_p)_\mathrm{max}$ show reasonable alignment when plotted as a function of the shifted disease infectivity $\tilde{P}^{*}-\tilde{P}_{c}$; insets show that the theoretical $\phi(\tilde{\tau}_{p})$ calculated using Eq. \ref{eq2} (dashed lines) provides a reasonable approximation to the maximal peak fraction $(\phi_p)_\mathrm{max}$ determined for $\tilde{P}^{*}=2$. Intriguingly, all the datasets appear to approximately converge as $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$ increases. All three distributions span $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}\in[0,1]$; the normal distribution is centered at 0.5 and has standard deviation = 0.25, while the bimodal is constructed from two normal distributions centered at 0 and 1, both with standard deviation = 0.25. Each point represents a separate simulation, all of which preserve the same lattice network structure of the $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ for a given distribution and only vary $\tilde{P}^{*}$ and $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$, enabling us to systematically test the influence of these two key parameters on disease spreading.}
\end{figure*}
These results demonstrate the key influence of recovery on disease spreading\textcolor{black}{; we therefore examine the underlying model further to develop and test analytical relations that confirm the internal consistency of our simulations.} We first focus on the observation that faster recovery can quench the spread of disease. At the leading front of the infected population, new individuals are infected only when the infection transmission time $\Delta\tilde{\tau}_{ij}=1/(1-\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}/\tilde{P}^{*})$ is shorter than the recovery time $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$; otherwise, an infected individual recovers from the disease before they are able to transmit it to a neighbor. Thus, only individual interactions with $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}<\tilde{P}^{*}(1-\tilde{\tau}_{r}^{-1})$ can transmit disease. For a disease to continually spread throughout the population, a sufficient number of these interactions must permit disease transmission, as given by the critical probability of bond percolation $\tilde{P}_{c,0}$; that is, infection percolates only when $\tilde{P}_{c,0}<\tilde{P}^{*}(1-\tilde{\tau}_{r}^{-1})$. The critical infectivity in a population with recovery is then directly given by the relation
\begin{equation}
\tilde{P}_{c}=\frac{\tilde{P}_{c,0}}{1-\tilde{\tau}_{r}^{-1}} ,
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
\noindent which increases with $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$: faster recovery suppresses infection percolation. This \textcolor{black}{dependence} is in good agreement with the shift in the critical infectivity shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}d, h and by the thick green line in Fig. \ref{fig2}.
To further \textcolor{black}{confirm the internal consistency of our simulations,} we \textcolor{black}{explore} values of $\tilde{\tau}_r$ spanning nearly two orders of magnitude. For each simulation, we vary the disease infectivity $\tilde{P}^{*}$ and identify the critical infectivity $\tilde{P}_{c}$ at which the total fraction of the population ever infected $\phi_{t}$ abruptly increases, similar to the curves shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}d, h. Consistent with our expectation, all the data for different $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$ show similar growth when plotted as a function of the shifted $\tilde{P}^{*}-\tilde{P}_{c}$ (Fig. \ref{fig3}a). Moreover, the variation of the critical infectivity $\tilde{P}_{c}$ with $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$ shows excellent agreement with Eq. \ref{eq1} (dashed line, Fig. \ref{fig3}a inset).
Finally, we test the generality of this \textcolor{black}{relation} by exploring two other distributions of $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$: a normal distribution, representing a population with random and uncorrelated interactions whose variation is distributed about a single mean value, and a bimodal distribution, representing a population with distinct high-risk and low-risk subpopulations arising from, for example, differences in compliance with public health interventions. Our central findings that the onset and dynamics of disease spreading are regulated by the interplay between disease transmission and recovery are consistent across the different distributions tested. Specifically, for all the distributions tested, we observe a similar abrupt increase in $\phi_{t}$ with $\tilde{P}^{*}$ above a critical infectivity $\tilde{P}_{c}$, with excellent alignment of all the data for different $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$ (Figs. \ref{fig3}a-c). In all cases, the value of $\tilde{P}_{c}$ determined shows close agreement with Eq. \ref{eq1} (Figs. \ref{fig3}a-c insets). A bimodal population in which half of the contacts between members maintain high barriers to transmission while the other interspersed connections do not---such as through strong or weak social distancing, respectively---has $\tilde{P}_{c}$ slightly less than this \textcolor{black}{relation}, indicating that it is slightly more susceptible to infection. \\
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=6in]{Fig4.png}
\caption{\label{fig4} Total fraction of active infections in a population shows general dynamics across populations with different recovery durations and distributions of individual interaction barriers. \textbf{(a-c)} Growth of rescaled infected fraction $\tilde{\phi}\equiv\phi(\tilde{\tau})/\phi(\tilde{\tau}_{r})$ with rescaled time $\tilde{\tau}/\tilde{\tau}_{r}$ shows general quadratic to linear scaling as indicated by the triangles, followed by a drop to zero at $\tilde{\tau}_{f}/\tilde{\tau}_{r}\approx\sqrt{N_{t}/2}/\tilde{\tau}_{r}+1$. Data shown are for the largest disease infectivity tested, $\tilde{P}^{*}=2$. Distributions of individual interaction barriers and colors indicating different recovery durations $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$ are the same as in Fig. \ref{fig3}. Each point represents a separate simulation, all of which preserve the same lattice network structure of the $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ for a given distribution and only vary $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$.}
\end{figure*}
\newpage\noindent\textbf{General scaling of infection growth dynamics.} We next focus on the observation that, for high $\tilde{P}^{*}$, the leading front of the infected population is trailed by an inner region of recovery. At the leading front of the infected population, the shortest possible disease transmission time is again $\Delta\tilde{\tau}_{ij}=1$; therefore, the leading front spans an overall region with a maximal radius of $\tilde{\tau}$ individuals, as in the recovery-free case. For short times $\tilde{\tau}<\tilde{\tau}_{r}$, these individuals have not yet recovered; hence, we expect that $\phi\approx\pi\tilde{\tau}^{2}/N_{t}$ again in this regime, in agreement with the short-time quadratic scaling shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}g as well as the recovery-free quadratic scaling shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}c. At longer times $\tilde{\tau}\geq\tilde{\tau}_{r}$, infected individuals begin to recover, forming an inner region of recovery. The leading front of this region spreads at the same rate as the leading front of the infected population; however, it only spans a maximal radius of $\tilde{\tau}-\tilde{\tau}_{r}$ individuals. The maximal infected fraction of the population is then given by the area between the leading fronts of the infected and recovered populations: $\phi\approx\pi[\tilde{\tau}^{2}-(\tilde{\tau}-\tilde{\tau}_{r})^{2}]/N_{t}=\pi\tilde{\tau}_{r}^{2}(2\tilde{\tau}/\tilde{\tau}_{r}-1)/N_{t}$, yielding the measured intermediate-time linear scaling (Fig. \ref{fig1}g). Furthermore, as the infected region spreads, it eventually reaches the boundary, followed by the growing region of recovery $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$ later. We therefore expect that the infected fraction $\phi$ will peak at a time $\tilde{\tau}_{p}\approx\sqrt{N_{t}}/2$ before dropping rapidly and reaching zero at $\tilde{\tau}_{f}\approx\sqrt{N_{t}/2}+\tilde{\tau}_{r}$, corresponding to $\tilde{\tau}_{p}\approx50$ and $\tilde{\tau}_{f}\approx75$, respectively, for $\tilde{\tau}_{r}=4$ (\textit{SI text})---in good agreement with the results shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}g. Together, these calculations yield a general \textcolor{black}{expression} for the full time evolution of the infected fraction of a population in the limit of high $\tilde{P}^{*}$ well above the threshold $P_c$, in excellent agreement with the data shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}g:\begin{equation}
\phi(\tilde{\tau}) \approx
\begin{cases}
\pi\tilde{\tau}^{2}/N_{t} & \text{when} ~\tilde{\tau}<\mathrm{min}(\tilde{\tau}_{r},\tilde{\tau}_{p})\\
\left[\pi\tilde{\tau}_{r}^{2}(2\tilde{\tau}/\tilde{\tau}_{r}-1)\right]/N_t & \text{when} ~\tilde{\tau}_{r}\leq\tilde{\tau}\leq\tilde{\tau}_{p}
\end{cases}
\label{eq2}
\end{equation}
As $\tilde{P}^{*}$ decreases, we again expect that the infected region spreads at a slower rate, prolonging $\tilde{\tau}_{p}$---also in good agreement with the different curves shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}g.
Eq. \ref{eq2} also provides an approximation of the peak infected fraction, $\phi_{p}=\phi(\tilde{\tau}_{p})$, in the limit of high $\tilde{P}^{*}$; for the case of $\tilde{\tau}_{r}=4$, we estimate $\phi_{p}\approx0.1$, consistent with the data shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}g. To further \textcolor{black}{examine} this \textcolor{black}{relation}, we analyze the results of all the simulations described in Fig. \ref{fig3} with varying $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$. For each simulation, we determine the maximal value of $\phi_{p}$, $(\phi_{p})_\mathrm{max}$, at $\tilde{P}^{*}=2$, the highest value tested. Consistent with our expectation, $\phi_{p}=\phi(\tilde{\tau}_{p})$ calculated using Eq. \ref{eq2} (dashed line, Fig. \ref{fig3}d inset), provides a reasonable approximation to the measured $(\phi_{p})_\mathrm{max}$ (data points, Fig. \ref{fig3}d inset). Furthermore, all the data for $\tilde{\phi}_{p}\equiv\phi_{p}/(\phi_{p})_\mathrm{max}$ show reasonable alignment when plotted as a function of the shifted $\tilde{P}^{*}-\tilde{P}_{c}$ (Fig. \ref{fig3}d), with some deviation for the smallest $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$ likely arising from geometric effects not taken into account in our simple estimate of $\phi_{p}=\phi(\tilde{\tau}_{p})$. We again test the generality of these results by exploring their applicability to a normal distribution and a bimodal distribution of $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$; the results are closely similar in all three cases (Figs. \ref{fig3}d-f). Taken together, all of the results shown in Figs. \ref{fig1}-\ref{fig3} support the validity of our scaling \textcolor{black}{relations}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.8in]{images/SI_Fig2_strat.png}
\caption{\label{SI Fig2} Spatial heterogeneity strongly alters disease spreading. \textbf{(a)} Homogeneously-mixed population i.e. the distribution of $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}\in[0,1]$ is bimodal, constructed from two normal distributions centered at 0 and 1, both with standard deviation = 0.25, and with $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ values randomly distributed through the lattice network. In this case, the disease slowly spreads through the population in a spatially heterogeneous manner. \textbf{(b)} Stratified population with the exact same overall distribution of $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}\in[0,1]$, but with the individuals comprising the normal distributions centered at 0 (more susceptible) and 1 (less susceptible) isolated to the bottom and top halves of the lattice network, respectively. In this case, disease spreading is dramatically worsened; the total amount of infection is larger than the homogeneously-mixed case. Moreover, disease spreading is stronger in the more susceptible subpopulation and is weaker in the less susceptible subpopulation. Images show the case of a disease with infectivity $\tilde{P}^{*}=0.525$, a population with recovery duration $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$=10, and time $\tilde{\tau}=100$. \textbf{(c)} Variation of the total infected fraction $\phi_t$ with the disease infectivity $\tilde{P}^{*}$ for both populations. For diseases of intermediate infectivity, $\tilde{P}^*=0.425$ to $0.55$, disease spreading is stronger in the stratified population. For diseases of higher infectivity, $\tilde{P}^*=0.55$ to $0.85$, disease spreading is stronger in the homogeneously-mixed population. Each point represents a separate simulation, all of which preserve the same lattice network structure of the $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ for either the homogeneously-mixed or stratified case and only vary $\tilde{P}^{*}$. Dashed line indicates $\tilde{P}^*=0.525$, corresponding to the images in \textbf{(a-b)}.
}
\end{figure*}
As a final \textcolor{black}{exploration} of \textcolor{black}{these relations}, we use all of our simulations to directly test the \textcolor{black}{general expression} for the infected fraction $\phi$ given by Eq. \ref{eq2}. All of the data collapse onto this scaling curve for all values of $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$ and distributions of $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ tested (Figs. \ref{fig4}a-c). Furthermore, the peak in $\phi$ and its eventual drop to zero occur at values of $\tilde{\tau}/\tilde{\tau}_{r}$ close to the predicted values $\tilde{\tau}_{p}/\tilde{\tau}_{r}\approx\sqrt{N_{t}}/2\tilde{\tau}_{r}$ and $\tilde{\tau}_{f}/\tilde{\tau}_{r}\approx\sqrt{N_{t}/2}/\tilde{\tau}_{r}+1$, respectively. Thus, the close agreement between all the data and the theoretical prediction confirm the \textcolor{black}{internal consistency of our simulations with the scaling relations}. We note that \textcolor{black}{the analytical expression} represents the solution for the high infectivity limit with high $\tilde{P}^{*}$; however, as indicated by the data in Figs. \ref{fig1}g and \ref{fig4}a-c, it provides a good approximation for the spreading dynamics of a broad range of diseases with $\tilde{P}^{*}\gtrsim P_{c}$. \textcolor{black}{Intriguingly, similar quadratic power-law scalings have been reported for the initial regional epidemic spreads of COVID-19 \cite{maier2020effective}, though explaining the full dynamics of this pandemic involves additional complexities that we do not consider here.}
\noindent\textbf{Extension to spatially heterogeneous networks.} While our simple implementation thus far considered distributions of $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ that were homogeneously mixed over the social network lattice, our framework allows for spatially heterogeneous networks to be constructed to model disease spreading in specific community structures \textcolor{black}{\cite{glass2004effect,van2001measles,guimera2003self}}. As an example of this idea, we test disease spreading from the boundary between two stratified subpopulations, each on a separate lattice with a different mean $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$, representing differences in susceptibility to infection that can arise from differences in containment strategies or in socioeconomic factors \cite{grassly2008mathematical,glass2004effect,van2001measles,ball2006optimal}. Depending on the viral infectivity $\tilde{P}^{*}$, we find that stratification can either markedly exacerbate or hinder the overall amount of infection, and the total amount of infection in each subpopulation, compared to the homogeneously-mixed case (Fig. \ref{SI Fig2}). Specifically, for diseases of intermediate infectivity, disease spreading is stronger in the stratified population---the total infected fraction $\phi_{t}$ is two orders of magnitude larger than in the homogeneously-mixed case---due to the earlier onset of infection percolation in the more susceptible subpopulation. However, for diseases of higher infectivity, disease spreading is slightly stronger in the homogeneously-mixed population; in the stratified case, the less susceptible subpopulation buffers against continued spread of disease. These results exemplify how our framework provides a way to directly assess the critical role played by community structure in the spread of disease. More extreme forms of heterogeneity---for example with small-world connections between subpopulations, or power law distributions in susceptibility---can easily be incorporated within this framework, and will be an interesting direction for future research. For example, as suggested in previous work \cite{lang2018analytic}, we anticipate that long-range connections between regions with disparate susceptibilities will increasingly fragment traveling waves of infection.
\section*{Discussion}
The framework presented here provides a direct way to merge the temporal dynamics underlying the classic $SIR$ model with a network representation of all the discrete interactions between members of a population. We demonstrate this principle using 2D lattice simulations implementing a simplified form of this framework. Our simulations reveal that, for diverse diseases and populations, disease spreading can be understood as a process of infection percolation through a social network. By testing different recovery durations and distributions of individual interaction parameters, we find that the onset and dynamics of spreading are determined by the interplay between disease transmission and recovery at the scale of individual interactions. This finding thus builds on the rich body of previous work exploring disease spreading through the lens of percolation theory \cite{grassberger1983critical,bunde1985universality,herrmann1986geometrical,grenfell2001travelling,may2001infection,moreno2002epidemic,newman2002percolation,newman2002spread,lloyd2005superspreading,miller2007epidemic,kenah2007second,trapman2007analytical,davis2008abundance,lagorio2009effects,parshani2010epidemic,karrer2010message,neri2011effect,neri2011heterogeneity,ochab2011shift,wang2017unification}.
Guided by these insights, we develop a scaling theory that yields general predictions for the total number of infections, maximal number of active infections, and the temporal evolution of active infections in a population. Importantly, our scaling theory clarifies how these predictions can be applied to different diseases, with varying infectivities $\tilde{P}^{*}$ and recovery durations $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$, and different populations, with varying distributions of the individual barriers to interaction $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ \textit{e.g.} due to different implementations of containment strategies like social distancing.
Our simulations represent a first step toward implementing this framework. Thus, we have necessarily made a number of simplifying assumptions that can be relaxed in future extensions of this work. For example, our simulations consider a social network represented by a static, 2D, square lattice---while in reality, social networks are dynamic and have more complex structures. While previous work suggests that the assumption of a static network may not greatly alter disease spreading \cite{ochab2011shift}, our framework can be implemented on dynamically-changing networks using a time-dependent matrix of individual interactions $(\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij})$. Furthermore, while previous work suggests that disease spreading is well-approximated by spreading on a 2D network covering the Earth's surface \cite{newman2002percolation,bailey2000saprotrophic,otten2004empirical}, networks of different dimensionality $d$ can also be implemented---which would result in a more general form of Eq. \ref{eq2} with $\phi\sim\tilde{\tau}^{d}$ at short times and $\phi\sim\tilde{\tau}^{d-1}$ at longer times. Previous work also suggests that social networks can have broadly-distributed degree distributions \cite{barabasi2009scale,may2001infection}, small world connections \cite{watts1998collective,kleinberg2000navigation}, or multiple layers \cite{zuzek2015epidemic} unlike the fixed 2D connectivity of our lattice; \textcolor{black}{moreover, disease transmission can occur among groups, not just pairs of individuals, which would require consideration of a network with higher-order interactions \cite{arenasabrupt}}. Incorporating these features into our framework will be a valuable direction for future work. Indeed, the random long-range connections that arise in small-world networks could disrupt the traveling waves of infection and recovery we observed in our simple network, or even seed new traveling waves of infection and recovery, potentially leading to richer dynamics. Our treatment of individual interactions can also be extended in future work. For example, the barriers to disease transmission $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ need not be undirected, and the recovery durations $\tilde{\tau}_{r,i}$ need not be constant throughout the network. Furthermore, our representation of the disease transmission function $f=1-\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}/\tilde{P}^{*}$ represents the simplest linear function, and can instead be replaced by a more complex form that incorporates the sophisticated dynamics of transmission specific to different diseases \cite{woolhouse2005epidemiological}.
Our framework could also enable straightforward assessment of the efficacy of different public health policies. For example, the implementation of strong social distancing results in an increase in $P_{\mathrm{th},\mathrm{max}}$, leading to a reduction in $\tilde{P}^{*}$ and hence a reduction in the peak infected fraction of the population, $\phi_{p}$ (Figs. \ref{fig3}d-f)---consistent with previous work \cite{maier2020effective,ball2006optimal,valdez2013social}. Alternatively, the development of better treatments shortening the recovery duration $\tilde{\tau_{r}}$ also leads to a reduction in the maximal peak infected fraction of the population, $(\phi_{p})_{\mathrm{max}}$ (Figs. \ref{fig3}d-f, insets); it also hastens the transition to slow linear scaling and eventual decline of infection growth (Figs. \ref{fig4}a-c)---again consistent with previous work \cite{peak2017comparing,chen2020convalescent}. The influence of other factors that are documented to impact disease spreading---e.g. seasonality of infectivity \textcolor{black}{\cite{viboud2005multinational,koelle2005pathogen,kilbourne2006influenza,shaman2010absolute,moore2012improvement,kissler2020projecting,stone2007seasonal}}, heterogeneity in community susceptibility \cite{glass2004effect,van2001measles}, and targeted vaccination \cite{ball2006optimal}---can also be evaluated through appropriate modifications to $\tilde{P}^{*}$ and $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$. For example, targeted vaccination yielding perfect immunity is typically implemented by removing nodes from the network \cite{ball2006optimal,wang2016statistical}; in our framework, this could equivalently be accomplished by setting $P_{\mathrm{th},ij}>P^{*}$, therefore preventing further infection of a node, while imperfect immunization \cite{mclean1993imperfect, halloran1989modeling} could alternatively be implemented through smaller increases in $P_{\mathrm{th},ij}$.
\section*{Methods}
\noindent\textbf{Implementation of the network model.} We implement the dynamic network model in MATLAB. To define each 2D square lattice of 100 by 100 individuals (``nodes''), we specify node locations and an adjacency matrix characterizing the connectivity of the network. To ensure only one horizontally-oriented border between the two subpopulations in the stratified population shown in Fig. \ref{SI Fig2}, we employ a periodic boundary condition in the horizontal direction by connecting the first and last nodes in each row for all simulations; the nodes at the top and bottom boundaries do not have such conditions, ensuring that the vertical direction is non-periodic. For the bonds between nodes (``edges''), we randomly assign the values of the interaction barrier $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}\in[0,1]$ from a given distribution, as specified in the main text. Each simulation has a specified disease infectivity $\tilde{P}^{*}$ and recovery duration $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$. From the values of $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ and $\tilde{P}^{*}$, we compute the discrete infection transmission times $\Delta \tilde{\tau}_{i j}=1 / (1-\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th}, i j} / \tilde{P}^{*})$ for each edge. The simulations shown in Figs. \ref{fig1}-\ref{fig2}, \ref{fig3}a,d, and \ref{fig4}a are for the exact same lattice with the exact same configuration of $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ taken from a uniform distribution. Similarly, the simulations shown in Figs. \ref{fig3}b,e, and \ref{fig4}b are for the exact same lattice with the exact same configuration of $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ taken from a normal distribution, and the simulations shown in Figs. \ref{fig3}c,f, and \ref{fig4}c are for the exact same lattice with the exact same configuration of $\tilde{P}_{\mathrm{th},ij}$ taken from a bimodal distribution.
To perform each simulation, we use a modified invasion percolation algorithm based on the method described by Masson \textit{et al.} \cite{masson2014fast}. We start at $\tilde{\tau}=0$ by introducing the disease at the central node of the lattice, with all the other nodes specified as being susceptible ($S$). Then, for the next and each successive time step of the simulation, we use a binary tree structure to sort all edges in contact with infected nodes and find the most susceptible edge $ij$---the edge with the minimal infection transmission time $\Delta \tilde{\tau}_{i j}$. The next node to become infected, $j$, is then the node that is connected to the infected region through this most susceptible edge. This target node is then specified as being infected ($I$), and its time of infection is specified by adding the time increment $\Delta\tilde{\tau}_{i j}$ to the overall elapsed time $\tilde{\tau}$. We also decrease the remaining transmission times for all edges in contact with infected nodes by this time increment. New edges made available for infection by node $j$ are added to the binary tree; because the tree was mostly sorted in the last step, subsequent sorts are time-efficient. We incorporate recovery by identifying all infected nodes for which at least $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$ has elapsed since infection, setting its infection transmission time to all nodes connected to it as being equal to $\infty$, and specifying the node as being recovered ($R$). \\
\section*{Supplementary Information}
\noindent\textbf{Size dependence.} Our simulations occur on a fixed finite size network. All simulations presented are conducted on networks with $N=10^4$ nodes. We verify that our results are not considerably influenced by finite-size effects by repeating simulations for five network sizes. Figure \ref{fig:sizeDep} shows that the critical growth of the total infected fraction $\phi_t$ above $\tilde{P}^*>0.5$, corresponding to Fig. 1d in the main text, is insensitive the system size, even when the number of nodes is increased by two orders of magnitude ($N=10^4$ to $10^6$). We hence anticipate our system size $N=10^4$ to be sufficiently large to capture the general dynamics of this spread.\\
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{sizeFig_002.png}
\caption{Critical growth of the total infected fraction $\phi_t$ above a critical infectivity $\tilde{P}^*>0.5$ for a recovery-free population. Network size is varied logarithmically from $N=10^4$ to $10^6$ with no discernible difference (some curves lie beneath $N=10^4$).}
\label{fig:sizeDep}
\end{figure}
\noindent\textbf{Estimate of characteristic disease spreading timescales.} For the case of a recovery-free population, we calculate the shortest possible time $\tilde{\tau}_{f,0}$ at which the infected fraction plateaus in the limit of high disease infectivity $\tilde{P}^*$. As time progresses, the disease spreads radially outward. Because we consider a square network comprising $N_{t}$ nodes in total, $\sqrt{N_{t}}$ on a side, the leading edge of the circular infected region first reaches the boundary of the population when $\tilde{\tau}\approx\sqrt{N_{t}}/2$. However, the total infected fraction can continue to grow: it only plateaus when it spans the entire 2D network, including its corners. This occurs when the radius of the infected region is equal to half the diagonal of the square network, $\tilde{\tau}_{f,0}\approx(\sqrt{N_{t}}/2)\times\sqrt{2}=\sqrt{N_{t}/2}$.
For the case of a population with recovery duration $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$, we extend this calculation to estimate the time at which the infected fraction of the population will peak, $\tilde{\tau}_p$, as well as the time at which the infected fraction of the population reaches zero after all individuals recover, $\tilde{\tau}_f$, again in the limit of high disease infectivity. As time progresses, the disease spreads radially outward in a circular infected region, followed by an inner circular region of recovery that spreads at the same rate but is delayed by $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$. We consider two separate regimes: the ``thin pulse'' regime with $\tilde{\tau}_{r}<\sqrt{N_{t}}(1/\sqrt{2}-1/2)$, and the ``thick pulse'' regime with $\tilde{\tau}_{r}>\sqrt{N_{t}}(1/\sqrt{2}-1/2)$.
For a thin pulse, as in the recovery-free case, the leading edge of the infected region first reaches the boundary of the population when $\tilde{\tau}\approx\sqrt{N_{t}}/2$ (Fig. \ref{SI Fig1}a). At this time, the total infected fraction is nearly maximal, and we therefore approximate $\tilde{\tau}_{p}\approx\sqrt{N_{t}}/2$. As time progresses, the leading edge of the region of recovery then first reaches the boundary of the population at a time $\tilde{\tau}\approx\sqrt{N_{t}}/2+\tilde{\tau}_{r}$ (Fig. \ref{SI Fig1}b). Both regions continue to spread into the corners of the square boundary, and the leading edge of the infected region eventually reaches the corners at a time $\tilde{\tau}\approx\sqrt{N_{t}/2}$ as in the recovery-free case (Fig. \ref{SI Fig1}c). Subsequently, the region of recovery continues to grow; the total infected fraction continues to decrease, eventually reaching zero when the region of recovery has reached the corners of the square boundary, $\tilde{\tau}_{f}\approx\sqrt{N_{t}/2}+\tilde{\tau}_{r}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{images/SI_Fig1_Scaling_v3.pdf}
\caption{\label{SI Fig1} Schematics showing the growth of the regions of infection (dark blue) and recovery (light green) over time. Top row shows the thin pulse regime with low $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$ while bottom row shows the thick pulse regime with high $\tilde{\tau}_{r}$. In the thin pulse regime, \textbf{(a)} the leading edge of the infected population reaches the boundary first, \textbf{(b)} followed by the leading edge of the recovered population, \textbf{(c)} followed by the leading edge of the region of infection circumscribing the entire population. However, in the thick pulse regime, \textbf{(d)} while the leading edge of the infected population again reaches the boundary first, \textbf{(e)} the region of infection reaches the corners of the square lattice before \textbf{(g)} the leading edge of the recovered population reaches the boundary.}
\end{figure}
For a thick pulse, the leading edge of the infected region again first reaches the boundary of the population when $\tilde{\tau}\approx\sqrt{N_{t}}/2$ (Fig. \ref{SI Fig1}d). The leading edge of the infected region then reaches the corners of the square boundary at a time $\tilde{\tau}\approx\sqrt{N_{t}/2}$ as in the recovery-free case (Fig. \ref{SI Fig1}e). Thus, the time at which the infected fraction is maximal is between these two times: $\sqrt{N_{t}}/2\lesssim\tilde{\tau}_{p}\lesssim\sqrt{N_{t}/2}$. As time progresses, the region of recovery then continues to grow, eventually first reaching the boundary of the population at $\tilde{\tau}\approx\sqrt{N_{t}}/2+\tilde{\tau}_{r}$ (Fig. \ref{SI Fig1}f). Subsequently, the region of recovery continues to grow; the total infected fraction continues to decrease, eventually reaching zero when the region of recovery has reached the corners of the square boundary, $\tilde{\tau}_{f}\approx\sqrt{N_{t}/2}+\tilde{\tau}_{r}$.
For our simulations with $N_t = 10^4$, the transition between the thin and thick pulse regimes occurs at $\tilde{\tau}_r \approx 21$; therefore, our analysis of the example system with $\tilde{\tau}_r =4$ presented in the main text is in the thin pulse regime, with $\tilde{\tau}_{p}\approx\sqrt{N_{t}}/2\approx50$ and $\tilde{\tau}_{f}\approx\sqrt{N_{t}/2}+\tilde{\tau}_{r}\approx75$ as reported in the main text. Together with Eq. 2, these estimates provide a universal scaling for the peak infection time, $\phi_p = \phi(\tilde{\tau}_p)$ (Figs. 3d-f insets).
\iffalse
When $\tilde{\tau}<\mathrm{min}(\tilde{\tau}_r,\tilde{\tau}_p)$, $\phi_p$ is given by the fractional area of the infected region normalized by the entire population. However, when $\tilde{\tau}_r\leq\tilde{\tau}\leq\tilde{\tau}_p$, $\phi_p$ is given by the fractional area between the leading edges of the infected and recovered regions.
In Fig. \ref{fig3}d-f, the inset plots $\left(\phi_p\right)_\mathrm{max}$, where
$\left(\phi_p\right)_\mathrm{max} = \left[\pi\tilde{\tau}_r^2(2\tilde{\tau}_p/\tilde{\tau}_r-1)\right]/N_t \forall \tilde{\tau_p}\in[0,50]$ and
\fi
\section*{Supporting movie captions}
\noindent\textbf{Movie S1.} Sequence of infection for a disease with low infectivity $\tilde{P}^{*}=0.3$, showing that disease spreading is quickly localized. This simulation is without recovery.\\
\noindent\textbf{Movie S2.} Sequence of infection for a disease with intermediate infectivity $\tilde{P}^{*}=0.6$, showing that the disease spreads in a spatially heterogeneous, ramified pattern, leading to the formation of discrete clusters of bypassed individuals who remain uninfected. Infected individuals are shown in dark blue, uninfected susceptible individuals are shown in white. This simulation is without recovery.\\
\noindent\textbf{Movie S3.} Sequence of infection for a disease with higher infectivity $\tilde{P}^{*}=0.7$, showing that the disease spreads in a more compact pattern, with a smoother leading edge, leading to the formation of fewer and smaller clusters of bypassed individuals. Infected individuals are shown in dark blue, uninfected susceptible individuals are shown in white. This simulation is without recovery.\\
\noindent\textbf{Movie S4.} Sequence of infection for a disease with intermediate infectivity $\tilde{P}^{*}=0.6$, showing that recovery causes disease spreading to be quickly localized. Infected individuals are shown in dark blue, recovered individuals are shown in light green, uninfected susceptible individuals are shown in white. This simulation is with $\tilde{\tau}_{r}=4$.\\
\noindent\textbf{Movie S5.} Sequence of infection for a disease with higher infectivity $\tilde{P}^{*}=0.7$, showing that the disease spreads continually, but recovery causes the disease to spread in a spatially heterogeneous, ramified pattern, leading to the formation of discrete clusters of bypassed individuals who remain uninfected. Infected individuals are shown in dark blue, recovered individuals are shown in light green, uninfected susceptible individuals are shown in white. This simulation is with $\tilde{\tau}_{r}=4$.
\begin{acknowledgments}
It is a pleasure to acknowledge Navid C.P.D. Bizmark for stimulating discussions. This work was supported by startup funds from Princeton University. This material is also based upon work supported by the National Science
Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (to C.A.B.) under Grant No. DGE1656466. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National
Science Foundation.\\
\noindent \textbf{Author contributions}: C.A.B., D.B.A., and J.S. initiated the project; D.B.A. designed simulations; C.A.B. and J.S. performed all simulations; S.S.D. designed and performed the theoretical analysis; All authors designed the overall project, analyzed the data, discussed the results and implications, and wrote the manuscript; and S.S.D. supervised the overall project.\\
\noindent\textbf{Competing Interests}: The authors declare no competing interests.
\end{acknowledgments}
\providecommand{\noopsort}[1]{}\providecommand{\singleletter}[1]{#1}%
|
\section{Methods}
\noindent\mathbi{Sample:} Single crystals of AV$_{3}$Sb$_{5}${} (A = Rb, Cs) were grown from Rb ingot (purity 99.9\%), Cs ingot (purity 99.9\%), V powder (purity 99.9\%) and Sb grains (purity 99.999\%) using the self-flux method, similar to the growth of RbV$_{3}$Sb$_{5}${}~\cite{Yin2021}. The mixture was put into an alumina crucible and sealed in a quartz ampoule under partial argon atmosphere. The sealed quartz ampoule was heated to 1273~K for 12~h and soaked there for 24~h. Then it was cooled down to 1173~K at 50~K/h and further to 923~K at a slowly rate. Finally, the ampoule was taken out from the furnace and decanted with a centrifuge to separate CsV$_{3}$Sb$_{5}${} single crystals from the flux. The obtained crystals have a typical size of $2\times2\times0.02$ mm$^3$. CDW transition is clearly observed in transport and specific heat measurement shown in Fig.~\ref{FigA1}(a) and (b), respectively.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=8.5 cm]{FigA1.jpg}
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{A\arabic{figure}}
\setcounter{figure}{0}
\caption{(a) and (b) show transport and specific heat measurement of RbV$_{3}$Sb$_{5}${} (red) and CsV$_{3}$Sb$_{5}${}(blue).\label{FigA1}}
\end{figure}
\noindent\mathbi{Inelastic x-ray scattering:} The experiments were conducted at beam line 30-ID-C (HERIX) at the Advanced Photon Source (APS). The highly monochromatic x-ray beam of incident energy $E_i$ = 23.7~keV (l = 0.5226 \AA) was focused on the sample with a beam cross section of 35$\times$15~$\mu$m$^2$ (horizontal × vertical). The total energy resolution of the monochromatic x-ray beam and analyzer crystals was $\Delta E\sim$1.5~meV (full width at half maximum). The measurements were performed in transmission geometry. Typical counting times were in the range of 30 to 360 seconds per point in the energy scans at constant momentum transfer $\mathbf{Q}$. $H,\ K,\ L$ are defined in the hexagonal structure with a=b=5.472~\AA, c=9.073~\AA\ at the room temperature for RbV$_{3}$Sb$_{5}${}, and a=b=5.495~\AA, c=9.309~\AA\ at the room temperature for CsV$_{3}$Sb$_{5}${}.
\noindent\mathbi{ARPES experiment:} The ARPES experiments were performed on single crystals of RbV$_{3}$Sb$_{5}${} and CsV$_{3}$Sb$_{5}${}. The samples were cleaved $in$-$situ$ in a vaccum better than 5$\times$10$^{-11}\ torr$. The experiment was performed at beamline 21-ID-1 at National Synchrotron Light Source II, Brookhaven. The measurements were taken with synchrotron light source and a Scienta-Omicron DA30 electron analyzer. The total energy resolution of the ARPES measurement is $\sim$15~meV. The sample stage was maintained at low temperature ($T=$15~K) throughout the experiment.
\noindent\mathbi{Raman experiment:} Raman spectroscopy was performed in a Montana Instruments closed cycle Cryostation s100 and utilized a Hubner Photonics 532~nm diode pumped laser excitation and an Isoplane SCT-320 imaging spectrograph with a 400B-eXcelon CCD camera and a 2400 groove/mm visible-holographic grating. Semrock dichroic and long pass filters were integrated in the optics train. For all Raman spectra reported here, a 2~mW laser excitation power was used, and Raman spectra were acquired for 300~s each. The sample was initially cooled to 3~K then heated to 150~K. All of the reported Raman spectra were then acquired while monotonically recooling the sample from 150~K to 3~K. The optics train was refocused at each temperature after waiting for the sample temperature to stabilize in order to correct for changes due to thermal expansion and to ensure that the sample was in thermal equilibrium before acquiring a spectrum.
\noindent\mathbi{DFT calculations:} The electronic band structure of RbV$_{3}$Sb$_{5}${} calculated by VASP~\cite{Kresse1994,Kresse1996,KRESSE199615} after a full relaxation on atomic positions with an atom pair-wise correction method (DFT-D3)~\cite{Grimme2011}. The phonon band structure of RbV$_{3}$Sb$_{5}${} is calculated using VASP within the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof exchange correlation based on density functional perturbation theory. An equivalent k-point mesh of $9\times9\times6$ is used in the self-consistent calculation, and the cutoff energy for the plane-wave basis is 400~eV. Prior to the phonon spectra calculation, crystal structure is relaxed with the residual force on each atom is less than 0.001 eV/\AA.
\section{Commensurability effect}
For incommensurate CDW (IC-CDW), the condensation energy, $E_{cond}$ is independent of the phase of CDW, $\phi$. For commensurate CDW (C-CDW), however, the condensation energy becomes phase dependent:
\begin{equation}
E_{\text{cond}}(\phi)=-\frac{n(\epsilon_{\text{F}})\Delta_{\text{CDW}}^{2}}{\lambda}(\frac{\Delta}{D})^{M-2}cos(M\phi)
\label{cond}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is the dimensionless EPC constant, $n(\epsilon_{\text{F}})$ and $\Delta$ are the density-of-state at $E_F$ and the CDW gap, respectively. $M$ is the CDW period relative to the lattice constant $a_0$. $D$ is the electronic band width. This phase dependent $E_{\text{cond}}(\phi)$ means that gliding the CDW requires finite energy, corresponding to a finite gap in the CDW phase mode:
\begin{equation}
\omega_{\phi}(q)=(\frac{\omega_{F}^{2}}{M}+v_{F}^2\frac{m}{m^{*}}q^2)^{1/2}
\label{phase}
\end{equation}
where $\omega_{F}^{2}=\frac{4M^{2}}{\lambda}\frac{m\Delta^{2}}{m^{*}}(\frac{\Delta}{D})^{M-2}$. $m^{*}$ is the effective mass. At $q=q_{CDW}$, Eq.~\ref{phase} gives:
\begin{equation}
\omega_{\phi}=\sqrt{\frac{4M}{\lambda}\frac{m}{m^{*}}}\Delta(\frac{\Delta}{D})^{\frac{M-2}{2}}
\label{gap}
\end{equation}
Usually $D\gg\Delta$ and therefore, $\omega_{\phi}\sim0$. However, for $M=2$, which is the case of AV$_{3}$Sb$_{5}${}, $\omega_{\phi}=\sqrt{\frac{4M}{\lambda}\frac{m}{m^{*}}}\Delta$. Most interestingly, a simple parabolic fitting of the ARPES data shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig4} gives $\frac{m}{m^{*}}\sim$3 for the shallow electron and hole pockets, suggesting large $\omega_{\phi}$ in AV$_{3}$Sb$_{5}${}. As we shown in Fig.~\ref{FigA2}c, due to the large phason gap, the particle-hole condensation will not interacting with acoustic phonon modes, as these modes are laying inside the phason gap.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=14 cm]{FigA2.png}
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{A\arabic{figure}}
\caption{(a) schematically shows commensurate (yellow) and incommensurate (cyan) CDW periods with respect to the lattice (red). (b) Yellow and cyan curves are the calculated phase modes for C-CDW and IC-CDW, respectively. (c) shows the CDW mechanism without electron-acoustic phonon interaction. The temperature dependent particle-hole excitations are shown as red, yellow and blue curves. The dashed line show LA mode, whose energy at $q_{CDW}$ is less than $\omega_{\phi}$. Shaded pink area, indicates the momentum position of Raman measurement.
\label{FigA2}}
\end{figure*}
|
\section{Introduction}
Classification of galactic morphologies has long been a critical task in extragalactic astronomy, not only because global galactic morphologies such as bulge-to-disk-ratios and spiral arm shapes can have fossil information of the galaxy formation, but also because the detailed statistical studies of galactic properties for each category can provide insights into the formation processes of different types of galaxies. Galaxy classification schemes proposed in previous pioneering works (e.g., \citealp{Hubble1936,Sandage1961,Vaucouleurs1991}) have long been used as standard tools in many observational and theoretical studies of galaxy formation and evolution. These days, galaxy classification is also done by non-professional astronomers such as the Galaxy Zoo project (e.g.,\citealp{Lintott2008,Bamford2009}), in which a large number of galaxy images ($>10^6$) from SDSS are provided for citizen science.
Galaxy classification has always been done by the human eye and will be done in future works. More recently, however, this process has begun to be automated by applying machine learning algorithms to actual observational data. For example, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have been used in the automated classification of galactic morphologies for many galaxies (e.g., \citealp{Dieleman2015,Huertas-Company2015,Dom2018}). Galaxy classification using these deep learning algorithms has been successfully done for a large number ($>10^6$) of images from large ground-based telescopes such as the Subaru 8m telescope (e.g., \citealp{Tadaki2020}). Such quick automated classification is now considered to be the primary (and possibly only) way to classify a vast number of galaxies from ongoing and future surveys of galaxies such as LSTT and EUCLID.
One of the potential problems in classifying galaxy images from ground-based telescopes is that the images can be severely blurred owing to the seeing effects of the sky. Fine structures of galaxies, such as bars, spiral arms, and rings, is used to classify and quantify galaxies (\citealp{Nair2010}), such structures can be much less visible in galaxy images from ground-based telescopes, in particular, for distant galaxies (Fig. 22 in the paper demonstrates that the detection rates of bars and inner and outer rings depend strongly on seeing). Thus, If this optical blurring due to sky seeing can be removed by applying machine learning algorithms to real galaxy images, it will provide significant benefits both to professional astronomers and non-professional ones who are working on the Galaxy Zoo project.
The algorithm that we propose is based on Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), which was originally proposed by \citealt{Goodfellow2014}. This technique is widely used in different image-related tasks such as style transfer \citep{Li2016} and super-resolution \citep{Ledig2016}. This solution has also been experimented with in the context of space astronomy by \citealt{Schawinski2017}, where they use a GAN-based network to remove noise from degraded galactic images, and more recently, galaxy image reconstruction by \citealt{Buncher2021}. Thus it is promising for us to develop a similar GAN-based model for deblurring galaxy images from ground-based telescopes.
The purpose of this paper is thus to develop a new GAN-based model that can convert blurred ground-based images of galaxies into clear HST-like galaxy images. Galaxy images from the HST do not have such problems as seeing effects because atmospheric distortion due to light travelling through the turbulent atmosphere is not a problem in these observations by a space telescope. In the present study, we use a large number of image pairs from the Subaru telescope (influenced by seeing) and from HST (not influenced by seeing at all) in order to generate the training data sets for our new GAN-based model (referred to as ``SeeingGAN'' from now on for convenience). We apply SeeingGAN to unknown data sets in order to quantify its prediction accuracy. Although the new algorithms presented here can be applied to galaxy images from the Subaru, other similar algorithms can be developed for the conversion of galaxy images from other ground-based telescopes (e.g., VLT etc.).
Space-image deblurring is not a new problem, and advanced ground-based telescopes utilise a technique called adaptive optics, where the mirrors in the telescopes can correct distortion in real-time by altering the shape of mirrors. It compares the way light is distorted when taken by a reference guiding star. In the present paper, we propose a totally different solution that avoids adaptive optics on large ground-based telescopes.
The plan of the paper is as follows. We describe our new GAN-based model's architectures for deblurring galaxy images in section \ref{section:network-characteristics}. We present the new GAN model results and quantify the prediction accuracies of the model in section \ref{section:results}. We summarise the conclusions of the results in section \ref{section:conclusion}.
\section{Network Characteristics}
\label{section:network-characteristics}
GAN networks were first designed by Ian Goodfellow \citep{Goodfellow2014}. A GAN network consists of two parts, a discriminator D and a generator G that forms a mini-max game. The generator learns to produce an artificial image to fool the discriminator, while the discriminator learns to distinguish between authentic images and artificial images synthesised by the generator. This network encourages the generator to produce a highly realistic solution to try to fool the discriminator.
\begin{equation}
\begin{multlined}
\min_{G} \max_{D} V(D,G) = E_{x\sim P_{data}(x)}[log D(x)] + \\
E_{z\sim P_{z}(z)}[log (1- D(G(z)))]
\end{multlined}
\end{equation}
Where $p_{data}$ is the distribution of the data, $p_{z}$ is the input noise generation distribution, $D(x)$ is the probability of data coming from real data more than generator. The GAN network attempts to maximise $D(x)$ an minimise $log(1-D(G(z)))$.
\subsection{Wasserstein GAN}
\label{section:wgan}
In order to avoid problems such as mode collapse, unconvergence, etc. as noted in \citep{Salimans2016} with vanilla GAN models, we utilise the Wasserstein GAN \citep{Arjovsky2017} variant instead. Instead of using a discriminator to output the probability of a real/fake output, WGAN aims to score the image based on the “realness” and “fakeness” of an image. As compared to a vanilla GAN that utilises Jensen-Shannon Divergence to measure the real/fake distributions, WGAN seeks to measure the differences using 1-Wasserstein distance (Earth-Mover distance) \citep{Arjovsky2017}. Intuitively, Wasserstein loss provides a proportional metric to relate the predicted and expected probability distribution performance that can be back-propagated for training.
\subsection{Conditional GAN}
In conventional GAN networks, the job of the discriminator is to classify the authenticity of images. However, given that if the dataset has additional auxiliary information, these data can be fed into the generator network in parallel to improve the GAN network. As summarised by \citealp{Isola2016}, conditional GANs (cGAN) can be used to train general networks to learn the mapping from the input image and the random noise vector to the output. Intuitively, these networks are conditioned by the additional input data to produce an output in the desired class \citep{Mirza2014}. In contrast to regular GAN networks that map a random noise vector $z$ to the output image $y$, $G:\{z\} \rightarrow y$, conditional GANs learn the mapping from the given image {x} and a noise vector {z} to the output $y$, $G:\{x, z\} \rightarrow y$. Where $x$ can be any auxiliary information, such as class labels. In our case, it is the observed low-resolution image.
\subsection{Skip Connections}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{generator}
\caption{Generator Architecture}
\label{section:generator}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth/2-50pt]{generator-component}
\caption{(a) Modified ResNet block; (b) Downscaling block; (c) Upscaling block}
\label{section:generator-component}
\end{figure}
We used skip connections in our model to make it a U-Net like encoder-decoder model similar to the \textit{Pix2Pix} model \citep{Isola2016}. Generally, a more significant number of CNN layers will increase model performance. However, this method's drawback is that deeper networks are often difficult to train due to the vanishing gradient effect. As the model tries to estimate a gradient to update the weights during back-propagation, due to the depth of the model, the gradients become so small where it has almost no effect when it reaches the input layer. To combat this effect, several solutions such as multi-level hierarchy networks proposed by Jurgen Schmidhuber \citep{Schmidhuber1992}, where each layer is trained layer by layer; or using other activation functions such as ReLU \citep{Glorot2011}, where they are less susceptible to the vanishing gradient problem.
Our paper will utilise one of the newer solutions pioneered by Kaiming He et al. in 2015 – ResNets \citep{He2015}. ResNets are regular networks with skip connections. Skip connections or “shortcut connections” connects a lower layer to a higher layer bypassing intermediate layers. This proves to be very powerful because these skip-connections acts as a “highway” for deeper layers to quickly learn by reducing the impact of vanishing gradients and then gradually learning the skipped layers to to optimise the model further as the “highway” connections converge. Additionally, these skip connections allow additional features from the lower layer to flow into the higher layer.
\subsection{Subpixel Upsampling with ICNR}
\label{section:subpixel}
Convolution transpose is simply a deconvolution layer that performs the opposite of a convolution layer in the decoding network. However, the deconvolution layers commonly have checkerboard patterns as they can usually have uneven overlaps. In theory, weights can be learnt to avoid this problem, but networks often struggle to evade this issue.
We attempted to reduce this effect by using nearest neighbour upsampling and convolution layers, but the images we obtained tend to be blurred since the image is upsampled via an interpolation method.
Therefore, we used a technique proposed by Wenzhe Shi et al. \citep{Shi2016} – Sub-Pixel Convolutional Neural Network. Instead of using zeros in-between pixels in regular deconvolution, we calculate more convolutions of the low-resolution image and resize the output map into the higher resolution layer. This technique avoids zero data in regular convolution transpose upsampling layers. This technique still suffers from checkerboard artefacts, albeit to a lesser extent. To further eliminate checkerboard artefacts, we used a technique called ICNR (Initialised to convolution NN resize) proposed by \citealp{Aitken2017}. Instead of random weight initialisations, we set the weight matrix to the nearest-neighbour neural network resize before the sub-pixel upsampling layer. This completely eliminates the checkerboard effect.
\subsection{Perceptual Loss}
The loss function we utilised for this network is a combination of perceptual loss \citep{Johnson2016} and Wasserstein loss. The most widely used loss function for GAN networks is L2 loss (Mean Square Error, MSE). However, networks that utilise such losses often lead to blurry effects in the output image because the generator tends to output images to fulfil the pixel-wise average goal of MSE \citep{Isola2016}.
Hence, we adopt a more robust solution called perceptual loss. It is still a MSE loss function, but it is a loss function of the CNN layer's feature maps. Our model used a pre-trained VGG-19 layer on ImageNet, using its’ $conv_{3,1}$ layer feature map. The abstraction of the VGG-19 layer can extract more important features from the image that are more representative perceptually, which makes the image more realistic. The selection of feature layers was an experimental procedure. We went through every feature layer and compared the results of using the said layers to select the most optimal feature layer.
The other loss we utilised was the Wasserstein loss described in section \ref{section:wgan} above. This loss function provides a continuous distance metric between the predicted output and the original image distribution, which is used for back-propagation.
\subsection{Batch Normalisation}
We did not include the batch normalisation (BN) layer in the generator model commonly used in GAN networks. BN layers work by normalising a layer's input features to have zero mean and unit variance, which is known to stabilise the training process. However, due to the incorporation of the skip connections, the model can directly learn the feature mapping of the image pairs. Hence, normalising the feature becomes less crucial \citep{Shao2020}. Although BN layers are known to improve training time, the output tends to be suboptimal. As a result, we removed the BN layers to reduce memory consumption and improve model performance.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth/2-50pt]{discriminator}
\caption{Discriminator Architecture (PatchGAN) \citep{Isola2016}}
\label{section:discriminator}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Network Architecture}
The generator network consists of 4 strided convolution blocks followed by 4 modified ResNet blocks and 4 upsampling blocks to upscale the image back to the source size. The generator architecture is shown in Fig. \ref{section:generator}. On the strided downscaling convolution shown in Fig. \ref{section:generator-component} (b) , a skip connection is made to the opposite and symmetrical transposed convolution block, forming a U-Net architecture. The downscaling layers consist of a convolution block followed by a ReLU block. The modified ResNet blocks shown in Fig. \ref{section:generator-component} (a) consists of convolution block, followed by a ReLU block and another convolution block. Each block has a skip connection from the input to the output of each block. The Upsampling blocks shown in Fig. \ref{section:generator-component} (c) consist of Subpixel Upsampling layers as discussed in section \ref{section:subpixel}.
The discriminator network is the same as PatchGAN \citep{Isola2016}, shown in Fig. \ref{section:discriminator}. The network is formed with a convolution block followed by LeakyReLU and a dropout layer. Then 3 strided convolutions blocks are added (strided convolution, instance normalisation, LeakyReLU, dropout) and 1 non-strided convolution block is added (convolution, instance normalisation, LeakyReLU, dropout) and lastly a convolution block before flattening to a fully connected layer for the discriminator output.
\subsection{COSMOS ACS imaging data}
\label{sec:ACS/HST}
The Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS) is arguably one of the most comprehensive deep-field surveys to date, covering a $\sim2$ deg$^2$ equatorial field of sky, designed to explore the evolution of the large scale structure (LSS) and the evolution of galaxies, AGN and dark matter out to $z\sim6$ \citep{Scoville2007}. The high-resolution HST I-band imaging (F814W) in COSMOS to a point source depth of $I_{AB} = 28$ mag taken by the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) allows for unprecedented morphological and structural investigations. More than $\sim 2$ million galaxies are detected in the COSMOS region at the resolution of less than $100$ pc \citep{Scoville2007}.
The COSMOS field is centred at RA = $10:00:28.600$ and DEC = $+02:12:21.00$ (J2000) and incorporates an extensive supplementary photometric and spectroscopic observations from various ground- and space-based telescopes providing a multi-wavelength data from X-ray to radio (see e.g., \citealt{Capak2007}; \citealt{Hasinger2007}; \citealt{Lilly2007}; \citealt{Sanders2007}; \citealt{Schinnerer2010}; \citealt{Davies2018}).
In this study, we make use of the 1.7 deg$^2$ imaging in this field with the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS\footnote{ACS Hand Book: \href{http://www.stsci.edu/hst/acs/documents/handbooks/current/c05\_imaging7.html\#357803}{www.stsci.edu/hst/acs/documents/}}) on HST that was observed during 590 orbits in the F814W filter (I-band). This wavelength not only provides the almost complete coverage of the field but also samples a rest-frame wavelength suitable for the optical morphological studies of galaxies out to $z\sim1$ \citep{Koekemoer2007}.
We use the drizzled ACS/F814W imaging that is resampled to the pixel scale of 0.03 arcsecond/pixel using the MultiDrizzle code (\citealt{Koekemoer2003}) while the raw ACS pixel scale is 0.05 arcsecond/pixel.
The frames were downloaded from the public NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive (IRSA) webpage\footnote{\href{https://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/COSMOS/images/acs\_2.0/I/}{https://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/COSMOS/images/acs\_2.0/I/} } as fits images.
In addition to the HST imaging data, in order to build our training data set (pairs of high- and low-resolution images of each galaxy) we use the companion ground-based imaging of our galaxies in $r^\prime$ band ($6213.0$ \AA) taken by the Suprime-Cam on the 8.2m Subaru telescope in the COSMOS field (\citealt{Taniguchi2007}). The Subaru Suprime-Cam imaging has a pixel scale of 0.202 arcsecond/pixel, i.e., $\sim6.7 \times$ HST/ACS pixel scale.
We downloaded the Subaru imaging frames from publicly available COSMOS data base\footnote{\href{https://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/COSMOS/images/subaru/}{https://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/COSMOS/images/subaru/}}.
\subsection{Sample Selection and Postage Stamp Cutouts:}
\label{subsec:SmplSel}
Despite HST's high spatial resolution in resolving galaxy substructures at very high redshifts ($z > 1$), it is still challenging as galaxies become too dim or small in angular size. Therefore to select a suitable subsample of galaxies to resolve their structures and cover all morphological types, we need to limit our sample to certain redshift and stellar mass ranges.
We select 700 galaxies out of the D10/ACS sample generated by Hashemizadeh et al. (in prep.) built upon the source detection and photometric measurements using {\sc ProFound} code \citep{Robotham2018} on the UltraVISTA Y-band imaging of the COSMOS field \citep{McCracken2012} as part of the input catalogue for Deep Extragalactic VIsible Legacy Survey (DEVILS, \citealt{Davies2018}). Hashemizadeh et al. provide a visual morphological classification of $\sim 36,000$ galaxies in the COSMOS field separating galaxies into bulge+disk, pure-disk, elliptical and irregular/merger categories. Using their morphological classification, we assure that our final training sample consists of all significant morphological types reducing the sample's.
We then limit our redshift range to $z < 0.6$ and stellar mass to $M_{*} > 10^9 M_\odot$. Note that redshifts and stellar masses are extracted from COSMOS2015 catalog (\citealt{Laigle2016}).
Finally, we generate postage stamps of these 700 galaxies in both imaging data (i.e., HST/ACS and Subaru Suprime-Cam). Figure \ref{section:hst-image} and \ref{section:subaru-image} show the postage stamps of nine of our galaxies in the HST/ACS and Subaru images, respectively. Instead of a fixed cutout size, the stamps' dimensions are elected to be $2 \times\mathrm{R90}$ on each side, where R90 is the elliptical semi-major axis containing 90\% of the total flux in UltraVISTA Y-band. With this dataset, the HST images were considered as ground truth while the images from the Subaru ground telescope were considered the source dataset.
\subsection{Evaluation Metrics}
\label{section:eval_metrics}
To quantify our model, we employed multiple metrics to measure model performance numerically. One major characteristic we would like to highlight is, even though image pairs from our dataset were spatially matched as closely as possible, the images may still not be perfectly aligned. Hence, attempts to measure pixel-to-pixel improvements was difficult due to the spatial variability of the images.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth/2-20pt]{hst}
\caption{9 sample HST images downloaded from NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive (IRSA) webpage, as described in section \ref{sec:ACS/HST}. These images were selected from the training dataset, labelled as the ground truth, where the model attempts to convert the images from Fig. \ref{section:subaru-image} to this.}
\label{section:hst-image}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth/2-20pt]{subaru}
\caption{9 sample images from the Subaru telescope, downloaded from the COSMOS project, as described in section \ref{sec:ACS/HST}. These images are the counterpart images of the HST images in Fig \ref{section:hst-image}. These images are selected from the training dataset and labelled as the source dataset, where the model attempts to convert these images to images in Fig \ref{section:hst-image}.}
\label{section:subaru-image}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}[l]{1.8\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{loss_layer}
\caption{Image pairs with different loss layers, from left - HST image, Subaru Image, SeeingGAN with VGG-19 $conv_{5,4}$ as loss layer, SeeingGAN with VGG-19 $conv_{3,3}$ as loss layer. Different layers in the discriminator's VGG-19 extracts different features from the generator output. Hence, we iterated different layers ad compare the results to determine the most suitable layer (hence, feature) for the discriminator's loss layer.}
\label{section:loss-layers}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection*{Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR)}
\begin{equation}
\begin{multlined}
\PSNR = 20 \log_{10} ( \frac{MAX_f}{\sqrt{MSE}})
\end{multlined}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{multlined}
\MSE = \frac{1}{mn}\sum_{0}^{m-1}\sum_{0}^{n-1}||f(i,j) - g(i,j)||^2
\end{multlined}
\end{equation}
The most common quality metric to compare the reconstruction quality of two images is PSNR. The lower the value of MSE, the smaller the pixel-wise differences, and thus the higher the PSNR value is. However, the drawback of PSNR is that it does not consider the qualitative measure of the image as it solely relies on the pixel-wise difference between 2 images. Thus, a higher PSNR does not necessarily equate to a better image per se, as it is not very well matched to perceived image quality \citep{Zhou2004}.
\subsubsection*{Structural Similarity Index Metric (SSIM)}
As noted above, PSNR is not a very good metric to quantify image quality. Thus, SSIM was created by \citealt{Zhou2004} to quantify image similarity better. The SSIM index is a perceptual metric that quantifies the image quality degradation proposed by Zhou et al. \citep{Zhou2004}. Given that two patches $x = \{x_i | i = 1, ... M\}$ and $y = \{y_i | i = 1, ... M\}$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{multlined}
\SSIM(x,y) = \frac{(2\mu_x\mu_y + C_1) + (2 \sigma _{xy} + C_2)} {(\mu_x^2 + \mu_y^2+C_1) (\sigma_x^2 + \sigma_y^2+C_2)}
\end{multlined}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\mu$, $\sigma$ are the sample mean and standard deviation, while $C_1$ and $C_2$ are two constants to stabilise the weak denominator.
The index measures the perceptual difference between the two images. This algorithm considers the visible structures in the image by comparing the surrounding pixels of each section of the image. Due to this characteristic, it is considered a better indicator of image quality than PSNR due to its ability to quantify perceptual similarity. SSIM ranges between -1 and 1, where 1 is a perfectly similar image 0 indicates no structural similarity. However, the major drawback of this metric is, it is quite sensitive to scaling, translation and rotation \citep{Gao2011}.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}[l]{1.8\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{s4}
\caption{One enlarged sample result predicted by SeeingGAN. The predicted image is obtained by feeding the Subaru 8.2m telescope's image into SeeingGAN. The resultant image has a higher CW-SSIM score, which indicates a better similarity to the HST image.}
\label{section:result-enlarged}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}[l]{1.0\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{s1}
(a)
\end{minipage}
\vspace{0.05in}
\hfill{}
\begin{minipage}[r]{1.0\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{s2}
(b)
\end{minipage}
\vspace{0.05in}
\begin{minipage}[l]{1.0\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{s3}
(c)
\end{minipage}
\vspace{0.025in}
\hfill{}
\begin{minipage}[r]{1.0\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{s4}
(d)
\end{minipage}
\vspace{0.05in}
\begin{minipage}[l]{1.0\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{results-43-output.png}
(e)
\end{minipage}
\vspace{0.025in}
\hfill{}
\begin{minipage}[r]{1.0\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{results-46-output.png}
(f)
\end{minipage}
\vspace{0.05in}
\begin{minipage}[l]{1.0\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{results-3-output.png}
(g)
\end{minipage}
\vspace{0.025in}
\hfill{}
\begin{minipage}[r]{1.0\columnwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{results-4-output.png}
(h)
\end{minipage}
\vspace{0.025in}
\caption{Sample results produced by SeeingGAN. The images are listed in the order of HST, Subaru, SeeingGAN prediction. The SeeingGAN result is obtained by predicting the results from the Subaru image. The CW-SSIM value is obtained by comparing the said image and the HST image, a higher CW-SSIM value indicates that the image is more similar to the HST image.}
\label{section:result}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|}
\hline
Attributes & Subaru - HST & SeeingGAN - HST \\
\hline
PSNR & {28.412 / 28.139 / 28.738} * & 27.913 / 27.820 / 28.237 \\
SSIM & {0.084 / 0.017 / 0.261} * & 0.062 / 0.023 / 0.132 \\
CW-SSIM & 0.560 / 0.302 / 0.711 & {0.622 / 0.307 / 0.760} * \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Quantitative results comparison. The results were obtained by averaging PSNR, SSIM, CW-SSIM across the test dataset of 100 images between Subaru-HST and SeeingGAN-HST. The scores are listed in the order of - average result of all the image pairs, minimum result, maximum result. A higher score represents higher similarity. *indicates the better result of the metric between the 2 image pairs.}
\label{tab:table1}
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|}
\hline
Attributes & Percentage Improvement of CW-SSIM \\
\hline
Average & 11.15\% \\
Standard Deviation& 3.53\% \\
Minimum & 1.69\% \\
Maximum & 18.04\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{CW-SSIM Metric Improvements. These results were obtained by averaging the CW-SSIM results across the test dataset of 100 images. The CW-SSIM value of SeeingGAN - HST was compared against Subaru - HST.}
\label{tab:table2}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection*{Complex Wavelet Structural Similarity Index (CW-SSIM)}
We attempted to quantify the model using the above metrics – PSNR and SSIM. However, the predicted model’s PSNR and SSIM metrics were not consistent with the visual improvements we obtained. For most of the images, we can clearly discern more details in the predicted image, but the PSNR and/or SSIM can be much better in the low-resolution image than the predicted image. This behaviour is a known consequence when the compared images that are not geometrically similar because these metrics depends heavily on the pixel location spatially and are sensitive to small scaling, rotation and translation \citep{Sampat2009}. Hence, a variant of SSIM was created – CW-SSIM by \citealp{Sampat2009}. Given two sets of coefficients $c_x = \{c_{x,i}| i = 1,...M\}$ and $c_y = \{c_{y,i}| i = 1,...M\}$ extracted from the same spatial location of the same wavelet sub-band of 2 images being compared,
\begin{equation}
\begin{multlined}
\CWSSIM (c_{x}, c_{y}) = \Bigg( \frac {2\sum _{i=1}^{N}|c_{x,i}||c^*_{y,i}|+K}{\sum _{i=1}^{N}|c_{x,i}|^{2}+\sum _{i=1}^{N}|c_{y,i}|^{2}+K} \Bigg)
\end{multlined}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $c^*$ is the complex conjugate of $c$, $K$ is a small positive stabilising constant.
The difference between this variant and the vanilla SSIM is that slight geometric distortions in the images will result in more consistent local phase patterns in the complex wavelet transformation domain. In simpler terms, CW-SSIM is more robust against minor geometrical differences and can still deliver SSIM-like numerical results that are perceptually representative. CW-SSIM also ranges alike SSIM, -1 to 1.
\subsection{Training}
\label{section:training}
We implemented the models using Keras backed via Tensorflow 2.1. The training was done on a single NVIDIA V100 GPU with 600 256x256 images and 100 test images. We started by training the matched image pairs with our network. Because each layer in the VGG-19 network extracts different abstract features from the images, our initial results showed that our initial selection of loss layer was providing a suboptimal objective function for the model to train on, resulting in images that have weird veils across the images, shown in Fig. \ref{section:loss-layers}. Hence, we iterated different loss layers in the discriminator to obtain a better result, which we ended up with the $conv_{3,1}$ in VGG-19.
Secondly, the model gradually started to add more stars around the galaxy, which we think the model was trying to simulate background stars. However, these stars are not technically correct because they are too small for the blurred image to resolve, so they are probably random noise added by the network to the output images to make them look realistic. Hence, we cropped the images programmatically to fill up the window with the galaxy as much as possible.
\section{Results}
\label{section:results}
\subsection{Individual Cases}
\label{section:qualitative-results}
First, we describe the results for a typical example of predicted images by SeeingGAN in Fig. \ref{section:result-enlarged}. Then we show the results for a number of selected images predicted by SeeingGAN in Fig. \ref{section:result}, because they show a variety of prediction accuracies. Other interesting cases are explained in detail in Appendix \ref{appendix:a}.
As we can see in Fig. \ref{section:result-enlarged}, the predicted image on the right clearly shows the centre and the arms of the spiral galaxy. As compared to the Subaru image, we can only see large blob of stars in the centre, and we cannot easily discern the type of galaxy. The CW-SSIM of the predicted image is 0.612, whereas the original image is 0.580, which shows that the predicted image is more similar to the HST image (due to the 0.032 higher value in CW-SSIM). This means that the image is clearer because it has less seeing effects. The SSIM values are 0.095 and 0.206, respectively, and PSNR values are 27.991 and 28.523 for the predicted image and original image, showing that the predicted image is worse-off according to these metrics. As noted in Section \ref{section:eval_metrics}, both the more common SSIM/PSNR values are highly susceptible to geometrical differences. Hence they were not an excellent candidate to quantify our model in this instance. Furthermore, because our model does not use mean square error as an objective, it is not directly optimised for the PSNR metric. Even though we can qualitatively conclude that the predicted image is clearer, the quantitative metric says otherwise. This behaviour is consistent across most of our dataset. Hence, we can confidently say that the SSIM/PSNR metric is not a good prediction of reconstruction quality for this research. Thus, the CW-SSIM is used throughout this research because it agrees with the qualitative metric more accurately.
By visual inspection, SeeingGAN produces superior results as compared to the original low-resolution image pair. It can be observed that our model enhances the texture of the low-resolution blurred image and introduces finer edges to the images. Fig. \ref{section:result} shows eight examples of deblurred images predicted from our new GAN-based model. These images clearly demonstrate that the fine structures such as clumps and spiral arms can be better seen our new GAN-based model's predicted images compared to the original Subaru-images. For instance, in Fig. \ref{section:result} (a), we manage to show two tail-like structures that may result from the past tidal interaction of other galaxies. In Fig. \ref{section:result} (b), the 2 arms of the spiral galaxy is more apparent as the blurriness between the centre and the arm is removed by SeeingGAN. In image Fig. \ref{section:result} (d) and (h), the predicted image refines the centre of the galaxy and clearly shows the spiral arms of the galaxy as compared to the original low-resolution telescope.
We can observe that the model increases the CW-SSIM values, which meant that the deblurred image is more similar to the HST-based image. Generally, SeeingGAN is good at deblurring the centre and edges of the galaxies. We can see that the centre of the galaxy is clearer, showing the type of galaxy. As compared to the Subaru image, where the centre of the image is blurred, it is not easy to deduce the type of galaxy.
For some images in Fig. \ref{section:result} and in Appendix \ref{appendix:a}, however, the deblurring effect is not as dramatic as expected. For example, in Fig. \ref{section:result} (c) and (g) \& Appendix \ref{appendix:a} (c) and (e), even though the predicted image has a higher CW-SSIM value, the model did not deblur the images considerably. The model did reduce the pixelation of the source image, but the result is not significant enough to be able to identify the galaxy type. This is, unfortunately a deficiency of this model, and we think this is due to the lack of image data in the source image, i.e., if the image is too blur or too small, there is not enough distinctive features in the source image to help the model predict the output. From our experiments, the model tends to underperform in clumpy like galaxies, presumably due to the lack of significant structural variation. Hence, more work has to be done to identify the limits of this model, and change to the model to improve the output.
\subsection{Statistics of predicted results}
As noted in the section \ref{section:eval_metrics} and Table \ref{tab:table1}, PSNR and SSIM metrics were not able to quantitatively measure the improvements of the predicted output from the model. Looking at the results, if we relied solely on PSNR \& SSIM, the model would produce worse off results. Hence, as discussed in Section \ref{section:eval_metrics}, CW-SSIM was utilised to provide a better measurement of improvement. In Table \ref{tab:table2}, the predicted model can provide an average of 11.15\% better CW-SSIM score over the original Subaru - HST image, and in some instances, a 18\% better CW-SSIM score. As mentioned in section \ref{section:eval_metrics}, a higher CW-SSIM generally equates to a more similar image, and in this case, an increase in similarity to HST is effectively removing the seeing effects of the atmospheric distortion. Additionally, the standard deviation is relatively small in our results, showing the consistency of our model.
To better intuitively explain the physical meaning of the score improvement, in another image deblur paper, DeblurGAN \citep{Kupyn2017}, a 1\% increase in SSIM value increases the object detection F1 score by approximately 4\%. Although not directly comparable, we can estimate that a 11.15\% increase in CW-SSIM score may increase the object detection F1 score by orders of magnitude.
These results demonstrate that SeeingGAN can convert other existing Subaru images that have no HST counterparts into clearer images. However, it should be stressed that this CW-SSIM performance is only for image pairs from the Subaru and HST image pairs. It is not guaranteed that we can obtain a similar result for other pairs of images, such as VLT-HST or SDSS-HST. Thus, our future study will develop similar a SeeingGAN model for other pairs images from ground and space telescopes.
\section{Discussion}
For the first time, we have demonstrated that many pairs of images from (ground-based) Subaru and (space) HST enable us to develop SeeingGAN that can deblur from Subaru images quite well. This means that astronomers can use SeeingGAN to (i) deblur Subaru images with no HST counterparts (ii) see the fine structures of galaxies more clearly. Furthermore, this means that one can also develop SeeingGAN using many pairs of images from other ground-based telescopes such as AAT and VLT and from HST. For example, there are a large number of galaxy images from SDSS \citep{Gunn2006} and GAMA projects \citep{Driver2010}, which can be used to train SeeingGAN if there is a large enough sample of HST counterpart images. It would be reasonable to say that the new architecture developed in the present study (or something similar to the present one) can be used to develop SeeingGAN for other combinations of ground-based telescopes and HST.
There are several scientific merits of our SeeingGAN in astronomical studies. First, astronomers can see the internal fine structures of galaxies such as spiral arms, tidal tails, and massive clumps more clearly, which can be difficult to see in optical images of distant galaxies from ground-based telescopes. These generated clearer images by SeeingGAN would assist astronomers to classify galaxies better and discover new internal structures of distant galaxies which otherwise could be difficult to find in original blurred images. For example, it could be possible that distant galaxies classified as S0s with no spirals in original blurred images are indeed spiral galaxies in the debarred images by SeeingGAN. This can influence the redshift evolution of S0 fraction in groups and clusters, discussed in many recent papers (e.g., \citealp{Just2010}). Also, SeeingGAN can be used for citizen science projects for galaxy classification by the public, e.g., the Galaxy Zoo project. If galaxy images in these projects are blurred (more challenging to classify galaxies), then the deblurred images generated by SeeingGAN can be easily used for the public galaxy classification instead of the original image. The speed at which SeeingGAN can convert blurred images to deblurred ones is rapid, it is not tricky for SeeingGAN to generate a massive number of deblurred galaxy images.
As shown in Fig. \ref{section:result}, the deblurred images are clearer than the original Subaru images, however, some of them are not dramatically clearer as the HST counterparts. Hence, our future study investigates whether different CNN architectures, larger numbers of image pairs, and model parameters of SeeingGAN can improve the performance of SeeingGAN. Since the present study has proposed one example of SeeingGAN for a limited number of Subaru-HST image pairs, it is worth a try for us to investigate different architectures of GAN for a much larger number of image pairs
We plan to use the large number (a million) of Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam and HST images to test new architectures of SeeingGAN for its better performance. It might be essential for us to use galaxy images from other optical telescopes (e.g., VLT) to confirm that SeeingGAN can be developed from different combinations of ground-based and space telescopes. Although we have focused exclusively on galaxy images in optical wavelengths, it might be an interesting future study to use galaxy images at other wavelengths from space telescopes (e.g., JWST) to develop new SeeingGAN.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{section:conclusion}
We have demonstrated that SeeingGAN is able to assist astronomers to see fine structures of galaxies such as spiral arms, bars, clumps, tidal tails etc. taken from traditional ground-based telescopes and amplify the details present in the source image to HST-like resolution without the atmospheric distortion with promising quantitative and qualitative results. By only utilising deep learning methods, we can augment and leverage the capabilities of traditional ground-based telescopes without any physical modifications. This proves to be a relatively simple yet effective solution to remove atmospheric distortion from current ground-based telescopes without investing significant resources to install advanced equipment like adaptive optics in the VLT.
In the current status quo, many Subaru images do not have a clear, HST-like counterpart. Hence the first outcome of this project could be deblurring the massive library of available Subaru images. Since we have successfully developed a GAN-based model to deblur images, we can develop similar models to deblur images from other ground-based telescopes such as SDSS, VLT and Keck, if many pairs of images of these and HST are available. We plant to develop newer SeeingGAN for images from these other ground-based telescopes. Lastly, we would like to iterate that this paper is the first step for deep-learning based image deblurring for space images, and we have further improvements planned to improve and further explore the limits of this family of deblurring methods.
\section*{Data availability Statement}
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
|
\section{Introduction}
Heavy-ion experiments at RHIC and LHC have produced convincing
evidence that a Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) is formed in high-energy
nucleus-nucleus ($\mathrm{A}\A$) collisions. The discussion therefore has developed
into one of understanding the underlying detailed mechanisms, such
as the nature of the initial state, the early thermalization,
the subsequent hydrodynamical expansion, and the transition back to
a hadronic state. Numerous models have been and are being developed
to study such issues.
The standard picture of heavy ion collisions, separates the evolution of
the QGP phase into three or four stages, outlined in the following.
The first $<1$ fm after the collision, is denoted the ``initial state''.
It consists of dense matter, highly out of equilibrium. Most QGP-based
models seek to calculate an energy density (or a full energy-momentum
tensor) from a model of the evolution of the initial stage. The simplest
approaches are based purely on geometry, and are denoted Glauber models \cite{Miller:2007ri}.
Here, the energy density in the transverse plane is determined purely from
the distributions of nucleons in the incoming nuclei. Going beyond nucleonic
degrees of freedom, some of the more popular choices includes either
introducing constituent quarks \cite{Bozek:2016kpf}, or invoking the more involved
formalism known the Colour Glass Condensate \cite{Gelis:2010nm}. In the latter case, the
so-called IP-Glasma \cite{Schenke:2012wb} program is often used, as it allows for computations
with realistic boundary conditions.
The initial state, glasma or not, will then transition into a plasma. Recently,
progress has been made to describe the transition from an out-of-equilibrium initial state
to a hydrodynamized plasma, using kinetic theory \cite{Kurkela:2018wud}. In such cases,
the pre-equilibration will describe the dynamics between $\approx 0.1-1$ fm.
Between $1-10$ fm, the plasma evolves
according to relativistic viscous hydrodynamics \cite{Heinz:2013th,Luzum:2013yya,Gale:2013da}.
Hydrodynamics is a long wavelength effective theory, able to describe interactions at low momentum,
when the mean free path of particles is much smaller than the characteristic size of the system. As such,
its use has been criticised in small collision systems, but nevertheless seems to be able to describe
flow observables reasonably well even there \cite{Weller:2017tsr}.
Finally, after 10 fm, the QGP freezes out to hadronic degrees of freedom. The physics involved
after this freeze-out is the main topic of this paper, though with the large difference to traditional
approaches, that it happens much sooner.
Paradoxically, one of the key problems is that the QGP picture has
been too successful. QGP formation was supposed to be unique to
$\mathrm{A}\A$ collisions, while $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{A}$ and $\mathrm{p}\p$ collisions would not involve
volumes and time scales large enough for it. And yet QGP-like
signals have been found in these as well. One key example is the observation
of a non-isotropic particle flow, in the form of a ``ridge'' at the same
azimuthal angle as a trigger jet
\cite{Khachatryan:2010gv,Aad:2015gqa,Khachatryan:2016txc}
or of non-vanishing $v_2$ azimuthal flow coefficients
\cite{Aad:2015gqa,Khachatryan:2016txc,Acharya:2019vdf}. Another example is
that the fraction of strange hadrons, and notably multi-strange baryons,
is smoothly increasing from low-multiplicity to high-multiplicity
$\mathrm{p}\p$, on through $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{A}$ to saturate for $\mathrm{A}\A$ multiplicities \cite{ALICE:2017jyt}.
The most obvious way out is to relax the large-volume requirement,
and accept that a QGP, or at least a close-to-QGP-like state, can
be created in smaller systems. An excellent example of this approach
is the core--corona model \cite{Werner:2007bf}, implemented in the EPOS event
generator \cite{Pierog:2013ria}, wherein the high-density core of a system
hadronizes like a plasma, while the outer lower-density corona
does not. The evolution from low-multiplicity $\mathrm{p}\p$ to $\mathrm{A}\A$ is then
a consequence of an increasing core fraction.
Another approach is to ask what physics mechanisms, not normally
modelled in $\mathrm{p}\p$ collisions, would be needed to understand $\mathrm{p}\p$
data without invoking QGP formation. And, once having such a model, one
could ask what consequences that would imply for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{A}$ and $\mathrm{A}\A$ collisions.
More specifically, could some of the signals attributed to QGP
formation have alternative explanations? If nothing else, exploring these
questions could help sharpen experimental tests, by providing a
straw-man model. At best, we may actually gain new insights.
This is the road taken by the \textsc{Angantyr} model
\cite{Bierlich:2016smv,Bierlich:2018xfw}. It is based on and
contained in the \textsc{Pythia} event generator
\cite{Sjostrand:2006za,Sjostrand:2014zea},
which successfully describes many/most features of LHC $\mathrm{p}\p$ events.
\textsc{Angantyr} adds a framework wherein $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{A}$ and $\mathrm{A}\A$
collisions can be constructed as a superposition of simpler binary
collisions, in the spirit of the old \textsc{Fritiof} model
\cite{Andersson:1986gw,Andersson:1992iq}. Such a framework is already
sufficient to describe many simple $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{A}$ and $\mathrm{A}\A$ distributions,
such as $\d n_{\mathrm{charged}}/\d \eta$. Beyond that, it also offers
a platform on top of which various collective non-QGP phenomena
can be added. One example is shoving
\cite{Bierlich:2016vgw,Bierlich:2017vhg,Bierlich:2020naj}, whereby
closely overlapping colour fields repel each other, to give a
collective flow. Another is colour rope formation
\cite{Bierlich:2014xba}, wherein overlapping colour fields can
combine to give a higher field strength, thus enhancing strangeness
production relative to the no-overlap default.
In this article we will study a third mechanism, that of hadronic
rescattering. The basic idea here is that the standard fragmentation
process produces a region of closely overlapping hadrons, that then
can collide with each other as the system expands. Each single such
collision on its own will give negligible effects, but if there are
many of them then together they may give rise to visible physics
signals. Rescattering is often used as an afterburner to the
hadronization of the QGP, commonly making use of the UrQMD
\cite{Bass:1998ca} or SMASH \cite{Weil:2016zrk} programs.
What makes \textsc{Angantyr/Pythia} different is that there is no QGP
phase, so that rescattering can start earlier, and therefore hypothetically
can give larger effects.
In order to use a rescattering framework as an afterburner
to \textsc{Angantyr}, a first step is to describe the space--time
structure of hadronization in \textsc{Pythia}, which was worked out in
\cite{Ferreres-Sole:2018vgo}. This picture can easily be extended from
$\mathrm{p}\p$ to $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{A}$ and $\mathrm{A}\A$ using the nuclear geometry set up in
\textsc{Angantyr}. Thereby the road is open to add rescattering \textit{eg.}\xspace with
UrQMD, which was done by Ref.~\cite{daSilva:2020cyn}.
Using two different programs is cumbersome, however. It requires the user
to learn to use each individual framework, and they have to convert the
output from the first program into a format that can be input to the
second. A related issue arises if the two programs represent event records
differently, so that it might be impossible to trace the full particle
history. A desire for convenience is one of the main motivations behind a
recently developed framework for hadronic rescattering, implemented
natively in \textsc{Pythia} \cite{Sjostrand:2020gyg}.
With this framework, rescattering can be enabled with just a single
additional line of code, which is a trivial task for anyone already familiar
with \textsc{Pythia}. In addition, this framework also introduces physics
features not found in some other frameworks, such as a basic model for
charm and bottom hadrons in rescattering, and with \textsc{Pythia} being
in active development, there is a low threshold for making further
improvements in the future.
In \cite{Sjostrand:2020gyg}, initial studies using the framework were limited
to implications for $\mathrm{p}\p$ collisions, which not unexpectedly were found
to be of moderate size. That is, while visible enough in model studies,
generally they are less easy to pin down experimentally, given all
other uncertainties that also exist. In this article the rescattering
studies are extended to $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{A}$ and $\mathrm{A}\A$ collisions, where effects are
expected to be larger.
Indeed, as we shall see, the outcome confirms this expectation.
The number of rescatterings rises faster than the particle multiplicity,
such that the fraction of not-rescattered hadrons is small in
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions. Rescatterings are especially enhanced at lower
masses, but the process composition at a given mass is universal.
Obviously the primary production volume increases from $\mathrm{p}\p$ and
$\mathrm{p}\mathrm{A}$ to $\mathrm{A}\A$, and thus so does the range of rescatterings.
Transverse momentum spectra are significantly more deformed by
rescattering in $\mathrm{A}\A$. There is a clear centrality dependence on
particle production rates, \textit{eg.}\xspace a $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ depletion in central
collisions. The most interesting result is a clear signal of
elliptic flow induced by rescatterings, that even matches experimental
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ numbers at large multiplicities, to be contrasted with the
miniscule effects in $\mathrm{p}\p$.
The outline of the article is as follows. In \secref{sec:model} we
describe the main points of the model, from the simulation of the
nuclear collision, through the modelling of individual nucleon--nucleon
sub-collisions and on to the rescattering framework proper.
In \secref{sec:modelTests} effects in this model are tested on its own,
while \secref{sec:comparisonWithData} shows comparisons with data. Some
conclusions and an outlook are presented in \secref{sec:summary}. Finally,
technical aspects related to computation time for rescattering are discussed
in the appendix.
Natural units are assumed throughout the article, \textit{ie.}\xspace $c = \hbar = 1$.
Energy, momentum and mass are given in GeV, space and time in fm, and
cross sections in mb.
\section{The model}
\label{sec:model}
In this section we will review the framework used to simulate nuclear
collisions. Initially the \textsc{Angantyr} framework is used to set
the overall nucleus--nucleus ($\mathrm{A}\A$) collision geometry and select
colliding nucleon-nucleon ($\mathrm{N}\N$) pairs. Then the Multiparton Interactions
(MPI) concept is used to model each single $\mathrm{N}\N$ collision. The resulting
strings are fragmented to provide the primary setup of hadrons, that
then can begin to decay and rescatter. All of these components are
described in separate publications, where further details may be found,
so only the key aspect are collected here is to describe how it all
hangs together.
\subsection{ANGANTYR}
\label{subsec:angantyr}
The \textsc{Angantyr} part of the modelling is responsible for
setting up the $\mathrm{A}\A$ collision geometry, and selecting the number and
nature of the ensuing $\mathrm{N}\N$ collisions \cite{Bierlich:2018xfw}.
Take the incoming high-energy nucleons to be travelling along the
$\pm z$ directions. By Lorentz contraction all the $\mathrm{N}\N$ collisions then
occur in a negligibly small range around $t = z = 0$, and the nucleon
transverse $(x, y)$ positions can be considered frozen during that time.
The nucleon locations inside a nucleus are sampled according to a
two-dimensional Woods-Saxon distribution in the GLISSANDO parametrisation
\cite{Broniowski:2007nz,Rybczynski:2013yba}, applicable for
heavy nuclei with $A > 16$, and with a nuclear repulsion effect implemented
algorithmically as a ``hard core'' radius of each nucleon, below which two
nucleons cannot overlap. The $\mathrm{A}\A$ collision impact
parameter provides an offset $\pm b_{\mathrm{A}\A}/2$, \textit{eg.}\xspace along the
$x$ axis. Up to this point, this is a fairly standard Glauber model
treatment, where one would then combine the geometry with measured cross
sections (usually total and/or inelastic non-diffractive), to obtain
the amount of participating or wounded nucleons, and the number of binary
sub-collisions (see \textit{eg.}\xspace Ref. \cite{Miller:2007ri} for a review). In
\textsc{Angantyr}, a distinction between nucleons wounded inelastic non-diffractively,
diffractively or elastically is desired, along with a dependence on the
nucleon-nucleon impact parameter. To this end, a parametrization of the
nucleon-nucleon elastic amplitude in impact parameter space ($T(\vec{b})$) is used.
It allows for the calculation of the amplitude $T_{kl}(\vec{b})$ for any
combination of projectile and target state, $k$ and $l$ respectively. All parameters
of the parametrization can be estimated from proton-proton total and semi-inclusive
cross sections, and varies with collision energy. The input cross sections used
are the ones available in \textsc{Pythia}, with the SaS model \cite{Schuler:1993wr}
being the default choice. The parametrization of $T(\vec{b})$ thus adds no
new parameters beyond the ones already present in the model for hadronic cross
sections.
Inelastic non-diffractive collisions involve a colour exchange between
two nucleons. In the simplest case, where each incoming nucleon undergoes
at most one collision, the traditional \textsc{Pythia} collision
machinery can be used essentially unchanged. The one difference is
that the nuclear geometry has already fixed the $\mathrm{N}\N$ impact parameter
$b_{\mathrm{N}\N}$, whereas normally this would be set only in conjunction
with the hardest MPI.
The big extension of \textsc{Angantyr} is that it also handles
situations where a given nucleon $A$ interacts inelastic non-diffractively
with several nucleons $B_1, B_2, \ldots B_n$ from the other nucleus.
Colour fields would then be stretched from $A$ to each $B_i$.
It would be rare for all the fields to stretch all the way out to
$A$, however, but rather matching colour--anticolour pairs would
``short-circuit'' most of the colour flow out to the remnants. Such a
mechanism is already used for MPIs in a single $\mathrm{N}\N$ collision, but here it
is extended to the full set of interconnected nucleons. Therefore only
one $A B_i$ collision is handled as a normal $\mathrm{N}\N$ one, while the other
$A B_j, j \neq i$ ones will produce particles over a smaller rapidity
range. This is analogous to the situation encountered in single
diffraction $A B_j \to A X_j$. If we further assume that the
short-circuiting can occur anywhere in rapidity with approximately
flat probability distribution, this translates into an excited mass
spectrum like $\d M_{X_j}^2 / M_{X_j}^2$, again analogous to diffraction.
To this end, $n-1$ carrier particles with vacuum quantum numbers $\mathbb{P}_j$
(denoted $\mathbb{P}$ for the similarity with pomerons) are emitted, with
fractions $x_j$ of the incoming $A$ (lightcone) momentum picked
according to $\d x_j / x_j$, subject to momentum
conservation constraints, with a leftover $x_i$ that usually should
represent the bulk of the $A$ momentum. Thereby the complexity of the
full problem is reduced to one of describing one regular $A B_i$ collision,
at a slightly reduced energy, and $n - 1$ $\mathbb{P}_j B_j$ collisions, at
significantly reduced energies, similar to diffraction.
The pomeron-like objects have no net colour or flavour, but they
do contain partons and the full MPI machinery can be applied to describe also
these collisions. As the particles are not true pomerons, the PDFs can be different
from the pomeron ones measured at HERA,
and the transverse size is that of the original nucleon rather than
the smaller one expected for a pomeron.
In a further step of complexity, the nucleons on side $A$ and $B$
may be involved in multiply interrelated chains of interactions.
Generalizing the principles above, it is possible to reduce even
complex topologies to a set of decoupled $\mathrm{N}\N$, $\mathrm{N}\mathbb{P}$, and $\mathbb{P}\Pom$
collisions, to be described below. The reduction is not unique, but
may be chosen randomly among the allowed possibilities.
One current limitation is that there is no description of the breakup
of the nuclear remnant. Rather, all non-wounded nucleons of a nucleus
are collected together into a single fictitious new nucleus, that
is not considered any further.
\subsection{Multiparton interaction vertices}
\label{subsec:MPIvertices}
At the end of the \textsc{Angantyr} modelling, a set of separate
hadron--hadron ($\H\H$) interactions have been defined inside an $\mathrm{A}\A$
collision, where the hadron can be either a nucleon or a pomeron-like
object as discussed above. The locations of the $\H\H$ collisions in the
transverse plane is also fixed.
When two Lorentz-contracted hadrons collide inelastically with each
other, a number of separate (semi-)perturbative parton--parton
interactions can occur. These are modelled in a sequence of falling
transverse momenta $p_{\perp}$, as described in detail elsewhere
\cite{Sjostrand:1987su,Sjostrand:2017cdm}. The MPI vertices are spread
over a transverse region of hadronic size, but in the past it was not
necessary to assign an explicit location for every single MPI.
Now it is. The probability for an interaction at a given transverse
coordinate $(x, y)$ can be assumed proportional to the overlap of the
parton densities of the colliding hadrons in that area element. A few
possible overlap function options are available in \textsc{Pythia},
where the Gaussian case is the simplest one. If two Gaussian-profile
hadrons pass with an impact parameter $b_{\H\H}$, then the nice
convolution properties gives a total overlap that is a Gaussian in
$b_{\H\H}$, and the distribution of MPI vertices is a Gaussian
in $(x,y)$. Specifically note that there is no memory of the collision
plane in the vertex distribution.
This property is unique to Gaussian convolutions, however. In general,
the collision region will be elongated either out of or in to the
collision plane. The former typically occurs for a distribution with a
sharper proton edge, \textit{eg.}\xspace a uniform ball, which gives rise to the
almond-shaped collision region so often depicted for heavy-ion collisions.
The latter shape instead occurs for distributions with a less pronounced
edge, such as an exponential. The default \textsc{Pythia} behaviour is
close to Gaussian, but somewhat leaning towards the latter direction.
Even that is likely to be a simplification. The evolution of the incoming
states by initial-state cascades is likely to lead to ``hot spots''
of increased partonic activity, see \textit{eg.}\xspace \cite{Bierlich:2019wld}.
A preliminary study in \cite{Sjostrand:2020gyg} showed that azimuthal
anisotropies in the individual $\H\H$ collision give unambiguous, but miniscule
flow effects, and furthermore the many $\H\H$ event planes of an $\mathrm{A}\A$ collision
point in random directions, further diluting any such effects. In the
end, it is the asymmetries related to the $\mathrm{A}\A$ geometry that matter for
our studies.
Only a fraction of the full nucleon momentum is carried away by the
MPIs of an $\H\H$ collision, leaving behind one or more beam remnants
\cite{Sjostrand:2004pf}. These are initially distributed according to
a Gaussian shape around the center of the respective hadron. By the
random fluctuations, and by the interacting partons primarily being
selected on the side leaning towards the other beam hadron, the
``center of gravity'' will not agree with the originally assumed origin.
All the beam remnants will therefore be shifted so as to ensure that
the energy-weighted sum of colliding and remnant parton locations
is where it should be. Shifts are capped to be at most a proton radius,
so as to avoid extreme spatial configurations, at the expense of
a perfectly aligned center of gravity.
Not all hadronizing partons are created in the collision moment
$t = 0$. Initial-state radiation (ISR) implies that some partons
have branched off already before this, and final-state radiation (FSR)
that others do it afterwards. These partons then can travel some
distance out before hadronization sets in, thereby further complicating
the space--time picture, even if the average time of parton showers
typically is a factor of five below that of string fragmentation
\cite{Ferreres-Sole:2018vgo}. We do not trace the full shower
evolution, but instead include a smearing of the transverse location
in the collision plane that a parton points back to. No attempt is
made to preserve the center of gravity during these fluctuations.
The partons produced in various stages of the collision process
(MPIs, ISR, FSR) are initially assigned colours according to the
$N_C \to \infty$ approximation, such that different MPI systems are
decoupled from each other. By the beam remnants, which have as one
task to preserve total colour, these systems typically become connected
with each other through the short-circuiting mechanism already mentioned.
Furthermore, colour reconnection (CR) is allowed to swap colours,
partly to compensate for finite-$N_C$ effects, but mainly that it
seems like nature prefers to reduce the total string length drawn out
when two nearby strings overlap each other. When such effects have
been taken into account, what remains to hadronize is one or more
separate colour singlet systems.
\subsection{Hadronization}
\label{subsec:hadronize}
Hadronization is modelled in the context of the Lund string
fragmentation model \cite{Andersson:1983ia}. In it, a linear confinement
is assumed, \textit{ie.}\xspace a string potential of $V = \kappa r$, where the string
tension $\kappa \approx 1$~GeV/fm and $r$ is the separation between a
colour triplet--antitriplet pair. For the simplest possible case, that of
a back-to-back $\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}$ pair, the linearity leads to a straightforward
relationship between the energy--momentum and the space--time pictures:
\begin{equation}
\left| \frac{\d p_{z,\mathrm{q}/\overline{\mathrm{q}}}}{\d t} \right| =
\left| \frac{\d p_{z,\mathrm{q}/\overline{\mathrm{q}}}}{\d z} \right| =
\left| \frac{\d E_{\mathrm{q}/\overline{\mathrm{q}}}}{\d t} \right| =
\left| \frac{\d E_{\mathrm{q}/\overline{\mathrm{q}}}}{\d z} \right| = \kappa ~.
\label{eq:xplinearity}
\end{equation}
If there is enough energy, the string between an original $\mathrm{q}_0 \overline{\mathrm{q}}_0$
pair may break by producing new $\mathrm{q}_i \overline{\mathrm{q}}_i$ pairs, where the
intermediate $\mathrm{q}_i$ ($\overline{\mathrm{q}}_i$) are pulled towards the $\overline{\mathrm{q}}_0$ ($\mathrm{q}_0$)
end, such that the original colour field is screened. This way the
system breaks up into a set of $n$ colour singlets
$\mathrm{q}_0\overline{\mathrm{q}}_1 - \mathrm{q}_1\overline{\mathrm{q}}_2 - \mathrm{q}_2\overline{\mathrm{q}}_3 - \ldots - \mathrm{q}_{n-1}\overline{\mathrm{q}}_0$,
that we can associate with the primary hadrons. By \eqref{eq:xplinearity}
the location of the breakup vertices in space--time is linearly related
to the energy--momentum of the hadrons produced between such vertices
\cite{Ferreres-Sole:2018vgo}.
When quarks with non-vanishing mass or $p_{\perp}$ are created,
they have to tunnel out a distance before they can end up on mass
shell. This tunnelling process gives a suppression of heavier quarks,
like $\mathrm{s}$ relative to $\u$ and $\d$ ones, and an (approximately)
Gaussian distribution of the transverse momenta. Effective
equivalent massless-case production vertices can be defined.
Baryons can be introduced \textit{eg.}\xspace by considering diquark--antidiquark
pair production, where a diquark is a colour antitriplet and thus can
replace an antiquark in the flavour chain.
Having simultaneous knowledge of both the energy--momentum
and the space--time picture of hadron production violates the
Heisenberg uncertainty relations. In this sense the string model should
be viewed as a semiclassical one. The random nature of the Monte Carlo
approach will largely mask the issue, and smearing factors are introduced
in several places to further reduce the tension.
A first hurdle is to go on from a simple straight string to a longer
string system. In the limit where the number of colours is large,
the $N_C \to \infty$ approximation \cite{tHooft:1973alw}, a string
typically will be stretched from a quark end via a number intermediate
gluons to an antiquark end, where each string segment is stretched
between a matching colour-anticolour pair. To first approximation each
segment fragments as a boosted copy of a simple $\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}$ system, but
the full story is more complicated, with respect to what happens
around each gluon. Firstly, if a gluon has time to lose its energy
before it has hadronized, the string motion becomes more complicated.
And secondly, even if not, a hadron will straddle each gluon kink,
with one string break in each of the two segments it connects.
A framework to handle energy and momentum sharing in such complicated
topologies was developed in Ref. \cite{Sjostrand:1984ic}, and was then
extended to reconstruct matching space--time production vertices in
\cite{Ferreres-Sole:2018vgo}. This includes many further details not
covered here, such as a transverse smearing of breakup vertices, to
represent a width of the string itself, and various safety checks.
In addition to the main group of open strings stretched between $\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}$
endpoints, there are two other common string topologies. One is a closed
gluon loop. It can be brought back to the open-string case by a first
break somewhere along the string. The other is the junction topology,
represented by three quarks moving out in a different directions,
each pulling out a string behind itself. These strings meet at a common
junction vertex, to form a Y-shaped topology. This requires a somewhat
more delicate extensions of the basic hadronization machinery.
One complication is that strings can be stretched between partons that
do not originate from the same vertex. In the simplest case, a $\mathrm{q}$
connected with a $\overline{\mathrm{q}}$ from a different MPI, the vertex separation
could be related to a piece of string already at $t = 0$. At the small
distances involved it is doubtful whether the full string tension is
relevant, in particular since the net energy associated with such initial
strings should not realistically exceed the proton mass. Since this energy
is then to be spread over many of the final-state hadrons, the net effect
on each hardly would be noticeable, and is not modelled.
For the space--time picture we do want to be somewhat more careful about
the effects of the transverse size of the original source. Even an
approximate description would help smear the hadron production vertices
in a sensible manner. To begin, consider a simple $\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}$ string, where
the relevant length of each hadron string piece is related to its energy.
For a given hadron, define $E_{\mathrm{h}\mathrm{q}}$ ($E_{\mathrm{h}\overline{\mathrm{q}}}$)
as half the energy of the hadron plus the full energy of all hadrons
lying between it and the $\mathrm{q}$ ($\overline{\mathrm{q}}$) end, and use this as a measure
of how closely associated a hadron is with the respective endpoint.
Also let $\mathbf{r}_{\perp\mathrm{q}}$ ($\mathbf{r}_{\perp\overline{\mathrm{q}}}$) be the
(anti)quark transverse production coordinates. Then define the hadron
production vertex offset to be
\begin{equation}
\Delta \mathbf{r}_{\perp\mathrm{h}} = \frac{E_{\mathrm{h}\overline{\mathrm{q}}} \,
\mathbf{r}_{\perp\mathrm{q}} + E_{\mathrm{h}\mathrm{q}} \, \mathbf{r}_{\perp\overline{\mathrm{q}}}}%
{E_{\mathrm{h}\mathrm{q}} + E_{\mathrm{h}\overline{\mathrm{q}}}}
= \frac{(E_{\mathrm{tot}} - E_{\mathrm{h}\mathrm{q}}) \, \mathbf{r}_{\perp\mathrm{q}}
+ E_{\mathrm{h}\mathrm{q}} \, \mathbf{r}_{\perp\overline{\mathrm{q}}}}{E_{\mathrm{tot}}} ~,
\end{equation}
relative to what a string motion started at the origin would have given.
This procedure is then generalized to more complicated string topologies.
Again energy is summed up from one string end, for partons and hadrons
alike, to determine which string segment a given hadron is most closely
associated with, and how the endpoints of that segment should be mixed.
Note that, although energy is not a perfect measure of location along the
string, the comparison between parton and hadron energies is only mildly
Lorentz-frame dependent, which is an advantage. More complicated string
topologies, like junction ones, require further considerations not
discussed here. Again we stress that the main point is not to provide a
perfect location for each individual hadron, but to model the average
effects.
\subsection{The hadronic rescattering formalism}
\label{subsec:rescatterxyzt}
By the procedure outlined so far, each primary produced hadron has
been assigned a production vertex $x_0 = (t_0, \mathbf{x}_0)$ and a
four-momentum $p = (E, \mathbf{p})$. The latter
defines its continued motion along straight trajectories
$\mathbf{x}(t) = \mathbf{x}_0 + (t - t_0) \, \mathbf{p} /m$.
Consider now two particles produced at $x_1$ and $x_2$ with
momenta $p_1$ and $p_2$. Our objective is to determine whether these
particles will scatter and, if so, when and where. To this end, the
candidate collision is studied in the center-of-momentum frame of the
two particles. If they are not produced at the same time, the position
of the earlier one is offset to the creation time of the later one.
Particles moving away from each other already at this common time
are assumed unable to scatter.
Otherwise, the probability $P$ of an interaction is a function of the
impact parameter $b$, the center-of-mass energy $E_{\mathrm{CM}}$, and the two
particle species $A$ and $B$. There is no solid theory for the $b$
dependence of $P$, so a few different options are implemented, such as
a black disk, a grey disk or a Gaussian. In either case the normalization
is such that $\int P(b) \, \d^2 b = \sigma_{AB}(E_{\mathrm{CM}})$. To first
approximation all options thus give the same interaction rate, but the
drop of hadronic density away from the center in reality means fewer
interactions for a broader distribution.
If it is determined that the two particles will interact, the interaction
time is defined as the time of closest approach in the rest frame.
The spatial component of the interaction vertex depends on the character
of the collision. Elastic and diffractive processes can be viewed as
$t$-channel exchanges of a pomeron (or reggeon), and then it is reasonable
to let each particle continue out from its respective location at the
interaction time. For other processes, where either an intermediate
$s$-channel resonance is formed or strings are stretched between the
remnants of the two incoming hadrons, an effective common interaction
vertex is defined as the average of the two hadron locations at the
interaction time. In cases where strings are created, be it by $s$-channel
processes or by diffraction, the hadronization starts around this vertex
and is described in space--time as already outlined. This means an
effective delay before the new hadrons are formed and can begin to
interact. For the other processes, such as elastic scattering or an
intermediate resonance decay, there is the option to have effective
formation times before new interactions are allowed.
In actual events with many hadrons, each hadron pair is checked to see
if it fulfils the interaction criteria and, if it does, the interaction
time for that pair (in the CM frame of the event) is recorded in a
time-ordered list. Furthermore, unstable particles can decay during the
rescattering phase. For these, an invariant lifetime $\tau$ is picked
at random according to an exponential $\exp(-\tau/\tau_0)$, where
$\tau_0 = 1 / \Gamma$ is the inverse of the width. The resulting decay
times are inserted into the same list. Then the scattering or decay that
is first in time order is simulated, unless the particles involved have
already interacted/decayed. This produces new hadrons that are checked
for rescatterings or decays, and any such are inserted into the
time-ordered list. This process is repeated until there are no more
potential interactions.
There are some obvious limitations to the approach as outlined so far:
\begin{itemize}
\item The procedure is not Lorentz invariant, since the time-ordering of
interactions is defined in the CM frame. We do not expect this to be a
major issue. This has been studied and confirmed within existing
rescattering approaches \cite{Bass:1998ca,Xu:2004mz,Weil:2016zrk}, and
reconfirmed in our $\mathrm{p}\p$ studies.
\item Currently only collisions between two incoming hadrons are
considered, even though in a dense environment one would also expect
collisions involving three or more hadrons. This is a more relevant
restriction, that may play a role for some observables, and to be
considered in the future.
\item Since traditional \textsc{Pythia} tunes do not include rescattering
effects, some retuning to $\mathrm{p}\p$ events has to be made before the model
is applied to $\mathrm{A}\A$ ones. For now, only the simplest possible one is used,
wherein the $p_{\perp 0}$ parameter of the MPI framework is increased slightly
so as to restore the same average charged multiplicity in proton collisions
at LHC energies as without rescattering.
\item All modelled subprocesses are assumed to share the same hadronic
impact-parameter profile. In a more detailed modelling the $t$-channel
elastic and diffractive processes should be more peripheral than the
rest, and display an approximately inverse relationship between the
$t$ and $b$ values.
\item The model only considers the effect of hadrons colliding with
hadrons, not those of strings colliding/overlapping with each other
or with hadrons. An example of the former is the already-introduced
shoving mechanism. Both shoving and rescattering act to correlate the
spatial location of strings/hadrons with a net push outwards, giving
rise to a radial flow. Their effects should be combined, but do not add
linearly since an early shove leads to a more dilute system of strings
and primary hadrons, and thereby less rescattering.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Hadronic rescattering cross sections}
\label{subsec:rescatteringsigma}
A crucial input for deciding whether a scattering can occur is the total
cross section. Once a potential scattering is selected, it also becomes
necessary to subdivide this total cross section into a sum of partial
cross sections, one for each possible process, as these are used to
represent relative abundances for each process to occur. A staggering
amount of details enter in such a description, owing to the multitude
of incoming particle combinations and collision processes. To wit, not
only ``long-lived'' hadrons can collide, \textit{ie.}\xspace $\pi$, $\mathrm{K}$, $\eta$,
$\eta'$, $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{n}$, $\Lambda$, $\Sigma$, $\Xi$, $\Omega$, and their
antiparticles, but also a wide selection of short-lived hadrons,
starting with $\rho$, $\mathrm{K}^*$, $\omega$, $\phi$, $\Delta$, $\Sigma^*$
and $\Xi^*$. Required cross sections are described in detail in Ref.
\cite{Sjostrand:2020gyg}, and we only provide a summary of the main
concepts here.
Of note is that most rescatterings occur at low invariant masses,
typically only a few GeV. Therefore the descriptions are geared to this
mass range, and cross sections are not necessarily accurate above 10~GeV.
Furthermore event properties are modelled without invoking any perturbative
activity, \textit{ie.}\xspace without MPIs. We will see in \secref{sec:rescRates} that
the number of interactions above 10~GeV is small enough that these
discrepancies can safely be disregarded.
For this low-energy description, the following process types are available:
\begin{itemize}
\item Elastic interactions are ones where the particles do not change
species, \textit{ie.}\xspace $AB \to AB$. In our implementation, these are considered
different from elastic scattering through a resonance, \textit{eg.}\xspace
$\pi^+\pi^- \to \rho^0 \to \pi^+\pi^-$, although the two could be linked
by interference terms. In experiments, usually all $AB \to AB$ events are
called elastic because it is not possible to tell which underlying
mechanism is involved.
\item Resonance formation typically can be written as $AB \to R \to CD$,
where $R$ is the intermediate resonance. This can only occur when one or
both of $A$ and $B$ are mesons. It is the resonances that drive rapid and
large cross-section variations with energy, since each (well separated)
resonance should induce a Breit-Wigner peak.
\item Annihilation is specifically aimed at baryon--anti\-bar\-yon
collisions where the baryon numbers cancel out and gives a mesonic final
state. It is assumed to require the annihilation of at least one
$\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}$ pair. This is reminiscent of what happens in resonance
formation, but there the final state is a resonance particle, while
annihilation forms strings between the outgoing quarks.
\item Diffraction of two kinds are modelled here: single $AB \to XB$ or
$AB \to AX$ and double $AB \to X_1 X_2$. Here $X$ represents a massive
excited state of the respective incoming hadron, and there is no net
colour or flavour exchange between the two sides of the event.
\item Excitation can be viewed as the low-mass limit of diffraction,
where either one or both incoming had\-rons are excited to a related
higher resonance. It can be written as $AB \to A^*B$, $AB \to AB^*$ or
$AB \to A^*B^*$. Here $A^*$ and $\mathrm{B}^*$ are modelled with Breit-Wigners,
as opposed to the smooth mass spectra of the $X$ diffractive states.
In our description, this has only been implemented in nucleon-nucleon
interactions.
\item Non-diffractive topologies are assumed to correspond to a net colour
exchange between the incoming had\-rons, such that colour strings are
stretched out between them after the interaction.
\end{itemize}
Some examples of input used for the modelling of these total and partial
cross sections are as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item Cross sections are invariant when all particles are replaced by
their antiparticles.
\item In some cases good enough data exists that interpolation works.
\item $\pi\pi$ and $\mathrm{K}\pi$ cross sections are found using the
calculations of Pel{\'a}ez et al.\
\cite{GarciaMartin:2011cn,Pelaez:2019eqa,Pelaez:2016tgi},
which partly are based on Chiral Perturbation Theory.
\item The neutral Kaon system is nontrivial, with strong interactions
described by the $\mathrm{K}^0/\overline{\mathrm{K}}^0$ states and weak decays by the
$\mathrm{K}^0_{\mathrm{S}}/\mathrm{K}^0_{\mathrm{L}}$ ones. Cross sections for a
$\mathrm{K}_{\mathrm{S}}^0/\mathrm{K}_{\mathrm{L}}^0$ with a hadron are given by the mean of the cross
section for $\mathrm{K}^0$ and $\overline{\mathrm{K}}^0$ with that hadron. When a collision
occurs, the $\mathrm{K}_{\mathrm{S,L}}$ is converted into either $\mathrm{K}^0$ or $\overline{\mathrm{K}}^0$,
where the probability for each is proportional to the total cross section
for the interaction with that particle.
\item Several total cross sections are described by the $HPR_1R_2$
parameterization \cite{Tanabashi:2018oca}, consisting of one fixed term,
one ``pomeron'' $\ln^2 s$ ($s = E_{\mathrm{CM}}^2$) and two ``reggeon'' $s^{-\eta}$
ones.
\item $\mathrm{N}\N$ and $\mathrm{N}\pi$ elastic cross sections are partly covered by the
CERN/HERA data parameterizations \cite{Montanet:1994xu}.
\item The UrQMD program \cite{Bass:1998ca} has a complete set of total
and partial cross sections for all light hadrons, and in several cases
we make use of these expressions.
\item Intermediate resonance formation can be modelled in terms of
(non-relativistic) Breit-Wigners, given a knowledge of mass and
(partial) width of the resonance. The widths are made mass-dependent
using the ansatz in UrQMD.
\item The annihilation cross section is the difference between the
total and the elastic ones near threshold, and above the inelastic
threshold it is based on a simple parameterization by Koch and Dover
\cite{Koch:1989zt}.
\item Differential diffractive cross sections are described by the SaS
(Schuler and Sj\"ostrand) ansatz \cite{Schuler:1993wr,Schuler:1996en},
and their integrated cross sections are parameterized with special
attention to achieving the relevant threshold behaviour.
\item Excitation into explicit higher resonances is implemented for $\mathrm{N}\N$
collisions, using the UrQMD expressions. For other collision types the
low-mass diffraction terms of SaS are included instead.
\item Inelastic non-diffractive events are represented by the cross
section part that remains when everything else is removed. Typically it
starts small near the threshold, but then grows to dominate at higher
energies.
\item The Additive Quark Model (AQM) \cite{Levin:1965mi,Lipkin:1973nt}
assumes that total cross sections scales like the product of the number
of valence quarks in the two incoming hadrons. The contribution of heavier
quarks is scaled down relative to that of a $\u$ or $\d$ quark, presumably
by mass effects giving a narrower wave function. Assuming that quarks
contribute inversely proportionally to their constituent masses, this gives
an effective number of interacting quarks in a hadron of approximately
\begin{equation}
n_{\mathrm{q},\mathrm{AQM}} = n_{\u} + n_{\d} + 0.6 \, n_{\mathrm{s}} + 0.2 \, n_{\c} +
0.07 \, n_{\b}~.
\label{eq:nqAQM}
\end{equation}
For lack of alternatives, many unmeasured cross sections are assumed
to scale in proportion to this, relative to known ones. For heavier
particles, notably charm and bottom ones, it is also necessary to
correct the collision energy relative to the relevant mass threshold.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Hadronic rescattering events}
\label{subsec:rescatteringevent}
The choice of subprocess is not enough to specify the resulting final
state. In some cases only a few further variable choices are needed.
For elastic scattering the selection of the Mandelstam $t$ is sufficient,
along with an isotropic $\varphi$ variable. Resonances are assumed to
decay isotropically, as are the low-mass excitations related to diffraction.
For inelastic non-diffractive events, higher-mass diffractive ones,
and annihilation processes, generically one one would expect strings to form
and hadronize. For diffraction these strings would be stretched inside
a diffractively excited hadron, while for the other two cases the strings
would connect the two original hadrons.
To illustrate the necessary steps, consider an inelastic non-diffractive
event. Each of the incoming hadrons first has to be split into a colour
piece, $\mathrm{q}$ or $\overline{\mathrm{q}}\qbar$, and an anticolour ditto, $\overline{\mathrm{q}}$ or $\mathrm{q}\q$.
For a baryon, \textbf{SU(6)} flavour$\times$spin factors are used to pick the
diquark spin. Then the lightcone momentum $p^+ (p^-)$ is split between the
two pieces of incoming hadron $A (B)$ moving along the $+z (-z)$ direction,
in such a way that a diquark is likely to carry the major fraction.
The pieces also are given a relative $p_{\perp}$ kick. Including (di)quark
masses, the transverse masses $m_{\perp A 1}$ and $m_{\perp A 2}$ of the
two $A$ hadron pieces are defined. The $p_{A i}^-$ can now be obtained from
$p^+ p^- = m_{\perp}^2$, and combined to give an effective mass $m_A^*$,
and similarly an $m_B^*$ is calculated. Together, the criterion
$m_A^* + m_B^* < E_{\mathrm{CM}}$ must be fulfilled, or the whole selection
procedure has to be restarted. Once an acceptable pair $(m_A^*, m_B^*)$
has been found, it is straightforward first to construct the kinematics
of $A^*$ and $B^*$ in the collision rest frame, and thereafter the
kinematics of their two constituents.
Since the procedure has to work at very small energies, some additional
aspects should be mentioned. At energies very near the threshold, the
phase space for particle production is limited. If the lightest hadrons
that can be formed out of each of the two new singlets together leave
less than a pion mass margin up to the collision CM energy, then a simple
two-body production of those two lightest hadrons is (most likely) the
only option and is thus performed. There is then a risk to end up with an
unintentional elastic-style scattering. For excesses up to two pion masses,
instead an isotropic three-body decay is attempted, where one of the strings
breaks up by the production of an intermediate $\u\overline{\mathrm{u}}$ or $\d\overline{\mathrm{d}}$ pair.
If that does not work, then two hadrons are picked as in the two-body case
and a $\pi^0$ is added as third particle.
Even when the full collision energy is well above threshold, either one
or both of the strings individually may have a small mass, such that only
one or at most two hadrons can be produced from it. It is for cases like
this that the ministring framework has been developed, where it is allowed
for a string to collapse into a single hadron, with liberated excess
momentum shuffled to the other string. In a primary high-energy collisions,
low-mass strings are rare, and typically surrounded by higher-mass ones
that easily can absorb the recoil. At lower energies it is important to
try harder to find working solutions, and several steps of different
kinds have been added to the sequence of tries made. The new setup still
can fail occasionally to find an acceptable final state, but far less
than before the new measures were introduced.
\section{Model tests}
\label{sec:modelTests}
In this section we will study the rescattering model in $\mathrm{p}\p$, $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Pb}$ and
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions. All collision energies are set to 5.02~TeV per
nucleon-nucleon system. This includes $\mathrm{p}\p$, for comparison reasons;
results at the more standard 13~TeV $\mathrm{p}\p$ energy have already been
presented elsewhere \cite{Sjostrand:2020gyg}.
\subsection{Multiplicities}
\label{sec:model-multiplicities}
The current lack of $3 \to 2$ processes in our model, to partly balance
the $2 \to 3$ ones, means that rescattering will increase the charged hadron
multiplicity. Effects are modest for $\mathrm{p}\p$ but, to compensate, the $p_{\perp 0}$
parameter of the MPI framework is increased slightly when rescattering
is included. Thus the number of MPIs is reduced slightly, such that the
$\mathrm{p}\p$ charged multiplicity distribution is restored to be in reasonable
agreement with experimental data. We have used the same value for this
parameter also for the $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Pb}$ and $\mathrm{PbPb}$ rescattering cases. Then
rescattering increases the final charged multiplicities by about 4~\% and
20~\%, respectively, due to a larger relative amount of rescattering in
larger systems. To simultaneously restore the multiplicity for all cases,
a retune also of \textsc{Angantyr} parameters would be necessary. This is
beyond the scope of the current article, and should rather wait until
$3 \to 2$ has been included. For now we accept some mismatch.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-nchpp.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-rescNchpp.pdf}
\end{minipage}\\
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-nchpPb.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-rescNchpPb.pdf}
\end{minipage}\\
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-nchPbPb.pdf}\\
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-rescNchPbPb.pdf}\\
(b)
\end{minipage}
\caption{
(a) Probability distributions for the total number of charged hadrons,
with and without rescattering, as well as the former number split in
those where the final charged hadrons have been affected (directly or
indirectly) by rescattering and those where not.
(b) Average number of rescatterings as a function of the charged hadron
multiplicity, together with a simple fit proportional to $n_{\mathrm{ch}}^p$.
}
\label{fig:rescatrate}
\end{figure}
Charged multiplicity distributions are shown in \figref{fig:rescatrate}a,
split into hadrons that have or have not been affected by rescattering.
Particles with a proper lifetime $\tau_0 > 100$~fm have been considered stable,
and multiplicities are reported without any cuts on $\eta$ or $p_{\perp}$.
Moving from $\mathrm{p}\p$ to $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Pb}$ to $\mathrm{PbPb}$ we see how the fraction of
particles that do not rescatter drops dramatically. In absolute numbers
there still are about as many unrescattered in $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Pb}$ as in $\mathrm{p}\p$,
and about twice as many in $\mathrm{PbPb}$. A likely reason is that many
collisions are peripheral, and even when not there are particles produced
at the periphery.
The total charged multiplicity is also compared with and without rescattering.
As foretold, the $\mathrm{p}\p$ case has there been tuned to show no difference,
whereas rescattering enhances the high-multiplicity tail in $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Pb}$ and
$\mathrm{PbPb}$. Rescattering also changes the relative abundances of different
particle types. In particular, baryon-antibaryon annihilation depletes the
baryon rate, by 7.5~\% for $\mathrm{p}\p$, 9.9~\% for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Pb}$ and 23.4~\% for
$\mathrm{PbPb}$, compared to the baryon number with a retuned $p_{\perp 0}$. The retuning
itself gives in all cases a $\sim$2~\% reduction, that should be kept separate
in the physics discussion. The observed strange-baryon enhancement
\cite{Adam:2015qaa,ALICE:2017jyt} thus has to be explained by other
mechanisms, such as the rope model \cite{Bierlich:2014xba} or other
approaches that give an increased string tension \cite{Fischer:2016zzs}.
\subsection{Rescattering rates}
\label{sec:rescRates}
One of the most basic quantities of interest is the number of rescatterings
in an event. The average number of rescatterings as a function of the final
charged multiplicity $n_{\mathrm{ch}}$ is shown in \figref{fig:rescatrate}b.
The number of potential interactions at the beginning of rescattering is
proportional to $n_{\mathrm{primary}}^2$, where the number of primary hadrons
$n_{\mathrm{primary}} \simeq n_{\mathrm{ch}}$. The scaling is different in
practice however, due to the fact that some particles rescatter several times,
while others do not rescatter at all. As a first approximation one might still
expect the number of rescatterings to increase as $n_{\mathrm{ch}}^p$
for some power $p$. As seen in \figref{fig:rescatrate}b, this relation
appears to hold remarkably well, with $p=1.37$ for $\mathrm{p}\p$, $p=1.47$ for
$\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Pb}$, and $p=1.43$ for $\mathrm{PbPb}$. Interestingly, the exponent is highest
for the intermediate case $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Pb}$, but the rescattering activity as such is
still highest for $\mathrm{PbPb}$. A possible explanation could be that in $\mathrm{PbPb}$,
high multiplicity corresponds to more central events with a larger volume, and
thus higher multiplicity does not necessarily mean higher density in this
case. We have also studied other $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{A}$ and $\mathrm{A}\A$
cases for a wide variety of sizes of $\mathrm{A}$, including Li, O, Cu and
Xe. While there is some $\mathrm{A}$ dependence in the exponent, this variation is
less significant than the overall difference between the $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{A}$ and $\mathrm{A}\A$ cases,
and in all instances the respective $p$ numbers for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Pb}$ and $\mathrm{PbPb}$
provide a reasonable description.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{minipage}[c]{\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig-mKindpp.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig-mTypepp.pdf}
\end{minipage}\\
\begin{minipage}[c]{\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig-mKindpPb.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig-mTypepPb.pdf}
\end{minipage}\\
\begin{minipage}[c]{\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig-mKindPbPb.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig-mTypePbPb.pdf}
\end{minipage}\\
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
(b)
\end{minipage}
\caption{Invariant masses for rescatterings, (a) by particle kind and
(b) by rescattering process type.
}
\label{fig:mResc}
\end{figure}
The invariant mass distributions of rescatterings are shown in
\figref{fig:mResc}a by incoming particle kind and in \figref{fig:mResc}b
by rescattering type. For increasingly large systems the fraction of
low-mass rescatterings goes up. A likely reason for this is rescattering causes
a greater multiplicity increase in the larger systems, reducing the average
energy of each particle. The composition of collision types
at a given mass is the same (within errors), as could be expected.
Our rescattering model is based on a
non-perturbative framework intended to be reasonably accurate up to
around $\sim$10~GeV. It would have to be supplemented by perturbative
modelling if a significant fraction of the collisions were well above
10~GeV, but clearly that is not the case. As an aside, the bump around
5.5~GeV comes from interactions involving bottom hadrons.
\subsection{Transverse momentum spectra}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-pTpp.pdf}\\
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-pTPbPb.pdf}\\
(b)
\end{minipage}\\
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-pTratiopp.pdf}\\
(c)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-pTratioPbPb.pdf}\\
(d)
\end{minipage}
\caption{$p_{\perp}$ spectra for pions, kaons, nucleons and D mesons, for (a) $\mathrm{p}\p$
and (b) $\mathrm{PbPb}$, together with ratios between the spectra with to without
rescattering, for (c) $\mathrm{p}\p$ and (d) $\mathrm{PbPb}$.}
\label{fig:pTspectra}
\end{figure}
The $p_{\perp}$ spectra for pions, kaons, nucleons and charm mesons,
with and without rescattering, are shown in \figref{fig:pTspectra}a,b,
and the ratios with/without are shown in \figref{fig:pTspectra}c,d.
The effects are qualitatively similar for $\mathrm{p}\p$ and $\mathrm{PbPb}$, but more
prominent for the latter case. Pions get pushed to lower $p_{\perp}$, which
is consistent with the expectation that lighter particles will lose
momentum due to the ``pion wind'' phenomenon, where lighter particles
move faster than heavier and push the latter ones from behind. We remind
that all primary hadrons types are produced with the same $p_{\perp}$
distribution in string fragmentation, if the string is stretched parallel
with the collision axis. Rapid $\rho$ and $\mathrm{K}^*$ decays decrease the
average pion $p_{\perp}$, but initially indeed pions have the largest
velocities.
The effect is similar for kaons, which unfortunately is inconsistent with
measurement \cite{Adam:2015qaa}. Our studies indicate that a significant
contribution to the loss of $\langle p_{\perp} \rangle$ for kaons comes from
inelastic interactions, and that the $\langle p_{\perp} \rangle$ increases if
all rescatterings are forced to be elastic. We believe this effect can be
ameliorated by implementing $3 \to 2$ and related processes.
For nucleons we note an overall loss in the rescattering scenario, which comes
mainly from baryon--antibaryon annihilation, as already mentioned.
The $\langle p_{\perp} \rangle$ is shifted upwards by the aforementioned pion
wind phenomenon.
$\mathrm{D}$ mesons are enhanced at low $p_{\perp}$, all the way down to threshold.
At first glance this appears inconsistent with the pion wind phenomenon,
since $\mathrm{D}$ mesons are heavy. One key difference is that charm quarks
are not produced in string fragmentation, but only in perturbative
processes. Therefore $\mathrm{D}$ mesons start out at higher $p_{\perp}$ values than
ordinary hadrons, and can lose momentum through rescattering.
Nevertheless, the overall shift is still somewhat towards higher momenta
if only elastic rescatterings are permitted, as for kaons.
Overall we see a rather significant effect on $p_{\perp}$ spectra, and this is
to be kept in mind for other distributions. Especially for pions, where
the choice of a lower $p_{\perp}$ cut in experimental studies strongly affects
the (pseudo)rapidity spectrum deformation by rescattering, among others.
\subsection{Spacetime picture of rescattering}
In this section we study the spacetime distributions of rescatterings.
Specifically, we consider the transverse production distance,
$r_{\perp}^2 = x^2 + y^2$, and longitudinal invariant time,
$\tau_L^2 = t^2 - z^2$. The two Lorentz-contracted ``pancake'' nuclei
are set to collide at $t = z = 0$, with the center of collision at
$x = y = 0$, but with sub-collisions spread all over the $(x, y)$ overlap
region. Thus the squared invariant time
$\tau^2 = t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2 = \tau_L^2 - r_{\perp}^2$
tends to have a large tail out to large negative values,
so it is not a suitable measure for heavy-ion collisions.
The $r_{\perp}$ and $\tau_L$ distributions are shown in
\figref{fig:spacetime}, separately for particles involved or not in
rescattering. For the latter it is the location of the last rescattering
that counts. Particle decays are included for particles with proper lifetimes
$\tau_0 < 100$~fm, so that a ``final'' pion could be
bookkept at the decay vertex of for instance a $\rho$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{minipage}[c]{\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig-rTpp.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig-tauLpp.pdf}
\end{minipage}\\
\begin{minipage}[c]{\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig-rTpPb.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig-tauLpPb.pdf}
\end{minipage}\\
\begin{minipage}[c]{\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig-rTPbPb.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{fig-tauLPbPb.pdf}
\end{minipage}\\
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
(b)
\end{minipage}
\caption{(a) $r_\perp$ and (b) $\tau_L$ spectra. Note that rescattered also
refers to hadrons produced in decays of rescattered particles, even though
they themselves were not directly involved in rescattering.}
\label{fig:spacetime}
\end{figure}
The overall observation is that rescattering reduces particle production at
very early and at late times, as is especially clear in the $\tau_L$
distribution for $\mathrm{PbPb}$. Particles produced at early times are
more likely to participate in rescattering and get assigned new
$\tau_L$ values on the way out. With this in mind,
it may seem paradoxical that the $r_{\perp}$ distributions are comparably
broad for rescattered and unrescattered particles.
Hadrons produced in the periphery of the collision
are more likely to evade rescattering than central ones, however, so this
introduces a compensating bias towards larger $r_{\perp}$ for the
unrescattered. In this respect the $\tau_L$ distribution more follows the
expected pattern, with the unrescattered particles having comparable
average values in all three collision scenarios, whereas the rescattered
ones are shifted further out. Maybe somewhat unexpectedly, particle
production at late times and large $r_{\perp}$ is also reduced with rescattering
on. Our studies indicate that there is some rescattering activity
at late times ($\gtrsim 50$ fm), but the number of rescatterings here is
roughly a factor of three smaller than the number of decays. Now,
since rescattering produces more particles early, it tends to reduce the
average particle mass, which increases the number of stable particles
produced early and reduces the number of decaying ones in the $50 - 100$~fm
range. Furthermore, unstable particles often have lower $p_{\perp}$ and hence
smaller Lorentz factors, leading them to decay at lower $r_{\perp}$ values.
While the exact time of a rescattering cannot be measured directly, phenomena
such as resonance suppression can give an indication of the duration of the
hadronic phase \cite{Acharya:2020nyr,Acharya:2019qge}.
Experimentally, a suppression of the $\mathrm{K}^*/\mathrm{K}$ yield
ratio at higher multiplicities has been observed, but not of the $\phi/\mathrm{K}$
yield ratio. The interpretation of this observation is as follows: after the
$\mathrm{K}^*$ decays, the outgoing $\pi$ and $\mathrm{K}$ are likely to participate in
rescattering because of their large cross sections, which
disturbs their correlation and suppresses the original $\mathrm{K}^*$ signal. The fact
that the $\phi$ signal is not suppressed in this way indicates that they tend
to decay only after most rescattering has taken place. With the $\mathrm{K}^*$ and
$\phi$ lifetimes being 3.9~fm and 46.3~fm respectively, this places bounds on
the duration of the rescattering phase. These bounds seem to be consistent
with the spacetime distributions shown in \figref{fig:spacetime}.
With the full event history provided by \textsc{Pythia}, it is possible to
study the actual number of $\mathrm{K}^*$ and $\phi$ that were produced, and to trace
what happens to their decay products. A na\"ive way to approach resonance
suppression is to define a $\mathrm{K}^*$ or $\phi$ meson as detectable if it
decayed and no decay product participated in rescattering. When defining
the $\mathrm{K}^*$ multiplicity in this way, we found that rescattering actually
increases the $\mathrm{K}^*/\mathrm{K}$ ratio for larger charged multiplicities.
This increase is not observable,
however, since it mainly comes from $\mathrm{K}\pi \to \mathrm{K}^* \to \mathrm{K}\pi$. That is,
some of the combinatorial background gets to be reclassified as $\mathrm{K}^*$,
without any change of the overall $\mathrm{K}\pi$ mass spectrum. To find the more
subtle effects of nontrivial processes requires a detailed fitting of the
$\mathrm{K}\pi$ mass spectrum. This is outside the scope of this article, but would
be interesting to study in the future. Nevertheless, the change in the
$\phi/\mathrm{K}$ ratio is much smaller, suggesting that qualitatively,
longer-lived resonances are indeed less affected by rescattering.
\subsection{Centrality dependent observables}
\label{sec:cent-dep-obs}
In heavy ion experiments, observables are most often characterized according to
collision centrality. The characterization is a sensible one, also for checking the
effects of hadronic rescatterings, as this will be the largest in the most central
collisions. While experiments employ a centrality definition depending on particle
production in the forward or central regions of the experiments, we will in the
following sections use the definition adhering to impact parameter. As such, the
centrality of a single collision is defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cent-def}
c = \frac{1}{\sigma_{\mathrm{inel}}}\int_0^b \d b' \frac{\d \sigma_{\mathrm{inel}}}{\d b'}.
\end{equation}
We note, however, that the results presented for nucleus-nucleus collisions can
be transferred directly to experimental centrality measures, as the \textsc{Angantyr} model
provides a good description of \textit{eg.}\xspace~forward energy, which correlates directly with
the theoretical impact parameter.
\subsubsection{Particle yields and ratios}
In the following we present the effect on identified particle yields in $|y| < 4$
(to avoid the beam region) in $\mathrm{XeXe}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\N}} = 5.44$ TeV
and $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\N}} = 2.76$ TeV.
Starting with light flavour mesons and baryons, we show
the average multiplicity of (a) pions ($\pi^\pm$) and (b) protons ($\mathrm{p},\overline{\mathrm{p}}$)
per event in \figref{fig:pip-yields} and respectively.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-piCent.pdf}\\
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-protonCent.pdf}\\
(b)
\end{minipage}\\
\caption{Average per-event yields of (a) pions $(\pi^\pm)$ and (b) protons ($\mathrm{p},\overline{\mathrm{p}}$)
in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ and $\mathrm{XeXe}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\N}} = $ 2.74 and 5.44 TeV
respectively, as function of collision centrality.}
\label{fig:pip-yields}
\end{figure}
While the effect for pions is negligible in peripheral collisions, it grows to about 40\% in central collisions.
The effect on protons is also largest in central collisions, while in peripheral collisions it is still at a 10\%
level. This is particularly interesting in the context of recent years' introduction of microscopic models to explain
the increase of strange baryon yields with increasing multiplicity, which overestimate the amount of protons \cite{Bierlich:2015rha}.
In \figref{fig:kl-yields} we move to strange mesons and baryons, with the total kaon
($\mathrm{K}^\pm$ and $\mathrm{K}^0_{\mathrm{L,S}}$)
and $\Lambda$ multiplicity, (a) and (b) respectively. While there is a large effect on the direct yields of both
species, it is almost identical to the change in $\pi^\pm$ in \figref{fig:pip-yields}a, leaving the $\mathrm{K}/\pi$
and $\Lambda/\pi$ ratios unchanged.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-kaonCent.pdf}\\
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-lambdaCent.pdf}\\
(b)
\end{minipage}\\
\caption{Average per-event yields of (a) kaons $(\mathrm{K}^\pm, \mathrm{K}^0_{\mathrm{L,S}})$
and (b) $\Lambda$ ($\Lambda,\overline{\Lambda}$) in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ and $\mathrm{XeXe}$
collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\N}} = $ 2.74 and 5.44 TeV respectively, as function
of collision centrality.}
\label{fig:kl-yields}
\end{figure}
We finish the investigation of the light-flavour sector by showing the total
$\phi$ and $\Omega^{-}$ multiplicities in \figref{fig:phi-omega-yields}a
and b respectively. The $\phi$ multiplicity decreases by about 20\% in central
events and is constant within the statistical errors in peripheral. The $\Omega$
multiplicity is decreased roughly the same amount. The decrease here, however,
is rather constant in centrality in $\mathrm{XeXe}$ but increases for central events in $\mathrm{PbPb}$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-phiCent.pdf}\\
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-omegaCent.pdf}\\
(b)
\end{minipage}\\
\caption{Average per-event yields of (a) $\phi$ and (b) $\Omega^{-}$ in $\mathrm{PbPb}$
and $\mathrm{XeXe}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\N}} = $ 2.74 and 5.44 TeV respectively, as function of collision centrality.}
\label{fig:phi-omega-yields}
\end{figure}
Notably (and as opposed to \textit{eg.}\xspace UrQMD), the rescattering framework implemented in \textsc{Pythia},
includes cross sections for heavy flavour mesons and baryons. In \figref{fig:jpsi-d-yields}
we show the effect on (a) $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ and (b) $\mathrm{D}$ mesons ($\mathrm{D}^\pm$ and $\mathrm{D}^0$). Starting with
the $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ we see a significant effect in both collision systems in central events, less so
in peripheral. While the initial $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ yield is roughly 10\% larger in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ than in $\mathrm{XeXe}$,
the final value after rescattering saturates at a value at roughly 60\% of the initial $\mathrm{XeXe}$ value,
independent of the two collision systems\footnote{This feature is clearly accidental. We have checked in smaller
collision systems to confirm.}. Whether or not this is consistent with the measured nuclear modification
factor \cite{Acharya:2019lkh} in peripheral collisions (clearly not in central collisions, where an additional
source of $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ production would be required) is left for future detailed comparisons to data.
In \textsc{Pythia} (rescattering or not) there is no mechanism for charm quarks to vanish from the event at early times. The
constituents of the $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ would therefore have to end up in other charmed hadrons. In \figref{fig:jpsi-d-yields}b
we show the $\mathrm{D}$ meson yield, demonstrating that this is more than two orders of magnitude above the $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ one.
It is then consistent to assume that the missing charm quarks can recombine into open charm without having observable consequences. Indeed
there is no significant effect on the $\mathrm{D}$ meson yield from rescattering.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-jPsiCent.pdf}\\
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-dMesonCent.pdf}\\
(b)
\end{minipage}\\
\caption{Average per-event yields of (a) $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ and (b) $\mathrm{D}$ mesons in $\mathrm{PbPb}$
and $\mathrm{XeXe}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\N}} = $ 2.74 and 5.44
TeV respectively, as function of collision centrality.}
\label{fig:jpsi-d-yields}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Elliptic flow}
One of the most common ways to characterize heavy ion collisions is by the measurement of
flow coefficients ($v_n$'s), defined as the coefficients of a Fourier expansion of the single particle
azimuthal yield, with respect to the event plane $\Psi_n$ \cite{Voloshin:1994mz,Poskanzer:1998yz}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:flow-def}
E\frac{\d^3 N}{\d^3p } = \frac{1}{2\pi} \,\frac{\d^2 N}{p_{\perp} \d p_{\perp} \d y}
\left( 1 + 2\sum_{n=1}^\infty v_n \cos(n(\varphi - \Psi_n)) \right).
\end{equation}
The azimuthal angle is denoted $\varphi$, and $E$, $p_{\perp}$ and $y$ are the particle energy, transverse
momentum and rapidity respectively. In experiments it is not possible to utilize this definition
directly, as the event plane is unknown. Therefore one must resort to other methods. For the purpose
of testing if a model behaves as expected, it is on the other hand preferable to measure how much
or little particles will correlate with the true event plane (when we show comparisons to experimentally
obtained values in \secref{sec:FlowCoefficients}, we will use the experimental definitions). In the following, we
will therefore use an event plane obtained from the initial state model, defined as
\begin{equation}
\Psi_n = \frac{1}{n} \arctan\left(\frac{\langle r^2 \sin(n\varphi)\rangle}{\langle r^2 \cos(n\varphi) \rangle}\right) + \frac{\pi}{n},
\end{equation}
for all initial state nucleons participating in collisions contributing to the final state multiplicity
(inelastic, non-diffractive sub-collisions). The origin is shifted to the center of the sampled distribution of
nucleons, and $r$ and $\varphi$ are the usual polar coordinates. Flow coefficients can then simply
be calculated as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:vn-th}
v_n = \langle \cos(n(\varphi - \Psi_n))\rangle.
\end{equation}
As in the previous section we consider all particles in $|y| < 4$ and without any lower cut on transverse momentum.
In \figref{fig:v2-nch} we show (a) $v_2$ and (b) $v_3$ as functions of collision
centrality for charged particles for $\mathrm{XeXe}$ collisions
at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\N}}=5.44$ TeV and $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\N}} = 2.74$
TeV both with and without rescattering. It is seen that $v_2$ receives a sizeable contribution from rescattering. The contribution
is larger for $\mathrm{PbPb}$ than for $\mathrm{XeXe}$, which is not surprising, given the larger density. The $v_2$ arises because particles are pushed
by rescatterings along the density gradient, which is larger along the event plane. Note that the curve without rescattering is zero, as the definition
of $v_n$ from \eqref{eq:vn-th} ensures that no non-flow contributions enter the results.
For $v_3$ (\figref{fig:v2-nch}b) there is not much difference between $\mathrm{PbPb}$ and $\mathrm{XeXe}$. Since $v_3$ is mainly generated by initial state
shape fluctuations, this is a reasonable result.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-v2Cent.pdf}\\
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-v3Cent.pdf}\\
(b)
\end{minipage}\\
\caption{Flow coefficients (a) $v_2$ and (b) $v_3$ in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ and $\mathrm{XeXe}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\N}} = $ 2.74 and 5.44
TeV respectively. Results shown with and without rescattering, and are calculated with respect to the event plane such that the sample without rescattering
is zero by construction.}
\label{fig:v2-nch}
\end{figure}
Since different hadron species have different cross sections, hadronic rescattering will yield different flow coefficients for
different hadron species. As an example, since the $\mathrm{p}\p (\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p})$ cross section is larger than the average hadron-hadron cross section
(which is dominated mainly by pions), $v_2$ for protons will be higher. We note (without showing) that
hadronic rescattering gives $v_2(\mathrm{p}) > v_2(\pi) > v_2(\mathrm{K}) \approx v_2(\Lambda) > v_2(\Omega) > v_2(\phi)$, with the
latter reaching its maximum for $v_2$ about an order of magnitude less than for protons.
For heavy flavours, the results require more explanation, due to the differing production mechanisms. In \textsc{Pythia},
$\mathrm{D}$ mesons are produced in string fragmentation, requiring that one of the quark ends is a charm quark. The $\mathrm{J}/\psi$,
on the other hand, is predominantly produced early, either by direct onium production via colour-singlet and colour-octet
mechanisms, or by an early ``collapse'' of a small $\c\overline{\mathrm{c}}$ string to a $\mathrm{J}/\psi$. Onia are therefore
excellent candidates for hadrons mainly affected by hadronic rescattering, and not any effects of strings interacting with
each other before hadronization.
In \figref{fig:v2-d-and-j}, we show $v_2$ for (a) $\mathrm{D}$ mesons and (b) $\mathrm{J}/\psi$. Starting with $\mathrm{D}$ mesons we see an
appreciable $v_2$, numerically not too far from $\mathrm{PbPb}$ data \cite{Abelev:2014ipa}. A clear difference is observed between
$\mathrm{XeXe}$ and $\mathrm{PbPb}$. In the figure, statistical error bars are shown, as they are not negligible due long processing times
for heavy flavour hadrons.
For the $\mathrm{J}/\psi$, shown in \figref{fig:v2-d-and-j}b, $v_2$ for $\mathrm{PbPb}$ and $\mathrm{XeXe}$ are compatible within the statistical error.
More importantly, the result is also compatible with experimental data \cite{ALICE:2013xna}. Together with the result from
\figref{fig:jpsi-d-yields}a, which suggests a sizeable nuclear modification to the $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ yield from rescattering, a detailed
comparison with available experimental data should be performed. It should be noted that the treatment of charm in the \textsc{Pythia}
hadronic rescattering model follows the additive quark model, as introduced earlier. Thus, no distinction is made between $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ and
other $\c\overline{\mathrm{c}}$ states. A foreseen improvement of this treatment would be to consider differences with input taken \textit{eg.}\xspace~from lattice calculations.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-v2CentD.pdf}\\
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-v2CentJ.pdf}\\
(b)
\end{minipage}\\
\caption{The $v_2$ flow coefficient for (a) $\mathrm{D}$ mesons ($\mathrm{D}^\pm, \mathrm{D}^0$) and (b) $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ as a function of centrality in
$\mathrm{PbPb}$ and $\mathrm{XeXe}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\N}} = $ 2.74 and 5.44 TeV respectively. Error bars are statistical
errors. Results shown with and without rescattering, and are calculated with respect to the event plane such that the sample without
rescattering is zero by construction.}
\label{fig:v2-d-and-j}
\end{figure}
\section{Comparison with data}
\label{sec:comparisonWithData}
In this section we go beyond the model performance plots shown in the previous section, and compare
to relevant experimental data for $\mathrm{XeXe}$ and $\mathrm{PbPb}$, in cases where Rivet \cite{Bierlich:2019rhm} implementations of the
experimental analysis procedure are available (though not in all cases validated by experiments).
We focus on observables where the rescattering effects are large, and in some cases surprising.
In all cases centrality is defined according to \eqref{eq:cent-def}, as it reduces computation time, and
the difference between centrality defined by impact parameter and forward energy flow is not large in $\mathrm{A}\A$ collisions.
\subsection{Charged multiplicity}
In section \ref{sec:model-multiplicities} we described how the current lack of $3 \to 2$
processes in the rescattering framework increases the total multiplicities. In \figref{fig:exp-mult}
\textsc{Angantyr} with and without rescattering is compared to experimental data \cite{Aamodt:2010cz,Abbas:2013bpa}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-nch-cent.pdf}
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-dndeta-cent.pdf}
(b)
\end{minipage}
\caption{\label{fig:exp-mult} Charged multiplicities in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\N}} = 2.76$ TeV.
At mid-rapidity as (a) function of centrality, and (b) differential in $\eta$ in centrality 0-5\%.
Data from ALICE \cite{Aamodt:2010cz,Abbas:2013bpa}.}
\end{figure}
In \figref{fig:exp-mult}a, $\mathrm{dN}_{ch}/\d\eta|_{\eta = 0}$ is shown as
function of centrality. It is clear that the shift in multiplicity, caused by rescattering,
is centrality dependent, with a larger effect seen in more central events. For centrality 0-5\%,
the agreement with data shifts from approximately 8\% below data to 10\% above. It is
instructive to show the differential distributions as well, and in \figref{fig:exp-mult}b,
the $\eta$-distribution out to $\pm 5$ is shown. It is seen that the shift is slightly larger
at the edges of the plateau. This effect is most pronounced in the centrality bin shown here,
and decreases for more peripheral events.
To further explore the change in charged multiplicity distributions, we show
comparisons to invariant $p_{\perp}$ distributions in the same collision system,
measured down to $p_{\perp} = 0.15$ GeV in $|\eta| < 0.8$ \cite{Abelev:2012hxa}
in \figref{fig:exp-pt}, with 0-20\% centrality shown in \figref{fig:exp-pt}a,
and 40-60\% in \figref{fig:exp-pt}b. It is seen that particles at intermediate
$p_{\perp} \approx 1-6$ GeV are pushed down to very low $p_{\perp}$ (pion wind)
in rescatterings which, due
to the lack of $3 \to 2$ processes, will generate more final state particles overall.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-pt-0-20.pdf}
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-pt-40-60.pdf}
(b)
\end{minipage}
\caption{\label{fig:exp-pt} Invariant $p_{\perp}$ spectra of charged particles
in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\N}} = 2.76$ TeV, in $|\eta| < 0.8$. Shown
for two different centrality intervals (a) 0-20\% and (b) 40-60\%.
Data from ALICE \cite{Abelev:2012hxa}.}
\end{figure}
From this investigation of effects on basic single-particle observables from adding rescattering, it is clear that agreement with data
is decreased. Since hadronic rescattering in heavy ion collisions is physics effects which must be taken into account, this clearly points
to the need of further model improvement. Beyond re-tuning and adding $3 \to 2$ processes, the addition of string-string interactions
before hadronic rescattering will change the overall soft kinematics. This is an important next step, which will be taken in a forthcoming publication.
\subsection{Flow coefficients}
\label{sec:FlowCoefficients}
As indicated in section \ref{sec:cent-dep-obs}, rescattering has a non-trivial effect on flow observables,
a staple measurement in heavy ion experiments. Anisotropic flow is generally understood as a clear indication
of QGP formation, as it is well described by hydrodynamic response to the anisotropy of the initial geometry \cite{Teaney:2010vd}.
The main difference between most previous investigations and this paper, of the effect of rescattering on flow, is
the early onset of the hadronic phase. Recall that with a hadronization time of $\langle \tau^2 \rangle \approx 2$ fm$^2$,
the initial hadronic state from string hadronization is much denser.
In this section we will compare to experimental data from $\mathrm{XeXe}$ and $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions obtained by the ALICE experiment
\cite{Acharya:2019vdf}. When doing so, it is important to use the same definitions of flow coefficients as used by the experiment.
Since the event plane is not measurable by experiment, equations (\ref{eq:flow-def}) and (\ref{eq:vn-th}) cannot be applied directly.
Instead the flow coefficients are calculated using two- and multi-particle azimuthal correlations using the so-called generic
framework \cite{Bilandzic:2013kga}, implemented in the Rivet framework \cite{Bierlich:2020wms},
including the use of sub-events \cite{Huo:2017nms}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-xexe-v22.pdf}
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-xexe-v28.pdf}
(b)
\end{minipage}
\caption{\label{fig:flow-xexe}Elliptic flow in $\mathrm{XeXe}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\N}} = 5.44$ TeV. (a) $v_2\{2\}$
with $|\Delta \eta| > 1.4$ and (b) $v_2\{8\}$. The $v_2$ calculated with 4- and 6-particle correlations show a similar
trend, but are not shown in the figure. Data from ALICE \cite{Acharya:2019vdf}.}
\end{figure}
In figure \ref{fig:flow-xexe} we show elliptic flow $v_2$ in $\mathrm{XeXe}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\N}} = 5.44$ TeV calculated
with (a) two-particle correlations and $|\Delta \eta| > 1.4$, as well as (b) $v_2\{8\}$. In the former case we compare also to
the no-rescattering option, which gives a measure of contributions from
non-flow mechanisms such as (mini)jets and particle decays.
In both cases the data is reproduced with good (within 10\%) accuracy for very high multiplicities, but the
calculation is up to 30-40\% below data for more peripheral events. It is particularly interesting to note that even in
the case of using an 8-particle correlator, the calculation shows the same agreement as only two particles with a gap
in $\eta$ between them. This rules out the possibility that additional flow enters purely from a local increase in two-particle
correlations. This should also already be clear from the treatment in section \ref{sec:cent-dep-obs}, where it was clearly shown
that the added $v_2$ by rescattering is in the correct direction with respect to the theoretical event plane.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-pbpb-v22.pdf}
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig-pbpb-v28.pdf}
(b)
\end{minipage}
\caption{\label{fig:flow-pbpb}Elliptic flow in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\N}} = 5.02$ TeV. (a) $v_2\{2\}$
with $|\Delta \eta| > 1.4$ and (b) $v_2\{8\}$. The $v_2$ calculated with 4- and 6-particle correlations show a similar
trend, but are not shown in the figure. Data from ALICE \cite{Acharya:2019vdf}.}
\end{figure}
In figure \ref{fig:flow-pbpb} we show the same observables, $v_2\{2,~|\Delta \eta| > 1.4\}$ and $v_2\{8\}$ for $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions
at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\N}} = 5.02$ TeV. While the same overall picture is repeated, it is worth noticing that the agreement at high multiplicities
is slightly better. As it was also observed in section \ref{sec:cent-dep-obs}, the effect of rescattering is in general larger in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ than in
$\mathrm{XeXe}$, due to the larger multiplicity of primaries.
We want here to emphasize that, while hadronic rescattering can obviously not describe data for elliptic flow completely, the results here
suggest that hadronic rescattering with early hadronization has a larger effect than previously thought. This is particularly interesting seen in
the connection with recent results, that interactions between strings before hadronization in the string shoving model \cite{Bierlich:2020naj} will
also give a sizeable contribution to flow coefficients in heavy ion collisions, without fully describing data. The combination of the two frameworks,
to test whether the combined effect is compatible with data, will be a topic for a future paper. It should be mentioned that the contributions
from different models, acting one after the other, does not add linearly \cite{Auvinen:2013sba,daSilva:2020cyn}.
\subsection{Jet modifications from rescattering}
As shown, both in \figref{fig:pTspectra} and \figref{fig:exp-pt}, hadronic rescattering has a significant effect
on high-$p_{\perp}$ particle production. Studies of how the behaviour of hard particles changes
from $\mathrm{p}\p$ to $\mathrm{A}\A$ collisions are usually aiming at characterising the interactions between
initiator partons and the QGP. The observed phenomena are referred to as ``jet quenching'', and
phenomenological studies usually ignore the presence of a hadronic phase. For a notable exception see
ref. \cite{Dorau:2019ozd} for a recent exploratory study using SMASH, as well as references therein.
In this final results section, we do not wish to go into a full study on the effect of
rescattering on jet observables, but rather point to an interesting result which will be pursued further in
a future study, as well as warn potential users of the \textsc{Pythia} rescattering implementation
of a few pitfalls.
One of the early key observations of jet quenching effects was the disappearance of back-to-back high-$p_{\perp}$
hadron correlations in central $\mathrm{AuAu}$ collisions at RHIC \cite{Adler:2002tq}. Similar studies have since
also been performed at the ALICE experiment, and we compare here to data from a study of azimuthal modifications
in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=2.76$ TeV \cite{Aamodt:2011vg}. In this study, trigger particles
of $8$ GeV $< p_{\perp,\mathrm{trig}} < 15$ GeV are correlated in $\varphi$ with associated particles
of $4$ GeV $< p_{\perp,\mathrm{assoc}} < p_{\perp,\mathrm{trig}}$.
The $\mathrm{PbPb}/\mathrm{pp}$ ratio of per-trigger yields is denoted $I_{\mathrm{A}\A}$, and it was noted in the study by ALICE
that the $\mathrm{PbPb}$ per-trigger yield is suppressed to about 60\% of $\mathrm{p}\p$ on the away side ($\Delta \varphi$ of $\pi\pm0.7$) and
enhanced by about 20\% on the near side ($\Delta \varphi$ of $\pm0.7$).
In \figref{fig:iaa}, $I_{\mathrm{A}\A}$ in $0-5$\% centrality for $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions is shown on (a) the near-side
and (b) the away side, compared to ALICE data \cite{Aamodt:2011vg}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{iaa-near-side.pdf}
(a)
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{iaa-away-side.pdf}
(b)
\end{minipage}
\caption{\label{fig:iaa} Modification of high-$p_{\perp}$ azimuthal correlations, $I_{\mathrm{A}\A}$, in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions at
$\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{N}\N}} = 2.76$ TeV on (a) the near side ($\Delta \varphi$ of $\pm0.7$) and (b) the away side ($\Delta \varphi$ of
$\pi\pm 0.7$), both in the $0-5$\% centrality bin. Error bars are statistical errors. Data from ALICE \cite{Aamodt:2011vg}.}
\end{figure}
It is seen that, by default, \textsc{Pythia/Angantyr} overestimates the away-side $I_{\mathrm{A}\A}$ in the whole $p_{\perp,\mathrm{assoc}}$ range,
while the near-side is overestimated at low $p_{\perp} < 6$ GeV. Adding rescattering brings the simulation on
par with data in all cases but the high-$p_{\perp}$ part of the away-side $I_{\mathrm{A}\A}$. No significant effect from rescattering was observed
in peripheral events.
At first sight, this seems like a very significant result, but we wish to provide the reader with a word of caution. We remind
that the current lack of $n \to 2$ processes and retuning causes a drastic shift in $p_{\perp}$ spectra as previously shown,
incompatible with data. The depletion seen from rescattering is exactly in the region where $I_{\mathrm{A}\A}$
is now well reproduced. It can therefore very well be that the effect seen is mainly a token of current shortcomings.
This is of course not a statement that hadronic rescattering has no impact on jet-quenching observables, but it goes to show
that a potential user cannot run \textsc{Pythia} to explain this or similar observables without a deeper analysis.
Finally a technical remark. Running \textsc{Pythia/Angantyr} with rescattering to reproduce an observable requiring
a high-$p_{\perp}$ trigger particle will require very long run times. The figures in this section are generated by first requiring
that a parton--parton interaction with $\hat{p}_{\perp} > 5$ GeV takes place at all, and secondly a veto is put in place ensuring
that the time-consuming rescattering process is not performed if there are no trigger particles with the required $p_{\perp}$ present
in the considered acceptance.
\section{Summary and outlook}
\label{sec:summary}
The \textsc{Pythia} rescattering framework was first introduced in
\cite{Sjostrand:2020gyg}, which focused on validating it in the context
of $\mathrm{p}\p$ collisions. In this paper, the main focus has been physics
studies in $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Pb}$ and $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions.
Before going into finer details, it is worth to consider how rescattering
changes the bulk properties of events. Notably it increases the charged
multiplicity by about 20~\% in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ events. One key reason is that
we have implemented $2 \to n, n > 2$ processes but not $n \to 2$.
For a system in thermal equilibrium the two kinds should balance each
other. In the modelling of $\mathrm{PbPb}$ collisions, however, our original
production is not a thermal process, and the subsequent rescattering is
occurring in an expanding out-of-equilibrium system. As an example, minijet
production gives a larger rate of higher-$p_{\perp}$ particles than a thermal
spectrum would predict, and therefore a fraction of higher invariant
rescattering masses with more $2 \to n$ processes. While the inclusion
of $n \to 2$ therefore is high on the priority list of future model
developments, it is not likely to fully restore no-rescattering
multiplicities. For $\mathrm{p}\p$, a slight retuning of the $p_{\perp 0}$ parameter
for multiparton interactions helped restore approximate agreement with
data, but for $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Pb}$ and $\mathrm{PbPb}$ also some tweaks may be needed in
the \textsc{Angantyr} framework. Until that is done, users need to be
aware of such shortcomings.
The most obvious effect of rescattering is the changed shape of $p_{\perp}$
spectra, where pions lose momentum. Owing to their low mass they tend to
be produced with higher velocity, which in collisions then can be used
to speed up heavier particles. The above-mentioned $2 \to n$ processes
act to reduce the overall $\langle p_{\perp} \rangle$ values, however, and for
kaons and $\mathrm{D}$ mesons the result is a net slowdown. Here it should be
remembered that the $\mathrm{D}$'s are produced only in perturbative processes,
and so can have large velocities to begin with. For protons indeed a
speedup can be observed, but here the significant rate of
baryon--antibaryon annihilation clouds the picture.
Still at the basic level, the detailed event record allows us to
map out both the space--time evolution, the nature of rescatterings
and the change of particle composition. An example is resonance
suppression, which was discussed briefly, but where an analysis
paralleling the experimental one is outside the scope of the current
article. Also of interest is the converse, the formation of particular
particles in rescattering, such as $f_2(1270)$ resonances
\cite{Lebiedowicz:2020qnz} or exotic hadrons. Care must be taken in such
studies however, as particles that form resonances already are
correlated, and hence the appearance of a particle in the event record
does not necessarily translate directly to an observable signal.
We also see other future applications of space--time information,
notably for Bose--Einstein studies.
Amongst the physics results presented, the most remarkable is
the observation of a sizeable elliptic flow in $\mathrm{A}\A$ collisions,
where data is described particularly well at high multiplicities.
Flow is also visible in $\mathrm{D}$ meson production, at a slightly lower rate
than in the inclusive sample. The flow increases from $\mathrm{XeXe}$ to
$\mathrm{PbPb}$, \textit{ie.}\xspace when moving to larger systems. This should be contrasted
with the $\mathrm{p}\p$ results \cite{Sjostrand:2020gyg}, where the rescattering
flow effects were tiny and far below data. Thus rescattering may be one
source of flow, but apparently not the only one. The
\textsc{Pythia/Angantyr} framework also includes other effects that
contribute to the flow, notably shoving \cite{Bierlich:2016vgw}, where
an improved modelling \cite{Bierlich:2020naj} will soon be part of the
standard code.
Another interesting observation is the suppression of $\mathrm{J}/\psi$
production in central collisions, by the breakup into $\mathrm{D}$ mesons in
rescattering. The $\mathrm{D}$ meson rate is hardly affected, since it is
more than two orders of magnitude larger to begin with. One should
note that the handling of charm collisions largely is based on the
Additive Quark Model, which does not distinguish between $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ and
$\psi'$, so again there is room for improvement.
There are also examples where rescattering, as currently implemented,
is going in the wrong direction. The $p_{\perp}$ spectrum in $\mathrm{PbPb}$ is
reasonably well described without rescattering, but becomes way too soft
with it. Hyperon production rates also drop, where data wants more such
production \cite{ALICE:2017jyt}.
The most important follow-up project in a not too distant future is
to combine all the features that have been introduced on top of the basic
\textsc{Pythia/Angantyr} model, notably ropes, shoving and rescattering,
and attempt an overall tuning. It is not possible to tell where results
will land at the end, since effects tend to add nonlinearly. One can
remain optimistic that many features of the data will be described
qualitatively, if not quantitatively.
Another possible application is (anti)deuteron production, and even
heavier (anti)nuclei.
In the past this has often been modelled using coalescence of particles
close in momentum space, on the assumption that such particles also have
been produced near to each other in space--time. (One such model is even
included in \textsc{Pythia} \cite{Dal:2015sha}.) This usually is not a
bad approximation in $\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^-$ annihilation or $\mathrm{p}\p$, at least as
modelled by string fragmentation. But the much larger volume of
particle production and rescattering in $\mathrm{A}\A$ obviously requires
due consideration to the space--time proximity of (anti)nucleons,
and also that deuterons can break up by rescattering processes.
The rescattering model is made freely available, starting with
\textsc{Pythia}~8.303, with a few tiny corrections in 8.304 to allow the
extension from $\mathrm{p}\p$ to $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{A}$ and $\mathrm{A}\A$. In the past we have seen
how new \textsc{Pythia} capabilities have led to follow-up studies
by the particle physics community at large, both foreseen and unforeseen
ones, and we hope that this will be the case here as well, although
admittedly the long run times is a hurdle.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
Work supported in part by the Swedish Research Council, contract numbers
2016-05996 and 2017-003, in part by the MCnetITN3 H2020 Marie Curie Innovative
Training Network, grant agreement 722104, and in part by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg
foundation, contract number 2017.0036.
This project has also received funding from the European Research
Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research
and innovation programme, grant agreement No 668679.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{s:intro}
The well known Sobolev inequality in the Euclidean space $\R^{\SpDim}$ reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sobec}
\Big(
\int_{\R^{\SpDim}}
\abs{u}^{p^{*}}
\,\@di x
\Big)^{1/p^{*}}
\le
S(N,p)
\Big(
\int_{\R^{\SpDim}}
\abs{\operatorname{\nabla} u}^{p}
\,\@di x
\Big)^{1/p}
\,,
\end{equation}
where $p^{*}=Np/(N-p)$, for all $u\in C^{\infty}_{0}(\R^{\SpDim})$; we always assume here $1<p<N$. The best constant $S$ was found in \cite{Aubin:1976,Talenti:1976b} as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sobec_bc}
S(N,p)
=
\frac{1}{\omega_{N}^{1/N}N}
\Big[
\frac{N(p-1)}{N-p}
\Big]^{(p-1)/p}
\,
\Big[
\frac{
\Gamma(N+1)
}{
N\Gamma(N/p)\Gamma(1+N-N/p)
}
\Big]^{1/N}
\,,
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma$ is the standard Gamma function and $\omega_{N}$ denotes the volume of the unit ball in $\R^{\SpDim}$.
The literature on the subject of Sobolev inequalities and the choice of constants therein is very large; we refer to \cite{AubinNPRG, Mazja:ss}.
Let us make clear what the difficulty is in the case we have in mind,
that is the lack of homogeneity, which is instead guaranteed in the
Euclidean case. Consider a product manifold given by
$M=M_{0}\times \numberspacefont{R}^{k}$, where $M_{0}$ is a compact Riemannian manifold
of dimension $m$ and $\numberspacefont{R}^{k}$ the Euclidean space of dimension
$k$. Clearly its topological or local dimension is $N=m+k$, but its
dimension at infinity is lower, and in fact equals $k$. By this we
mean, more exactly, that if $\Omega\subset M$ is a smooth set with
volume $\abs{\Omega}_{N}=v$, its boundary has area satisfying
$\abs{\bdr{\Omega}}_{N-1}\ge c v^{(N-1)/N}$ if $v$ is small, but
$\abs{\bdr{\Omega}}_{N-1}\ge c v^{(k-1)/k}$ if $v$ is large (for a
suitable $c>0$). The dimension at infinity $k$ is related to the
range of $p$ for which a Sobolev-like inequality is valid; this
amounts essentially to $p<k$ in simple cases and is strictly connected
to the property of $p$-hyperbolicity of the manifold; see
\eqref{eq:hyper} below.
Here we introduce a streamlined method of proof of Sobolev-like inequalities in Riemannian manifolds which seems to tackle optimally this setting, in terms of the isoperimetric information just exemplified (Theorem~\ref{t:sobol}); it yields the constant $S(N,p)$ in the Euclidean case; see Subsection~\ref{s:examp} for examples of other manifolds where the needed information is completely available. The inequality is of the type obtained in \cite{Minerbe:2009}.
The connections between the validity of Sobolev-like inequalities and isoperimetric profiles (defined as the optimal $h$ in \eqref{eq:isoper_a} below) is well known; let us briefly recall that it appeared in \cite{Federer:Fleming:1960, Mazja:ss}. The method of \cite{Mazja:ss} allows one to reduce the proof of multidimensional Sobolev inequalities to one-dimensional Hardy type inequalities, and was also applied to derive Hardy inequalities in Riemannian manifolds by \cite{Miklyukov:Vuorinen:1999}. The symmetrization approach has also been used extensively in this field; we refer for example to \cite{Aubin:1976, Cianchi:2007, Martin:Milman:2014, Talenti:1976b, Xia:2001}; the optimality of the constant in Sobolev-like inequalities has been analyzed also, with alternative approaches, in \cite{Berchio:Ganguly:Grillo:2017, Cordero:Nazaret:Villani:2004, Hebey:Vaugon:1995, Ledoux:1999, Nazarov:2011}.
In what follows $(M,g)$ is a complete, connected Riemannian $N$-di\-men\-sional
manifold with infinite volume, $\,\@di\mu$ is the volume form associated to the
metric $g$ , $\operatorname{\nabla} u$ denotes the gradient of a function $u$ with respect to
the metric $g$. Denote by $d(x)$ for $x\in M$ the distance from a fixed point
$x_{0}\in M$, and by $V(R)$ the volume of the geodesic ball $B_{R}(x_{0})$, $R>0$.
\begin{definition}
\label{d:isoper
We say that $M$ satisfies the $h$-isoperimetric inequality if:
\\
i) for
any measurable subset $U\subset M$ with Lipschitz continuous boundary $\partial U$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:isoper_a
\abs{\partial U}_{N-1}
\ge
h(\mu(U))
\,,
\end{equation}
where $h(s)$ is a given increasing function for $s\ge0$, $h(0)=0$;
\\
ii) the function $w$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:isoper_b
w(s)
=
\frac{C_{N}s^{\frac{N-1}{N}}}{h(s)}
\,,
\qquad
s>0
\,,
\end{equation}
is nondecreasing, where $C_{N}>0$ is a given arbitrary constant.
\end{definition}
The constant $C_{N}$ in \eqref{eq:isoper_b} is essentially introduced for the sake of comparison with examples. Roughly speaking it is selected so that $h(s)\sim C_{N} s^{(N-1)/N}$ for small $s$; in the Euclidean case $C_{N}=N\omega_{N}^{1/N}$.
One of the main technical difficulties in investigating sharp Sobolev
constants in Riemannian manifolds is the already remarked
inhomogeneous character of the isoperimetric function $h$, which makes
difficult the explicit determination of isoperimetric regions (see \cite{Burago:Zalgaller:1988,Ros:2005} for classical references).
A property which certainly is necessary to us is $p$-hyperbolicity. This
essentially amounts to the existence of a symmetric positive Green
function $G_{x}$ for the $p$-Laplacian with pole at $x$, for every
$x\in M$. For other definitions of $p$-hyperbolicity and comments on its necessity we
refer to \cite{DAmbrosio:Dipierro:2014} (see also \cite{Miklyukov:Vuorinen:1999}). Here we need
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hyper
\int_{1}^{\infty}
\frac{\,\@di t}{h(t)^{p/(p-1)}}
<
+\infty
\,,
\end{equation}
which is a geometrical version of the $p$-hyperbolicity assumption (see \cite{Grigoryan:1999a,Troyanov:1999}).
Next, we state some assumptions connected with
the validity of Sobolev and Hardy inequalities, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:B1
B_{1}
=
\sup_{s>0}
\left(
\int_{0}^{s}
\left[
\frac{h(\tau)}{C_{N}\tau^{\frac{N-1}{N}}}
\right]^{p^{*}}
\,\@di\tau
\right)^{1/p^{*}}
\left(
\int_{s}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{h(\tau)^{\frac{p}{p-1}}}
\,\@di\tau
\right)^{(p-1)/p}
<
+\infty
\,,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:B2
B_{2}
=
\sup_{s>0}
\left(
\int_{0}^{s}
\frac{1}{\left( V^{(-1)}(\tau)\right)^{p}}
\,\@di\tau
\right)^{1/p}
\left(
\int_{s}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{h(\tau)^{\frac{p}{p-1}}}
\,\@di\tau
\right)^{(p-1)/p}
<
+\infty
\,.
\end{equation}
Define also $k_{p,p}=p/(p-1)^{(p-1)/p}$, and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:kqp
k_{q,p}
=
\left(
\frac{r}{\textup{Beta}(1/r,(q-1)/r)}
\right)^{1/p-1/q}
\,,
\qquad
\text{for $q>p$,}
\end{equation}
where $r=q/p-1$; here the Beta function is defined by
\begin{equation*}
\textup{Beta}(a,b)
=
\int_{0}^{1}
x^{a-1}(1-x)^{b-1}
\,\@di x
\,.
\end{equation*}
Since $\textup{Beta}(a,b)=\Gamma(a)\Gamma(b)/\Gamma(a+b)$, $a\Gamma(a)=\Gamma(a+1)$, we have
\begin{equation*}
k_{p^{*},p}
=
\frac{1}{N^{1/N}}
\left\{
\frac{\Gamma(N+1)}{\Gamma(N/p)\Gamma(1+N-N/p)}
\right\}^{1/N}
\,.
\end{equation*}
Next we state our main result, in the spirit of \cite{Minerbe:2009}; however our set of assumptions is different from the one there.
\begin{theorem}
\label{t:sobol
Assume that $M$ satisfies the $h$-isoperimetric inequality and \eqref{eq:hyper} holds true; let
$u\in C_{0}^{\infty}(M)$.
\\
i) If \eqref{eq:B1} holds, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sobol_n
\left(
\int_{M}
\abs{ u}^{p^{*}}
w(V(d(x))^{-p^{*}}
\,\@di\mu
\right)^{1/p^{*}}
\le
C_{1}
\left(
\int_{M}
\abs{ \operatorname{\nabla} u}^{p}
\,\@di\mu
\right)^{1/p}
\,.
\end{equation}
ii) If \eqref{eq:B2} holds, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sobol_nn
\int_{M}
\frac{\abs{ u}^{p}}{d(x)^{p}}
\,\@di\mu
\le
C_{2}
\int_{M}
\abs{\operatorname{\nabla} u}^{p}
\,\@di\mu
\,,
\end{equation}
Here $C_{1}=B_{1}k_{p^{*},p}$, and $C_{2}=B_{2}^{p}p^{p}/(p-1)^{p-1}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary}[Hardy-Sobolev inequality]
\label{co:hsobol}
Assume that $M$ satisfies the $h$-isoperimetric inequality and
\eqref{eq:hyper}--\eqref{eq:B2} hold. Let
\begin{equation*}
q<p
\,,
\quad
p^{*}(q):=\frac{N-q}{N-p}p
\,.
\end{equation*}
Then
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:hsobol_n
\int_{M}
\frac{\abs{ u}^{p^{*}(q)}}{d(x)^{q}}
w(V(d(x)))^{-(p^{*}(q)-q)}
\,\@di\mu
\\
\le
C_{1}^{N(p-q)/(N-p)}
C_{2}^{q/p}
\left(
\int_{M}
\abs{\operatorname{\nabla} u}^{p}
\,\@di\mu
\right)^{(N-q)/(N-p)}
\,.
\end{multline}
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}
\label{r:sobol_eucl
The constant in \eqref{eq:sobol_n} is sharp, at least in $\R^{\SpDim}$ with the Euclidean metric. In this case indeed $h(t)=C_{N}
t^{(N-1)/N}$, where $C_{N}=N\omega_{N}^{1/N}$ is the constant selected in the definition of $w$ so that $w(s)=1$ for all $s$. Then
\begin{equation*}
C_{1}
=
C_{N}^{-1}
\left[
\frac{N(p-1)}{N-p}
\right]^{(p-1)/p}
k_{p^{*},p}
=
S(N,p)
\,,
\end{equation*}
the best constant in the Sobolev inequality \eqref{eq:sobec}. A similar result holds for $C_{2}$, see Subsection~\ref{s:examp_pw}.
\end{remark}
The function $w$ is an important geometrical characteristic of the
manifold and has been employed in the authors' papers
\cite{Andreucci:Tedeev:2000, Andreucci:Tedeev:2015} when studying embedding theorems of
Gagliardo-Nirenberg type and in the qualitative analysis of solutions
to nonlinear parabolic equations in both Euclidean and Riemannian
setting. In the form of \eqref{eq:sobol_n}
the Sobolev inequality firstly was proven in \cite{Minerbe:2009}. A short proof
of \eqref{eq:sobol_n} under assumptions stronger than \eqref{eq:B1}
was given in \cite{Andreucci:Tedeev:2021}.
\\
See for example \cite{Petean:Ruiz:2011} for other reasons of interest of isoperimetric profiles.
The plan of the paper is the following: below we give some examples of manifolds where our results can be applied. In Section~\ref{s:hardy} we recall a known Hardy-like inequality, extracting from it the consequences that we need. In Section~\ref{s:p_sobol} we give the proofs of our results.
\subsection{Examples}
\label{s:examp}
\subsubsection{The case of product-like isoperimetric profiles.}
\label{s:examp_pro}
We discuss here the case when one can assume
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:examp_pro_h}
h(s)
=
\min(
a
s^{\lambda}
,
b
s^{\mu}
)
\,,
\qquad
s>0
\,,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda>\mu>0$ and $a$, $b>0$. This is for example the case of subsets of $\R^{\SpDim}$ shaped like paraboloids
\begin{equation*}
\Omega_{\beta}
=
\{
(x',x_{N})\in\R^{\SpDim}
\mid
\abs{x'}<x_{N}^{\beta}
\}
\,,
\end{equation*}
where $\beta\in(0,1)$; in this case one has $\lambda=(N-1)/N$ and $\mu=\beta(N-1)/(1+\beta(N-1))$. However, we pursue here a different class of examples, that is the one arising from product manifolds in which a factor is an Euclidean space and the other one is compact. The problem of determining the isoperimetric profile even in this specific class of Riemannian manifolds is difficult (see \cite{Ruiz:Vazquez:2020} and references therein). In our examples, if $N$ is the topological dimension of the product manifold and $k<N$ its dimension at infinity, one has \eqref{eq:examp_pro_h} with $\lambda=(N-1)/N$ and $\mu=(k-1)/k$; a lengthy but elementary explicit computation yields in this case that the $\sup$ defining $B_{1}$ in \eqref{eq:B1} is attained as $s\to+\infty$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:examp_pro_B1}
B_{1}
=
C_{N}^{-1}
\left[
\frac{N-p}{N}
\right]^{(N-p)/(Np)}
\,
\left[
\frac{k}{k-p}
\right]^{(N-1)/N}
\,
(p-1)^{(p-1)/p}
\,.
\end{equation}
However, note that in the embedding \eqref{eq:sobol_n} the constants $a$ and $b$ enter the estimate through $w$; see \eqref{eq:examp_minerbe} below.
\\
In \cite{Pedrosa:Ritore:1999} it is considered the case of the product $S^{1}_{r}\times\numberspacefont{R}^{k}$, where $S^{1}_{r}$ is the circle of radius $r>0$; here $N=k+1$ and $2\le k\le 7$; the isoperimetric profile, that is the best possible $h$ in \eqref{eq:isoper_a}, is determined exactly in the form \eqref{eq:examp_pro_h}. In \cite{Ruiz:Vazquez:2020} the authors investigate quantitatively the case of $T^{m}\times\numberspacefont{R}^{k}$, $2\le k\le 7-m$, where $T^{m}$ is the $m$-dimensional flat torus; here of course $N=m+k$; in the case $m=2$ they obtain the exact profile \eqref{eq:examp_pro_h} for, respectively, small enough and large enough $s$; however the profile is quantitatively estimated for all $s$.
\\
In \cite{Ritore:Vernadakis:2017} it is considered the more general product manifold given by $M_{m}\times \numberspacefont{R}^{k}$, where $M_{m}$ is an $m$-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold without boundary and $k\ge 1$; let here $N=m+k$. It is proved that
the isoperimetric profile $h$ is given as in \eqref{eq:examp_pro_h}, but only the constant $b$ is determined exactly, as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:examp_pro_b}
b
=
k(\omega_{k}H^{m}(M_{m}))^{1/k}
\,,
\end{equation}
where $H^{m}$ denotes the $m$-dimensional Hausdorff measure.
\\
In all the cases just discussed, we may select $C_{N}=a$ in the definition of $w$, so that the constant $B_{1}$ is given by \eqref{eq:examp_pro_B1} and the (Minerbe type)
inequality \eqref{eq:sobol_n} reads
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:examp_minerbe}
\left(
\int_{M_{m}\times\numberspacefont{R}^{k}}
\abs{ u}^{p^{*}}
\min\left\{ 1,\frac{b}{a}V(d(x))^{-\frac{m}{k(m+k)}}\right\}^{p^{*}}
\,\@di\mu
\right)^{1/p^{*}}
\\
\le
C_{1}\left(
\int_{M_{m}\times\numberspacefont{R}^{k}}
\abs{ \operatorname{\nabla} u}^{p}
\,\@di\mu
\right)^{1/p}
\,,
\quad
p<k
\,.
\end{multline}
The last assumption $p<k$ is needed to guarantee the $p$-hyperbolicity \eqref{eq:hyper}.
\subsubsection{Manifolds with bounded geometry.}
\label{s:examp_bdd}
Passing to a more general setting, following \cite[p.~136-137]{ChavelII}, let $M_{N}$ be an $N$-dimensional complete
Riemannian manifold with bounded geometry, that is such that its Ricci curvature is bounded below by a negative constant, and its injectivity radius is bounded below by a positive constant. For any $N\ge \nu>1$, $\rho>0$ define
the isoperimetric function
\begin{equation*}
J_{\nu,\rho}(M_{N})
:=
\inf_{\Omega}
\frac{\abs{\partial\Omega}_{N-1}}{V(\Omega)^{1-1/\nu}}
\,,
\end{equation*}
where $\Omega$ varies over the open submanifolds of $M_{N}$ with
compact closure, $C^{\infty}$ boundary and containing a closed metric disk of radius
$\rho$. Then $J_{\nu,\rho}(M_{N})>0$ if and
only if there exists $v_{0}>0$ and $\theta>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:examp_bdd_i}
\abs{\partial\Omega}_{N-1}
\ge
\theta
\begin{cases}
V(\Omega)^{1-1/N}
\,,
&\qquad
V(\Omega)\le v_{0}
\,,
\\
V(\Omega)^{1-1/\nu}
\,,
&\qquad
V(\Omega)\ge v_{0}
\,.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Select next $C_{N}=\theta$ in the definition of $w$. Then in \eqref{eq:examp_a} we can
choose $\alpha=(\nu-1)/\nu$ and we have from \eqref{eq:examp_c1}
\begin{equation*}
C_{1}
\le
\theta^{-1}
\left[
\frac{N-p}{N}
\right]^{1/p^{*}}
\frac{(p-1)^{(p-1)/p}}{(\alpha p-p+1)^{(N-1)/N}}
k_{p^{*},p}
\,,
\end{equation*}
where $p^{\ast}=Np/(N-p)$.
\subsubsection{The case of power-like $h$.}
\label{s:examp_pw}
Let us consider a case where the finiteness of $B_{1}$ in \eqref{eq:B1} can be proved easily, but still with a majorization which is sharp in the Euclidean case. That is we assume that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:examp_a
\frac{t^{\alpha}}{h(t)}
\quad
\text{is nonincreasing for $t>0$,}
\end{equation}
where $(p-1)/p<\alpha\le(N-1)/N$; for example \eqref{eq:examp_a} holds for $h(s)=\gamma s^{k}[\ln(e+s)]^{z}$ for suitable $k$, $z$ for large $s$. Then we may estimate $B_{1}$ and
$B_{2}$ from above as follows.
According to definition \eqref{eq:B1}, with an obvious definition of $J_{1}(s)$, $J_{2}(s)$,
\begin{equation*}
B_{1}
=
\sup_{s>0}
J_{1}(s)^{1/p^{\ast}}
J_{2}(s)^{(p-1)/p}
\,.
\end{equation*}
Let us estimate $J_{1}$ and $J_{2}$; by means of the change of
variable $\tau=sy$, using also \eqref{eq:examp_a}, we have
\begin{multline*}
J_{1}
=
C_{N}^{-p^{*}}
s
\int_{0}^{1}
\left(
\frac{( sy)^{\alpha} h(sy)}{( sy)^{\alpha}( sy)^{(N-1)/N}}
\right)^{p^{*}}
\,\@di y
\le
\\
C_{N}^{-p^{*}}
s
\left(
\frac{h(s)}{s^{(N-1)/N}}
\right)^{p^{*}}
\int_{0}^{1}
y^{-\left( \frac{N-1}{N}-\alpha\right)p^{*}}
\,\@di y
=
\frac{C_{N}^{-p^{*}}
\left( N-p\right) }{N(\alpha p-p+1)}
s
\left(
\frac{h(s)}{s^{(N-1)/N}}
\right)^{p^{*}}
\,.
\end{multline*}
Analogously,
\begin{multline*}
J_{2}=s
\int_{1}^{\infty}
\frac{( sy)^{\alpha p/(p-1)}}{( sy)^{\alpha p/(p-1)}h(sy)^{p/(p-1)}}
\,\@di y
\le
s
\frac{1}{h(s)^{p/(p-1)}}
\int_{1}^{\infty}
\frac{\,\@di y}{y^{\alpha p/(p-1)}}
=
\\
\frac{p-1}{(\alpha p-p+1)}
\frac{s}{h(s)^{p/(p-1)}}
\,.
\end{multline*}
Finally, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:examp_c1
B_{1}
\le
C_{N}^{-1}
\left[
\frac{N-p}{N}
\right]^{1/p^{*}}
\frac{(p-1)^{(p-1)/p}}{(\alpha p-p+1)^{(N-1)/N}}
\,,
\end{equation}
provided \eqref{eq:examp_a} holds. In particular, if $\alpha=(N-1)/N$, then
\begin{equation*}
B_{1}
\le
C_{N}^{-1}
\left[
\frac{N(p-1)}{N-p}
\right]^{(p-1)/p}
\,,
\end{equation*}
leading to an estimate for the constant $C_{1}$ in \eqref{eq:sobol_n} which is in fact is the well known best constant in Sobolev inequality.
Let us calculate next $B_{2}$ in the Euclidean case where $h(\tau)=C_{N}\tau^{(N-1)/N}$, and $V(\tau)=\omega_{N}\tau^{N}$; an elementary calculation of the two integrals in the definition \eqref{eq:B2} of $B_{2}$ gives in this case $B_{2}=(p-1)^{(p-1)/p}/(N-p)$.
Therefore, in \eqref{eq:sobol_nn} we get $C_{2}=[p/(N-p)]^{p}$ which is the well known sharp constant in
the Euclidean Hardy inequality.
Let us continue with a more general case. Let us assume, besides \eqref{eq:examp_a}, that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:examp_b
h(s)
\ge
c_{0}
\frac{s}{V^{(-1)}(s)}
\,,
\quad
\text{for all $s>A$,}
\end{equation}
for some given constants $A$, $c_{0}>0$.
Since the metric is locally (i.e., for small $\tau$) Euclidean, we have that for a suitable constant $c_{1}$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:examp_i}
\frac{1}{V^{(-1)}(\tau)}
\le
c_{1}
\frac{h(\tau)}{\tau}
\,,
\qquad
0<\tau\le A
\,.
\end{equation}
For $\tau>A$ from \eqref{eq:examp_b} we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:examp_ii}
\frac{1}{ V^{(-1)}(\tau)^{p}}
\le
c_{0}^{-p}
\frac{h(\tau)^{p}}{\tau^{p}}
\,.
\end{equation}
Therefore integrating and exploiting as above \eqref{eq:examp_a}, we have for all $s>0$
\begin{equation*}
\int_{0}^{s}
\frac{1}{ V^{(-1)}(\tau)^{p}}
\,\@di\tau
\le
\max(c_{1}^{p},c_{0}^{-p})
\int_{0}^{s}
\frac{h(\tau)^{p}}{\tau^{p}}
\,\@di\tau
\le
\frac{\max(c_{1}^{p},c_{0}^{-p})}{\alpha p-p+1}
\frac{h(s)^{p}}{s^{p-1}}
\,,
\end{equation*}
where we have applied in the first inequality \eqref{eq:examp_i} and \eqref{eq:examp_ii}.
Then, on using again the estimate for the second factor below which we have proved above, we find
\begin{equation*}
\left(
\int_{0}^{s}
\frac{1}{V^{(-1)}(\tau)^{p}}
\,\@di\tau
\right)^{1/p}
\left(
\int_{s}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{h(\tau)^{\frac{p}{p-1}}}
\,\@di\tau
\right)^{p-1}
\le
\max(c_{1},c_{0}^{-1})
\frac{(p-1)^{(p-1)/p}}{\alpha p-p+1}
\,.
\end{equation*}
Thus the constant in \eqref{eq:sobol_nn} is estimated under the present assumptions by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:examp_j
C_{2}
\le
\left[
\frac{p\max(c_{1},c_{0}^{-1})}{\alpha p-p+1}
\right]^{p}
\,.
\end{equation}
\section{The one-dimensional Hardy type inequality.}
\label{s:hardy}
The next statement, which
is a generalized Bliss \cite{Bliss:1930} inequality, is an important tool in our proof of
Theorem~\ref{t:sobol} and was proven in \cite{Li:Mao:2020} (see also \cite{Chen:2015})
\begin{theorem}[\cite{Li:Mao:2020}]
\label{t:prel_lm}
Let $1< p\le q <\infty$, $\mu$ and $\nu$
be two $\sigma$-finite Borel measures on $\numberspacefont{R}$. Set
\begin{equation*}
B
=
\sup_{x\in \numberspacefont{R}}
\nu((-\infty,x])^{(p-1)/p}
\mu([x,+\infty))^{1/q}
\,.
\end{equation*}
If $B<+\infty$ for all $f:\numberspacefont{R}\to \numberspacefont{R}$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prel_lm_n
\left[
\int_{\numberspacefont{R}}
\Abs{
\int_{-\infty}^{x}
f(y)
\,\@di\nu_{y}
}^{q}
\,\@di\mu_{x}
\right]^{1/q}
\le
A
\left[
\int_{\numberspacefont{R}}
\abs{f(x)}^{p}
\,\@di\nu_{x}
\right]^{1/p}
\,,
\end{equation}
for an optimal constant $A$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prel_lm_nn
B\le A\le k_{q,p}B
\,,
\end{equation}
with $k_{q,p}$ defined in \eqref{eq:kqp}.
\end{theorem}
Note that \eqref{eq:prel_lm_n} can be seen as a generalized Hardy type inequality (see \cite{Mazja:ss,Opic:Kufner:hardy}).
It was shown in \cite{Chen:2015}, see also \cite{Li:Mao:2020}, that the estimate of $A$ in \eqref{eq:prel_lm_nn} is sharp.
We draw from Theorem~\ref{t:prel_lm} the following consequences, by means of standard changes of variables.
\begin{corollary}
\label{co:prel_lmm}
Let $1< p\le q <\infty$, $\mu$ and $\nu$
be two $\sigma$-finite Borel measures on $[0,+\infty)$. Set
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prel_lmm_nn
\widetilde B
=
\sup_{x\ge 0}
\nu([x,\infty))^{(p-1)/p}
\mu([0,x]))^{1/q}
\,.
\end{equation}
If $\widetilde B<+\infty$ for all $f:[0,+\infty)\to \numberspacefont{R}$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prel_lmm_n
\left[
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\Abs{
\int_{x}^{\infty}
f(y)
\,\@di\nu_{y}
}^{q}
\,\@di\mu_{x}
\right]^{1/q}
\le
A
\left[
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\abs{ f(x)}^{p}
\,\@di\nu_{x}
\right]^{1/p}
\,,
\end{equation}
for an optimal constant $A$ such that $\widetilde B \le A\le k_{q,p}\widetilde B$.
\\
In particular, choosing
\begin{equation*}
q
=
p^{*}
\,,
\qquad
\,\@di\nu_{y}
=
\frac{dy}{h(y)^{p/(p-1)}}
\qquad
\,\@di\mu_{x}
=
\left(
\frac{h(x)}{C_{N}x^{(N-1)/N}}
\right)^{p^{*}}
\,\@di x
\,,
\end{equation*}
we obtain from \eqref{eq:prel_lmm_n} that
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:prel_lmm_m
\left[
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\Abs{
\int_{x}^{\infty}
f(y)
\frac{\,\@di y}{h(y)^{p/(p-1)}}
}^{p^{*}}
\left(
\frac{h(x)}{C_{N}x^{(N-1)/N}}
\right)^{p^{*}}
\,\@di x
\right]^{1/p^{*}}
\\
\le
A
\left[
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\abs{ f(x)}^{p}
\frac{\,\@di x}{h(x)^{p/(p-1)}}
\right]^{1/p}
\,,
\end{multline}
provided \eqref{eq:B1} holds true and we select $\widetilde B=B_{1}$. Next, choosing
\begin{equation*}
q=p
\,,
\quad
\,\@di\nu_{y}
=
\frac{\,\@di y}{h(y)^{p/(p-1)}}
\,,
\quad
\,\@di\mu_{x}
=
\frac{\,\@di x}{(V^{(-1)}(x))^{p}}
\,,
\end{equation*}
we have
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:prel_lmm_mm
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\Abs{
\int_{x}^{\infty}
f(y)
\frac{\,\@di y}{h(y)^{p/(p-1)}}
}^{p}
\left(
\frac{1}{V^{(-1)}(x)}
\right)^{p}
\,\@di x
\\
\le
A^{p}
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\abs{ f(x)}^{p}
\frac{\,\@di x}{h(x)^{p/(p-1)}}
\,,
\end{multline}
provided \eqref{eq:B2} holds true and we select $\widetilde B=B_{2}$.
\end{corollary}
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{t:sobol} and of Corollary~\ref{co:hsobol}.}
\label{s:p_sobol}
\subsection{Preliminaries}\label{s:prel}
In what follows we will use some notions from geometrical measure theory.
Let $u$ be a measurable function defined on $M$. Denote
\begin{equation*}
\nu(t):=
\Abs{
\{ x\in M \mid
\abs{ u} >t\}
}
\,.
\end{equation*}
and let $u^{*}(s)$ be the decreasing rearrangement of $u$ defined on
$[ 0,\infty]$ as, roughly speaking, the generalized inverse to its distributional function, and more exactly as
\begin{equation*}
u^{*}(0)=\sup\abs{ u}
\,,
\qquad
u^{*}(s)=\inf\{ t\mid\nu(t)<s\}
\,.
\end{equation*}
Let us recall some basic facts that we are going to use.
i) Cavalieri's principle, which is consequence of equimeasurability of sets $\{
\abs{u} >t\}$ and $\{u^{*}(s)>t\}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prel_cav
\int_{M}
\abs{u}^{p}
\,\@di\mu
=
\int_{0}^{\infty}
u^{\ast}(s)^{p}
\,\@di s
\,.
\end{equation}
ii) Hardy-Littlewood inequality
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prel_hl
\int_{M}
uv
\,\@di\mu
\le
\int_{0}^{\infty}
u^{*}(s)v^{*}(s)
\,\@di s
\,.
\end{equation}
iii) Federer co-area formula (we refer the reader to \cite{Mazja:ss} in the Euclidean setting
and \cite{AubinNPRG} for manifolds). For any smooth enough functions $v$ and
$u$ defined on $M$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prel_fed
\int_{M}
v\abs{\operatorname{\nabla} u}
\,\@di\mu
=
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\,\@di\tau
\int_{\abs{ u} =\tau}
v(x)
\,\@di s_{N-1}
\,.
\end{equation}
iv) Polya-Szeg\"{o} inequality. Assume that $M$ satisfies the $h$
isoperimetric inequality \eqref{eq:isoper_a}. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prel_ps
\int_{0}^{\infty}
h(s)^{p}
\left( -\der{u^{*}}{s}(s)\right)^{p}
\,\@di s
\le
\int_{M}
\abs{\operatorname{\nabla} u}^{p}
\,\@di\mu
\,.
\end{equation}
We give a short proof of \eqref{eq:prel_ps}, for the readers's convenience.
First note that setting in \eqref{eq:prel_fed} $v=1$, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prel_ps_i
P(t):=
\Abs{
\{ \abs{ u} >t\}
}_{N-1}
=
-
\der{}{t}
\int_{\abs{ u} >t}
\abs{ \operatorname{\nabla} u}
\,\@di\mu
\,.
\end{equation}
Next, on applying H\"{o}lder inequality we obtain
\begin{multline*}
\frac{1}{\varepsilon}
\int_{t<\abs{u}\le t+\varepsilon}
\abs{\operatorname{\nabla} u}
\,\@di\mu
\le
\left(
\frac{1}{\varepsilon}
\int_{t<\abs{ u} \le t+\varepsilon}
\abs{\operatorname{\nabla} u}^{p}
\,\@di\mu
\right)^{1/p}
\\
\left(
\frac{1}{\varepsilon}
\Abs{
\{ t<\abs{ u} \le t+\varepsilon\}
}
\right)^{(p-1)/p}
\,.
\end{multline*}
Letting $\varepsilon\to 0$ in this inequality and noting that for $q\ge 1$
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}
\frac{1}{\varepsilon}
\int_{t<\abs{u} \le t+\varepsilon}
\abs{\operatorname{\nabla} u}^{q}
\,\@di\mu
=
-
\der{}{t}
\int_{t<\abs{ u} }
\abs{\operatorname{\nabla} u}^{q}
\,\@di\mu
\,,
\end{equation*}
and by using also \eqref{eq:prel_ps_i} we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prel_ps_ii
P(t)
\le
\left(
-
\der{}{t}
\int_{t<\abs{ u}}
\abs{\operatorname{\nabla} u}^{p}
\,\@di\mu
\right)^{1/p}
\left(
-
\der{}{t}
\nu(t)
\right)^{(p-1)/p}
\,.
\end{equation}
Using now \eqref{eq:isoper_a}, we get from \eqref{eq:prel_ps_ii}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prel_ps_iii
h(\nu(t))^{p}
\left(
-
\der{}{t}
\nu(t)
\right)^{-(p-1)}
\le
-
\der{}{t}
\int_{t<\abs{ u} }
\abs{\operatorname{\nabla} u}^{p}
\,\@di\mu
\,.
\end{equation}
Set $\nu(t)=s$, then $t=u^{*}(s)$, $\nu_{t}(t)=(u_{s}^{*}(s))^{-1}$ a.e.,
and therefore from \eqref{eq:prel_ps_iii} we get
\begin{equation*}
h(s)^{p}
\left(
-
\der{}{s}
u^{*}(s)
\right)^{p}
\le
\der{}{s}
\int_{\abs{u} >u^{*}(s)}
\abs{\operatorname{\nabla} u}^{p}
\,\@di\mu
\,.
\end{equation*}
Integrating the last inequality between $0$ and $\infty$, we arrive at \eqref{eq:prel_ps}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{t:sobol}]
By definition of
decreasing rearrangement we have
\begin{equation*}
\left(
\int_{M}
u^{*}(s)^{p^{*}}
\big(
w(V(d(x)))^{-p^{*}}
\big)^{*}
\,\@di s
\right)^{1/p^{*}}
=
\left(
\int_{M}
u^{*}(s)^{p^{*}}
w(s)^{-p^{*}}
\,\@di s
\right)^{1/p^{*}}
\,.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, by the Hardy-Littlewood inequality we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:p_sobol_i
\left(
\int_{M}
\abs{ u}^{p^{*}}
w(V(d(x)))^{-p^{*}}
\,\@di\mu
\right)^{1/p^{*}}
\le
\left(
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\big[ u^{*}(s)\big]^{p^{*}}
w(s)^{-p^{*}}
\,\@di s
\right)^{1/p^{*}}
\,.
\end{equation}
Next, by the Polya-Szeg\"{o} principle
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:p_sobol_ii
\left(
\int_{M}
\abs{ \operatorname{\nabla} u}^{p}
\,\@di\mu
\right)^{1/p}
\ge
\left(
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\big[ -u_{s}^{*}(s)\big]^{p^{*}}
h(s)^{p}
\,\@di s
\right)^{1/p}
\,.
\end{equation}
Combining now \eqref{eq:p_sobol_i} and \eqref{eq:p_sobol_ii}, we deduce
\begin{equation*}
\frac{
\left(
\int_{M}
\abs{ \operatorname{\nabla} u}^{p}
\,\@di\mu
\right)^{1/p}
}{
\left(
\int_{M}
\abs{ u}^{p^{*}}
w(V(d(x)))^{-p^{*}}
\,\@di\mu
\right)^{1/p^{*}}}
\ge
\frac{
\left(
\int_{0}^{\infty}
[ -u_{s}^{*}(s)]^{p}
h(s)^{p}
\,\@di s
\right)^{1/p}
}{
\left(
\int_{0}^{\infty}
[ u^{*}(s)]^{p^{*}}
w(s)^{-p^{*}}
\,\@di s
\right)^{1/p^{*}}
}
\,.
\end{equation*}
In order to apply \eqref{eq:prel_lmm_m} let
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:p_sobol_k}
q=p^{*}
\,,
\quad
u^{*}(s)
=
\int_{s}^{+\infty}
f(y)
\frac{\,\@di y}{h(y)^{p/(p-1)}}
\,,
\\
\label{eq:p_sobol_kk}
\text{i.e.,}
\quad
f(s)
=
-u_{s}^{*}(s)
h(s)^{p/(p-1)}
\,.
\end{gather}
Then \eqref{eq:prel_lmm_m} implies the inequality
\begin{equation*}
\left(
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\big[ u^{*}(s)\big]^{p^{*}}
w(s)^{-p^{*}}
\,\@di s
\right)^{1/p^{*}}
\le
A
\left(
\int_{0}^{\infty}
(-u_{s}^{*}(s))^{p}
h(s)^{p}
\,\@di s
\right)^{1/p}
\,,
\end{equation*}
that is the desired result \eqref{eq:sobol_n}, when we replace the best constant $A$ with its sharp estimate as in Section~\ref{s:hardy}.
\\
Let us prove \eqref{eq:sobol_nn} proceeding in the same way.
Note that $(1/d(\cdot)^{p})^{*}(s)=(V^{(-1)}(s))^{-p}$; then
we have by
the Hardy-Littlewood inequality that
\begin{equation*}
\int_{M}
\frac{\abs{ u}^{p}}{d(x)^{p}}
\,\@di\mu
\le
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\big( u^{*}(\tau)\big)^{p}
(1/d(\cdot)^{p})^{*}(\tau)
\,\@di\tau
=
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\frac{\left( u^{*}(\tau)\right)^{p}\,\@di\tau}{\left( V^{(-1)}(\tau)\right)^{p}}
\,.
\end{equation*}
On selecting $f$ as in \eqref{eq:p_sobol_k}--\eqref{eq:p_sobol_kk},
we have from \eqref{eq:prel_lmm_mm} that
\begin{equation*}
\int_{0}^{\infty}
\frac{( u^{*}(\tau))^{p}\,\@di\tau}{( V^{(-1)}(\tau))^{p}}
\le
A^{p}
\int_{0}^{\infty}
h(\tau)^{p}
\left( -u_{\tau}^{*}(\tau)\right)^{p}
\,\@di\tau
\,.
\end{equation*}
Finally, by making use of the Polya-Szeg\"{o} inequality \eqref{eq:prel_ps} we arrive at \eqref{eq:sobol_nn}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{co:hsobol}]
Indeed, on applying H\"{o}lder inequality (splitting the exponent of $\abs{u}$ as $q+p^{*}(q)-q$) we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\int\limits_{M}
\frac{\abs{ u}^{p^{*}(q)}}{d(x)^{q}}
w(V(d(x)))^{-(p^{*}(q)-q)}
\,\@di \mu
\\
&\quad
\le
\left(
\int\limits_{M}
\frac{\abs{ u}^{p}}{d(x)^{p}}
\,\@di\mu
\right)^{q/p}
\left(
\int\limits_{M}
\abs{u}^{p^{*}}
w(V(d(x)))^{-p^{*}}
\,\@di\mu
\right)^{(p-q)/p}
\\
&\quad\le
C_{1}^{N(p-q)/(N-p)}
C_{2}^{q/p}\left(
\int\limits_{M}
\abs{\operatorname{\nabla} u}^{p}
\,\@di\mu
\right)^{(N-q)/(N-p)}
\,,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where in last inequality we used \eqref{eq:sobol_n}, \eqref{eq:sobol_nn}.
\end{proof}
\def$'${$'$}
|
\section{Solution Applications}
The presented SHRQ solution can be used to build secure solutions around following queries:
\begin{enumerate}[a.]
\item Range Queries: Range queries over a column can be of two types:
\begin{enumerate}[i.]
\item Close Range : These queries involve selection of values between close range $[Q_L,Q_R]$ like $Q_L < Col <Q_R$.
\item Open Range: These queries involve selection of values w.r.t. open range $[Q_L,\infty)$ or $(-\infty,Q_R,]$ like $Q_L < Col$ or $Col < Q_R$. Given the statistical information of Max, Min w.r.t. each column the Open range queries can be converted to close range queries like $Q_L < Col \equiv Q_L < Col < Col_{Max}$ and $Col < Q_R \equiv Q_{Min} < Col < Q_R$
\end{enumerate}
It can be observed that SHRQ w.r.t. single dimension $(d=1)$ becomes a range query.
Given any range query of form $[Q_L,Q_R]$ w.r.t. $Col$ $i$, it can be converted to SHRQ query with center $q_i=(Q_L+Q_R)/2$ and Radius $R=(Q_R-Q_L)/2$. To incorporate the support for range queries Data Component and Query Component is required to be modified as following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Data Component : $\{m_1,\cdots,m_n,1,||m_1||^2\cdots,||m_n||^2\}$
\item Query Component (w.r.t. $i^{th} Col$) : $\{0_1,\cdots,0_{i-1}, 2q_i,0_{i+1}\\\cdots,0_n,R^2-||q_i||^2,0_1,\cdots,0_{i-1},-1_i,0_{i+1}\cdots,0_n\}$
\end{enumerate}
\item Circular Range Queries (CRQ): CRQ solution is the direct application of the SHRQ. The SHRQ solution w.r.t. 2 dimensional data is solution to CRQ. Unlike \cite{CRQ1,CRQ2} where the query generation time is proportional to the solution space, in SHRQ query phase just involve the center point and radius as input to get the encrypted query component. The CRQ query w.r.t. large radius can be handled in the similar way by considering the big circle as set of circular disks and the data points are evaluated by using CheckIfInside function in the varying euclidean spaces.
\item Minimum Bounded Rectangle (MBR): Any polygon or polyhedron can be converted to simple MBR by computing minimum and maximum reach of the respective shape in each dimension. The solution of MBR query consists of solving range queries w.r.t. each dimension of MBR. The data component which satisfies all the range queries is returned as solution of the MBR region. Queries w.r.t. random shape polygon/polyhedrons can be answered using the MBR queries. However such queries will require a second stage filtration on the result points by the client to check if the point is lying inside the polygon.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Background}
In this section, we are going to present the bilinear mapping based background art, that is used to build the \emph{SHRQ} solution. Specifically, we give brief overview of bilinear groups of composite order in section \ref{CompositeOrder}. In section \ref{BGN} and \ref{modified_bgn}, we first give a background on existing 2DNF homomorphic encryption scheme and then propose the modified encryption scheme with security that is used by our \emph{SHRQ} protocols.
\subsection{Bilinear Groups of Composite Order } \label{CompositeOrder}
Following, we give a brief overview of the composite order finite groups supporting bilinear mapping operations, first introduced in \cite{boneh2005evaluating}. In our scheme, we use \emph{bilinear groups} of composite order, where order is of the size of product of two prime numbers. \\
Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a group generating algorithm that takes a security parameter $1^\lambda$ and outputs a tuple $(q_1,q_2,\mathbb{G,G}_T,e)$ where $q_1,q_2$ are distinct prime numbers, $\mathbb{G,G}_T$ are cyclic groups of order $N = q_1\times q_2$, and a pairing map: $e : \mathbb{G \times G \rightarrow G}_T$, which satisfies following bilinear properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Bilinear : $\forall x,y \in \mathbb{G}, \forall a,b \in \mathbb{Z}, e(x^a,y^b) = e(x,y)^{ab}$
\item Non-degeneracy : $\exists g \in \mathbb{G}$ s.t. $e(g,g)$ has an order of $N$ in $\mathbb{G}$
\item Efficiency : Group operations in $\mathbb{G,G}_T$ and computation of pairing map $e$ can be done efficiently.
\end{enumerate}
Since $\mathbb{G}$ is a composite order group, with order of $q_1\times q_2$, there will exist subgroups of order $q_1 \text{ and } q_2$. We denote such subgroups as $\mathbb{G}_{q_1}$ and $\mathbb{G}_{q_2}$. We will also use the following \emph{mathematical facts} related to bilinear groups of composite order in the scheme construction :
\begin{itemize}
\item $\forall x \in \mathbb{G}_{q_1}, \forall y \in \mathbb{G}_{q_2}, e(x,y)=1 $.
\item $\forall x,y \in \mathbb{G}$ s.t. $x=x_{q_1}x_{q_2}$, $y=y_{q_1}y_{q_2}$ the mapping $e(x,y) = e(x_{q_1},y_{q_1})e(x_{q_2},y_{q_2})$ holds when $x_{q_1}, y_{q_1}\in \mathbb{G}_{q_1}$ and $x_{q_2}, y_{q_2}\in \mathbb{G}_{q_2}$.
\end{itemize}
\subsection[BGN Cryptosystem]{BGN Encryption Scheme \cite{boneh2005evaluating}}\label{BGN}
This encryption scheme $(\mathcal{E}_{BGN})$ supports 2DNF homomorphic computation over the ciphertext i.e. it supports single multiplication operation and unlimited subsequent additions over encrypted ciphertext. The 2DNF homomorphic property also helps in \emph{Dot Product} evaluation.
The Encryption protocols defined under $\mathcal{E}_{BGN}$ are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item KeyGen : Given a security parameter $1^\lambda$, $\mathcal{G}$ generates a tuple $(q_1,q_2,\mathbb{G,G}_T,e)$.
Generate two random generators $g,u$ from group $\mathbb{G}$, and set $h = u^{q_2}$, here $h$ would be a generator of subgroup of $\mathbb{G}_{q_1}$. Public Key, $\mathcal{PK} = \{{N,\mathbb{G,G}_T,e,g,h}\}$ and Secret Key, $\mathcal{SK} = \{q_1\}$.
\item Enc$(\mathcal{PK},m)$ : Pick a random element $r \in \mathbb{Z}_N$ and compute ciphertext $C = g^mh^r$.
\item Dec$(\mathcal{SK},C)$ : The ciphertext $C$ could belong to $\mathbb{G}$ or $\mathbb{G}_T$. For decryption, DO first computes modular exponentiation of ciphertext with $\mathcal{SK}$, i.e. $(C)^{q_1} = (g^mh^r)^{q_1} = (g^m)^{q_1}$ and then have to compute the costly discrete log of $(g^m)^{q_1}$ w.r.t. $q_1$.
\end{itemize}
Computation of plaintext message from decryption protocol value, Dec$(\mathcal{SK},C)$ can be done by following ways:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Pollard's lambda\cite{boneh2005evaluating}: The complexity of this method is computationally high, of the order of $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{T})$ where $T$ is the message space, which is directly proportional to message space
\item Maintain a \emph{lookup table}, mapping plaintext messages to decryption protocol value, Dec$(\mathcal{SK},C)$. This table is pre-computed and stored in the database for faster decryption. Since the table is stored in database, it is bounded by the storage space and thus can store limited set of values from the message space.
\end{enumerate}
Both the above points suggest that either the scheme $\mathcal{E}_{BGN}$ works efficiently when the message space is small, or the underlying system should use precomputed \emph{lookup table}. The challenge of using the lookup table lies in the fact of limited storage space. Thus requiring a design decision on what values to store or a strategy for optimum use of table for values that are not in table
The homomorphic properties of the scheme can be observed as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Multiplication: Given the cipher text $C_1,C_2 \in \mathbb{G}$ w.r.t. messages $m_1,m_2$. One time multiplication can be supported using bilinear mapping as following
\begin{align*}
C &= e(C_1,C_2)=e(g^{m_1}h^{r_1},g^{m_2}h^{r_2})\\
&=e(g,g)^{m_1m_2}.e(g,h)^{m_1r_2+m_2r_1+\alpha q_2r_1r_2}\\
&=g_1^{m_1m_2}h_1^{r'} \in \mathbb{G}_T
\end{align*}
\item Addition : Clearly it can be observed that the cipher texts $C_1,C_2 \in \{ \mathbb{G}\text{ or }\mathbb{G}_T\}$ supports addition by using cyclic multiplicative operation in both the groups.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Component Encryption Scheme(CES)}\label{modified_bgn}
As mentioned in section \ref{objective}, our system involves computation w.r.t. \emph{Data Component} and \emph{Query Component}.
Therefore at first, every $d$ dimensional data (\emph{data point} or \emph{query point}) is first converted to $d+2$ dimensional \emph{Component} (\emph{Data Component} or \emph{Query Component}).
For encryption of \emph{Data Component} and \emph{Query Component} as whole, we propose the \emph{Component Encryption Scheme} $(\mathcal{E}_{CES})$ which maintains the necessary computation support over 2DNF formula over finite dimensional vector.
Following are the various protocols involved in $\mathcal{E}_{CES}$:
\begin{itemize}
\item KeyGen : Call the group generating algorithm with security parameter $1^\lambda$ which generates the parameters $\{q_1,q_2,\mathbb{G,G}_T,e\}$. Here, $q_1,q_2$ are prime numbers and $N=q_1\times q_2$ is the order of composite groups $\mathbb{G,G}_T$. Further we generate following parameters :
\begin{enumerate}[a.]
\item Like $\mathcal{E}_{BGN}$ Cryptosystem, generate the parameters $g,h$ and then set another parameter $s = g^{q_1}$. Both $s$ and $h$, are elements of subgroups $\mathbb{G}_{q_1}$ and $\mathbb{G}_{q_2}$ respectively of group $\mathbb{G}$.
\item Generate two $(d+2)$ size random vectors $A,B$ s.t. dot product, $A.B^T = \text{\LARGE\calligra{r}}.q_1$. Here,{ \LARGE\calligra r} is a random integer in $Z_N$.
\end{enumerate}
Parameters $\{N,\mathbb{G,G}_T,e\}$ are shared with cloud and all other information is kept secret.
\item TupleEncryption: This is a randomized protocol. Select a random integer$\text{ \LARGE\calligra r}_m \in Z_N$. And encrypt each attribute of the data component as:
\begin{equation*}
m'_i =s^{m_i}h^{\text{\large\calligra r}_mA_i} \text{ ,where } i \in [0,n+2]
\end{equation*}
\item QueryEncryption: This procedure generates encryption of query component. DO choses three random integers $\alpha,\beta, \text{\LARGE\calligra r}_q \in Z_N$ and encrypts the Query Component as below:
\begin{equation*}
q'_i =
\begin{cases}
s^{(q_i + \beta).\alpha}h^{\text{\large\calligra r}_qB_i} & \text{if }i=n+1\\
s^{q_i. \alpha}h^{\text{\large\calligra r}_qB_i}&\text{otherwise}\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{Security}~\\
The proposed scheme $\mathcal{E}_{CES}$ varies from the $\mathcal{E}_{BGN}$ encryption scheme by following ways:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[A.] \emph{Parameter sharing is more restrictive. While BGN shares $\{N,\mathbb{G,G}_T,e,g,h\}$ as public key, the proposed system only shares $\{N,\mathbb{G,G}_T,e\}$ as computation parameters.}
\item[B.] \emph{The cipher text format of $\mathcal{E}_{BGN}$ system is of form $g^mh^r$, while $\mathcal{E}_{CES}$ encrypts data and query attributes seperately with both having ciphertext format as $s^{x_i}h^{r.Y_i}$.}
\end{enumerate}
From security stand point w.r.t. point A, it can be generalized that \emph{
the security of encryption scheme with more restriction on public parameters can not be less than the encryption scheme with more parameters.}
For point B, we prove the security of $\mathcal{E}_{CES}$ using semantic security assumption of $\mathcal{E}_{BGN}$ as base. We refer reader to section 3.2 of \cite{boneh2005evaluating} for detailed security understanding of $\mathcal{E}_{BGN}$.
In brief, the semantic security claim of $\mathcal{E}_{BGN}$ states that : \emph{Given a ciphertext $m_b'$ of one of the messages, $m_0$ or $m_1$, it is computationally hard for any polynomial time adversary to identify that if $m_b'$ is encryption of $m_0$ or $m_1$}.
We prove that if $\mathcal{E}_{CES}$ is not secure then so would be $\mathcal{E}_{BGN}$, which goes against the base assumption of semantic securty of $\mathcal{E}_{BGN}$. And since the base assumption is known to be \emph{True}, the proposition that \emph{``$\mathcal{E}_{CES}$ is not secure''} should be \emph{False}.
For proof, we assume another transitive system $(\mathcal{E}_{TRANS})$ that produces cipher text of form $s^m.h^r$ w.r.t. $\mathcal{E}_{BGN}$.
Security is proven by following implication theorems.
\begin{equation*}
Security(\mathcal{E}_{BGN}) \implies Security(\mathcal{E}_{TRANS}) \implies Security(\mathcal{E}_{CES})
\end{equation*}
\begin{theorem}\label{Theorem1}
The security of encryption scheme $\mathcal{E}_{BGN}$ implies the security of encryption scheme $\mathcal{E}_{TRANS}$
$Security(\mathcal{E}_{BGN}) \implies Security(\mathcal{E}_{TRANS})$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Assuming that scheme is not secure, then there exist a polynomial time adversarial algorithm $\mathcal{B}$ that breaks the security of $\mathcal{E}_{TRANS}$. Using $\mathcal{B}$ we can construct adversarial algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ that breaks the security claim of challenger $\mathcal{C}$ w.r.t. $\mathcal{E}_{BGN}$. Initially $\mathcal{C}$ gives the public key of $\mathcal{E}_{BGN}$ to $\mathcal{A}$ as input, $\mathcal{A}$ works as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal{A}$ shares computation parameters with $\mathcal{B}$ .
\item $\mathcal{B}$ outputs two messages $m_0,m_1$ to $\mathcal{A}$ as challenge text which are sent as it is to $\mathcal{C}$. $\mathcal{C}$ responds to $\mathcal{A}$ with the encryption of $m_b$ s.t. \emph{CT = }$g^{m_b}h^r$, A further sends the \emph{CT} to $\mathcal{B}$.
\item $\mathcal{B}$ outputs its guess $b'$.
\end{enumerate}
\emph{Ciphertext Correctness:} While $\mathcal{C}$ sends the cipher text of format $g^mh^r$ to $\mathcal{B}$, $\mathcal{B}$ expects the format to be of form $s^mh^r$. Following we show that both represents the same:
\begin{align*}
\text{\emph{CT}} &= g^mh^r\\
&= (s.h')^mh^r
\end{align*}
Since $g \in \mathbb{G}$ (composite order group), it can be expressed in terms of some specific elements of underlying subgroups i.e. $s \in \mathbb{G}_{q_1}$ and $h' \in \mathbb{G}_{q_2}$. As also, $h \in \mathbb{G}_{q_2}$, we can represent $h' = h^\gamma$ for some $\gamma \in (1,\cdots,q_1)$. CT now becomes:
\begin{align*}
\text{\emph{CT}} &= s^mh^{r+m\gamma}\\
&=s^mh^{r'}
\end{align*}
As $\mathcal{B}$ wins the semantic security game against $\mathcal{E}_{TRANS}$, the constructed adversary $\mathcal{A}$ will win security game against $\mathcal{E}_{BGN}$ which goes against the $\mathcal{E}_{BGN}$ security. \hfill $\qedhere$
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
The security of encryption scheme $\mathcal{E}_{TRANS}$ implies the security of encryption scheme $\mathcal{E}_{CES}$
$Security(\mathcal{E}_{TRANS}) \implies Security(\mathcal{E}_{CES})$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows the similar flow of assuming the existence of polynomial adversarial algorithm $\mathcal{B}$ that breaks the security of $\mathcal{E}_{CES}$ where \emph{CT} is of format $s^m.h^{r.A}$. Using this adversary we can construct another $\mathcal{A}$ that breaks the security claim of challenger $\mathcal{C}$ w.r.t. $\mathcal{E}_{TRANS}$ which goes against the theorem \ref{Theorem1} and thus against security of the $\mathcal{E}_{BGN}$. The game proceeds as below:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal{C}$ shares computation parameters with $\mathcal{B}$, who further shares the same with $\mathcal{A}$ .
\item $\mathcal{B}$ outputs two messages $m_0,m_1$ to $\mathcal{A}$ as challenge text. $\mathcal{A}$ in turn sends two messages $m_0.A^{-1},m_1.A^{-1}$ to $\mathcal{C}$. $\mathcal{C}$ responds to $\mathcal{A}$ with the encryption of $m_b.A^{-1}$ s.t. \emph{CT = }$s^{m_b.A^{-1}}h^r$. $\mathcal{A}$ further process \emph{CT}, s.t. \emph{CT'} = $(\text{\emph{CT}})^A$ and sends \emph{CT'} to $\mathcal{B}$.
\item $\mathcal{B}$ outputs its guess $b'$.
\end{enumerate}
\emph{Ciphertext Correctness:} It can be observed that \emph{CT'} received by $\mathcal{B}$ is of correct format as expected.
\begin{align*}
\text{\emph{CT'}} &=\text{\emph{CT}}^A\\
&= s^{m_b}h^{r.A}
\end{align*}
As $\mathcal{B}$ wins the security game against $\mathcal{E}_{CES}$, the constructed $\mathcal{A}$ will win the security game against $\mathcal{E}_{TRANS}$ which goes against the $\mathcal{E}_{TRANS}$ security proven in theorem \ref{Theorem1} and hence against $\mathcal{E}_{BGN}$. \hfill $\qedhere$
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Useful Function}
\begin{enumerate}[A.]
\item \textbf{Compute(m',q'):} This procedure is called by CS during the Query phase of \emph{SHRQ} protocol. It takes $\mathcal{E}_{CES}$ encrypted data component and query component vectors as inputs
and computes deterministic dot product value of the two vectors. Shown as below:\\
1. \textbf{Homomorphic Multiplication:} First, for each attribute in $m'$ and $q'$ a bilinear mapping is computed as follow
\begin{align*}
e(m'_i,q'_i) =
\begin{cases}
e(s^{m_i}h^{\text{\large\calligra r}_mA_i},s^{(q_i + \beta). \alpha}h^{\text{\large\calligra r}_qB_i}) & \text{if }i=n+1\\
e(s^{m_i}h^{\text{\large\calligra r}_mA_i},s^{q_i \alpha}h^{\text{\large\calligra r}_qB_i})&\text{otherwise}\\
\end{cases}
\\=
\begin{cases}
e(s,s)^{m_i(q_i + \beta).\alpha}e(h,h)^{\text{\large\calligra r}_m\text{\large\calligra r}_qA_iB_i} & \text{if }i=n+1\\
e(s,s)^{m_iq_i \alpha}e(h,h)^{\text{\large\calligra r}_m\text{\large\calligra r}_qA_iB_i})&\text{otherwise}\\
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
2. \textbf{Homomorphic Addition:}Now, compute the modular multiplication operations in group $\mathbb{G}_T$ of $n+2$ values. The value $T$ thus computed will be:
\begin{align*}
T &= e(s,s)^{(m.q+\beta)\alpha}e(h,h)^{\text{\large\calligra r}_m\text{\large\calligra r}_qAB}\\
&= e(s,s)^{(m.q+\beta)\alpha}&\text{as } e(h,h)^{\text{\large\calligra r}_m\text{\large\calligra r}_qAB}=1
\end{align*}
The computed deterministic exponential modular dot product value is protected by the hardness assumption of \emph{Discrete Logarithm Problem}. Under \emph{Discrete Logarithm Problem} assumption, given the exponentiation value it is hard to compute the exponent w.r.t. base in big cyclic group.
\item \textbf{CreateLookupTable($v$):} This function is called by DO for a Lookup table($\mathcal{L}$) construction. Lookup table is used by CS during the Query phase of $SHRQ$ protocol. Before construction of table, both CS and DO agree upon \emph{secure hash function ($\mathcal{H}$)} and thereafter DO constructs a table $\mathcal{L}$ s.t. $\mathcal{L} = \{\mathcal{H}(e(s,s)^{(i+\beta)\alpha}),\text{ where }i=[0,v]\}$
\end{enumerate}
\section{Conclusion}
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
To conclude, we presented a novel solution to solve the problem of \emph{Secure Hyper Sphere Range Query(SHRQ)} over encrypted data. While existing solutions suffered from scalable slowness for big range queries ($\mathcal{O}(R^2)$), our scheme guarantees constant time performance ($\mathcal{O}(c)$). Along with SHRQ solution, we also presented the \emph{Secure Range Query(SRQ)} solution with proven KPA security and column obvious execution.
Future work directions on the proposed system includes: 1) Designing the solution using prime order EC curves. It is known that prime order EC curves perform better than composite order EC curves. 2) Extend the solution in framework where DO and QU are considered as separate entities. 3) Performing the analysis to support other spatial queries like kNN, Geometric queries etc.
\section{Experiments}\label{experiments}
In this section, we present the experimental evaluation of our proposed Protocols. The experiments were carried out on two machines, one acting as the DO and the other as CS. Both the machines have the following configuration, Ubuntu 16.04.5 LTS running on 16 core Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6140 CPU @ 2.30GHz and 64 GB memory. The protocols were written in Java using Java Pairing-Based Cryptography Library (JPBC) \cite{moreJPBC} using the group size of 1024 bits. The two machines were connected to each other via
high bandwidth network.
Figure \ref{fig:data_enc_dim} shows how data encryption per database copy varies with the number of dimensions in the data. From the figure, it is clear that data encryption time increases linearly with the number of dimensions. It is expected since work to be done increases linearly with number of dimensions in the data.
It is important to note here that the data encryption time per copy is same for all the proposed Protocols. \emph{$SHRQ_T$} has only one copy of data, so this figure represents data encryption time for \emph{$SHRQ_T$}. On the other hand, \emph{$SHRQ_C$} and \emph{$SHRQ_L$} have multiple copies of databases depending on configuration. Hence the total data encryption time for them will be multiple of the numbers presented in the figure.
Figure \ref{fig:data_enc_dp} shows how data encryption per database copy varies with number of data points. The figure clearly shows an expected linear relationship between the number of data points and time taken to encrypt the database copy.
It is important to note here that data encryption time per copy is same for all the proposed Protocols. \emph{$SHRQ_T$} has only one copy of data, so this figure represents data encryption time for \emph{$SHRQ_T$}. On the other hand, \emph{$SHRQ_C$} and \emph{$SHRQ_L$} have multiple copies of data based on configuration. Hence the total data encryption time will be a multiple of the numbers presented in the figure.
Figure \ref{fig:prot_dim} shows how the query execution varies with the number of dimensions in the data. The figure shows a linear correlation between number of dimensions and query execution time. This is expected since increasing the number of dimensions causes increased effort to compute the distance between the data point and query point.
The figure also shows that both \emph{$SHRQ_T$} and \emph{$SHRQ_C$} have almost identical running times. This is because both of these protocols make a single pass over the data. \emph{$SHRQ_C$} has some extra false positives which have to removed at the end, leading to slightly increased running time.
On the other hand, \emph{$SHRQ_L$} requires much higher running time than both \emph{$SHRQ_T$} and \emph{$SHRQ_C$}. This is because \emph{$SHRQ_L$} has to make multiple pass over the data (two in our experiments).
Figure \ref{fig:prot_dp} shows how the query execution varies with the number of data points. The figure shows an expected linear correlation between number of data points and query execution time.
The figure also shows that both \emph{$SHRQ_T$} and \emph{$SHRQ_C$} have almost identical running times. This is because both of these protocols make a single pass over the data. \emph{$SHRQ_C$} has some extra false positives which have to removed at the end, leading to slightly increased running time.
On the other hand, \emph{$SHRQ_L$} requires much higher running time that both \emph{$SHRQ_T$} and \emph{$SHRQ_C$}. This is because \emph{$SHRQ_L$} has to make multiple pass over the data (two in our experiments).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig/data_enc_dim.png}
\caption{Impact of Data dimensions on Data Encryption per database copy (1000 Data Points)}
\label{fig:data_enc_dim}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig/data_enc_dp.png}
\caption{Impact of number of data points on Data Encryption per database copy (d=2)}
\label{fig:data_enc_dp}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig/prot_dim.png}
\caption{Impact of Data dimensions on Protocols (1000 Data Points)}
\label{fig:prot_dim}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig/prot_dp.png}
\caption{Impact of number of data points on Protocols (d=2)}
\label{fig:prot_dp}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Scope of Improvement}
The performance bottleneck in our protocols are the
costly pairing operations (\emph{Homomorphic Multiplication}) between the encrypted query point and data points in the big composite order group(1024 bits). The breakthrough work of Freeman \cite{more2010Freeman}, presents a framework where big composite order based Elliptic Curve (EC) schemes can be converted to comparably small prime order EC schemes. Using the framework they designed an modified version for BGN encryption scheme which improved the pairing operation by 33 times (Table 7 in \cite{more2013Guillevic}).
For our proposed scheme of $CES$, a separate design study is required for converting it to prime order EC scheme and has been left as future work.
\subsection*{Comparison to State-of-the-Art}
The closest relation of our work is to two papers from Wang \emph{et al.} \cite{wang2015circular,wang2016geometric} which cover the problems of \emph{Circular Range Query(CRQ)} and \emph{Geometric Range Queries(GRQ)} over encrypted data respectively. Both the solutions suffer slowness in their \emph{QueryEncryption} algorithms, which is directly proportional to solution set range. Solution of \cite{wang2015circular}, also suffers slowness in the \emph{Query Execution} over the CS. For radius values of 1 unit, 5 units and 10 units, the execution time over CS for a $|D|=1000$ and $d=2$, is around 10 secs, 40 secs and 100 secs. Thus showing linear rise with the rise in radius. Considering only the \emph{Query Execution} over CS, \cite{wang2016geometric} performs comparable to our system with time of 800 secs when $|D|=1000$ and $d=2$. However, altogether including the QueryEncryption times our scheme outperforms both of them.
The other relation of our work can be made to the papers dealing with \emph{Secure k Nearest Neighbors (SkNN)} problem. Beginning with the \emph{SkNN} solution presented by Wong \emph{et al.} \cite{kNN2009Wong} which used the idea of invertible matrix multiplication, the performance was comparable to plain text kNN execution. However, Yao \emph{et al.} \cite{kNN2013Yao} broke the KPA security claim of \cite{kNN2009Wong}. \cite{kNN2013Zhu} also presented a Vornoi diagram based \emph{SkNN} solution which was very efficient but only worked for cases when $d=2$. Another work from Elmehdwi \emph{et al.} \cite{kNN2014Elmehdwi}, proposed a \emph{SkNN} solution in 2-cloud model where one of the cloud is having the encryption key. They developed the secure multiparty protocols in the proposed setting to develop the solution satisfying stronger security notion of \emph{CPA}. However, the solution did suffer from huge latency which was directly proportional to $k$, $|D|$ and the domain size of each attribute$(l)$. Specifically, for $|D|=2000, l=12,d=6$ and $k=25$, the scheme took 650 minutes for completion. In comparison, our scheme is independent of $l$ and under similar security parameters took 48 minutes to completion.
\section{Introduction}
Spatial data is widely used by various types of applications such as location-based services, computer aided design, geographic information system etc. The individual data point in such databases is represented as a point in the euclidean space. The applications query these spatial databases via various types of geometric queries. One of the most widely used geometric query is the circular range query. The circular range query is defined by a center and a radius. The goal of the circular range query is to find all those data points which lie inside the circle defined by the circular range query. When the data has more than two dimensions, then it becomes a hypersphere query.
The hypersphere queries are widely used to provide various services such as finding the point of interest within a certain distance from the user. For example, finding all the restaurants which are within 5 miles from the user's location.
In recent years with the emergence of cloud computing, various enterprises are outsourcing their data and computation needs to third party cloud service providers. Use of cloud services make economic sense for these organizations. However, it brings its share of problems as well. One of the most prominent amongst them being security and privacy of data. Enterprises have to trust cloud service provider with their data which includes sensitive information as well.
The most basic way to protect the data is to encrypt it using a secure encryption scheme such as AES, before transferring to the cloud. By doing so, usability of the data outsourced to the cloud is reduced as no query can now be executed at the cloud server. For each query, the user has to download the data, decrypt it and run the query which will not be acceptable
To solve this dual problem of securing the data as well as maintaining its usability, searchable encryption schemes have been proposed. These encryption schemes encrypt the data in such a way that one or more desired properties of data are preserved. For example, deterministic encryption of data preserves equality.
In the context of searchable encryption schemes, problem of handling geometric queries over encrypted data has received very less attention. The existing solutions consists of two paper from Wang \emph{et al.} \cite{wang2015circular,wang2016geometric}.
In \cite{wang2015circular}, solution for secure circular range queries over encrypted data was proposed. It used the existing predicate encryption scheme as base, and developed the protocol to test ``if the query point lies on the circle or not''. For circular range query, this protocol is called repeatedly for all the concentric circles centered at query point and having radius $\leq$ query radius ($R$).
The problem with this approach is that the number of such concentric circles is $\mathcal{O}(R^2)$. Thus degrading the performance by a factor of $\mathcal{O}(R^2)$ and thus depicting the non-scalability of the solution.
In\cite{wang2016geometric}, another solution for handling any geometric query over encrypted spatial data was proposed. The solution used a combination of bloom filters and predicate encryption scheme. In the scheme, for each data point a boom filter is created and stored at cloud and for geometric query, all the data points that lie within the query area are enumerated and inserted into a query bloom filter.
The cloud operation includes the comparison of the query bloom filter with the data point bloom filter
and if the data bloom filter is fully captured inside the query bloom filter, it is added to the output.
The operation is performed securely by using predicate encryption scheme which encrypts the bloom filters and converts the bloom filter comparison to secure inner product computation and comparison.
The solution suffers from false positives due to the use of bloom filter and since all the points within query area have to be enumerated and inserted into query bloom filter, the solution is not scalable.
Considering the shortcomings of two papers, in this paper, we propose a novel \emph{SHRQ} protocols for handling hypersphere range queries over encrypted spatial data. We design a \emph{Component Encryption Scheme(CES)} which allows evaluation of degree two polynomials directly over ciphertext i.e. the scheme can be used to perform a dot product between encrypted data and query point.
At the core of the protocols, \emph{CES} scheme is used for secure evaluation of result set. For the scalability of solution w.r.t. high radius values, we present the new storage idea of \emph{Coarse Grained Granular Storage}.
And unlike the existing solutions, the performance of the proposed scheme is found to be independent of query area size.
We also present a solution to the problem of \emph{Secure Range Query}(SRQ) which is based on our solution for \emph{SHRQ}. We present the remodeling of the underlying data points and query points that helps in simultaneous support of \emph{SRQ} queries along with \emph{SHRQ} queries over the encrypted data. With the remodeling, we show that server protocol and servers data imprints of \emph{SHRQ} and \emph{SRQ} queries are similar and therefore server can't even differentiate between the types of queries, thus making the solution type oblivious.
The security of our solution is presented in standard attack models: \emph{Known Plaintext Attack(KPA)} model and \emph{Ciphertext Only Attack(COA)} model. We claim our system to be secure in these attack models. In each of these models, we quantify the information that is required by the adversary to decrypt the whole database.
To summarize, our main contributions are listed below:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We present the first computationally efficient solution to \emph{Secure Hypersphere Range Query} in a single cloud server based system.
\item The proposed system can also be used to answer \emph{Secure Range Queries}. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first system that answers the secure range query along with a secure location based query.
\item We prove our system to be secure under the standard attack models: \emph{KPA} and \emph{COA}.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Problem Framework}
In this section, we formulate the \emph{SHRQ} problem. We present details of the system setting describing various entities, solution objective and the adversarial model used for security analysis. We also present a brief description of the operations carried out in \emph{Hyphersphere Range queries (HRQ)} in plain text setting.
\subsection{System Setting}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig/Picture1.png}
\caption{System Entities}
\label{fig:entities}
\end{figure}
Entities present in a typical outsourced setting are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:entities}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Cloud Server (CS)}: Cloud Server is a third-party service provider that provides storage and computation resources to its clients. It takes care of all the administration and management of computation hardware. And clients pay him for using its resources.
Examples of such service providers are IBM Cloudant \cite{URLIBM}, Amazon AWS \cite{URLAmazon}, Microsoft Azure \cite{URLMicrosoft} etc.
\item \textbf{Data Owner (DO)}: In cloud computing framework, Data Owner represents the prospective client of Cloud Server, who is having a propriety ownership on some specific data and is willing to use Cloud Server resources for storage and computational requirements.
Pertaining to \emph{SHRQ} problem, Data Owner's data is represented by a data table $D =\{m^1,m^2 \cdots ,m^{|D|}\}$ where each $m^i$ is a $d$ dimensional data point.
For using Cloud Server resources \emph{securely}, Data Owner encrypts the table $D$ to $D' $
and then outsources $D'$ to the Cloud Server.
\item \textbf{Query User (QU)}: These are the authorized users who want to execute the \emph{SHRQ} queries over the outsourced encrypted data $D'$. For this work, we assume that Query User will share their query in plaintext with Data Owner. Who, on behalf will perform the query execution protocol with Cloud Server and then share the decrypted results back to Query User. While there are seperate papers where Query User's privacy is considered seperately and queries are also hidden from the Data Owner. The scope of this paper is constrained to developing a cloud based SHRQ solution considering security from Cloud Server. The query user privacy consderations will require a seperate study over the proposed solution and thus is kept as a future scope of work.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Objective}\label{objective}
The main objective of Secure Hypersphere Range Query (SHRQ) system is to develop a system which enables Hypersphere Range Queries to be answered efficiently over outsourced data in a privacy preserving manner.
A Hypersphere Range Query consists of a query point $q$ and a radius $r$. The goal is to find all those points in the database that lie inside the hypersphere defined by $q$ and $r$.
The privacy preservation requires that, the data points as well as the query points should be protected from Cloud Server. This stems from the fact that Cloud Server is not trusted with data. Also it has to be ensured that Cloud Server does not learn anything about either the data or query during the query processing phase.
One implicit requirement is that the cloud server should be able to compute the result set of SHRQ efficiently and that processing requirements for Data Owner and Query User should be low.
\subsection{Adversarial Model}
We consider the security of our scheme in \emph{``Honest But Curious (HBC)"} adversarial model. In this adversarial model, adversary is \emph{honest} in performing all the steps of the protocol correctly but is also \emph{curious} to learn more about the data which is being shared with him. HBC is the most widely used adversarial model in cloud computing setting. This model gives adversary the freedom to observe the computations being done, and use the same for data inference. Some characteristics of the HBC model are as follows :-
\begin{itemize}
\item Adversary does not tamper with the stored data.
\item Adversary doesn't have the domain knowledge and statistics of the data.
\item Adversary knows all the details of the protocols being used. The only thing hidden from him is the secret key.
\item The goal of adversary is to infer the plain text data of Data Owner.
\end{itemize}
We present security proofs for our protocols in Ciphertext Only Attack Model (COA) and Known Plaintext Attack Model (KPA). These model differ in the amount of powers which the adversary has for breaking the protocol.
\begin{itemize}
\item Ciphertext Only Attack Model (COA)\\
In this attack model, adversary only has access to the encrypted database $D'$. He can also observe the query processing computation being done over $D'$. The goal of the adversary is to decipher the encrypted database $D'$ to plaintext $D$.
\item Known Plaintext Attack Model (KPA)\\
Like COA model, the adversary has access to the encrypted database $D'$ and can observe the query process computations. Additionally, he also has access to few plain texts and their corresponding cipher text values. The adversary has no control over the plain texts for which he gets the cipher text values. The adversary goal is same as COA, i.e. to decipher the encrypted database $D'$.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{HRQ in Plain Text}
Now we will describe the basic computations required for executing \emph{HRQ} over plain text data. The data point in $D$ is assumed to be a $d$ dimensional vector, represented by $[m_1,m_2,...,m_d]$. And the HRQ query consists of a $d$ dimensional query point (represented by $q = [q_1,q_2,...,q_d]$) and a radius $r$. We use the notation $Q\{q,r\}$ to represent the \emph{HRQ} query.
HRQ evaluation between a data point $m$ and query $Q$ involves distance computation and comparison with query radius.
\begin{enumerate}
\item First the distance between the data point and query center is computed. \\
$Dist = \sqrt{(m_1-q_1)^2 + (m_2-q_2)^2 + ... + (m_d-q_d)^2}$
\item The computed distance $Dist$, is then compared with query radius. The data points whose distance from query center is less than radius are added to output. It requires checking of the following condition:\\
$r - Dist \geq 0$
\end{enumerate}
The above two step process can be reduced to the following inequality:
\begin{equation*}
2(m_1.q_1+m_2.q_2+...+m_d.q_d)+r^2 - ||m||^2 - ||q||^2 \geq 0
\end{equation*}
Observe that the above inequality involves the following basic steps :
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item \textbf{Dot Product:} Dot product between two $d+2$ dimensional components:
\begin{enumerate}[1.]
\item \emph{Data Component} : $\{m_1,m_2,...,m_d,1,||m||^2\}$
\item \emph{Query Component} : $\{2q_1,2q_2,...,2q_d,r^2-||q||^2,-1\}$
\end{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Verification:} Verify if the \emph{Dot Product} is non negative.
\end{enumerate}
In the proposed \emph{SHRQ} scheme, we present the solution of performing the above two operations securely and with computational efficiency.
\section{SHRQ Protocols}\label{protocols}
In this section, we will present new \emph{SHRQ} protocols which can be used for Secure Hypersphere Range Query execution.
In section \ref{protocol1}, we present the protocol $SHRQ_T$ where we used the \emph{lookup table} idea along with $\mathcal{E}_{CES}$ for query execution.
In section \ref{sec:cggs}, we introduce the idea of \emph{Coarse Grained Granular Storage} which is used in protocol $SHRQ_C$ presented in section \ref{protocol2}. $SHRQ_C$ improves maximum supported query radius compared to \emph{$SHRQ_T$} but introduces \emph{false positives} to the solution.
In section \ref{protocol3}, we present the protocol $SHRQ_L$ which overcome the limitation of $SHRQ_C$ with \emph{no false positives} in the solution set.
Each of these protocols have two phases:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{Setup Phase :}
In this phase, DO generates the encryption keys and uses them to encrypt the database and generate the Lookup Table. The encrypted database and Lookup Table is then uploaded to the CS.
\item \emph{Query Phase :}
This phase represents the scenario of QU querying the encrypted database stored at CS. It involves QU encrypting the query and then sending the same to CS. CS then executes the encrypted query to get the data points which satisfy the Hypersphere Range Query. The data points in the result set are then given to the QU who decrypts them to get the plain text result set.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Protocol SHRQ\texorpdfstring{\textsubscript{T}}{\texttwoinferior}}\label{protocol1}
This section describes the protocol $SHRQ_T$ which uses ${E}_{CES}$ to build a protocol for Secure Hypersphere Range Query execution.
\subsubsection{Setup Phase}\label{prot1-setupphase}
This phase is executed by the DO to encrypt and upload the database to CS.
\begin{enumerate}
\item DO invokes Keygen of $\mathcal{E}_{CES}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item Parameters $\{N, \mathbb{G, G}_{T},e\}$ are shared with the CS.
\item Other parameters are kept secret by the DO.
\end{itemize}
Also, DO and CS jointly agree upon a \emph{secure hash function} $\mathcal{H}$ used in construction of $\mathcal{L}$
\item DO encrypts data point in the database as follows :
\begin{itemize}
\item Compute $d+2$ dimensional data component representation $m$ w.r.t. data point and assigns a unique id $(\mathring{i})$ to $m$.
\item Use \emph{TupleEncryption} function of $\mathcal{E}_{CES}$ to encrypt $m$. The output is encrypted data point $m'$.
\item Store ($\mathring{i}$, $m'$) at the CS in database \emph{db-query}.
\item Encrypt the data point with a separate encryption scheme like \emph{AES}. Let \~{m} represents the encryption of data point with \emph{AES}. The \emph{AES} encrypted data point is used for faster decryption of the data points that are part of the result set.
\item Store ($\mathring{i}$, \~{m}) at the CS in database \emph{db-store}.
\end{itemize}
\item DO calls the procedure \emph{CreateLookupTable}$(v)$ to generate lookup table ($\mathcal{L}$) of size $v$. DO decides the size based on his requirement and system configuration of CS. DO uploads the generated $\mathcal{L}$ to CS.
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Query Phase}\label{prot1-queryphase}
This phase is initiated by the QU to execute a hyper sphere range query, $Q\{q,r\}$ over the encrypted database.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $r > \sqrt{v}$ then the query is not supported by the current instantiation. No further processing is done
\item QU encrypts the query component w.r.t. $Q\{q,r\}$ using \emph{QueryEncryption} to get encrypted query $q'$. QU then sends $q'$ to the CS for further processing.
\item CS starts with an empty result set $Res$. For each of the encrypted data point $m'$ in \emph{db-query}, cloud server performs the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}[i]
\item Call \emph{Compute} function with $m'$ and $q'$. Let $T = Compute(m',q')$.
\item If $\mathcal{H}(T)$ is present in the Lookup Table $\mathcal{L}$, then get the AES encrypted instance of \~{m} from the db-store and add it to the result set $Res$.
\end{enumerate}
CS returns the result set $Res$ to the QU as the answer to the Hyper sphere range query.
\item QU decrypts the elements of result set $Res$ and carries out the following validation step to filter out the false positives:
\begin{itemize}
\item Compute the distance between the decrypted data point and the query center.
\item If the distance is greater than the query radius then the decrypted data point is discarded.
\end{itemize}
The validation step is needed because $\mathcal{L}$ stores hash of the values which can lead to false positives. For standard hash function, the probability of such collisions is very less and thus very less false positives. In out experiments, we didn't encounter any false positives due to usage of hash in $\mathcal{L}$
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Limitation}\label{prot1-limitation}
The query radius in $SHRQ_T$ is limited by the size $v$ of the Lookup Table. Specifically this protocol can only handle queries having $radius \leq v$. This is reflected in the Step 1 of Query Phase. This protocol is suitable for those applications where the maximum query radius is limited. Of course, the maximum query radius can be increased by increasing the size of Lookup Table. Generation of Lookup Table is a one time setup cost which can be amortized over large number of queries. However it does require extra storage at the cloud server for storing the Lookup Table.
\subsection{Protocol SHRQ\texorpdfstring{\textsubscript{C}}{\texttwoinferior}}\label{protocol2}
In this section, protocol $SHRQ_C$ is presented which uses the storage scheme of \emph{CGGS} to overcome the limitations of $SHRQ_T$. In the protocol, DO stores multiple encrypted coarse grained copies of data at the CS (in addition to actual data). At the query time, the database copy of data with minimum coarsity ($f$) that satisfies the query radius ($\leq \sqrt{v}$) is chosen for query execution.
For ease of explanation we chose \emph{coarsity base}, $b_c$ as $2$. We also assume that DO chooses a parameter $E_{max}$, representing maximum coarsity exponent $e_c$.
\subsubsection{Setup Phase}
In this phase, DO creates multiple copies of data, encrypts them and uploads them to the cloud.
\begin{enumerate}
\item DO invokes Keygen of $\mathcal{E}_{CES}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item Parameters $\{N, \mathbb{G, G}_{T},e\}$ are shared with the Cloud Server. Also, DO and CS jointly agree upon on $\mathcal{H}$.
\item Other parameters are kept secret by the DO.
\end{itemize}
\item DO encrypts each data point in the database as follows:-
\begin{itemize}
\item For $e_c$ = 0 to $E_{max}$
\begin{itemize}
\item Assign a unique id, $\mathring{i}$ to the data point.
\item Compute the transformation of data point in $2^{e_{c}}-c\mathcal{ES}$ and then create the \emph{data component} vector. Let it be $m$.
\item Use $TupleEncryption$ function of $\mathcal{E}_{CES}$ to encrypt $m$. The output is encrypted data point $m'$.
\item Store ($\mathring{i}, m'$) at the CS in database instance $db-query^{e_c}$. DO creates separate database for each value of $e_c$.
\end{itemize}
\item Encrypt the data point with a separate encryption scheme like \emph{AES}. Let \~{m} represents the encryption of data point with \emph{AES}.
\item Store ($\mathring{i}$, \~{m}) at the CS in database \emph{db-store}.
\end{itemize}
\item DO calls the procedure \emph{CreateLookupTable}$(v)$ to generate $v$ sized lookup table ($\mathcal{L}$) and uploads it to CS.
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Query Phase}
QU steps for query, $Q\{q,r\}$ are as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $(r / 2^{E_{max}} + \sqrt{d}) > \sqrt{v}$ then the query is not supported by the current instantiation. No further processing is done.
\item QU computes $e$ such that :
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $r \leq \sqrt{v}$, then $e=0$
\item Else, $e$ is minimum $e_0$ s.t. $(r/2^{e_0} +\sqrt{d}) \leq \sqrt{v}$, where $e_0 \in \{1,2,\cdots,E_{max}\}$
\end{enumerate}
\item Transform the query $Q\{q,r\}$ to $2^e-c\mathcal{ES}$, let the transformed query be $Q\{\hat{q},\hat{r}\}$. Transformed Query radius i.e. $\hat{r}$ is computed as following (it uses equation \ref{dist}) :
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $e=0$, $\hat{r} = r$
\item Else, $\hat{r} = \lceil \frac{r}{2^e}+\sqrt{d}\rceil $
\end{enumerate}
The transformed query center i.e. $\hat{q}$ is computed by finding the transformation of $q$ in $2^e-c\mathcal{ES}$
\item QU encrypts the query component w.r.t. $Q\{\hat{q},\hat{r}\}$ using $QueryEncryption$ function to get encrypted $q'$. QU then sends $q'$ to CS for further processing
\item CS performs similar operations as done in $SHRQ_T$. It starts with an empty result set \emph{Res} and for each encrypted data point $m'$ in $db-query^{e}$, CS performs the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}[i]
\item Call \emph{Compute} function with $m'$ and $q'$. Let $T = Compute(m',q')$.
\item If $\mathcal{H}(T)$ is present in the $\mathcal{L}$, then get the AES encrypted instance \~{m} from the db-store and add it to the result set $Res$.
\end{enumerate}
CS returns the result set $Res$ to the QU as its answer to the Hypersphere Range Query.
\item Query User decrypts the elements of result set $Res$ using AES. Then it carries out the following validation step to filter out the false positives:
\begin{itemize}
\item Compute the distance between the decrypted data point and the query center.
\item If the distance is greater than the query radius then the decrypted data point is discarded.
\end{itemize}
The validation step is needed because there will be some false positives due to: (1). Adjustment of $\sqrt{d}$ (due to equation \ref{dist})) made in radius value due to coarse grained execution, (2). Use of hash function in $\mathcal{L}$
As pointed in protocol $SHRQ_T$, the impact on false positives due to use of hash function in $\mathcal{L}$ is minimal.
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Limitation}
The result set returned by CS to the QU contains false positives.
This is primarily because when executing in coarser grained (higher $c\mathcal{ES}$) the points that lie outside the circumference in $1-c\mathcal{ES}$ could now fall inside the hyper sphere due to transformation. Apart from this we also resized the radius(adding $\sqrt{d}$) to avoid false negatives due to equation \ref{dist}. Both the reasons collectively leads to false positives in the solution.
\subsection{Protocol SHRQ\texorpdfstring{\textsubscript{L}}{\texttwoinferior}}\label{protocol3}
In this section we will present protocol $SHRQ_L$, which improves upon the $SHRQ_C$. Specifically it reduces the storage space in comparison to $SHRQ_C$ and also does not give any \emph{false positives}.
However it does take more time in comparison to $SHRQ_C$. While $SHRQ_C$ works in a single iteration over the database, this protocol requires multiple passes over the database. Hence provides an interesting design choice for the system admin.
This protocol uses the new designed \emph{`layered approach'} for query execution which helps in no false positives. In the first layer, the query is executed in $1-c\mathcal{ES}$. If the query radius $r > \sqrt{v}$, the result set will contain all the points that exist inside the hyperspherical disk bounded by radius width $[r-\sqrt{v},r]$. For the next layer, the query is executed in a higher $c\mathcal{ES}$. Radius chosen for the next layer of execution is $r-\sqrt{v}+f.\sqrt{d}$. This layer of execution will return points which exist inside a hyperspherical disk whose radius width is greater than the radius width of disk in previous layer (this is because the execution is happening in a coarser $\mathcal{ES}$). During the current layer's execution, the previous layers disk space acts as a buffer, so that points which fall inside the disk due to the distance impact (equation \ref{dist}) are true positive and not false positives.
The coarsity base $b_c$ for this protocol is carefully chosen by the following formula:
\begin{equation}\label{eq-bc}
b_c = \lfloor \frac{\sqrt{v}}{2\sqrt{d}+1}\rfloor
\end{equation}
\textbf{Explanation of equation \ref{eq-bc}:} The buffer space units (previous layer query space) in current $c\mathcal{ES}$ is of the size of lookup table units supported by previous layer i.e $\sqrt{v}$. Buffer space units are $2\sqrt{d}+1$ due to the following
\begin{enumerate}
\item In the subsequent higher $c-\mathcal{ES}$, the radius value is adjusted by $+\sqrt{d}$ to adjust for the points falling outside the boundary of hypersphere.
\item Another $\sqrt{d}$ addition is to consider the points that fall inside the hemisphere of adjusted radius.
\item The additional plus 1 is added to adjust the ceiling operation that is used in radius computation for higher $c-\mathcal{ES}$.
\end{enumerate}
The value of coarsity base for this protocol helps in reducing the storage requirements as compared to $SHRQ_C$.
In $SHRQ_L$, for supporting a given query radius range $[0,R_{max}]$ less number of db stores ($\log_{b_c}R_{max}$) are required as compared to $SHRQ_C$, ($\log_{2}R_{max}$). \\
The details of $SHRQ_L$ as follow:
Like before, DO choses the parameter $E_{max}$ representing the maximum coarsity exponent.
\subsubsection{Setup Phase}
In this phase, DO creates multiple copies of data, encrypts them and uploads them to the cloud.
\begin{enumerate}
\item DO invokes Keygen of $\mathcal{E}_{CES}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item Parameters $\{N, \mathbb{G, G}_{T},e\}$ are shared with the Cloud Server. Also DO and CS jointly agree on Hash function $\mathcal{H}$.
\item Other parameters are kept secret by the DO.
\end{itemize}
\item DO encrypts each data point in database as follows :
\begin{itemize}
\item For $e_c$ = 0 to $E_{max}$
\begin{itemize}
\item Assign a unique id, $\mathring{i}$ to the data point
\item Compute transformation of data point in $b_{c}^{e_{c}}-c\mathcal{ES}$ and then create the \emph{data component} vector. Let it be $m$.
\item Use $TupleEncryption$ function of $\mathcal{E}_{CES}$ to encrypt $m$. The output is encrypted data point $m'$.
\item Store ($\mathring{i}, m'$) at the cloud server in database $db-query^{e_c}$. Data Owner creates separate database for each value of $e_c$.
\end{itemize}
\item Also, encrypt the data point with a separate encryption scheme like \emph{AES}. Let \~{m} represents the encryption of data point with \emph{AES}.
\item Store ($\mathring{i}$, \~{m}) at the cloud server in database \emph{db-store}.
\end{itemize}
\item DO calls the procedure \emph{CreateLookupTable}$(v)$ to generate $v$ sized lookup table ($\mathcal{L}$) and uploads it to the CS.
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Query Phase}
QU initiates query phase agiainst the query, $Q\{q,r\}$ and steps are as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $(r / 2^{E_{max}} + \sqrt{d}) > \sqrt{v}$ then the query is not supported by the current instantiation. No further processing is done.
\item QU computes the query radius values that are used in subsequent layered execution using Algorithm \ref{layered_radius}.
\begin{algorithm}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\KwIn{$r$, $\sqrt{v},d,b_c$}
\KwResult{\emph{Map m} : radius values in subsequent layers}
\textbf{Inititialize} : $Map<Layer,Radius>,map=\psi$\\
\emph{Add Radius w.r.t. Layer 0, i.e. $\{0,r\}$ to map} \\
\emph{Set }$r=r-\sqrt{v}$\emph{ and Set $i=1$}\\
\While{$r>0$ }{
$r=r + (b_c)^i.\sqrt{d}$\;
\emph{Add $\{i,r\}$ to map}\;
$r=r-(b_c)^i.\sqrt{v}$\;
$i=i+1$\;
}
\caption{\textbf{Layered Radius Values Generation Procedure}}
\label{layered_radius}
\end{algorithm}
\end{enumerate}
For each \emph{layer i} $\in map$ repeat following steps 3-5 with $r = map.get(i)$. Initialize empty result set $Res$.
\begin{enumerate}
\setcounter{enumi}{2}
\item Transform the Query $Q\{q,r\}$ in $(b_c)^i-c\mathcal{ES}$ to get $Q\{\hat{q},\hat{r}\}$. Transformed Query radius $\hat{r}$ is computed as following (using equation \ref{dist}) :
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $i=0$, $\hat{r} = r$
\item Else, $\hat{r} = \lceil \frac{r}{(b_c)^i}\rceil $
\end{enumerate}
The transformed Query center i.e. $\hat{q}$ is computed by finding the transformation of $q$ in $(b_c)^i-c\mathcal{ES}$.
\item QU encrypts the query component w.r.t. $Q\{\hat{q},\hat{r}\}$ using $QueryEncryption$ function to get encrypted $q'$. QU then sends $q'$ to CS for further processing
\item CS performs operations similar to done in protocols $SHRQ_T, SHRQ_C$. For each of the encrypted data point $m'$ in $db-query^{i}$, CS performs the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}[i]
\item Call \emph{Compute} function with $m'$ and $q'$. Let $T = Compute(m',q')$.
\item If $\mathcal{H}(T)$ is present in the $\mathcal{L}$, then get the AES encrypted instance \~{m} from the db-store and add it to the result set $Res$.
\end{enumerate}
\item CS returns the result set $Res$ to the QU as its answer to the Hypersphere Range Query.
\item QU decrypts the elements of result set $Res$ using AES. Thereafter it carries out the following validation step to filter out the false positives:
\begin{itemize}
\item Compute the distance between the decrypted data point and the query center.
\item If the distance is greater than the query radius then the decrypted data point is discarded.
\end{itemize}
At the end of the validation step, Query User has the plain text result set for his Hypersphere range query.
The validation step is needed for the similar reason as in protocol $SHRQ_T$.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{2mm}
{\Large\textbf{Database Updates}}
\vspace{1mm}\\
The proposed system supports dynamic insertions/updates. Any new data point can be uploaded by DO to CS using data point encryption (\emph{Step 2 of Setup Phase of all the protocols}). However, for dynamic updates DO first removes the existing records and then reinserts the updated record. Our system stores the AES encrypted values w.r.t. each data point (used for referencing of records) and index $\mathring{i}$ is referenced with every storage of $\mathcal{E}_{CES}$ encrypted and AES encrypted data values. The updating record can be reference and removed by using AES encryption and the respective index $\mathring{i}$.
\section{Secure Range Query}
In this section, we adapt the \emph{SHRQ} protocols to build a solution for the problem of \emph{ Secure Range Query}.
\subsubsection*{Secure Range Query (SRQ)} SRQ is defined as following:\\
\emph{Given an encrypted database $D'$,
Cloud Server should be able to correctly retrieve the records which satisfy the range predicate in the encrypted queries $q'$ such that CS doesn't knows the underlying plain text information of $D'$ and $q'$. }
Range Query over the column can be segregated by the following types:
\begin{enumerate}[i.]
\item Closed Range : These queries involve selection of values between close range $[V_{Left},V_{Right}]$. For example, for a query \emph{``select * from employees where age $\geq$ 25 and age $\leq$ 50''}, close range over \emph{``Age''} column is $[25,50]$.
\item Open Range: These queries involve selection of values w.r.t. open range $[V_{Left},\infty)$ or $(-\infty,V_{Right}]$. For example, in \emph{``select * from employees where age $\geq$ 25'' }, open range over \emph{``Age''} column is $[25,\infty]$.
\end{enumerate}
It can be observed that given the statistical information of \emph{(min, max)} w.r.t. column, every open range query can be converted to close range query. For example, if it is known that $max(Age) = 60$, then the open range query $[25,\infty]$ over \emph{``Age''} column can become a close range query $[25,60]$. Both the queries will retrieve the same records.
To solve \emph{SRQ} using \emph{SHRQ}, it can be observed that \emph{SHRQ} solution w.r.t. single dimension data retrieves records in the close range $[center-Radius,center+Radius]$. Therefore given a close range query over a column $[V_{Left},V_{Right}]$, it can be modeled as a \emph{SHRQ} query in single dimension with \emph{query point} $ = \frac{V_{Left}+V_{Right}}{2}$ and $Radius = \frac{V_{Right}-V_{Left}}{2}$.
To incorporate the support for \emph{SRQ} queries, data owner has to consider the change in Data Component and Query Component vectors as below:
\begin{itemize}
\item Data Component : Unlike before (section \ref{objective}), the Data Component vector will now be a $(2d+1)$ dimensional vector: $\{m_1,\cdots,m_d,1,m_1^2\cdots,m_d^2\}$
\item Query Component: Query Component vector will now consider the type of the query and will format the Query Component vector as following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{SRQ Query:} Assuming the range query $[V_L,V_R]$ is asked over column index $i$, then the equivalent \emph{HRQ} query $Q\{q_i,r\}$, correspondingly is represented as $Q\{\frac{V_L + V_R}{2},\frac{V_R - V_L}{2}\}$. The data component representation of the same query is as below:
\begin{equation*}
\{0_1,\cdots, 2q_i,\\\cdots,0_d,R^2-||q_i||^2,0_1,\,-1_i,\cdots,0_d\}
\end{equation*}
\item \emph{SHRQ Query:} Query component w.r.t. \emph{d dimensional SHRQ query} is as below:
\begin{equation*}
\{2q_1,2q_2,\cdots ,2q_d,R^2-\sum_{i=1}^{d}q_i^2,-1_1,\cdots,-1_d\}
\end{equation*}
\emph{SHRQ} query over arbitrary columns can be modeled by modifying above expression keeping only the required column terms and replacing rest of the terms by $0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{itemize}
Apart from the Component vectors change another change to be made is in \emph{KeyGen} function of $\mathcal{E}_{CES}$ where the size of vectors $A,B$ would now be $2.d+1$. Rest of the Scheme and protocol remains same.
It can be observed that the size of the Query Component remains the same on whether the query is \emph{SRQ} or \emph{SHRQ}. And since the sizes are same, the CS will be oblivious to the type from the encrypted query $q'$. In case of \emph{SRQ}, he will not be able to identify even the column on which the range predicate is applied. Thus making the scheme \emph{Type and Column Oblivious}.
In contrast to the existing solutions of \emph{Order Preserving Encryption (OPE)}, our solution doesn't leak any information w.r.t. ordering of column data. And the oblivious nature of our scheme hinders the adversary from gradual building any solution maps using the subsequent query execution output. Also the current state of the art $OPE$ suffers from the stateful nature of the scheme, where the \emph{client-server} collectively manages the dynamic state and the encryption of a new value requires mutation of the subset of already stored encrypted values. While the proposed scheme is a stateless scheme supporting any dynamic updates or insertions.
\section{Related Work}
There has been considerable amount of research in the area of secure query processing over the encrypted data. Although the ground breaking work of Gentry \cite{gentryFHE} on \emph{Fully Homomorphic Encryption(FHE)} enabled arbitrary polynomial computation over encrypted data, the scheme had a high computational cost. Thus making it impractical for real world applications. Many application specific \emph{Partial Homomorphic encryption} schemes have been developed. Secure solutions varying from \emph{Geometric Queries},
\emph{Nearest Neighbors search(kNN)},
\emph{Range predicate}
etc. to \emph{database level secure systems}
exists in prior literature.
\textbf{Geometric Queries:} The only known papers in this domain are from Wang \emph{et al}. \cite{wang2015circular,wang2016geometric}. We analysed the performances of these scheme in section \ref{experiments}. At the core, both the schemes use \emph{Predicate Evaluation} scheme of Shen \emph{et al} \cite{more2009Shen} using which it can be \emph{securely} checked if dot product of two vectors is 0 or not.
In \cite{wang2015circular} , CRQ problem is solved by finding points on circumference of the circle and repeating the task by varying radius of cicles. While in\cite{wang2016geometric}, GRQ problem is addressed where each data point is stored using separate bloom filter. The query phase includes building the \emph{bloom filter} of all points in query space and then using the idea of \cite{more2009Shen} it is checked if data bloom filter state exist in query bloom filter. As discussed earlier, both the solutions suffer from huge slowness in query execution phase compared to our solution.
\textbf{Nearest Neighbors:} Alot of literature exist in solving the \emph{Nearest Neighbors} problem over the encrypted data. We have covered the subset of these solutions ( Wong \emph{et al.} \cite{kNN2009Wong},Yao \emph{et al.} \cite{kNN2013Yao} and Elmehdwi \emph{et al.} \cite{kNN2014Elmehdwi}), in section \ref{experiments}.
Following we give brief of other solutions in same problem domain.
Hu \emph{et al}. \cite{kNN2011Hu} and Wang \emph{et al}. \cite{kNN2016Wang} built the solutions by developing technique of secure traversal over encrypted R-Tree index structure. While the performance of \cite{kNN2016Wang} is better than \cite{kNN2011Hu}, both the schemes suffers by not supporting the dynamic update or insertion of new records. Any such updates require the change in the index structure, which would be a costly operation. In contrast, we support dynamic updates and insertion.
PIR (Private Information retrieval) for secure k-NN has been studied by Ghinita \emph{et al}. \cite{kNN2008Ghinita}, Papadopoulos \emph{et al}. \cite{kNN2010Papadopoulos} and Choi \emph{et al}. \cite{kNN2014Choi}. PIR allows users to retrieve data stored at the CS in oblivious manner, so that user's query point is not revealed and also server doesn't know about which records are accessed. The data stored at server in such schemes is kept in plain text format which is different form our setting of work.
Schemes by Zhu \emph{et al}. \cite{kNN2013Zhu,kNN2016Zhu} and Singh \emph{et al}. \cite{kNN2018Singh} presented the solutions in multi-user setting. They considered the \emph{Query Privacy} metric in their solutions, so that Query Users query is not known to Data owner and Cloud server. The underlying idea of the schemes is similar to matrix multiplication idea of \cite{kNN2009Wong}.
Lin \emph{et al}. \cite{kNN2017Lin} extended the attack study of \cite{kNN2013Yao} and presented attacks on the related schemes
Lei \emph{et al}. \cite{kNN2017Lei} proposed a SkNN solution for 2-dimensional points by using LSH (Location sensitive hashing). They first construct the secure index around the data and then outsource the data and index to the cloud. Since the scheme uses LSH data structure, their result contains false positives.
\\
\textbf{Range Predicates:} Considerable amount of research exist in this area. Solutions ranging from \emph{order preserving encryption(OPE)} schemes to schemes specifically evaluating range predicates exist. Agrawal \emph{et al}. \cite{ope2004Agrawal} developed the first order preserving encryption scheme. They mapped the known plain text distribution with randomly chosen distribution. The mapped values represented the OPE ciphertext of plaintext values.
Boldyreva \emph{et al}. \cite{ope2009Boldyreva,ope2011Boldyreva} introduce the security notions w.r.t. OPE problem.
They also presented the \emph{OPE} scheme that uses hypergeometric distribution
to generate ordered cipher text.
Popa \emph{et al}. \cite{ope2013Popa} presented the first ideally secure (indistinguishability under ordered chosen plaintext attack, IND-OCPA) OPE scheme. The scheme presented is stateful and requires multiple round communications to generate ciphertext.
Kerschbaum \emph{et al}. \cite{ope2014Kerschbaum} presented the more efficient IND-OCPA secure scheme. The number of round communications are reduced to constant number in their scheme. Kerschbaum \cite{ope2015Kerschbaum} also presented \emph{Frequency hiding OPE} scheme, where the ciphertext of the scheme is randomized in the range of values.
Hore \emph{et al}. \cite{range2004Hore,range2012Hore} presented a scheme that built privacy preserving indices over sensitive columns using data partitioning techniques.The built index helped in supporting the obfuscated range queries.
Li \emph{et al}. \cite{range2014Li} presented a solution using specially designed index tree from data, where all the binary prefixes of the data are stored. Further they used \emph{Bloom Filters} to hide the prefix information. Any range query over data is then converted to similar prefix identification over index structure. Due to bloom filters scheme suffers from \emph{false positives}. Karras \emph{et al}. \cite{range2016Karras} presented range predicate solution using Matrix multiplication based technique. However Horst \emph{et al}. \cite{range2017Horst} presented the cryptanalysis of the scheme where they were able to break their security claims
\\
\textbf{Secure Database Systems:} Hacig\"{u}m\"{u}\c{s} et al \cite{database2001Hacigumus} proposed the first system for executing SQL queries over encrypted data. They used bucketization technique at server to approximate the filtering of result set and thereafter proposed clients to perform final query processing. The secure database systems: CryptDB presented by Tu \emph{et al}. \cite{database2011Popa} and Monomi presented by Tu \emph{et al}. \cite{database2013Tu} used multiple encryption
schemes to give support for multiple SQL predicates. They
used OPE, Paillier encryption \cite{more1999Paillier} and Text Search \cite{search2000Song} schemes to provide support for the range predicate, addition and search queries respectively.
However, both the schemes fail to support complex queries
where multiple operators are involved in a single query.
In schemes of Bajaj \emph{et al}. \cite{database2011Bajaj} and Arasu \emph{et al}. \cite{database2013Arasu,database2015Arasu}, cloud uses the secure hardware for secure computation where the encryption keys are stored. For complex computations, the data is first decrypted at the secure hardware, then processed for evaluation and then the answer is encrypted back and sent back to client. Though the systems performance is good, it still has to keep the encryption keys at third party location, which could lead to trust deficit.
SDB presented by \cite{database2014Wong} performed query processing with a set of secure data-interoperable operators by using asymmetric secret-sharing scheme. They provided protocols to handle queries having across the column computations. Hahn \emph{et al}. \cite{database2019Hahn} presented the technique for secure database joins. They used searchable symmetric encryption and attribute based encryption to develop protocol for secure join.
\section{Secure HypherSphere Range Query}
In this section we first present a SHRQ solution using BGN encryption scheme. Thereafter we show the drawbacks of the solutions and then propose the Data hidden (DH SHRQ) scheme. The Data Component and Query Component representation are same as defined earlier in section ?. These representations will be used during the TupleEncryption and QueryEncryption procedures of the schemes.
\subsection{SHRQ using BGN}
The SHRQ protocols defined under this scheme are as follow:
\begin{itemize}
\item KeyGen: Key Generation procedure invokes the KeyGen function of BGN Cryptosystem which generates the key parameters $\{q_1,q_2,\mathbb{G,G}_T,e,g,h,N\}$. Since the solution is going to be hosted on the cloud, only computationally required information is shared with cloud. Thus $\{\mathbb{G,G}_T,e,N\}$ is shared with the cloud. As is explained in QueryEncryption, $q_1$ is also shared with cloud for decision computation. The other key parameters $\{q_2,g,h\}$ are kept as private as used in encryption procedures.
\item TupleEncryption: This function is called by DO to encrypt the data component. Each parameter of the vector is encrypted using the encryption function of BGN cryptosystem.
$C_i = g^{m_i}h^r$. Let $m'$ represents the encrypted data component.
\item Query Encryption: This function is called by DO to encrypt Query component and provide the look up table hash that is used by CS during CheckIfInside procedure. DO choses two random elements $\alpha, \beta \in \mathbb{Z}_N$ and encrypts the Query Component as below:
\begin{equation*}
q' =
\begin{cases}
g^{(q_i + \beta)\alpha}h^r & \text{if }i=n+1\\
g^{q_i \alpha}h^r&\text{otherwise}\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Lookup table $\mathcal{L}$ is prepared by DO as following:
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{L} = \{g^{(x+\beta)\alpha q_1} \text{, where }x\in[0,|\mathcal{L}|]\\\}
\end{equation*}
$|\mathcal{L}|$ represents the size of look up table. The length of the lookup table should be more than the $R^2$. To reduce space of $\mathcal{L}$, DO creates set of hash values of values in $\mathcal{L}$ represented by $\mathcal{H\{L\}}$ using hash function instance $\mathcal{H}$.
Collectively $\{q', \mathcal{H\{L\}},\mathcal{H}\}$ represent the encrypted query which is sent to CS.
\item CheckIfInside: This procedure is called by CS to make the decision on encrypted data point stored at cloud. The input of the procedure is the encrypted data component $m'$ and the encrypted query $\{q', \mathcal{H\{L\}},\mathcal{H}\}$ and the output is boolean flag True/False representing if the Data lies inside hyper-sphere or not. The steps involved in the procedure are as follow:
\begin{enumerate}[a.]
\item Dot product between $m'$ and $q'$: This is computed using the homomorphic properties of BGN which involves $(n+2)$ pairwise bilinear operation of respective components of $m',q'$ and then modular multiplication operations of the $n+2$ values in $\mathbb{G}_T$ group.
\item Flag Decision : The value thus computed is of form $g^lh^r \in \mathcal{G}_T$. First CS removes the randomization $h^r$ by computing the modular exponentiation w.r.t. $q_1$. Then it checks for the presence of $\mathcal{H}\{g^l\}$ in $\mathcal{H\{L\}}$. If value exists then return True or else return False.
\end{enumerate}
\end{itemize}
It can be observed that though the encryption elements $g,h$ of $\mathcal{PK}$ of BGN are kept secret, the key $\mathcal{SK}:q_1$ is revealed to CS, which is used for de randomization in procedure CheckIfInside. The immediate drawback arising due CS knowing $q_1$ is that each attribute of data
components can be de randomized, thus revealing the frequency information of each attribute.
Secondly the solution presented will not work for the queries with large values of $R$, as the size of Hash value set $\mathcal{H\{L\}}$ is required to be more than $R$.
Apart from the presented solution of BGN, another approach of using secure H/W or proxy server can also be used. The de randomization in Flag Decision can be done in secure H/W and thus securing the data. But the solution will too be limited to smaller range radius queries. And also the presence of extra H/W adds up the cost of cloud client.
\subsection{Secure Data SHRQ}
Following we present our proposed SHRQ solution. The solution will handle the following two shortcomings of SHRQ using BGN :
\begin{enumerate}
\item Data Frequency Hiding SHRQ : No essential parameter like $q_1$ is shared with cloud. Thus securing data against frequency leakage.
\item Handling Large values of $R$: We present a storage mechanism that can be used to handle queries with large values of $R$.
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Frequency Hiding SHRQ}
The SHRQ protocols involved under this scheme are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item KeyGen : Call the group generating algorithm with security parameter $1^\lambda$ which generates the parameters $\{q_1,q_2,\mathbb{G,G}_T,e\}$. Here, $q_1,q_2$ are prime numbers and $N=q_1q_2$ is the order of composite groups $\mathbb{G,G}_T$. For encryption further we generate following parameters :
\begin{enumerate}[a.]
\item Since $ \mathbb{G} $ is composite order of $q_1\times q_2$, it will contain two subgroups $\mathbb{R,S}$ of order $q_1, q_2$. Generate two random generators $\mathbf{r,s}$ from subgroups $\mathbb{R,S}$ respectively.
\item Generate two $n+2$ size random vectors $A,B$ s.t. dot product, $A.B^T = \text{\LARGE\calligra{r}}.q_1$. Here,{ \LARGE\calligra r} is a random integer in $Z_N$.
\end{enumerate}
Parameters $\{N,\mathbb{G,G}_T,e\}$ are shared with cloud and all other information is kept secret.
\item TupleEncryption : Select a random integer$\text{ \LARGE\calligra r}_m \in Z_N$. And encrypt each attribute of the data component as:
\begin{equation*}
m' =r^{m_i}s^{\text{\large\calligra r}_mA_i} \text{ } i \in [0,n+2]
\end{equation*}
\item QueryEncryption : This procedure generates encryption of query component and a look table hash. DO choses three random integers $\alpha,\beta, \text{\LARGE\calligra r}_q \in Z_N$ and encrypts the Query Component as below:
\begin{equation*}
q' =
\begin{cases}
r^{(q_i + \beta)\alpha}s^{\text{\large\calligra r}_qB_i} & \text{if }i=n+1\\
r^{q_i \alpha}s^{\text{\large\calligra r}_qB_i}&\text{otherwise}\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Lookup table hash $\mathcal{H\{L\}}$ is prepared in similar way like before :
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{L} = \{g^{(x+\beta)\alpha q_1} \text{, where }x\in[0,|\mathcal{L}|]\\\}
\end{equation*}
$|\mathcal{L}|$ represents the size of look up table. DO creates set of hash values of values in $\mathcal{L}$ represented by $\mathcal{H\{L\}}$ using hash function instance $\mathcal{H}$. $\{q', \mathcal{H\{L\}},\mathcal{H}\}$ represent the encrypted query which is sent to CS.
\item CheckIfInside : The procedure involves steps of calculation of dot product between encrypted $m',q'$ and using it then making the flag decision True/False of whether the point lies inside hyper-sphere or not. The input to the procedure is $m',\{q', \mathcal{H\{L\}},\mathcal{H}\}$. The steps are explained as follows:
\begin{enumerate}[a.]
\item Dot product between $m'$ and $q'$: First, for each attribute in $m'$ and $q'$ a bilinear mapping is computed among the respected pairs as follow:
\begin{align*}
e(m'_i,q'_i) =
\begin{cases}
e(r^{m_i}s^{\text{\large\calligra r}_mA_i},r^{(q_i + \beta)\alpha}s^{\text{\large\calligra r}_qB_i}) & \text{if }i=n+1\\
e(r^{m_i}s^{\text{\large\calligra r}_mA_i},r^{q_i \alpha}s^{\text{\large\calligra r}_qB_i})&\text{otherwise}\\
\end{cases}
\\=
\begin{cases}
e(r,r)^{m_i(q_i + \beta)\alpha}e(s,s)^{\text{\large\calligra r}_m\text{\large\calligra r}_qA_iB_i}) & \text{if }i=n+1\\
e(r,r)^{m_iq_i \alpha}e(s,s)^{\text{\large\calligra r}_m\text{\large\calligra r}_qA_iB_i})&\text{otherwise}\\
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Now, compute the modular multiplication operations in group $\mathbb{G}_T$ of $n+2$ values. The value $T$ thus computed will be:
\begin{align*}
T &= e(r,r)^{(m.q+\beta)\alpha}e(s,s)^{\text{\large\calligra r}_m\text{\large\calligra r}_qAB}\\
&= e(r,r)^{(m.q+\beta)\alpha}&\text{as } e(s,s)^{\text{\large\calligra r}_m\text{\large\calligra r}_qAB}=1
\end{align*}
\item Flag Decision: Check for the presence of $\mathcal{H}\{T\}$ in $\mathcal{H\{L\}}$. If value exists then return True, else return False.
\end{enumerate}
\end{itemize}
The shortcoming of data frequency leakage in SHRQ using BGN is handled in the proposed scheme as CS will not be able to remove the randomness of $\text{\LARGE\calligra r}_m,\text{\LARGE\calligra r}_q$ from the data component and query component.
Following we present the storage mechanism that can be used by DO w.r.t. data component, so that the Frequency Hiding SHRQ scheme can be used to answer queries for large values of $R$.
\subsubsection{Coarse grained Granular Storage}
\section{Security} \label{security}
We present the security of our protocols in two attack models: \emph{COA} and \emph{KPA}
\subsection*{Ciphertext Only Attack (COA)}
In COA attack model, adversary has access to only the ciphertext values. He can also observe the computation tasks performed over the encrypted data. His aim is to decipher the encrypted database points.
In the presented scheme, the COA adversary can observe the computational output and lookup table access in the query phase execution. Any reverse map building using the adversarial guess on the computation value will first require adversary to identify the type of query. Our protocol can be used to solve:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Range query over encrypted database column (column oblivious).
\item Hypersphere range query over arbitrary number of columns.
\end{enumerate}
For both the solutions, the protocol execution in the query phase is similar. Apart from guessing the type, the adversary should guess the column imprints over which the query executes.
This variable (type of query) consideration with every query execution will make it difficult for COA adversary to build a useful information map and thus will make it difficult to decipher the encrypted database points.
\subsection*{Known Plaintext Attack Model (KPA)}
In this attack model, adversary also has access to few plaintext and corresponding ciphertext values. The goal of adversary is to know the plain text of rest of the accessible encrypted database.
KPA security analysis w.r.t. spatial range queries, like kNN, range query etc. involve the study of attack feasibility to reach KPA adversaries goal. The attack metric used is in terms of the amount of \emph{Plaintext (PT)} and \emph{Ciphertext(CT)} values required to decrypt the whole database.
To break a single \emph{d dimensional} encrypted data point $DP$, the attack construction consists of building a solvable set of \emph{d linear equations}. The linear system is usually built by using the \emph{PT, CT} pairs that are available to adversary under KPA. For the attack on $DP$, he uses access of $d$ such pairs of Query Points $QP_i$, $1\leq i \leq d$ and the scheme output of each $QP_i$ with $DP$. Following we show such a system of equation.
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix} \text{\emph{d PT}}\\\text{\emph{DP}}\\ {varaibles} \end{bmatrix}_{1\times d} \times
&\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} \text{\emph{PT of}}\\QP_1 \end{bmatrix}^T
\begin{bmatrix} \text{\emph{PT of}}\\QP_2 \end{bmatrix}^T
\cdots
\begin{bmatrix} \text{\emph{PT of}}\\QP_d \end{bmatrix}^T
\end{bmatrix}_{d\times d}\\
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\text{\emph{Scheme Output}} \\
\text{\emph{given CT's of}} \\
\text{\emph{DP and QP}}_i
\end{bmatrix}_{1 \times d}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
The adversary would reach a solvable system of equations, if he gets the useful inferable information from the scheme output, thus deciphering the particular data point $DP$. For decrypting the whole database, it reduces to the fact on whether the same set of pairs ($PT,CT$ pairs for $QP_i$'s) could be used in breaking other data points or not.
We present the KPA security analysis in the same attack setting to decrypt the whole encrypted Database.
In our schemes presented in section \ref{protocols}, the CS side computation involving encrypted DP and encrypted QP consists of computation of deterministic modular exponent value $(\text{\emph{in }} \mathbb{G}_T)$ and verification of same value in the lookup table. W.r.t. deterministic value, the information leakage requires adversary to have high computation power (\emph{Secure under hardness of Discrete logarithm problem}). The leakage w.r.t. lookup table access (\emph{for True Positives}) leaks the following information:
\begin{itemize}
\item For Query phase execution in $1-c\mathcal{ES}$, the adversary can guess the scheme computation value i.e. $\text{\emph{Radius}}^2 -\text{\emph{Dist(DP,QP)}}^2$ in range $[0,len(\text{\emph{lookup table}})]$.
\item For Query phase execution in higher coarser spaces, $f-c\mathcal{ES}$, the adversary guesses the scheme computation value i.e. $\text{\emph{Radius}}^2 -\text{\emph{Dist(DP,QP)}}^2$ in range $[0,f\times len(\text{\emph{lookup table}})]$.
\end{itemize}
For adversary, to decipher a particular encrypted data point$-DP'$ by building the system of linear equations following conditions needs to meet:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The adversary access to \emph{d Plaintext-Ciphertext Query points} s.t. $DP'\in \text{\emph{True positives}}$ for each of the query.
\item Adversary correctly guesses the computation output w.r.t. lookup table access.
\end{enumerate}
In KPA attack model, adversary doesn't have the choice on \emph{PT-CT Query points} that are revealed to him. So, to break the particular point, number of \emph{PT-CT} pairs could range between $[d-|D|]$.
And, to decipher the whole database assuming the metric range in each dimension being $X$ and lookup table size $v$, the number of queries could range between $[d.(\frac{X^d}{v^d}),|D|]$. which would be of the order of database size itself.
\subsection{Coarse Grained Granular Storage (CGGS)}\label{sec:cggs}
In this section, we will describe a storage scheme, \emph{Coarse Grained Granular Storage (CGGS)} which helps in reducing the limitation of $SHRQ_T$.
The main idea of CGGS is :
\emph{Store multiple copies of the data item. In the first copy, actual data is considered for storage. In subsequent copies, the data is stored after transformation to a coarser euclidean space. In the coarser euclidean space, the unit distance between the two points is less than the distance in the actual euclidean space. This reduction in the distance increases the query radius range that can be supported given a Lookup Table.}
To formalize the coarser grained euclidean space we define the term :\\
\emph{f-coarser Euclidean Space ($f-c\mathcal{ES}$):} We define $f-c\mathcal{ES}$ as a transformed euclidean space where metric value $x$ in any dimension is transformed to $\lfloor \frac{x}{f} \rfloor$. In this notation, base euclidean space $\mathcal{ES}$ can also be represented as $1-c\mathcal{ES}$.
Here, $f$ is defined as the \emph{coarsity factor} which can take any positive value. Anyhow for the case we deal in this paper, $f$ can also be represented in the form of $f=b_c^{e_{\tiny{c}}}$, where $b_c$ represents \emph{coarsity base} while $e_c$ represents \emph{coarsity exponent}.
\vspace{1mm}
\\
\vspace{1.5mm}
{\Large\textbf{Distance Impact}}\\
Now we will quantify the relationship of the distances, between the points in the $1-c\mathcal{ES}$ and $f-c\mathcal{ES}$.
Let distance between two \emph{d-dimensional} points in base euclidean space ($1-c\mathcal{ES}$) be $dist_{1c}$ and distance between the same points in $f$-coarser transformed euclidean space be $dist_{fc}$. Then the following equations shows the relationship between the two values:
{\small
\begin{equation}\label{dist}
\frac{dist_{1c}}{f} - \sqrt{d} \leq dist_{fc} \leq \frac{dist_{1c}}{f} + \sqrt{d}
\end{equation}
}
{\Large\emph{Proof:} }
We prove equation \ref{dist} for 2-dimensional points.
For higher dimensions, proof can be extended straight forwardly.
Deriving from \ref{dist}, it is sufficient to prove the following:
{\small
\begin{equation*}
(f.dist_{fc} - dist_{1c})^2 \leq 2f^2
\end{equation*}
}
Let us consider two 2-dimensional points $(x_1,y_1)$ and $(x_2,y_2)$.
{\tiny
\begin{align*}
dist_{1c} &= \sqrt{(x_1-x_2)^2 + (y_1-y_2)^2}\\
dist_{fc} &= \sqrt{(\lfloor\frac{x_1}{f}\rfloor-\lfloor\frac{x_2}{f}\rfloor)^2 + (\lfloor\frac{y_1}{f}\rfloor-\lfloor\frac{y_2}{f}\rfloor)^2}\\
&\leq \sqrt{(\frac{x_1-x_2}{f}+1)^2 + (\frac{y_1-y_2}{f}+1)^2}
\end{align*}
}
Let $x_1-x_2 = X$ and $y_1-y_2 = Y$
{\tiny
\begin{align*}
(f.&dist_{fc} - dist_{1c})^2 \leq ({\sqrt{(X+f)^2+(Y+f)^2}-\sqrt{X^2+Y^2}})^2\\
&= 2(f^2 + X^2+Y^2+X.f+Y.f) - 2\sqrt{(X^2+Y^2+X.f+Y.f)^2 + f^2(X-Y)^2}\\
&\leq 2(f^2 + X^2+Y^2+X.f+Y.f) - 2\sqrt{(X^2+Y^2+X.f+Y.f)^2 }\\
&\leq 2f^2
\end{align*}
}
Equation \ref{dist} is used to resize the query radius when using data values stored in $x-c\mathcal{ES}'s$ where $x \geq 2$.
|
\section{Introduction}
Deep Learning (DL) has revolutionized the way of performing classification, pattern recognition, and regression tasks in various application areas, such as image and speech recognition, recommendation systems, natural language processing, drug discovery, medical imaging, bioinformatics, and fraud detection, among few examples~\cite{goodfellow2016deep}. However, scientific applications solving linear and non-linear equations with demanding accuracy and computational performance requirements have not been the DL focus. Only until recently, a new class of DL networks, called \emph{Physics-Informed Neural Networks} (PINN), emerged as a very promising DL method to solve scientific computing problems~\cite{raissi2019physics, raissi2017physicsI, raissi2017physicsII}. In fact, PINNs are specifically designed to integrate scientific computing equations, such as Ordinary Differential Equations (ODE), Partial Differential Equations (PDE), non-linear and integral-differential equations~\cite{pang2019fpinns}, into the DL network training. In this work, we focus on PINN application to solve a traditional scientific computing problem: the solution of a linear system arising from the discretization of a PDE. We solve the linear system arising from the Poisson equation, one of the most common PDEs whose solution still requires a non-negligible time with traditional approaches. We evaluate the level of maturity in terms of accuracy and performance of PINN linear solver, either as a replacement of other traditional scientific approaches or to be deployed in combination with conventional scientific methods, such as the multigrid and Gauss-Seidel methods~\cite{quarteroni2010numerical}.
PINNs are deep-learning networks that, after training (solving an optimization problem to minimize a residual function), output an approximated solution of differential equation/equations, given an input point in the integration domain (called collocation point). Before PINNs, previous efforts, have explored solving PDEs with constrained neural networks~\cite{lagaris1998artificial,psichogios1992hybrid}. The major innovation with PINN is the introduction of a \emph{residual} network that encodes the governing physics equations, takes the output of a deep-learning network (called \emph{surrogate}), and calculates a residual value (a loss function in DL terminology). The inclusion of a \emph{residual} network, somehow, bears a resemblance of those iterative Krylov linear solvers in scientific applications. The fundamental difference is that PINNs calculate differential operators on graphs using automatic differentiation~\cite{baydin2018automatic} while traditional scientific approaches are based on numerical schemes for differentiation. As noted in previous works~\cite{raissi2019physics,mishra1}, automatic differentiation is the main strength of PINNs because operators on the residual network can be elegantly and efficiently formulated with automatic differentiation. An important point is that the PINN's \emph{residual} network should not be confused with the popular network architectures, called also \emph{Residual} networks, or \emph{ResNet} in short, where the name derives from using skip-connection or residual connections~\cite{goodfellow2016deep} instead of calculating a residual like in PINNs.
\textbf{The basic formulation of the PINN training does not require labeled data, e.g., results from other simulations or experimental data, and is unsupervised}: PINNs only require the evaluation of the residual function~\cite{mishra1}. Providing simulation or experimental data for training the network in a supervised manner is also possible and necessary for so data-assimilation~\cite{raissi2020hidden}, inverse problems~\cite{mishra2}, super resolution~\cite{esmaeilzadeh2020meshfreeflownet,wang2020physics}, and discrete PINNs~\cite{raissi2019physics}. The supervised approach is often used for solving ill-defined problems when for instance we lack boundary conditions or an Equation of State (EoS) to close a system of equations (for instance, EoS for the fluid equations~\cite{zhu2020generating}). In this study, we only focus on the basic PINNs as we are interested in solving PDEs without relying on other simulations to assist the DL network training. A common case in scientific applications is that we solve the same PDE with different source terms at each time step. For instance, in addition to other computational kernels, Molecular Dynamics (MD) code and semi-implicit fluid and plasma codes, such as GROMACS~\cite{van2005gromacs}, Nek5000~\cite{nek5000-web-page}, and iPIC3D~\cite{markidis2010multi}, calculate the Poisson equation for the electrostatic and pressure solver~\cite{offermans2016strong} and divergence cleaning operations at each cycle.
Once a PINN is trained, the inference from the trained PINN can be used to replace traditional numerical solvers in scientific computing. In this so-called \emph{inference} or \emph{prediction} step, the input includes independent variables like simulation time step and simulation domain positions. The output is the solution of the governing equations at the time and position specified by the input. Therefore, PINNs are a \emph{gridless} method because any point in in the domain can be taken as input without requiring the definition of a mesh. Moreover, the trained PINN network can be used for predicting the values on simulation grids of different resolutions without the need of being retrained. For this reason, the computational cost does not scale with the number of grid points like many traditional computational methods. PINNs borrow concepts from popular methods in traditional scientific computing, including Newton-Krylov solvers~\cite{kelley1995iterative}, finite element methods (FEM)~\cite{rao2017finite}, and Monte Carlo techniques~\cite{rubinstein2016simulation}. Like the Newton-Krylov solvers, PINNs training is driven by the objective of minimizing the residual function and employs Newton methods during the optimization process. Similarly to the FEM, PINN uses interpolation basis (non-linear) functions, called \emph{activation functions}~\cite{ramachandran2017searching} in the neural network fields. Like Monte Carlo and quasi-Monte Carlo methods, PINNs integrate the governing equations using a random or a low-discrepancy sequence, such as the Sobol sequence~\cite{sobol1990quasi}, for the collocation points used during the evaluation the residual function.
The motivation of this work is twofold. First, we evaluate the potential of deploying PINNs for solving linear systems, such as the one arising from the Poisson equation. We focus on solving the Poisson equation, a generalization of the Laplace equation, and an omnipresent equation in scientific computing. Traditionally, Poisson solvers are based on linear solvers, such as the Conjugate Gradient (CG) or Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). These approaches may require a large number of iterations before convergence and are computationally expensive as the fastest methods scale as $\mathcal{O}(N_g \log N_g)$, where $N_g$ is the number of grid points in the simulation domain. The second goal of this work is to propose a new class of linear solvers combining new emerging DL approaches with old traditional linear solvers, such as multigrid and iterative solvers.
In this work, we show that the accuracy and the convergence of PINN solvers can be tuned by setting up an appropriate configuration of depth, layer size, activation functions and by leveraging transfer learning. We find that fully-connected surrogate/approximator networks with more than three layers produce similar performance results in the first thousand training epochs. The choice of activation function is critical for PINN performance: depending on the \emph{smoothness} of the source term, different activation functions provide considerably different accuracy and convergence. Transfer learning in PINNs allow us to initialize the network with the results of another training solving the same PDE with a different source term~\cite{weiss2016survey}. The usage of transfer learning considerably speed-up the training of the network. In terms of accuracy and computational performance, a naive replacement of traditional numerical approaches with the direct usage of PINNs is still not competitive with traditional solvers and codes, such as CG implementations in HPC packages~\cite{balay2019petsc}.
To address the limitations of the direct usage of PINN, we combine PINN linear solvers with traditional approaches such as the multigrid and Gauss-Seidel methods~\cite{trottenberg2000multigrid,quarteroni2010numerical}. The DL linear solver is used to solve the linear system on a coarse grid and the solution refined on finer grids using the multigrid V-cycle and Gauss-Seidel solver iterations. This approach allows us to use the DL networking of converging quickly on low-frequency components of the problem solution and rely on Gauss-Seidel to solve accurately high-frequency components of the solution. We show that the integration of DL techniques in traditional linear solvers leads to solvers that are on-par of high-performance solvers, such as PETSc conjugate gradient linear solvers, both in terms of performance and accuracy.
The paper is organized as follows. We first introduce the governing equations, the background information about PINN architecture and showcase the usage of PINN to solve the 2D Poisson equation. Section~\ref{sec:tune} presents a characterization of PINN linear solver performance when varying the network size, activation functions, and data set distribution and we highlight the critical importance of leveraging transfer learning. We present the design of a Poisson solver combining new emerging DL techniques into the V-cycle of the multigrid method and analyze its error and computational performance in Section~\ref{sec:integrate}. Finally, we summarize this study and outline challenges and next step for the future work in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{The New: Physics-Informed Linear Solvers}\label{sec:bg}
The PINNs goal is to approximate the solution of a system of one or more differential, possibly non-linear equations, by encoding explicitly the differential equation formulation in the neural network. Without loss of generality, PINN solves the non-linear equation:
\begin{equation}
u(x)_t = \mathcal{N}u(x) = 0, x \in \Omega, t \in [0, T],
\end{equation}
where $u$ is the solution of the system, $u_t$ is its derivative with respect to time $t$ in the period [0, T], $\mathcal{N}$ is a non-linear differential operator, $x$ is an independent, possibly multi-dimensional variable, defined over the domain $\Omega$. As a main reference equation to solve, we consider the Poisson equation in a unit square domain and Dirichlet boundary conditions throughout this paper:
\begin{equation}
\nabla^2 u(x,y) = f(x,y), (x,y) \in [0, 1] \times [0, 1] .
\label{poisson}
\end{equation}
While this problem is linear in nature and PINNs can handle non-linear problems, we focus on the Poisson equation because it is one of the most solved PDEs in scientific applications. The Poisson equation, an example of elliptic PDE, arises in several different fields from electrostatic problems in plasma and MD codes, to potential flow and pressure solvers in Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), to structural mechanics problems. Elliptic problems are one of the Achilles' heels for scientific applications~\cite{morton2005numerical}. While relatively fast and straightforward - albeit subject to numerical constraints - computational methods exist for solving hyperbolic and parabolic problems, e.g. explicit differentiation, traditionally the solution of elliptic problems requires linear solvers, such as Krylov (CG or GMREs) solvers or FFT. Typically, in scientific applications, the simulation progresses through several time steps, where a Poisson equation with same boundary conditions and different source term $f(x,y)$ (typically not considerably different from the source term of the previous time step) is solved.
In its basic formulation, PINNs combine two networks together: an \emph{approximator} or \emph{surrogate} network and a residual network (see Figure~\ref{basicPINN})~\cite{raissi2019physics}. The approximator/surrogate network undergoes training and after it provides a solution $\tilde{u}$ at a given input point $(x,y)$, called \emph{collocation point}, in the simulation domain. The residual network encodes the governing equations and it is the distinctive feature of PINNs. The residual network is not trained and its only function is to provide the approximator/surrogate network with the residual (\emph{loss} function in DL terminology):
\begin{equation}
r = \nabla^2 \tilde{u}(x,y) - f(x,y).
\label{resdi1}
\end{equation}
Differently from traditional methods often relying on finite difference approximation, the derivatives on the residual network graph, e.g, $\nabla^2 \tilde{u}(x,y)$ in Equation~\ref{resdi1}, are calculated using the so-called \emph{automatic differentiation}, or \texttt{autodiff}, that leverages the chain rule~\cite{baydin2018automatic} applied to the operations defined on the network nodes. In the solution of the Poisson Equation, the Laplacian operator is expressed as two successive first-oder derivatives of $\tilde{u}$ in the $x$ and $y$ directions and their summation (see the blue network nodes in Figure~\ref{basicPINN}).
In the inference/prediction phase, only the surrogate network is used to calculate the solution to the problem (remember that the residual network is only used in the training process to calculate the residual).
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figs/PINNneuralNetwork.pdf
\end{center}
\caption{A PINN to solve a Poisson problem $\partial^2_x u(x,y) + \partial^2_y u(x,y)= f(x,y)$ with associated Dirichlet boundary conditions. PINN consists of two basic interconnected networks. The first network (red vertices) provides a surrogate or approximation of the problem solution $u$. The network takes as input a point in the problem domain $(x,y)$ and provides an approximate solution $\tilde{u}$. This network weights and biases are trainable. The second network (blue vertices) takes the approximate solution from the first network and calculates the residual that is used as loss function to train the first network. The residual network includes the governing equations, boundary conditions and initial conditions (not included in the plot as the Poisson problem does not require initial conditions).}
\label{basicPINN}
\end{figure}
The approximator/surrogate network is a feedforward neural network~\cite{goodfellow2016deep}: it processes an input $x$ via $l$ layer of units (called also \emph{neurons}). The approximator/surrogate network expresses affine-linear maps ($Z$) between units and scalar non-linear activation functions ($a$) within the units:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{u} (x) = Z_l \circ a \circ Z_{l-1} \circ a ... \circ a \circ Z_{2} \circ a \circ Z_{1}(x).
\end{equation}
In DL, the most used activation functions are Rectified Linear Unit (\texttt{ReLU}), \texttt{tanh}, \texttt{swish}, \texttt{sine}, and \texttt{sigmoid} functions. See Ref.~\cite{ramachandran2017searching} for an overview of the different activation functions. As shown by Ref. ~\cite{mishra1}, PINNs requires sufficiently smooth activation functions. \textbf{PINNs with \texttt{ReLU} and other non-smooth activation functions, such as \texttt{ELU} and \texttt{SELU}~(Exponential and Scaled Exponential Linear Units) are not ``consistent/convergent" methods}: in the limit of an infinite training dataset a well-trained PINN with \texttt{ReLU}-like activation functions, the solution does not converge to the exact solution~\cite{mishra1}. This theoretical result is also confirmed by our experiments using \texttt{ReLU}-like activation functions. For this reason, we do not use \texttt{ReLU}-like activation functions in PINNs.
The affine maps $Z$ are characterized by the weights and biases of the approximator/surrogate network:
\begin{equation}
Z_l x_l = W_l x_l + b_l,
\end{equation}
where $W_l$ is a \emph{weight} matrix for the layer $l$ and $b$ is the \emph{bias} vector. In PINNs, the weight values are initialized using the \emph{Xavier} (also called \emph{Glorot} when using the last name of the inventor instead) procedure~\cite{kumar2017weight}.
Typically, the PINN approximator/surrogate networks are fully connected networks consisting of 4-6 hidden layers(H) and 50-100 units per layer, similarly to the network in Figure~\ref{basicPINN}. There are also successful experiments using convolutional and recurrent layers~\cite{gao2020phygeonet, nascimento2019fleet} but the vast majority of existing PINNs rely on fully-connected layers. In this work, we focus on studying the performance of fully-connected PINN.
The residual network is responsible for encoding the equation to solve and provide the loss function to the approximator network for the optimization process. In PINNs, we minimize the Mean Squared Error (MSE) of the residual (Equation~\ref{resdi1}):
\begin{equation}
MSE_r = \frac {1}{N_{x_i,y_i}}\sum | r(x_i,y_i) | ^2,
\label{trainingerror}
\end{equation}
where $N_{x_i,y_i}$ is the number of collocation points. \textbf{In PINNs, the collocation points constitute the training dataset}. Note that $MSE_r$ depends on the size of the training of the dataset ($N_{x_i,y_i}$), e.g., the number of collocation points. In practice, a larger number of collocation points leads to an increased MSE value. $MSE_r$ depends also on on the distribution of our collocation points. The three most used dataset distributions are: \texttt{uniform} (the dataset is uniformly spaced on the simulation domain as on a uniform grid), \texttt{pseudo-random} (collocations points are sampled using pseudo-random number generator) and \texttt{Sobol} (collocation points are from the Sobol low-discrepancy sequence). Typically, the default training distribution for PINNs is \texttt{Sobol}, like in quasi-Montecarlo methods.
Recently, several PINN architectures have been proposed. PINNs differentiate on how the residual network is defined. For instance, \texttt{fPINN} (fractional PINN) is a PINN with a residual network capable of calculating residuals of governing equations including fractional calculus operators \cite{pang2019fpinns}. \texttt{fPINN} combines automatic differentiation with numerical discretization for the fractional operators in the residual network. \texttt{fPINN} extends PINN to solve integral and differential-integral equations. Another important PINN is \texttt{vPINN} (variational PINN): they include a residual network that uses the variational form of the problem into the loss function~\cite{kharazmi2019variational} and an additional shallow network using trial functions and polynomials and trigonometric functions as test functions. A major advantage with respect to basic PINNs is that in the analytical calculation by integrating by parts the integrand in the variational form, we can the order of the differential operators represented by the neural networks, speeding up the training and increasing PINN accuracy. \texttt{hp-VPINN} is an extension of \texttt{vPINN} that allows hp-refinement via domain decomposition as h-refinement and projection onto space of high order polynomials as p-refinement~\cite{kharazmi2020hp}. In this work, we use the original residual network as shown in Figure~\ref{basicPINN}.
In the training phase, an optimization process targeting the residual minimization determines the weights and biases of the surrogate network. Typically, we use two optimizers in succession: the Adam optimizer as first and then a Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno (BFGS) optimizer~\cite{fletcher2013practical}. BFGS uses the Hessian matrix (curvature in highly dimensional space) to calculate the optimization direction and provides more accurate results. However, if used directly without using the Adam optimizer can rapidly converge to a local minimum (for the residual) without exiting. For this reason, the Adam optimizer is used first to avoid local minima, and then the solution is refined by BFGS. We note that the typical BFGS used in PINNs is the L-BFGS-B: L-BFGS is a limited-memory version of BFGS to handle problems with many variables, such as DL problems; the BFGS-B is a variant of BFGS for bound constrained optimization problems. In our work, we tested several optimizers, including Newton and Powell methods, and found that L-BFGS-B provides by far the highest accuracy and faster convergence in all our test problems. \textbf{L-BFGS-B is currently the most critical technology for PINNs}.
An \emph{epoch} comprises all the optimizer iterations to cover all the datasets. In PINNs, typically, thousands of epochs are required to achieve accurate results. By nature, PINNs are under-fitted: the network is not complex enough to accurately capture relationships between the collocation points and solution. Therefore, an extensive dataset increase improves the PINN performance; however, the computational cost increases raising the data set size.
One crucial point related to PINNs is whether a neural network can approximate simultaneously and uniformly the solution function and its partial derivatives. Ref.~\cite{lu2019deepxde} shows that feed-forward neural nets with enough neurons can achieve this task. A formal analysis of the errors in PINNs is presented in Refs. \cite{mishra1,lu2019deepxde}.
\textbf{An important fact determining the convergence behavior of the DL networks and PINN linear solvers is the Frequency-principle (F-principle)}: \emph{DNNs often fit target functions from low to high frequencies during the training process} \cite{xu2019frequency}. The F-principle implies that in PINNs, the low frequency / large scale features of the solution emerge first, while it will take several training epochs to recover high frequency / small-scale features. This
Despite the recent introduction of PINNs, several PINN frameworks for PDE solutions exist. All the major PINN frameworks are written in Python and rely either on \texttt{TensorFlow}~\cite{abadi2016tensorflow} or \texttt{PyTorch}~\cite{paszke2019pytorch} to express the neural network architecture and exploit auto-differentiation used in the residual network. Together with \texttt{TensorFlow}, \texttt{SciPy}~\cite{virtanen2020scipy} is often used to use high-order optimizers such as L-BFGS-B. Two valuable PINN Domain-Specific Languages (DSL) are \texttt{DeepXDE}~\cite{lu2019deepxde} and \texttt{sciANN}~\cite{haghighat2020sciann}. DeepXDE is an highly customizable framework with TensorFlow 1 and 2 backend and it supports basic and fractional PINNs in complex geometries. \texttt{sciANN} is a DSL based on and similar to \texttt{Keras}~\cite{gulli2017deep}. In this work, we use the \texttt{DeepXDE} DSL.
\subsection{An Example: Solving the 2D Poisson Equation with PINN}\label{sec:poisson}
To showcase how PINNs work and provide a baseline performance in terms of accuracy and computational cost, we solve a Poisson problem in the unit square domain with a source term $f(x,y)$ that is smooth, e.g., differentiable, and contains four increasing frequencies:
\begin{equation}
f(x,y) = \frac{1}{4} \sum_{k=1}^4 (-1)^{k+1} 2 k \sin(k \pi x) \sin( k \pi y).
\label{manysin}
\end{equation}
We choose such a source term as it has a simple solution and to show the F-principle's impact on the convergence of PINN to the numerical solution: we expect the lower frequency components, e.g., $k=1$, to convergence faster than the higher frequency components present in the solution ($k = 2, 3, 4$).
We use a fully-connected four-layer PINN with a \texttt{tanh} activation function for the approximator/surrogate network for demonstration purposes and without a loss of generality. The input layer consists of two neurons (the $x$ and $y$ coordinates of one collocation point), while each hidden and output layers comprise 50 neurons and one neuron, respectively. The weights of the network are initialized with the Xavier method. As a reminder, the approximator/surrogate network's output is the approximate solution to our problem. The residual network is a graph encoding the Poisson equation and source term and provides the loss function (Equation~\ref{trainingerror}) to drive the approximator/surrogate network's optimization. At each, a collocation point within the problem domain is drawn from the \texttt{Sobol} sequence. The training data set consists of 128 $\times$128 collocation points on the domain and additional 4,000 collocation points on the boundary for a total of 20,384 points. We train the approximator/surrogate network 10,000 of Adam optimizer epochs with a learning rate $\lambda$ equal to 0.001 (the magnitude of the optimizer vector along the direction to minimize the residual), followed by 13,000 epochs of L-BFGS-B optimizer. We use the \texttt{DeepXDE} DSL for our PINN implementation.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/IterationsFinal.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The top panels show the solution of the Poisson equation at different epochs using a PINN. The bottom panel shows the training error for an initial training with Adam's optimizer (10,000 epochs), followed by L-BFGS-B (13,000 epochs). The plot also includes the total time for training the PINN on a dual-core Intel i5 processor. The right bottom subplot presents the error of the final solution compared to the exact solution.}
\label{basicPINNresults}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{basicPINNresults} shows the Poisson equation's approximate solution with the source term of Equation~\ref{manysin} at different epochs, the training error, and the error of the PINN solution after the training is completed. The Figure \ref{basicPINNresults} top panels present the contour plot of the approximator/surrogate solution on a 128$\times$128 uniform grid after 500, 5,000 and 23,000 epochs. To determine the solution at each epoch, we take the approximate/surrogate network and perform inference/prediction using the points of the 128$\times$128 uniform grid. By analyzing the approximate solutions' evolution (top panels of Figure~\ref{basicPINNresults}), it is clear that the PINN resolves the low-frequency component present in the solution: a yellow band appears along the diagonal of the plot while local peaks (small islands in the contour plot) are not resolved. As the training progresses, localized peaks associated with the source term's high-frequencies appear and are resolved. The bottom right panel of Figure~\ref{basicPINNresults} shows a contour plot of the error after the training is completed. The maximum pointwise error is approximately 5E-3. We note that a large part of the error is located in the proximity of the boundaries. This issue results from the \emph{vanishing-gradient} problem \cite{wang2020understanding}: unbalanced gradients back-propagate during the model training. This issue is similar to the numerical \emph{stiffness} problem when using traditional numerical approaches. One of the effective technique to mitigate the \emph{vanishing-gradient} problem is to employ locally (to the layers or the node) adaptive activation functions~\cite{jagtap2020locally}. Additional techniques for mitigating \emph{vanishing-gradient} problem are the usage of ReLU activations functions and batch normalization.
The bottom panel of Figure \ref{basicPINNresults} shows the training error's evolution calculated with Equation~\ref{trainingerror}. In this case, the initial error is approximately 1.08E2 and decreases up to 2.79E-5 at the end of the training. The initial error mainly depends on the training data set size: small input data sets reduce training error that does not translate to higher accuracy in the solution of the problem. However, the training is a reasonable metric when comparing the PINN performance when using the same data set size.
By analyzing the evolution of the training error, it is clear that the Adam optimizer training error stabilizes approximately in the range of 5E-3 - 1E-2 after 2,000 epochs, and we do not observe any evident improvement after 2,000 epochs of Adam optimization. The L-BFGS-B optimizer leads the error from 5E-3 - 1E-2 to 2.79E-5 and is responsible for the major decrease of the training error. However, we remind that L-BFGS-B is not used at the beginning of the training as it can converge quickly to a wrong solution (a local minimum in the optimization problem).
To provide an idea of the PINN training's overall computation cost, we also report the total time for training the PINN in this basic non-optimized configuration on a dual-core Intel i5 2.9 GHz CPU. The total training execution time is 6,380 seconds, corresponding to approximately 1.5 hours. For comparison, the solution of the same problem with a uniform grid size 128$\times$128 on the same system with the \texttt{petsc4py} CG solver~\cite{dalcin2011parallel,balay2019petsc} requires 92.28 seconds to converge to double-precision machine epsilon. Basic PINN's direct usage to solve the Poisson problem is limited for scientific application given the computational cost and the relatively low accuracy. In the next sections, we investigate which factors impact the PINN performance and its accuracy. We design a PINN-based solver to have comparable performance to state-of-the-art linear solvers such as \texttt{petsc4py}.
\section{Characterizing PINNs as Linear Solvers}\label{sec:tune}
To characterize the PINNs performance for solving the Poisson equation, we perform several parametric studies varying the approximator/surrogate network size, activation functions, and training data size and distribution. We also investigate the performance enhancement achieved by using the transfer learning technique to initialize with the network weights obtained solving the Poisson equation with a different source term~\cite{weiss2016survey}. During our experiments, we found that two relatively different configurations of the network are required in the case of the source term of the Poisson equation is smooth on non smooth, e.g. non-differentiable. For this reason, we choose two main use cases to showcase the impact of different parameters. For the smooth source term case, we take the source term from Equation~\ref{manysin} (the example we showcased in the previous section). For the non-smooth source term case, we take a source term that is zero everywhere except for the points enclosed in the circle, centered in $(0.5,0.5)$ with radius $0.2$:
\begin{equation}
f(x,y) = 1 \; \textnormal{for} \; \sqrt{(x-0.5)^2 + (y-0.5)^2 } \leq 0.2.
\label{nonsmooth}
\end{equation}
As baseline configuration, we adopt the same configuration described in the previous section: a fully-connected network with four hidden layers of 50 units, and \texttt{tanh} activation function. The data set consists of 128$\times$128 collocation points in the domain and 4,000 points on the boundary. Differently from the previous configuration, we reduce the training epochs to 2,000 for the Adam Optimizer (the training error do not decrease after 2,000 epochs) and 5,000 for the L-BFGS-B optimizer.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/ImpactArchitecture1.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Training error for different fully-connected PINN depth: one (\texttt{1H}), two (\texttt{2H}), three (\texttt{3H}), four (\texttt{4H}), five (\texttt{5H}) and six (\texttt{6H}) hidden layers with 50 neurons each. We also consider the training error for PINNs with six hidden layers and \texttt{10-20-40-80-160-320} and \texttt{320-160-80-40-20-10} units per hidden layer, respectively.}
\label{architecture}
\end{figure}
The first experiments we perform is to evaluate the impact of the network size (depth and units per layer) on the training error. To understand the impact of surrogate neural network depth, we perform training with layers of 50 neurons with one (\texttt{1H}), two (\texttt{2H}), three (\texttt{3H}), four (\texttt{4H}), five (\texttt{5H}) and six (\texttt{6H}) hidden layers (\texttt{H} stands for hidden layer). We present the evolution of training error in Figure \ref{architecture}. By analyzing this figure, it is clear that shallow networks consisting of one or two hidden layers do not perform, and the PINN learning is bound in learning after few thousand epochs. Even one layer with large number of units, e.g., one hidden layer with 640 units (see the magenta line in the right panel of Figure \ref{architecture}), do not lead to better performance as demonstration that depth is more important than breadth in PINN. Deeper networks with more than three layers lead to lower final training errors and improved learning. However, we find that the final training error saturates for PINNs with more than six hidden layers (results not shown here) for the two test cases. An important aspect for the deployment of PINN in scientific applications is that the performance of PINNs with four and more hidden layers have comparable performance in the first 500 epochs of the Adam and L-BFGS-B optimizers. Taking in account that the PINN computational cost for PINNs increases with the number layers and realistically only few hundred epochs are necessary for PINN to be competitive with HPC solvers, PINNs with four hidden layers provide the best trade-off in terms of accuracy and computational performance.
For the six hidden layers case, we also check the importance of having a large/small number of units at the beginning/end of the network: we consider the performance of PINN with six hidden layers and \texttt{10-20-40-80-160-320} and \texttt{320-160-80-40-20-10} units per hidden layer, respectively. We find that to have a large number of units at the beginning of the network and small number of units at the end of the network is detrimental to the PINN performance (a six hidden layer network in this configuration has the same performance of a five hidden layer PINN). Instead, to have a small number of units at the beginning of the network and a large number of units at the end of the network is beneficial to the PINN. \textbf{This observation hints that initial hidden layers might responsible for encoding the low-frequencies components (fewer points are needed to represent low-frequency signals) and the following hidden layers are responsible for representing higher-frequency components (several points are needed to represent high-frequency signals)}. However, more experiments are needed to confirm this hypothesis.
\textbf{The most impactful parameter for achieving a low training error is the activation function}. This fact is expected as activation functions are nothing else than non-linear interpolation functions (similarly to nodal functions in FEM): some interpolation function might be a better fit to represent the different source terms. For instance, sigmoid functions are a good fit to represent non-differentiable source terms exhibiting discontinuities. On the contrary, a smooth \texttt{tanh} activation function can closely represent smooth functions.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/ImpactActivation2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Training error for different activation functions. The two test cases show rather different performance: the best activation function for smooth source term case is \texttt{tanh}, while it is \texttt{sigmoid} for the non-smooth source term case. Local (to the layer) adaptive activation functions provide a reduction of the training error.}
\label{activation}
\end{figure}
We investigate the impact of different activation functions and show the evolution of the training errors in Figure~\ref{activation}. Together with traditional activation function, we also consider the Locally Adaptive Activation Functions (\texttt{LAAF}): with this technique, a scalable parameter is introduced in each layer separately, and then optimized with a variant of stochastic gradient descent algorithm~\cite{jagtap2020locally}. The LAAF are provided in the \texttt{DeepXDE} DSL. We investigate LAAF with factor of 5 (\texttt{LAAF-5}) and 10 (\texttt{LAAF-10}) for the \texttt{tanh}, \texttt{swish} and \texttt{sigmoid} cases. The \texttt{LAAF} usage is critical to mitigate the \emph{vanishing-gradient} problem.
The activation function's different impact for the two test cases (smooth and non-smooth source terms) is clear when analyzing the results presented in Figure~\ref{activation}. In the smooth source term case, the best activation function is the locally (to the layer) adaptive \texttt{tanh} activation function with factor 5 (\texttt{LAAF5 - tanh}). In the case of the non-smooth source term, the \texttt{sigmoid} activation function outperforms all the other activation functions. In particular, in this case, the best activation function is the locally (to the layer) adaptive sigmoid activation function with factor 10 (\texttt{LAAF10 - sigmoid}).
As we mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:poisson}, the data size impacts the training errors. Large data sets increase the PINN accuracy but have larger training errors than the training with small data set because of the error definition (see Equation \ref{trainingerror}). For this reason, the training error should be compared only for training using the same training data set size. We investigate the impact of three different input data size ( 1- 1,200 points in the domain and 200 on the boundary, 2-64$\times$64 points in the domain and 2,000 on the boundary, 3- 128$\times$128 points in the domain and 4,000 on the boundary) with three collocation point distributions (\texttt{uniform}, \texttt{pseudo-random}, and \texttt{Sobol} sequence) for the non-smooth source term. We show the results in Figure~\ref{impactdata}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/ImpactDataSetFinal.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Training error for different data set (1,200 points in the domain and 200 on the boundary, 64$\times$64 points in the domain and 2,000 on the boundary, 128$\times$128 points in the domain and 4,000 on the boundary) and different distribution (\texttt{uniform}, \texttt{pseudo-random} and \texttt{Sobol}).}
\label{impactdata}
\end{figure}
In general, we find that the collocation point distribution does not have a considerable impact on the training error for large data sets: the \texttt{Sobol} and \texttt{pseudo-random} distributions have a slightly better performance than the \texttt{uniform} distribution. For small data sets, \texttt{pseudo-random} distribution result in lower training errors.
We also study the impact of having a \emph{restart} procedure: we train first the PINN with a small data set 1,200 points in the domain and 200 on the boundary) for 4,500 epochs (and then re-train the same network with a large data set (128$\times$128 points in the domain and 4,000 on the boundary) for 2,500 cycles (see the magenta lines and the grey box in Figure~\ref{impactdata}). Such a restart capability would lead to a large computational saving. However, the results show that to retrain with a large data set does not lead to a decreased error and result in the highest training error.
\section{The Importance of Transfer Learning}\label{sec:transferlearning}
In this study, we found that the usage transfer learning technique is critical for training PINNs with a reduced number of epochs and computational cost. The transfer learning technique consists of training a network solving the Poisson equation with a different source term. We can then initialize the PINN network we intend to solve with the first fully trained network weights and biases. In this way, the first PINN \emph{transfers} the learned information about encoding to the second PINN. To show the advantage of transfer learning in PINN, we solve two additional test cases with smooth and non-smooth source terms. For the test case with the smooth source term, we solve the Poisson equation with source term $f(x,y) = 10(x(x - 1) + y(y - 1)) -2\sin (\pi x)\sin (\pi y) + 5(2\pi x)\sin (2\pi y)$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/ImpactTransferLearningFinal.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Training error with and without transfer learning for the smooth and non-smooth source test cases.}
\label{transferlearning}
\end{figure}
We initialize the network with the results obtained during the training with Equation~\ref{manysin} as a source term. One of the major advantages of transfer-learning is that we can start the L-BFGS-B optimizer after very few Adam solvers epochs (empirically,we found that 10 Adam epochs ensure that L-BFGS-B will avoid local minima). L-BFGS-B has faster convergence than the Adam optimizer and therefore the training is quicker. When not using transfer-learning, we train the PINN with 2,000 epochs of Adam optimizer, followed by 5,000 epochs of L-BFGS-B. When using L-BFGS-B, we perform 10 epochs of Adam optimizer, followed by 6,955 L-BFGS-B epochs.
The black lines in Figure~\ref{transferlearning} show a comparison of the training error for a network initialized with Xavier weight initialization, e.g., without transfer learning ($-.$ black line) and with transfer learning ($-+$ black line). In this case, transfer learning usage allows gaining two orders of improvement in the training error in less than 1,000 epochs.
For the test case with non-smooth source term, we introduce and additional test case solving the Poisson equation with a source term that is everywhere zero except in a circle with radius $0.1$ and centered in the $x$ and $y$ coordinates (0.7,0.7).
\begin{equation}
f(x,y) = - 10 \; \textnormal{for} \; \sqrt{(x-0.7)^2 + (y-0.7)^2 } \leq 0.1.
\label{nonsmooth2}
\end{equation}
For transfer learning, we use the PINN weights obtained training the network to solve the Poisson equation with source term of Equation~\ref{nonsmooth2}. The blue lines in Figure~\ref{transferlearning} are the training error without transfer learning. As in the case of smooth-source term, the usage of transfer learning rapidly decreases the training error.
We note that usage of the transfer learning leads to an initial (less than 200 L-BFGS-B epochs) \emph{super-convergence} to a relatively low training error. For this reason, \textbf{transfer-learning is a necessary operation to make PINN competitive with other solvers used in scientific computing}.
The major challenge for using transfer-learning is to determine which pre-trained PINN to use. In simulation codes, solving the same equation with different source term at each time step, an obvious choice is a PINN that solves the governing equations with a source term at one of the time step. For other cases, we found that PINNs solving problems with source terms containing high-frequency components (possibly more than one component) are suitable for transfer-learning in general situations. We also found that PINNs solving problem with only one low frequency component as source term are not beneficial for transfer learning: their performance is equivalent to the case without transfer learning.
\section{The Old and the New: Integrating PINNs into Traditional Linear Solvers}\label{sec:integrate}
In Section \ref{sec:poisson}, we observed that direct usage of PINN to solve the Poisson equation is still limited by the large number of epochs required to achieve an acceptable precision. One possibility to improve the performance of PINN is to combine PINN with traditional iterative solvers such as the Jacobi, Gauss-Seidel and multigrid solvers~\cite{quarteroni2010numerical}.
PINN solvers' advantage is the quick convergence to the solution's low frequencies components. However, the convergence to high-frequency features is slow and requires an increasing number of training iteration/epochs. This fact is a result of the the F-principle. Because of this, PINNs are of limited usage when the application requires highly accurate solutions. As suggested by Ref.~\cite{xu2019frequency}, in such cases, the most viable option is to combine PINN solvers with traditional solvers that can converge rapidly to the solution's high-frequency components (but have low convergence for the low-frequency components). Such methods introduce a computational grid and we compute the differential operators with a finite difference scheme. In this work, we choose the Gauss-Seidel method as it exhibits higher convergence rate than the Jacobi method. Each Gauss-Seidel solver iteration for solving the Poisson equation (Equation \ref{poisson}) is:
\begin{equation}
u_{i,j}^{n+1} = 1/4 (u_{i+1,j}^{n} + u_{i-1,j}^{n+1} + u_{i,j+1}^{n} + u_{i,j-1}^{n+1} - \Delta x \Delta y f_{i,j}),
\label{GSeq}
\end{equation}
where $i$ and $j$ are the cell index, $\Delta x$ and $\Delta y$ are the grid cell size in the $x$ and $y$ direction, and $n$ is the iteration number. Usually, the Gauss-Seidel method stops iterating when $||u_{n+1} - u^n ||_2 \leq \delta$, where $|| ... ||$ is the Euclidean norm and $ \delta$ is a so-called tolerance and it is chosen as an arbitrarily small value.
Both the Jacobi and Gauss-Seidel methods show fast convergence for small-scale features: this is because the update of unknown values involves only the values of the neighbor points (stencil defined by the discretization of a differential operator). Between two different iterations, the information can only propagate to neighbor cells.
In this work, we combine traditional approaches with new emerging DL methods as shown in Figure~\ref{vcycle}. Overall, the new solver consists of three phases. We use first the DL PINN solver to calculate the solution on a coarse grid. As second phase, we refine the solution with Gauss-Seidel iterations on the coarse grid until a stopping criteria is satisfied. The third phase is a multigrid V-cycle: we linearly interpolate (or \emph{prolongate} in multigrid terminology) to finer grids and perform a Gauss-Seidel iteration for each finer grid. In fact, several multigrid strategies with different level of sophistications can be sought. However, in this work we focus on a very simple multigrid approach, based on the Gauss-Seidel method and linear interpolation across different grids. The crucial point is that we train a PINN to calculate the solution of the problem on the coarse grid, replacing the multigrid \emph{restriction} (or \emph{injection}) steps in just one phase.
\begin{figure}[bt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figs/DLsolverVcycle2.png}
\end{center}
\caption{The hybrid solvers relies on the DL linear solver to determine the solution on a coarse grid that is refined through a multigrid V-cycle performing Gauss-Seidel iterations on finer grids.}
\label{vcycle}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{hybridpinn} shows a more detailed diagram of a hybrid multigrid solver combining a DL solver to calculate the solution on a coarse grid with a Gauss-Seidel solver to refine the solution and interpolate to finer grid. Because the DL solver convergences quickly to the low-frequency coarse-grained components of the solution while high-frequency small-scale components of the solutions are not accurately solved, we perform the training in single-precision floating-point. This would speed-up the training on GPUs (not used in this work) where the number of single-precision floating-point units (FPUs) is higher than CPU.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figs/HybridPINN.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Structure of the hybrid multigrid solver combining the DL and Gauss-Seidel solvers. Pre-trained networks are pre-computed and used to initialize the DL network. Two main parameters $ftol, \delta$ determine the accuracy and the performance of the hybrid solver.}
\label{hybridpinn}
\end{figure}
The hybrid DL solver comprises six basic steps, represented in Figure~\ref{hybridpinn} :
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Initialize the network weights and biases} - We load from the disk the network structure and initialize the network. To accelerate the convergence, we rely on transfer-learning: we train a network to solve a similar problem and initialize the network. It is important that the same governing equations, boundary conditions and architecture are used. The weights and biases are in single floating-point precision. The time for completing this step is negligible with respect to the total time of the hybrid solver.
\item \textbf{Train with Adam Optimizer (10 Epochs)} - We run the Adam optimizer just for a short number of epochs to avoid the consequent L-BFGS-B optimizer converging quickly to the wrong solution (local minimum). By running several tests, we found empirically that only 10 Adams epochs are needed to avoid L-BFGS-B optimizer to converge to the wrong solution. The time for completing this step is typically negligible.
\item \textbf{Train with L-BFGS-B Optimizer} - We run the training with the L-BFGS-B optimizer. The stopping criterium is determined by the \emph{ftol} parameter: the training stops when $(r_k - r_{k+1})/\max(|r_k|,|r_{k+1}|,1) \leq ftol$, where $k$ is the iteration of the optimizer and $r$ is the value of the function to be optimized (in our case the residual function). Typically, the time for completing the L-BFGS-B dominates is a large part of the execution time of the hybrid solver. To compete with traditional approaches for solving Poisson equation, we set a maximum number of epochs to 1,000.
\item \textbf{DL solver is obtained at the end of the training process} - The solver can inference the solution at given collocation points or save it for future transfer-learning tasks, e.g., a simulation repeats the computation of the Poisson equation at different time steps.
\item \textbf{The Approximator/Surrogate Network is used to calculate the solution on the coarse grid of the multigrid solver} - We calculate the solution of our problem on the coarse grid of a multigrid solver. This operation is carried with single-precision floating point numbers since high-accuracy is not needed in this step. The result is then cast to double precision for the successive Gauss-Seidel solver. This inference computational time is typically negligible when compared to the total execution time.
\item \textbf{Refine the solution with the Gauss-Seidel Method on the coarse grid and interpolate on fine grids} - We perform first Gauss-Seidel iterations to refine the solution on the coarse grid. This solution refinement is critical to remove the vanishing-gradient problem at the boundary. The Gauss-Seidel iteration on the coarse grid stops when $||u^{n+1} - u^n ||_2 \leq \delta$ where $n$ is the iteration number. After the Gauss-Seidel method stops on the coarse grid, linear interpolation to finer grids and a Gauss-Seidel iteration per grid are computed. As example, to solve the problem on a 512$\times$512 grid, we perform the following steps: 1) use the DL solver to calculate the solution on 64$\times$64 grid; 2) refine the solution with the Gauss-Seidel method on the 64$\times$64 grid until convergence is reached; 3) carry out a linear interpolation to the 128x128 grid; 4) perform a Gauss-Seidel iteration on the 128$\times$128 grid; 5) carry out a linear interpolation to 256$\times$256 grid; 6) perform a Gauss-Seidel iteration on the 256$\times$256 grid; 7) carry out a linear interpolation to 512$\times$512 grid; 8) perform a final Gauss-Seidel iteration on the 512$\times$512 grid. The interpolation and Gauss-Seidel iterations corresponds to the V-cycle in the multigrid method as shown in Figure~\ref{vcycle}.
\end{enumerate}
We test the hybrid modified solver against the same problem shown in Section \ref{sec:poisson}: we solve the Poisson equation with source term of Equation~\ref{manysin}. Leveraging the knowledge gained in the characterization study of Section~\ref{sec:tune}, we use a four hidden layer fully-connected neural network with 50 neurons per hidden layer. To optimize the convergence for solving the Poisson equation with a smooth source term, we rely on \texttt{LAAF-5 tanh} activation functions: these activations functions provided the best performance in our characterization study. For the transfer learning, we pre-train a network for 2,000 Adam optimizer epochs and 5,000 L-BFGS-B optimizer epochs to solve a Poisson equation with a source term equal to $-2 \sin( \pi x) \sin(\pi y) - 72 \sin(6 \pi x ) \sin (6 \pi y)$. We use an input data set consisting of 100$\times$100 points in the integration domain and 2,000 points on the boundaries for the DL solver. We use the \texttt{Sobol} sequence as training data set distribution. The network weights and biases for transfer learning are saved as checkpoint / restart files in TensorFlow.
For the first test, we employ a 512$\times$512 grid with a 64$\times$64 coarse grid, $ftol$ equal to 1E-4 and $\delta$ equal to 1E-6. We then test the hybrid multigrid solver on a 1024$\times$1024 grid with a 128$\times$128 coarse grid, $ftol$ equal to 1E-4 and two values for $\delta$: 1E-5 and 1E-4. Figure \ref{error1} shows a contour plot the error ($u - \tilde{u}$) for these three configurations. The maximum error for the hybrid multigrid solver is of the 1E-4 order and less than the error we obtained after an extensive training of a basic PINN (approximately 1E-3, see the bottom right panel of Figure~\ref{basicPINNresults}).
\begin{figure}[bt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/FinalError.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Hybrid multigrid solver final error ($u - \tilde{u}$) using three different setups: 1 - 512$\times$512 grid with a 64$\times$64 coarse grid, $ftol$ equal to 1E-4 and $delta$ equal to 1E-6; 2 and 3 - 1024$\times$1024 grid with a 128$\times$128 coarse grid, $ftol$ equal to 1E-4 and $\delta$ equal to 1E-5 and 1E-4. }
\label{error1}
\end{figure}
Once we showed that the hybrid multigrid solver provides more accurate results than the direct PINN usage, we focus on studying the computational performance. The performance tests are carried out on a 2,9 GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i5, 16 GB 2133 MHz LPDDR3 using macOS Catalina 10.15.7. We use Python 3.7.9, \texttt{TensorFlow} 2.4.0, \texttt{SciPy} 1.5.4 and the \texttt{DeepXDE} DSL. The Gauss-Seidel iteration is implemented in \texttt{Cython}~\cite{gorelick2020high} to improve the performance and avoid time-consuming loops in Python. For comparison, we also solve the problem using only the Gauss-Seidel method to solve the problem on the coarse grid and using the \texttt{petsc4py} CG solver. The \texttt{PETSc }version is 3.14.2 and we use $rtol$ (the relative to the initial residual norm convergence tolerance). We repeat the tests five times and report the arithmetic average of the execution times. We do not report error bars as the standard deviation is less than 5\% of the average value. Figure~\ref{performance} shows the execution time together with number of epochs and iterations for the three different configurations.
\begin{figure}[bt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figs/PerformanceEdited.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Execution time, number of epochs and iterations for the hybrid multigrid DL-GS solver and comparison with the performance of a multigrid using only GS and \texttt{petsc4py} CG varying the resolution, and solver stopping criteria. The hybrid multigrid DL-GS solver is faster for problems using larger coarse grids, e.g. 128$\times$128 coarse grids, than the other approaches.}
\label{performance}
\end{figure}
The most important result is that by using an optimized configuration, transfer learning, and integrating DL technologies into traditional approaches, we can now solve the Poisson equation with an acceptable precision with a reduced number of training iterations. This reduction of number of training epochs translates to complete the problem, presented in Section \ref{sec:poisson}, in less than few minutes instead of hours (see Figure~\ref{basicPINNresults}) on the Intel i5 system. While the execution depends on the specific hardware platform and implementation, the number of training epochs and GS iterations on the coarse grid (reported on the top of the histogram bars in Figure~\ref{performance}) are not. Overall, we found that 133 epochs are needed for the L-BFGS-B optimizer to reach an $ftol$ equal to 1E-4.
Figure~\ref{performance} histograms also show the breakdown between the time spent in the DL and Gauss-Seidel solvers used in the multigrid V-cycle. Note that the execution time for the DL solver is approximately the same for calculating the values on the two coarse grids: 64$\times$64 and 128$\times$128. This is because of PINN are \emph{gridless} methods: only the negligible inference computational cost is different. For comparison, we show the performance of the Gauss-Seidel solver for the coarse grid (orange bars) and \texttt{py4petsc} CG solver \texttt{petsc4py} (yellow bars) with different $rtol$ values. When the coarse grid is small, e.g., 64$\times$64, the cost for training the DL solver is higher than using a basic method such Gauss-Seidel: using the Gauss-Seidel method for the coarse grid is faster than using the DL solver for the coarse grid. However, for larger coarser grids, e.g., 128$\times$128, the hybrid multigrid solver is fastest. For comparison, we present the results obtained running the \texttt{petsc4py} CG with different $rtol$ values. Overall, the performance of the hybrid solver is competitive with state-of-the-art linear solvers. We note that none of the methods and codes have been optimized nor compared at same accuracy (the stopping criteria are defined differently for different solvers), so the performance results provide an indication of potential of the hybrid solver without providing absolute performance values.
\section{Discussion and Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
This paper presented a study to evaluate the potential of emerging new DL technologies to replace or accelerate old traditional approaches when solving the Poisson equation. We show that directly replacing traditional methods with PINNs results in limited accuracy and a long training period. Setting up an appropriate configuration of depth, activation functions, input data set distribution, and leveraging transfer-learning could effectively optimize the PINNs solver. However, PINNs are still far from competing with HPC solvers, such as \texttt{PETSc} CG. In summary, PINNs in the current state cannot yet replace traditional approaches.
However, while the direct usage of PINN in scientific applications is still far from meeting computational performance and accuracy requirements, hybrid strategies integrating PINNs with traditional approaches, such as multigrid and Gauss-Seidel methods, are the most promising option for developing a new class of solvers in scientific applications. We showed the first performance results of such hybrid approaches on the par (and better for large coarse grids) with other state-of-the-art solver implementations, such as \texttt{PETSc}.
When considering the potential for PINNs of using new emerging heterogeneous hardware, PINNs could benefit from the usage of GPUs that are workforce for DL workloads. It is likely that with the usage of GPUs, the performance of hybrid solvers can outperform state-of-the-art HPC solvers. However, PINN DSL frameworks currently rely on \texttt{SciPy} CPU implementation of the key PINN optimizer, L-BFGS-B, and its GPU implementation is not available in \texttt{SciPy}. The new \texttt{TensorFlow} 2 \texttt{Probability} framework\footnote{\url{https://www.tensorflow.org/probability}} provides a BFGS optimizer that can be used on GPUs. Another interesting research direction is investigating the role and impact of the low and mixed-precision calculations to train the approximator network. The usage of low-precision formats would allow us to use tensorial computational units, such as tensor cores in Nvidia GPUs ~\cite{markidis2018nvidia} and Google TPUs~\cite{jouppi2017datacenter}, boosting the DL training performance.
From the algorithmic point of view, a line of research we would like to pursue is a better and more elegant integration of the DL into traditional solvers. One possibility is to extend the seminal work on discrete PINNs~\cite{raissi2019physics} combining Runge-Kutta solvers and PINN for ODE solutions: a similar approach could be sought to encode information about discretization points into PINN. However, currently, this approach is supervised and requires the availability of simulation data. In addition, the development of specific network architectures for solving specific PDEs is a promising area of research. A limitation of this work is that we considered only fully-connected networks as surrogate network architectures. For solving the Poisson equation and elliptic problems in general, the usage of convolutional networks with large and dilated kernels is likely to provide better performance of fully-connected DL networks to learn non-local relationships a signature of elliptic problems~\cite{lunaaccelerating}.
The major challenge is integrating these new classes of hybrid DL and traditional approaches, developed in Python, into large scientific codes and libraries, often written in Fortran and C/C++. One possibility is to bypass the Python interface of major DL frameworks and use their C++ runtime directly. However, this task is complex. An easier path for the software integration of DL solvers into legacy HPC applications is highly needed.
Despite all these challenges and difficulties ahead, this paper shows that the integration of new PINNs DL approaches into \emph{old} traditional HPC approaches for scientific applications will play an essential role in the development of next-generation solvers for linear systems arising from differential equations.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
Funding for the work is received from the European Commission H2020 program, Grant Agreement No. 801039 (EPiGRAM-HS).
\bibliographystyle{acm}
\section{Keywords:} Physics-Informed Deep-Learning, PINN, Poisson Solvers, Integrating Deep-Learning into Traditional Approaches}
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction}
Deep Learning (DL) has revolutionized the way of performing classification, pattern recognition, and regression tasks in various application areas, such as image and speech recognition, recommendation systems, natural language processing, drug discovery, medical imaging, bioinformatics, and fraud detection, among few examples~\citep{goodfellow2016deep}. However, scientific applications solving linear and non-linear equations with demanding accuracy and computational performance requirements have not been the DL focus. Only until recently, a new class of DL networks, called \emph{Physics-Informed Neural Networks} (PINN), emerged as a very promising DL method to solve scientific computing problems~\citep{raissi2019physics, raissi2017physicsI, raissi2017physicsII}. In fact, PINNs are specifically designed to integrate scientific computing equations, such as Ordinary Differential Equations (ODE), Partial Differential Equations (PDE), non-linear and integral-differential equations~\citep{pang2019fpinns}, into the DL network training. In this work, we focus on PINN application to solve a traditional scientific computing problem: the solution of a linear system arising from the discretization of a PDE. We solve the linear system arising from the Poisson equation, one of the most common PDEs whose solution still requires a non-negligible time with traditional approaches. We evaluate the level of maturity in terms of accuracy and performance of PINN linear solver, either as a replacement of other traditional scientific approaches or to be deployed in combination with conventional scientific methods, such as the multigrid and Gauss-Seidel methods~\citep{quarteroni2010numerical}.
PINNs are deep-learning networks that, after training (solving an optimization problem to minimize a residual function), output an approximated solution of differential equation/equations, given an input point in the integration domain (called collocation point). Before PINNs, previous efforts, have explored solving PDEs with constrained neural networks~\citep{lagaris1998artificial,psichogios1992hybrid}. The major innovation with PINN is the introduction of a \emph{residual} network that encodes the governing physics equations, takes the output of a deep-learning network (called \emph{surrogate}), and calculates a residual value (a loss function in DL terminology). The inclusion of a \emph{residual} network, somehow, bears a resemblance of those iterative Krylov linear solvers in scientific applications. The fundamental difference is that PINNs calculate differential operators on graphs using automatic differentiation~\citep{baydin2018automatic} while traditional scientific approaches are based on numerical schemes for differentiation. As noted in previous works~\citep{raissi2019physics,mishra1}, automatic differentiation is the main strength of PINNs because operators on the residual network can be elegantly and efficiently formulated with automatic differentiation. An important point is that the PINN's \emph{residual} network should not be confused with the popular network architectures, called also \emph{Residual} networks, or \emph{ResNet} in short, where the name derives from using skip-connection or residual connections~\citep{goodfellow2016deep} instead of calculating a residual like in PINNs.
\textbf{The basic formulation of the PINN training does not require labeled data, e.g., results from other simulations or experimental data, and is unsupervised}: PINNs only require the evaluation of the residual function~\citep{mishra1}. Providing simulation or experimental data for training the network in a supervised manner is also possible and necessary for so data-assimilation~\citep{raissi2020hidden}, inverse problems~\citep{mishra2}, super resolution~\citep{esmaeilzadeh2020meshfreeflownet,wang2020physics}, and discrete PINNs~\citep{raissi2019physics}. The supervised approach is often used for solving ill-defined problems when for instance we lack boundary conditions or an Equation of State (EoS) to close a system of equations (for instance, EoS for the fluid equations~\citep{zhu2020generating}). In this study, we only focus on the basic PINNs as we are interested in solving PDEs without relying on other simulations to assist the DL network training. A common case in scientific applications is that we solve the same PDE with different source terms at each time step. For instance, in addition to other computational kernels, Molecular Dynamics (MD) code and semi-implicit fluid and plasma codes, such as GROMACS~\citep{van2005gromacs}, Nek5000~\citep{nek5000-web-page}, and iPIC3D~\citep{markidis2010multi}, calculate the Poisson equation for the electrostatic and pressure solver~\citep{offermans2016strong} and divergence cleaning operations at each cycle.
Once a PINN is trained, the inference from the trained PINN can be used to replace traditional numerical solvers in scientific computing. In this so-called \emph{inference} or \emph{prediction} step, the input includes independent variables like simulation time step and simulation domain positions. The output is the solution of the governing equations at the time and position specified by the input. Therefore, PINNs are a \emph{gridless} method because any point in in the domain can be taken as input without requiring the definition of a mesh. Moreover, the trained PINN network can be used for predicting the values on simulation grids of different resolutions without the need of being retrained. For this reason, the computational cost does not scale with the number of grid points like many traditional computational methods. PINNs borrow concepts from popular methods in traditional scientific computing, including Newton-Krylov solvers~\citep{kelley1995iterative}, finite element methods (FEM)~\citep{rao2017finite}, and Monte Carlo techniques~\citep{rubinstein2016simulation}. Like the Newton-Krylov solvers, PINNs training is driven by the objective of minimizing the residual function and employs Newton methods during the optimization process. Similarly to the FEM, PINN uses interpolation basis (non-linear) functions, called \emph{activation functions}~\citep{ramachandran2017searching} in the neural network fields. Like Monte Carlo and quasi-Monte Carlo methods, PINNs integrate the governing equations using a random or a low-discrepancy sequence, such as the Sobol sequence~\citep{sobol1990quasi}, for the collocation points used during the evaluation the residual function.
The motivation of this work is twofold. First, we evaluate the potential of deploying PINNs for solving linear systems, such as the one arising from the Poisson equation. We focus on solving the Poisson equation, a generalization of the Laplace equation, and an omnipresent equation in scientific computing. Traditionally, Poisson solvers are based on linear solvers, such as the Conjugate Gradient (CG) or Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). These approaches may require a large number of iterations before convergence and are computationally expensive as the fastest methods scale as $\mathcal{O}(N_g \log N_g)$, where $N_g$ is the number of grid points in the simulation domain. The second goal of this work is to propose a new class of linear solvers combining new emerging DL approaches with old traditional linear solvers, such as multigrid and iterative solvers.
In this work, we show that the accuracy and the convergence of PINN solvers can be tuned by setting up an appropriate configuration of depth, layer size, activation functions and by leveraging transfer learning. We find that fully-connected surrogate/approximator networks with more than three layers produce similar performance results in the first thousand training epochs. The choice of activation function is critical for PINN performance: depending on the \emph{smoothness} of the source term, different activation functions provide considerably different accuracy and convergence. Transfer learning in PINNs allow us to initialize the network with the results of another training solving the same PDE with a different source term~\citep{weiss2016survey}. The usage of transfer learning considerably speed-up the training of the network. In terms of accuracy and computational performance, a naive replacement of traditional numerical approaches with the direct usage of PINNs is still not competitive with traditional solvers and codes, such as CG implementations in HPC packages~\citep{balay2019petsc}.
To address the limitations of the direct usage of PINN, we combine PINN linear solvers with traditional approaches such as the multigrid and Gauss-Seidel methods~\citep{trottenberg2000multigrid,quarteroni2010numerical}. The DL linear solver is used to solve the linear system on a coarse grid and the solution refined on finer grids using the multigrid V-cycle and Gauss-Seidel solver iterations. This approach allows us to use the DL networking of converging quickly on low-frequency components of the problem solution and rely on Gauss-Seidel to solve accurately high-frequency components of the solution. We show that the integration of DL techniques in traditional linear solvers leads to solvers that are on-par of high-performance solvers, such as PETSc conjugate gradient linear solvers, both in terms of performance and accuracy.
The paper is organized as follows. We first introduce the governing equations, the background information about PINN architecture and showcase the usage of PINN to solve the 2D Poisson equation. Section~\ref{sec:tune} presents a characterization of PINN linear solver performance when varying the network size, activation functions, and data set distribution and we highlight the critical importance of leveraging transfer learning. We present the design of a Poisson solver combining new emerging DL techniques into the V-cycle of the multigrid method and analyze its error and computational performance in Section~\ref{sec:integrate}. Finally, we summarize this study and outline challenges and next step for the future work in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{The New: Physics-Informed Linear Solvers}\label{sec:bg}
The PINNs goal is to approximate the solution of a system of one or more differential, possibly non-linear equations, by encoding explicitly the differential equation formulation in the neural network. Without loss of generality, PINN solves the non-linear equation:
\begin{equation}
u(x)_t = \mathcal{N}u(x) = 0, x \in \Omega, t \in [0, T],
\end{equation}
where $u$ is the solution of the system, $u_t$ is its derivative with respect to time $t$ in the period [0, T], $\mathcal{N}$ is a non-linear differential operator, $x$ is an independent, possibly multi-dimensional variable, defined over the domain $\Omega$. As a main reference equation to solve, we consider the Poisson equation in a unit square domain and Dirichlet boundary conditions throughout this paper:
\begin{equation}
\nabla^2 u(x,y) = f(x,y), (x,y) \in [0, 1] \times [0, 1] .
\label{poisson}
\end{equation}
While this problem is linear in nature and PINNs can handle non-linear problems, we focus on the Poisson equation because it is one of the most solved PDEs in scientific applications. The Poisson equation, an example of elliptic PDE, arises in several different fields from electrostatic problems in plasma and MD codes, to potential flow and pressure solvers in Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), to structural mechanics problems. Elliptic problems are one of the Achilles' heels for scientific applications~\citep{morton2005numerical}. While relatively fast and straightforward - albeit subject to numerical constraints - computational methods exist for solving hyperbolic and parabolic problems, e.g. explicit differentiation, traditionally the solution of elliptic problems requires linear solvers, such as Krylov (CG or GMREs) solvers or FFT. Typically, in scientific applications, the simulation progresses through several time steps, where a Poisson equation with same boundary conditions and different source term $f(x,y)$ (typically not considerably different from the source term of the previous time step) is solved.
In its basic formulation, PINNs combine two networks together: an \emph{approximator} or \emph{surrogate} network and a residual network (see Figure~\ref{basicPINN})~\citep{raissi2019physics}. The approximator/surrogate network undergoes training and after it provides a solution $\tilde{u}$ at a given input point $(x,y)$, called \emph{collocation point}, in the simulation domain. The residual network encodes the governing equations and it is the distinctive feature of PINNs. The residual network is not trained and its only function is to provide the approximator/surrogate network with the residual (\emph{loss} function in DL terminology):
\begin{equation}
r = \nabla^2 \tilde{u}(x,y) - f(x,y).
\label{resdi1}
\end{equation}
Differently from traditional methods often relying on finite difference approximation, the derivatives on the residual network graph, e.g, $\nabla^2 \tilde{u}(x,y)$ in Equation~\ref{resdi1}, are calculated using the so-called \emph{automatic differentiation}, or \texttt{autodiff}, that leverages the chain rule~\citep{baydin2018automatic} applied to the operations defined on the network nodes. In the solution of the Poisson Equation, the Laplacian operator is expressed as two successive first-oder derivatives of $\tilde{u}$ in the $x$ and $y$ directions and their summation (see the blue network nodes in Figure~\ref{basicPINN}).
In the inference/prediction phase, only the surrogate network is used to calculate the solution to the problem (remember that the residual network is only used in the training process to calculate the residual).
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figs/PINNneuralNetwork.pdf
\end{center}
\caption{A PINN to solve a Poisson problem $\partial^2_x u(x,y) + \partial^2_y u(x,y)= f(x,y)$ with associated Dirichlet boundary conditions. PINN consists of two basic interconnected networks. The first network (red vertices) provides a surrogate or approximation of the problem solution $u$. The network takes as input a point in the problem domain $(x,y)$ and provides an approximate solution $\tilde{u}$. This network weights and biases are trainable. The second network (blue vertices) takes the approximate solution from the first network and calculates the residual that is used as loss function to train the first network. The residual network includes the governing equations, boundary conditions and initial conditions (not included in the plot as the Poisson problem does not require initial conditions).}
\label{basicPINN}
\end{figure}
The approximator/surrogate network is a feedforward neural network~\citep{goodfellow2016deep}: it processes an input $x$ via $l$ layer of units (called also \emph{neurons}). The approximator/surrogate network expresses affine-linear maps ($Z$) between units and scalar non-linear activation functions ($a$) within the units:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{u} (x) = Z_l \circ a \circ Z_{l-1} \circ a ... \circ a \circ Z_{2} \circ a \circ Z_{1}(x).
\end{equation}
In DL, the most used activation functions are Rectified Linear Unit (\texttt{ReLU}), \texttt{tanh}, \texttt{swish}, \texttt{sine}, and \texttt{sigmoid} functions. See Ref.~\citep{ramachandran2017searching} for an overview of the different activation functions. As shown by Ref. ~\citep{mishra1}, PINNs requires sufficiently smooth activation functions. \textbf{PINNs with \texttt{ReLU} and other non-smooth activation functions, such as \texttt{ELU} and \texttt{SELU}~(Exponential and Scaled Exponential Linear Units) are not ``consistent/convergent" methods}: in the limit of an infinite training dataset a well-trained PINN with \texttt{ReLU}-like activation functions, the solution does not converge to the exact solution~\citep{mishra1}. This theoretical result is also confirmed by our experiments using \texttt{ReLU}-like activation functions. For this reason, we do not use \texttt{ReLU}-like activation functions in PINNs.
The affine maps $Z$ are characterized by the weights and biases of the approximator/surrogate network:
\begin{equation}
Z_l x_l = W_l x_l + b_l,
\end{equation}
where $W_l$ is a \emph{weight} matrix for the layer $l$ and $b$ is the \emph{bias} vector. In PINNs, the weight values are initialized using the \emph{Xavier} (also called \emph{Glorot} when using the last name of the inventor instead) procedure~\citep{kumar2017weight}.
Typically, the PINN approximator/surrogate networks are fully connected networks consisting of 4-6 hidden layers(H) and 50-100 units per layer, similarly to the network in Figure~\ref{basicPINN}. There are also successful experiments using convolutional and recurrent layers~\citep{gao2020phygeonet, nascimento2019fleet} but the vast majority of existing PINNs rely on fully-connected layers. In this work, we focus on studying the performance of fully-connected PINN.
The residual network is responsible for encoding the equation to solve and provide the loss function to the approximator network for the optimization process. In PINNs, we minimize the Mean Squared Error (MSE) of the residual (Equation~\ref{resdi1}):
\begin{equation}
MSE_r = \frac {1}{N_{x_i,y_i}}\sum | r(x_i,y_i) | ^2,
\label{trainingerror}
\end{equation}
where $N_{x_i,y_i}$ is the number of collocation points. \textbf{In PINNs, the collocation points constitute the training dataset}. Note that $MSE_r$ depends on the size of the training of the dataset ($N_{x_i,y_i}$), e.g., the number of collocation points. In practice, a larger number of collocation points leads to an increased MSE value. $MSE_r$ depends also on on the distribution of our collocation points. The three most used dataset distributions are: \texttt{uniform} (the dataset is uniformly spaced on the simulation domain as on a uniform grid), \texttt{pseudo-random} (collocations points are sampled using pseudo-random number generator) and \texttt{Sobol} (collocation points are from the Sobol low-discrepancy sequence). Typically, the default training distribution for PINNs is \texttt{Sobol}, like in quasi-Montecarlo methods.
Recently, several PINN architectures have been proposed. PINNs differentiate on how the residual network is defined. For instance, \texttt{fPINN} (fractional PINN) is a PINN with a residual network capable of calculating residuals of governing equations including fractional calculus operators \citep{pang2019fpinns}. \texttt{fPINN} combines automatic differentiation with numerical discretization for the fractional operators in the residual network. \texttt{fPINN} extends PINN to solve integral and differential-integral equations. Another important PINN is \texttt{vPINN} (variational PINN): they include a residual network that uses the variational form of the problem into the loss function~\citep{kharazmi2019variational} and an additional shallow network using trial functions and polynomials and trigonometric functions as test functions. A major advantage with respect to basic PINNs is that in the analytical calculation by integrating by parts the integrand in the variational form, we can the order of the differential operators represented by the neural networks, speeding up the training and increasing PINN accuracy. \texttt{hp-VPINN} is an extension of \texttt{vPINN} that allows hp-refinement via domain decomposition as h-refinement and projection onto space of high order polynomials as p-refinement~\citep{kharazmi2020hp}. In this work, we use the original residual network as shown in Figure~\ref{basicPINN}.
In the training phase, an optimization process targeting the residual minimization determines the weights and biases of the surrogate network. Typically, we use two optimizers in succession: the Adam optimizer as first and then a Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno (BFGS) optimizer~\citep{fletcher2013practical}. BFGS uses the Hessian matrix (curvature in highly dimensional space) to calculate the optimization direction and provides more accurate results. However, if used directly without using the Adam optimizer can rapidly converge to a local minimum (for the residual) without exiting. For this reason, the Adam optimizer is used first to avoid local minima, and then the solution is refined by BFGS. We note that the typical BFGS used in PINNs is the L-BFGS-B: L-BFGS is a limited-memory version of BFGS to handle problems with many variables, such as DL problems; the BFGS-B is a variant of BFGS for bound constrained optimization problems. In our work, we tested several optimizers, including Newton and Powell methods, and found that L-BFGS-B provides by far the highest accuracy and faster convergence in all our test problems. \textbf{L-BFGS-B is currently the most critical technology for PINNs}.
An \emph{epoch} comprises all the optimizer iterations to cover all the datasets. In PINNs, typically, thousands of epochs are required to achieve accurate results. By nature, PINNs are under-fitted: the network is not complex enough to accurately capture relationships between the collocation points and solution. Therefore, an extensive dataset increase improves the PINN performance; however, the computational cost increases raising the data set size.
One crucial point related to PINNs is whether a neural network can approximate simultaneously and uniformly the solution function and its partial derivatives. Ref.~\citep{lu2019deepxde} shows that feed-forward neural nets with enough neurons can achieve this task. A formal analysis of the errors in PINNs is presented in Refs. \citep{mishra1,lu2019deepxde}.
\textbf{An important fact determining the convergence behavior of the DL networks and PINN linear solvers is the Frequency-principle (F-principle)}: \emph{DNNs often fit target functions from low to high frequencies during the training process} \citep{xu2019frequency}. The F-principle implies that in PINNs, the low frequency / large scale features of the solution emerge first, while it will take several training epochs to recover high frequency / small-scale features. This
Despite the recent introduction of PINNs, several PINN frameworks for PDE solutions exist. All the major PINN frameworks are written in Python and rely either on \texttt{TensorFlow}~\citep{abadi2016tensorflow} or \texttt{PyTorch}~\citep{paszke2019pytorch} to express the neural network architecture and exploit auto-differentiation used in the residual network. Together with \texttt{TensorFlow}, \texttt{SciPy}~\citep{virtanen2020scipy} is often used to use high-order optimizers such as L-BFGS-B. Two valuable PINN Domain-Specific Languages (DSL) are \texttt{DeepXDE}~\citep{lu2019deepxde} and \texttt{sciANN}~\citep{haghighat2020sciann}. DeepXDE is an highly customizable framework with TensorFlow 1 and 2 backend and it supports basic and fractional PINNs in complex geometries. \texttt{sciANN} is a DSL based on and similar to \texttt{Keras}~\citep{gulli2017deep}. In this work, we use the \texttt{DeepXDE} DSL.
\subsection{An Example: Solving the 2D Poisson Equation with PINN}\label{sec:poisson}
To showcase how PINNs work and provide a baseline performance in terms of accuracy and computational cost, we solve a Poisson problem in the unit square domain with a source term $f(x,y)$ that is smooth, e.g., differentiable, and contains four increasing frequencies:
\begin{equation}
f(x,y) = \frac{1}{4} \sum_{k=1}^4 (-1)^{k+1} 2 k \sin(k \pi x) \sin( k \pi y).
\label{manysin}
\end{equation}
We choose such a source term as it has a simple solution and to show the F-principle's impact on the convergence of PINN to the numerical solution: we expect the lower frequency components, e.g., $k=1$, to convergence faster than the higher frequency components present in the solution ($k = 2, 3, 4$).
We use a fully-connected four-layer PINN with a \texttt{tanh} activation function for the approximator/surrogate network for demonstration purposes and without a loss of generality. The input layer consists of two neurons (the $x$ and $y$ coordinates of one collocation point), while each hidden and output layers comprise 50 neurons and one neuron, respectively. The weights of the network are initialized with the Xavier method. As a reminder, the approximator/surrogate network's output is the approximate solution to our problem. The residual network is a graph encoding the Poisson equation and source term and provides the loss function (Equation~\ref{trainingerror}) to drive the approximator/surrogate network's optimization. At each, a collocation point within the problem domain is drawn from the \texttt{Sobol} sequence. The training data set consists of 128 $\times$128 collocation points on the domain and additional 4,000 collocation points on the boundary for a total of 20,384 points. We train the approximator/surrogate network 10,000 of Adam optimizer epochs with a learning rate $\lambda$ equal to 0.001 (the magnitude of the optimizer vector along the direction to minimize the residual), followed by 13,000 epochs of L-BFGS-B optimizer. We use the \texttt{DeepXDE} DSL for our PINN implementation.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/IterationsFinal.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The top panels show the solution of the Poisson equation at different epochs using a PINN. The bottom panel shows the training error for an initial training with Adam's optimizer (10,000 epochs), followed by L-BFGS-B (13,000 epochs). The plot also includes the total time for training the PINN on a dual-core Intel i5 processor. The right bottom subplot presents the error of the final solution compared to the exact solution.}
\label{basicPINNresults}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{basicPINNresults} shows the Poisson equation's approximate solution with the source term of Equation~\ref{manysin} at different epochs, the training error, and the error of the PINN solution after the training is completed. The Figure \ref{basicPINNresults} top panels present the contour plot of the approximator/surrogate solution on a 128$\times$128 uniform grid after 500, 5,000 and 23,000 epochs. To determine the solution at each epoch, we take the approximate/surrogate network and perform inference/prediction using the points of the 128$\times$128 uniform grid. By analyzing the approximate solutions' evolution (top panels of Figure~\ref{basicPINNresults}), it is clear that the PINN resolves the low-frequency component present in the solution: a yellow band appears along the diagonal of the plot while local peaks (small islands in the contour plot) are not resolved. As the training progresses, localized peaks associated with the source term's high-frequencies appear and are resolved. The bottom right panel of Figure~\ref{basicPINNresults} shows a contour plot of the error after the training is completed. The maximum pointwise error is approximately 5E-3. We note that a large part of the error is located in the proximity of the boundaries. This issue results from the \emph{vanishing-gradient} problem \citep{wang2020understanding}: unbalanced gradients back-propagate during the model training. This issue is similar to the numerical \emph{stiffness} problem when using traditional numerical approaches. One of the effective technique to mitigate the \emph{vanishing-gradient} problem is to employ locally (to the layers or the node) adaptive activation functions~\citep{jagtap2020locally}. Additional techniques for mitigating \emph{vanishing-gradient} problem are the usage of ReLU activations functions and batch normalization.
The bottom panel of Figure \ref{basicPINNresults} shows the training error's evolution calculated with Equation~\ref{trainingerror}. In this case, the initial error is approximately 1.08E2 and decreases up to 2.79E-5 at the end of the training. The initial error mainly depends on the training data set size: small input data sets reduce training error that does not translate to higher accuracy in the solution of the problem. However, the training is a reasonable metric when comparing the PINN performance when using the same data set size.
By analyzing the evolution of the training error, it is clear that the Adam optimizer training error stabilizes approximately in the range of 5E-3 - 1E-2 after 2,000 epochs, and we do not observe any evident improvement after 2,000 epochs of Adam optimization. The L-BFGS-B optimizer leads the error from 5E-3 - 1E-2 to 2.79E-5 and is responsible for the major decrease of the training error. However, we remind that L-BFGS-B is not used at the beginning of the training as it can converge quickly to a wrong solution (a local minimum in the optimization problem).
To provide an idea of the PINN training's overall computation cost, we also report the total time for training the PINN in this basic non-optimized configuration on a dual-core Intel i5 2.9 GHz CPU. The total training execution time is 6,380 seconds, corresponding to approximately 1.5 hours. For comparison, the solution of the same problem with a uniform grid size 128$\times$128 on the same system with the \texttt{petsc4py} CG solver~\citep{dalcin2011parallel,balay2019petsc} requires 92.28 seconds to converge to double-precision machine epsilon. Basic PINN's direct usage to solve the Poisson problem is limited for scientific application given the computational cost and the relatively low accuracy. In the next sections, we investigate which factors impact the PINN performance and its accuracy. We design a PINN-based solver to have comparable performance to state-of-the-art linear solvers such as \texttt{petsc4py}.
\section{Characterizing PINNs as Linear Solvers}\label{sec:tune}
To characterize the PINNs performance for solving the Poisson equation, we perform several parametric studies varying the approximator/surrogate network size, activation functions, and training data size and distribution. We also investigate the performance enhancement achieved by using the transfer learning technique to initialize with the network weights obtained solving the Poisson equation with a different source term~\citep{weiss2016survey}. During our experiments, we found that two relatively different configurations of the network are required in the case of the source term of the Poisson equation is smooth on non smooth, e.g. non-differentiable. For this reason, we choose two main use cases to showcase the impact of different parameters. For the smooth source term case, we take the source term from Equation~\ref{manysin} (the example we showcased in the previous section). For the non-smooth source term case, we take a source term that is zero everywhere except for the points enclosed in the circle, centered in $(0.5,0.5)$ with radius $0.2$:
\begin{equation}
f(x,y) = 1 \; \textnormal{for} \; \sqrt{(x-0.5)^2 + (y-0.5)^2 } \leq 0.2.
\label{nonsmooth}
\end{equation}
As baseline configuration, we adopt the same configuration described in the previous section: a fully-connected network with four hidden layers of 50 units, and \texttt{tanh} activation function. The data set consists of 128$\times$128 collocation points in the domain and 4,000 points on the boundary. Differently from the previous configuration, we reduce the training epochs to 2,000 for the Adam Optimizer (the training error do not decrease after 2,000 epochs) and 5,000 for the L-BFGS-B optimizer.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/ImpactArchitecture1.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Training error for different fully-connected PINN depth: one (\texttt{1H}), two (\texttt{2H}), three (\texttt{3H}), four (\texttt{4H}), five (\texttt{5H}) and six (\texttt{6H}) hidden layers with 50 neurons each. We also consider the training error for PINNs with six hidden layers and \texttt{10-20-40-80-160-320} and \texttt{320-160-80-40-20-10} units per hidden layer, respectively.}
\label{architecture}
\end{figure}
The first experiments we perform is to evaluate the impact of the network size (depth and units per layer) on the training error. To understand the impact of surrogate neural network depth, we perform training with layers of 50 neurons with one (\texttt{1H}), two (\texttt{2H}), three (\texttt{3H}), four (\texttt{4H}), five (\texttt{5H}) and six (\texttt{6H}) hidden layers (\texttt{H} stands for hidden layer). We present the evolution of training error in Figure \ref{architecture}. By analyzing this figure, it is clear that shallow networks consisting of one or two hidden layers do not perform, and the PINN learning is bound in learning after few thousand epochs. Even one layer with large number of units, e.g., one hidden layer with 640 units (see the magenta line in the right panel of Figure \ref{architecture}), do not lead to better performance as demonstration that depth is more important than breadth in PINN. Deeper networks with more than three layers lead to lower final training errors and improved learning. However, we find that the final training error saturates for PINNs with more than six hidden layers (results not shown here) for the two test cases. An important aspect for the deployment of PINN in scientific applications is that the performance of PINNs with four and more hidden layers have comparable performance in the first 500 epochs of the Adam and L-BFGS-B optimizers. Taking in account that the PINN computational cost for PINNs increases with the number layers and realistically only few hundred epochs are necessary for PINN to be competitive with HPC solvers, PINNs with four hidden layers provide the best trade-off in terms of accuracy and computational performance.
For the six hidden layers case, we also check the importance of having a large/small number of units at the beginning/end of the network: we consider the performance of PINN with six hidden layers and \texttt{10-20-40-80-160-320} and \texttt{320-160-80-40-20-10} units per hidden layer, respectively. We find that to have a large number of units at the beginning of the network and small number of units at the end of the network is detrimental to the PINN performance (a six hidden layer network in this configuration has the same performance of a five hidden layer PINN). Instead, to have a small number of units at the beginning of the network and a large number of units at the end of the network is beneficial to the PINN. \textbf{This observation hints that initial hidden layers might responsible for encoding the low-frequencies components (fewer points are needed to represent low-frequency signals) and the following hidden layers are responsible for representing higher-frequency components (several points are needed to represent high-frequency signals)}. However, more experiments are needed to confirm this hypothesis.
\textbf{The most impactful parameter for achieving a low training error is the activation function}. This fact is expected as activation functions are nothing else than non-linear interpolation functions (similarly to nodal functions in FEM): some interpolation function might be a better fit to represent the different source terms. For instance, sigmoid functions are a good fit to represent non-differentiable source terms exhibiting discontinuities. On the contrary, a smooth \texttt{tanh} activation function can closely represent smooth functions.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/ImpactActivation2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Training error for different activation functions. The two test cases show rather different performance: the best activation function for smooth source term case is \texttt{tanh}, while it is \texttt{sigmoid} for the non-smooth source term case. Local (to the layer) adaptive activation functions provide a reduction of the training error.}
\label{activation}
\end{figure}
We investigate the impact of different activation functions and show the evolution of the training errors in Figure~\ref{activation}. Together with traditional activation function, we also consider the Locally Adaptive Activation Functions (\texttt{LAAF}): with this technique, a scalable parameter is introduced in each layer separately, and then optimized with a variant of stochastic gradient descent algorithm~\citep{jagtap2020locally}. The LAAF are provided in the \texttt{DeepXDE} DSL. We investigate LAAF with factor of 5 (\texttt{LAAF-5}) and 10 (\texttt{LAAF-10}) for the \texttt{tanh}, \texttt{swish} and \texttt{sigmoid} cases. The \texttt{LAAF} usage is critical to mitigate the \emph{vanishing-gradient} problem.
The activation function's different impact for the two test cases (smooth and non-smooth source terms) is clear when analyzing the results presented in Figure~\ref{activation}. In the smooth source term case, the best activation function is the locally (to the layer) adaptive \texttt{tanh} activation function with factor 5 (\texttt{LAAF5 - tanh}). In the case of the non-smooth source term, the \texttt{sigmoid} activation function outperforms all the other activation functions. In particular, in this case, the best activation function is the locally (to the layer) adaptive sigmoid activation function with factor 10 (\texttt{LAAF10 - sigmoid}).
As we mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:poisson}, the data size impacts the training errors. Large data sets increase the PINN accuracy but have larger training errors than the training with small data set because of the error definition (see Equation \ref{trainingerror}). For this reason, the training error should be compared only for training using the same training data set size. We investigate the impact of three different input data size ( 1- 1,200 points in the domain and 200 on the boundary, 2-64$\times$64 points in the domain and 2,000 on the boundary, 3- 128$\times$128 points in the domain and 4,000 on the boundary) with three collocation point distributions (\texttt{uniform}, \texttt{pseudo-random}, and \texttt{Sobol} sequence) for the non-smooth source term. We show the results in Figure~\ref{impactdata}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/ImpactDataSetFinal.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Training error for different data set (1,200 points in the domain and 200 on the boundary, 64$\times$64 points in the domain and 2,000 on the boundary, 128$\times$128 points in the domain and 4,000 on the boundary) and different distribution (\texttt{uniform}, \texttt{pseudo-random} and \texttt{Sobol}).}
\label{impactdata}
\end{figure}
In general, we find that the collocation point distribution does not have a considerable impact on the training error for large data sets: the \texttt{Sobol} and \texttt{pseudo-random} distributions have a slightly better performance than the \texttt{uniform} distribution. For small data sets, \texttt{pseudo-random} distribution result in lower training errors.
We also study the impact of having a \emph{restart} procedure: we train first the PINN with a small data set 1,200 points in the domain and 200 on the boundary) for 4,500 epochs (and then re-train the same network with a large data set (128$\times$128 points in the domain and 4,000 on the boundary) for 2,500 cycles (see the magenta lines and the grey box in Figure~\ref{impactdata}). Such a restart capability would lead to a large computational saving. However, the results show that to retrain with a large data set does not lead to a decreased error and result in the highest training error.
\section{The Importance of Transfer Learning}\label{sec:transferlearning}
In this study, we found that the usage transfer learning technique is critical for training PINNs with a reduced number of epochs and computational cost. The transfer learning technique consists of training a network solving the Poisson equation with a different source term. We can then initialize the PINN network we intend to solve with the first fully trained network weights and biases. In this way, the first PINN \emph{transfers} the learned information about encoding to the second PINN. To show the advantage of transfer learning in PINN, we solve two additional test cases with smooth and non-smooth source terms. For the test case with the smooth source term, we solve the Poisson equation with source term $f(x,y) = 10(x(x - 1) + y(y - 1)) -2\sin (\pi x)\sin (\pi y) + 5(2\pi x)\sin (2\pi y)$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/ImpactTransferLearningFinal.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Training error with and without transfer learning for the smooth and non-smooth source test cases.}
\label{transferlearning}
\end{figure}
We initialize the network with the results obtained during the training with Equation~\ref{manysin} as a source term. One of the major advantages of transfer-learning is that we can start the L-BFGS-B optimizer after very few Adam solvers epochs (empirically,we found that 10 Adam epochs ensure that L-BFGS-B will avoid local minima). L-BFGS-B has faster convergence than the Adam optimizer and therefore the training is quicker. When not using transfer-learning, we train the PINN with 2,000 epochs of Adam optimizer, followed by 5,000 epochs of L-BFGS-B. When using L-BFGS-B, we perform 10 epochs of Adam optimizer, followed by 6,955 L-BFGS-B epochs.
The black lines in Figure~\ref{transferlearning} show a comparison of the training error for a network initialized with Xavier weight initialization, e.g., without transfer learning ($-.$ black line) and with transfer learning ($-+$ black line). In this case, transfer learning usage allows gaining two orders of improvement in the training error in less than 1,000 epochs.
For the test case with non-smooth source term, we introduce and additional test case solving the Poisson equation with a source term that is everywhere zero except in a circle with radius $0.1$ and centered in the $x$ and $y$ coordinates (0.7,0.7).
\begin{equation}
f(x,y) = - 10 \; \textnormal{for} \; \sqrt{(x-0.7)^2 + (y-0.7)^2 } \leq 0.1.
\label{nonsmooth2}
\end{equation}
For transfer learning, we use the PINN weights obtained training the network to solve the Poisson equation with source term of Equation~\ref{nonsmooth2}. The blue lines in Figure~\ref{transferlearning} are the training error without transfer learning. As in the case of smooth-source term, the usage of transfer learning rapidly decreases the training error.
We note that usage of the transfer learning leads to an initial (less than 200 L-BFGS-B epochs) \emph{super-convergence} to a relatively low training error. For this reason, \textbf{transfer-learning is a necessary operation to make PINN competitive with other solvers used in scientific computing}.
The major challenge for using transfer-learning is to determine which pre-trained PINN to use. In simulation codes, solving the same equation with different source term at each time step, an obvious choice is a PINN that solves the governing equations with a source term at one of the time step. For other cases, we found that PINNs solving problems with source terms containing high-frequency components (possibly more than one component) are suitable for transfer-learning in general situations. We also found that PINNs solving problem with only one low frequency component as source term are not beneficial for transfer learning: their performance is equivalent to the case without transfer learning.
\section{The Old and the New: Integrating PINNs into Traditional Linear Solvers}\label{sec:integrate}
In Section \ref{sec:poisson}, we observed that direct usage of PINN to solve the Poisson equation is still limited by the large number of epochs required to achieve an acceptable precision. One possibility to improve the performance of PINN is to combine PINN with traditional iterative solvers such as the Jacobi, Gauss-Seidel and multigrid solvers~\citep{quarteroni2010numerical}.
PINN solvers' advantage is the quick convergence to the solution's low frequencies components. However, the convergence to high-frequency features is slow and requires an increasing number of training iteration/epochs. This fact is a result of the the F-principle. Because of this, PINNs are of limited usage when the application requires highly accurate solutions. As suggested by Ref.~\citep{xu2019frequency}, in such cases, the most viable option is to combine PINN solvers with traditional solvers that can converge rapidly to the solution's high-frequency components (but have low convergence for the low-frequency components). Such methods introduce a computational grid and we compute the differential operators with a finite difference scheme. In this work, we choose the Gauss-Seidel method as it exhibits higher convergence rate than the Jacobi method. Each Gauss-Seidel solver iteration for solving the Poisson equation (Equation \ref{poisson}) is:
\begin{equation}
u_{i,j}^{n+1} = 1/4 (u_{i+1,j}^{n} + u_{i-1,j}^{n+1} + u_{i,j+1}^{n} + u_{i,j-1}^{n+1} - \Delta x \Delta y f_{i,j}),
\label{GSeq}
\end{equation}
where $i$ and $j$ are the cell index, $\Delta x$ and $\Delta y$ are the grid cell size in the $x$ and $y$ direction, and $n$ is the iteration number. Usually, the Gauss-Seidel method stops iterating when $||u_{n+1} - u^n ||_2 \leq \delta$, where $|| ... ||$ is the Euclidean norm and $ \delta$ is a so-called tolerance and it is chosen as an arbitrarily small value.
Both the Jacobi and Gauss-Seidel methods show fast convergence for small-scale features: this is because the update of unknown values involves only the values of the neighbor points (stencil defined by the discretization of a differential operator). Between two different iterations, the information can only propagate to neighbor cells.
In this work, we combine traditional approaches with new emerging DL methods as shown in Figure~\ref{vcycle}. Overall, the new solver consists of three phases. We use first the DL PINN solver to calculate the solution on a coarse grid. As second phase, we refine the solution with Gauss-Seidel iterations on the coarse grid until a stopping criteria is satisfied. The third phase is a multigrid V-cycle: we linearly interpolate (or \emph{prolongate} in multigrid terminology) to finer grids and perform a Gauss-Seidel iteration for each finer grid. In fact, several multigrid strategies with different level of sophistications can be sought. However, in this work we focus on a very simple multigrid approach, based on the Gauss-Seidel method and linear interpolation across different grids. The crucial point is that we train a PINN to calculate the solution of the problem on the coarse grid, replacing the multigrid \emph{restriction} (or \emph{injection}) steps in just one phase.
\begin{figure}[bt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figs/DLsolverVcycle2.png}
\end{center}
\caption{The hybrid solvers relies on the DL linear solver to determine the solution on a coarse grid that is refined through a multigrid V-cycle performing Gauss-Seidel iterations on finer grids.}
\label{vcycle}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{hybridpinn} shows a more detailed diagram of a hybrid multigrid solver combining a DL solver to calculate the solution on a coarse grid with a Gauss-Seidel solver to refine the solution and interpolate to finer grid. Because the DL solver convergences quickly to the low-frequency coarse-grained components of the solution while high-frequency small-scale components of the solutions are not accurately solved, we perform the training in single-precision floating-point. This would speed-up the training on GPUs (not used in this work) where the number of single-precision floating-point units (FPUs) is higher than CPU.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figs/HybridPINN.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Structure of the hybrid multigrid solver combining the DL and Gauss-Seidel solvers. Pre-trained networks are pre-computed and used to initialize the DL network. Two main parameters $ftol, \delta$ determine the accuracy and the performance of the hybrid solver.}
\label{hybridpinn}
\end{figure}
The hybrid DL solver comprises six basic steps, represented in Figure~\ref{hybridpinn} :
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Initialize the network weights and biases} - We load from the disk the network structure and initialize the network. To accelerate the convergence, we rely on transfer-learning: we train a network to solve a similar problem and initialize the network. It is important that the same governing equations, boundary conditions and architecture are used. The weights and biases are in single floating-point precision. The time for completing this step is negligible with respect to the total time of the hybrid solver.
\item \textbf{Train with Adam Optimizer (10 Epochs)} - We run the Adam optimizer just for a short number of epochs to avoid the consequent L-BFGS-B optimizer converging quickly to the wrong solution (local minimum). By running several tests, we found empirically that only 10 Adams epochs are needed to avoid L-BFGS-B optimizer to converge to the wrong solution. The time for completing this step is typically negligible.
\item \textbf{Train with L-BFGS-B Optimizer} - We run the training with the L-BFGS-B optimizer. The stopping criterium is determined by the \emph{ftol} parameter: the training stops when $(r_k - r_{k+1})/\max(|r_k|,|r_{k+1}|,1) \leq ftol$, where $k$ is the iteration of the optimizer and $r$ is the value of the function to be optimized (in our case the residual function). Typically, the time for completing the L-BFGS-B dominates is a large part of the execution time of the hybrid solver. To compete with traditional approaches for solving Poisson equation, we set a maximum number of epochs to 1,000.
\item \textbf{DL solver is obtained at the end of the training process} - The solver can inference the solution at given collocation points or save it for future transfer-learning tasks, e.g., a simulation repeats the computation of the Poisson equation at different time steps.
\item \textbf{The Approximator/Surrogate Network is used to calculate the solution on the coarse grid of the multigrid solver} - We calculate the solution of our problem on the coarse grid of a multigrid solver. This operation is carried with single-precision floating point numbers since high-accuracy is not needed in this step. The result is then cast to double precision for the successive Gauss-Seidel solver. This inference computational time is typically negligible when compared to the total execution time.
\item \textbf{Refine the solution with the Gauss-Seidel Method on the coarse grid and interpolate on fine grids} - We perform first Gauss-Seidel iterations to refine the solution on the coarse grid. This solution refinement is critical to remove the vanishing-gradient problem at the boundary. The Gauss-Seidel iteration on the coarse grid stops when $||u^{n+1} - u^n ||_2 \leq \delta$ where $n$ is the iteration number. After the Gauss-Seidel method stops on the coarse grid, linear interpolation to finer grids and a Gauss-Seidel iteration per grid are computed. As example, to solve the problem on a 512$\times$512 grid, we perform the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}[I]
\item use the DL solver to calculate the solution on 64$\times$64 grid;
\item refine the solution with the Gauss-Seidel method on the 64$\times$64 grid until convergence is reached;
\item carry out a linear interpolation to the 128x128 grid;
\item perform a Gauss-Seidel iteration on the 128$\times$128 grid;
\item carry out a linear interpolation to 256$\times$256 grid,
\item perform a Gauss-Seidel iteration on the 256$\times$256 grid,
\item carry out linear interpolation to 512$\times$512 grid,
\item perform a final Gauss-Seidel iteration on the 512$\times$512 grid.
\end{enumerate}
The interpolation and Gauss-Seidel iterations corresponds to the V-cycle in the multigrid method as shown in Figure~\ref{vcycle}.
\end{enumerate}
We test the hybrid modified solver against the same problem shown in Section \ref{sec:poisson}: we solve the Poisson equation with source term of Equation~\ref{manysin}. Leveraging the knowledge gained in the characterization study of Section~\ref{sec:tune}, we use a four hidden layer fully-connected neural network with 50 neurons per hidden layer. To optimize the convergence for solving the Poisson equation with a smooth source term, we rely on \texttt{LAAF-5 tanh} activation functions: these activations functions provided the best performance in our characterization study. For the transfer learning, we pre-train a network for 2,000 Adam optimizer epochs and 5,000 L-BFGS-B optimizer epochs to solve a Poisson equation with a source term equal to $-2 \sin( \pi x) \sin(\pi y) - 72 \sin(6 \pi x ) \sin (6 \pi y)$. We use an input data set consisting of 100$\times$100 points in the integration domain and 2,000 points on the boundaries for the DL solver. We use the \texttt{Sobol} sequence as training data set distribution. The network weights and biases for transfer learning are saved as checkpoint / restart files in TensorFlow.
For the first test, we employ a 512$\times$512 grid with a 64$\times$64 coarse grid, $ftol$ equal to 1E-4 and $\delta$ equal to 1E-6. We then test the hybrid multigrid solver on a 1024$\times$1024 grid with a 128$\times$128 coarse grid, $ftol$ equal to 1E-4 and two values for $\delta$: 1E-5 and 1E-4. Figure \ref{error1} shows a contour plot the error ($u - \tilde{u}$) for these three configurations. The maximum error for the hybrid multigrid solver is of the 1E-4 order and less than the error we obtained after an extensive training of a basic PINN (approximately 1E-3, see the bottom right panel of Figure~\ref{basicPINNresults}).
\begin{figure}[bt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/FinalError.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Hybrid multigrid solver final error ($u - \tilde{u}$) using three different setups: 1 - 512$\times$512 grid with a 64$\times$64 coarse grid, $ftol$ equal to 1E-4 and $delta$ equal to 1E-6; 2 and 3 - 1024$\times$1024 grid with a 128$\times$128 coarse grid, $ftol$ equal to 1E-4 and $\delta$ equal to 1E-5 and 1E-4. }
\label{error1}
\end{figure}
Once we showed that the hybrid multigrid solver provides more accurate results than the direct PINN usage, we focus on studying the computational performance. The performance tests are carried out on a 2,9 GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i5, 16 GB 2133 MHz LPDDR3 using macOS Catalina 10.15.7. We use Python 3.7.9, \texttt{TensorFlow} 2.4.0, \texttt{SciPy} 1.5.4 and the \texttt{DeepXDE} DSL. The Gauss-Seidel iteration is implemented in \texttt{Cython}~\citep{gorelick2020high} to improve the performance and avoid time-consuming loops in Python. For comparison, we also solve the problem using only the Gauss-Seidel method to solve the problem on the coarse grid and using the \texttt{petsc4py} CG solver. The \texttt{PETSc }version is 3.14.2 and we use $rtol$ (the relative to the initial residual norm convergence tolerance). We repeat the tests five times and report the arithmetic average of the execution times. We do not report error bars as the standard deviation is less than 5\% of the average value. Figure~\ref{performance} shows the execution time together with number of epochs and iterations for the three different configurations.
\begin{figure}[bt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figs/PerformanceEdited.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Execution time, number of epochs and iterations for the hybrid multigrid DL-GS solver and comparison with the performance of a multigrid using only GS and \texttt{petsc4py} CG varying the resolution, and solver stopping criteria. The hybrid multigrid DL-GS solver is faster for problems using larger coarse grids, e.g. 128$\times$128 coarse grids, than the other approaches.}
\label{performance}
\end{figure}
The most important result is that by using an optimized configuration, transfer learning, and integrating DL technologies into traditional approaches, we can now solve the Poisson equation with an acceptable precision with a reduced number of training iterations. This reduction of number of training epochs translates to complete the problem, presented in Section \ref{sec:poisson}, in less than few minutes instead of hours (see Figure~\ref{basicPINNresults}) on the Intel i5 system. While the execution depends on the specific hardware platform and implementation, the number of training epochs and GS iterations on the coarse grid (reported on the top of the histogram bars in Figure~\ref{performance}) are not. Overall, we found that 133 epochs are needed for the L-BFGS-B optimizer to reach an $ftol$ equal to 1E-4.
Figure~\ref{performance} histograms also show the breakdown between the time spent in the DL and Gauss-Seidel solvers used in the multigrid V-cycle. Note that the execution time for the DL solver is approximately the same for calculating the values on the two coarse grids: 64$\times$64 and 128$\times$128. This is because of PINN are \emph{gridless} methods: only the negligible inference computational cost is different. For comparison, we show the performance of the Gauss-Seidel solver for the coarse grid (orange bars) and \texttt{py4petsc} CG solver \texttt{petsc4py} (yellow bars) with different $rtol$ values. When the coarse grid is small, e.g., 64$\times$64, the cost for training the DL solver is higher than using a basic method such Gauss-Seidel: using the Gauss-Seidel method for the coarse grid is faster than using the DL solver for the coarse grid. However, for larger coarser grids, e.g., 128$\times$128, the hybrid multigrid solver is fastest. For comparison, we present the results obtained running the \texttt{petsc4py} CG with different $rtol$ values. Overall, the performance of the hybrid solver is competitive with state-of-the-art linear solvers. We note that none of the methods and codes have been optimized nor compared at same accuracy (the stopping criteria are defined differently for different solvers), so the performance results provide an indication of potential of the hybrid solver without providing absolute performance values.
\section{Discussion and Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
This paper presented a study to evaluate the potential of emerging new DL technologies to replace or accelerate old traditional approaches when solving the Poisson equation. We show that directly replacing traditional methods with PINNs results in limited accuracy and a long training period. Setting up an appropriate configuration of depth, activation functions, input data set distribution, and leveraging transfer-learning could effectively optimize the PINNs solver. However, PINNs are still far from competing with HPC solvers, such as \texttt{PETSc} CG. In summary, PINNs in the current state cannot yet replace traditional approaches.
However, while the direct usage of PINN in scientific applications is still far from meeting computational performance and accuracy requirements, hybrid strategies integrating PINNs with traditional approaches, such as multigrid and Gauss-Seidel methods, are the most promising option for developing a new class of solvers in scientific applications. We showed the first performance results of such hybrid approaches on the par (and better for large coarse grids) with other state-of-the-art solver implementations, such as \texttt{PETSc}.
When considering the potential for PINNs of using new emerging heterogeneous hardware, PINNs could benefit from the usage of GPUs that are workforce for DL workloads. It is likely that with the usage of GPUs, the performance of hybrid solvers can outperform state-of-the-art HPC solvers. However, PINN DSL frameworks currently rely on \texttt{SciPy} CPU implementation of the key PINN optimizer, L-BFGS-B, and its GPU implementation is not available in \texttt{SciPy}. The new \texttt{TensorFlow} 2 \texttt{Probability} framework\footnote{\url{https://www.tensorflow.org/probability}} provides a BFGS optimizer that can be used on GPUs. Another interesting research direction is investigating the role and impact of the low and mixed-precision calculations to train the approximator network. The usage of low-precision formats would allow us to use tensorial computational units, such as tensor cores in Nvidia GPUs ~\citep{markidis2018nvidia} and Google TPUs~\citep{jouppi2017datacenter}, boosting the DL training performance.
From the algorithmic point of view, a line of research we would like to pursue is a better and more elegant integration of the DL into traditional solvers. One possibility is to extend the seminal work on discrete PINNs~\citep{raissi2019physics} combining Runge-Kutta solvers and PINN for ODE solutions: a similar approach could be sought to encode information about discretization points into PINN. However, currently, this approach is supervised and requires the availability of simulation data. In addition, the development of specific network architectures for solving specific PDEs is a promising area of research. A limitation of this work is that we considered only fully-connected networks as surrogate network architectures. For solving the Poisson equation and elliptic problems in general, the usage of convolutional networks with large and dilated kernels is likely to provide better performance of fully-connected DL networks to learn non-local relationships a signature of elliptic problems~\citep{lunaaccelerating}.
The major challenge is integrating these new classes of hybrid DL and traditional approaches, developed in Python, into large scientific codes and libraries, often written in Fortran and C/C++. One possibility is to bypass the Python interface of major DL frameworks and use their C++ runtime directly. However, this task is complex. An easier path for the software integration of DL solvers into legacy HPC applications is highly needed.
Despite all these challenges and difficulties ahead, this paper shows that the integration of new PINNs DL approaches into \emph{old} traditional HPC approaches for scientific applications will play an essential role in the development of next-generation solvers for linear systems arising from differential equations.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
Funding for the work is received from the European Commission H2020 program, Grant Agreement No. 801039 (EPiGRAM-HS).
\bibliographystyle{frontiersinSCNS_ENG_HUMS}
|
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sc:conclu}
This paper addresses handwritten Chinese character recognition. We propose the {\em MetChar} algorithm for distance metric learning, and the {\em HybridSelection} algorithm to select distance components. By intelligently learning to combine base components, the learned distance metric has the desired interpretability, learning efficiency and recognition accuracy. Experiments on benchmark data reveal accuracy $\sim$ $81\%$. Further, we gain insights into the components most useful in Chinese character recognition, through this empirical study.
In the future, would investigate other optimization procedures to refine weight assignment for base components. We can consider the use of commonsense knowledge in learning ~\cite {Tandon2017} and investigate app development ~\cite{Basavaraju2016} based on related works. We plan to design classification techniques based on attentional neural networks.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sc:exp}
\subsection{Setup}
We implement the distance metric learning approaches in Java. We use k-means clustering in the {\em MetChar} algorithm. The source code is publicly available\footnote{\url{https://github.com/bxdong7/DML4HCCR}}. We execute all the experiments on a MacBook Pro with 3.1 GHz Intel i5 CPU and 16 GB RAM, running Mac OS X.
\subsection{Dataset}
We run experiments on the CASIA Offline Chinese Handwriting Database V1.1\footnote{\url{http://www.nlpr.ia.ac.cn/databases/handwriting/Home.html}}, namely CASIA-HWDB1.1. This is built by the National Laboratory of Pattern Recognition, Institute of Automation of Chinese Academy of Sciences.
The dataset is produced by 300 writers using Anoto pen on papers for obtaining offline images (in resolution of 300DPT).
The collected images are segmented and annotated at the character level.
The dataset includes 1,121,749 writing samples of 3,755 unique GB2312-80 level-1 Chinese characters.
Table \ref{tb:data} presents the details of the CASIA-HWDB dataset.
Every image in this dataset has its background labeled as 255 and its foreground pixels in 255 gray levels (0-254). In our experiments, we randomly choose 10 unique characters. The training and testing datasets include 30 non-overlapping sample images for each character.
\subsection{Distance Components}
We preprocess each image by simply changing the foreground pixels to 1 and the background pixels to 0 so as to obtain the binary image.
From each image, we extract the following features (see Fig. 1).
\begin{itemize}
\item $hbv$: the horizontal bit vector, which denotes the number of $1$s in each horizontal line;
\item $hfv$: the horizontal first foreground bit vector, which stores the location of the first $1$ in each horizontal line;
\item $hlv$: the horizontal last foreground bit vector, which stores the location of the last $1$ in each horizontal line;
\item $vfv$: the vertical first foreground bit vector, which stores the location of the first $1$ in each vertical line;
\item $vlv$: the vertical last foreground bit vector, which stores the location of the last $1$ in each vertical line;
\item $dfv$: the diagonal first foreground bit vector, which stores the location of the first $1$ in each diagonal line; and
\item $dlv$: the diagonal last foreground bit vector, which stores the location of the last $1$ in each diagonal line.
\end{itemize}
Based on these features, we have the following basic distance metric components.
\begin{itemize}
\item $hbv\_md$: the Manhattan distance between the $hbv$s of a pair of sample images;
\item $hfv\_md$: the Manhattan distance between the $hfv$s of a pair of sample images;
\item $vfv\_md$: the Manhattan distance between the $vfv$s of a pair of sample images;
\item $vfv\_ed$: the Euclidean distance between the $vfv$s of a pair of sample images;
\item $dfv\_md$: the Manhattan distance between the $dfv$s of a pair of sample images;
\item $dfv\_ed$: the Euclidean distance between the $dfv$s of a pair of sample images;
\item $hlv\_md$: the Manhattan distance between the $hlv$s of a pair of sample images;
\item $vlv\_md$: the Manhattan distance between the $vlv$s of a pair of sample images;
\item $vlv\_ed$: the Euclidean distance between the $vlv$s of a pair of sample images; and
\item $dlv\_ed$: the Euclidean distance between the $dlv$s of a pair of sample images.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Baselines}
In the experiment, we compare our component selection algorithm named {\em HybridSelection} with the following baselines:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf ExhaustiveSelection} This method enumerates all possible combinations of individual distance components.
\item {\bf GreedySelection} It firstly evaluates the recognition accuracy by using single component, and produces a canonical ordering of the individual components based on the accuracy. When generating a combination of $j>2$ components, it only considers the union of the $j$ best individual components.
\end{itemize}
\nop{
\subsection{Performance of {\em GreedySelection}}
We display the performance of {\em GreedySelection} in Table \ref{tb:greedy}.
In the beginning, {\em GreedySelection} evaluates the recognition accuracy of each component. As we can see in the first 10 rows of Table \ref{tb:greedy}, the weight is always 1.0, since only one component is available for {\em MetChar}. Besides, the execution time of {\em MetChar} is short, because the weight cannot be updated.
Next, {\em GreedySelection} chooses the $q$ ($2\leq q \leq p$) best individual components and calls {\em MetChar} to optimize the weights. We observe that the recognition accuracy increases until $q=6$, and then drops. This is because utilizing more than 6 components for distance metric learning leads to overfitting.
We also observe that {\em MetChar} takes a longer time to optimize the weights for more components. This is reasonable since more components imply higher optimization complexity.
\subsection{Performance of {\em ExhaustiveSelection}}
In our experiments with the {\em ExhaustiveSelection} approach, it is found that due to the prohibitive complexity, it takes more than 24 hours for this approach to examine the combinations of 5 components. Therefore, in this paper we only show the experimental results of executing {\em ExhasutiveSelection} with combinations of 3 and 4 components. These results are summarized in Table \ref{tb:exhaustive3} and \ref{tb:exhaustive4} respectively.
We observe that the recognition accuracy of {\em ExhaustiveSelection} is better than that of {\em GreedySelection}. However, this is certainly at the expense of excessive execution time. Assume that each trial of {\em MetChar} takes approximately 4 minutes on an average. Thus, it can take up to 70 hours for {\em ExhaustiveSelection} to learn a distance metric from a candidate pool of 10 components, which seems exorbitant.
}
\subsection{Performance of Evaluation}
Table \ref{tb:hybrid} displays the performance of {\em HybridSelection} with at least three components.
In our experiments, we set $\theta=0.55$ based on grid search. This value of $\theta$ implies that those components producing a recognition accuracy lower than 0.55 are pruned out in Line 1 - 5 of Algorithm \ref{alg:hybrid}. This operation results in the six remaining components for consideration in Line 6 - 10 of Algorithm \ref{alg:hybrid}.
From Table \ref{tb:hybrid}, we can see that {\em HybridSelection} completes examining a majority of the candidate combinations within 10 minutes. Moreover, the accuracy, 0.8075, i.e., $80.75 \%$ (as highlighted in the table) is acceptable for use in applications.
We also observe that the learned distance metric is interpretable as follows.
Based on the associated weights, we can learn that among the 5 components whose combination provides the highest accuracy, $vlv\_md$, $hbv\_md$ and $dfv\_ed$ play the most important role. {\bf These components yield an accuracy of 80.7$\%$, i.e. $\sim$ 81$\%$} as observed from the experiments. It implies that the \emph{horizontal bit vector, vertical last foreground bit vector, and diagonal first foreground bit vector} are of crucial value for handwritten Chinese character recognition. These are highly meaningful insights gained from our study, with respect to metric interpretation.
\begin{table}[!hbpt]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of {\em HybridSelection} with the baselines}
\label{tab:acc_comp}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
Algorithm & Accuracy \\\hline
{\em ExhaustiveSelection} & 0.7828 \\\hline
{\em GreedySelection} & 0.7694 \\\hline
{\em HybridSelection} (Our Approach) & {\bf 0.8075} \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
In Table \ref{tab:acc_comp}, we compare the recognition accuracy delivered by the three component selection algorithms. We limit the execution time of all algorithms to be 24 hours. The result suggests that {\em HybridSelection} produces the highest accuracy, which is even higher than {\em ExhaustiveSelection}.
This is because {\em ExhaustiveSelection} can only complete enumerating up to 4 components within the time limit, which yields 78.28\% recognition accuracy at best. On the other hand, {\em GreedySelection} only inspects a very limited fraction of the search space. Therefore, its accuracy is the lowest.
This result demonstrates the advantage of {\em HybridSelection} - reach a balance between time efficiency and recognition accuracy.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sc:intro}
Handwriting recognition is gaining increasing importance given the prevalence of mobile devices and tablets. A majority of people still prefer handwritten input over keyboard entry, especially when taking notes in a classroom or meeting, and annotating a digital document.
The need for an accurate and reliable handwriting recognition solution is even stronger among Chinese users, given the fact that it is extremely time-consuming to enter a Chinese character via keyboard \cite{apple}. In particular,
users have to type in the pronunciation (i.e., Pinyin) of the desired Chinese character first, and then choose the target from a list of candidates. To make it even more difficult, the pronunciation of a single Chinese character usually consists of at least 4 English characters.
On the other hand, handwriting recognition is the fundamental technology of Optical Character Recognition, which is widely applied in handwritten check clearance and judicial paperwork digitization.
Pairwise distance metric, a function that measures the dissimilarity between a pair of data inputs, plays crucial role in handwritten character recognition. Ideally, it helps to identify the handwriting inputs that correspond to the same character. It is obvious that the performance of a handwritten Chinese character recognition (HCCR) system heavily depends on the quality of the underlying distance metric.
Distance metric learning (DML) aims at automatically learning an appropriate distance (or similarity) measure from labeled samples \cite{chopra2005learning,bellet2013survey}. Recent results \cite{goldberger2004nips} reveal that even a simple linear transformation of the input features can significantly improve the classification accuracy. Therefore, DML provides a natural solution to determine the distance metric for handwritten Chinese character recognition.
Surprisingly, \cite{yin2009handwritten} is the only work on distance metric learning for handwritten Chinese character recognition (based on our literature search). However, the application of the distance metric learning there is only limited to text line segmentation.
Handwritten Chinese character recognition and distance metric learning do face their own challenges respectively.
In terms of handwritten Chinese character recognition, the challenges arise from the enormous character set and the diversity of writing styles. Unlike alphabet-based writing, which typically comprises the order of 100 symbols, there are 27,533 entries in Chinese National Standard GB18030-2005. Moreover, the divergence of writing styles among different writers and in different geographic areas aggravates the confusion between different characters \cite{wang2011handwritten}.
These difficulties lead to unsatisfactory performance in handwriting recognition. For example, \cite{su2009off} can only provide 39.37\% recognition accuracy on a dataset with 186,444 characters. Later works \cite{wang2009integrating,li2010bayesian} improve the accuracy up to 78.44\% and 73.87\% respectively.
Regarding distance metric learning, most works focus on learning a Mahalanobis distance metric. Even though it is equivalent to computing the Euclidean distance after a linear projection of the data, it provides limited interpretability. In particular, the learned transformation matrix cannot explain the relative importance of the features in the distance metric. Lacking interpretability prohibits further analysis in the case of misclassification and undermines user confidence.
In this paper, our objective is to put forth an interpretable distance metric learning approach for accurate offline handwritten Chinese character recognition. By offline, we mean that the focus is on recognizing characters already written on paper earlier. The input is in the form of a scanned image of the paper document.
Compared with online recognition, offline character recognition is more challenging in that it does not have the trace of the writer's pen as well as the order of writing in the input. It has been shown \cite{nishimura2003offline} that such pen dynamics information can help to obtain better recognition accuracy than static scanned images alone.
To provide interpretability in the learned distance metric, we firstly define a set of base distance metrics, which we call \emph{components} in the rest of the paper. These components quantify the dissimilarity of two handwritten characters in a simple manner. They can be provided by domain experts in fields such as Linguistics, or can be proposed based on a preliminary analysis of the data.
The components used in our experiments include the difference of the length of the longest horizontal stroke, the longest vertical stroke, etc.
Given these components, we propose an ensemble learning strategy to linearly combine these basic metrics into a strong distance metric, so as to guarantee accurate handwritten character recognition.
To the best of our knowledge, ours is among the first works to learn an interpretable distance metric for handwritten Chinese character recognition.
In particular, this work makes the following contributions.
\begin{itemize}
\item We design a new algorithm named {\em MetChar} that optimizes the weight assignment for a given set of basic components so as to obtain a distance metric, which is later used by the clustering algorithm to classify the input handwritten characters. {\em MetChar} follows a style analogous to the gradient descend optimizer \cite{kingma2014adam}, but it copes with the fact that the error rate is not differentiable. A good property of {\em MetChar} is that it is compatible with a wide range of clustering algorithms.
\item We propose an approach, namely {\em HybridSelection}, that chooses the combination of basic components from a large candidate pool, and feeds them to {\em MetChar} for optimization. The {\em HybridSelection} algorithm trims off the components that do not meet the quality requirement, and fully takes advantage of the remaining ones. It reaches a balance between efficiency and accuracy.
\item We run a set of experiments on a benchmark dataset. The results demonstrate the superiority of {\em HybridSelection}. It produces the highest recognition accuracy in an affordable time. Besides, the learned distance metric is interpretable for ordinary users.
\end{itemize}
The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
Section \ref{sc:pre} reviews the preliminaries. Section \ref{sc:method} presents our distance metric learning approaches. Section \ref{sc:exp} discusses the experimental results. Section \ref{sc:related} introduces the related work. Finally, Section \ref{sc:conclu} concludes the paper.
\nop{
\subsection{Metric Learning}
A Survey on Metric Learning for Feature Vectors and Structured Data
The need for appropriate ways to measure the distance or similarity between data is ubiq- uitous in machine learning, pattern recognition and data mining, but handcrafting such good metrics for specific problems is generally difficult. This has led to the emergence of metric learning, which aims at automatically learning a metric from data and has attracted a lot of interest in machine learning and related fields for the past ten years.
Pairwise metric: The notion of pairwise metric—used throughout this survey as a generic term for distance, similarity or dissimilarity function—between data points plays an important role in many machine learning, pattern recognition and data mining techniques.1 For instance, in classi- fication, the k-Nearest Neighbor classifier (Cover and Hart, 1967) uses a metric to identify the nearest neighbors; many clustering algorithms, such as the prominent K-Means (Lloyd, 1982), rely on distance measurements between data points; in information retrieval, documents are often ranked according to their relevance to a given query based on similarity scores. Clearly, the performance of these methods depends on the quality of the metric: as in the saying “birds of a feather flock together”, we hope that it identifies as similar (resp. dissimilar) the pairs of instances that are indeed semantically close (resp. different).
The goal of metric learning is to adapt some pairwise real-valued metric function, say the Mahalanobis distance dM(x,x′) = ��(x−x′)T
Application: For this reason, there exists a large body of metric learning literature dealing specifically with computer vision problems, such as image classification (Mensink et al., 2012), object recog- nition (Frome et al., 2007; Verma et al., 2012), face recognition (Guillaumin et al., 2009b; Lu et al., 2012), visual tracking (Li et al., 2012; Jiang et al., 2012) or image annotation (Guillaumin et al., 2009a).
Linear v.s. non-linear metric: Linear metrics, such as the Mahalanobis distance. Their expressive power is limited but they are easier to optimize (they usually lead to convex formulations, and thus global optimality of the solution) and less prone to overfitting. Nonlinear metrics, such as the χ2 histogram distance. They often give rise to noncon- vex formulations (subject to local optimality) and may overfit, but they can capture nonlinear variations in the data.
An Overview and Empirical Comparison of Distance Metric Learning Methods
Ensemble: ensemble approaches that learn many weak distance metrics (similar to weak classifiers), which are then combined into a single met- ric distance; Chang [9] proposed a boosting Mahalanobis distance metric (BoostMDM) method. It iter- atively employs a base-learner to update a base matrix. A framework to combine base matrices is developed in this paper, along with a base learner algorithm specific to it. The cost function minimizes the hypothesis margin, which is a lower bound of the sample margin used in methods such as SVMs. Since it is computed using the nearest hit and nearest miss of each sample it implicitly relies on proximity relation triples, which are updated on each iteration.
Distance Metric Learning for Large Margin Nearest Neighbor Classification
Need for distance metric learning
Motivated by these issues, a number of researchers have demonstrated that kNN classification can be greatly improved by learning an appropriate distance metric from labeled examples (Chopra et al., 2005; Goldberger et al., 2005; Shalev-Shwartz et al., 2004; Shental et al., 2002). This is the so-called problem of distance metric learning. Recently, it has been shown that even a simple linear transformation of the input features can lead to significant improvements in kNN classification (Goldberger et al., 2005; Shalev-Shwartz et al., 2004). Our work builds in a novel direction on the success of these previous approaches.
PCA not interpretable
Essentially, PCA computes the linear transformation ⃗xi → L⃗xi that projects the training inputs {⃗xi}ni=1 into a variance-maximizing subspace. The variance of the projected inputs
where⃗μ = 1 ∑i⃗xi denotes the sample mean. The linear transformation L is chosen to maximize the n
variance of the projected inputs, subject to the constraint that L defines a projection matrix. In terms of the input covariance matrix, the required optimization is given by:
The optimization in Eq. (4) has a closed-form solution; the standard convention equates the rows of L with the leading eigenvectors of the covariance matrix. If L is a rectangular matrix, the linear transformation projects the inputs into a lower dimensional subspace. If L is a square matrix, then the transformation does not reduce the dimensionality, but this solution still serves to rotate and re-order the input coordinates by their respective variances.
Mostly close work: MMC.
A convex objective function for distance metric learning was first proposed by Xing et al. (2002). The goal of this work was to learn a Mahalanobis metric for clustering (MMC) with side-information. MMC shares a similar goal as LDA: namely, to minimize the distances between similarly labeled in- puts while maximizing the distances between differently labeled inputs. MMC differs from LDA in its formulation of distance metric learning as an convex optimization problem. In particular, whereas LDA solves the eigenvalue problem in Eq. (6) to compute the linear transformation L, MMC solves a convex optimization over the matrix M = L⊤L that directly represents the Mahalanobix metric itself.
To state the optimization for MMC, it is helpful to introduce further notation. From the class labels yi, we define the n×n binary association matrix with elements yij =1 if yi =yj and yij =0 otherwise. In terms of this notation, MMC attempts to maximize the distances between pairs of inputs with different labels (yi j = 0), while constraining the sum over squared distances of pairs of similarly labeled inputs (yi j = 1). In particular, MMC solves the following optimization:
MMC was designed to improve the performance of iterative clustering algorithms such as k- means. In these algorithms, clusters are generally modeled as normal or unimodal distributions. MMC builds on this assumption by attempting to minimize distances between all pairs of similarly labeled inputs; this objective is only sensible for unimodal clusters
Distance Metric Learning Using Dropout: A Structured Regularization Approach
DML Application:
Many methods have been developed for DML [6, 7, 16, 26, 27] in the past, and DML has been suc- cessfully applied in various domains, including information retrieval [13], ranking [6], supervised classification [26], clus- tering [27], semi-supervised clustering [5] and domain adap- tation [20].
Overfitting:
One problem with DML is that since the number of pa- rameters to be determined in DML is quadratic in the di- mension, it may overfit the training data [26], and lead to a suboptimal solution. Although several heuristics, such as early stopping, have been developed to alleviate the over- fitting problem [26], their performance is usually sensitive to the setting of parameters (e.g. stopping criterion in early stopping), making it difficult for practitioners.
Random Ensemble Metrics for Object Recognition
\subsection{Handwriting Recognition}
Handwritten Chinese Text Recognition by Integrating Multiple Contexts
Low accuracy: HANDWRITTEN Chinese character recognition has long been considered a challenging problem. It has attracted much attention since the 1970s and has achieved tremendous advances [1], [2]. Both isolated character recognition and character string recognition have been studied intensively but are not solved yet. In isolated Chinese character recognition, most methods were eval- uated on data sets of constrained writing styles though very high accuracies (say, over 99 percent on Japanese Kanji characters and over 98 percent on Chinese char- acters) have been reported [1]. The accuracy on uncon- strained handwritten samples, however, is much lower [3].
Works on Chinese handwriting recognition of general texts have been reported only in recent years, and the reported accuracies are quite low. For example, Su et al. reported character-level correct rate (CR) of 39.37 percent on a Chinese handwriting data set HIT-MW with 853 pages containing 186,444 characters [9]. Two later works on the same data set, using character classifiers and statistical language models (SLM) based on oversegmentation, reported a character-level correct rate of 78.44 [10] and 73.97 percent [11], respectively.
Difficulty:
Handwritten Chinese text recognition (HCTR) is a challenging problem due to the large character set, the diversity of writing styles, the character segmentation difficulty, and the unconstrained language domain. Fig. 1 shows an example of a Chinese handwritten page. The large set of Chinese characters (tens of thousands of classes) brings difficulties to efficient and effective recognition. The diver- gence of writing styles among different writers and in different geographic areas aggravates the confusion between different classes.
Improving handwritten Chinese text recognition using neural network language models and convolutional neural network shape models
Character recognition:
CNN based classifiers for Chinese characters have reported superior performance in ICDAR 2013 competition [36], where CNNs reported much higher accuracies than traditional classi- fiers. Using CNNs, the handwriting recognition community has re- ported many useful and important achievements [37–39] to improve the recognition accuracy. Recently, by integrating the traditional normalization-cooperated direction-decomposed feature map (directMap) with the deep CNN, Zhang et al. [40] obtained new highest accuracies for both online and offline sessions on the ICDAR-2013 competition database.
In this work, we build a 15-layer CNN as the character classifier as shown in Table 1, which is similar to the one proposed in [40]. Similar to the domain-specific knowledge incorporated in CNN [69], we extract eight 32×32 directMaps using line density projection interpolation normalization [70], as used in [40] as well. Besides the directMaps, we resize the original character image to 32×32 while keeping the aspect ratio as an extra input feature map, which was found to improve the network convergence.
Online and Offline Handwritten Chinese Character Recognition: Benchmarking on New Databases
Accuracy: Table 6. Test accuracies of offline character recognition on gray-scale images of HWDB1.1.
}
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work incurs partial support through: startup funds for Dr. Boxiang Dong; a doctoral faculty program for Dr. Aparna Varde; and mentoring inputs from the NSF LSAMP grant for Danilo Stevanovic.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
{
\section{Distance Metric Learning Approach}
\label{sc:method}
In our approach, we first propose an algorithm named {\em MetChar} that optimizes the weight assignment for a fixed set of components. Next, we propose an algorithm named {\em HybridSelection} to select components as the input to {\em MetChar}.
\subsection{The {\em MetChar} Algorithm}
{\em MetChar} recognizes/classifies the input handwritten characters based on clustering. It is worth noting that {\em MetChar} is compatible with any clustering algorithm. Given a set of individual components $d_1, \dots, d_q \subseteq \bm{d}$, where $\bm{d}$ is the complete set of available components, {\em MetChar} produces the component weights $w_1, \dots, w_q$ so that the clustering algorithm based on the distance metric $D(\bm{x}, \bm{x}')=\sum_{i=1}^q w_id_i(\bm{x}, \bm{x}')$ assigns the handwriting samples of the same character into the same cluster, and those of different characters into different clusters.
Before explaining the optimization procedure, we first present a few definitions that are needed later. Given a pair of handwriting samples $\bm{x}$ and $\bm{x}'$, let their corresponding characters be $y$ and $y'$ respectively. Let $c$ and $c'$ denote the clusters to which they are assigned. We then have the following definitions based on the relationship between the characters and the clusters.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\big(\bm{x}, \bm{x}'\big)$ is a true positive (TP) if $y=y'$ and $c=c'$.
\item $\big(\bm{x}, \bm{x}'\big)$ is a true negative (TN) if $y\neq y'$ and $c\neq c'$.
\item $\big(\bm{x}, \bm{x}'\big)$ is a false positive (FP) if $y\neq y'$ but $c=c'$.
\item $\big(\bm{x}, \bm{x}'\big)$ is a false negative (FN) if $y=y'$ but $c\neq c'$.
\end{itemize}
It is obvious that TPs and TNs are the pairs that are correctly recognized. Hence we define the accuracy as $acc = \frac{TP+TN}{TP+TN+FP+FN}$.
In order to improve the recognition accuracy, the intuition is to increase the pairwise distance for the FPs, while reducing the distance for the FNs.
At the $t$-th round of the learning stage, let $D^{(t)}$ be the learned distance metric, and $w^{(t)}_i$ denote the weight associated with the individual component $d_i$.
For any $d_i$, we can calculate two values: $\alpha_i^{(t)}$ which denotes the total distance on $d_i$ for the FPs, and $\beta_i^{(t)}$ which denotes the total distance on $d_i$ for the FNs. In particular, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:a}
\alpha_i^{(t)} = \sum_{(\bm{x}, \bm{x}')\in FP} w^{(t)}_i d_i\big(\bm{x}, \bm{x}'\big),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:b}
\beta_i^{(t)} = \sum_{(\bm{x}, \bm{x}')\in FN} w^{(t)}_i d_i\big(\bm{x}, \bm{x}'\big).
\end{equation}
In the next round, i.e., the $(t+1)$-th round, we update the weight associated with $d_i$ by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:update}
w^{(t+1)}_i = max(0, w^{(t)}_i+\epsilon(\alpha_i^{(t)} - \beta_i^{(t)})),
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon$ is a given learning rate. We repeatedly update the weights $w_1, \dots, w_q$ for a certain number of iterations. Algorithm \ref{alg:metchar} displays the pseudocode for {\em MetChar}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{{\em MetChar}}
\label{alg:metchar}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE A set of individual components $d_1, \dots, d_q$, the training set $\{(\bm{x}, y)\}$, the learning rate $\epsilon$, the number of iterations $T$, the number of unique characters $k$
\ENSURE The distance metric $D=\sum_{i=1}^q w_i d_i(\bm{x}, \bm{x}')$
\STATE Randomly assign initial weights $w_1^{(1)}, \dots, w_q^{(1)}$
\FOR{$t=1$ to $T$}
\STATE{Let $D^{(t)} = \sum_{i=1}^q w_i^{(t)} d_i(\bm{x}, \bm{x}')$}
\STATE{Apply the clustering algorithm with $D^{(t)}$ to get $k$ clusters}
\STATE{Calculate the accuracy $acc^{(t)}$}
\FOR{$i=1$ to $q$}
\STATE{Update $w^{(t+1)}_i$ according to Equation (\ref{eq:update})}
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\STATE{Let $t^*$ be the round that produces the highest $acc^{(t^*)}$}
\RETURN{$D^{(t^*)}$}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
{\em MetChar} follows a style similar to the classical gradient descent algorithm \cite{kingma2014adam}, which is widely adapted in deep learning. In particular, they both start with a random initialization of the weights, and then gradually optimize the weights throughout the iterations. However, since the underlying recognition algorithm is clustering, the loss value or error rate is not differentiable over the weights. In other words, it is impossible to calculate the derivatives of the loss over the weights. Therefore, unlike the original gradient descent algorithm, {\em MetChar} refines the weights by taking the FPs and FNs into consideration (Equation (\ref{eq:a} - \ref{eq:update})).
\subsection{Component Selection Algorithms}
The {\em MetChar} algorithm takes a set of individual components as the input, and by default utilizes all of them to learn a distance metric for handwritten Chinese character recognition. However, in practice, it is not necessary to exploit all the components, especially if a large candidate pool is available.
Introducing redundant components demands longer optimization time of {\em MetChar}, while bringing minimal accuracy benefits. Moreover, since the number of parameters to be optimized is linear to the number of components, redundant components could make the learned distance metric overfit the training data, and lead to a suboptimal solution \cite{qian2014distance}.
Therefore, it is imperative to have an approach for selecting a subset of components from the candidate pool which {\em MetChar} can employ to deliver satisfactory recognition accuracy.
A naive solution is to enumerate all possible combinations of components and feed them to {\em MetChar}. However, this incurs significant computational overhead. The search complexity is exponential to the number of components, i.e. $O(2^p)$. This is overwhelming when $p$ is a large number.
To reach a balance between efficiency and accuracy, we propose {\em HybridSelection} that firstly eliminates the least promising candidate components, based on a given error threshold, and then examines all the combinations of the remaining components.
\nop{
\noindent{\bf {\em ExhaustiveSelection:}} The exhaustive method considers all possible combinations of components and feeds them into {\em MetChar}.
It is obvious that {\em ExhaustiveSelection} guarantees to find the best combination of components and delivers the highest recognition accuracy. However, we must acknowledge that it incurs significant computational overhead. The search complexity is exponential to the number of components, i.e. $O(2^p)$. This is overwhelming when $p$ is a large number. \\
}
\nop{
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{{\em ExhaustiveSelection}}
\label{alg:exhaustive}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE A complete set of individual components $\bm{d} = \{d_1, \dots, d_p\}$
\ENSURE The distance metric $D$
\FOR{$j=1$ to $p$}
\FOR{each combination $\bm{d}'$ of $j$ components in $\bm{d}$}
\STATE{Call {\em MetChar} (Algorithm \ref{alg:metchar}) on $\bm{d}'$}
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\RETURN{the distance metric with the highest accuracy}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
}
\nop{
\noindent{\bf {\em GreedySelection:}} Contrary to {\em ExhaustiveSelection} which incurs substantial cost, {\em GreedySelection} aims at minimizing the search complexity. In particular, {\em GreedySelection} firstly generates a canonical ordering of the individual components. When generating a combination of $j>2$ components, it only considers the union of the $j$ best individual components.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{{\em GreedySelection}}
\label{alg:greedy}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE A complete set of individual components $\bm{d} = \{d_1, \dots, d_p\}$
\ENSURE The distance metric $D$
\FOR{$j=1$ to $p$}
\STATE{Run {\em MetChar} (Algorithm \ref{alg:metchar}) with $d_i$ only}
\STATE{Evaluate the accuracy $acc_i$}
\ENDFOR
\STATE{Sort individual components based on $acc_i$ in descending order}
\FOR{$j=2$ to $p$}
\STATE{Let $\bm{d}'=\{d_1, \dots, d_j\}$}
\STATE{Call {\em MetChar} (Algorithm \ref{alg:metchar}) on $\bm{d}'$}
\ENDFOR
\RETURN{the distance metric with the highest accuracy}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Algorithm \ref{alg:greedy} displays the pseudocode.
In Line 1 to 5, {\em GreedySelection} arranges the individual components in the order such that $acc_i\geq acc_j$ if $i\geq j$, where $acc_i$ ($acc_j$ resp.) is the recognition accuracy based on $d_i$ ($d_j$ resp.) only.
From Line 6 to 9, {\em GreedySelection} tries the combination of a various number of components. At each step, it only considers the combination of the individual components that yield the highest accuracy separately.
In this manner, {\em GreedySelection} reduces the complexity to $O(p)$.
However, {\em GreedySelection} ignores the dependency between individual components. In other words, the combination of the $j$ best individual components may not be the best choice due to the redundancy and intervention among the selected components. Hence, compared to {\em ExhaustiveSelection}, a sharp decline in the recognition accuracy can be anticipated. \\
}
\nop{
\noindent{\bf {\em HybridSelection:}}
{\em ExhaustiveSelection} incurs substantial computational cost since it takes the whole search space into account, while {\em GreedySelection} sacrifices the recognition accuracy significantly in that it only considers the combination of the most promising individual components.
In order to achieve a balance between efficiency and accuracy, we propose {\em HybridSelection}. This approach first eliminates the least promising candidate components, using a given error threshold; it then examines all combinations of the remaining components.
}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{{\em HybridSelection}}
\label{alg:hybrid}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE A complete set of individual components $\bm{d} = \{d_1, \dots, d_p\}$, an error threshold $\theta$
\ENSURE The distance metric $D$
\FOR{$j=1$ to $p$}
\STATE{Run {\em MetChar} (Algorithm \ref{alg:metchar}) with $d_i$ only}
\STATE{Evaluate the accuracy $acc_i$}
\STATE{Prune $d_i$ from $\bm{d}$ if $acc_i < \theta$}
\ENDFOR
\FOR{$j=2$ to $p$}
\FOR{each combination $\bm{d}'$ of $j$ components in $\bm{d}$}
\STATE{Call {\em MetChar} (Algorithm \ref{alg:metchar}) on $\bm{d}'$}
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\RETURN{the distance metric with the highest accuracy}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Algorithm \ref{alg:hybrid} shows the pseudocode. From Line 1 - 5, {\em HybridSelection} evaluates the quality of each individual component. If $d_i$ does not meet the quality requirement, i.e., $acc_i < \theta$ (error threshold), it is eliminated from the component pool. From Line 6 to 10, {\em HybridSelection} tries every combination of the remaining components, and finds the one with the highest accuracy. Let $s$ denote the number of remaining components after the first loop, the complexity is $O(p+2^s)$, where $s<p$. Therefore, the complexity is lower than that of {\em ExhaustiveSelection}. Meanwhile, we can adjust the error threshold $\theta$ to alternate the balance between efficiency and accuracy. A larger $\theta$ results in a smaller $s$, and thus better efficiency but potentially lower accuracy.
Our experimental results in Section \ref{sc:exp} demonstrate that {\em HybridSelection} delivers satisfactory accuracy.
This is because the search space discarded by {\em HybridSelection} only includes the least promising combination of components, and thus induces little impact to the recognition accuracy. Given the same time constraints, the accuracy of {\em HybridSelection} can even be higher than that of the exhaustive search algorithm.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sc:pre}
\subsection{Individual Distance Components}
\label{sc:components}
In computer vision and data management, it is well known that a small fraction of the regions in a figure can hold critical information for object recognition and classification \cite{wang2018ictai, varde2007icde, varde2006sigmod, vardedistance, varde2008component}. In addition, certain statistical studies on the figure depict the contextual behavior in the image in a succinct manner \cite{carbonetto2004statistical}.
In the field of handwritten Chinese character recognition, we have similar observations. Take the handwritten characters in Fig. \ref{fig:components} as an example. The length and position of the longest horizontal and vertical strokes in a handwritten character can serve as effective and convenient features for the purpose of recognition. Next, the individual distance components are defined by applying simple operators on these intelligible features, such as Euclidean distance and Manhattan distance.
\begin{figure}[!hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{./figs/components.eps}
\caption{An example of individual distance components in handwritten Chinese character recognition}
\label{fig:components}
\end{figure}
As opposed to sophisticated feature engineering techniques of crossings and celled projections \cite{hossain2012rapid,shen2012positive}, the components used in this paper are basic ones that incorporate fundamental human intelligence, and are more easily interpretable.
\subsection{Distance Metric Learning}
\nop{
A mapping $D: \mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ over a vector space $\mathcal{X}$ is a metric if for all $\bm{x}, \bm{x}', \bm{x}''\in \mathcal{X}$, it satisfies the properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $D(\bm{x}, \bm{x}') \geq 0$ (non-negativity);
\item $D(\bm{x}, \bm{x}') = 0$ IFF $\bm{x}=\bm{x}'$ (identity of indiscernibles);
\item $D(\bm{x}, \bm{x}')=D(\bm{x}',\bm{x})$ (symmetry); and
\item $D(\bm{x}, \bm{x}'')\leq D(\bm{x}, \bm{x}') + D(\bm{x}', \bm{x}'')$ (triangle inequality).
\end{enumerate}
Most works on distance metric learning concentrate on supervised Malahanobis distance learning, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:m1}
D_M(\bm{x}, \bm{x}') = \sqrt{(\bm{x}-\bm{x}')^T \bm{M} (\bm{x}-\bm{x}')},
\end{equation}
where $\bm{M}\in \mathbb{S}^m_+$, $\mathbb{S}^m_+$ is the cone of symmetric positive semi-definite $m\times m$ real-valued matrices, and $m$ is the dimensionality of the features in $\bm{x}$.
The matrix $M$ can be interpreted as $\bm{L}^T\bm{L}$, where $\bm{L}\in \mathbb{R}^{k\times m}$, and $k$ is the rank of $\bm{M}$. Therefore, we can rewrite Equation (\ref{eq:m1}) as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:m2}
D_M(\bm{x}, \bm{x}') & = \sqrt{(\bm{x}-\bm{x}')^T \bm{L}^T \bm{L} (\bm{x}-\bm{x}')} \\
& = \sqrt{(\bm{Lx}-\bm{Lx}')^T(\bm{Lx}-\bm{Lx}')}.
\end{align}
From Equation (\ref{eq:m2}), we can see that Malahanobis distance is equivalent to applying a linear projection over the features according to the transformation matrix $\bm{L}$, and then calculating the Euclidean distance. However, the projection defined by $\bm{L}$ deteriorates the interpretability of the distance metric, especially when the matrix $\bm{M}$ is not low-rank. In addition, a wide variety of ensemble approaches, e.g., BoostMDM \cite{chang2012boosting}, BoostMetric \cite{shen2012positive}, and MetriBoost \cite{bi2011adaboost}, have been proposed to learn a more accurate Malahanobis metric. As a consequence, the interpretability of the ensemble metric diminishes.
}
In this paper, we aim at proposing an interpretable distance metric learning approach for handwritten Chinese character recognition. To provide interpretability, our objective is to learn a distance metric that is a linear combination of the intelligible individual components. In particular, given a set of individual components (metrics) $\bm{d} = \{d_1, \dots, d_p\}$, where $d_i(\bm{x}, \bm{x}')$ is per the discussion in Section \ref{sc:components}, the target distance metric is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:target}
D(\bm{x}, \bm{x}')=\sum_{i=1}^{p} w_i d_i(\bm{x}, \bm{x}'),
\end{equation}
where $w_i \geq 0$ for every $1\leq i \leq p$, $\bm{x}$ and $\bm{x}'$ are a pair of handwriting characters. Due to the linear combination in Equation (\ref{eq:target}), the weight associated with each basic component signifies its importance in handwritten character recognition, so as to provide interpretability in the decision/classification result. It can be clearly seen that our objective is indeed a bagging algorithm to combine multiple basic but intelligible individual components, so as to formulate an accurate and interpretable distance metric.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sc:related}
\subsection{Distance Metric Learning}
The need for appropriate ways to measure the distance or similarity between data points is almost ubiquitous in machine learning and data mining. This leads to the emergence of DML, which aims at automatically learning a suitable metric from data \cite{bellet2013survey}.
In terms of the format, there exist linear and non-linear metrics. Non-linear metrics, such as the two-histogram distance can capture non-linear variations in the data, however they give rise to non-convex formulations. Linear metrics, such as the Mahalanobis distance, are easier to optimize and thus attract much attention in metric learning.
Chang et al. \cite{chang2012boosting} propose a boosting Mahalanobis distance metric (BoostMDM) method. It iteratively employs a base-learner to update a base matrix. A framework to combine base matrices is proposed in their paper, along with a base learner algorithm specific to it. The loss function describes the hypothesis margin, a lower bound of the sample margin used in methods such as SVMs (Support Vector Machines).
A problem with DML is that since the number of parameters to be determined is quadratic to the dimension of the features, it may lead to overfitting the training data \cite{weinberger2009distance}, and provide a suboptimal solution.
To resolve the problem, Qian et al. \cite{qian2014distance} propose a regularization approach that applies dropout to both the learned metrics and the training data.
The work quite closely related to ours is \cite{weinberger2009distance}. It aims at learning a Mahalanobis metric for clustering. The metric seeks to minimize the distance between similarly labeled inputs while maximizing the distance between differently labeled samples. However, this work does not specifically consider pictorial scripts with substantial diversity in OCR, nor does it focus on easily interpretable metrics.
\subsection{Handwritten Chinese Character Recognition}
Research on Chinese handwriting recognition of general texts has been observed only in recent years \cite{liu2007normalization}, and the reported accuracy is quite low. Recent works, using character classifiers and statistical language models (SLM) based on oversegmentation, obtain a character-level accuracy of $78.44 \%$ \cite{wang2009integrating} and $73.97 \%$ \cite{li2010bayesian}, respectively. Earlier works show even lower accuracy.
Recent years witness the popularity of deep learning in fields such as natural language processing, computer vision and machine learning. Zhang et al. \cite{wu2017improving} obtain $95.88\%$ character-level accuracy on the CASIA-HWDB dataset by using a 15-layer convolutional neural network (CNN). Though accurate, the maxpooling and spatial pooling operations in the CNN render little interpretability in the recognition model.
Our work makes a contribution by providing good accuracy and easy interpretability, in addition to learning efficiency.
|
\section{Introduction: wave equations in nonlinear quantum electrodynamics}
\label{intro}
Field induced polarization and birefringence of the vacuum, see e.g. Refs.\cite{BLP-QED, VLG},
are fundamental effects predicted by Quantum electrodynamics (QED).
These effects arise from the process of scattering of light by light: while
in classical electrodynamics electromagnetic waves do not interact in vacuum,
in QED photon-photon scattering can take place in vacuum via the generation
of virtual electron-positron pairs that gives rise to polarization
and magnetization currents that make the vacuum respond as a material medium.
The study of the nonlinear QED vacuum properties has been conducted for about a century
\cite{HeisenbergEuler, Karplus1951, Schw51, McK1963, Erber1966, Mamaev, Grib1980, Bernard2000, Batt2018}.
Recently, interest in these effects have been rekindled by
the availability of high power lasers (see review articles \cite{CDanson2015, CDanson2019})
leading to the formulation of the plans aimed at reaching experimentally the parameters that can enable the study
the nonlinear QED vacuum \cite{Heinzl2006, Schlenvoigt2016, King}.
This, in its turn, has motivated an intensive theoretical research program aimed at the study of the scattering
of a laser pulse by a laser
pulse \cite{Mourou, Marklund, DTom, Pare, DiPiazzaReview, BattRizz, Koga, KarbsteinShai1, KarbsteinShai2, Angioi2019, SVBRFAL2019, ZHANG}.
The field induced vacuum polarization and birefringence can be accounted for
within the framework of a local approximation
using the well known Heisenberg-Euler Lagrangian in the electromagnetic action functional
\cite{HeisenbergEuler, Schw51}.
This approximation leads to nonlinear wave equations for the fields amplitude in vacuum that are not dispersive,
i.e. that are homogeneous
in the second order derivatives of the field four-vector potentials. In other words the Lagrangian does
not include second order derivatives
(or higher order derivatives) of the electromagnetic fields. This local approximation is valid in the long wavelength,
low frequency limit, essentially requiring that the electromagnetic fields are slowly varying
on the Compton scattering wavelength $ \lambdabar_C=\hbar/m_ec$,
where $\hbar$ is the reduced Planck constant, $e$ and $m_e$ are the electron electric charge
and mass and $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum.
Non local effects on the Compton scattering have been studied e.g. in Ref. \cite{ADP2018} and,
for vacuum birefringence, in Ref. \cite{FK2015}.
For shorter wavelengths the vacuum acquires dispersion properties. In the small field amplitude limit and
in the so called cross field approximation these dispersive properties have been included
in the ``invariant photon mass'' introduced in Ref. \cite{Ritus}
(see also Refs. \cite{Narozhnyi1969, Ritus1972, Karb3, Adler1971, PRDS}).
The cross field approximation consists in approximating the interaction between
a higher frequency pulse and a lower frequency pulse
by taking the latter to be described by uniform and stationary electric and magnetic fields
of the same amplitude and orthogonal to each other. Discussions of the QED processes
beyond the constant field approximations
can be found in Ref. \cite{Tamb, DiPiazza2019, Ilderton2019a, Ilderton2019b}.
The invariant photon mass refers to the higher frequency pulse, it depends on the relative polarization
between the fields of the two pulses and can be expressed \cite{Ritus} in terms
of the so called quantum nonlinearity parameter $\chi_{\gamma}$.
This Lorentz invariant parameter can be written for a photon impinging on an slowly varying external field as
\cite{DiPiazzaReview, Ritus}
\begin{equation}
\label{chi}
\chi_{\gamma} = \frac{e}{m_e^3}\, \sqrt{ -(F_{\mu\nu} k^\nu)^2 }\, ,
\end{equation}
where $k^\nu$ is the 4-wave {vector} on the impinging photon and $ F_{\mu\nu}$
the electromagnetic external field tensor. Natural units are adopted with $c=\hbar=1$,
the fields in the electromagnetic field tensor are normalized on the critical QED field $E_S $
(which is given in dimensional units by $E_S =m_e^2c^3/e\hbar$ \cite{SAU31}).
In the limit of small $ \chi_{\gamma}$, for parallel polarizations the
square of the photon invariant mass ${\mathfrak{m}}$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{mass}
{\mathfrak{m}}^2 = -\alpha m_e^2 \left\{\frac{4}{45 \pi}\left[\chi_{\gamma}^2+\frac{1}{3}\chi_{\gamma}^4\right]
+i\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{3}{4}}\chi_{\gamma}\exp{\left(-\frac{2}{3\chi_{\gamma}}\right)}
+{\cal O}\left(\chi_{\gamma}^6\right)\right\} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha = e^2/\hbar c$ is the fine structure constant. The imaginary part is exponentially small. The term
proportional to {$\chi_{\gamma}^4$} describes the dispersion effects,
i. e. the effects corresponding to the wave propagation
velocity dependence on the wave vector.
This result was used (to leading order in $\chi_{\gamma}^4$) in Ref. \cite{PRDS} to derive
a nonlinear wave equation
for finite amplitude dispersive waves counterpropagating with respect to a cross field configuration. This wave
equation is of the form of the Korteveg-De Vries (KdV) equation \cite{KdV1885}
in the one-dimensional spatial case and
includes {third} order derivatives of the impinging wave vector potential while it has the form of
the Kadomtsev-Petviashivili equation
\cite{KP1970, KP2018} in the two-dimensional case. In one-dimensional case, in light-cone coordinates
$x^+, x^-$
and for normalized variables (for explicit definitions see Sec. \ref{basic}),
the KdV equation obtained in Ref. \cite{PRDS} describing the
electromagnetic wave in the QED vacuum reads
\begin{equation}
\label{1}
\partial_{+} a-\left( \kappa_{1}+\kappa_{2}a\right)\partial_{-} a - 2 \kappa_{3}\partial_{---} a = 0,
\end{equation}
where the coefficients $\kappa_1 = 4\alpha W_0^2/(45 \pi)$, $\kappa_2 =32 {\sqrt 2} \alpha W_0^3/(105 \pi)$ and $\kappa_3 =4\alpha W_0^4/(135 \pi)$ are proportional respectively to the second,
to the third and to the fourth power of the cross field amplitude $W_o$. The nonlinear term in Eq.(\ref{1}) arises
from the Heisenberg-Euler Lagrangian \cite{HeisenbergEuler}, truncated at the six photon contribution,
and allows for propagating Korteveg-de Vries soliton solutions.
In the present article we use a Lagrangian in the electromagnetic vacuum action
that involves higher order derivatives of
the wave vector potential and that is constructed so as to include the quantum
nonlinearity parameter dependency of the invariant photon mass.
In this formulation higher order derivatives enter in combination with nonlinear terms. We derive the corresponding
field equations by a variation of the action integral and obtain scattering solutions for counter-streaming finite length
pulses that include the effect of dispersion. In addition we derive the general solution for finite amplitude
waves propagating in a cross field configuration.
These solutions describe a class of soliton solutions of the type described in Ref. \cite{PRDS}.
\medskip
Effective electromagnetic Lagrangians depending on higher derivatives have been introduced
in the context of modified linear electrodynamics,
or limited to leading order in the field amplitude and field derivatives separately,
by B. Podolsky \cite{Pod1,Pod2,Pod3},
Barut \& Mullen \cite{BM}, Lee \& Wick \cite{LW}, see also Refs. \cite{TN, BBMB, MSMS}.
Essentially these Lagrangians are of the form exemplified by the Lee-Wick Lagrangian
%
\begin{equation} \label{LW1}
\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_{0} + \mathcal{L}_{LW},\quad {\rm with } \quad \mathcal{L}_{0}=
-\frac{1}{4\pi}F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu} \quad {\rm and } \quad \mathcal{L}_{LW} = \frac{1}{4 M^2} F_{\mu \nu}
(\partial^\alpha\partial_\alpha F^{\mu\nu}),
\end{equation}
with the inclusion, see e.g. Ref.\cite{MSMS}, of the first nonlinear contributions
from the Heisenberg-Euler Lagrangian. In Eq.(\ref{LW1})
$\mathcal{L}_{0}$ is the classical electromagnetic Lagrangian in vacuum and $M$ is a mass parameter.
We note that a Lagrangian depending on higher order derivatives of the form
%
\begin{equation}
\label{L:MME}
\mathcal{L}_{MME}=\frac{\alpha}{m_e^2}
\left[ -\left(\partial_{\kappa} F_{\lambda}^{\kappa} \right)\left(\partial_{\mu}
F^{\mu \nu} \right)+F_{\mu \nu}\partial_{\lambda}\partial^{\lambda} F^{\mu \nu} \right]
\end{equation}
was obtained in Refs. \cite{Mamaev, Grib1980}.
A derivative expansion of the effective action for nonlinear quantum electrodynamics
has been obtained in Refs. \cite{Gusynin1,Gusynin2}
in terms of a Lagrangian that is written in the form
\begin{equation}
\label{Gus}
\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_{HE} + \partial_\lambda F_{\alpha\beta}\partial_\gamma
F_{\sigma\delta}L_{1}^{\lambda\alpha\beta\gamma \sigma\delta} (F^{\mu\nu})
+ {\rm higher ~field ~ derivative ~ terms},
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{L}_{HE}$ is the Heisenberg-Euler Lagrangian and
$L_{1}^{\lambda\alpha\beta\gamma \sigma\delta}(F^{\mu\nu}) $ is a local function of the electromagnetic field tensor.
\subsection{Well posedness of higher order Lagrangians}
The physical interpretation of higher order derivative Lagrangians presents
some difficulties as these Lagrangians lead to ``ghost'' degrees of freedom and to instabilities.
In 1850 Ostrogradski \cite{ostr} proved in the context of Classical Mechanics that a Lagrangian
of the form ${\cal L}(q,\dot q, \ddot q) $, which requires 4 initial conditions
and thus involves 4 canonical variables, leads to a Hamiltonian that is not bounded from below with
respect to a ``ghost'' degree of freedom, see Ref.\cite{t-jC} where
it was shown that in a non-degenerate higher derivative theory,
that is in a theory where the higher order derivative does not simply amounts to a total time derivative,
the Ostrogradski instability can only be removed by the addition of constraints that reduce the phase space
of the original theory.
For systems with infinite degrees of freedom, higher order derivative Lagrangians can lead to additional
wave branches corresponding,
e.g. for the Lee-Wick Lagrangian, to two independent (on-shell) spin-1 fields: the original massless photon field
and and an additional massive one.
In the case of the Podolsky electrodynamics \cite{Pod1, Pod2,Pod3}, as well as in the case considered
by Mamaev, Mostepanenko and Eidis \cite{Mamaev},
which was introduced in order to regularize the electromagnetic field behaviour at short distances
and to take into account the field inhomogeneity effects,
the Lagrangian can be written as
%
\begin{equation}
\label{L:POD}
\mathcal{L}= \mathcal{L}_0+ \mathcal{L}_{Pod}, \quad {\rm with} \quad
\mathcal{L}_{Pod}=\frac{1}{M^2}
\left[ -\left(\partial_{\kappa} F_{\lambda}^{\kappa} \right)\left(\partial_{\mu}
F^{\mu \nu} \right)+F_{\mu \nu}\partial_{\lambda}\partial^{\lambda} F^{\mu \nu} \right] ,
\end{equation}
where the inverse mass $1/M$ is the parameter that corresponds to the length, and the current source term
is not included. From this Lagrangian we obtain in the Lorentz gauge $\partial_{\mu}A^{\mu}=0$ the wave equation
%
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:WEQ}
\left(1-\frac{1}{M^2}\partial_{\mu} \partial^{\mu}\right)\partial_{\nu}\partial^{\nu}A^{\kappa}=0.
\end{equation}
%
It corresponds to a photon branch with dispersion equation $k_{\nu}k^{\nu}=0$ and
a ghost branch with dispersion equation $k_{\mu}k^{\mu}=-M^2$. The addition of nonlinear terms
in the Lagrangian will in general couple the two different branches (see Appendix \ref{GHOSTS}). An analogous result can be derived
from the Lagrangians introduced in \cite{BM, LW}.
For the sake of consistency, see also Ref. \cite{effective}, in what follows we will treat the terms with the higher derivatives as corrections
to the classical electromagnetic Lagrangian density $\mathcal{L}_{0}$ and in particular we will require that any effective mass arising from the balance between the nonlinear and the dispersive terms remains finite in the limit in which the value of the fine structure constant $\alpha$ is set equal to zero.
\subsection{Outline of the article}
\label{out}
In Sec.\ref{genlagr}, after specifying for the sake of clarity some normalization conditions,
the structure of the dispersive Lagrangian term is formalized for an electromagnetic vacuum configuration
in 4-dimensional Minkowski space. Its reduced expression in a spatially one dimensional configuration
in then expressed in terms of light-cone variables.
In Sec.\ref{basic} the electromagnetic field equations are derived from the full one dimensional
Lagrangian in vacuum including the Heisenberg-Euler
and the dispersion terms up to the sixth power of the fields.
Then explicit solutions are obtained for the scattering
of two counter-propagating finite length pulses
Sec.\ref{scatter}, and for finite amplitude waves in a constant cross
field configuration Sec.\ref{SolCon}. These sections are supplemented by four Appendices at the
end of the article. The first two Appendices serve
the purpose of providing algebraic developments separately so as not to interrupt the flow of the presentation.
In the final two Appendices ghost solutions are described in the case of a nonlinear wave equation with
linear dispersion terms derived from the Lagrangian given by Eq.(\ref{L:MME}), Appendix \ref{GHOSTS},
and of the wave equation
derived from the Lagrangian given by Eq.(\ref{Full-Lagrangian0}) for a spacial class of selfsimilar solutions,
Appendix \ref{A3}.
Finally in Sec.\ref{concl} conclusions are drawn and a possible inclusion of higher powers
of the field amplitudes in the Lagrangian is indicated as a possible path towards the identification
of higher order solitonic structures in the process of light-light interaction.
\section{Dispersive contribution to the Lagrangian density}
\label{genlagr}
We specify the normalizations adopted in this article by writing the classical electrodynamics Lagrangian in the form
\begin{equation}\label{Lag1}
\mathcal{L}_{0}=-\frac{m_e^4}{16\pi\alpha}F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu} = -\frac{m_e^4}{4\pi\alpha} \, {\mathfrak F} ,
\end{equation}
while the Heisenberg-Euler Lagrangian density (truncated at the 6-photon interaction term) is written as
\begin{equation}
\label{Lag2}
{\mathcal{L}}_{HE}=-\frac{m_e^4 \, e^4}{90\pi^2} \left[ ({\mathfrak F}^2 + \frac{7}{4} {\mathfrak G}^2)
+ \frac{8}{7} {\mathfrak F} ({\mathfrak F}^2 + \frac{13}{16} {\mathfrak G}^2)\right] .
\end{equation}
The Lorentz invariants ${\mathfrak F}$ and ${\mathfrak G}$ are defined by
%
\begin{equation}
\label{Lag3}
{\mathfrak F}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu},
\quad
{\mathfrak G}=-\frac{1}{8}\varepsilon^{\mu \nu \kappa \lambda}F_{\kappa \lambda} F_{\mu \nu},
\end{equation}
with $ \varepsilon^{\mu \nu \kappa \lambda}F_{\kappa \lambda} $ the dual electromagnetic field tensor.
Here $ \varepsilon^{\mu \nu \kappa \lambda}$ is the fully antisymetric 4 dimensional Levi-Civita tensor.
Referring to the quantum nonlinearity parameter $\chi_\gamma$ that is used in the definition
of the invariant photon mass and in view Eq.(\ref{Gus}), we define the following dispersive
contribution to the vacuum Lagrangian density
\begin{equation}\label{dispersive1}
{\cal L}_{Disp} = \frac{\mu\, m_e^4}{4\pi\alpha} \,\, \left [\partial_\alpha h({\mathfrak F},{\mathfrak G})\right] \, \,
F^{\alpha}_{\beta}F^{\beta\gamma} \, \,
\left [\partial_\gamma h({\mathfrak F},{\mathfrak G})\right].
\end{equation}
Here $\mu$ is a coefficient that will be identified as
\begin{equation}\label{mu}
\mu =\frac{4}{135 \pi} \alpha
\end{equation}
by comparing Eq.(\ref{1}) derived in terms of the invariant photon mass with the corresponding result given by
Eq.(\ref{KdV}) in Sec.\ref{SolCon}, and $h$ is a function of the two Lorentz invariants
${\mathfrak F}, \, {\mathfrak G}$. \, In the following we expand $h$
in a Taylor series and keep only linear terms in ${\mathfrak F}$ and ${\mathfrak G}$.
\subsection{One dimensional, single polarization case}
\label{1D}
In the case of an electromagnetic configuration that depends on a single spatial coordinate, say $x$,
and where the fields correspond to a single polarization state ${\mathfrak G}$ vanishes
and Eq.(\ref{dispersive1}) becomes
\begin{equation}\label{dispersive2}
{\cal L}_{Disp||} = -\frac{\mu\, m_e^4}{4\pi\alpha}\, \left\{B^2 \left[\partial_x \left(E^2- B^2\right)\right]^2
+ E^2 \left[\partial_t \left(E^2- B^2\right)\right]^2
- 2 EB\left[\partial_x \left(E^2- B^2\right) \partial_t \left(E^2- B^2\right)\right] \right\},
\end{equation}
while
\begin{equation}\label{dispersive2b}
{\mathcal{L}_{0}} +\mathcal{L}_{HE}= -\frac{m_e^4}{4\pi\alpha}\, \left[\frac{B^2 - E^2}{2}
- \, \epsilon_2 \, \frac{(B^2 - E^2)^2}{4} + \, \epsilon_3 \, \frac{(B^2 - E^2)^3}{8}\right],
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{def1}
\epsilon_2=\frac{2 \alpha}{45 \pi} , \quad {\rm and} \quad
\epsilon_3 =\re{-}\frac{32 \alpha }{315 \pi}\ .
\end{equation}
\section{Action functional in light-cone variables}
\label{basic}
Here as in previous articles, see e.g. Ref. \cite{PRDS,HKAD2019,Hodo, Hodo-bis},
for a spatially one dimensional configuration it is convenient to introduce light cone variables defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{def2}
x^+ = (x + t)/\sqrt{2}, \quad x^- = (x - t)/\sqrt{2} \, ,\end{equation}
with corresponding derivatives
\begin{equation}
\label{def2a}
\partial_x = (\partial_+ + \partial_-)/\sqrt{2} \, ,
\quad
\partial_t = (\partial_+ - \partial_-)/\sqrt{2} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\partial_\pm = \partial /\partial x^\pm$.
For a configuration corresponding to a single transverse polarization state
we choose the four vector potential to have only a component in the $z$
direction which we denote in normalized form by $a(x^+,x^-)$.
Then the electric field $E$ is in the $z$ direction while the magnetic field $B$ is along $y$.
We define the field variables
\begin{equation}\label{def3}
w(x^+,x^-) = \partial _+ a(x^+,x^-), \quad u(x^+,x^-) = \partial _- a(x^+,x^-),
\end{equation}
i.e. the electric and magnetic fields are
\begin{equation}\label{def3a}
E = (u - w)/\sqrt{2} , \quad B = - (u + w)/\sqrt{2}.
\end{equation}
Note that by construction we recover Faraday's law in the form
\begin{equation}\label{Faraday}
\partial _{-} w = \partial _{-+}a = \partial_{+} u.
\end{equation}
By including both ${\mathcal{L}_{0}} +\mathcal{L}_{HE}$ and ${\cal L}_{Disp||}$,
the electromagnetic action ${\cal A}$ expressed in the
$x^+,\, x^-, \,\, w,\, u\,\, $ variables takes the form
\begin{equation} \label{Action}
{\cal A}(a) = \frac{m^4}{4\pi\alpha}\iint_{\cal D} dx^+\, dx^- \mathcal{L}_T(a,a',a''),
\end{equation}
where $a'$ stands symbolically for $w = \partial_+a $ and $u = \partial_-a$,
while $a''$ stands for $\partial_+w = \partial_{++}a$, \, $\partial_- w= \partial_+u = \partial_{+ -}a$ \, and
$\partial_-u= \partial_{--}a$.
After eliminating the common multiplicative factor in
Eqs.(\ref{dispersive2},\ref{dispersive2b}) the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_T$ reads
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_T(a,a',a'')=-uw+ \epsilon_2 (uw)^2- \epsilon_3 (uw)^3
- \mu \left\{w^2 \left[\partial_- (uw)\right]^2 +u^2 \left[\partial_+ (uw)\right]^2 + 2uw\left[\partial_+ (uw) \right]
\left[\partial_- (uw)\right] \right\}.
\label{Full-Lagrangian0}
\end{equation}
The dependence of Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_T$ on the first and on the second
order derivatives of the vector potential $a(x^+,x^-)$ can be made explicit by rewriting (see Appendix \ref{A1})
$\mathcal{L}_T(a,a',a'')$ as
\begin{align} &
\mathcal{L}_T(a,a',a'')=-(\partial_+ a)(\partial_- a)+\epsilon_2 [(\partial_+ a)(\partial_- a)]^2-\epsilon_3 [(\partial_+ a)(\partial_- a)]^3 \label{Lagrangian-a} \\
& - \mu \left[ (\partial_+ a)^2 (\partial_{- -}a) +2(\partial_-a) (\partial_+ a)(\partial_{+ -} a) + (\partial_- a)^2(\partial_{+ +}a) \right]^2 .\nonumber
\end{align}
Varying the action ${\cal A}(a)$ with respect to the vector potential $a$ and imposing that at the boundaries
$\delta{\cal D}$ of the domain ${\cal D}$ under consideration both
$\delta a$ and $\partial_+ \delta a,\, \partial_- \delta a$ vanish,
we obtain the wave equation for the vector potential
\begin{equation}
- \partial_+ \frac{ \partial \, \mathcal{L}_T}{\partial \, (\partial_+a)} - \partial_- \frac{ \partial \, \mathcal{L}_T}
{\partial \, (\partial_-a)}
+ \partial_{+ +} \frac{ \partial \, \mathcal{L}_T}{\partial \, (\partial_{+ +}a)} + \partial_{- -}
\frac{ \partial \, \mathcal{L}_T}{\partial \, (\partial_{--}a)}\, + \partial_{+ -} \frac{ \partial \, \mathcal{L}_T}
{\partial \, ( \partial_{+ -}a)}= 0 ,
\label{Full-Lagrangian1}
\end{equation}
where $\partial_{+}a = w,\, \, \partial_{-}a= u \, $ and $\, \partial_{+ +}a= \partial_+w,\, \,
\partial_{+ -}=\partial_+u = \partial _- w, \, \, \partial_{--}a= \partial_-u$ are treated as independent
variables in the differentiation. The explicit form of the derivatives of $ {\mathcal{L}_T}$ in Eq.(\ref{Full-Lagrangian1})
are given in Appendix \ref{A2}
\subsection{Field equations in the $u$, $w$ variables}\label{Feq}
The Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_T(w,u)$ in Eq.(\ref{Full-Lagrangian0}) can be rewritten as
\begin{equation} \label{Lagrangian-fields}
\mathcal{L}_T(u,w)=-\left[uw -\epsilon_2 (uw)^2+\epsilon_3 (uw)^3 +
\mu \left( w^2 \partial_- u+ uw\partial_+u + uw \partial_-w + u^2\partial_+ w\right)^2 \right],
\end{equation}
and the wave equation for the vector potential (\ref{Full-Lagrangian1}) can be written in terms of
the field variables $u$ and $w$ as
\begin{align}
\label{full wave}
& \partial_{+}
\left\{u\left[1 - 2 \epsilon_2 uw + 3\epsilon_3 (uw)^2\right]\right\}
+ \partial_{-}\left\{w\left[1 - 2 \epsilon_2 uw + 3 \epsilon_3 (uw)^2 \right]\right\} \\&
%
+ 4\mu \left\{\partial_+[w(\partial_- (uw))^2 + u \partial_+(uw) \partial_-(uw)] +
\partial_-[u(\partial_+(uw))^2 + w \partial_+(uw) \partial_-(uw)] \right\}\nonumber \\
&-2\mu\left\{ \partial_{++}[ u^3 \partial_+ (uw) + u^2 w \partial_- (uw)] +
\partial_{--}[w^3 \partial_- (uw) + u w^2 \partial_+ (uw) ] +2 \partial_{+-}[uw^2 \partial_- (uw) + u^2w \partial_+ (uw)]\right\} ,\nonumber
\end{align}
which can be derived by rearranging Eq.({\ref{explicit1}) in Appendix \ref{A2}.
\section{Scattering solutions for counter-streaming finite length pulses}\label{scatter}
The asymptotic effect of the interaction between two counter-propagating
electromagnetic pulses with a finite length con be derived directly from
Eq.(\ref{Full-Lagrangian1})
assuming that for large $|x_\pm |$ there is no superposition between the pulses so that the vector potential
$a(x^+,x^-)$ can be written as $a(x^+,x^-) = a_+(x^+) + a_-(x^-)$.
Integrating Eq.(\ref{Full-Lagrangian1}) over $x^+$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \, \mathcal{L}_T}{\partial \, (\partial_+a)} \Bigr\rvert^{+\infty}_{-\infty} =
- \partial_- \int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}\, d x^+
\frac{ \partial \, \mathcal{L}_T}{\partial \, (\partial_-a)}
+ \partial_{- -} \int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}\, d x^+
\frac{ \partial\, \mathcal{L}_T}{\partial \, (\partial_{--}a)} .
\label{Full-Lagrangian2}
\end{equation}
Then, considering a perturbative expansion around $a_0(x^+,x^-) = a_{0+}(x^+) + a_{0-}(x^-) $,
and using Eq.(\ref{explicit}), we find
\begin{align} & \label{Full-Lagr3}
\partial_-a \Bigr\rvert^{+\infty}_{-\infty} =
\partial_- \int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}\, d x^+ \left [ \epsilon_2 (\partial_+a_0)^2(\partial_-a_0 )
-\frac{3}{2} \epsilon_3 (\partial_+a_0)^3(\partial_-a_0)^2
- \mu (\partial_- a_0)^3(\partial_{+ +}a_0)^2\right ] \\&
+ 2\mu \partial_{- -} \int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}\, d x^{+} (\partial_+a_0)^4 (\partial_{- -} a_0) \nonumber.
\end{align}
The terms on the r.hs. arise from the Heisenberg-Euler Lagrangian (the $\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3$ terms)
and from the dispersive additional contribution
(the $\mu$ terms) given in Eq.(\ref{dispersive2}). In deriving Eq.(\ref{Full-Lagr3}) we used the fact that
$\partial_{+-} a_0 = 0$ and that
two terms proportional to $(\partial_+ a_0)^2 (\partial_{+ +}a_0) $
are total derivatives with respect to $x^+$ and thus do not contribute to the $x^+$
integral when asymptotically there is no superposition
between the pulses. The term on the l.h.s. represents the lowest order change
of the vector potential pulse propagating along the positive $x$
direction due to the scattering with the counter-propagating pulse, and the factor 2 in front
of it arises from the contribution of the classical
electromagnetic Lagrangian. Expressed in terms of the electromagnetic field variables
Eq.(\ref{Full-Lagr3}) reads
\begin{align} & \label{Full-Lagr3bis}
u \Bigr\rvert^{+\infty}_{-\infty} = \epsilon_2 (\partial_- u_0) \int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}\, d x^+ w_0^2
-\frac{3 }{2} \epsilon_3(\partial_- u_0^2) \int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}\, d x^+ w_0^3
- \mu ( \partial_-u_0^3)
\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}\, d x^+ (\partial_+ w_0)^2 \\&
+\mu ( \partial_{- --} u_0) \, \int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}\, d x^+ w_0^4 . \nonumber
\end{align}
where $w_0 = w_0(x^+) = \partial_+ a_{0}(x^+)$ and $u_0 = u_0(x^-) = \partial_- a_{0}(x^-)$.
A corresponding equation can be derived for $ w \rvert^{+\infty}_{-\infty} $.
The first term on the r.h.s. of Eq.(\ref{Full-Lagr3bis}) corresponds to the standard phase shift due
to reduced propagation velocity during the interaction phase \cite{Hodo,Shukla,Mark}
while the second, if the integral of $w_0^3$ does not vanish, to the six-photon interaction
contribution to the harmonic generation mechanism discussed e.g. in Ref.\cite{harm}.
The third terms corresponds to a new harmonic generation process that depends on the square of the
derivative of the field amplitude of the counter-propagating pulse, while the fourth term provides
a dispersion correction to the phase shift given by the first term and corresponds to a widening of the pulse.
\section{Solutions in constant cross fields}
\label{SolCon}
The system of Eqs.(\ref{Faraday},\ref{full wave}) admits solutions in the form of the progressive nonlinear waves that
propagate with constant ``velocity'' $S>0$, i.e. with functions $u$ and $w$ that depend on the variable
\begin{equation}
\label{phase-psi}
\psi=x^{-}+S x^{+}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[x(1+S)-t(1-S) \right].
\end{equation}
In the $x$-$t$ variables the wave propagates with the velocity equal to $(1-S)/(1+S)$.
Using Eq.(\ref{Faraday}) we obtain a relationship between $u(\psi)$ and $w(\psi)$
\begin{equation}
\label{uw-psi}
w=S u +W_0,
\end{equation}
where $W_0$ is constant which corresponds to a constant
cross field configuration with equal amplitude electric and magnetic fields,
$E_0=B_0=\sqrt{2} W_0$. The Poynting vector $c {\bf E} \times {\bf B}/4\pi$ of the cross
field configuration that is taken to model a low frequency wave is directed in the negative
direction along the $x$-axis so that
${\bf E}={\bf e}_z E_0$, ${\bf B}={\bf e}_y B_0$, where ${\bf e}_y$ and ${\bf e}_z$
are unit vectors in the $y$ and $z$ directions. The high frequency electromagnetic wave
described by the variables $w$ and $u$ in Eq.(\ref{uw-psi})
propagates in the positive direction along the $x$-axis.
Assuming for the sake of simplicity that the amplitude of the high frequency wave amplitude is much smaller than
the cross field amplitude ($|u|,|w| \ll W_0$) we obtain from Eqs.(\ref{full wave},\ref{uw-psi})
\begin{equation}
\label{KdV}
2 \mu W_0^4\partial_{---}u=
\partial_{+}\left(u - 2 \epsilon_2 W_0 u^2 \right)
+ \partial_{-}\left(S u - 2 \epsilon_2 W_0^2 u + 3\epsilon_3 W_0^3 u^2 \right).
\end{equation}
Using the ansatz (\ref{phase-psi}) we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{KdV-wave}
\mu W_0^4 u'''=
\left[S-\epsilon_2 W_0^2 - \left( 2 S \epsilon_2 W_0-3 \epsilon_3 W_0^3 \right)u\right] u',
\end{equation}
where a prime stands for differentiation with respect to $\psi$. This is the well known Korteveg-de Vries equation
for the stationary nonlinear wave propagating with constant velocity
$S$ (see Refs. \cite{KdV1885, WHIT1974, SPN1984}
and Ref. \cite{PRDS} for the case of the KdV solitons in the QED vacuum).
Integration of Eq.(\ref{KdV-wave}) over $\psi $ yields
\begin{equation}
\label{KdV-wave-INT1}
\mu W_0^4 u''=
\left(S-\epsilon_2 W_0^2\right) u - \left( S \epsilon_2 W_0-3 \epsilon_3 W_0^3/2 \right)u^2+C_1.
\end{equation}
Multiplying this equation on $u'$ and integrating over $\psi $ yields
\begin{equation}
\label{KdV-wave-INT2}
\mu W_0^4 (u')^2=
\left(S-\epsilon_2 W_0^2\right) u^2 - \left( 2S \epsilon_2 W_0/3- \epsilon_3 W_0^3 \right)u^3+2 C_1 u+C_2,
\end{equation}
where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are constants.
Choosing $C_1 = C_2 =0$ we find the solution of Eq.(\ref{KdV-wave-INT2}) in the form of a KdV soliton. It reads
\begin{equation}
\label{KdV-soliton}
u(x^++Sx^-)=\frac{3 (S-\epsilon_2 W_0^2)}{(2 \epsilon_2 W_0-3 \epsilon_3 W_0^3)}\cosh^{-2}\left[\frac{\sqrt{S-\epsilon_2 W_0^2}(x^++Sx^-)}{2\sqrt{\mu W_0^4}} \right] ,
\end{equation}
with $ W_0^2 < (2/3)\, (\epsilon_2/\epsilon_3)$.
The soliton amplitude $u_0$ and width $l_0$ are given by
%
\begin{equation}
\label{KdV-soliton-u0l0}
u_0=\frac{3 (S-\epsilon_2 W_0^2)}{(2 \epsilon_2 W_0-3 \epsilon_3 W_0^3)}\qquad {\rm and } \qquad l_0=2\sqrt{\frac{\mu W_0^4}{S-\epsilon_2 W_0^2}}.
\end{equation}
We see that the parameter $S$ determining the soliton propagation velocity depends on the soliton
amplitude $u_0$ as
%
\begin{equation}
\label{KdV-soliton-S}
S=\epsilon_2 W_0^2+\left(\frac{2}{3}\epsilon_2 W_0-\epsilon_3 W_0^3 \right)u_0 .
\end{equation}
The soliton propagation velocity depends on $W_0$ and $u_0$ as
%
\begin{equation}
\label{KdV-soliton-V}
V=\frac{1-S}{1+S} =\frac
{1-\epsilon_2 W_0^2-(2 \epsilon_2 /3-\epsilon_3 W_0^2) W_0 u_0}
{1+\epsilon_2 W_0^2+(2 \epsilon_2 /3-\epsilon_3 W_0^2) W_0 u_0}
\approx
1-2\epsilon_2 W_0^2-\frac{4}{3}\epsilon_2 W_0 u_0.
\end{equation}
Substituting $S$ from Eq.(\ref{KdV-soliton-S}) to the expression for $l_0$ given by Eq.(\ref{KdV-soliton-u0l0}) we
find the soliton width. It reads
%
\begin{equation}
\label{KdV-soliton-l0}
l_0=\sqrt{\frac{4\mu W_0^3}{(2 \epsilon_2 -3 \epsilon_3 W_0^2) u_0}} ,
\end{equation}
i. e. $l_0\approx \lambdabar_C(W_0^3/u_0)^{1/2}$. In other words a typical energy of the photons constituting
the soliton is approximately equal to $\hbar \omega_{\gamma}\approx m_e c^2(W_0^3/u_0)^{1/2}$.
\section{Conclusions}\label{concl}
We use a Lagrangian that involves higher order derivatives of the wave vector potential and that is constructed
so as to include the quantum nonlinearity parameter dependency of the invariant photon mass.
This Lagrangian allows
us to describe dispersive effects in the interaction of two counter-propagating light pulses by a nonlocal
extension of the nonlinear wave equation that is derived from the Heisenberg-Euler Lagrangian.
In addition, in the case of a finite amplitude wave impinging on large cross fields, we
show that Korteveg-de Vries soliton solutions can be consistently derived from these field equations by considering
a proper ordering of the amplitude of the impinging wave and of its space-time
coordinate dependence in terms of the amplitude of the cross fields.
An extension of this procedure so as to include higher order derivatives and higher powers of the fields amplitude
than those considered in this article could be of interest when searching
for novel light soliton solutions, such as e.g ``compactons'', i.e. solitons with finite wavelength \cite{compact}.
Such an extension could be written in the formal way
\begin{equation}\label{extension}
{\cal L}_{HE/D} =
\frac{m^4}{4\pi\alpha}\epsilon_2\, h\left(F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}, \epsilon^{\mu \nu \kappa \lambda}F_{\mu\nu}F_{\kappa \lambda} \right)\,
\left[ 1 + f (\,\overleftarrow{ \partial_\alpha} F^{\alpha}_{\beta}F^{\beta\gamma}\overrightarrow{ \partial_\gamma} \,)
\right] \,
h\left(F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} , \epsilon^{\mu \nu \kappa \lambda}F_{\mu\nu}F_{\kappa \lambda} \right) ,
\end{equation}
where the function $h$ is related to the usual Heisenberg-Euler asymptotic expansion while $f$ is a ``function''
of the differential operator
$\overleftarrow{ \partial_\alpha} F^{\alpha}_{\beta}F^{\beta\gamma}\overrightarrow{ \partial_\gamma}$
(related to the relativistic $\chi$ invariant) where the arrows indicate left or right action.
The function $f$ should be related
to the expansion of the invariant photon mass in Eq.(\ref{mass}), see Ref.\cite{Ritus}.
The Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{HE/D} $
is gauge invariant and is Lorentz invariant. In addition its contribution to the wave equation vanishes in the case
of a plane wave in which case
$ F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} = \varepsilon^{\mu \nu \kappa \lambda}F_{\mu\nu}F_{\kappa \lambda} =0$.
\begin{acknowledgments}
The work is supported by the project High Field Initiative
(CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/15\_003/0000449)
from the European Regional Development Fund.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section*{Introduction}
Identifying the crystal structure of a given material is important for understanding and predicting its physical properties.
For instance, the hardness of industrial steel is strongly influenced by the atomic composition at grain boundaries, which has been studied in numerous
theoretical and experimental investigations\cite{herbig2014atomic, meiners2020observations}.
Beyond bulk materials, two- (2D) and one-dimensional (1D) systems have far-reaching technological applications, such as solar energy storage, DNA sequencing, cancer therapy, or even space exploration\cite{ferrari2015science, de2013carbon}.
To characterize the crystal structure of a given material, one may assign a symmetry label, e.g., the space group.
More generally, one may want to find the most similar structure within a list of given known systems. These so-called structural classes are identified
by stoichiometry, space group, number of atoms in the unit cell, and location of the atoms in the unit cell (the Wyckoff positions).
Methods for automatic crystal-structure recognition are required to analyze the continuously growing
amount of geometrical information on crystal structures, from both experimental and computational studies.
Millions of crystal structures alongside calculated properties are available in large computational databases such as
the NOvel MAterials Discovery (NOMAD) Laboratory \cite{draxl2019nomad},
AFLOW\cite{mehl2017aflow},
the Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD)\cite{saal2013materials}, Materials Project\cite{jain2011high},
or repositories specialized in 2D materials\cite{haastrup2018computational,mounet2018two}.
In scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM)\cite{pennycook2011scanning}, atomic positions can be reconstructed from atomic-resolution images
for specific systems, e.g., graphene \cite{ziatdinov2017deep}.
Three-dimensional atomic positions
are provided by atom probe tomography (APT) \cite{gault2012atom} and atomic electron tomography (AET) experiments\cite{zhou2020atomic}.
Still, substantial levels of noise due to experimental limitations and reconstruction errors are present in atomic positions, e.g., distortions beyond a level that can
be explained by a physical effect or,
in case of APT, large amount of missing atoms (at least $20\%$, due to the limited detector efficiency\cite{gault2016brief}).
Crystal-structure recognition schemes should be able to classify a large number of structural classes
(also beyond bulk materials) while at the same time being robust with respect to theoretical or experimental sources of inaccuracy and
physically driven deviations from ideal crystal symmetry (e.g., vacancies or thermal vibrations).
Given the large amount of data, the classification should
be fully automatic and independent of the manual selection of tolerance parameters (which quantify the deviation from an ideal reference structure).
Current methods are based either on space-group symmetry or local structure.
For space-group-based approaches (notable examples being Spglib\cite{togo2018texttt} and AFLOW-SYM\cite{hicks2018aflow}), the allowed symmetry operations are calculated directly from the atomic
positions to infer a space group label.
For local-structure-based approaches, the local atomic neighborhood of each individual atom is classified into a predefined list of reference structures.
Examples of these methods are common neighbor analysis (CNA)\cite{honeycutt1987molecular},
adaptive common neighbor analysis (a-CNA)\cite{stukowski2012structure}, bond angle analysis (BAA)\cite{ackland2006applications}, and polyhedral template matching (PTM)\cite{larsen2016robust}.
Space-group approaches can treat all space groups but are sensitive to noise, while local-structure methods can be quite robust but only treat a handful of structural classes.
Moreover, none of the available structure recognition schemes can recognize
complex
nanostructures, e.g., nanotubes.
To improve on the current state of the art, we build on recent advances in deep learning, which is a subfield of machine learning that yields ground-breaking results in many settings, e.g., image and
speech recognition\cite{Goodfellow-et-al-2016}.
Previous work using machine learning and neural networks (NNs) for crystal-structure recognition\cite{geiger2013neural,reinhart2017machine,dietz2017machine,ziletti2018insightful}
did not go beyond a handful of structural classes while showing robustness at the same time.
Here, we propose a robust, threshold-independent crystal-structure
recognition framework (ARtificial-Intelligence-based Structure Evaluation, short ARISE) to classify a diverse set of 108 structural classes, comprising bulk, 2D, and 1D materials.
Bayesian NNs\cite{gal2016dropout,gal2016uncertainty} are used,
i.e., a recently developed family of NNs that yields not only a classification but also uncertainty estimates. These estimates are principled in the sense that they approximate those of a well-known probabilistic model (the Gaussian process).
This allows to quantify prediction uncertainty, but also the degree of crystalline order in a material.
ARISE performance is compared with the current state of the art, and then applied to various computational and experimental atomic structures.
Crystal characterization and identification of hidden patterns is performed using supervised learning (ARISE) as well as the unsupervised analysis (via clustering and dimensionality reduction) of the internal representations
of ARISE.
\section*{Results}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{concept_figure.pdf}
\caption{
\textbf{Schematic overview of single- and polycrystal characterization framework.} \textbf{a-d} Prediction pipeline of the
single-crystal classification model ARISE (ARtificial-Intelligence-based Structure Evaluation).
In this work we employ the smooth-overlap-of-atomic-positions (SOAP) descriptor.
\textbf{e} Examples of crystallographic prototypes included in the training set. \textbf{f-m} Polycrystal classification framework strided pattern matching (SPM) for slab-like (\textbf{f-j}) and bulk systems (\textbf{k-m}).
}
\label{fig:single_and_polyc_class_steps}
\end{figure*}
\subsection*{The input representation}
To apply machine learning to condensed-matter and materials science problems, the input coordinates, chemical species, and the lattice periodicity of a
given atomic structure are mapped onto a suitable so-called descriptor. Here, the descriptor is a vector that is invariant under rigid translations and rotations of the input
structure, as well as under permutations of same-species atoms.
Quality and generalization ability of machine-learning models can be significantly increased, if physical requirements known to be true
are respected by construction (see Supplementary Methods
for more details).
Most well-known descriptors in physics and materials science incorporate these
physical invariants:
symmetry functions\cite{behler2011atom}, the smooth-overlap-of-atomic-positions descriptor (SOAP) \cite{bartok2010gaussian,bartok2013representing},
the many-body tensor representation\cite{huo2017unified}, and the moment tensor potential representation\cite{shapeev2016moment}.
In this work, SOAP is used as descriptor (cf. Supplementary Methods).
SOAP has been successfully applied to numerous materials science problems such as interatomic potentials fitting \cite{bartok2015gaussian}, structural similarity quantification\cite{de2016comparing},
or prediction of grain boundary characteristics (e.g., energy and mobility)\cite{rosenbrock2017discovering}.
Note that any other suitable descriptor that respects above-mentioned physical requirements can be used as input for our procedure.
In particular, the ai4materials code library is provided into which alternative descriptors can be readily integrated.
\subsection*{The Bayesian deep learning model and the training dataset}
Once the crystal structures are converted into vectorial descriptors by means of the SOAP mapping, a NN model is used to arrive at a classification decision (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:single_and_polyc_class_steps}c).
NNs are nonlinear machine-learning models: they transform the input in a hierarchical fashion by subsequently applying affine and non-linear transformations in a predefined series of layers.
The NN learns these optimal transformations that deform the descriptor space so that a robust classification is achieved.
In this way, the model is able to learn complex representations which are becoming more abstract from layer to layer\cite{ziletti2018insightful}.
This ability to learn representations\cite{bengio2013representation} is one of the key characteristics distinguishing NNs from other machine-learning algorithms.
Various NN architectures have been developed in recent years\cite{Goodfellow-et-al-2016};
in this work, a fully connected NN (multilayer perceptron) is employed.
A key component of this work is something rarely addressed in machine learning applied to materials science: quantification of model prediction uncertainty (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:single_and_polyc_class_steps}d).
Standard NNs are unable to provide reliable model uncertainty \cite{gal2016dropout}.
In a classification setting, there is widespread use of the probability provided by the last layer as uncertainty estimate.
These probabilities are typically obtained by normalizing the sum of output values using the so-called softmax activation function.
The class with maximal probability corresponds to the final prediction (here of a specific structural class). One may interpret the classification probability as quantification of model confidence.
However, this strategy is unreliable as
standard NNs tend to erroneously assign unjustified high confidence to points
for which a low confidence should be returned instead\cite{gal2016dropout}.
The main reason for this behavior is that standard-NN predictions are deterministic, with the softmax output only providing point estimates of the true probability distribution of outputs.
In Bayesian NNs, this is addressed by placing distributions over model parameters. This results in probabilistic outputs \textendash\ in contrast
to the point estimates from deterministic NNs\textendash\ from which principled uncertainty estimates can be obtained.
Gal and Ghahramani\cite{gal2016dropout} showed that high-quality uncertainty estimates (alongside predictions) can be calculated
at low cost using stochastic regularization techniques
such as dropout\cite{hinton2012improving, srivastava2014dropout} (see Supplementary Methods
for more details).
After both descriptor and model architecture have been identified, a diverse, comprehensive,
and materials-science-relevant training set is constructed. The first \textendash\ and
most important \textendash\ step is to define the structural classes which are going to be included in the model:
an overview of the structural classes considered in this work is shown in
Fig. \ref{fig:single_and_polyc_class_steps}e.
This comprehensive collection of structures includes bulk materials of elemental, binary, ternary, and quaternary composition, as well as 2D materials and carbon nanotubes of chiral, armchair, and zigzag type.
In practice, given any database, we extract prototypes, i.e., representative structures that are selected according to some predefined rules.
Selection criteria are, for instance, fulfillment of geometrical constraints (number of atoms in the unit cell, number of chemical species) or if the structures are observed in experiment.
For the elemental bulk materials, we extract from AFLOW all experimentally observed structures with up to four atoms in the primitive cell.
This yields 27 elemental solids encompassing all Bravais lattices, with the exception of monoclinic and triclinic structures because of their low symmetry.
Note that this selection includes not only the most common structures such as
face-centered-cubic (fcc), body-centered-cubic (bcc), hexagonal-close-packed (hcp), and diamond (which cover more than $80\%$ of the elemental solids found in nature\cite{ashcroft2011solid}),
but also double-hexagonal close-packed, graphite (hexagonal, rhombohedral, buckled), and orthorhombic systems such as black phosphorus.
This goes already beyond previous work using NNs for crystal structure recognition\cite{ziletti2018insightful}, where a smaller set of elemental solids is considered.
For binaries, we select the ten most common binary compounds according to Pettifor\cite{pettifor1995bonding}, plus the $\text{L1}_{2}$ structure
because of its technological relevance \textendash\ for instance, it being the crystal structure of common precipitates in Ni-based superalloys\cite{reed2008superalloys}.
This selection also include non-centrosymmetric structure, i.e. structures without inversion symmetry, such as wurtzite.
To challenge the classification method with an increasing number of chemical species, a small set of ternary and quaternary materials is included as a proof-of-concept.
Specifically, six ternary perovskites\cite{castelli2015calculated} (organometal halide cubic and layered perovskites) and six quaternary chalcogenides of $\text{A}_2\text{BCX}_4$
type\cite{pandey2018promising} are included due to their relevance in solar cells and photo-electrochemical water splitting devices, respectively.
Going beyond bulk materials, we add an exhaustive set of 46 2D materials, comprising not only the well-known elemental structures
such as graphene and phosphorene\cite{novoselov20162d}
but also binary semiconductors and insulators (BN, GaN), transition metal dichalcogenides (MoS$_2$), and one example of metal-organic
perovskites with six different chemical species.
Ternary, quaternary, and 2D materials are taken from the computational materials repository (CMR)\cite{landis2012computational}.
To demonstrate the ability of the proposed framework to deal with complex nanostructures, 12 nanotubes of armchair, chiral, and zigzag type are included in the dataset.
For each prototype, we calculate the SOAP vector with different parameter settings (see Supplementary Methods
for more details)
as well as periodic and non-periodic boundary conditions to have a
comprehensive dataset to train a robust classification model.
This results in 39$\,$204 (pristine) structures included in the training set.
To optimize the model, the set of pristine structures is split, with $80\%$ being used for training and the remaining $20\%$ for validation.
For hyperparameter tuning, we employ Bayesian optimization\cite{10.5555/3042817.3042832}, which allows
to optimize functions whose evaluation is computationally costly, making it particularly attractive for deep-learning models. Here, hyperparameters such as
learning rate or number of layers are optimized in an automatic, reproducible, and computationally efficient manner to minimize the validation accuracy.
A list of candidate models is then obtained, from which the optimal model is selected (see Methods section). We term this model ARISE, and report its architecture in Table \ref{table:mlp_all_data}.
\subsection*{Benchmarking}
We now compare ARISE's performance on pristine and defective structures with state-of-the-art crystal-structure recognition methods,
specifically spglib, CNA, a-CNA, BAA, and PTM (cf. Table \ref{table:accuracy-comparison-single-crystal}).
As mentioned in the Introduction, none of the benchmarking methods can treat all the materials shown in Fig. \ref{fig:single_and_polyc_class_steps}e;
thus for fairness, the classification accuracy is only calculated for classes for which the respective methods were designed for, implying that most structures are excluded (see \nameref{section:supp_note_1}
for more details).
The performance on pristine structures is reported in Table \ref{table:accuracy-comparison-single-crystal}.
The accuracy in classifying pristine structures is always 100\% as expected, with the only exception being CNA: For this method, the default cutoff only allows to correctly classify fcc and bcc but not hcp structures.
For defective structures, the situation is drastically different.
Spglib classification accuracy on displaced structures is low,
and only slightly improved by using loose setting (up to $1\%$ displacement).
For missing atoms, the accuracy is very low already at the $1\%$ level regardless of the setting used.
Note, however, that this is actually spglib's desired behavior
since the aim of this method is not robust classification.
As indicated in the first column of Table \ref{table:accuracy-comparison-single-crystal},
spglib can treat 96 out of the 108 prototypes included in our dataset with the twelve missing prototypes being carbon nanotubes.
Methods based on local atomic environments (PTM, BAA, CNA, a-CNA) perform very well on displaced structures,
but they suffer from a substantial accuracy drop for missing-atoms ratios beyond 1\%. Their biggest drawback, however, is that they can treat only a handful of classes: three classes for BAA, CNA, and a-CNA, and twelve classes for PTM.
ARISE is very robust with respect to both displacements and missing atoms (even concurrently, cf. Supplementary Table \ref{table:suppl_vac_and_displ}),
while being the only method able to treat all 108 classes included in the dataset,
including complex systems, such as carbon nanotubes.
An uncertainty value quantifying model confidence is also returned,
which is particularly important when investigating defective structures or inputs that are far out of the training set.
We provide a detailed study in \nameref{section:supp_note_3} and Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:assign_most_sim_proto},
where
we challenge ARISE with structures it has not been trained on, i.e., it is forced to fail by construction. We find that ARISE returns
non-trivial physically meaningful predictions, thus making it particularly attractive, e.g., for screening large and structurally diverse databases.
Moreover, we analyze predictions and uncertainty of ARISE for continuous structural transformations (cf. \nameref{section:supp_note_2} and Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:Bain_path_resuts}),
where we consider the so-called Bain path that includes transitions between fcc, bcc, and tetragonal structures.
We also want to emphasize that compared to available methods, the classification via ARISE does not require any threshold specifications (e.g., precision parameters as in spglib).
\begin{table*}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\hline
Layer type & Specifications \\
\hline
\hline
Input Layer & Materials representation \\
+ Dropout & (SOAP descriptor, size: 316)\\
Fully connected layer & Size: 256 \\
+ Dropout + ReLU & \\
Fully connected layer & Size: 512\\
+ Dropout + ReLU & \\
Fully connected layer & Size: 256\\
+ Dropout + ReLU & \\
Fully connected layer & Size: 108 (= \# classes) \\
+ Softmax & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Architecture of the fully connected Bayesian neural network used in this work.
Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) activation functions are used for all hidden layers.
The dropout ratio is 3.17\% for all layers.
The total number of parameters is 371,820. While training time was fixed to 300 epochs, hyperopt found a batch size of 64 and a learning rate of 2.16$\cdot10^{-4}$.}
\label{table:mlp_all_data}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[]
\begin{tabular}{@{}lrrrrrrrrrrrr@{}}
\hline \hline
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{Pristine} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Random displacements ($\delta$)} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Missing atoms ($\eta$)} \\
\cmidrule(lr){4-8} \cmidrule(l){10-13} & & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{0.1\%} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{0.6\%} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1\%} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{2\%} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{4\%} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1\%} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{5\%} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{10\%} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{20\%}\\
\cmidrule(r){1-8} \cmidrule(l){9-13}
Spglib, loose & 100.00&& 100.00 & 100.00 & 95.26 & 20.00 & 0.00 && 11.23 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
(96 / 108) & && & & & & && & & & \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
Spglib, tight & 100.00 && 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 && 11.23 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
(96 / 108) & && & & & & && & & & \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
PTM &100.00 && 100.00 & 100.00 & 100.00 & 100.00 & 100.00 && 88.67 & 51.76 & 25.93 & 6.24\\
(12 / 108) & && & & & & && & & & \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
CNA & 66.14 && 62.81 & 62.81 & 54.55 & 32.34 & 31.41 && 55.86 & 32.50 & 15.75 & 3.07 \\
(3 / 108) & && & & & & && & & & \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
a-CNA & 100.00 && 100.00 & 100.00 & 100.00 & 100.00 & 100.00 && 89.25 & 52.81 & 25.92 & 5.37 \\
(3 / 108) & && & & & & && & & & \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
BAA & 100.00 && 100.00 & 100.00 & 100.00 & 100.00 & 97.85 && 99.71 & 88.78 & 65.21 & 25.38 \\
(3 / 108) & && & & & & && & & & \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
GNB &62.63 && 56.50 & 55.94 & 55.56& 54.98 & 52.72 && 54.51 &52.94 & 52.67 & 52.09 \\
(108 / 108) & && & & & & && & & & \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
BNB &75.76 && 65.56 & 65.19 & 63.61& 61.58 & 56.58 && 65.49 &64.00 & 62.43 & 60.48 \\
(108 / 108) & && & & & & && & & & \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
ARISE &100.00 && 100.00 & 100.00 & 100.00& 99.86 & 99.29 && 100.00 &100.00 & 100.00 & 99.85 \\
(108 / 108) & && & & & & && & & & \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\textbf{Accuracy in identifying the parent class of defective crystal structures.} The defective structures are generated by randomly displacing atoms
according to a uniform distribution on an interval $\left[ - \delta \cdot d_{\rm NN}, + \delta \cdot d_{\rm NN} \right]$ proportional
to the nearest neighbor distance $d_{\rm NN}$ (central panel), or removing $\eta$\% of the atoms (right panel). The accuracy values shown are in percentage.
For benchmarking we use Spglib\cite{togo2018texttt} (with two settings for the precision parameters, so-called loose (position/angle tolerance 0.1\AA/ 5$^\circ$) and tight (position/angle tolerance $10^{-4}$ / 1$^\circ$)),
polyhedral template matching (PTM)\cite{larsen2016robust}, common neighbor analysis (CNA)\cite{honeycutt1987molecular}, adaptive common neighbor analysis (a-CNA)\cite{stukowski2012structure}, and bond angle analysis (BAA)\cite{ackland2006applications}.
The number of classes which can be treated out of
the materials pool in Fig. \ref{fig:single_and_polyc_class_steps}e is shown in parentheses for each method. spglib can assign a space group to all materials except the 12 nanotubes.
PTM can only classify 7 elemental and 5 binary materials of those considered in this work.
Additional classes are missing for
CNA, a-CNA, and BAA as they cannot classify simple cubic (sc) and diamond structures.
The approach proposed here can be applied to all classes,
and thus the whole dataset is used (see Supplementary Tables \ref{table:prototype_listing_part_I}-\ref{table:prototype_listing_part_III} for a complete list).
Moreover, we compare ARISE to a standard Bayesian approach: Naive Bayes (NB). We consider two different variants of NB: Bernoulli NB (BNB) and Gaussian NB (GNB) \textendash\ see the Methods section
for more details. ARISE is
overwhelmingly more accurate
than both NB methods, for both pristine and defective structures.
}
\label{table:accuracy-comparison-single-crystal}
\end{table*}
\subsection*{Polycrystal classification}
Up to this point, we have discussed only the analysis of single-crystal (mono-crystalline) structures, using ARISE.
To enable the local characterization of polycrystalline systems,
we introduce strided pattern matching (SPM).
For slab-like systems (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:single_and_polyc_class_steps} f), a box of predefined size is scanned in-plane across the whole crystal with a given stride;
at each step, the atomic structure contained in the box is represented using a suitable descriptor (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:single_and_polyc_class_steps} g-h),
and classified
(Fig. \ref{fig:single_and_polyc_class_steps}i), yielding a collection of classification probabilities (here: 108)
with associated uncertainties.
These are arranged in 2D maps (Fig. \ref{fig:single_and_polyc_class_steps}j).
The classification probability maps indicate how much a given polycrystalline structure locally resembles a specific crystallographic prototype.
The uncertainty maps quantify the statistics of the output probability distribution (cf. Supplementary Methods).
Increased uncertainty indicates that the corresponding local segment(s) deviates from the prototypes known to the model.
Thus, these regions are likely to contain defects such as grain boundaries, or more generally atomic arrangements different from the ones included in training.
For bulk systems (Fig. \ref{fig:single_and_polyc_class_steps}k), the slab analysis depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:single_and_polyc_class_steps}f-j is repeated for multiple slices (Fig. \ref{fig:single_and_polyc_class_steps}l),
resulting in 3D classification probability and uncertainty
maps (Fig. \ref{fig:single_and_polyc_class_steps}m).
SPM extends common approaches such as labeling individual atoms with symmetry labels\cite{stukowski2012structure}, as the striding allows to discover structural transitions within polycrystals in a smooth way.
SPM can be applied to any kind of
data providing atomic positions and chemical species.
Results obtained via SPM are influenced by the quality of the classification model as well as box size and stride (see Methods section for more details).
\subsection*{Synthetic polycrystals}
First, the classification via SPM combined with ARISE is performed for a slab-like synthetic polycrystal consisting of fcc, bcc, hcp, and diamond grains (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}a).
Due to the nature of the system, the SPM boxes near the
grain boundaries
will contain mixtures of different crystal structures.
The results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal} b and c:
The network assigns high classification probability
to the correct prototypes.
Uncertainty is low within the grains, increasing at grain boundaries and crystal outer borders in line with physical intuition.
The result remains virtually unchanged when introducing
atomic displacements (up to $1\%$ of the nearest neighbor distance) while concurrently removing 20\% of the atoms (cf. Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:supp_four_grains_defective}).
The highest classification probabilities (after from the top four shown in Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}b) are shown in Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:suppl_four_grains}; a discussion on the stride can be found in Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:low_resolution_four_grains}.
Going beyond classification, we show how unsupervised learning can be used to access structural similarity information embedded in ARISE's internal representations, and use it for the characterization of crystal systems.
We consider the mono-species polycrystal shown in Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}a
and collect ARISE's representations of the overall 7$\,$968 local boxes.
Next, we employ Hierarchical Density-based Spatial Clustering Applications with Noise (HDBSCAN)\cite{mcinnes2017accelerated, McInnes2017} to identify clusters in the high-dimensional representation space.
HDBSCAN estimates the density underlying a given data set and then constructs a hierarchy of clusters, from which the final clustering can be obtained via an intuitive and tunable parameter (see Methods).
The obtained clusters correspond to the four crystalline grains in the structure (Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}d).
Points identified as outliers (marked in orange) coincide with grain-boundary and outer-border regions.
Next, the high-dimensional manifold of the NN representations is projected in 2D via Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP)\cite{mcinnes2018umap}.
UMAP models the manifold underlying a given dataset and then finds a low-dimensional projection that can capture both global and local distances of the original high-dimensional data.
This returns a structure-similarity map (Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}e), which allows to visually investigate similarities among structures:
points (structures) close to each other in this map are considered to be similar by the algorithm.
Structures belonging to the same cluster are in close proximity to each other, and clearly separated from other clusters.
Conversely, outlier points are split across different regions of the map.
This is physically meaningful: outliers are not a cohesive cluster of similar structures, but rather comprise different types of grain boundaries
(i.e., fcc to bcc transitions or fcc to diamond etc., cf. Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:supp_hdbscan_pos_gb}).
In this synthetic setting, we can also use the classification prediction to further verify the unsupervised analysis:
the results obtained via unsupervised learning indeed match ARISE's predictions (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}e - Fig \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}f).
Moreover, an analysis of the mutual information (Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}g) reveals that points at the core of the clusters are associated with low uncertainty, while points closer to the boundaries show increased uncertainty.
Similar results are obtained for the other layers (cf. Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:four_grains_umap_hdbscan_full}).
We now move to a more realistic system: a model structure for Ni-based superalloys\cite{reed2008superalloys} (c.f Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}h).
Ni-based superalloys are used in aircraft engines due to their large mechanical strength at high temperatures, which derives
from ordered L$1_2$ precipitates ($\gamma^\prime$ phase) embedded in a fcc matrix ($\gamma$ phase).
We generate an atomic structure consisting of a fcc matrix in which Al and Ni atoms are randomly distributed.
In the center, however, the arrangement of Al and Ni atoms is no longer random, but it is ordered such that the L$1_2$ phase is created (c.f Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}h).
The cubic shape of this precipitate is in accordance with experimental observations\cite{raabe_exp_superalloy}.
The resulting structure
comprises 132$\,$127 atoms over a cube of $120\,\text{\AA}$ length.
As shown via a section through the center in Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}i, fcc is correctly assigned to the matrix, and the precipitate is also detected.
The uncertainty is increased at the boundary between random matrix and precipitate, as well as at the outer borders.
Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}j illustrates the L1$_2$ classification probability in a 3D plot. The precipitate is detected in both pristine and highly-defective structures.
This analysis demonstrates that ARISE can distinguish between chemically ordered and chemically disordered structures, a feature that will be exploited for the analysis of experimental data in Sec. Application
to atomic-electron-tomography data.
Another realistic
system is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}k, which
is the lowest-energy structure obtained from an evolutionary structure search\cite{meiners2020observations}.
The structural patterns at the grain boundary are also observed in scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM) experiments.
SPM-ARISE correctly identifies the fcc symmetry within the grains (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}l) while assigning double hexagonal close-packed (dhcp) symmetry at the grain boundary.
The local boxes at the grain boundary
contain partial fcc structures
while changes in stacking and distortions decrease their symmetry (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}m).
Also the dhcp phase (ABAC close-packing) contains fcc (ABC) and a lower-symmetry packing (hcp, AB), thus justifying the assignment.
To supplement this study, we investigate several examples from the largest, currently available grain-boundary database\cite{zheng2020grain}, including fcc, bcc, hcp, and dhcp symmetry
as well as various grain
boundary types, which ARISE can classify correctly (cf. Supplementary Figure \ref{fig:supp_gb_database}). Note that ARISE correctly identifies even
the $\alpha-$Sm-type stacking (ABCBCACAB).
No other fully automatic approach offers a comparable sensitivity.
\begin{figure*
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{synthetic_polycrystals_figure.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Analysis of synthetic polycrystals.} \textbf{a} Mono-species polycrystal consisting of four grains with face-centered cubic (fcc), body-centered cubic (bcc),
hexagonal close-packed (hcp), and diamond (dia) symmetry.
\textbf{b} Classification probabilities of expected prototypes.
\textbf{c} Mutual information map for uncertainty quantification.
\textbf{d-g} Unsupervised analysis of internal neural-network representations.
\textbf{d} The neural-network representations are extracted for each local segment in \textbf{a} (obtained via SPM). Clustering (via Hierarchical Density-based Spatial Clustering Applications with Noise, HDBSCAN)
is applied to this
high-dimensional
space;
the polycrystal is marked according to the resulting clusters (see legend in \textbf{e} for the color assignments).
\textbf{e-g} Two-dimensional projection (via Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection, UMAP) of neural-network representations colored by cluster label,
ARISE predicted class,
and mutual information, respectively.
In \textbf{e}, all points for which HDBSCAN does not assign a cluster are labeled as outlier. In \textbf{f}, all
points that are not classified as fcc, diamond, hcp or bcc are labeled as other.
Note that while the distances
between points are meaningful, the axes merely serve as a bounding window and are not interpretable \textendash\ a situation typically encountered in non-linear methods such as UMAP (cf. section 6\cite{mcinnes2018umap}).
\textbf{h-j} Precipitate detection in Ni-based superalloys.
\textbf{h} Binary model system (right) and depiction of the two appearing phases (left).
\textbf{i} Classification probabilities of expected prototypes and mutual information for a slice through the center of the structure.
\textbf{j} 3D-resolved detection of the precipitate via the L1$_2$ classification probability for the pristine (left) and highly-defective case (right), for which 20\% of the atoms are removed and randomly displaced (up to 5\% of the nearest neighbor distance).
\textbf{k} Lowest-energy grain boundary structure (Cu, fcc) predicted from an evolutionary search. The so-called Pearl pattern appears at the grain boundary, which is also observed in experiment\cite{meiners2020observations}.
\textbf{l} SPM-ARISE analysis, correctly identifying fcc (ABC close-packing) in the grains, while detecting double hexagonal close-packed (dhcp, ABAC) at the grain boundary.
\textbf{m} Exemplary analysis of a local box at the grain boundary, illustrating a change in stacking and increased distortions, which motivates the assignment of dhcp (which contains 50\,\% of both fcc and hcp close-packings).
}
\label{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}
\end{figure*}
\subsection*{Application to transmission-electron-microscopy experimental images}
We now investigate defective structures originating from a completely different data source,
namely STEM experiments,
to demonstrate the generalization ability of ARISE and its applicability to experimental data.
Moreover, we show how global and local analysis can be combined to analyze crystal structures.
STEM experiments are a valuable resource to characterize material specimens, and to study, for instance, the atomic structures at grain boundaries\cite{meiners2020observations}.
Atomic resolution can be achieved in high-angle annular dark field (HAADF) images.
The global assignments of ARISE are tested on two experimental HAADF images of graphene shown in Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}a.
These images contain a substantial amount of noise which makes it very challenging to recognize the graphene honeycomb pattern by naked eye.
The choice of graphene is motivated by it being a flat 2D materials; $x$ and $y$ atomic positions obtained from STEM images thus provide the actual crystal structure, and not a mere projection.
Approximate atomic positions (i.e. $x$ and $y$ coordinates) from HAADF images are obtained via AtomNet\cite{ziatdinov2017deep}, and shown in Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}b.
ARISE is then used to classify the structures following the steps summarized in Fig. \ref{fig:single_and_polyc_class_steps}a-d.
The top predictions ranked by classification probability are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}c, together with the uncertainty of the assignments as quantified by the mutual information.
ARISE correctly recognizes both images as graphene, despite the substantial amount of noise present in images and reconstructed atomic positions.
For the first image (Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}a, left), graphene is predicted with very high probability ($\sim 99\%$).
Indeed, the similarity to graphene is apparent, although evident distortions are present in some regions (e.g., misaligned bonds marked in Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}b).
The second candidate structure is C$_3$N, predicted with $\sim 1\%$ probability; in C$_3$N, atoms are arranged in a honeycomb lattice, making also this low probability assignment physically meaningful.
For the second image (Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}a, right), ARISE also correctly predicts graphene, this time with 79$\%$ probability. The uncertainty is six times larger than in the previous case.
Indeed, this structure is much more defective than the previous one: it contains a grain boundary in the lower part, causing evident deviations from the pristine graphene lattice, as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}b (right).
The other four candidate structures appearing in the top five predictions (PbSe, MnS$_2$, BN, C$_3$N) are the remaining completely flat monolayers known to the network (out of the 108 structures in the training dataset, only five are flat monolayers).
Note that no explicit information about the dimensionality of the material is given to the model.
It is also important to point out that ARISE robustness well beyond physical levels of noise is essential to achieve the correct classification despite
the presence of substantial amount of noise from both experiment and atomic position reconstruction.
Besides the separate classification of single images,
ARISE also learns meaningful similarities between images (i.e. structures).
To demonstrate this, we analyze a library of graphene images with Si defects\cite{ziatdinov2019building} and quantify their similarity using ARISE's internal representations.
Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}d investigates a selection of images which contain the mono-species structures of Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}a (right), e, and systems with up to four Si atoms.
Atomic positions are determined via AtomNet. Then, the
internal representations
from ARISE are extracted and the pairwise cosine similarity is calculated.
The cross-similarity matrix is depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}d, revealing a block matrix form in which the binary and mono-species structures are separated, i.e., more similar to each other, which
can be attributed to the number of Si defects.
This characteristic reappears for a larger selection of structures (cf. Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:supp_STEM_sim}), thus confirming the analysis
of Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}d. This investigation demonstrates that ARISE learns meaningful similarities, supporting the general applicability of ARISE for similarity quantification.
\begin{figure*
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{STEM_figure.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{\textbf{Analysis of HAADF and HRTEM images via ARISE and SPM.}
\textbf{a} Experimental high-angle annular dark field (HAADF) images of two graphene structures. White scale bars in all HAADF images in this figure are positioned in the bottom left and correspond to the typical graphene bond length (1.42\,\AA).
\textbf{b} The atomic positions are reconstructed from the images via AtomNet\cite{ziatdinov2017deep}.
\textbf{c} The resulting atomic structures are analyzed using ARISE.
The top predicted structures are shown. Mutual information is used to quantify the classification uncertainty.
\textbf{d} Similarity quantification of HAADF images via ARISE. The images in \textbf{a} (right) and \textbf{e} are compared to a selection
of graphene systems with Si defects\cite{ziatdinov2019building}. For each image, AtomNet is used for reconstruction and the internal representations of ARISE are extracted (here, second hidden layer).
Then, the cross-similarity is calculated using the cosine similarity. A block matrix structure arises that correlates
with the number of Si atoms. A similar pattern is observed for a larger selection of structures, cf. Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:supp_STEM_sim}.
\textbf{e} HAADF image and reconstructed atomic positions (analogous to \textbf{a-b}) of a larger sample. Pentagons can be spotted near the grain boundary (see inset).
\textbf{f} MnS$_2$ prototype.
\textbf{g} Local analysis via strided pattern matching: graphene is the dominant structure. Different prototypes (MnS$_2$) are only assigned - and with high uncertainty (mutual information) - at the grain boundary.
\textbf{h} High resolution transmission electron microscopy (HTREM) image of a quasicrystalline structure (icosahedral Al-Cu-Fe, adapted from the original reference\cite{li2016review}, see Methods). While there is an underlying order, the structure
is aperiodic (i.e., no translational symmetry is present). As visualized in the zoom, the bright spots align with five-fold symmetry axes and pentagons of different size appear.
Based on the reconstruction via AtomNet (bottom right), ARISE (via strided pattern matching) identifies MnS$_2$ as the
dominating prototype (\textbf{i}), which similarly to the input structure contains pentagon patterns (\textbf{f}).
}
\label{fig:STEM}
\end{figure*}
While so far we have analyzed HAADF images on a global scale, a local analysis via SPM allows to zoom into a given structure and locate sub-structural features.
This is particularly useful for polycrystalline and/or larger systems (e.g., more than 1$\,$000 atoms).
As illustrative example, we consider the structure in Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}e.
The mutual information shown in Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}g (right) clearly reveals the presence of a grain boundary.
In Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}g (left), the classification probabilities of graphene and MnS$_2$ (the dominant prototypes) are presented, the latter being assigned at the grain boundary.
This assignment can be traced back to pentagon-like patterns appearing near the grain boundary (as highlighted in Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}e), a pattern similar to the one being formed by Mn and S atoms in MnS$_2$ (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}f).
Next, we challenge the established procedure for the local analysis of 2D images with data from a completely different resource.
We investigate a high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HTREM) image of a quasicrystalline structure\cite{levine1984quasicrystals, li2016review}, cf. Fig \ref{fig:STEM}h.
The bright spots are ordered aperiodically, making it a very hard task to identify the underlying order by eye.
Via the established procedure, MnS$_2$ is predicted as the most similar prototype (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}i). MnS$_2$ contains pentagon patterns (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}f) which
can also be seen in the quasicrystal (cf. zoom in Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}h). This result suggests that ARISE and SPM are novel and promising tools for the classification of
quasicrystalline order in automatic fashion \textendash\ a promising yet under-explored area.
\subsection*{Application to atomic-electron-tomography data}
While HAADF images are a valuable experimental resource, they only provide 2D projections.
3D structural and chemical information can however be obtained from atomic electron tomography (AET)
with atomic resolution achieved in recent experiments\cite{miao2016atomic, zhou2020atomic, chen2013three, xu2015three}.
Notably, this technique provides 3D atomic positions
labeled by chemical species, to which ARISE and SPM can be readily applied.
While extensions to other systems such as 2D materials are reported\cite{tian2020correlating}, metallic nanoparticles have been the main experimental focus so far,
specifically FePt systems due to their promises for biomedicine and magnetic data storage\cite{sun2006recent}.
First, a FePt nanoparticle\cite{yang2017deciphering} is classified using SPM-ARISE.
ARISE's robustness is critical for this application, since the structural information provided by AET experiments are based on reconstruction algorithms
that cause visible distortions (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:AET}a).
SPM-ARISE primarily detects L1$_2$, L1$_0$, and fcc phases (see Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:supp_nanoparticle_2017_uncertainty}).
This is in line with physical expectations: annealing leads to structural transitions from chemically disordered to ordered fcc (A1 to L1$_2$) or to the tetragonal L1$_0$ phase\cite{sun2006recent, yang2017deciphering}.
Besides the expected prototypes, ARISE also finds regions similar to tetragonally distorted, mono-species fcc (cf. Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:supp_nanoparticle_2017_uncertainty}), which is meaningful given the presence of fcc and the tetragonal phase L1$_0$.
To go beyond the information provided by classification and discover hidden patterns and trends in AET data, we conduct an exploratory analysis using unsupervised learning on ARISE's internal representations.
While the procedure is similar to the one presented in Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}d-g, here the analysis is truly exploratory (no ground truth is known), and data comes from experiment.
First, all SPM boxes classified as L1$_0$ are extracted, this choice motivated by the physical relevance of this phase, in particular due to its magnetic properties\cite{sun2006recent}.
This reduces the number of data points (boxes) from 43$\,$679 to 5$\,$359 \textendash\ a significant filtering step for which the automatic nature of ARISE is essential.
In the representation space of the first hidden layer, HDBSCAN identifies seven clusters (and the outliers).
To interpret the cluster assignments, we analyze geometrical characteristics of atomic structures (i.e., the local boxes) assigned to the different clusters.
Specifically, we consider the nearest neighbor distances between Fe and Pt atoms, $d_{\text{FeFe}}$ and $d_{\text{PtPt}}$, respectively
(cf. Supplementary Methods
for the definition).
For an ideal tetragonal structure, the difference $\Delta d = d_{\text{FeFe}} - d_{\text{PtPt}}$ is zero (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:AET} b, top left); a deviation from this value thus quantifies the level of distortion.
Looking at the histograms of the (signed) quantity $\Delta d$ shown in Fig. \ref{fig:AET}b for each cluster, one can observe that
each distribution is peaked; moreover, the distribution centers vary from negative to positive $\Delta d$ values across different clusters. The distribution of the outliers is shown for comparison: the $\Delta d$ distribution is very broad,
since outlier points are not a meaningful cluster.
While overlap exists, the clusters correspond to subgroups of structures, each distorted in a different way, as quantified by $\Delta d$.
Thus, we discovered a clear trend via the cluster assignment that correlates with the level of distortion.
The cluster separation can be visualized in 2D via UMAP (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:AET}b).
Notably, the clusters do not overlap, even in this highly compressed representation (from 256 to 2 dimensions).
Some of the clusters may also contain further sub-distributions, which seems apparent for instance from the $\Delta d$ distribution of cluster 6.
The regions corresponding to the clusters could be hinting at a specific growth mechanism of the L1$_0$ phase during annealing, although further investigations are necessary to support this claim.
The present analysis provides a protocol for the machine-learning driven exploration of structural data: supervised learning is employed to filter out a class of interest
(which is not a necessary step, cf. Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}d-g), then unsupervised learning is applied to the NN representations, revealing regions sharing physically meaningful geometrical characteristics.
Finally, we apply ARISE to time-resolved (i.e., four-dimensional) AET data. Specifically, a nanoparticle measured for three different annealing times is investigated\cite{zhou2019observing}.
The mutual information as obtained via SPM-ARISE
is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:AET}c for five central slices.
In regions between outer shell and inner core, the mutual information clearly decreases for larger annealing times, indicating that crystalline order increases inside the nanoparticle (see also Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:AET_annealing_supp} for more details).
This analysis confirms that the predictive uncertainty of ARISE, as quantified by the mutual information, directly correlates with crystalline order.
The mutual information can be therefore considered an AI-based order parameter, which we anticipate to be useful in future nucleation dynamics studies.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{AET_nanoparticle.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Analysis of atomic electron tomography data.} \label{fig:AET}
\textbf{a} Side view of FePt nanoparticle ($\sim$23k atoms),
with atomic positions and chemical species from atomic electron tomography (AET) data\cite{yang2017deciphering}.
\textbf{b} Two-dimensional projection (bottom left) of neural-network representations (first hidden layer) via UMAP for regions classified as L1$_0$ by ARISE.
The distribution of the difference between the nearest neighbor distances $d_{\text{FeFe}}$ and $d_{\text{PtPt}}$ (highlighted by bonds in top left part) is shown for each cluster (right), where
cluster $i= 0, ..., 6$ is denoted as Ci, while all points for which HDBSCAN does not assign a cluster are labeled as outlier.
\textbf{c} Five central slices (mutual information, obtained via strided pattern matching) for three different annealing times (data from four-dimensional AET experiment\cite{zhou2019observing}).
}
\end{figure*}
\section*{Discussion}
In this work, Bayesian deep learning is employed to achieve a flexible, robust and threshold-independent crystal classification model, which we term ARISE.
This approach correctly classifies a comprehensive and diverse set of crystal structures from computations and experiments, including polycrystalline systems (via strided pattern matching).
Given an unknown structure, the network assigns \textendash\ in an automatic fashion \textendash\ the most similar prototypes among 108 possible classes (and quantifies the similarity!), which
is a very complicated task even for trained materials scientists, in particular in case of complex and possibly defective 3D structures.
ARISE is trained on ideal synthetic systems only and correctly identifies crystal structures in STEM and AET experiments, hence demonstrating strong generalization capabilities.
The Bayesian deep-learning model provides classification probabilities, which - at variance with standard NNs - allow for the quantification of predictive uncertainty via mutual information.
The mutual information is found to directly correlate with the degree of crystalline order, as shown by the analysis of time-resolved data from AET experiments.
This demonstrates the correlation of an information-theory concept with physical intuition.
The internal NN representations are analyzed via state-of-the-art unsupervised learning.
The clusters identified in this high-dimensional internal space allow to uncover physically meaningful structural regions.
These can be grain boundaries, but also unexpected substructures sharing geometrical properties, as shown for metallic nanoparticles from AET experiments.
This illustrates how supervised and unsupervised machine learning can be combined to discover hidden patterns in materials science data.
In particular, the physical content learned by the NN model is explained by means of unsupervised learning.
Since ARISE is not limited to predicting the space group, systems where the space group does not characterize the crystal structure can be tackled (as demonstrated for carbon nanotubes).
More complex systems such as
quasi-crystals\cite{levine1984quasicrystals},
periodic knots, or weavings\cite{liu2018geometry} could also be considered.
Indeed, ARISE can be applied to any data
providing Cartesian coordinates labeled by chemical species.
Practically, one simply needs to add the new structures of interest to the training set, and re-train or fine-tune (i.e., via transfer learning) the NN with the desired labels.
Moreover, the mutual information allows to
quantify the defectiveness of a structure; this could be exploited to automatically evaluate the quality of STEM images, for example one may automatically screen for STEM images that are likely to contain structural defects.
Applications in active learning\cite{gal2017deep} for materials science are also envisioned, where uncertainty is crucial for example when deciding on the inclusion of additional - typically computationally costly - points in the dataset.
\clearpage
\section*{Methods}
\textbf{Dataset creation.}\ To compute the training set (39$\,$204 data points in total), we include periodic and non-periodic systems.
For the former, no supercells are necessary (as SOAP
is supercell-invariant for periodic structures). For the latter, a given structure (or rather its unit cell as obtained from the respective database) is isotropically replicated until at least 100 atoms are contained in the structure. Then this
supercell structure and the next two larger isotropic replicas are included.
With this choice of system sizes, we focus on slab- and bulk-like systems.
Note that the network may not generalize to non-periodic structures outside the chosen supercell range.
Practically, if the need to classify much smaller or larger supercells
arises, one can include additional replicas to the training set and retrain the
model (while for larger supercells it is expected that the network will generalize, see also Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:supercells_cosine_sim_to_pbc_True}). Retraining is computationally easy due to fast convergence time.
Note that for 2D structures, only in-plane replicas are considered.
Elemental solids and binary compounds are selected from the AFLOW library of crystallographic prototypes\cite{mehl2017aflow}.
Ternary, quaternary, and 2D materials are taken from the computational materials repository (CMR)\cite{landis2012computational}.
Nanotubes are created using the atomic simulation environment (ASE)\cite{larsen2017atomic} where the chiral numbers (n,m) provide the class labels.
We filter out chiral indices (n, m) (with the integer values n,m taking values in $[0,10]$) for which the diameter is in the range $[4\,\mathrm{\AA},6\,\mathrm{\AA}]$ (and skip the cases
where $n=m=0$, $n<m$).
Then, we increase the length of each nanotube until at least 100 atoms are contained. No additional lengths are included as it was checked that there is no major change in the SOAP descriptor (via calculating
the cosine similarity between descriptors representing nanotubes of different length). For more complex nanotubes (for instance, multi-walled systems), this may change.
For the cutoff $R_{\text{C}}$, we select the range $[3.0 \cdot d_{\text{NN}} , 5.0 \cdot d_{\text{NN}}]$ in steps of $0.2 \cdot d_{\text{NN}}$ and for
$\sigma$ the values $[0.08 \cdot d_{\text{NN}}, 0.1 \cdot d_{\text{NN}}, 0.12 \cdot d_{\text{NN}}]$.
We calculate the SOAP descriptor using the quippy package (\url{https://libatoms.github.io/QUIP}), where
we choose $n_{\text{max}}=9$ and $l_{\text{max}}=6$ as limits for
the basis set expansion, resulting in an averaged SOAP vector of length 316.
Furthermore, we increase the dataset by varying the so-called extrinsic scaling factor: For a given prototype, the value of $d_{\text{NN}}$ will deviate from the pristine value in presence of defects. Thus, to inform the network that the computation of $d_{\text{NN}}$ is erroneous, we scale
each pristine prototype not only by $1.0 \cdot d_{\text{NN}}$ but also $0.95\cdot d_{\text{NN}}$ and $1.05\cdot d_{\text{NN}}$. We term the factors 0.95, 1.0, 1.05 extrinsic scaling factors.
One may also see this procedure as a way to increase the training set.
To create defective structures, we explained in the main text (cf. Table \ref{table:accuracy-comparison-single-crystal}) how defects (displacements, missing atoms) are introduced.
Note that we use the term missing atoms and not vacancies since the percentages of removed atoms we consider are well beyond
regimes found in real materials. Also note that displacements as high as 4\% of the nearest neighbor distance might already cause a transition to the liquid phase in some solids.
Still, as noted in the Introduction, experimental and computational data often present levels of distortions which are comparable or even substantially exceed these regimes.
We introduce defects for all pristine prototypes included in the training set (specifically, for the supercells \textendash\ for both periodic and non-periodic
boundary conditions, while for nanotubes only non-periodic structures are used).
Since the defects are introduced randomly, we run 10 iterations of defect creation on each prototype.
Then we calculate SOAP for all of these defective structures for one specific parameter setting ($R_{\text{C}} = 4.0 \cdot d_{\text{NN}}, \sigma = 0.1 \cdot d_{\text{NN}}$, extrinsic scaling factor $=1.0$),
which corresponds to the center of the respective parameter ranges included in the training set.
Finally, we obtain 5880 defective structures for each defect ratio. In total, we compute defectives structures for three defect types (missing atoms and displacements introduced both separately and combined)
for eight different defect ratios, giving in total 141,120 defective data points.
\textbf{Neural-network architecture and training procedure.}\
At prediction time, we need to fix
$T$, the number of forward-passes being averaged (cf. Supplementary Methods).
We chose $T=10^3$ for all results except Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}c and Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:assign_most_sim_proto}, for which we increase $T$
to $10^{5}$ in order to get stable assignments in case of high uncertainty and very low probability candidates (i.e., $<1.0\%$).
Still,
the most similar prototypes can be obtained already with $10^3$ iterations.
Training is performed using Adam optimization\cite{kingma2014adam}.
The multilayer perceptron is implemented in Keras\cite{chollet2015} using Tensorflow\cite{abadi2016tensorflow} as backend.
Furthermore we optimize hyperparameters such as the number of layers
using Bayesian optimization, specifically the
Tree-structured Parzen estimator (TPE) algorithm
as provided by the python library hyperopt\cite{10.5555/3042817.3042832}
(cf. Supplementary Methods
for more details).
The initial training set is split (80/20\% training / validation split of pristine structures, performed using scikit-learn, in stratified fashion, using a random state of 42) and the accuracy on the validation set is used
as the performance metric to be minimized via hyperopt (for 50 iterations).
Fast convergence (followed by oscillations around high accuracy values) or divergence is typically observed, which is why we train for a fixed number of epochs (300) and
save only the model with the best performance on the validation set.
Training is performed on 1 GPU (Tesla Volta V100 32GB) on the Talos machine-learning cluster in collaboration with the Max Planck Computing and Data facility (MPCDF).
We observe that accuracies around $99\%$ can be reached after few iterations, with individual training runs converging within 20 minutes, depending on model complexity.
Practically, strong models are obtained via this procedure, while further fine-tuning can be made to reach perfect accuracies.
First, we restrict to one setting of training parameters (see previous section). From a computational efficiency point of view, this is also the the preferred choice since one has
to compute only one descriptor per structure during prediction time.
We select $R_\text{C}=4.0\cdot d_{NN}$ and $\sigma=0.1\cdot d_{\text{NN}}$ as well as an extrinsic scaling factor of 1.0. These choices
are at the center of the respective parameter ranges.
While the model with highest validation accuracy (on the whole training set) determined via hyperopt usually gives very strong performance,
it is not necessarily the best possible one, especially in terms of generalization ability to defective structures.
To find the optimal (i.e., most robust) model we select some of the best models (e.g., top 15) found via hyperopt
and rank them based on their performance on pristine and defective structures (again for one setting of $R_\text{C}, \sigma$).
In particular, we restrict to defective points with either $\leq 5\%$ atoms missing or $<1\% $ atomic displacement, which comprises 35$\,$280 data points (six different defect ratios with 5$\,$880 points each).
The number of pristine data points is 396.
Using this strategy, we can identify a model with 100\% accuracy on pristine and defective structures, which is reported in the last line of Table \ref{table:accuracy-comparison-single-crystal}.
The accuracy on the whole training set comprising 39$\,$204 data points is 99.66\%.
We also investigate the performance on higher defect ratios beyond physically reasonable perturbations, since this is typically encountered
in atom-probe experiments.
In particular, we investigate three defect types (missing atoms, displacements, and both of them) comprising 105$\,$840 data points.
The results for missing atoms ($>5\%$) and displacements ($>0.6\%$) can be found in Table \ref{table:accuracy-comparison-single-crystal} and Supplementary Table \ref{table:suppl_high_defects}.
Classification accuracies
on structures with both missing atoms and displacements are specified in Supplementary Table \ref{table:suppl_vac_and_displ}.
Note that training and model selection only on pristine structures can yield robust models, especially
if the number of classes is reduced. For instance, training only on binary systems
using a pristine set of 4$\,$356 data points (full SOAP parameter range)
gives perfect accuracy on both the full training set and 3$\,$960 defective structures (displacements $\leq 0.06\% $ and $\leq5\%$ missing atoms \textendash\ for the
setting $R_\text{C}=4.0\cdot d_{\text{NN}}, \sigma = 0.1\cdot d_{\text{NN}}$, extrinsic scaling factor 1.0). Note that in general,
if fewer classes are considered (e.g., $\sim$ 20), the training time can be significantly reduced (e.g., to a few minutes).
\textbf{Naive Bayes}
We employ the implementation provided by scikit-learn (\url{https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/naive_bayes.html}), where two assumptions for the likelihood $P(x_i|y)$
of the features $x_i$ given the labels $y$ are tested: A Gaussian distribution (Gaussian Naive Bayes, short GNB) and a multivariate Bernoulli distribution (Bernoulli Naive Bayes, short BNB).
We observe that the BNB model yields improved results compared to GNB, while both being significantly less accurate than ARISE.
\textbf{Unsupervised learning: clustering and dimensionality reduction.}\ HDBSCAN\cite{mcinnes2017accelerated, McInnes2017} is a density-based, hierarchical clustering algorithm
(see also the online documentation \url{https://hdbscan.readthedocs.io/en/latest/}).
The final (so-called flat) clustering is derived from a hierarchy of clusters. The most influential parameter is the minimum cluster size that determines the minimum number of data points a cluster has to contain \textendash\
otherwise it will be considered an outlier, i.e., not being part of any cluster.
Practically, one can test a range of values for the minimum cluster size, in particular very small, intermediate and large ones \textendash\ for instance
for the results on the synthetic polycrystal in Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}a, we test the
values $\{25, 50, 100, 250, 500, 1\,000\}$.
In line with intuition, the number of clusters grows (shrinks) for smaller (larger) values of minimum cluster size.
A coherent picture with 4 clusters and clear boundaries (as indicated by the outliers) arises for minimum cluster size values of around 500, for which we report the results in Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}d-g
and Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:four_grains_umap_hdbscan_full}.
Moreover, we test the influence of the so-called minimum distance parameter in Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:supp_hdbscan_pos_gb}, where for Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}e-g, we choose a minimum distance parameter of 0.9.
For the nanoparticle data discussed in Fig. \ref{fig:AET}c, we observe that most of the points are considered outliers since the data contains substantially more distortions.
To address this, we
use the soft clustering feature of HDBSCAN, which allows to calculate a vector for each data point whose $i$-th component quantifies
the probability that the given data point is member of cluster $\textit{i}$.
Then, we
can infer a cluster assignment for points that would normally be considered outliers, by selecting for each point the cluster whose membership probability is maximal (while considering a point an outlier if all probabilities are below a certain threshold for which we choose 10\,\%).
For the minimum cluster size, we find that for values below 10 the number of clusters quickly grows while shrinking for larger values. We report the results for a minimum cluster
size of 10 and a minimum distance parameter of 0.1 in Fig. \ref{fig:AET}c.
To visualize the clustering results, we use the manifold-learning technique UMAP\cite{mcinnes2018umap} (see also the online documentation \url{https://umap-learn.readthedocs.io/en/latest/}).
This method uses techniques from Riemannian geometry and algebraic topology to capture both the global and local structure of a manifold that underlies a given dataset.
One of the most important parameters
is the number of neighbors that will be considered to construct a topological representation of the data, where a small value takes only the local structure into account, while a large value considers the global relations
between data points. We choose values of 500 for Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}e-g and 50 for \ref{fig:AET}c, above
which the 2D embeddings do not change significantly.
\textbf{Synthetic polycrystal generation} The structure in Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}a is generated via the open-source software Atomsk\cite{hirel2015atomsk}.
\textbf{Strided pattern matching parameters.}\ Two parameters are most important for strided pattern matching analysis:
Firstly, the stride defines the resolution and may be chosen arbitrarily small or large to increase or decrease the visualization of structural features.
Note that the sliding allows us to discover smooth transitions, while the smoothness is determined by the step size. This way, boundary effects between neighbored local regions
are reduced compared to the case of slightly or non-overlapping boxes (e.g., in the simple voxelization case).
In particular, a small stride (e.g., 1\,\AA) mitigates boundary effects due to the discretization, which otherwise can influence the final classification and uncertainty maps.
SPM is trivially parallel by construction, thus allowing the time-efficient characterization of large systems.
Clearly, in a naive implementation, this procedure scales cubically with stride size. Practically, one may choose a large stride (in particular if
the structure size would exceed computing capabilities) to obtain
low-resolution classification maps, which may suffice to identify regions of interest.
Then, one may zoom into these areas and increase the stride to obtain high resolution classification maps revealing more intricate features.
Secondly, the box size determines the locality, i.e., the amount of structure that is averaged to infer the crystallographic prototype being most similar to a given local region. If this
parameter is chosen too large, possibly interesting local features may be smoothed out.
We recommend to use box sizes larger than 10-12$\text{\AA}$, as in these cases, the number of contained atoms is typically within the range of the supercells the network is trained on (i.e., at least 100 atoms).
The generalization ability to smaller structures depends on the prototype (cf. Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:supercells_cosine_sim_to_pbc_True}), and in general, if a smaller box size is
desired while using our model, the practical solution is to add smaller supercells in the training set and retrain the network.
Note that the shape of the local regions may be chosen to be different from boxes,
e.g., spheres or any other shape that fits the application at hand. Moreover, we chose the grid in which the structure is strided to be cubic, while
other discretizations are possible.
Note that a one-dimensional striding can be applied to rod-like systems such as carbon nanotubes.
In this work, we choose the following SPM parameters: For the slab analysis in Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}a, we choose a
$1\, \text{\AA}$ stride and a box size equal to the slab thickness ($16\,\text{\AA}$).
For the superalloy model system we choose the same box size but reduce the stride to $3\, \text{\AA}$, since this system is much larger and we want to demonstrate that for these systems, smaller strides
still yield reasonable results.
For the grain-boundary structure in Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}k, a stride of $2\, \text{\AA}$ and a box size of $10\, \text{\AA}$ suffice to characterize the system.
For the 2D STEM analysis (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}g), we choose a stride of 4 (in units of pixels since atoms are reconstructed from images, while for typical graphene bond lengths
of 1.42\,\AA~ the relation 1\,\AA~ $\approx$ 8.5 can be inferred). Moreover, we select a box size of 100 pixels ($\approx 12\,\text{\AA}$).
For the quasicrystalline structure in Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}h,i, which has been cropped from the original reference\cite{li2016review} and rescaled to a $1000\times1000$ pixel image (using standard settings in the GIMP Image editor), a box size of 100 pixels and stride of 10 pixels suffice to detect the MnS$_2$ prototype as dominant pattern.
For the nanoparticle analysis, we choose a stride of $1\, \text{\AA}$ and box size of $12\,\text{\AA}$ for all of Fig. \ref{fig:AET}, except the clustering analysis, for which
we reduce the stride to $2\text{\AA}$, to avoid an overcrowded 2D map.
The box size of $16\,\text{\AA}$ (which allowed
to distinguish chemically disordered fcc from ordered L1$_2$, cf. Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}h-j) yields comparable results (see Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:supp_nanoparticle_2017_uncertainty}), while finding less L1$_0$
symmetry and more fcc since a larger amount of structure is averaged.
Due to L1$_0$ showing special magnetic properties, we are interested in having a larger pool of candidate regions, which is why we choose a box size of $12\,\text{\AA}$ (corresponding
to the smallest value such that the average number of atoms in each box is greater than 100).
\textbf{Atomic electron tomography.}\
ARISE's predictions are reliable since all the symmetries that typically occur in FePt nanoparticles are included in the training set \textendash\ except
the disordered phase for which it has been demonstrated in the analysis of the Ni-based superalloy model system that ARISE is sensitive to chemical ordering.
Moreover, a supplementing study reveals that ARISE can analyze structural transformations, in particular similar to the ones taking place in nanoparticles
(cf. \nameref{section:supp_note_2} and Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:Bain_path_resuts},
where the so-called Bain path is investigated).
Due to diffusion, the shape of the three nanoparticles (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:AET}c) and thus the number of atoms is changing.
Rough alignment of the nanoparticles was checked using point set registration:
Specifically, we employed the coherent point drift algorithm\cite{myronenko2010point} as implemented in the python package pycpd (\url{https://github.com/siavashk/pycpd}). We extracted only the core of the nanoparticle, which is reported to remain similar during the annealing procedure\cite{zhou2020atomic}.
After applying the algorithm, the remaining mismatch is negligible (3-10$^\circ$ for all three Euler angles).
\subsection*{Data availability}
The training and test data, trained neural-network model, as well as all relevant geometry files and datasets that are
generated in this study
have been deposited at Zenodo under accession code \url{https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5526927}.
The geometry file of the so-called Pearl structure analyzed in Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}k-m is
available in Edmond (the Open Access Data Repository of the Max Planck Society) under accession code \url{https://edmond.mpdl.mpg.de/imeji/collection/zV4i2cu2bIAI8B}.
The experimental HAADF image datasets
and trained neural-network models that are employed in this study for reconstructing atomic positions are available under accession codes \url{https://github.com/pycroscopy/AICrystallographer/tree/master/AtomNet}
and \url{https://github.com/pycroscopy/AICrystallographer/tree/master/DefectNet}.
The HRTEM data used in this study (Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}h)
has been adapted (see Methods) from the original publication\cite{li2016review}, where it is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The AET data used in this study is available in the Materials Data Bank (MDB) under accession code \url{https://www.materialsdatabank.org/}.
\subsection*{Code availability}
A Python code library ai4materials containing all the code used in this work is available at \url{https://github.com/angeloziletti/ai4materials}. In more detail, ai4materials provides tools to perform complex analysis of materials science data using machine learning techniques.
Furthermore, functions for pre-processing, saving, and loading of materials science data are provided, with the goal to ease traceability, reproducibility, and prototyping of new models.
An online tutorial to reproduce the main results presented in this work can be found in the NOMAD Analytics-Toolkit at \url{https://analytics-toolkit.nomad-coe.eu/tutorial-ARISE}.
\section{Robust recognition and exploratory analysis of crystal structures via Bayesian deep learning - Supplementary Information}
\section{Supplementary Methods}
\textbf{Isotropic scaling.} To reduce the dependency on lattice parameters, we isotropically scale each prototype according to its nearest neighbor distance $d_{\text{NN}}$.
This way, one degree
of freedom is eliminated, implying that all cubic systems
are equivalent and thus are correctly classified by construction.
To compute $d_{\text{NN}}$, we calculate
in a first step the histogram of all nearest neighbor distances.
Since the area of spherical shells grows with the squared radius, we divide the histogram by the squared radial distance.
Then, we use the center of the maximally populated bin as the nearest neighbor distance $d_{\text{NN}}$.
Dividing the atomic position by $d_{\text{NN}}$ yields the final isotropically scaled structure, which is used for calculating the SOAP descriptor.
Alternatively, one may use the mean of the nearest neighbors as $d_{\text{NN}}$, which, however, is more prone to defects.
In case of multiple chemical species, we consider all possible substructures as formed by the constituting species to calculate the SOAP descriptor (see next paragraph). For each of the substructures, we
compute $d_{\text{NN}}$, while we determine the histogram of neighbor distances only from distances between atoms whose chemical species coincide with those of the substructure.
For instance, given the substructure ($\alpha$, $\beta$), i.e., the atomic arrangement of atoms with species $\beta$ as seen from the perspective of atoms with species $\alpha$, we consider only $\alpha$-atoms and
determine all distances to $\beta$-atoms.
\textbf{SOAP descriptor.} As discussed in the main text, encoding of physical requirements we know to be true is crucial for machine-learning application.
For instance, in crystal classification,
two atomic structures that differ only by a rotation must have the same classification label.
This is not guaranteed if real space atomic coordinates
are used as descriptor (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:single_and_polyc_class_steps}a).
As an attempt to fix this, one might include a discrete subset of orientations in the training set, hoping that the model will generalize to unseen rotations. However, there is no theoretically guarantee that the model will learn the rotational symmetry, and if it does not, it will fail to generalize and return different predictions for symmetrically equivalent structures.
In contrast, when a rotationally invariant descriptor is employed, only one crystal orientation needs to be included in the training set and the model will generalize to all rotations by construction.
This reasoning readily applies to other physics requirements such as translational, or permutation invariance (for atoms with same chemical species).
In the following, we provide details on adapting the standard SOAP descriptor such that its number of components is independent on the number of atoms and chemical species.
Starting with the simple case of one chemical species, we consider a local atomic environment $\mathscr{X}$, being defined by a cutoff region (with radius $R_\text{C}$) around a central atom, located at the origin of the reference frame.
Each atom within this area is represented by a Gaussian function centered at the atomic position $\mathbf{r}_i$ and with width $\sigma$.
Then, the local atomic density function of $\mathscr{X}$ can be written as\cite{bartok2013representing}
\begin{equation}
\rho_\mathscr{X}(\mathbf{r})=\sum_{i\in \mathscr{X}} \exp{\left(-\frac{(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}_i)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)} =\sum_{blm}c_{blm}u_b(r) Y_{lm}(\hat{\mathbf{r}}), \label{equation:local_atomic_density}
\end{equation}
where in the second step, an expansion in terms of spherical harmonics $Y_{lm}(\hat{\mathbf{r}})$ and a set of radial basis functions $\{ u_b(r)\}$ is performed.
One can show that the rotationally invariant power spectrum is given by\cite{bartok2013representing}
\begin{equation}
p(\mathscr{X})_{b_1b_2l}=\pi\sqrt{\frac{8}{2l+1}}\sum_{m}(c_{b_1 lm})^{\dagger} c_{b_2 lm}. \label{equation:SOAP_power_spectrum}
\end{equation}
These coefficients can be arranged in a normalized (SOAP) vector $\hat{\mathbf{p}}\ (\mathscr{X})$, describing the local atomic environment $\mathscr{X}$.
In total, we obtain as many SOAP vectors as atoms in the structure,
which one can average to obtain a materials descriptor independent of the number atoms $N_{\text{at}}$.
Another possibility (the standard setting in the software we use) is to average the coefficients $c_{blm}$ first and then compute Eq. \ref{equation:SOAP_power_spectrum} from this\cite{mavracic2018similarity}.
The cutoff radius $R_\text{C}$ and $\sigma$ (cf. Eq. \ref{equation:local_atomic_density})
are hyperparameters, i.e., supervised learning cannot be used directly to assign values to these parameters, while their specific choice will affect the results. Typically, one would employ cross-validation while here, we take a different route: First, we
assess the similarity between SOAP descriptors using the cosine similarity to
identify parameter ranges that provide sufficient contrast between the prototypes. Using this experimental approach, we find that values near $\sigma = 0.1 \cdot d_{\text{NN}}$
and $R_{\text{C}} = 4.0 \cdot d_{\text{NN}}$ yield good results. Then we augment our dataset with SOAP descriptors calculated for different
parameter settings.
The extension to several chemical species is achieved by considering all possible substructures as formed by the constituting atoms:
Considering NaCl, we first inspect the lattice of Cl atoms as seen by the Na atoms,
which we denote by $(\text{Na}, \text{Cl})$;
this means that Na atoms are considered as central atoms in the
construction of the local atomic environment while only Cl atoms are considered as neighbors.
A similar construction is made for the remaining substructures $(\text{Na}, \text{Na})$, $(\text{Cl}, \text{Na})$, and $(\text{Cl}, \text{Cl})$, which may be
quite similar depending on the atomic structure.
For each substructure, we compute the SOAP vectors via Eq. \ref{equation:SOAP_power_spectrum}, obtaining a collection of SOAP vectors. Averaging these gives us four (in case of NaCl) averaged SOAP vectors.
Averaging the latter again, yields a materials representation being independent on the number of atoms and chemical species.
Formally, given a structure with $S$ species $\alpha_1, ..., \alpha_S$, we consider all substructures formed by pairs of species $(\alpha_i, \alpha_j), j=1,...,S$, resulting in $S^2$ averaged SOAP
vectors $<\hat{\mathbf{p}}_{\alpha_i\alpha_j}>_{N_{\text{at},\alpha_i}}$, where the bracket represents the average over number of atoms $N_{\text{at}}$ of species $\alpha_i$.
These vectors are averaged over, yielding the final
vectorial descriptor $<<\hat{\mathbf{p}}_{\alpha_i\alpha_j}>>_{\alpha_i\alpha_j}$.
Note that this construction of SOAP deviates from the previously reported way of treating multiple chemical species in the following way:
Usually, for each atom, one constructs
the following power spectra\cite{de2016comparing}
\begin{equation}
p(\mathscr{X})_{b_1b_2l}^{\alpha\beta}=\pi\sqrt{\frac{8}{2l+1}}\sum_{m}(c_{b_1 lm}^{\alpha})^{\dagger} c_{b_2 lm}^\beta, \label{equation:partial_power_spectra}
\end{equation}
where the coefficients originate from basis set expansion as in Eq. \ref{equation:SOAP_power_spectrum}, while the density $\rho$ is constructed separately for each species. For a specific
$\alpha$ and $\beta$, the coefficients of Eq. \ref{equation:partial_power_spectra} can be collected into
vectors $\mathbf{p}_{\alpha\beta}$. In case of $\alpha\neq\beta$, cross-correlations, i.e., products of coefficients from different densities are used to construct the vectors $\mathbf{p}_{\alpha\beta}$, which
are missing in our version.
\textbf{Bayesian deep learning.} As discussed in the main text, one can think of Bayesian neural networks as standard neural networks with distributions being placed placed over the model parameters.
This results in probabilistic outputs from which principled uncertainty estimates can be obtained.
The major drawback is that training and obtaining predictions from traditional Bayesian neural networks is generally difficult because
it requires solving computationally costly high-dimensional integrals.
For classification, expensive calculations are required to determine $p(y=c|x, \text{D}_{\text{train}})$, which is the probability that the classification is assigned to a class $c$, given input $x$ and training data $\text{D}_{\text{train}}$.
Then, for a specific input
$x$ (in our case the SOAP descriptor), the most likely class $c$, i.e., the one with largest $p(y=c|x, \text{D}_{\text{train}})$ is the predicted class.
Gal and Ghahramani\cite{gal2016dropout} showed that stochastic regularization techniques
such as
dropout\cite{hinton2012improving, srivastava2014dropout} can be used to calculate
high-quality uncertainty estimates (alongside predictions)
at low cost.
In dropout,
neurons are randomly dropped in each layer before the network is evaluated for a given input.
Usually, dropout is only used at training time
with the goal of avoiding overfitting by preventing over-specialization of individual units.
Keeping regularization also at test time allows to quantify the uncertainty.
Practically, given a new input, one collects and subsequently aggregates the predictions while using dropout at prediction time. This gives
a collection of probabilities being denoted as $p(y=c|x, \omega_t)$, which is the probability of predicting class $c$ given
the input $x$ at a specific forward-pass $t$, with model parameters $\omega_t$.
From this collections of probabilities, one can estimate the actual quantity of interest, $p(y=c|x, \text{D}_{\text{train}})$,
by a simple average\cite{gal2016dropout}:
\begin{equation}
p(y=c|x, \text{D}_{\text{train}}) \approx \frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^{T} p(y=c|x,\omega_t),
\label{equation:approximation_class_probability}
\end{equation}
where $T$ is the number of forward-passes (see Methods section ``Neural network architecture and training procedure'' for details on how we choose this parameter).
While the average can be used to infer the class label $c$, additional statistical information, which reflects the predictive uncertainty, is contained in the collected forward-passes, i.e.,
the probabilities $p(y=c|x,\omega_t)$ which effectively yield a histogram for each class and define, when varying over all possible $c$, a (discrete) probability distribution.
For instance, mutual information can be used to quantify the uncertainty from the expressions $p(y=c|x,\omega_t)$.
Specifically, for a given test point $x$, the mutual information between the predictions and the model posterior $p(\omega|\text{D}_{\text{train}})$ (which captures the most probable parameters given the training data) is defined as\cite{houlsby2011bayesian, gal2016dropout}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{I} \left[y, \omega \vert x, \text{D}_{\text{train}}\right] \approx \\
& - \sum_{c} \left( \dfrac{1}{T} \sum_{t} p \left(y=c \vert x, \boldsymbol{\omega}_t \right) \right)\log \left( \dfrac{1}{T} \sum_{t} p \left(y=c \vert x, \boldsymbol{\omega}_t \right) \right) \\
& + \frac{1}{T} \sum_{c}\sum_{t} p \left(y=c \vert x, \boldsymbol{\omega}_t \right) \log p \left(y=c \vert x, \boldsymbol{\omega}_t \right).
\label{equation:mutual_information}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Hyperparameter optimization.} The Tree-structured Parzen estimator (TPE) algorithm\cite{bergstra2011algorithms, 10.5555/3042817.3042832} is an example of a Bayesian optimization technique.
Specifically, one has to define a search space which can comprise a variety of parameters such as the learning rate
or model size specifics such as the number of layers or neurons. Then, the goal is to minimize a performance metric (in our case, we maximize the accuracy by minimizing its negative).
For large search spaces, iterating through each possible combination, i.e., performing a grid search, will get expensive very quickly. Random search is one alternative, while
Bayesian methods such as TPE can be more efficient.
Approaches such as grid or random search assign uniform probability to each hyperparameter choice, which implies that a long time is spent at settings with low reward.
This becomes particularly troublesome if the performance metric is expensive to calculate.
In Bayesian methods such as TPE, the objective is replaced by a computationally cheaper surrogate model (for instance, Gaussian process or random forest regressor). New hyperparameters
are selected iteratively in a Bayesian fashion. Specifically, the selection
is based on an evaluation function (typically so-called expected improvement) taking into account the history of hyperparameter selections and thus avoiding corners of the search space with low reward.
The search space is chosen the following way (alongside the chosen hyperopt commands hp.choice or hp.uniform):
\begin{itemize}
\item Number of layers (2, 3, 4, 5), hp.choice
\item Number of neurons in each layer (256 or 512), hp.choice
\item Batch size, (64 or 128), hp.choice
\item Learning rate, range (0.01,0.0001), hp.uniform
\item Dropout rate, range (0.01, 0.05), hp.uniform
\end{itemize}
\section{Supplementary Notes}
\subsection{Supplementary Note 1 \label{section:supp_note_1}}
In the following, we provide details on the benchmarking.
For spglib, we only include prototypes from AFLOW.
The reason for excluding structures from the computational materials repository (CMR) is that we do not always have the correct or meaningful labels for all structures. For instance, some 2D materials
are specified as P1 in the database,
which cannot be used as a correct label.
Furthermore, for quaternary chalcogenides, the expected symmetries (as specified in the corresponding reference\cite{pandey2018promising}) cannot be reconstructed, which is most likely due to local optimization effects.
Similar observations were made for the ternary Perovskites.
More careful choice of precision parameters or additional local optimization may help.
Thus, to enable a fair comparison, the benchmarking in the main text only reports results on elemental and binary compounds from AFLOW (where we know the true labels), while the performance on both AFLOW and CMR data is shown in Supplementary Tables
\ref{table:accuracy-comparison-single-crystal-with-stars}, \ref{table:suppl_high_defects}, and \ref{table:suppl_vac_and_displ}.
To avoid the impression that spglib is not applicable to ternary, quaternary, and 2D materials, we still provide the label ``96/108'' behind spglib methods in the benchmarking tables.
Note that non-periodic structures are excluded for benchmarking (again only in the main table), in particular carbon nanotubes, since these systems cannot be treated by spglib.
For the other benchmarking methods, which are common neighbor analysis (CNA, a-CNA), bond angle analysis (BAA), and polyhedral template matching (PTM),
we use implementations provided in OVITO\cite{stukowski2009visualization}, where for BAA we apply the Ackland jones method.
As for spglib, only periodic structures were included.
BAA, CNA, a-CNA all include fcc, bcc, and hcp structures, while PTM contains in addition sc, diamond, hexagonal diamond, graphene, graphitic boron nitride, L10, L12, zinc blende, and wurtzite.
Each of the frameworks provide one label for each atom, i.e., for a structure with $N$ atoms we obtain $N$ labels.
To obtain an accuracy score, we compare these $N$ predictions to $N$ true labels, which correspond to the space group associated with the prototype label (e.g., 194 for hcp).
For CNA, we select the standard cutoff (depending on its value one is able to detect bcc but not hcp and vice versa).
Also for BAA (Ackland jones) and a-CNA standard settings are used. For PTM, an RMSD cutoff of 0.1 was used (again default in OVITO).
Note that PTM can also distinguish different sites of the L12 structure. For simplicity, we did not label the L12 structure by
sites and take this classification into account, but always assign a true label as soon as an atom was assigned to the L12 class (even if it might
be not the correct site).
Furthermore, for ARISE periodic and non-periodic structures are included, while for the benchmarking methods only periodic structures are considered.
While for spglib, translational symmetry is violated by construction, the other methods can in principle be applied to these systems.
However, when calculating the accuracy for a given non-periodic structure, we have to choose a label for the boundary atoms.
If we select the same label for these atoms as for the central ones (which have a sufficiently larger number of neighbors), these methods will usually predict the class ``None'' and
interpreting this as a ``misclassification'' would decrease the total classification accuracy. Therefore, for a fair comparison, we exclude non-periodic structures.
\clearpage
\begin{table*}[]
\begin{tabular}{@{}lrrrrrrrrrrrr@{}}
\hline \hline
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{Pristine} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Random displacements ($\delta$)} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Missing atoms ($\eta$)} \\
\cmidrule(lr){4-8} \cmidrule(l){10-13} & & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{0.1\%} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{0.6\%} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1\%} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{2\%} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{4\%} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{1\%} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{5\%} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{10\%} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{20\%}\\
\cmidrule(r){1-8} \cmidrule(l){9-13}
Spglib (loose) & 100.00&& 100.00 & 100.00 & 95.26 & 0.20 & 0.00 && 11.23 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
Spglib* (loose) & 67.71 && 67.71 & 67.71 & 65.83 & 14.51 & 0.00 && 15.73 & 0.03 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
Spglib (tight) & 100.00 && 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 && 11.23 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
Spglib* (tight) & 83.33 && 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 && 17.53 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
PTM & 100.00 && 100.00 & 100.00 & 100.00 & 100.00 & 100.00 && 88.67 & 51.76 & 25.93 & 6.24 \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
PTM* & 8.78 && 11.37 & 11.37 & 11.37 & 11.37 & 11.37 && 10.08 & 5.90 & 2.96 & 0.71 \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
CNA & 66.14 && 62.81 & 62.81 & 54.55 & 32.34 & 31.41 && 55.86 & 32.50 & 15.75 & 3.07 \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
CNA* & 1.44 && 1.62 & 1.62 & 1.40 & 0.83 & 0.81 && 1.44 & 0.84 & 0.41 & 0.08 \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
a-CNA & 100.0 && 100.0 & 100.0 & 100.0 & 100.0 & 100.0 && 89.25 & 52.81 & 25.92 & 5.37 \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
a-CNA* & 2.49 && 3.08 & 3.08 & 3.08 & 3.08 & 3.08 && 2.75 & 1.64 & 0.81 & 0.17 \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
BAA & 100.0 && 100.0 & 100.0 & 100.0 & 100.0 & 97.85 && 99.71 & 88.78 & 65.21 & 25.38 \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
BAA* & 2.49 && 3.08 & 3.08 & 3.08 & 3.08 & 3.03 && 3.08 & 2.74 & 2.02 & 0.81 \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
GNB &62.63 && 56.50 & 55.94 & 55.56& 54.98 & 52.72 && 54.51 &52.94 & 52.67 & 52.09 \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
BNB &75.76 && 65.56 & 65.19 & 63.61& 61.58 & 56.58 && 65.49 &64.00 & 62.43 & 60.48 \\
& && & & & & && & & & \\
\textbf{ARISE} (this work) &100.00 && 100.00 & 100.00 & 100.00& 99.86 & 99.29 && 100.00 &100.00 & 100.00 & 99.85 \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Accuracy in identifying the parent class of defective crystal structures.
Two lines are shown for each of the methods used for benchmarking (spglib, PTM, CNA, a-CNA, BAA): In rows without stars, the accuracy is calculated only for structures for which the respective method was designed for;
for instance, spglib can be applied to every structure of Fig. \ref{fig:single_and_polyc_class_steps}e except the 12 nanotubes (note that we only include prototypes from AFLOW for spglib, cf. Supplementary Note 1).
This is also true for the other methods, while additional structures have to be removed for instance for
CNA, a-CNA, and BAA as they cannot classify simple cubic and diamond structures.
In starred rows, all 108 classes summarized in Fig. \ref{fig:single_and_polyc_class_steps}e are included, leading to the strong decrease in performance.
In contrast, the neural network approach proposed here can be applied to all classes,
and thus the whole dataset was used.
Moreover, we compare ARISE to a standard Bayesian approach: Naive Bayes (NB). We consider two different variants of NB: Bernoulli NB (BNB) and Gaussian NB (GNB), where the whole dataset was used \textendash\ see the Methods section
for more details. ARISE is
overwhelmingly more accurate
than both NB methods, for both pristine and defective structures.
}
\label{table:accuracy-comparison-single-crystal-with-stars}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}lrrrrrrrrrrrr@{}}
\hline \hline
& \multicolumn{1}{l}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Random displacements ($\delta$)} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Missing atoms ($\eta$)} \\
\cmidrule(lr){3-4} \cmidrule(l){5-7} & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{7\%} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{10\%} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{25\%} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{30\%} \\
\cmidrule(r){1-4} \cmidrule(l){5-7}
Spglib (loose) && 0.00 & 0.00 && 0.00 & 0.00 \\
&& & && & \\
Spglib* (loose) && 0.00 & 0.00 && 0.00 & 0.00 \\
&& & && & \\
Spglib (tight) && 0.00 & 0.00 && 0.00 & 0.00 \\
&& & && & \\
Spglib* (tight) && 0.00 & 0.00 && 0.00 & 0.00 \\
&& & && & \\
PTM && 100.00 & 94.34 && 3.33 & 1.72 \\
&& & && & \\
PTM* && 11.37 & 10.71 && 0.38 & 0.19 \\
&& & && & \\
CNA && 31.41 & 24.20 && 1.38 & 0.55 \\
&& & && & \\
CNA* && 0.81 & 0.62 && 0.04 & 0.01 \\
&& & && & \\
a-CNA && 99.99 & 94.55 && 2.60 & 1.03 \\
&& & && & \\
a-CNA* && 3.08 & 2.90 && 0.08 & 0.03 \\
&& & && & \\
BAA && 87.79 & 69.68 && 14.25 & 7.35 \\
&& & && & \\
BAA* && 2.77 & 2.22 && 0.49 & 0.30 \\
&& & && & \\
GNB && 50.73 & 48.62 && 51.33 &50.32 \\
&& & && & \\
BNB && 48.81 & 43.28 && 59.78 &58.18 \\
&& & && & \\
\textbf{ARISE} (this work) && 97.82 & 94.56 && 99.86 &99.76 \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Accuracy in identifying the parent class of defective crystal structures for high displacements (percentage $\delta$) and missing atoms (percentage $\eta$). }
\label{table:suppl_high_defects}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[]
\begin{tabular}{@{}lrrrrrrrrrrrr@{}}
\hline \hline
& \multicolumn{1}{l}{} && \multicolumn{8}{c}{Missing atoms and displacements ($\eta$, $\delta$)} \\
\cmidrule(lr){3-9} \cmidrule(l){9-12} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(1\%, 0.1\%)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(5\%, 0.6\%)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(10\%, 1\%)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(15\%,2\%)} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{(20\%,4\%)}
& \multicolumn{1}{l}{(25\%,7\%)} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{(30\%,10\%)} \\
\cmidrule(r){1-8}
Spglib (loose) & 11.32 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
& & & & & & & \\
Spglib* (loose) & 15.76 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
& & & & & & & \\
Spglib (tight) & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
& & & & & & & \\
Spglib* (tight) & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
& & & & & & & \\
PTM & 88.68 & 51.78 & 25.60 & 12.75 & 6.41 & 3.19 & 1.46 \\
& & & & & & & \\
PTM* & 10.08 & 5.90 & 2.92 & 1.45 & 0.73 & 0.36 & 0.16 \\
& & & & & & & \\
CNA & 55.77 & 31.95 & 13.83 & 4.41 & 2.03 & 0.79 & 0.19 \\
& & & & & & & \\
CNA* & 1.44 & 0.82 & 0.36 & 0.11 & 0.05 & 0.02 & 0.00 \\
& & & & & & & \\
a-CNA & 89.21 & 52.36 & 26.01 & 12.13 & 6.07 & 2.40 & 0.97 \\
& & & & & & & \\
a-CNA* & 2.75 & 1.62 & 0.81 & 0.38 & 0.19 & 0.08 & 0.03 \\
& & & & & & & \\
BAA & 99.72 & 88.98 & 65.17 & 42.62 & 25.95 & 15.58 & 6.63 \\
& & & & & & & \\
BAA* & 3.07 & 2.75 & 2.02 & 1.34 & 0.82 & 0.50 & 0.22 \\
& & & & & & & \\
GNB & 54.92 & 52.86 & 52.11 & 50.70 & 49.92 & 47.94 & 42.65 \\
& & & & & & & \\
BNB & 64.44 & 61.79 & 58.86 & 56.26 & 52.31 & 45.03 & 40.14 \\
& & & & & & & \\
\textbf{ARISE} (this work) & 100.00 & 100.00 & 100.00 & 99.88 & 99.29 & 97.31 & 92.50 \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Accuracy in identifying the parent class of defective crystal structures, with both missing atoms (percentage $\eta$) and displacements (percentage $\delta$) introduced at the same time.
The results show that ARISE is also robust for highly defective structures where displacements and missing atoms are present at the same time.
}
\label{table:suppl_vac_and_displ}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{bain_path_results_other_format.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Application of ARISE for the characterization of the Bain path. \textbf{a} Structures occurring in the Bain path, obtained by varying c/a; increasing c/a from 1.0 (bcc) leads to transitions to tetragonal phases and finally to the fcc structure (c/a=$\sqrt{2}$) .
\textbf{b} Classification (argmax predictions, left) and uncertainty (mutual information, right) for geometries in the range $c,a \in [3.0\,\text{\AA}, 6.0 \text{\AA}]$.
Geometries included in the training set are marked by stars
in \textbf{b,c}. As we isotropically scale the structures,
geometries with constant c/a are equivalent, which is indicated by solid lines.}
\label{fig:Bain_path_resuts}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Supplementary Note 2 \label{section:supp_note_2}}
The Bain transformation path
describes a structural transitions between bcc and fcc symmetries via intermediate tetragonal phases\cite{bain1924nature} of body-centered \textendash\ or equivalently \textendash\ face-centered
tetragonal symmetry.
Originally investigated for iron\cite{bain1924nature}, the Bain path is relevant in thermo-mechanical
processing \textendash\ a central aspect for steel properties\cite{zhao1995continuous} \textendash\ as it serves as a model for temperature-induced transitions between fcc $(\gamma)$ and bcc ($\alpha$) iron\cite{grimvall2012lattice}.
The Bain path is also crucial for understanding properties of epitaxial films\cite{scheffler_bain_path, 2nd_most_prominent_bain_path_paper} or metal nanowires\cite{bain_path_dft_metal_nanowires}.
Practically, the structures constituting a Bain path can be obtained by varying the ratio $c/a$ between lattice parameters $a$
and $c$ of a tetragonal structure (cf. Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:Bain_path_resuts}a); $c/a=1$ corresponds to a cubic structure.
We generate tetragonal geometries for lattice parameters $a,c$ taking values in $[3.0\,\text{\AA}, 6.0\,\text{\AA}]$ with steps of 0.05\,\AA, resulting in 3721 crystal structures. These structures are then classified with ARISE,
and the results depicted via
classification and uncertainty maps in Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:Bain_path_resuts}b and c, respectively. Each point in these maps corresponds to a prediction for a specific geometry.
We include in the training set fcc, bcc, and tetragonal geometries with structural parameters known experimentally; they are shown as stars in Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:Bain_path_resuts}b.
Specifically, the lattice parameters $(a, c, c/a)$ are
$(3.155\text{\AA}, 3.155\text{\AA}, 1.0)$ for the bcc\cite{davey1925lattice} and $(3.615 \text{\AA}, 5.112 \text{\AA}, \sqrt{2})$ for the fcc prototype\cite{straumanis1969lattice}, while two tetragonal structures (being assigned one common label ``tetragonal'')
are included with
$(3.253 \text{\AA}, 4.946, \text{\AA}, 1.521$)
in case of In\cite{deshpande1969anisotropic} and $(3.932 \text{\AA}, 3.238 \text{\AA}, 0.824)$ for $\alpha-\text{Pa}$\cite{zachariasen1959crystal}.
We isotropically scale every geometry to remove one degree of freedom (see Supplementary Methods section), so that all possible cubic lattices are effectively equivalent; this allows the model to generalize by construction to all cubic lattices regardless of the lattice parameter. The same holds for tetragonal structures (i.e., two degrees of freedom) with constant $c/a$ ratio.
As visual aid, we mark lines
of constant c/a in Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:Bain_path_resuts}b-c starting from the four structures included in the training set.
Note that any path connecting the constant c/a ratios corresponding to fcc and bcc structures constitutes a \text{Bain path}.
To obtain a classification label, we select the class with the higher classification
probability through a so-called argmax operation (i.e., the label $c$ maximizing Eq. \ref{equation:approximation_class_probability}). These predictions are shown in Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:Bain_path_resuts}.
The model is able
to detect the bcc and fcc phases in the expected areas, while all prototypes not being fcc, bcc, or tetragonal are correctly labeled as ``Other''. We point out that only four structures \textendash\ corresponding to points in the plot marked by the four stars \textendash\ are included
in the training set, while all other 3717
structures are model (test) predictions.
We can also observe that the model correctly predict the presence of a a tetragonal phase between fcc (yellow band) and bcc (green band), even though no tetragonal structures from this region are included in the training set. This transition is smooth, only interrupted by small areas for which other, low-symmetry prototypes are assigned, but with high uncertainty, as quantified by the mutual information, cf. Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:Bain_path_resuts} c.
We provide the classification probabilities of all assigned prototypes in Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:suppl_bain_path}.
In general, increased uncertainty appears at transitions between the assignments of different prototypes.
We also note that there is a smooth transition for classification probabilities at the transition between prototypes (cf. Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:suppl_bain_path}).
These results represent a first indication that the network has learned physically meaningful representations.
Surprisingly, for large or small $c/a$ ratios, i.e., points far outside the training set, other (low-symmetry) phases appear such as base-centered orthorhombic molecular iodine or face-centered orthorhombic $\gamma-$Pu
with small uncertainty.
While it may be desirable to avoid overconfident predictions far away from the training set,
the assignments could be actually physically justified given the
similarities between tetragonal and orthorhombic lattices, the most evident being that all angles in both crystal systems are $90^\circ$.
We note that the transition to these prototypes is encompassed by regions of high uncertainty also in this case in agreement with physical intuition.
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{assigning_most_sim_proto.pdf}
\caption{
Three examples for assigning the most similar prototype(s) (right panel) to structures for which the corresponding structural class is not contained in the training set of ARISE (left panel).
For each prediction, space group
and classification probabilities of the top predictions are specified together with an uncertainty estimate (mutual information).
The space groups are returned via spglib, where we choose the highest symmetry that is found for all combinations of precision parameters $(0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001) [\text{\AA}]$ and angle tolerances $(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)[ ^\circ]$.
}
\label{fig:assign_most_sim_proto}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Supplementary Note 3 \label{section:supp_note_3}}
In the following, we investigate scenarios in which the model is forced to fail, i.e., we analyze ARISE out-of-sample predictions.
To assess the physical content learned by the network,
we investigate its predictions \textendash\ and thus its generalization ability \textendash\ on structures corresponding to prototypes not included in the training.
This is of particular relevance if one wants to use predictions of ARISE \textendash\ for applications such as screening of large databases, or create low-dimensional maps for a vast collection of materials\cite{isayev2015materials}.
Given an unknown structure, the network needs to decide \textendash\ among the classes it has been trained on \textendash\ which one is the most suitable. It will assign the most similar prototypes and quantify the similarity via classification probabilities, providing a ranking of candidate prototypes.
The uncertainty in the assignment, as quantified by mutual information, measures the reliability of the prediction.
Note that the task of assigning the most similar prototype(s) to a given structure among 108 possible classes (and quantifying the similarity) is a very complicated task even for trained materials scientists, in particular in case of complex periodic and possibly defective three-dimensional structures.
We consider three examples (cf. Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:assign_most_sim_proto} left):
fluorite and tungsten Carbide (from AFLOW) where the correct labels are known, and one structure from the NOMAD encyclopedia (see last paragraph of this section for details on the provenance),
for which the assigned space group is 1, i.e., no symmetry can be identified (via spglib).
In all three cases there is no prototype in the dataset which represent a match for any of these structures.
This is on purpose: the network will ``fail'' by construction since the correct class is not included in the possible classes the network knows (and needs to choose from). Analyzing how the network fails
will give us insight on the physical content of the learned model.
This test can also be viewed as discovering ``unexpected similarities'' across materials of different chemical composition and dimensionality.
Following the pipeline for single-crystal classification
summarized in Fig. \ref{fig:single_and_polyc_class_steps}, we compute classification probabilities and mutual information, yielding the assignments shown in Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:assign_most_sim_proto} right.
To rationalize the predictions shown in Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:assign_most_sim_proto} from a physical standpoint, we inspect the substructures formed by the chemical species in both original and assigned structures.
This is motivated by our choice of materials representation as averaged SOAP descriptor of substructures (see Supplementary Methods for more details).
The two most similar prototypes to fluorite (Ca$\text{F}_2$) are CsCl and NaCl, both consisting of two inter-penetrating lattices of the same type, two sc lattices for CsCl and two fcc lattices for NaCl.
Fluorite contains both sc (F atoms) and fcc (Ca atoms) which is likely why CsCl and NaCl are assigned, together with a ternary halide tetragonal perovskite, also containing sc symmetry (via Cs and Sn atoms, respectively).
For tungsten carbide (WC), W and C form two hexagonal lattices.
In the unit cell of the most similar prototype, FeSi, 60$^\circ$ angles are formed within the substructures of each species (see dashed lines in the unit cell), thus justifying this classification.
Furthermore, two quaternary chalcogenides appear as further candidates.
This similarity \textendash\ hard to assess by eye \textendash\ originates by the presence of angles close to 60$^\circ$ for $S$ atoms (yellow) for both $\text{Cu}_2\text{CdGeS}_4$ and $\text{Cu}_2\text{ZnSiS}_4$ (marked in the figure for $\text{Cu}_2\text{CdGeS}_4$).
Also note that these two quaternary prototypes, $\text{Cu}_2\text{ZnSiS}_4$ and $\text{Cu}_2\text{CdGeS}_4$ are a result of substituting Ge and Si with isoelectric elements Zn and Cd, which implies that these structures are expected to be similar.
This explains why they both appear as candidates for structures being similar to tungsten carbide.
Finally, for the compound $\text{Tm}_{\text{23}}\text{Se}_{\text{32}}$ from the NOMAD encyclopedia, the model identifies NaCl as the most similar prototype.
Looking at the structure from different angles, especially from the top (cf. Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:assign_most_sim_proto}, left part), a similarity to cubic systems
can be identified.
The classification method robustness to missing atoms makes the apparent gaps in the side-view negligible, and thus rationalizes the NaCl assignment.
Regarding the uncertainty quantification (via mutual information), increased uncertainties appear for fluorite and tungsten carbide, since besides the top prediction with more than $70\%$ classification
probability, other prototypes are possible candidates for the most similar prototype.
For the NOMAD structure $\text{Tm}_{\text{23}}\text{Se}_{\text{32}}$, the
network is quite confident, most likely because no other good candidates are presented among the binaries included in the 108 classes dataset.
These results show that the model \textendash\ even when forced to fail by construction \textendash\ returns (highly non-trivial) physically meaningful predictions.
This makes ARISE particularly attractive for screening large and structurally diverse databases, in particular assessing structures for which no symmetry label can be obtained with any of the current state-of-the-art methods.
In addition to the analysis in Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:assign_most_sim_proto}, we present some results for further out-of-sample structures:
\begin{itemize}
\item Boron nitride (bulk, graphitic, \url{http://aflowlib.org/CrystalDatabase/AB_hP4_194_c_d.html}) classified as hexagonal graphite (probability 63.32\%), mut.inf. 0.7278
\item Cementite (\url{http://aflowlib.org/CrystalDatabase/AB3_oP16_62_c_cd.html}) classified as MnP with probability 49.14\%, mut.inf. 0.7176
\item $\text{CuTi}_3$ (L60 Srukturbericht, \url{http://aflowlib.org/CrystalDatabase/AB3_tP4_123_a_ce.html}) classified as bct $\alpha$-Pa with probability 78.41\%, mut.inf. 0.8539
\item Benzene (\url{http://aflowlib.org/CrystalDatabase/AB_oP48_61_3c_3c.html}) classified as nanotube (chiral indices (n,m)=(5,2)) with probability 68.48\%, mut.inf. 0.6249
\item Rutile (\url{http://aflowlib.org/CrystalDatabase/A2B_tP6_136_f_a.html}) classified as orthorhombic halide perovskite with probability 44.62\%, mut.inf. 0.8733
\item NbO (\url{http://aflowlib.org/CrystalDatabase/AB_cP6_221_c_d.html}), which is NaCl with 25\% ordered vacancies on both the Na and Cl sites, classified as NaCl with probability 99.96\%, mut.inf. 0.0027
\item Moissanite 4H SiC (\url{http://aflowlib.org/CrystalDatabase/AB_hP8_186_ab_ab.html}) classified as wurtzite with probability 99.74\%, mut.inf. 0.0166
\item $\text{K}_2\text{PtCl}_6$ (\url{http://aflowlib.org/CrystalDatabase/A6B2C_cF36_225_e_c_a.html}) classified as NaCl with probability 61.4\%, mut.inf. 0.5402
\end{itemize}
The structure taken from the NOMAD encyclopedia
has the ID mp-684691 in Materials project, where further details can be found, e.g., on
on
the experimental origin.
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{bain_path_supplementary.pdf}
\caption{Bain path - all prototypes with increased classification probability: \textbf{a} Mutual information plot showing the spots of high and low uncertainty for different geometries.
\textbf{b} Classification probability maps corresponding to bcc, fcc and two tetragonal phases.
\textbf{c} Representative selection of other prototypes showing non-zero classification probabilities. }
\label{fig:suppl_bain_path}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{four_grains_defective_supplementary.pdf}
\caption{Investigation of distorted synthetic polycrystals. \textbf{a} Analysis on defective version of mono-species polycrystal shown in Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}a. \textbf{b} Analysis on defective version
of superalloy structure shown in Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}h. \label{fig:supp_four_grains_defective}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{supercells_cosine_sim_to_pbc_True.pdf}
\caption{Cosine similarity plots for elemental, binary, ternary, and quaternary compounds as well as 2D materials (for SOAP settings $R_\text{C} = 4.0 \cdot d_{\text{NN}}, \sigma = 0.1 \cdot d_{\text{NN}}, $
and $\text{exsf} = 1.0$ corresponding to the center of the parameter range used in the training set). Each line corresponds to a particular prototype.
The x-axis corresponds to three different (non-periodic) supercells, where supercell ``0'' stands for
the smallest isotropic supercell (for instance $4\times4\times4$ repetitions) for which at least 100 atoms are obtained. Supercells ``1'' and ``2'' correspond to the next two bigger isotropic replicas (e.g., $5\times5\times5$ and
$6\times6\times6$). The y-axis corresponds to the cosine similarity of the respective supercell to the periodic structure, i.e., the case of infinite replicas.
One can see a continuous increase of similarity with larger supercell size, where for the largest supercell, the similarity is greater than 0.8 for all prototypes.
Thus, it is to be expected that systems sizes larger than those included in the training
set can be correctly classified by ARISE. For smaller systems, however, generalization ability will depend on the prototype. Practically, one can include smaller supercells in the training set, which is not
a major problem due to fast convergence time. }
\label{fig:supercells_cosine_sim_to_pbc_True}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{four_grains_umap_hdbscan_full.pdf}
\caption{Unsupervised analysis analogous to Figure \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}d-g, for all layers (before the ReLU or rather the softmax function) with a minimum distance of 0.1 and a number of neighbors of 500.}
\label{fig:four_grains_umap_hdbscan_full}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{four_grains_suppl.pdf}
\caption{Probability maps of the most important prototypes for both pristine (\textbf{a}) and defective (\textbf{b}) version of the mono-species polycrystal in Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}a.
}
\label{fig:suppl_four_grains}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{elemental_solid_polycrystal_low_resolution.pdf}
\caption{Mono-species elemental polycrystal investigation via strided pattern matching using lower resolution (stride of 3.0 \AA in both $x$ and $y$ direction opposed to 1.0 \AA\ as in Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}).
Choosing the stride is a trade-off between computation time and resolution.
For instance, at the grain boundary between diamond and hcp, the transition from diamond to hexagonal diamond to hcp (cf. Supplementary Fig. \ref{fig:suppl_four_grains})
are recognized in Fig. \ref{fig:synthetic_polycrystal}b, while being obscured in the presented low resolution pictures.
}
\label{fig:low_resolution_four_grains}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{min_dist_supplementary.pdf}
\caption{ Connection between UMAP embedding and real space.
This figure confirms the observation that ARISE's representations of different spatial regions (crystalline regions but in particular grain boundaries, here: transitions between fcc, bcc, hcp, and diamond)
are mapped to different regions in the UMAP projection.
\textbf{a}
Influence of the $\text{min}\textunderscore\text{dist}$ parameter in the UMAP projection (number of neighbors fixed to 500). In line with intuition, for larger $\text{min}\textunderscore\text{dist}$, points appear more spread.
In particular, connected subregions appear in the clusters, whose connection to real space is investigated in \textbf{b}: The connected strings of points actually correspond to
transitions within and between crystalline regions. This is demonstrated by traversing a circle around the center of the real space structure (\textbf{c}) and coloring the embedded points according to the angle.
\label{fig:supp_hdbscan_pos_gb}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{nanoparticle_2017_supplementary.pdf}
\caption{
Comparison of
crystal maps (slice through center, most important prototypes and mutual information) for AET nanoparticle data\cite{yang2017deciphering} for two different box sizes.
Dashed lines indicate the crystal boundaries in all 2D maps.
ARISE allows
to detect the appearance of the tetragonally distorted fcc prototype (In). For larger box sizes, the fcc assignment increases in the center and also the L1$_2$ classification probability
rises.
While the central slice of the L1$_0$ prototype for a box size of 16\,\AA\ shows only weak signal, a slice slightly below
reveals higher probability (see bottom, isolated slice), i.e., ARISE does not overlook this physically relevant phase.
\label{fig:supp_nanoparticle_2017_uncertainty}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{AET_annealing_supplemetary_figure.pdf}
\caption{Quantitative study of mutual information distribution for different annealing times.
\textbf{a} Histogram of mutual information values for each annealing time (where the corresponding histograms are normalized via dividing each bin by the total number of boxes).
Only mutual-information values smaller than 0.2 are shown, which correspond to the ``dark'', i.e., low mutual information spots in Fig. \ref{fig:AET}c.
\textbf{b} Cumulative distribution calculated for the histogram shown in \textbf{a}.
From \textbf{a}, \textbf{b} it is apparent that the number of low-uncertainty boxes increases for larger annealing times.
\textbf{c-d} Investigation of the radial distribution of the mutual information.
\textbf{c} Histograms of uncertainty (mutual information) obtained via spatially binning the SPM maps of \ref{fig:AET}\textbf{c} into spherical shells,
where the median is computed for each bin. Given a mutual information value, the associated radius is calculated
as the distance of the center of the corresponding box (as obtained via SPM) to the center of the most central box.
\textbf{d} Each panel shows the difference between the cumulative distributions of two annealing times, where the cumulative distributions are calculated
from the histograms shown in \textbf{b}. In addition the histograms are normalized the following way:
Given the times $t_1, t_2$ with $t_1<t_2$, the cumulative sum of $t_2-t_1$ is calculated and then divided by the cumulative sum of time $t_1$
such that the fractional change from $t_1$ to $t_2$ is obtained.
One can conclude that in \textbf{c} a clear decrease of mutual information can be spotted in specific regions, e.g., for
the radial region 15-20\,\AA.
The cumulative sums that are used in \textbf{d} allow to quantify the order more globally in the sense that each bin (of the cumulative sum corresponding to a specific annealing time) is proportional to the spherically averaged integral
from radius zero up to the radius corresponding to the bin.
Since the particle sizes are changing over time due to diffusion, the particles have different size.
Thus, we single out a radius at which to compare the global order: for instance comparing the bins corresponding to a radius of r=25\,\AA, we see that for all three panels,
the values are negative and thus the structure that has been annealed longer shows larger global order.
}
\label{fig:AET_annealing_supp}
\end{figure*}
\clearpage
\clearpage
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
\# & Prototype & Symmetry & Material type & Data source \\
\hline \hline
1.& bcc (W) & 229, cubic & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
2.& diamond (C) & 227, cubic & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
3.& fcc (Cu) & 225, cubic & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
4.& $\alpha$-Po & 221, (simple) cubic & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
5.& hcp (Mn) & 194, hexagonal & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
6.& $\alpha$-La (dhcp) & 194, hexagonal & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
7.& Hexagonal diamond & 194, hexagonal & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
8.& Hexagonal graphite & 194, hexagonal & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
9.& Sn & 191, (simple) hexagonal & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
10.& Buckled graphite & 186, hexagonal & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
11.& $\alpha$-As & 166, rhombohedral & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
12.& $\alpha$-Hg & 166, rhombohedral & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
13.& $\alpha$-Sm & 166, rhombohedral & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
14.& $\beta$-O & 166, rhombohedral & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
15.& $\beta$-Po & 166, rhombohedral & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
16.& $\gamma$-Se & 152, trigonal hexagonal & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
17.& Rhombohedral graphite & 166, rhombohedral & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
18.& $\alpha$-Pa & 139, (body-centered) tetragonal & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
19.& $\beta$-Sn & 141, (body-centered) tetragonal & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
20.& In & 139, (body-centered) tetragonal & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
21.& $\gamma$-N & 136, (simple) tetragonal & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
22.& $\beta$-Np & 129, (simple) tetragonal & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
23.& $\gamma$-Pu & 70, (face-centered) orthorhombic & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
24.& $\alpha$-Ga & 64, (base-centered) orthorhombic & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
25.& Black phosphorus & 64, (base-centered) orthorhombic & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
26.& Molecular iodine & 64, (base-centered) orthorhombic & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
27.& $\alpha$-U & 63, (base-centered) orthorhombic & Bulk, Elemental solid & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Complete list of prototypes (part I) included in the training set of this work. If provided by the respective resources, information on space group, crystal system or Bravais lattice is listed. \label{table:prototype_listing_part_I}}
\end{table}
\clearpage
\clearpage
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
\# & Prototype & Symmetry & Material type & Data source \\
\hline \hline
28.& NaCl & 225, cubic & Bulk, Binary compound & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
29.& CsCl & 221, cubic & Bulk, Binary compound & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
30.& L1$_2$ (Cu$_3$Au) & 221 (simple) cubic & Bulk, Binary compound & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
31.& Zinc blende (ZnS) & 216, (face-centered) cubic & Bulk, Binary compound & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
32.& FeSi & 198 (simple) cubic & Bulk, Binary compound & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
33.& NiAs & 194, hexagonal & Bulk, Binary compound & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
34.& Wurtzite (ZnS) & 186, hexagonal & Bulk, Binary compound & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
35.& L1$_0$ (CuAu) & 123, (simple) tetragonal & Bulk, Binary compound & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
36.& CrB & 63, (base-centered) orthorhombic & Bulk, Binary compound & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
37.& MnP & 62, (simple) orthorhombic & Bulk, Binary compound & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
38.& FeB & 62, (simple) orthorhombic & Bulk, Binary compound & AFLOW / NOMAD \\
39.& AgNbO$_3$ & cubic & Bulk, Ternary compound & CMR \\
40.& CsSnI$_3$ & cubic & Bulk, Ternary compound & CMR \\
41.& CsSnCl$_3$ & tetragonal & Bulk, Ternary compound & CMR \\
42.& Cs$_2$WO$_4$ & tetragonal & Bulk, Ternary compound & CMR \\
43.& Ca$_3$Ge$_2$O$_7$ & tetragonal & Bulk, Ternary compound & CMR \\
44. & CsSnCl$_3$ & orthorhombic & Bulk, Ternary compound & CMR \\
45.& Cu$_2$BaGeSe$_4$ & 144 (trigonal) & Bulk, Quaternary compound & CMR \\
46. & Cu$_2$CdSnS$_4$ & 121 (tetragonal) & Bulk, Quaternary compound & CMR \\
47.& Cu$_2$ZnSnS$_4$ & 82 (tetragonal) & Bulk, Quaternary compound & CMR \\
48.& Cu$_2$KVS$_4$ & 40 (orthorhombic) & Bulk, Quaternary compound & CMR \\
49.& Cu$_2$CdGeS$_4$ & 31 (orthorhombic) & Bulk, Quaternary compound & CMR \\
50.& Cu$_2$ZnSiS$_4$ & 7 (monoclinic) & Bulk, Quaternary compound & CMR \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Complete list of prototypes (part II) included in the training set of this work. \label{table:prototype_listing_part_II}}
\end{table}
\clearpage
\clearpage
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
\# & Prototype & Symmetry & Material type & Data source \\
\hline \hline
51. & Graphene & 191 (hexagonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
52. & Ti$_3$C$_2$ & 187 (hexagonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
53. & Ti$_3$C$_2$O$_2$ & 187 (hexagonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
54. & MoS$_2$ & 187 (hexagonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
55. & Ti$_3$C$_2$H$_2$O$_2$ & 187 (hexagonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
56. & GaS & 187 (hexagonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
57. & BN & 187 (hexagonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
58. & Ti$_2$CH$_2$O$_2$ & 164 (trigonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
59. & Ti$_2$CO$_2$ & 164 (trigonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
60. & CdI$_2$ & 164 (trigonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
61. & CH & 164 (trigonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
62. & CH$_2$Si & 156 (trigonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
63. & Ti$_4$C$_3$ & 156 (trigonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
64. & BiTeI & 156 (trigonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
65. & Ti$_4$C$_3$O$_2$ & 156 (trigonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
66. & GeSe & 156 (trigonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
67. & MoSSe & 156 (trigonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
68. & Ti$_4$C$_3$H$_2$O$_2$ & 156 (trigonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
69. & AgBr$_3$ & 150 (trigonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Complete list of prototypes (part III) included in the training set of this work. \label{table:prototype_listing_part_II}}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
\# & Prototype & Symmetry & Material type & Data source \\
\hline \hline
70. & TiCl$_3$ & 150 (trigonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
71. & BiI$_3$ & 147 (trigonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
72. & FeSe & 129 (tetragonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
73. & PbSe & 123 (tetragonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
74. & GeS$_2$ & 115 (tetragonal) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
75. & C$_3$N & 65 (orthorhombic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
76. & FeOCl & 59 (orthorhombic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
77. & P & 28 (orthorhombic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
78. & PdS$_2$ & 14 (monoclinic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
79. & MnS$_2$ & 14 (monoclinic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
80. & GaSe & 12 (monoclinic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
81. & TiS$_3$ & 11 (monoclinic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
82. & WTe$_2$ & 11 (monoclinic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
83. & HfBrS & 7 (monoclinic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
84. & RhO & 6 (monoclinic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
85. & SnS & 6 (monoclinic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
86. & NiSe & 6 (monoclinic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
87. & AuSe & 6 (monoclinic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Complete list of prototypes (part IV) included in the training set of this work. \label{table:prototype_listing_part_II}}
\end{table}
\clearpage
\clearpage
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
\# & Prototype & Symmetry & Material type & Data source \\
\hline \hline
88. & VTe$_3$ & 6 (monoclinic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
89. & ReS$_2$ & 2 (monoclinic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
90. & ScPSe$_3$ & 1 (triclinic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
91. & PbA$_2$I$_4$ & 1 (triclinic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
92. & PbS & 1 (triclinic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
93. & CrW$_3$S$_8$ & 1 (triclinic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
94. & VPSe$_3$ & 1 (triclinic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
95. & CrWS$_4$ & 1 (triclinic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
96. & MnPSe$_3$ & 1 (triclinic) & 2D Materials & CMR \\
97. & Carbon nanotube & armchair, (3,3), $30.0^\circ, 4.07\,$\AA & Nanotubes, mono-species & ASE \\
98. & Carbon nanotube & armchair, (4,4), $30.0^\circ, 5.42\,$\AA & Nanotubes, mono-species & ASE \\
99. & Carbon nanotube & chiral, (4,2), $19.11^\circ, 4.14\,$\AA & Nanotubes, mono-species & ASE \\
100. & Carbon nanotube & chiral, (4,3), $25.28^\circ, 4.76\,$\AA & Nanotubes, mono-species & ASE \\
101. & Carbon nanotube & chiral, (5,1), $8.95^\circ, 4.36\,$\AA & Nanotubes, mono-species & ASE\\
102. & Carbon nanotube & chiral, (5,2), $16.1^\circ, 4.89\,$\AA & Nanotubes, mono-species & ASE\\
103. & Carbon nanotube & chiral, (5,3), $21.79^\circ, 5.48\,$\AA & Nanotubes, mono-species & ASE\\
104. & Carbon nanotube & chiral, (6,1), $7.59^\circ, 5.13\,$\AA & Nanotubes, mono-species & ASE\\
105. & Carbon nanotube & chiral, (6,2), $13.9^\circ, 5.65\,$\AA & Nanotubes, mono-species & ASE\\
106. & Carbon nanotube & chiral, (7,1), $6.59^\circ, 5.91\,$\AA & Nanotubes, mono-species & ASE\\
107. & Carbon nanotube & zigzag, (6,0), $0.0^\circ, 4.7\,$\AA & Nanotubes, mono-species & ASE\\
108. & Carbon nanotube & zigzag, (7,0), $0.0^\circ, 5.48\,$\AA & Nanotubes, mono-species & ASE
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Complete list of prototypes (part V) included in the training set of this work. For the carbon nanotubes, the symmetry column specifies the configuration type (chiral, zigzag or armchair)
together with the corresponding chiral numbers (n,m), the chiral angle $\theta$ and the nanotube diameter.
\label{table:prototype_listing_part_III}}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{gb_database_supplementary.pdf}
\caption{Five representative examples from the grain boundary database (GBDB), which is the largest, currently available database of DFT-computed grain boundary properties\cite{zheng2020grain}.
This database can be accessed via Materials Project or \url{http://crystalium.materialsvirtuallab.org/}.
For each structure, four lines of information are provided:
The first line specifies the information that is required to uniquely describe a grain boundary structure\cite{lejvcek2010grain}, where
first the $\Sigma$-parameter
is given, followed by rotation angle, rotation axis and grain-boundary plane.
The relative orientation of two neighboring grains is described by three degrees of freedom (rotation angle and axis).
The two degrees of freedom specified via the grain-boundary plane complete the unique characterization of a grain-boundary structure.
The second line specifies the element and the entry number of the polymorph in the database (for a given element, multiple grain boundaries can be available).
The third line specifies the materials project ID and the space group. The last line specifies the grain-boundary type (twist, tilt) alongside the dominating crystal structure.
The database entries correspond to periodic cells that contain a grain boundary. We replicate this initial cell isotropically (in the plane parallel to the grain boundary) until at least 1000 atoms are contained in the structure.
For all examples, the dominating phase and grain boundary regions are correctly detected as shown via the 3D classification probability maps
of the most popular assignments according to ARISE. These selected structures illustrate the advantages of ARISE in the following way:
\textbf{a} shows that ARISE can detect dhcp symmetry in a polycrystal. In particular, the close-packing corresponding to dhcp cannot be classified in comparable automatic
fashion by any of the available methods.
For hcp (\textbf{b}) and fcc (\textbf{c}), the dhcp assignments only appear at the grain boundary. \textbf{d} and \textbf{e} are two
different grain boundary types that do not only differ in their defining degrees of freedom but also are of tilt (\textbf{d}) and twist (\textbf{e}) type.
ARISE distinguishes the local structures at the grain boundary which is indicated by its assignments: while for the twist type (\textbf{e})
hcp is the dominating assignment at the grain boundary, for the tilt type the hcp probability drops to zero at the grain boundary (except for the outer borders).
The following SPM parameters are chosen for all examples: A stride of 2\,\AA\ suffices to resolve the main characteristics. For a box size of 16\,\AA\ at least 100 atoms are contained in the boxes within the grains.
\label{fig:supp_gb_database}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{haadf_stem_full.pdf}
\caption{Cross similarity matrix for a selection of the defect library\cite{ziatdinov2019building} that is larger than in the main text (Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}d). Specifically, 140 structures as well as
the mono-species structures from Fig. \ref{fig:STEM}a (right),e are considered. For reconstruction of atomic positions, Atomnet is employed,
where for the structures from the library, atomic positions are reconstructed using a model that can also classify the chemical species. We employed
the model that is available at \url{https://github.com/pycroscopy/AICrystallographer/tree/master/DefectNet}.
\label{fig:supp_STEM_sim}}
\end{figure*}
|
\section{Introduction and statement of results}
A group $G$ is said to be a $T$-group if normality in $G$ is a
transitive relation, i.e. if all subnormal subgroups are normal.
The structure of soluble $T$-groups was well described in the
1960s by Gasch\"{u}tz, Zacher and Robinson (see \cite{RT}). Then,
taking these results as a model, several authors have studied
soluble groups in which subnormal subgroups have some embedding
property which \lq\lq approximates" normality. In particular,
Casolo \cite{C89} considered ${T}_*$-groups, that is groups in
which any subnormal subgroup $H$ has the property $nn$ (nearly
normal), i.e. the index $|H^G:H|$ is finite. Then Franciosi, de
Giovanni and Newell \cite{FdGN} considered ${T}^*$-groups, that is
groups in which any subnormal subgroup $H$ has the property $cf$
(core-finite, normal-by-finite), i.e. the index $|H:H_G|$ is
finite. Here, as usual, $H^G$ (resp. $H_G$) denotes the smallest
(resp. largest) normal subgroup of $G$ containing (resp. contained
in) $H$
Recently in \cite{DDM}, in order to put those results in a common
framework, we considered $T[*]$-groups, that is groups in which
each subnormal subgroup $H$ is $cn$, i.e. commensurable with a
normal subgroup of $G$. Recall that two subgroups $H$ and $K$ are
called commensurable if $H\cap K$ has finite index in both $H$ and
$K$, hence both $nn$ and $cf$ imply $cn$. Clearly all the above
results rely on corresponding previous results on groups in which
{\sl all} subgroups are $nn$, $cf$, $cn$ resp. (see \cite{N,BLNSW,
CDR} resp.). A similar approach was adopted in \cite{DR5} where
finitely generated groups in which subnormal subgroups are inert
have been considered, where the term {\em inert} refers to a
different generalization of both $nn$, $cf$ (namely, an inert
subgroup is a subgroup which is commensurable with each of its
conjugates).
In the last decade, several authors have studied the influence on
a soluble group of the behavior of its subgroups of {\sl infinite
rank} (see for instance \cite{DDM1, DM} or the bibliography in
\cite{DFdGMT}). Recall that a group $G$ is said to have {\em
finite rank} $r$ if every finitely generated subgroup of $G$ can
be generated by at most $r$ elements, and $r$ is the least
positive integer with such property and {\em infinite rank} is
there is no such $r$.
For example, in \cite{DGMS} it was proved that
{\em if $G$ is a periodic soluble group of infinite rank in which
every subnormal subgroup of infinite rank is normal, then $G$ is a $T$-group indeed}.
Then in \cite{DFdGMT}, authors have considered groups of infinite
rank with properties $T_+$ ($T^+$, resp.), that is groups in
which the condition of being $nn$ (resp. $cf$) is imposed only to
subnormal subgroups {\em with infinite rank}. In fact, it has been
shown that {\em a periodic soluble group of infinite rank $G$ with
property
$T_+$ ($T^+$, resp.) has the full $T_*$ ($T^*$, resp.) property, provided one of the following holds:\\
(A) the Hirsch-Plotkin radical of $G$ has infinite rank, \\ (B)
the commutator subgroup $G'$ is nilpotent.}
In this paper we show that a similar statement is true also for
the property $cn$. Moreover, by a corollary, we give some further
information about the property $cf$ as well. Let us call
$T[+]$\textit{-group} a group in which each subnormal subgroup of
infinite rank is a $cn$-subgroup.
\bigskip
\noindent {\bf Theorem A}\ \ {\em Let $G$ be a periodic soluble
$T[+]$-group whose Hirsch-Plotkin radical has infinite rank. Then
$G$ is a $T[\ast]$-group. }
\bigskip
\noindent {\bf Corollary} \ \ {\em Let $G$ be a periodic soluble
$T[+]$-group (resp. $T_+$-group) of infinite rank such that
$\pi(G')$ is finite. Then all subgroups of $G$ are $cn$ (resp.
$cf$).}
\bigskip
\noindent {\bf Theorem B}\ \ {\em \label{B}Let $G$ be a periodic
$T[+]$-group of infinite rank with nilpotent commutator subgroup.
Then $G$ is a $T[\ast]$-group. }
\medskip
Note that if $G=A\rtimes B$ is the holomorph group of the additive
group $A$ of the rational numbers by the multiplicative group $B$
of positive rationals (acting by usual multiplication), then, as
noticed in \cite{DGMS}, the only subnormal non-normal subgroups of
$G$ are those contained in $A$ (which has rank $1$) so that $G$ is
$T[+]$. However all proper non-trivial subgroups of $A$ are not
$cn$, since if they were $cn$ then they were $cf$ (see
\cite{DDMR}, Proposition 1) contradicting the fact that $A$ is
minimal normal in $G$.
\medskip
Our notation and terminology is standard and can be found in
\cite{R72,R96}
\section{Proofs}
By a standard argument one checks easily that {\em if $H_1$ and
$H_2$ are $cn$- (resp. $cf$-) subgroups of $G$, then $H_1\cap H_2$
is likewise $cn$ (resp. $cf$). The same holds for $H_1H_2$,
provided this set is a subgroup.}
\begin{lemma}
\label{1}Let $G$ be a $T[+]$-group and let $A$ be a subnormal
subgroup of $G$. If $A$ is the direct product of infinitely many
non-trivial cyclic subgroups, then any subgroup of $A$ is a
$cn$-subgroup of $G$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $X$ be any subgroup of $A$, then $X$ is a subnormal subgroup
of $G$ and $X$ is likewise a direct product of cyclic groups (see
\cite{R96}, 4.3.16). In order to prove that $X$ is a $cn$-subgroup
of $G$ we may assume that $X$ has finite rank. Then there exist
subgroups $A_{1}$, $A_{2}$, $A_{3}$ of $A$ with infinite rank
such that $X\leq A_{3}$ and $A=A_{1}\times A_{2}\times A_{3}$.
Thus $XA_{1}$ and $XA_{2}$ are subnormal subgroups of infinite
rank, so that they are both $cn$-subgroups of $G$. Therefore
$X=XA_{1}\cap XA_{2}$ is likewise $cn$ in $G$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{2}Let $G$ be a periodic $T[+]$-group. If $G$ contains an
abelian subnormal subgroup of infinite rank $A$, then $G$ is a
$T[\ast]$-group.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By hypothesis there exists a normal subgroup $N$ of $G$ which is
commensurable with $A$. Then $A\cap N$ has finite index in $AN$
and hence $N$ is an abelian-by-finite group of infinite rank. In
particular, $N$ contains a characteristic subgroup\ $N_{\ast}$ of
finite index which is an abelian group of infinite rank; hence
replacing $A$ by $N_{\ast}$ it can be supposed that $A$ is a
normal subgroup. Since $G$ is periodic and $A$ has infinite rank,
it follows that the socle $S$ of $A$ is a normal subgroup of $G$
which is the direct product of infinitely many non-trivial cyclic
subgroups. Application of Lemma \ref{1} yields that all subgroups
of $S$ are $cn$-subgroups of $G$ and hence by Lemma 2.8 of
\cite{CDR}, there exist $G$-invariant subgroups $S_{0}\le S_1$ of
$S$ such that $S_0$ and $S/S_1$ are finite and all subgroups of
$S$ lying between $S_{0}$ ad $S_1$ are normal in $G$
Let $X$ be any subnormal subgroup of finite rank of $G$. Then
$X\cap S_1$ is finite, hence $S_{2}=S_{0}(X\cap S_1)$ is likewise
finite. Since $S_{2}X$ is commensurable with $X$, we may assume
$S_2=\{1\}$. Clearly there exist subgroups $S_{3}$ and $S_{4}$
with infinite rank such that $S_1=S_{3}\times S_{4}$. Since both
$S_{3}$ and $S_{4}$ are normal subgroups of $G$, we have that both
$XS_{3}$ and $XS_{4}$ are subnormal subgroups of infinite rank of
$G$ and hence they are both $cn$. Thus $X=XS_3\cap XS_{4}$ is
likewise a $cn$-subgroup of $G$.
\end{proof}
Recall that any primary locally nilpotent group of finite rank is
a Chernikov group (see \cite{R72} Part 2, p.38).
\begin{lemma}
\label{3}Let $G$ a $T[+]$-group of infinite rank. If $G$ is a Baer
$p$-group, then $G$ is a nilpotent $T[*]$-group.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $X$ be any subnormal subgroup of $G$ with
finite rank. Then $X$ is a Chernikov group (see \cite{R72} Part
2, p.389) and $X$ contains an abelian divisible normal subgroup
$J$ of finite index. Hence $J$ is subnormal in $G$, and so $J^{G}$
is abelian and divisible (see \cite{R72} Part 1, Lemma 4.46). If
$A$ is any abelian subnormal subgroup of $G$, the subgroup
$J^{G}A$ is nilpotent and $[J,A]=\{1\}$ (see \cite{R72} Part 1,
Lemma~3.13). Since $G$ is generated by its subnormal abelian
subgroups, it follows that $J\leq Z(G)$ and so $X/X_{G}$ is
finite. This proves that $G$ is a $T[\ast ]$-group, hence
nilpotent (see \cite{DDM}, Proposition 20).
\end{proof}
The following lemma is probably well-known but we are not able to
find it in the literature, hence we write also the proof.
\begin{lemma}\label{zf} Let $G$ be a periodic finite-by-abelian
group of finite rank. Then $G/Z(G)$ is finite.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Clearly $C=C_G(G')$ is a normal subgroup of finite index of $G$
which is nilpotent and has finite rank; in particular, any primary
component of $C$ is a Chernikov group.
Let $\pi=\pi(G')$ be the set of all primes $p$ such that $G'$
contains some element of order $p$. Then $\pi$ is finite and so
the subgroup $C_{\pi}$ is a Chernikov group; hence
$C_{\pi}Z(G)/Z(G)$ is finite (see \cite{R72} Part 1, Lemma 4.3.1).
On the other hand $C_{\pi'}$ is abelian, and so it follows that
$C/Z(C)$ is finite. Thus $G$ is both abelian-by-finite and
finite-by-abelian and hence $G/Z(G)$ is finite.
\end{proof}
\noindent {\em Proof of Theorem A.} Assume, for a contradiction,
that the statement is false and let $X$ be a subnormal subgroup
$G$ which is not a $cn$-subgroup; in particular, $X$ has finite
rank. Among all counterexamples choose $G$ in such a way that $X$
has the smallest possible derived length. Then the derived
subgroup $Y=X^{\prime}$ of $X$ is a $cn$-subgroup by the minimal
choice on the derived length of $X$; on the other hand, $Y$ has
finite rank and so $Y/Y_{G}$ is finite (see \cite{DDMR},
Proposition 1). Then $X/Y_{G}$ is a finite-by-abelian group of
finite rank, and hence its centre $Z/Y_{G}=Z(X/Y_{G})$ has finite
index in $X/Y_{G}$ by Lemma \ref{zf}. Thus $Z$ is a subnormal
subgroup of $G$ which has finite index in $X$, so that the index
$|Z:Z_{G}|$ is infinite and hence $Z$ cannot be a $cn$-subgroup of
$G$ (see \cite{DDMR}, Proposition 1). Since $Y_{G}$ has finite
rank, the Hirsch-Plotkin radical of $G/Y_{G}$ has infinite rank
and so $G/Y_{G}$ is also a counterexample; thus replacing $G$ with
$G/Y_{G}$ and $X$ with $Z/Y_{G}$ it can be supposed that $X$ is
abelian. Hence $X$ is contained in the Hirsh-Plotkin radical $H$
of $G$.
Let $P$ any primary component of $H$, and suppose that $P$ has
infinite rank. If $F$ is the Fitting subgroup of $P$, then $F$ is
nilpotent by Lemma \ref{3}. Let $A$ be a maximal abelian normal
subgroup of $F$, then $A=C_{F}(A)$ (see \cite{R72} Part 1, Lemma
2.19.1) and so $A$ has infinite rank (see \cite{R72}\ Part 1,
Theorem~3.29). Hence $G$ is a $T[\ast]$-group by Lemma \ref{2}.
This contradiction proves that each primary component of $H$ has
finite rank. In particular, as $H$ has infinite rank, there exist
$H_{1}$ and $H_{2}$ subgroups of infinite rank such that
$H=H_{1}\times H_{2}$ and\ $\pi(H_{1})\cap\pi(H_{2})=\emptyset$.
By the same reason, for $i\in\{1,2\}$, two subgroups of infinite
rank $H_{i,1}$ and $H_{i,2}$ can be found such that
$H_{i}=H_{i,1}\times H_{i,2}$ and
$\pi(H_{i,1})\cap\pi(H_{i,2})=~\emptyset$. If $i,j\in\{1,2\}$ and
$i\neq j$, considered $\pi_{i}=\pi(H_i)$ and
denoted by $X_{i}$ the $\pi_{i}$-component of $X$, the subgroups $X_{i
H_{j,1}$ and $X_{i}H_{j,2}$ are subnormal subgroups of infinite
rank of $G$, so that they are both $cn$-subgroups of $G$ and hence
$X_{i}=X_{i}H_{j,1}\cap X_{i}H_{j,2}$ is likewise a $cn$-subgroup
of $G$. Therefore $X=X_{1}X_{2}$ is a $cn$-subgroup of $G$ and
this final contradiction concludes the proof. \qed
\\
\noindent {\em Proof of Corollary.} One may refine the derived
series of $G'$ to a series $G_1=G'\ge\cdots\ge G_n=\{1\}$ whose
factors $A_i=G_{i}/G_{i+1}$ are $p$-groups (for possibly different
primes). Let $C_i=C_G(A_i)$ for each~$i$. If $A_i$ has finite
rank, then $A_i$ is a Chernikov group and the same holds for
$G/C_i$ as a periodic group of automorphisms of a Chernikov group
(see \cite{R72} Part 1, Theorem 3.29).
If $A_i$ has infinite rank, then Lemma \ref{2} yields that each subgroup of $A_i$ is a $cn$-subgroup (resp $cf$-) of $G$.
Hence, according to Proposition 14 in \cite{DDM}, $G/C_i$ is finite as a periodic group of power automorphisms of $p$-groups
(see \cite{RT}, Lemma 4.1.2). Thus if $C$ is the intersection of all $C_i$'s, then $G/C$ is a Chernikov group and therefore has finite rank.
It follows that $C$ has infinite rank. Om the other hand, $C$ is nilpotent by a well-known fact (see \cite{H}).
Then by Theorem $A$, the group $G$ has property $T[*]$ (resp. $T_*$). Further, by Theorem~15 in \cite{DDM}, $G$ all subgroups are $cn$ (resp. $cf$).
\qed
\medskip
\noindent {\em Proof of Theorem B.} Assume that the statement is
false. As in the first part of proof of Theorem~A, there exists a
counterexample $G$ containing an abelian subnormal subgroup $X$
that is not a $cn$-subgroup; in particular, $X$ has finite rank
and the index $|X:X_{G}|$ is infinite. Then $L=XG^{\prime}$ is a
nilpotent normal subgroup and hence has finite rank by Theorem A.
Let $p\in\pi (X)$, then $L/L_{p^{\prime}}$ is a nilpotent
$p$-group of finite rank and hence it is a Chernikov group; thus
$G/C_{G}(L/L_{p^{\prime}})$ is finite (see
\cite{R72} Part 1, Corollary p.85) and hence $C_{G/L_{p^{\prime}
}(L/L_{p^{\prime}})$ is a nilpotent normal subgroup of infinite
rank of $G/L_{p^{\prime}}$. Thus Theorem A yields that
$G/L_{p^{\prime}}$ is a $T[\ast]$-group. Therefore
$X_{p}L_{p^{\prime}}$ is a $cn$-subgroup of $G$, and hence it is
even $cf$ because it has finite rank (see \cite{DDMR}, Proposition
1). The $p$-component of the core $(X_{p}L_{p^{\prime}})_{G}$ of
$X_{p}L_{p^{\prime}}$in $G$ is $G$-invariant, it coincides with
the subgroup $X_{p}\cap(X_{p}L_{p^{\prime}})_{G}$ and so has
finite index in $X_{p}$, therefore $X_{p}$ is $cf$. In particular,
the set $\pi$ of all primes $p$ in $\pi(X)$ such that $X_{p}$ is
not normal in $G$ is infinite. Replacing $G$ by
$G/L_{\pi^{\prime}}$ it can be supposed that $\pi=\pi(L)$. Then
there exists an infinite subset $\pi_{0}$ of $\pi$ such that
$G/L_{\pi_{0}^{\prime}}$ contains a nilpotent normal subgroup of
infinite rank (see \cite{DFdGMT}, Corollary 11); hence
$G/L_{\pi_{0}^{\prime}}$ is a $T[\ast]$-group by Theorem A.
Therefore $X_{\pi_{0}}L_{\pi_{0}^{\prime}}$ is a $cn$-subgroup of
$G$ and so even a $cf$-subgroup (see \cite{DDMR}, Proposition 1);
hence $X_{\pi_{0}}$ is $cf$ and this is a contradiction because
$X_{p}$ is not normal in $G$ for each $p\in\pi_{0}$. \qed
\bigskip
|
\section{Introduction}
In the last few years, quantum computers have emerged as a disruptive technology that promises to solve a large class of problems much more efficiently than any classical machine. The first noisy quantum processors~\cite{NISQ} are already available and enable the implementation of non-trivial algorithms targeted to specific tasks~~\cite{NatPhysIBM,vqe1,havlicek_supervised_2019,Supremacy}. In particular, thanks to their intrinsically quantum logic~\cite{RevTacchino}, they could be used already in the short term to simulate the dynamics of classically intractable quantum systems. Understanding the behavior of matter at the nano-scale is a fundamental step to design new molecules, materials and devices. However, the ``wonderful problem'' of quantum simulation ``doesn't look so easy''~\cite{Feynmann}. In fact, many examples of interest for Physics and Chemistry, such as atoms interacting with light or with thermal baths, are intrinsically difficult to be modeled on current qubit-based architectures~\cite{somma_simulating_2002}.
In this respect, Chemistry offers the change of perspective which could overcome the aforementioned difficulties. Indeed, molecular spin systems characterized by a sizeable number of accessible levels can be used to encode multi-level logical units (qudits). Each molecular qudit could replace several distinct qubits in various algorithms~\cite{NatPhysqudit}, thus greatly simplifying manipulations of the register. Magnetic molecules are the ideal playground to implement this alternative architecture. Indeed, they are characterized by long coherence times~\cite{Freedman2014,Zadrozny,Bader,Atzori2016,Atzori_JACS,Atzori2017,Atzori2018}, which can be even enhanced by chemically designing the molecular structure~\cite{PRLWedge,Freedman_JACS} or targeting protected transitions~\cite{Hill,Freedman_Cr}.
Moreover, the spin state of these systems can be easily manipulated by microwave or radio-frequency pulses~\cite{jacsYb}, thus implementing single- and two-qubit gates in permanently coupled~\cite{Luis2011,Aguila2014,Ardavan2015} or scalable architectures, for which different ways of switching the qubit-qubit interaction were proposed ~\cite{SciRepNi,modules,Chem,VO2}.
Recently, the idea of exploiting the additional levels typical of these systems for quantum error correction has been put forward ~\cite{jacsYb,ErCeEr,JPCLqec}. In these works, a multi-level molecule is used to encode a protected qubit within a single object, in place of the many qubits required by standard block-codes~\cite{Nielsen}.\\
Here we show how the qudit nature of magnetic molecules could simplify the practical implementation of important quantum simulation algorithms. We focus, in particular, on the simulation of light-matter interaction processes in the ultra-strong coupling regime, a problem that does not generally allow for a perturbative treatment and is therefore hard to be solved on a classical computer. This class of models, which are of crucial importance for many fundamental investigations ranging from cavity quantum electrodynamics to photochemistry~\cite{RevModPhys.91.025005,Noriultra}, have mostly been tackled so far with analog~\cite{PhysRevX.2.021007,PhysRevA.87.033814,braumuller_analog_2017} or digital-analog~\cite{lamata2918digitalanalog,lamata2020quantum} simulation strategies. The necessity to describe radiation modes (characterized in principle by infinitely many degrees of freedom) represents a major challenge for digital approaches. Standard encodings, designed for multi-qubit architectures~\cite{sawaya_resource-efficient_2020}, either employ an exponentially large Hilbert space (using a number of qubits equal to the number of simulated photons~\cite{DiPaolo}) or reduce the number of qubits at the price of non-local qubit-qubit interactions and hence complex quantum circuits~\cite{Mathis,sawaya_resource-efficient_2020}. \\
Conversely, here we reduce both the hardware overhead and the complexity of manipulations by mapping each photon mode to a single spin $S$ qudit. Thanks to the power of coordination chemistry, different qudits can be linked together and, e.g., to spin 1/2 units encoding two-level atoms ~\cite{Peng,Ni21Gd20,giant,Gd2}, in non-trivial molecular geometries. This, together with the capability of manipulating the state of the hardware by resonant and semi/resonant microwave pulses, would allow us to digitally simulate the atom-photon dynamics involving multi-mode fields and/or multiple atoms~\cite{PhysRev.93.99,DiPaolo}. \\
In particular, we show that very simple molecules consisting of dimers of transition metal ions (a spin 1/2 and a spin $S\ge 3/2$) can be used to efficiently simulate atom-photon interactions in a non-trivial range of parameters up to strong and ultra-strong coupling~\cite{RevModPhys.91.025005,Noriultra}.
The same approach can be extended to simulate, e.g., lattice gauge models involving many field excitations~\cite{Mathis}, by exploiting the remarkable capabilities of coordination chemistry in synthesizing multi-center molecules with very large total spin~\cite{giant}. \\
In the following, we design the sequence of pulses allowing us (i) to determine the ground state of the simulated system using the variational quantum eigensolver algorithm (VQE)~\cite{Peruzzo2014,vqe1,vqe2,cao_review_quantum2019} and (ii) to follow the time evolution of the system prepared in an out-of-equilibrium initial state.
The remarkable performance of the proposed hardware is demonstrated by numerical simulations with parameters corresponding to existing coordination compounds~\cite{SIMqubit,Dalton2009,Abragam,Collison,Freedman_Ni,Freedman_Cr,Bader}, including the effect of decoherence and the full sequence of pulses needed to implement the algorithms.
These results make the here-proposed molecular quantum simulator very promising and pave the way to forthcoming proof-of-principle experiments.
We finally note that such qudit encoding can be easily extended to any other boson field, thus
allowing one to simulate along the same lines many other important models, ranging from phonon vibrations~\cite{huh_boson_2015,C9SC01313J,D0SC01908A}, possibly interacting with spins~\cite{RevModPhys.59.1}, to lattice gauge theories~\cite{Mathis} and complex quantum optical setups~\cite{kottmann2020quantum}. \\
\section{Results}
\subsection{Molecular Quantum Simulator}
The proposed molecular hardware for quantum simulation is sketched in Fig.~\ref{scheme} (left part).
It is a dimer consisting of a spin $S_1 \ge 3/2$ qudit that we exploit to encode the boson field,
and an effective $s_2=1/2$, described by the following Hamiltonian:
\begin{equation}
H_0 = g_{1z} \mu_B B S_{z1} + g_{2z} \mu_B B s_{z2} + D S_{z1}^2 + \sum_\alpha J_\alpha S_{1\alpha} s_{2\alpha}.
\label{eq:HardwareSH}
\end{equation} Here, the first two terms represent the Zeeman interaction of the two spins with an external magnetic field $B$ applied along $z$ axis and $\mu_B$ is the Bohr magneton. The third term is the zero-field splitting on the qudit (important to make all qudits transitions spectroscopically distinguishable) and the last one models an exchange or dipolar interaction between the two ions. To reduce our assumptions, we consider in the following axially anisotropic ($J_z = -2J_{x,y}$) coupling, modeling a dipole-dipole interaction between the two centers.
Different forms of the spin-spin interaction or of the single-ion anisotropy do not hinder the implementation of our scheme. The only requirement concerns the hierarchy of interactions: the transverse component of the spin-spin coupling must be much smaller than the difference between the excitation energies of the two spins $S_1$ and $s_2$. This condition guarantees that the eigenstates of Hamiltonian ~\ref{eq:HardwareSH} are practically factorized products of the states of the two spins, and can thus be labeled by $S_{z1}$ and $s_{z2}$ eigenvalues: $|\psi_{m_1m_2} \rangle \approx |m_1\rangle |m_2\rangle$. \\
These requirements are easily fulfilled in coordination compounds containing a spin 1/2 ion coupled to a spin $S_1$ transition metal ion. The latter provides the ideal qudit for the proposed architecture. As shown below, the relatively small number of levels of these qudits ($d=2S_1+1 \le 6$) is already sufficient to simulate light-matter interaction from strong to ultra-strong coupling regimes.
In addition, transition metal ion complexes with quenched orbital angular momentum ensure significantly long coherence times~\cite{PRLWedge,Bader,SIMqubit,Freedman_Cr,Freedman_Ni}, important to achieve a good simulation.
We consider, in particular, two paradigmatic cases: Cr$^{\rm III}$ and Fe$^{\rm III}$ ions in distorted octahedral environment, yielding
$3d^3$ and $3d^5$ electronic configurations with a single electron per orbital and thus $S=3/2$ and $5/2$, respectively~\cite{Abragam,Collison}.
Due to the practically complete quenching of the orbital angular momentum, the spectroscopic tensor $g$ is isotropic and close to the free electron value, while single ion anisotropy is typically in the $\sim 0.2-0.3$ cm$^{-1}$ range~\cite{Abragam,Collison}.
As an illustrative example, in the simulations reported below we use $D=0.24-0.30$ cm$^{-1}$ and $g=1.98$ for Cr$^{\rm III}$, as in ~\cite{PRLWedge,Freedman_Cr} and $D=-0.30$ cm$^{-1}$ and $g=2.00$ for Fe$^{\rm III}$, as reported e.g. in Ref.~\cite{SIMqubit,Zadrozny_Fe}. \footnote{By properly adjusting the static field $B$, results do not depend on the sign of $D$. } \\
These single-ion qudits can be weakly coupled through bond or through space to a spin 1/2 ion, such as Cu$^{\rm II}$ in distorted octahedral ligand cage~\cite{Abragam,Collison,Bader}, typically characterized by $g \sim 2.1-2.3$ and in some cases also by remarkable coherence times~\cite{Bader}. In the following we assume $g_{2z} = 2.3$, significantly different from $g_{1z}=1.98-2$ to ensure factorization of the system wave-function. For the dipolar interaction we assume $J_{x,y} = 0.008$ cm$^{-1}$, which corresponds to a dipolar coupling (in the point dipole approximation) between ions at a distance $\sim 6$ \AA. A more extensive discussion on possible physical implementations is provided in Sec.~\ref{sec:phys_real}. \\
These parameters, combined with a static field of $\sim 0.3-0.5$ T ensure that $\Delta m_{1,2} = \pm 1$ transitions needed to manipulate the state of the system fall within the 20 GHz range typically explored in coplanar microwave resonators~\cite{PhysRevLett.105.140501,Rausch_2018}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig1.pdf}
\caption{Scheme of the molecular quantum simulator. Left: hardware setup, consisting of a qudit spin $S_1$ coupled by exchange interaction $J$ to a spin $s_2=1/2$. Right: target spin-photon model. In the bottom part of the figure we qualitatively sketch also the mapping between the qudit, with all the transitions made energetically distinguishable by the combined effect of Zeeman and zero-field splitting interactions, and the boson field. }
\label{scheme}
\end{figure}
Having described in detail the molecular hardware, we now switch our attention to the target model, object of our simulation, and on how to map it onto the hardware.
The target Hamiltonian is the Rabi model~\cite{PhysRev.49.324,PhysRev.51.652,PhysRevLett.107.100401}:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}_S = \omega_a \sigma_z + \Omega a^\dagger a + 2 G \sigma_x (a+a^\dagger)
\label{eq:Rabi}
\end{equation}
Here $\sigma_z$ and $\sigma_x$ are the usual spin 1/2 operators, while $a^\dagger$ $(a)$ are bosonic creation (annihilation) operators, $[a,a^\dagger]=1$, $G$ is the atom-photon coupling, $\Omega$ ($\omega_a$) is the photon (atom) excitation energy, and we have assumed $\hbar=1$.
Hamiltonian (Eq.~\ref{eq:Rabi}) describes the interaction between a radiation field and a two level system, such as an atom or a spin 1/2 particle. It has recently attracted a great interest in the context of quantum computing, with efforts devoted to achieve the strong coupling between superconducting qubits or spin systems and quantized photons within wave-guide resonators~\cite{PhysRevA.102.023702,gimenoAcsnano}. Behind its apparent simplicity, our target model can reveal interesting Physics and non-trivial behaviors associated to ultra or deep strong coupling regimes~\cite{Noriultra}, in which light and matter strongly mix together and exchange excitations without conserving energy~\cite{RevModPhys.91.025005}. Such a regime can also give insights into fundamental principles of lattice gauge theories~\cite{Gauge}.
We fix in the following $\omega_a=\Omega/2$ and study the model for increasing values of the $G/\Omega$ ratio, the threshold for the ultra-strong coupling regime usually being $G/\Omega\gtrsim 0.25$. \\
The molecular processor described by Hamiltonian~\ref{eq:HardwareSH} can be used to compute ground state properties and to mimic the dynamics of the target Hamiltonian~\ref{eq:Rabi}. To achieve this, we first need to encode the boson field into the spin qudit. Notice that a very good approximation can be obtained by truncating the boson field to a relatively small number of levels. %
Hence, the $d=2S_1+1$ levels of the qudit are sufficient to encode the radiation field with negligible error, by truncating the radiation field to a maximum number $n_{\rm M} = 2S_1$ of bosons. The mapping between $S_{z1}$ eigenvalues and number of bosons ($n=a^\dagger a$) is shown in the bottom part of Fig.~\ref{scheme}. In parallel, the two-state atom appearing in the Rabi Hamiltonian can be directly encoded on the hardware spin $1/2$ degrees of freedom.
Complete control of the hardware is achieved via microwave pulses resonant (or semi-resonant) with specific excitations of the spin $1/2$ or of the qudit. In particular, $\Delta m_2 = \pm 1$ transitions allow us to rotate the state of the qubit, while $\Delta m_1 = \pm 1$ pulses are used to excite the qudit. Moreover, the spin-qudit interaction enables conditioned (entangling) operations.
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Fig2.pdf}
\caption{Qudit-based VQE for the Rabi model. (a) Sequence of pulses for the implementation of the ground state approximation. On the left, we report the (approximate) values $m_1$ and $m_2$ for the hardware eigenstates, and on the right the corresponding photon numbers. (b) Minimization of the Hamiltonian expectation value for $G/\Omega = 0.6$. Data points converging to the value marked by the blue dashed line are obtained simulating a realistic hardware with $T_2 = 10$ $\mu$s. The red dashed line marks the optimal value achieved in the absence of errors and decoherence. The inset represents schematically the set of quantum operations which are used to approximate the ground state, including $R_{x,y}(\delta) = e^{-i \delta s_{x,y2}}$ rotations on the spin $1/2$ and conditioned $\Delta m = \pm 1$ pulses on the spin $S_1=3/2$. The variational parameters are indicated as $\theta_i$, while we assume an initial state with zero photons and a de-excited atom. (c) Ground state energy and (inset) corresponding average number of photons and atom excitations. Dashed lines represent ideal values with no approximations, solid lines are the exact results obtained by Hamiltonian diagonalization after truncating the photonic Hilbert space to $d=4$ levels, dotted lines are numerical VQE results with no errors or dechoherence and diamonds are simulations of the real device. Each expectation value $E(\vec{\theta})$ can be measured by inducing $\Delta m_{1,2} = \pm 1$ transitions with appropriate microwave pulses. Hardware parameters are $g_1 = 1.98$, $g_2 = 2.3$, $D=0.24$~cm$^{-1}$, $J_{x,y} = 0.008$~cm$^{-1}$, $B = 0.4$~T.}
\label{fig:vqe}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Variational quantum eigensolver}
The starting point to derive many important properties of the examined systems is the determination of its ground state wave-function.
This task can be achieved using the variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) approach~\cite{Peruzzo2014,vqe1,vqe2,cao_review_quantum2019}. This is a hybrid quantum-classical algorithm, particularly resilient to noise and therefore well suited for near term quantum processors.
It exploits the fact that the energy expectation value is minimum for the ground state of the system. The quantum hardware is used to generate an approximation of the ground state (also known as trial wavefunction or variational ansatz) for the target model, which depends on a set of free parameters $\theta_i$, and to evaluate the energy expectation value. Minimization of the evaluated energy by a classical subroutine allows us to explore the parameter space until convergence to the system ground state. It is worth noticing that this method is typically much less demanding, compared to the digital simulation of real time evolution, in terms of the complexity and length of the required sequences of quantum operations to be implemented.
Here we demonstrate an implementation of the VQE on the proposed qudit architecture applied to the target Rabi Hamiltonian, Eq.~\eqref{eq:Rabi}. We construct the trial wavefunction by designing some basic quantum operations achieved in practice via external control microwave pulses. In particular, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:vqe}a, we assume a $(S_1,s_2) = (3/2,1/2)$ hardware platform and we combine
pulses resonant with transitions of $s_2$ (green arrows), implementing
rotations of the qubit, with $\Delta m_1 = \pm 1$ pulses on the $S_1=3/2$ spin (black). To introduce entanglement in the approximate ground state, the operations on the $S_1=3/2$ spin are actually conditioned by the state of the spin $1/2$, i.e.~we rotate each pair of qudit levels by $\pm\theta_i$ depending on the sign of $m_2$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:vqe}a).
In total, the ansatz contains only 4 free parameters, and can be implemented with a sequence of microwave pulses that can be as fast as $\simeq 100-200$ ns. We also mention that such variational structure, which can be natively realized on our proposed qudit architecture, is closely related to the so-called polaron ansatz, which was recently implemented on superconducting quantum hardware~\cite{DiPaolo} through non-trivial decompositions into elementary qubit operations.
In this demonstration, we combine a classical optimization routine, namely the Nelder-Mead simplex algorithm~\cite{simplexNM}, with numerical simulations of the unitary transformations corresponding to every choice of the variational parameters. In fact, each sequence of microwave pulses can be seen as the series of quantum operations reported in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:vqe}b. Here the black thick (green narrow) line represents the qudit (qubit). Conditioned qubit-qudit operations are depicted with black boxes, while single qubit rotations are shown in green, in direct correspondence with Fig.~\ref{fig:vqe}a.
Simulations are performed according to a realistic hardware setup, including all the required external control pulses and molecular parameters discussed above.
The effect of a finite spin coherence time $T_2$ is included by simulating the dynamics of the hardware density matrix $\rho$ according to the Lindblad master equation~\cite{PhysRevA.87.022337}
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\frac{d\rho}{dt} &=& -i[H_0 + H_1(t),\rho] \\ \nonumber
&+& \frac{1}{T_2}\big( 2 S_{z1} \rho S_{z1} -S_{z1}^2\rho - \rho S_{z1}^2 \big) \\
&+& \frac{1}{T_2}\big( 2 s_{z2} \rho s_{z2} - \rho/2 \big)
\label{lindblad}
\end{eqnarray}
where time dependent $H_1$ term in the Hamiltonian indicates the presence of external oscillating control fields. For simplicity, we assume the same value for the $T_2$ for both spins in the hardware.
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{Fig3.pdf}
\caption{Digital quantum simulation of the Rabi model on a qudit architecture. In panels (a)-(f) the solid lines are numerical results taking into account the same digital approximation and space truncation errors to which the hardware sequences are subject, but without decoherence or imperfections in the quantum operations. The data points represent hardware simulations from which we obtain the average number of photons and atom population as $\langle n_{photons}\rangle = \langle S_{z1}\rangle + S_1$ and $\langle \sigma_{z} \rangle = \langle s_{z2}\rangle$. (a-b) $G/\Omega = 0.25$ simulated with $S_1 = 3/2$, $s_2=1/2$, $g_1 = 1.98$, $g_2 = 2.3$, $D=0.24$~cm$^{-1}$, $B = 0.4$~T. (c-d) $G/\Omega = 0.5$ simulated with $S_1 = 3/2$, $s_2=1$, $g_1 = 1.98$, $g_2 = 2.18$, $D=-D^\prime=0.24$~cm$^{-1}$, $B = 0.2$~T. (e-f) $G/\Omega = 0.7$ simulated with $S_1 = 5/2$, $s_2=1$, $g_1 = 2$, $g_2 = 2.18$, $D\simeq-0.30$~cm$^{-1}$, $D^\prime=-0.24$~cm$^{-1}$, $B = 0.08$~T. (g-h) Exact time evolution ($N=\infty$) for $G/\Omega = 0.7$, showing the effect of the truncation to a maximum of $n_M = 2S_1$ photons. In all hardware simulations, we assume $J_{x,y} = 0.008$~cm$^{-1}$.}
\label{dqs}
\end{figure*}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:vqe}c, we report results of the VQE algorithm simulated by assuming a realistic value of the spin coherence time (10 $\mu$s, symbols), compared with exact values (lines) for both the ground state energy and some ground state properties of interest.
Notice that, over a wide range of $G/\Omega$ values, the proposed ansatz achieves very good approximations of the exact ground state. The limiting factor is essentially the expressibility of the trial wavefunction, i.e.\ the fact that by using the set of operations reported in Fig.~\ref{fig:vqe}a we may not achieve the exact form of the true ground state. This limitation can in principle be overcome by repeating the same basic parametrized structure more than once. %
It is worth noting that a finite coherence time, similarly to small imperfections in the practical realization of quantum gates, only minimally affects the final results. In fact, consistently with the underlying variational principle, noisy ground state energy estimates sometimes converge to values slightly larger than the exact ones.
\subsection{Digital quantum simulation of strong light-matter interaction}
After investigating ground state properties, we now move on to show how the proposed molecular qudit-based processor can be used to simulate the dynamics of the Rabi model. The digital quantum simulation of the target Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_S$ requires to implement the transformation:
\begin{equation}
|\psi(0)\rangle \longrightarrow |\psi(t)\rangle = e^{-i\mathcal{H}_S t} |\psi(0) \rangle.
\end{equation}
This can be approximated to the product of
unitary terms $e^{-i\mathcal{H}_St} \approx (e^{-i\omega_a \sigma_z t/N}e^{-i\Omega_a a^\dagger a t/N}e^{-i 2G \sigma_x (a+a^\dagger) t/N})^N$ by dividing the transformation into small time steps $t/N$, according to the Suzuki-Trotter decomposition. Each unitary step is then implemented by a sequence of micro-wave pulses. %
For instance, the effect of the diagonal operator $a^\dagger a$ is obtained by pulses semi-resonant with $\Delta m_1 = \pm 1$ transitions ~\cite{SciRep15}, while the term $\sigma_x(a+a^\dagger)$ is simulated by resonant $\Delta m_1 = \pm 1$ transitions conditioned by the state of the qubit and essentially correspond to the similar ones employed in the VQE above.
In Fig.~\ref{dqs} we show the digital quantum simulation of the Rabi model, Eq.~\eqref{eq:Rabi}, realized with the spin qudit encoding described above and for increasingly challenging choices of the $G/\Omega$ ratio. Large $G/\Omega$ values introduce peculiar features in the dynamics of the target system: the rotating wave approximation fails and the total number of excitations is not conserved. This non-trivial behavior emerges in our simulations below, where we report the time evolution of the average number of photons $\langle n_{photons} \rangle$ in the radiation mode and of the atom population $\langle \sigma_z\rangle$, assuming an initial vacuum state with zero photons and the atom in its ground state. This vacuum state (with no excitations) would not be subject to any evolution for small $G/\Omega$ ratios. Hence, oscillations in $\langle n_{photons} \rangle$ and $\langle \sigma_z \rangle$ are a direct signature of the ultra-strong coupling regime.
In all panels, we compare the reference curves, computed via exact matrix exponentiation, with numerical simulations of a realistic hardware obtained again by integrating Eq.~\eqref{lindblad}. A quantitative assessment of the overall quality of the results can be obtained by computing the fidelity $\mathcal{F} = \sqrt{\langle\psi_{id} |\rho| \psi_{id} \rangle}$ between the hardware output $\rho$ and the ideal result $\psi_{id}$ of a digital quantum simulation algorithm realized with the same number of Suzuki-Trotter time steps and the same size of the bosonic Hilbert space. The latter can be obtained by with standard matrix algebra.
In the first example, Fig.~\ref{dqs}a-b, we show the results of the quantum simulation of the target Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_S$ with $G/\Omega = 0.25$ realized with $N=4$ (for $t\leq 5$) and $N = 6$ (for $t>5$) Suzuki-Trotter steps. Here, the hardware setup is composed of a spin $S_1 = 3/2$, encoding a $d=4$ photonic space, and a spin $s_2=1/2$ representing the atomic degrees of freedom. The longest pulse sequence requires $1.7$ $\mu$s, resulting in large average fidelities: $\mathcal{F} \simeq 0.984$ for $T_2 = 50$ $\mu$s and $\mathcal{F} \simeq 0.951$ for $T_2 = 10$ $\mu$s.
Increasing values of the target $G/\Omega$ ratio, Fig~\ref{dqs}c-f, yield larger oscillations in the average number of photons and atom populations. To capture these features we need, on the one hand to increase the number of digital steps ($N$), on the other hand to enlarge the bosonic space ($n_M$). This last step is fundamental to correctly capture the system dynamics at significant $G/\Omega$, as clearly shown in panels (g-h), where we compare the time evolution obtained by truncating the number of photons to 3 or 5, for $G/\Omega=0.7$. Indeed, by slightly increasing $n_M$, we practically obtain the exact dynamics (continuous line). Given $n_M=2S_1$, on the synthetic side, this simply translates in changing the qudit spin from 3/2 to 5/2. \\
Conversely, increasing $N$ (and hence the length of our manipulations) requires larger $T_2$ or faster pulses, e.g.~by engineering the molecular spectrum to better resolve all transitions. In this respect, the large degree of chemical flexibility represents a valuable resource. In particular, it is helpful to replace the $s_2 = 1/2$ with a spin $s_2 = 1$ system. A promising candidate ion is for example Ni$^{\rm II}$, for which coherence times in the regime of microseconds were reported~\cite{Freedman_Ni}. While only two consecutive levels, e.g.\ $m_2 = 0,1$, are used for the actual encoding of the target model, the presence of an additional zero-field splitting term $D^\prime s_{z2}^2$ in the hardware Hamiltonian greatly improves the frequency resolution of the relevant transitions, thus allowing for larger operation fidelities with reasonably fast control pulses. For Ni$^{\rm II}$, $D^\prime$ can be in the $0.1-1$ cm$^{-1}$ range (in octahedral ligand field)~\cite{Abragam,Collison}. In Fig.~\ref{dqs}c-d we report a digital simulation for $G/\Omega = 0.5$, obtained with $N = 7$ on a $(S_1,s_2) = (3/2,1)$ model hardware. Here, the pulse sequences last approximately $0.9$ $\mu$s on average, resulting in average fidelities $\mathcal{F} \geq 0.92$ also for $T_2 = 10$ $\mu$s. Finally, we achieve in Fig.~\ref{dqs}e-f a digital simulation well above the ultra-strong coupling threshold ($G/\Omega = 0.7$, $N=8$) with a model hardware $(S_1,s_2) = (5/2,1)$ (i.e.\ with a bosonic space truncated at $d =6$). More demanding pulse sequences are required in this case, with an average duration of $\sim 1.6$ $\mu$s and average fidelity around $\mathcal{F} \simeq 0.84$ for the shortest $T_2$.\\
\section{Possible physical implementations}
\label{sec:phys_real}
Let us now explore potential realizations of molecular qudits displaying a set of properties consistent with the ones employed in our calculations. In many cases, we refer to chemical building blocks already discussed or characterized in the literature.
To identify a suitable molecular platform, we need to combine requirements on the different units discussed in the previous sections. As already illustrated, a prototypical hardware could consist of a dimer of transition metal ions, respectively with spins $S_1 \ge 3/2$ and $s_2 \ge 1/2$. In order to ensure factorization of the two-ion wave-function, the two ions should be weakly interacting through space or through bond and characterized by $g$ factors significantly different along a given direction. Single-ion anisotropy on both $S_1$ and $s_2$ (if the latter is $\ge 1$) could for example help to better resolve different transitions. \\
Such single constraints do not appear so stringent. For instance, Cr$^{\rm III}$ and Cu$^{\rm II}$ have sufficiently different $g$ values $g_\text{Cr}=1.98$, $g_\text{Cu}=2.10-2.3$ to allow factorization of the wavefunction. At the same time, the individual spin’s resonance frequencies are both accessible in the same resonator. $D$ values in the order of the tenth of cm$^{-1}$ characterize ions that have half filled valence orbitals, like Mn$^{\rm II}$, Fe$^{\rm III}$, or Gd$^{\rm III}$, as well as half-filled $\text{t}_{2g}$ orbitals in octahedral ligand field, such as Cr$^{\rm III}$. It must be said that in this case the rhombicity and principal directions of the magnetic anisotropy are difficult to predict and control synthetically, but they are not crucial for the feasibility of our scheme. \\
More demanding is the control of the interaction between the spin qubit and the qudit. Dipolar interactions can be easily computed and controlled. The required strength, ca $0.01$ cm$^{-1}$, is associated to a distance of about $6$ \AA. Such a relatively short distance inside a molecular architecture is compatible with compact linkers like oxalate, cyanide, azide etc. These bridging ligands are very efficient in transmitting also exchange interactions, and thus unsuitable for single spin addressing. The optimal choice falls on very weak exchange interactions that are expected to be almost ubiquitous when the two spin centers are embedded in the same molecular scaffold. However, such weak interactions (of the same order of inter-molecular ones) have been poorly characterized through standard magnetometry techniques in concentrated solids or ab initio calculations. An elucidating example of the wide range of achievable interactions is the case of condensed Cu$^{\rm II}$ porphyrin complexes. Complexes with conjugated macrocyclic ligands have been attracting increasing interest for the relatively long and robust coherence combined with semiconducting properties and convenient processability~\cite{warner_potential_2013,Atzori2016,Bader2016,Urtizberea2018}. Electron–electron double resonance has been recently used to investigate the spin-spin interactions in edge-fused coplanar Cu$^{\rm II}$ dimers and in meso–meso singly linked dimers~\cite{Wili2019}. In the latter, the Cu-porphyrin rings are mutually orthogonal and exchange interaction fully suppressed, significantly smaller than the dipolar interaction, estimated to be $0.0028$ cm$^{-1}$. On the contrary, the planarity imposed by the triple link between the two units boosts the antiferromagnetic exchange interaction to $J=-2.64$ cm$^{-1}$. The difficulty to predict the actual spin-spin interaction (based on ab-initio calculations or simple geometrical considerations) does not hinder the implementation of our scheme. Indeed, once the complex has been characterized, it is possible to tune the external field in order to ensure factorization of the wave-function. This could require to adapt the experimental setup to work at larger frequencies than commercial resonators, as demonstrated for instance in Ref.~\cite{Rausch_2018}, where superconducting coplanar resonators operating up to $50$ GHz were reported. These superconducting resonators could also employ high-$T_c$ superconductors to support large magnetic fields~\cite{Ghirri2015}. \\
The choice of the linkers between the two magnetic ions should also fulfil other constraints. In particular, we need to control the decoherence of the system. A coherence time $T_2$ of 10 $\mu$s at low temperatures is often observed for $S=1/2$ transition metal ions, especially if the first coordination sphere is nuclear spin free, e.g.\ oxygen, sulphur, or carbon donor atoms, and if total or partial deuteration of the ligand is affordable. This requires to eliminate nitrogen from the first coordination sphere and aliphatic ${\rm CH}_n$ groups in the molecular scaffold, thus reducing the available library of molecular candidates.\\
We should finally remind that an efficient operation of the simulator requires that the qudit-qubit pairs are well isolated, still retaining a control over the molecular orientation. An isostructural diamagnetic matrix is thus mandatory. While this is usually accessible for single qubits, in the case of a two-spins architecture the co-crystallization of the para- and dia-magnetic molecules must occur without metal scrambling. This can be easily avoided using inert $d^3$/$d^6$ ions, as in the case of Cr$^{\rm III}$ and low spin Co$^{\rm III}$. Metal scrambling is however much more common for labile $d^1$/$d^9$ ions, such as Cu$^{\rm II}$, requiring the use of polydentate linkers in the design of the molecular architecture.
\section{Discussion and conclusions}
Summarizing, we have shown that magnetic molecules are very promising quantum simulators for complex physical systems, in particular for target Hamiltonians involving bosonic variables representing e.g. radiation fields. The many degrees of freedom present in this class of target Hamiltonians make their simulation with a multi-qubit register very demanding, both in terms of number of qubits and sequence of operations. In contrast, the multi-level structure typical of magnetic molecules allow us to encode a boson into a single spin qudit, thus greatly simplifying the architecture of the register and its manipulation. The latter can be achieved solely by sequences of microwave pulses, resonant with specific transitions. As an example, we have reported both ground state calculations, performed with the VQE algorithm, and the digital quantum simulation of real time evolution for the Rabi model up to the ultra-strong coupling regime. In all cases, the outcomes obtained by considering realistic hardware parameters are in very good quantitative agreement with exact predictions.\\
These results pave the way to proof-of-principle experiments demonstrating the effectiveness of our proposal. The scheme is flexible and allows one to simulate a wide range of interesting models, thanks to the chemical tunability of the proposed hardware. Indeed, although we have focused here on very simple single ions, much larger $S_1$ can be obtained by exploiting the total spin ground multiplet of multi-nuclear complexes with tailored interactions~\cite{giant,Mn19powell}. With larger $S_1$, one could for example include more photons in the simulations, thus enabling the treatment of more exotic regimes such as the deep strong coupling for light-matter interactions~\cite{PhysRevLett.105.263603} or fundamental models such as lattice gauge theories~\cite{Montangero_lattice_2016,Carmen_2020,Mathis}. The latter require a large number of boson modes and excitations for a detailed description in arbitrary dimension, thus representing a challenging task for both classical devices and near time qubit-based architectures~\cite{Mathis}.
Additionally, models involving multiple two-level atoms or boson modes~\cite{PhysRev.93.99} can be simulated by chemically engineering the structures in order to link together several qudit and/or qubits~\cite{Peng,Ni21Gd20}.
In conclusion, it is worth stressing that a synthetic effort to achieve the conditions highlighted in this work would place molecular nanomagnets among the most promising platforms for the realization of effective quantum simulators.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank P.~Santini for useful discussions. This work has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme through FET-OPEN grant 862893 FATMOLS and QUANTERA project SUMO (co-funded by Italian Ministry of University and Research). \\
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
An elliptic curve defined over a number field $K$ is said to have \textdef{good reduction everywhere} if it has good reduction at every prime ideal of the ring of integers of $K$. Tate showed that there are no such elliptic curves over $\mathbb{Q}$~\cite{ogg}, but this is not the case for all fields. For example, over $K := \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{29})$ the elliptic curve
\begin{equation*}
y^2 +xy + \paren{\frac{5+\sqrt{29}}{2}}^2y = x^3
\end{equation*}
has good reduction everywhere. The existence and properties of quadratic fields admitting such elliptic curves has been studied extensively~\cite{comalada-fixedj, comalada-nart, comalada-quad, kagawa-cubdisc, kida-potential, kida-nonexistence, stroeker-egr, setzer-2, zhao, kida-certain, kida-imaginary, ishii-nonex}, and extensions to higher-degree fields were considered by Takeshi~\cite{takeshi-cub, takeshi-gen}. Algorithms for computing such elliptic curves were given by Kida~\cite{kida-comp} for quadratic fields and by Cremona and Lingham~\cite{cremona-lingham}, Koutsianas~\cite{koutsianas}, and the first author~\cite{matschke} over general number fields.
We will be interested in the following statistical question:
\begin{question}
How often does a real (resp.\ imaginary) quadratic field admit an elliptic curve with good reduction everywhere and rational $j$-invariant?
\end{question}
As with any such question, we must define ``often'' with respect to an ordering of quadratic fields. Let $R(x)$ (resp.\ $I(x)$) be the number of real (resp.\ imaginary) quadratic fields $K/\mathbb{Q}$ with discriminants of absolute value at most $x$ and over which there exist elliptic curves with rational $j$-invariant and with good reduction at every prime of $K$. Setzer~\cite{setzer-crit} gave an explicit criterion for $m$ such that $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ admits an elliptic curve with rational $j$-invariant and good reduction everywhere. Coupling this criterion with a lower bound of Serre~\cite{serre} on the sizes of particular sifted sets of integers, Clemm and Trebat-Leder~\cite{ctl} gave a lower bound on the quantities of interest.
\begin{theorem}[Clemm and Trebat-Leder~\cite{ctl}]
\label{thm:ctl}
\begin{equation*}
R(x) \gg \frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}} \quad\t{and}\quad I(x) \gg \frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Main results}
Our main theorem is a sharp result for the asymptotic behavior of $R(x)$ and $I(x)$ assuming the $abc$-conjecture. Because the expressions for the constants are somewhat technical, we defer some of their descriptions to later in the paper.
\restatableTheorem{\rixconst}{maintheorem}{thm:rix-const}{
Assuming the $abc$-conjecture,
\[R(x) \sim \frac{c_Rx}{\sqrt{\log x}} \quad\t{and}\quad I(x) \sim \frac{c_{I}x}{\sqrt{\log x}}\]
where
\[c_R = \sum_{\substack{d \in \mathbb{Z} \\ d \t{ good}}} \frac{c_dc'_{d,R}}{|d|2^{\omega(d)}} \quad\t{and}\quad c_I = \sum_{\substack{d \in \mathbb{Z} \\ d \t{ good}}} \frac{c_dc'_{d,I}}{|d|2^{\omega(d)}},\]
where the set of good $d$ is defined in~\eqref{eq:good}, $c_d$ is as in~\cref{cor:ridx-asymp} and $c'_{d,R}$ and $c'_{d,I}$ are as in~\cref{lem:ridx-const}.
}
We may worry that the condition of ``rational $j$-invariant'' is too restrictive. However, conditionally complete\footnote{The tables are complete assuming the generalized Riemann hypothesis.} tables of elliptic curves with bounded absolute discriminant and good reduction everywhere due to the first author~\cite{matschke} suggest that most quadratic fields admitting any curves with good reduction everywhere admit at least one such curve with rational $j$-invariant. We discuss the possibility of extending these results to all $j$-invariants further in~\cref{subsec:future}.
One ingredient in the proof of \cref{thm:rix-const} is an upper bound on how often quadratic twists of some elliptic curves over $\mathbb{Q}$ have integral points. Consider an elliptic curve $E/\mathbb{Q}$ with short Weierstrass equation $y^2 = f(x)$. We are interested in counting the number of quadratic twists $E_d$ of $E$ -- with models $dy^2 = f(x)$ -- that have integral points. Note that if $E$ has a two-torsion point, say $(a:0:1)$, then every twist $E_d$ will also have the two-torsion point $(a:0:1)$. As such, we restrict our attention to determining the existence of a \textdef{nontrivial} integral point on $E_d$ -- an integral point that is not two-torsion.
Formally, we prove an upper bound on the quantity $|T_E(D)|$, where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ted}
T_E(D) := \{d \in \mathbb{Z} \colon |d| \leq D, d \t{ is squarefree and } E_d \t{ has a nontrivial integral point}\}.
\end{equation}
Granville~\cite{granville-twists} showed the following conditional upper bound on the analogous quantity for hyperelliptic curves.
\begin{theorem}[Granville~\cite{granville-twists}]
\label{thm:granville-1}
Assume that the $abc$-conjecture is true. Let $C$ be a hyperelliptic curve given by the integral model $y^2 = f(x)$ where $f \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$ has degree at least three (i.e.\ the genus is at least one) and is separable. Then,
\begin{equation*}
|T_C(D)| \leq D^{\frac{1}{\deg f-2} + o(1)}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
We will be interested in the case where $\deg f = 3$, in which case~\cref{thm:granville-1} is trivial.
However, Granville also conjectures that the $\deg f - 2$ in the denominator of the exponent can be replaced with~$\deg f$.
\begin{conjecture}[Granville~\cite{granville-twists}]
\label{conj:granville-1}
Let $C$ be a hyperelliptic curve given by the integral model $y^2 = f(x)$ where $f \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$ has degree at least three (i.e.\ the genus is at least one) and is separable. Then,
\begin{equation*}
|T_C(D)| \sim \kappa_fD^{\frac{1}{\deg f} + o(1)},
\end{equation*}
where $\kappa_f$ is some constant that can be determined explicitly given $f$.
\end{conjecture}
Granville proves~\cref{conj:granville-1} for polynomials $f$ of degree at least $7$ that split into linear factors over~$\mathbb{Q}$. We make progress towards~\cref{conj:granville-1} when the degree of $f$ is $3$.
\restatableTheorem{\redec}{maintheorem}{thm:red-ec}{
Assume that the $abc$-conjecture is true. Let $E$ be an elliptic curve over $\mathbb{Q}$ with short Weierstrass equation $y^2 = f(x)$ where $f(x) \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$ is reducible\footnote{Equivalently, $E$ has a rational Weierstrass point.} over~$\mathbb{Q}$. Then,
\begin{equation*}
|T_E(D)| \leq D^{\nf{2}{3} + o(1)}.
\end{equation*}
}
We may apply~\cref{thm:red-ec} to the set of good $d$ in~\cref{thm:rix-const} to show (among other things) that the sum in the statement of~\cref{thm:rix-const} converges. At a high level, this sum is actually a union bound over the good $d \in \mathbb{Z}$, and thus it yields an upper bound on the leading constant in~\cref{thm:rix-const}. To show the matching lower bound, we control the second term in the inclusion-exclusion sequence via a result on the sizes of pairwise least common multiples of ``polynomially sparse'' subsets. This result may be of independent interest.
\restatableTheorem{\lcmsparse}{maintheorem}{thm:lcm-sparse}{
A set $S \subseteq \mathbb{N}$ of squarefree numbers is called $\beta$-polynomially sparse if for $\beta \in (0,1)$ we have
\[\#\{n \leq x \colon n \in S\} \leq x^{1-\beta+o(1)}\]
as $x$ approaches $+\infty$. For any such $S$, the set
\[\{(n, n') \colon n \in S, n' \in S, \operatorname{lcm}(n,n') \leq x\}.\]
is $\frac{\beta}{2-\beta}$-polynomially sparse. Furthermore, there are sets for which this is tight.
}
\begin{corollary-nonum}
The set of pairwise least common multiples of a polynomially sparse set of squarefree numbers is polynomially sparse.
\end{corollary-nonum}
The initial motivation for studying the constants $c_R$ and $c_I$ in~\cref{thm:rix-const} was the observation that most quadratic fields admitting curves with everywhere good reduction appear to be real. Assuming the $abc$-conjecture, we are able to prove numerical lower bounds on $c_R$ and $c_I$.
\restatableTheorem{\constlb}{maincorollary}{cor:const-lb}{
Assuming the $abc$-conjecture,~\cref{thm:rix-const} holds for
\[c_R \geq 0.1255 \quad\t{and}\quad c_I \geq 0.01109.\]
}
We expect these values, obtained by evaluating the sum in~\cref{thm:rix-const} for many good $d$, to be very close to the truth.
Indeed, the aforementioned tables of elliptic curves show that,
under the generalized Riemann hypothesis, $R(20000)=728$ and $I(20000)=97$.
\footnote{These numbers of fields become $852$ and $97$, respectively, if we drop the condition of rational $j$-invariants.}
Writing $\tilde{c}_R$ and $\tilde{c}_I$ to denote the constants in~\cref{cor:const-lb},
we have $\tilde{c}_R\, x_0\log^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}}x_0 \approx 797$ and $\tilde{c}_I\, x_0\log^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}}x_0 \approx 70$ for $x_0 = 20000$,
roughly in line with the true values.
\begin{restatable}{maincorollary}{constub}
\label{cor:const-ub}
Let $E$ be the elliptic curve given by the short Weierstrass equation $y^2 = x^3-1728$. Assume, instead of the $abc$-conjecture, that $|T_E(D)| \leq 5 D^{0.35}$. Then,~\cref{thm:rix-const} holds with
\[0.1255 \leq c_R \leq 0.1489 \quad\t{and}\quad 0.01109 \leq c_I \leq 0.03446.\]
In particular, $c_R > c_I$ under this hypothesis.
\end{restatable}
Experimentally, we have checked (\cref{fig:d-conj}) that this hypothesis holds comfortably for all $D \leq 10000$. We also motivate this hypothesis using the aforementioned conjecture of Granville (\cref{conj:granville-1}).
\subsection{Techniques and an overview of the proofs}
\label{subsec:tech}
The first input used in proving~\cref{thm:rix-const} is a criterion of Setzer~\cite{setzer-crit} for when $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ admits an elliptic curve with good reduction everywhere and rational $j$-invariant. We state the criterion formally as~\cref{thm:setzer-crit} but at a high level, it tells us that $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ admits such an elliptic curve if and only if $m$ can be factored as $nd$ for some $d$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $d$ is the squarefree part of $r^3 - 1728$ for $r$ in some positive density subset of the integers; \label{tech-a}
\item $n$ is divisible only by primes satisfying certain quadratic residuosity conditions with respect to $d$. For any $d$, the set of primes satisfying this condition has natural density $\frac{1}{2}$; \label{tech-b}
\item the image of $n$ in $(\mathbb{Z}/4d\mathbb{Z})^{\times}$ lies in a specified subset. \label{tech-c}
\end{enumerate}
We are interested in upper bounding $R(x)$, the number of real quadratic fields with discriminant at most $x$ and which satisfy conditions~\ref{tech-a},~\ref{tech-b}, and~\ref{tech-c} (the same techniques apply to $I(x)$).
We first show, assuming the $abc$-conjecture, that the set of $d \in \mathbb{Z}$ which satisfy~\ref{tech-a} is polynomially sparse. This is a corollary of~\cref{thm:red-ec}. The key idea motivating the proof of~\cref{thm:red-ec} is the relationship between squarefree parts and quadratic twists of elliptic curves. Consider~\ref{tech-a} above. We have that $d$ is the squarefree part of $r^3-1728$ if and only if for some integer $t$ we have $dt^2 = r^3-1728$. This happens if and only if the quadratic twist by $d$ of $E: t^2 = r^3-1728$ has an integral point. By definition, $T_E(D)$ (\eqref{eq:ted}) counts the nontrivial points and hence the number of nonzero $d$ which arise as squarefree parts of $r^3-1728$.
Next, we fix some $d$ satisfying~\ref{tech-a} and study the asymptotics of $R_d(x)$, the contribution to $R(x)$ from those $m$ which are divisible by this $d$. Then, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tech-1}
R(x) \leq \sum_{d \t{ sat.\,\ref{tech-a}}} R_d(x).
\end{equation}
This approach is motivated by the lower bound of Clemm and Trebat-Leder~\cite{ctl} (\cref{thm:ctl}). They chose a single value of $d$ satisfying~\ref{tech-a} and for which~\ref{tech-c} is trivial. A result of Serre~\cite{serre} implies a lower bound on the number of $n$ satisfying~\ref{tech-b} and shows that for this choice of $d$, $R_d(x) \gg \frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}}$. This may seem surprising, as it means that even without considering multiple values of $d$ they are already able to obtain the correct order of growth of $R(x)$! This happens because the set of $d$ satisfying~\ref{tech-a} is very sparse. Indeed, it turns out that for any such $d$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ridx-asymp-inf}
R_d(x) \ll \frac{(1+o_d(x))c_dx}{\abs{d}\sqrt{\log x}},
\end{equation}
where $c_d$ grows very slowly as $|d|$ goes to infinity.
We prove~\eqref{eq:ridx-asymp-inf} using Selberg-Delange theory (in particular, \cref{thm:selberg-delange}), which is also the general theory underlying the bound of Serre~\cite{serre} used in the work of Clemm and Trebat-Leder. Selberg-Delange theory gives us a Tauberian theorem for Dirichlet series which can be expressed as $\zeta(s)^{\rho}G(s)$ for $\rho \in \C$ and $G(s)$ holomorphic in a neighborhood around $s = 1$. For $\rho$ a nonzero real, it tells us that the sum of coefficients of the series up to $x$ is asymptotically $cx\log^{\rho-1} x$ for some explicit constant $c$ depending on $G$. To obtain our upper bound, we apply Selberg-Delange theory to the Dirichlet series $F(s)$ whose coefficients are the values of the characteristic function of~\ref{tech-b} -- since we just need an upper bound, it is fine to ignore~\ref{tech-c} for now. It turns out that because the number of ``valid'' primes in~\ref{tech-b} is half of all primes, $F(s) = \zeta(s)^{\nf{1}{2}}G(s)$ for some $G(s)$ holomorphic around $s = 1$. This then implies~\eqref{eq:ridx-asymp-inf}. Applying~\eqref{eq:ridx-asymp-inf} to~\eqref{eq:tech-1}, we deduce
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tech-15}
R(x) \ll \sum_{d \t{ sat.\,\ref{tech-a}}} \frac{(1+o_d(x))c_dx}{|d|\sqrt{\log x - \log |d|}}.
\end{equation}
Summation by parts shows that the sum of the reciprocals of the elements of a polynomially sparse set converges (\cref{lem:nat-to-harm}), and applying this to the set of $d$ satisfying~\ref{tech-a} (which is polynomially sparse by~\cref{thm:red-ec}), we have that the series
\[\sum_{d \t{ sat.\,\ref{tech-a}}} \frac{c_d}{|d|}\]
converges. This allows us to uniformly bound the $o_d(x)$ terms in~\eqref{eq:tech-15} and obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tech-175}
R(x) \ll \frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}} \sum_{d \t{ sat.\,\ref{tech-a}}} \frac{c_d}{|d|} \ll \frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}}.
\end{equation}
In order to compute the implicit constant in~\eqref{eq:tech-175}, we start by computing the implicit constant in~\eqref{eq:ridx-asymp-inf} (\cref{lem:ridx-const}). To do this, we fix a $d$ and count those $n$ which satisfy~\ref{tech-b} and~\ref{tech-c}. Selberg-Delange theory can be applied directly to obtain the exact constant if we are only interested in the Dirichlet series of~\ref{tech-b}. We need to study the Dirichlet series of \ref{tech-b}$\land$\ref{tech-c},\footnote{The Dirichlet series whose coefficient at $n$ is $1$ if and only if $n$ satisfies~\ref{tech-b} and~\ref{tech-c}} which is the (Rankin-Selberg) convolution of the Dirichlet series for~\ref{tech-b} and the Dirichlet series for~\ref{tech-c}. However,~\ref{tech-c} need not be a multiplicative property, and hence its Dirichlet series need not have an Euler product. We address this by expressing it as a linear combination of Dirichlet $L$-series and noting that only one term of the linear combination contributes to the overall asymptotics. We then apply~\cref{thm:selberg-delange} to this term to obtain our result on $R_d(x)$.
Observe that~\eqref{eq:tech-1} is simply a union bound over the contributions of all $d$ satisfying~\ref{tech-a}. By the principle of inclusion-exclusion, the sum of the first two terms in the inclusion-exclusion series are a lower bound on $R(x)$. The first term is simply the union bound that we have already computed. The second term is a sum over pairs $(d,d')$, both satisfying~\ref{tech-a}, where each term accounts for the contribution to $R(x)$ from those $n$ which are divisible by $\operatorname{lcm}(|d|,\!|d'|)$. Thus, abusing notation, we want to upper bound
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tech-2}
\sum_{d,d' \t{ sat.\,\ref{tech-a}}} R_{d, d'}(x),
\end{equation}
where each term captures the contribution from $n$ dividing both $d$ and $d'$. As before, part of our proof involves showing that the sum
\[\sum_{d,d' \t{ sat.\,(a)}} \frac{c_{dd'}}{\operatorname{lcm}(|d|,\!|d'|)}\]
converges for some $c_{dd'}$ which grows slowly as $\operatorname{lcm}(|d|,|d'|)$ goes to infinity. Here, we use~\cref{thm:lcm-sparse}, which tells us that the number of pairs of elements up to $x$ in a polynomially sparse set with least common multiple at most $x$ is $\ll x^{1-\kappa}$ for some $\kappa > 0$. By summation by parts, the sum in question converges. We use this to show that the second term in the inclusion-exclusion series is asymptotically negligible compared to the first term. Therefore, the constant we obtained from the union bound is actually the correct constant.
\subsection{Future work}
\label{subsec:future}
There are several natural extensions. The first concerns the generalization of our result to elliptic curves with good reduction everywhere and arbitrary $j$-invariant.
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conj:irrational}
Theorem~\ref{thm:rix-const} holds even after removing the constraint that $j$ is rational.
\end{conjecture}
To show this, we would want to show that the number of real and imaginary quadratic fields with discriminant of absolute value at most $x$ and over which there exists an elliptic curve with good reduction everywhere but no elliptic curve with good reduction everywhere and rational $j$-invariant is $o(\frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}})$. As mentioned, this conjecture is motivated by elliptic curve tables constructed by the first author~\cite{matschke} -- of the $955$ quadratic fields admitting an elliptic curve with good reduction everywhere, only $130$ of the fields do not admit such a curve that also has rational $j$-invariant.
There are no known criteria as explicit as that of
Setzer's result~\cite{setzer-crit} for identifying elliptic curves with good reduction everywhere and irrational $j$-invariant. However, the proof of
Shavarevich's theorem~\cite{shafarevich62} (c.f.~Silverman~\cite[Thm.~IX.6.1]{silverman-book}) reduces the computation of elliptic curves over $K$ with good reduction everywhere (or more generally, outside a finite set of primes) to the computation of $\mathcal{O}_K$-integral points on finitely many associated Mordell curves whose constant term lies in a Selmer-type group associated to $K$. This approach is used by the algorithm of~\cite{cremona-lingham}. In the case of elliptic curves with rational $j$-invariant, representatives of the relevant Selmer groups can be chosen to be rational integers, and in our language are the good $d$. Our proof in this paper thus has two steps: we show that the number of potential Selmer representatives is sparse (\cref{thm:red-ec} on how often $dy^2 = x^3-1728$ has a nontrivial integral point) and for each such potential representative we bound the number of quadratic fields $K$ for which it actually lies in the relevant Selmer-type group of $K$ (computing $R_d(x)$ and $I_d(x)$ for each good $d$). This compartmentalization appears to be more difficult in general as the former problem is no longer independent of the number field $K$ and because Selmer representatives can no longer be chosen to be rational integers. As such, it seems that a different approach may be needed in this setting.
Another angle of attack in the irrational $j$-invariant setting could come from the Shafarevich--Parshin construction~\cite{parshin72}, which reduces the computation of elliptic curves over $K$ with good reduction everywhere to the $S$-unit equation over $K$, where $S$ is the set of primes above~$2$. This approach was used in the aforementioned computation of~\cite{matschke}.
Another improvement would be removing the dependence on the $abc$-conjecture, which arises whenever we use~\cref{thm:abc-polyrad} to bound the range of $r$ for which it is possible for $\sqf(r^3-1728)$ to be $d$. As discussed in~\cref{sec:comp}, we can replace our dependence on the $abc$-conjecture with~\cref{assumption}, which implies both our result and Granville's~\cref{conj:granville-1}.
Lastly, it may be interesting to obtain criteria like that of Setzer for number fields of higher degrees. These criteria could then be used to derive statistical results for such families of number fields just as we have done in the quadratic case.
\subsection{Organization}
Most preliminary content, including proofs of elementary results and references to the literature, are in~\cref{sec:prelim}. We prove our bound on how often twists of some elliptic curves have an integral point, \cref{thm:red-ec}, in~\cref{sec:twists}. In~\cref{sec:asymp}, we apply Selberg-Delange theory and~\cref{thm:red-ec} to prove~\cref{thm:rix-asymp}, a version of~\cref{thm:rix-const} that is tight up to constants. In~\cref{sec:const}, we compute an upper bound on the leading constants in~\cref{thm:rix-const}. In~\cref{sec:lb}, we prove~\cref{thm:lcm-sparse} and use it to prove a matching lower bound on the leading constants of~\cref{thm:rix-const}, concluding the proof. In~\cref{sec:comp} we formulate an additional hypothesis based on~\cref{conj:granville-1} to obtain good numeric estimates for $c_R$ and $c_I$.
\subsection{Acknowledgements}
The authors thank Ashwin Sah and Mehtaab Sawhney for an improvement to the upper bound in~\cref{thm:lcm-sparse}
and a matching lower bound.
In addition, the authors benefited from helpful conversations with
Daniel Fiorilli, Andrew Granville, Michael Kural, and Melanie Matchett Wood.
We thank the anonymous referee for their very useful comments.
The first author was supported by Boston University and by Simons Foundation grant \#550023.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:prelim}
\subsection{Notation}
\label{subsec:notation}
We write $\mathbb{N}$ to denote the positive integers. In general, $p$ and $q$ will be used to denote primes and $\prod_p$, $\prod_q$, $\sum_p$, and $\sum_q$ denote products and sums over primes. For $p$ a prime, we write $|\bullet|_p$ to denote the $p$-adic norm. Given a number field $K/\mathbb{Q}$, we write $\Delta_{K}$ to denote its absolute discriminant.
Let $n$ be an integer. We write $\omega(n)$ to denote the number of distinct prime factors of $n$. Generally, we will apply this in contexts where $n$ is squarefree, in which case $\omega(n)$ is simply the number of prime factors of $n$.
If $t$ is the largest integer for which $t^2$ divides $n$ then we call $d := \frac{n}{t^2}$ the \textdef{squarefree part} of $n$ and write $d = \sqf(n)$. The product of the distinct prime factors of $n$ is the \textdef{radical} of $n$, which we denote by $\rad(n)$. Note that the squarefree part of $n$ includes its sign but the radical does not. Given two positive integers $m$ and $n$, we write $(m,n)$ to denote their greatest common divisor.
Throughout, we use Vinogradov asymptotic notation.
If $f \ll g$ then $\limsup_{x \rightarrow \infty} \frac{|f(x)|}{g(x)} < \infty$.
If $f \gg g$ then $\limsup_{x \rightarrow \infty} \frac{|g(x)|}{f(x)} < \infty$.
If $f \ll g$ and $g \ll f$ then $f \asymp g$.
We will also occasionally make use of Bachmann-Landau asymptotic notation to concisely describe error. The expression $b(x) = c(x) + o(g(x))$ means that $\limsup_{x \rightarrow \infty} \frac{b(x)-c(x)}{|g(x)|} = 0$. Similarly, we write $b(x) = c(x) + O(g(x))$ when $b(x) - c(x) \ll g(x)$. A subscript on any such notation -- for example, $\gg_{\epsilon}$ -- means that the implicit function or constant may depend on the subscript. We may sometimes combine both notations in expressions like $f(x) \ll (1+o_d(1))g(x)$ for some auxiliary variable $d$; this will be used if we wish to suppress the dependence on $d$ for brevity but will need to address it later in the paper.
In this context, we write $o'_d(1)$ to denote an error term $\varepsilon(d,x)$ such that
\[\varepsilon(d,x) \leq \paren{1-\frac{\log |d|}{\log x}}^{-\nf{1}{2}}\paren{1+K'|d|^{1.002}\exp{\paren{-K\log^{\nf{1}{2}} \frac{x}{|d|}}}+K'|d|^{0.001}\log^{-1}\frac{x}{|d|}} - 1\]
for some absolute constants $K$ and $K'$.
Note that for any large enough fixed $c$ (e.g.\ $c > 1$), $\epsilon(d,x)$ goes to zero in the regime
where $x$ goes to infinity and $|d| \leq \log^c x$.
Given complex numbers $z$ and $a$, we define the power $z^a := e^{a\log z}$ with respect to the principal branch of the logarithm.
Throughout, we write $\leg{\bullet}{\bullet}$ to denote the Kronecker symbol.
We will often be concerned with Dirichlet characters of modulus $8$. To this end, it will help to fix a notation for characters of $(\mathbb{Z}/8\mathbb{Z})^{\times} \cong (\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}) \times (\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})$. Without loss of generality, let $3 \mod 8$ correspond to $(1,0) \in \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$, $5 \mod 8$ to $(0,1)$, and $7 \mod 8$ to $(1,1)$. We then define the characters $\boldsymbol{\chi}_{ij}$, for $i,j \in \{0,1\}$, to be nontrivial on the first (resp.\ second) component when $i$ (resp.\ $j$) is $1$. For example, $\boldsymbol{\chi}_{11}$ takes values $1,-1,-1,$ and $1$ at arguments which are $1,3,5,$ and $7 \mod 8$.
\subsection{Some analytic facts}
\subsubsection{Summation by parts}
The following lemma will allow us to convert results on the sparseness of a subset of the natural numbers to results on the sums of reciprocals of elements of that subset.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:nat-to-harm}
Let $\alpha \in (0,1)$ and $C$ be positive constants. Suppose that $f \colon \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ is such that for all $x$,
$\sum_{n = 1}^x f(n) \leq Cx^{1-\alpha}$.
Then, if $\kappa +\alpha > 1$,
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{f(n)}{n^{\kappa}}$ converges;\label{it:nat-to-harm-1}
\item For $m \geq 2$, $\sum_{n = m}^{\infty} \frac{f(n)}{n^\kappa} \leq \frac{C\kappa m^{-(\kappa+\alpha-1)}}{\kappa+\alpha-1}$.\label{it:nat-to-harm-2}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\cref{lem:nat-to-harm} follows from a standard application of summation by parts or Stieljes integrals.
\subsubsection{$L$-functions and convolutions}
Given two functions $a, b \colon \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \C$ and associated Dirichlet series $F(s) = \sum_n a_nn^{-s}$ and $G(s) = \sum_n b_nn^{-s}$, their convolution is the formal Dirichlet series
\[F \otimes G(s) := \sum_n a_nb_nn^{-s}.\]
The convolution of $L$-series corresponds to the product of the coefficients in the same way that the product of $L$-series corresponds to the (Dirichlet) convolution of the coefficients.
Because we have only defined the convolution formally, we do need to consider the issue of convergence. However, in this paper we will only convolve $F$ and $G$ for which $|a_n| \leq 1$ and $|b_n| \leq 1$, and only ever require convergence of the convolution on $\Re(s) > 1$.
\subsubsection{Kronecker symbols}
The Kronecker symbol is a generalization of the Legendre symbol which allows composite inputs in the top and bottom entries and is - with some exceptions - multiplicative in both the top and the bottom entries. It is defined in most number theory texts (for example, page $39$ of~\cite{davenport}). Kronecker symbols are intimately related to real Dirichlet characters. The symbol $\leg{D}{\bullet}$ is a real Dirichlet character when $D \not \equiv 3 \mod 4$, and every real Dirichlet character can be written as such a character. Furthermore, the primitive real Dirichlet characters are in $1-1$ correspondence with symbols $\leg{D}{\bullet}$ when $D$ is a fundamental discriminant (i.e.\ when $D$ is the discriminant of a quadratic number field).
\subsection{The \texorpdfstring{$abc$}{abc}-conjecture and some consequences}
Recall the $abc$-conjecture.
\begin{conjecture}[Oesterl\'e~\cite{oesterle}, Masser~\cite{masser90}]
\label{conj:abc}
For every $\epsilon > 0$ there exists a constant $C_{\epsilon}$ such that for any given non-zero coprime integers $a,b,c$ with $a + b + c = 0$,
\begin{equation*}
\max(|a|,|b|,|c|) \leq C_{\epsilon}\rad(abc)^{1+\epsilon}.
\end{equation*}
\end{conjecture}
\begin{theorem}[{Granville~\cite[Cor.~$1$]{granville-abc}}]
\label{thm:abc-polyrad}
Assume that the $abc$-conjecture (\cref{conj:abc}) is true. Suppose that $g(x) \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$ is separable. Then, for any $r \in \mathbb{Z}$,
\begin{equation*}
\rad g(r) \gg_{\epsilon} |r|^{\deg g - 1 - \epsilon}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
For a hyperelliptic curve over $\mathbb{Q}$ with integral model $C \colon y^2 = f(x)$, we write $C_d$ to denote its $d^{\t{th}}$ quadratic twist with model $dy^2 = f(x)$. We will make essential use of the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}[{Granville~\cite[Thm.~$1$(i)]{granville-twists}}]
\label{thm:abc-rtd-bound}
Assume that the $abc$-conjecture is true. Suppose that $f(x) \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$ is separable and let $C$ be the hyperelliptic curve with equation $y^2 = f(x)$.
If $\deg f \geq 3$ then the integral points $(r,t)$ on $C_d$ satisfy
\begin{equation*}
|r| \ll_{\epsilon} |d|^{\frac{1}{\deg f - 2} + \epsilon}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
|t| \ll_{\epsilon} |d|^{\frac{1}{\deg f - 2} + \epsilon}
\end{equation*}
for every $\epsilon > 0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $dt^2 = f(r)$. It follows from~\cref{thm:abc-polyrad} that, under the $abc$-conjecture
\begin{equation*}
|d|^{\frac{1}{2}}|r|^{\frac{\deg f}{2}} \gg_f |df(r)|^{\frac{1}{2}} = |dt| \geq \rad(dt) = \rad(f(r)) \gg_{\epsilon} |r|^{\deg f - 1 - \epsilon}
\end{equation*}
and the first part of the result follows.
For the second part, note that
\begin{equation*}
|dt^2| = |f(r)| \ll_f |r|^{\deg f} \ll_{\epsilon} |d|^{\frac{\deg f}{\deg f - 2} + \epsilon}.
\qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Identifying quadratic fields with good reduction everywhere}
\label{subsec:setzer}
The following definition is the formal statement of~\ref{tech-a} from~\cref{subsec:tech}.
\begin{definition}
We say that $d \in \mathbb{Z}$ is \textdef{good} if $d = \sqf(r^3-1728)$ for an element $r$ of the set
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:good}
\{r \in \mathbb{Z} \colon \t{if } r \equiv 0 \mod 2 \t{ then } r \equiv 0,4 \mod{16}; \t{ if } r \equiv 0\mod{3} \t{ then }n \equiv 12 \mod{27}\}.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
Given $d \in \mathbb{Z}$ squarefree, we write
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_d :=
\begin{cases}
1 & d \equiv 1 \mod 4, \\
-1 & \t{otherwise.} \\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
We may now state a criterion of Setzer~\cite{setzer-crit} which tells us when a quadratic field $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ admits an elliptic curve with good reduction everywhere and rational $j$-invariant. This will formalize~\ref{tech-b} and~\ref{tech-c} from~\cref{subsec:tech}.
\begin{theorem}[Theorem 2.2 of~\cite{ctl}, correcting an error in Theorem 2 of~\cite{setzer-crit}]
\label{thm:setzer-crit}
Let $m$ be a squarefree integer. The field $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ admits an elliptic curve with good reduction everywhere and rational $j$-invariant if and only if the following conditions are satisfied for some integers $d$ and $n$ such that $d$ is good $($\eqref{eq:good}$)$ and $m = dn$.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\epsilon_dd$ is a quadratic residue modulo $n$; \label{it:setzer-1}
\item $-\epsilon_d n$ is a quadratic residue modulo $d$; \label{it:setzer-2}
\item If $d \equiv \pm 3 \mod 8$ then $m = dn \equiv 1 \mod 4$; \label{it:setzer-3}
\item If $d$ is even then $n \equiv d+1 \mod 8$; \label{it:setzer-4}
\item $m > 0$ if $\epsilon_dd < 0$. \label{it:setzer-5}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
In the above, neither $d$ nor $n$ are restricted to being positive integers. Intuitively,~\ref{it:setzer-1} is~\ref{tech-b} from~\cref{subsec:tech}, and~\ref{it:setzer-2}-\ref{it:setzer-5} comprise~\ref{tech-c} from~\cref{subsec:tech}.
We will now define the primary quantities of interest. We write that an elliptic curve over a field $K/\mathbb{Q}$ has $\t{GRE}_{\mathbb{Q}}$ if it has good reduction at every prime of $\O_K$ and $j$-invariant in $\mathbb{Q}$.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:ridx}
Following~\cite{ctl}, we define for every positive $x$
\begin{equation*}
R(x) := \#\{m \colon 0 < \Delta_{\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})} \leq x, \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m}) \t{ admits an elliptic curve with GRE}_{\mathbb{Q}}\}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
I(x) := \#\{m \colon -x \leq \Delta_{\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})} < 0, \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m}) \t{ admits an elliptic curve with GRE}_{\mathbb{Q}}\}.
\end{equation*}
If $d$ is good, we also define
\begin{equation*}
R_d(x) := \#\{n \colon 0 < \Delta_{\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{nd})} \leq x, \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{nd}) \t{ admits an elliptic curve with GRE}_{\mathbb{Q}}\},
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
I_d(x) := \#\{n \colon -x \leq \Delta_{\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{nd})} < 0, \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{nd}) \t{ admits an elliptic curve with GRE}_{\mathbb{Q}}\}.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
Intuitively, $R_d(x)$ and $I_d(x)$ measure the contribution of $m$ which are divisible by $d$ to $R(x)$ and $I(x)$ respectively. Note that our definitions of $R_d(x)$ and $I_d(x)$ differ somewhat from those of Clemm and Trebat-Leder~\cite{ctl} as they write $R_d(x)$ (and $I_d(x)$ analogously) to count the number of $n$ up to $x$ such that $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{nd})$ admits an elliptic curve with $\t{GRE}_{\mathbb{Q}}$.
\section{Twists of elliptic curves}
\label{sec:twists}
Let $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over $\mathbb{Q}$ with short Weierstrass equation $y^2 = f(x)$ for $f(x) \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$. We denote by $E_d$ the $d^{\t{th}}$ quadratic twist of $E$ with the integral model $dy^2 = f(x)$. Then,
\begin{equation*}
T_E(D) := \{d \in \mathbb{Z} \colon |d| \leq D, d \t{ is squarefree and } E_d \t{ has a nontrivial integral point}\}.
\end{equation*}
In this section, we will prove~\cref{thm:red-ec}, which we now recall.
\redec
It will be useful to reformulate bounding $T_E(D)$ as bounding the number of integers with absolute value up to $D$ that arise as squarefree parts of $f(x)$. This is because the equation $dy^2 = f(x)$ has an integral point if and only if $d$ is the squarefree part of $f(r)$ for some integer $r$. The squarefree part function is multiplicative but not totally multiplicative. Nonetheless, the following lemma will let us write the squarefree part of a separable polynomial as the product of the squarefree parts of its factors if we ignore the valuations at finitely many primes.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:squarefree-mult}
Suppose that $f \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$ is separable and that it factors as $f = \prod_i g_i$ for $g_i \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$. Then, for all but finitely many $p$ and for all $r \in \mathbb{Z}$,
\begin{equation*}
|\sqf(f(r))|_p = \prod_i |\sqf(g_i(r))|_p
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\cref{lem:squarefree-mult}]
If two distinct factors $g_i$ and $g_j$ share a root modulo a prime then the resultant of $\bar{g}_i$ and $\bar{g}_j$ in $\mathbb{F}_p$ must be $0$, meaning that $p$ must divide the resultant of $g_i$ and $g_j$. By assumption, $g_i$ and $g_j$ have no shared roots over $\C$ and hence their resultant is a nonzero integer. This means that the reductions of $g_i$ and $g_j$ modulo a prime $p$ can only share a root for the finitely many primes $p$ that divide their resultant. Taking the union of these finite sets over all pairs of distinct $i$ and $j$, we see that for $p$ outside this finite union, if $p$ divides $g_i(r)$ for some $r$ then $p$ does not divide $g_j(r)$ for all $j \neq i$. This means that the factors $g_i(r)$ are ``coprime'' outside our finite set of primes, and the lemma then follows from the multiplicativity of the squarefree part function.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \crefrestated{thm:red-ec}]
There are four cases depending on how $f(x)$ factors. In the definition of each case,
a factorization of $f$ in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$ into irreducible factors is given.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\boldsymbol{f(x) = (x+a_1)(x+a_2)(x+a_3)}$: This case follows directly from the proof of Theorem~$2$ in~\cite{granville-twists}.
\item $\boldsymbol{f(x) = (x + a)(x^2 + b)}$: We have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{k(r)^2}\sqf(r+a)\sqf(r^2+b) = \sqf(f(r)),
\end{equation*}
where $k(r)$ is squarefree and divisible only by primes which divide both $r+a$ and $r^2+b$. By~\cref{lem:squarefree-mult},
the set $S$ of primes $p$ for which there exists an $r$ such that $p$ divides both $r+a$ and $r^2+b$ is finite.
Let $K := \prod_{p \in S} p$. Observe that $k(r) \leq K$. Then,
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{K^2}\sqf(r+a)\sqf(r^2+b) \leq \sqf(f(r)),
\end{equation*}
Choose an $\epsilon > 0$, suppose the constant from~\cref{thm:abc-rtd-bound} for this $\epsilon$ is $C_{\epsilon}$, and let
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ohp}
T'_E(D) := \{r \colon |r| \leq C_{\epsilon}D^{1+\epsilon}, |\sqf(r+a)\sqf(r^2+b)| \leq K^2D\}.
\end{equation}
Notice that $T_E(D)$ contains small values of $d$ while $T'_E(D)$ contains those $r$ for which $\sqf(f(r))$ is small.
We claim that $|T_E(D)| \leq |T'_E(D)|$.
This is because any $d \in T_E(D)$ is the squarefree part of $f(r)$ for some $r$. For each such $r$,
we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ohp2}
|\sqf(r+a)\sqf(r^2+b)| = k(r)^2d \leq K^2D
\end{equation}
by~\eqref{eq:ohp} and hence $r \in T'_E(D)$.
We only need to consider $|r| \leq C_{\epsilon}D^{1+\epsilon}$ by \cref{thm:abc-rtd-bound}.
We will branch into two subcases. First, consider $r$ such that $|\sqf(r+a)| \leq D^{2\delta}$ for some $\delta > 0$ that we will select later. For each squarefree number $m \leq D^{2\delta}$, there are at most $2\sqrt{\frac{C_{\epsilon}D^{1+\epsilon}}{m}}$ values of $r$ such that $\sqf(r+a) = m$ and $|r| \leq C_{\epsilon}D^{1+\epsilon}$. Therefore, the contribution to $T'_E(D)$ from these $r$ is at most
\begin{align*}
2C_{\epsilon}^{\nf{1}{2}}\int_{1}^{D^{2\delta}} \paren{\frac{D^{1+\epsilon}}{z}}^{\nf{1}{2}} dz & = 2C_{\epsilon}^{\nf{1}{2}}D^{\nf{1}{2}(1+\epsilon)}\int_{1}^{D^{2\delta}} z^{-\nf{1}{2}} dz \\
& \leq C_1D^{\nf{1}{2}(1+\epsilon)+\delta}. \\
\end{align*}
for $C_1 \leq 4C_{\epsilon}^{\nf{1}{2}}$.
Second,
we will count $r$ contributing to $T'_E(D)$ for which $|\sqf(r+a)| > D^{2\delta}$.
By~\eqref{eq:ohp2}, we require that $|\sqf(r^2+b)| \leq K^2D^{1- 2\delta}$.
Fix an integer $m$ such that $|m| \leq K^2D^{1-2\delta}$.
We will bound the number of $r$ for which $\sqf(r^2+b) = m$.
For any such $r$,
there is an $s \in \mathbb{Z}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
r^2 - ms^2 = -b.
\end{equation*}
This is equivalent to requiring that $r+s\sqrt{m} \in \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{m}]$ has norm $-b$.
If $m$ is negative then $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ is imaginary quadratic and by Dirichlet's unit theorem there are only finitely many elements of $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ which have this norm.
Hence, when $m$ is negative there are only finitely many values of $r$ for which $\sqf(r^2+b) = m$.
If $m$ is positive, let $\epsilon_m$ be the unique fundamental unit that exceeds $1$ in the embedding of $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m}) \hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that sends $\sqrt{m} \mapsto \sqrt{m}$.
Notice that after these choices $\epsilon_m > \frac{1}{2}(1+\sqrt{m})$.
This is because, by standard properties of the fundamental unit, $\epsilon_m = y+z\sqrt{m}$ for $y, z > 0$ and also $\epsilon_m$ is an element of $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})}$.
If $r+s\sqrt{m} \in \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{m}]$ has norm $-b$ then any other element of $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ with this norm is, up to sign, a power of the fundamental unit $\epsilon_m$ times $r+s\sqrt{m}$. Suppose that $\alpha$ is an element (up to sign) of $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{m}]$ with norm $-b$ that has minimum archimedean absolute value. Note that there is a unique minimum archimedean absolute value because $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{m}]$ is discrete. Then, every element of $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{m}]$ with norm $-b$ is of form $\pm\alpha\epsilon_m^k$ for some $k \geq 0$. We know that $\epsilon_m > \frac{1}{2}(1+\sqrt{m}) > 1.2$. We want to show that the $x$-coordinate of $\alpha \epsilon_m^k$ grows exponentially in $k$, as this will imply that we cannot have too many values of $r$ such that $\sqf(r^2+b) = m$. Writing $|\bullet|$ for the archimedean absolute value, we see that if $r + s\sqrt{m} = \pm \alpha \epsilon_m^k$ then,
\begin{align*}
|\alpha \epsilon_m^k| & = |r+s\sqrt{m}| \\
& \leq |r|+|s\sqrt{m}| \\
& = |r|+\sqrt{r^2+b} \\
& \leq 2|r|+\sqrt{b}.
\end{align*}
Rearranging, this means that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\alpha\epsilon_m^k-\sqrt{b}}{2} \leq |r|.
\end{equation*}
Because we require $|r| < C_{\epsilon}D^{1+\epsilon}$, we conclude that it is sufficient to look at
\begin{equation*}
k < \frac{\log\frac{2C_{\epsilon}D^{1+\epsilon}+\sqrt{b}}{\alpha}}{\log \epsilon_m} \leq C_{2,\epsilon}\log D
\end{equation*}
for some positive $C_{2, \epsilon}$, using in the second inequality that $\epsilon_m$ is lower bounded by a constant independent of $m$.
The point is that the number of possible $r$ that yield any given value of $\sqf(r^2+b)$ is small.
Thus, the total number of possible $r$ in this subcase is at most $C_{2,\epsilon}K^2D^{1 - 2\delta}\log D$.
Putting the two subcases together, our total count is $C_{1, \epsilon}D^{\frac{1}{2}(1+\epsilon)+\delta} + K^2C_{2,\epsilon}D^{1-2\delta}\log D$.
Taking $\delta = \frac{1}{6}$, we can make our overall upper bound $(C_{1,\epsilon}+K^2C_{2,\epsilon})D^{\frac{2}{3} + \epsilon}\ll_{\epsilon} D^{\frac{2}{3} + \epsilon}$,
since $K$ depends only on $f$.
\item $\boldsymbol{f(x) = (x+a)(x^2+b_1x+b_2)}$: We will reduce to the previous case via a pair of coordinate transformations which map integral points to integral points and work for any twist of $y^2 = f(x)$. Start with the equation $dy^2 = f(x)$. Define $x' := 2^2x$, $y' := 2^3y$, $a' := 2^2a$, $b'_1 := 2^2b_1$, and $b'_2 := 2^4b_2$. We have
\[dy'^2 = (x'+a')(x'^2+b'_1x'+b'_2),\]
which looks the same as before but now $b'_1$ is even. Thus, we may complete the square, taking $x'' := x'+2^{-1}b'_1$, $y'' := y'$, $a'' := a'-2^{-1}b'_1$, and $b'' := b'_2 - 2^{-2}b'_1$ to obtain
\[dy''^2 = (x''+a'')(x''^2+b'').\]
Overall, we have $x'' = 2^2x + 2b_1$, $y'' = 2^3y$ and hence integral points map to integral points. Because the transformation is independent of $d$, we may apply the argument of the previous case to $f(x'') = (x''+a'')(x''^2+b'')$ to obtain an upper bound on the number of twists of our original equation with integral points.
\item $\boldsymbol{f}$ \textbf{is not monic}: Suppose $f(x) = \sum_{i=0}^3 f_ix^i$.
Consider $\tilde{x} := f_3x$, $\tilde{y} := f_3y$, and $\tilde{f}(\tilde{x}) := \tilde{x}^3 + f_2\tilde{x}^2 + f_1f_3\tilde{x} + f_0f_3^2$.
Then, $\tilde{y}^2 = \tilde{f}(\tilde{x})$ and $\tilde{f}$ is monic.
Furthermore, $\tilde{f}$ is reducible over $\mathbb{Q}$ because $f$ is.
Thus, by Gauss' Lemma $\tilde{f}$ is reducible over $\mathbb{Z}$ and we may pass to one of the previous cases as appropriate because integral points are mapped to integral points. \qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\section{The Asymptotics of \texorpdfstring{$R(x)$}{R(x)} and \texorpdfstring{$I(x)$}{I(x)} up to Constants}
\label{sec:asymp}
Our main theorem in this section will be a version of~\cref{thm:rix-const} which is correct up to constants.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:rix-asymp}
Assume that the $abc$-conjecture is true. Then,
\begin{equation*}
R(x) \asymp \frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}}\quad \t{and} \quad I(x) \asymp \frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
Because Clemm and Trebat-Leder proved the lower bound (\cref{thm:ctl}), it is sufficient for us to prove the upper bound. Throughout this section, $d$ will denote a squarefree integer.
We will prove~\cref{thm:rix-asymp} by first proving the following lemma.
Recall the definitions of $R_d(x)$ and $I_d(x)$ from \cref{def:ridx}, as well as the definition of $o'_d(1)$ from~\cref{subsec:notation}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:ridx-asymp}
Let $d$ be good. Then, when $x \geq 3|d|$ we have
\begin{equation*}
R_d(x) \ll \frac{(1+o'_d(1))c_dx}{|d|\sqrt{\log x}} \quad\t{and}\quad I_d(x) \ll \frac{(1+o'_d(1))c_dx}{|d|\sqrt{\log x}},
\end{equation*}
where the implicit constant is absolute (independent of $d$) and $c_d$ is as defined in~\cref{cor:ridx-asymp}.
\end{lemma}
We will then pass from~\cref{lem:ridx-asymp} to~\cref{thm:rix-asymp} by summing $R_d(x)$ over good $d$ with small absolute value
and using a different bound for $d$ with large absolute value. By~\crefrestated{thm:red-ec},
the set of good $d$ is very sparse and therefore the asymptotic dependence on $x$ stays the same.
Notice that~\cref{lem:ridx-asymp} is unconditional -- we depend on the $abc$-conjecture in~\cref{thm:rix-asymp} only to prove~\crefrestated{thm:red-ec}.
We keep track of the $o'_d(1)$ error
in~\cref{lem:ridx-asymp} in order to ensure that its dependence on $d$ is mild enough that summing over the set of good $d$ does not change the dependence on $x$ by more than a constant.
Throughout this section, we will compute all our bounds while pretending that our quadratic fields $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$
(in both the real and imaginary settings) are ordered by $|m|$ rather than by $\Delta_{\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})}$.
This will not change any bound by more than a constant and thus is irrelevant to~\cref{lem:ridx-asymp} and~\cref{thm:rix-asymp}.
To prove~\cref{lem:ridx-asymp}, we will count those $n$ which satisfy~\cref{thm:setzer-crit}\ref{it:setzer-1}. This means that we want to count squarefree $n$ which are divisible only by primes $q$ for which $\epsilon_dd$ is a nonzero square modulo $q$. We do not actually need the squarefree condition to reach~\cref{thm:rix-asymp} but addressing it now will save us from repeating this work in~\cref{sec:const}.
\begin{remark}[Difficulties of the sieve]
Sieve theory provides a general method for counting the numbers up to $x$ which are divisible only by a subset $S$ of the primes.
When $S$ has positive natural density $\alpha$, sieve theory gives us an upper bound of $O(x\log^{\alpha-1}x)$ for this number
-- this follows from summation by parts and standard results.\footnote{See for example Theorem A.1 of~\cite{cribro}.}
However, in our setting $S$ is the set of primes satisfying~\cref{thm:setzer-crit}\ref{it:setzer-1}.
By Chebotarev's density theorem applied to the multiquadratic extension $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{p_1}, \dots, \sqrt{p_r})$,
one can check that $S$ has natural density $\frac{1}{2}+ o_d(1)$ and our sieve-theoretic upper bound on $R_d(x)$ and $I_d(x)$ would end up being \[\ll \frac{x}{d\log^{\nicefrac{1}{2}+ o_d(1)} x}.\]
This is insufficient to prove~\cref{lem:ridx-asymp}.
Furthermore, without the generalized Riemann hypothesis (or some other means of bounding Siegel zeroes) we have no control over the dependence on $d$ of the
little-$o$ term that arises from Chebotarev's density theorem and thus cannot easily bound the sum of these answers over all good $d$.
One can do better by exploiting the additional structure that the set $S$ has.
Indeed, this is the idea behind the theorem of Serre~\cite{serre} (whose proof Serre attributed to Raikov, Wintner, and Delange)
which Clemm and Trebat-Leder used in their lower bound.\footnote{Sieve-theoretic lower bounds which make much weaker assumptions on $S$ exist~\cite{gran-kou-mat, mat-shao}
but would have issues similar to those of the sieve-theoretic upper bounds were we to use them for our application.}
By using Selberg-Delange theory (\cref{thm:selberg-delange}) -- which generalizes some of the ideas used in~\cite{serre} -- we can obtain the correct dependence on $x$,
including the coefficient of $\frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}}$, and bypass the issue of computing the density of $S$ altogether.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
We define $\chi_d \colon \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \C$ as the totally multiplicative function which on primes $q$ is
\[\chi_d(q) := \begin{cases}
\leg{\epsilon_dd}{q} & q \t{ odd}, \\
\quad 1 & q=2 \t{ and } d \t{ odd}, \\
\quad 0 & q=2 \t{ and } d \t{ even}, \\
\end{cases}\]
where $\leg{\bullet}{\bullet}$ denotes the Kronecker symbol.
\end{definition}
Observe that unless $d \equiv \pm 3 \mod 8$
(and hence $\epsilon_dd \equiv 5 \mod 8$),
$\chi_d$ agrees with the Kronecker symbol $\leg{\epsilon_dd}{\bullet}$ at all $n \in \mathbb{N}$.
If $d \equiv \pm 3 \mod 8$, we define $\chi_d(2) = 1$ but $\leg{\epsilon_dd}{2} = -1$. By the definition of $\epsilon_d$,
we see that $\epsilon_dd \not \equiv 3 \mod 4$ and hence that $\leg{\epsilon_dd}{\bullet}$ is necessarily a quadratic Dirichlet character. Furthermore, this character will always be primitive, as either $\epsilon_dd \equiv 1 \mod 4$, or $\epsilon_dd \equiv 2 \mod 4$ and $\leg{\epsilon_dd}{\bullet} = \leg{4\epsilon_dd}{\bullet}$. As such, $L(s,\chi_d)$, the $L$-function associated to $\chi_d$, is closely related to the $L$-function of some primitive quadratic Dirichlet character.
The following lemma captures some features of $\chi_d$ which we will use repeatedly throughout the paper. Henceforth, we write $m_d$ to denote the modulus of the Dirichlet character $\leg{\epsilon_dd}{\bullet}$.
Recall from~\cref{subsec:notation} that $\boldsymbol{\chi}$ is used to refer to the quadratic characters modulo $8$. In particular, $\boldsymbol{\chi}_{11}$ should not be confused with $\chi_d$ for $d = 11$, and the latter will never appear in this paper.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:chid}
\leavevmode
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item Let $d$ be odd, and write $d = \pm p_1\cdots p_r$. Then, for $n$ odd, we have
\[\chi_d(n) = \prod_{1 \leq i \leq r} \leg{n}{p_i} \quad\t{and}\quad \chi_d(2n) = \chi_d(n).\]
Let $d$ be even, and write $d = \pm 2p_1p_2\cdots p_r$. Then, we have
\[\chi_d(n) = \begin{cases}
\boldsymbol{\chi}_{01}(n) \prod_{1 \leq i \leq r} \leg{n}{p_i} & d \equiv 2 \mod 8, \\
\boldsymbol{\chi}_{11}(n) \prod_{1 \leq i \leq r} \leg{n}{p_i} & d \equiv 6 \mod 8. \\
\end{cases}\] \label{it:chid-1}
\item
We have
\[L(s, \chi_d) = \begin{cases}
L(s,\leg{\epsilon_dd}{\bullet})\frac{1+2^{-s}}{1-2^{-s}} & d \equiv \pm 3 \mod 8, \\
L(s, \leg{\epsilon_dd}{\bullet}) & \t{otherwise.} \\
\end{cases} \] \label{it:chid-2}
\item We have
\[m_d = \begin{cases}
|d| & d \t{ odd}, \\
4|d| & d \t{ even}.
\end{cases}\] \label{it:chid-3}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch]
\leavevmode
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item This is a standard application of quadratic reciprocity.
\item If $d \not \equiv \pm 3 \mod 8$, $\chi_d = \leg{\epsilon_dd}{\bullet}$. Otherwise, $\chi_d$ is multiplicative and agrees with $\leg{\epsilon_dd}{\bullet}$ except at $2$, where it has value $1$ instead of $-1$.
\item This is a standard property of the Kronecker symbol. \qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
\label{def:ns}
We define $N_{d}(y)$ to be the set of squarefree integers between $1$ and $y$ which are divisible only by primes $q$ for which $\chi_d(q) = 1$.
\end{definition}
We will ultimately use $N_d(\frac{x}{|d|})$ to upper bound $R_d(x)$ and $I_d(x)$. Let
\begin{equation*}
a_n := \begin{cases}
1 & n \t{ is squarefree and divisible only by primes $q$ s.t. } \chi_d(q) = 1 \\
0 & \t{otherwise.} \\
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
We will obtain~\cref{lem:ridx-asymp} by deriving the asymptotic behavior of $N_d(y) = \sum_{n \leq y} a_n$. We can access the latter by studying the Dirichlet series defined on $\Re(s) > 1$ by
\begin{align*}
F_d(s) := \sum_{n \geq 1} a_nn^{-s}.
\end{align*}
This next lemma is more general than we need in this section but we will use its full generality later.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:ridx-factor-conv}
If $L(s,\chi)$ is a Dirichlet $L$-series, we have
\[F_d(s) \otimes L(s,\chi) = C(s)L(s,\chi)^{\nf{1}{2}}L(s,\chi_d\chi)^{\nf{1}{2}},\]
where
\[C(s) := L(2s,\chi^2)^{-\nf{1}{2}}\prod_{q \in S} (1+\chi(q)q^{-s})^{-\nf{1}{2}}\prod_{q:\chi_d(q)=1} (1-\chi^2(q)q^{-2s})^{\nf{1}{2}}\]
extends to a holomorphic function on $\Re(s) > \frac{1}{2}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the definition of convolution,
\[F_d(s) \otimes L(s,\chi) = \sum_{n \geq 1} a_n\chi(n)n^{-s}.\]
This is holomorphic on $\Re(s) > 1$. Because $a_n$ is $0$ whenever $n$ is not squarefree, we have the Euler product
\begin{align*}
{F_d}(s) \otimes L(s,\chi) & = \prod_q (1+\chi(q)a_qq^{-s}) \\
& = \prod_q (1-\chi(q)a_qq^{-s})^{-1}\prod_q (1-\chi^2(q)a^2_qq^{-2s}). \\
\end{align*}
Because $a_q \in \{0, 1\}$ for all $q$, we have
\begin{align*}
{F_d}(s) \otimes L(s,\chi) & = \prod_q (1-\chi(q)q^{-s})^{-\nf{1}{2}}(1-\chi(q)\chi_d(q)q^{-s})^{-\nf{1}{2}} \\
& \hspace{1cm}\times \prod_{q:\chi_d(q)=\t{-}1} (1-\chi^2(q)q^{-2s})^{\nf{1}{2}}\prod_{q|m_d} (1-\chi(q)q^{-s})^{\nf{1}{2}}\prod_q (1-\chi^2(q)a^2_qq^{-2s}). \\
\end{align*}
The first two terms are the local factors $L(s,\chi)^{\nf{1}{2}}$ and $L(s,\chi\chi_d)^{\nf{1}{2}}$. For the other three, we have
\begin{align*}
& \prod_{q:\chi_d(q)=\t{-}1} (1-\chi^2(q)q^{-2s})^{\nf{1}{2}}\prod_{q|m_d} (1-\chi(q)q^{-s})^{\nf{1}{2}}\prod_q (1-\chi^2(q)a^2_qq^{-2s}) \\
= \ & \prod_{q:\chi_d(q)=\t{-}1} (1-\chi^2(q)q^{-2s})^{\nf{1}{2}}\prod_{q\mid m_d}(1-\chi(q)q^{-s})^{\nf{1}{2}}\prod_{q:\chi_d(q)=1} (1-\chi^2(q)q^{-2s}) \\
= \ & \prod_q (1-\chi^2(q)q^{-2s})^{\nf{1}{2}} \prod_{q \mid m_d} (1+\chi(q)q^{-s})^{-\nf{1}{2}}\prod_{q:\chi_d(q)=1} (1-\chi^2(q)q^{-2s})^{\nf{1}{2}} \\
= \ & L(2s,\chi^2)^{-\nf{1}{2}}\prod_{q \mid m_d} (1+\chi(q)q^{-s})^{-\nf{1}{2}}\prod_{q:\chi_d(q)=1} (1-\chi^2(q)q^{-2s})^{\nf{1}{2}},
\end{align*}
which is the expression for $C(s)$ in the lemma. This product converges absolutely and locally uniformly on $\Re(s) > \frac{1}{2}$ so we have holomorphicity on this region as desired.
\end{proof}
In this section, we will use the following simple corollary of~\cref{lem:ridx-factor-conv}.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:ridx-factor-sqf}
Let $F_d(s)$ be as defined in~\cref{lem:ridx-factor-conv}. Then,
\[F_d(s) = C_d(s)\zeta(s)^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}L(s, \chi_d)^{\nicefrac{1}{2}},\]
where
\[C_d(s) := \zeta(2s)^{-\nicefrac{1}{2}}\prod_{q \mid m_d} (1+q^{-s})^{-\nicefrac{1}{2}}\prod_{q:\chi_d(q)=1} (1-q^{-2s})^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}\]
extends to a holomorphic function on $\Re(s) > \frac{1}{2}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Apply~\cref{lem:ridx-factor-conv} with $\chi$ as the trivial character.
\end{proof}
To pass from the factorization of a Dirichlet series to a bound on the sum of its coefficients, we will use a Tauberian theorem given by the main theorem of Selberg-Delange theory.
\begin{theorem}[Special case of Chapter II.5.3 Theorem 3 from \cite{tenenbaum}]
\label{thm:selberg-delange}
Suppose that $F(s) := \sum_{n} h_nn^{-s}$ is a Dirichlet series such that $h_n \geq 0$ for all $n$. Suppose further that for some $\rho \in \C$,
the function
${G(s) := F(s)\zeta(s)^{-\rho}}$ can be analytically continued to a holomorphic function on the region \linebreak $\Re(s) \geq 1-\beta$ for some $\beta > 0$, and in this region satisfies the bound
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:selberg-delange-1}
|G(s)| \leq M(1+|\Im(s)|)^{1-\delta}
\end{equation}
for some $M > 0$ and $0 < \delta \leq 1$. Then, if $x \geq 3$ we have
\[\sum_{n \leq x} h_n = \frac{x}{\log^{1-\rho} x}\paren{\frac{G(1)}{\Gamma(\rho)} + O\big(Me^{-K\sqrt{\log x}} + \log^{-1} x\big)}\]
where $K$ and the implicit constant are absolute.
\end{theorem}
With~\cref{thm:selberg-delange} in hand we may now pass from properties of $F_d(s)$ to the asymptotics of $N_d(y)$.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:ridx-asymp}
We have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ridx-asymp-1}
|N_d(y)| = \sum_{n \leq y} a_n = \frac{(c_d+\varepsilon_1(d,y))y}{\sqrt{\log y}},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ridx-asymp-2}
c_d = \frac{1}{\Gamma(\nicefrac{1}{2})\zeta(2)^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}}L(1,\chi_d)^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}\prod_{q \mid m_d} \paren{1+q^{-1}}^{-\nicefrac{1}{2}}\prod_{q:\chi_d(q) = 1} \paren{1-q^{-2}}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}.
\end{equation}
and
\[\varepsilon_1(d,y) \ll |d|^{1.001}e^{-K\sqrt{\log y}}+\log^{-1} y.\]
If $H(s) = A(s)F_d(s) = \sum_n h_nn^{-s}$ on $\Re(s) > 1$ for some $A(s)$ which extends to a bounded holomorphic function on $\Re(s) > \frac{1}{2}$,
\[\absBigg{\sum_{n \leq y} h_n} = \frac{(A(1)c_d+\varepsilon_2(d,y))y}{\sqrt{\log y}}.\]
where again
\[\varepsilon_2(d,y) \ll |d|^{1.001}e^{-K\sqrt{\log y}}+\log^{-1} y.\]
\end{corollary}
We will need a simple bound in the proof of~\cref{cor:ridx-asymp}.
\begin{proposition}[Folklore, e.g.\ \cite{granville-soundararajan}]
\label{prop:l-bound}
Let $\chi$ be a nonprincipal Dirichlet character of modulus $m$.
Then, $m^{-\epsilon} \ll_{\epsilon} |L(1,\chi)| \ll \log m$ for $\epsilon > 0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}[Phragm\'en-Lindel\"of in a strip~\cite{iwaniec-kowalski}]
\label{prop:phragmen-lindelof}
Let $\Omega := \{s \in \C \colon a \leq \Re(s) \leq b\}$.
For $t \in \mathbb{R}$, suppose that
\begin{itemize}
\item $f$ is holomorphic on an open neighborhood of $\Omega$,
\item $|f(s)| \ll e^{|s|}$ on $\Omega$,
\item $f(a+it) \leq M_a(1+|t|)^{\alpha}$, and
\item $f(b+it) \leq M_b(1+|t|)^{\beta}$.
\end{itemize}
Let $\ell(x) := \frac{b-x}{b-a}$. Then,
\[|f(s)| \leq M_a^{\ell(\Re(s))}M_b^{1-\ell(\Re(s))}(1+|\Im(s)|)^{\alpha\ell(\Re(s))+\beta(1-\ell(\Re(s)))}\]
for all $s \in \Omega$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:pl-l-func}
Let $\chi$ be a primitive Dirichlet character of modulus $m$.
On the region $\Re(s) \geq \frac{1}{2}$, we have
\[|L(s,\chi)| \ll m^{\nf{1}{4}}(1+|\Im(s)|)^{\nf{1}{4}},\]
where the implicit constant is absolute (independent of $m$ and $\chi$).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\Omega := \{s \in \C \colon \Re(s) > \frac{1}{2}\}$.
The convexity bound (see e.g. Theorem 5.23 of~\cite{iwaniec-kowalski})
for Dirichlet $L$-functions
tells us that when $\Re(s) = \frac{1}{2}$ (i.e.\ on $\bar{\Omega}$)
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:convexity}
|L(s,\chi)| \leq Km^{\nf{1}{4}}|s|^{\nf{1}{4}}
\end{equation}
for some absolute constant $K > 0$.
When $\Re(s) > 1$, we know that
\[|L(s,\chi)| \leq \zeta(\Re(s)) \leq \frac{\Re(s)}{\Re(s)-1}.\]
For any $s \in \Omega$, we can thus apply~\cref{prop:phragmen-lindelof}
to the strip with $a = \frac{1}{2}$ and $b = \Re(s)+1$,
$\alpha = \frac{1}{4}$, $\beta = 0$, $M_a = Km^{\nf{1}{4}}$ (from~\eqref{eq:convexity}),
and $M_b = \frac{\Re(s)+1}{\Re(s)}$.~\cref{prop:phragmen-lindelof} then tells
us that
\begin{align*}
|L(s,\chi)| & \leq (Km^{\nf{1}{4}})^{\ell(\Re(s))}\paren{\frac{\Re(s)+1}{\Re(s)}}^{1-\ell(\Re(s))}(1+|\Im(s)|)^{\nf{1}{4}\ell(\Re(s))} \\
& \leq 3\max(K,1)m^{\nf{1}{4}}(1+|\Im(s)|)^{\nf{1}{4}} \\
\end{align*}
for every $s \in \Omega$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}[Robin~\cite{robin}]
\label{thm:robin}
For $n \in \mathbb{N}$, let $\sigma(n)$ denote the sum of the positive divisors of $n$. Then, for all $n \geq 3$,
\[\sigma(n) < e^{\gamma}n\log\log n+\frac{0.6483n}{\log\log n},\]
where $\gamma$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant.
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:robin}
For $n \in \mathbb{N}$ squarefree and $s \in \C$ with $\Re(s) \geq 1-\beta$ for $\beta \in [0,1)$,
\[\absBigg{\prod_{q | n} (1-q^{-s})} \leq n^{\beta}\paren{e^{\gamma}\log\log n+\frac{0.6483}{\log\log n}}.\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
\[\absBigg{\prod_{q | n} (1-q^{-s})} \leq \prod_{q | n} (1+q^{-(1-\beta)})
= \prod_{q | n} \frac{q^{1-\beta} + 1}{q^{1-\beta}}
\leq \prod_{q | n} \frac{q + 1}{q^{1-\beta}}
\leq \frac{\sigma(n)}{n^{1-\beta}},\]
and applying~\cref{thm:robin} yields the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\cref{cor:ridx-asymp}]
Recall the factorization of $F_d(s)$ that we obtained from~\cref{cor:ridx-factor-sqf}.
We want to apply~\cref{thm:selberg-delange} with $\rho = \frac{1}{2}, \delta < \frac{1}{2}$ and
\begin{equation}
G(s) = L(s,\chi_d)^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}C_d(s),
\end{equation}
since we know that $L(s,\chi_d)$ can be analytically continued to $\C$ and $C_d$ is holomorphic on the region $\Re(s) > \frac{1}{2}$.
Fix $\beta < 0.0005$.
We need to bound $G(s)$ on the region $\Re(s) > 1-\beta$.
By~\cref{lem:chid} and~\cref{lem:pl-l-func} we have
\[|L(s,\chi_d)| \ll |L(s,\leg{\epsilon_dd}{\bullet})| \ll m_d^{\nf{1}{4}}(1+|\Im(s)|)^{\nf{1}{4}}.\]
By~\cref{cor:robin},
\[\absBigg{\prod_{q | m_d} (1-q^{-s})^{\nf{1}{2}}} \ll m_d^{\nf{\beta}{2}}\paren{\log\log m_d + \frac{1}{\log\log m_d}}^{\nf{1}{2}}.\]
Lastly, observe that \[\abs{\prod_{q:\chi_d(q) = \t{-}1} (1-q^{-2s})^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}} \leq |\zeta(2(1-\beta))^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}|.\]
This means that~\cref{thm:selberg-delange} can be applied with $M \ll |d|^{1.001+\nf{\beta}{2}}$, giving us~\eqref{eq:ridx-asymp-1} with constant
\[c_d = \frac{G(1)}{\Gamma(\nicefrac{1}{2})}\]
and error
\[\varepsilon_1(d,y) \ll |d|^{1.001}e^{-K\sqrt{\log y}}+\log^{-1} y. \qedhere\]
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:cd-lb}
\[c_d \gg |d|^{-0.001}.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall from~\cref{cor:ridx-factor-sqf} that
\[c_d := \frac{L(1,\chi_d)^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}}{\Gamma(\nicefrac{1}{2})\zeta(2)^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}} \
\prod_{q \mid m_d} \paren{1+q^{-1}}^{-\nicefrac{1}{2}}\prod_{q:\chi_d(q) = 1} \
\paren{1-q^{-2}}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}.\]
We have the lower bounds
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:oof-1}
\prod_{q:\chi_d(q) = 1} \
\paren{1-q^{-2}}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}} \geq \zeta(2)^{-\nicefrac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:oof-2}
\prod_{q \mid m_d} \paren{1+q^{-1}}^{-\nicefrac{1}{2}} \
\geq e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{q \mid 4d} \frac{1}{q}} \
\geq e^{-\frac{1}{2}(K + \log \log (\ceil{\log_2 |4d|}+1))} \
\geq \paren{e^K\log (\log_2 |4d| + 2)}^{-\nf{1}{2}},
\end{equation}
where in the first inequality we have used that $4d$ has at
most $\ceil{\log_2 |4d|}$ prime factors and and in the second inequality
$K$ is some absolute constant and we have used that the sum of the reciprocals
of the first $n$ primes is at most $\log \log (n+1) + 1$.
Applying~\cref{prop:l-bound}, \cref{eq:oof-1}, and \cref{eq:oof-2},
for any $\epsilon' > \epsilon > 0$
\[c_d \gg_\epsilon \frac{1}{|d|^{\epsilon}(\log\log |d|)^{\nf{1}{2}}} \gg_{\epsilon'} |d|^{-\epsilon'}\]
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\cref{lem:ridx-asymp}]
Recall that $R_d(x)$ and $I_d(x)$ are the number of $n$ in the appropriate intervals
which satisfy all of the criteria in~\cref{thm:setzer-crit}.
Because the lower bound is already known, all we need is an upper bound.
We give the proof for $R_d(x)$ but because this criterion is independent of the sign of $n$ the same approach will work for $I_d(x)$.
It suffices to count those $n$ which satisfy just~\ref{thm:setzer-crit}\ref{it:setzer-1}.
Observe that $R_d(x) \leq N_d(\frac{x}{|d|})$ because we require that $|dn| \leq x$.
Plugging this into~\cref{cor:ridx-asymp}, we have
\[R_d(x) \leq \frac{(c_{d}+\varepsilon_1(d,\frac{x}{|d|}))x}{|d|\sqrt{\log x - \log |d|}}.\]
We can replace $\sqrt{\log x - \log |d|}$ in the denominator with $\sqrt{\log x}$ by multiplying the
numerator and the denominator by
\[\sqrt{\frac{\log x}{\log x - \log |d|}} = \paren{1-\frac{\log |d|}{\log x}}^{-\nf{1}{2}}.\]
By~\cref{lem:cd-lb},
\[R_d(x) \leq \frac{\paren{c_{d}+\varepsilon_1(d,\frac{x}{|d|})}\paren{1-\frac{\log |d|}{\log x}}^{-\nf{1}{2}}x}{|d|\sqrt{\log x}} \ll \frac{(1+o'_d(1))c_dx}{|d|\sqrt{\log x}}\]
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{thm:rix-asymp}]
We will give the proof for $R(x)$; the analogous proof works for $I(x)$. If $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ admits a curve with good reduction everywhere then some good $d$ must divide $m$. There could be multiple good $d$ that divide a given $m$, but at least as an upper bound we have
\begin{equation*}
R(x) \leq \sum_{\substack{d \t{ good} \\ |d| \leq x}} R_d(x)
\end{equation*}
Let $z := \log^{\nicefrac{3}{2}+\delta}(x)$ for $\delta > 0$.
Per~\cref{lem:ridx-asymp}, we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rix-ub-1}
\sum_{\substack{d \t{ good} \\ |d| \leq x}} R_d(x) \ll x\paren{\sum_{\substack{d \t{ good} \\ |d| \leq z}} \frac{(1+o'_d(1))c_d}{|d|\sqrt{\log x}} + \sum_{\substack{d \t{ good} \\ |d| \geq z}} \frac{1}{|d|}},
\end{equation}
where for the second sum we have used that we always have a bound of $\frac{x}{|d|}$ on the number of natural numbers up to $x$ which are multiples of $|d|$,
and in the first sum we have used that for large enough $x$ (say, $x > 1000$), $\frac{x}{|d|} \geq \frac{x}{z} \geq 3z \geq 3|d|$ so we are in the regime where
~\cref{lem:ridx-asymp} holds.
\cref{thm:red-ec} tells us that the set of good $d$ is $\frac{1}{3}$-polynomially sparse. Therefore, by~\cref{lem:nat-to-harm}\ref{it:nat-to-harm-2},
\[\sum_{\substack{d \t{ good} \\ |d| \geq z}} \frac{1}{|d|} \ll z^{-\nicefrac{1}{3}}.\]
By our choice of $z$, the second term
on the right-hand-side of~\eqref{eq:rix-ub-1} will be negligible compared to the first.
By the definition of $o'_d(1)$ in~\cref{subsec:notation}, the error term in the numerator of the first term on the right-hand-side of~\eqref{eq:rix-ub-1} goes to zero as $x$ goes to infinity when $|d| \leq z$.
Putting everything together, we can rewrite~\eqref{eq:rix-ub-1} as
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{\substack{d \t{ good} \\ |d| \leq x}} R_d(x) \ll \frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}}\sum_{\substack{d \t{ good} \\ |d| \leq z}} \frac{c_d}{|d|}.
\end{equation*}
Now we upper bound $c_d$. By applying~\cref{prop:l-bound} and~\cref{cor:robin} (with $\beta = 0$) to~\eqref{eq:ridx-asymp-2}, we see that
\[c_d \ll |d|^{0.001},\]
meaning we need to bound the sum of $\frac{1}{|d|^{.999}}$. Because $.999 + \frac{1}{3} > 1$, applying~\cref{lem:nat-to-harm}\ref{it:nat-to-harm-1} with $\alpha = \frac{1}{3}$ and $\kappa = .999$ tells us that the sum in question converges. Therefore,
\begin{equation*}
R(x) \ll \frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}}.
\end{equation*}
as desired.
\end{proof}
\section{An Upper Bound on the Constant}
\label{sec:const}
We are now ready to begin the proof of our main theorem, which we recall for convenience.
\rixconst
In this section, we show that the expressions in~\crefrestated{thm:rix-const} are upper bounds on the correct values of $c_R$ and $c_I$.
The main lemma of this section gives a sharp version of~\cref{lem:ridx-asymp}. Once again recall the definition of $o'_d(1)$ from~\cref{subsec:notation}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:ridx-const}
Let $d$ be good. Then,
\begin{equation*}
R_d(x) = \frac{(1+o'_d(1))c_dc'_{d,R}x}{|d|2^{\omega(d)}\sqrt{\log x}}
\quad\t{and}\quad
I_d(x) = \frac{(1+o'_d(1))c_dc'_{d,I}x}{|d|2^{\omega(d)}\sqrt{\log x}},
\end{equation*}
where $c_d$ is as defined in~\cref{cor:ridx-asymp},
\[c'_{d,R} := \begin{cases}
1 & d \equiv \pm 1 \mod 8 \\
\frac{2}{3} & d \equiv \pm 3 \mod 8 \\
\frac{1}{4} & d \equiv 2 \mod 8 \quad\t{and}\quad d > 0 \\
\frac{1}{4} & d \equiv 6 \mod 8 \\
0 & \t{otherwise,}
\end{cases}
\]
\[
c'_{d,I} := \begin{cases}
1 & d \equiv 1 \mod 8 \quad\t{and}\quad d > 0 \\
1 & d \equiv 7 \mod 8 \quad\t{and}\quad d < 0 \\
\frac{2}{3} & d \equiv 3 \mod 8 \quad\t{and}\quad d < 0 \\
\frac{2}{3} & d \equiv 5 \mod 8 \quad\t{and}\quad d > 0 \\
\frac{1}{4} & d \equiv \pm 2 \mod 8 \quad\t{and}\quad d < 0 \\
0 & \t{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
Notice that $c'_{d,R} \geq c'_{d,I}$ except when $d$ is a negative number congruent to $2 \mod 8$.
Per~\crefrestated{thm:rix-const},
\[c_R - c_I = \sum_{d \t{ good}} \frac{c_d(c'_{d,R}-c'_{d,I})}{|d|2^{\omega(d)}}.\]
This provides strong evidence that $c_R > c_I$ under the $abc$-conjecture, but does not provide a proof without better control over the distribution of good $d$ and its correlation with $\frac{c_d}{2^{\omega(d)}}$ than we are able to show. We prove $c_R > c_I$ in a different manner, assuming a different hypothesis, in~\cref{sec:comp}.
\end{remark}
In the proof of~\cref{lem:ridx-asymp} it was sufficient to consider~\cref{thm:setzer-crit}\ref{it:setzer-1}. Now, we will need to consider all five conditions. Observe that while~\ref{thm:setzer-crit}\ref{it:setzer-1} imposes a condition on the primes that are allowed to divide~$n$,~\ref{it:setzer-2}-\ref{it:setzer-4} constrain the value of $n$ modulo the primes dividing $d$ and modulo $4$ or $8$. These thus correspond to~\ref{tech-c} in~\cref{subsec:tech}. As discussed then, the Dirichlet series (of the indicator function) for this property is not multiplicative, complicating any application of~\cref{thm:selberg-delange}. We address this by expressing the series as a linear combination of Dirichlet-$L$-series. Intuitively, a Tauberian theorem can be thought of as telling us the “rate of divergence” at a pole, and hence only terms which possess a pole at $s = 1$ will contribute to the overall asymptotic.
\begin{proof}
We start with the bound for $R_d(x)$. If $d$ is odd we write $d = \pm p_1p_2 \dots p_r$ and if $d$ is even we write $d = 2d' = \pm 2p_1p_2\dots p_r$. We will count positive numbers $n$ such that $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{dn\sgn(d)})$ has discriminant with absolute value at most $x$ and admits an elliptic curve with good reduction everywhere and rational $j$-invariant. \textit{Note that this $n$ is different from the $n$ in~\cref{thm:setzer-crit} as it is always positive.}
For any valid pair of $(d,n)$,~\cref{thm:setzer-crit} tells us that the following conditions on $n$ and $d$ hold:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $n$ is coprime to $d$;\footnote{This condition is redundant in light of~\ref{it:const-1c} but we include it for clarity.}\label{it:const-1a}
\item $n$ is squarefree;\label{it:const-1b}
\item $\chi_d(q) = 1$ for every $q \mid n$;\label{it:const-1c}
\item $\leg{n}{p} = \leg{-\sgn(d)\epsilon_d}{p}$ for every odd $p \mid d$.\label{it:const-1d}
\end{enumerate}
Let us check what we need for these conditions to be compatible with one another. Assume that~\ref{it:const-1a} and~\ref{it:const-1b} hold for some $d$ and $n$. By~\cref{lem:chid},~\ref{it:const-1c} tells us the value of the product
\[\prod_{p \mid d} \leg{q}{p}\]
for each $q | n$.
Similarly,~\ref{it:const-1d} tells us something about
\begin{equation*}
\prod_{q | n} \leg{q}{p} = \leg{n}{p}
\end{equation*}
for each $p | d$. Let $M$ be a matrix with rows and columns indexed by $p_i | d$ and $q_j | n$ respectively and with entries $M_{ij} := \leg{q_j}{p_i}$. Then,~\ref{it:const-1c} tells us what the product along each column ought to be and~\ref{it:const-1d} tells us what the product along each row ought to be.
A necessary and sufficient condition for compatibility of~\ref{it:const-1c} and~\ref{it:const-1d} is that the product of all the row products must equal the product of all the column products, as they are both the product of all entries in $M$.
Let us now branch into three cases based on the additional conditions from~\cref{thm:setzer-crit} which are relevant to each: ${d \equiv \pm 1 \mod 8}$, ${d \equiv \pm 3 \mod 8}$, and $d \equiv \pm 2 \mod 8$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\boldsymbol{d \equiv \pm 1 \mod 8}$: In this case, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rix-const--1}
\prod_{q \mid n} \prod_{p \mid d} \leg{q}{p} = \prod_{q \mid n} \chi_d(q) = 1,
\end{equation}
where we have used that $\prod_{p \mid d} \leg{2}{p} = \boldsymbol{\chi}_{11}(|d|) = 1$.
We have incompatibility of~\ref{it:const-1c} and~\ref{it:const-1d} if
\[\prod_{p \mid d} \leg{-\sgn(d)\epsilon_d}{p} = -1,\]
which happens if and only if $\sgn(d)\epsilon_d = 1$ and an odd number of the $p$ are congruent to $3 \mod 4$. The latter condition is equivalent to $\sgn(d)\epsilon_d = -1$, so this is never an issue.
Because we are ordering the quadratic fields $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ by discriminant rather than by $m$, we must also keep track of the congruence class of $n$ modulo $4$ so that when $m = dn\sgn(d) \equiv 2,3 \mod 4$ we only take values of $n$ up to $\frac{x}{4|d|}$. We thus distinguish the (sub)cases where $nd\sgn d \equiv 1 \mod 4$, $nd\sgn d \equiv 3 \mod 4$, and $n$ even. Denote by $R_{d}(x)\big|_{a (k)}$ the number of $n$ such that ${dn\sgn(d) \equiv a \mod k}$ and such that $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{dn\sgn(d)})$ has discriminant at most $x$ and admits an elliptic curve with GRE$_\mathbb{Q}$.
Let us start with $R_d(x)\big|_{1 (4)}$, corresponding to the additional condition
\begin{enumerate}[(a), start = 5]
\item $\leg{-4}{n} = \leg{-4}{d\sgn(d)}$.\label{it:const-1e1}
\end{enumerate}
Let $(b_n)_{n \geq 1}$ be the sequence of coefficients of the Dirichlet series
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ridx-const-1}
\qquad \frac{1}{2}\paren{L(s,\boldsymbol{\chi}_2) + \leg{-4}{d\sgn(d)}L\paren{s,\leg{-4}{\bullet}}} \, \otimes\, \bigotimes_{i=1}^{r-1} \frac{1}{2}\paren{\zeta(s) + \leg{-\sgn(d)\epsilon_d}{p_i}L\paren{s, \leg{\bullet}{p_i}}},
\end{equation}
where we write $\boldsymbol{\chi}_2$ to denote the (principal) Dirichlet character with modulus $2$.
Note that the big convolution is over only $r-1$ primes -- we (arbitrarily) omit one of the prime factors of $d$. Consider any term in the big convolution. It corresponds to a Dirichlet series with a sequence of coefficients whose $n^{\t{th}}$ term -- assuming $n$ is coprime to $d$ -- is $1$ if $\leg{n}{p} = \leg{-\sgn(d)\epsilon_d}{p}$ and $0$ otherwise. Because $(a_n)_{n \geq 1}$ is $0$ whenever $n$ and $d$ are not coprime by~\ref{it:const-1a}, we do not need to worry about the behavior of $(b_n)_{n \geq 1}$ when $n$ and $d$ are not coprime.
The term outside the big convolution corresponds to a Dirichlet series with a sequence of coefficients whose $n^{\t{th}}$ term is $1$ if \[\leg{-4}{n} = \leg{-4}{d\sgn(d)}\] and is $0$ otherwise.
Assuming that $n$ satisfies~\ref{it:const-1a}-\ref{it:const-1c}, we see that that $(b_n)_{n \geq 1}$ is constructed so as to be $1$ if and only if~\ref{it:const-1e1} is satisfied (because of the first term in~\eqref{eq:ridx-const-1}) and~\ref{it:const-1d} is satisfied for all but one of the primes dividing~$d$, and to be $0$ otherwise. However, we actually have more than this. Since
\[\prod_{p_i \mid d} \leg{-\sgn(d)\epsilon_d}{p_i} = 1,\]
we see that knowing $\leg{n}{p_i}$ for $1 \leq i \leq r-1$ tells us $\leg{n}{p_r}$. We are exploiting here that we know that~\ref{it:const-1c} and~\ref{it:const-1d} are compatible. Thus, $a_n = b_n = 1$ if and only if~\ref{it:const-1a}-\ref{it:const-1e1} are satisfied. We have that
\[R_d(x)\big|_{1 (4)} = \sum_{n \leq x} a_nb_n.\]
We will access this by applying~\cref{thm:selberg-delange} to
\[
\sum_{n \geq 1} a_nb_nn^{-s} = F_d(s) \otimes \sum_{n \geq 1} b_nn^{-s}.
\]
Expanding out the convolutions of $\sum_n b_nn^{-s}$ in~\eqref{eq:ridx-const-1} yields a sum of Dirichlet $L$-series, each associated with a product of Kronecker characters. By~\cref{lem:ridx-factor-conv}, convolving $F_d(s)$ with $L(s, \chi)$ for any Dirichlet character $\chi$ gives
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ridx-const-25}
C(s)L(s, \chi)^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}L(s, \chi\chi_d)^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
where $C(s)$ is holomorphic on $\Re(s) > \frac{1}{2}$. \eqref{eq:ridx-const-25} will not have a singularity at $s = 1$ unless at least one of $\chi$ or $\chi\chi_d$ is principal. Because $\chi_d$ is primitive and real, $\chi\chi_d$ is principal if and only if $\chi$ is an extension by zero of $\chi_d$. This can happen only if the modulus of $\chi$ is divisible by $m_d$. However, none of the characters in~\eqref{eq:ridx-const-1} are zero at the omitted prime factor. Thus~\eqref{eq:ridx-const-25} has a singularity only when $\chi$ is principal. By~\cref{lem:ridx-factor-conv}, the term of interest is
\[
\begin{split}
F_d(s) \otimes \frac{1}{2^{\omega(d)}}L(s,\boldsymbol{\chi}_{2}) =\
& \frac{1}{2^{\omega(d)}}L(s,\boldsymbol{\chi}_2)^{\nf{1}{2}}
L(s,\boldsymbol{\chi}_2\chi_d)^{\nf{1}{2}} L(2s,\boldsymbol{\chi}_2)^{-\nf{1}{2}}
\\ &
\times \prod_{q | m_d} (1+\boldsymbol{\chi}_2(q)q^{-s}) \prod_{q:\chi_d(q)=1}(1-\chi^2(q)q^{-2s})^{\nf{1}{2}}.
\end{split}
\]
Observing that
\begin{align*}
L(s,\boldsymbol{\chi}_2)^{\nf{1}{2}} & = \zeta(s)^{\nf{1}{2}}(1-2^{-s})^{\nf{1}{2}}, \\
L(s,\boldsymbol{\chi}_2\chi_d)^{\nf{1}{2}} & = L(s,\chi_d)^{\nf{1}{2}}(1-2^{-s})^{\nf{1}{2}},\\
L(2s,\boldsymbol{\chi}_2)^{-\nf{1}{2}} & = \zeta(2s)^{-\nf{1}{2}}(1-2^{-2s})^{-\nf{1}{2}},
\end{align*}
$\boldsymbol{\chi}_2(q) = 1$ for all $q | m_d$, and $\chi_d(2) = 1$, we see that
\[F_d(s) \otimes \frac{1}{2^{\omega(d)}}L(s,\boldsymbol{\chi}_{2}) = \frac{1}{2^{\omega(d)}}(1+2^{-s})^{-1}F_d(s).\]
Now, applying~\cref{cor:ridx-asymp} gives
\[R_d(x)\big|_{1 (4)} = \sum_{n \leq x} a_nb_n = \frac{\frac{2}{3}(1+o'_d(1))c_dx}{|d|2^{\omega(d)}\sqrt{\log x}}\]
where the sum is up to $x$ because in this case $m = nd\sgn(d) \equiv 1 \mod 4$.
We can run a similar argument for $R_d(x)|_{3 (4)}$. In this case, we can take $\sum_{n \geq 1} b_nn^{-s}$ to be
\begin{align*}
\qquad \frac{1}{2}\paren{L(s,\boldsymbol{\chi}_2) - \leg{-4}{d\sgn(d)}L\paren{s,\leg{-4}{\bullet}}} \, \otimes\, \bigotimes_{i=1}^{r-1} \frac{1}{2}\paren{\zeta(s) + \leg{-\sgn(d)\epsilon_d}{p_i}L\paren{s, \leg{\bullet}{p_i}}},
\end{align*}
but since the only surviving term corresponds to $L(s,\boldsymbol{\chi}_2)$ the sign change in the first term of the product is irrelevant. The same argument as above yields
\[R_d(x)\big|_{3 (4)}=\sum_{n \leq \frac{x}{4}} a_nb_n = \frac{\frac{2}{3}(1+o'_d(1))c_dx}{4|d| 2^{\omega(d)}\sqrt{\log x}},\]
where we only consider $n$ up to $\frac{x}{4}$ because there is an additional factor of $4$ in $\Delta_{\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})}$ when $m = dn\sgn(d) \equiv 3 \mod 4$.
When computing $R_d(x)\big|_{2 (4)}$ we have the added condition
\begin{enumerate}[(a), start = 5]
\item $n$ is even.
\end{enumerate}
We can filter out odd $n$ by convolving with $\zeta(s) - L(s,\chi_2)$, meaning that we can take $\sum_{n \geq 1} b_nn^{-s}$ to be
\begin{align*}
\qquad \big(\zeta(s) - L(s,\boldsymbol{\chi}_2)\big) \, \otimes \, \bigotimes_{i=1}^{r-1} \frac{1}{2}\paren{\zeta(s) + \leg{-\sgn(d)\epsilon_d}{p_i}L\paren{s, \leg{\bullet}{p_i}}},
\end{align*} As such, we have
\[F_d(s) \otimes \frac{1}{2^{\omega(d)-1}}\zeta(s) -F_d(s) \otimes L(s,\boldsymbol{\chi}_2).\]
Thus, by~\cref{cor:ridx-asymp},
\[R_d(x)\big|_{2 (4)} = \frac{\frac{1}{3}(1+o'_d(1))c_dx}{4|d| \cdot 2^{\omega(d)-1}\sqrt{\log x}}.\]
Adding together the contributions from $1,2,$ and $3 \mod 4$, we see that
\[R_d(x) = \frac{(1+o'_d(1))c_dx}{|d|2^{\omega(d)}\sqrt{\log x}}\]
\item $\boldsymbol{d \equiv \pm 3 \mod 8}$: Conditions~\ref{it:const-1a}-\ref{it:const-1d} still apply. In addition, we require that
\begin{enumerate}[(a), start = 5]
\item $m \equiv 1 \mod 4$.\label{it:const-1e3}
\end{enumerate}
Note that even though $\boldsymbol{\chi}_{11}(d) \neq 1$,~\ref{it:const-1e3} ensures that $n$ is odd and hence~\eqref{eq:rix-const--1} still holds, meaning that ~\ref{it:const-1a}-\ref{it:const-1d} are compatible. Additionally,~\ref{it:const-1e3} ensures that we need to consider just the case $R_d(x)\big|_{1(4)}$, and the computation is the same as in the $d \equiv \pm 1 \mod 8$ case, yielding
\[R_d(x) = \frac{\frac{2}{3}(1+o'_d(1))c_dx}{|d|2^{\omega(d)}\sqrt{\log x}}.
\]
\item $\boldsymbol{d \equiv \pm 2 \mod 8}$: As usual,~\ref{it:const-1a}-\ref{it:const-1d} still apply. We also have the additional condition
\begin{enumerate}[(a), start = 5]
\item $n \equiv d+1 \mod 8$.\label{it:const-1e2}
\end{enumerate}
We start with $d \equiv 6 \mod 8$ as it is simpler. We have by~\ref{it:const-1e2} that $\boldsymbol{\chi}_{11}(n) = 1$ in this case and hence~\eqref{eq:rix-const--1} holds. In addition,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ridx-const-3}
\prod_{i = 1}^r \leg{\sgn d}{p_i} = 1,
\end{equation}
because even if $\sgn d = -1$, that $d \equiv 6 \mod 8$ implies that we have $d' \equiv 3 \mod 4$ and hence an even number of the primes dividing $d'$ are $3 \mod 4$ (since $d < 0$). Thus, we have compatibility of~\ref{it:const-1c}-\ref{it:const-1e2}.
As before, we now make the stronger claim that we only need to check~\ref{it:const-1c},~\ref{it:const-1e2}, and~\ref{it:const-1d} at all but one (odd) prime dividing $d$ to ensure that all three are satisfied. Suppose that $\chi_d(n) = 1$, $n \equiv 7 \mod 8$, and for $1 \leq i \leq r-1$,
\[\leg{n}{p_i} = \leg{\sgn d}{p_i}.\]
Then, we see that for such $n$
\begin{align*}
1 = \chi_d(n)
= \boldsymbol{\chi}_{11}(n) \prod_{1 \leq i \leq r} \leg{n}{p_i}
= \leg{n}{p_r}\prod_{i = 1}^{r-1} \leg{\sgn d}{p_i}
\end{align*}
and comparing with~\eqref{eq:ridx-const-3} we have that
\[\leg{n}{p_r} = \leg{\sgn d}{p_r}.\]
It is sufficient to use $\sum_n b_nn^{-s}$ to check that $n \equiv 7 \mod 8$ and the fourth condition for all but the last odd prime dividing $d$. We already know how to enforce the quadratic residuosity conditions. To force $n \equiv 7 \mod 8$, consider the function $\mathbf{1}_{7 (8)} \colon (\mathbb{Z}/8\mathbb{Z})^{\times} \rightarrow \C$ that is $1$ on $7 \mod 8$ and $0$ everywhere else. The Fourier expansion of this function is
\[\mathbf{1}_{7 (8)} = \tfrac{1}{4}(\boldsymbol{\chi}_{00} - \boldsymbol{\chi}_{01} - \boldsymbol{\chi}_{10} + \boldsymbol{\chi}_{11}).\]
The initial factor we will add to our expression for $\sum_{n} b_nn^{-s}$ in this case is thus
\[\tfrac{1}{4}(\zeta(s) - L(s, \boldsymbol{\chi}_{01}) - L(s, \boldsymbol{\chi}_{10}) + L(s, \boldsymbol{\chi}_{11})),\]
where we can use $\zeta(s)$ instead of $L(s, \boldsymbol{\chi}_{00})$ as the coefficients of this factor at even indices are irrelevant. Therefore, we may take $\sum_{n \geq 1} b_nn^{-s}$ to be
\[
\qquad
\tf{1}{4} \big(\zeta(s) - L(s, \boldsymbol{\chi}_{01}) - L(s, \boldsymbol{\chi}_{10}) + L(s, \boldsymbol{\chi}_{11})\big) \, \otimes \, \bigotimes_{i=1}^{r-1} \tf{1}{2}\paren{\zeta(s) + \leg{\sgn d}{p_i}L\paren{s, \leg{\bullet}{p_i}}}.\]
Following the same argument as before, we see that the only term of $\sum_n b_nn^{-s}$ that yields a term with a singularity at $s = 1$ after convolving with $\sum_n a_nn^{-s}$ is the term corresponding to $\zeta(s)$. Therefore,
\[R_d(x) = \sum_{n \leq \frac{x}{4}} a_nb_n = \frac{(1+o'_d(1))c_dx}{4|d|2^{\omega(d)}\sqrt{\log x}},\]
noting in this case that $r := \omega(d) - 1$.
When $d \equiv 2 \mod 8$ the situation is less simple. By~\cref{lem:chid} we have
\[1 = \chi_d(n) = \boldsymbol{\chi}_{01}(n) \prod_{1 \leq i \leq r} \leg{n}{p_i} = -\prod_{q | n}\prod_{p | d} \leg{q}{p},\]
meaning that~\ref{it:const-1a}-\ref{it:const-1e2} are incompatible when
\[\prod_{i = 1}^r \leg{-\sgn(d)}{p_i} = 1.\]
This happens when $\sgn(d) < 0$. If we assume $\sgn(d) > 0$ then we have compatibility and get the same answer as we got when $d \equiv 6 \mod 8$.
\end{enumerate}
In the imaginary case,~\ref{it:const-1a}-\ref{it:const-1c} are the same but we instead have
\begin{enumerate}[(a), start = 4]
\item \label{it:const-d-im} $\leg{n}{p} = \leg{\sgn(d)\epsilon_d}{p}$ for every odd $p \mid d$.
\end{enumerate}
The argument when $d$ is odd is identical except that the compatibility between~\ref{it:const-1c} and~\ref{it:const-d-im} now plays a role.~\ref{it:const-d-im} forces \[\leg{n}{p} = \leg{\sgn(d)\epsilon_d}{p}\] for every odd $p \mid d$. There is no way that~\ref{it:const-1c} can also be satisfied if $\sgn(d)\epsilon_d = -1$.\footnote{As an aside, notice that this is exactly the fifth constraint of~\cref{thm:setzer-crit}. This means that the fifth constraint of~\cref{thm:setzer-crit} is redundant for odd $d$.} When $d$ is even,~\ref{it:const-1c} and~\ref{it:const-d-im} are incompatible only when $d > 0$ and $d \equiv 6 \mod 8$. We also have the restriction from~\ref{thm:setzer-crit}\ref{it:setzer-5}, forbidding $d > 0$ when $d$ is even.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
In principle, we could have used sequences $(b_n)_{n \geq 1}$ which include all the prime factors of $d$. This approach yields multiple terms with singularities after convolution because our character expansion of $\sum_{n} b_nn^{-s}$ has terms which are Dirichlet $L$-series for characters $\chi$ induced by $\chi_d$. Our approach simplifies the computation.
\end{remark}
\section{A Matching Lower Bound: Proving \texorpdfstring{\cref{thm:lcm-sparse}}{Theorem C} and \texorpdfstring{\cref{thm:rix-const}}{Theorem A}}
\label{sec:lb}
Consider the upper bound on $R(x)$ (the same argument works for $I(x)$ as well). Using~\cref{lem:ridx-const} instead of~\cref{lem:ridx-asymp} in the proof of~\cref{thm:rix-asymp} tells us that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lb-1}
R(x) \leq \sum_{d \t{ good}} R_d(x) \sim \frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}} \sum_{d \t{ good}} \frac{c_dc'_d}{|d|}.
\end{equation}
This is a priori only an upper bound because we may be double-counting -- if $d_1 \neq d_2$ are both good and both divide $m$ then $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ may be double-counted in~\eqref{eq:lb-1} since it could be that $\frac{m}{d_1}$ contributes to $R_{d_1}(x)$ and $\frac{m}{d_2}$ contributes to $R_{d_2}(x)$. Write $R_{d_1, d_2}(x)$ to denote the set of positive numbers $n$ such that $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{\operatorname{lcm}(d_1, d_2)n})$ admits an elliptic curve with good reduction everywhere and $\Delta_K$ is at most $x$. Then, by inclusion-exclusion, we have the lower bound
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lb-2}
R(x) \geq \sum_{d \t{ good}} R_d(x) - \sum_{d, d' \t{ good}} R_{d,d'}(x).
\end{equation}
The idea is that this second term ends up being $\asymp \frac{x}{\log^{\nicefrac{3}{4}} x}$ and hence is negligible compared to the first term (which is $\asymp \frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}}$ by~\cref{thm:rix-asymp}). As in the proof of~\cref{thm:rix-asymp}, there are two parts to this result. We first show that the sum of $\frac{1}{\operatorname{lcm}(d,d')}$ over pairs of good $d$ and $d'$ converges. Then, we show that the dependence on $x$ of any $R_{d,d'}(x)$ is $\asymp \frac{x}{\log^{\nicefrac{3}{4}} x}$. For the former, we show that the number of pairs $(d,d')$ where $d$ and $d'$ are good, have absolute value at most $x$, and $\operatorname{lcm}(d,d') \leq x$ is $x^{1-\kappa+o(1)}$ for some $\kappa > 0$. Then, the first part of~\cref{lem:nat-to-harm} implies that the sum of reciprocals of least common multiples with multiplicity is some absolute constant.
\lcmsparse
As motivation for~\crefrestated{thm:lcm-sparse}, notice that the analogous result with pairwise least common multiple replaced by pairwise product holds with $\frac{\beta}{2-\beta}$ in place of $\beta$. To see this, consider splitting the range $[1,x]$ into intervals $(y, 2y]$. For each $a \in (y,2y]$ for which $a$ and $b$ are in $S$, any $b \in [1,x]$ such that $ab \leq x$ is at most $\frac{x}{y}$. There are at most $O_{\varepsilon}(x/y)^{1-\beta+\varepsilon}$ such values of $b$ for any $\varepsilon > 0$.
The number of possible values of $a \in (y,2y]$ is at most $O_{\varepsilon}(y^{1-\beta+\varepsilon})$. Therefore, the number of tuples $(a,b)$ where $a \in (y,2y]$ is at most \[O_{\varepsilon}(y^{1-\beta+\varepsilon}(x/y)^{1-\beta+\varepsilon}) = x^{1-\beta+o(1)}\]
as $x$ goes to infinity. This is uniform in $y$ and there are at most $\log x + 1$ intervals $(y,2y]$. Therefore, the total number of pairs $(a,b)$ which work is at most $x^{1-\beta+o(1)}(\log x + 1) = x^{1-\beta+o(1)}$. The structure of our proof of~\crefrestated{thm:lcm-sparse} is similar. The main difficulty is that $\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)$ may be much smaller than $ab$ so it is harder to control the number of $b$ which can be associated to a given $a$.
We present an improved proof of~\crefrestated{thm:lcm-sparse} due to Ashwin Sah and Mehtaab Sawhney, and we thank them for allowing us to present it in this paper.\footnote{The original proof of the result, due to the authors, gave only an upper bound and had a slightly weaker exponent.} We will use the following standard lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:divisor-bound}
The number of divisors of $n$ is $\exp(O(\log n/\log\log n)) = n^{o(1)}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\crefrestated{thm:lcm-sparse}]
Let $\kappa := \beta/(2-\beta)$. We wish to bound the total number of pairs $(a,b) \in S\times S$ with $\operatorname{lcm}(a,b)\le x$. We consider such pairs with $a\in[y,2y), b\in[z,2z)$, $\gcd(a,b) \in[g,2g)$ for some $yz \geq x$ (if $yz \leq x$ then we can just use the product argument above). Note that $g\le\min(2y,2z)$. We will show that the number of pairs with $a,b,$ and $g$ in these ranges is at most $x^{1-\kappa+o(1)}$. Then, summing the contributions from all such triples of intervals only adds a factor of $O(\log^3 x) = x^{o(1)}$ to the overall bound if we take a dyadic decomposition.
First, observe that
\[x\ge\operatorname{lcm}(a,b) = \frac{ab}{\gcd(a,b)}\ge\frac{yz}{2g}.\]
For any $\varepsilon > 0$, there are at most $O_{\varepsilon}(y^{1-\beta+\varepsilon})$ choices of $a$ and at most $O_{\varepsilon}(z^{1-\beta+\varepsilon})$ choices of $b$ by $\beta$-polynomial sparsity of $S$. Therefore, there are at most $O_{\varepsilon}((yz)^{1-\beta+\varepsilon})$ choices of pairs. Because $yz \leq 2xg$, this is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lcm-sparse-1}
O_{\varepsilon}((xg)^{1-\beta+\varepsilon}).
\end{equation}
We can bound the number of pairs another way. There are at most $O_{\varepsilon}(y^{1-\beta+\varepsilon})$ choices of $a$. For each such $a$, there are then $O_{\varepsilon}(x^{\varepsilon})$ divisors of $a$ lying in $[g,2g]$ (i.e.\ choices for $\gcd(a,b)$) by~\cref{lem:divisor-bound}. There are $O(z/g)$ choices of $b$ divisible by this choice of $\gcd(a,b)$. This gives a bound of $O_{\varepsilon}(x^{\varepsilon}y^{1-\beta}z/g)$.
We may obtain a symmetric bound by swapping the roles of $a,b$, giving a bound of
\[x^{o(1)}\cdot \min\paren{y^{1-\beta}z/g,yz^{1-\beta}/g}\]
as $x$ goes to infinity. Taking the geometric mean of the two terms in the minima gives
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lcm-sparse-2}
x^{o(1)}(yz)^{1-\nf{\beta}{2}}/g = x^{1-\nf{\beta}{2}+o(1)}/g^{\nf{\beta}{2}},
\end{equation}
using again that $yz\le 2xg$.
Combining~\eqref{eq:lcm-sparse-1} and~\eqref{eq:lcm-sparse-2}, we obtain a bound of
\[\min\big(O_{\varepsilon}((xg)^{1-\beta+\varepsilon}),O_{\varepsilon}(x^{1-\nf{\beta}{2}+\varepsilon})/g^{\nf{\beta}{2}}\big).\]
This is maximized when the two terms are approximately equal, which happens when $g$ becomes $x^{\beta/(2-\beta)+o(1)}$ as $x$ goes to infinity. This yields the bound
\[x^{1-\frac{\beta}{2-\beta}},\]
implying $\beta/(2-\beta)$-polynomial sparsity.
For the matching lower bound, consider the set $S$ constructed as follows. Pick some positive integer $x_0$ and add to $S$ the multiples of $\ceil{x_0^{\kappa}}$ in the interval $\big[\frac{1}{2}x_0^{(1+\kappa)/2}, x_0^{(1+\kappa)/2}\big)$. Then, we have added at most $x_0^{(1-\kappa)/2}$ values to $S$, the least common multiple of any pair of such values is at most $x_0$, and the number of tuples of elements is $x_0^{1-\kappa}$. Continue by choosing $x_1$ much larger than $x_0$ and repeating the process for each $x_i$ for all $i \in \mathbb{N}$.
The number of elements of $S$ up to $x$ grows as
\[x^{\frac{1-\kappa}{1+\kappa}} = x^{1-\beta},\]
and the number of least common multiples up to $x$ grows as $x^{1-\kappa+o(1)}$, so we see that we have a lower bound matching our upper bound.
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
This is the original proof of~\cref{thm:lcm-sparse}, due to the authors. The improved upper bound due to Sah and Sawhney can also be achieved through this method, but as their approach is cleaner we relegate this proof to the comments.
\begin{proof}
We will count the number of tuples $(a,b)$ where $a \in (y,2y]$, $b \in (z,2z]$, and $\operatorname{lcm}(a,b) \leq x$. If we show that this is $\ll x^{1-\kappa}$ for some $\kappa > 0$ then aggregating over the $\ll \log^2 x$ choices of $y$ and $z$ gives us the desired result. Fix some $a \in (y,2y]$. We say that $b \in (z,2z]$ ``works'' with $a$ if $\operatorname{lcm}(a,b) \leq x$. Because $\operatorname{lcm}(a,b) = \frac{ab}{\gcd(a,b)}$, a given value of $b$ works with $a$ if and only if $\gcd(a,b) \geq \frac{ab}{x}$. Let us count the number of factors of $a$ which exceed $\frac{ab}{x} = \frac{a}{\frac{x}{b}}$. These are the possible values of $\gcd(a,b)$. Large factors of a number are in bijection with its small factors, so this is equivalent to counting the number of factors that $a$ has up to $\frac{x}{b} \leq \frac{x}{z}$. We will now branch into two cases depending on the sizes of $y$ and $z$. In what follows, let $\delta := \frac{\beta(1-\beta)}{(1+2\beta-\beta^2)}$
and $\kappa = \frac{2\beta^2}{1+2\beta-\beta^2} - \eta$ for any sufficiently small positive $\eta$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\boldsymbol{\min(y,z) \geq x^{1-\delta}}$: There are at most $B(2y)^{1-\beta}$ choices for $a$. The number of factors of $a$ which are at most $\frac{x}{z}$ is trivially at most $\frac{x}{z}$, and therefore the number of factors of $a$ exceeding $\frac{ab}{x}$ is at most $\frac{x}{z}$. For any such factor, the number of possible $b$ which also divide this factor is at most \[\frac{z}{\frac{ab}{x}} = \frac{zx}{ab} \leq \frac{x}{y}\] since $b \in (z,2z]$. Putting everything together, the number of tuples $(a,b)$ from this pair of intervals is at most
\[B(2y)^{1-\beta}\cdot \frac{x}{z} \cdot \frac{x}{y} = \frac{2^{1-\beta}Bx^2}{zy^{\beta}} \leq 2^{1-\beta}Bx^{2-(1-\delta)(1+\beta)} = 2^{1-\beta}Bx^{1+\delta-\beta+\delta\beta}.\]
We are satisfied as long as
\[1+\delta-\beta+\delta\beta \leq 1-\kappa \iff \delta \leq \frac{\beta - \kappa}{1+\beta},\]
and this holds for our choice of $\delta$ and $\kappa$.
\item $\boldsymbol{\min(y,z) \leq x^{1-\delta}}$: Without loss of generality, assume that $z \leq y$. Observe that $a$ has $\leq C\frac{\log y}{\log\log y}$ prime factors (because $a$ is squarefree) for some absolute constant $C$, and we are interested in knowing how many numbers up to $\frac{x}{z}$ are divisible only by these prime factors. Because we just want an upper bound, we can take the allowable prime factors (regardless of what $a$ is) to be the prime numbers up to $D\log y$.\footnote{Let $T$ be a set of primes $p_1 < p_2 < \dots < p_{|T|}$. Label a number $n = p_{i_1}p_{i_2}\dots p_{i_k}$ by the tuple $(i_1, \dots, i_k)$. The number $n$ associated with every given tuple is minimized when we take $T$ to be the first $|T|$ primes.} In the notation of~\cref{prop:smooth-log}, we thus are interested in $\Psi(\frac{x}{z}, C\log y)$. By assumption, we have $\frac{x}{z} > x^{\delta}$ and hence $C\log y \leq C\log x \leq \log^{1+\epsilon + o(1)}\frac{x}{z}$ for any $\epsilon \geq 0$. If we take $\epsilon$ to be some arbitrarily small nonzero value, applying~\cref{prop:smooth-log} then tells us that \[\Psi\paren{\frac{x}{z}, C\log y} = \paren{\frac{x}{z}}^{1-\frac{1}{1+\epsilon} + o(1)} = \paren{\frac{x}{z}}^{\epsilon'+o(1)}\] for some $\epsilon'$ which can be chosen to be arbitrarily small. Remember that this is an upper bound on the number of factors of $a$ which exceed $\frac{ab}{x}$. Given a choice of $a$ and such a factor, the number of possible choices for $b$ is $\min(\frac{x}{y}, B(2z)^{1-\beta})$ where the former term arises by the same argument as was used in the previous case and the latter term arises as an upper bound on the size of $S \cap (z,2z]$. Putting things together, we have that the number of tuples $(a,b)$ from this pair of intervals is at most
\[(2y)^{1-\beta} \cdot \paren{\frac{x}{z}}^{\epsilon'+o(1)} \cdot \min\paren{\frac{x}{y}, B(2z)^{1-\beta}} \leq 2^{1-\beta}\min\paren{\frac{x^{1+\epsilon'+o(1)}}{y^{\beta}}, B(4yz)^{1-\beta}}.\]
If $y > x^{\frac{\kappa + \nu}{\beta}}$ (for some $\nu > 0$ which we can take to be arbitrarily small) then
\[\frac{x^{1+o(1)}}{y^{\beta}} \leq x^{1-\kappa - \nu + o(1)},\]
which is enough for $x$ large enough. Otherwise, if $y < x^{\frac{\kappa+\nu}{\beta}}$, we have
\[B(4yz)^{1-\beta} \leq 4^{1-\beta}Bx^{(1-\beta)(\frac{\kappa+\nu}{\beta}+1-\delta)} \leq 4^{1-\beta}Bx^{1 - (\kappa+\nu) + \frac{\kappa+\nu}{\beta}- \delta - \beta + \beta\delta}.\]
We are satisfied as long as
\[\frac{\kappa+\nu}{\beta} - \beta - \delta + \beta\delta < 0 \iff \frac{\kappa +\nu - \beta^2}{\beta(1-\beta)} < \delta,\]
and this again holds for our choices of $\delta$ and $\kappa$ if $\nu$ is sufficiently small and $x$ is sufficiently large.\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
Applied to the set of good $d$, which by~\crefrestated{thm:red-ec} satisfies the conditions of~\crefrestated{thm:lcm-sparse} for $\beta = \nf{1}{3}$, we can take $\kappa = \nf{1}{5}$.
\begin{lemma}
\[R_{d,d'}(x) \ll \frac{(1+o'_{dd'}(1))c_{dd'}x}{\operatorname{lcm}(|d|,\!|d'|)\log^{\nf{3}{4}} x} \quad\t{and}\quad I_{d,d'}(x) \ll \frac{(1+o'_{dd'}(1))c_{dd'}x}{\operatorname{lcm}(|d|,\!|d'|)\log^{\nf{3}{4}} x},\]
where $c_{dd'} \ll \operatorname{lcm}(|d|,|d'|)^{0.001}$ and $o'_{dd'}(1)$ denotes some function of $x$ and $d$ which goes to $0$ as $x$ goes to infinity while $\operatorname{lcm}(d,d) \leq \log^{k}x$ for some constant $k$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As in the proof of~\cref{lem:ridx-asymp}, we will use only the first constraint from~\cref{thm:setzer-crit} and order quadratic fields $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m})$ by $m$ rather than by discriminant. Let $S$ (resp.\ $S'$) be the set of primes $q$ such that $\chi_d(q) = 1$ (resp.\ $\chi_{d'}(q) = 1$). An upper bound on $R_{d, d'}(x)$ is the number of squarefree $n$ at most $\frac{x}{\operatorname{lcm}(|d|,|d'|)}$ which are divisible only by primes in $S \cap S'$.\footnote{Note that this condition is necessary but not sufficient, as $d$ and $d'$ must themselves be compatible in the sense that the primes dividing $\frac{d'}{\operatorname{lcm}(|d|,|d'|)}$ must lie in $S$ and vice-versa. However, even this weaker condition is enough.} We have that when $q$ is coprime to $d$ and $d'$,
\[\frac{1}{4}(\chi_d(q) + 1)(\chi_{d'}(q) + 1) = \begin{cases}
1 & q \in S \cap S' \\
0 & q \notin S \cap S' \\
\end{cases}
\]
The expression on the left-hand-side can be written as
\[\frac{1}{4}(1 + \chi_d(q) + \chi_{d'}(q) + \chi_d\chi_{d'}(q)).\]
Let
\[a_n := \begin{cases}
1 & n \t{ is squarefree and divisible only by primes in $S \cap S'$} \\
0 & \t{otherwise.} \\
\end{cases}\]
Note that $\chi_d$ and $\chi_{d'}$ are primitive (or primitive up to a local factor, when $d \equiv \pm 3 \mod 8$) and nonprincipal. We have as in the proof of~\cref{lem:ridx-asymp} that
\[F(s) := \sum_{n \geq 1} a_nn^{-s} = C_{d,d'}(s)\big(\zeta(s)L(s,\chi_d)L(s,\chi_{d'})L(s,\chi_{d}\chi_{d'})\big)^{\nf{1}{4}},\]
where $C_{d, d'}(s)$ is holomorphic on $\Re(s) > \frac{1}{2}$ and $C_{d,d'}(1) \ll \operatorname{lcm}(|d|,|d'|)^{0.001}$. Because the convolution of primitive quadratic characters is principal if and only if they are equal, we see that we can apply~\cref{thm:selberg-delange} with
\[F(s) = \zeta^{\nf{1}{4}}(s)G(s)\]
for
\[G(s) = \big(L(s,\chi_d)L(s,\chi_{d'})L(s,\chi_{d}\chi_{d'})\big)^{\nf{1}{4}}C_{d,d'}(s).\]
This gives us the desired bound on the sum of $a_n$ up to $\frac{x}{\operatorname{lcm}(|d|,|d'|)}$ after some manipulation,~\cref{cor:robin}, and~\cref{lem:pl-l-func} as before.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\[\sum_{d, d' \textnormal{ good}} R_{d,d'}(x) \ll \frac{x}{\log^{\nf{3}{4}} x} \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This follows from the same argument as was used in deriving~\cref{thm:rix-asymp} from~\cref{lem:ridx-asymp}. We have for any $z \leq x$ that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{d, d' \t{ good}} R_{d,d'}(x) & \ll x\paren{\sum_{\substack{d, d' \t{ good} \\ \operatorname{lcm}(|d|,|d'|) \leq z}} \frac{(1+o'_{dd'}(1))c_{dd'}}{\log^{\nf{3}{4}} x} + \sum_{\substack{d,d' \t{ good} \\ \operatorname{lcm}(|d|,|d'|) > z }} \frac{1}{\operatorname{lcm}(|d|,|d'|)}}. \\
\end{align*}
Taking $z := \log^4 x$, we see that the second term in the parenthesis is negligible compared to the first as $x$ goes to infinity by~\crefrestated{thm:red-ec}, \crefrestated{thm:lcm-sparse} and~\cref{lem:nat-to-harm}\ref{it:nat-to-harm-2}. Every $o'_{dd'}(1)$ for $|d| \leq z$ is then upper bounded by some $o(1)$ independent of $d$ and $d'$. Therefore, as $x$ goes to infinity we have an asymptotic bound
\[\ll \frac{x}{\log^{\nf{3}{4}} x}\sum_{\substack{d,d' \t{ good}}} \frac{c_{dd'}}{\operatorname{lcm}(|d|,|d'|)}\ll \frac{x}{\log^{\nf{3}{4}} x}\]
as desired.
\end{proof}
\cref{thm:rix-const} then follows from~\cref{lem:ridx-const}, \eqref{eq:lb-1} and \eqref{eq:lb-2}, and~\cref{thm:lcm-sparse}.
\section{Computing the Constants: \texorpdfstring{Proving~\cref{cor:const-lb} and~\cref{cor:const-ub}}{Proving Corollary D and Corollary E}}
\label{sec:comp}
We now turn to the problem of obtaining numerical estimates for $c_R$ and $c_I$ in~\cref{thm:rix-const}, or equivalently, for series of the form
\[\sum_{d \t{ good}} \frac{c_dc'_d}{|d|2^{\omega(d)}}.\]
where $c_d'$ is one of $c'_{d,R}$ or $c'_{d,I}$.
Our approach is to first compute this series explicitly for good $d$ up to $\abs{d} \leq D$ and to then bound the size of the tail. This would give us an estimate along with an error bound. However, while~\crefrestated{thm:red-ec} does tell us that the tail has size $\ll_{\epsilon} D^{-\nf{1}{3}+o(1)}$ as $D$ goes to infinity, our dependence on the $abc$-conjecture means that we cannot control the leading constant. Because each term is nonnegative, we can lower bound the sum by ignoring the tail, yielding~\cref{cor:const-lb}. However, we need some more information in order to control the tail and show an upper bound.
\begin{remark}[Explicit $abc$-conjectures]
One might wonder if we can obtain the desired bounds via an explicit formulation of the $abc$-conjecture. For example, Robert, Stewart, and Tenenbaum~\cite{explicit-merit-abc} conjectured that
\begin{equation}
\max(|a|,|b|,|c|) < k^{1+\epsilon(k)},
\end{equation}
where $k$ is the radical of $a,b,c$ in~\cref{conj:abc},
\[\varepsilon(k) := \sqrt{\frac{48}{\log k\log\log k}}\paren{1+\frac{3\log\log\log k+2C_1}{2\log\log k}},\]
and $C_1 := 1+\log 3 - \frac{13}{6}\log 2 + \varepsilon$ for any $\varepsilon > 0$.
Consider $(r,d,t)$ such that $r^3 = dt^2 - 1728$, and let $k := \rad(1728r^3dt^2) = \rad(6rdt)$. Then, the explicit $abc$-conjecture applied to $(r^3, -dt^2, 1728)$ tells us that
\[|r|^{\nf{1}{2}-\nf{5}{2}\varepsilon(k)} \leq 6^{1+\varepsilon(k)}|d|^{\nf{1}{2}+\nf{1}{2}\varepsilon(k)}.\]
This is trivial unless $\varepsilon(k) < \frac{1}{5}$, which does not happen until $k > 10^{141}$. As such, we cannot hope for any useful bound on the tail until $k > 10^{141}$. The best lower bound we can presently prove on $k$ in terms of $d$ is that $k = \rad(6drt) \gg d$. Without a better lower bound, this seems to require that we explicitly compute the contributions to the constant for $d < 10^{141}$. We encounter similar obstacles when attempting to use Baker's explicit $abc$-conjecture~\cite{baker}; see for example the table in Theorem 1 of \cite{laishram-shorey}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The frequency of good \texorpdfstring{$d$}{d}}
We start by motivating the assumption under which we will prove our upper bound.
Recall Granville's conjecture on the twists of hyperelliptic curves (\cref{conj:granville-1}). Intuitively, it suggests that $\sqf(f(x))$ is usually not much smaller than $f(x)$. Here is the precise statement of the conjecture in the setting of elliptic curves.
\begin{conjecture}[Granville~\cite{granville-twists}]
\label{conj:granville-3}
Let $E$ be an elliptic curve given by the integral model $y^2 = f(x)$, and write $f_3$ for the leading coefficient of $f$. Then,
\begin{equation}
T_E(D) \sim \kappa_fD^{\nf{1}{3}},\label{eq:granville-3-1}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:granville-3-2}
\kappa_f := 2|f_3|^{-\nf{1}{3}}\prod_p \paren{1+\paren{1-\frac{1}{p^{\nf{2}{3}}}}\paren{\frac{\omega_f(p^2)}{p^{4/3}} + \frac{\omega_f(p^4)}{p^{8/3}} + \frac{\omega_f(p^6)}{p^{4}} + \dots}}
\end{equation}
and $\omega_f(r)$ is the number of roots of $f$ in $\mathbb{Z}/r\mathbb{Z}$.
\end{conjecture}
Granville~\cite{granville-abc} also showed that the lower bounds implicit in~\cref{conj:granville-1} hold under the $abc$-conjecture (with the specified constants $\kappa_f$). Granville~\cite{granville-twists} also proved~\cref{conj:granville-1} for high genus hyperelliptic curves which split into linear factors. Implicit in this latter proof was the following.
\begin{lemma}[Implicit in Granville~\cite{granville-twists}]
Let $f(x) \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$ be a separable cubic polynomial. Assume that the number of $r$ for which $|\sqf(f(r))| \leq D$ and $f(r)/\sqf(f(r)) \geq U(D)^2$ is $o(D^{\nf{1}{3}})$ for some $U(D) \ll o(D^{\nf{1}{6}})$. Then,~\cref{conj:granville-3}\footnote{The same condition extended to higher degree polynomials implies~\cref{conj:granville-1} by a similar argument.} holds.
\end{lemma}
We prove the following.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:granchild}
Let $f(x) := x^3-1728$.
Assume that the number of $r$ for which $|\sqf(f(r))| \leq D$ and $f(r)/\sqf(f(r)) \geq U(D)$ is $o(D^{\nf{1}{3}})$ for some $U(D) \ll o(D^{\nf{1}{6}})$.
Let $G(D)$ denote the number of good $d$ for which $|d| \leq D$.
Then, $G(D) \sim \kappa'D^{\nf{1}{3}}$ for an absolute constant $\kappa$ such that $3.48523 \leq \kappa \leq 3.50692$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
As the proof largely follows the proof of Theorem $2$ in~\cite{granville-twists}, we will highlight the differences and leave some details to the reader. Let $E$ be the elliptic curve given by integral model $y^2 = f(x)$. The proof of Theorem $2$ shows, under the assumption of the theorem statement, that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:granchild-1}
|T_E(D)| = \sum_{t \leq U(D)} \#\{r \colon |f(r)| \leq Dt^2, t^2 | f(r), f(r)/t^2 \t{ is squarefree}\} + o(D^{\nf{1}{3}}),
\end{equation}
and proceeds to argue that the first term is $\kappa_fD^{\nf{1}{3}}$ as $D$ goes to infinity. Henceforth, let $E$ be defined by the integral model $y^2 = f(x) := x^3-1728$, and write $\mathcal{R}$ to denote the set in~\eqref{eq:good}. We wish to evaluate the sum in~\eqref{eq:granchild-1} while restricting to those $r$ satisfying~\eqref{eq:good}. Granville's proof, which has no such restriction, breaks each term into a sum over $r_0$ for which $f(r_0) \equiv 0 \mod{t^2}$, and, defining \[g(s) = f(r_0 + t^2s)/t^2,\] counts the number of $s$ for which $g(s)$ is squarefree. As $D$ (and hence the range of valid $s$) goes to infinity, this number is asymptotically
\[\prod_p \paren{1-\frac{\omega(g(x),p^2)}{p^2}},\]
where $\omega(h(x), m)$ is the number of congruence classes $j \mod m$ for which $h(j) \equiv 0 \mod m$.\footnote{Granville denotes this number by $\omega_h(m)$} This asymptotic is uniform across terms of the sum in~\eqref{eq:granchild-1} because $U(D)$ grows slowly as a function of $D$. A Chinese remainder theorem argument then lets us write~\eqref{eq:granchild-1} as a product of form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:granchild-2}
\prod_p \sum_{r_p:f(r_p) \equiv 0\,\mathrm{mod}\,p^2} \paren{1-\frac{\omega(g(r),p^2)}{p^2}},
\end{equation}
%
where the function $g$ depends on $r_p$. Studying $\omega(g,p^2)$ simplifies the product, and some manipulation then yields~\eqref{eq:granville-3-2}. Much of Granville's proof works for our application: introducing constraints which restrict the $r$ to certain congruence classes modulo $2$ and $3$ changes only the local factors of the product in~\eqref{eq:granville-3-2} corresponding to $2$ and $3$. These factors contribute to those $t$ which are divisible by $2$ or $3$. We will compute the contribution from each possible value of $|t|_2$ and $|t|_3$ and aggregate them to obtain replacements for the local factors at $2$ and $3$ in~\eqref{eq:granville-3-2}.
If $t$ is divisible by $2$ then certainly $r$ is even and therefore $f(r) = (16u+v)^3-1728$ for some $u \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $v \in \{0,4\}$. Then, for $v' \in \{0,1\}$, we have
\begin{align*}
dt^2 & = f(r) = 64((4u+v')^3-27) = 64(4u+v'-3)(16u^2+8uv'+v'^2+12u+3v'+9).
\end{align*}
Regardless of the value of $v'$, we see that $|t|_2 = \frac{1}{8}$ if $t$ is even and its contribution to the constant is nonzero. In this case, the local factor at $2$ in~\eqref{eq:granchild-2} is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:granchild-3}
\sum_{\substack{r_2 \colon f(r_2) \equiv \,0\,\mathrm{mod}\,64 \\ r_2 \in \mathcal{R}}} \paren{1-\frac{\omega(f(r_2+64s)/64,4)}{4}},
\end{equation}
where we say that a congruence class is in $\mathcal{R}$ if every integer in this congruence class is in $\mathcal{R}$.
As in Granville's proof, the numerator in each term of~\eqref{eq:granchild-3} is the number of roots of $g(s) = f(r_2+64s) \mod{256}$ which are congruent to $r_2$ modulo $64$.
Over $\mathbb{Z}/2^k\mathbb{Z}$ for $k \leq 6$, $\bar{f}(x) = x^3$ has $2^{k-\ceil{\frac{k}{3}}}$ roots, corresponding to multiples of $2^{\ceil{\frac{k}{3}}}$. For $k > 6$, $12$ is always a root of $\bar{f}$. This root is simple because $f'(12) = 432 \not\equiv 0 \mod{2^7}$. The polynomial $x^2+12x+144$ has no roots modulo $32$, let alone higher powers, as \[n^2 = 32k - 108 = 4(8k-27) \equiv 4(8k+5)\]
and $5$ is not a square modulo $8$.
The values of $r_2$ in~\eqref{eq:granchild-3} are $0$ and $2$. No $r = 2 + 64s$ can lie in $\mathcal{R}$, so we take $r_2 = 0$. The relevant roots of $g(s) \mod{64}$ are the multiples of $4$ which are congruent to $0$ or $4 \mod{16}$. None of these lift to $12$, which is the unique root of $g(s) \mod{256}$. Thus, the value of~\eqref{eq:granchild-3} is $1$.
If $t$ is not divisible by $2$ then the local factor associated with $2$ in~\eqref{eq:granchild-2} would be
\[\sum_{\substack{r_2 \colon f(r_2) \equiv\,0\,\mathrm{mod}\,4}} \paren{1-\frac{\omega(f(r_2+4s),4)}{4}}.\]
We need to force $r = r_2 + 4s \in \mathcal{R}$. As before, we only need to consider $r_2 = 0$. In this case, we only allow $s \equiv 0,1 \mod 4$ and so our local factor in~\eqref{eq:granchild-2} is $\frac{1}{2}$.
We study the local factor at $3$ in a similar fashion. If $|t|_3 \neq 1$, $r \equiv 12 \mod{27}$ and
\begin{align*}
dt^2 & = f(r) = 27((9u+4)^3-64) = 3^6u(27u^2+216u+1456).
\end{align*}
In this case, we see that $|t|_3 \leq 3^{-3}$. Say $|t|_3 = 3^{-e_3}$ for $e_3 \geq 3$. Then,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:granchild-4}
\sum_{\substack{r_3 \colon f(r_3) \equiv\,0\,\mathrm{mod}\,3^{2e_3} \\ r_3 \in \mathcal{R}}} \paren{1-\frac{\omega(f(r_3+3^{2e_3}s)/3^{2e_3},9)}{9}}.
\end{equation}
Over $\mathbb{Z}/3^k\mathbb{Z}$ for $k \leq 3$, $\bar{f}(x) = x^3$ has $3^{k-\ceil{\frac{k}{3}}}$ roots. For $k > 3$, the root at $12$ is simple, and $x^2+12x+144$ has no roots modulo $81$. For all roots of $f(x) \mod 3^{e_3}$ in $\mathcal{R}$, there is always exactly one lift to a root of $\mathbb{Z}/3^{e_3+2}\mathbb{Z}$ because the only root is $12$. Thus, our local factor in~\eqref{eq:granchild-4} in all of these cases is $\frac{8}{9}$. A similar argument shows that the local factor in~\eqref{eq:granchild-4} when $|t|_3 = 1$ is $\frac{8}{9}$.
Repeating the manipulations in Granville's proof tells us that the local factor at $2$ in~\eqref{eq:granville-3-2} is
\[\frac{1}{2} \cdot 1 + 1 \cdot (2^{-6})^{\nf{1}{3}} = \frac{3}{4}\]
and the local factor at $3$ is
\[\frac{8}{9}(1+3^{-\nf{6}{3}} + 3^{-\nf{8}{3}} + \dots) = \frac{8}{9}\paren{1+\frac{1}{9}(1-3^{-\nf{2}{3}})^{-1}}.\]
It remains to study the local factors in~\eqref{eq:granville-3-2} at those primes which are not $2$ or $3$. By Hensel's lemma, $\omega_f(p) = \omega_f(p^k)$ for each $k \geq 1$ if $p$ does not divide the discriminant of $f$. Therefore, the local factor in~\eqref{eq:granville-3-2} for $p \neq 2, 3$ is
\[1+\omega(f,p)\frac{p^{\nf{2}{3}}-1}{p^2-p^{\nf{2}{3}}}.\]
Since $f(x) = (x-12)(x^2+12x+144)$, $12$ is always a simple root of $\bar{f}$ modulo such primes $p$. The reduction of $x^2-12x+144$ splits if and only if $-108$ is a quadratic residue, or equivalently $-3$ is a quadratic residue. Thus, the local factor for $p \neq 2,3$ is
\[1+\paren{2+\leg{-3}{p}}\frac{p^{\nf{2}{3}}-1}{p^2-p^{\nf{2}{3}}}.\]
Multiplying these together for the primes less than $P := 10000$ (not including the aforementioned factors at $2$ and $3$) yields $\approx 2.1532$. The product from the remaining primes is at most
\[\prod_{p \geq P} \paren{1+\frac{3}{p^{\nf{4}{3}}-1}} \leq \exp\bigg(3\sum_{p \geq P} (p-1)^{-\nf{4}{3}}\bigg) \leq \exp\paren{\frac{3\pi(10000)}{9999^{\nf{4}{3}}} + 4\int_{10000}^{\infty} \frac{\pi(x)}{(x-1)^{\nf{7}{3}}} dx} \leq 1.0063\]
where we have used that $(P-1)^{\nf{4}{3}} \leq P^{\nf{4}{3}} - 1$ for $P \geq 1$.
\end{proof}
In order to get useful upper bounds on $c_R$ and $c_I$ in~\cref{thm:rix-const} (and hence show that $c_R > c_I$), we do not need an asymptotic result, but instead an upper bound on the frequency of good $d$ for which $|d| \leq D$. We are unable to prove such a bound unconditionally (or using the $abc$-conjecture), but prove the result conditional on the the following assumption.
\begin{assumption}
\label{assumption} $G(D) \leq 5D^{0.35}.$
\end{assumption}
\cref{thm:granchild} tells us that $G(D) \sim \kappa'D^{\nf{1}{3}}$, and hence we expect in the limit that the coefficient is less than $5$ and the exponent is less than $0.35$. Per~\cref{fig:d-conj}, the experimental frequency of good $d$ appears to converge rapidly to the prediction of~\cref{thm:granchild}, and the upper bound given by~\cref{assumption} appears to hold quite comfortably.
\definecolor{colorUpperBound}{rgb}{0.6,0.3,1.0}
\definecolor{colorScaledGranville}{rgb}{0.5,0.5,0.5}
\definecolor{colorScaledGranvilleFill}{rgb}{0.3,0.3,0.3}
\definecolor{colorData}{rgb}{0,0,1.0}
\begin{figure}[H]
\pgfplotsset{scaled x ticks=false}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[
xlabel={$D$},
xmin=0, xmax=10000,
ylabel={Number of good $d$},
ymin=0, ymax=100,
]
\addplot[
domain=1:10000,
samples=100,
color=colorUpperBound,
thick,
dashed,
]{5*x^(0.35)};
\addplot[
name path=A,
domain=1:10000,
samples=100,
thin,
color=colorScaledGranville,
]{3.48523*x^(1/3)};
\addplot[
name path=B,
domain=1:10000,
samples=100,
thin,
color=colorScaledGranville,
]{3.50692*x^(1/3)};
\addplot[color=colorScaledGranvilleFill] fill between[of=A and B];
\addplot[
color=colorData,
thick,
] table [x=x,y=y, col sep=comma] {good-d-count.csv};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The number of good $d$ with absolute value at most $D$ (solid blue), the bounds from the scaled version of Granville's conjecture in~\cref{thm:granchild} (solid grey), and our hypothesized upper bound (dashed purple).}
\label{fig:d-conj}
\end{figure}
\subsection{An outline of the algorithm}
\label{subsec:algo}
We briefly outline the steps we use to compute our upper and lower bounds on $c_R$ and $c_I$. We direct the interested reader to the \href{https://github.com/abhijit-mudigonda/everywhere-good-reduction}{\color{blue} source code}.\footnote{\url{https://github.com/abhijit-mudigonda/everywhere-good-reduction}}
\subsubsection{Computing a list of good \texorpdfstring{$d$}{d}}
\label{subsubsec:good-d}
We compute a list of all good $d$ with $|d| \leq D$ by checking for each squarefree $d$, $|d| \leq D$, whether $E_d: dy^2 = x^3 - 1728$ has an integral point with $y\neq 0$ and $x$ an element of~\eqref{eq:good}.
To compute $E_d(\mathbb{Z})$ we use the algorithm from~\cite{vonkaenel-matschke}, implemented in Sage~\cite{sagemath}, which is based on modularity and an elliptic logarithm sieve.
It requires the knowledge of a Mordell--Weil basis for~$E_d$.
In most of our cases, the latter becomes the bottleneck of the computation of $E_d(\mathbb{Z})$.
Note that $E_d$ is isomorphic over~$\mathbb{Q}$ to the Mordell curve $y^2=x^3 - 27d^3$, which in turn is $3$-isogenous to $E'_d: y^2 = x^3 + d^3$.
Thus it is enough to compute the Mordell--Weil basis for $E'_d$, to push it forward to $E_d$ via the $3$-isogeny, and to saturate it.
In most cases we use Magma~\cite{magma} to compute the Mordell--Weil basis for~$E_d$ directly.
In case the rank of $E_d$ is $1$, it can be advantageous to find a Mordell--Weil basis with the Heegner point method, e.g.\ for~$d=131$:
In that case, first we estimate the regulators of $E_d$ and $E'_d$ (where the estimate is based on BSD), to see which of the two curves is expected to have a Mordell--Weil generator of smaller N\'eron--Tate height.
For that curve we compute a Heegner point using Pari/GP~\cite{pari}.
\subsubsection{Computing the constant for each \texorpdfstring{$d$}{d}}
\label{subsubsec:each-cd}
For each such $d$, we compute
\[\frac{c_{d}c'_d}{|d|2^{\omega(d)}},\]
where $c'_d$ is one of $c'_{d,R}$ or $c'_{d,I}$.
Given a value of $d$, the values of $c'_{d,R}, c'_{d,I}, |d|$, and $2^{\omega(d)}$ are easy to compute. Recall from~\cref{cor:ridx-factor-sqf} that
\[c_d := \frac{1}{\Gamma(\nicefrac{1}{2})\zeta(2)^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}}L(1,\chi_d)^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}\prod_{q \mid m_d} \paren{1+q^{-1}}^{-\nicefrac{1}{2}}\prod_{q:\chi_d(q) = 1} \paren{1-q^{-2}}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}.\]
We compute $L(1,\chi_d)$ using the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}[Landau~\cite{davenport}]
Let $\Delta$ be a fundamental discriminant. Then,
\[L(1, \leg{\Delta}{\bullet}) = \begin{cases}
-\frac{\pi}{|\Delta|^{\nf{3}{2}}}\sum_{j = 1}^{|\Delta|} j\leg{\Delta}{j} & \Delta < 0 \\
-\frac{1}{|\Delta|^{\nf{1}{2}}}\sum_{j = 1}^{\Delta} j\log\sin\frac{j\pi}{\Delta} & \Delta > 0 \\
\end{cases}
\]
\end{theorem}
Because $L(s,\chi_d)$ agrees with a Kronecker character up to a constant factor (\cref{lem:chid}), this allows us to evaluate the L-series at $1$.
To bound the product, we observe that for any $Q > 0$,
\begin{equation}
\zeta(2)^{-\nf{1}{2}}\prod_{\substack{q:\chi_d(q) \neq 1 \\ q \leq Q}} \paren{1-q^{-2}}^{-\nf{1}{2}} \leq \prod_{q:\chi_d(q) = 1} \paren{1-q^{-2}}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}} \leq \prod_{\substack{q:\chi_d(q) = 1 \\ q \leq Q}} \paren{1-q^{-2}}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}},
\end{equation}
and by taking $Q$ large enough we can obtain a decent approximation to this product. We could likely improve upon this by using the results of~\cite{explicit-dirichlet} but this is already enough to prove~\cref{cor:const-ub}.
\subsubsection{Bounding the size of the tail}
\label{subsubsec:tail}
To bound the contributions to the constants in~\cref{thm:rix-const} of good $d$ outside a given range, we first note that
\[\frac{c_dc'_d}{|d|2^{\omega(d)}} \leq \frac{L(1,\chi_d)^{\nf{1}{2}}}{2\Gamma(\nf{1}{2})\zeta(2)^{\nf{1}{2}}|d|}.\]
An upper bound on $L(1,\chi_d)$ comes from the following.
\begin{lemma}[P\'olya-Vinogradov inequality~\cite{polya, davenport}]
\label{lem:pv-ineq}
Let $M$ and $N$ be positive integers. If $\chi$ is a primitive character with modulus $m$,
\[\abs{\sum_{n = M}^{M+N} \chi(n)} < m^{\nf{1}{2}}\log m.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:pv-ineq}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pv-ineq}
L(1,\chi_d) \leq \frac{1}{2}\log(4d) + \log\log (4d) + \frac{1}{2\sqrt{d}\log d} + 2 + \gamma
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
The corollary is a standard application of Riemann-Stieljes integrals. Let
\[f(x) := \frac{1}{2\Gamma(\nf{1}{2})\zeta(2)^{\nf{1}{2}}x}\paren{\frac{1}{2}\log(4d) + \log\log (4d) + \frac{1}{2\sqrt{d}\log d} + 2 + \gamma}^{\nf{1}{2}}.\]
We can compute the contribution of $d > D$ with another application of Riemann-Stieljes integration by parts applied to $f(x)dG(x)$. Note here that $d$
is the differential operator and $G(x)$, as in~\cref{thm:granchild}, counts the number of good $d$ with absolute value at most $x$.
We could likely improve upon~\cref{cor:pv-ineq} by using better bounds on $L(1,\chi)$~\cite{pintz},
but this is already sufficient to show~\crefrestated{cor:const-ub}, and in particular that $c_R > c_I$ under our hypothesis.
\subsection{Putting everything together}
We apply the procedure of~\cref{subsubsec:good-d} to obtain the list of good~$d$ between $-10000$ and $50000$. Then, we apply~\cref{subsubsec:each-cd} with $Q := 1000$ to show that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pet}
\sum_{\substack{-10000 \leq d \leq 50000 \\ d \t{ good}}} \frac{c_dc'_{d}}{|d|2^{\omega(d)}},
\end{equation}
where $c'_d$ is either $c'_{d,R}$ or $c'_{d,I}$. The lower bound on~\eqref{eq:pet} yields lower bounds on $c_R$ and $c_I$.
\constlb
We bound the contribution of good $d$ with $d$ outside $[-10000, 50000]$ using~\cref{assumption} as described in~\cref{subsubsec:tail}, and add it to the upper bound on~\eqref{eq:pet} to obtain upper bounds on $c_R$ and $c_I$. Furthermore, notice that~\cref{assumption} subsumes~\crefrestated{thm:red-ec} and thus we we no longer depend on the $abc$-conjecture.
\begin{customcor}{E}
\label{cor:const-ub:restated}
Under~\cref{assumption} instead of the $abc$-conjecture,~\cref{thm:rix-const} holds with
\[0.1255 \leq c_R \leq 0.1489 \quad\t{and}\quad 0.01109 \leq c_I \leq 0.03446.\]
In particular, $c_R > c_I$ under this hypothesis.
\end{customcor}
\begin{comment}
\begin{proof}
For a primitive character $\chi$ of modulus $m$, let $T(x) := \sum_{n < x} \chi(n)$. We have
\begin{align*}
\sum_{n \geq 1} \frac{\chi(n)}{n} & \leq \sum_{n = 1}^{m^{\nf{1}{2}}\log m} + \int_{m^{\nf{1}{2}}\log m}^{\infty} \frac{dT(x)}{x} \\
& = \log\paren{m^{\nf{1}{2}}\log m} + \gamma + \frac{1}{2m^{\nf{1}{2}}\log m} + \frac{T(x)}{x} \Big|_{m^{\nf{1}{2}}\log m}^{\infty} - \int_{m^{\nf{1}{2}}\log m}^{\infty} \frac{-T(x)}{x^2} dx, \\
\intertext{where we have used that $\sum_{n \leq N} \frac{1}{n} \leq \log n + \gamma + \frac{1}{2n}$. By~\cref{lem:pv-ineq}, we have $|T(x)| \leq m^{\nf{1}{2}}\log m$. Therefore,}
& \leq \log\paren{m^{\nf{1}{2}}\log m} + \gamma + \frac{1}{2m^{\nf{1}{2}}\log m} + 2 \\
& = \frac{1}{2}\log m + \log\log m + \frac{1}{2m^{\nf{1}{2}}\log m} + \gamma + 2.
\end{align*}
In our case, $\chi_d$ is associated to a Kronecker character $\leg{\epsilon_dd}{\bullet}$ with modulus at most $d$. Furthermore, $|L(s, \chi_d)| \leq |L(s,\leg{\epsilon_dd}{\bullet}$, since by~\cref{lem:chid} the added factor can only be $\frac{1}{3}$.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
Subsets and Splits